content
stringlengths
1
15.9M
\section{Introduction.} Let $G$ be a finitely generated group and let $\Inn(G)$ denote the inner automorphism group of $G$. For normal subgroups $X$ and $Y$ of $G$, let $\Aut^X(G)$ and $\Aut_Y(G)$ denote the subgroups of $\Aut(G)$ centralizing $G/X$ and $Y$ respectively. We denote the intersection $\Aut^X(G)\cap\Aut_Y(G)$ by $\Aut_Y^X(G)$. Let $C^*$, in particular, denote the group $\Aut_{Z(G)}^{Z(G)}(G)$, where $Z(G)$ is the center of $G$. For a finite group $G$, let $G_p$ and $\pi(G)$ respectively denote the Sylow $p$-subgroup and the set of prime divisors of $G$. For a finite $p$-group $G$, Attar \cite[Main Theorem]{att} proved that $C^* = \Inn(G)$ if and only if either $G$ is abelian or $G$ is nilpotent of class 2 and $Z(G)$ is cyclic. Azhdari and Malayeri \cite[Theorem 0.1]{azh2011} (see also \cite[Theorem 2.3]{azh2013a} for correct version) generalized this result of Attar and proved that if $G$ is a finitely generated nilpotent group of class 2, then $C^*\simeq \Inn(G)$ if and only if $Z(G)$ is infinite cyclic or $Z(G)\simeq C_{m}\times H\times \mathbb{Z}^{r}$, where $C_m\simeq \prod_{p\in\pi(G/Z(G))}Z(G)_p$, $H\simeq \prod_{p\notin\pi(G/Z(G))}Z(G)_p$, $r\geq 0$ is the torsion-free rank of $Z(G)$ and $G/Z(G)$ is of finite exponent dividing $m$. We prove a technical lemma, Lemma 2.1, and as a consequence give a short and easy proof of this main theorem of Azhdari and Malayeri. We also obtain short and alternate proofs of Corollary 2.1 of \cite{azh2013a}, and Propostion 1.11 and Theorem 2.2(i) of \cite{azh}. Some other related results for finitely generated and finite $p$-groups are also obtained. By $C_{p}$ we denote a cyclic group of order $p$ and by $X^n$ we denote the direct product of $n$-copies of a group $X$. By $\Hom(G,A)$ we denote the group of all homomorphisms of $G$ into an abelian group $A$. The rank of $G$ is the smallest cardinality of a generating set of $G$. The torsion rank and torsion-free rank of $G$ are respectively denoted as $d(G)$ and $\rho(G)$. By $\exp(G)$ we denote the exponent of torsion part of $G$. All other unexplained notations, if any, are standard. The following well known results will be used very frequently without further referring. \begin{lm} Let $U,V$ and $W$ be abelian groups. Then\\ $(i)$ if $U$ is torsion-free of rank $m$, then $\Hom(U, V)\simeq V^{m}$, and \\ $(ii)$ if $U$ is torsion and $V$ is torsion-free, then $\Hom(U, V)=1$. \end{lm} \section{Main results.} Let $G$ be a finitely generated group and $M$ be an abelian subgroup of $G$ with $\pi(M)=\{q_1,q_2,\ldots ,q_e\}$. Let $L$ and $N$ be normal subgroups of $G$ such that $G^\prime\le N\le L$ and $\pi(G/L)=\pi(G/N)=\{p_1,p_2,\ldots ,p_d\}$. Let $X, Y, Z$ be respective torsion parts and $a,b,c$ be respective torsion-free ranks of $G/L,G/N$ and $M$. Let $X_{p_{i}}\simeq \prod_{j=1}^{l_{i}}C_{p_{i}^{\alpha_{ij}}}$, $Y_{p_{i}}\simeq \prod_{j=1}^{n_{i}}C_{p_{i}^{\beta_{ij}}} \;\; \mathrm{and} \;\;Z_{q_{i}}\simeq \prod_{j=1}^{m_{i}} C_{q_{i}^{\gamma_{ij}}}$, where for each $i$, $ \alpha_{ij}\geq \alpha_{i(j+1)},\; \beta_{ij}\geq \beta_{i(j+1)}$ and $ \gamma_{ij}\geq \gamma_{i(j+1)}$ are positive integers, respectively denote the Sylow subgroups of $X$, $Y$ and $Z$. Then $$G/L\simeq X\times \mathbb{Z}^a\simeq\prod_{i=1}^d X_{p_i}\times\mathbb{Z}^a\simeq\prod_{i=1}^d\;\; \prod_{j=1}^{l_{i}}C_{p_{i}^{\alpha_{ij}}}\times \mathbb{Z}^a,$$ $$G/N\simeq Y\times \mathbb{Z}^b\simeq \prod_{i=1}^d Y_{p_i}\times \mathbb{Z}^b\simeq\prod_{i=1}^d\;\; \prod_{j=1}^{n_{i}}C_{p_{i}^{\beta_{ij}}}\times \mathbb{Z}^b$$ and $$M\simeq Z\times \mathbb{Z}^c\simeq \prod_{i=1}^e Z_{q_i}\times \mathbb{Z}^c\simeq\prod_{i=1}^e\;\;\prod_{j=1}^{m_{i}} C_{q_{i}^{\gamma_{ij}}}\times\mathbb{Z}^c .$$ Since $G/L$ is a quotient group of $G/N$, it follows that $a\le b,\, l_i\le n_i$ and $\alpha_{ij}\le\beta_{ij}$ for all $i,1\le i\le d$ and for all $j,1\le j\le l_i$. We begin with the following lemma. \begin{lm} Let $G,L,M$ and $N$ be as above. Then $\Hom(G/N, M)\simeq G/L$ if and only if one of the following conditions hold: \begin{enumerate} \item[$(i)$] $G$ is torsion-free, $M$ is infinite cyclic and both $G/L$ and $G/N$ are torsion-free of same rank. \item[$(ii)$] $G$ is torsion, $M\simeq C_{\prod_{i=1}^{d}{p_{i}^{\gamma_{i1}}}}\times\prod_{i=d+1}^e Z_{q_i}$, $l_{i}=n_{i}$ and either $\alpha_{ij}=\beta_{ij}\le\gamma_{i1}$ for each $j$ or $\alpha_{ij}=\gamma_{i1}$ for $ 1\le j\leq r_{i}$ and $\alpha_{ij}=\beta_{ij}$ for $r_{i}+1\leq j\leq l_{i}$, where $r_{i}$ is the largest positive integer between $1$ and $ l_{i}$ such that $\beta_{ir_{i}}>\gamma_{i1}$ for each fixed $i, 1\le i \le d$. \item[$(iii)$] $G$ is a mixed group, $M\simeq C_{\prod_{i=1}^{d}{p_{i}^{\gamma_{i1}}}}\times\prod_{i=d+1}^e Z_{q_i} \times \mathbb{Z}^c$, both $G/L$ and $G/N$ are finite, $l_{i}=n_{i}$ and either $\alpha_{ij}=\beta_{ij}\le\gamma_{i1}$ for each $j$ or $\alpha_{ij}=\gamma_{i1}$ for $ 1\le j\leq r_{i}$ and $\alpha_{ij}=\beta_{ij}$ for $r_{i}+1\leq j\leq l_{i}$, where $r_{i}$ is the largest positive integer between $1$ and $ l_{i}$ such that $\beta_{ir_{i}}>\gamma_{i1}$ for each fixed $i, 1\le i \le d$. \end{enumerate} \end{lm} \begin{proof} It is easy to see that if any of the three conditions hold, then $\Hom(G/N, M)\simeq G/L$. Conversely suppose that $\Hom(G/N, M)\simeq G/L$. Then \begin{equation} \Hom(Y\times \mathbb{Z}^b, Z\times \mathbb{Z}^c)\simeq X\times \mathbb{Z}^a. \end{equation} We prove only (i) and (ii), because (iii) can be proved using similar arguments. First assume that $G$ is torsion-free. Then $N$ is also torsion-free and therefore by (1) $\Hom(Y\times \mathbb{Z}^b, \mathbb{Z}^c)\simeq X\times \mathbb{Z}^a$. Thus $X=1$ and since $a\le b$, $c=1$ and $a=b$. It follows that $M$ is infinite cyclic and both $G/N$ and $G/L$ are torsion-free of same rank. Next assume that $G$ is torsion. Then $\Hom(Y,Z)\simeq X$ by (1). Since $\pi(X)=\pi(Y)$ and $d(X)\le d(Y)$, therefore $q_i=p_i$ and $m_i=1$ for all $i, 1\le i\le d$. Thus $M\simeq \prod_{i=1}^{d}C_{p_{i}^{\gamma_{i1}}}\times \prod_{i=d+1}^e\prod_{j=1}^{m_{i}}C_{q_{i}^{\gamma_{ij}}}$. Also, observe that \[\begin{array}{lcl} \Hom(Y,Z)&\simeq&\Hom(\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^d\displaystyle\prod_{j=1}^{n_{i}} C_{p_{i}^{\beta_{ij}}}, \displaystyle \displaystyle{\prod_{i=1}^{d}C_{p_{i}^{\gamma_{i1}}}}\times\displaystyle \prod_{i=d+1}^e\prod_{j=1}^{m_{i}}C_{q_{i}^{\gamma_{ij}}})\\ &\simeq&\Hom(\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^{d}\displaystyle\prod_{j=1}^{n_{i}} C_{p_{i}^{\beta_{ij}}}, \displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^{d}C_{p_{i}^{\gamma_{i1}}})\\ &\simeq&\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^d\Hom(\displaystyle\prod_{j=1}^{n_{i}} C_{p_{i}^{\beta_{ij}}}, C_{p_{i}^{\gamma_{i1}}}) \end{array}\] and $X\simeq\prod_{i=1}^d\prod_{j=1}^{l_{i}} C_{p_{i}^{\alpha_{ij}}}$. Therefore $\Hom(\prod_{j=1}^{n_{i}} C_{p_{i}^{\beta_{ij}}}, C_{p_{i}^{\gamma_{i1}}})\simeq \prod_{j=1}^{l_{i}}C_{p_{i}^{\alpha_{ij}}}$ for each $i,1\le i\le d$, and hence $l_i=n_i$. It thus follows that for each fixed $i, 1\le i\le d$, \begin{equation} \Hom(\displaystyle\prod_{j=1}^{l_{i}} C_{p_{i}^{\beta_{ij}}}, C_{p_{i}^{\gamma_{i1}}})\simeq \displaystyle\prod_{j=1}^{l_{i}} C_{p_{i}^{\alpha_{ij}}}. \end{equation} Now, if $\exp(Y_{p_{i}})\le \exp(Z_{p_{i}})$, then $\beta_{ij}\le\gamma_{i1}$ for each $j$ and $\Hom(\prod_{j=1}^{l_{i}} C_{p_{i}^{\beta_{ij}}}, C_{p_{i}^{\gamma_{i1}}})\simeq \prod_{j=1}^{l_{i}}C_{p_{i}^{\beta_{ij}}}$. It therefore follows from (2) that $\alpha_{ij}=\beta_{ij}$ for each $j$. And, if $\exp(Y_{p_{i}})>\exp(Z_{p_{i}})$, then there exists largest positive integer $r_{i}$ between $1$ and $l_i$ such that $ \beta_{ir_{i}}>\gamma_{i1}$ and $\beta_{ij}\le \gamma_{i1}$ for each $j,r_i+1\le j\le l_i$. Therefore $\Hom(\prod_{j=1}^{l_{i}} C_{p_{i}^{\beta_{ij}}}, C_{p_{i}^{\gamma_{i1}}})\simeq \prod_{j=1}^{r_{i}}C_{p_{i}^{\gamma_{i1}}}\times \prod_{j=r_i+1}^{l_{i}} C_{p_{i}^{\beta_{ij}}}$. It then follows by (2) that $\alpha_{ij}=\gamma_{i1}$ for $1\le j\le r_i$ and $\alpha_{ij}=\beta_{ij}$ for $r_i+1\le j\le l_i$. \end{proof} \begin{rem} {\em Observe that if $N=L$ and $\exp(G/N)|\exp(M)$, then $\exp(Y_{p_{i}})\le \exp(Z_{p_{i}})$ for all $i$ and hence $\Hom(G/L, M)\simeq G/L$ if and only if either $M$ is infinite cyclic or $M\simeq C_{\prod_{i=1}^{d}{p_{i}^{\gamma_{i1}}}}\times\prod_{i=d+1}^e Z_{q_i} \times \mathbb{Z}^c$, where $c\geq 0$ is the torsion-free rank of $M$.} \end{rem} The next lemma is a little modification of arguments of Alperin \cite[Lemma 3]{alp} and Fournelle \cite[Section 2]{fou}. \begin{lm} \label{Lemma1} Let $G$ be any group and $Y$ be a central subgroup of $G$ contained in a normal subgroup $X$ of $G$. Then the group of all automorphisms of $G$ that induce the identity on both $X$ and $G/Y$ is isomorphic to $\Hom(G/X,Y)$. \end{lm} Observe that $C^*\simeq\Hom(G/Z(G), Z(G))$ by Lemma 2.3. If $G$ is nilpotent of class 2, then $\exp(G')=\exp(G/Z(G))$. Now taking $L=M=N=Z(G)$ in Lemma 2.1, we get the following main result of Azhdari and Malayeri \cite[Theorem 0.1]{azh2011} (see \cite[Theorem 2.3]{azh2013a} for correct version). \begin{cor} Let $G$ be a finitely generated nilpotent group of class $2$. Then $C^*\simeq\Inn(G)$ if and only if either $Z(G)$ is infinite cyclic or $Z(G)\simeq C_{\prod_{i=1}^{d}{p_{i}^{\gamma_{i1}}}}\times\prod_{i=d+1}^e Z_{q_i} \times \mathbb{Z}^c$, where $c$ is the torsion-free rank of $Z(G)$. \end{cor} \begin{cor} [{\cite[Corollary 2.1]{azh2013a}}] Let $G$ be a finitely generated non-abelian group and let $M$ and $N$ be normal subgroups of $G$ such that $M\le Z(G)\le N$ and $G/Z(G)$ is finite. Then $\mathrm{Aut}^M_{N}(G)=\Inn(G)$ if and only if $G$ is a nilpotent group of class $2$, $N=Z(G)$, $G^\prime\leq M$ and $M\simeq C_{\prod_{i=1}^{d}{p_{i}^{\gamma_{i1}}}}\times\prod_{i=d+1}^e Z_{q_i} \times \mathbb{Z}^c$, where $c\geq 0$ is the torsion-free rank of $M$. \end{cor} \begin{proof} First suppose that $\mathrm{Aut}^M_{N}(G)=\Inn(G)$. Observe that $\mathrm{Aut}^M_{N}(G)\simeq \Hom(G/N, M)$ by Lemma 2.3. It follows that $\Inn(G)$ is abelian and therefore nilpotence class of $G$ is $2$. For any $[a, b]\in G^\prime$, $[a,b]=a^{-1}I_b(a)\in M$ and thus $G^\prime\le M$. Also, for any $n\in N$, $I_x(n)=n$ for all $x\in G$ and therefore $N=Z(G)$. Now since $\exp(G/Z(G))=\exp(G')$ divides $\exp(M)$, the result follows from Lemma 2.1 by taking $L=Z(G)$. The converse follows easily. \end{proof} In 1911, Burnside \cite[Note B, p. 463]{bur} gave the notion of pointwise inner automorphism of a group $G$. An automorphism $\alpha$ of $G$ is called pointwise inner automorphism of $G$ if $x$ and $\alpha(x)$ are conjugate for each $x\in G$. Let $H$ be a characteristic subgroup of $G$. As defined in \cite{azh}, an automorphism $\alpha$ of $G$ is called $H$-pointwise inner if for each element $x\in G$, there exists $h\in H$ such that $\alpha(x) = x^h = x[x, h].$ For convenience, we denote $\gamma_{k}(G)$-pointwise inner automorphism of $G$ by $\mathrm{Aut}_{k-pwi}(G)$. As another application of Lemma 2.1, we get the following two results of Azhdari \cite{azh}. The second one generalizes Theorem 2.2(i) of \cite{azh}. \begin{cor} [{\cite[Prop. 1.11]{azh}}] Let $G$ be a finitely generated nilpotent group of class $k+1\geq 2$. Then $\Hom(G/\zeta_{k}(G),\gamma_{k+1}(G))\simeq G/\zeta_{k}(G)$ if and only if $\gamma_{k+1}(G)$ is cyclic. In particular, if $\gamma_{k+1}(G) = [x, \gamma_{k}(G)]$ for all $x\in G\setminus C_{G}(\gamma_{k}(G))$ is cyclic, then $\mathrm{Aut}_{k-pwi}(G)$ is isomorphic to a quotient group of $\Inn(G)$. \end{cor} \begin{proof} It follows from \cite[Cor. 2.6, Cor. 3.16, Cor. 3.17]{war} that $\exp(G/\zeta_{k}(G))=\exp(\gamma_{k+1}(G))$ and $G/\zeta_{k}(G)$ is finite if and only if $\gamma_{k+1}(G)$ finite. The result now follows from Lemma 2.1 (see Remark 2.2) by taking $L=N=\zeta_{k}(G)$ and $M=\gamma_{k+1}(G)$. In particular, if $\gamma_{k+1}(G) = [x, \gamma_{k}(G)]$ for all $x\in G\setminus C_{G}(\gamma_{k}(G))$ is cyclic, then using the arguments as in \cite[Prop. 3.1]{yad}, we can prove that $\mathrm{Aut}_{k-pwi}(G)\simeq\Hom(G/\zeta_{k}(G),\gamma_{k+1}(G))$. \end{proof} \begin{cor} [{\em cf.} {\cite[Theorem 2.2(i)]{azh}}] Let $G$ be a finitely generated nilpotent group of class $k+1\geq 2$. Then $\Hom(G/\zeta_{k}(G),\gamma_{k+1}(G))\simeq \Inn(G)$ if and only if $G$ is nilpotent of class $2$ and $G^\prime$ is cyclic. In particular, if $\gamma_{k+1}(G) = [x, \gamma_{k}(G)]$ for all $x\in G\setminus C_{G}(\gamma_{k}(G))$, then $\Aut_{k-pwi}(G)\simeq\Inn(G)$ if and only if $G$ is nilpotent of class $2$ and $G^\prime$ is cyclic. \end{cor} \begin{proof} Observe that if $\Hom(G/\zeta_{k}(G),\gamma_{k+1}(G))\simeq \Inn(G)$, then $G/Z(G)$ is abelian, and therefore nilpotence class of $G$ is $2$. It follows that $\zeta_{k}(G)=Z(G)$ and $\gamma_{k+1}(G)=G^\prime$. The result now follows from above corollary by taking $k=1$. \end{proof} For $g\in G$ and $\alpha\in\Aut(G)$, the element $[g,\alpha]=g^{-1}\alpha(g)$ is called the autocommutator of $g$ and $\alpha$. Inductively, define $$[g,\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\ldots ,\alpha_n]=[[g,\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\ldots ,\alpha_{n-1}],\alpha_n],$$ where $\alpha_i\in\Aut(G)$. The absolute center $L(G)$ of $G$ is defined as $$L(G)=\{g\in G\,|\,[g,\alpha]=1, \;\mbox{for all}\; \alpha\in \Aut(G)\}.$$ Let $L_1(G)=L(G)$, and for $n\ge 2$, define $L_n(G)$ inductively as $$L_n(G)=\{g\in G\,|\, [g,\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\ldots ,\alpha_n]=1 \;\mbox{for all}\; \alpha_1,\alpha_2,\ldots ,\alpha_n\in\Aut(G)\}.$$ The autocommutator subgroup $G^*$ of $G$ is defined as $$G^*=\langle g^{-1}\alpha(g)\,|\,g\in G,\alpha\in \Aut(G)\rangle.$$ It is easy to see that $L_n(G)\le Z_n(G)$ for all $n\ge 1$ and $G'\le G^*$. An automorphism $\alpha$ of $G$ is called an autocentral automorphism if $g^{-1}\alpha(g)\in L(G)$ for all $g\in G$. The group of all autocentral automorphisms of $G$ is denoted by $\mathrm{Var}(G).$ A group $G$ is called autonilpotent of class at most $n$ if $L_{n}(G) = G$ for some natural number $n$. Observe that if $G$ is autonilpotent of class 2, then $G^*\le L(G)$. Nasrabadi and Farimani \cite{nas} proved that if $G$ is a finie autonilpotent $p$-group of class 2, then $\mathrm{Var}(G)=\Inn(G)$ if and only if $L(G)=Z(G)$ and $Z(G)$ is cyclic. Observe that $\mathrm{Var}(G)\simeq \Hom(G/L(G), L(G))$ by Lemma 2.3. As a final consequence of Lemma 2.1, we get the following result which generalizes the main result of Nasrabadi and Farimani. The proof follows from Lemma 2.1 by taking $M=N=L(G)$ and $L=Z(G)$. \begin{cor} Let $G$ be a finitely generated non-abelian group such that $G^{\prime}\le L(G)$ and $\pi(G/L(G))=\pi(G/Z(G))$. Then $\mathrm{Var}(G)\simeq \Inn(G)$ if and only if one of the following holds \begin{enumerate} \item[$(i)$] $G$ is torsion-free, $L(G)$ is infinite cyclic and $\rho(G/L(G))=\rho(G/Z(G))$; \item[$(ii)$] $G$ is torsion, $L(G)\simeq C_{\prod_{i=1}^{d}{p_{i}^{\gamma_{i1}}}}\times\prod_{i=d+1}^e Z_{q_i}$ and either $L(G)=Z(G)$ or $l_{i}=n_{i}$, $\alpha_{ij}=\gamma_{i1}$ for $ 1\le j\leq r_{i}$ and $\alpha_{ij}=\beta_{ij}$ for $r_{i}+1\leq j\leq l_{i}$, where $r_{i}$ is the largest positive integer between $1$ and $ l_{i}$ such that $\beta_{ir_{i}}>\gamma_{i1}$ for each fixed $i, 1\le i \le d$. \item[$(iii)$] $G$ is a mixed group, both $G/L(G)$ and $G/Z(G)$ are finite, $L(G)\simeq C_{\prod_{i=1}^{d}{p_{i}^{\gamma_{i1}}}}\times\prod_{i=d+1}^eZ_{q_i} \times \mathbb{Z}^c$ and either $L(G)=Z(G)$ or $l_{i}=n_{i}$, $\alpha_{ij}=\gamma_{i1}$ for $ 1\le j\leq r_{i}$ and $\alpha_{ij}=\beta_{ij}$ for $r_{i}+1\leq j\leq l_{i}$, where $r_{i}$ is the largest positive integer between $1$ and $ l_{i}$ such that $\beta_{ir_{i}}>\gamma_{i1}$ for each fixed $i, 1\le i \le d$. \end{enumerate} \end{cor} Let $G$ be a finite $p$-group such that $G^\prime \le L(G)$. Let $G/Z(G)\simeq\prod_{i=1}^r C_{p^{\alpha_i}}$, $G/L(G)\simeq\prod_{i=1}^s C_{p^{\beta_j}}$ and $L(G)\simeq \prod_{i=1}^t C_{p^{\gamma_i}}$, where $\alpha_1\geq\alpha_2\geq\ldots\geq\alpha_r$, $\beta_1\geq\beta_2\geq\ldots\geq\beta_s$ and $\gamma_1\geq \gamma_2\geq\ldots\geq \gamma_t $ are positive integers. Since $G/Z(G)$ is a quotient group of $G/L(G)$, $r\le s$ and $\alpha_i\le \beta_i$ for $1\le i\le r$. \begin{cor} Let $G$ be a finite non-abelian p-group. Then $\mathrm{Var}(G)=\Inn(G)$ if and only if $G^{\prime}\le L(G) $, $L(G)$ is cyclic and either $L(G)=Z(G)$ or $d(G/L(G))=d(G/Z(G))$, $\alpha_i=\gamma_1$ for $1\le i\le k$ and $\alpha_i =\beta_i$ for $k+1\le i\le r$, where $k$ is the largest positive integer such that $\beta_k>\gamma_1.$ \end{cor} \begin{proof} Observe that if $\mathrm{Var}(G)=\Inn(G)$, then for any $[a, b]\in G^\prime$, $[a,b]=a^{-1}I_b(a)\in L(G)$ and thus $G^\prime\le L(G)$. The result now follows from Cor. 2.8. \end{proof} \begin{cor} [{\cite[Theorem 3.2]{nas}}] Let $G$ be a non-abelian autonilpotent finite $p$-group of class $2$. Then $\mathrm{Var}(G)=\Inn(G)$ if and only if $L(G)=Z(G)$ and $L(G)$ is cyclic. \end{cor} \begin{proof} Suppose that $\mathrm{Var}(G)=\Inn(G)$. Observe that if $g^{-1}\alpha(g)\in G^*$, then $\alpha(g)=gl$ for some $l\in L(G)$ and hence $(g^{-1}\alpha(g))^{m}=g^{-m}\alpha(g)^{m}$ for all $m\ge 1$. Let $\exp(G/L(G))=d$ and $\exp(G^*)=k$. Then $1=(g^{-1}\alpha(g))^k=g^{-k}\alpha(g)^{k}$ implies that $g^k\in L(G)$ and hence $d\le k$. Conversely, if $gL(G)\in G/L(G)$, then $g^d\in L(G)$ and thus $1=g^{-d}\alpha(g^d)=(g^{-1}\alpha(g))^d$. It follows that $k\le d$ and hence $\exp(G/L(G))=\exp(G^*)$. Since $G^*\le L(G)$, $\exp(G/L(G))|\exp(L(G))$. Therefore $\mathrm{Var}(G)\simeq\Hom(G/L(G),L(G))\simeq G/L(G)$, because $L(G)$ is cyclic by Corollary 2.9, and hence $L(G)=Z(G)$. \end{proof}
\section{Introduction} Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (MIMO) has been incorporated into emerging wireless broadband standards such as LTE. In general, in time-division duplexing (TDD) mode, as we add more and more antennas to the base station, the performance in terms of data rate, enhanced reliability, improved energy efficiency and interference increases \cite{LARSSON}. Consequently, massive MIMO is an emerging technology, where the number of antennas is scaled up by 1-2 orders of magnitude \cite{MARZETTA,NGO,PITAROKOILIS,HOYDIS,MULLER,MOUSTAKAS,CHUAH} with the aim of even greater performance benefits \cite{LARSSON}. \par Motivating the surge in research activities into massive MIMO are the additional gains resulting from a large channel matrix, due to the asymptotics of random matrix theory. For example, the effect of small-scale fading can be averaged out \cite{NGO}, beacuse random elements tend to become deterministic and matrix operations can be computed much easier due to matrices becoming well conditioned \cite{RUSEK}. Consequently as we let the number of antennas tend to infinity, system analysis becomes simplified. \par However, as a very large number of antennas may be impractical due to physical constraints, we would like to determine the point where MIMO systems begin to exhibit these additonal benefits. This is the focus of the paper. The following are the contributions: \begin{itemize} \item We study the convergence properties of the channel matrix by considering three metrics defined in Sec. III. \item We investigate precoder properties by deriving new analytical expressions for SNR and SINR of ZF and MF precoders for unequal power gains. \item We demonstrate the difference in convergence rate of channel properties and that of precoder characteristics \footnote{Note: Imperfect CSI is considered in future work}. \end{itemize} \section{System Model} \label{sec:SystemModel} \subsection{System Description} \label{SystemDescription} We consider a massive MIMO system with $M$ co-located antennas at the base station serving $K$ single-antenna users. On the down-link (where TDD is assumed) the $K$ terminals collectively receive a $K\times 1$ vector \begin{equation} \mathbf{x}_{f} = \sqrt{\rho _{f}}\mathbf{G}^{T}\mathbf{s}_{f} + \mathbf{w}_{f}, \end{equation} where $\rho _{f}$ is the transmit SNR, $[\cdot]^T$ represents matrix transpose, $\mathbf{s}_{f}$ is a $M \times 1$ precoded vector of data symbols, $\mathbf{q}_{f}$, and $\mathbf{w}_{f}$ is a $K\times 1$ noise vector with independent and identically distributed (iid) $\mathcal{CN}(0,1)$ entries. The transmit power is normalized such that $\mathbb{E}\{ \| \mathbf{s}_{f}^{2}\| \} = 1$. The $M\times K$ channel matrix, $\mathbf{G}$, is \begin{equation} \label{GHDdef} \mathbf{G} = \mathbf{H}\mathbf{D}_{\beta }^{\frac{1}{2}}, \end{equation} where $\mathbf{H}$ is a $M\times K$ matrix which accounts for small-scale Rayleigh fading and transmit spatial correlation, and $\mathbf{D}_{\beta }$ is a diagonal matrix modelling large-scale effects. The diagonal elements of $\mathbf{D}_{\beta }$ are represented by a $K\times 1$ vector, $\bm{\beta}$, with entries $\beta_j$ representing the link gains. \subsection{Power Model} \label{PowerModel} We consider cases with equal and unequal link gains. The equal power case models a single-user MIMO system where one user has $K$ co-located antennas. This is used as a reference case. While not considered by other authors, the unequal power case models $K$ distributed UEs where each user has a different link gain due to path-loss, shadowing, etc. Since we are considering convergence issues as the system dimension grows large, it is not convenient to generate the link gains using classic log-normal shadowing, path loss models. This is because the variation in the link gains will confound the limiting effects. Also, with random link gains, as the system size increases we may obtain an artificially large number of high gains or small gains. We propose a power model to counter these two problems. \par We select the $\beta _{j}$ values from the limiting function $\beta (x)=A\eta ^{x}$, where $\eta $ is arbitrarily set such that $0<\eta <1$, $A=\beta _{\mathrm{max}}$, and $0<x<x_{0}$, such that $x_{0}=\frac{\mathrm{log}(\beta _{\mathrm{min}}/\beta _{\mathrm{max}})}{\mathrm{log}(\eta )}$. This allows us to control the range of the link gains in the interval $[\beta _{\textrm{min}},\beta _{\textrm{max}}]=[A\eta ^{x_{0}},A]$ and also to control the rate of decay of the link gains by $\eta $. Given the parameters $\beta _{\textrm{min}},\beta _{\textrm{max}},\eta $ and the number of users, $K$, the $\beta _{j}$ values are given by $\beta _{j}=\beta (\frac{x_{0}}{2K}(2j-1))$ which gives the $K$ values of $\beta _{1},\beta _{2},\ldots ,\beta _{K}$ as the values of $\beta (x)$ using $K$ values of $x$ evenly spread over $[0,x_{0}]$. \subsection{Convergence Model} \label{ConvergenceModel} Many features of massive MIMO systems are driven by the convergence of various functions as the system size increases. A key issue is the convergence of $\frac{1}{M}\mathbf{G}^{T}\mathbf{G}^{\ast }$ to $\mathbf{I}$. This is examined in Sec. \ref{GGconv} and \ref{ConvergenceMetrics}. Also of interest is the convergence of ZF and MF precoder properties to their asymptotic limits. Thus, in Section \ref{ZFMFconv}, we examine the convergence of the SNR and SINR of ZF and MF precoders, respectively. In doing so we will consider the following two types of convergence scenarios: \begin{enumerate} \item $K$ is fixed, $M\rightarrow \infty $, \item $\frac{K}{M}=\alpha ^{-1},K\rightarrow \infty $, $\alpha $ is fixed. \end{enumerate} \subsection{Correlation Model} In massive MIMO, if we deploy more and more antennas in a fixed volume, correlation amongst antenna elements will increase. Hence, as we allow the array sizes to grow, we also allow correlations to increase. We consider the Kronecker correlation model, where \vspace{-5pt} \begin{equation} \mathbf{H} = \mathbf{R}_{\mathrm{t}}^{1/2}\mathbf{H}_{\mathrm{iid}}, \label{Kronecker} \end{equation} where $\mathbf{H}_{\mathrm{iid}}$ is the $M\times K$ iid channel matrix, $\mathbf{H} $ is the $M\times K$ correlated channel matrix and $\mathbf{R}_{\mathrm{t}}$ is the $M\times M$ transmit spatial correlation matrix. The elements of $\mathbf{R}_{\mathrm{t}}$, $r_{ij}$, are based on the exponential correlation matrix model \cite{LOYKA} \begin{equation} r_{ij}= \rho ^{d_{ij}}, \textrm{ }|\rho |\leq 1, \label{expCorrModel} \end{equation} where $d_{ij}$ is the distance between antennas $i$ and $j$, $\rho $ is the correlation decay constant and $r_{ij}$ is the correlation coefficient between antennas $i$ and $j$. We will assume the $M$ colocated antennas are in a Uniform Linear Array (ULA) at the base station. \vspace{-11pt} \section{Methodology} \label{sec:Methodology} In this section we focus on the second convergence scenario, where both $K$ and $M$ grow large with $\alpha =M/K$ remaining fixed.\footnote{Due to limitations of space all the analysis shown in Sec. \ref{sec:Methodology} is for the iid case, but can be easily modified to include the effects of correlation.} \vspace{-5pt} \subsection{Convergence of $\mathbf{G}^{T}\mathbf{G}^{\ast}/M$} \label{GGconv} First, consider the entries of $\mathbf{H}^{T}\mathbf{H}^{\ast }$. Let $\mathbf{H}=[\mathbf{h}_{1} \ \mathbf{h}_{2} \ldots \mathbf{h}_{K}]$, where $\mathbf{h}_i$ is an $M \times 1$ column vector with entries, $h_{ij}$, then it is well known that \begin{align} \label{HHMii} \left(\frac{\mathbf{H} ^{T}\mathbf{H} ^{\ast }}{M}\right)_{ii} = \frac{\mathbf{h} _{i}^{T}\mathbf{h} _{i}^{\ast }}{M} = \frac{\sum_{r=1}^{M}{|h_{ir}|^{2}}}{M} = \frac{X}{M}, \end{align} where $X$ is $\mathcal{X}_{2M}^{2}$ with $2M$ complex degrees of freedom. Similarly \begin{align} \label{HHMij} \left(\frac{\mathbf{H} ^{T}\mathbf{H} ^{\ast }}{M}\right)_{ij} = \frac{\mathbf{h} _{i}^{T}\mathbf{h} _{j}^{\ast }}{M} = \frac{\sum_{r=1}^{M}{h_{ir}h_{jr}^{\ast }}}{M} = \frac{Y}{M}. \end{align} Using the known convergence of $\frac{1}{M}\mathbf{H}^{T}\mathbf{H}^{\ast }$ to $\mathbf{I}$ we have \cite{PAPOULIS} \begin{align} \frac{\mathbf{G}^{T}\mathbf{G}^{\ast}}{M} &= \frac{\mathbf{D} _{\beta }^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{H} ^{T}\mathbf{H} ^{\ast }\mathbf{D} _{\beta }^{\frac{1}{2}}}{M} \rightarrow \mathbf{D} _{\beta }^{\infty }, \end{align} where $\mathbf{D}_{\beta }^{\infty }$ is the limiting value of $\mathbf{D}_{\beta }$ assuming it exists. The diagonal elements of $\frac{1}{M}\mathbf{G}^{T}\mathbf{G}^{\ast }$ are given by \begin{align} \label{GGMii} \frac{(\mathbf{G}^{T}\mathbf{G}^{\ast})_{ii}}{M} = \frac{\beta _{i}X}{M} \end{align} while the off-diagonal components are given by \begin{align} \label{GGMij} \frac{(\mathbf{G}^{T}\mathbf{G}^{\ast})_{ij}}{M} \sqrt{\beta _{i}\beta _{j}}\frac{Y}{M}. \end{align} Expanding $X$ and $Y$ in terms of the complex Gaussian variables, $h_{ij}$, using \eqref{HHMii} and \eqref{HHMij}, it is straightforward to show that: $\mathbb{E}(X)=M$, $\mathbb{E}(Y)=0$. Furthermore, $Var\left\{ \frac{X}{M}\right\} =Var\left\{ \frac{Y}{M}\right\} =\frac{1}{M}$, and thus when $M\rightarrow \infty $ the variance becomes zero. Hence, we have $\mathbb{E}\left\{ \frac{1}{M}(\mathbf{G}^{T}\mathbf{G}^{\ast })_{ii}\right\} =\beta _{i}$, $\mathbb{E}\left\{ \frac{1}{M}(\mathbf{G}^{T}\mathbf{G}^{\ast })_{ij}\right\} =0$, $\Var\left\{ (\frac{\mathbf{G}^{T}\mathbf{G}^{\ast }}{M})_{ii}\right\} =\beta_i/M$ and $\Var\left\{ (\frac{\mathbf{G}^{T}\mathbf{G}^{\ast }}{M})_{ij}\right\}=\sqrt{\beta_i\beta_j}/M$. Essentially, the speed of convergence of $\frac{1}{M}\mathbf{G}^{T}\mathbf{G}^{\ast }$ is controlled by the convergence of $\mathbf{W}=\frac{1}{M}\mathbf{H}^{T}\mathbf{H}^{\ast }$ to $\mathbf{I}$ with the $\beta _{j}$ values scaling the variances of the elements of $\mathbf{W}$. \vspace{-10pt} \subsection{Convergence Metrics} \label{ConvergenceMetrics} We can further evaluate the convergence of $\mathbf{W}$ by examining a number of well known properties of $\mathbf{W}$ and a deviation matrix $\mathbf{E}=\mathbf{W}-\mathbf{I}$. Letting $\lambda _{1},\lambda _{2},\ldots ,\lambda _{K}$ denote the eigenvalues of $\mathbf{W}$, we consider the following metrics: Mean Absolute Deviation (MAD), $\lambda $ ratio and Diagonal Dominance, defined as \begin{align} \textrm{MAD}(\mathbf{E}) &= \frac{1}{K^{2}}\sum_{i=1,j=1}^{K}|\mathbf{E} _{ij}| , \\ \lambda \textrm{ ratio} &= \frac{\lambda _{\textrm{max}}(\mathbf{W})}{ \lambda_ {\textrm{min}}(\mathbf{W})}, \\ \textrm{Diagonal Dominance} &= \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{K}{\mathbf{W}_{ii}}}{ \sum_{i=1}^{K}{\sum_{j=1,j\neq i}^{K}{|\mathbf{W}_{ij}|}}}. \label{diagonaldominance} \end{align} These metrics will be evaluated via simulation for a number of system scenarios in Section \ref{sec:Results}. \subsection{SNR/SINR convergence for ZF and MF precoders} \label{ZFMFconv} In this section, we derive limiting expressions for the ZF SNR and MF SINR for the unequal power scenarios. We include a summary of the equal power results \cite{RUSEK} as these are needed for the derivations. As in \cite{RUSEK}, we consider convergence scenario 2. \subsubsection{Zero Forcing Precoding, Equal Link Gains} \label{secZFequal} For a zero forcing precoder, the transmitted symbol vector, $\mathbf{s}_{f}$ is given by \begin{equation} \mathbf{s}_{f} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\gamma }}\mathbf{G}^{\ast}(\mathbf{G}^{T}\mathbf{G}^{\ast})^{-1}\mathbf{q}_{f}, \end{equation} where we normalize the average power in $\mathbf{s}_{f} $ to $\rho _{f}$ via \begin{equation} \label{gamZFequal} \gamma = \frac{\textrm{tr}((\mathbf{G}^{T}\mathbf{G}^{\ast})^{-1})}{K}. \end{equation} Note that the entries of $\mathbf{G}$ are iid in this case. The resulting instantaneous received SNR is given by \begin{equation} \textrm{SNR} = \frac{\rho _{f}}{\textrm{tr}((\mathbf{G}^{T}\mathbf{G}^{\ast})^{-1})}. \label{snrZFequal} \end{equation} The limit of \eqref{snrZFequal} as $M,K\rightarrow \infty $, with fixed $\frac{M}{K}=\alpha $ is \cite{RUSEK} \begin{equation} \textrm{SNR}\rightarrow \rho _{f}(\alpha -1). \label{snrZFequalAsymp} \end{equation} \subsubsection{Zero Forcing Precoding, Unequal Link Gains} \label{secZFunequal} Generalizing the analysis in Section \ref{secZFequal} to unequal link gains, we have the power normalization \begin{equation} \label{gamZFunequal} \gamma = \frac{\textrm{tr}((\mathbf{D} _{\beta }^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{H} ^{T}\mathbf{H} ^{\ast }\mathbf{D} _{\beta }^{\frac{1}{2}})^{-1})}{K}. \end{equation} Hence, as in \eqref{snrZFequal}, the instantaneous SNR is given \begin{align} \label{SNRzfunequal} \textrm{SNR} = \frac{\rho _{f}}{\textrm{tr}((\mathbf{D} _{\beta }^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{H} ^{T}\mathbf{H} ^{\ast }\mathbf{D} _{\beta }^{\frac{1}{2}})^{-1})}. \end{align} Considering the denominator of \eqref{SNRzfunequal}, using known properties of the inverse Wishart matrix, we have \begin{align} \mathbb{E}\left\{ (\mathbf{D} _{\beta }^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{H} ^{T}\mathbf{H} ^{\ast }\mathbf{D} _{\beta })^{-1}\right\} &= \frac{\mathbf{D} _{\beta }^{-1}}{M-K}. \end{align} Hence, \begin{align} \mathbb{E}\left\{ \textrm{tr}((\mathbf{D} _{\beta }^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{H} ^{T}\mathbf{H} ^{\ast }\mathbf{D} _{\beta })^{-1})\right\} &= \frac{\sum_{j=1}^{K}{\frac{1}{\beta _{j}}}}{M-K} = \frac{\overline{(\frac{1}{\beta })}}{\alpha -1}, \label{ZFsnrapprox1} \end{align} where $\overline{(\frac{1}{\beta })}=\frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^{K}{\beta _{j}^{-1}}$. Assuming that $\overline{(\frac{1}{\beta })}$ converges to the limit, $\overline{(\frac{1}{\beta })^{\infty }}$ as $M,K\rightarrow \infty $ then it can be shown that $\textrm{tr}((\mathbf{D}_{\beta }^{1/2}\mathbf{H}^{T}\mathbf{H}^{\ast }\mathbf{D}_{\beta }^{1/2})^{-1})\rightarrow \overline{(\frac{1}{\beta })^{\infty }}$. This convergence to the limiting mean follows as the variance vanishes \cite{MUIRHEAD}. Hence, we observe that \begin{equation} \textrm{SNR}\rightarrow \frac{\rho _{f}(\alpha -1)}{\overline{(\frac{1}{\beta })^{\infty }}}. \label{SNRzfunequalAsymp} \end{equation} \subsubsection{Matched Filter Precoding, Equal Powers} \label{secMFequal} The transmitted signal for a MF precoder is given by \begin{equation} \mathbf{s}_{f} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\gamma }}\mathbf{G}^{\ast}\mathbf{q}_{f}, \end{equation} with \begin{equation} \gamma = \frac{\textrm{tr}(\mathbf{G}^{T}\mathbf{G}^{\ast})}{K}. \end{equation} The received signal is thus given by \begin{equation} \mathbf{x}_{f} = \sqrt{\rho _{f}}\mathbf{G}^{T}\mathbf{G}^{\ast}\frac{\mathbf{q}_{f}}{\sqrt{\gamma }} + \mathbf{w}_{f}, \end{equation} giving the instantaneous SINR of the $i$th user as \begin{equation} \textrm{SINR}_i = \frac{\frac{\rho _{f}}{K\gamma }|\mathbf{g}_{i}^{T}\mathbf{g}_{i}^{\ast }|^{2}} {1 + \frac{\rho _{f}}{K\gamma }\sum_{k=1,k\neq i}^{K}{\mathbf{g}_{i}^{T}\mathbf{g}_{k}^{\ast }\mathbf{g}_{k}^{T}\mathbf{g}_{i}^{\ast }}}, \label{sinrMFequal} \end{equation} where $\mathbf{g}_{i}$ is the $i$th column of $\mathbf{G}$. Under the limit operation, as in \cite{RUSEK}, we obtain the limit of \eqref{sinrMFequal} as $M,K\rightarrow \infty $, with $\frac{M}{K}=\alpha $ fixed \begin{equation} \textrm{SINR}_i \rightarrow \frac{\rho _{f}\alpha }{\rho _{f}+1}. \label{sinrMFequalAsymp} \end{equation} \subsubsection{Matched Filter Precoding, Unequal Powers} \label{secMFunequal} Here, the power normalization factor is \begin{equation} \label{gamMFunequal} \gamma = \frac{\textrm{tr}(\mathbf{D}_{\beta }^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{H}^{T}\mathbf{H}^{\ast }\mathbf{D}_{\beta }^{\frac{1}{2}})}{K}. \end{equation} From \eqref{sinrMFequal}, the instantaneous SINR, for unequal powers, of the $i$th user can be shown to be \begin{align} \textrm{SINR}_i &= \frac{\frac{\rho _{f}}{K\gamma }\beta _{i}^{2}|\mathbf{h}_{i}^{T}\mathbf{h}_{i}^{\ast }|^{2}} {1 + \frac{\rho _{f}\beta _{i}}{K\gamma }\sum_{k=1,k\neq i}^{K}{\beta _{k}|\mathbf{h}_{i}^{T}\mathbf{h}_{k}^{\ast }|^{2}}}. \label{sinrMFunequal} \end{align} In order to examine the asymptotic behaviour of \eqref{sinrMFunequal}, we first rewrite the right-hand side to give \begin{align} \textrm{SINR}_{i} &= \frac{\frac{\rho _{f}(\frac{M}{K})\beta _{i}^{2}}{\frac{\gamma }{M}}|\frac{\mathbf{h}_{i}^{T}\mathbf{h}_{i}^{\ast }}{M}|^{2}}{1 + \frac{\rho _{f}\beta _{i}}{\frac{\gamma }{M}}\left( \frac{\sum_{k=1,k\neq i}^{K}{\beta _{k}}}{K}\right) \left( \frac{\sum_{k=1,k\neq i}^{K}{|\mathbf{h}_{i}^{T}\mathbf{h}_{k}^{\ast }|^{2}\beta _{k}}}{M\sum_{k=1,k\neq i}^{K}{\beta _{k}}}\right) }. \label{sinrMFunequaExpanded} \end{align} We note the following properties of the terms in \eqref{sinrMFunequaExpanded}. In the numerator, $\frac{\mathbf{h}_{i}^{T}\mathbf{h}_{i}^{\ast }}{M}\rightarrow 1$ as $M\rightarrow \infty$. Also, we have \begin{align} \frac{\gamma }{M} &= \frac{\textrm{tr}(\mathbf{D}_{\beta }^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{H}^{T}\mathbf{H}^{\ast }\mathbf{D}_{\beta }^{\frac{1}{2}})}{MK} \notag \\ &\rightarrow \lim_{K\rightarrow \infty }\frac{\textrm{tr}(\mathbf{D}_{\beta })}{K} \notag \\ &= \lim_{K\rightarrow \infty }\frac{\sum_{k=1}^{K}{\beta _{k}}}{K} = \overline{\beta ^{\infty }}, \label{gamM} \end{align} assuming that the limit $\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^{K}{\beta _{k}}\rightarrow \overline{\beta ^{\infty }}$ exists. Note that if the limit, $\overline{\beta ^{\infty }}$, exists then in \eqref{sinrMFunequaExpanded}, the terms $\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1,k\neq i}^{K}{\beta _{k}}$ will also converge so that \begin{equation} \frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1,k\neq i}^{K}{\beta _{k}}\rightarrow \overline{\beta ^{\infty }}. \end{equation} Finally, from Sec. \ref{GGconv} and \eqref{gamM}, we have \begin{equation} \frac{1}{MK}\sum_{k=1,k\neq i}^{K}{|\mathbf{h}_{i}^{T}\mathbf{h}_{k}^{\ast }|^{2}\beta _{k}}\rightarrow \overline{\beta ^{\infty}}. \label{star} \end{equation} Combining \eqref{gamM} and \eqref{star} with \eqref{sinrMFunequaExpanded} we have the limiting SINR of \eqref{sinrMFunequal} for $M,K\rightarrow \infty $, with fixed $\frac{M}{K}=\alpha $, for user $i$ given by \begin{align} \textrm{SINR}_i &\rightarrow \frac{\frac{\rho _{f}\alpha \beta _{i}^{2}\times 1}{\overline{\beta ^{\infty }}}}{1 + \frac{\rho _{f}\beta _{i}}{\overline{\beta ^{\infty }}}\overline{\beta ^{\infty }}\times 1} = \frac{\rho _{f}\alpha \beta _{i}^{2}}{\overline{\beta ^{\infty }}+\rho _{f}\beta _{i}\overline{\beta ^{\infty }}}. \label{SINRmfunequalAsymp} \end{align} \section{Results} \label{sec:Results} We consider the two convergence scenarios given in Sec. \ref{ConvergenceModel} and the convergence metrics given in Sec. \ref{ZFMFconv} \subsection{Convergence Properties} \begin{figure}[ht] \centering\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{Lambda_Ratio_kfixed.eps} \vspace{-5pt} \vspace{-0.7cm}\caption{$\lambda $ ratio vs $M$ for an iid channel with $K$ fixed} \label{fig1} \end{figure} \begin{figure}[ht] \vspace{-15pt} \centering\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{MAD_kmincreasing.eps} \vspace{-5pt} \vspace{-0.7cm}\caption{$\textrm{MAD}(\mathbf{E})$ vs $K$ for an iid channel with $\alpha =M/K$ fixed} \label{fig2} \end{figure} \begin{figure}[ht] \centering\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{Diagonal_Dominance_kmincreasing.eps} \vspace{-0.7cm}\caption{iid Channel Diagonal Dominance, both $K$ fixed and $\frac{K}{M}=\alpha^{-1}$ for $M$ increasing} \label{fig3} \end{figure} Fig. \ref{fig1} shows the $\lambda $ ratio versus $M$ for convergence scenario 1 with $K=10$ and $K=50$. It can be seen that for both values of $K$, the $\lambda $ ratio will only converge to 1 when $M$ is excess of $10^{4}$. Even for values of $M$ as large as 100, the $\lambda $ ratio for $K=50$ is more than 8 time larger than the $\lambda $ ratio for $K=10$. However, when we consider Fig. \ref{fig2} showing the mean absolute deviation of $\mathbf{H}^{T}\mathbf{H}^{\ast }/M$ from the identity $\mathbf{I}$, we note that this difference quickly approaches zero. For example, in Fig. \ref{fig1}, for $M = 500$ the $\lambda $ ratio is about 4 for $K=50$, yet in Fig. \ref{fig2}, when $K=50$, and the corresponding $M=500$, the mean absolute deviation is less than 0.05. \par In Fig. 3, we observe that $\mathbf{W}$ becomes increasingly diagonal dominant for fixed $K$ as $M\rightarrow \infty $. This is because $\mathbf{W}$ has fixed dimension ($K\times K$) and the sum of the diagonal elements grow faster thank the fixed number of off-diagonals. In contrast as both $M$ and $K$ grow large, $\mathbf{W}$ becomes less diagonally dominant. This follows as the number of off-diagonal elements increases as $K^{2}$ and the total contribution of the off-diagonals becomes dominant. It can be shown that the diagonal dominance measure grows proportionally to $M^{1/2}$ for fixed $K$ and decays proportionally to $M^{-1/2}$ as both $M$ and $K$ increase. For reasons of space, details are omitted. \par Considering Figs. \ref{fig1} and \ref{fig2}, we may conclude that the massive MIMO behaviour that results in a deterministic $\mathbf{H}^{T}\mathbf{H}^{\ast }/M$ only begins to show at some very large values of $M$ - the base station antenna numbers. \subsection{Convergence Properties of ZF and MF precoders} \begin{figure}[ht] \centering\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{equal.eps} \vspace{-0.7cm}\caption{ZF SNR and MF SINR, Single Antenna MU-MIMO, Equal Powers, $\frac{K}{M}=\alpha^{-1}=\frac{1}{10}$} \label{fig4} \end{figure} \begin{figure}[ht] \centering\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{unequal.eps} \vspace{-0.7cm}\caption{ZF SNR and MF SINR, Single Antenna MU-MIMO, Unequal Powers, $\frac{K}{M}=\alpha^{-1}=\frac{1}{10}$} \label{fig5} \end{figure} Figs. \ref{fig4} and \ref{fig5} show the convergence properties of the ZF and MF precoders for equal and unequal powers, respectively, where we plot the expected value of \eqref{snrZFequal} and \eqref{SNRzfunequal} for ZF and \eqref{sinrMFequal} and \eqref{sinrMFunequal} for MF, along with their corresponding limits. The ZF precoder in both cases of equal and unequal powers converges to the limit quickly. For example, in Figs. \ref{fig4} and \ref{fig5}, when $K=10$ and $M=100$ the expected value of the per-user SNR already approaches the asymptotic limit for infinite antennas. The convergence of the MF precoding is shown also in Figs. \ref{fig4} and \ref{fig5}. It can be observed in both figures that the SINR for the MF precoder is not equal to the SNR of the ZF precoder in the asymptotic limits; the MF precoder SINR is effectively reduced by a factor of $\rho _{f}+1$ when $\alpha $ is large (looking at \eqref{snrZFequalAsymp} and \eqref{sinrMFequalAsymp}), as compared to the ZF SNR. This difference is obvious in Figs. \ref{fig4} and \ref{fig5} even for $\alpha =10$. The MF SINR takes a longer time to converge because of the additional random variables in the numerator and denominator of \eqref{sinrMFequalAsymp}. The unequal power case for the MF precoder has additional terms in \eqref{SINRmfunequalAsymp} which manifest itself in a small increase of the per-user SINR as compared to the equal powers. The MF precoder SINR is also less relative to ZF SNR due to the inter-user interference terms in the denominator of \eqref{sinrMFequal}; the boost in the SINR in the numerator of \eqref{sinrMFequal} due to the co-phasing terms $|\mathbf{g}_{i}^{T}\mathbf{g}_{i}^{\ast }|^{2}$ is not enough to compensate for the inter-user interference given by $\sum_{k=1,k\neq i}^{K}{\mathbf{g}_{i}^{T}\mathbf{g}_{k}^{\ast }\mathbf{g}_{k}^{T}\mathbf{g}_{i}^{\ast }}$. \subsection{Impact of Correlation} \begin{figure}[ht] \centering\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{equal_corr.eps} \vspace{-0.7cm}\caption{ZF SNR and MF SINR, Single Antenna MU-MIMO, Correlated Channel, Equal Powers, $\frac{K}{M}=\alpha^{-1}=\frac{1}{10}$} \label{fig6} \end{figure} \begin{figure}[ht] \centering\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{unequal_corr.eps} \vspace{-0.7cm}\caption{ZF SNR and MF SINR, Single Antenna MU-MIMO, Correlated Channel, Unequal Powers, $\frac{K}{M}=\alpha^{-1}=\frac{1}{10}$} \label{fig7} \end{figure} Correlation is introduced in \eqref{GHDdef} by using the Kronecker model \eqref{Kronecker}. In the simulations two cases of correlation are shown, a high inter-element correlation of $\rho =0.9$ and a low inter-element correlation of $\rho =0.5$. Figs. \ref{fig6} and \ref{fig7} show the effect of this correlation for ZF and MF precoders for the mean SNR and SINR respectively. We can see that correlation includes a large penalty in the mean per-user SNR and SINR for both ZF and MF precoders (equal and unequal powers), when compared to the corresponding uncorrelated case. The SNR/SINRs for the lower value of correlation should be similar to the i.i.d. case for the two precoders - and this is indeed the case. \section{Conclusion} \label{sec:Conclusion} In this paper, we have analyzed the number of antennas required for massive MIMO properties. We have presented a method to derive ZF SNR and MF SINR for a scenario of unequal powers amongst the users. We have also derived the limit of these SNRs/SINRs as the number of base station antennas is increased indefinitely. We found that massive MIMO property that relies on small values of the off-diagonal elements of $\mathbf{H}^{T}\mathbf{H}^{\ast }/M$ is desired, then a relatively small number of base station antennas will achieve convergence. On the other hand if the desirable matrix is to reduce the spread between maximum and minimum eigenvalues, then much larger base station antennas are needed. \par Interestingly, the per-user SNR/SINR for both ZF and MF precoers are less sensitive to $M$. In particular the per-user SNR for a ZF precoder converges quickly even for small values of $M$ even though the SNR expression requires the computation of the inverse of a matrix. This leads us to conclude that for ZF and MF precoders, we can use the limiting value of SNR/SINR even for small values of $M$. Also, a correlated channel reduces MF SINR by a significant amount as compared with ZF SNR. \bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
\section{Notation and known results} \label{ggg} This paper aims to study the distribution of $\alpha\zeta^{n}$ mod $1$ for real numbers $\alpha\neq 0,\zeta>1$. We start with some definitions concerning representations of numbers modulo $1$. \begin{definition} For $x\in{\mathbb{R}}$ denote by $\lfloor x\rfloor\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ the largest integer smaller or equal $x$, and $\lceil x\rceil\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ the smallest integer greater or equal $x$. Let further $\{x\}\in{[0,1)}$ be the fractional part of $x$, i.e. $\{x\}=x-\lfloor x\rfloor$. Furthermore denote by $\scp{x}\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ the integer closest to $x$, where clearly $\scp{x}\in{\{\lfloor x\rfloor, \lceil x\rceil\}}$. (In the special case $\{x\}=1/2$ let $\scp{x}:= \lfloor x\rfloor$, however it will not be of much interest in the sequel.) Finally, denote by $\Vert x\Vert:=\vert x-\scp{x}\vert\in{[0,1/2]}$ the distance from $x$ to the nearest integer. \end{definition} \begin{definition} For set $A$ denote by $\vert A\vert$ the cardinality of $A$. \end{definition} The following theorem comprises two important metric uniform distribution results. One is due to Weyl~\cite{25} and the other due to Koksma~\cite{26}. \begin{theorem}[Weyl, Koksma] \label{kok} For any fixed real $\alpha\neq 0$, for almost all $\zeta>1$ the sequence $\{\alpha\zeta^{n}\}$ is uniformly distributed modulo $1$. For any fixed $\zeta>1$, for almost all real $\alpha$ the sequence $\{\alpha\zeta^{n}\}$ is uniformly distributed modulo $1$. \end{theorem} We want to investigate the set of $\alpha,\zeta$ with the property that $\alpha\zeta^{n}$ is close to integers for all $n\geq n_{0}$. Theorem~\ref{kok} shows that this is a highly non-generic set of $(\alpha,\zeta)\subseteq{\mathbb{R}^{2}}$. Examples of numbers in the exceptional set of Theorem~\ref{kok} are given for $\zeta$ a Pisot number or a Salem numbers and suitable $\alpha$. Pisot numbers are defined as real algebraic integers greater than $1$ whose proper conjugates all lie strictly inside the unit circle in $\mathbb{C}$, whereas Salem numbers are real algebraic integers greater than $1$ having all proper conjugates in the closed unit circle with at least one on the torus. Some basic facts on Pisot and Salem numbers that can be found in~\cite[Chapter~5]{27} are summarized in the following theorem. \begin{theorem}[Pisot] \label{pisot} Let $\zeta$ be a Pisot number. Then $\lim_{n\to\infty}\Vert\zeta^{n}\Vert=0$. This property characterizes Pisot numbers among all real algebraic numbers greater than one. Even the two following stronger assertions holds: if either $\Vert\alpha\zeta^{n}\Vert$ tends to $0$ for a real algebraic number $\zeta>1$ and some $\alpha\neq 0$, or if $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\Vert \alpha\zeta^{n}\Vert^{2}<\infty$ for arbitrary $\zeta>1$ and some $\alpha\neq 0$, then $\zeta$ is a Pisot number and $\alpha$ belongs to the number field $\mathbb{Q}(\zeta)$. Now let $\zeta$ be a Salem number. Then the sequence $\{ \zeta^{n} \}$ is dense in $(0,1)$ but not uniformly distributed. For any $\nu\in{(0,1/2)}$, there exists $\alpha$ such that $\Vert \alpha\zeta^{n}\Vert<\nu$ for $n\geq n_{0}$ and the sequence $(\alpha\zeta^{n})_{n\geq 1}$ is dense modulo $1$ in the symmetric interval of length $2\nu$ and center $0$. \end{theorem} The convergence results for Pisot numbers can be generalized and refined in some ways. However for our purposes the above is sufficient, and we just refer to~\cite{27}. It is an open question if any real transcendental number $\zeta$ has the property that for some $\alpha\neq 0$ the expression $\Vert\alpha\zeta^{n}\Vert$ tends to $0$ as $n\to\infty$. This motivates to look at $\alpha,\zeta$ with $\alpha\zeta^{n}$ close to integers, in particular $\Vert \alpha\zeta^{n}\Vert \leq \epsilon$ for some $\epsilon>0$ and all large $n$. We quote some results connected to this question, which can be found in~\cite[Chapter~5]{27} unless quoted otherwise. \begin{theorem} \label{bertin} The set of pairs $(\alpha,\zeta)\in{\mathbb{R}^{2}}$ with $\alpha>0, \zeta>1$, such that \[ \sup_{n\geq n_{0}} \Vert \alpha\zeta^{n}\Vert \leq \frac{1}{2(1+\zeta)^{2}} \] holds for an integer $n_{0}$, is countable. \end{theorem} Theorem~\ref{pisot} and Theorem~\ref{bertin} imply that the set of pairs $(\alpha,\zeta)\in{\mathbb{R}\times (1,\infty)}$ with the property $\lim_{n\to\infty}\Vert\alpha\zeta^{n}\Vert=0$ is countable infinite. \begin{theorem} Let $\zeta>1$ be a real number. Suppose there exists $\alpha\geq 1$ such that \[ \Vert \alpha\zeta^{n}\Vert \leq \frac{1}{2e\zeta(\zeta+1)(\log \alpha+1)}, \qquad n\geq 1. \] Then $\zeta$ is either a Pisot number or a Salem number and $\alpha\in{\mathbb{Q}(\zeta)}$. \end{theorem} \begin{theorem} \label{fischersfritz} Let $\zeta>1$ be a real number. Suppose there exists $\alpha\geq 1$ such that \[ \Vert \alpha\zeta^{n}\Vert \leq \frac{1}{e(\zeta+1)^{2}(\sqrt{\log \alpha}+2)}, \qquad n\geq 1. \] Then $\zeta$ is either a Pisot number or a Salem number and $\alpha\in{\mathbb{Q}(\zeta)}$. \end{theorem} Reverse examples are due to Boyd~\cite{boyd}. \begin{theorem}[Boyd] \label{boyd} There are arbitrarily large transcendental $\zeta>3$ and $\alpha$ {\upshape(}depending on $\zeta${\upshape)} arbitrarily close to $2$, such that \[ \Vert \alpha\zeta^{n}\Vert \leq \frac{1}{(\zeta-1)(\zeta-3)}, \qquad n\geq 0. \] There exist real transcendental $\zeta>1$ such that for some $\alpha\geq 1$ {\upshape(}depending on $\zeta${\upshape)} \[ \Vert \alpha\zeta^{n}\Vert \leq \frac{5}{e\zeta(\zeta+1)(\log \alpha+1)}, \qquad n\geq 1. \] \end{theorem} Another result for the special case $\alpha=1$ we want to quote is~\cite[Corollary~5]{dubickas}. \begin{theorem} [Dubickas] \label{adub} Let $(r_{n})_{n\geq 1}$ be a sequence of real numbers. Then, for any $\epsilon>0$, there is $\zeta>1$ such that $\Vert \zeta^{n}-r_{n}\Vert<\epsilon$ for each $n\geq 1$. \end{theorem} Restricting to large $n$, we will refine Theorem~\ref{adub} in Section~\ref{kkk}. Finally we state~\cite[Theorem~3]{mosh}, which also refines Theorem~\ref{adub}. \begin{theorem}[Bugeaud, Moshchevitin] \label{mosh} Let $\alpha$ be a positive real number. Let $\epsilon<1$ be a positive real number. Let $(a_{n})_{n\geq 1}$ be a sequence of real numbers satisfying $0\leq a_{n}< 1-\epsilon$ for all $n\geq 1$. The set of real numbers $\zeta$ such that $a_{n}\leq \{\alpha \zeta^{n}\}\leq a_{n}+\epsilon$ for every $n\geq 1$ has full Hausdorff dimension. \end{theorem} Observe that Theorem~\ref{mosh} is somehow reverse to Theorem~\ref{kok}. The analogue of Theorem~\ref{mosh} with the roles of $\alpha$ and $\zeta$ exchanged fails heavily. We will see in Section~\ref{sektion3} (resp. Section~\ref{sektions}) that generic algebraic (resp. rational) $\zeta>1$ provide counterexamples. We will at some places consider a more general situation, in which the following theorem due to Pollington~\cite{pollington} suits. \begin{theorem}[Pollington] \label{pollington} Let $(t_{n})_{n\geq 1}$ be a sequence of positive numbers such that \[ q_{n}:=\frac{t_{n+1}}{t_{n}}\geq \delta>1, \qquad n\geq 1. \] Further let $s_{0}\in{(0,1)}$. Then there exists a real number $\beta=\beta(\delta,s_{0})>0$ and a set $T$ of Hausdorff dimension at least $s_{0}$ such that if $\alpha\in{T}$ then \[ \{t_{n}\alpha\}\in{[\beta,1-\beta]}, \qquad n\geq 1. \] Concretely $\beta$ may be chosen $(1/2)(r+1)^{-1}\delta^{-4r}$, where $r$ is sufficiently large that $\delta^{r}-(r+2)>\delta^{rs_{0}}$. In particular, the set of $\alpha$ such that $\{t_{k}\alpha\}$ is not dense in $[0,1)$ has full dimension. \end{theorem} The explicit bounds in dependence of $\beta$ are not explicitly stated in the formulation of the central theorem of~\cite[page~511]{pollington}, but were in fact established in the paper, see the formulas (3),(4) and (4a) in~\cite{pollington}. \section{Outline of selected results} \label{outline} We outline the most important results which we will establish. However, we point out that in the course their proofs, several other results will be derived that are of some interest on their own and not covered in the current section. In particular the results concerning the case of fixed $\alpha$ in Section~\ref{fixedalpha} and the first part of Section~\ref{epsfix} are self-contained and not part of this overview. Our first selected result deals with the root distribution of polynomials with integral coefficients. It arises as a corollary of our study of the sequences $(\alpha\zeta^{n})_{n\geq 1}$, combined with a result due to Dubickas. As usual let $L(P):=\sum_{i=0}^{m} \vert a_{i}\vert$ for a polynomial $P(X)=a_{0}+a_{1}X+\cdots+a_{m}X^{m}$, and $L(\zeta)=L(P)$ for an algebraic number $\zeta$ where $P\in{\mathbb{Z}[X]}$ is the minimal polynomial of $\zeta$ in lowest terms. \begin{theorem} \label{hot} Assume real algebraic $\zeta$ satisfies $2(\zeta-1)>L(\zeta)$. Then $\zeta$ is a Pisot number. In other words, if $P\in{\mathbb{Z}[X]}$ has a real root larger than $L(P)/2+1$, all the other roots of $P$ lie inside the unit circle. \end{theorem} We compare Theorem~\ref{hot} with the well-known bounds \begin{align} \max_{1\leq j\leq m}\vert \zeta_{j}\vert&\leq 1+\frac{\max_{i\neq m}\vert a_{i}\vert}{\vert a_{m}\vert}\leq 1+\frac{H(P)}{\vert a_{m}\vert} \leq 1+\frac{L(P)}{\vert a_{m}\vert} \label{eq:hoehet} \\ M(P)&:=\vert a_{m}\vert\prod_{j=1}^{m} \max\{1,\vert \zeta_{j}\vert\}\leq \Vert P\Vert_{2}:= \sqrt{\sum_{i=0}^{m} \vert a_{i}\vert^{2}}\leq L(P), \label{eq:tiefet} \end{align} for arbitrary $P(X)=a_{m}X^{m}+a_{1}X+\cdots+a_{0}\in{\mathbb{C}[X]}$, see~\cite{mignotte}. Here $\zeta_{j}$ are the roots of $P$ and $H(P)=\max_{0\leq j\leq m} \vert a_{i}\vert$. In view of \eqref{eq:hoehet}, the existence of a root as in the last claim of Theorem~\ref{hot} requires that $P$ is monic. In this case combination of \eqref{eq:tiefet} and the assumption of Theorem~\ref{hot} yield that the remaining roots have modulus less than $L(P)/(L(P)/2+1)<2$, a weaker conclusion than Theorem~\ref{hot}. It is easy to construct non-trivial $P\in{\mathbb{Z}[X]}$ with the inferred bound arbitrarily close to $2$. Relations between $l(P), L(P), M(P)$ have been studied by Dubickas~\cite{dubbull} and Schinzel~\cite{schinzel},~\cite{schinzel2},~\cite{schinzel3}. For Pisot numbers the inequality $2(\zeta-1)>L(\zeta)$ can be satisfied. Take for instance $\zeta=\zeta_{m,b}$ the Pisot root of $P_{m,b}(X)=X^{m}-bX^{m-1}-1$ for integers $m\geq 2, b\geq 4$. Indeed $P_{m,b}$ has a root in $(b,b+1)$ by intermediate value theorem and $L(P_{m,b})=b+2$, so $b\geq 4$ is certainly sufficient for $2(\zeta_{m,b}-1)>L(\zeta_{m,b})$ and Rouchee's~Theorem implies that these polynomials are indeed Pisot polynomials (Theorem~\ref{hot} also implies $P_{m,b}$ is a Pisot polynomial). In fact the expression $L(\zeta_{m,b})/(\zeta_{m,b}-1)$ tends to $1$ as $b\to\infty$. On the other hand, a Pisot number need not satisfy $\zeta>L(\zeta)/2+1$, for instance take $\zeta=\zeta_{m,b}$ with $m=2$ and $b\in{\{1,2,3\}}$. Thus Theorem~\ref{hot} only yields a sufficient condition for an algebraic number to be a Pisot number. For the other results we need to introduce some notation. \begin{definition} \label{wdeff} For real numbers $\zeta>1,\epsilon>0$, let $\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}$ be the set of all real $\alpha\neq 0$ such that $\Vert \alpha\zeta^{n}\Vert\leq \epsilon$ for all $n\geq n_{0}(\alpha,\zeta,\epsilon)$. \end{definition} Obviously $\varpi_{\epsilon_{0},\zeta}\subseteq \varpi_{\epsilon_{1},\zeta}$ for $\epsilon_{0}<\epsilon_{1}$ and any $\zeta$. Note also that $\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}\neq \emptyset$ for all $\epsilon>0$ is a necessary condition for $\lim_{n\to\infty}\Vert\alpha\zeta^{n}\Vert=0$. In fact, $\bigcap_{\epsilon>0} \varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}$ is the set of values $\alpha$ such that $\lim_{n\to\infty} \Vert \alpha\zeta^{n}\Vert=0$ for a fixed $\zeta$. The sets $\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}$ are obviously closed under any map $\tau_{k,\zeta}:\alpha\mapsto \alpha\zeta^{k}$ for $k$ a positive integer. We investigate the cardinality of these sets. More precisely, our focus is on understanding the derived quantities \begin{align*} \tilde{\epsilon}_{1}&=\tilde{\epsilon}_{1}(\zeta):= \sup \left\{\epsilon>0: \varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}=\emptyset \right\} =\inf \left\{ \epsilon>0: \left\vert \varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta} \right\vert\geq \vert \mathbb{Z}\vert \right\}, \\ \tilde{\epsilon}_{2}&=\tilde{\epsilon}_{2}(\zeta):= \sup \left\{ \epsilon>0: \left\vert \varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta} \right\vert\leq \vert \mathbb{Z}\vert \right\} =\inf \left\{ \epsilon>0: \left\vert \varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta} \right\vert>\vert \mathbb{Z}\vert \right\}. \end{align*} An equivalent definition of $\tilde{\epsilon}_{1}$ is given by \[ \tilde{\epsilon}_{1}(\zeta)= \inf_{\alpha\neq 0} \; \limsup_{n\to\infty} \Vert \alpha\zeta^{n}\Vert. \] Obviously $0\leq \tilde{\epsilon}_{1}(\zeta)\leq \tilde{\epsilon}_{2}(\zeta)\leq 1/2$ for all real $\zeta$. We will establish the better bounds given in the following theorem. \begin{theorem} \label{epsilont} For any $\zeta>1$ we have \[ 0\leq \tilde{\epsilon}_{1}(\zeta)\leq \min\left\{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2(\zeta-1)}\right\}, \qquad \frac{1}{2(\zeta+1)}\leq \tilde{\epsilon}_{2}(\zeta)\leq \min\left\{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{\zeta-1}\right\}. \] \end{theorem} \begin{remark} For rather small values of $\zeta$ the upper bound $1/2$ in Theorem~\ref{epsilont} can be slightly reduced, provided a slight modification of Pollington's result holds. Assume Theorem~\ref{pollington} with the same effective bound for $\beta$ is valid if the fractional parts $\{t_{k}\alpha\}$ avoid the interval $(1/2-\beta,1/2+\beta)$ instead of the open intervals of the same length $2\beta$ around integers as in the theorem. Looking at the proof of Theorem~\ref{pollington} in~\cite{pollington} this shift invariance seems very reasonable. Put $t_{n}=\zeta^{n}$ and observe we may let $s_{0}>0$ be arbitrarily small and still obtain uncountably many elements $\alpha$ with the desired property. Thus with $r=r(\zeta)$ the smallest positive integer with $\zeta^{r}>r+3$, we infer \[ \tilde{\epsilon}_{2}(\zeta)\leq \vartheta(\zeta):=\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\zeta^{-4r}}{2(r+1)}. \] Numerical computations show $\vartheta(\zeta)$ improves the bound in Theorem~\ref{epsilont} for $\zeta\in{I:=(1,2+\eta)}$ with a certain $\eta\in{(6\cdot 10^{-5},7\cdot 10^{-5})}$. On the other hand, it is easy to check $\vartheta(\zeta)\in{(1/2-1/1024,1/2)}$ on the entire interval $\zeta\in(1,\infty)$, and for $\zeta\in{I}$ even $\vartheta(\zeta)\in{(1/2-1/10368,1/2)}$, so the improvement is small. Also the lower bound $1/2-1/10368$ for $\vartheta(\zeta)$ can be attained up to arbitrarily small $\mu>0$ by taking $\zeta$ slightly larger than $\sqrt[3]{6}\approx 1.8171$. Moreover $\vartheta(\zeta)$ obviously tends to $1/2$ as $\zeta$ tends to either $1$ or infinity. \end{remark} In fact we will prove a slight extension of Theorem~\ref{epsilont} in Section~\ref{cardgap}. For algebraic numbers $\zeta>1$ we will further establish the following result concerning $\tilde{\epsilon}_{1}(\zeta),\tilde{\epsilon}_{2}(\zeta)$. The proof of the first claim is based on the properties of the Pisot numbers $\zeta_{m,b}$ carried out above, the second claim follows from similar constructions we will present in Section~\ref{cardgap}. \begin{theorem} \label{notintuitiver} Let $m\geq 1$ be an integer and $\delta\in{(0,1)}$. There exists a Pisot number {\upshape(}one may choose a unit{\upshape)} $\zeta$ of degree $m$ such that $\frac{\delta}{\zeta-1}\leq \tilde{\epsilon}_{2}(\zeta)\leq \frac{1}{\zeta-1}$. Moreover, there exists algebraic $\zeta>1$ of degree $m$ such that $\frac{\delta}{2(\zeta-1)}\leq \tilde{\epsilon}_{1}(\zeta)\leq \frac{1}{2(\zeta-1)}$. \end{theorem} The first claim of Theorem~\ref{notintuitiver} is of particular interest because we will carry out that we strongly expect (by a heuristic argument) that for Lebesgue almost all $\zeta>1$ in fact $\frac{1}{2(\zeta-1)}$ is an upper bound for $\tilde{\epsilon}_{2}(\zeta)$ as well. We will discuss this in Section~\ref{cardgap}. For rational $\zeta$ we can further improve the bounds from Theorem~\ref{epsilont}. As in~\cite{5}, for $z\in{\mathbb{R}}$ and $p/q$ rational in lowest terms let \[ E(z):=\frac{1-(1-z)\prod_{m\geq 0} (1-z^{2^{m}})}{2z} , \qquad \tau(p/q):= \frac{E(q/p)}{p}. \] With this notation we have the following. \begin{theorem} \label{gutkort} Let $\zeta=p/q$ with integers $p>q\geq 2$ and $(p,q)=1$. Then $\tilde{\epsilon}_{i}=\tilde{\epsilon}_{i}(p/q)$ for $i\in{\{1,2\}}$ satisfy \[ \tau(p/q)\leq \tilde{\epsilon}_{1} \leq \min\left\{\frac{1}{2},\frac{q}{2(p-q)}\right\}, \quad \max\left\{\tau(p/q),\frac{q}{2(p+q)}\right\}\leq \tilde{\epsilon}_{2} \leq \min\left\{\frac{1}{2},\frac{q-1}{p-q}\right\}. \] In case of odd $q$, refined bounds are given by \begin{equation} \label{eq:diebt} \tilde{\epsilon}_{1}\leq \min\left\{\frac{1}{2},\frac{q-1}{2(p-q)}\right\}, \qquad \max\left\{\tau(p/q),\frac{q+1}{2(p+q)}\right\} \leq \tilde{\epsilon}_{2}. \end{equation} In case of $q=2$, a refined bound for $\tilde{\epsilon}_{1}$ is \[ \tilde{\epsilon}_{1}\leq \frac{1}{p}. \] \end{theorem} The lower bound $\tau(p/q)$ at several places is due to Dubickas, the remaining bounds will be settled in Section~\ref{cardgap}. We point out another result for rational $\zeta$, which again we will compare to other results and interpret in Section~\ref{cardgap}. \begin{theorem} \label{hundertt} Let $\zeta=p/q>1$ be a rational number but no integer. If for $\alpha\neq 0$ and some large integer $n$ all numbers $\alpha(p/q)^{n},\alpha(p/q)^{n+1},\ldots$,$\alpha(p/q)^{n+l}$ lie in the interval $[-1/(p+q),1/(p+q)]$ mod $1$, then we have the asymptotic estimate \[ l \leq n\cdot\left(\frac{\log p}{\log q}-1\right)+\log \vert\alpha\vert+o(1), \qquad n\to\infty. \] In particular $\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}=\emptyset$ for all $\epsilon\leq 1/(p+q)$ and thus $\tilde{\epsilon}_{1}(p/q)\geq 1/(p+q)$. \end{theorem} Finally we will derive the following results in the case that $\zeta$ is an integer. \begin{theorem} \label{jep} For an integer $\zeta=p/1>1$ we have \[ \tilde{\epsilon}_{1}(\zeta)=\tilde{\epsilon}_{1}(p/1)=0, \qquad \tau(p/1)\leq \tilde{\epsilon}_{2}(\zeta)\leq \frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{p^{3}+p^{2}}. \] \end{theorem} For example, for $p=10$ Theorem~\ref{jep} yields $0.099090099\cdots\leq \tilde{\epsilon}_{2}(10)\leq 0.099\overline{09}$. \section{Preparatory cardinality results} \label{kkk} We will consider the situation of one fixed variable throughout the following. \subsection{The case of fixed $\alpha$} \label{fixedalpha} We start with an easy proposition to simplify the proof of Theorem~\ref{machet} later. \begin{proposition} \label{bernardo} Let $n$ be a positive integer, $x>3/2$ and $0<\epsilon<1/2$ be real numbers. Then $(x+\epsilon)^{\frac{n+1}{n}}- (x-\epsilon)^{\frac{n+1}{n}}\geq 2\epsilon x^{\frac{1}{n}}$. \end{proposition} \begin{proof} Define $\varphi_{n}: x\mapsto x^{\frac{n+1}{n}}$. We have to prove that $\varphi_{n}(x+\epsilon)-\varphi_{n}(x-\epsilon)\geq 2\epsilon x^{\frac{1}{n}}$. By Taylor expansion $\varphi_{n}(x-\epsilon)= \varphi_{n}(x)-\epsilon \varphi_{n}^{\prime}(x)+ \frac{\epsilon^{2}}{2}\varphi_{n}^{\prime\prime}(\theta_{1})$ with some $\theta_{1}\in{(x-\epsilon,x)}$. Similarly, $\varphi_{n}(x+\epsilon)= \varphi_{n}(x)+\epsilon \varphi_{n}^{\prime}(x)+ \frac{\epsilon^{2}}{2}\varphi_{n}^{\prime\prime}(\theta_{2})$ with some $\theta_{2}\in{(x,x+\epsilon)}$. Thus \[ \varphi_{n}(x+\epsilon)-\varphi_{n}(x-\epsilon)= 2\frac{n+1}{n}\epsilon x^{\frac{1}{n}}+ \frac{\epsilon^{2}}{2}(\varphi_{n}^{\prime\prime}(\theta_{2})-\varphi_{n}^{\prime\prime}(\theta_{1})) =2\epsilon x^{\frac{1}{n}}+\frac{1}{n}2\epsilon x^{\frac{1}{n}} +\frac{\epsilon^{2}}{2}(\varphi_{n}^{\prime\prime}(\theta_{2})-\varphi_{n}^{\prime\prime}(\theta_{1})). \] We would certainly be done if the equivalent assertions \begin{equation} \label{eq:unicorn} \frac{1}{n}2\epsilon x^{\frac{1}{n}}> \frac{\epsilon^{2}}{2}(\varphi_{n}^{\prime\prime}(\theta_{1})-\varphi_{n}^{\prime\prime}(\theta_{2})) \quad \Longleftrightarrow \quad \frac{1}{n} x^{\frac{1}{n}}> \frac{\epsilon}{4}(\varphi_{n}^{\prime\prime}(\theta_{1})-\varphi_{n}^{\prime\prime}(\theta_{2})) \end{equation} hold. We look at the right side of the equivalence. The left hand side is obviously bounded below by $1/n$. Applying Taylor Theorem again to the right hand side gives that right hand side is bounded above by $\vert\frac{\epsilon}{4}2\epsilon \varphi_{n}^{\prime\prime\prime}(\theta_{3})\vert =\vert\frac{\epsilon^{2}}{2}\varphi_{n}^{\prime\prime\prime}(\theta_{3})\vert \leq \frac{1}{8}\vert\varphi_{n}^{\prime\prime\prime}(\theta_{3})\vert$ with some $\theta_{3}\in{(\theta_{1},\theta_{2})\subseteq{(x-\epsilon,x+\epsilon)}}$. However, $\vert\varphi_{n}^{\prime\prime\prime}(\theta_{3})\vert= (\frac{n^{2}-1}{n^{3}})\theta_{3}^{-2+\frac{1}{n}}< \frac{1}{n}\theta_{3}^{-2+\frac{1}{n}}<\frac{1}{n}$ since $\theta_{3}>x-\epsilon>\frac{3}{2}-\frac{1}{2}=1$, proving \eqref{eq:unicorn}. \end{proof} \begin{definition} For arbitrary real numbers $\alpha,\epsilon>0$, let $\chi_{\epsilon,\alpha}$ be the set of all real $\zeta>1$ such that $\Vert \alpha\zeta^{n}\Vert\leq \epsilon$ for all $n\geq n_{0}(\alpha,\zeta,\epsilon)$. \end{definition} Obviously $\chi_{\epsilon_{0},\alpha}\subseteq \chi_{\epsilon_{1},\alpha}$ for $\epsilon_{0}<\epsilon_{1}$ and any $\alpha$. Note also that for $\lim_{n\to\infty}\Vert\alpha\zeta^{n}\Vert=0$, the condition $\chi_{\epsilon,\alpha}\neq \emptyset$ for all $\epsilon>0$ is necessary. In fact, for $\alpha$ fixed, the set $\bigcap_{\epsilon>0} \chi_{\epsilon,\alpha}$ coincides with the set of values $\zeta$ such that $\lim_{n\to\infty}\Vert \alpha\zeta^{n}\Vert= 0$. It is not hard to check that the sets $\chi_{\epsilon,\alpha}$ are closed under the maps $\iota_{k}: \zeta\mapsto \zeta^{k}$ for $k\geq 1$ an integer. The next Theorem~\ref{machet} is connected to Theorem~\ref{mosh}. Given $\epsilon>0$, we explicitly construct intervals in which the investigated set $\chi_{\epsilon,\alpha}$ of values $\zeta$ is dense or uncountable. We point out in advance that it will turn out in Theorem~\ref{alzheimard} that indeed we do not obtain uncountably many suitable values $\zeta$ in intervals of the form $(1,C)$ for sufficiently small $C$. We restrict to the case of symmetric intervals with respect to $0$, however the proof of this and most other results of Section~\ref{kkk} easily extends to the more general case of arbitrary intervals of length $2\epsilon$, see Remark~\ref{guteremark} and Remark~\ref{auchremark}. We remark that throughout the paper some results stating that particular sets are uncountable use a method related to the one used by Pollington~\cite{pollington} in Theorem~\ref{pollington}. A perspective for further research could be to provide more concise information on Hausdorff dimensions of the involved sets. \begin{theorem} \label{machet} Let $\alpha,\epsilon>0$ be real numbers. The set $\chi_{\epsilon,\alpha}\cap (1+\frac{1}{2\epsilon},\infty)$ is dense in $(1+\frac{1}{2\epsilon},\infty)$. For any $a,b$ with $b>\max\{a,1+\frac{1}{\epsilon}\}$ the set $\chi_{\epsilon,\alpha}\cap (a,b)$ has cardinality of $\mathbb{R}$. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} Fix $0<\epsilon<1/2$, which clearly is no restriction as the claim is trivial otherwise. Moreover, we may assume $\alpha>0$. Let $N_{0},n$ be any positive integers to be specified later such that \begin{equation} \label{eq:megallan} (N_{0}-\epsilon)^{\frac{1}{n}}> \alpha^{\frac{1}{n}}\left(1+\frac{1}{2\epsilon}\right). \end{equation} Consider the interval $I_{0}:=\left(\alpha^{-\frac{1}{n}}(N_{0}-\epsilon)^{\frac{1}{n}},\alpha^{-\frac{1}{n}}(N_{0}+\epsilon)^{\frac{1}{n}}\right)$. By construction any $\zeta_{0}\in{I_{0}}$ satisfies $\alpha\zeta_{0}^{n}\in{J_{0}:=(N_{0}-\epsilon,N_{0}+\epsilon)}$. Now by \eqref{eq:megallan} and Proposition \ref{bernardo} with $x:=N_{0}$, the interval $K_{0}:=\left(\alpha^{-\frac{1}{n}}(N_{0}-\epsilon)^{\frac{n+1}{n}}, \alpha^{-\frac{1}{n}}(N_{0}+\epsilon)^{\frac{n+1}{n}}\right)$ has length at least $1+2\epsilon$. Thus there exists an integer $N_{1}$ such that it contains $J_{1}:=(N_{1}-\epsilon,N_{1}+\epsilon)$, so $J_{1}\subseteq K_{0}$. Putting $I_{1}:=\left(\alpha^{-\frac{1}{n+1}}(N_{1}-\epsilon)^{\frac{1}{n+1}}, \alpha^{-\frac{1}{n+1}}(N_{1}+\epsilon)^{\frac{1}{n+1}}\right)$ we see that $I_{1}\subseteq I_{0}$ because by construction $N_{1}\geq \alpha^{-\frac{1}{n}}(N_{0}-\epsilon)^{\frac{n+1}{n}}+\epsilon$ and hence \begin{equation} \label{eq:vascogama} \alpha^{-\frac{1}{n+1}}(N_{1}-\epsilon)^{\frac{1}{n+1}} \geq \alpha^{-\frac{1}{n+1}}\alpha^{-\frac{1}{n(n+1)}}(N_{0}-\epsilon)^{\frac{1}{n}} = \alpha^{-\frac{1}{n}}(N_{0}-\epsilon)^{\frac{1}{n}}, \end{equation} and similarly with inequality in reverse directions for the upper bounds of $I_{0},I_{1}$. Combining \eqref{eq:megallan} and \eqref{eq:vascogama} yields in particular \begin{equation} \label{eq:katzetot} (N_{1}-\epsilon)^{\frac{1}{n+1}}>\alpha^{\frac{1}{n+1}}\left(1+\frac{1}{2\epsilon}\right). \end{equation} Furthermore, for any $\zeta_{1}\in{I_{1}}$ by construction $\alpha\zeta_{1}^{n+1}\in{(N_{1}-\epsilon,N_{1}+\epsilon)}$. So again by Proposition~\ref{bernardo} with $x:=N_{1}$ and \eqref{eq:katzetot}, if we similarly define \[ K_{1}:=\left(\alpha^{-\frac{1}{n+1}}(N_{1}-\epsilon)^{\frac{n+2}{n+1}}, \alpha^{-\frac{1}{n+1}}(N_{1}+\epsilon)^{\frac{n+2}{n+1}}\right), \] the interval $K_{1}$ again has length at least $1+2\epsilon$. Having now defined $I_{1},J_{1},K_{1}$ we can repeat the procedure to obtain $J_{2},I_{2},K_{2}$ in this succession with very similar properties. Proceeding in this manner gives a sequence of nested intervals $I_{1}\supseteq I_{2}\supseteq I_{3}\cdots$. Defining $\zeta:=\cap_{j\geq 0} I_{j}$, which clearly is a unique real number, it is easy to see $\zeta$ has the desired property $\vert \alpha\zeta^{n+j}-N_{j}\vert \leq \epsilon$ for all $j\geq 0$. To see $\chi_{\epsilon,\alpha}$ is dense in $(1+\frac{1}{2\epsilon},\infty)$, we need to show for fixed $0<\epsilon<1/2$ and any given $d>c>1+\frac{1}{2\epsilon}$, for some pair $(N_{0},n)$ satisfying \eqref{eq:megallan} the $\zeta$ arising by the above construction has property $\zeta\in{(c,d)}$. Indeed, it suffices to take any integer $N_{0}\in{\left(\frac{c^{n}}{\alpha}+1,\frac{d^{n}}{\alpha}-1\right)}$ for $n$ sufficiently large that the interval is non-empty, to guarantee $\zeta=\cap_{j\geq 0} I_{j}\subseteq I_{0}\subseteq (c,d)$ for the resulting $\zeta$ as well as the condition \eqref{eq:megallan}. To see $\chi_{\epsilon,\alpha}$ has cardinality of $\mathbb{R}$ in any non-empty interval $(a,b)$ with $b>1+\frac{1}{\epsilon}$, repeat the above construction with $(N_{0}-\epsilon)^{\frac{1}{n}}> \alpha^{\frac{1}{n}}(1+\frac{1}{\epsilon})$ instead of $\alpha^{\frac{1}{n}}(1+\frac{1}{2\epsilon})$, and observe that the resulting intervals $K_{j}$ have length at least $2+2\epsilon$. So we have the choice of at least two different values $N_{j}$ in each step. Different choices of $N_{j}$ by construction induce disjoint intervals $I_{j+1}$ in the next step, so the intersections $\cap_{j\geq 0} I_{j}$ do not coincide for any two different choices as well. Hence the set has cardinality of the power set of $\mathbb{N}$ which equals cardinality of $\mathbb{R}$, and by a similar argument as above we may choose $I_{0}$ to lie in any given interval $(a,b)$ with $b>a>1+\frac{1}{\epsilon}$. Thus $\chi_{\epsilon,\alpha}\cap (a,b)$ has cardinality of $\mathbb{R}$. \end{proof} \begin{remark} Note that the interval bounds in Theorem~\ref{machet} do not depend on $\alpha$. Moreover, reviewing the proof, in fact the minimal $n=n_{0}(\alpha,\zeta,\epsilon)$ in the construction for $\zeta$ in a given interval $\zeta\in{(c,d)}$ only depends on $c,d$, and the condition becomes weaker with growing $c$ and $d-c$. Thus we may write $n\geq n_{0}(\alpha,\epsilon,d-c)$ for all $\zeta\in{\chi_{\epsilon,\alpha}\cap(c,d)}$. \end{remark} \begin{remark} \label{guteremark} The proof can be readily extended to the case where $\{\alpha\zeta^{n}\}$ lie in arbitrary closed intervals $I_{n} \bmod 1$ of length $2\epsilon$. The same will apply to Theorem~\ref{alzheimard}. \end{remark} The proof of Theorem~\ref{machet} suggests that for all $\alpha\neq 0$, or at least almost all $\alpha$ in the sense of Lebesgue measure, in fact $\chi_{\epsilon,\alpha}\cap (1+\frac{1}{2\epsilon},\infty)$ should be uncountable. Assume otherwise for some $\alpha\neq 0$ the set $\chi_{\epsilon,\alpha}\cap (1+\frac{1}{2\epsilon},\infty)$ is at most countable. Then starting with a pair $N_{0},n$ satisfying \eqref{eq:megallan}, the recursive process would yield only one integer in the intervals $K_{j}$ for all large $j$ (else we have $2$ choices infinitely often, contradicting the assumption). The intervals $K_{j}$ have length greater than $1+2\epsilon$, so this means their midpoints avoid a neighborhood of $1/2$. It is reasonable to believe that this biased distribution leads to a set of values $\alpha$ of measure $0$ for the fixed pair $N_{0},n$, see also Theorem~\ref{kok}. Note that this must hold for any pair $N_{0},n$ satisfying \eqref{eq:megallan}. A rigorous proof seems hard, however. We will carry out a similar phenomenon in a preciser way in Section~\ref{fixedzeta}, see in particular Proposition~\ref{lemur}. As indicated previous to Theorem~\ref{machet}, the set $\chi_{\epsilon,\alpha}$ is reasonably smaller for $\zeta$ in a neighborhood of $1$. \begin{theorem} \label{alzheimard} For any fixed $\alpha\neq 0,\epsilon>0$, the set $\chi_{\epsilon,\alpha}\cap (1,\frac{1}{2\epsilon}-1)$ is at most countable. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} By definition, if $\zeta$ lies in $\chi_{\epsilon,\alpha}$ there exists an integer sequence $(N_{n})_{n\geq 1}$ such that $\alpha\zeta^{n}\in{[N_{n}-\epsilon,N_{n}+\epsilon]}$ for $n\geq n_{0}=n_{0}(\zeta,\epsilon,\alpha)$. By $\alpha\zeta^{n+1}=(\alpha\zeta^{n})^{\frac{n+1}{n}}\alpha^{-\frac{1}{n}}$ we infer \begin{equation} \label{eq:narrensicher} \alpha^{-\frac{1}{n}}(N_{n}-\epsilon)^{\frac{n+1}{n}}\leq \alpha\zeta^{n+1} \leq \alpha^{-\frac{1}{n}}(N_{n}+\epsilon)^{\frac{n+1}{n}}. \end{equation} Suppose we have already shown \begin{equation} \label{eq:soidberge} \alpha^{-\frac{1}{n}}\left((N_{n}+\epsilon)^{\frac{n+1}{n}}-(N_{n}-\epsilon)^{\frac{n+1}{n}}\right) <1-2\epsilon, \qquad n\geq n_{0}. \end{equation} Then clearly there is at most one integer $N_{n+1}$ such that \[ [N_{n+1}-\epsilon,N_{n+1}+\epsilon]\bigcap \left(\alpha^{-\frac{1}{n}}(N_{n}-\epsilon)^{\frac{n+1}{n}}, \alpha^{-\frac{1}{n}}(N_{n}+\epsilon)^{\frac{n+1}{n}}\right) \neq \emptyset. \] By \eqref{eq:narrensicher} the property $\alpha\zeta^{n+1}\in{[N_{n+1}-\epsilon,N_{n+1}+\epsilon]}$ is valid for $n\geq n_{0}$. As this is true for $n+2,n+3,\ldots$ with the same argument, the sequence $(N_{n})_{n\geq n_{0}}$ and hence $\zeta$ is determined by some $n_{0}=n_{0}(\epsilon,\alpha,\zeta),N_{n_{0}}$. However, the sequence $(N_{n})_{n\geq n_{0}}$ clearly determines a unique $\zeta$ because obviously $\zeta=\lim_{n\to\infty} \sqrt[n]{N_{n}/\alpha}=\lim_{n\to\infty} \sqrt[n]{N_{n}}$. Thus $\zeta\mapsto (n_{0},N_{n_{0}})$ induces a one-to-one map from $\chi_{\epsilon,\alpha}$ to $\mathbb{Z}^{2}$ and hence the set is at most countable. Hence it only remains to prove \eqref{eq:soidberge}. Recall the functions $\varphi_{n}$ from the proof of Proposition~\ref{bernardo}. We have $\varphi_{n}(x+\epsilon)-\varphi_{n}(x-\epsilon)= 2\epsilon\varphi_{n}^{\prime}(\theta)$ for some $\theta\in{(x-\epsilon,x+\epsilon)}$. Hence the left hand side of \eqref{eq:soidberge} is bounded above by $\alpha^{-\frac{1}{n}}\frac{n+1}{n}2\epsilon(N_{n}+\epsilon)^{\frac{1}{n}}$. Clearly $\lim_{n\to\infty} \alpha^{-\frac{1}{n}}\frac{n+1}{n}=1$, and as $\sqrt[n]{N_{n}}$ tends to $\zeta$ so does $\sqrt[n]{N_{n}+\epsilon}$ for fixed $\epsilon$. Claim \eqref{eq:soidberge} follows from our assumption $\zeta<\frac{1}{2\epsilon}-1$. \end{proof} We compare our result with~\cite[Theorem~3.5]{29} concerning the distribution of $\Vert\alpha\zeta^{n}-\theta_{n}\Vert$ for an arbitrary given sequence $(\theta_{n})_{n\geq 1}$. \begin{theorem}[Lerma, part 1] \label{lerma} For any $\alpha\neq 0$ and $A>1$ and any given sequence $(r_{n})_{n\geq 1}$, there exists $\zeta$ such that \[ A \leq \zeta \leq A+\frac{A}{(A-1)\vert \alpha\vert} \] and for every $n\geq 1$ \[ \Vert \alpha\zeta^{n}-r_{n}\Vert \leq \frac{1}{2(A-1)}. \] \end{theorem} Putting $r_{n}=0$ for all $n\geq 1$ and restricting to $\alpha>0$ and identifying $\epsilon$ with $\frac{1}{2(A-1)}$ in Theorem~\ref{lerma} implies the existence of $\zeta$ with $\frac{1}{2\epsilon}+1\leq \zeta \leq \frac{1}{2\epsilon}+1+\frac{1+2\epsilon}{\alpha}$ such that $\Vert \alpha\zeta^{n}\Vert \leq \epsilon$. Thus, the generalized result of Theorem~\ref{machet} pointed out in Remark~\ref{guteremark}, contains more information than Theorem~\ref{lerma}. \subsection{The case of fixed $\zeta$} \label{fixedzeta} Now we want to study the reverse situation, i.e. for $\zeta>1$ and $0<\epsilon< 1/2$ fixed we ask which $\alpha$ satisfy $\left\Vert \alpha\zeta^{n}\right\Vert\leq \epsilon$ for all large $n$. This is the setup for all the results from Section~\ref{outline}. Recall Definition~\ref{wdeff} for the present section. \begin{theorem} \label{muskatottonel} For any $\epsilon>0$ and $\zeta\geq 1+\frac{1}{2\epsilon}$, the set $\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}$ is dense in $\mathbb{R}$. If $\zeta\geq 1+\frac{1}{\epsilon}$, the set $\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}\cap (a,b)$ has cardinality of $\mathbb{R}$ for any $b>a$. Numbers in $\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}$ can be recursively constructed. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} We may assume $\alpha>0$. For any fixed $\zeta,\epsilon,c,d$ with $\zeta\geq 1+\frac{1}{2\epsilon}$ and $d>c>0$, we must prove there is $\alpha\in{(c,d)\cap \varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}}$. Take $n_{0}=n_{0}(\epsilon,\zeta)$ sufficiently large that $(d-c)\zeta^{n_{0}}>1+2\epsilon$. Then there exists an integer $N_{0}$ such that $[N_{0}-\epsilon,N_{0}+\epsilon]\subseteq (c\zeta^{n_{0}},d\zeta^{n_{0}})$. Let $I_{0}:=[\frac{N_{0}-\epsilon}{\zeta^{n_{0}}},\frac{N_{0}+\epsilon}{\zeta^{n_{0}}}]$, then any $\alpha\in{I_{0}}$ satisfies $\alpha\zeta^{n_{0}}\in{[N_{0}-\epsilon,N_{0}+\epsilon]}$. By assumption $2\epsilon\cdot\zeta\geq 1+2\epsilon$, so there exists some integer $N_{1}$ with $[N_{1}-\epsilon,N_{1}+\epsilon]\subseteq \zeta^{n_{0}+1}I_{0}$. Defining $I_{1}:=[\frac{N_{1}-\epsilon}{\zeta^{n_{0}}},\frac{N_{1}+\epsilon}{\zeta^{n_{0}}}]$, any $\alpha$ in $I_{1}$ satisfies $\alpha\zeta^{n+1}\subseteq [N_{1}-\epsilon,N_{1}+\epsilon]$. Moreover $I_{1}\subseteq I_{0}$. Proceeding in this manner gives a nested sequence $(c,d)\supseteq I_{0}\supseteq I_{1}\supseteq I_{2}\supseteq \cdots$ of intervals, which intersect in a single point $\alpha_{0}:=\bigcap_{j\geq 0} I_{j}$ because the length of $I_{j}$ is $\frac{2\epsilon}{\zeta^{n_{0}+j}}$ which tends to zero. For this $\alpha_{0}$ indeed we have both $\alpha_{0}\in{(c,d)}$ and $\Vert\alpha_{0}\zeta^{n}\Vert \leq \epsilon$ for any $n\geq n_{0}$. The cardinality argument is very similar to that in the proof of Theorem~\ref{machet}, using that by the assumption $2\epsilon\cdot\zeta\geq 2+2\epsilon$ we have at least two choices for $N_{j}$ in any step. \end{proof} We point out that the proof of Theorem~\ref{muskatottonel} suggests that for almost all fixed $\zeta>1$, the property $\zeta> 1+\frac{1}{2\epsilon}$ or equivalently $\epsilon>\frac{1}{2(\zeta-1)}$ should suffice for $\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}$ to be uncountable. Roughly speaking, assuming a not too biased distribution of $\{\zeta N_{j}\}$ in $(0,1)$ for $N_{j}$ as in the proof of Theorem~\ref{muskatottonel}, will be sufficient for $\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}$ to be uncountable. Proposition~\ref{lemur} will state this observation in a preciser way. We introduce some identifications used in its proof and in fact carry out the essential parts of the proof beforehand. Start with any integer $N_{0}$. Proceed as in the proof of Theorem~\ref{muskatottonel} with the recursive construction of $N_{j}$. Concretely, consider the interval $I_{1}=\zeta\cdot[N_{0}-\epsilon,N_{0}+\epsilon]$ and consider the integers $N_{1}$ for which $[N_{1}-\epsilon,N_{1}+\epsilon]\subseteq I_{1}$. For any such $N_{1}$ repeat this process and so on. As used in the proof, the assumption $\zeta> 1+\frac{1}{2\epsilon}$ is equivalent to $2\epsilon\cdot\zeta> 1+2\epsilon$. Thus there is at least one $N_{j+1}$ in any step, and the strict inequality means that one would expect that with fixed positive probability there should be (at least) two. This is the case if the midpoint of the interval $\zeta\cdot[N_{j}-\epsilon,N_{j}+\epsilon]$, that is $N_{j}\zeta$, has fractional part in the fixed neighborhood $[1-\epsilon\zeta+\epsilon,\epsilon\zeta-\epsilon]\neq \emptyset$ of $1/2$. The process can be viewed as an infinite tree $\mathscr{T}=\mathscr{T}(\zeta,\epsilon,N_{0})$ with (multiply defined) vertices $N_{j}$ and root $N_{0}$ in which any vertex apart from $N_{0}$ has precisely one ancestor vertex and any vertex has at least one successor vertex. Any infinite path $N_{0},N_{1},\ldots$ corresponds to an element of $\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}$ and this assignment is injective, as established in the proof of Theorem~\ref{muskatottonel}. We will identify any path in $\mathscr{T}$ with the induced element in $\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}$. Call a path in $\mathscr{T}$ {\em deterministic} if it contains some vertex $N_{j}$ for which there is no other path in $\mathscr{T}$ starting with the same initial vertex sequence $N_{0},N_{1},\ldots,N_{j}$. If $N_{j}$ is such a vertex say the path is {\em deterministic for $N_{j}$}. Clearly if a path is deterministic for $N_{j}$ then it is also deterministic for all successor vertices $N_{j+1},N_{j+2},\ldots$. Observe that if $\mathscr{T}$ contains no deterministic path, the set of paths and thus $\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}$ is uncountable. Indeed, if there is no deterministic path, deleting the vertices of the tree where we have only one choice and reducing the number of paths in the remaining tree if necessary by cutting off, leads to the classical infinite binary tree, say $\mathscr{T}_{2}$. This procedure clearly induces a surjective map from the paths of $\mathscr{T}$ to those of $\mathscr{T}_{2}$. Since there are uncountably many paths in $\mathscr{T}_{2}$, as the binary expansion of any element of $(0,1)$ can be obtained by going to the left is reading the digit $0$ and to the right $1$, the claim follows. Obviously, the above argument can be extended to show that if $\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}$ is only countable, then for any path in $\mathscr{T}$ and arbitrary large $j_{0}$, there exists a path in $\mathscr{T}$ deterministic for some $N_{j}$ with $j\geq j_{0}$ with coinciding initial vertex sequence $N_{0},N_{1},\ldots,N_{j_{0}}$. Moreover, if a path is deterministic for $N_{j_{0}}$ then $N_{j+1}=\scp{\zeta N_{j}}$ for $j\geq j_{0}$ by construction. However, note that $\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}$ being at most countable does not necessarily mean any path in any corresponding tree $\mathscr{T}(\zeta,\epsilon,N_{0})$ with an integer parameter $N_{0}$ must be deterministic. Define a binary tree $\mathscr{T}^{\prime}$ with root $N_{0}^{\prime}$ by the rule that going to the right induces a deterministic path by having to go to the right in every further step, but going to the left allows both directions in the following step. The set of paths of $\mathscr{T}^{\prime}$, corresponding to elements of $\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}$, is countable but the path defined by going to the left in every step is not deterministic for any $N_{j}^{\prime}$. \begin{definition} \label{exceptional} Call $\zeta>1$ {\em exceptional} if and only if for some $\epsilon>\frac{1}{2(\zeta-1)}$ the set $\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}$ is at most countable. Let $\Theta\subseteq(1,\infty)$ be the set of exceptional numbers. \end{definition} In fact $\Theta\subseteq (2,\infty)$ since $\zeta\leq 2$ implies the trivial bound $\epsilon> 1/2$. Let $\mathbb{N}=\{1,2,\ldots\}$. \begin{definition} \label{V} For real $\zeta$ and every $N_{0}\in\mathbb{N}$, define the sequence $(N_{j})_{j\geq 0}$ recursively by $N_{j+1}=\scp{\zeta N_{j}}$ for $j\geq 0$. Let $W(\zeta)\subseteq \mathbb{N}$ be the set of integers $N_{0}$ for which the corresponding sequence $(\{N_{j}\zeta\})_{j\geq 0}$ of fractional parts is not dense at $1/2$. Let $\Gamma\subseteq{(3/2,\infty)}$ consist of the numbers $\zeta>3/2$ for which $W(\zeta)\neq \emptyset$. \end{definition} The lower bound $3/2$ instead of $1$ is only necessary to ensure $N_{j+1}>N_{j}$ in order to avoid constant sequences $(N_{j})_{j\geq 0}$ which would lead to unintended elements $\zeta\in{\Gamma}$. Alternatively one could ask for $W(\zeta)$ to be infinite instead of non-empty. It will turn out not to be of importance anyway since by the above remark $\Theta\subseteq (2,\infty)$ we may restrict to the interval $(2,\infty)$ for our purposes. \begin{proposition} \label{lemur} We have $\Theta\subseteq \Gamma$. In particular, if $\Gamma$ has Lebesgue measure $0$, then so has $\Theta$. \end{proposition} \begin{proof} Assume $\zeta>1$ is exceptional, that is for some $\epsilon>0$ with $\zeta>1+\frac{1}{2\epsilon}$, the set $\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}$ is only countable. For any positive integer $N_{0}$ consider the arising tree $\mathscr{T}$ as carried out above. In view of the preceding remarks $\mathscr{T}$ contains a deterministic path, i.e. a path $(N_{j})_{j\geq 0}$ of $\mathscr{T}$ with the property that for some integer $j_{0}$ there is no other path in $\mathscr{T}$ whose initial vertex sequence coincides with $N_{0},N_{1},\ldots,N_{j_{0}}$. Fixing this path, we can treat $j_{0},N_{j_{0}}$ as fixed too. As carried out above, for $j\geq j_{0}$ all fractional parts of $\{N_{j}\zeta\}$ of the induced sequence $(N_{j})_{j\geq j_{0}}$ must avoid the fixed symmetric neighborhood $[1-\epsilon\zeta+\epsilon,\epsilon\zeta-\epsilon]\neq \emptyset$ of $1/2$. Hence we have found a path with $(\{N_{j}\zeta\})_{j\geq 0}$ not dense at $1/2$. Since $N_{j+1}=\scp{\zeta N_{j}}$ for $j\geq j_{0}$, we deduce $N_{j_{0}}\in{W(\zeta)}$ and $\zeta$ belongs to $\Gamma$. Since $\zeta\in{\Theta}$ was arbitrary the claim follows. \end{proof} If we write $\epsilon=\delta\cdot\frac{1}{\zeta-1}$ for the largest $\epsilon$ in Definition~\ref{exceptional}, then $\delta\in{(1/2,1]}$ by Theorem~\ref{muskatottonel}. Larger $\delta$ implies a larger symmetric interval $I=[1-\epsilon\zeta+\epsilon,\epsilon\zeta-\epsilon]$ around $1/2$ without any number $\{N_{j}\zeta\}$ in $I$ for large $j$ where $N_{j}=\scp{\alpha\zeta^{j}}$, with $I=[0,1]$ if $\delta=1$. By sigma additivity of the Lebesgue measure, for the proof of the hypothesis of Proposition~\ref{lemur}, it suffices to show that for any {\em fixed} $N_{0}\geq 1$ the set of $\zeta>1$ with $(\{N_{j}\zeta\})_{j\geq 1}$ not dense at $1/2$ has measure $0$. Hence, if we dropped the rounding to the next integer in any step, that is $N_{j+1}=\zeta N_{j}$, then it would follow from Theorem~\ref{kok} that almost all $\zeta>1$ are not in $\Gamma$ and thus not exceptional. Having ruled out the case of constant sequences by the assumption $\zeta>3/2$, there is no reason why the rounding should affect this result, however a rigorous proof seems hard. On the other hand, Theorem~\ref{mosh} and Theorem~\ref{pollington} strongly suggest that $\Gamma$ has full dimension. In fact, we have shown in Proposition~\ref{lemur} that for $\zeta\in{\Theta}$, for any start value $N_{0}$ the recursive process starting at $N_{0}$ becomes determined for most choices of paths. However, observe that for $\zeta\in{\mathbb{N}_{\geq 2}}$ the worst case in the construction, that is all $\zeta N_{j}$ are integers, applies. Hence $\mathbb{N}_{\geq 2}\subseteq \Gamma$. A result due to Dubickas implies that $\mathbb{N}_{\geq 3}\subseteq \Theta$, see Section~\ref{sektions} and also Theorem~\ref{jep}. Moreover, any $\zeta>1$ for which there exists $\alpha\neq 0$ such that $\lim_{n\to\infty}\Vert \alpha\zeta^{n}\Vert=0$, in particular any Pisot number, belongs to $\Gamma$. Indeed it is easily checked that in this case $\scp{\alpha\zeta^{n}}\in{W(\zeta)}$ for any sufficiently large $n$. In fact for sufficiently large $j$ the corresponding fractional parts $\{N_{j}\zeta\}$ lie in arbitrarily short intervals with midpoint $0$ modulo $1$. We will see in Section~\ref{sektion3} that at least some Pisot numbers of any given degree are exceptional, which is a little surprising considering that we can start the above process at any $N_{0}\geq 1$. Another interesting special case is $\zeta=p/q$ rational but not an integer. We will treat it in Section~\ref{sektions}. A result somehow reverse to Theorem~\ref{muskatottonel} is the following. \begin{theorem} \label{machete} Let $\zeta>1,\epsilon>0$ be real numbers with $(\zeta+1)\epsilon<1/2$. Then the set $\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}$ is at most countable. Unless $\zeta$ is rational with even denominator in lowest terms, it suffices to assume $(\zeta+1)\epsilon\leq 1/2$. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} Let $n_{0}=n_{0}(\alpha,\zeta,\epsilon)$ be an integer with the above property for fixed $\zeta,\epsilon,\alpha$ as in the theorem. For $\alpha$ to satisfy the assertions it is obvious that \[ \alpha\in{\bigcap_{n\geq n_{0}} I_{n}}, \qquad I_{n}:=\left[\frac{M_{n}-\epsilon}{\zeta^{n}},\frac{M_{n}+\epsilon}{\zeta^{n}}\right] \] for some integer sequence $(M_{n})_{n\geq n_{0}}$. Obviously, in this case \begin{equation} \label{eq:gleihammas} \alpha= \bigcap_{n\geq n_{0}} I_{n}=\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{M_{n}}{\zeta^{n}}. \end{equation} For $\alpha\in{I_{n}\cap I_{n+1}}$ it is necessary that $I_{n},I_{n+1}$ are not disjoint which requires \[ \left\vert \frac{M_{n}}{\zeta^{n}}-\frac{M_{n+1}}{\zeta^{n+1}}\right\vert \leq \frac{\epsilon}{\zeta^{n}}+\frac{\epsilon}{\zeta^{n+1}}. \] This is equivalent to $\vert \zeta M_{n}-M_{n+1}\vert\leq (\zeta+1)\epsilon$. By the assumption $(\zeta+1)\epsilon<1/2$ this means $M_{n+1}=\scp{\zeta M_{n}}$ is uniquely determined by $M_{n}$. The same holds if $\zeta$ is irrational (or rational with odd denominator) and $(\zeta+1)\epsilon\leq 1/2$, since then clearly $\{M_{n}\zeta\}\neq 1/2$. This holds for any $n\geq n_{0}$, so $M_{n_{0}}$ determines the sequence $(M_{n})_{n\geq n_{0}}$ and hence $\alpha$ by \eqref{eq:gleihammas}. However, for any fixed $\alpha\in{\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}}$ there is a $n_{0}=n_{0}(\alpha,\zeta,\epsilon)$ such that the above holds with some $M_{n_{0}}$. So $\alpha\mapsto (n_{0},M_{n_{0}})$ induces a one-to-one map from $\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}$ to $\mathbb{Z}^{2}$, which means that $\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}$ is at most countable. \end{proof} \begin{remark} \label{auchremark} The analogue of Remark~\ref{guteremark} holds for Theorem~\ref{muskatottonel} and, apart from the equality case, for Theorem~\ref{machete} for the same reasons. Moreover, Proposition~\ref{lemur} essentially holds for an arbitrary fixed interval modulo $1$ of length $2\epsilon$ instead of the $0$-symmetric one in $\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}$, where $1/2$ in the definition of $\Gamma$ must be replaced by some other value. \end{remark} Comparing Theorem~\ref{machete} to Theorem~\ref{bertin}, we see for fixed $\zeta$ our bound is better in view of the square, however it is not uniform in $\zeta$ as Theorem~\ref{bertin}. In comparison to our results we quote the second assertion of~\cite[Theorem~3.5]{29}. \begin{theorem}[Lerma, part 2] \label{mlerma} For any $\zeta>1, L\neq 0$ and any given sequence $(r_{n})_{n\geq 1}$, there exists $\alpha$ such that \[ \vert L\vert \leq \vert \alpha\vert \leq \vert L\vert + \frac{1}{\zeta-1} \] and for every $n\geq 1$ \[ \Vert \alpha\zeta^{n}-r_{n}\Vert \leq \frac{1}{2(\zeta-1)}. \] \end{theorem} This implies $\vert\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}\vert \geq \vert \mathbb{Z}\vert$ for $\epsilon\geq \frac{1}{2(\zeta-1)}$, which is nontrivial provided $\zeta>2$. This bound coincides with our bound from Theorem~\ref{muskatottonel}, which can again be generalized to arbitrary sequences $(r_{n})_{n\geq 1}$ as in Theorem~\ref{mlerma}, as indicated in Remark~\ref{auchremark}. Thus (the generalized) Theorem~\ref{muskatottonel} implies Theorem~\ref{mlerma}. \section{The cardinality gap phenomenon} \label{cardgap} Now we turn to the main focus of the paper, that is to investigate what we will call the cardinality gap phenomenon. Roughly speaking it means to investigate for which parameters the sets defined in Section~\ref{kkk} are countable versus uncountable. The following Corollary~\ref{kor1} should portray the spirit of cardinality gap phenomena more accurately. \subsection{Fixed $\epsilon$} \label{epsfix} In the present section we agree on $\sup\{\emptyset\}=1$ in order to formulate some results in widest generality (taking care of rather large $\epsilon$). We point out the observed cardinality gap arising from Theorem~\ref{machet} and Theorem~\ref{alzheimard} as a corollary. \begin{corollary} \label{kor1} Let $\alpha\neq 0$ be fixed. For any $\epsilon>0$ define $\zeta_{1}=\zeta_{1}(\epsilon)$ by \begin{equation} \label{eq:olympb} \zeta_{1}:=\sup \left\{C>1: \left\vert\chi_{\epsilon,\alpha}\cap (C,\infty)\right\vert\leq \vert \mathbb{Z}\vert\right\} =\inf \left\{C>1: \left\vert\chi_{\epsilon,\alpha}\cap (C,\infty)\right\vert>\vert \mathbb{Z}\vert\right\}. \end{equation} Similarly, define $\zeta_{2}=\zeta_{2}(\epsilon)$ by \begin{equation} \label{eq:ierade} \zeta_{2}:=\sup \left\{C>1: \left\vert\chi_{\epsilon,\alpha}\cap (a,b)\right\vert\leq \vert \mathbb{Z}\vert\right\} =\inf \left\{C>1: \left\vert\chi_{\epsilon,\alpha}\cap (a,b)\right\vert>\vert \mathbb{Z}\vert\right\} \end{equation} where we understand the above to hold simultaneously for all intervals $(a,b)\subseteq (C,\infty)$. Then $\zeta_{1}\in{\left[\max\{1,\frac{1}{2\epsilon}-1\},1+\frac{1}{\epsilon}\right]}$ and $\zeta_{2}\in{[\zeta_{1},1+\frac{1}{\epsilon}]} \subseteq{\left[\max\{1,\frac{1}{2\epsilon}-1\},1+\frac{1}{\epsilon}\right]}$. \end{corollary} \begin{remark} It would be nice to have cardinality equal to $\vert \mathbb{R}\vert$ instead of greater $\vert\mathbb{Z}\vert$ on the right hand sides in \eqref{eq:olympb}, \eqref{eq:ierade}. If we assume the continuum hypothesis to be true (which is known to be undecidable due to P. Cohen), then indeed we may make this replacement. However, if we do not assume that it is true, the convenient values $\zeta_{1},\zeta_{2}$ might not be well-defined any more with the replacement. Related issues will apply frequently in similar situations the sequel. \end{remark} Note that no set $\chi_{\epsilon,\alpha}\cap (C,\infty)$ and thus $\chi_{\epsilon,\alpha}$ cannot be finite unless it is empty, since $\chi_{\epsilon,\alpha}$ is closed under any map $\iota_{k}$ defined in Section~\ref{fixedalpha}. However, it is not clear if $\chi_{\epsilon,\alpha}$ can have isolated points. By Theorem~\ref{machet} and Theorem~\ref{alzheimard} isolated points can only occur in the interval $(1,\frac{1}{2\epsilon}+1)$. One may further ask whether there can be finitely many equivalence classes under the equivalence relation $\zeta_{1}\thicksim \zeta_{2} \Leftrightarrow \zeta_{1}^{p}=\zeta_{2}^{q}$ for positive integers $p,q$. Similarly, we infer a cardinality gap corollary from Theorem~\ref{muskatottonel} and Theorem~\ref{machete}. \begin{corollary} \label{kor2} For any $\epsilon>0$, define $\tilde{\zeta}_{1}=\tilde{\zeta}_{1}(\epsilon)$ by \[ \tilde{\zeta}_{1}=\sup \left\{\zeta>1: \left\vert\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}\right\vert\leq \vert \mathbb{Z}\vert\right\} =\inf \left\{\zeta>1: \left\vert\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}\right\vert>\vert \mathbb{Z}\vert\right\}. \] Similarly, for fixed real numbers $b>a$ define $\tilde{\zeta}_{2}=\tilde{\zeta}_{2}(\epsilon,a,b)$ by \[ \tilde{\zeta}_{2}= \sup \left\{\zeta>1: \left\vert\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}\cap(a,b)\right\vert\leq \vert \mathbb{Z}\vert\right\} =\inf \left\{\zeta>1: \left\vert\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}\cap(a,b)\right\vert>\vert \mathbb{Z}\vert\right\}. \] Then $\tilde{\zeta}_{1}\in{\left[\max\{1,\frac{1}{2\epsilon}-1\},1+\frac{1}{\epsilon}\right]}$ and $\tilde{\zeta}_{2}\in{[\tilde{\zeta}_{1},1+\frac{1}{\epsilon}]}\subseteq {\left[\max\{1,\frac{1}{2\epsilon}-1\},1+\frac{1}{\epsilon}\right]}$. \end{corollary} Note that again for given $\zeta>1,\epsilon>0$, the assumption $\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}\neq \emptyset$ is equivalent to $\vert\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}\vert\geq \vert \mathbb{Z}\vert$, since $\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}$ is closed under the maps $\tau_{k,\zeta}$ defined in Section~\ref{fixedzeta}. One may ask whether this is true for $\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}\cap (a,b)$ as well. Moreover, one may ask whether the number of residue classes of $\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}$ under certain equivalence relations is finite. For example \[ \alpha_{1}\thicksim_{1} \alpha_{2} \Leftrightarrow \frac{\alpha_{2}}{\alpha_{1}}=\zeta^{l},\qquad \alpha_{1}\thicksim_{2} \alpha_{2} \Leftrightarrow \alpha_{2}=\alpha_{1}^{m/n}, \qquad \alpha_{1}\thicksim_{3} \alpha_{2} \Leftrightarrow \frac{\alpha_{2}}{\alpha_{1}}=\frac{M}{N}\zeta^{l} \] for integers $M,N,l,m,n$. It probably makes most sense to observe $\thicksim_{3}$ because if $\alpha\in{\varpi_{\epsilon/M,\zeta}}$ then $N\alpha\zeta^{k}\in{\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}}$ for any integers $k,\vert N\vert\leq M$. It follows that we have no finiteness with respect to $\thicksim_{1}$ for any $\epsilon>0$ and $\zeta$ for which $\lim_{n\to\infty} \Vert\alpha\zeta^{n}\Vert=0$ for some $\alpha\neq 0$, such as Pisot numbers $\zeta$. \subsection{Fixed $\zeta$} \label{eps} We consider $\zeta>1$ fixed and interpret the results of Section~\ref{fixedzeta} in terms of the variable $\epsilon>0$. Subsequent to Corollary~\ref{kor2} we noticed that $\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}\neq \emptyset$ implies $\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}\geq \vert \mathbb{Z}\vert$. We now agree on $\sup{\{\emptyset\}}=0$. Recall the quantities $\tilde{\epsilon}_{i}(\zeta)$ from Section~\ref{outline}. The property $\lim_{n\to\infty} \Vert \alpha\zeta^{n}\Vert=0$ for some $\alpha\neq 0$ implies $\tilde{\epsilon}_{1}(\zeta)=0$, but not necessarily vice versa. In particular, Theorem~\ref{pisot} implies $\tilde{\epsilon}_{1}(\zeta)=0$ for any Pisot number $\zeta$. Theorem~\ref{muskatottonel} further implies $\tilde{\epsilon}_{1}(\zeta)\leq \frac{1}{2(\zeta-1)}$. Concerning $\tilde{\epsilon}_{2}$, Theorem~\ref{muskatottonel} implies that for any $\zeta>1$ we have $\tilde{\epsilon}_{2}(\zeta)\leq \frac{1}{\zeta-1}$. Proposition~\ref{lemur} suggests that we should expect $\tilde{\epsilon}_{2}(\zeta)\leq \frac{1}{2(\zeta-1)}$ for almost all $\zeta>1$ in the sense of Lebesgue measure. On the other hand, Theorem~\ref{machete} implies $\tilde{\epsilon}_{2}(\zeta)\geq \frac{1}{2(\zeta+1)}$ for all $\zeta>1$. We sum up some of these observations in a theorem which slightly extends Theorem~\ref{epsilont}. \begin{theorem} \label{epsilon} For any $\zeta>1$ we have \[ 0\leq \tilde{\epsilon}_{1}(\zeta)\leq \min\left\{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2(\zeta-1)}\right\}, \qquad \frac{1}{2(\zeta+1)}\leq \tilde{\epsilon}_{2}(\zeta)\leq \min\left\{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{\zeta-1}\right\}. \] For any $\zeta\in{(1,\infty)\setminus \Gamma}$ we have $\tilde{\epsilon}_{2}(\zeta)\leq \min\{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2(\zeta-1)}\}$. \end{theorem} Since $\lim_{\zeta\to\infty}\frac{1}{2(\zeta-1)}/\frac{1}{2(\zeta+1)}=1$, assuming the existence of arbitrarily large $\zeta\notin{\Gamma}$, we infer the lower bound for $\tilde{\epsilon}_{2}$ is optimal up to any factor greater $1$. We will proof similar unconditioned results for the other bounds in Section~\ref{sektion3}. By virtue of Remark~\ref{auchremark}, the $0$-symmetry of the intervals connected to $\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}$ is only needed in the last claim, which can also be extended by replacing $1/2$ by some other constant in the definition of $\Gamma$. Thus for any $\zeta>1$ and given interval $I$ modulo $1$ of length greater than $1/(\zeta-1)$, there exists $\alpha\neq 0$ such that $\{\alpha\zeta^{n}\}$ lies in $I$ for all large $n$. The results concerning $\tilde{\epsilon}_{2}$ allow a similar interpretation with interval length $2/(\zeta-1)$. \subsection{The special case of algebraic $\zeta>1$} \label{sektion3} In the case of algebraic numbers $\zeta>1$, some bounds in Theorem~\ref{epsilon} can be refined with a result due to Dubickas. Combination with Theorem~\ref{epsilon} will lead to the proof of Theorem~\ref{hot}. For $\zeta$ a Pisot number, we know due to Theorem~\ref{pisot} that $\cap_{\epsilon>0} \varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}\neq \emptyset$ and hence in particular $\tilde{\epsilon}_{1}(\zeta)=0$. Otherwise, if $\zeta>1$ is algebraic but not a Pisot number or a Salem number and $\alpha\neq 0$, Dubickas~\cite[Theorem~1]{5} showed that \begin{equation} \label{eq:dub} \limsup_{n\to\infty} \Vert\alpha\zeta^{n}\Vert\geq \frac{1}{\min\{L(\zeta),2l(\zeta)\}}. \end{equation} The same holds for Pisot and Salem numbers and all $\alpha\notin{\mathbb{Q}(\zeta)}$. More generally, the expression $1/\min\{L(\zeta),2l(\zeta)\}$ is a lower bound for the minimum distance from the smallest to the largest limit point of $\{\alpha\zeta^{n}\}$. Here $L(\zeta)$ is defined as in Section~\ref{cardgap} and $l(\zeta)=l(P)$ is the infimum among all $L(PG)$ where $G\in{\mathbb{R}[X]}$ runs over all polynomials with either leading or constant coefficient $1$, where $P\in{\mathbb{Z}[X]}$ is the minimal polynomial of $\zeta$ in lowest terms. Combination of \eqref{eq:dub} and Theorem~\ref{epsilon} yields for $\zeta>1$ algebraic not a Pisot or a Salem number \begin{equation} \label{eq:tag} \frac{1}{\min\{L(\zeta),2l(\zeta)\}}\leq \tilde{\epsilon}_{1}(\zeta) \leq \min\left\{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2(\zeta-1)}\right\}. \end{equation} In particular $\tilde{\epsilon}_{1}(\zeta)\neq 0$. Furthermore, the estimate \eqref{eq:tag} yields the criterion stated in Theorem~\ref{hot} for an algebraic number to be a Pisot or Salem number. To exclude the case that such $\zeta$ is a Salem number and thus prove Theorem~\ref{hot}, it suffices to notice that Dobrowolski~\cite{dobro} showed that any complex polynomial $P\in\mathbb{C}[X]$ with a root on the unit circle satisfies $L(P)\geq 2 M(P)$. Hence $\zeta \leq M(P)\leq L(P)/2<L(P)/2+1$ for any Salem number $\zeta$ with minimal polynomial $P$. We add a remark concerning \eqref{eq:tag} and Theorem~\ref{hot}. \begin{remark} \label{mahler} The estimate $\zeta-1>l(\zeta)$ in view of \eqref{eq:tag} would allow the conclusion that $\zeta$ must be a Pisot or a Salem number, but it cannot be satisfied. The estimate $M(\zeta)\leq l(\zeta)$ for all algebraic $\zeta$ and $M(\zeta)=M(P)$ the Mahler measure of the minimal polynomial $P$ of $\zeta$ defined in \eqref{eq:tiefet}, is known~\cite{dubbull}. This would lead to $\zeta-1>l(\zeta)\geq M(\zeta)\geq \zeta>\zeta-1$, contradiction. \end{remark} We now allow $\zeta$ to be a Pisot or a Salem number. Since $\mathbb{Q}(\zeta)$ is countable, the estimate \eqref{eq:dub} for $\alpha\notin{\mathbb{Q}(\zeta)}$ and Theorem~\ref{epsilon} further imply \begin{equation} \label{eq:nacht} \frac{1}{\min\{L(\zeta),2l(\zeta)\}}\leq \tilde{\epsilon}_{2}(\zeta) \leq \min\left\{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{\zeta-1}\right\} \end{equation} for any algebraic $\zeta>1$. The consequences $\zeta-1\leq L(\zeta)$ and $\zeta-1\leq 2l(\zeta)$ are already implied by \eqref{eq:hoehet} and Remark~\ref{mahler}, respectively. Moreover, we deduce that the condition $2(\zeta-1)>L(\zeta)$ implies $\frac{1}{2(\zeta-1)}< \frac{1}{L(\zeta)}\leq \tilde{\epsilon}_{2}(\zeta)$ and hence that $\zeta$ is exceptional in the sense of Definition~\ref{exceptional}. Recall this condition is satisfied for the Pisot numbers $\zeta_{m,b}$ from Section~\ref{outline} for large $b$ defined above and the quotient $L(\zeta_{m,b})/(\zeta_{m,b}-1)$ tends to $1$ as $b\to\infty$. The same applies to any integer $\zeta>2$. Similarly to the polynomials $P_{m,b}$ defined in Section~\ref{outline}, consider polynomials of the form $Q_{m,b}(X)=2X^{m}-bX^{m-1}-1$. The largest real root $\eta_{m,b}$ of $Q_{m,b}(X)$ is larger $b/2$ and $L(Q_{m,b})=b+3$, such that $L(\eta_{m,b})/(\eta_{m,b}-1)>2$ is arbitrarily close to $2$ if $b$ is large. Since $Q_{m,b}(X)$ is no Pisot or Salem polynomial we may apply \eqref{eq:tag}. Summing up, we infer Theorem~\ref{notintuitiver}. Its claim can be interpreted in the way that the upper bounds for $\tilde{\epsilon}_{1}, \tilde{\epsilon}_{2}$ in Theorem~\ref{epsilon} (or equivalently those in \eqref{eq:dub}) are not far from being optimal. Moreover Theorem~\ref{notintuitiver} implies that there exist exceptional Pisot numbers of any given degree. Even though any Pisot number belongs to $\Gamma$, see Section~\ref{fixedzeta}, the claim concerning $\tilde{\epsilon}_{2}$ reinterpreted in terms of paths of the tree from Section~\ref{fixedzeta} seems not too intuitive. Given an exceptional Pisot number, for {\em any} given start value $N_{0}\geq 1$, most paths in the corresponding tree $\mathscr{T}=\mathscr{T}(\zeta,1/L(\zeta),N_{0})$ from Section~\ref{fixedzeta} with root $N_{0}$ must be deterministic, i.e. in the path $N_{0},N_{1},\ldots$ the values $\{N_{j}\zeta\}$ avoid the symmetric neighborhood $I(\zeta):=[1-\frac{\zeta-1}{L(\zeta)},\frac{\zeta-1}{L(\zeta)}]\neq \emptyset$ of $1/2$ for all large $j$. Clearly, $I(\zeta)$ is an arbitrarily large subinterval of the entire interval $[0,1]$ if $L(\zeta)/(\zeta-1)$ is sufficiently close to $1$. Moreover, each path leads to an element of $\mathbb{Q}(\zeta)$ via the correspondence from Section~\ref{fixedzeta}, more precisely $\alpha=\lim_{j\to\infty} N_{j}/\zeta^{j}\in{\mathbb{Q}(\zeta)}$. It is not obvious how to prove all of this in an elementary way without Dubickas' result. Numerical computations for $\zeta=\zeta_{2,4}=2+\sqrt{5}$ the root of $X^{2}-4X-1$ and various values of $N_{0}$ affirm however that the fractional parts $\{N_{j}\zeta\}$ are near integers, in particular avoid the corresponding interval \[ I(\zeta_{2,4}):=\left[1-\frac{\zeta_{2,4}-1}{L(\zeta_{2,4})},\frac{\zeta_{2,4}-1}{L(\zeta_{2,4})}\right] =\left[\frac{5-\sqrt{5}}{6},\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{6}\right]\approx[0.4607,0.5393], \] for most paths and rather small $j$. The continued fraction expansion of many of the resulting elements in $\mathbb{Q}(\zeta_{2,4})$ end in period $\overline{4}$. Observe $\zeta_{2,4}=[4;\overline{4}]$. For $N_{0}\in{\{1,3\}}$ there is only one path given by $N_{j+2}=4N_{j+1}+N_{j}$ for $j\geq -1$ and suitable $N_{-1}$. For $N_{0}=2$ there are only two paths with $N_{1}=8$ and $N_{1}=9$ respectively, and $N_{j+2}=4N_{j+1}+N_{j}$ for $j\geq 0$. For $N_{0}=3$, if we increase the avoided interval $I(\zeta_{2,4})$ to say $[0.15,0.85]$, which corresponds to a rise of from $\epsilon=1/L(\zeta)=1/6$ to $\epsilon=0.85/(1+\sqrt{5})\approx 0.2627$, it seems there is a non-deterministic path given by $N_{-1}=1$ and the recurrence $N_{j+2}=4N_{j+1}+N_{j}-1$ for $j\geq -1$, and the resulting tree $\mathscr{T}(\zeta_{2,4},0.2627,3)$ is isomorphic to $\mathscr{T}^{\prime}$ described in Section~\ref{fixedzeta}. In particular the set of paths is no longer finite. For any larger avoided interval or value of $\epsilon$ there should be uncountably many. Recall also that $\alpha\in{\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}}$ does not necessarily induce a path in $\mathscr{T}(\zeta,\epsilon,N_{0})$ for some $N_{0}$, only the reverse claim is proved. On the other hand, the result concerning $\tilde{\epsilon}_{1}$ is intuitive. For $\epsilon=\frac{\delta}{2(\zeta-1)}$ with $\delta\in{(0,1)}$, consider the recursive process defined by $N_{j+1}=\scp{N_{j}\zeta}$ as long as $\zeta\cdot[N_{j}-\epsilon,N_{j}+\epsilon]$ contains the neighborhood $[N_{j+1}-\epsilon,N_{j+1}+\epsilon]$ of $N_{j+1}$, following the proof of Theorem~\ref{muskatottonel}. If for some start value $N_{0}$ the process does not stop, which means $(\{N_{j}\zeta\})_{j\geq 0}$ avoids some interval modulo $1$ centered at $1/2$, it leads to $\alpha\in{\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}}$. The interval length tends to $0$ as $\delta\to 1$. If otherwise for any start value $N_{0}$ the process stops at some index $j=j(N_{0})$, although the process only yields a sufficient criterion, we should expect that there is no arising $\alpha\in{\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}}$. We should also expect that $\{N_{j}\zeta\}$ is dense in $[0,1]$ for any start value $N_{0}$ and any algebraic $\zeta>1$ which is no Pisot number. This argument suggests to conjecture that almost all real $\zeta>2$ satisfy $\tilde{\epsilon}_{1}=\frac{1}{2(\zeta-1)}$ too. Further we add that there is no reason why any Salem number $\zeta$ should belong to $\Gamma$. Thus it is reasonable to expect that no Salem number is exceptional and hence only Pisot numbers can satisfy $2(\zeta-1)>L(\zeta)$. \subsection{The case of rational $\zeta>1$} \label{sektions} For the remainder of the paper we restrict to the case of rational $\zeta>1$. We start with general comments on the distribution of powers of rationals modulo 1. It has been intensely studied, but is still poorly understood. For instance, it is unknown if the sequence $\{(3/2)^{n}\}$ is dense modulo $1$. We quote some known results. From Theorem~\ref{pisot} we infer that $\Vert \alpha\zeta^{n}\Vert$ does not converge to $0$ as $n\to\infty$ for rational $\zeta>1$ which is no integer and any $\alpha\neq 0$. This is equivalent to $\bigcap_{\epsilon>0} \varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}=\emptyset$ for $\zeta\in{\mathbb{Q}\setminus{\mathbb{Z}}}$. More generally, Vijayavagharan~\cite{viya} (see also~\cite{viya2}) proved that the set of accumulation points of $(p/q)^{n}\bmod 1$ is always infinite unless $p/q$ is an integer. Pisot~\cite{pisot2} generalized this by showing that in fact $\alpha \zeta^{n}\bmod 1$ has infinitely many limit points if $\alpha\neq 0$ is real and $\zeta>1$ algebraic, unless in the case where $\zeta$ is a Pisot number and $\alpha\in{\mathbb{Q}(\zeta)}$ where it must fail by Theorem~\ref{pisot}. Dubickas~\cite{dubi} gave another proof of this fact. Now we put our focus predominately on the values $\tilde{\epsilon}_{1}, \tilde{\epsilon}_{2}$. We point out that in contrast to prior results, in the present section the symmetry of the intervals with respect to $0$ modulo $1$ is mostly important. It turns out that it is useful to distinguish the cases of $\zeta$ an integer or not. First let $\zeta>1$ be an integer. Then any rational number of the form $\alpha=M\zeta^{b}$ for $M,b$ integers leads to integers $\alpha\zeta^{n}$ for any $n\geq \vert b\vert$. Hence $\tilde{\epsilon}_{1}(\zeta)=0$ for $\zeta>1$ an integer. Conversely, writing $\alpha$ in base $\zeta$, it is not hard to see that $\lim_{n\to\infty} \Vert \alpha \zeta^{n}\Vert=0$ implies $\alpha\zeta^{n}\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ for all large $n$, and to deduce that $\alpha$ must be of the given form. For rational $\zeta=p/q>1$, the lower bound in \eqref{eq:tag} can be shown to be $1/L(\zeta)=1/(p+q)$. Recall the notion of $\tau(p/q)$ from Section~\ref{outline}. Dubickas improved his result \eqref{eq:dub} from Section~\ref{sektion3} for $\zeta\in{\mathbb{Q}}$ by showing that for every rational $\zeta=p/q>1$ and $\alpha\neq 0$, with $\alpha$ irrational if $\zeta$ is an integer, the estimate \begin{equation} \label{eq:dubgl} \limsup_{n\to\infty}\Vert \alpha(p/q)^{n}\Vert \geq \tau(p/q)= \frac{1}{2q}\left(1-\left(1-\frac{q}{p}\right) \prod_{m\geq 0} \left(1-\left(\frac{q}{p}\right)^{2^{m}}\right) \right) >\frac{1}{p+q} \end{equation} holds~\cite[Theorem~3]{5}. We combine the facts from the integer and the non-integer case. \begin{proposition} \label{weberknecht} For rational $\zeta>1$ we have $\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}\neq \emptyset$ for every $\epsilon>0$ if and only if $\zeta$ is an integer and in this case $\bigcap_{\epsilon>0}\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}=\mathscr{R}(\zeta):=\{M\zeta^{b}: M\in{\mathbb{Z}\setminus\{0\}}, b\in{\mathbb{Z}}\}$. \end{proposition} In view of \eqref{eq:dubgl}, for rational $\zeta=p/q>1$ which is not an integer we have \[ \tilde{\epsilon}_{2}(p/q)\geq\tilde{\epsilon}_{1}(p/q)\geq \tau(p/q). \] Similarly for $\zeta=p/1>1$ an integer, since the numbers that violate \eqref{eq:dubgl}, including $\mathscr{R}(\zeta)$, are rational and thus their set is countable, we have \begin{equation} \label{eq:faktum} \tilde{\epsilon}_{2}(p/1)\geq \tau(p/1). \end{equation} As mentioned in~\cite{dubidu}, it can be shown that $\tau(p/q)>\frac{1}{p}-\frac{q^{2}}{p^{3}}$ for any rational $p/q>1$. Since $\frac{1}{2(p-1)}<\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{p^{3}}<\tau(p/1)$ for $p\geq 3$, this confirms the claim from Section~\ref{fixedzeta} that the set $\mathbb{N}_{\geq 3}$ is contained in the exceptional set defined there. For $\zeta=p/1>1$ an integer, \cite[Corollary~2]{5} shows that for the choice $\alpha=\tau(p/1)$ there is actually equality in \eqref{eq:dubgl}. As mentioned subsequent to Corollary~\ref{kor2}, this means $\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}$ is at least countable for $\epsilon=\tau(p/1)$, since it contains the number $\tau(p/1)p^{m}$ for any integer $m\geq 0$. It is however not clear from the construction in~\cite{5} if there are uncountably many $\alpha\in{\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}}$ for given $\epsilon>\tau(p/1)$, which together with \eqref{eq:faktum} would imply $\tilde{\epsilon}_{2}(p/1)=\tau(p/1)$. Theorem~\ref{muskatottonel} gives the weaker upper bound $1/(\zeta-1)=1/(p-1)$ for $\tilde{\epsilon}_{2}(p/1)$. We can improve this bound with an explicit construction. Consider the set $Z\subseteq \mathbb{R}$ that consists of $\alpha\in{(0,1)}$ whose base $p$ expansion has the following properties: only the digits $0,p-1$ appear, there are at most two consecutive $p-1$ digits and the distance between blocks with two consecutive digits $p-1$ tends to infinity, and the digits $0$ are isolated. In other words, it is derived from the periodic digit sequence $\overline{0,p-1}$ by plugging in single additional $p-1$ digits at large distances. The set $Z$ is obviously uncountable. Furthermore, distinguishing the cases of $n$ such that the first digit after the comma is $0$ and $p-1$ respectively, leads to \begin{align*} \{\alpha\zeta^{n}\}&\leq \frac{p-1}{p^{2}}+\frac{p-1}{p^{3}}+\frac{p-1}{p^{5}} +\frac{p-1}{p^{7}}+\cdots+\frac{p-1}{p^{2l+1}}+\frac{p-1}{p^{2l+2}}+\frac{p-1}{p^{2l+4}}+\ldots, \\ \frac{p-1}{p}&\leq \{\alpha\zeta^{n}\}\leq \frac{p-1}{p}+\frac{p-1}{p^{3}}+\frac{p-1}{p^{5}}+\cdots, \end{align*} respectively for $\alpha\in{Z}$. By construction we may let $l\to\infty$ as $n\to\infty$, so evaluating the geometric series leads to the bounds $(p^{2}+p-1)/(p^{3}+p^{2})$ and $1/(p+1)$ for $\Vert \alpha p^{n}\Vert$, respectively. The first bound is larger, thus $\limsup_{n\to\infty} \Vert \alpha p^{n}\Vert\leq 1/p-1/(p^{3}+p^{2})$ for all $\alpha\in{Z}$. Summarizing the facts on the case $\zeta=p/1$ proves Theorem~\ref{jep}. Now we treat the case $\zeta\in{\mathbb{Q}\setminus \mathbb{Z}}$. In this case we can refine the recursive methods from Theorem~\ref{muskatottonel} and Theorem~\ref{machete}. First recall the definitions and remarks subsequent to Theorem~\ref{muskatottonel}. For $\zeta\in{\mathbb{Q}\setminus \mathbb{Z}}$ the numbers $\{N_{j}\zeta\}$ in any path are contained in the finite set $\{0,1/q,\ldots,(q-1)/q\}$. Thus if $q$ is odd then certainly no path will be dense at $1/2$ and so $\zeta\in{\Gamma}$. For even $q$, in the generic case we should expect $\{N_{j}\zeta\}=1/2$ infinitely often in any path, so $\zeta\notin{\Gamma}$ and thus $\zeta$ is not exceptional. It is hard to predict if this heuristic argument applies to all such rationals. However, we can slightly improve the bound $1/(\zeta-1)=\frac{q}{p-q}$ from Theorem~\ref{muskatottonel} for all rational $\zeta>1$. This will in particular imply that all rationals $p/2$ for $p$ odd are not exceptional. \begin{proposition} \label{p} Let $\zeta=p/q$ with $p>q\geq 2$ and $(p,q)=1$. Then for any $\epsilon\geq \frac{q-1}{p-q}$ the set $\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}$ is uncountable. \end{proposition} \begin{proof} First observe that for every $N_{0}$, the sequence $(N_{j})_{j\geq 1}$ defined by $N_{j+1}=\scp{\zeta N_{j}}$ cannot have the property $\{\zeta N_{j}\}=0$ for all $j\geq j_{0}$. Without loss of generality assume $j_{0}=0$. Indeed, if $\nu_{q}(N_{0})$ denotes the largest power of $q$ dividing $N_{0}$, then $\zeta\cdot N_{\nu_{q}(N_{0})}$ is not an integer. Hence $\Vert\zeta N_{j}\Vert\geq 1/q$ for some $j\geq 0$. It suffices to require $\epsilon\zeta\geq 1+\epsilon-1/q$ to ensure that for any such index $j$ the corresponding interval $\zeta\cdot[N_{j}-\epsilon,N_{j}+\epsilon]$ of length $2\epsilon\zeta$ and midpoint $\zeta N_{j}$ contains two consecutive integers. The condition is equivalent to $\epsilon\geq \frac{q-1}{p-q}$, and repeating this argument shows that the set of paths and thus $\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}$ is uncountable, as carried out preceding Proposition~\ref{lemur}. \end{proof} For odd $q$, we can also slightly improve the upper bound for $\tilde{\epsilon}_{1}(p/q)$ from Theorem~\ref{epsilon}. \begin{proposition} \label{q} Let $\zeta=p/q$ with $p>q\geq 2$ and $(p,q)=1$ and $q$ odd. Then for any $\epsilon\geq \frac{q-1}{2q}\cdot\frac{1}{\zeta-1}=\frac{q-1}{2(p-q)}$ the set $\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}$ is dense in $\mathbb{R}$. \end{proposition} \begin{proof} Again we follow the proof of Theorem~\ref{muskatottonel}. We have to show that for $\epsilon$ as in the proposition, in any step the interval $\zeta\cdot[N_{j}-\epsilon,N_{j}+\epsilon]$ of length $\zeta\epsilon$ contains the symmetric neighborhood of $0$ of length $2\epsilon$ of some integer. Since $q$ is odd, the fractional part $\{N_{j}\zeta\}$ has distance at least $1/(2q)$ from $1/2$. Thus it suffices to have $\zeta\epsilon\geq 1/2+\epsilon-1/(2q)$, which leads to the given bound, to guarantee the claim. \end{proof} For $q=2$, Dubickas~\cite{dubidu} showed that \begin{equation} \label{eq:dualte} \left\Vert \alpha \left(\frac{p}{2}\right)^{n}\right\Vert \leq \frac{1}{p}, \qquad n\geq 0, \end{equation} has a solution $\alpha\neq 0$ for any fixed odd $p\geq 3$. As remarked in~\cite{dub}, it follows from \eqref{eq:dubgl} that the bound in \eqref{eq:dualte} cannot be improved to $p^{-1}-4p^{-3}<\tau(p/1)$. Finally, the bound from Theorem~\ref{machete} can be slightly improved for $q$ odd with a similar method. \begin{proposition} \label{r} Let with $p>q\geq 2$ and $(p,q)=1$ and $q$ odd. Then for any $\epsilon< \frac{q+1}{2q}\cdot\frac{1}{\zeta+1}=\frac{q+1}{2(p+q)}$ the set $\varpi_{\epsilon,\zeta}$ is at most countable. \end{proposition} \begin{proof} Proceed as in the proof of Theorem~\ref{machete}. Note that since $q$ is odd we have $\vert \{\zeta M\}-1/2\vert\geq 1/2q$ for any integer $M$. Hence, given $M_{n}$, for $\vert M_{n}\zeta-M_{n+1}\vert\leq \epsilon$ to determine a unique $M_{n+1}$, it suffices to assume $(\zeta+1)\epsilon<1/2+1/(2q)$. Rearrangement leads to the given bound. \end{proof} Now we have all ingredients to prove Theorem~\ref{gutkort}. \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem 2.6] Combination of \eqref{eq:dubgl}, \eqref{eq:dualte}, Theorem~\ref{epsilon}, Proposition~\ref{p}, Proposition~\ref{q} and Proposition~\ref{r} in terms of the quantities $\tilde{\epsilon}_{1},\tilde{\epsilon}_{2}$. \end{proof} We enclose several remarks concerning Theorem~\ref{gutkort}. The lower bounds are always non-trivial, whereas the upper bounds are only in case of $\zeta$ not too small. Moreover, for $q\geq 2$, indeed $\tau(p/q)< \frac{q}{2(p-q)}$ which enables the first inequality. Recall that for $q=1$, we have $\frac{1}{p+1}<\tau(p/1)$ such that $\tau(p/1)\leq \frac{q}{2(p-q)}$ cannot hold for any $p\geq 3$. However, $q=1$ is excluded in Theorem~\ref{gutkort}. It further follows from $1/(p+q)<\tau(p/q)$ that for $q=2$ the refined upper bound $\frac{q-1}{2(p-q)}$ for $\tilde{\epsilon}_{1}(p/q)$ is not valid at least for $p\geq 7$. This corresponds to the fact that the fractional parts $\{N_{j}(p/2)\}$ must equal $1/2$ infinitely often in any path in Proposition~\ref{q} by a very similar argument as in the proof of Proposition~\ref{p}. It is easily checked that the maximum in the lower bound for $\tilde{\epsilon}_{2}$ coincides with $\frac{q}{2(p+q)}$ (resp. $\frac{q+1}{2(p+q)}$) unless $q=2$. In particular one may drop the expression $\tau(p/q)$ in the maximum in \eqref{eq:diebt} without any loss. Notice also that the remarks preceding Proposition~\ref{p} suggest that actually $\frac{q}{2(p-q)}$ should be an upper bound for $\tilde{\epsilon}_{2}(p/q)$ for even $q\geq 4$ too (this is true for $q=2$ since the bound coincides with $\frac{q-1}{p-q}$). Next we prove Theorem~\ref{hundertt}, which confirms the bound $1/(p+q)$ from \eqref{eq:tag} for rational $\zeta=p/q>1$ with an easier proof and contains some additional new information. The proof is related to the proof of Proposition~\ref{p}. \begin{proof} [Proof of Theorem 2.7] First we show it is true for any $\epsilon$ with strict inequality $\epsilon<1/(p+q)$. Assume the claim is false. Then in particular $\Vert \alpha\zeta^{n}\Vert < 1/(p+q)$ for all $n\geq n_{0}(\alpha,\zeta)$. Write $\alpha\zeta^{n}=A_{n}+\delta_{n}$ with integers $A_{n}=\scp{\alpha\zeta^{n}}$ and $-1/(p+q)< \delta_{n}< 1/(p+q)$. Then $\alpha\zeta^{n+1}=\frac{p}{q}A_{n}+\frac{p}{q}\delta_{n}$. If $\frac{p}{q}A_{n}$ is no integer, then it has distance at least $1/q$ to the nearest integer. But $\vert \frac{p}{q}\delta_{n}\vert< \frac{p}{q}\cdot\frac{1}{p+q}=\frac{p}{q(p+q)}$. So we have \[ \Vert \alpha\zeta^{n+1}\Vert > \frac{1}{q}-\frac{p}{q(p+q)}=\frac{1}{p+q}>\delta_{n+1} \] by triangular inequality, a contradiction. Hence $\frac{p}{q}A_{n}$ must be an integer and clearly $\scp{\alpha \zeta^{n+1}}= \frac{p}{q}A_{n}=A_{n+1}$ again by $\vert \frac{p}{q}\delta_{n}\vert< \frac{p}{q(p+q)}$. However, this applies to $n+1,n+2,\ldots$ as well by the same argument. Hence $A_{n+j}=(p/q)^{j}A_{n}$ for all $0\leq j\leq l$. Since $\alpha\neq 0$ by definition, and we may assume that $n$ is large enough such that $A_{n}\neq 0$, the integer $A_{n}\neq 0$ can only be divisible by at most $\log A_{n}/\log q$ powers of $q$. Note that $A_{n}=\vert\scp{\alpha(p/q)^{n}}\vert\leq \vert\alpha\vert(p/q)^{n}+1/2$. Thus \[ l\leq \frac{\log A_{n}}{\log q} \leq n\cdot\left(\frac{\log p}{\log q}-1\right)+\log \vert\alpha\vert+o(1), \qquad n\to\infty. \] It remains to extend the result to $\epsilon=1/(p+q)$. If there are at most finitely many integers $m$ such that $\Vert \alpha(p/q)^{m}\Vert=1/(p+q)$, then the assertion is implied by our proof of the case $\epsilon<1/(p+q)$. We show this is always true. For any $m$ with equality, we have the equation $\alpha(\frac{p}{q})^{m}=M_{m}\pm \frac{1}{p+q}$ for an integer $M_{m}$. It follows $\alpha$ must be rational too, say $\alpha=a/b$ with integers $a,b$, and the equation becomes $(p+q)(ap^{m}-M_{m}bq^{m})=\pm bq^{m}$. For a prime $r$ denote by $\nu_{r}(.)$ the multiplicity of $r$. By $(p,q)=1$, any prime divisor $r$ of $q$ is not contained in $p+q$, and for $m>\nu_{r}(a)$ we have $\nu_{r}(ap^{m}-M_{m}bq^{m})= \nu_{r}(a)$. On the other hand, $\nu_{r}(bq^{m})\geq \nu_{r}(q^{m})\geq m$. Hence for any $m>\nu_{r}(a)$ we cannot have equality. \end{proof} \begin{remark} It suffices to take $n\geq n_{0}=n_{0}(\alpha,\zeta):=\max\{0,-\log \vert\alpha\vert/\log (p/q)\}$ to ensure $A_{n}\neq 0$. Theorem~\ref{hundertt} in particular yields $l\ll_{\alpha,\zeta} n$. \end{remark} \begin{remark} The last part of the proof could have been inferred from the more general~\cite[Lemma~2.1]{dubidu}. It asserts that for $p/q\in{\mathbb{Q}\setminus \mathbb{Z}}$ the equation $\{\alpha(p/q)^{n}\}=t$ can have only finitely many solutions $n$ for any $t\in{[0,1)}$ and fixed $\alpha\neq 0$. In this context, we want to add that if $\{\alpha\zeta^{n}\}=t$ for real $\zeta\neq 0, \alpha\neq 0, t\in{[0,1)}$ and at least three values $n$, then $\alpha,\zeta,t$ have to be all algebraic. Indeed, if there exist integers $n_{i},N_{i}$ such that $\alpha\zeta^{n_{i}}=N_{i}+t$ for $1\leq i\leq 3$, then $(\zeta^{n_{3}}-\zeta^{n_{2}})/(\zeta^{n_{2}}-\zeta^{n_{1}})\in{\mathbb{Q}}$. This can be transformed in a polynomial equation with rational coefficients, so $\zeta$ must be algebraic. Thus $\alpha=(N_{2}-N_{1})/(\zeta^{n_{2}}-\zeta^{n_{1}})$ implies $\alpha$ must be algebraic as well, hence $t$ as well. On the other hand, for $\zeta$ a root of an integer, $\alpha\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ and $t=0$, there are infinitely many integers $n$ such that $\{\alpha\zeta^{n}\}=t$. It can be shown that at least for $t=0$, the restrictions $\zeta=\sqrt[m]{N}$ and $\alpha=\frac{A}{B}\zeta^{g}$ for integers $N,A,B,g$ are necessary too, see~\cite[Proposition~2.27]{schlei}. \end{remark} \subsection{The asymmetric case} \label{ende} For sake of completeness we quote some more facts concerning the distribution of $\alpha\zeta^{n}$ for rational $\zeta>1$ concerning intervals mod $1$ whose center is not $0$. Many of these can be found (without proofs) on the first page of~\cite{28} too. Tijdeman~\cite{22} showed that \begin{equation} \label{eq:butter} 0\leq \left\{\alpha \left(\frac{p}{q}\right)^{n}\right\}\leq \frac{q-1}{p-q}, \qquad n\geq 0 \end{equation} has a solution $\alpha\in{[m,m+1)}$ for any rational number $p/q$ and $m\geq 1$. We recognize the upper bound as the bound for $\tilde{\epsilon}_{2}$ in Theorem~\ref{gutkort}, where the interval has twice the length. The length for the $0$-symmetric interval concerning $\tilde{\epsilon}_{1}$ in Theorem~\ref{gutkort} has the same length for odd $q$ and is slightly larger for even $q$. Clearly \eqref{eq:butter} never admits an improvement of the upper bound for $\tilde{\epsilon}_{1}$ in Theorem~\ref{gutkort}. In particular for $q=2$ and odd $p\geq 3$, we obtain from \eqref{eq:butter} that \begin{equation} \label{eq:birne} 0\leq \left\{\alpha \left(\frac{p}{2}\right)^{n}\right\}\leq \frac{1}{p-2}, \qquad n\geq 0 \end{equation} has a solution $\alpha\in{[m,m+1)}$ for integer $m\geq 1$. Compare \eqref{eq:birne} to \eqref{eq:dualte}. Dubickas bound \eqref{eq:tag}, or equivalently Theorem~\ref{hundertt}, show that the upper bounds in \eqref{eq:butter} cannot be improved to $1/(p+q)$. In particular, the bounds in \eqref{eq:dualte}, \eqref{eq:birne} cannot be replaced by $1/(p+2)$ for any pair $(p,\alpha)$ with odd $p\geq 5$ and real $\alpha\neq 0$. Conversely, the uniform bounds in \eqref{eq:tag} and Theorem~\ref{hundertt} are not far from being optimal, in particular if $\zeta=p/q$ is large. In the famous special case $\zeta=3/2$, it was shown in~\cite{24} that \[ \limsup_{n\to\infty} \left\{\alpha \left(\frac{3}{2}\right)^{n}\right\}- \liminf_{n\to\infty} \left\{\alpha \left(\frac{3}{2}\right)^{n}\right\}\geq \frac{1}{3} \] for any $\alpha>0$. More generally, Theorem~1 in~\cite{dubi2} due to Dubickas asserts \[ \limsup_{n\to\infty} \left\{ \alpha\left(\frac{p}{q}\right)^{n}\right\} - \liminf_{n\to\infty} \left\{\alpha\left(\frac{p}{q}\right)^{n}\right\} \geq \frac{1}{p} \] for $p/q\notin{\mathbb{Z}}$ greater than $1$ and all $\alpha\neq 0$, such as all irrational $\alpha$ if $p/q=p$ is an integer. As pointed out in~\cite{dubi2}, in the integer case $\zeta=p/1$ the bound $1/p$ is sharp, and $\alpha$ with equality can be readily constructed. For further results on (unions of) subintervals of $[0,1]$ containing the numbers $\{\alpha(p/q)^{n}\}$ for all $n\geq 1$ and a given rational $p/q$, or for which such $\alpha$ does not exist, see~\cite{dubidu}. Choquet~\cite{23} proved there exists $\alpha$ such that $1/19\leq \{\alpha(3/2)^{n}\}\leq 1-1/19$ for all $n\geq 1$. On the other hand, we have \[ \inf_{\alpha\neq 0}\limsup_{n\to\infty} \left\Vert \alpha(p/q)^{n}-\frac{1}{2}\right\Vert \geq \frac{1-e(q/p)T(q/p)}{2q} \] due to Dubickas~\cite{5}, where $e(q/p)=1-q/p$ if $p+q$ is even and $e(q/p)=1$ if $p+q$ is odd and $T(z):=\prod_{m\geq 0} (1-z^{2^{m}})$. Hence $1/19\approx 0.0526$ cannot be replaced by $1/2-(1-T(2/3))/4\approx 0.2856$. \vspace{1cm} The author thanks the anonymous referee for the careful review and A. Dubickas for pointing out the paper of E. Dobrowolski to improve the initial version of Theorem~\ref{hot}.
\section{Introduction} Photonics is emerging as a popular practical platform for the exploration of Parity-Time (PT)-symmetric systems characterized by balanced loss and gain and having a threshold point at which real eigenfrequencies of the system coalesce to become complex conjugates \cite{bender99,lin11,chong11,benisty12}. The existence of this threshold point is essential to the unique properties of PT-structures, such as unidirectional invisibility and simultaneous lasing and absorption\cite{lin11,chong11}. This phenomena opens new avenues for the realization of practical devices such as lasers, optical memory, optical switches and logic-gates\cite{lupu13,nazari11,hodaei14,longhi14,phang13,phang15,kulishov13}. To date, PT-symmetric structures based on Bragg gratings and coupled optical systems have been investigated both theoretically \cite{lin11,chong11,phang14a,benisty12,jones12,ctyroky10,ctyroky14,ganainy07,greenberg04,longhi10,longhi14,nolting96} and experimentally \cite{ruter10,peng14,peng14b,regensburger13,chang14,feng14}. Recently, a PT-symmetric system based on two coupled microresonators and two fiber-taper waveguides has been experimentally demonstrated and shown to exhibit direction-dependent behavior at a record low power of 1$\mu$W \cite{peng14,feng14}. This is primarily attributed to strong field localization and build up of energy in the resonant whispering gallery modes\cite{peng14,feng14}, and has further strengthened the argument for using resonant structures rather than waveguides as building blocks of PT-symmetric systems. In contrast to PT symmetric coupled waveguide systems where the eigenmodes are purely real below the threshold point, the PT symmetric coupled microresonators have complex eigenfrequencies below the threshold point due to inherent radiation losses\cite{chong11,benisty12,longhi10,ctyroky10}. In this paper we investigate the fundamental properties of the PT resonant system based on two coupled whispering gallery resonators within the context of both realistic material properties and practical operating constraints. In particular we discuss how practical dispersive properties of material gain and loss that satisfy the Kramers-Kronig relationship affect the performance of microcavity-based PT resonant structures. Our surprising conclusion is that accounting for large, yet realistic, levels of dispersion preserves the essential threshold-behaviour predicted by completely PT-symmetric dispersionless models, while more moderate levels of dispersion can completely change the character of the response of the system to increasing gain and loss. In particular, when there is moderate dispersion the gain and loss materials respond differently to frequency shifts in such a way that sharp threshold points give way to gradual changes over a range of parameters. When dispersion is increased further, the response reverts to threshold behaviour of the type seen in non-dispersive PT-symmetric systems, albeit with some breaking of detailed quantitative symmetry. Our recent work on dispersive PT-Bragg gratings has shown that material dispersion limits the unidirectional invisibility to a single frequency which is in stark contrast to previous results that assumed idealized gain/loss profile in order to demonstrate wideband unidirectional behavior\cite{phang14a,phang14b}. In this paper, the performance of the microresonator-based PT system is analyzed for practical scenarios involving: a) frequency mismatch between the cavity resonant frequency and the gain pump frequency and, b) imperfect balance of the gain and loss in the system. The analysis of the microresonator-based PT system is achieved using an exact representation of the problem based on boundary integral equations and explicit analytical results are given for a weakly coupled system using perturbation analysis\cite{creagh01}. We concentrate on the weakly-coupled limit in our detailed calculations because that captures the essential properties of the threshold behavior of the PT-symmetry while allowing simple analytical calculations to be used. Finally, real-time field evolution in a two microresonator PT-symmetric system is analyzed for different levels of dispersion using the numerical time domain Transmission Line Modelling (TLM) method\cite{christopulos,paul99,phang13}. \section{PT symmetric coupled microresonators} In this section we describe the theoretical background of a PT-symmetric system based on two coupled microresonators. The system, in which both microresonators have radius $a$ and are separated by a gap $g$, is illustrated schematically in Fig. \ref{fig:illus}. The active and passive microresonators have complex refractive indices $n_G$ and $n_L$ respectively, that are typically chosen to satisfy the PT condition $n_G = n_L^*$, where ‘*’ denotes complex conjugate, $n=(n'+jn'')$, and $n'$ and $n''$ represent the real and imaginary parts of the refractive index. In practice, localized gain might be achieved by means of erbium doping and optical pumping of the active microresonator, while masking the lossy microresonator as in\cite{ruter10,peng14,feng14,peng14b}. Both resonators are assumed to be surrounded by air. \begin{figure}[tbp] \centering \includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{illus} \caption[Schematic of two coupled cylindrical microresonators of radius $a$ and separated by a distance $g$. $\mu R_G$ and $\mu L_G$ denote gain and lossy microresonator, respectively.]{Schematic of two coupled cylindrical microresonators or radius a and separated by a distance g. Microresonators with gain and loss are denoted by $\mu R_G$ and $\mu R_L$, respectively.} \label{fig:illus} \end{figure} The refractive index of dispersive materials is frequency dependent but must also satisfy the causality property between the real and imaginary parts of the material refractive index\cite{landau,zyablovsky14}. The material properties are conveniently modelled by assuming a dielectric constant that uses a Lorentzian model for dispersion as in\cite{hagness} \begin{equation} \varepsilon_r(\omega) = \varepsilon_\infty-j\frac{\sigma_0}{2\varepsilon_0\omega}\left(\frac{1}{1+j(\omega+\omega_\sigma)\tau} + \frac{1}{1+j(\omega-\omega_\sigma)\tau} \right). \end{equation} Here $\varepsilon_\infty$ denotes the permittivity at infinity, $\omega_\sigma$ denotes the atomic transitional angular frequency, $\tau$ is the dipole relaxation time and $\sigma_0$ is related to the conductivity peak value that is set by the pumping level at $\omega_\sigma$. The time-varying component has been assumed to be of the form $e^{j\omega t}$ and therefore $\sigma_0>0$ denotes loss while $\sigma_0<0$ denotes gain. The parameter $\tau$ controls the degree of dispersion, with $\tau=0$ corresponding to a dispersion-less system. Throughout this paper, the frequency-dependent refractive index is expressed as $n=\sqrt{\varepsilon_r(\omega)}$ and the material gain/loss parameter is expressed using the imaginary part of refractive index as $\gamma=\omega n^{''}$. \section{Analysis of inter-resonator coupling in the frequency domain} We now provide an analysis of coupling between resonators based on boundary integral methods. This approach is particularly suited to perturbative approximation of the coupling strength in the weak coupling limit but also provides an efficient platform for exact calculation when coupling is strong. The calculation is based on an approach used in\cite{creagh01} to describe coupling between fully bound states in coupled resonators and optical fibers, but adapted here to allow for radiation losses. It is also similar to methods used in\cite{smotrova06,smotrova13,boriskina06}. \subsection{Notation and assumptions} We assume resonators of radius $a$, uniform refractive index and TM boundary conditions. Then the mode taking the form $\psi_L=(J_m(n_Lkr)/J_m(n_Lka))e^{jm\theta}$ inside the isolated lossy resonator is such that the solution and its normal derivative on the boundary of the resonator can be written as \begin{equation}\label{useF} a\dydxv{\psi_L}{n} = F^{L}_m \psi_L, \end{equation} where \begin{equation}\label{defF} F^{L}_m = \frac{zJ_m'(z)}{J_m(z)} \qquad\mbox{and \qquad $z=n_{L}ka$}, \end{equation} where, $k$ is the free-space wave number and $\psi_G$ and $F^G_m$ being defined similarly for the gain resonator. The treatment of coupling in the remainder of this section can be used for other circularly-symmetric resonators such as those with graded refractive index or with different boundary conditions, as long as an appropriately modified $F^L_m$ is substituted in (\ref{useF}). \subsection{Exact solution using boundary-integral representation } An exact boundary integral representation of the coupled problem is conveniently achieved by applying Green's identities to a region $\Omega$ which excludes the resonators, along with an infinitesimally small layer surrounding them (so that the boundaries $B_G$ and $B_L$ of the resonators themselves lie just outside $\Omega$). In $\Omega$, we assume that the refractive index takes the value $n_0=1$, so that the free-space Green's function is \begin{equation} G_0({\bf x},{\bf x}') = -\frac{j}{4} H_0 (k|{\bf x}-{\bf x}'|), \end{equation} where $H_0(z) = J_0(z)-jY_0(z)$ denotes the Hankel function of the second kind (and the solution is assumed to have time dependence ${\rm e}^{j\omega t}$). Then, applying Green's identities to the region $\Omega$ and assuming radiating boundary conditions at infinity leads to the equation \begin{equation}\label{Green} 0 = \int_{B_G+B_L} \left(G_0({\bf x},{\bf x}')\dydxv{\psi({\bf x}')}{n'}- \dydxv{G_0({\bf x},{\bf x}')}{n'}\psi({\bf x}')\right)\d s' \end{equation} when ${\bf x}$ lies on either $B_L$ or $B_G$ (and therefore just outside of $\Omega$). We now expand the solution on the respective resonator boundaries as Fourier series, \begin{equation} \psi_G = \sum_m \alpha_m^G {\rm e}^{jm\theta_G} \qquad\mbox{and}\qquad \psi_L = \sum_m \alpha_m^L {\rm e}^{jm\theta_L}, \end{equation} in the polar angles $\theta_G$ and $\theta_L$ centered respectively on the gain and lossy resonators, running in opposite senses in each resonator and zeroed on the line joining the two centers. The corresponding normal derivatives can be written \begin{equation} \dydxv{\psi_G}{n} = \sum_m \frac{1}{a} F_m^G \alpha_m^G {\rm e}^{jm\theta_G} \qquad\mbox{and}\qquad \dydxv{\psi_G}{n} = \sum_m \frac{1}{a} F_m^G \alpha_m^G {\rm e}^{jm\theta_G}. \end{equation} Using Graf's theorem\cite{abramowitz} to expand the Green's function $G_0({\bf x},{\bf x}')$ analogously in polar coordinates on each boundary, the integral equation (\ref{Green}), evaluated separately for ${\bf x}$ on $B_L$ and on $B_G$, leads to a pair of matrix equations \begin{eqnarray}\label{sys1} D^G\alpha^G+ C^{GL} \alpha^L&=& 0\nonumber\\ C^{LG}\alpha^G+ D^L \alpha^L&=& 0. \end{eqnarray} Here, \begin{equation} \alpha^G = \left(\begin{array}{c}\vdots\\\alpha_m^G\\\alpha_{m+1}^G\\\vdots\end{array}\right) \qquad\mbox{and}\qquad \alpha^L = \left(\begin{array}{c}\vdots\\\alpha_m^L\\\alpha_{m+1}^L\\\vdots\end{array}\right) \end{equation} are Fourier representations of the solution on the boundaries of the gain and lossy resonators respectively. The matrices $D^G$ and $D^L$ are diagonal with entries \begin{equation} D^{G,L}_{mm} = J_m(u)H_m(u)\left(F_m^{G,L}-\frac{uH_m'(u)}{H_m(u)}\right), \qquad\mbox{where $u = ka$}, \end{equation} and provide the solutions of the isolated resonators. The matrices $C^{GL}$ and $C^{LG}$ describe coupling between the resonators. The matrix $C^{GL}$ has entries of the form \begin{equation} C_{lm}^{GL} = J_l(u)H_{l+m}(w) J_m(u) \left(F_m^{L}-\frac{u_L J_m'(u)}{J_m(u)}\right), \end{equation} where $u=ka$, $w = kb$ and $b$ is the center-center distance between the gain and lossy resonators. The matrix $C^{LG}$ is defined analogously by exchanging the labels $G$ and $L$. \subsection{PT-symmetry in the exact solution} The system (\ref{sys1}) can be presented more symmetrically by using the scaled Fourier coefficients \begin{equation} \tilde{\alpha}^L_m = J_m(u) \left(F_m^L-\frac{uJ_m'(u)}{J_m(u)}\right) \alpha_m^L \end{equation} (along with an analogous definition of $\tilde{\alpha}_m^G$). Then (\ref{sys1}) can be rewritten \begin{eqnarray}\label{sys2} \tilde{D}^G\tilde{\alpha}^G+ \tilde{C} \tilde{\alpha}^L&=& 0\nonumber\\ \tilde{C}\tilde{\alpha}^G+ \tilde{D}^L \tilde{\alpha}^L&=& 0, \end{eqnarray} where the diagonal matrices $\tilde{D}^{G,L}$ have entries \begin{equation} \tilde{D}^{G,L}_{mm} = -j \frac{H_m(u)F_m^{G,L}-uH_m'(u)}{J_m(u)F_m^{G,L}-uJ_m'(u)}, \qquad\mbox{where $u = ka$}, \end{equation} and the same (symmetric) matrix $\tilde{C}$, with entries \begin{equation} \tilde{C}_{lm} =-j H_{l+m}(w), \end{equation} couples solutions in both directions. We have included an overall factor of $-j$ in these equations to emphasise an approximate PT-symmetry that occurs when $n_G=n_L^*$. Then, in the limit of high-$Q$ whispering gallery resonances for which we may approximate \begin{equation} jH_m(u)\simeq Y_m(u)\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad jH_{l+m}(u)\simeq Y_{l+m}(u), \end{equation} the matrices in (\ref{sys2}) satisfy the conditions \begin{equation} \left(\tilde{D}^L\right)^* \simeq \tilde{D}^G \qquad\mbox{and}\qquad \tilde{C}^* \simeq \tilde{C} \end{equation} which are a manifestation of PT symmetry of the system as a whole: deviation from these conditions is due to radiation losses. \subsection{Perturbative weak-coupling approximation} The system of equations (\ref{sys2}) can be used as the basis of an efficient numerical method for determining the resonances of the coupled system with arbitrary accuracy. In practice, once the gap $g=b-2a $ between the resonators is wavelength-sized or larger, a truncation of the full system to a relatively small number of modes suffices to describe the full solution. In the limit of very weak coupling we may achieve an effective perturbative approximation by restricting our calculation to a single mode in each resonator. We consider in particular the case of near left-right symmetry in which \begin{equation} n_G\approx n_L. \end{equation} PT symmetry is achieved by further imposing $n_G=n_L^*$, but for now we allow for the effects of dispersion by not assuming that this is the case. We build the full solution around modes for which \begin{equation} \psi_{\pm} \approx \psi_G \pm \psi_L, \end{equation} where $\psi_G$ and $\psi_L$ are the solutions of the isolated resonators described at the beginning of this section. We use a single value of $m$ for both $\psi_G$ and $\psi_L$ and in particular approximate the global mode using a chiral state in which the wave circulates in opposite senses in each resonator. That is, we neglect the coupling between $m $ and $-m$ that occurs in the exact solution. Then a simple perturbative approximation is achieved by truncating the full system of equations (\ref{sys2}) to the $2\times 2$ system \begin{equation} M \left( \begin{array}{c}\tilde{\alpha}^G_{mm}\\ \tilde{\alpha}^L_{mm}\end{array} \right) = 0, \qquad\mbox{where}\quad M=\left( \begin{array}{cc}\tilde{D}^G_{mm}&\tilde{C}_{mm}\\\tilde{C}_{mm}&\tilde{D}^L_{mm}\end{array} \right). \end{equation} Resonant frequencies of the coupled problem are then realised when \begin{equation} 0 = \det M = \tilde{D}^G_{mm}\tilde{D}^L_{mm}-\tilde{C}_{mm}^2. \end{equation} In the general, dispersive and non-PT-symmetric, case this reduces the calculation to a semi-analytic solution in which we search for the (complex) roots of the known $2\times 2$ determinant above, in which matrix elements depend on frequency through both $k=\omega/c$ and $n=n(\omega)$. \subsection{Further analytic development of the perturbative solution} To develop a perturbative expansion we let \begin{equation} D_{mm}^0 = \frac{1}{2}\left(\tilde{D}_{mm}^G+\tilde{D}_{mm}^L\right) \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad D_{mm}^I = \frac{1}{2j}\left(\tilde{D}_{mm}^G-\tilde{D}_{mm}^L\right) \end{equation} (and note that in the high-$Q$-factor PT-symmetric case, $\tilde{D}^G\simeq(\tilde{D}^L)^*$, both $D_{mm}^0$ and $D_{mm}^I$ are approximately real). We assume that both $D^I_{mm}$ and $C_{mm}$ are small and comparable in magnitude, and expand angular frequency \begin{equation} \omega_{1,2} = \omega_0 \pm \frac{\Delta\omega_0}{2} + \cdots \end{equation} about a real resonant angular frequency of an averaged isolated resonator satisfying \begin{equation} D^0_{mm}(\omega_0) = 0. \end{equation} Then to first order the coupled resonance condition becomes \begin{equation} 0=\det M = \Delta\omega_0^2 {D_{mm}^0}'(\omega_0)^2 + D_{mm}^I(\omega_0)^2-\tilde{C}_{mm}(\omega_0)^2 + \cdots \end{equation} from which the angular frequency shifts can be written \begin{equation}\label{getomega1} \frac{\Delta\omega_0}{2} = \frac{\sqrt{\tilde{C}_{mm}(\omega_0)^2-D_{mm}^I(\omega_0)^2}}{{D_{mm}^0}'(\omega_0)}, \end{equation} where ${D_{mm}^0}'(\omega)$ denotes a derivative of $D_{mm}^0(\omega)$ with respect to frequency. We then arrive at a simple condition \[ \tilde{C}_{mm}(\omega_0)^2=D_{mm}^I(\omega_0)^2 \] for threshold (at which $\Delta\omega_0$ and the two resonant frequencies of the coupled system collide). In the PT-symmetric case, where $\tilde{C}_{mm}$ and $D_{mm}^I$ are approximately real (and whose small imaginary parts represent corrections due to radiation losses), we therefore have a prediction for a real threshold frequency. \section{Results and discussions} In this section, the impact of dispersion on the performance of the PT coupled microresonators is analyzed. Frequency mismatch between the resonant frequency of the microresonator and gain pump frequency is investigated for practical levels of dispersion and the practical implications of a slight unbalance between the gain and loss in the system are investigated. We conclude the section with an investigation of how coupling between resonators manifests itself in the time development of solutions. \subsection{Effects of dispersion on threshold behavior in the frequency domain.} For all cases, weakly coupled microresonators are considered, the coupled resonators with a dielectric constant $\varepsilon_\infty =3.5$\cite{hagness} have radius $a = 0.54 \mu\mbox{m}$ and are separated by distance $g = 0.24 \mu\mbox{m}$. Transverse-magnetic (TM) polarization is considered and operation at two different whispering-gallery modes is analysed, namely a low $Q$-factor mode (7,2) and a high $Q$-factor mode (10,1). The corresponding isolated resonator resonant frequencies are respectively $f_0^{(7,2)}=341.59\mbox{THz}$ and $f_0^{(10,1)}=336.85\mbox{THz}$, with $Q$-factors $Q^{(7,2)}=2.73\times10^3$ and $Q^{(10,1)}=1.05\times10^7$. \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{spliting} \caption{Frequency bifurcation of PT-coupled microresonator with a balanced gain ($\gamma_G=-\gamma_0$) and loss ($\gamma_L=\gamma_0$) as a function of gain/loss parameter at the peak of pumping beam $\gamma_0=\omega_{\sigma}n^{''}(\omega_{\sigma}$) for three different dispersion parameters, (a,b) $\omega\tau=0$, (c,d) $\omega\tau=212$ and (e,f) $\omega\tau=0.7$} \label{fig:spliting} \end{figure} Figure \ref{fig:spliting} shows the real and imaginary part of the eigenfrequencies $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$ of the PT-symmetric coupled microresonators with balanced gain and loss, $\gamma_0=-\gamma_G=\gamma_L$, and is depicted as a function of the gain/loss parameter $\gamma_0=|\omega_0n^{''}(\omega_0)|$ for both the low and high $Q$-factor modes. The gain and loss are assumed to be tuned to the resonant frequency of an isolated microresonator, i.e. $\omega_\sigma=\omega_0\equiv2\pi f_0$. Three different levels of dispersion, controlled by the parameter $\tau$ defined in Sec. 2, are considered. These are $\omega_\sigma\tau=0$ corresponding to the case of no dispersion, $\omega_\sigma\tau=212$ taken from\cite{hagness} to exemplify the case of high dispersion and $\omega_\sigma\tau=0.7$ to exemplify the case of low dispersion. Figure \ref{fig:spliting}(a,b) shows the frequency splitting of the real and imaginary part of the complex eigenfrequencies for the case of no dispersion. In the absence of gain/loss, where $\gamma_0=0$, the supermodes beat at a rate corresponding to the frequency differences $\omega_1-\omega_2=3.823\mbox{ rad/ps}$ and 1.164 rad/ps for the (7,2) and (10,1) modes respectively. Figure \ref{fig:spliting}(a) indicates that operation in a higher $Q$-factor mode results in weaker coupling between the microresonators compared to the case of operation in the lower $Q$-factor mode. Increasing the gain and loss in the system, decreases the beating rate and the supermodes coalesce at the threshold points of $\gamma_0=6.86\mbox{ rad/ps}$ and 2.1 rad/ps for the low and high $Q$-factor modes of operation respectively, confirming that the high-$Q$ factor mode has a lower threshold point\cite{peng14}. In the case of operation in the low $Q$-factor mode, the eigenfrequencies shown in Fig. \ref{fig:spliting}(b) have a significant constant and positive imaginary part before the threshold point, which is a consequence of the higher intrinsic losses due to radiation in that case. The corresponding imaginary part is insignificant in the case of the high Q-factor mode, for which radiation losses are much smaller. Furthermore it is noted here that the coupled system first starts to lase, i.e. one of the eigenfrequencies satisfies $\mbox{Im}(\omega_{1,2}-\omega_0)<0$, only when operated significantly beyond the threshold $\gamma_0=7\mbox{ rad/ps}$ for the low $Q$-factor operation while this onset occurs immediately after the threshold point in the high $Q$-factor case. Figure \ref{fig:spliting}(c,d) shows the real and imaginary parts of the eigenfrequencies for the case of strong dispersion, corresponding to the parameter values $\omega_\sigma\tau=212$ taken from\cite{hagness}. These are again shown for both high and low $Q$-factor modes. It is noted that the threshold point for the low $Q$-factor mode is reduced from $\gamma_0=6.86\mbox{ rad/ps}$ to $\gamma_0=6.47\mbox{ rad/ps}$ in this case while for the high $Q$-factor mode it remains unchanged at 2.1 rad/ps (compared to the case of no dispersion). Below the threshold point the imaginary parts of the eigenfrequencies are not constant, but are instead skewed towards a lossy state with positive and increasing imaginary part. Extension beyond the threshold point shows that the imaginary parts of the eigenfrequencies do not split evenly and are also skewed towards overall loss, implying that in the highly dispersive case the eigenfrequencies both are complex but no longer complex conjugates after the threshold point. The real and imaginary parts of the eigenfrequencies for the case of low levels of dispersion, for which we take $\omega_\sigma\tau=0.7$, are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:spliting}(e,f). Figure \ref{fig:spliting}(e) shows that there is no clear threshold point in this case: the imaginary parts split for very low value of the gain/loss parameter $\gamma_0$, with no sharp point of onset. The appearance of a threshold point typically associated with PT-behavior is lost and the eigenfrequencies are always complex valued. The key conclusion to be made from Fig. \ref{fig:spliting} is therefore that PT-like threshold behavior is observed in the cases of no dispersion and of high dispersion, but not for cases of intermediate dispersion. While there is some skewness in the high-dispersion case, which amounts to a quantitative deviation from strict PT-symmetry, there is an essential qualitative similarity to the dispersionless case in which there appears to be a sharp threshold. By contrast, in the case of intermediate dispersion there is no sharp transition point and the imaginary parts of the two frequencies begin to diverge from the beginning. \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{mouth} \caption{(a) Impact of dispersion to the real part of material at atomic transitional angular frequency $\omega_\sigma$ due to the presence of gain and loss for different dispersion parameters; (b) Contrast between the real part of eigenfrequencies of PT-coupled microresonators for two different gain/loss parameter, i.e. $\gamma_0=7.5\mbox{ rad/ps}$ for (7,2) and 2.54 rad/ps for the (10,1) mode as function of dispersion parameter $\tau$.} \label{fig:mouth} \end{figure} To further investigate and explain this phenomenon, we examine the dependence of the real part of the complex refractive index on the dispersion parameter $2\omega_\sigma\tau$. This dependence is plotted in Fig. \ref{fig:mouth}(a) for the cases of both gain and loss, for which we respectively take $\sigma_0=\pm2\varepsilon_0\omega_\sigma$ and $\omega_\sigma=\omega_0$. Figure \ref{fig:mouth}(a) shows that the real parts of the refractive indices behave differently for the cases of loss and gain in the system, with the maximum difference occurring when $\tau=1/(2\omega_\sigma)$. However, in two limiting cases $\tau=0$ (dispersion-less system) and $\tau\rightarrow\infty$ (strong dispersion), the real parts of the refractive index converge. This means that the PT condition $n_G=n_L^*$ can only be satisfied accurately for the cases of no dispersion and of high dispersion. For the case of intermediate dispersion there is necessarily some discrepancy between the real parts of the refractive indices of the resonators. \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{mismatch} \caption{Frequency bifurcation of coupled microresonators with balanced gain and loss as function of gain/loss parameters $\gamma_\sigma$, for two different atomic transitional frequencies $\omega_\sigma=2\pi(f_0+\delta)$ with $\delta =-0.1$ and 0.1 THz.} \label{fig:mismatch} \end{figure} Figure \ref{fig:mouth}(b) shows the minimum difference in the real parts of the two eigenfrequencies for different dispersion levels and operated at a fixed value of the gain/loss parameter, i.e. at $\gamma_0=7.5\mbox{ rad/ps}$ for the low $Q$-factor and at 2.54 rad/ps for high $Q$-factor modes of operation. These values of the gain/loss parameter are chosen to lie above the expected threshold so that qualitatively PT-like behavior would imply eigenfrequencies with a common real part. Figures \ref{fig:mouth}(a) and \ref{fig:mouth}(b) confirm that the maximum difference between real parts of the two refractive indices coincides with the maximum deviation from PT-like threshold behavior, where the difference between real parts of the eigenfrequencies is greatest. This result further confirms the fact that realistic levels of dispersion preserve the essential features of PT behavior. Having confirmed that realistic levels of dispersion preserve PT behavior, Figure \ref{fig:mismatch} considers a practical scenario in which there is high dispersion $\omega_\sigma\tau=212$ and a frequency mismatch between the resonant frequency and the gain/loss atomic angular frequency. The material atomic frequency is defined to be $\omega_\sigma=2\pi(f_0+\delta)$, where $\delta$ is the mismatch parameter. The structure is operated with balanced gain and loss, i.e. $\gamma_G=-\gamma_L$ and two values are assumed for the frequency mismatch, namely $\delta=-0.1$ and 0.1 THz. Figure \ref{fig:mismatch}(a,b) shows the results for the low $Q$-factor mode (7,2) and Fig. \ref{fig:mismatch}(c,d) for the high-$Q$ factor mode (10,1). In both cases there is no sharp threshold point for the real parts of eigenfrequencies and the imaginary parts begin to diverge at low gain/loss values. Neither are the imaginary parts symmetrically placed about a branching value. This result confirms the fact that PT behavior is preserved only when the angular transitional frequency of the dispersive gain/loss profile is aligned with the resonant frequency of the microresonators. If that is not the case, the frequency misalignment causes the coupled system to continue to beat after a threshold region. \begin{figure}[h] \centering \includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{vargain} \caption{Complex eigenfrequency in a PT-coupled microresonator system with variable gain and fixed loss shown as a function of gain parameter $|\gamma_G|$, dispersion parameter $\omega_\sigma\tau=212$\cite{hagness} and shown for 3 different fixed loss value, i.e. $\gamma_L=5.565$, 6.4281, and 7.291 rad/ps.} \label{fig:vargain} \end{figure} Another practical scenario is considered in Fig. \ref{fig:vargain} where the gain and loss are not balanced, i.e. $\mu R_L$ has a loss $\gamma_L$ while $\mu R_G$ has a gain $\gamma_G$. Figure \ref{fig:vargain}(a,b) shows the real and imaginary parts of the eigenfrequency for three different values of loss namely, $\gamma_L=5.565$, 6.4281 and 7.291 rad/ps which correspond to values below, at, and above the threshold point of a PT symmetric structure with balanced gain and loss respectively. The low $Q$-factor mode is considered with a practical dispersion parameter of $\omega_\sigma\tau=212$ as taken from \cite{hagness}. Interestingly, we now observe that the PT threshold point can also exist for structures with unbalanced gain/loss as shown by the plots for $\gamma_L=5.565\mbox{ rad/ps}$ and $\gamma_L=7.2910\mbox{ rad/ps}$ in Fig. \ref{fig:vargain}. In the former case, the PT threshold is increased and in the latter case the PT threshold is decreased compared to the PT threshold of the balance structure. Of special interest is the observation that increasing loss results in the reduction of the PT threshold which consequently reduces the levels of gain at which lasing occurs. This counter-intuitive principle of switching lasing on by increasing loss has been experimentally demonstrated in \cite{peng14b} where a metal probe is used to enhance loss in the lossy microresonator. \subsection{Real time operation of PT symmetric coupled microresonators} In this section the real-time operation of the PT-symmetric coupled microresonators is demonstrated for different levels of dispersion. For this purpose, the two-dimensional (2D) time-domain Transmission Line Modeling (TLM) numerical method is used. A more detailed description of the TLM method is given in\cite{christopulos,paul99} and the implementation of general dispersive materials for PT-symmetric Bragg gratings is demonstrated in\cite{phang14a,phang15}. In each of the simulations shown in this section, the low $Q$-factor (7,2) mode is excited by a very narrow-band Gaussian dipole located in $\mu R_G$ whose frequency is matched to the resonant frequency of this mode. Depending on the levels of gain and loss, and their relation to the threshold points, we find in practice, however, that small unintentional initial excitations of the high $Q$-factor (10,1) mode may grow to become a significant feature and even dominate the evolved state. In all cases we find that the TLM simulations are consistent with the frequency-domain calculations provided in the previous section and in fact have been used to independently validate the perturbation analysis results presented in Figs. \ref{fig:spliting}-\ref{fig:vargain}, although the detailed calculations are not reported here. \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{tlmnogain} \caption{(a) Spatial electric field distribution of the coupled microresonators operated (7,2) mode. The black dashed line denotes the monitor line. The temporal evolution (b) and spectra (c) of the field on the monitor line are shown in the absence of gain and loss.} \label{fig:tlmnogain} \end{figure} \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{nodispersion} \caption{The temporal evolution and spectra of the field on the monitor line are shown for different gain/loss parameters, (a,b) for $\gamma_0 = 4.3\mbox{ rad/ps}$ and (c,d) for $\gamma_0 = 7.5\mbox{ rad/ps}$ with a negligible dispersion parameter using the TLM method.} \label{fig:nodispersion} \end{figure} We begin with the case of the evolution from the low $Q$-factor mode using a model with no dispersion. Figure \ref{fig:tlmnogain}(a) shows the spatial electric field distribution of coupled microresonators with no gain and loss ($\gamma_0 = 0$) and operating at the resonant frequency of the low $Q$-factor (7,2) mode. The black dashed line denotes the monitor line on which the electric field is observed during the TLM simulation. Parts (b,c) of Fig. \ref{fig:tlmnogain} show the temporal evolution and the spectra of the electric field observed along the monitor line for the case of no gain and loss. The case of no gain and loss, reported in Fig. 6(b), shows a typical oscillation of the electric field between the microresonators having a regular beating pattern in which maximum intensity being observed in one microresonator corresponds to minimum intensity being observed in the other. Figure 6(c) shows the frequency content of the modes, indicating the presence of two resonating frequencies centered around $f_0^{(7,2)}$, in agreement with Fig. 2(a). The real-time performance of PT-coupled microresonators with balanced gain and loss $\gamma_G=-\gamma_0$, $\gamma_L=\gamma_0$ with no dispersion is depicted in Fig. \ref{fig:nodispersion}. The temporal evolution and the spectra of the electric field are observed along the monitor line for two levels of gain and loss: levels of gain and loss $\gamma_0 = 4.3\mbox{ rad/ps}$, i.e. lower than the threshold point of the low $Q$-factor mode but beyond the threshold of the high Q-factor mode in Fig. \ref{fig:nodispersion} (a and b) and levels of gain and loss $\gamma_0 = 7.5\mbox{ rad/ps}$, i.e. lying above the threshold points of both modes in Fig. \ref{fig:nodispersion} (c and d). Figure \ref{fig:nodispersion}(a) shows the energy beating between the microresonators with gain/loss $\gamma_0 = 4.3\mbox{ rad/ps}$, set below the threshold point of the low-$Q$-factor mode. It is noticeable that beating between microresonators is reduced and is no longer periodic. Additionally, Fig. \ref{fig:nodispersion}(a) indicates the presence of additional modes, observable at later times. Frequency analysis of the fields is given in Fig. \ref{fig:nodispersion}(b) and shows an additional peak at 336.85 THz, which corresponds to the resonant frequency of the mode (10,1), explaining the high frequency beating in Fig. \ref{fig:nodispersion}(a). Referring to Fig. \ref{fig:spliting}(a) it can be seen that at $\gamma_0 = 4.3\mbox{ rad/ps}$, the (10,1) mode is operating above its threshold point and thus experiencing amplification, whilst the (7,2) mode is still below its threshold point. A further increase in gain/loss to $\gamma_0 = 7.5\mbox{ rad/ps}$, in Fig. \ref{fig:nodispersion}(c), shows an exponentially growing field in the gain microresonator with no beating between the resonators and a stronger presence of the high $Q$-factor mode as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:nodispersion}(d). Referring to Fig. \ref{fig:spliting}(a,b) it is confirmed that for $\gamma_0 = 7.5\mbox{ rad/ps}$ both low and high $Q$-factor modes are operating above the threshold. \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{highdisp} \caption{Temporal and spectra of electric field along the monitor line for coupled PT microresonators with balanced gain and loss parameters operated for (7,2) mode with practical dispersion parameters $\omega_\sigma\tau=212$\cite{hagness} and for two different gain/loss parameter, i.e. (a,b) $\gamma_0 = 4.3\mbox{ rad/ps}$ and (c,d) $\gamma_0 = 7.5\mbox{ rad/ps}$.} \label{fig:highdisp} \end{figure} Figure \ref{fig:highdisp} shows corresponding results for the case of high dispersion with $\omega_\sigma\tau=212$. We once again choose gain/loss parameters $\gamma_0 = 4.3\mbox{ rad/ps}$ and $\gamma_0 = 7.5\mbox{ rad/ps}$ but omit the case of zero gain/loss here. Figure \ref{fig:highdisp}(a) shows a decaying beating pattern. The corresponding spectral analysis in fig. \ref{fig:highdisp}(b) shows that the beating may be attributed to low $Q$-factor modal frequencies, indicating that the highly dispersed gain/loss profile has stabilized the operation of PT-coupled resonators system at a desired mode of operation. For operation with gain/loss parameter $\gamma_0 = 7.5\mbox{ rad/ps}$, the temporal response in Fig. \ref{fig:highdisp}(c) indicates an exponentially growing field with no presence of high order modes. The spectrum in Fig. \ref{fig:highdisp}(d) shows a single peak at the resonant frequency of the (7,2) mode, confirming that the resonators are operating above the PT threshold point. The strongly dispersive gain/loss profile limits operation of PT-coupled microresonator system to the low $Q$-factor (7,2) mode only in this case. This again confirms the result that when the material atomic frequency is chosen to be at a desired resonant frequency, the PT-symmetry is limited to that particular mode only, as in the case of periodic potentials \cite{phang14a,zyablovsky14}. \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{fixloss} \caption{Temporal and spectra of electric field along the monitor line for coupled PT microresonators with unbalanced gain and loss operated for (7,2) mode with practical dispersion parameters $\omega_\sigma\tau=212$\cite{hagness}, i.e. (a,b) $\gamma_L = 5.565\mbox{ rad/ps}$, (c,d) $\gamma_L = 6.4281\mbox{ rad/ps}$ and (e,f) $\gamma_L = 7.291\mbox{ rad/ps}$ while the gain parameter is kept constant at $\gamma_G = -7.053\mbox{ rad/ps}$.} \label{fig:fixloss} \end{figure} Figure \ref{fig:fixloss} investigates the real-time operation of the PT structure with unbalanced gain and loss shown in Fig. \ref{fig:vargain}. Here, we apply the same scenario as in \cite{peng14b} where the gain in the active microresonator is fixed at $\gamma_G=-7.053\mbox{ rad/ps}$ and the loss is varied in the passive microresonator. The low Q-factor mode with practical dispersion parameters of $\omega_\sigma\tau=212$ is considerd \cite{hagness}. Figure \ref{fig:fixloss}(a) shows the electric field observed along the monitor line for the case of loss $\gamma_L=5.565\mbox{ rad/ps}$, i.e. more gain than loss in the system. It can be seen that there is a non-periodic and long temporal beating pattern. The field is not growing which indicates that the system is stable and is not lasing. The spectral decomposition shown in Fig. \ref{fig:fixloss}(b) is unable to distinguish the splitting of the resonant frequency is due to the limited spectral resolution of the Fourier transformation of the time domain simulation result. Figure \ref{fig:fixloss}(c) shows the temporal evolution of the field for the case of $\gamma_L=6.4281\mbox{ rad/ps}$. It can be seen that there is no beating between the resonators and no growing field, suggesting that structure is operating above the PT threshold point but before the lasing point which occurs at $\gamma_G=-7.377\mbox{ rad/ps}$ (Fig.\ref{fig:vargain}(b)). The spectral analysis shows only a single peak centered at $f_0^{(7,2)}$. Figure \ref{fig:fixloss}(e) shows the temporal evolution for $\gamma_L=7.291\mbox{ rad/ps}$ and $\gamma_G=-7.053\mbox{ rad/ps}$, i.e. more loss than gain in the system. It can be observed that the field is growing with no beating between the microresonators, suggesting lasing action. This result is in agreement with observations in \cite{peng14b} where loss induced lasing is demonstrated. Corresponding spectrum is depicted in Fig. \ref{fig:fixloss}(f) has a sharp peak centered at $f_0^{(7,2)}$. \section{Summary and conclusion} In the paper the impact of material dispersion on PT-symmetric coupled microresonators has been analyzed. It has been shown that the practical case of high dispersion preserves the requirement for a PT structure. However our results shows that this is only the case when the material atomic frequency is aligned with the resonant frequency of the microresonator. This comes as a direct consequence of the Kramers-Kronig relationship which implies that changes in the imaginary part of the refrective index caused the real part of the refractive index to change too. In addition, we also demonstrate the principle of loss-induced lasing mechanism which is triggered by an early PT-symmetry breaking. Real-time operation of PT-coupled microresonators verifies that the dispersion due to the Kramers-Kronig relationship limits the operation of PT-coupled microresonators to a single frequency and hence forbids multi-mode PT-symmetry breaking. \end{document}
\section{Introduction} We study the problem of approximating the value of the integral $I_s(f):=\int_{[0,1]^s}f(\bsx)\rd\bsx$ of functions $f$ belonging to a reproducing kernel Hilbert space $\cH(K)$ of functions $[0,1]^s\rightarrow\RR$. One way of numerically approximating $I_s(f)$ is to employ a quasi-Monte Carlo (QMC) rule, \[Q_{N,s}(f):=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}f(\bsx_n),\] where $P_{N,s}=\{\bsx_0,\bsx_1,\ldots,\bsx_{N-1}\}$ is a set of $N$ deterministically chosen points in $[0,1)^s$. It is well known (see, e.g., \cite{DP10,DT97,KN74,N92,SJ94}) that point sets which are in some way evenly distributed in the unit cube yield a low integration error when applying a QMC rule for approximating $I_s(f)$. We study the error of QMC rules in the worst-case setting. The worst-case error of an algorithm $Q_{N,s}$ based on nodes $P_{N,s}$ is defined as the worst integration error over the unit-ball of $\cH(K)$, i.e., $$e_{N,s}(P_{N,s},K)=\sup_{f \in \cH(K) \atop \|f\|_{K} \le 1}|I_s(f)-Q_{N,s}(f)|.$$ An essential question in the theory of QMC methods is how the sample nodes $P_{N,s}$ of a QMC rule $Q_{N,s}$ should be chosen. \paragraph{Shifted Halton sequences.} In this paper we focus on a special kind of point sequences underlying a QMC rule, namely Halton sequences (cf.~\cite{H60}) whose definition is based on the radical inverse function. Let $p \ge 2$ be an integer, $\NN=\{1,2,3,\ldots\}$, and $\NN_0=\NN \cup \{0\}$. For $n\in\NN_0$, let $n=n_0 + n_1 p + n_2 p^2+\cdots$ be the base $p$ expansion of $n$ (which is of course finite) with digits $n_i\in\{0,1,\ldots,p-1\}$ for $i\ge 0$. The radical inverse function $\phi_p:\NN_0\To [0,1)$ in base $p$ is defined by \[\phi_p (n):=\sum_{r=0}^{\infty} \frac{n_{r}}{p^{r+1}}.\] Halton sequences can be defined for any dimension $s\in\NN$. Let $p_1,\ldots,p_s \ge 2$ be $s$ integers, and let $\bsp=(p_1,\ldots,p_s)$. Then the $s$-dimensional Halton sequence $H_{\bsp}$ in bases $p_1,\ldots,p_s$ is defined to be the sequence $H_{\bsp}=(\bsx_n)_{n\ge 0}\subseteq [0,1)^s$, where \[\bsx_n=(\phi_{p_1}(n),\phi_{p_2}(n),\ldots,\phi_{p_s}(n)),\ \ \ \mbox{ for } \ n\in \NN_0.\] It is well known (see, e.g.,~\cite{DP10,N92}) that Halton sequences have good distribution properties if and only if the bases $p_1,\ldots,p_s$ are mutually relatively prime, and for the sake of simplicity we assume throughout the rest of the paper that $\bsp=(p_1,\ldots,p_s)$ consists of $s$ mutually different prime numbers. We also introduce a method of randomizing the elements of the Halton sequence which is referred to as a $\bsp$-adic shift. This special case of randomization is based on arithmetic over the $p$-adic numbers and is perfectly suited for Halton sequences $H_{\bsp}$. Let $p$ be a prime number. We define the set of $p$-adic numbers as the set of formal sums \begin{equation*} \mathbb{Z}_p = \left\{z = \sum_{r=0}^\infty z_r p^r\, : \, z_r \in \{0,1,\ldots,p-1\} \mbox{ for all } r \in \NN_0\right\}. \end{equation*} Clearly $\mathbb{N}_0 \subseteq \mathbb{Z}_p$. For two nonnegative integers $y, z \in \mathbb{N}_0 \subseteq \mathbb{Z}_p$, the sum $y+z \in \mathbb{Z}_p$ is defined as the usual sum of integers. The addition can be extended to all $p$-adic numbers. The set $\mathbb{Z}_p$ with this addition, which we denote by $+_{\ZZ_p}$, then forms an abelian group. As an extension of the radical inverse function defined above, we define the so-called Monna map \begin{equation*} \phi_p:\mathbb{Z}_p \to [0,1)\ \ \mbox{by}\ \ \phi_p(z): = \sum_{r=0}^\infty \frac{z_r}{p^{r+1}} \pmod{1} \end{equation*} whose restriction to $\NN_0$ is exactly the radical inverse function in base $p$. In order to keep the used notation at a minimum we denote both, the Monna map and the radical inverse function, by $\phi_p$. We also define the inverse \begin{equation*} \phi_p^+: [0,1)\to \mathbb{Z}_p\ \ \mbox{by}\ \ \phi_p^+\left(\sum_{r=0}^\infty \frac{x_r}{p^{r+1}}\right) := \sum_{r=0}^\infty x_r p^r, \end{equation*} where we always use the finite $p$-adic representation for $p$-adic rationals in $[0,1)$. By a $p$-adic rational, we understand a number in $[0,1)$ that can be represented by a finite $p$-adic expansion. For a prime number $p$ and for $x \in [0,1)$ we consider the following $p$-adic shifts: \begin{itemize} \item {\bf $p$-adic shift:} for $\sigma \in [0,1)$, we define $x\oplus_{p}\sigma\in [0,1)$ to be \[x\oplus_{p}\sigma=\phi_{p} (\phi_{p}^+ (x) +_{\ZZ_p} \phi_{p}^+ (\sigma)).\] \item {\bf simplified $p$-adic shift:} for $m\in\NN$ and $\sigma \in [0,1)$, we write $x\oplus_{p,m}^{\simp} \sigma$ to be the truncation of $x\oplus_p \sigma$ to the $m$ most significant digits, i.e., if $\phi_{p}^+ (x) +_{\ZZ_p} \phi_{p}^+ \sigma =\sum_{r=1}^\infty y_r p^{r-1} \in \ZZ_p$, then $$x\oplus_{p,m}^{\simp} \sigma= \phi_p\left(\sum_{r=1}^m y_r p^{r-1}\right).$$ \item {\bf mid-simplified $p$-adic shift:} for $m\in\NN$ and $\sigma \in [0,1)$, we write $$x \oplus_{p,m}^{\simi} \sigma = (x\oplus_{p,m}^{\simp} \sigma)+ \frac{1}{2p^m}.$$ \end{itemize} If the choice of $m$ is clear from the context, we may often omit $m$ in the notation $\oplus_{p,m}^{\simp}$ and $\oplus_{p,m}^{\simi}$ and write $\oplus_{p}^{\simp}$ and $\oplus_{p}^{\simi}$ instead. In the $s$-variate case, for given bases $\bsp=(p_1,\ldots,p_s)$, a point $\bsx=(x_1,\ldots,x_s)\in [0,1)^s$, and given $\bssigma=(\sigma_1,\ldots,\sigma_s)\in [0,1)^s$ and $\bsm=(m_1,\ldots,m_s) \in \NN^s$, the above shifts are defined component-wise and we write $\bsx\oplus_{\bsp}\bssigma\in [0,1)^s$, $\bsx\oplus_{\bsp,\bsm}^{\simp} \bssigma$ and $\bsx \oplus_{\bsp,\bsm}^{\simi} \bssigma$, respectively. For a point set $Y=\{\bsy_n \ : \ n=0,\ldots ,N-1\}$ we write $$Y\oplus \bssigma:=\{\bsy_n \oplus \bssigma \ : \ n=0,\ldots ,N-1\}\ \ \mbox{ where } \ \oplus \mbox{ is either } \oplus_{\bsp},\oplus_{\bsp,\bsm}^{\simp},\mbox{ or }\oplus_{\bsp,\bsm}^{\simi}.$$ \paragraph{A weighted Sobolev space.} In this paper, we are going to consider the problem of numerical integration of functions $f$ that belong to a weighted anchored Sobolev space. Before we give the definition we introduce some notation which we require for the following: assume that $\bsgamma=(\gamma_j)_{j=1}^{\infty}$ is a non-increasing sequence of positive weights, where $1\ge \gamma_1\ge\gamma_2\ge \cdots$. These weights are used in order to model the influence of the different variables of the integrands, an idea which was introduced by Sloan and Wo\'{z}niakowski \cite{SW98}. For $s \in \NN$ let $[s]:=\{1,\ldots,s\}$. For $\uu\subseteq [s]$, $\bsx_{\uu}$ denotes the projection of $\bsx\in [0,1]^s$ onto $[0,1]^{|\uu|}$ consisting of the components whose indices are contained in $\uu$. Furthermore we write $(\bsx_{\uu},\bsone) \in [0,1]^s$ for the point where those components of $\bsx$ whose indices are not in $\uu$ are replaced by 1. We consider a weighted anchored Sobolev space $\cH (K_{s,\bsgamma})$ with anchor $\bsone=(1,1,\ldots,1)$ consisting of functions on $[0,1]^s$ whose first mixed partial derivatives are square integrable. This space is a reproducing kernel Hilbert space with kernel function \begin{equation}\label{ker_sob_space} K_{s,\bsgamma}(\bsx,\bsy)=\prod_{j=1}^s (1+\gamma_j \min (1-x_j,1-y_j)) \ \ \mbox{ for } \bsx,\bsy \in [0,1]^s, \end{equation} where $\bsx=(x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_s)$ and $\bsy=(y_1,y_2,\ldots,y_s)$. The inner product is given by \[\langle f,g \rangle_{K_{s,\bsgamma}}=\sum_{\uu\subseteq [s]}\gamma_{\uu}^{-1} \int_{[0,1]^{\abs{\uu}}} \frac{\partial^{\abs{\uu}}}{\partial \bsx_{\uu}} f(\bsx_{\uu},\bsone)\frac{\partial^{\abs{\uu}}}{\partial \bsx_{\uu}} g(\bsx_{\uu},\bsone)\rd \bsx_{\uu}.\] Here $\gamma_{\uu}=\prod_{j\in\uu}\gamma_j$; in particular $\gamma_{\emptyset}=1$. Furthermore, we denote by $\frac{\partial^{\abs{\uu}}}{\partial \bsx_{\uu}} h$ the derivative of a function $h$ with respect to the $x_j$ with $j\in\uu$. The norm in $\cH (K_{s,\bsgamma})$ is given by $\norm{f}_{K_{s,\bsgamma}}=\sqrt{\langle f,f\rangle_{K_{s,\bsgamma}}}$. The Sobolev space $\cH (K_{s,\bsgamma})$ has been studied frequently in the literature (see, among many references, e.g.~\cite{DKPS05, DP05, HKP14, KP11, K03, NW08, SW98, wang}).\\ It is well known that the squared worst-case integration error in a reproducing kernel Hilbert space can be expressed in terms of the kernel function. In the particular case of the kernel $K_{s,\bsgamma}$, it is easily derived with the help of \cite[Proposition~2.11]{DP10} that for $P_{N,s}=\{\bsx_0,\ldots,\bsx_{N-1}\}$ in $[0,1)^s$, where $\bsx_n=(x_{n,1},\ldots,x_{n,s})$ for $n=0,1,\ldots,N-1$, we have \begin{eqnarray}\label{fo_wc_err} e^2_{N,s}(P_{N,s},K_{s,\bsgamma}) & = & \prod_{i=1}^s\left(1+\frac{\gamma_i}{3}\right)-\frac{2}{N} \sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\prod_{i=1}^s\left(1+\frac{\gamma_i}{2}(1-x_{n,i}^2)\right)\nonumber\\ && \mbox{}+\frac{1}{N^2}\sum_{n,h=0}^{N-1}\prod_{i=1}^s \left(1+\gamma_i\min(1-x_{n,i},1-x_{h,i})\right). \end{eqnarray} Hence the worst-case error can be computed at a cost of $O(s N^2)$ arithmetic operations.\\ In \cite{HKP14} the authors studied the root mean square worst-case error in $\cH(K_{s,\bsgamma})$ of the $\bsp$-adic shifted Halton sequence extended over all $\bsp$-adic shifts, i.e., \[\widehat{e}_{N,s}(H_{\bsp},K_{s,\bsgamma}):=\sqrt{\mathbb{E}_{\bssigma} [e^2_{N,s}(H_{\bsp} \oplus_{\bsp} \bssigma,K_{s,\bsgamma})]}.\] The following result is the main result of~\cite{HKP14}. \begin{thm}[{\cite[Theorem~1]{HKP14}}]\label{thmerrsob} Let $N \ge 2$. We have \begin{eqnarray}\label{rmsbd} [\widehat{e}_{N,s}(H_{\bsp},K_{s,\bsgamma})]^2 \le \frac{1}{N^2}\left[\prod_{j=1}^s \left(1+\gamma_j (\log N) \frac{p_j^2}{\log p_j}\right)+ \prod_{j=1}^s\left(1+\frac{\gamma_j}{2}\right) \prod_{j=1}^s \left(1+\frac{\gamma_j p_j}{6}\right)\right]. \end{eqnarray} In particular, if $\sum_{j = 1}^\infty \gamma_j \frac{p_j^2}{\log p_j} < \infty$, then for any $\delta >0$ we have $$\widehat{e}_{N,s}(H_{\bsp},K_{s,\bsgamma}) \ll_{\delta,\bsgamma,\bsp} \frac{1}{N^{1-\delta}},$$ where the implied constant is independent of the dimension $s$. \end{thm} The bound \eqref{rmsbd} is, up to $\log$-factors, optimal. For a further discussion of the result, especially with respect to the dependence on the dimension $s$ we refer to \cite{HKP14}. Theorem~\ref{thmerrsob} can also be interpreted in the ``deterministic'' sense that for every fixed $N \ge 2$ there exists a $\bsp$-adic shift $\bssigma \in [0,1)^s$ such that the squared worst-case error of the initial $N$ elements of the corresponding $\bsp$-adically shifted Halton sequence satisfies the bound \eqref{rmsbd}. The problem with this interpretation is that the $\bsp$-adic shift has to be chosen from an uncountable set, namely the $s$-dimensional unit cube. This is a big drawback if one wants to effectively find good $\bsp$-adic shifts. It is the aim of this short paper to show that it suffices to choose the $\bsp$-adic shifts, which yield an upper bound of the form \eqref{rmsbd}, from a finite set. This set of possible candidates has size $N^s$ which is of course huge already for moderately large $s$ or $N$. However we also show, that in principle good shifts can be found by a component-by-component (CBC) algorithm. This idea is borrowed from the construction of good lattice point sets which goes back to Korobov~\cite{Kor_book} and to Sloan and Reztsov~\cite{SR}, and which is nowadays used in a multitude of papers. With this ``adaptive search'' the search space is only of a size of order $O(sN)$. The rest of the paper is structured as follows: In Section~\ref{sec_aux} we prove some auxiliary results. The CBC construction of $\bsp$-adic shifts as well as the statement and proof of the main result of this paper are presented in Section~\ref{sec_CBC}. \section{Auxiliary results}\label{sec_aux} We use the following notation: for $p \in \NN$ and $m \in \NN_0$ let $$\QQ(p^m):=\{a p^{-m} \ : \ a=0,1,\ldots,p^m-1\}.$$ We now show the following lemma. \begin{lem}\label{lemsimid1} Let $H_{p,N}$ be the point set consisting of the first $N$ elements of $H_p$ and let $m\in\NN$ be minimal such that $N<p^m$. Furthermore, let $\sigma_m \in \QQ(p^m)$. Then it is true that $$e^2_{N,1}(H_{p,N}\oplus_p ^{\simi}\sigma_m,K_{1,\gamma_1})\le p^m \int_{0}^{p^{-m}} e^2_{N,1}(H_{p,N}\oplus_p(\sigma_m+\delta),K_{1,\gamma_1})\rd\delta.$$ \end{lem} \begin{proof} Let $H_{p,N}=\{h_0,h_1,\ldots,h_{N-1}\}$. From \eqref{fo_wc_err} we obtain \begin{eqnarray*} \lefteqn{p^m \int_{0}^{p^{-m}} e^2_{N,1}(H_{p,N}\oplus_p(\sigma_m+\delta),K_{1,\gamma_1})\rd\delta= \left(1+\frac{\gamma_1}{3}\right)}\\ &&-\frac{2}{N}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}p^m \int_{0}^{p^{-m}} 1+\frac{\gamma_1}{2}\left(1-(h_n\oplus_p (\sigma_m +\delta))^2\right)\rd \delta\\ &&+\frac{1}{N^2}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}p^m \int_{0}^{p^{-m}} 1+\gamma_1\left(1-(h_n\oplus_p (\sigma_m +\delta))\right)\rd \delta\\ &&+\frac{1}{N^2}\sum_{\substack{n,k=0\\n\neq k}}^{N-1}p^m \int_{0}^{p^{-m}} 1+\gamma_1 \min\left\{1-(h_n\oplus_p (\sigma_m +\delta)),1-(h_k\oplus_p (\sigma_m +\delta))\right\}\rd \delta. \end{eqnarray*} For given $n\in\{0,1,\ldots,N-1\}$, let us now analyze the quantity $$h_n\oplus_p (\sigma_m +\delta)=\phi_{p}(\phi_p^+ (h_n) +_{\ZZ_p}\phi_p^+ (\sigma_m +\delta)).$$ The base $p$ expansion of $h_n$ is of the form $h_n=\sum_{r=1}^{m} \frac{h_n^{(r)}}{p^r}$, since $N< p^m$. Furthermore, the base $p$ expansions of $\sigma_m$ and $\delta$, respectively, are of the form $$\sigma_m=\sum_{r=1}^{m} \frac{\sigma^{(r)}}{p^r} \ \ \ \mbox{ and }\ \ \ \delta=\sum_{r=m+1}^\infty \frac{\delta^{(r)}}{p^r},$$ due to the assumptions on $\sigma_m$ and $\delta$. Consequently, $$\phi_p^+ (h_n)=\sum_{r=1}^{m} h_n^{(r)} p^{r-1}\quad\mbox{and}\quad \phi_p^+ (\sigma_m +\delta)=\phi_p^+ (\sigma_m) +_{\ZZ_p} \phi_p^+ (\delta)= \sum_{r=1}^{m} \sigma^{(r)} p^{r-1} +_{\ZZ_p} \sum_{r=m+1}^\infty \delta^{(r)} p^{r-1}.$$ Let $$\phi_p^+ (h_n) +_{\ZZ_p}\phi_p^+ (\sigma_m)= \sum_{r=1}^{m+1} y_r p^{r-1}$$ with $y_r \in \{0,1,\ldots,p-1\}$. Then we obtain \begin{eqnarray*} \phi_p^+ (h_n) +_{\ZZ_p}\phi_p^+ (\sigma_m +\delta)&=&\sum_{r=1}^{m} y_r p^{r-1} +_{\ZZ_p} y_{m+1} p^m +_{\ZZ_p}\phi_p^+(\delta), \end{eqnarray*} Note that $\sum_{r=1}^{m} y_r p^{r-1}$ is the truncation of the $p$-adic sum $\phi_p^+ (h_n) +_{\ZZ_p}\phi_p^+ (\sigma_m)$ to the first $m$ digits. Hence $$\phi_p\left(\sum_{r=1}^{m} y_r p^{r-1}\right)= h_n \oplus_p^{\simp} \sigma_m.$$ For short we write $$\xi(h_n,\sigma_m):= \phi_p(y_{m+1} p^m).$$ Note that $\phi_p^+ (\xi(h_n,\sigma_m))= y_{m+1} p^m$. Hence we can write $$h_n\oplus_p (\sigma_m +\delta)=\phi_{p}(\phi_p^+ (h_n) +_{\ZZ_p}\phi_p^+ (\sigma_m +\delta))=(h_n \oplus_p^{\simp} \sigma_m) + (\xi(h_n,\sigma_m)\oplus_p\delta).$$ From this we obtain \begin{eqnarray*} \lefteqn{p^m \int_{0}^{p^{-m}} 1+\frac{\gamma_1}{2}\left(1-(h_n\oplus_p (\sigma_m +\delta))^2\right)\rd \delta}\\ &=&p^m \int_{0}^{p^{-m}} 1+\frac{\gamma_1}{2}\left(1-((h_n\oplus_p^{\simp} \sigma_m) +(\xi(h_n,\sigma_m)\oplus_p\delta))^2\right)\rd {\delta}. \end{eqnarray*} We now use \cite[Lemma~3]{HKP14}, which states that for any $f\in L_2 ([0,1])$ and any $y\in[0,1)$, we have \begin{equation}\label{le3HKP14} \int_0^1 f(x)\rd x=\int_0^1 f(x\oplus_{p} y)\rd x. \end{equation} This yields \begin{eqnarray*} \lefteqn{p^m \int_{0}^{p^{-m}} 1+\frac{\gamma_1}{2}\left(1-(h_n\oplus_p (\sigma_m +\delta))^2\right)\rd \delta=}\\ &=&p^m \int_{0}^{p^{-m}} 1+\frac{\gamma_1}{2}\left(1-((h_n\oplus_p^{\simp} \sigma_m) +\delta)^2\right)\rd {\delta}\\ &=&1+\frac{\gamma_1}{2}\left(1-(h_n\oplus_p^{\simp} \sigma_m)^2\right)-\frac{1}{p^{m}}\frac{\gamma_1}{2} (h_n\oplus_p^{\simp} \sigma_m) - \frac{1}{p^{2m}}\frac{\gamma_1}{6}. \end{eqnarray*} Furthermore, in a similar fashion, \begin{eqnarray*} \lefteqn{p^m \int_{0}^{p^{-m}} 1+\gamma_1\left(1-((h_n\oplus_p (\sigma_m +\delta))\right)\rd \delta=}\\ &=&p^m \int_{0}^{p^{-m}} 1+\gamma_1\left(1-((h_n\oplus_p^{\simp} \sigma_m) +(\xi(h_n,\sigma_m)\oplus_p\delta))\right)\rd\delta\\ &=&p^m \int_{0}^{p^{-m}} 1+\gamma_1\left(1-((h_n\oplus_p^{\simp} \sigma_m) +\delta)\right)\rd \delta\\ &=&-\frac{\gamma_1}{2}\frac{1}{p^m} +1 +\gamma_1 - \gamma_1 (h_n\oplus_p^{\simp} \sigma_m). \end{eqnarray*} Finally, let us deal with the expression \begin{equation}\label{eqminint} p^m \int_{0}^{p^{-m}} 1+\gamma_1 \min\left\{1-(h_n\oplus_p (\sigma_m +\delta)),1-(h_k\oplus_p (\sigma_m +\delta))\right\}\rd \delta \end{equation} with $k\neq n$. Note that, as $k\neq n$, we cannot have $h_n\oplus_p (\sigma_m +\delta)=h_k\oplus_p (\sigma_m +\delta)$. Suppose that \begin{equation}\label{eqlower} h_n\oplus_p (\sigma_m +\delta)<h_k\oplus_p (\sigma_m +\delta). \end{equation} Using the notation introduced above, we can rewrite~\eqref{eqlower} as $$(h_n\oplus_p^{\simp} \sigma_m) +(\xi(h_n,\sigma_m)\oplus_p\delta)<(h_k\oplus_p^{\simp} \sigma_m) +(\xi(h_k,\sigma_m)\oplus_p\delta).$$ Again, since $k\neq n$, we cannot have $$(h_n\oplus_p^{\simp} \sigma_m)=(h_k\oplus_p^{\simp} \sigma_m),$$ as this would also imply $\xi(h_n,\sigma_m)=\xi(h_k,\sigma_m)$, and would so yield a contradiction to~\eqref{eqlower}. Furthermore, it cannot be the case that $$(h_n\oplus_p^{\simp} \sigma_m)>(h_k\oplus_p^{\simp} \sigma_m),$$ since $\xi(h_n,\sigma_m),\xi(h_k,\sigma_m)\in [0,p^{-m})$, and so we would also end up with a contradiction to~\eqref{eqlower}. Therefore, we see that~\eqref{eqlower} automatically implies \begin{equation}\label{eqlowersimp} (h_n\oplus_p^{\simp} \sigma_m)<(h_k\oplus_p^{\simp} \sigma_m). \end{equation} Suppose now, on the other hand, that~\eqref{eqlowersimp} holds. Then, since $\xi(h_n,\sigma_m),\xi(h_k,\sigma_m)\in [0,p^{-m})$, also~\eqref{eqlower} must hold. We have thus shown that~\eqref{eqlower} and~\eqref{eqlowersimp} are equivalent. Suppose now in the analysis of~\eqref{eqminint} that~\eqref{eqlower} holds, i.e., \begin{eqnarray*} \lefteqn{p^m \int_{0}^{p^{-m}} 1+\gamma_1 \min\left\{1-(h_n\oplus_p (\sigma_m +\delta)),1-(h_k\oplus_p (\sigma_m +\delta))\right\}\rd \delta=}\\ &=&p^m \int_{0}^{p^{-m}} 1+\gamma_1 \left(1-(h_k\oplus_p (\sigma_m +\delta))\right)\rd \delta\\ &=&p^m \int_{0}^{p^{-m}} 1+\gamma_1 \left(1-((h_k\oplus_p^{\simp} \sigma_m) +(\xi(h_k,\sigma_m)\oplus_p\delta))\right)\rd \delta. \end{eqnarray*} Using the equivalence between~\eqref{eqlower} and~\eqref{eqlowersimp}, and again \eqref{le3HKP14}, we see that the latter expression equals \begin{eqnarray*} \lefteqn{p^m \int_{0}^{p^{-m}} 1+\gamma_1\left( \min\left\{1-(h_n\oplus_p^{\simp} \sigma_m),1-(h_k\oplus_p^{\simp} \sigma_m)\right\}-(\xi(h_k,\sigma_m)\oplus_p\delta)\right)\rd \delta}\\ &=&p^m \int_{0}^{p^{-m}} 1+\gamma_1 \left(\min\left\{1-(h_n\oplus_p^{\simp} \sigma_m),1-(h_k\oplus_p^{\simp} \sigma_m)\right\}-\delta\right)\rd \delta\\ &=&-\frac{\gamma_1}{2}\frac{1}{p^m} +1+\gamma_1 \min\left\{1-(h_n\oplus_p^{\simp} \sigma_m),1-(h_k\oplus_p^{\simp} \sigma_m)\right\}. \end{eqnarray*} A similar argument holds if the converse of~\eqref{eqlower} holds. Putting all of these observations together, we obtain \begin{eqnarray*} \lefteqn{p^m \int_{0}^{p^{-m}} e^2_{N,1}(H_{p,N}\oplus_p(\sigma_m+\delta),K_{1,\gamma_1})\rd\delta= \left(1+\frac{\gamma_1}{3}\right)}\\ &&-\frac{2}{N}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \left(1+\frac{\gamma_1}{2}\left(1-(h_n\oplus_p^{\simp} \sigma_m)^2\right)-\frac{\gamma_1}{2}\frac{1}{p^{m}} (h_n\oplus_p^{\simp} \sigma_m) - \frac{1}{p^{2m}}\frac{\gamma_1}{6}\right)\\ &&+\frac{1}{N^2}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\left(-\frac{\gamma_1}{2}\frac{1}{p^m} +1 +\gamma_1 - \gamma_1 (h_n\oplus_p^{\simp} \sigma_m)\right)\\ &&+\frac{1}{N^2}\sum_{\substack{n,k=0\\n\neq k}}^{N-1} \left(-\frac{\gamma_1}{2}\frac{1}{p^m} +1+\gamma_1 \min\left\{1-(h_n\oplus_p^{\simp} \sigma_m),1-(h_k\oplus_p^{\simp} \sigma_m)\right\}\right)\\ &\ge&\left(1+\frac{\gamma_1}{3}\right)\\ &&-\frac{2}{N}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \left(1+\frac{\gamma_1}{2}\left(1-(h_n\oplus_p^{\simp} \sigma_m)^2\right)-\frac{\gamma_1}{2}\frac{1}{2p^{m}} 2(h_n\oplus_p^{\simp} \sigma_m) - \frac{\gamma_1}{2}\frac{1}{4p^{2m}}\right)\\ &&+\frac{1}{N^2}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\left(1 +\gamma_1 \left(1-\left(h_n\oplus_p^{\simp} \sigma_m+\frac{1}{2p^m}\right)\right)\right)\\ &&+\frac{1}{N^2}\sum_{\substack{n,k=0\\n\neq k}}^{N-1} \left(1+\gamma_1 \min\left\{1-\left(h_n\oplus_p^{\simp} \sigma_m+\frac{1}{2p^m}\right),1-\left(h_k\oplus_p^{\simp} \sigma_m +\frac{1}{2p^m}\right)\right\}\right)\\ &=&\left(1+\frac{\gamma_1}{3}\right)-\frac{2}{N}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\left(1+\frac{\gamma_1}{2}\left(1-\left(h_n\oplus_p^{\simi} \sigma_m\right)^2\right)\right)\\ &&+\frac{1}{N^2}\sum_{n,k=0}^{N-1} \left(1+\gamma_1 \min\left\{1-\left(h_n\oplus_p^{\simi} \sigma_m\right),1-\left(h_k\oplus_p^{\simi} \sigma_m\right)\right\}\right)\\ &=&e_{N,1}^2(H_{p,N}\oplus_p^{\simi}\sigma_m,K_{1,\gamma_1}). \end{eqnarray*} The result follows. \end{proof} For two point sets $X=\{\bsx_0,\bsx_1,\ldots,\bsx_{N-1}\}$ in $[0,1)^{s_1}$ and $Y=\{\bsy_0,\bsy_1,\ldots,\bsy_{N-1}\}$ in $[0,1)^{s_2}$ we write $(X,Y)$ to denote the point set consisting of the concatenated points $(\bsx_k,\bsy_k)=(x_{k,1},\ldots,x_{k,s_1},y_{k,1},\ldots,y_{k,s_2})$ for $k=0,1,\ldots,N-1$. \begin{lem}\label{lemsimids} Let $P_{s,N}$ be a point set of $N$ points in $[0,1)^s$. Let $H_{p,N}$ be as in Lemma~\ref{lemsimid1} and let $m\in\NN$ be minimal such that $N<p^m$. Furthermore, let $\sigma_m \in\QQ(p^m)$. Then it is true that $$e^2_{N,s+1}((P_{s,N},H_{p,N}\oplus_p ^{\simi}\sigma_m),K_{s+1,\bsgamma})\le p^m \int_{0}^{p^{-m}} e^2_{N,s+1}((P_{s,N},H_{p,N}\oplus_p(\sigma_m+\delta)),K_{s+1,\bsgamma})\rd\delta.$$ \end{lem} \begin{proof} The proof is similar to that of Lemma~\ref{lemsimid1}. \end{proof} \section{The CBC construction}\label{sec_CBC} In this section, we analyze the following CBC construction of a mid-simplified $\bsp$-adic shift to obtain $\bsp$-adically shifted Halton sequences with a low integration error. Throughout this section, let $s,N\in\NN$ be given and let $\bsp=(p_1,\ldots,p_s)\in \PP^s$ with pairwise distinct components $p_j$. For $j\in [s]$ let $m_j\in\NN$ be minimal such that $N<p_j^{m_j}$. Let $H_{\bsp,N}$ be the point set consisting of the first $N$ elements of $H_{\bsp}$. To stress the dependence of the worst-case error on the $\bsp$-adic shift we write in the following $$e_{N,s}(\bssigma):=e_{N,s}(H_{\bsp,N} \oplus_{\bsp}^{\simi} \bssigma,K_{s,\bsgamma})$$ for $\bssigma \in \QQ(p_1^{m_1})\times \cdots \times \QQ(p_s^{m_s})$. We propose the following algorithm. \begin{algorithm}\label{algcbc} \begin{itemize} \item[(1)] Choose $\sigma_{1}\in\QQ(p_1^{m_1})$ to minimize $e_{N,1}^2 (\sigma)$ as a function of $\sigma$. \item[(2)] For $1\le d\le s-1$, assume that $\sigma_{1},\ldots,\sigma_{d}$ have already been found. Choose $\sigma_{d+1}\in\QQ(p_{d+1}^{m_{d+1}})$ to minimize \begin{equation}\label{CBC_err} e_{N,d+1}^2 ((\sigma_1,\ldots,\sigma_d,\sigma)) \end{equation} as a function of $\sigma$. \item[(3)] If $d \le s-1$ increase $d$ by 1 and go to Step 2, otherwise stop. \end{itemize} \end{algorithm} \begin{rem}\rm We remark that Algorithm~\ref{algcbc} makes the main result in~\cite{HKP14} much more explicit, as the algorithm only needs to check a countable number of possible candidates for the $\bsp$-adic shift. A slight drawback of our method is that the effective CBC construction of good $\bsp$-shifts has a cost of $O(s^2N^3)$ operations, which is still large. Further improvements with respect to the construction cost are a demanding problem for future research.\\ \end{rem} The following theorem states that Algorithm~\ref{algcbc} yields $\bsp$-adically shifted Halton sequences with a low integration error. Note that the error bound is of the same order as the one in Theorem~\ref{thmerrsob}. \begin{thm}\label{thmcbc} Let the notation be as above, and let $d\in [s]$. Assume that $\bssigma_s=(\sigma_{1},\ldots,\sigma_{s})$ has been constructed according to Algorithm~\ref{algcbc}. Let $\bssigma_d:=(\sigma_1,\ldots,\sigma_d)$. Then \begin{equation}\label{resultcbc} e_{N,d}^2 (\bssigma_d) \le \frac{1}{N^2} \left(\prod_{j=1}^d \left(1+2\gamma_j (\log N) \frac{p_j^2}{\log p_j}\right)+\prod_{j=1}^{d}(1+\gamma_j) \prod_{j=1}^d \left(1+\frac{\gamma_j p_j}{6}\right)\right). \end{equation} \end{thm} \begin{proof} We show the result by induction on $d$. For $d=1$ we have \begin{eqnarray*} \lefteqn{\int_0^1 e_{N,1}^2 (H_{p_1,N}\oplus_{p_1}\sigma,K_{1,\gamma_1})\rd\sigma}\\ & = & \frac{1}{p_1^{m_1}} \sum_{\ell=0}^{p_1^{m_1}-1}p_1^{m_1}\int_{\ell/p_1^{m_1}}^{(\ell+1)/p_1^{m_1}} e_{N,1}^2 \left(H_{p_1,N}\oplus_{p_1}\left(\frac{\ell}{p_1^{m_1}}+\delta\right),K_{1,\gamma_1}\right)\rd\delta\\ & \ge & \frac{1}{p_1^{m_1}} \sum_{\ell=0}^{p_1^{m_1}-1} e_{N,1}^2 \left(\frac{\ell}{p_1^{m_1}}\right), \end{eqnarray*} where we applied Lemma~\ref{lemsimid1}. Hence there exists a $\sigma'_1\in \QQ(p_1^{m_1})$ such that \begin{eqnarray*} e_{N,1}^2 (\sigma'_1)&\le& \int_0^1 e_{N,1}^2 (H_{p_1,N}\oplus_{p_1}\sigma,K_{1,\gamma_1})\rd\sigma\\ &\le& \frac{1}{N^2}\left(1+2\gamma_1 (\log N) \frac{p_1^2}{\log p_1}\right)+(1+\gamma_1)\left(1+\frac{\gamma_1 p_1}{6}\right), \end{eqnarray*} where we used \cite[Theorem~1]{HKP14} for the second inequality. Since $\sigma_{1}$ is chosen by Algorithm~\ref{algcbc} to minimize $e_{N,1}^2 (\sigma)$, it follows that the result holds for $d=1$. Suppose the result has already been shown for some fixed $d\in [s-1]$. Assume that $\bssigma_{d}=(\sigma_1,\ldots,\sigma_d)$ has been obtained by the CBC algorithm. Since $\sigma_{d+1}$ is chosen in order to minimize the squared error \eqref{CBC_err}, we have (where we write with some abuse of notation $(\bssigma_d,\sigma_{d+1}):=(\sigma_1,\ldots,\sigma_d,\sigma_{d+1})$) $$e_{N,d+1}^2 ((\bssigma_d,\sigma_{d+1})) \le \frac{1}{p_{d+1}^{m_{d+1}}} \sum_{v=0}^{p_{d+1}^{m_{d+1}}-1} e_{N,d+1}^2 \left(\left(\bssigma_{d},\frac{v}{p_{d+1}^{m_{d+1}}}\right)\right).$$ Using Lemma~\ref{lemsimids}, we now see that, for any $v\in\{0,\ldots,p_{d+1}^{m_{d+1}}-1\}$, \begin{multline*} e_{N,d+1}^2 \left(\left(\bssigma_{d},\frac{v}{p_{d+1}^{m_{d+1}}}\right)\right)\\ \le p_{d+1}^{m_{d+1}} \int_0^{p_{d+1}^{-m_{d+1}}} e_{N,d+1}^2 \left(\left(H_{\bsp_d,N}\oplus_{\bsp}^{\simi} \bssigma_{d},H_{p_{d+1},N}\oplus_{p_{d+1}}\left(\frac{v}{p_{d+1}^{m_{d+1}}}+\delta\right)\right),K_{d+1,\bsgamma}\right)\rd\delta, \end{multline*} where $\bsp_d:=(p_1,\ldots,p_d)$, and hence $$ e_{N,d+1}^2 ((\bssigma_d,\sigma_{d+1}))\le \int_0^1 e_{N,d+1}^2 ((H_{\bsp_d,N}\oplus_{\bsp}^{\simi} \bssigma_{d},H_{p_{d+1},N}\oplus_{p_{d+1}}\sigma),K_{d+1,\bsgamma}) \rd\sigma. $$ We denote the points of $H_{\bsp_d,N}\oplus_{\bsp}^{\simi} \bssigma_{d}$ by $\bsx_n=(x_{n,1},\ldots,x_{n,d})$, and the points of $H_{p_{d+1},N}$ by $h_{n}$. Due to \eqref{fo_wc_err}, we obtain \begin{eqnarray*} \lefteqn{\int_0^1 e_{N,d+1}^2 ((H_{\bsp_d,N}\oplus_{\bsp}^{\simi} \bssigma_{\bsm},H_{p_{d+1},N}\oplus_{p_{d+1}}\sigma),K_{d+1,\bsgamma}) \rd\sigma= \prod_{j=1}^{d+1}\left(1+\frac{\gamma_j}{3}\right)}\\ &&-\frac{2}{N}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\left[\prod_{j=1}^d \left(1+\frac{\gamma_j}{2}(1-x_{n,j}^2)\right)\right] \int_0^1 \left(1+\frac{\gamma_{d+1}}{2}(1-(h_n\oplus_{p_{d+1}} \sigma)^2)\right)\rd\sigma\\ &&+\frac{1}{N^2}\sum_{n,k=0}^{N-1}\left[\prod_{j=1}^d \left(1+\gamma_j \min\{1-x_{n,j},1-x_{k,j}\}\right)\right]\\ &&\hspace{1cm}\times\int_0^1 \left(1+\gamma_{d+1}\min\{1-(h_n\oplus_{p_{d+1}}\sigma),1-(h_k\oplus_{p_{d+1}}\sigma)\}\right)\rd\sigma. \end{eqnarray*} Let now $$I_1:=\int_0^1 \left(1+\frac{\gamma_{d+1}}{2}(1-(h_n\oplus_{p_{d+1}} \sigma)^2)\right)\rd\sigma,$$ and $$I_2:=\int_0^1 \left(1+\gamma_{d+1}\min\{1-(h_n\oplus_{p_{d+1}}\sigma),1-(h_k\oplus_{p_{d+1}}\sigma)\}\right)\rd\sigma.$$ Using \eqref{le3HKP14}, we obtain $$I_1=\int_0^1 \left(1+\frac{\gamma_{d+1}}{2}(1-\sigma^2)\right)\rd\sigma =1+\frac{\gamma_{d+1}}{3}.$$ Let us now deal with $I_2$. $$I_2=\sum_{\ell=0}^\infty r_{p_{d+1},\gamma_{d+1}}(\ell)\beta_{\ell}(h_n)\overline{\beta_{\ell} (h_k)},$$ where for $\ell=\ell_{a-1}p_{d+1}^{a-1}+\cdots + \ell_1 p_{d+1}+\ell_0$ with $\ell_{a-1}\neq 0$ we have $$ r_{p_{d+1},\gamma_{d+1}}=\begin{cases} 1+\frac{\gamma_{d+1}}{3} & \mbox{if $\ell=0$,}\\ \frac{\gamma_{d+1}}{2p_{d+1}^a}\left(\frac{1}{\sin^2(\ell_{a-1}\pi/p_{d+1})}-\frac{1}{3}\right) & \mbox{if $\ell\neq 0$.} \end{cases} $$ Altogether, we obtain \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqdd+1} \lefteqn{e_{N,d+1}^2 ((\bssigma_d,\sigma_{d+1}))}\nonumber\\ &\le&\prod_{j=1}^{d+1} \left(1+\frac{\gamma_j}{3}\right) -\frac{2}{N}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\left[\prod_{j=1}^d \left(1+\frac{\gamma_j}{2}(1-x_{n,j}^2)\right)\right]\left(1+\frac{\gamma_{d+1}}{3}\right)\nonumber\\ &&+\frac{1}{N^2}\sum_{n,k=0}^{N-1}\left[\prod_{j=1}^d \left(1+\gamma_j \min\{1-x_{n,j},1-x_{k,j}\}\right)\right] \sum_{\ell=0}^\infty r_{p_{d+1},\gamma_{d+1}}(\ell)\beta_{\ell}(h_n)\overline{\beta_{\ell} (h_k)}\nonumber\\ &=&\left(1+\frac{\gamma_{d+1}}{3}\right) \left[\prod_{j=1}^d \left(1+\frac{\gamma_j}{3}\right)-\frac{2}{N}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\prod_{j=1}^d \left(1+\frac{\gamma_j}{2}(1-x_{n,j}^2)\right)\right.\nonumber\\ && \hspace{2cm}\left. +\frac{1}{N^2}\sum_{n,k=0}^{N-1}\prod_{j=1}^d \left(1+\gamma_j \min\{1-x_{n,j},1-x_{k,j}\}\right)\right]\nonumber\\ &&+\frac{1}{N^2}\sum_{n,k=0}^{N-1}\left(\prod_{j=1}^d \left(1+\gamma_j \min\{1-x_{n,j},1-x_{k,j}\}\right)\right) \sum_{\ell=1}^\infty r_{p_{d+1},\gamma_{d+1}}(\ell)\beta_{\ell}(h_n)\overline{\beta_{\ell} (h_k)}\nonumber\nonumber\\ &=&\left(1+\frac{\gamma_{d+1}}{3}\right)e_{N,d}^2(\bssigma_d)+T, \end{eqnarray} where $$T:=\frac{1}{N^2}\sum_{n,k=0}^{N-1}\left(\prod_{j=1}^d \left(1+\gamma_j \min\{1-x_{n,j},1-x_{k,j}\}\right)\right) \sum_{\ell=1}^\infty r_{p_{d+1},\gamma_{d+1}}(\ell)\beta_{\ell}(h_n)\overline{\beta_{\ell} (h_k)}.$$ Since $\min\{1-x_{n,j},1-x_{k,j}\} \le 1$ we obviously have \begin{eqnarray}\label{Tbd} T \le \left(\prod_{j=1}^d (1+\gamma_j)\right)\sum_{\ell=1}^\infty r_{p_{d+1},\gamma_{d+1}}(\ell)\abs{\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\beta_{\ell}(h_n)}^2. \end{eqnarray} From the proof of \cite[Theorem 1]{HKP14}, it can easily be derived that $$\sum_{\ell=1}^\infty r_{p_{d+1},\gamma_{d+1}}(\ell)\abs{\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\beta_{\ell}(h_n)}^2 \le \frac{1}{N^2}\frac{\gamma_{d+1}g p_{d+1}^2}{2} + \frac{\gamma_{d+1}}{6 p_{d+1}^g} \left(1+\frac{\gamma_{d+1}}{2}\right),$$ for arbitrarily chosen $g\in\NN$. By choosing $g=\lfloor 2\log_{p_{d+1}} N\rfloor$ and inserting into \eqref{Tbd}, we arrive at \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqT} T&\le& \frac{1}{N^2}\prod_{j=1}^d (1+\gamma_j) \left(\left(\gamma_{d+1}(\log N) \frac{p_{d+1}^2}{\log p_{d+1}}\right)+\frac{\gamma_{d+1}p_{d+1}}{6} \left(1+\frac{\gamma_{d+1}}{2}\right)\right)\nonumber\\ &\le& \frac{1}{N^2}\left(\left(\gamma_{d+1}(\log N) \frac{p_{d+1}^2}{\log p_{d+1}}\right) \prod_{j=1}^d \left(1+2\gamma_j(\log N)\frac{p_j^2}{\log p_j}\right)\right.\nonumber\\ &&\hspace{1cm}\left.+ \frac{\gamma_{d+1}p_{d+1}}{6} \prod_{j=1}^{d+1} (1+\gamma_j) \prod_{j=1}^d \left(1+\frac{\gamma_j p_j}{6}\right)\right). \end{eqnarray} On the other hand, we have, using the induction assumption, \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqinduction} \lefteqn{\left(1+\frac{\gamma_{d+1}}{3}\right)e_{N,d}^2 (\bssigma_{d})}\nonumber\\ & \le & \left(1+\frac{\gamma_{d+1}}{3}\right)\frac{1}{N^2} \left(\prod_{j=1}^d \left(1+2\gamma_j (\log N) \frac{p_j^2}{\log p_j}\right)+\prod_{j=1}^{d}(1+\gamma_j) \prod_{j=1}^d \left(1+\frac{\gamma_j p_j}{6}\right)\right)\nonumber\\ &\le& \frac{1}{N^2}\left(\left(1+\gamma_{d+1}(\log N) \frac{p_{d+1}^2}{\log p_{d+1}}\right) \prod_{j=1}^d \left(1+2\gamma_j(\log N)\frac{p_j^2}{\log p_j}\right)\right.\nonumber\\ && \hspace{1cm}\left. + \prod_{j=1}^{d+1} (1+\gamma_j) \prod_{j=1}^d \left(1+\frac{\gamma_j p_j}{6}\right)\right). \end{eqnarray} Combining equations~\eqref{eqT} and~\eqref{eqinduction}, and inserting into~\eqref{eqdd+1}, we obtain \begin{eqnarray*} e_{N,d+1}^2 ((\bssigma_d,\sigma_{d+1})) \le \frac{1}{N^2}\left(\prod_{j=1}^{d+1} \left(1+2\gamma_j(\log N)\frac{p_j^2}{\log p_j}\right)+\prod_{j=1}^{d+1} (1+\gamma_j) \prod_{j=1}^{d+1} \left(1+\frac{\gamma_j p_j}{6}\right)\right). \end{eqnarray*} This is the result for $d+1$, and the theorem is shown. \end{proof}
\section{Introduction}\label{sec: Intro} \sec Let $T$ be a compact subset of $\reals^d$. For a real-valued sample continuous random field ${\bf X} = (X({\bf t}), \, {\bf t}\in T)$ and a level $u$, the excursion set of ${\bf X}$ above the level $u$ is the random set \begin{equation} \label{e:exc.set} A_u= \bigl\{ {\bf t}\in T:\, X({\bf t})>u\bigr\}\,. \end{equation} Assuming that the entire index set $T$ has no interesting topological features (i.e., $T$ is homotopic to a ball), what is the structure of the excursion set? This is a generally difficult and important question, and it constitutes an active research area. See \cite{adler:taylor:2007} and \cite{azais:wschebor:2009} for in-depth discussions. In this paper we consider the case when the random field ${\bf X}$ is Gaussian. Even in this case the problem is still difficult. In a previous paper \cite{adler:moldavskaya:samorodnitsky:2014} we studied a certain connectedness property of the excursion set $A_u$ for high level $u$. Specifically, given two distinct points in $\reals^d$, say, ${\bf a}$ and ${\bf b}$, we studied the asymptotic behaviour, as $u\to\infty$, of the conditional probability that, given $X({\bf a})>u$ and $X({\bf b})>u$, there exists a path $\xi$ between ${\bf a}$ and ${\bf b}$ such that $X({\bf t})>u$ for every ${\bf t}\in\xi$. In contrast, in this paper our goal is to study the probability that the excursion set $A_u$ has holes of a certain size over which the random field drops a fraction of the level $u$. We start with some examples of the types of probabilities we will look at. We will use the following notation. For an Euclidean ball $B$ will denote by $c_B$ its center and by $S_B=\partial(B)$ the sphere forming its boundary. Consider the following probabilities. For $0<r\leq 1$ denote \begin{equation} \label{e:spheres} \Psi_{\text sp}(u; r) = P\left( \text{there exists a ball $B$ entirely in $T$ }\right. \end{equation} $$ \left. \text{ such that $X({\bf t})>u$ for all ${\bf t}\in S_B$ but $X({\bf s})<r u$ for some ${\bf s}\in B$}\right) $$ and \begin{equation} \label{e:spheres.center} \Psi_{\text sp; c}(u; r) = P\left( \text{there exists a ball $B$ entirely in $T$ } \right. \end{equation} $$ \left. \text{ such that $X({\bf t})>u$ for all ${\bf t}\in S_B$ but $X(c_B)<r u$}\right)\,. $$ Simple arguments involving continuity show that the relevant sets in both \eqref{e:spheres} and \eqref{e:spheres.center} are measurable. Therefore, the probabilities $\Psi_{\text sp}(u; \tau) $ and $\Psi_{\text sp; c}(u; \tau) $ are well defined. These are the probabilities of events that, for some ball, the boundary of the ball belongs to the excursion set $A_u$, but the excursion set has a hole somewhere inside the ball in one case, containing the center of the ball in another case, in which the value of the field drops below $\tau u$. We study the logarithmic behaviour of probabilities of this type by using the large deviation approach. We start with a setup somewhat more general than that described above. Specifically, let ${\mathcal C}$ be a collection of ordered pairs $(K_1,K_2)$ of nonempty compact subsets of $T$. We denote, for $0<r\leq 1$, \begin{equation} \label{e:two.sets} \Psi_{{\mathcal C}}(u; r) = P\left( \text{ there is $(K_1,K_2)\in {\mathcal C}$ such that }\right. \end{equation} $$ \left. \text{ $X({\bf t})>u$ for each ${\bf t}\in K_1$ and $X({\bf t})<r u$ for each ${\bf t}\in K_2$.}\right) $$ We note that the probabilities $\Psi_{\text sp}(u; r) $ and $\Psi_{\text sp; c}(u; r) $ are special cases of the probability $\Psi_{{\mathcal C}}(u; r)$ with the collections ${\mathcal C}$ being, respectively, $$ {\mathcal C} = \Bigl\{ \bigl( S_B, {\bf s}\bigr), \ \text{ $B$ a ball entirely in $T$ and ${\bf s}\in B$}\Bigr\} $$ and $$ {\mathcal C} = \Bigl\{ \bigl( S_B, c_B\bigr), \ \text{ $B$ a ball entirely in $T$ }\Bigr\}\,. $$ In Section \ref{sec:large.deviations} we first introduce the necessary technical background, and then prove a large deviation result in the space of continuous functions for the probability $\Psi_{{\mathcal C}}(u; r)$. This result establishes a connection of the asymptotic behaviour of the probability $\Psi_{{\mathcal C}}(u;r)$ to a certain optimization problem. The dual formulation of this problem involves optimization over a family of probability measures, and in Section \ref{sec:optimal.measures} we describe important properties of the measures that are optimal for the dual problem. The general theory developed in these two sections leads to particularly transparent and intuitive results when applied to isotropic Gaussian fields. This is explored in Section \ref{sec:isotropic}. \section{A large deviations result} \label{sec:large.deviations} Consider a real-valued centered continuous Gaussian random field indexed by a compact subset $T\subset \reals^d$, ${\bf X} = (X({\bf t}), \, {\bf t}\in T)$. We denote the covariance function of ${\bf X}$ by $R_{\bf X}({\bf s},{\bf t})= \text{cov}(X({\bf s}),X({\bf t}))$. We view ${\bf X}$ as a Gaussian random element in the space $C(T)$ of continuous functions on $T$, equipped with the supremum norm, whose law is a Gaussian probability measure $\mu_{\bf X}$ on $C(T)$. See e.g. \cite{vandervaart:vanzanten:2008} about this change of the viewpoint, and for more information on the subsequent discussion. The reproducing kernel Hilbert space (henceforth RKHS) ${\mathcal H}$ of the Gaussian measure $\mu_{\bf X}$ (or of the random field ${\bf X}$) is a subspace of $C(T)$ obtained as follows. We identify ${\mathcal H}$ with the closure $\mathcal L$ in the mean square norm of the space of finite linear combinations $\sum_{j=1}^k a_jX({\bf t}_j)$ of the values of the process, $a_j\in\reals, \, {\bf t}_j\in T$ for $j=1,\ldots, k$, $k=1,2,\ldots$ via the injection ${\mathcal L}\to C(T)$ given by \begin{equation} \label{e:embed.Gen} H\to w_H = \Bigl( E\bigl( X({\bf t})H\bigr), \ {\bf t}\in T \Bigr)\,. \end{equation} We denote by $(\cdot,\cdot)_{\mathcal H}$ and $\| \cdot\|_{\mathcal H}$ the inner product and the norm in the RKHS ${\mathcal H}$. By definition, \begin{eqnarray} \label{norm:equalities} \|w_H\|^2_{\mathcal H} \ = \ E(H^2)\,. \end{eqnarray} The ``reproducing property'' of the space ${\mathcal H}$ is a consequence of the following observations. For every ${\bf t}\in\reals^d$, the fixed ${\bf t}$ covariance function $R_{{\bf t}}=R(\cdot,{\bf t})$ is in ${\mathcal H}$. Therefore, for every $w_H\in {\mathcal H}$, and ${\bf t}\in\reals^d$, $w_H({\bf t})=(w_H,R_{\bf t})_{\mathcal H}$. In particular, the coordinate projections are continuous operations on the RKHS. The quadruple $(C(T), {\mathcal H}, w, \mu_{\bf X})$ is a Wiener quadruple in the sense of Section 3.4 in \cite{deuschel:stroock:1989}. This allows one to use the machinery of large deviations for Gaussian measures described there. The following result is a straightforward application of the general large deviations machinery. \begin{theorem} \label{t:LDP.path} \ Let ${\bf X} = (X({\bf t}), \, {\bf t}\in T)$ be a continuous Gaussian random field on a compact set $T\subset\reals^d$. Let ${\mathcal C}$ be a collection of ordered pairs $(K_1,K_2)$ of nonempty compact subsets of $\reals^d$, compact in the product Hausdorff distance. Then for $0<r\leq 1$, \begin{eqnarray} \label{e:LD.limit} -\frac12 \lim_{\tau\uparrow r}D_{{\mathcal C}}(\tau) \leq \liminf_{u\to\infty} \frac{1}{u^2} \log \Psi_{{\mathcal C}}(u; r) \end{eqnarray} \begin{eqnarray*} \leq \limsup_{u\to\infty} \frac{1}{u^2} \log \Psi_{{\mathcal C}}(u; r) \leq -\frac12 D_{{\mathcal C}}(r)\,, \end{eqnarray*} where for $r>0$, \begin{eqnarray} \label{e:optimization.big} D_{{\mathcal C}}(r) &\stackrel{\Delta}{=}}\newcommand{\BX}{{\bf X}&\inf\left\{ EH^2 \: H\in {\mathcal L},\ \text{and, for some $(K_1,K_2)\in {\mathcal C}$, }\right. \end{eqnarray} \begin{eqnarray*} \left. \text{ $E\bigl(X({\bf t})H\bigr)\geq 1$ for each ${\bf t}\in K_1$ and $E\bigl( X({\bf t})H\bigr)\leq r $ for each ${\bf t}\in K_2$} \right\}. \end{eqnarray*} \end{theorem} \begin{proof} As is usual in large deviations arguments, we write, for $u>0$, $$ \Psi_{{\mathcal C}}(u; r) = P\bigl( u^{-1}{\bf X} \in A\bigr)\,, $$ where $A$ is the open subset of $C(T)$ given by $$ A \stackrel{\Delta}{=} \Bigl\{ {\bf \omega}\in C(T):\ \text{ there is $(K_1,K_2)\in {\mathcal C}$ such that } $$ $$ \text{ $\omega({\bf t})>1$ for each ${\bf t}\in K_1$ and $\omega({\bf t})<r $ for each ${\bf t}\in K_2$} \Bigr\}. $$ We use Theorem 3.4.5 in \cite{deuschel:stroock:1989}. We have \begin{equation} \label{e:LD.estimate} -\inf_{{\bf \omega}\in A} I({\bf \omega}) \leq \liminf_{u\to\infty} \frac{1}{u^2} \log \Psi_{{\mathcal C}}(u; \tau) \leq \limsup_{u\to\infty} \frac{1}{u^2} \log \Psi_{{\mathcal C}}(u; \tau) \leq -\inf_{{\bf \omega}\in \bar A} I({\bf \omega})\,. \end{equation} By Theorem 3.4.12 of \cite{deuschel:stroock:1989} the rate function $I$ can be written as \begin{equation} \label{e:rate.function} I({\bf \omega}) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \frac12 \| {\bf \omega}\|_{\mathcal H}^2 & \text{if ${\bf \omega}\in {\mathcal H}$}, \\ \infty & \text{if ${\bf \omega}\notin {\mathcal H}$,} \end{array} \right. \end{equation} for ${\bf \omega}\in C(T)$. Since ${\mathcal C}$ is compact in the product Hausdorff distance, $$ \bar A \subseteq \Bigl\{ {\bf \omega}\in C(T):\ \text{ there is $(K_1,K_2)\in {\mathcal C}$ such that } $$ $$ \text{ $\omega({\bf t})\geq 1$ for each ${\bf t}\in K_1$ and $\omega({\bf t})\leq r $ for each ${\bf t}\in K_2$} \Bigr\}, $$ and so \eqref{e:LD.estimate} already contains the upper limit statement in \eqref{e:LD.limit}. Further, for any $0<\varepsilon<1$, \begin{eqnarray*} \inf_{{\bf \omega}\in A} I({\bf \omega}) \leq \inf\left\{ EH^2 \: H\in {\mathcal L},\ \text{and, for some $(K_1,K_2)\in {\mathcal C}$, }\right. \end{eqnarray*} \begin{eqnarray*} \left. \text{ $\omega_H({\bf t})\geq 1+\varepsilon$ for each ${\bf t}\in K_1$ and $\omega_H({\bf t})\leq (1-\varepsilon)r $ for each ${\bf t}\in K_2$} \right\} \end{eqnarray*} $$ = (1+\varepsilon)^2 D_{{\mathcal C}}\left( \frac{1-\varepsilon}{1+\varepsilon}r\right)\,. $$ Letting $\varepsilon\downarrow 0$ establishes the lower limit statement in \eqref{e:LD.limit}. \end{proof} The lower bound in \eqref{e:LD.limit} can be strictly smaller than the upper bound, as the following example shows. We will see in the sequel that in certain cases of interest the two bounds do coincide. \begin{example} \label{ex:not.equal} {\rm Let $T=\{ 0,1,2\}$. Starting with independent standard normal random variables $Y_1, Y_2$ we define, for $0<r_0<1$ and $\sigma>r_0$, $$ X(0)=Y_1, \ X(1) = r_0Y_1, \ X(2) = \sigma Y_1+Y_2\,. $$ Note that in this case ${\mathcal L} = \{ a_1Y_1+a_2Y_2, \ a_1\in\reals, \, a_2\in\reals\}$. Let ${\mathcal C} = \bigl\{ \bigl( \{ 0\}, \{ 1\}\bigr), \, \bigl( \{ 0\}, \{ 2\}\bigr)\bigr\}$. It is elementary to check that $$ D_{{\mathcal C}}(r) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 1+ (\sigma-r)^2 & \text{for $0<r<r_0$,} \\ 1 & \text{for $r\geq r_0$,} \end{array} \right. $$ and that this function is not left continuous at $r=r_0$. } \end{example} For a fixed pair $(K_1,K_2)\in {\mathcal C}$ denote \begin{equation} \label{e:fixed.pair} D_{K_1,K_2}(r) =\inf\left\{ EH^2 \: H\in {\mathcal L}\ \text{such that} \right. \end{equation} $$ \left. \text{ $E\bigl(X({\bf t})H\bigr)\geq 1$ for each ${\bf t}\in K_1$ and $E\bigl( X({\bf t})H\bigr)\leq r $ for each ${\bf t}\in K_2$} \right\}. $$ Clearly, \begin{equation} \label{e:connect.R} D_{{\mathcal C}}(r) = \min_{(K_1,K_2)\in {\mathcal C}} D_{K_1,K_2}(r) \,, \end{equation} with the minimum actually achieved. Furthermore, an application of Theorem \ref{t:LDP.path} to the case of ${\mathcal C}$ consisting of a single ordered pair of sets immediately shows that \begin{eqnarray} \label{e:ldp:single} -\frac12 \lim_{\tau\uparrow r}D_{K_1,K_2}(\tau) &&\leq \liminf_{u\to\infty} \frac{1}{u^2} \log \Psi_{K_1,K_2}(u; r) \nonumber \\ &&\leq \limsup_{u\to\infty} \frac{1}{u^2} \log \Psi_{K_1,K_2}(u; r) \leq -\frac12 D_{K_1,K_2}(r)\,, \end{eqnarray} where $$ \Psi_{K_1,K_2}(u;r) = P\left( \text{ $X({\bf t})>u$ for all ${\bf t}\in K_1$ and $X({\bf t})<r u$ for all ${\bf t}\in K_2$.}\right) $$ The next result describes useful properties of the function $D_{K_1,K_2}$. \begin{theorem} \label{t:dual.repr} (a)\ If the feasible set in \eqref{e:fixed.pair} is not empty, then the infimum is achieved, at a unique $H\in {\mathcal L}$. (b) \ The following holds true: \begin{equation} \label{e:dual} D_{K_1,K_2}(r) = \left\{ \min \left[ \min_{\mu_1\in M_1^+(K_1)} \int_{K_1}\int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf t}_2)\, \mu_1(d{\bf t}_1)\mu_1(d{\bf t}_2), \ \right. \right. \end{equation} $$ \left. \left. \min_{\mu_1\in M_1^+(K_1), \mu_2\in M_1^+(K_2) \atop \text{\rm subject to \eqref{e:cond.1}}} \frac{A_{K_1,K_2}(\mu_1,\mu_2)}{B_{K_1,K_2}(\mu_1,\mu_2; r)} \right]\right\}^{-1} $$ with $$ A_{K_1,K_2}(\mu_1,\mu_2) = $$ $$ \int_{K_1}\int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf t}_2)\, \mu_1(d{\bf t}_1)\mu_1(d{\bf t}_2) \int_{K_2}\int_{K_2} R_{\bf X}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf t}_2)\, \mu_2(d{\bf t}_1)\mu_2(d{\bf t}_2) $$ $$ - \left( \int_{K_1}\int_{K_2} R_{\bf X}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf t}_2)\, \mu_1(d{\bf t}_1)\mu_2(d{\bf t}_2)\right)^2, $$ $$ B_{K_1,K_2}(\mu_1,\mu_2; r)= $$ $$ r^2 \int_{K_1}\int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf t}_2)\, \mu_1(d{\bf t}_1)\mu_1(d{\bf t}_2) -2r \int_{K_1}\int_{K_2} R_{\bf X}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf t}_2)\, \mu_1(d{\bf t}_1)\mu_2(d{\bf t}_2) $$ $$ + \int_{K_2}\int_{K_2} R_{\bf X}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf t}_2)\, \mu_2(d{\bf t}_1)\mu_2(d{\bf t}_2), $$ and the condition in the minimization problem is \begin{equation} \label{e:cond.1} \int_{K_1}\int_{K_2} R_{\bf X}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf t}_2)\, \mu_1(d{\bf t}_1)\mu_2(d{\bf t}_2) \geq r \int_{K_1}\int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf t}_2)\, \mu_1(d{\bf t}_1)\mu_1(d{\bf t}_2)\,. \end{equation} \end{theorem} \begin{proof} For part (a), let $(H_n)\subset {\mathcal L}$ be a sequence of elements satisfying the constraints in \eqref{e:fixed.pair} such that $EH_n^2\to D_{K_1,K_2}(r)$ as $n\to\infty$. By the Banach - Alaoglu theorem (see e.g. Theorem 2, p. 424 in \cite{dunford:schwartz:1988}), the sequence $(H_n)$ is weakly relatively compact in $\mathcal L$, and so there is $H\in {\mathcal L}$ and a subsequence $n_k\to\infty$ such that $E(H_{n_k}Y)\to E(HY)$ as $k\to\infty$ for each $Y\in {\mathcal L}$. Further, $EH^2\leq \liminf_{k\to\infty} EH_{n_k}^2= D_{K_1,K_2}(r)$. Therefore, $H$ is an optimal solution to the problem \eqref{e:fixed.pair}. The uniqueness of $H$ follows from the convexity of the norm. For part (b) we will use the Lagrange duality approach of Section 8.6 in \cite{luenberger:1969}. Let ${\tt Z}=C(K_1) \times C(K_2)$, which we equip with the norm $\| (\varphi_1,\varphi_2)\|_{\tt Z} = \max\bigl( \|\varphi_1\|_{C(K_1)}, \|\varphi_2\|_{C(K_2)}\bigr)$. Consider the closed convex cone in $\tt Z$ defined by ${\tt P} = \{ (\varphi_1,\varphi_2):\, \varphi_i(t) \geq 0$ for all $t\in K_i, \ i=1,2\}$. Its dual cone, which is a subset of ${\tt Z}^*$, can be identified with $M^+(K_1)\times M^+(K_2)$, under the action $$ (\mu_1,\mu_2)\bigl( (\varphi_1,\varphi_2)\bigr) = \int_{K_1} \varphi_1\, d\mu_1+ \int_{K_2} \varphi_2\, d\mu_2 $$ for a finite measure $\mu_i$ on $K_i$, $i=1,2$. Define a convex mapping $G:\, {\mathcal L} \to {\tt Z}$ by $$ G(H) = \Bigl( \bigl( 1-w_H({\bf t}),\, {\bf t}\in K_1\bigr), \ \bigl( w_H({\bf t})-r, \, {\bf t}\in K_2\bigr)\Bigr). $$ We can write \begin{equation} \label{e:primal} \bigl( D_{K_1,K_2}(r)\bigr)^{1/2} =\inf\left\{ (EH^2)^{1/2}\, : H\in {\mathcal L}, \ G(H)\in -{\tt P}\right\}\,. \end{equation} We start with the assumption that the feasible set in \eqref{e:fixed.pair} and \eqref{e:primal} is not empty. Let $z>r$, and consider the optimization problems \eqref{e:fixed.pair} and \eqref{e:primal} for $D_{K_1,K_2}(z)$. The feasible set in these problems has now an interior point, and in this case Theorem 1 (p. 224) in \cite{luenberger:1969} applies. We conclude that \begin{equation} \label{e:optimize.lagrange} \bigl( D_{K_1,K_2}(z)\bigr)^{1/2} = \max_{\mu_1\in M^+(K_1),\, \mu_2\in M^+(K_2)} \inf_{H\in {\mathcal L}} \biggl[ (EH^2)^{1/2} \end{equation} $$ + \int_{K_1} \bigl( 1-w_H({\bf t})\bigr)\, \mu_1(d{\bf t}) + \int_{K_2} \bigr( w_H({\bf t})-z\bigr)\, \mu_2(d{\bf t})\biggr]\,, $$ and the ``max'' notation is legitimate, because the maximum is, in fact, achieved. For $i=1,2$ and $\mu_i\in M^+(K_i)$ denote by $\|\mu_i\|$ its total mass, and by $\hat \mu_i\in M_1^+(K_i)$ the normalized measure $\hat \mu_i=\mu_i/\|\mu_i\|$ (if $\|\mu_i\|=0$, we use for $\hat \mu_i$ an arbitrary fixed probability measure in $M^+(K_i)$). Then $$ \bigl( D_{K_1,K_2}(z)\bigr)^{1/2} = \max_{\mu_1\in M^+(K_1),\, \mu_2\in M^+(K_2)} \biggl\{ \|\mu_1 \| -z \|\mu_2\| $$ $$ + \inf_{H\in {\mathcal L}} \left[ (EH^2)^{1/2} - \|\mu_1 \|\int_{K_1} w_H({\bf t}) \, \hat \mu_1(d{\bf t}) + \|\mu_2\|\int_{K_2} w_H({\bf t}) \, \hat \mu_2(d{\bf t})\right]\biggr\}\,. $$ Note that for fixed $\mu_i\in M^+(K_i)$, $i=1,2$ we have $$ \inf_{H\in {\mathcal L}} \left[ (EH^2)^{1/2} - \|\mu_1 \|\int_{K_1} w_H({\bf t}) \, \hat \mu_1(d{\bf t}) + \|\mu_2\|\int_{K_2} w_H({\bf t}) \, \hat \mu_2(d{\bf t})\right] $$ $$ = \inf_{a\geq 0} a\biggl\{ 1-\sup_{H\in {\mathcal L},\, EH^2=1} \left[ \|\mu_1 \|\int_{K_1} w_H({\bf t}) \, \hat \mu_1(d{\bf t}) - \|\mu_2\|\int_{K_2} w_H({\bf t}) \, \hat \mu_2(d{\bf t})\right]\biggr\} $$ $$ = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 0 & \text{if} \ \sup_{H\in {\mathcal L},\, EH^2=1} [ \ldots ]\leq 1 \\ -\infty & \text{if} \ \sup_{H\in {\mathcal L},\, EH^2=1} [ \ldots ]> 1 \end{array} \right.. $$ Therefore, $$ \begin{array}{ll} \bigl( D_{K_1,K_2}(z)\bigr)^{1/2} = & \max_{\mu_1\in M^+(K_1),\, \mu_2\in M^+(K_2)} \ \ \bigl( \|\mu_1 \| -z \|\mu_2\|\bigr) \\ \\ &\text{subject to} \end{array} $$ $$ \sup_{H\in {\mathcal L},\, EH^2=1} \left[ \|\mu_1 \|\int_{K_1} w_H({\bf t}) \, \hat \mu_1(d{\bf t}) - \|\mu_2\|\int_{K_2} w_H({\bf t}) \, \hat \mu_2(d{\bf t})\right] \leq 1\,. $$ Note that by the reproducing property, for fixed $\mu_1\in M^+(K_1),\, \mu_2\in M^+(K_2)$, $$ \sup_{H\in {\mathcal L},\, EH^2=1} \left[ \|\mu_1 \|\int_{K_1} w_H({\bf t}) \, \hat \mu_1(d{\bf t}) - \|\mu_2\|\int_{K_2} w_H({\bf t}) \, \hat \mu_2(d{\bf t})\right] $$ $$ = \sup_{w\in {\mathcal H},\, \|w\|_{\mathcal H}=1} \left( w, \, \|\mu_1 \|\int_{K_1} R_{\bf t}(\cdot) \, \hat \mu_1(dt) - \|\mu_2\|\int_{K_2} R_{\bf t}(\cdot) \, \hat \mu_2(dt) \right) _{\mathcal H} \,. $$ Assuming that the element in the second position in the inner product is nonzero, the supremum is achieved at that element scaled to have a unit norm. Therefore, value of the supremum is $$ \left\| \|\mu_1 \|\int_{K_1} R_{\bf t}(\cdot) \, \hat \mu_1(dt) - \|\mu_2\|\int_{K_2} R_{\bf t}(\cdot) \, \hat \mu_2(dt) \right\|_{\mathcal H}\,, $$ which is also trivially the case if the element in the second position in the inner product is the zero element. In any case, using the definition of the norm in ${\mathcal H}$, we conclude that $$ \bigl( D_{K_1,K_2}(z)\bigr)^{1/2} = \max_{m_1\geq 0, \, m_2\geq 0}\max_{\mu_1\in M_1^+(K_1),\, \mu_2\in M_1^+(K_2)} \ \ \bigl( m_1 -z\, m_2\bigr) $$ \begin{equation} \label{e:Rz.dual} \hskip -1.1in \text{subject to} \end{equation} $$ m_1^2 \int_{K_1}\int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf t}_2)\, \mu_1(d{\bf t}_1)\mu_1(d{\bf t}_2) -2m_1m_2 \int_{K_1}\int_{K_2} R_{\bf X}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf t}_2)\, \mu_1(d{\bf t}_1)\mu_2(d{\bf t}_2) $$ $$ + m_2^2 \int_{K_2}\int_{K_2} R_{\bf X}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf t}_2)\, \mu_2(d{\bf t}_1)\mu_2(d{\bf t}_2) \leq 1\,. $$ Next, we show that \eqref{e:Rz.dual} holds for $z=r$ as well. Let $A(z), \ z\geq r$ be the value of the maximum in the right hand side of \eqref{e:Rz.dual}. We know that $D_{K_1,K_2}(z) = A(z)^2$ for $z>r$. Moreover, it is clear that $A(z)\uparrow A(r)$ as $z\downarrow r$. Therefore, in order to extend \eqref{e:Rz.dual} to $z=r$ it is enough to prove that \begin{equation} \label{e:R.rcts} \lim_{z\downarrow r} D_{K_1,K_2}(z) =D_{K_1,K_2}(r)\,. \end{equation} To this end, choose a sequence $z_n\downarrow r$. For $n\geq 1$ there is, by part (a), the optimal solution $H_n$ of the problem \eqref{e:fixed.pair} corresponding to $z_n$. Appealing to the Banach-Alaoglu theorem, we see that the sequence $(H_n)$ is weakly relatively compact in $\mathcal L$, and so there is $H\in {\mathcal L}$ to which it converges weakly along a subsequence. This $H$ is, clearly, feasible in \eqref{e:fixed.pair} for $z=r$. Furthermore, $EH^2\leq \lim_{n\to\infty } D_{K_1,K_2}(z_n)$, implying that $D_{K_1,K_2}(r)\leq \lim_{z\downarrow r} D_{K_1,K_2}(z)$, thus giving us the only nontrivial inequality in \eqref{e:R.rcts}. Therefore, \eqref{e:Rz.dual} holds for $z=r$. A part of the optimization problem in \eqref{e:Rz.dual} with $z=r$ has the form $$ \max_{m_1\geq 0, \, m_2\geq 0} \ \ \bigl( m_1 -r\, m_2\bigr) $$ \begin{equation} \label{e:sep.prob} \hskip -1.1in \text{subject to} \end{equation} $$ am_1^2 - 2bm_1m_2 + cm_2^2\leq 1 $$ for fixed numbers $a\geq 0, \, c\geq 0$ and $b\in \reals$. In our case, $$ a= \int_{K_1}\int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf t}_2)\, \mu_1(d{\bf t}_1)\mu_1(d{\bf t}_2), \ b = \int_{K_1}\int_{K_2} R_{\bf X}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf t}_2)\, \mu_1(d{\bf t}_1)\mu_2(d{\bf t}_2) $$ and \begin{equation} \label{e:abc} c= \int_{K_2}\int_{K_2} R_{\bf X}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf t}_2)\, \mu_2(d{\bf t}_1)\mu_2(d{\bf t}_2) \,. \end{equation} These specific numbers satisfy the condition \begin{equation} \label{e:abc} b^2\leq ac\,, \end{equation} and we will assume that this condition holds in the problem \eqref{e:sep.prob} we will presently consider. As a first step, it is clear that replacing the inequality constraint in this problem by the equality constraint $$ a_2m_1^2 - 2bm_1m_2 + cm_2^2=1 $$ does not change the value of the maximum, so we may work with the equality constraint instead. The resulting problem can be easily solved, e.g. by checking the boundary values $m_1=0$ or $m_2=0$, and using the Lagrange multipliers if both $m_1>0$ and $m_2>0$. The resulting value of the maximum in this problem is \begin{equation} \label{e:max.value} \begin{array}{ll} a^{-1/2} & \text{if} \ \ b\leq r a \\ \left(\frac{c+ r^2a - 2 r b}{ac-b^2}\right)^{1/2} & \text{if} \ \ b> r a \end{array}. \end{equation} Moreover, it is elementary to check that we always have $$ \left(\frac{c+r^2a - 2r b}{ac-b^2}\right)^{1/2} \geq \frac{1}{a^{1/2}}\,. $$ Substituting \eqref{e:max.value} into \eqref{e:Rz.dual} with $z=r$ and using the values of $a, b, c$ given in \eqref{e:abc} gives us the representation \eqref{e:dual}. It remains to consider the case when the feasible set in \eqref{e:fixed.pair} and \eqref{e:primal} is empty. In this case $D_{K_1,K_2}(r)=\infty$, so we need to prove that the optimal value in the dual problem \eqref{e:Rz.dual} (with $\max$ replaced by $\sup$ in the statement) is infinite as well. For this purpose we use the idea of subconsistency in Section 3 of \cite{anderson:1983}. We write the minimization problem \eqref{e:fixed.pair} as a linear program with conic constraints, called $IP$ in that paper, with the following parameters. The space $X=\reals\times {\mathcal L}$ is in duality with the itself, $Y=X$. The space $Z=C(K_1) \times C(K_2)$ (as above) is in duality with the space $W=M(K_1)\times M(K_2)$, the product of the appropriate spaces of finite signed measures. The vector $c\in Y$ has the unity as its $\reals$ element, and the zero function as its $\mathcal L$ element. The function $A:\, X\to Z$ is given by $$ A(\alpha, H) = \Bigl( \bigl( E(HX({\bf t}), \, {\bf t}\in K_1\bigr), \, \bigl( E(HX({\bf t})), \, {\bf t}\in K_1\bigr)\Bigr), \ \alpha\in \reals, \, H\in {\mathcal L}\,. $$ The vector $b\in Z$ is given by a pair of continuous functions, the first one takes the constant value of $1$ over $K_1$, while the second one takes the constant value of $r$ over $K_2$. The positive cone $Q$ in $Z$ is defined by $Q= C_+(K_1) \times (-C_+(K_2))$, where $C_+(K_i)$ is the subset of $C(K_i)$ consisting of nonnegative functions, $i=1,2$. Finally, the positive cone $P$ in $X$ is defined by $$ P=\bigl\{ (\alpha, H):\, \alpha\geq (EH^2)^{1/2}\bigr\}\,. $$ It is elementary to verify that the dual problem $IP^*$ of \cite{anderson:1983} coincides with the maximization problem \eqref{e:Rz.dual}. Note that the dual problem is consistent (has a feasible solution). By Theorem 3 in Section 3 of \cite{anderson:1983} (see a discussion at the end of that section), in order to prove that the optimal value of the dual problem is infinite, we need to rule out the possibility that the original (primal) problem is subconsistent with a finite subvalue. With a view of obtaining a contradiction, assume the subconsistency with a finite subvalue of the primal problem. Then there are sequences $(x_n)\subset P$ and $(z_n)\subset Q$ such that $Ax_n-z_n\to b$ as $n\to\infty$ and the sequence of evaluations $(c,x_n)$ is bounded from above. With the present parameters, this means that there is a sequence $(H_n)\subset {\mathcal L}$ with the bounded sequence $(EH_n^2)$ of the second moments and two sequences of functions $(\varphi_{i,n})\subset C_+(K_i)$, $i=1,2$, such that, weakly, $$ \bigl( E(H_nX({\bf t}))-\varphi_{1,n}({\bf t}), \, {\bf t}\in K_1\bigr) \to \bigl( 1, \, {\bf t}\in K_1\bigr) \,, $$ $$ \bigl( E(H_nX({\bf t}))+\varphi_{2,n}({\bf t}), \, {\bf t}\in K_2\bigr) \to \bigl( r, \, {\bf t}\in K_2\bigr) $$ as $n\to\infty$, with the obvious notation for constant functions. Appealing, once again, to the Banach-Alaoglu theorem, we find that there is $H\in {\mathcal L}$ such that, along a subsequence, $H_n\to H$ weakly. Since weak convergence implies pointwise convergence, we immediately conclude that $E\bigl(X({\bf t})H\bigr)\geq 1$ for each ${\bf t}\in K_1$ and $E\bigl( X({\bf t})H\bigr)\leq r $ for each ${\bf t}\in K_2$, contradicting the assumption that the feasible set \eqref{e:fixed.pair} is empty. The obtained contradiction completes the proof. \end{proof} \begin{remark} \label{rk:m1m2} {\rm It is an easy calculation to verify that, in the optimization problem \eqref{e:sep.prob}, the optimal solution $(m_1,m_2)$ has the following properties. In the case $b\leq r a$ in \eqref{e:max.value} one has $m_2=0$, whereas if $b>ra$ in \eqref{e:max.value}, then the numbers $m_1$ and $m_2$ are both positive, and $$ \frac{m_1}{m_2} = \frac{rb-c}{ra-b}\,. $$ We will find these properties useful in the sequel. } \end{remark} \begin{remark} \label{rk:cty} {\rm We saw in Example \ref{ex:not.equal} that the function $D_{{\mathcal C}}$ does not, in general, need to be continuous. However, the arguments used in the proof of Theorem \ref{t:dual.repr}, together with the compactness in the product Hausdorff distance of the set ${\mathcal C}$, show that this function is always right continuous For a fixed pair $(K_1,K_2)\in {\mathcal C}$ even the absence of left continuity for the function $D_{K_1,K_2}$ is, in a sense, an exception and not the rule. Left continuity is trivially true at any $r_0$ for which the minimization problem \eqref{e:fixed.pair} is infeasible. If that problem is feasible, and it remains feasible for some $r<r_0$, then the left continuity at $r_0$ still holds. To see this, suppose $r_n\uparrow r_0$ as $n\to\infty$ is such that for some $0<\varepsilon<\infty$ \begin{equation} \label{e:prove.cty} \lim_{n\to\infty} \bigl( D_{K_1,K_2}(r_n)\bigr)^{1/2}= \bigl( D_{K_1,K_2}(r_0) \bigr)^{1/2}+\varepsilon\,. \end{equation} Let $H_n$ be optimal in \eqref{e:fixed.pair} for $r_n, \, n\geq 1$, and $H$ be optimal for $r_0$. Define $\hat H_n= (H_n+H)/2$. Then, for some sequence $k_n\to\infty$, $\hat H_n$ is feasible in \eqref{e:fixed.pair} for $r_{k_n}$, and $$ \bigl( E\hat H_n^2\bigr)^{1/2} \leq \Bigl( \bigl( E H_n^2\bigr)^{1/2} + \bigl( E H^2\bigr)^{1/2} \Bigr)/2\,. $$ Letting $n\to\infty$ we obtain $$ \limsup_{n\to\infty} \bigl( E\hat H_n^2\bigr)^{1/2} \leq \bigl( D_{K_1,K_2}(r_0) \bigr)^{1/2}+\varepsilon/2\,, $$ which contradicts \eqref{e:prove.cty}. Hence the left continuity at $r_0$. Left continuity fails at a point $r_0$ at which the minimization problem \eqref{e:fixed.pair} is feasible, but becomes infeasible at any $r<r_0$. An easy modification of Example \ref{ex:not.equal} can be used to exhibit such a situation. } \end{remark} As long as one is not in the last situation described in the example, it follows from \eqref{e:ldp:single} that $$ \lim_{u\to\infty} \frac{1}{u^2} \log \Psi_{K_1,K_2}(u; r) = -\frac12 D_{K_1,K_2}(r)\,. $$ In this connection there is a very natural interpretation of the structure of the representation \eqref{e:dual} of $ D_{K_1,K_2}(r)$. Notice that $$ \lim_{u\to\infty} \frac{1}{u^2} \log P\left( \text{ $X({\bf t})>u$ for all ${\bf t}\in K_1$} \right) $$ $$ = -\frac12 \left\{ \min_{\mu_1\in M_1^+(K_1)} \int_{K_1}\int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf t}_2)\, \mu_1(d{\bf t}_1)\mu_1(d{\bf t}_2) \right\}^{-1}\,. $$ This can be read off part (b) in Theorem \ref{t:dual.repr}, and it is also a simple extension of the results in \cite{adler:moldavskaya:samorodnitsky:2014}. Therefore, we can interpret the situation in which the first minimum in the right hand side of \eqref{e:dual} is the smaller of the two minima, as implying that the order of magnitude of the probability $\Psi_{K_1,K_2}(u; r)$ is determined, at least at the logarithmic level, by the requirement that $X({\bf t})>u$ for all ${\bf t}\in K_1$. In this case, the requirement that $X({\bf t})<ru$ for all ${\bf t}\in K_2$ does not change the logarithmic behaviour of the probability. This is not be entirely unexpected since the normal random variables in the set $K_2$ ``prefer'' not to take very large values. On the other hand, if the correlations between the variables of the random field in the set $K_1$ and those in the set $K_2$ are sufficiently strong, it may happen that, once it is true that $X({\bf t})>u$ for each ${\bf t}\in K_1$, the correlations will make it unlikely that we also have $X({\bf t})<ru$ for all ${\bf t}\in K_2$. In that case the second minimum in the right hand side of \eqref{e:dual} will be the smaller of the two minima. The discussion in Example \ref{rk:cty} also leads to the following conclusion of Theorem \ref{t:LDP.path}. \begin{corollary} \label{c:LDP.precise} Under the conditions of Theorem \ref{t:LDP.path}, suppose that there is $(K_1^{(r)}, K_2^{(r)})\in {\mathcal C}$ such that $$ D_{{\mathcal C}}(r) = D_{K_1^{(r)},K_2^{(r)}}(r)<\infty\,, $$ and such that the optimization problem \eqref{e:fixed.pair} for the pair $(K_1^{(r)}, K_2^{(r)})$ remains feasible in a neighborhood of $r$. Then \begin{equation} \label{e:really.limit} \lim_{u\to\infty} \frac{1}{u^2} \log \Psi_{{\mathcal C}}(u; r) = -\frac12 D_{{\mathcal C}}(r)\,. \end{equation} \end{corollary} \begin{proof} It follows from Theorem \ref{t:LDP.path} that we only need to show that \begin{equation} \label{e:statmnt1} \lim_{\tau\uparrow r}D_{{\mathcal C}}(\tau) = D_{{\mathcal C}}(r)\,. \end{equation} However, by the assumption of feasibility, as $\tau\uparrow r$, $$ D_{{\mathcal C}}(\tau) \leq D_{K_1^{(r)}, K_2^{(r)}(\tau)} \to D_{K_1^{(r)}, K_2^{(r)}}(r) = D_{{\mathcal C}}(r)\,, $$ giving us the only non-trivial part of \eqref{e:statmnt1}. \end{proof} It turns out that under certain assumptions, given that the event in \eqref{e:two.sets} occurs, the random field $u^{-1}{\bf X}$ converges in law, as $u\to\infty$, to a deterministic function on $T$, ``the most likely shape of the field''. This is described in the following result. \begin{theorem} \label{e:shape} Under the conditions of Theorem \ref{t:LDP.path}, suppose that there is a unique $(K_1^{(r)}, K_2^{(r)})\in {\mathcal C}$ such that \begin{equation} \label{e:unique.pair} D_{{\mathcal C}}(r) = D_{K_1^{(r)},K_2^{(r)}}(r)<\infty\,, \end{equation} and such that the optimization problem \eqref{e:fixed.pair} for the pair $(K_1^{(r)}, K_2^{(r)})$ remains feasible in a neighborhood of $r$. Then for any $\varepsilon>0$, \begin{equation} \label{e:most.likely} P\biggl( \sup_{{\bf t}\in T} \left| \frac1u X({\bf t}) - x_{\mathcal C}({\bf t})\right|\geq \varepsilon\bigg| \text{ there is $(K_1,K_2)\in {\mathcal C}$ such that} \end{equation} $$ \text{ $X({\bf t})>u$ for each ${\bf t}\in K_1$ and $X({\bf t})<r u$ for each ${\bf t}\in K_2$}\biggr)\to 0 $$ as $u\to\infty$. Here $$ x_{\mathcal C}({\bf t}) = E\left( X({\bf t})H\bigl( K_1^{(r)},K_2^{(r)}\bigr)\right), \, {\bf t}\in T\,, $$ and $H\bigl( K_1^{(r)},K_2^{(r)}\bigr)$ is the unique minimizer in the optimization problem \eqref{e:fixed.pair} for the pair $(K_1^{(r)}, K_2^{(r)})$. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} Using Theorem 3.4.5 in \cite{deuschel:stroock:1989}, we see that $$ \limsup_{u\to\infty} \frac{1}{u^2} \log P\biggl( \sup_{{\bf t}\in T} \left| \frac1u X({\bf t}) - x_{\mathcal C}({\bf t})\right|\geq \varepsilon \ \ \text{and there is $(K_1,K_2)\in {\mathcal C}$ } $$ $$ \text{ such that $X({\bf t})>u$ for each ${\bf t}\in K_1$ and $X({\bf t})< r u$ for each ${\bf t}\in K_2$}\biggr) $$ $$ \leq -\frac12 D_{\mathcal C}(r; \varepsilon)\,, $$ where \begin{equation}\label{e:opt.eps} D_{{\mathcal C}}(r;\varepsilon) =\inf\biggl\{ EH^2 \: H\in {\mathcal L},\ \sup_{{\bf t}\in T} \left| E(X({\bf t})H) - x_{\mathcal C}({\bf t})\right|\geq \varepsilon \end{equation} $$ \text{and for some $(K_1,K_2)\in {\mathcal C}$, } $$ $$ \text{ $E\bigl(X({\bf t})H\bigr)\geq 1$ for each ${\bf t}\in K_1$ and $E\bigl( X({\bf t})H\bigr)\leq r $ for each ${\bf t}\in K_2$} \biggr\}. $$ Therefore, the claim of the theorem will follow once we prove that $D_{{\mathcal C}}(r;\varepsilon)>D_{{\mathcal C}}(r)$. Indeed, suppose that the two minimal values coincide. Let $H_\varepsilon$ be an optimal solution for the problem \eqref{e:opt.eps}. Since $H\bigl( K_1^{(r)},K_2^{(r)}\bigr)$ is not feasible for the latter problem, we know that $H\bigl( K_1^{(r)},K_2^{(r)}\bigr)\not= H_\varepsilon$, while the two elements have equal norms. Since $H_\varepsilon$ is feasible for the problem \eqref{e:optimization.big}, because of the assumed uniqueness of the pair $(K_1^{(r)}, K_2^{(r)})$ in \eqref{e:unique.pair}, it must also be feasible for the problem \eqref{e:fixed.pair} with this pair $(K_1^{(r)}, K_2^{(r)})$, hence optimal for that problem. This, however, contradicts the uniqueness property in part (a) of Theorem \ref{t:dual.repr}. \end{proof} \section{Optimal measures} \label{sec:optimal.measures} Theorem \ref{t:dual.repr} together with \eqref{e:connect.R} provide a way to understand the asymptotic behaviour of the probability in \eqref{e:LD.limit}. The problem of finding the two minima in the right hand side of \eqref{e:dual} is not always simple since it is often unclear how to find the optimal probability measure(s) in these optimization problems. In this section we provide some results that are helpful for this task. We start with the first minimization problem on the right hand side of \eqref{e:dual}. In this case we can provide necessary and sufficient condition for a probability measure to be optimal. \begin{theorem} \label{t:condition.mu.1} A probability measure $\mu\in M_1^+(K_1)$ is optimal in the minimization problem $$ \min_{\mu\in M_1^+(K_1)} \int_{K_1}\int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf t}_2)\, \mu(d{\bf t}_1)\mu(d{\bf t}_2) $$ if and only if $$ \int_{K_1}\int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf t}_2)\, \mu(d{\bf t}_1)\mu(d{\bf t}_2) = \min_{{\bf t}_2\in K_1} \int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf t}_2)\, \mu(d{\bf t}_1)\,. $$ \end{theorem} This theorem can be proved in the same manner as part (ii) of Theorem 4.3 in \cite{adler:moldavskaya:samorodnitsky:2014}, so we do not repeat the argument. Next, observe that if the constraint \eqref{e:cond.1} in the second minimization problem in \eqref{e:dual} holds with equality, then $$ \int_{K_1}\int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf t}_2)\, \mu_1(d{\bf t}_1)\mu_1(d{\bf t}_2) = \frac{A_{K_1,K_2}(\mu_1,\mu_2)}{B_{K_1,K_2}(\mu_1,\mu_2; r)}\,, $$ so it is of particular interest to consider optimality of $\mu_1\in M_1^+(K_1)$ and $\mu_2\in M_1^+(K_2)$ for the second minimization problem in \eqref{e:dual} when the inequality in \eqref{e:cond.1} is strict. It turns out that we can shed some light on this question in an important special case, when one of the sets $K_1$ or $K_2$ is a singleton. For the purpose of this discussion we will assume that the set $K_2$ is a singleton. Let, therefore, $K_2=\{ {\bf b}\}$, for some ${\bf b}\in\reals^d$ such that ${\rm Var}(X({\bf b}))>0$. In that case the second optimization problem in \eqref{e:dual} turns out to be of the form \begin{equation} \label{e:problem2} \min_{\mu\in M_1^+(K_1)} \frac{\int_{K_1}\int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}^{(1)}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf t}_2)\, \mu(d{\bf t}_1)\mu(d{\bf t}_2)}{\int_{K_1}\int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}^{(2)}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf t}_2)\, \mu(d{\bf t}_1)\mu(d{\bf t}_2)} \end{equation} subject to \begin{equation} \label{e:condition.b} \int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}( {\bf t},{\bf b})\, \mu(d{\bf t})\geq r \int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf t}_2)\, \mu(d{\bf t}_1)\mu(d{\bf t}_2)\,, \end{equation} where $$ R_{\bf X}^{(1)}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf t}_2)= R_{\bf X}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf t}_2) R_{\bf X}({\bf b},{\bf b}) - R_{\bf X}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf b}) R_{\bf X}( {\bf t}_2,{\bf b}) $$ and $$ R_{\bf X}^{(2)}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf t}_2)=r^2 R_{\bf X}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf t}_2) -r\bigl( R_{\bf X}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf b}) + R_{\bf X}( {\bf t}_2,{\bf b}) \bigr) + R_{\bf X}({\bf b},{\bf b})\,. $$ Notice that both $R_{\bf X}^{(1)}$ and $R_{\bf X}^{(2)}$ are nonnegative definite, i.e. legitimate covariance functions on $T$. In fact, up to the positive factor $ R_{\bf X}({\bf b},{\bf b}) $, the function $R_{\bf X}^{(1)}$ is the conditional covariance function of the random field ${\bf X}$ given $X({\bf b})$, while $R_{\bf X}^{(2)}$ is the covariance function of the random field $$ Y({\bf t}) = rX({\bf t}) - X({\bf b}), \, {\bf t}\in T\,. $$ This problem is a generalization of the first optimization problem in \eqref{e:dual}, with the optimization of a single integral of a covariance function replaced by the optimization of a ratio of the integrals of two covariance functions. The following result presents necessary conditions for optimality in the optimization problem \eqref{e:problem2} of a measure for which the constraint \eqref{e:condition.b} is satisfied as a strict inequality. Note that the validity of the theorem does not depend on particular forms for $R_{\bf X}^{(1)}$ and $R_{\bf X}^{(2)}$. Observe that the nonnegative definiteness of $R_{\bf X}^{(1)}$ and $R_{\bf X}^{(2)}$ means that both the numerator and the denominator in \eqref{e:problem2} are nonnegative. If the denominator vanishes at an optimal measure, then the numerator must vanish as well (and the ratio is then determined via a limiting procedure). In the theorem we assume that the denominator does not vanish. \begin{theorem} \label{t:nec.cond2} Let $\mu\in M_1^+(K_1)$ be such that \eqref{e:condition.b} holds as a strict inequality. Let $\mu$ be optimal in the optimization problem \eqref{e:problem2} and $$ \int_{K_1}\int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}^{(2)}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf t}_2)\, \mu(d{\bf t}_1)\mu(d{\bf t}_2)>0\,. $$ Then \begin{equation} \label{e:nec.cond} \int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}^{(1)}( {\bf t}_1, {\bf t})\, \mu(d{\bf t}_1) \int_{K_1}\int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}^{(2)}( {\bf t}_1, {\bf t}_2)\, \mu(d{\bf t}_1) \mu(d{\bf t}_2) \end{equation} $$ \geq \int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}^{(2)}( {\bf t}_1, {\bf t})\, \mu(d{\bf t}_1) \int_{K_1}\int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}^{(1)}( {\bf t}_1, {\bf t}_2)\, \mu(d{\bf t}_1) \mu(d{\bf t}_2) $$ for every ${\bf t}\in K_1$. Moreover, \eqref{e:nec.cond} holds as as equality $\mu$-almost everywhere. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} Let $$ \Psi(\eta) = \frac{\int_{K_1}\int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}^{(1)}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf t}_2)\, \eta(d{\bf t}_1)\eta(d{\bf t}_2)}{\int_{K_1}\int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}^{(2)}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf t}_2)\, \eta(d{\bf t}_1)\eta(d{\bf t}_2)} $$ for those $\eta\in M(K_1)$, the space of finite signed measures on $K_1$ for which the denominator does not vanish. It is elementary to check that $\Psi$ is Fr\'echet differentiable at every such point, in particular at the optimal $\mu$ in the theorem. Its Fr\'echet derivative at $\mu$ is given by $$ D\Psi(\mu)[\eta] = \frac{2}{\left(\int_{K_1}\int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}^{(2)}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf t}_2)\, \mu(d{\bf t}_1)\mu(d{\bf t}_2)\right)^2} $$ $$ \left( \int_{K_1}\int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}^{(2)}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf t}_2)\, \mu(d{\bf t}_1)\mu(d{\bf t}_2) \int_{K_1}\int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}^{(1)}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf t}_2)\, \mu(d{\bf t}_1)\eta(d{\bf t}_2) \right. $$ $$ \left. - \int_{K_1}\int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}^{(1)}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf t}_2)\, \mu(d{\bf t}_1)\mu(d{\bf t}_2) \int_{K_1}\int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}^{(2)}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf t}_2)\, \mu(d{\bf t}_1)\eta(d{\bf t}_2)\right) $$ for $\eta\in M(K_1)$. We view the problem \eqref{e:problem2} as the minimization problem (2.1) in \cite{molchanov:zuyev:2004}. In our case the set $A$ coincides with the cone $M_1^+(K_1)$ of probability measures, the set $C$ is the negative half-line $(-\infty,0]$, and $H:\, M(K_1)\to\reals$ is given by $$ H(\eta) = r \int_{K_1}\int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf t}_2)\, \eta(d{\bf t}_1)\eta(d{\bf t}_2) - \int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}( {\bf t},{\bf b})\, \eta(d{\bf t})\,. $$ This function is also easily seen to be Fr\'echet differentiable at $\mu$, and $$ DH(\mu)[\eta]= 2r \int_{K_1}\int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf t}_2)\, \mu(d{\bf t}_1)\eta(d{\bf t}_2) - \int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}( {\bf t},{\bf b})\, \eta(d{\bf t}) $$ for $\eta\in M(K_1)$. Finally, the fact that \eqref{e:condition.b} holds as a strict inequality implies that the measure $\mu$ is regular according to Definition 2.1 in \cite{molchanov:zuyev:2004}. The claim \eqref{e:nec.cond} now follows from Theorem 3.1 in \cite{molchanov:zuyev:2004}. \end{proof} If, for example, the covariance function $R^{(2)}_{\bf X}$ is strictly positive on $K_1$, then an alternative way of writing the conclusion of Theorem \ref{t:nec.cond2} is $$ \frac{\int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}^{(1)}( {\bf t}_1, {\bf t})\, \mu(d{\bf t}_1)}{\int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}^{(2)}( {\bf t}_1, {\bf t})\, \mu(d{\bf t}_1)} \geq \frac{\int_{K_1}\int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}^{(1)}( {\bf t}_1, {\bf t}_2)\, \mu(d{\bf t}_1) \mu(d{\bf t}_2)}{\int_{K_1}\int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}^{(2)}( {\bf t}_1, {\bf t}_2)\, \mu(d{\bf t}_1) \mu(d{\bf t}_2)} $$ for every ${\bf t}\in K_1$, with equality for $\mu$-almost every ${\bf t}$. This is a condition of the same nature as the condition in Theorem \ref{t:condition.mu.1}. The convexity of the double integral as a function of the measure $\mu$ in the optimization problem in Theorem \ref{t:condition.mu.1} makes the necessary condition for optimality also sufficient. This convexity is lost in Theorem \ref{t:nec.cond2}, and it is not clear at the moment when the necessary condition in that theorem is also sufficient. We conclude this section with an explicit computation of the limiting shape $x_{\mathcal C}$ in Theorem \ref{e:shape} in terms of the optimal measures in the dual problem. We restrict ourselves to the case where the optimal pair $(K_1^{(r)}, K_2^{(r)})$ is such that $K_2^{(r)}$ is a singleton. This would always be the case, of course, if we considered a family ${\mathcal C}$ consisting of a single pair of sets, $(K_1,K_2)$, with $K_2$ a singleton, to start with. \begin{theorem} \label{t:shape.comp} Under the conditions of Theorem \ref{e:shape}, assume that the set $K_2^{(r)}=\{{\bf b}\}$ is a singleton. Let $\mu^{(r)}\in M_1^+(K_1)$ be the optimal measure in the optimization problem \eqref{e:dual} for the pair $(K_1^{(r)}, K_2^{(r)})$. Then \begin{equation} \label{e:shape.comp1} x_{\mathcal C}({\bf t}) = D_{\mathcal C}(r) \int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}({\bf t},{\bf t}_1)\, \mu^{(r)}(d{\bf t}_1), \, {\bf t}\in T\,, \end{equation} if the first minimum in \eqref{e:dual} does not exceed the second minimum, and \begin{equation} \label{e:shape.comp2} x_{\mathcal C}({\bf t}) = a\bigl( \mu^{(r)}\bigr)\left[ \int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}({\bf t},{\bf t}_1)\, \mu^{(r)}(d{\bf t}_1) - b\bigl( \mu^{(r)}\bigr) R_{\bf X}({\bf t},{\bf b})\right], \, {\bf t}\in T\,, \end{equation} if the first minimum in \eqref{e:dual} is larger than the second minimum. Here \begin{equation} \label{e:a.term} a\bigl( \mu^{(r)}\bigr) = \end{equation} $$ \frac{R_{\bf X}({\bf b},{\bf b}) - r \int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf b})\, \mu^{(r)}(d{\bf t}_1)}{R_{\bf X}({\bf b},{\bf b}) \int_{K_1}\int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf t}_2)\, \mu^{(r)}(d{\bf t}_1) \mu^{(r)}(d{\bf t}_2) - \left( \int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf b})\, \mu^{(r)}(d{\bf t}_1)\right)^2} $$ and \begin{equation} \label{e:b.term} b\bigl( \mu^{(r)}\bigr) = \end{equation} $$ \frac{r \int_{K_1}\int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf t}_2)\, \mu^{(r)}(d{\bf t}_1) \mu^{(r)}(d{\bf t}_2) - \int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf b})\, \mu^{(r)}(d{\bf t}_1)}{r \int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf b})\, \mu^{(r)}(d{\bf t}_1) - R_{\bf X}({\bf b},{\bf b})}\,. $$ \end{theorem} \begin{remark} \label{rk:shape} {\rm Notice that, since the set $K_2=\{{\bf b}\}$ is a singleton, only a measure in $M_1^+(K_1)$ is a variable over which one can optimize, as $M_1^+(K_2)$ consists of a single measure, the point mass at ${\bf b}$. Notice also that we are using the same name, $\mu^{(r)}$, for the optimal measure throughout Theorem \ref{t:shape.comp} for notational convenience only, because in the two different cases considered in the theorem, it referes to optimal solutions to two different problems. } \end{remark} \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{t:shape.comp}] By Theorem \ref{e:shape} all we need to do is to prove the following representations of the unique minimizer $H\bigl( K_1^{(r)},K_2^{(r)}\bigr)$ in the optimization problem \eqref{e:fixed.pair} for the pair $(K_1^{(r)}, K_2^{(r)})$. If the first minimum in \eqref{e:dual} does not exceed the second minimum, then \begin{equation} \label{e:min.1} H\bigl( K_1^{(r)},K_2^{(r)}\bigr) = D_{\mathcal C}(r) \int_{K_1} X({\bf t}_1)\, \mu^{(r)}(d{\bf t}_1)\,, \end{equation} and, if the first minimum in \eqref{e:dual} is larger than the second minimum, then \begin{equation} \label{e:min.2} H\bigl( K_1^{(r)},K_2^{(r)}\bigr) =a\bigl( \mu^{(r)}\bigr)\left[ \int_{K_1} X({\bf t}_1)\, \mu^{(r)}(d{\bf t}_1) - b\bigl( \mu^{(r)}\bigr) X({\bf b})\right]\,. \end{equation} We start by observing that, under the assumptions of Theorem \ref{e:shape}, the feasible set in the optimization problem \eqref{e:fixed.pair} for the pair $(K_1^{(r)}, K_2^{(r)})$ has an interior point. Therefore, Theorem 1 (p. 224) in \cite{luenberger:1969} applies. It follows that the vector $H\bigl( K_1^{(r)},K_2^{(r)}\bigr)$ solves the inner minimization problem in \eqref{e:optimize.lagrange} when we use $$ \mu_1= m_1 \mu^{(r)}, \ \ \mu_2= m_2\delta_{\bf b}\,, $$ where $m_1$ and $m_2$ are nonnegative numbers solving the optimization problem \eqref{e:sep.prob} corresponding to the measures $\mu^{(r)}$ and $\delta_{\bf b}$. It follows immediately that $H\bigl( K_1^{(r)},K_2^{(r)}\bigr)$ must be of the form \begin{equation} \label{e:H.interm} H\bigl( K_1^{(r)},K_2^{(r)}\bigr) =a \left[ m_1\int_{K_1} X({\bf t}_1)\, \mu^{(r)}(d{\bf t}_1) -m_2 X({\bf b})\right] \end{equation} for some $a\geq 0$. We now consider separately the two cases of the theorem. Suppose first that the first minimum in \eqref{e:dual} does not exceed the second minimum. In that case we have $m_2=0$ above, see Remark \ref{rk:m1m2}. According to that remark, this happens when \begin{equation} \label{e:case1} \int_{K_1}R_{\bf X}({\bf t}_1,{\bf b})\, \mu^{(r)}(d{\bf t}_1)\leq r \int_{K_1}\int_{K_1}R_{\bf X}({\bf t}_1,{\bf t}_2)\, \mu^{(r)}(d{\bf t}_1) \mu^{(r)}(d{\bf t}_2)\,. \end{equation} We combine, in this case, $a$ and $m_1$ in \eqref{e:H.interm} into a single nonnegative constant, which we still denote by $a$. We then consider vectors of the form \begin{equation} \label{e:cand.H1} H\bigl( K_1^{(r)},K_2^{(r)}\bigr) =a \int_{K_1} X({\bf t}_1)\, \mu^{(r)}(d{\bf t}_1) \end{equation} as candidates for the optimal solution in \eqref{e:fixed.pair}. The statement \eqref{e:min.1} will follow once we show that $a= D_{\mathcal C}(r)$ is the optimal value of $a$. By Theorem \ref{t:dual.repr}, we need to show that the optimal value of $a$ is \begin{equation} \label{e:cand.a1} a= \left( \int_{K_1}\int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}( {\bf t}_1,{\bf t}_2)\, \mu^{(r)}(d{\bf t}_1)\mu^{(r)}(d{\bf t}_2), \ \right)^{-1}\,. \end{equation} The first step is to check that using $a$ given by \eqref{e:cand.a1} in \eqref{e:cand.H1} leads to a feasible solution to the problem \eqref{e:fixed.pair}. Indeed, the fact that the constraints of the type ``$\geq$'' in that problem are satisfied follows from the optimality of the measure $\mu^{(r)}$ and Theorem \ref{t:condition.mu.1}. The fact that the constraint of the type ``$\leq$'' in that problem is satisfied follows from \eqref{e:case1}. This establishes the feasibility of the solution. Its optimality now follows from the fact that using $a$ given by \eqref{e:cand.a1} in \eqref{e:cand.H1} leads to a feasible solution whose second moment is equal to the optimal value $D_{\mathcal C}(r)$. Suppose now that the first minimum in \eqref{e:dual} is larger than the second minimum. According to Remark \ref{rk:m1m2} this happens when \eqref{e:case1} fails and, further, we have $$ \frac{m_1}{m_2} = \left( b\bigl( \mu^{(r)}\bigr)\right)^{-1}\,, $$ where $b\bigl( \mu^{(r)}\bigr)$ is defined in \eqref{e:b.term}. Combining, once again, $a$ and $m_1$ in \eqref{e:H.interm} into a single nonnegative constant, which is still denoted by $a$, we consider vectors of the form \begin{equation} \label{e:cand.H2} H\bigl( K_1^{(r)},K_2^{(r)}\bigr) =a\left[ \int_{K_1} X({\bf t}_1)\, \mu^{(r)}(d{\bf t}_1) - b\bigl( \mu^{(r)}\bigr) X({\bf b})\right] \end{equation} as candidates for the optimal solution in \eqref{e:fixed.pair}. The proof will be complete once we show that the value of $a=a\bigl( \mu^{(r)}\bigr)$ given in \eqref{e:a.term} is the optimal value of $a$. Notice that for vectors of the form \eqref{e:cand.H2}, the optimal value of $a$ solves the optimization problem $$ \min_{a\geq 0} \ \ a $$ \begin{equation} \label{e:last.prob} \hskip 0.2in \text{subject to} \end{equation} $$ a\left[ \int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}({\bf t},{\bf t}_1)\, \mu^{(r)}(d{\bf t}_1) - b\bigl(\mu^{(r)}\bigr) R_{\bf X}({\bf t},{\bf b})\right] \geq 1 \ \ \text{for each ${\bf t}\in K_1$}\,, $$ $$ a\left[ \int_{K_1} R_{\bf X}({\bf b},{\bf t}_1)\, \mu^{(r)}(d{\bf t}_1) - b\bigl(\mu^{(r)}\bigr) R_{\bf X}({\bf b},{\bf b})\right] \leq r\,. $$ The first step is to check that the value of $a=a\bigl( \mu^{(r)}\bigr)$ given in \eqref{e:a.term} is feasible for the problem \eqref{e:last.prob}. First of all, nonnegativity of this value of $a$ follows from the fact that \eqref{e:case1} fails. Furthermore, it takes only simple algebra to check that the ``$\leq$'' constraint is satisfied as an equality. In order to see that the ``$\geq$'' constraints are satisfied as well, notice that, since \eqref{e:case1} fails, we are in the situation of Theorem \ref{t:nec.cond2}. Therefore, the measure $\mu^{(r)}$ satisfies the necessary conditions for optimality given in \eqref{e:nec.cond}. Again, it takes only elementary algebraic calculations to see that these optimality conditions are equivalent to the ``$\geq$'' constraints in the problem \eqref{e:last.prob}. Now that the feasibility has been established, the optimality of the solution to the problem \eqref{e:fixed.pair} given by using in \eqref{e:cand.H2} the value of $a=a\bigl( \mu^{(r)}\bigr)$ from \eqref{e:a.term}, follows, once again, from the fact that this feasible solution has second moment equal to the optimal value $D_{\mathcal C}(r)$, as can be checked by easy algebra. \end{proof} \section{Isotropic random fields} \label{sec:isotropic} In this section we will consider stationary isotropic Gaussian random fields, i.e. random fields for which $$ R_{\bf X}( {\bf t}_1, {\bf t}_2)= R(\| {\bf t}_1-{\bf t}_2\|), \, {\bf t}_1,\, {\bf t}_2\in T\,, $$ for some function $R$ on $[0,\infty)$. We will concentrate on the asymptotic behaviour of the probabilities $\Psi_{\text sp}(u; r)$ and $\Psi_{\text sp; c}(u; r)$ in \eqref{e:spheres} and \eqref{e:spheres.center} correspondingly. We consider the probability $\Psi_{\text sp; c}(u; r)$ first. In this case, by \eqref{e:connect.R} and isotropy, \begin{equation} \label{e:connect.center} D_{{\mathcal C}}(r) = \min_{0\leq \rho\leq D} M_\rho(r)\,, \end{equation} where \begin{equation} \label{e:diam} D= \sup\bigl\{ \rho\geq 0:\ \text{there is a ball of radius $\rho$ entirely in $T$}\bigr\}\,, \end{equation} and $M_\rho(r)= D_{K_1,K_2}(r) $ in \eqref{e:fixed.pair} with $K_1$ being the sphere of radius $\rho$ centered at the origin, and $K_2=\{{\bf 0}\}$. The following result provides a fairly detailed description of the asymptotic behaviour of the probability $\Psi_{\text sp; c}(u; r)$. \begin{theorem} \label{t:isotropic.centers} Let ${\bf X}$ be isotropic. Then \begin{equation} \label{e:centers.exact} \lim_{u\to\infty} \frac{1}{u^2} \log \Psi_{\text sp; c}(u; r) = -\frac12 \min_{0\leq \rho\leq D} M_\rho(r)\,. \end{equation} Furthermore, for every $0<r\leq 1$, $M_\rho(r) = \bigl( W_\rho(r)\bigr)^{-1}$, where \begin{equation} \label{e:M.r} W_\rho(r) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} D(\rho) & \text{if} \ R(\rho)\leq rD(\rho)\,, \\ \frac{R(0)D(\rho)-\bigl( R(\rho)\bigr)^2}{R(0)-2rR(\rho) + r^2D(\rho)} & \text{if} \ R(\rho)> rD(\rho)\,. \end{array} \right. \end{equation} Here \begin{equation} \label{e:def.D} D(\rho) = \int_{S_\rho({\bf 0})} \int_{S_\rho({\bf 0})} R(\|{\bf t}_1-{\bf t}_2\|)\mu_h(d{\bf t}_1)\, \mu_h(d{\bf t}_2)\,, \end{equation} where $S_\rho({\bf 0})$ is the sphere of radius $\rho$ centered at the origin, and $\mu_h$ is the rotation invariant probability measure on that sphere. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} We use part (b) of Theorem \ref{t:dual.repr} with $K_1=S_\rho({\bf 0})$ and $K_2=\{{\bf 0}\}$. Note first of all that by the rotation invariance of the measure $\mu_h$, the function $$ \int_{K_1} R(\| {\bf t}_1-{\bf t}_2\|)\, \mu_h(d{\bf t}_1), \ {\bf t}_2\in S_\rho({\bf 0})\,, $$ is constant. Hence by Theorem \ref{t:condition.mu.1} the measure $\mu_h$ is optimal in the first minimization problem on the right hand side of \eqref{e:dual}, and the optimal value in that problem is $D(\rho)$. In the second minimization problem on the right hand side of \eqref{e:dual}, since $K_2$ is a singleton, the optimization is only over measures $\mu_1\in M_1^+(K_1)$, and so we drop the unnecessary $\mu_2$ in the argument in the ratio in that problem. By the isotropy of the field, $$ \frac{A_{K_1,K_2}(\mu_1)}{B_{K_1,K_2}(\mu_1; r)} = \frac{\int_{K_1}\int_{K_1} R(\| {\bf t}_1-{\bf t}_2\|)\, \mu_1(d{\bf t}_1)\mu_1(d{\bf t}_2) R(0)- \bigl(R(\rho)\bigr)^2}{r^2 \int_{K_1}\int_{K_1} R(\| {\bf t}_1-{\bf t}_2\|)\, \mu_1(d{\bf t}_1)\mu_1(d{\bf t}_2) -2r R(\rho)+ R(0)} $$ $$ = \frac{R(0)}{r^2} - \frac{(R(\rho)-R(0)/r)^2}{r^2 \int_{K_1}\int_{K_1} R(\| {\bf t}_1-{\bf t}_2\|)\, \mu_1(d{\bf t}_1)\mu_1(d{\bf t}_2) -2r R(\rho)+ R(0)}\,. $$ Since the expression in the denominator is nonnegative (see the discussion following \eqref{e:condition.b}), the ratio in the left hand side is smaller if the double integral in the right hand side is smaller. Furthermore, condition \eqref{e:cond.1} reads, in this case, as $$ R(0)\geq r \int_{K_1}\int_{K_1} R(\| {\bf t}_1-{\bf t}_2\|)\, \mu_1(d{\bf t}_1)\mu_1(d{\bf t}_2)\,. $$ This means that, if this condition is satisfied when the double integral is large, it is also satisfied when the double integral is small. Recalling that the double integral is smallest when $\mu=\mu_h$, we conclude that $$ \min_{\mu_1\in M_1^+(K_1) \atop \text{\rm subject to \eqref{e:cond.1}}} \frac{A_{K_1,K_2}(\mu_1)}{B_{K_1,K_2}(\mu_1; r)} = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \infty & \text{if $R(\rho)< rD(\rho)$,} \\ \frac{R(0)D(\rho) -\bigl( R(\rho)\bigr)^2}{R(0)-2rR(\rho) + r^2D(\rho)} & \text{if $R(\rho)\geq rD(\rho)$. } \end{array} \right. $$ Finally, since \begin{equation} \label{e:H.D} \frac{R(0)D(\rho) -\bigl( R(\rho)\bigr)^2}{R(0)-2rR(\rho) + r^2D(\rho)} \end{equation} $$ = D(\rho) - \frac{\bigl( rD(\rho)-R(\rho)\bigr)^2}{R(0)-2rR(\rho) + r^2D(\rho)} \leq D(\rho)\,, $$ we obtain \eqref{e:M.r}. It remains to prove \eqref{e:centers.exact}. We use \eqref{e:connect.center}. By Theorem \ref{t:LDP.path}, it is enough to prove that the function $D_{{\mathcal C}}$ is left continuous. By monotonicity, if $D_{{\mathcal C}}=\infty$ for some $r>0$, then the same is true for all smaller values of the argument, and the left continuity is trivial. Let, therefore, $0<r\leq 1$ be such that $D_{{\mathcal C}}<\infty$. Let $0\leq \rho_0\leq D$ be such that $$ M_{\rho_0}(r) = \min_{0\leq \rho\leq D} M_\rho(r)\,. $$ Then $W_{\rho_0}(r)>0$. By \eqref{e:M.r}, the $W_\rho(r)$ is, for a fixed $\rho$, a continuous function of $r$. Therefore, $$ \lim_{s\uparrow r} D_{{\mathcal C}}(s) \leq \lim_{s\uparrow r} \bigl( W_\rho(s)\bigr)^{-1} = \bigl( W_\rho(r)\bigr)^{-1} = D_{{\mathcal C}}(r)\,. $$ By the monotonicity of the function $D_{{\mathcal C}}$, this implies left continuity. \end{proof} The distinction between the situations described by the two conditions on the right hand side of \eqref{e:M.r} can be described using the intuition introduced in the discussion following Example \ref{rk:cty}. If there is a ``peak'' of height greater than $u$ covering the entire sphere of radius $\rho$, is it likely that there will be a ``hole'' in the center of the sphere where the height is smaller than $ru$? Theorem \ref{t:isotropic.centers} says that a hole is likely if $R(\rho)\leq rD(\rho)$ and unlikely if $R(\rho)> rD(\rho)$, at least at the logarithmic level. It is reasonable to expect that, for spheres of a very small radius, a hole in the center is unlikely, while for spheres of a very large radius, a hole in the center is likely, at least if the terms ``very small'' and ``very large'' are used relatively to the depth of the hole described by the factor $r$. This intuition turns out to be correct in many, but not all, cases, and some unexpected phenomena emerge. We will try to clarify the situation in the subsequent discussion. We look at spheres of very small radius first. Observe first that by the continuity of the covariance function, we have both $R(\rho)\to R(0)$ and $D(\rho)\to R(0)$ as $\rho\to 0$. Therefore, if $0<\rho<1$, then the condition $R(\rho)> rD(\rho)$ holds for spheres of sufficiently small radii, and a hole that deep is, indeed, unlikely. Is the same true for $r=1$? In other words, is it true that there is $\delta>0$ such that \begin{equation} \label{e:small.radius} D(\rho)<R(\rho) \ \ \text{for all $0<\rho<\delta$?} \end{equation} A sufficient condition is that the function $R$ is concave on $[0,2\delta]$; this is always the case for a sufficiently small $\delta>0$ if the covariance function $R$ corresponds to a spectral measure with a finite second moment. To see how the concavity implies \eqref{e:small.radius}, note that by the Jensen inequality, $$ D(\rho) \leq R\left( \int_{S_\rho({\bf 0})} \int_{S_\rho({\bf 0})} \|{\bf t}_1-{\bf t}_2\|\mu_h(d{\bf t}_1)\, \mu_h(d{\bf t}_2)\right)\,. $$ Further, by the symmetry of the measure $\mu_h$ and the triangle inequality, $$ \int_{S_\rho({\bf 0})} \int_{S_\rho({\bf 0})} \|{\bf t}_1-{\bf t}_2\|\, \mu_h(d{\bf t}_1)\, \mu_h(d{\bf t}_2) $$ $$ = \int_{S_\rho({\bf 0})} \int_{S_\rho({\bf 0})} \bigl( \|{\bf t}_1-{\bf t}_2\|/2+ \|{\bf t}_1+{\bf t}_2\|/2\bigr) \, \mu_h(d{\bf t}_1)\, \mu_h(d{\bf t}_2) $$ $$ \geq \int_{S_\rho({\bf 0})} \int_{S_\rho({\bf 0})} \|{\bf t}_1\|\, \mu_h(d{\bf t}_1)\, \mu_h(d{\bf t}_2) = \delta\,. $$ Since the concavity of $R$ on $[0,2\delta]$ implies its monotonicity, we obtain \eqref{e:small.radius}. In dimensions $d\geq 2$, the hole in the center with $r=1$ may be unlikely for small spheres even without concavity. Consider covariance functions satisfying \begin{equation} \label{e:regvar.zero} R(\rho) = R(0) -a\rho^\beta + o(\rho^\beta), \ \ \text{as $\rho\to 0$,} \end{equation} for some $a>0$ and $1\leq\beta\leq 2$. To see that this implies \eqref{e:small.radius} as well, notice that, under \eqref{e:regvar.zero}, $$ D(\rho) = R(0) - a \rho^\beta \int_{S_1({\bf 0})} \int_{S_1({\bf 0})} \|{\bf t}_1-{\bf t}_2\|^\beta\, \mu_h(d{\bf t}_1)\, \mu_h(d{\bf t}_2) + o(\rho^\beta),\ \ \text{as $\rho\to 0$.} $$ Using, as above, the symmetry together with the Jensen inequality and the triangle inequality we see that $$ \int_{S_1({\bf 0})} \int_{S_1({\bf 0})} \|{\bf t}_1-{\bf t}_2\|^\beta\, \mu_h(d{\bf t}_1)\, \mu_h(d{\bf t}_2) $$ $$ = \int_{S_1({\bf 0})} \int_{S_1({\bf 0})} \bigl( \|{\bf t}_1-{\bf t}_2\|^\beta/2 + \|{\bf t}_1+{\bf t}_2\|^\beta/2\bigr)\, \mu_h(d{\bf t}_1)\, \mu_h(d{\bf t}_2) $$ $$ \geq \int_{S_1({\bf 0})} \int_{S_1({\bf 0})} \bigl( \|{\bf t}_1-{\bf t}_2\|/2 + \|{\bf t}_1+{\bf t}_2\|/2\bigr)^\beta\, \mu_h(d{\bf t}_1)\, \mu_h(d{\bf t}_2) $$ $$ > \int_{S_1({\bf 0})} \int_{S_1({\bf 0})} \|{\bf t}_1\|^\beta\, \mu_h(d{\bf t}_1)\, \mu_h(d{\bf t}_2) =1\,. $$ Thus we see that for some $a_1>a$, $$ D(\rho) = R(0) -a_1\rho^\beta + o(\rho^\beta), \ \ \text{as $\rho\to 0$,} $$ and so \eqref{e:small.radius} holds for $\delta>0$ small enough. An example of the situation where \eqref{e:regvar.zero} holds without concavity condition is that of the isotropic Ornstein-Uhlenbeck random field corresponding to $R(t) = \exp\{ -a|t|\}$ for some $a>0$. It is interesting that for this random field a hole in the center with $r=1$ is unlikely for small spheres in dimension $d\geq 2$, but not in dimension $d=1$. Indeed, in the latter case we have $$ D(\rho) = \bigl( 1+ e^{-2a\rho})/2> e^{-a\rho} = R(\rho)\,, $$ no matter how small $\rho>0$ is. When $\rho\to \infty$, we expect that a hole in the center of a sphere will become likely no matter what $0<r\leq 1$ is. According to the discussion above, this happens when \begin{equation} \label{e:D.large} \lim_{\rho\to\infty} \frac{D(\rho)}{R(\rho)}= \infty\,. \end{equation} This turns out to be true under certain short memory assumptions. Assume, for example, that $R$ is nonnegative and \begin{equation} \label{e:short.mem} \liminf_{v\to\infty} \frac{R(tv)}{R(v)} \geq t^{-a} \ \ \text{with $a\geq d-1$, for all $0<t\leq 1$.} \end{equation} Then by Fatou's lemma, \begin{eqnarray*} &&\liminf_{\rho\to\infty}\frac{D(\rho)}{R(\rho)} \\ &&\geq \int_{S_1({\bf 0})} \int_{S_1({\bf 0})} {\bf 1}\bigl( \|{\bf t}_1-{\bf t}_2\|\leq 1\bigr) \liminf_{\rho\to\infty} \frac{R\bigl( \|{\bf t}_1-{\bf t}_2\|\rho\bigr)}{R(\rho)} \, \mu_h(d{\bf t}_1)\, \mu_h(d{\bf t}_2) \\ &&\geq \int_{S_1({\bf 0})} \int_{S_1({\bf 0})} {\bf 1}\bigl( \|{\bf t}_1-{\bf t}_2\|\leq 1\bigr)\, \|{\bf t}_1-{\bf t}_2\|^{-a} \, \mu_h(d{\bf t}_1)\, \mu_h(d{\bf t}_2) = \infty\,, \end{eqnarray*} so that \eqref{e:D.large} holds. However, in dimensions $d\geq 2$, the situation turns out to be different under an assumption of a longer memory. Assume, for simplicity, that $R$ is monotone, and suppose that, for some $\varepsilon>0$, \begin{equation} \label{e:long.mem} R\ \ \text{is regularly varying at infinity with exponent $-(d-1)+\varepsilon$.} \end{equation} We claim that, in this case \begin{equation} \label{e:huge.sphere} \lim_{\rho\to\infty} \frac{D(\rho)}{R(\rho)}= \int_{S_1({\bf 0})} \int_{S_1({\bf 0})} \|{\bf t}_1-{\bf t}_2\|^{-(d-1)+\varepsilon} \, \mu_h(d{\bf t}_1)\, \mu_h(d{\bf t}_2) <\infty\,. \end{equation} It is easy to prove this using Breiman's theorem as in, for instance, Proposition 7.5 in \cite{resnick:2007}. Let $Z$ be a positive random variable such that $P(Z>z) = R(z)/R(0)$, and let $Y$ be an independent of $Z$ positive random variable whose law is given by the image of the product measure $\mu_h\times \mu_h$ on $S_1({\bf 0})\times S_1({\bf 0})$ under the map $({\bf t}_1,{\bf t}_2)\mapsto \|{\bf t}_1-{\bf t}_2\|^{-1}$. Notice that $EY^{d-1-\varepsilon/2}<\infty$. Therefore, by Breiman's theorem, as $\rho\to\infty$, $$ D(\rho) = R(0) P(ZY>\rho) \sim R(0) EY^{d-1-\varepsilon}P(Z>\rho) $$ $$ = R(\rho) \int_{S_1({\bf 0})} \int_{S_1({\bf 0})} \|{\bf t}_1-{\bf t}_2\|^{-(d-1)+\varepsilon} \, \mu_h(d{\bf t}_1)\, \mu_h(d{\bf t}_2)\,. $$ If we call $$ I(d;\varepsilon) = \int_{S_1({\bf 0})} \int_{S_1({\bf 0})} \|{\bf t}_1-{\bf t}_2\|^{-(d-1)+\varepsilon} \, \mu_h(d{\bf t}_1)\, \mu_h(d{\bf t}_2)\,, $$ then we have just proved that the hole in the center of a sphere corresponding to a factor $r<1/I(d;\varepsilon)$ remains unlikely even for spheres of infinite radius! This is in spite of the fact, that the random field is ergodic, and even mixing, as the covariance function vanishes at infinity. This phenomenon is impossible if $d=1$ since in this case $D(\rho)$ does not converge to zero as $\rho\to\infty$. Some estimates of the integral $I(d;\varepsilon)$ for $d=2$ and $d=3$ are presented on Fig. \ref{fig:integral}. \begin{figure}[!ht] \includegraphics[width=10cm,height=4cm]{Int23d.pdf} \caption{The integral $I(d;\varepsilon)$ for $d=2$ and $d=3$} \label{fig:integral} \end{figure} One can pursue the analysis of holes in the center of a sphere a bit further, and talk about {\it the most likely radius of a sphere} for which the random field has a ``peak'' of height greater than $u$ covering the entire sphere, and a ``hole'' in the center of the sphere where the height is smaller than $ru$, as $u\to\infty$. According to Theorem \ref{t:isotropic.centers}, this most likely radius is given by ${\rm argmax}_{\rho\geq 0} W_\rho(r)$. The following corollary shows how calculate this most likely radius. For simplicity, we assume that $R$ is monotone and $0<r<1$. Let $$ H_\rho(r) = \frac{R(0)D(\rho)-\bigl( R(\rho)\bigr)^2}{R(0)-2rR(\rho) + r^2D(\rho)}, \ \ \rho>0\,. $$ \begin{corollary} \label{c:most.likely} Assume that $R$ is monotone with $R(t)\to 0$ as $t\to\infty$, and $0<r<1$. Let $$ \rho_r^\ast = {\rm argmax}_{\rho\geq 0} H_\rho(r) \,. $$ Then $\rho_r^\ast$ is the most likely radius of the sphere to have a hole corresponding to a factor $r$ in the center. \end{corollary} \begin{proof} Since $$ \lim_{\rho\to 0} H_\rho(r) = \lim_{\rho\to \infty} H_\rho(r) = 0\,, $$ it follows that $\rho_r^\ast\in (0,\infty)$. Write $$ \rho_r= \inf\bigl\{ \rho>0:\, R(\rho)\leq rD(\rho)\bigr\}\,. $$ Since $0<r<1$, it follows that $\delta_r\in (0,\infty]$. Observe that for $0<\rho<\rho_r^\ast$, by the monotonicity of $D$ and \eqref{e:H.D}, \begin{equation} \label{e:two.rho} D(\rho)> D(\rho_r^\ast) \geq H_{\rho_r^\ast}(r) \geq H_\rho(r)\,. \end{equation} This implies that $\rho_r^\ast\leq \rho_r$. Indeed, if this were not the case, there would be $0<\rho<\rho_r^\ast$, for which $R(\rho)=rD(\rho)$, and this, together with \eqref{e:H.D}, would imply that $D(\rho)=H_\rho(r)$, contradicting \eqref{e:two.rho}. By Theorem \ref{t:isotropic.centers} we conclude that $W_{\rho_r^\ast}(r)=H_{\rho_r^\ast}(r)$, so it remains to prove that $W_\rho(r)\leq H_{\rho_r^\ast}(r)$ for all $\rho\not= \rho_r^\ast$. However, if $0<\rho\leq \rho_r$ , then $$ W_\rho(r) = H_\rho(r)\leq H_{\rho_r^\ast}(r) $$ by the definition of $\rho_r^\ast$. On the other hand, if $\rho > \rho_r$, then by the monotonicity of $D$, $$ W_\rho(r) \leq D(\rho) \leq D(\rho_r) = H_{\rho_r}(r) \leq H_{\rho_r^\ast}(r)\,, $$ and so the proof is complete. \end{proof} For the covariance function $R(t)=e^{-t^2}$ the two plots of Fig. \ref{fig:DH} show the plot of the functions $D$ and $H(1/2)$, as well as the optimal radius $\rho_r^\ast$ as a function of $r$. \begin{figure}[!ht] \includegraphics[width=12cm,height=5cm]{DandHopt.pdf} \caption{ The functions $D(\rho)$ (solid line) and $H_\rho(r)$ (dashed line) for $r=1/2$ (left plot) and the optimal radius $\rho_r^\ast$ (right plot), both for $R(t)=e^{-t^2}$} \label{fig:DH} \end{figure} For the same covariance function $R(t)=e^{-t^2}$ and $r=1/2$ the plots of Fig. \ref{fig:shapes} show the limiting shapes of the random field described in Theorem \ref{t:shape.comp}. The left plot corresponds to the sphere of radius $\rho=1$ (falling in the second case of the theorem), while the right plot correspond to the sphere of radius $\rho=2$ (falling in the first case of the theorem). Note that, by the isometry of the random field, the limiting shape is rotationally invariant. The plots, therefore, present a section of the limiting shape along the half-axis $t_1\geq 0, \, t_2=0$. For ease of comparison, the horizontal axis has been labeled in the units of $t_1/\rho$, i.e. relative to the radius of the sphere. \begin{figure}[!ht] \includegraphics[width=12cm,height=5cm]{Shapes.pdf} \caption{ The limiting shapes for $\rho=1$ (left plot) and $\rho=2$ (right plot), both for $r=1/2$ and $R(t)=e^{-t^2}$} \label{fig:shapes} \end{figure} We finish this section by considering the probability $\Psi_{\text sp}(u; r)$ in \eqref{e:spheres}. In this case, by \eqref{e:connect.R} and isotropy, \begin{equation} \label{e:connect.any} D_{{\mathcal C}}(r) = \min_{0\leq b\leq 1}\min_{0\leq \rho\leq D} M_\rho(r;b)\,, \end{equation} where $D$ is as in \eqref{e:diam}, and $M_\rho(r;b)= D_{K_1,K_2}(r) $ in \eqref{e:fixed.pair} with $K_1$ being the sphere of radius $\rho$ centered at the origin, and $K_2=\{ b{\bf e}_1\}$. Here ${\bf e}_1$ is the $d$-dimensional vector $(1,0,\ldots, 0)$. It turns out that in many circumstances the asymptotic behavior of the probabilities $\Psi_{\text sp; c}(u; r)$ and $\Psi_{\text sp}(u; r)$ is the same, at least on the logarithmic case, and so our analysis of the former probability applies to the latter probability as well. The following result demonstrates one case when the two probabilities are asymptotically equivalent. Assume for notational simplicity that $R(0)=1$, and use the notation $S_1$ in place of $S_1({\bf 0})$. For $\rho\geq 0$, $0\leq b\leq 1$ and $\mu\in M_1^+( S_1)$, let \begin{equation} \label{e:V} V(\rho,b; \mu) = \end{equation} $$ \frac{\int_{S_1}\int_{S_1} R\bigl(\rho\| {\bf t}_1-{\bf t}_2\|\bigr)\, \mu(d{\bf t}_1)\mu(d{\bf t}_2) - \left( \int_{S_1} R(\rho\|{\bf t} -b{\bf e}_1\|)\, \mu(d{\bf t})\right)^2}{ 1 -2r \int_{S_1} R(\rho\|{\bf t} -b{\bf e}_1\|)\, \mu(d{\bf t}) + r^2 \int_{S_1}\int_{S_1} R\bigl(\rho\| {\bf t}_1-{\bf t}_2\|\bigr)\, \mu(d{\bf t}_1)\mu(d{\bf t}_2) }. $$ \begin{theorem} \label{t:equiv.prob} Let $$ V_*(\rho,b) = \min_{\mu\in M_1^+\bigl( S_1\bigr)} V(\rho,b; \mu) $$ subject to \begin{equation} \label{e:cond.isotr} \int_{S_1} R(\rho\|{\bf t} -b{\bf e}_1\|)\, \mu(d{\bf t}) \geq r \int_{S_1}\int_{S_1} R\bigl(\rho\| {\bf t}_1-{\bf t}_2\|\bigr)\, \mu(d{\bf t}_1)\mu(d{\bf t}_2) \,. \end{equation} If, for every $0\leq \rho\leq D$ such that $R(\rho)\geq rD(\rho)$, the function $V_*(\rho,b), \, 0\leq b\leq 1$ achieves its maximum at $b=0$, then \begin{equation} \label{e:anywhere.exact} \lim_{u\to\infty} \frac{1}{u^2} \log \Psi_{\text sp}(u; r) = -\frac12 \min_{0\leq \rho\leq D} \bigl( W_\rho(r)\bigr)^{-1}\,, \end{equation} where $W_\rho(r)$ is defined by \eqref{e:M.r}. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} It follows from \eqref{e:connect.any}, \eqref{e:connect.center} and Theorem \ref{t:dual.repr} that we only need to check that $M_\rho(r)=\inf_{0\leq b\leq 1} M_\rho(r;b)$ for all $0\leq \rho\leq D$. Notice that by \eqref{e:problem2}, \eqref{e:condition.b} and isotropy, $$ M_\rho(r;b) = \left( \min\bigl( D(\rho), V_*(\rho,b)\bigr)\right)^{-1}\,, $$ where $D(\rho)$ is given in \eqref{e:def.D}. Further, $M_\rho(r)=M_\rho(r;0)$. If $R(\rho)<rD(\rho)$, then $V_*(\rho,0) =\infty$, so there nothing to check. If, on the other hand, $R(\rho)\geq rD(\rho)$, then $V_*(\rho,\cdot)$ achieves its maximum at the origin, so the claim of the theorem follows. \end{proof} The condition \begin{equation} \label{e:min.v} V_*(\rho,0) =\max_{0\leq b\leq 1} V_*(\rho,b)\,, \end{equation} for $0\leq \rho\leq D$ such that $R(\rho)\geq rD(\rho)$, deserves a discussion. We claim that this condition is implied by the following, simpler, condition. \begin{equation} \label{e:min.int} \min_{0\leq b\leq 1} \int_{S_1} R(\rho\|{\bf t} -b{\bf e}_1\|)\, \mu_h(d{\bf t}) = \int_{S_1} R(\rho\|{\bf t} \|)\, \mu_h(d{\bf t}) = R(\rho)\,, \end{equation} where $\mu_h$ is the rotation invariant probability measure on $S_1$. To see this let $R(\rho)\geq rD(\rho)$. It follows by \eqref{e:min.int} that the constraint \eqref{e:condition.b} is satisfied for the measure $\mu_h$ and the vector $b{\bf e}_1$ for any $0\leq b\leq 1$. Therefore, $$ V_*(\rho,b) \leq V(\rho,b; \mu_h) = G\left( \int_{S_1} R(\rho\|{\bf t} -b{\bf e}_1\|)\, \mu_h(d{\bf t})\right)\,, $$ where $$ G(x) = \frac{D(\rho)-x^2}{1-2rx+r^2D(\rho)},\, \ R(\rho)\leq x\leq 1\,. $$ Notice that $$ G^\prime(x) =\frac{-2(x-rD(\rho))(1-rx)}{\bigl( 1-2rx+r^2D(\rho)\bigr)^2} \leq 0\,, $$ so that the function $G$ achieves its maximum at $x=R(\rho)$. We conclude that $$ V_*(\rho,b) \leq V(\rho,0; \mu_h) = V_*(\rho,0)\,, $$ so that \eqref{e:min.v} holds. Numerical experiments indicate that the condition \eqref{e:min.int} tends to hold for values of the radius $\rho$ exceeding a certain positive threshold. For instance, in dimension $d=2$ for both $R(t) = e^{-t^2}$ and $R(t) = e^{-|t|}$, this threshold is around $\rho=1.18$. However, it is clear that condition \eqref{e:min.int} is not necessary for condition \eqref{e:min.v}. In fact, for condition \eqref{e:min.v} to be satisfied one only needs a measure $\mu\in M_1^+\bigl( S_1\bigr)$ satisfying \eqref{e:cond.isotr} such that \begin{equation} \label{e:good.v} V(\rho,b; \mu) \leq V(\rho,0; \mu_h) \,, \end{equation} and what condition \eqref{e:min.int} guarantees is that this measure can be taken to be the rotationally invariant measure on $S_1$. If \eqref{e:min.int} fails, then there is no guarantee that the rotationally invariant measure will play the required role. At least in the case when the covariance function $R$ is monotone, one can consider a measure $\mu$ that puts a point mass at the point on the sphere closest to the point $b{\bf e}_1$. We have considered measures $\mu\in M_1^+\bigl( S_1\bigr)$ of the form \begin{equation} \label{e:mixture.mu} \mu = w\delta_{{\rm sign} (b){\bf e}_1}+ (1-w)\mu_h \end{equation} for some $0\leq w\leq 1$, where $\delta_a$ is, as usual, the Dirac point mass at a point $a$. With this choice, the function $V$ in \eqref{e:V} becomes the ratio of two quadratic functions of $w$, and one can choose the value of $w$ that minimizes the expression, because \eqref{e:good.v} requires us to search for as small $V$ as possible. In our numerical experiments we have followed an even simpler procedure and chosen the value of $w$ that minimizes the quadratic polynomial in the numerator of \eqref{e:V}. For the cases of $R(t) = e^{-t^2}$ and $R(t) = e^{-|t|}$ the resulting measure $\mu$ in \eqref{e:mixture.mu} satisfied, for all $0\leq \rho\leq D$ such that $R(\rho)\geq rD(\rho)$, both \eqref{e:cond.isotr} and \eqref{e:good.v}. Therefore, in all of these cases the conclusion \eqref{e:anywhere.exact} of Theorem \ref{t:equiv.prob} holds. \bigskip {\bf Acknowledgement} We are indebted to Jim Renegar of Cornell University for useful discussions of the duality gap in convex optimization and for drawing our attention to the paper \cite{anderson:1983}.
\section{Introduction} \label{intro} The {\it Kepler~} instrument is a 0.95 meter aperture, optical (420 - 915 nm), space-based telescope that employed 42 CCDs to constantly observe 170,000 stars over a field of view (FOV) of 115 square degrees \citep{Koch2010} with a combined noise on 12th magnitude solar-type stars (intrinsic and instrument) of 30 ppm \citep{Gilliland2011} on a 6-hour time-scale. {\it Kepler~} searches for the periodic drops in brightness which occur when planets transit their host star, thusly seeking to identify new extrasolar planets. The primary objective of the {\it Kepler~} Mission is to determine the frequency of Earth-like planets around Solar-like stars \citep{Borucki2010a}. A series of previously published {\it Kepler~} catalogue papers presented an increasingly larger number of planet candidate discoveries as additional observations were taken by the spacecraft \citep{Borucki2011a,Borucki2011b,Batalha2013,Burke2014}. These catalogues have been used extensively in the investigation of planetary occurance rates \citep[e.g.,][]{Youdin2011,Howard2012,Dressing2013,Fressin2013,Dong2013,Mulders2014,Foreman-Mackey2014}, determination of exoplanet atmospheric properties \citep[e.g.,][]{Coughlin2012,Esteves2013,Demory2014,Sheets2014}, and development of planetary confirmation techniques via supplemental analysis and follow-up observations \citep[e.g.,][]{Moorhead2011,Morton2011,Steffen2012,Ford2012,Fabrycky2012,Santerne2012,Adams2012,Colon2012,Adams2013,Barrado2013,Law2014,Lillo-Box2014,Muirhead2014,Plavchan2014,Rowe2014,Dressing2014,Everett2014}. Furthermore, systems identified as not-planetary in nature have yielded valuable new science on stellar binaries, including eclipsing \citep[e.g.,][]{Prsa2011,Slawson2011,Coughlin2011}, self-lensing \citep{Kruse2014}, and tidally interacting systems \citep[e.g.,][]{Thompson2012} This paper uses 3 years (Quarters 1--12; Q1--Q12) of {\it Kepler~} photometry to search for new planet candidates, thus enabling for the first time the detection of Earth-like exoplanets that have periods around one year (given that a minimum of three transits are needed for detection.) With this increased sensitivity also comes setbacks --- the instrument is sensitive to a significant number of false positives at periods close to one year due to the spacecraft's heliocentric orbit, combined with a 90 degree boresight rotation every $\sim$\,90 days and electronic, rolling band systematics present in a few CCD modules. Additionally, the number of false positives due to contamination increases with increased sensitivity, as variable stars can induce low-amplitude false positives signatures in sources up to tens of arcseconds away \citep{Coughlin2014}. In this work we present new methods to eliminate these false positives and introduce a streamlined planet vetting procedure and product set. As a result, we designate an additional \nqtwelvenewpcs planet candidates to bring the cumulative total of {\it Kepler~} planet candidates to \nallpcs. We also present the uniform modeling of all transiting planet candidates utilizing a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm that provides robust estimates of the uncertainities for all of the planet parameters. The posterior distributions allow us to study the planet population in detail and assess the reliability of the most Earth-like candidates. \section{Detection of Transit-Like Signals} \subsection{Q1-Q12 Threshold Crossing Events} \label{tcesec} We began with the transit-event candidate list from \citet{Tenenbaum2013} based on a wavelet, adaptive matched filter to search 192,313 {\it Kepler~} targets for periodic drops in flux indicative of a transiting planet. Detections are known as Threshold Crossing Events (TCEs). Tenenbaum et al. utilized three years of {\it Kepler~} photometric observations (Q1--Q12) --- the same data span employed by this study based on SOC 8.3 as part of Data Release 21 \citep{Thompson2013}. The authors found a total of 18,406 TCEs on 11,087 individual stars that passed a number of initial diagnostic criteria, such as having a Multiple Event Statistic (MES --- a measure of signal-to-noise) greater than 7.1, having at least 3 transits, and passing some basic false positive tests. For more information, see \citet{Tenenbaum2013}. It should be noted that eclipsing binary candidates identified by the Kepler Eclipsing Binary Working Group (EBWG)\footnote{http://keplerebs.villanova.edu} at the time were excluded from this transit search. In Figure~\ref{tcefig} we plot a histogram of the period distribution of all 18,406 TCEs in red. The distribution of transiting exoplanets corrected for geometric effects and signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) as a function of period has been observed to be relatively flat in log space \citep{Howard2012,Fressin2013}. As can be seen in Figure~\ref{tcefig}, there is a large excess in the number of TCEs at both short periods ($\lesssim$10 days) and at long periods ($\sim$372 days). The short-period excess is due mostly to contact binaries and other variable stars that have sinusoidal-like photometric variations on short timescales. The long-period excess is due to stars that fall on CCD modules with significant rolling-band instrumental systematic noise \citep[see][]{VanCleve2009}, which produce sinusoidal-like red noise, once every four quarters. This timescale corresponds to the $\sim$372 day orbital period of the spacecraft. A smaller spike in TCE periods can be seen at $\sim$186 days, where stars fall on CCD modules with rolling band noise every other quarter. \begin{figure}[h] \centering \begin{tabular}{c} \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{PeriodHist-1.pdf} \\ \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{PeriodHist-2.pdf} \end{tabular} \caption{Period histogram for various populations. All Q1-Q12 TCEs from \citet{Tenenbaum2013} are shown in red in the top panel. All existing KOIs, after completion of Q1-Q12 TCERT vetting, are shown in green. The new KOIs created as a result of the Q1-Q12 TCERT activity are shown in blue. Finally, the new Planet Candidates (PCs) designated due to the Q1-Q12 TCERT activity are shown in cyan. The top panel shows the full vertical range, while the bottom panel shows a limited vertical range with only KOIs plotted.} \label{tcefig} \end{figure} \subsection{Q1-Q10 Threshold Crossing Events} A run of the {\it Kepler~} pipeline was performed on Q1-Q10 data prior to the run on Q1-Q12, but the results were not published. Approximately 1000 TCEs were examined that resulted in the production of 360 KOIs with labels 3150 through 3509. While most of the KOIs generated in the Q1-Q10 run were re-detected in the Q1-Q12 run, $\sim$100 interesting KOIs that appeared to be potential planet candidates were not redetected. As a result we decided to employ a ``supplemental run" of the DV pipeline to generate Q1-Q12 diagnostics for these Q1-Q10 KOIs. In essence, the DV pipeline was run on Q1-Q12 data for each of these Q1-Q10 KOI targets, with the period and epoch fixed to that found by the Q1-Q10 run. \section{Planet Vetting} Of the 18,406 Q1-Q12 TCEs, four contained data exclusively collected in Q1. These stars were identified as likely evolved stars in Q1 and dropped from the mission target list thereafter, and thus we chose to ignore these TCEs. Of the remaining TCEs, we identified 3,482 that corresponded to previously assigned KOIs via their periods, epochs, and KIC numbers. As we did not desire to re-examine known KOIs, this left 14,920 TCEs that required vetting --- the process whereby some TCEs are designated KOI numbers and then labeled as either Planet Candidates (PCs) or False Positives (FP). Given the large number of TCEs, and that many were known to be due to non-eclipsing variable stars or instrumental systematics (see \S\ref{tcesec}), we decided to employ a two-stage process. The first step, Triage, quickly eliminated obvious false positives so that KOI numbers were assigned only to transit-like TCEs. The second step, Dispositioning, assigned dispositions of either false positive or planet candidate to each TCE desginated as a KOI. \subsection{Triage} \label{triagesec} In Triage, human vetters were given digital documents that contained the {\it Data-Validation} (DV) one-page summary \citep{Wu2010} for each TCE (see \S\ref{dispsec} for more information about the DV one-page summary). On each form, utilizing checkboxes, the human vetters were asked to classify the TCE as belonging to one of four categories: \begin{itemize} \item New Candidate: A TCE that appeared to be possibly due to a transiting or eclipsing astrophysical source, i.e., a transiting planet or an eclipsing binary. \item Instrumental: A TCE that was determined to be due to instrumental systematics, such as rolling bands (see \S\ref{tcesec}). \item Variable Star: A TCE that was deemed to be due to a contact eclipsing binary, pulsating star, spotted star, or any other variable star not associated with a transiting or detached eclipsing source. \item Low S/N: A TCE that did not appear to have sufficient signal-to-noise to be designated as a KOI. While the formal mission signal-to-noise cutoff is a MES value of 7.1, systematic noise sources can cause the actual signal-to-noise of transit candidates to be significantly lower. \end{itemize} \noindent Vetters were instructed to be liberal in designating TCEs as ``New Candidates'', as part of a ``innocent until proven guilty'' approach that aimed to pass all potentially transiting planets. A minimum of two independent human vetters were required to examine each TCE and choose a category. In the event of disagreement between the first two vetters an examination by at least one additional, independent vetter was performed. Final categories were assigned to each TCE by examining the fraction of the votes for each category. In order to be designated a ``New Candidate'', greater than 50\% of vetters had to vote for the ``New Candidate'' option. Similarly, the ``Instrumental'', ``Variable Star'', and ``Low S/N'' categories required greater than 50\% of votes to be designated as such. Of the 14,920 designated TCEs that entered Triage, 3,616 were designed as ``New Candidate'', 1,185 as ``Instrumental'', 6,566 as ``Variable Star'', 611 as ``Low S/N'', and 2,942 did not receive a majority of votes for any category. The 3,616 TCEs designated ``New Candidate'' were subjected to an additional level of scrutiny via an independent analysis that utilized different detrending and transit modeling techniques than \citet{Tenenbaum2013} as described in \S\ref{lca}. TCEs that were found to correspond to the secondary eclipse of a system, or had too low of a signal-to-noise to be recovered by the independent analysis (typically less than $\sim$7), were not assigned KOI numbers. Only about half of all ``New Candidate'' TCEs were assigned KOI numbers. Combining the new KOIs found from the Q1-10 and Q1-12 exercises yielded a total of \nqtwelvenewkois KOIs to disposition. In Figure~\ref{tcefig} we plot these new KOIs as a function of period in blue. As can be seen in Figure \ref{tcefig}, the Triage process greatly reduced the short- and long-period TCE excesses. It should be noted that previously, our catalogues did not assign KOI numbers to ``obvious eclipsing binaries'' \citep{Borucki2011a,Borucki2011b,Batalha2013,Burke2014}. This often included systems that showed no evidence for being an eclipsing binary other than large primary transit/eclipse depths. As stellar parameters, particularly radius, are notoriously unreliable, it raises the question as to whether large, Jupiter-sized planets around small, M-dwarf stars have been repeatedly rejected from the KOI list in past exercises. As well, it would become tedious to continually re-vet every eclipsing binary in the field for each new exercise if new KOI numbers were not assigned to them. Thus, principally for these two reasons, we assign KOI numbers to all transiting/eclipsing systems, including stellar binaries, in the Q1-Q12 exercise. However as mentioned in \S\ref{tcesec}, many known EB candidates were excluded from the pipeline run. \subsection{Dispositioning} \label{dispsec} In Dispositioning, human vetters, from the Threshold Crossing Event Review Team (TCERT), were asked to determine if a KOI showed evidence for being a binary, a background eclipsing binary or instrumental artifact. The vetters were given an electronic document with 8 pages per KOI and asked to separately evaluate the KOI according to its flux (photometric time-series) and centroid (pixel-level time-series) data. For the flux dispositioning, the vetters were asked to specify a specific reason for failure if they were sufficiently convinced the KOI was a false positive. For centroid vetting, the vetters were simply asked to choose whether or not the KOI was a planet candidate or false positive. In the following subsections we discuss each page's contents and how they were used for dispositioning. \begin{figure*} \centering \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{TCERT-Example-1.pdf} \caption{Example of the Q1-Q12 TCERT Dispositioning form for Kepler-14b, a well-known confirmed planet. The first page, Figure~\ref{disppdffig1} is shown here in the text, with Figures~\ref{disppdffig2}-\ref{disppdffig8} showing the remaining 7 pages in the Appendix.} \label{disppdffig1} \end{figure*} \subsubsection{Page 1: The Q1-Q12 DV One-Page Summary} \label{dvsumsec} On this page vetters were asked to choose one or more of the following FP categories if they were sufficiently convinced the KOI was a false positive: \begin{itemize} \item Low S/N Event: The KOI was a low signal-to-noise event. This indicates that no transit signal is readily visible by eye in the phased data. \item Odd/Even Diff.: The KOI showed a significant difference in the depth of the odd- vs even-numbered transits. A common false-positive is an eclipsing binary system composed of two stars with nearly equal mass, size, and temperature. This type of false-positive may be detected by TPS at half the true period of the system, thus showing alternating eclipses with slightly different depths. \item Wrong Period: The KOI appears to have been detected at the wrong period. This typically occurred at an integer ratio of the true orbital period, and principally for objects with large seasonal depth differences due to contamination. \item Other: Any other reason that would indicate a FP not listed above. The vetters were encouraged to leave a text comment to explain the reason. \end{itemize} An example of the DV one-page summary is shown in Figure~\ref{disppdffig1}, and shows, on a single page: \begin{itemize} \item Top of Figure: The TCE/KOI's Kepler Input Catalog (KIC) number, the number of TCEs detected in the system, the period of the TCE/KOI, and the Kepler magnitude, size, temperature, surface gravity, and metallicity of the host star. \item Top Panel: The full time-series of the DV photometric light curve. Individual quarters are denoted via dashed lines, transit locations are donated with triangles along the bottom, and the CCD module and channel number are shown in brackets alongside each quarter number. \item Second Panel from Top: The phase-folded photometric light curve for the entire orbital cycle overlaid with binned points and the best-fit transit model. \item Third Panel from Top on the Left: The phase-folded photometric light curve narrowed to within a couple transit durations of the primary event, also with binned points and the best-fit transit model. \item Third Panel from Top on the Right: The whitened light curve with the best-fit whitened transit model, the residuals, and the whitened time-series at half an orbit after the transit. The numbers at the top of this panel show the detected MES, the number of transits, the S/N, reduced $\chi^{2}$, and depth of the whitened transit model fit. \item Bottom Left Panel: The phase-folded light curve for odd- and even-numbered transits separately. The top of this panel shows a metric that indicates the similarity of the two depths (see \S 5.5 of \citealt{Rowe2014} or \citealt{Wu2010}). \item Bottom Middle Panel: The measured centroid offset for each individual quarter and all quarters combined. The centroid method we use is the fit of a Point Response Function (PRF) to the pixel difference image constructed by subtracting an average in-transit image from an average out-of-transit image \citep{Bryson2013}. \item Bottom right Panel: A table of various model transit fit parameters and centroid diagnostics. Some parameters and diagnostics can be listed as {\it N/A} when the computation was either invalid, or was not calculated. \end{itemize} This page was principally used to quickly assess the significance and type of the transit-like event and search for any difference in depth between the odd- and even-numbered transits. At one glance, a vetter could tell whether the TCE was due to something resembling a transiting planet, or was due to instrumental artifacts, starspots, a pulsating star, an eclipsing binary, or other phenomena. Although pixel-level centroid information and associated metrics were provided on this page, vetters were asked not to make any decisions based on them. \subsubsection{Page 2: The Model-Shift Uniqueness Test and Occultation Search} On this page, vetters were asked to choose one or more of the following FP categories if they were sufficiently convinced the KOI was a false positive: \begin{itemize} \item Transit Not Unique: The primary transit did not appear to be unique in the phased light curve. This typically occurred when there were tertiary or positive events of comparable significance to the primary event, and indicated a false alarm due to instrumental artifacts or stellar variability. \item Secondary Eclipse: There was a significant and unique secondary eclipse event. This indicated the object was most likely an eclipsing binary with a distinct secondary eclipse. \item Wrong Period: The KOI appears to have been detected at the wrong period. This typically occurred at an integer ratio of the true orbital period, and principally for objects with large seasonal depth differences due to contamination. \item Other: Any other reason that would indicate a FP not listed above. The vetters were encouraged to leave a text comment to explain the reason. \end{itemize} We performed a uniqueness test to determine the robustness of the TCE detection and to search for secondary events. If a KOI under investigation is truly a PC, there should not be any other transit-like events in the light curve with similar or greater depth, duration and period to the primary signal, in either the positive or negative flux directions. If such signals are present they call into question the significance of the primary event. If the primary is a unique event in the phase folded light curve, but there is also a smaller, secondary event that is unique compared to any tertiary events, then the system is most likely an eclipsing stellar binary. Twelve quarters of data were used to search for shallow transit events (less than 100 ppm) with long periods (over 300 days). For this type of search only a small percentage of the orbital phase contains transit information and it can be very difficult to judge the quality of a detected event when examining either a full phase-curve or a zoom-in on data close to transit. These diffculties are simply a fact of the large dynamic range of information that must be assessed to judge a transit candidate. As such, a new data product, the model-shift uniqueness test and occultation search, was developed and used in the Q1-Q12 TCERT activity to search for additional transit-like events in the data that have the same periodicity as the primary event. To search for additional events, we took the DV photometric time series folded at the orbital period of the primary event and used the DV-generated transit model as a template to measure the amplitudes of other transit-like events at all phases. The amplitudes were measured by fitting the depth of the transit model centered on each of the data points. The deepest event aside from the primary transit event, and located at least two transit durations from the primary, was labeled as the secondary event. The next-deepest event, located at least two transit durations away from the primary and secondary events, was labeled as the tertiary event. Finally, the most positive flux event (i.e., shows a flux brightening) located at least three transit durations from the primary and secondary events was also labeled. An example is shown in Figure~\ref{disppdffig2}. We determined the uncertainty in the amplitude measurements by calculating the standard deviation of the unbinned photometric data points outside of the primary and secondary events. Dividing the amplitudes by this standard deviation yielded significance values for the primary ($\sigma_{Pri}$), secondary ($\sigma_{Sec}$), tertiary ($\sigma_{Ter}$), and positive ($\sigma_{Pos}$) events shown at the top-left of Figure~\ref{disppdffig2}. Assuming there are $P/T_{\rm dur}$ independent statistical tests per TCE, where $P$ is the period of the KOI and $T_{\rm dur}$ is the transit duration, we computed a detection threshold for each TCE such that this test yielded no more than one false alarm when applied to all KOIs. We called this threshold $\sigma_{FA}$, and computed it via the following equation, \begin{equation} \sigma_{FA} = \sqrt{2}\cdot\mathrm{erfcinv}\left(\frac{T_{\rm dur}}{P \cdot {\rm nKOIs}}\right), \end{equation} \noindent where erfcinv is the inverse complementary error function and nKOIs is the number of KOIs dispositioned. Finally, we also measure the amount of systematic red noise in the lightcurve on the timescale of the transit by computing the standard deviation of the measured amplitudes outside of the primary and secondary events defined by the duration of the primary event. We report the value $F_{Red}$, which is the standard deviation of the measured amplitudes divided by the standard deviation of the photometric data points. If $F_{Red}$ = 1, there is no red noise in the lightcurve. It should be noted that if no DV fit was performed for the given TCE, this plot and its associated statistics could not be generated. The model-shift uniqueness test and occultation search was crucial in eliminating many of the false positives associated with the $\sim$372 day long-period TCE excess discussed in \S\ref{tcesec}, as well as identifying eclipsing binaries with shallow secondary eclipses. \subsubsection{Page 3: The Centroid Vetting Summary} \label{centsumsec1} As {\it Kepler's} pixels are nearly 4$\arcsec$ in size and as {\it Kepler~} does not have an optimal point spread function across the field of view, many target KOIs are contaminated by other nearby astrophysically varying objects. In such cases, the other astrophysical signal is observed in the photometric light curve of the target KOI at a reduced amplitude. However, by examining the pixel-level data, the true source of the signal can be identified as not belonging to the target KOI, thus making the event a false positive. The remaining pages of the dispositioning document were dedicated to assisting in this determination. Here we present them and briefly discuss their use in pixel-level centroid vetting; for a comprehensive review on the identification of false positives using the pixel-level data, see \citet{Bryson2013}. Page 3 of the DV document the centroid vetting summary page provides more in-depth pixel-level centroid information than that presented in the DV summary (see \S\ref{dvsumsec}). Three different yet complementary reconstructions of the location of the transit signal relative to the target star were presented, as shown in Figure~\ref{disppdffig3}. This page contains three elements: \begin{enumerate} \item Descriptive information about the target: \begin{enumerate} \item The Kepler magnitude, which is important in order to identify saturated targets, whose saturated pixels do not provide reliable centroiding information. When the target star is bright enough that saturation may be an issue this value is turned red. \item The transit S/N as measured by the DV transit model fit. This correlates to the quality of the difference images used to measure centroid offsets displayed in the bottom-middle panel of page 1 of the DV report. \item The number of quarters with good difference images. This refers to the difference image quality metric, which tells how well the fitted Pixel Response Function (PRF --- {\it Kepler}'s point spread function convolved with quarterly motion) is correlated with the difference image pixel data. A difference image fit was considered good if the correlation is $>$ 0.7. If the correlation is smaller this does not mean that the quarter's difference image was useless, rather that the vetter had to examine it more carefully. When the number of good quarters is three or less this line turned red. \item The distance from the out-of-transit PRF-fit centroid to the target star's catalog position. When this distance is $>$ 2$\arcsec$ the text was turned red, and indicated that either the catalog position or the out-of-transit PRF-fit was in error. \end{enumerate} \item A table giving the reconstructed location of the transit signal relative to the target star using three different but complimentary methods: \begin{enumerate} \item The multi-quarter average offset of the PRF-fit difference image centroid from the PRF-fit out-of-transit (OOT) image. \item The multi-quarter average offset of the PRF-fit difference image centroid from the Kepler Input Catalog (KIC) position. \item The offset reconstructed from photometric centroids. \end{enumerate} For all of these methods the distance, significance, and sky co-ordinates were reported. An offset distance was considered to be statistically significant when it was greater than 3\,$\sigma$ as well as greater than $\sim$0.1$\arcsec$. The latter condition is due to a $\sim$0.1$\arcsec$ noise floor resulting from spacecraft systematics, below which it does not appear possible to reliably measure centroid offsets. \item Three panels showing the reconstructed location of the transit signal relative to the target star (located at 0,0), which corresponded to the three rows of the table. The first two panels, based on PRF-fitting techniques, showed the offset from the out-of-transit fit and the KIC position, respectively. In each of these panels the crosses represented each individual quarter, with the size of the crosses corresponding to their 1$\sigma$ errors. The circle was the 3$\sigma$ result for all quarters combined. The third panel showed the offset location based on photometric centroids, which provided only a multi-quarter result. The vetters were instructed to examine if any bright stars were near the target that may have influenced the PRF fit by comparing the calculated offsets from the out-of-transit PRF fit and the KIC position. \end{enumerate} Vetters were not asked to check boxes on this page, but to keep the information in mind for a final decision on the final page (see \S\ref{centsumsec2}). \subsubsection{Pages 4-6: The Pixel-Level Difference Images Vetting Summary} The next three pages showed the average difference and out-of-transit images for each quarter, which provided the data behind the PRF-fit centroids and the resulting multi-quarter average. These images were arranged so that they showed four quarters, or a full year, per page. Each image showed three positions via markers: ``x'' marked the catalog location of the target star, ``+'' marked the PRF-fit centroid of the OOT image, and ``$\Delta$'' marked the PRF-fit centroid of the difference image. The colour bar was a crucial interpretation tool: when it was almost entirely positive for the difference image, this meant that the difference image was reliable. Large negative values were marked with large, red ``X'' symbols, and indicated that the difference images were unreliable, or that the TCE was due to systematics that did not have a stellar PRF. White asterisks indicated background stars with their Kepler ID and magnitudes. This included stars from the UKIRT catalog, which had Kepler IDs $>$ 15\,000\,000. These UKIRT Kepler IDs were internal project numbers and did not correspond with UKIRT catalog identifiers. A North-East (N/E) direction indicator was provided to allow matching with the figures on page 3 (see \S\ref{centsumsec1}). Examples for Quarters 1--12 are shown in Figures~\ref{disppdffig4}, \ref{disppdffig5}, and \ref{disppdffig6}. Vetters were asked to denote any difference image that did not appear to be due to a stellar PRF by checking the box to the right of each quarter. If the difference image appeared to resemble a healthy looking stellar PRF, the vetters were instructed to determine if the location of the source indicated by the difference image was coincident or not with the location of the target KOI. The vetters were instructed to retain this information for a final decision on the final page of the DV document (see \S\ref{centsumsec2}). \subsubsection{Page 7: The Flux-Weighted Photometric Centroids} This page of the DV document showed the flux-weighted photometric centroids, which were used to confirm if the centroid shift occured at the time of transit. The top panel showed the phase-folded DV photometric time-series. The middle and bottom panels showed the computed RA and Dec centroid offsets, respectively, for each photometric data point. A photometric offset could be considered to be observed if there was a change in the centroid time series (second and third panel) that looked like the flux time series (top panel). The purpose of this figure was to verify that if there was a measured photometric shift from the difference images, it looked like the transit signal, and thus was not due to instrumental systematics or stelalr varibility. Vetters were asked to mark a box at the top of the page if there was significant signal in the photometric centroids, but it did not resemble the transit shape. An example is shown in Figure~\ref{disppdffig7}. It should be noted that vetters were instructed to never fail a KOI based on the photometric centroids alone as a photometric centroid shift in transit does not itself imply an offset source and the chances of being a false positive are much higher when the centroids are unresolved, particularly at low Galactic latitudes \citep{Bryson2013}. \subsubsection{Page 8: The Centroid Vetting Summary With Checkboxes} \label{centsumsec2} The last page of the form, Page 8, was a repeat of page 3, but with final decision checkboxes added on, as shown in Figure~\ref{disppdffig8}. Here the vetters were asked to select one of the following options: \begin{itemize} \item Pass: The pixel-level data indicated that the source of the transit-like signal was coincident with the target KOI, and thus the KOI was a planet candidate. \item Maybe: The pixel-level data was not conclusive, and the vetter did not feel comfortable making a decision. \item No Data: There was not sufficient information to determine the location of the source of the transit-like signal, either due to a lack of a fitted transit model or very low signal-to-noise. This option designates the KOI as a planet candidate, but is recorded separately from ``Pass'' for data analysis purposes. \item Fail: The location of the transit signal does not coincide with the location of the target KOI, thus the KOI is a false positive. \end{itemize} For flux vetting, if any false positive reason was marked by a vetter the KOI was considered a flux fail by that vetter, else it was considered a flux pass. For centroid vetting, if ``Fail'' was marked by a vetter the KOI was considered a centroid fail, if ``Pass'' or ``No Data'' were marked the KOI was considered a centroid pass, and if ``Maybe'' was marked the KOI was considered not to have been centroid vetted. Similar to Triage (see \S\ref{triagesec}), a minimum of two independent human vetters were required to examine each KOI and vet both flux and centroids. If the two vetters disagreed on a pass or fail disposition for the flux and/or centroid portions, examination by at least one additional, independent vetter was performed. Final pass/fail categories were assigned to each KOI for their flux and centroid data. In order to be designated a ``Planet Candidate'' the KOI had to pass both the flux and centroid vetting. If the KOI failed either portion, or both, it was designated a ``False positive''. The reasons for dispositions assigned through Q1-Q12 activities are available at the NASA exoplanet archive. \subsection{Ephemeris Matching} \label{ephemmatchsec} In a parallel activity to the TCERT vetting an effort was made to examine the periods and epochs of all known KOIs and eclipsing binaries within the {\it Kepler~} field of view known from both space- and ground-based observations. In short, if a KOI is contaminated from another source, their ephemerides (periods and epochs) will be nearly identical. Thus, false positive KOIs may be identified by simply matching their periods and epochs to other KOIs and EBs. A thorough matching of these ephemerides for all KOIs in the Q1-Q12 catalog, along with previous catalogs, was performed and the work fully documented in a separate paper \citep{Coughlin2014}. As a result, 685 KOIs were identified as false positives, some of which were among the KOIs vetted by the Q1-Q12 TCERT activity, and some of which were dispositioned in previous catalogs. Over 100 of these false positive KOIs were not identified as such by either the Q1-Q12 TCERT activity or previous vetting activities. These are predominately low signal-to-noise KOIs that have been contaminated by sources many tens of arcseconds away, such that no clear centroid offset is observed, as the KOI lies in the far wings of the contaminating source's PRF. The ability to identify these cases and study them will lead to improved metrics and procedures for identifying these cases in the future. \section{Planet Candidate Sample}\label{pccandidate} As a result of the TCERT vetting, including triage, dispositioning, and ephemeris matching, we dispositioned \nvettedkois KOIs as \nqtwelvevettedpcs PCs and \nqtwelvevettedfps FPs. These KOIs and their new dispositions are available at the NASA Exoplanet Archive\footnote{http://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/}. We augment this definition of a PC by also requiring that the modeled signal-to-noise ratio of the detected transit with Q1-Q17 ($\sim$\,4 years) photometry be greater than 7.1. We further retain all KOIs that have dispositions labeled as {\it CONFIRMED} in the NASA Exoplanet Archive, except KOI-245.04 which is a known false-alarm \citep{Barclay2013}. This brings the total number of designated KOIs to \nallkois and the total number of designated PCs to 3697. In the NExScI archive, we also include 4 flag columns to indicate the reasons a KOI was marked as a false positive. The flags indicate if a KOI was determined to be: \begin{itemize} \item ``Not Transit-like'': A KOI whose light curve is not consistent with that of a transiting planet. This includes, but is not limited to, instrumental artifacts, non-eclipsing variable stars (e.g., heartbeat stars, \citet{Thompson2012}), and spurious detections. \item ``Significant Secondary'': A KOI that is observed to have a signicant secondary event, meaning that the transit event is most likely caused by an eclipsing binary. \item ``Centroid Offset'': The source of the transit was on a nearby star, not the target KOI. \item ``Ephemeris Match Indicates Contamination'': The KOI shares the same period and epoch as another system and is judged to be a false positive as described in \S\ref{ephemmatchsec}. \end{itemize} \noindent More than one flag can be set simultaneously, and no flags are exclusive, although generally a KOI was never failed as both due to ``Not Transit-Like'' and ``Significant Secondary''. The only cases in which both of those flags are set are cases where a KOI number was accidentally designated to correspond to the secondary eclipse of a system. In Figure~\ref{tcefig} we plot a period histogram that includes the Q1-Q12 TCE population in red, the \nallkois KOIs known in green, the \nqtwelvenewkois new KOIs designated by Q1-Q12 TCERT in blue, and the \nqtwelvenewpcs new PCs as a result of the Q1-Q12 vetting activity in cyan. As can be seen, the final population of planet candidates do not exhibit any short- or long-period excess due to false positives, thus validating the effectiveness of our tests. Compared to previous catalogs, while we have added new PCs at all periods, we have especially augmented the sample of PCs at long periods. \subsection{Stellar Parameters} \label{stellarpars} Our adopted stellar parameters are based on \citet{Huber2014}, which uses atmospheric parameters (\ensuremath{T_{\rm eff}}, \ensuremath{\log{g}}, [Fe/H]) derived from a variety of observation techniques such as photometry, spectroscopy and asteroseismology that are homogeneously fit to the grid of Dartmouth stellar isochrones \citep{Dotter2008} to estimate the stellar mass and radius (\ensuremath{M_\star}\ and \ensuremath{R_\star}). The top panel of Figure \ref{hrdiag} displays our adopted stellar parameters for PCs as defined in \S \ref{pccandidate}. Overlaid are Dartmouth isochrones with ages of 1 and 14 Gyrs and [Fe/H] = -2.0 (blue), 0.0 (red) and +0.5 (green). {\it Kepler's} PCs are found preferentially around dwarf stars as opposed to evolved giants. This is expected as transit depth is directly proportional to the ratio of the planet and star radius (\ensuremath{R_{\rm p}/R_\star}). There is also a noted lack of PCs with host stars hotter than $\sim$6500 K, which is due to {\it Kepler~} mission target selection \citep{Batalha2010}, increasing stellar radius with \ensuremath{T_{\rm eff}}\ across the Zero-Age-Main-Sequence (ZAMS) and pulsational properties of A and F-stars. Our stellar parameters for both PC and FP target stars are listed in Table \ref{spars}. The stellar characterizations are used to derive our measured fundamental parameters of PCs as described in \S \ref{lca}. \begin{figure}[h] \centering \begin{tabular}{c} \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{HRstellar.eps} \\ \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{HRtransit.eps} \end{tabular} \caption{The top panel shows the adopted stellar parameters plotted as mean stellar density (\ensuremath{\rho_\star}) vs \ensuremath{T_{\rm eff}}\ from \cite{Huber2014} for planetary-candidates. The bottom panel shows the inferred mean stellar density based on our adopted circular orbit transit models (\ensuremath{\rho_c}) for planetary candidates. The red lines show Dartmouth isochrones with Solar metallicity with ages of 1 and 14 Gyr, the blue lines for [Fe/H] = --2.0 and the green lines for [Fe/H] = +0.5} \label{hrdiag} \end{figure} \input{spars.tex} \section{Transit Models} \label{lca} We modeled the observed transits with Q1-Q17 long-cadence photometry downloaded from the MAST\footnote{Observations labeled as PDC\_FLUX from FITS files retrieved from the Mikulski Archive for Space Telescopes (MAST) based on Data Releases 21-23.} archive. The photometry includes systematic corrections for instrumental trends and estimates of dilution due to other stars that may contaminate the photometric aperture \citep{Stumpe2014}. The median value of light contamination for validated {\it Kepler~} planets is $\sim$5\% \citep{Rowe2014}. We do not attempt to compensate for stellar binarity, thus in cases such as KOI-1422 (Kepler-296) our reported planetary radius is underestimated \citep{Lissauer2014,Star2014}. We adopted the photometric model described in \S4 of \citet{Rowe2014} which uses a quadratic limb-darkened model described by the analytic model of \citet{Mandel2002} and non-interacting Keplerian orbits. We account for gravitational interactions of planetary orbits by measuring transit-timing variations (TTVs) and including the effects in our transit models as described in \S4.2 of \citet{Rowe2014}. Measured TTVs for all KOIs are listed in Table \ref{ttvcat}. The model was parameterized by the mean-stellar density (\ensuremath{\rho_\star}), photometric zero point and for each planet ($n$) an epoch (T$0_n$), period ($P_n$), scaled planetary radius (\ensuremath{R_{\rm p}/R_\star}$_n$) and impact parameter ($b_n$). The scaled semi-major axis for each planet candidate is estimated by \begin{equation}\label{rhostar} \left( \frac{a}{\ensuremath{R_\star}} \right)^3 \simeq \frac{\ensuremath{\rho_\star} G P^2}{3 \pi}. \end{equation} It is important to note that Equation \ref{rhostar} assumes that the sum of the planetary masses is much less than the mass of the host star. For a 0.1 \ensuremath{M_\sun}\ companion of a Sun-like star, a systematic error of 2\% is incurred on the determination of \ensuremath{\rho_\star} \input{ttvtable.tex} To model the light curve, we applied a polynomial filter to the PDC flux corrected aperture photometry as described in \S4 of \citet{Rowe2014}. This filter strongly affects all signals with timescales less than 2 days and is destructive to the shape of a planetary transit, thus we masked out all observations taken within 1 transit-duration of the measured center of the transit time and used an extrapolation of the polynomial filter. A best fit model was calculated by a Levenberg-Marquardt chi-square minimization routine \citep{More1980} and included TTVs when necessary. In the case of light curves that display multiple transiting candidates, we produce a light-curve for each individual candidate where the transits of the other planets were removed using our multi-planet model. We then fit each planet individually with this light curve and use the resulting calculation to seed our Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) routines to measure fundamental physical properties of each planet. \subsection{Model Parameters and Posterior Distributions}\label{mcmc} Our measured planetary parameters are listed in Table \ref{mplanetfit} and are based on our transit model fits and MCMC analysis. For multi-planet systems, each transiting planet is fitted independently . We assumed a circular orbit and fit for T0, $P$, $b$, \ensuremath{R_{\rm p}/R_\star}\ and \ensuremath{\rho_c}, where \ensuremath{\rho_c}\ is the value of \ensuremath{\rho_\star}\ when a circular orbit is assumed. Thus, each planet candidate provides an independent measurement of \ensuremath{\rho_c}. If the value of \ensuremath{\rho_c}\ is statistically the same for each planet candidate, then the planetary system is consistent with each planet being in a circular orbit around the same host star. To estimate the posterior distribution on each fitted parameter, we use a MCMC approach similar to the procedure outlined in \citet{Ford2005} and implemented in \citet{Rowe2014}. Our algorithm uses a Gibbs sampler to shuffle the value of parameters for each step of the MCMC procedure with a control set of parameters to approximate the scale and orientation for the jumping distribution of correlated parameters as outlined in \citet{Gregory2011}. Our method allows the MCMC approach to efficiently sample parameter space even with highly correlated model parameters. We generated Markov Chains with lengths of 100\,000 for each PC. The first 20\% of each chain was discarded as burn-in and the remaining sets were combined and used to calculate the median, standard deviation and $1\sigma$ bounds of the distribution centered on the median of each modeled parameter. Our model fits and uncertainties are reported in Table \ref{mplanetfit}. We use the Markov Chains to derive model dependent measurements of the transit depth (T$_{dep}$) and transit duration (T$_{dur}$). The transit depth posterior was estimated by calculating the transit model at the center of transit time ($T0$) for each set of parameters in the Markov Chain. We also convolve the transit model parameters with the stellar parameters (see \S\ref{stellarpars}) to compute the planetary radius, \ensuremath{R_{\rm p}}, and the flux received by the planet relative to the Earth ($S$). To compute the transit duration, we used Equation 3 from \citet{Seager2003} for a circular orbit, \begin{equation}\label{eq:tdur} {\rm T}_{dur} = \frac{P}{\pi} \arcsin \left( \frac{\ensuremath{R_\star}}{a} \left[ \frac{(1+\frac{\ensuremath{R_{\rm p}}}{\ensuremath{R_\star}})^2-(\frac{a}{\ensuremath{R_\star}}\cos i)^2}{1-\cos^2i} \right]^{1/2} \right), \end{equation} which defines the transit duration as the time from first to last contact. We estimate the ratio of incident flux received by the planet relative to the Earth's incident flux, \begin{equation} S = \left( \frac{\ensuremath{R_\star}}{\ensuremath{R_\sun}} \right)^2 \left( \frac{\ensuremath{T_{\rm eff}}}{T_{{\rm eff}\sun}} \right)^4 \left( \frac{a}{a_{\earth}} \right)^{-2} \end{equation} \noindent where \ensuremath{T_{\rm eff}}\ is the effective temperature of host star, $T_{{\rm eff}\sun}$ is the temperature of the Sun, $a_{\earth}$ is the Earth-Sun separation and $a$ is the semi-major axis of the planet calculated with Kepler's Third Law using the measured orbital period and estimated stellar mass. We attempted a MCMC analysis on all KOIs, but, there are scenarios when our algorithm failed, such as when the S/N of the transit was very low (typically below $\sim$7). In these cases, such as KOI-5.02 which is a false alarm (FA), we only report best-fit models in Table \ref{mplanetfit}. There are no PCs without reported uncertainties. Figure \ref{HZplot} shows an example of two parameters, $S$ and \ensuremath{R_{\rm p}}\ with uncertainties derived from our MCMC analysis. It is common for parameters to have high asymmetric error bars. \section{Discussion} Based on TCERT dispositions and updates from confirmed {\it Kepler~} planets in the literature we list in Table \ref{mplanetfit} all \nallpcs PCs known after the Q1-Q12 vetting. However, there are a significant number (few hundred) of PCs that have a high probability of being FPs. The most common type of FP is an eclipsing binary in an eccentric orbit where only the primary or secondary event is seen. The transits for these events are typically deep ($>$ 2\%) and ``V" shaped. Our transit models suggest that many of these PC have radii larger than twice Jupiter. However, TCERT does not disposition KOIs as FPs based on planetary radii. Inferred radii of transiting planets depend on the stellar radius which for an individual star may incur unaccounted for large systematic error. The DV transit model does not handle impact parameters greater than 1, which also produces systematic errors in the measured value of \ensuremath{R_{\rm p}/R_\star}. It is also unclear what the maximum radius of a planet can be due to unknown internal composition and structure and influences of external energy sources. With our transit models and realistic posteriors, which can handle high-impact parameter cases, we now examine the PC and FP population and suggest appropriate cuts for generating a list of PCs that better represent the true exoplanet population. At a minimum, we recommend cuts based on S/N and \ensuremath{R_{\rm p}}\ with the understanding that a few bona fide extrasolar planets will be excluded. \subsection{Signal-to-Noise}\label{snr} We estimate the S/N of the observed transit by estimating the noise in the photometric light curve from the standard deviation ($\sigma$) of the detected light-curve with out of transit observations compared to the transit model, \begin{equation} {\rm S/N} = \sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^{n} \left(\frac{Tm_i - 1}{\sigma} \right)^2}, \end{equation} where $Tm_i$ is the value of the transit model for each observation, $i$. The careful analysis of \citet{Fressin2013} shows that below a S/N $\sim$ 10, the detection of KOIs becomes unreliable. Since our KOIs were depositioned by human eyes there is a tendency to keep a low S/N event that may simply be red-noise in the light-curve. We consider all KOIs with a S/N less than 7.1 to be considered false-alarms and caution users of the KOI catalogue that all PCs with a S/N less than 10 have a significant probability of being a false-alarm. An example is KOI-4878.01, a potentially exciting Earth-sized planet with a 450d period and a S/N of 8. Our MCMC analysis did not consider these events to be unique, with chains jumping to other local minima. Thus, we concluded that this KOI is likely to be a false-alarm. If uncertainties in Table \ref{mplanetfit} are not reported, then the KOI is either a low S/N false-alarm or a transit-like event from other astrophysical processes. {\it We recommend marking all KOIs with a S/N $<$ 7.1 or missing posteriors in Table \ref{mplanetfit} as FAs and to treat all KOIs with a S/N $<$ 10 with caution.} \subsection{Dissecting the KOI Population}\label{dissect} The top panel of Figure \ref{PerRad} shows the PC population and the bottom panel shows the FP population based on TCERT dispositions. A substantial majority of the PCs have a radius smaller than 10 \ensuremath{R_{\earth}}, but there are 196 PCs with radius larger than even 20 \ensuremath{R_{\earth}}\ which is larger than planetary evolution models of non-radiated, core-less, Jupiter-massed planets with ages greater than $\sim$\,100 Myr \citep[e.g.,][]{Baraffe2003}. To produce radii above 20 \ensuremath{R_{\earth}}\ an additional energy source is required, such as hydrogen burning present in the cores of main-sequence stars. Thus, a majority of the PCs with radii greater than 20 \ensuremath{R_{\earth}}\ are members of the intrinsic EB population observed by {\it Kepler}, but there will be cases where the large inferred radius is due to incorrect stellar parameters. The bottom panel shows that the FP population can be separated into an intrinsic EB and blended EB (background eclisping binary; BGEB)\footnote{We consider BGEBs and background transiting planets to be both FPs.} population roughly divided by KOIs with transit modeled radii greater or less than $\sim$\,10\ensuremath{R_{\earth}}. There is also a large population of FPs centered around orbital periods of 372 days due to rolling-band instrumental systematic noise as described in \S2.1. A BGEB is an eclipsing binary in the photometric aperture where the light is dominated by a brighter unassociated star where the two objects just happen to be aligned along the same line of sight. The strong dilution creates a stellar eclipse that is observed to be too shallow and our transit model infers a radius that is, likewise, too small. Even in the case of an EB, the light from the eclipsing star can be sufficient to dilute the depth of the eclipse such that the inferred radius from our planet transit model is underestimated. \begin{figure}[h] \centering \begin{tabular}{c} \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{PerRadPC.eps} \\ \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{PerRadFP.eps} \end{tabular} \caption{Period vs Radius diagram for {\it Kepler~} KOIs. The top panel shows PCs and the bottom shows FPs as dispositioned by TCERT. PCs with a radius larger than 20 \ensuremath{R_{\earth}}\ are likely dominated by EBs. The FP population has been divided to show objects larger and smaller than 10 \ensuremath{R_{\earth}}\ with blue triangles and red squares respectively. The population of FPs at 372 days is due to rolling-band instrumental systematic noise and are marked with black 'x's.} \label{PerRad} \end{figure} The number of both EB and BGEBs decreases with orbital period due to the decreasing eclipse probability. This is also seen for the PC population for radii smaller than $\sim$10 \ensuremath{R_{\earth}}\ and periods greater than 2 days. Below 2 days the planet population is likely affected by processes of planet formation and planet evaporation \citep[e.g.,][]{Owen2013}. The change in the relative number of PCs vs BGEB for periods less than $\sim$2 days was noted in \citet{Lissauer2014} and we reiterate that point here. Short orbital period and short transit durations combined with the {\it Kepler~} 30 minute observation cadence make it difficult to distinguish an EB or variable star from a transiting planet using just the {\it Kepler~} light curve. The chances of a closely aligned blend that could not be detected through centroid offsets is also greatly increased due to the increasing number of EBs seen at short orbital periods. There are projects that are successfully identifying bonafide exoplanets in this regime \citep{Sanchis2014}. The portion of PC population with radii larger that $\sim$10 \ensuremath{R_{\earth}}\ shows an increase in the number of candidates for periods greater than 10 days. This is due to eccentric orbits where a secondary or primary eclipse of an EB is not seen and becomes increasingly common for longer periods and larger orbital separations. It is possible that the stellar classification of the host star is in error for a few of these candidates. {\it We strongly recommend that anyone using the {\it Kepler~} PCs apply a radius cut to eliminate the largest TCERT classified PCs.} As an example, one could exclude all PCs above 20 \ensuremath{R_{\earth}}\ to maintain the hot-jupiter population and accept a $\sim$35\% FP rate for Jupiter-sized planets at all orbital periods \citep{Santerne2012} due to difficulties distinguishing between late M-dwarfs, brown-dwarfs and Jupiter-sized planets. Figure \ref{tdurrhostar} displays the determined transit-duration (based on Equation \ref{eq:tdur}) and mean-stellar density for a circular orbit (\ensuremath{\rho_c}) for PCs (top panel) and FPs (bottom panel). For planets in circular orbits around main-sequence stars it is expected that transits with shorter durations will be found around smaller, cooler stars and this correlation can be seen for the PCs. The spread in the correlation will be due to measurement error, orbital period, impact parameter, (where a grazing transit will be shorter in duration compared to a central transit), and eccentricity (where orbital speed will vary through out the orbit). For the FPs, there are three populations visible. The first can be see as a line of objects marked with `x's centered at a duration of 15 hours and a mean stellar density (\ensuremath{\rho_c}) of 2 \ensuremath{\rm g\,cm^{-3}}. These are the FPs associated with the rolling band instrumental noise. These candidates have a similar amplitude and period which produce a pattern that can be reproduced by Equation \ref{eq:tdur}. \begin{figure}[h] \centering \begin{tabular}{c} \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{tdurrhostarPC.eps} \\ \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{tdurrhostarFP.eps} \end{tabular} \caption{Transit duration vs \ensuremath{\rho_c}\ as derived from transit models. The top panel shows PCs and the bottom shows FPs as dispositioned by TCERT. The PC population shows an expected relation between duration and stellar properties. As in Figure \ref{PerRad}, the FP population has been divided to show objects larger and smaller than 10 \ensuremath{R_{\earth}}\ with blue triangles and red squares respectively to represent the EB and BGEB population. The population of FPs near 372 days is due to rolling-band instrumental systematic noise and are marked with black `x's. See further discussion of the FP populations in \S \ref{dissect}.} \label{tdurrhostar} \end{figure} The second FP population can be seen as a cloud of FPs that extends from $T_{dur}=1$ hr, \ensuremath{\rho_c}\ = 10 \ensuremath{\rm g\,cm^{-3}}\ to $T_{dur}=10$ hr, \ensuremath{\rho_c}\ = 0.01 \ensuremath{\rm g\,cm^{-3}}\ marked with red squares. This is the BGEB population. It is offset towards smaller values of \ensuremath{\rho_c}\ relative to the PC population due to strong dilution from an additional star in the photometric aperture. The transit model has to match both the transit duration and depth. When dilution is present, a smaller transiting object and lower density (larger radius) star are fit to the observed transit. The third FP population is the remaining cloud of points, indicated by blue trianges, are the intrinsic EB population that have measured transit radii larger than 20 \ensuremath{R_{\earth}}. The transit value of the mean stellar density (\ensuremath{\rho_c}) is systematically different from the true value as our transit model is based on Equation \ref{rhostar} that assumes that the orbiting companion emits no light and has zero mass. The PC population shows an overabundance of candidates at short durations that are offset towards lower mean stellar densities and may represent a population of unidentified BGEBs. An examination of PCs with a transit duration between 1 and 2 hours and \ensuremath{\rho_c}\ of $\sim$2 \ensuremath{\rm g\,cm^{-3}}\ shows a population of PCs with periods less than 2 days and PCs in multi-planet systems that were not validated in \citet{Lissauer2014} and \citet{Rowe2014}. These PCs were not validated due to problems with centroid offsets. There will also be a population of PCs that will have systematic errors in a comparison of \ensuremath{\rho_c}\ and \ensuremath{\rho_\star}\ due to dilution from being members of hierarchical triples. \subsection{A Transit HR Diagram} The bottom panel of Figure \ref{hrdiag} plots the stellar \ensuremath{T_{\rm eff}}\ based on our adopted stellar properties in Table \ref{spars} \citep{Huber2014} vs \ensuremath{\rho_c}\ from our transit models. It can be directly compared to the panel above based only on the stellar parameters. Isochrones are based on the Dartmouth stellar evolution models \citep{Dotter2008} and plotted for [Fe/H]=-2.0,0.0,+0.5 and ages of 1 and 14 Gyr. There is good agreement compared to the model isochrones. Most of the PCs that have \ensuremath{\rho_c}\ $<$ 1 \ensuremath{\rm g\,cm^{-3}}\ have \ensuremath{T_{\rm eff}}\ $>$ 5500 K, which is where one expects to see evolved stars with transiting planets. More massive, hotter stars have relatively short main-sequence lifetimes. The isochrones predict that only G and earlier type stars in the {\it Kepler~} FOV will have had time to show significant evolution off the main-sequence. The rest of the spread can be attributed to measurement error, metallicity of host-star, eccentric orbits and planetary systems associated with hierarchical triples. Measurement error tends to spread the determination of \ensuremath{\rho_c}\ evenly in both directions. Eccentricity is biased towards larger values of \ensuremath{\rho_c}\ as there is a high probability of seeing a transiting planet near periastron. When a planetary system is part of a hierarchical triple, there will be dilution from the extra star and as described in \S\ref{dissect} the value of \ensuremath{\rho_c}\ will be systematically lower. Figure \ref{hrdiag} shows that all three effects are present and transit models can be used to measure the distribution and rate of eccentricity and hierarchical triples, see for example \citet{Rowe2014} or \citet{Moorhead2011}. While a careful modeling of the effects of eccentricity and hierarchical triples is beyond the scope of this article, it is important to point out that there are a large number of PCs around cool host star (\ensuremath{T_{\rm eff}}\ $<$ 4000 K) that have smaller values of \ensuremath{\rho_c}\ than predicted by the overlaid isochrones. This suggests that stellar binarity and dilution are important factors for M-stars and the radii of many PCs with cool host stars may be underestimated. This is apparent in \S\ref{hzcandidates} on HZ candidates, where most of the host stars are cool relative to the Sun. \subsection{Systems with multiple planet candidates} Many new multiplanet systems are identified in this catalog, and many previously identified systems are either not identified or have been identified as false positives. Here we give a brief overview of the new multiplanet systems and identify differences between this catalog and the catalog of \citep{Burke2014} (which used data through Quarter 10 to identify multi's). For this comparison, we select all multiplanet systems in each catalog that do not have any planet pairs with a period ratio smaller than 1.1 (eliminating putative systems that are likely to be dynamically unstable or split multiplanet systems such as Kepler-132 (KOI-284). The Q1-Q8 catalog has 2412\ unique KOI systems with 480\ of them multi-KOI systems. The Q1-Q8 systems comprise 3136\ total planet candidates with 1204\ of the candidates in multi-KOI systems. The candidate yield in this new catalog increases to 2674\ total KOI systems with 572\ multi-KOI systems. The new systems comprise 3535\ total candidates with 1433\ of the total being in multi-KOI systems. These gains in KOI yield are in spite of the loss of 400 KOIs from the Q1-Q8 catalogue \citep{Burke2014}, that are now identified as false positives. The multiplicity of the 92 new multi-KOI systems include a net gain of 65 two-planet, 17 three-planet, 3 four-planet, 6 five-planet, and one six-planet system. Figure \ref{histograms} shows a histogram of the system multiplicities from the previous and new multiplanet systems. \begin{figure} \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{lognew} \medskip \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{percentnew} \caption{The number of KOI systems versus system multiplicity. Total from the \citet{Burke2014} catalog are the lighter gray and totals from this catalog are a darker gray. The top panel shows raw counts and the bottom panel shows the contributions of the two catalogs to the total.\label{histograms}} \end{figure} Of the KOI systems that are common to the Q1-Q8 and Q1-Q12 catalogs, many have different multiplicities. There are 7\ new KOI systems in this catalog with KOI numbers less than 3149 (the largest numbered KOI in \citet{Burke2014}). The balance of the new KOIs (655 ) are newly identified systems with numbers greater than 3149. Among the common KOI systems, there are 96\ showing a net gain of planets---totaling 117\ new KOI. Most of these changes are individual KOIs in a system, though KOI-2055 gained three candidates for a total of four and KOI-435 gained four candidates for a total of six. At the same time, there are 22\ where one or more candidates was not recovered in this pipeline. All of the systems with changed multiplicities dropped only one candidate---KOI-5 is a notable example. \begin{figure*} \centering \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Q12KOIMultiParam.pdf} \caption{A plot of planet radius versus incident flux for all planet candidates known in the Q1-Q12 catalogue. (Note that some planet candidates lie outside the chosen axis limits for the plot, and thus are not shown.) The temperature of the host star is indicated via the colour of each point, and the signal-to-noise of the detection is indicated via the size of each point. Planet candidates that were newly designated in Q1-Q12 are indicated with black circles around the point. The two vertical dashed lines indicate the incident flux recieved by Mars (0.43 $S_{\earth}$) and Venus (1.91 $S_{\earth}$), as a broad guide to a potential habitable zone. The horizontal dotted line is set at 1.5~$R_{\earth}$ as a suggested upper limit to terrestial-type planets.} \label{planetparamfig} \end{figure*} \subsection{Early Type Stars} Very little is known about the formation and evolution of planetary systems around hot stars. The small number of detected planets around stars hotter than \ensuremath{T_{\rm eff}}\ $>$ 6800 K is likely not to be intrinsic to the exoplanet population but rather the result of observational biases. Many early F and A-type stars are pulsating stars of type $\gamma$ Doradus and $\delta$ Scuti \citep[e.g.,][]{Uytterhoeven2011}. Their multi-periodic variability, with amplitudes up to several millimagnitudes, make it very complicated to detect transitting planets. Furthermore, these stars have larger radii resulting in a smaller area of light being blocked by the planet, and therefore produce relatively shallow transits, which are more difficult to detect. Nevertheless, several planets have been discovered around (pulsating) A-type stars such as Formalhaut \citep[e.g.,][]{Currie2012}, beta Pictoris \citep{Koen2003} and WASP 33 \citep{CollierCameron2010}. In the catalogue presented here there are 42 PCs with effective temperatures higher than 6800 K. From those 42, 3 PCs are $\delta$ Scuti stars, 5 are $\gamma$ Doradus variables (3 of those are most likely eclipsing binaries rather than PC) and 3 are so-called hybrid stars exhibiting $\delta$ Scuti and $\gamma$ Doradus variability simultaneously. \subsection{HZ Candidates}\label{hzcandidates} Figure \ref{planetparamfig} plots the Q1-Q12 PCs as a function of incident flux ($S$) vs \ensuremath{R_{\rm p}}\ with colours representing \ensuremath{T_{\rm eff}}\ of the host star and point sizes representing signal-to-noise. As the transit search is based on 3 years of photometry our search was not sensitive to finding three transits of small Earth-sized planets in one year orbits around Sun-like stars, mostly due to stellar noise \citep{Gilliland2011}. Such incompleteness is evident by noting that in Figure \ref{planetparamfig} there is an overabundance of small radius PCs in the HZ around cool (\ensuremath{T_{\rm eff}}\ $<$ 4000 K) stars. Figure \ref{HZplot} shows a close up of PCs with 1$\sigma$ uncertainties based on our MCMC analysis and Table \ref{HZtable} lists 14 HZ PCs with \ensuremath{R_{\rm p}}\ $<$ $1.5\ \ensuremath{R_{\earth}}$ and $S$ $<$ 2. Kepler-62e \citep{Borucki2013} is not listed as its fitted radius is 1.73 \ensuremath{R_{\earth}}. KOI-4878.01 is a low S/N event. As stated in \S \ref{snr}, for any KOI with a S/N $\lesssim$ 10 there is non-negligible probability that the transit event is not real, thus KOI-4878 should be treated with caution. Other than KOI-4878.01, which is likely a FA, all of the HZ candidates listed in Table \ref{HZtable} have cool K or M-dwarf host stars. While M-stars are the most common star in the galaxy, these hosts present unique challenges towards potential habitability due to short orbital separation of the planet \citep{Tarter2007}, difficulty in accreting and reatining H$_2$O \citep{Lissauer2007} and phenomena such as stellar flares \citep{Segura2010}. We examine each of the HZ candidates listed in Table \ref{HZtable} and give a brief discription of the characteristics of the system including the presence of strong stellar activity which, when present, presents evidence that the transiting HZ candidate is not a background blend. \begin{figure}[h] \centering \begin{tabular}{c} \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{HZplot.eps} \end{tabular} \caption{Planet radius \ensuremath{R_{\rm p}}\ vs. incident flux ($S$) for PCs with $S<10$ $S_{\earth}$ and \ensuremath{R_{\rm p}}\ $<$ 20 \ensuremath{R_{\earth}}. Uncertainties are 1$\sigma$ based on posterior distributions calculated from Markov Chains based on transit models convolved with uncertainties from adopted stellar parameters.} \label{HZplot} \end{figure} KOI-3138.01 appears to be an interesting sub-Earth radius planet-candidate in a 8.7 day period around a cool M-dwarf (\ensuremath{T_{\rm eff}} = 2703 K). The star was identified as a high proper motion target \citep{Lepine2005} (0.157"/yr). The fitted value of the mean-stellar density (\ensuremath{\rho_\star}$_c$) of $70\pm^{25}_{42}$ \ensuremath{\rm g\,cm^{-3}}\ and short transit-duration also agree that the host star is compact, consistent with a late dwarf. The object was added in Q6 as a Kepler-GO target to search for lensing and only long-cadence (30 minute) observations are available. The star was unclassified in the Q1-Q8 catalogue, but its updated nominal properties make the planet Mars-sized (\ensuremath{R_{\rm p}}\ = 0.57 \ensuremath{R_{\earth}}) that receives a Mars-like amount of flux ($S$ = 0.47 $S_{\earth}$). KOI-3284.01 is an Earth-sized PC (\ensuremath{R_{\rm p}} = 0.98 \ensuremath{R_{\earth}}) that receives 31\% more flux than the Earth and orbits a cool M-dwarf (\ensuremath{T_{\rm eff}} = 3688 K). The photometric lightcurve shows 2\% variations consistent with spot modulation from a star with a spin period of 36 days. KOI-2418.01 and KOI-2626.01 are modeled as two Earth-sized PCs (\ensuremath{R_{\rm p}}= 1.1 \ensuremath{R_{\earth}}) that receive approximately one-third and two-thirds the flux the Earth receives and orbit stars classified as cool M-dwarfs with periods of 86 and 38 days, respectively, which have similar characteristics to Kepler-186f \citep{Quintana2014}. The transit model values of \ensuremath{\rho_\star}$_c$, $3.5\pm^{0.3}_{1.7}$ and $5.5\pm^{4.0}_{1.1} \ensuremath{\rm g\,cm^{-3}}$, are consistent with the stellar classification. KOI-2418 shows relatively large (0.8\%) photometric variability due to star spots and a rotation period of 19 days and appears to show stellar flares. KOI-2626.01 has been observed to be an optical triple thus the planetary radius reported is underestimated \citep{Star2014}. KOI-2650.01 is part of a multi-planet candidate system. This candidate has a orbital period of 34.99 days and \ensuremath{R_{\rm p}}\ = 1.25 \ensuremath{R_{\earth}} . The second candidate, KOI-2650.02, has an orbital period of 7.05 days, which produced a period ratio $P_{.01}/P_{.02} = 4.96$. The high-order mean-resonance would would produce significant TTVs if the planets had high eccentricities. There are no signs of TTVs for KOI-2650.01, and any potential TTVs KOI-2650.02 are not convincing. We have not ruled out that any possible TTVs may be due to star spots. The host star shows 2\% spot modulations consistent with a 20-day rotation period. KOI-2124.01 and 3255.01 are Earth-sized (\ensuremath{R_{\rm p}}\ = 1.0 and 1.4 \ensuremath{R_{\earth}}), but receive $\sim$80\% more flux than the Earth, and thus these system have a stronger resemblance to Venus than the Earth \citep{Kane2014}. KOI-2124 shows star spot modulation with photometric variability of 0.6\% with a 16-day period, there is also evidence of flares. KOI-3255 shows variability greater than 1\%, consistent with star spots and a rotation period of 22 days. Of the dozen credible HZ candidates presented, at least two are known binaries and thus, this highlights the importance of follow up of these systems with both spectroscopy and high resolution imaging \citep{Marcy2014,Gilliland2015}. \section{Summary} From an analysis of 18,406 TCEs we have added \nqtwelvenewpcs new PCs to the KOI database to bring the total number of PCs to 3697. {\it Kepler~} has now discovered more than a dozen good HZ candidates that have radii less than 1.5 \ensuremath{R_{\earth}}\ and $S$ less than 2.0 $S_{\earth}$ primarily around cool dwarf stars. We also deliver, for the first time, a uniform MCMC analysis of all KOI PCs and present reliable posterior distributions convolved with improved stellar classifications of {\it Kepler}'s target stars. Our transit curve analysis is extremely useful, not only to determine fundamental properties of extrasolar planets, but to also cull the population of KOIs to select a highly reliable set of planet candidates based on period, S/N, transit duration and depth. With more than 4 quarters of {\it Kepler~} photometry left to analyze, and still improving data analysis software, we are excited about the future prospects of {\it Kepler~} discoveries. \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc} \tabletypesize{\scriptsize} \tablecaption{Small HZ Planets and Candidates} \tablehead{\colhead{KOI} & \colhead{\ensuremath{T_{\rm eff}}} & \colhead{\ensuremath{R_{\rm p}}} & \colhead{$S$} & \colhead{S/N} \\ \colhead{} & \colhead{K} & \colhead{\ensuremath{R_{\earth}}} & \colhead{$S_{\earth}$} & \colhead{}} \startdata 571.05$^1$ & 3761 & 1.06 & 0.25 & 12.4 \\ 701.04$^2$ & 4797 & 1.42 & 0.41 & 18.1 \\ 1422.04$^3$ & 3517 & 1.23$^4$ & 0.37 & 17.0 \\ 1422.05$^3$ & 3517 & 1.08$^4$ & 0.84 & 14.0 \\ 2124.01 & 4029 & 1.00 & 1.84 & 21.6 \\ 2418.01 & 3724 & 1.12 & 0.35 & 16.7 \\ 2626.01 & 3482 & 1.12$^4$ & 0.65 & 16.2 \\ 2650.01 & 3735 & 1.25 & 1.14 & 14.1 \\ 3138.01 & 2703 & 0.57 & 0.47 & 10.8 \\ 3255.01 & 4427 & 1.37 & 1.78 & 27.0 \\ 3284.01 & 3688 & 0.98 & 1.31 & 16.4 \\ 4087.01 & 3813 & 1.47 & 0.39 & 23.9 \\ 4427.01 & 3668 & 1.47 & 0.17 & 13.7 \\ \enddata \tablecomments{List of potential HZ candidates with \ensuremath{R_{\rm p}} $<$ 1.5 \ensuremath{R_{\earth}}, $S$ $<$ 2 $S_{\earth}$ and S/N $>$ 10. Any candidate with a S/N less than $\sim$10 should be considered unreliable\\ Notes: $^1$ Kepler-186f, \\ $^2$ Kepler-62e, \\ $^3$ Kepler-296e, Kepler-296f, \\ $^4$ known binary, thus \ensuremath{R_{\rm p}} is underestimated. \\ } \label{HZtable} \end{deluxetable} \acknowledgments Funding for this Discovery mission is provided by NASA's Science Mission Directorate. We are grateful to TCERT vetters who tirelessly examined thousands of transit candidates. We are indebted to the entire {\it Kepler~} Team for all the hard work and dedication that have made such discoveries possible. In one way or another, it seems that everyone in the exoplanet community has somehow contributed towards this work and if I add everyone to the author list there will no one left to referee, so thank you everyone and the referee. J.F.R. acknowledges NASA grants NNX12AD21G and NNX14AB82G issued through the Kepler Participating Scientist Program. B.Q. acknowledges support from a NASA Postdoctoral Fellowship. D.H. acknowledges NASA Grant NNX14AB92G issued through the Kepler Participating Scientist Program and support by the Australian Research Council's Discovery Projects funding scheme (project number DE140101364). Funding for the Stellar Astrophysics Centre is provided by The Danish National Research Foundation (grant No. DNRF106). V.A. is supported by the ASTERISK project (ASTERoseismic Investigations with SONG and Kepler) funded by the European Research Council (Grant agreement No. 267864). K.G.H. acknowledges support provided by the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan as Subaru Astronomical Research Fellow. This research has made use of the NASA Exoplanet Archive, which is operated by the California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under the Exoplanet Exploration Program.
\subsection{Definitions} \begin{definition} A 2-bounded coloring $f : [\mathbb{N}]^2 \to \mathbb{N}$ is \emph{strongly rainbow-stable} if $(\forall x)(\exists y \neq x)(\forall^\infty s)f(x, s) = f(y,s)$ A set $X \subseteq \mathbb{N}$ is a \emph{prerainbow} for a 2-bounded coloring $f : [\mathbb{N}]^2 \to \mathbb{N}$ if $(\forall x \in X)(\forall y \in X)(\forall^\infty s \in X)[f(x, s) \neq f(y, s)]$. $\srrt^2_2$ is the statement ``every rainbow-stable 2-bounded coloring $f : [\mathbb{N}]^2 \to \mathbb{N}$ has a rainbow.'' \end{definition} \begin{lemma}[Wang in \cite{WangSome}, $\rca + \bst$]\label{lem:prerainbow-equiv} Let $f : [\mathbb{N}]^2 \to \mathbb{N}$ be a $2$-bounded coloring and $X$ be an infinite prerainbow for $f$. Then $X \oplus f$ computes an infinite $f$-rainbow $Y \subseteq X$. \end{lemma} \begin{theorem}\label{thm:rainbow-stable-vs-strongly} The following are equivalent over $\rca + \bst$: \begin{itemize} \item[(i)] $\srrt^2_2$ \item[(ii)] Every strongly rainbow-stable 2-bounded coloring $f : [\mathbb{N}]^2 \to \mathbb{N}$ has a rainbow. \end{itemize} \end{theorem} \begin{proof} $(i) \rightarrow (ii)$ is straightforward as any strongly rainbow-stable coloring is rainbow-stable. $(ii) \rightarrow (i)$: Let $f : [\mathbb{N}]^2 \to \mathbb{N}$ be a 2-bounded rainbow-stable coloring. Consider the following collection: $$ S = \set{ x \in \mathbb{N} : (\forall^{\infty} s)(\forall y \neq x)[f(y, s) \neq f(x,s)]} $$ If $S$ is finite, then take $n \geq max(S)$. The restriction of $f$ to $[n, +\infty)$ is a strongly rainbow-stable 2-bounded coloring and we are done. So suppose $S$ is infinite. We build a 2-bounded strongly rainbow-stable coloring $g \leq_T f$ by stages. At stage $t$, assume $g(x, i)$ is defined for every $x, i < t$. For every pair $x, y \leq t$ such that $f(x, t) = f(y, t)$, define $g(x, t) = g(y, t)$. Let $S_t$ be the set of $x \leq t$ such that $g(x, t)$ has not been defined yet. Writing $S_t = \set{x_1 < x_2 < \dots}$, we set $g(x_{2i}) = g(x_{2i+1})$ for each $i$. If $S_t$ has an odd number of elements, there remains an undefined value. Set it to a fresh color. This finishes the construction. It is clear by construction that $g$ is 2-bounded. \begin{claim} $g$ is strongly rainbow-stable. \end{claim} \begin{proof} Fix any $x \in \mathbb{N}$. Because $f$ is rainbow-stable, we have two cases: \begin{itemize} \item Case 1: there is a $y \neq x$ such that $(\forall^{\infty} s) f(x, s) = f(y, s)$. Let $s_0$ be the threshold such that $(\forall s \geq s_0) f(x, s) = f(y, s)$. Then by construction, at any stage $s \geq s_0$, $g(x, s) = g(y, s)$ and we are done. \item Case 2: $x \in S$. Because $x$ is infinite, it has a successor $y_0 \in S$. By $\bst$, let $s_0$ be the threshold such that for every $y \leq y_0$ either there is a $z \leq y_0$, $z \neq y$ such that $(\forall s \geq s_0) f(y, s) = f(z, s)$ or $(\forall s \geq s_0)$ $f(y, s)$ is a fresh color. Then by construction of $g$, for every $t \geq s_0$, $S_t {\upharpoonright} y = S {\upharpoonright} y$. Either $x = x_{2i}$ for some $i$ and then $(\forall t \geq s_0) g(x, t) = g(x_{2i+1}, t)$ or $x = x_{2i+1}$ for some $i$ and then $(\forall t \geq s_0) g(x, t) = g(x_{2i}, t)$. \end{itemize} \end{proof} \begin{claim} Every infinite prerainbow for $g$ is a prerainbow for $f$. \end{claim} \begin{proof} Let $X$ be an infinite prerainbow for $g$ and assume for the sake of contradiction that it is not a prerainbow for $f$. Then there exists two elements $x, y \in X$ such that $(\forall s)(\exists t \geq s)[f(x, t) = f(y, t)]$. But then because $f$ is rainbow-stable, there is a threshold $s_0$ such that $(\forall s \geq s_0)[f(x, s) = f(y, s)]$. Then by construction of $g$, for every $s \geq s_0$, $g(x, s) = g(y, s)$. For every $u \in X$ there is an $s \in X$ with $s \geq u, s_0$ such that $g(x, s) = g(y, s)$ contradicting the fact that $X$ is a prerainbow for $g$. \end{proof} Using Lemma~\ref{lem:prerainbow-equiv}, for any infinite $H$ prerainbow for $g$, $f \oplus H$ computes an infinite rainbow for $f$. This finishes the proof. \end{proof} \bigskip \subsection{Relation with diagonal non-recursiveness}\label{sect:srrt22-dnr} It is well-known that being able to compute a d.n.c.\ function is equivalent to being able to uniformly find a member outside a finite $\Sigma^0_1$ set if we know an upper bound on its size, and also equivalent to diagonalize against a $\Sigma^0_1$ function. The proof relativizes well and is elementary enough to be formalized in $\rca$ (see Theorem~\ref{thm:dnrzn-char-dnr}). \begin{definition} Let $(X_e)_{e \in \mathbb{N}}$ be a uniform family of finite sets. An \emph{$(X_e)_{e \in \mathbb{N}}$-escaping function} is a function $f : \mathbb{N}^2 \to \mathbb{N}$ such that $(\forall e)(\forall n)[\card{X_e} \leq n \rightarrow f(e,n) \not \in X_e]$. Let $h : \mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{N}$ be a function. An \emph{$h$-diagonalizing function} $f$ is a function $\mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{N}$ such that $(\forall x)[f(x) \neq h(x)]$. When $(X_e)_{e \in \mathbb{N}}$ and $h$ are clear from context, they may be omitted. \end{definition} \begin{theorem}[Folklore]\label{thm:dnrzn-char-dnr} For every $n \in \mathbb{N}$, the following are equivalent over $\rca$: \begin{itemize} \item[(i)] $\dnr[0^{(n)}]$ \item[(ii)] Any uniform family $(X_e)_{e \in \mathbb{N}}$ of $\Sigma^0_{n+1}$ finite sets has an escaping function. \item[(iii)] Any partial $\Delta^0_{n+1}$ function has a diagonalizing function. \end{itemize} \end{theorem} \begin{proof} Fix a set $A$. \begin{itemize} \item $(i) \rightarrow (ii)$: Let $(X_e)_{e \in \mathbb{N}}$ be a uniform family of finite $\Sigma^{0,A}_{n+1}$ finite sets and $f$ be a function d.n.c.\ relative to $A^{(n)}$. Define a function $h : \mathbb{N}^2 \to \mathbb{N}$ by $h(e, n) = \tuple{f(i_1), \dots, f(i_n)}$ where $i_j$ is the index of the partial $\Delta^{0, A}_{n+1}$ function which on every input, looks at the $j$th element $k$ of $X_e$ if it exists, interprets $k$ as a $n$-tuple $\tuple{k_1, \dots, k_n}$ and returns $k_j$. The function diverges if no such $k$ exists. One easily checks that $h$ is an $(X_e)_{e \in \mathbb{N}}$-escaping function. \item $(ii) \rightarrow (iii)$: Let $f : \mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{N}$ be a partial $\Delta^{0,A}_{n+1}$ function. Consider the enumeration defined by $X_e = \set{f(e)}$ if it $f(e) \downarrow$ and $X_e = \emptyset$ otherwise. This is a uniform family of $\Sigma^{0,A}_{n+1}$ finite sets, each of size at most 1. Let $g: \mathbb{N}^2 \to \mathbb{N}$ be an $(X_e)_{e \in \mathbb{N}}$-escaping function. Then $h : \mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{N}$ defined by $h(e) = g(e, 1)$ is an $f$-diagonalizing function. \item $(iii) \rightarrow (i)$: Consider the partial $\Delta^{0,A}_{n+1}$ function $f(e) = \Phi^{A^{(n)}}_e(e)$. Any $f$-diagonalizing function is d.n.c relative to $A^{(n)}$. \end{itemize} \end{proof} In particular, using Miller's characterization of $\rrt^2_2$ by $\dnrzp$, we have the following theorem taking $n=1$: \begin{theorem}[Folklore]\label{thm:rrt22-char-dnr} The following are equivalent over $\rca$: \begin{itemize} \item[(i)] $\rrt^2_2$ \item[(ii)] Any uniform family $(X_e)_{e \in \mathbb{N}}$ of $\Sigma^0_2$ finite sets has an escaping function. \item[(iii)] Any partial $\Delta^0_2$ function has a diagonalizing function. \end{itemize} \end{theorem} In the rest of this section, we will give an equivalent of Theorem~\ref{thm:rrt22-char-dnr} for $\srrt^2_2$. \begin{lemma}[$\rca + \bst$]\label{lem:srrt22-char1} For every $\Delta^0_2$ function $h : \mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{N}$, there exists a computable rainbow-stable 2-bounded coloring $c : [\mathbb{N}]^2 \to \mathbb{N}$ such that every infinite rainbow $R$ for $c$ computes an $h$-diagonalizing function. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Fix a $\Delta^0_2$ function $h$ and a uniform family $(D_e)_{e \in \mathbb{N}}$ of all finite sets. We will construct a rainbow-stable 2-bounded coloring $c : [\mathbb{N}]^2 \to \mathbb{N}$ by a finite injury priority argument. By Schoenfield's limit lemma, there exists a total computable function $g(\cdot, \cdot)$ such that $\lim_s g(x, s) = h(x)$ for every $x$. Our requirements are the following: \bigskip $\mathcal{R}_x$: If $\card{D_{\lim_s g(x, s)}} \geq 3x+2$ then $\exists u, v \in D_{\lim_s g(x, s)}$ such that $(\forall^{\infty} s) c(v, s) = c(v, s)$. \smallskip We first check that if every requirement is satisfied then we can compute a function $f : \mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{N}$ such that $(\forall x)[f(x) \neq h(x)]$ from any infinite rainbow for $c$. Fix any infinite set $R$ rainbow for $c$. Let $f$ be the function which given $x$ returns the index of the set of the first $3x+2$ elements of $R$. Because of the requirement $\mathcal{R}_x$, $D_{f(x)} \neq D_{\lim_s g(x,s)}$. Otherwise $\card{D_{f(x)}} = 3x+2$ and there would be two elements $u, v \in D_{f(x)} \subset R$ such that $(\forall^{\infty} s) c(x, s) = c(y, s)$. So take an element $s \in R$ large enough to witness this fact. $c(x, s) = c(y, s)$ for $x, y, s \in R$ contradicting the fact that $R$ is a rainbow. So $D_{f(x)} \neq D_{\lim_s g(x,s)}$ from which we deduce $f(x) \neq \lim_s g(x, s) = h(x)$. Our strategy for satisfying a local requirement $\mathcal{R}_x$ is as follows. If $\mathcal{R}_x$ receives attention at stage $t$, it checks whether $\card{D_{g(x, t)}} \geq 3x+2$. If this is not the case, then it is declared satisfied. If $\card{D_{g(x, t)}} \geq 3x+2$, then it chooses the least two elements $u, v \geq x$, such that $u, v \in D_{g(x, s)}$ and $u$ and $v$ are \emph{not} restrained by a strategy of higher priority and \emph{commits} to assigning a common color. For any such pair $u, v$, this commitment will remain active as long as the strategy has a restraint on that element. Having done all this, the local strategy is declared to be satisfied and will not act again unless either a higher priority puts restraint on $u$ or $v$ or at a further stage $t' > t$, $g(x, t') \neq g(x, t)$. In both cases, the strategy gets \emph{injured} and has to reset, releasing all its restraints. To finish stage $t$, the global strategy assigns $c(u, t)$ for all $u \leq t$ as follows: if $u$ is commited to some assignment of $c(u, t)$ due to a local strategy, define $c(u, t)$ to be this value. If not, let $c(u, t)$ be a fresh color. This finishes the construction and we now turn to the verification. It is easy to check that each requirement restrains at most two elements at a given stage. \begin{claim} Every given strategy acts finitely often. \end{claim} \begin{proof} Fix some~$x \in \mathbb{N}$. By~$\bst$ and because $g$ is limit-computable, there exists a stage $s_0$ such that $g(y, s) = g(y, s_0)$ for every~$y \leq x$ and~$s \geq s_0$. If $|D_{g(x,s_0)}| < 3x+2$, then the requirement is satisfied and does not act any more. If $|D_{g(x,s_0)}| \geq 3x+2$, then by a cardinality argument, there exists two elements~$u$ and~$v \in D_{g(x,s_0)}$ which are not restrained by a strategy of higher priority. Because $D_{g(y, s)} = D_{g(y, s_0)}$ for each~$y \leq x$ and~$s \geq s_0$, no strategy of higher priority will change its restrains and will therefore injure~$\mathcal{R}_x$ after stage~$s_0$. So $(\forall^{\infty} s) c(u, s) = c(v,s)$ for some $u, v \in D_{\lim_s g(x, s)}$ and requirement $\mathcal{R}_x$ is satisfied. \end{proof} \begin{claim} The resulting coloring $c$ is rainbow-stable. \end{claim} \begin{proof} Consider a given element $u \in \mathbb{N}$. We distinguish three cases: \begin{itemize} \item Case 1: the element becomes, during the construction, free from any restraint after some stage $t \geq t_0$ . In this case, by construction, $c(u, t)$ is assigned a fresh color for all $t \geq t_0$. Then $(\forall^{\infty} s)(\forall v \neq u)[c(u, s) \neq c(v, s)]$. \item Case 2: there is a stage $t_0$ at which some restraint is put on $u$ by some local strategy, and this restraint is never released. In this case, the restraint comes together with a commitment that all values of $c(u, s)$ and $c(v, s)$ be the same beyond some stage $t_0$ for some fixed $v \neq x$. Therefore for all but finitely many stages $s$, $c(u, s) = c(v, s)$. \item Case 3: during the construction, infinitely many restraints are put on $u$ and are later released. This is actually an impossible case, since by construction only strategies for requirements $\mathcal{R}_y$ with $y \leq u$ can ever put a restraint on $u$. By~$\bst$, there exists some stage after which no stragegy ~$\mathcal{R}_y$ acts for every~$y \leq u$ and therefore the restraints on~$u$ never change again. \end{itemize} \end{proof} This last claim finishes the proof. \end{proof} \begin{lemma}[$\rca + \ist$] \label{lem:char1-srrt22} For every computable strongly rainbow-stable 2-bounded coloring $f : [\mathbb{N}]^2 \to \mathbb{N}$ there exists a uniform family $(X_e)_{e \in \mathbb{N}}$ of $\Delta^0_2$ finite sets whose sizes are uniformly $\Delta^0_2$ computable such that every $(X_e)_{e \in \mathbb{N}}$-escaping function computes a rainbow for~$c$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Fix any uniform family $(D_e)_{e \in \mathbb{N}}$ of finite sets. Let $f : [\mathbb{N}]^2 \to \mathbb{N}$ be a 2-bounded rainbow-stable computable coloring. For an element $x$, define $$ \mathrm{Bad}(x) = \set{ y \in \mathbb{N} : (\forall^\infty s)f(x,s) = f(y,s)} $$ Notice that $x \in \mathrm{Bad}(x)$. Because $f$ is strongly rainbow-stable, $\mathrm{Bad}$ is a $\Delta^0_2$ function. For a set $S$, $\mathrm{Bad}(S) = \bigcup_{x \in S} \mathrm{Bad}(x)$. Define $X_e = \mathrm{Bad}(D_e)$. Hence $X_e$ is a $\Delta^0_2$ set, and this uniformly in $e$. Moreover, $\card{X_e} \leq 2\card{D_e}$ and for every $x$, $\card{\mathrm{Bad}(x)} = 2$ so we can $\emptyset'$-compute the size of $X_e$ with the following equality $$ \card{X_e} = 2|D_e| - 2 \card{\set{\set{x, y} \subset D_e : \mathrm{Bad}(x) = \mathrm{Bad}(y)}} $$ Let $h : \mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{N}$ be a function satisfying $(\forall e)(\forall n)[\card{X_e} \leq n \rightarrow h(e, n) \not \in X_e]$. We can define $g : \mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{N}$ by $g(e) = h(e, 2\card{D_e})$. Hence $(\forall e)g(e) \not \in X_e$. We construct a prerainbow $R$ by stages $R_0 (=\emptyset) \subsetneq R_1 \subsetneq R_2, \dots$ Assume that at stage $s$, $(\forall \{x,y\} \subseteq R_s)(\forall^{\infty} s)[f(x, s)\neq f(y,s)]$. Because $R_s$ is finite, we can computably find some index $e$ such that $R_s = D_e$. Set $R_{s+1} = R_s \cup \set{g(e)}$. By definition, $g(e) \not \in X_e$. Let $x \in R_s$. Because $g(e) \not \in X_e$, $(\forall^{\infty} s) f(x, s) \neq f(g(e), s)$. By~$\ist$, the set~$R$ is a prerainbow for~$f$. By Lemma~\ref{lem:prerainbow-equiv} we can compute an infinite rainbow for $f$ from $R \oplus f$. \end{proof} \begin{theorem}\label{thm:srrt22-characterizations} The following are equivalent over $\rca + \ist$: \begin{itemize} \item[(i)] $\srrt^2_2$ \item[(ii)] Any uniform family $(X_e)_{e \in \mathbb{N}}$ of $\Sigma^0_2$ finite sets whose sizes are uniformly $\Delta^0_2$ has an escaping function. \item[(iii)] Any $\Delta^0_2$ function $h : \mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{N}$ has a diagonalizing function. \end{itemize} \end{theorem} \begin{proof} $(i) \rightarrow (iii)$ is Lemma~\ref{lem:srrt22-char1} and $(ii) \rightarrow (i)$ follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:char1-srrt22}. This is where we use~$\ist$. We now prove $(iii) \rightarrow (ii)$. Let $(X_e)_{e \in \mathbb{N}}$ be a uniform family of $\Sigma^0_2$ finite sets such that~$|X_e|$ is~$\Delta^0_2$ uniformly in~$e$. For each~$n, i \in \mathbb{N}$, define~$(n)_i$ to be the $i$th component of the tuple whose code is~$n$, if it exists. Define \[ h(\tuple{e,i}) = \cond{ (n)_i & \mbox{ where } n \mbox{ is the } i\mbox{th element of } X_e \mbox{ if } i < |X_e|\\ 0 & \mbox{ oherwise} } \] By (iii), let $g : \mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{N}$ be a total function such that $(\forall e)[g(e) \neq h(e)]$. Hence for every pair $\tuple{e,i}$ such that~$i \leq |X_e|$, $g(\tuple{e,i}) \neq (n)_i$ where $n$ is the $i$th element of $X_e$. Define $f : \mathbb{N}^2 \to \mathbb{N}$ to return on inputs $e$ and $s$ the tuple $\tuple{g(\tuple{e,0}), \dots, g(\tuple{e,s})}$. Hence if $s \geq \card{X_e}$ then $f(e, s) \neq m$ where $m$ is the $i$th element of $X_e$ for each~$i < |X_e|$. So $f(e,n) \not \in X_e$. \end{proof} \begin{corollary} Every $\omega$-model of $\srrt^2_2$ is a model of $\dnr$. \end{corollary} \begin{proof} Let $h : \mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{N}$ be the $\Delta^0_2$ function which on input $e$ returns $\Phi_e(e)$ if $\Phi_e(e) \downarrow$ and returns 0 otherwise. By (iii) of Theorem~\ref{thm:srrt22-characterizations} there exists a total function $f : \mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{N}$ such that $(\forall e)[f(e) \neq h(e)]$. Hence $(\forall e)[f(e)\neq \Phi_e(e)]$ so $f$ is a d.n.c.\ function. \end{proof} \begin{theorem} $\rca \vdash \srrt^2_2 \rightarrow \dnr$ \end{theorem} \begin{proof} If $\Phi_{e}(e) \downarrow$ then interpret $\Phi_e(e)$ as the code of a finite set $D_e$ of size $3^{e+1}$ with $min(D_e) > e$. Let $D_{e,s}$ be the approximation of $D_e$ at stage $s$, i.e. $D_{e, s}$ is the set $\{e+1, \dots, e+3^{e+1}\}$ if $\Phi_{e,s}(e) \uparrow$ and $D_{e,s} = D_e$ if $\Phi_{e,s}(e) \downarrow$. We will construct a rainbow-stable coloring $f : [\mathbb{N}]^2 \to \mathbb{N}$ meeting the following requirements for each $e \in \mathbb{N}$. $$ \mathcal{R}_e : \Phi_e(e) \downarrow \rightarrow (\exists a, b \in D_e)(\forall^{\infty} s)f(a, s) = f(b, s) $$ Before giving the construction, let us explain how to compute a d.n.c.\ function from any infinite rainbow for $f$ if each requirement is satisfied. Let $H$ be an infinite rainbow for $f$. Define the function $g : \mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{N}$ which given $e$ returns the code of the $3^{e+1}$ first elements of $H$. We claim that $g$ is a d.n.c.\ function. Otherwise suppose $g(e) = \Phi_e(e)$ for some $e$. Then $D_e \subseteq H$, but by $\mathcal{R}_e$, $(\exists a, b \in D_e)(\forall^{\infty} s)f(a, s) = f(b, s)$. As $H$ is infinite, there exists an $s \in H$ such that $f(a, s) = f(b, s)$, contradicting the fact that $H$ is a rainbow for~$f$. We now describe the construction. The coloring $f$ is defined by stages. Suppose that at stage $s$, $f(u,v)$ is defined for each $u, v < s$. For each $e < s$ take the first pair $\set{a, b} \in D_{e,s} \setminus \bigcup_{k < e} D_{k,s}$. Such a pair must exist by cardinality assumption on the $D_{e,s}$. Set $f(a, s) = f(b, s) = i$ for some fresh color $i$. Having done that, for any $u$ not yet assigned, assign $f(u, s)$ a fresh color and go to stage $s+1$. \begin{claim} Each requirement $\mathcal{R}_e$ is satisfied. \end{claim} \begin{proof} Fix an $e \in \mathbb{N}$. By $\bsig^0_1$ there exists a stage $s$ such that $\Phi_{k,s}(k) = \Phi_k(k)$ for each $k \leq e$. Then at each further stage $t$, the same par $\set{a, b}$ will be chosen in $D_{e,s}$ to set $f(a, t) = f(b, t)$. Hence if $\Phi_e(e) \downarrow$, there are $a, b \in D_e$ such that $(\forall^{\infty} s)f(a, s) = f(b, s)$. \end{proof} \begin{claim} The coloring $f$ is rainbow-stable. \end{claim} \begin{proof} Fix an element $u \in \mathbb{N}$. By $\bsig^0_1$ there is a stage $s$ such that $\Phi_{k,s}(k) = \Phi_k(k)$ for each $k < u$. If $u \in \set{a, b}$ for some pair $\set{a,b}$ chosen by a requirement of priority $k < u$ then at any further stage $t$, $f(u, t) = f(a, t) = f(b,t)$. If $u$ is not chosen by any requirement of priority $k < u$, then $u$ will not be chosen by any further requirement as $min(D_e) > e$ for each $e \in \mathbb{N}$. So by construction, $f(u,t)$ will be given a fresh color for each $t > s$. \end{proof} \end{proof} \subsection{K\"onig's lemma and relativized Schnorr tests}\label{srrt22-konig} D.n.c.\ degrees admit other characterizations in terms of Martin-L\"of tests and Ramsey-Type K\"onig's lemmas. For the former, it is well-known that d.n.c.\ degrees are the degrees of infinite subsets of Martin-L\"of randoms \cite{Kjos-Hanssen2009Infinite,Greenberg2009Lowness}. The latter has been introduced by Flood in~\cite{Flood2012Reverse} under the name $\rkl$ and and renamed into $\rwkl$ in~\cite{Bienvenu2014Ramsey}. It informally states the existence of an infinite subset of $P$ or $\overline{P}$ where $P$ is a path through a tree. \begin{definition} Fix a binary tree $T \subseteq 2^{<\mathbb{N}}$ and a $c \in \set{0,1}$. A string $\sigma \in 2^{<\mathbb{N}}$ is \emph{homogeneous for a path through $T$ with color $c$} if there exists a $\tau \in T$ such that $\forall i < \card{\sigma}$, $\sigma(i) = 1 \rightarrow \tau(i) = c$. A set $H$ is \emph{homogeneous for a path in $T$} if there is a $c \in \set{0,1}$ such that for every initial segment $\sigma$ of $H$, $\sigma$ is homogeneous for a path in $T$ with color $c$. $\rwwkl$ is the statement ``Every tree $T$ of positive measure has an infinite set homogeneous for a path through $T$''. \end{definition} Flood proved in~\cite{Flood2012Reverse} that $\rca \vdash \rwwkl \rightarrow \dnr$. Bienvenu et al.\ proved in~\cite{Bienvenu2014Ramsey} the reverse implication. \begin{definition} A \emph{Martin-L\"of test} relative to $X$ is a sequence $(U_i)_{i \in \mathbb{N}}$ of uniformly $\Sigma^{0,X}_1$ classes such that $\mu(U_n) \leq 2^{-n}$ for all $n$. A set $H$ is \emph{homogeneous} for a Martin-L\"of test $(U_i)_{i \in \mathbb{N}}$ if there exists an $i$ such that $H$ is homogeneous for a path through the tree corresponding to the closed set~$\overline{U_i}$. \end{definition} \begin{theorem}[Flood \cite{Flood2012Reverse}, Bienvenu \& al.~\cite{Bienvenu2014Ramsey}]\label{thm:dnrzp-rwwkl} For every $n \in \mathbb{N}$, the following are equivalent over $\rca+\isig^0_{n+1}$: \begin{itemize} \item[(i)] $\dnr[0^{(n)}]$ \item[(ii)] Every Martin-L\"of test $(U_i)_{i \in \mathbb{N}}$ relative to $\emptyset^{(n)}$ has an infinite homogeneous set. \item[(iii)] Every $\Delta^0_{n+1}$ tree of positive measure has an infinite set homogeneous for a path. \end{itemize} \end{theorem} In the rest of this section, we will prove an equivalent theorem for $\srrt^2_2$. \begin{definition}[Downey \& Hirschfeldt~\cite{Downey2010Algorithmic}] A Martin-L\"of test $(U_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ relative to $X$ is a \emph{Schnorr test} relative to $X$ if the measures $\mu(U_n)$ are uniformly $X$-computable. \end{definition} \begin{lemma}[$\rca+\bst$] For every set $A$, every $n \in \mathbb{N}$ and every function $f \leq_T A'$ there exists a tree $T \leq_T A'$ such that $\mu(T)$ is an $A'$-computable positive real, $\mu(T) \geq 1 - \frac{1}{2^n}$ and every infinite set homogeneous for a path through $T$ computes a function $g$ such that $g(e) \neq f(e)$ for every~$e$. Moreover the index for $T$ and for its measure can be found effectively from $n$ and $f$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Fix $n \in \mathbb{N}$. Let $(D_{e,i})_{e, i \in \mathbb{N}}$ be an enumeration of finite sets such that \begin{itemize} \item[(i)] $min(D_{e,i}) \geq i$ \item[(ii)] $\card{D_{e,i}} = i+2+n$ \item[(iii)] given an $i$ and finite set $U$ satisfying (i) and (ii), one can effectively find an $e$ such that $D_{e, i} = U$. \end{itemize} For any canonical index $e$ of a finite set, define $T_e$ to be the downward closure of the $f$-computable set $\set{\sigma \in 2^{<\Nb} : \exists a, b \in D_{f(e), e} : \sigma(a) = 0 \wedge \sigma(b) = 1}$. The set~$T_e$ exists by~$\bsig^{0,f}_1$, hence~$\bst$. Define also $T_{\leq e} = \bigcap_{i=0}^e T_e$. It is easy to see that $$ \mu(T_e) = 1 - \frac{1}{2^{\card{D_{f(e), e}}-1}} $$ Fix a $\emptyset'$-computable function $f$. Consider the following tree $T = \bigcap_{i = 0}^{\infty} T_i$. Because of condition (ii), $$ \mu(T) \geq 1 - \sum_{i = 0}^{\infty} [1 - \mu(T_i)] = 1 - \sum_{i = 0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{2^{i+1+n}} = 1 - \frac{1}{2^{n}} $$ \begin{claim} $T$ is an $f$-computable tree. \end{claim} \begin{proof} Fix a string $\sigma \in 2^{<\Nb}$. $\sigma \in T$ iff $\sigma \in \bigcap_{i=0}^{\infty} T_i$ By definition, $\sigma \in T_i$ iff $\sigma \preceq \tau$ for some $\tau \in 2^{<\Nb}$ such that there are some elements $a, b \in D_{f(i), i}$ verifying $\tau(a) = 0$ and $\tau(b) = 1$. When $i \geq \card{\sigma}$, because of conditions (i) and (ii) there exists $a, b \geq i$ with $a, b \in D_{f(i), i}$ and $\tau \succeq \sigma$ such that $\tau(a) = 0$ and $\tau(b) = 1$. Hence $\sigma \in T$ iff $\sigma \in T_{\leq \card{\sigma}}$, which is an $f$-computable predicate uniformly in $\sigma$. \end{proof} \begin{claim} $\mu(T)$ is an $f$-computable real. \end{claim} \begin{proof} Fix any $c \in \mathbb{N}$. For any $d \in \mathbb{N}$, by condition (ii) $$ \mu(T_{\leq d}) \geq \mu(T) \geq \mu(T_{\leq d}) - \sum_{i=d}^{\infty} \frac{1}{2^{i+1+n}} $$ In particular, for $d$ such that $2^{-n} - \sum_{i=0}^{d} \frac{1}{2^{i+1+n}} \leq 2^{-c}$ we have $$ \card{\mu(T_{\leq d}) - \mu(T)} \leq \sum_{i=d}^{\infty} \frac{1}{2^{i+1+n}} \leq \frac{1}{2^c} $$ It suffices to notice that $\mu(T_{\leq d})$ is easily $f$-computable as for $u = max(\bigcup_{i=0}^d D_{f(i), i})$ $$ \mu(T_{\leq d}) = \frac{\card{\set{\sigma \in 2^u : \sigma \in T_{\leq d}}}}{2^u} $$ \end{proof} Let $H$ be an infinite set homogeneous for a path through $T$. \begin{claim} $H$ computes a function $g$ such that $g(i) \neq f(i)$ for every $i$. \end{claim} \begin{proof} Let $g$ be the $H$-computable function which on input $i$ returns an $e \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $D_{e, i}$ is the set of the first $i+2+n$ elements of $H$. Such an element can be effectively found by condition (iii). Assume for the sake of contradiction that $g(i) = f(i)$ for some $i$. Then by definition of being homogeneous for a path through $T$, there exists a $j \in \set{0,1}$ and a $\sigma \in T$ such that $\sigma(u) = j$ whenever $u \in H$. In particular, $\sigma \in T_i$. So there exists $a, b \in D_{f(i), i} = D_{g(i), i} \subset H$ such that $\sigma(a) = 0$ and $\sigma(b) = 1$. Hence there exists an $a \in H$ such that $\sigma(a) \neq j$. Contradiction. \end{proof} This last claim finishes the proof. \end{proof} \begin{corollary} For every 2-bounded, computable coloring $f : [\mathbb{N}]^2 \to \mathbb{N}$ there exists a $\emptyset'$-computable tree $T$ of positive $\emptyset'$-computable measure such that every infinite set homogeneous for a path through $T$ computes an infinite rainbow for $f$. \end{corollary} \begin{corollary}\label{cor:schnorr-srrt22} For every 2-bounded, computable coloring $f : [\mathbb{N}]^2 \to \mathbb{N}$ there exists a Schnorr test $(U_i)_{i \in \mathbb{N}}$ relative to $\emptyset'$ such that every infinite set homogeneous for $(U_i)_{i \in \mathbb{N}}$ computes an infinite rainbow for $f$. \end{corollary} \begin{theorem}[$\rca+\ist$]\label{thm:konig-srrt} Fix a set $X$. For every $X'$-computable tree $T$ of positive $X'$-computable measure $\mu(T)$ there exists a uniform family $(X_e)_{e \in \mathbb{N}}$ of $\Delta^{0, X}_2$ finite sets whose sizes are uniformly $X'$-computable and such that every $(X_e)_{e \in \mathbb{N}}$-escaping function computes an infinite set homogeneous for a path through $T$. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} Consider $X$ to be computable for the sake of simplicity. Relativization is straightforward. We denote by $(D_e)_{e \in \mathbb{N}}$ the canonical enumeration of all finite sets. Let $T$ be a $\emptyset'$-computable tree of positive $\emptyset'$-computable measure $\mu(T)$. For each~$s \in \mathbb{N}$, let~$T_s$ be the set of strings~$\sigma \in 2^{<\mathbb{N}}$ of length~$s$ and let~$\mu_s(T)$ be the first $s$ bits approximation of~$\mu(T)$. Consider the following set for each finite set $H \subseteq \mathbb{N}$ and $k \in \mathbb{N}$. $$ \mathrm{Bad}( H, k) = \set{ n \in \mathbb{N} : \mu_{4k}(T \cap \Gamma^0_H \cap \Gamma^0_n) < 2^{-2k}} $$ First notice that the measure of $T \cap \Gamma^0_H$ (resp. $T \cap \Gamma^0_H \cap \Gamma^0_n$) is $\emptyset'$-computable uniformly in $H$ (resp. in $H$ and $n$), so one $\mathrm{Bad}(H, k)$ is uniformly $\Delta^0_2$. We now prove that $\mathrm{Bad}(H,k)$ has a uniform $\Delta^0_2$ upper bound, which is sufficient to deduce that~$|\mathrm{Bad}(H, k)|$ is uniformly~$\Delta^0_2$. Given an $H$ and a $k$, let $\epsilon = 2^{-k-1} - 2^{-2k} - 2^{-4k}$. We can $\emptyset'$-computably find a length $s = s(H, k)$ such that $$ \frac{|T_s \cap \Gamma^0_H|}{2^s} - \mu(T \cap \Gamma^0_H) < \epsilon $$ \begin{claim} If $2^{-k} \leq \mu(T \cap \Gamma^0_H)$, then $max(\mathrm{Bad}(H,k)) \leq s$ \end{claim} \begin{proof} Fix any $n > s$. By choice of $s$, $$ \mu(T \cap \Gamma^0_H \cap \Gamma^1_n) \leq \frac{|T_s \cap \Gamma^0_H|}{2^{s+1}} \leq \frac{\mu(T \cap \Gamma^0_H)}{2} + \epsilon $$ Furthermore, $$ \mu(T \cap \Gamma^0_H \cap \Gamma^0_n) = \mu(T \cap \Gamma^0_H) - \mu(T \cap \Gamma^0_H \cap \Gamma^1_n) $$ Putting the two together, we obtain \begin{eqnarray*} \mu(T \cap \Gamma^0_H \cap \Gamma^0_n) &\geq& \mu(T \cap \Gamma^0_H) - \frac{\mu(T \cap \Gamma^0_H)}{2} - \epsilon\\ &\geq& \frac{\mu(T \cap \Gamma^0_H)}{2} - \epsilon \geq 2^{-k-1} - \epsilon \geq 2^{-2k} + 2^{-4k} \end{eqnarray*} In particular $$ \mu_{4k}(T \cap \Gamma^0_H \cap \Gamma^0_n) \geq \mu(T \cap \Gamma^0_H \cap \Gamma^0_n) - 2^{-4k} \geq 2^{-2k} $$ Therefore $n \not \in \mathrm{Bad}(H,k)$. \end{proof} For each~$H$ and~$k$, let~$X_{H,k} = \mathrm{Bad}(H, k) \cap [0, s(H, k)]$. The set $X_{H, k}$ is ~$\Delta^0_2$ uniformly in~$H$ and~$k$, and its size is uniformly $\Delta^0_2$. In addition, by previous claim, if $2^{-k} \leq \mu(T \cap \Gamma^0_H)$ then $\mathrm{Bad}(H,k) \subseteq X_{H,k}$. Let $g : \mathcal{P}_{fin}(\mathbb{N}) \times \mathbb{N} \times \mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{N}$ be a total function such that for every finite set $H$ and $k \in \mathbb{N}$, $g(H, k, n) \not \in X_{H,k}$ whenever $n \geq \card{X_{H, k}}$. Fix any $k \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $2^{-k} \leq \mu(T)$. We construct by $\isig^{0,g}_1$ a set $H$ and a sequence of integers $k_0, k_1, \dots$ by finite approximation as follows. First let $H_0 = \emptyset$ and~$k_0 = k$. We will ensure during the construction that for all $s$: \begin{itemize} \item[(a)] $\card{H_s} = s$ \item[(b)] $T \cap \Gamma^0_{H_s}$ has measure at least $2^{-k_s}$ \item[(c)] $H_s \subseteq H_{s+1}$ and every $n \in H_{s+1} \setminus H_s$ is greater than all elements in $H_s$. \end{itemize} Suppose $H_s$ has been defined already. The tree $T \cap \Gamma^0_{H_s}$ has measure at least $2^{-k_s}$ and $\card{\mathrm{Bad}(H_s, k_s)}$ has at most $2k_s$ elements. Thus $g(H_s, k_s) \not \in X_{H_s,k_s} \supseteq \mathrm{Bad}(H_s, k_s)$. We set $H_{s+1} = H_s \cup \set{g(e, k_s)}$ and~$k_{s+1}$ be the least integer such that~$2^{-k_{s+1}} \leq 2^{-2k_{s}} - 2^{-4k_s}$. By definition of~$\mathrm{Bad}(H_s, k_s)$, $T \cap \Gamma^0_{H_{s+1}}$ has measure at least $2^{-2k_s}$ with an approximation of~$2^{-4k_s}$, so has measure at least $2^{-k_{s+1}}$. Let now $H = \bigcup_s H_s$. \begin{claim} $H$ is homogeneous for a path through $T$. \end{claim} \begin{proof} Suppose for the sake of contradiction that $H$ is not homogeneous for a path through $T$. This means that there are only finitely many $\sigma \in T$ such that $H$ is homogeneous for $\sigma$. Therefore for some level $l$, $\set{\sigma \in T_l \; \mid \; \forall i \in H \ \sigma(i) = 0}=\emptyset$. Since $H \cap \{0,..,l\} = H_l \cap \{0,..,l\}$, we in fact have $\set{\sigma \in T_l \; \mid \; \forall i \in H_l \ \sigma(i) = 0}=\emptyset$. In other words, $T \cap \Gamma^0_{H_l} = \emptyset$ which contradicts property (b) in the definition of $H_l$ ensuring that $T \cap \Gamma^0_{H_l}$ has measure at least $2^{-k_l}$. Thus $H$ is homogeneous for a path through $T$. \end{proof} \end{proof} \begin{theorem} The following are equivalent over $\rca + \ist$: \begin{itemize} \item[(i)] $\srrt^2_2$ \item[(ii)] Every Schnorr test $(U_i)_{i \in \mathbb{N}}$ relative to $\emptyset'$ has an infinite homogeneous set. \item[(iii)] Every $\Delta^0_2$ tree of $\emptyset'$-computable positive measure has an infinite set homogeneous for a path. \end{itemize} \end{theorem} \begin{proof} $(i) \rightarrow (iii)$ is Theorem~\ref{thm:konig-srrt} together with Theorem~\ref{thm:srrt22-characterizations}. $(iii) \rightarrow (ii)$ is obvious and $(ii) \rightarrow (i)$ is Corollary~\ref{cor:schnorr-srrt22}. \end{proof} Hirschfeldt et al.\ proved in \cite[Theorem 3.1]{Hirschfeldt2008Limit} that every $X'$-computable martingale $M$ has a set low over $X$ on which $M$ does not succeed. Schnorr proved in \cite{Schnorr1971Zufalligkeit} that for every Schnorr test $C$ relative to $X'$ there exists an $X'$-computable martingale $M$ such that a set does not succeeds on $M$ iff it passes the test $C$. By Corollary~\ref{cor:schnorr-srrt22}, there exists an $\omega$-model of $\srrt^2_2$ containing only low sets. However we will prove it more directly under the form of a low basis theorem for $\emptyset'$-computable trees of $\emptyset'$-computable positive measure. This is an adaptation of \cite[Proposition 2.1]{Barmpalias2012Randomness}. \begin{theorem}[Low basis theorem for $\Delta^0_2$ trees]\label{thm:low-tree-exact-measure} Fix a set $X$. Every $X'$-computable tree of $X'$-computable positive measure has an infinite path $P$ low over $X$ (i.e., such that $(X \oplus P)' \leq_T X'$). \end{theorem} \begin{proof} Fix $T$, an $X'$-computable tree of $X'$-computable positive measure $\mu(T)$. We will define an $X'$-computable subtree $U$ of measure $\frac{\mu(T)}{2}$ such that any infinite path through $T$ is GL${}_1$ over~$X$. It then suffices to take any $\Delta^{0,X}_2$ path through $U$ to obtain the desired path low over~$X$. Let $f$ be an $X'$-computable function that on input $e$ returns a stage $s$ after which $e$ goes into $A'$ for at most measure $2^{-e-2}\mu(T)$ of oracles~$A$. Given $e$ and $s = f(e)$, the oracles $A$ such that $e$ goes into $A'$ after stage $s$ form a $\Sigma^{0,X}_1$ class $V_e$ of measure $\mu(V_e) \leq 2^{-e-2}\mu(T)$. Thus~$\mu(\bigcap_e \overline{V_e}) \geq 1 - \sum_e 2^{-e-2}\mu(T) \geq 1 - \frac{\mu(T)}{2}$. Therefore~$\mu(T \cap \bigcap_e \overline{V_e}) \geq \frac{\mu(T)}{2}$. One can easily restrict $T$ to a subtree $U$ such that $[U] \subseteq \bigcap_e \overline{V_e}$ and $\mu(U) = \frac{\mu(T)}{2}$. For any path $P \in [U]$ and any $e \in \mathbb{N}$, $e \in P' \leftrightarrow e \in P'_{f(e)}$. Hence $P$ is GL${}_1$ over~$X$. \end{proof} \begin{corollary} There exists an $\omega$-model of $\srrt^2_2$ containing only low sets. \end{corollary} \begin{corollary} There exists an $\omega$-model of $\srrt^2_2$ which is neither a model of $\semo$ nor of $\sts(2)$. \end{corollary} \begin{proof} If every computable stable tournament had a low infinite subtournament then we could build an $\omega$-model $M$ of $\semo + \sads$ having only low sets, but then $M \models \srt^2_2$ contradicting \cite{Downey20010_2}. Moreover, by Theorem~\ref{thm:sts-no-low} any $\omega$-model of $\sts(2)$ contains a non-low set. \end{proof} In fact we will see later that even $\rrt^2_2$ implies neither $\semo$ nor $\sts(2)$ on $\omega$-models. \subsection{Relations to other principles} We now relate the stable rainbow Ramsey theorem for pairs to other existing principles studied in reverse mathematics. This provides in particular a factorization of existing implications proofs. For example, both the rainbow Ramsey theorem for pairs and the stable Erd\H{o}s-Moser theorem are known to imply the omitting partial types principle ($\opt$) over~$\rca$. In this section, we show that both principles imply~$\srrt^2_2$, which itself implies~$\opt$ over~$\rca$. Hirschfeldt \& Shore in~\cite{Hirschfeldt2007Combinatorial} introduced~$\opt$ and proved its equivalence with~$\hyp$ over~$\rca$. \begin{theorem}\label{thm:srrt22-imp-opt} $\rca \vdash \srrt^2_2 \rightarrow \hyp$ \end{theorem} \begin{proof}[Proof using Cisma \& Mileti construction, $\rca$] We prove that the construction from Csima \& Mileti in~\cite{Csima2009strength} that $\rca \vdash \rrt^2_2 \rightarrow \hyp$ produces a rainbow-stable coloring. We take the notations and definitions of the proof of Theorem~4.1 in~\cite{Csima2009strength}. It is therefore essential to have read it to understand what follows. Fix an $x \in \mathbb{N}$. By $\bsig^0_1$ there exists an $e \in \mathbb{N}$ and a stage $t$ after which $n^k_j$ and $m^k$ will remains stable for any $k \leq e$ and any $j \in \mathbb{N}$ and such that $n^e_i \leq x < n^e_{i+1}$ for some $i$. \begin{itemize} \item If $i > 0$ then $x$ will be part of no pair $(m,l)$ for any requirement and $f(x, s) = \tuple{x,s}$ will be fresh for cofinitely many $s$. \item If $i = 0$ and $n^e_j$ is defined for each $j$ such that $j+1 \leq \frac{(n^e_0 - m^e)^2 - (n^e_0 - m^e)}{2}$ then as there are finitely many such $j$, after some finite stage $x$ will not be paired any more and $f(x, s) = \tuple{x,s}$ will be fresh for cofinitely many $s$. \item If $i = 0$ and $n^e_j$ is undefined for some $j$ such that $\tuple{m, x} = j+1$ or $\tuple{x, m} = j+1$ for some $m$, then $x$ will be part of a pair $(m, l)$ for cofinitely many $s$ and so there exists an $m$ such that $f(x,s) = f(m, s)$ for cofinitely many $s$. \item If $i = 0$ and $n^e_j$ is undefined for some $j$ such that $\tuple{m, x} \neq j+1$ or $\tuple{x, m} \neq j+1$ for any $m$ then $x$ will not be paired after some stage and $f(x, s) = \tuple{x,s}$ will be fresh for cofinitely many $s$. \end{itemize} In any case, either $f(x, s)$ is fresh for cofinitely many $s$, or there is a $y$ such that $f(x, s) = f(y, s)$ for cofinitely many $s$. So the coloring is rainbow-stable. \end{proof} \smallskip We can also adapt the proof using $\Pi^0_1$-genericity to $\srrt^2_2$. \begin{proof}[Proof using $\Pi^0_1$-genericity, $\rca + \ist$] Take any incomplete $\Delta^0_2$ set $P$ of PA degree. The author proved in~\cite{Patey2015Degrees} the existence of a $\Delta^0_2$ function $f$ such that $P$ does not compute any $f$-diagonalizing function. Fix any functional $\Psi$. Consider the $\Sigma^0_2$ class $$ U = \set{X \in 2^\Nb : (\exists e) \Psi^X(e) \uparrow \vee \Psi^X(e) = f(e)} $$ Consider any $\Pi^0_1$-generic $X$ such that $\Psi^X$ is total. Either there exists a $X \in U$ in which case $\Psi^X(e) = f(e)$ hence $\Psi^X$ is not an $f$-diagonalizing function. Or there exists a $\Pi^0_1$ class $F$ disjoint from $U$ and containing $X$. Any member of $F$ computes an $f$-diagonalizing function. In particular $P$ computes an $f$-diagonalizing function. Contradiction. \end{proof} \begin{corollary} $\rca \vdash \srrt^2_2 \rightarrow \opt$ \end{corollary} The following theorem is not surprising as by a relativization of Theorem~\ref{thm:srrt22-imp-opt} to $\emptyset'$, there exists an $\emptyset'$-computable rainbow-stable coloring of pairs such that any infinite rainbow computes a function hyperimmune relative to $\emptyset'$. Csima et al.~\cite{Csima2004Bounding} and Conidis~\cite{Conidis2008Classifying} proved that $\amt$ is equivalent over $\omega$-models to the statement ``For any $\Delta^0_2$ function $f$, there exists a function $g$ not dominated by $f$''. Hence any $\omega$-model of $\srrt^2_2[\emptyset']$ is an $\omega$-model of $\amt$. We will prove that the implication holds over $\rca$. \begin{theorem}\label{thm:srrt2n-stsn} $\rca \vdash (\forall n)[\srrt^{n+1}_2 \rightarrow \sts(n)]$ \end{theorem} \begin{proof} Fix some~$n \in \mathbb{N}$ and let $f : [\mathbb{N}]^{n} \to \mathbb{N}$ be a stable coloring. If~$n = 1$, then~$f$ has a $\Delta^{0,f}_1$ infinite thin set, so suppose~$n > 1$. We build a $\Delta^{0,f}_1$ rainbow-stable 2-bounded coloring $g : [\mathbb{N}]^{n+1} \to \mathbb{N}$ such that every infinite rainbow for $g$ is, up to finite changes, thin for $f$. Construct~$g$ as in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:rrt2n-tsn}. It suffices to check that~$g$ is rainbow-stable whenever $f$ is stable. Fix some~$x \in \mathbb{N}$ and~$\vec z \in [\mathbb{N}]^{n-1}$ such that~$x < min(\vec z)$. As~$f$ is stable, there exists a stage~$s_0 > max(\vec z)$ after which $f(\vec z, s) = f(\vec z, s_0)$. Interpret~$f(\vec z, s_0)$ as a tuple~$\tuple{u,v}$. If~$u \geq v$ or~$v \geq min(\vec z)$ or~$x \not \in \{u,v\}$, then $g(x, \vec z, s)$ will be given a fresh color for every~$s \geq s_0$. If~$u < v < min(\vec z)$ and~$x \in \{u,v\}$ (say $x = u$), then~$g(x, \vec z, s) = g(v, \vec z, s)$ for every~$s \geq v$. Therefore $g$ is rainbow-stable. \end{proof} \begin{corollary} $\rca \vdash \srrt^3_2 \rightarrow \amt$ \end{corollary} \begin{remark}\label{rem:dnrzk-rrtk}\ As Bienvenu et al.\ \cite{Bienvenu2014role} proved that there is a computable instance of $\amt$ such that no 2-random bounds a solution to it, we obtain as a corollary that the reverse implication of Corollary~\ref{cor:rrtk-dnrzk} does not hold. \end{remark} \begin{theorem}[$\rca + \bst$] For every $\Delta^0_2$ function $f$, there exists a computable stable coloring $c:[\mathbb{N}]^2 \to \mathbb{N}$ such that every infinite set thin for $c$ computes an $f$-diagonalizing function. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} Fix a $\Delta^0_2$ function $f$ as stated above. For any $n \in \mathbb{N}$, fix a canonical enumeration $(D_{n, e})_{e \in \mathbb{N}}$ of all finite sets of $n+1$ integers greater than $n$. We will build a computable stable coloring $c : [\mathbb{N}]^2 \to \mathbb{N}$ fulfilling the following requirements for each $e, i \in \mathbb{N}$: \smallskip $\mathcal{R}_{e, i}: $ $\exists u \in D_{\tuple{e,i}, f(e)}$ such that $(\forall^{\infty} s)c(u, s) = i$. \smallskip We first check that if every requirement is satisfied, then any infinite set thin for $c$ computes an $f$-diagonalizing function. Let $H$ be an infinite set thin for $c$ with witness color $i$. Define $h: \mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{N}$ to be the $H$-computable function which on $e$ returns the value $v$ such that $D_{\tuple{e,i}, v}$ is the set of the $\tuple{e,i}+1$ first elements of $H$ greater than $\tuple{e,i}$. \begin{claim} $h$ is an $f$-diagonalizing function. \end{claim} \begin{proof} Suppose for the sake of absurd that $h(e) = f(e)$ for some $e$. Then $D_{\tuple{e,i}, h(e)} = D_{\tuple{e,i}, f(e)}$. But by $\mathcal{R}_{e,i}$, $\exists u \in D_{\tuple{e,i}, f(e)}$ such that $(\forall^{\infty} s)c(u,s) = i$. Then there is an $s \in H$ such that $c(u, s) = i$, and as $D_{\tuple{e,i}, f(e)} \cup \set{s} \subset H$, $H$ is not thin for $c$ with witness $i$. Contradiction. \end{proof} By Schoenfield's limit lemma, let $g(\cdot, \cdot)$ be the partial approximations of~$f$. The strategy for satisfying a local requirement $\mathcal{R}_{e,i}$ is as follows. At stage $s$, it takes the least element $u$ of $D_{\tuple{e,i}, g(x,s)}$ not restrained by a strategy of higher priority if it exists. Then it puts a restraint on $u$ and \emph{commits} $u$ to assigning color $i$. For any such $u$, this commitment will remain active as long as the strategy has a restraint on that element. Having done all this, the local strategy is declared to be satisfied and will not act again, unless either a higher priority puts a restraint on $u$, or releases a $v \in D_{\tuple{e,i}, g(e,s)}$ with $v < u$ or at a further stage $t > s$, $g(e,t) \neq g(e, s)$. In each case, the strategy gets \emph{injured} and has to reset, releasing its restraint. To finish stage $s$, the global strategy assigns $c(u, s)$ for all $u \leq s$ as follows: if $u$ is commited to some assignment of $c(u, s)$ due to a local strategy, define $c(u, s)$ to be this value. If not, let $c(u, t) = 0$. This finishes the construction and we now turn to the verification. It is easy to check that each requirement restrains at most one element at a given stage. \begin{claim} Each strategy $\mathcal{R}_{e,i}$ acts finitely often. \end{claim} \begin{proof} Fix some strategy~$\mathcal{R}_{e,i}$. By $\bst$, there is a stage~$s_0$ after which $g(x,s) = f(x)$ for every~$x \leq \tuple{e,i}$. Each strategy restrains at most one element, and the strategies of higher priority will always choose the same elements after stage~$s_0$. As $\card{D_{\tuple{e,i}, f(e)}} = \tuple{e,i}+1$, the set of $u \in D_{\tuple{e,i}, f(e)}$ such that no strategy of higher priority puts a restraint on $u$ is non empty and does not change. Let $u_{min}$ be its minimal element. By construction, $\mathcal{R}_{e,i}$ will choose $u_{min}$ before stage $s_0$ and will not be injured again. \end{proof} \begin{claim} The resulting coloring $c$ is stable. \end{claim} \begin{proof} Fix a $u \in \mathbb{N}$. If $\tuple{e, i} > u$ then $\mathcal{R}_{e,i}$ does not put a restraint on $u$ at any stage. As each strategy acts finitely often, by $\bst$ there exists a stage $s_0$ after which no strategy $\mathcal{R}_{e, i}$ with $\tuple{e,i} \leq u$ will act on $u$. There are two cases: In the first case, at stage $s_0$ the element $u$ is restrained by some strategy $\mathcal{R}_{e,i}$ with $\tuple{e,i} \leq u$ in which case $c(u, s)$ will be assigned a unique color specified by strategy $\mathcal{R}_{e,i}$ for cofinitely many $s$. In the other case, after stage $s_0$, the element $u$ is free from any restraint, and $c(u, s) = 0$ for cofinitely many $s$. \end{proof} \end{proof} \begin{corollary} $\rca + \ist \vdash \sts(2) \rightarrow \srrt^2_2$ \end{corollary} \begin{theorem}[$\rca$] For every rainbow-stable 2-bounded coloring $f : [\mathbb{N}]^2 \to \mathbb{N}$, there exists an $f$-computable stable tournament $T$ such that every infinite transitive subtournament of $T$ computes a rainbow for~$f$. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} Use exactly the same construction as in Theorem~3.1 in~\cite{Kang2014Combinatorial}. We will prove that in case of rainbow-stable colorings, the constructed tournament $T$ is stable. Fix an $x \in \mathbb{N}$. By rainbow-stability, either $f(x, s)$ is a fresh color for cofinitely many $s$, in which case $T(x, s)$ holds for cofinitely many $s$, or there exists a $y$ such that $f(y, s) = f(x, s)$ for cofinitely many $s$. If $T(x, y)$ holds then $T(x, s)$ does not hold and $T(y, s)$ holds for cofinitely many $s$. Otherwise $T(x, s)$ holds and $T(y, s)$ does not hold for cofinitely many $s$. Hence $T$ is stable.\end{proof} \begin{corollary} $\rca \vdash \semo \rightarrow \srrt^2_2$ \end{corollary} \begin{question} Does $\srrt^2_2 + \coh$ imply $\rrt^2_2$ over $\rca$ ? \end{question} \subsection{The rainbow Ramsey theorem} Among the consequences of Ramsey's theorem, the rainbow Ramsey theorem intuitively states the existence of an infinite injective restriction of any function which is already close to being injective. We now provide its formal definition. \begin{definition}[Rainbow Ramsey theorem] Fix $n, k \in \mathbb{N}$. A coloring function $f: [\mathbb{N}]^n \to \mathbb{N}$ is \emph{$k$-bounded} if for every $y \in \mathbb{N}$, $\card{f^{-1}(y)} \leq k$. A set $R$ is a \emph{rainbow} for $f$ (or an \emph{$f$-rainbow}) if $f$ is injective over~$[R]^n$. $\rrt^n_k$ is the statement ``Every $k$-bounded function $f : [\mathbb{N}]^n \to \mathbb{N}$ has an infinite $f$-rainbow''. $\rrt$ is the statement: $(\forall n)(\forall k)\rrt^n_k$. \end{definition} A proof of the rainbow Ramsey theorem is due to Galvin who noticed that it follows easily from Ramsey's theorem. Hence every computable 2-bounded coloring function $f$ over $n$-tuples has an infinite $\Pi^0_n$ rainbow. Csima and Mileti proved in \cite{Csima2009strength} that every 2-random bounds an~$\omega$-model of $\rrt^2_2$ and deduced that $\rrt^2_2$ implies neither $\sads$ nor $\wkl$ over $\omega$-models. Conidis \& Slaman adapted in~\cite{Conidis2013Random} the argument from Cisma and Mileti to obtain $\rca \vdash \ran{2} \rightarrow \rrt^2_2$. Wang proved in~\cite{WangSome,Wang2013Rainbow} that $\rca + \rrt^3_2 \nvdash \aca$ and $\rrt^2_2$ is $\Pi^1_1$-conservative over $\rca + \bst$. He refined his result in \cite{Wang2014Cohesive}, proving that $\rrt^3_2$ implies neither $\wkl$ nor $\rrt^4_2$ over~$\omega$-models. Csima and Mileti proved in \cite{Csima2009strength} that for every $n \in \mathbb{N}$, there exists a computable 2-bounded coloring over~$[\mathbb{N}]^n$ with no infinite $\Sigma^0_n$ rainbow. Conidis \& Slaman proved in \cite{Conidis2013Random} that $\rca + \rrt^2_2$ proves $\cst$. Later, Slaman proved in~\cite{Slam2011First} that $\rrt^2_2$ -- in fact even $\ran{2}$ -- does not imply $\bst$ over $\rca$. In a computational perspective, Miller \cite{MillerPersonal} proved that $\rrt^2_2$ is equivalent to $\dnrzp$ where $\dnr[\emptyset^{(n)}]$ is the statement ``for every set $X$, there exists a function $f$ such that $f(e) \neq \Phi^{X^{(n)}}_e(e)$ for every $e$''. $\dnrzp$ is known to be equivalent to the ability to escape finite $\Sigma^0_2$ sets of uniformly bounded size, to diagonalize against partial $\emptyset'$-computable functions, to find an infinite subset of a 2-random, or an infinite subset of a path in a $\Delta^0_2$ tree of positive measure. Having so many simple characterizations speak in favor of the naturality of the rainbow Ramsey theorem for pairs. Its characterizations are formally stated in sections~\ref{sect:srrt22-dnr} and~\ref{srrt22-konig} and are adapted to obtain characterizations of stable versions of the rainbow Ramsey theorem. \bigskip \subsection{Somewhere over \texorpdfstring{$\rrt^2_2$}{RRT22}} There exist several proofs of the rainbow Ramsey theorem, partly due to the variety of its characterizations. Among them are statements about graph theory and thin set theorem. The \emph{Erd\H{o}s-Moser theorem} ($\emo$) states that every infinite tournament (see below) has an infinite transitive subtournament. It can be seen as the ability to find an infinite subdomain of an arbitrary 2-coloring of pairs on which the coloring behaves like a linear order. It is why $\emo$, together with the ascending descending sequence principle ($\ads$), proves $\rt^2_2$ over $\rca$. \begin{definition}[Erd\H{os}s-Moser theorem] A tournament $T$ on a domain $D \subseteq \mathbb{N}$ is an irreflexive binary relation on~$D$ such that for all $x,y \in D$ with $x \not= y$, exactly one of $T(x,y)$ or $T(y,x)$ holds. A tournament $T$ is \emph{transitive} if the corresponding relation~$T$ is transitive in the usual sense. A tournament $T$ is \emph{stable} if $(\forall x \in D)[(\forall^{\infty} s) T(x,s) \vee (\forall^{\infty} s) T(s, x)]$. $\emo$ is the statement ``Every infinite tournament $T$ has an infinite transitive subtournament.'' $\semo$ is the restriction of $\emo$ to stable tournaments. \end{definition} Bovykin and Weiermann proved in \cite{Bovykin2005strength} that $\emo + \ads$ is equivalent to $\rt^2_2$ over $\rca$, and the same equivalence holds between the stable versions. Lerman \& al. \cite{Lerman2013Separating} proved over $\rca + \bst$ that $\emo$ implies $\opt$ and that there is an $\omega$-model of $\emo$ not model of $\srt^2_2$. Kreuzer proved in~\cite{Kreuzer2012Primitive} that $\semo$ implies $\bst$ over $\rca$. Bienvenu et al.~\cite{Bienvenu2014Ramsey} and Flood \& Towsner~\cite{Flood2014Separating} proved independently that $\rca \vdash \semo \rightarrow \rwkl$, hence there is an $\omega$-model of $\rrt^2_2$ not model of $\semo$. We prove that that $\emo$ implies $\rrt^2_2$ over $\rca$ using both a direct proof and the equivalence between $\rrt^2_2$ and $\dnrzp$. We also prove that $\rca \vdash \emo \rightarrow [\sts(2) \vee \coh]$. The \emph{thin set theorem} ($\ts$) states that every coloring of tuples has a restriction over an infinite domain on which it avoids a color. It is often studied together with the free set theorem $\fs$. Its study has been initiated by Friedman in the FOM mailing list \cite{FriedmFom:53:free,Friedman2010Boolean}. \begin{definition}[Free set theorem] Let $k \in \mathbb{N}$ and $f : [\mathbb{N}]^k \to \mathbb{N}$. A set $A$ is \textit{free for $f$} (or \emph{$f$-free}) if for every $x_1 < \dots < x_k \in A$, if $f(x_1, \dots, x_k) \in A$ then $f(x_1, \dots, x_k) \in \set{x_1, \dots, x_k}$. $\fs(k)$ is the statement ``every function $f : [\mathbb{N}]^k \to \mathbb{N}$ has an infinite set free for~$f$''. A function~$f : [\mathbb{N}]^{k+1} \to \mathbb{N}$ is \emph{stable} if for every~$\sigma \in [\mathbb{N}]^k$, $\lim_s f(\sigma, s)$ exists. $\sfs(k)$ is the restriction of $\fs(k)$ to stable functions. $\fs$ is the statement~$(\forall k)\fs(k)$ \end{definition} \begin{definition}[Thin set theorem] Let $k \in \mathbb{N}$ and $f : [\mathbb{N}]^k \to \mathbb{N}$. A set $A$ is \textit{thin for $f$} (or \emph{$f$-thin}) if $f([A]^n) \neq \mathbb{N}$. $\ts(k)$ is the statement ``every function $f : [\mathbb{N}]^k \to \mathbb{N}$ has an infinite set thin for~$f$''. $\sts(k)$ is the restriction of $\ts(k)$ to stable functions. $\ts$ is the statement~$(\forall k)\ts(k)$. \end{definition} Cholak \& al. studied extensively free set and thin set principles in \cite{Cholak2001Free}, proving that $\fs(1)$ holds in $\rca$ while $\fs(2)$ does not, $\fs(k+1)$ (resp. $\ts(k+1)$) implies $\fs(k)$ (resp. $\ts(k)$) over $\rca$. They proved that $\fs$ implies $\ts$ over $\rca$, and the more finely-grained result that $\fs(k)$ implies $\ts(k)$ and $\sfs(k)$ implies $\sts(k)$ over $\rca$ for every $k$. Some of the results where already stated by Friedman~\cite{FriedmFom:53:free} without proof, notably there is an $\omega$-model of $\wkl$ which is not a model of $\ts(2)$, and $\aca$ does not imply $\ts$. Cholak \& al. also proved that $\rca + \rt^k_2$ implies $\fs(k)$ for every~$k$ hence $\aca$ proves $\fs(k)$. Wang showed in \cite{Wang2014Some} that neither $\fs$ nor $\ts$ implies $\aca$. He proved that $\rca \vdash \fs(k) \rightarrow \rrt^k_2$. Rice~\cite{RiceThin} proved that $\sts(2)$ implies $\dnr$ over $\rca$. We prove, using the equivalence between $\rrt^2_2$ and $\dnrzp$, that $\rca \vdash \ts(2) \rightarrow \rrt^2_2$ and more generally $\rca \vdash \ts(k+1) \rightarrow \dnr[\emptyset^{(k)}]$. We also prove that $\sts(2)$ implies $\amt$ over $\rca$. \bigskip \subsection{Stable versions of the rainbow Ramsey theorem} Consider a 2-bounded coloring $f$ of pairs as the history of interactions between people in an infinite population. $f(x, s) = f(y, s)$ means that $x$ and $y$ interact at time $s$. In this world, $x$ and $y$ get \emph{married} if $f(x, s) = f(y, s)$ for cofinitely many $s$, whereas a person $x$ becomes a \emph{monk} if $f(x, s)$ is a fresh color for cofinitely many $s$. Finally, a person $x$ is \emph{wise} if for each~$y$, either $x$ and~$y$ get married or $x$ and~$y$ eventually break up forever, i.e., $(\forall y)[(\forall^\infty s) f(x,s) = f(y,s) \vee (\forall^\infty s)f(x,s) \neq f(y,s)]$. In particular married people and monks are wise. Note that 2-boundedness implies that a person~$x$ can get married to at most one~$y$. $\rrt^2_2$ states that given an world, we can find infinitely many instants where people behave like monks. However we can weaken our requirement, leading to new principles. \begin{definition}[Stable rainbow Ramsey theorem] A coloring $f : [\mathbb{N}]^2 \to \mathbb{N}$ is \emph{rainbow-stable} if for every $x$, one of the following holds: \begin{itemize} \item[(a)] There is a $y \neq x$ such that $(\forall^\infty s)f(x, s) = f(y,s)$ \item[(b)] $(\forall^{\infty} s) \card{\set{y \neq x : f(x, s) = f(y, s)}} = 0$ \end{itemize} $\srrt^2_2$ is the statement ``every rainbow-stable 2-bounded coloring $f:[\mathbb{N}]^2 \to \mathbb{N}$ has a rainbow.'' \end{definition} Hence in the restricted world of $\srrt^2_2$, everybody either gets married or becomes a monk. $\srrt^2_2$ is a particular case of $\rrt^2_2$. It is proven to have $\omega$-models with only low sets, hence is strictly weaker than $\rrt^2_2$. Characterizations of $\rrt^2_2$ extend to $\srrt^2_2$ which is equivalent to diagonalizing against any $\emptyset'$-computable total function, finding an infinite subset of a path in a $\Delta^0_2$ tree of positive $\emptyset'$-computable measure, or being the subset of an infinite set passing a Schnorr test relativized to~$\emptyset'$. $\srrt^2_2$ happens to be useful as a factorization principle: It is strong enough to imply principles like $\dnr$ or $\opt$ and weak enough to be consequence of many stable principles, like $\srt^2_2$, $\sts(2)$ or $\semo$. It thus provides a factorization of the proofs that $\ts(2)$ or $\emo$ both imply $\opt$ and $\dnr$ over $\omega$-models, which were proven independently in \cite{Csima2009strength,RiceThin} for $\ts(2)$ and \cite{Lerman2013Separating} for $\emo$. Wang used in \cite{Wang2014Cohesive} another version of stability for rainbow Ramsey theorems to prove various results, like the existence of non-PA solution to any instance of $\rrt^3_2$. This notion leads to a principle between $\rrt^2_2$ and $\srrt^2_2$. \begin{definition}[Weakly stable rainbow Ramsey theorem] A coloring $f : [\mathbb{N}]^2 \to \mathbb{N}$ is \emph{weakly rainbow-stable} if $$ (\forall x)(\forall y)[(\forall^{\infty} s)f(x, s) = f(y,s) \vee (\forall^{\infty} s)f(x, s) \neq f(y,s)] $$ $\wsrrt^2_2$ is the statement ``every weakly rainbow-stable 2-bounded coloring $f:[\mathbb{N}]^2 \to \mathbb{N}$ has an infinite rainbow.'' \end{definition} Weak rainbow-stability can be considered as the ``right'' notion of stability for 2-bounded colorings as one can extract an infinite weakly rainbow-stable restriction of any 2-bounded coloring using cohesiveness. However the exact strength of $\wsrrt^2_2$ is harder to tackle. A characterization candidate would be computing an infinite subset of a path in a $\emptyset'$-computably graded $\Delta^0_2$ tree where the notion of computable gradation is taken from the restriction of Martin-L\"of tests to capture \emph{computable} random reals. We prove that it is enough be able to escape finite $\Delta^0_2$ sets to prove $\wsrrt^2_2$. We also separate $\wsrrt^2_2$ from~$\rrt^2_2$ by proving that $\wsrrt^2_2$ contains an $\omega$-model with only low sets. The question of exact characterizations of $\wsrrt^2_2$ remains open. Due to the lack of characterizations of $\wsrrt^2_2$, only $\sfs(2)$ is proven to be strong enough to imply $\wsrrt^2_2$ among $\sfs(2)$, $\sts(2)$ and $\semo$. \bigskip \subsection{Notation} The set of finite binary strings is denoted by $2^{<\mathbb{N}}$. We write~$\epsilon$ for the empty string. The length of $\sigma \in 2^{<\mathbb{N}}$ is denoted $|\sigma|$. For $i \in \mathbb{N}$, and $\sigma \in 2^{<\Nb}$, $\sigma(i)$ is the $(i+1)$-th bit of $\sigma$. For $\sigma,\tau \in 2^{<\Nb}$, we say that $\sigma$ is a prefix of $\tau$ (written $\sigma \preceq \tau$) if $|\sigma| \leq |\tau|$ and $\sigma(i)=\tau(i)$ for all $i<|\sigma|$. Given a finite string $\sigma$, $\Gamma_\sigma = \{\tau \in 2^{<\mathbb{N}} : \sigma \preceq \tau \}$. We denote by $2^{\mathbb{N}}$ the space of infinite binary sequences. We also refer to the elements of $2^{\mathbb{N}}$ as \emph{sets (of integers)}, as any $X \subseteq \mathbb{N}$ can be identified with its characteristic sequence, which is an element of $2^{\mathbb{N}}$. For a string $\sigma$, $\cyl{\sigma}$ is the set of $X \in 2^\Nb$ whom $\sigma$ is a prefix of. A \emph{binary tree} $T$ is a subset of $2^{<\mathbb{N}}$ downward closed under prefix relation. Unless specified otherwise we will consider only binary trees. A sequence $P$ is a \emph{path} of $T$ if any initial segment of $P$ is in $T$. We denote by $[T]$ the $\Pi^0_1$ class of paths through $T$. Given a set $X$ and an element $a$, we write $a < X$ to state that $a$ is strictly below each member of $X$. We denote by $\Gamma^i_X$ the set $\{ \tau \in 2^{<\mathbb{N}} : (\forall s < \card{\tau}) s \in X \rightarrow \tau(s) = i \}$. $\Gamma_X = \Gamma^0_X \cup \Gamma^1_X$. Whenever $X = \{n\}$, we shall write $\Gamma^i_n$ for $\Gamma^i_{\{n\}}$. \subsection{Lowness and bushy tree forcing} In this section, we prove that the rainbow Ramsey theorem for pairs restricted to weakly rainbow-stable colorings is strictly weaker than the full rainbow Ramsey theorem for pairs, by constructing an~$\omega$-model of~$\wsrrt^2_2$ having only low set. As~$\rrt^2_2$ does not admit such a model, $\wsrrt^2_2$ does not imply $\rrt^2_2$ over~$\rca$. \begin{theorem}\label{thm:wsrrt22-low} For every set~$X$ and every weakly rainbow-stable $X$-computable 2-bounded function~$f : [\mathbb{N}]^2 \to \mathbb{N}$, there exists an infinite $f$-rainbow low over~$X$. \end{theorem} We will use \emph{bushy tree forcing} for building a low solution to a computable instance of~$\wsrrt^2_2$. This forcing notion has been successfuly used for proving many properties over d.n.c.\ degrees~\cite{Ambos-Spies2004Comparing,BienvenuEvery,Khan2014Forcing,Patey2015Ramsey}. Indeed, the power of a d.n.c.\ function is known to be equivalent to finding a function escaping a uniform family of c.e.\ sets~\cite{Kjos-Hanssen2011Kolmogorov}, which is exactly what happens with bushy tree forcing: we build an infinite set by finite approximations, avoiding a set of bad extensions whose size is computably bounded. We start by stating the definitions of bushy tree forcing and the basic properties without proving them. See the survey of Kahn \& Miller~\cite{Khan2014Forcing} for a good introduction. \begin{definition}[Bushy tree] Fix a function $h$ and a string $\sigma \in \mathbb{N}^{<\mathbb{N}}$. A tree $T$ is $h$-bushy above $\sigma$ if every $\tau \in T$ is increasing and comparable with $\sigma$ and whenever $\tau \succeq \sigma$ is not a leaf of~$T$, it has at least $h(\card{\tau})$ immediate children. We call $\sigma$ the \emph{stem} of $T$. \end{definition} \begin{definition}[Big set, small set] Fix a function $h$ and some string $\sigma \in \mathbb{N}^{<\mathbb{N}}$. A set $B \subseteq \mathbb{N}^{<\mathbb{N}}$ is \emph{$h$-big above $\mathbb{N}$} if there exists a finite tree $T$ $h$-bushy above $\sigma$ such that all leafs of $T$ are in $B$. If no such tree exists, $B$ is said to be \emph{$h$-small above $\sigma$}. \end{definition} Consider for example a weakly rainbow-stable 2-bounded function~$f : [\mathbb{N}]^2 \to \mathbb{N}$. We want to construct an infinite prerainbow for~$f$. We claim that the following set is~$id$-small above~$\epsilon$, where~$id$ is the identity function: \[ B_f = \{ \sigma \in \mathbb{N}^{<\mathbb{N}} : (\exists x, y \in \sigma)(\forall^{\infty} s)f(x,s) = f(y, s)\} \] Indeed, given some string~$\sigma \not \in B_f$, there exists at most~$|\sigma|$ integers~$x$ such that~$\sigma x \in B_f$. Therefore, given any infinite tree which is $h$-bushy above~$\emptyset$, at least one of the paths will be a prerainbow for~$f$. Also note that because $f$ is weakly rainbow-stable, the set~$B_f$ is~$\Delta^{0,f}_2$. We now state some basic properties about bushy tree forcing. \begin{lemma}[Smallness additivity] \label{lem:smallness-add} Suppose that $B_1, B_2, \ldots, B_n$ are subsets of $\mathbb{N}^{<\mathbb{N}}$, $g_1$, $g_2$, ..., $g_n$ are functions, and $\sigma \in \mathbb{N}^{<\mathbb{N}}$. If $B_i$ is $g_i$-small above~$\sigma$ for all~$i$, then $\bigcup_i B_i$ is $(\sum_i g_i)$-small above $\sigma$. \end{lemma} \begin{lemma}[Small set closure]\label{lem:small-set-closure} We say that $B \subseteq \mathbb{N}^{<\mathbb{N}}$ is \emph{$g$-closed} if whenever $B$ is $g$-big above a string $\rho$ then $\rho \in B$. Accordingly, the \emph{$g$-closure} of any set~$B \subseteq \mathbb{N}^{<\mathbb{N}}$ is the set $C = \set{\tau \in \mathbb{N}^{<\mathbb{N}} : B \mbox{ is $g$-big above } \tau}$. If $B$ is $g$-small above a string~$\sigma$, then its closure is also $g$-small above $\sigma$. \end{lemma} Note that if~$B$ is a $\Delta^{0,X}_2$ $g$-small set for some computable function~$g$, so is the $g$-closure of~$B$. Moreover, one can effectively find a $\Delta^{0,X}_2$ index of the $g$-closure of~$B$ given a $\Delta^{0,X}_2$ index of~$B$. Fix some set~$X$. Our forcing conditions are tuples~$(\sigma, g, B)$ where $\sigma$ is an increasing string, $g$ is a computable function and~$B \subseteq \mathbb{N}^{<\mathbb{N}}$ is a $\Delta^{0,X}_2$ $g$-closed set $g$-small above~$\sigma$. A condition~$(\tau, h, C)$ \emph{extends} $(\sigma, g, B)$ if~$\sigma \preceq \tau$ and~$B \subseteq C$. Any infinite decreasing sequence of conditions starting with~$(\epsilon, id, B_f)$ will produce a prerainbow for~$f$. The following lemma is sufficient to deduce the existence of a $\Delta^{0,X}_2$ infinite prerainbow for~$f$. \begin{lemma}\label{lem:wsrrt22-ext} Given a condition~$(\sigma, g, B)$, one can $X'$-effectively find some~$x \in \mathbb{N}$ such that the condition~$(\sigma x, g, B)$ is a valid extension. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Pick the first~$x \in \mathbb{N}$ greater than $\sigma(|\sigma|)$ such that~$\sigma x \not \in B$. Such~$x$ exists as there are at most~$g(|\sigma|)-1$ many bad~$x$ by~$g$-smallness of~$B$. Moreover~$x$ can be found $X'$-effectively as~$B$ is~$\Delta^{0,X}_2$. By $g$-closure of~$B$, $B$ is $g$-small above~$\sigma x$. Therefore~$(\sigma x, g, B)$ is a valid extension. \end{proof} A sequence~$G$ \emph{satisfies} the condition~$(\sigma, g, B)$ if it is increasing, $\sigma \prec G$ and~$B$ is~$g$-small above~$\tau$ for every~$\tau \prec G$. We say that~$(\sigma, g, B) \Vdash \Phi^{G \oplus X}_e(e) \downarrow$ if~$\Phi^{\sigma \oplus X}_e(e) \downarrow$, and~$(\sigma, g, B) \Vdash \Phi^{G \oplus X}_e(e) \uparrow$ if~$\Phi^{G \oplus X}_e(e) \uparrow$ for every sequence~$G$ satisfying the condition~$(\sigma, g, B)$. The following lemma decides the jump of the infinite set constructed. \begin{lemma}\label{lem:wsrrt22-force} Given a condition~$(\sigma, g, B)$ and an index~$e \in \mathbb{N}$, one can $X'$-effectively find some extension~$d = (\tau, h, C)$ such that~$d \Vdash \Phi^{G \oplus X}_e(e) \downarrow$ or $d \Vdash \Phi^{G \oplus X}_e(e) \uparrow$. Moreover, one can~$X'$-decide which of the two holds. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Consider the following~$\Sigma^{0,X}_1$ set: \[ D = \{ \tau \in \mathbb{N}^{<\mathbb{N}} : \Phi^{\tau \oplus X}_e(e) \downarrow \} \] The question whether~$D$ is~$g$-big above~$\sigma$ is~$\Sigma^{0,X}_1$ and therefore can be~$X'$-decided. \begin{itemize} \item If the answer is yes, we can~$X$-effectively find a finite tree~$T$ $g$-bushy above~$\sigma$ witnessing this. As~$B$ is~$\Delta^{0,X}_2$, we can take~$X'$-effectively some leaf~$\tau \in T$. By definition of~$T$, $\sigma \prec \tau$. As~$B$ is $g$-closed, $B$ is $g$-small above~$\tau$, and therefore~$(\tau, g, B)$ is a valid extension. Moreover~$\Phi^{\tau \oplus X}_e(e) \downarrow$. \item If the answer is no, the set~$D$ is $g$-small above~$\sigma$. By the smallness additivity property (Lemma~\ref{lem:smallness-add}), $B \cup D$ is $2g$-small above~$\sigma$. We can $X$-effectively find a $\Delta^0_2$ index for its $2g$-closure~$C$. The condition~$(\sigma, 2g, C)$ is a valid extension forcing~$\Phi^{G \oplus X}_e(e) \uparrow$. \end{itemize} \end{proof} We are now ready to prove Theorem~\ref{thm:wsrrt22-low}. \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:wsrrt22-low}] Fix some set~$X$ and some weakly rainbow-stable $X$-computable 2-bounded function~$f : [\mathbb{N}]^2 \to \mathbb{N}$. Thanks to Lemma~\ref{lem:wsrrt22-ext} and Lemma~\ref{lem:wsrrt22-force}, define an infinite decreasing $X'$-computable sequence of conditions~$c_0 \geq c_1 \geq \dots$ starting with~$c_0 = (\epsilon, id, B_f)$ and such that for each~$s \in \mathbb{N}$, \begin{itemize} \item[(i)] $|\sigma_s| \geq s$ \item[(ii)] $c_{s+1} \Vdash \Phi^{G \oplus X}_s(s) \downarrow$ or~$c_{s+1} \Vdash \Phi^{G \oplus X}_s(s) \uparrow$ \end{itemize} where~$c_s = (\sigma_s, g_s, B_s)$. The set~$G = \bigcup_s \sigma_s$ is a prerainbow for~$f$. By (i), $G$ is infinite and by~(ii), $G$ is low over~$X$. By Lemma~\ref{lem:prerainbow-equiv}, $G \oplus X$ computes an infinite $f$-rainbow. \end{proof} \begin{corollary} There exists an $\omega$-model of $\wsrrt^2_2$ having only low sets. \end{corollary} \begin{corollary} $\wsrrt^2_2$ does not imply~$\rrt^2_2$ over~$\rca$. \end{corollary} \begin{proof} By Theorem~\ref{thm-rrt22-dnrzp}, every model of~$\rrt^2_2$ is a model of~$\dnr[\emptyset']$, and no function d.n.c.\ relative to~$\emptyset'$ is low. \end{proof} \subsection{Relations to other principles} In this last section, we prove that the rainbow Ramsey theorem for pairs for weakly rainbow-stable colorings is a consequence of the stable free set theorem for pairs. We need first to introduce some useful terminology. \begin{definition}[Wang in~\cite{Wang2014Cohesive}] Fix a 2-bounded coloring $f : [\mathbb{N}]^n \to \mathbb{N}$ and~$k \leq n$. A set~$H$ is a \emph{$k$-tail $f$-rainbow} if $f(\vec{u}, \vec{v}) \neq f(\vec{w}, \vec{x})$ for all~$\vec{u}, \vec{w} \in [H]^{n-k}$ and~ \emph{distinct} $\vec{v}, \vec{x} \in [H]^k$. \end{definition} Wang proved in~\cite{Wang2014Cohesive} that for every 2-bounded coloring $f : [\mathbb{N}]^n \to \mathbb{N}$, every $f$-random computes an infinite 1-tail $f$-rainbow $H$. We refine this result by the following lemma. \begin{lemma}[$\rca$]\label{lem:dnc-normal-rrt} Let $f : [\mathbb{N}]^{n+1} \to \mathbb{N}$ be a 2-bounded coloring. Every function d.n.c.\ relative to $f$ computes an infinite 1-tail $f$-rainbow $H$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} By~\cite{Kjos-Hanssen2011Kolmogorov}, every function d.n.c.\ relative to $f$ computes a function $g$ such that if $|W^f_e| \leq n$ then $g(e, n) \not \in W^f_e$. Given a finite 1-tail $f$-rainbow $F$, there exists at most ${\card{F} \choose n}$ elements $x$ such that $F \cup \{x\}$ is not a 1-tail $f$-rainbow. We can define an infinite 1-tail $f$-rainbow $H$ by stages, starting with $H_0 = \emptyset$. Given a finite 1-tail $f$-rainbow $H_s$ of cardinal $s$, set $H_{s+1} = H_s \cup \{g(e, {s \choose n})\}$ where $e$ is a Turing index such that $W^f_e = \{x : H_s \cup \{x\} \mbox{ is not a 1-tail } f\mbox{-rainbow}\}$. \end{proof} \begin{theorem} $\rca + \bst \vdash \sfs(2) \rightarrow \wsrrt^2_2$ \end{theorem} \begin{proof} Fix a weakly rainbow-stable 2-bounded coloring $f : [\mathbb{N}]^2 \to \mathbb{N}$. As $\rca \vdash \sfs(2) \rightarrow \dnr$, there exists by Lemma~\ref{lem:dnc-normal-rrt} an infinite 1-tail $f$-rainbow $X$. We will construct an infinite $X \oplus f$-computable stable coloring $g : [X]^2 \to \set{0,1}$ such that every infinite $g$-free set is an $f$-rainbow. We define the coloring $g : [\mathbb{N}]^2 \to \mathbb{N}$ by stages as follows. At stage $s$, assume $g(x, y)$ is defined for every $x, y < s$. For every pair $x < y < s$ such that $g(x, s) = g(y, s)$, set $g(y, s) = x$. For the remaining $x < s$, set $g(x, s) = 0$. This finishes the construction. We now turn to the verification. \begin{claim} Every infinite set $H$ free for $g$ is a rainbow for $f$. \end{claim} \begin{proof} Assume for the sake of contradiction that $H$ is not a rainbow for $f$. Because $X$ is a 1-tail $f$-rainbow and $H \subseteq X$, there exists $x, y, s \in H$ such that $c(x, s) = c(y, s)$ with $x < y < s$. As $f$ is 2-bounded, neither $x$ nor $y$ can be part of another pair $u, v$ such that $f(u, s) = f(v, s)$. So neither $x$ nor $y$ is restrained by another pair already satisfied, and during the construction we set $g(y, s) = x$. So $g(y, s) = x$ with $\set{x, y, s} \subset H$, contradicting freeness of $H$ for $g$. \end{proof} \begin{claim} The coloring $g$ is stable. \end{claim} \begin{proof} Fix a $y \in \mathbb{N}$. As $f$ is weakly rainbow-stable, we have two cases. Either there exists an $x < y$ such that $f(y, s) = f(x, s)$ for cofinitely many $s$, in which case $g(y, s) = x$ for cofinitely many $s$ and we are done. Or $f(y, s) \neq f(x, s)$ for each $x < y$ and cofinitely many $s$. Then by $\bst$, for cofinitely many $s$, $f(y, s) = 0$. \end{proof} \end{proof} \begin{question} Does $\sts(2)$ imply $\wsrrt^2_2$ over $\rca$ ? \end{question} \section{Diagram of relations} \begin{figure}[htbp] \caption{Diagram of considered principles modulo $\rca$} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=13cm]{diagram.png} \end{center} \smallskip \begin{itemize} \begin{minipage}[t]{0.4\linewidth} \item[] $\rightarrow$ Simple implications \item[] $\Rightarrow$ Strict implications \item[] $\textcolor{red}{\rightarrow}$ Non-implications \end{minipage} \begin{minipage}[t]{0.6\linewidth} \item[] Square : Standard model with only low${}_2$ sets \item[] Polygon : Model with only low sets \item[] Ellipse: Standard model with only low sets \end{minipage} \end{itemize} \end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \caption{Diagram of considered principles over $\omega$-models} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=11cm]{diagram-omega.png} \end{center} \smallskip \begin{itemize} \begin{minipage}[t]{0.4\linewidth} \item[] $\rightarrow$ Simple implications \item[] $\Rightarrow$ Strict implications \item[] $\textcolor{red}{\rightarrow}$ Non-implications \end{minipage} \begin{minipage}[t]{0.6\linewidth} \item[] Square : Standard model with only low${}_2$ sets \item[] Ellipse: Standard model with only low sets \end{minipage} \end{itemize} \end{figure} \section{Introduction} \input{parts/introduction} \section{Rainbow Ramsey theorem} \input{parts/rainbow-ramsey} \section{The Erd\H{o}s-Moser theorem} \input{parts/erdos-moser} \section{Free set and thin set theorems} \input{parts/thin-set} \section{Stable rainbow Ramsey theorem} \input{parts/stable-rrt} \section{Weakly stable rainbow Ramsey theorem} \input{parts/wstable-rrt} \vspace{0.5cm} \noindent \textbf{Acknowledgements}. The author is thankful to his PhD advisor Laurent Bienvenu and to Wei Wang for useful comments and discussions. \bibliographystyle{plain}
\section{Introduction} \label{sec: intro} We investigate a two-parameter generalization of the Catalan numbers known as the \emph{Raney numbers}, as first studied by Raney \cite{Raney}. These Raney numbers are defined as $R_{p,r}(n) = \displaystyle\frac{r}{np+r}\binom{np+r}{n}$ for all positive integers $n,p,r$, and specialize to both the usual Catalan numbers as $R_{2,1}(n) = c_n$ and to the $p$-Catalan numbers as $R_{p,1}(n) = \prescript{}{p}c_n$. Raney numbers have previously seen applications to compositional patterns \cite{Raney} and probability theory \cite{Mlot}. In this paper we give a new set of combinatorial interpretations for $R_{p,r}$ that directly generalize the well-known application of $p$-Catalan numbers to the enumeration of $p$-ary trees \cite{HP},\cite{stanley}. Our work can also be interpreted as a generalization of the planted plane tree enumeration techniques developed by Harary, Prins, \& Tutte \cite{HPT} and Klarner \cite{Klarner}, and our results specialize to all of those tree enumeration results via specific choices of $p$ and $r$. We begin in Section \ref{sec: primary results} with a careful description of our ``generalized $p$-ary trees", which are in one-to-one correspondence with planar embeddings of trees with specific vertex structures. Section \ref{sec: primary results} goes on to provide two independent methods for counting these generalized trees: Proposition \ref{thm: coral enumeration partitions} is a ``tiered approach" that generalizes a more specialized result of Klarner \cite{Klarner}, whereas Theorem \ref{thm: coral enumeration Raney numbers} is a modification of a construction by Hilton and Pedersen \cite{HP} that directly relates our enumerations to the Raney numbers. Our two techniques are brought together by the combinatorial identity of Theorem \ref{thm: Raney numbers and ordered partitions}, which is summarized below: \begin{theorem} \label{thm: intro theorem 1} Let $n$ be a positive integer. Then for all positive integers $p,r$ we have: \begin{center} $\displaystyle{R_{p,r}(n) = \frac{r}{np+r}\binom{np+r}{n} = \sum_\lambda \binom{r}{\lambda_1} \binom{p \lambda_1}{\lambda_2} \binom{p \lambda_2}{\lambda_3} \hdots \binom{p \lambda_{j-1}}{\lambda_j}}$ \end{center} \noindent Where $\lambda = (\lambda_1,\lambda_2,...\lambda_j)$ ranges over all ordered partitions of $n$. \end{theorem} In Section \ref{sec: interpretations} we apply our primary results to give combinatorial interpretations of Raney numbers for specific values of $p$ and $r$. Our most innovative result in this section is our identification of $R_{p^2,p}(k)$ with edge-oriented trees whose $(p+1)$-valent vertices coherently obey the ``source or sink" property. In the case of $p=2$ this gives an enumeration of connected, non-elliptic $A_2$ webs with no internal cycles: a significant subclass of the non-elliptic $A_2$ webs introduced by Kuperberg \cite{Kup} to graphically encode the representation theory of the quantum enveloping algebra $U_q(sl_3)$. In Corollary 3.5 we eventually prove the following, which characterizes a certain subset of $Hom_{sl_3}(V^{\otimes 3(k+1)}, \mathbb{C})$ for the three-dimensional irreducible $sl_3$-module $V$: \begin{theorem} \label{thm: intro theorem 2} $R_{4,2}(k)$ equals the number of connected, non-elliptic $A_2$ webs that lack an internal face and have a constant boundary string with $3(k+1)$ pluses. \end{theorem} After giving another application of $R_{4,1}$ to a different class of non-elliptic $A_2$ webs, we close the paper with a series of conjectures that hope to generalize our results to $sl_n$ webs, which similarly that encode the representation theory of $U_q(sl_n)$. In particular, we assert a correlation between the Raney number $R_{n+1,n-1}(k)$ and linearly-independent connected $sl_n$ webs that lack an internal cycle and have a boundary string corresponding to $n(k+1)$ total 1's. \section{Raney Numbers \& the Enumeration of Planar Tree Embeddings} \label{sec: primary results} In this section we present the primary construction of this paper, which gives a geometric realization of the Raney numbers in terms of planar embeddings of certain types of trees. We begin by introducing our graph theoretic terminology: \begin{definition} \label{def: star} Let $p$ be a positive integer. Then a \textbf{p-star} is a rooted tree with $p$ terminal edges lying above a single base vertex. \end{definition} In this section we will directly use $p$-stars as building blocks for larger graphs. In Section \ref{sec: primary results} we will modify stars by allowing their edges to be directed, or by replacing the basic $p$-star with more complicated subgraphs that retain a single base vertex and $p$ terminal edges. For a fixed $p$, $p$-stars are used to construct planar graphs that we refer to as coral diagrams: \begin{definition} \label{def: coral diagram} Let $p,r$ be positive integers. A \textbf{coral diagram of type $(p,r)$} is a rooted tree that is constructed from a $(r+1)$-valent base vertex via the repeated placement of $p$-stars atop terminal edges that are not the leftmost edge adjacent to the base vertex. \end{definition} \begin{figure}[h!] \begin{tikzpicture} [scale=.5,auto=left,every node/.style={circle,fill=black,inner sep=1.7pt}] \node (n1) at (2,0) {}; \node (n2) at (0,4.5) {}; \node (n3) at (2,1.5) {}; \node (n4) at (4,1.5) {}; \draw[thick,bend left=25] (n1) to (n2); \draw[thick] (n1) to (n3); \draw[thick] (n1) to (n4); \end{tikzpicture} \hspace{.15in} \scalebox{3}{\raisebox{12pt}{$\Rightarrow$}} \hspace{.15in} \begin{tikzpicture} [scale=.5,auto=left,every node/.style={circle,fill=black,inner sep=1.7pt}] \node (n1) at (2,0) {}; \node (n2) at (0,4.5) {}; \node (n3) at (2,1.5) {}; \node (n4) at (4,1.5) {}; \node (n5) at (1.3,3.0) {}; \node (n6) at (2.7,3.0) {}; \node (n7) at (3.3,3.0) {}; \node (n8) at (4.7,3.0) {}; \draw[thick,bend left=25] (n1) to (n2); \draw[thick] (n1) to (n3); \draw[thick] (n1) to (n4); \draw[thick] (n3) to (n5); \draw[thick] (n3) to (n6); \draw[thick] (n4) to (n7); \draw[thick] (n4) to (n8); \end{tikzpicture} \hspace{.15in} \scalebox{3}{\raisebox{12pt}{$\Rightarrow$}} \hspace{.15in} \begin{tikzpicture} [scale=.5,auto=left,every node/.style={circle,fill=black,inner sep=1.7pt}] \node (n1) at (2,0) {}; \node (n2) at (0,4.5) {}; \node (n3) at (2,1.5) {}; \node (n4) at (4,1.5) {}; \node (n5) at (1.3,3.0) {}; \node (n6) at (2.7,3.0) {}; \node (n7) at (3.3,3.0) {}; \node (n8) at (4.7,3.0) {}; \node (n9) at (2.0,4.5) {}; \node (n10) at (3.4,4.5) {}; \draw[thick,bend left=25] (n1) to (n2); \draw[thick] (n1) to (n3); \draw[thick] (n1) to (n4); \draw[thick] (n3) to (n5); \draw[thick] (n3) to (n6); \draw[thick] (n4) to (n7); \draw[thick] (n4) to (n8); \draw[thick] (n6) to (n9); \draw[thick] (n6) to (n10); \end{tikzpicture} \caption{Construction of a (2,2)-coral diagram with three 2-stars} \label{fig: coral diagram} \end{figure} We refer to the vertices that serve as base points for our $p$-stars as the \emph{attachment sites} of our coral diagram. In our upcoming constructions it will be useful to think of coral diagrams as a collection of $k+1$ trees ($k$ $p$-stars and a single ``base" $(r+1)$-star) where we have identified the vertices corresponding to the $k$ attachment sites. The condition from Definition \ref{def: coral diagram} that we cannot add stars to the leftmost initial edge in a coral diagram is absolutely essential for our combinatorial interpretations. Our primary concern is planar embeddings of graphs, with equivalence given by homeomorphisms that fix a linear ordering of the terminal vertices. When associating planar embeddings with rooted trees, the primary difficulty is consistently dealing with the fact that a single embedding may be rooted at multiple distinct vertices. Not attaching stars to the leftmost edge of our coral diagram gives us a consistent way of selecting a base vertex for our planar embeddings and ensures that homeomorphic trees cannot correspond to distinct coral diagrams: each equivalence class of homeomorphic planar embeddings contains a unique member where there is a single edge connecting the leftmost boundary point with a ``bottom" vertex. Although somewhat awkward from a diagrammatic perspective, this way of selecting root vertices will allow for a particularly elegant correspondence between coral diagrams and Raney numbers in Theorem \ref{thm: coral enumeration Raney numbers}. In Figure \ref{fig: tree rotation} we show the (2,2)-coral diagram from Figure \ref{fig: coral diagram} and a homeomorphic embedding of the same graph \footnote{Assume in all of our figures that terminal edges have been extended to a fixed boundary line at the top of the diagram. In all constructions we assume a boundary that is homeomorphic to $\mathbb{R}$}. Notice that the embedding on the right does not represent a valid coral diagram of any type. \begin{figure}[h!] \begin{tikzpicture} [scale=.5,auto=left,every node/.style={circle,fill=black,inner sep=1.7pt}] \node (n1) at (2,0) {}; \node (n2) at (0,4.5) {}; \node (n3) at (2,1.5) {}; \node (n4) at (4,1.5) {}; \node (n5) at (1.3,3.0) {}; \node (n6) at (2.7,3.0) {}; \node (n7) at (3.3,3.0) {}; \node (n8) at (4.7,3.0) {}; \node (n9) at (2.0,4.5) {}; \node (n10) at (3.4,4.5) {}; \draw[thick,bend left=25] (n1) to (n2); \draw[thick] (n1) to (n3); \draw[thick] (n1) to (n4); \draw[thick] (n3) to (n5); \draw[thick] (n3) to (n6); \draw[thick] (n4) to (n7); \draw[thick] (n4) to (n8); \draw[thick] (n6) to (n9); \draw[thick] (n6) to (n10); \end{tikzpicture} \hspace{.15in} \scalebox{2.5}{\raisebox{12pt}{$\sim$}} \hspace{.15in} \begin{tikzpicture} [scale=.5,auto=left,every node/.style={circle,fill=black,inner sep=1.7pt}] \node (n1) at (2.1,0.0) {}; \node (n2) at (1.0,1.125) {}; \node (n3) at (0.0,4.5) {}; \node (n4) at (0.7,3.375) {}; \node (n5) at (1.4,2.25) {}; \node (n6) at (1.4,4.5) {}; \node (n7) at (2.1,3.375) {}; \node (n8) at (2.8,4.5) {}; \node (n9) at (3.5,4.5) {}; \node (n10) at (4.7,4.5) {}; \draw[thick] (n1) to (n2); \draw[thick, bend left=17] (n2) to (n3); \draw[thick] (n2) to (n5); \draw[thick] (n5) to (n4); \draw[thick] (n5) to (n7); \draw[thick] (n7) to (n6); \draw[thick] (n7) to (n8); \draw[thick, bend right=10] (n1) to (n9); \draw[thick, bend right=20] (n1) to (n10); \end{tikzpicture} \caption{A (2,2)-coral diagram and an equivalent planar embedding} \label{fig: tree rotation} \end{figure} We are now ready for our primary results enumerating coral diagrams. Henceforth denote the number of distinct $(p,r)$-coral diagrams with exactly $k$ total $p$-stars added to the base star by $T_{p,r}(k)$. The proposition below is the more direct of our two methodologies, and will be used in Theorem \ref{thm: Raney numbers and ordered partitions} to introduce an entirely new combinatorial identity involving the Raney numbers. Notice that Proposition \ref{thm: coral enumeration partitions} closely resembles (20) from \cite{Klarner} after specializing to $r=1$. \begin{proposition} \label{thm: coral enumeration partitions} Let $p,r$ be positive integers. Then the number of coral diagrams of type $(p,r)$ with precisely $k$ p-stars is: \begin{center} $\displaystyle{T_{p,r}(k) = \sum_\lambda \binom{r}{\lambda_1} \binom{p \lambda_1}{\lambda_2} \binom{p \lambda_2}{\lambda_3} \hdots \binom{p \lambda_{j-1}}{\lambda_j}}$ \end{center} \noindent Where $\lambda = (\lambda_1,\lambda_2,...\lambda_j)$ varies over all ordered partitions of $k$ (of any length $j \geq 1$). \end{proposition} \begin{proof} As in Figure \ref{fig: coral diagram}, we will construct our coral diagram by attaching our $k$ stars one ``tier" at a time, beginning with the base tree and working upward. We assume that all stars are attached as low as possible, so that if a vertex is not used as an attachment point for a given tier that vertex cannot serve as an attachment point for later tiers. Hence the only valid attachment points at each tier are the terminal vertices of stars added in the previous tier. So let $\lambda = (\lambda_1, \lambda_2, \hdots, \lambda_j)$ be an ordered partition of $k$, and consider the number of $(p,r)$-coral diagrams with $\lambda_1$ stars attached in the first tier, $\lambda_2$ stars attached in the second tier, etc. For the first tier there are $r$ available attachment sites, corresponding to the $r$ terminal edges adjacent to the base that are not the leftmost edge. Hence there are $\binom{r}{\lambda_1}$ distinct ways to attach stars of this tier. For the $j$\textsuperscript{th} tier ($j > 1$) there are $p \lambda_{j-1}$ valid attachment sites, corresponding to the top vertices of the $\lambda_{j-1}$ $p$-stars from the previous tier. Thus there are $\binom{p \lambda_{j-1}}{\lambda_j}$ distinct ways to attach stars of this tier. As the resulting diagrams are rooted, and since we are not allowing star attachment to the leftmost initial edge, all trees produced in this manner are non-equivalent embeddings. This leaves $\binom{r}{\lambda_1} \binom{p \lambda_1}{\lambda_2} \binom{p \lambda_2}{\lambda_3} \hdots \binom{p \lambda_{j-1}}{\lambda_j}$ distinct trees corresponding to our partition $\lambda$. As coral diagrams produced from distinct partitions are clearly non-equivalent, this proves the result. \end{proof} Our second construction directly relates the number of $(p,r)$-coral diagrams to the Raney numbers $R_{p,r}(k)$. We preface our result with a characterization of the Raney numbers that is proven in by Hilton and Pedersen in \cite{HP}. \footnote{Our Raney number $R_{p,r}(n)$ corresponds to $_pd_{qk} = d_{qk}$ in \cite{HP} via $q = p-r, k=n+1$} \begin{lemma}\cite[Theorem 2.6]{HP} \label{thm: HiltonPederson lemma} Let $_pc_k = \frac{1}{k} \binom{pk}{k-1}$ be the $k$\textsuperscript{th} $p$-Catalan number, and let $R_{p,r}(k)$ denote the Raney number. Then: \begin{center} $\displaystyle{R_{p,r}(k) = \sum_{i_1 + \hdots + i_r = k} \ _pc_{i_1} \ _pc_{i_2} \ \hdots \ _pc_{i_r}}$ \end{center} \end{lemma} \begin{theorem} \label{thm: coral enumeration Raney numbers} Let $p,r$ be positive integers. Then the number of $(p,r)$-coral diagrams with precisely $k$ p-stars equals the k\textsuperscript{th} evaluation of the Raney number $R_{p,r}$: \begin{center} $\displaystyle{T_{p,r}(k) = R_{p,r}(k) = \binom{pk+r-1}{k-1} \frac{r}{k}}$ \end{center} \end{theorem} \begin{proof} It is well established (see \cite{HP}) that $_pc_j$ equals the number of connected trees constructed from $j$ total $p$-stars. With this interpretation, Lemma \ref{thm: HiltonPederson lemma} states that the Raney number $R_{p,r}(k)$ counts the number of distinct ordered $r$-tuples of trees constructed from p-stars such that a total of k total p-stars are utilized across the entire tuple. Now consider a $(p,r)$-coral diagram. We may subdivide the coral diagram into $r+1$ subgraphs (some of which may be empty): one corresponding to the base $r$-star and one corresponding to everything added atop each of the $r$ attachment sites of the base $(r+1)$-star. Any coral diagram may then be described by an $r$-tuple of trees constructed from $p$-stars. As the leftmost edge of the base star still isn't a valid attachment site, it isn't possible to achieve equivalent coral diagrams from distinct $r$-tuples of trees. If we fix the total number of $p$-stars to be used at $k \geq 0$, it follows that $T_{p,r} = \displaystyle{\sum_{i_1 + \hdots + i_r = k} \ _pc_{i_1} \ _pc_{i_2} \ \hdots \ _pc_{i_r}}$. Lemma \ref{thm: HiltonPederson lemma} then gives the desired result. \end{proof} As a quick corollary of Proposition \ref{thm: coral enumeration partitions} and Theorem \ref{thm: coral enumeration Raney numbers}, we have the following combinatorial identity that relates the Raney numbers to ordered partitions \begin{theorem} \label{thm: Raney numbers and ordered partitions} Let $p,r$ be positive integers, and consider the Raney number $R_{p,r}$. Then: \begin{center} $\displaystyle{R_{p,r}(k) = \sum_\lambda \binom{r}{\lambda_1} \binom{p \lambda_1}{\lambda_2} \binom{p \lambda_2}{\lambda_3} \hdots \binom{p \lambda_{j-1}}{\lambda_j}}$ \end{center} \noindent Where $\lambda = (\lambda_1,\lambda_2,...\lambda_j)$ varies over all ordered partitions of $k$ (of any length $j \geq 1$). \end{theorem} Notice that this is a distinct reduction of $R_{p,r}(k)$ into a summations over ordered partitions of $k$ than the one presented in Lemma \ref{thm: HiltonPederson lemma}, even though both summations involve terms of the form $\binom{p\lambda_j}{m}$. The decomposition of Lemma \ref{thm: HiltonPederson lemma} ranges over weak partitions and follows from ``horizontally" dividing our coral diagram into a tuple of attached trees, whereas the summation of Theorem \ref{thm: Raney numbers and ordered partitions} ranges over (strong) partitions and follows from ``vertically" dividing our coral diagram into tiers. \section{Combinatorial Interpretations of $R_{p,r}$} \label{sec: interpretations} The remainder of this paper is devoted to combinatorial interpretations of the Raney numbers $R_{p,r}$ for specific choices of $p,r$. Our primary tools are Theorem \ref{thm: coral enumeration Raney numbers} and the coral diagram framework that it suggests. To begin with the least derived (and least informative) result we have: \begin{proposition} \label{thm: raney interpretation general p r} Let $p,r$ be positive integers, then $R_{p,r}(k)$ equals the number of distinct planar embeddings of trees with $k+1$ internal vertices such that all internal vertices are $(p+1)$-valent except for the vertex incident upon the leftmost terminal edge, which is $(r+1)$-valent. \end{proposition} \begin{proof} Follows directly from Proposition \ref{thm: coral enumeration Raney numbers} and the definition of coral diagram. \end{proof} Obviously, the situation becomes far more interesting if $p=r$, with $R_{p,p}(k)$ enumerating distinct planar embeddings of wholly $(p+1)$-valent trees. This specialization also yields a new proof of the following Raney number identity: \begin{proposition} \label{thm: raney interpretation p=r} Let $p$ be a positive integer. Then $R_{p,p}(k) = R_{p,1}(k+1)$, with both quantities equaling the number of distinct planar embeddings of $(p+1)$-valent trees with $k+1$ internal vertices. \end{proposition} \begin{proof} Consider a $(p,p)$-coral diagram with $k$ total $p$-stars. We divide the leftmost edge emanating from the base vertex by adding an additional 2-valent vertex, and then isotope so that this new vertex lies at the base. This is now a $(p,1)$-coral diagram with $k+1$ total $p$-stars. Since there is only one attachment site for the first $p$-star, we are able to get every coral diagram of type $(p,1)$ with $k+1$ stars in this manner. Also, it is clear that distinct $(p,p)$-coral diagrams with $k$ $p$-stars are transformed into distinct $(p,1)$-coral diagrams with $k+1$ $p$-stars. \end{proof} Also of interest is the situation where $p=1$, where coral diagrams provide a new ``geometric" proof of the result that $R_{1,r}(k)$ is related to ordered weak partitions of $k$: \begin{proposition} \label{thm: raney interpretation p=1} Let $r$ be a positive integer. Then $R_{1,r}(k)$ equals the number of ordered weak partitions of the positive integer $k$ into $r$ pieces. \end{proposition} \begin{proof} $(1,r)$-coral diagrams take the form shown in Figure \ref{fig: (1,r) coral diagram}. Adding $k$ total 1-stars then amounts to choosing a partition of $k$ into $r$ pieces with $\lambda_j \geq 0$ 1-stars each. This partition is ordered because of the unused edge at the left. \end{proof} \begin{figure}[h!] \centering \begin{tikzpicture} [scale=.45,auto=left,every node/.style={circle,fill=black,inner sep=1.7pt}] \node (base) at (2.75,0) {}; \node (a) at (0,6.0) {}; \node (b1) at (2,1.5) {}; \node (b2) at (2,2.75) {}; \node[fill=white] (b3) at (2,3.65) {\scalebox{.85}{$\vdots$}}; \node (b4) at (2,4.25) {}; \node (b5) at (2,5.5) {}; \node (c1) at (3.5,1.5) {}; \node (c2) at (3.5,2.75) {}; \node[fill=white] (c3) at (3.5,3.65) {\scalebox{.85}{$\vdots$}}; \node (c4) at (3.5,4.25) {}; \node (c5) at (3.5,5.5) {}; \node (d1) at (5,1.5) {}; \node (d2) at (5,2.75) {}; \node[fill=white] (d3) at (5,3.65) {\scalebox{.85}{$\vdots$}}; \node (d4) at (5,4.25) {}; \node (d5) at (5,5.5) {}; \draw[thick,bend left=30] (base) to (a); \draw[thick,bend left=5] (base) to (b1); \draw[thick] (b1) to (b2); \draw[thick] (b4) to (b5); \draw[thick,bend right=10] (base) to (c1); \draw[thick] (c1) to (c2); \draw[thick] (c4) to (c5); \draw[thick,bend right=25] (base) to (d1); \draw[thick] (d1) to (d2); \draw[thick] (d4) to (d5); \end{tikzpicture} \caption{A (1,3)-coral diagram, giving an ordered partition in 3 pieces} \label{fig: (1,r) coral diagram} \end{figure} Further interpretations of the Raney numbers can be made when one orients the edges of the planar embeddings. Here we only consider orientations that are coherent in the sense that every vertex in either a source or a sink. \begin{proposition} \label{thm: raney interpretation p=r2} Let $p$ be a positive integer, then $R_{p^2,p}(k)$ equals the number of distinct planar embeddings of $(p+1)$-valent trees, coherently oriented according to the source-sink property, with $k(p^2-1) + (p+1)$ 1-valent boundary vertices that are all sinks. \end{proposition} \begin{proof} We look to establish a bijection between planar embeddings that satisfy the hypothesis of the proposition and $(p^2,p)$-coral diagrams whose ``stars" take the modified form shown in Figure \ref{fig: oriented p2 stars}. We induct on the number of internal vertices in the tree: For the base step, notice that a $(p+1)$-valent tree with one internal vertex and $(p+1)$ external sinks is merely the base of a $(p^2,p)$-coral diagram where the base vertex is a source. For the inductive step, notice that adding $p$ edges to an external sink produces $p$ new external vertices that are all sources. If the resulting tree is to satisfy the hypotheses of the proposition, this necessitates the addition of $p$ additional edges to each of these new vertices. This yields $p^2$ new external sinks, and shows that any qualifying tree must be built up via the attachment of entire $p^2$-stars of the type shown in Figure \ref{fig: oriented p2 stars}. It follows that every planar embedding created in this way is homeomorphic to a unique $(p^2,p)$-coral diagram. \end{proof} Figure \ref{fig: oriented p2 stars} shows our modified $p^2$-stars for source-sink directed trees in the cases of $p=2$ and $p=3$. Notice that the top of those stars exhibit a constant upward orientation, and that the base of those stars can only be attached to an upward oriented edge. \begin{figure}[h!] \centering \begin{tikzpicture} [scale=.8,auto=left,every node/.style={circle,fill=black,inner sep=1.7pt}] \node (n1) at (0,0) {}; \node (n2) at (-1,1) {}; \node (n3) at (1,1) {}; \node (n4) at (-1.5,2) {}; \node (n5) at (-.5,2) {}; \node (n6) at (.5,2) {}; \node (n7) at (1.5,2) {}; \draw[->-, thick] (n2) to (n1); \draw[->-, thick] (n3) to (n1); \draw[->-, thick] (n2) to (n4); \draw[->-, thick] (n2) to (n5); \draw[->-, thick] (n3) to (n6); \draw[->-, thick] (n3) to (n7); \end{tikzpicture} \hspace{.5in} \begin{tikzpicture} [scale=.8,auto=left,every node/.style={circle,fill=black,inner sep=1.7pt}] \node (n1) at (0,0) {}; \node (n2) at (-2,1) {}; \node (n3) at (0,1) {}; \node (n4) at (2,1) {}; \node (n5) at (-2.75,2) {}; \node (n6) at (-2,2) {}; \node (n7) at (-1.25,2) {}; \node (n8) at (-.75,2) {}; \node (n9) at (0,2) {}; \node (n10) at (.75,2) {}; \node (n11) at (1.25,2) {}; \node (n12) at (2,2) {}; \node (n13) at (2.75,2) {}; \draw[->-, thick] (n2) to (n1); \draw[->-, thick] (n3) to (n1); \draw[->-, thick] (n4) to (n1); \draw[->-, thick] (n2) to (n5); \draw[->-, thick] (n2) to (n6); \draw[->-, thick] (n2) to (n7); \draw[->-, thick] (n3) to (n8); \draw[->-, thick] (n3) to (n9); \draw[->-, thick] (n3) to (n10); \draw[->-, thick] (n4) to (n11); \draw[->-, thick] (n4) to (n12); \draw[->-, thick] (n4) to (n13); \end{tikzpicture} \caption{Oriented ``stars" for $(2^2,2)$- and $(3^2,3)$-coral diagrams} \label{fig: oriented p2 stars} \end{figure} A quick inductive argument shows that the only $(p+1)$-valent trees with the properties required by Proposition \ref{thm: raney interpretation p=r2} have $k(p^2-1)+(p+1)$ boundary points. Thus, ranging over $R_{p^2,p}(k)$ for all $k \geq 0$ accounts for all source-sink oriented (p+1)-valent trees with constant boundary vertex orientation. An equivalent interpretation to the one in Proposition \ref{thm: raney interpretation p=r2} is that $R_{p^2,p}(k)$ counts the number of distinct planar embeddings of $(p+1)$-valent trees with $k(p^2-1) + (p+1)$ 1-valent boundary points such that, for any fixed vertex, any path from that vertex to the boundary passes through an equivalent number of edges modulo two. The primary reason we present the specific interpretation of Proposition \ref{thm: raney interpretation p=r2} is that the $(p,r)=(4,2)$ case gives planar embeddings that qualify as (non-elliptic) $A_2$ webs (referred to by some as simply $sl_3$ webs). $A_2$ webs constitute the morphisms in the braided monoidal category introduced by Kuperberg \cite{Kup} to diagrammatically present the representation theory of the quantum enveloping algebra $U_q(sl_3)$. Objects in this category are finite words in the alphabet $\lbrace +,-\rbrace$, corresponding to the two (dual) irreducible three-dimensional $sl_3$-modules $V^+$ and $V^-$. These words are encoded via the orientation of the boundary vertices, so that all webs can be represented as elements of $Hom(\vec{s},\emptyset)$ for boundary word $\vec{s}$. Non-elliptic webs are those webs that lack internal square and bigons. Non-elliptic webs form a linear basis for all $A_2$ webs over $\mathbb{Z}[q,q^{-1}]$. For a constant boundary string of $3k$ total +'s, the total number of non-elliptic webs is known to be in bijection with standard Young tableaux of size $3 \times k$ (\cite{PPS},\cite{Tym}). Our $(4,2)$-coral diagrams with $k$ total $p$-stars then form a subset of non-elliptic webs with a constant boundary string of $k(4-1) + (2+1) = 3(k+1)$ total +'s, and are in bijection with an interesting subset of standard Young tableaux of size $3 \times (k+1)$. In terms of $A_2$ web terminology, Proposition \ref{thm: raney interpretation p=r2} can be restated in the specific case of $p=2$ as follows: \begin{corollary} \label{thm: sl3 webs, constant string} $R_{4,2}(k)$ equals the number of connected (non-elliptic) $A_2$ webs that lack an internal face and have a constant boundary string with $3(k+1)$ pluses. \end{corollary} In an upcoming paper \cite{BD}, the authors apply Corollary \ref{thm: sl3 webs, constant string} and other combinatorial results to enumerate webs with distinct geometric structures. In Figure \ref{fig: sl3 webs} we show how Corollary \ref{thm: sl3 webs, constant string} applies to $A_2$ webs with boundary word $(++++++)$. Here we have 5 total non-elliptic webs, $R_{4,2}(1)=2$ of which are connected trees. \begin{figure}[h!] \begin{tikzpicture} [scale=.7,auto=left,every node/.style={circle,fill=black,inner sep=1.7pt}] \node[inner sep=0pt] (left) at (0,0) {}; \node (+1) at (1,0) {}; \node (+2) at (2,0) {}; \node (+3) at (3,0) {}; \node (+4) at (4,0) {}; \node (+5) at (5,0) {}; \node (+6) at (6,0) {}; \node[inner sep=0pt] (right) at (7,0) {}; \draw[thick] (left) to (right); \node (a) at (1.5,1) {}; \node (b) at (3.5,1) {}; \node (c) at (5.5,1) {}; \node (d) at (3.5,2.2) {}; \draw[->-, thick] (+1) to (a); \draw[->-, thick] (+2) to (a); \draw[->-, thick] (+3) to (b); \draw[->-, thick] (+4) to (b); \draw[->-, thick] (+5) to (c); \draw[->-, thick] (+6) to (c); \draw[->-, thick] (d) to (a); \draw[->-, thick] (d) to (b); \draw[->-, thick] (d) to (c); \end{tikzpicture} \hspace{.25in} \begin{tikzpicture} [scale=.7,auto=left,every node/.style={circle,fill=black,inner sep=1.7pt}] \node[inner sep=0pt] (left) at (0,0) {}; \node (+1) at (1,0) {}; \node (+2) at (2,0) {}; \node (+3) at (3,0) {}; \node (+4) at (4,0) {}; \node (+5) at (5,0) {}; \node (+6) at (6,0) {}; \node[inner sep=0pt] (right) at (7,0) {}; \draw[thick] (left) to (right); \node (a) at (2.5,1) {}; \node (b) at (4.5,1) {}; \node (c) at (3.5,2.5) {}; \node (d) at (3.5,1.6) {}; \draw[->-, thick,bend left=20] (+1) to (c); \draw[->-, thick] (+2) to (a); \draw[->-, thick] (+3) to (a); \draw[->-, thick] (+4) to (b); \draw[->-, thick] (+5) to (b); \draw[->-, thick,bend right=20] (+6) to (c); \draw[->-, thick] (d) to (a); \draw[->-, thick] (d) to (b); \draw[->-, thick] (d) to (c); \end{tikzpicture} \vspace{.25in} \begin{tikzpicture} [scale=.7,auto=left,every node/.style={circle,fill=black,inner sep=1.7pt}] \node[inner sep=0pt] (left) at (0,0) {}; \node (+1) at (1,0) {}; \node (+2) at (2,0) {}; \node (+3) at (3,0) {}; \node (+4) at (4,0) {}; \node (+5) at (5,0) {}; \node (+6) at (6,0) {}; \node[inner sep=0pt] (right) at (7,0) {}; \draw[thick] (left) to (right); \node (a) at (3,1) {}; \node (b) at (5,2) {}; \draw[->-, thick,bend left=25] (+1) to (b); \draw[->-, thick] (+2) to (a); \draw[->-, thick] (+3) to (a); \draw[->-, thick] (+4) to (a); \draw[->-, thick] (+5) to (b); \draw[->-, thick] (+6) to (b); \end{tikzpicture} \hspace{.25in} \begin{tikzpicture} [scale=.7,auto=left,every node/.style={circle,fill=black,inner sep=1.7pt}] \node[inner sep=0pt] (left) at (0,0) {}; \node (+1) at (1,0) {}; \node (+2) at (2,0) {}; \node (+3) at (3,0) {}; \node (+4) at (4,0) {}; \node (+5) at (5,0) {}; \node (+6) at (6,0) {}; \node[inner sep=0pt] (right) at (7,0) {}; \draw[thick] (left) to (right); \node (a) at (4,1) {}; \node (b) at (2,2) {}; \draw[->-, thick] (+1) to (b); \draw[->-, thick] (+2) to (b); \draw[->-, thick] (+3) to (a); \draw[->-, thick] (+4) to (a); \draw[->-, thick] (+5) to (a); \draw[->-, thick,bend right=25] (+6) to (b); \end{tikzpicture} \vspace{.35in} \begin{tikzpicture} [scale=.7,auto=left,every node/.style={circle,fill=black,inner sep=1.7pt}] \node[inner sep=0pt] (left) at (0,0) {}; \node (+1) at (1,0) {}; \node (+2) at (2,0) {}; \node (+3) at (3,0) {}; \node (+4) at (4,0) {}; \node (+5) at (5,0) {}; \node (+6) at (6,0) {}; \node[inner sep=0pt] (right) at (7,0) {}; \draw[thick] (left) to (right); \node (a) at (2,1) {}; \node (b) at (5,1) {}; \draw[->-, thick] (+1) to (a); \draw[->-, thick] (+2) to (a); \draw[->-, thick] (+3) to (a); \draw[->-, thick] (+4) to (b); \draw[->-, thick] (+5) to (b); \draw[->-, thick] (+6) to (b); \end{tikzpicture} \caption{The 5 non-elliptic $sl_3$ webs with boundary $(++++++)$} \label{fig: sl3 webs} \end{figure} Raney numbers can also be applied to enumerate (non-elliptic) $A_2$ webs with boundary word of the form $(-+++\hdots +)$. The construction here is similar to that in Proposition \ref{thm: raney interpretation p=r2}, with the same form of ``modified" 4-stars. The only difference is that we now give the leftmost unused edge the opposite orientation and directly wrap it around to form a single attachment site for our 4-stars (as opposed to adding a single trivalent vertex in the base that flips the orientation of attachment sites). This directly proves the following: \begin{proposition} \label{thm: sl3 webs, non-constant string} $R_{4,1}(k)$ equals the number of connected (non-elliptic) $A_2$ webs that lack an internal face and have a constant boundary string with one minus followed by $3k+1$ pluses. \end{proposition} An application of Proposition \ref{thm: sl3 webs, non-constant string} in the case of $k=1$ is shown in Figure \ref{fig: sl3 webs non-constant}. Here we have 3 total non-elliptic webs with boundary word $(-++++)$, $R_{4,1}(1)=1$ of which is a connected tree. Notice that, since $R_{4,1}(k)$ is simply the k\textsuperscript{th} entry in the 4-Catalan sequence, this result also gives a new interpretation of the 4-Catalan numbers. \begin{figure}[h!] \begin{tikzpicture} [scale=.75,auto=left,every node/.style={circle,fill=black,inner sep=1.7pt}] \node[inner sep=0pt] (left) at (0,0) {}; \node (-1) at (1,0) {}; \node (+2) at (2,0) {}; \node (+3) at (3,0) {}; \node (+4) at (4,0) {}; \node (+5) at (5,0) {}; \node[inner sep=0pt] (right) at (6,0) {}; \draw[thick] (left) to (right); \node (n1) at (2.5,.8) {}; \node (n2) at (4.5,.8) {}; \node (n3) at (3.5,1.6) {}; \draw[->-, thick] (+2) to (n1); \draw[->-, thick] (+3) to (n1); \draw[->-, thick] (+4) to (n2); \draw[->-, thick] (+5) to (n2); \draw[->-, thick] (n3) to (n1); \draw[->-, thick] (n3) to (n2); \draw[->-, thick, bend right=35] (n3) to (-1); \end{tikzpicture} \vspace{.2in} \begin{tikzpicture} [scale=.75,auto=left,every node/.style={circle,fill=black,inner sep=1.7pt}] \node[inner sep=0pt] (left) at (0,0) {}; \node (-1) at (1,0) {}; \node (+2) at (2,0) {}; \node (+3) at (3,0) {}; \node (+4) at (4,0) {}; \node (+5) at (5,0) {}; \node[inner sep=0pt] (right) at (6,0) {}; \draw[thick] (left) to (right); \node (n1) at (3,.8) {}; \draw[->-, thick] (+2) to (n1); \draw[->-, thick] (+3) to (n1); \draw[->-, thick] (+4) to (n1); \draw[->-, thick, bend right= 90] (+5) to (-1) {}; \end{tikzpicture} \hspace{.25in} \begin{tikzpicture} [scale=.75,auto=left,every node/.style={circle,fill=black,inner sep=1.7pt}] \node[inner sep=0pt] (left) at (0,0) {}; \node (-1) at (1,0) {}; \node (+2) at (2,0) {}; \node (+3) at (3,0) {}; \node (+4) at (4,0) {}; \node (+5) at (5,0) {}; \node[inner sep=0pt] (right) at (6,0) {}; \draw[thick] (left) to (right); \node (n1) at (4,.8) {}; \draw[->-, thick] (+3) to (n1); \draw[->-, thick] (+4) to (n1); \draw[->-, thick] (+5) to (n1); \draw[->-, thick, bend right= 90] (+2) to (-1) {}; \end{tikzpicture} \caption{The 3 non-elliptic $sl_3$ webs with boundary $(-++++)$} \label{fig: sl3 webs non-constant} \end{figure} We close this paper by commenting upon possible interpretations of $R_{p,r}$ for other choices of $p,r$. We focus on how our results about $A_2$ webs in Corollary \ref{thm: sl3 webs, constant string} and Proposition \ref{thm: sl3 webs, non-constant string} may be generalized to enumerate connected trees in the wider class of $sl_n$ webs. Much as $A_2$ webs are used to diagrammatically present the representation theory of $U_q(sl_3)$, $sl_n$ webs are used to diagrammatically present the representation theory of $U_q(sl_n)$. In addition to carrying an orientation, edges in these $sl_n$ webs are now labelled by one of the $(n-1)$ fundamental representations, while reversal of orientation corresponds to taking the dual of the given representation (in $sl_3$ webs there are 2 fundamental representations that are duals of one another, so the additional edge labellings are dropped because the orientations carry all necessary information). The vertices of these webs must obey a more complicated set of conditions that depend on both orientation and edge-labelling, giving a far more complicated theory. See \cite{Mor} for a detailed introduction to this topic, \cite{Fon} and \cite{West} for constructive algorithms producing $sl_n$ web bases, and the more recent \cite{CKM} for a generating set of relations for $sl_n$ webs. The following conjecture is a direct generalization of Corollary \ref{thm: sl3 webs, constant string} to the enumeration of $sl_n$ ``tree webs" with a constant boundary string. \begin{conjecture} \label{thm: sln webs, constant} For any $n \geq 3$, $ (n-2)^k R_{n+1,n-1}(k)$ equals the number of connected $sl_n$ webs that lack an internal cycle and have a boundary string with $n(k+1)$ total 1's. \end{conjecture} The specific interpretation of $(n+1,n-1)$-coral diagrams that motivates Conjecture \ref{thm: sln webs, constant} is shown in Figure \ref{fig: sl4 webs} for the relatively easy case of $n=4$. On the left we show the base for our $(5,3)$-coral diagrams, here interpreted as part of an $sl_4$ web, and on the right we show two non-equivalent pieces of $sl_4$ webs that both function as valid choices for each $5$-star. In the $sl_4$ case, the reason that there aren't additional non-equivalent variations of these pieces follows from Kim's relations for $sl_4$ webs \cite{Kim}. The relevant member of these relations is shown in Figure \ref{fig: sl4 web relation}; notice that this relation also sees a direct analogue in the more general $sl_n$ web relations of Cautis, Kamnitzer, and Morrison (Relation 2.6 of \cite{CKM}). In the general $sl_n$ case, we conjecture the existence of one valid base and $n-2$ valid choices for each star. It is these $n-2$ non-equivalent choices for each of the $k$ total $(n+1)$-stars in our coral diagrams that leads to the unusual ``correction factor" of $(n-2)^k$ in Conjecture \ref{thm: sln webs, constant}. \begin{figure}[h!] \begin{tikzpicture} [scale=.8,auto=left,every node/.style={circle,fill=black,inner sep=1.7pt}] \node (n1) at (0,0) {}; \node (n2) at (-1.5,3.5) {}; \node (n3) at (0,1) {}; \node (n4) at (1.5,2) {}; \node (n5) at (-.5,2) {}; \node (n6) at (.5,2) {}; \draw[->-, thick, bend left=25] (n1) to (n2); \draw[double, thick] (n1) to (n3); \draw[->-, thick, bend right=15] (n1) to (n4); \draw[->-, thick] (n3) to (n5); \draw[->-, thick] (n3) to (n6); \end{tikzpicture} \hspace{1in} \begin{tikzpicture} [scale=.8,auto=left,every node/.style={circle,fill=black,inner sep=1.7pt}] \node (n1) at (0,0) {}; \node (n2) at (-1,1) {}; \node (n3) at (1,1) {}; \node (n4) at (-1.5,2) {}; \node (n5) at (-0.5,2) {}; \node (n6) at (0.5,2) {}; \node (n7) at (1.5,2) {}; \node (n8) at (0,3) {}; \node (n9) at (1,3) {}; \draw[thick,double] (n1) to (n2); \draw[->-, thick] (n3) to (n1); \draw[->-, thick] (n2) to (n4); \draw[->-, thick] (n2) to (n5); \draw[thick,double] (n3) to (n6); \draw[->-, thick] (n3) to (n7); \draw[->-, thick] (n6) to (n8); \draw[->-, thick] (n6) to (n9); \end{tikzpicture} \hspace{.15in} \raisebox{36pt}{\scalebox{1.5}{$\ncong$}} \hspace{.05in} \begin{tikzpicture} [scale=.8,auto=left,every node/.style={circle,fill=black,inner sep=1.7pt}] \node (n1) at (0,0) {}; \node (n2) at (-1,1) {}; \node (n3) at (1,1) {}; \node (n4) at (-1.5,2) {}; \node (n5) at (-0.5,2) {}; \node (n6) at (0.5,2) {}; \node (n7) at (1.5,2) {}; \node (n8) at (-2,3) {}; \node (n9) at (-1,3) {}; \draw[->-, thick] (n2) to (n1); \draw[double, thick] (n3) to (n1); \draw[double, thick] (n2) to (n4); \draw[->-, thick] (n2) to (n5); \draw[->-, thick] (n3) to (n6); \draw[->-, thick] (n3) to (n7); \draw[->-, thick] (n4) to (n8); \draw[->-, thick] (n4) to (n9); \end{tikzpicture} \caption{$sl_4$ web interpretation for $R_{5,3}$, with base (left) and two non-equivalent choices for each p-star (right)} \label{fig: sl4 webs} \end{figure} \begin{figure}[h!] \begin{tikzpicture} [scale=.8,auto=left,every node/.style={circle,fill=black,inner sep=1.7pt}] \node (n0) at (0,-.8) {}; \node (n1) at (0,0) {}; \node (n2) at (-.5,.8) {}; \node (n3) at (.5,.8) {}; \node (n4) at (-1,1.6) {}; \node (n5) at (0,1.6) {}; \draw[->-, thick] (n1) to (n0); \draw[double, thick] (n1) to (n2); \draw[->-, thick] (n1) to (n3); \draw[->-, thick] (n2) to (n4); \draw[->-, thick] (n2) to (n5); \end{tikzpicture} \hspace{.15in} \raisebox{30pt}{\scalebox{1.5}{$\cong$}} \hspace{.15in} \begin{tikzpicture} [scale=.8,auto=left,every node/.style={circle,fill=black,inner sep=1.7pt}] \node (n0) at (0,-.8) {}; \node (n1) at (0,0) {}; \node (n2) at (-.5,.8) {}; \node (n3) at (.5,.8) {}; \node (n4) at (0,1.6) {}; \node (n5) at (1,1.6) {}; \draw[->-, thick] (n1) to (n0); \draw[->-, thick] (n1) to (n2); \draw[double, thick] (n1) to (n3); \draw[->-, thick] (n3) to (n4); \draw[->-, thick] (n3) to (n5); \end{tikzpicture} \caption{One of Kim's $sl_4$ web relations} \label{fig: sl4 web relation} \end{figure} The reason that Conjecture \ref{thm: sln webs, constant} cannot be proven at this point is that we lack a general proof of the fact that, in the $(n+1,n-1)$-coral diagram interpretation, there is precisely one valid choice for our base and precisely $(n-2)$ non-equivalent choices for each $(n+1)$-star. Furthermore, it would need to be shown that the different ``pieces" of the coral diagram do not interact and allow for additional relations that cannot be localized to differences in the base or within a single coral. In light of the generating $sl_n$ web relations of \cite{CKM}, it appears that the only relation capable of directly relating a pair of distinct tree webs is the aforementioned $I = H$ relation (Relation 2.6, \cite{CKM}). This relation should allow for a direct justification of the fact that there are $n-2$ distinct choices for each $(n+1)$-star in the above interpretation. However, it would still need to be shown that two tree webs cannot be connected via a string of other relations that pass through at least one non-tree $sl_n$ web. On a more basic level, notice that the local relations of \cite{CKM} do not result in simple global conditions for determining whether an $sl_n$ web is a member of a given basis: in the case of $sl_3$ webs the non-elliptic condition provides an easy way to recognize whether a given web is an element of the non-elliptic basis, but there is no similarly tractable condition for recognizing basis webs in the $n>3$ case. Also notice that the constructive $sl_n$ web bases developed in \cite{West} and \cite{Fon} aren't well-suited to proving our conjecture, as there isn't a reasonable way to determine which inputs to their growth algorithms yield webs that are connected trees. Even if these bases could be used to show that there are at least $n+2$ non-equivalent choices for each $(n+1)$-star, they cannot be easily applied to prove there are not additional tree webs that are equivalent to elements of the resulting set. We also conjecture that Proposition \ref{thm: sl3 webs, non-constant string} for $sl_3$ webs may be generalized to $sl_n$ webs with a boundary string of the form $(j \ 1 \ 1 \hdots 1)$. The desired result is given in Conjecture \ref{thm: sln webs, non-constant}. If true, this result would give a combinatorial interpretation of $R_{p,r}(k)$ for all $k \geq 0$ whenever $1 \leq r \leq p-2$. \begin{conjecture} \label{thm: sln webs, non-constant} For any $n \geq 3$ and any $1 \leq j \leq n-1$, $(n-2)^k R_{n-1,n-j}(k)$ equals the number of connected $sl_n$ webs that lack an internal cycle and have a boundary string consisting of one $j$ followed by $nk + n - j$ consecutive 1's. \end{conjecture} \bibliographystyle{amsplain}
\section{Introduction} In standard cosmology, large-scale perturbations stay unchanged throughout the Friedmann expansion that started after inflation, except for the last period before recombination when the Newtonian potential was suppressed, due to the transition from radiation to matter, by the factor 9/10 (see, for example, \cite{mukh}). The potential is not affected even by phase transitions and annihilations taking place in the hot universe, as long as the matter filling the universe can be regarded as ideal fluid. Among alternative scenarios considered in the literature there are some that relax that assumption, introducing a solid component of the universe formed in the early stage of Friedmann expansion \cite{{bs},{bbs},{bm1},{bm2},{bm},{bp},{kum}}. The solid is supposed to have negative pressure to energy density ratio $w$; in particular, it can consist of cosmic strings ($w = - 1/3$) or domain walls ($w = - 2/3$). Such matter starts to influence the dynamics of the universe at late times only and has no effect on the evolution of perturbations during the hot universe period. To obtain large-scale perturbations whose magnitude at recombination differs from their magnitude at the end of inflation, we need a solid with $w \ge 1/3$. A scenario with {\it radiation-like solid} ($w = 1/3$) was considered in \cite{bsk}, where it was shown that the solid produces an additional term in the gravitational potentials that can be large at the beginning but decays afterwards. If one introduces {\it stiff solid} ($w > 1/3$) instead, the character of the expansion of the universe changes for a limited period and a question arises whether this cannot cause a shift in the nondecaying part of the potentials, in analogy to what we observe in a universe filled with ideal fluid as it passes from one expansion regime to another due to a jump in $w$. If so, the incorporation of the solid into the theory, with the value of its shear modulus left free, would enlarge the interval of admissible values of the {\it primordial} potential, extending in such a way the parameter space of inflationary scenarios. A possible realization of stiff solid would be a system of equally charged particles with anisotropic short-range interaction. By using Yukawa potential, one obtains stiff {\it fluid} \cite{{zel},{wal}}; however, if the potential is squeezed in some direction and the particles are arranged into a lattice, the system acquires nonzero transversal as well as longitudinal sheer modulus with respect to that direction. In order that a solid, radiation-like or stiff, has an effect on large-scale perturbations, the solidification has to be {\it anisotropic}, producing a solid with flat internal geometry and nonzero shear stress. Such solidification might possibly take place in case the Friedmann expansion was preceded by {\it solid inflation}, driven by a solid with $w < 0$ rather than by a scalar field \cite{{gru},{end},{bar},{sit}}. In the paper we study how a stiff solid formed during Friedmann expansion would influence the evolution of large-scale perturbations. In section \ref{sec:pert} we derive solution for such perturbations in a one-component universe and establish matching conditions in a universe whose matter content has changed abruptly; in section \ref{sec:stiff} we determine the behavior of perturbations after the solid has been formed and find both nondecaying and decaying part of Newtonian potential after radiation prevailed again; and in section \ref{sec:con} we discuss the results. Signature of the metric tensor is $(+ - - - )$ and a system of units is used in which $c = 16\pi G = 1$. \section{Perturbations in the presence of solid} \label{sec:pert} \subsection{Evolution equations} Consider a flat FRWL universe filled with an elastic medium, fluid or solid, with energy density $\rho$ and pressure $p$, and denote the conformal time by $\eta$ and the scale parameter by $a$. Expansion of the universe is described by the equations \begin{equation} a' = \Bl\frac 16 \r a^4\Br^{1/2}, \quad \r' = - 3\H \r_+, \label{eq:Eeq} \end{equation} where the prime denotes differentiation with respect to $\eta$, $\H = a'/a$ and $\r_+ = \r + p$. In a perturbed universe, spacetime metric and stress-energy tensor acquire small space-depen\-dent corrections $\d g_{\mu \nu}$ and $\d T_{\mu \nu}$. We will use the {\it proper-time gauge} in which $\d g_{00} = 0$ (the cosmological time $t = \displaystyle \int a d\eta$ coincides with the proper time of local observers). The metric in this gauge is \begin{equation} ds^2\ \hat =\ a^2 [d\eta^2 + 2 B_{,i} d\eta dx^i - (\d_{ij} - 2\psi \d_{ij} - 2E_{,ij}) dx^i dx^j], \label{eq:ds2} \end{equation} where the effective equality indicates that only the scalar part of the quantity in question is given. Suppose the matter filling the universe has Euclidean internal geometry and contains no entropy perturbations. The perturbation to $T_{\mu \nu}$ is then given solely by the perturbation to $g_{\mu \nu}$ and the shift vector of matter $\bm \xi$. We will use the remaining gauge freedom to impose the condition $\bm {\xi} = 0$, so that our gauge will be also {\it comoving}. In this gauge, the perturbation of mass density $\d \r = \d {T_0}^0$, the energy flux density $S^i = - {T_i}^0$ and the perturbation of stress tensor $\d \tau^{ij} = \d {T_i}^j$ are \cite{bs} \begin{equation} \d \r = \r_+ (3\psi + \E), \quad S^i\ \hat =\ - \r_+ B_{,i}, \quad \d \tau^{ij}\ \hat =\ - K (3\psi + \E) \d_{ij} - 2\mu E_{,ij}^T. \label{eq:dT} \end{equation} where $K$ is the {\it compressional modulus}, $\mu$ is the {\it shear modulus} and the index `T' denotes the traceless part of the matrix. (Our $K$ is 2 times greater and our $\mu$ is 4 times greater than $K$ and $\mu$ in \cite{bs}. We have defined them so in order to be consistent with the standard definitions in Newtonian elasticity.) The proper-time gauge is not defined uniquely since one can shift the cosmological time by an arbitrary function $\d t({\bf x})$. Under such shift, $E$ stays unaltered and $B$ and $\psi$ transform as \begin{equation*} B \to B + \d \eta, \quad \psi \to \psi - \H \d \eta, \end{equation*} where $\d \eta = a^{-1} \d t$. This suggests that we represent $B$ and $\psi$ as \begin{equation} B = \B + \chi, \quad \psi = - \H \chi, \label{eq:Bps} \end{equation} where $\B$ stays unaltered by the time shift and $\chi$ transforms as $\chi \to \chi + \d \eta$. We will restrict ourselves to perturbations of the form of plane waves with the wave vector $\bf k$, $\B$ and $\E \propto e^{i{\bf k} \cdot {\bf x}}$. The action of the Laplacian then reduces to the multiplication by $- k^2$; in particular, the definition of $\E$ becomes $\E = - k^2 E$. For simplicity, we will suppress the factor $e^{i{\bf k} \cdot {\bf x}}$ in $\B$ and $\E$, as well as in other functions describing the perturbation. They will be regarded as functions of $\eta$ only. Evolution of scalar perturbations is governed by two differential equations of first order for the functions $\B$ and $\E$, coming from equations ${{T_i}^\mu}_{;\mu} = 0$ and $2G_{00} = T_{00}$. The equations are \cite{pol} \begin{equation} \B' = (3c_{S0}^2 + \a - 1)\H \B + c_{S\|}^2 \E, \quad \E' = - (k^2 + 3\a \H^2) \B - \a \H \E, \label{eq:dBdE} \end{equation} where $\a = \r_+/(2\H)^2 = (3/2) \r_+/\r$, $c_{S0}$ is the ``fluid'' sound speed (sound speed of the solid with suppressed contribution of shear modulus), $c_{S0}^2 = K/\r_+$, and $c_{S\|}$ is the longitudinal sound speed, $c_{S\|}^2 = c_{S0}^2 + (4/3) \mu/\r_+$. The only place where the shear modulus enters equations (\ref{eq:dBdE}) is the term $c_{S\|}^2 \E$ in the equation for $\B$. Consider a one-component universe filled with a solid that has both $p$ and $\mu$ proportional to $\r$. The quantity $K$ is then proportional to $\r$, too, since $K = \r_+ c_{S0}^2$ and $c_{S0}^2 = dp/d\r$. Mechanical properties of such solid are given completely by two dimensionless constants $w = p/\r$ and $\tm = \mu/\r$. To simplify formulas, we will often use the constant $\b = \mu/\r_+ = \tm/w_+$, where $w_+ = 1 + w$, instead of $\tm$. For constant $w$ and $\tm$, the quantities appearing in the equations for $\B$ and $\E$ are all constant, except for the Hubble parameter that is proportional to $\eta^{-1}$. Explicitly, \begin{equation*} \a = \frac 32 w_+, \quad c_{S0}^2 = w, \quad c_{S\|}^2 = w + \frac 43 \b \equiv \tw, \quad \H = 2u \eta^{-1}, \end{equation*} where $u = 1/(1 + 3w)$. With these expressions, equations for $\B$ and $\E$ simplify to \begin{equation} \B' = u (1 + 9w) \eta^{-1} \B + \tw \E, \quad \E' = - (k^2 + 18u^2 w_+ \eta^{-2}) \B - 3u w_+ \eta^{-1} \E, \label{eq:dBdEw} \end{equation} and after excluding $\E$, we arrive at an equation of second order for $\B$, \begin{equation} \B'' + 2v \eta^{-1} \B' + [q^2 - (2v - b)\eta^{-2}] \B = 0, \label{eq:ddB} \end{equation} where $q = \sqrt{\tw}k$, $v = u(1 - 3w)$ and $b = 24 u^2 \tm$. The equation is solved by Bessel functions of the argument $q\eta$, multiplied by a certain power of $\eta$. We are interested only in {\it large-scale perturbations}, that is, perturbations stretched far beyond the sound horizon. Such perturbations have $q\eta \ll 1$, hence we can skip the term $q^2$ in the square brackets in (\ref{eq:ddB}) to obtain \begin{equation} \B \doteq \eta (c_J \eta^{-m} + c_Y \eta^{-M}), \label{eq:asB} \end{equation} where the parameters $m$ and $M$ are defined in terms of the parameters $\nu = v + 1/2 = (3/2) u (1 - w)$ and $n = \sqrt{\nu^2 - b}$ as $m = \nu - n$ and $M = \nu + n$. The constants are denoted $c_J$ and $c_Y$ to remind us that the two terms in (\ref{eq:asB}) come from the Bessel functions $J$ and $Y$. The function $\B$ is non-oscillating for $b < \nu^2$ and oscillating for $b > \nu^2$. Solutions of the second kind are well defined if the solid was not present in the universe from the beginning, but was formed at a finite time. Here we will restrict ourselves to the solutions of the first kind, which means that we will consider only values of the dimensionless shear stress $\tm \le (3/32) (1 - w)^2$. An approximate expression for $\E$ is obtained by inserting the approximate expression for $\B$ into the first equation in (\ref{eq:dBdEw}). In this way we find \begin{equation} \E \doteq \hc_J \eta^{-m} + \hc_Y \eta^{- M}, \label{eq:asE} \end{equation} where $\hc_J$ and $\hc_Y$ are defined in terms of $c_J$ and $c_Y$ as $\hc_J = - (1/\tw) (3/2 - n) c_J$ and $\hc_Y = - (1/\tw) (3/2 + n) c_Y$. \subsection{Potentials $\Phi$ and $\Psi$} Scalar perturbations we are interested in are most easily interpreted in the {\it Newtonian gauge}, in which the metric is \begin{equation} ds^2\ \hat =\ a^2 [(1 + 2\Phi)d\eta^2 - (1 - 2\Psi) d{\bf x}^2]. \label{eq:ds2N} \end{equation} Let us express the potentials $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ in terms of the functions $\B$ and $\E$. If we perform explicitly the coordinate transformation from the proper-time to Newtonian gauge, we find (see equation (7.19) in \cite{mukh}) \begin{equation} \Psi = \H (\B - E'). \label{eq:Ps} \end{equation} For $\Phi$ we could proceed analogically, but it is simpler to use Einstein equations. If we write the scalar part of the stress tensor as a sum of pure trace and traceless part, $\tau^{ij}\ \hat =\ \tau^{(1)} \d_{ij} + {\tau^{(2)T}}_{\mbox{\hskip -3.5mm},ij}$, from equations $2G_{ij} = T_{ij}$ we obtain that the difference of $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ is given by the latter quantity (see equation (7.40) in \cite{mukh}), \begin{equation*} \dP \equiv \Phi - \Psi = \frac 12\tau^{(2)} a^2. \end{equation*} By inserting here from the third equation (\ref{eq:dT}) we find \begin{equation} \dP = - \mu a^2 E. \label{eq:DPh} \end{equation} We can see that in a universe filled with an ideal fluid ($\mu = 0$) the potentials $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ coincide. After inserting into the expression for $\Psi$ from the second equation in (\ref{eq:dBdE}) and into the expression for $\dP$ from the first equation in (\ref{eq:Eeq}), we arrive at \begin{equation} \Psi = - k^{-2}\a \H^2 (3 \H \B + \E), \quad \dP = 6\tm k^{-2} \H^2 \E. \label{eq:PP} \end{equation} For the one-component universe introduced before, expressions for $\Psi$ and $\dP$ become \begin{equation} \Psi = - 6u^2 w_+ (k\eta)^{-2}(6u \eta^{-1} \B + \E), \quad \dP = 24 u^2 \tm (k\eta)^{-2} \E. \label{eq:PPw} \end{equation} With $\B$ and $\E$ given in (\ref{eq:asB}) and (\ref{eq:asE}), both $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ are linear combinations of $\eta^{-2 - m}$ and $\eta^{-2 - M}$. For an ideal fluid $m = 0$ and $M = 2\nu$, so that we expect the function $\Phi$ to be linear combination of $\eta^{-2}$ and $\eta^{-2\nu_+}$, where $\nu_+ = 1 + \nu$. This is, however, not true because the coefficient in front of $\eta^{-2}$ turns out to be zero. Thus, if we want to establish how $\Phi$ looks like for an ideal fluid, or how $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ look like for a solid with small $\tm$, we must add the next-to-leading term to the $J$-part of both expressions (\ref{eq:asB}) and (\ref{eq:asE}). The term is suppressed by the factor $(q\eta)^2$, therefore the $J$-part of $\Phi$ for an ideal fluid is constant and the $J$-part of $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ for a solid with small $\tm$ acquires a term proportional to $\eta^{-m}$. For a universe filled with an ideal fluid we have \begin{equation} \B \doteq \eta (c_J + c_Y \eta^{-2\nu}), \quad \E \doteq \hc_J + \hc_Y \eta^{- 2\nu}, \label{eq:asBEf} \end{equation} where $\hc_J$ and $\hc_Y$ are defined in terms of $c_J$ and $c_Y$ as $\hc_J = - 6u c_J$ and $\hc_Y = - 3u (w_+/w) c_Y$. After computing the additional terms in $\B$ and $\E$ and inserting the resulting expressions into equations (\ref{eq:PPw}), we arrive at \begin{equation} \Phi \doteq C_J + C_Y \eta^{-2\nu_+}, \label{eq:asPf} \end{equation} where $C_J$ and $C_Y$ are defined in terms of $c_J$ and $c_Y$ as $C_J = 3u^2 (w_+/\nu_+) c_J$ and $C_Y =$ \linebreak $12u^2 w_+ \nu q^{-2} c_Y$. \subsection{Transitions with jump in $w$ and $\tm$} Suppose the functions $w_\eta$ and $\tm_\eta$ change at the given moment $\eta_{tr}$ (``transition time'') from $(w_I, \tm_I)$ to $(w_\I, \tm_\I) = (w_I + \D w, \tm_I + \D \tm)$. (We have attached the index $\eta$ to the symbols $w$ and $\tm$ in order to distinguish the functions denoted by them from the values these functions assume in a particular era.) Rewrite the first equation in (\ref{eq:dBdE}) as \begin{equation} \B' = c_{S0}^2 (3\H \B + \E) + \Bl\frac 32 w_{\eta +} - 1\Br\H \B + \frac 43 \b_\eta \E, \label{eq:Brew} \end{equation} where \begin{equation} c_{S0}^2 = \frac {dp}{d\r} = w_\eta + \r \frac {dw_\eta}{d\r}. \label{eq:cs02} \end{equation} Because of the jump in $w_\eta$, there appears $\d$-function in $c_{S0}^2$, and to account for it we must assume that $\B$ has a jump, too. However, on the right hand side of equation (\ref{eq:Brew}) we then obtain an expression of the form ``$\theta$-function$\tim \d$-function''; and if we rewrite $\B'$ as \begin{equation*} \B' = \frac {d\B}{d\r} \r' = - 3\H \r w_{\eta +} \frac {d\B}{d\r}, \end{equation*} on the left hand side there appears another such expression. To give meaning to the equation we must suppose that $w_\eta$ changes from $w_I$ to $w_\I$ within an interval of the length $\D \r \ll \r_{tr}$, and send $\D \r$ to zero in the end. If we retain just the leading terms in equation (\ref{eq:Brew}) in the interval with variable $w$, we obtain \begin{equation} w_{\eta +} \frac {d\B}{d\r} = -\Bl \B + \frac {\E_{tr}}{3\H_{tr}}\Br \frac {dw_\eta}{d\r}, \label{eq:Blead} \end{equation} where we have used the fact that, as seen from the second equation in (\ref{eq:dBdE}), the function $\E$ is continuous at $\eta = \eta_{tr}$. The solution is \begin{equation*} \B + \frac {\E_{tr}}{3\H_{tr}} = \frac \C{w_{\eta +}}. \end{equation*} Denote the jump of the function at the moment $\eta_s$ by square brackets. To determine $[\B]$, we express $\B_I$ and $\B_\I$ in terms of $w_{I +}$ and $w_{\I +}$, compute the difference $\B_\I - \B_I$ and use the expression for $\B_I$ to exclude $\C$. In this way we find \begin{equation} [\B] = - \frac {\D w}{w_{\I +}} \Bl \B_I + \frac {\E_{tr}}{3\H_{tr}} \Br. \label{eq:jB} \end{equation} Note that the same formula is obtained if we assume that the functions with jump are equal to the mean of their limits from the left and from the right at the point where the jump occurs. To justify the expression for $[\B]$, let us compute the jump in $\Psi$. It holds \begin{equation*} [\Psi] = - \frac 32 k^{-2} \H_{tr}^2 (3 \H_{tr} [w_{\eta+} \B] + \D w \E_{tr}), \end{equation*} and if we write $[w_{\eta+} \B] = w_{\I+} [\B] + \D w \B_I$ and insert for $[\B]$, we find that $[\Psi]$ vanishes. This must be so because for $\Psi$ we have (see equation (7.40) in \cite{mukh}) \begin{equation*} \Psi'' + \H (2\Psi' + \Phi') + (2\H' + \H^2) \Psi = - \frac 14\overline{\d \tau^{(1)}}, \end{equation*} where the bar indicates that the quantity $\d \tau^{(1)}$ is computed in Newtonian gauge. A jump in $\Psi$ would produce a derivative of $\d$-function in the first term, but no such expression with opposite sign appears in the other terms. The jump in $\B'$ can be found from equation (\ref{eq:Brew}) by computing the jump of the right hand side, with no need for the limiting procedure we have used when determining the jump in $\B$. The result is \begin{equation} [\B'] = 4 \frac {\D w}{w_{\I+}} \H_{tr} \B_{tr} + \Bl \frac {5 - 3w_\I}{6w_{\I+}} \D w + \frac 43 \D \b \Br \E_{tr}. \label{eq:jdB} \end{equation} \section{Scenario with stiff solid} \label{sec:stiff} \subsection{Expansion of the universe} Suppose at some moment $\eta_s$ the hot universe underwent a phase transition during which a part of radiation ($w = 1/3$) instantaneously turned into a stiff solid ($w > 1/3$). In a one-component universe with given parameter $w$, the density of matter falls down the faster the greater the value of $w$. As a result, if the solid acquired a substantial part of the energy of radiation at the moment it was formed, it dominated the evolution of the universe for a limited period until radiation took over again. Let us determine the function $a(\eta)$ for such universe. Denote the part of the total energy that remained stored in radiation after the moment $\eta_s$ by $\e$. In the period with pure radiation ($\eta < \eta_s$) the mass density was $\r = \r_s (a_s/a)^4$, so that from the first equation in (\ref{eq:Eeq}) we obtain \begin{equation} a = C \eta, \quad C = \Bl\frac 16 \r_s a_s^4\Br^{1/2}. \label{eq:arad} \end{equation} In the period with a mix of radiation and solid ($\eta > \eta_s$) the mass density is \begin{equation*} \r = \e \r_s (a_s/a)^4 + (1 - \e) \r_s (a_s/a)^{3w_+} = \r_s (a_s/a)^4 [\e + (1 - \e)(a_s/a)^\D], \end{equation*} where $\D = 3w_+ - 4$. As a result, the first equation in (\ref{eq:Eeq}) transforms into \begin{equation} a' = C [\e + (1 - \e)(a_s/a)^\D]^{1/2}. \label{eq:aseq} \end{equation} For $w > 1/3$ the parameter $\D$ is positive, therefore the second term eventually becomes less than the first term even if $\e \ll 1$. Suppose radiation retained less than one half of the total energy at the moment of radiation-to-solid transition ($\e < 1/2$). The subsequent expansion of the universe can be divided into two eras, solid-dominated and radiation-dominated, separated by the time $\eta_{rad}$ at which the mass densities of the solid and radiation were the same. The value of $\eta_{rad}$ is given by \begin{equation} a_{rad} = a_s (\e^{-1} - 1)^{1/\D}. \label{eq:aeq} \end{equation} Suppose now that the post-transitional share of energy stored in radiation was small ($\e \ll 1$). The universe then expands by a large factor between the times $\eta_s$ and $\eta_{rad}$, \begin{equation*} a_{rad} \doteq a_s \e^{-1/\D} \gg a_s, \end{equation*} and can be described in a good approximation as if it was filled first with pure solid and then with pure radiation. Thus, equation (\ref{eq:aseq}) can be replaced by \begin{equation} a' \doteq \bigg\{ \mbox{\hskip -2mm} \left. \begin{array} {l} C (a_s/a)^{\D/2} \mbox{ for } \eta < \eta_{rad}\\ \sqrt{\e}C \mbox{ for } \eta > \eta_{rad}\\ \end{array}\mbox{\hskip -1mm}. \right. \label{eq:aseqap} \end{equation} The solution is \begin{equation} a \doteq \bigg\{ \mbox{\hskip -2mm} \left. \begin{array} {l} \big[(\D/2 + 1) a_s^{\D/2} C\te\big]^{\frac 1{\D/2 + 1}} \mbox{ for } \eta < \eta_{rad}\\ \sqrt{\e} C \tte \mbox{ for } \eta > \eta_{rad}\\ \end{array}\mbox{\hskip -1mm}, \right. \label{eq:asap} \end{equation} where $\te$ and $\tte$ are shifted time variables, $\te = \eta - \eta_*$ and $\tte = \te - \eta_{**}$. From the approximate expression for $a_{rad}$ we obtain \begin{equation} \te_{rad} = \frac 1{\D/2 + 1} \e^{- \frac {\D/2 + 1}\D} \eta_s, \label{eq:eeq} \end{equation} and by matching the solutions at $\eta_s$ and $\eta_{rad}$ we find \begin{equation} \eta_* = \frac {\D/2}{\D/2 + 1} \eta_s, \quad \eta_{**} = - \frac \D2 \te_{rad}, \label{eq:eestar} \end{equation} Note that equation (\ref{eq:aseq}) solves analytically for $w = 2/3$ and $w = 1$, when $\D = 1$ and $\D = 2$. We do not give these solutions here since will not need them in what follows. The two equations in (\ref{eq:eestar}) can be rewritten to formulas for the ratios of shifted and unshifted times, \begin{equation*} \frac {\te_s}{\eta_s} = \frac 1{\D/2 + 1} = \frac u{u_0}, \quad \frac {\tte_{rad}}{\te_{rad}} = \frac \D2 + 1 = \frac {u_0}u, \end{equation*} where $u_0$ is the value of $u$ in the radiation-dominated era, $u_0 = 1/2$. These equations stay valid also after we replace radiation by an ideal fluid with an arbitrary pressure to energy density ratio $w_0$. To demonstrate that, let us derive them from the condition of continuity of the Hubble parameter. If the universe is filled in the given period with matter with the given value of $w$, its scale parameter depends on a suitably shifted time $\te$ as $a \propto \te^{2u}$. Thus, its Hubble parameter is $\H = 2u \te^{-1}$ and the requirement that $\H$ is continuous at the moment when $w$ changes from $w_I$ to $w_\I$ is equivalent to $\te_\I/\te_I = u_\I/u_I$. \subsection{Behavior of the function $\B$} We are interested in large-scale perturbations in a universe in which the parameters $w$ and $\tm$ assume values $(w_0, 0)$ before $\eta_s$, $(w, \tm)$ between $\eta_s$ and $\eta_{rad}$, and $(w_0, 0)$ after $\eta_{rad}$. (Most of the time we will leave $w_0$ free, only at the end we will put $w_0 = 1/3$.) Denote the functions describing the perturbation before $\eta_s$ and after $\eta_{rad}$ by the indices 0 and 1 respectively, and keep the functions referring to the interval between $\eta_s$ and $\eta_{rad}$ without index. If only the nondecaying part of the perturbation (the part with constant $\Phi$) survives at the moment $\eta_s$, the functions $\B_0$ and $\E_0$ can be replaced by their $J$-parts, \begin{equation} \B_0 = c_{J0} \eta, \quad \E_0 = \hc_{J0} = - 6u_0 c_{J0}. \label{eq:B0E0} \end{equation} For the functions $\B$ and $\E$ we have expressions (\ref{eq:asB}) and (\ref{eq:asE}) with $\eta$ replaced by $\te$ and for the function $\B_1$ we have the first equation (\ref{eq:asBEf}) with $c_J$ and $c_Y$ replaced by $c_{J1}$ and $c_{Y1}$, $\nu$ replaced by $\nu_0$ and $\eta$ replaced by $\tte$. All we need to obtain the complete description of the perturbation is to match the expressions for $\B_0$, $\B$ and $\B_1$ with the help of the expressions for $\E_0$ and $\E$ at the moments $\eta_s$ and $\eta_{rad}$. At the moment $\eta_s$, the jumps in $w_\eta$ and $\tm_\eta$ are $\D w_s = w - w_0 \equiv \D w$ and $\D \tm_s = \tm$. By using these values and the identity $\E_0 = -3\H_s \B_{0s}$, we find \begin{equation*} [\B]_s = 0, \quad [\B']_s = - \Bl \frac 12 \D w - \frac 43 \b \Br \E_0, \end{equation*} Denote $x_0 = c_{J0}$. Equations for the unknowns $\tx = c_J \te_s^{-m}$ and $\ty = c_Y \te_s^{-M}$ are \begin{equation} \tx + \ty = \frac {u_0}u x_0, \quad (1 - m) \tx + (1 - M) \ty = \BL 1 + 8u_0 \Bl \frac 38 \D w - \b \Br\BR x_0, \label{eq:tmatch} \end{equation} and their solution is \begin{equation} \tx = \frac {u_0}u \frac 1{2n} (M - 8u \b) x_0, \quad \ty = - \frac {u_0}u \frac 1{2n} (m - 8u \b) x_0. \label{eq:tsolxy} \end{equation} At the moment $\eta_{rad}$, the jumps in $w_\eta$ and $\tm_\eta$ are $\D w_{rad} = - \D w$ and $\D \b_{rad} = - \tm$. By inserting these values into the expressions for $[\B]$ and $[\B']$ we obtain \begin{equation*} [\B]_{rad} = \frac {\D w}{w_{0+}} \Bl \B_{rad} + \frac {\E_{rad}}{3\H_{rad}} \Br, \quad [\B']_{rad} = -4 \frac {\D w}{w_{0+}} \H_{rad} \B_{rad} - \Bl \frac {5 - 3w_0}{6w_{0+}} \D w + \frac 43 \b \Br \E_{rad}. \end{equation*} Introduce the constants \begin{equation} \tX = c_J \te_{rad}^{-m} = p^{-m} \tx, \quad \tY = c_Y \te_{rad}^{-M} = p^{-M} \ty, \label{eq:tXtY} \end{equation} where $p$ is the ratio of final and initial moments of the period during which the solid affects the dynamics of the universe, $p = \te_{rad}/\te_s$. Equations for the unknowns $\ttx = c_{J1}$ and $\tty = c_{Y1} \tte_{rad}^{-2\nu_0}$ are \begin{equation} \ttx + \tty = \frac u{u_0} (K_J\tX + K_Y\tY), \quad \ttx + (1 - 2\nu_0) \tty = L_J\tX + L_Y\tY, \label{eq:ttmatch} \end{equation} where the coefficients on the right hand side are defined as \begin{equation*} K_J = \frac 1{w_{0+}} \BL w_+ - \frac {\D w}{6u\tw} (m + 6uw) \BR, \quad K_Y = \mbox{ditto with } m \to M, \end{equation*} and \begin{equation*} L_J = 1 - m - \frac {8u\D w}{w_{0+}} + \frac {m + 6uw}{\tw} \Bl \frac{5 - 3w_0}{6w_{0+}} \D w + \frac 43 \tm \Br, \quad L_Y = \mbox{ditto with } m \to M, \end{equation*} The solution is \begin{equation} \ttx = \frac 1{2\nu_0} (M_J \tX + M_Y \tY). \quad \tty = - \frac 1{2\nu_0} (N_J \tX + N_Y \tY) \label{eq:ttxy} \end{equation} with the constants $M_\a$ and $N_\a$, $\a = J$, $Y$, defined in terms of the constants $L_\a$ and $K_\a$ as \begin{equation*} M_\a = L_\a - (1 - 2\nu_0) \frac u{u_0} K_\a, \quad N_\a = L_\a - \frac u{u_0} K_\a. \end{equation*} \subsection{Behavior of potentials} Knowing how the function $\B$ looks like, we can establish the time dependence of the Newtonian potential $\Phi$ and the potential describing the curvature of 3-space $\Psi$. Before the time $\eta_s$, both potentials are the same, $\Phi_0$ as well as $\Psi_0 = C_{J0} \sim x_0$. Between the times $\eta_s$ and $\eta_{rad}$, the potentials are given by the two equations in (\ref{eq:PPw}) with $\eta$ replaced by $\te$. With $\B$ and $\E$ inserted from equations (\ref{eq:asB}) and (\ref{eq:asE}), both $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ become sums of terms proportional to $\te^{-2 - m}$ and $\te^{-2 - M}$. We have already mentioned that for $\tm = 0$ the coefficient in the first term in $\Phi = \Psi$ is zero, and one easily verifies that for $w > 1/3$ and $\tm$ close to zero the first coefficient in both $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ is proportional to $\tm$. (After a simple algebra we find that it is proportional to $m(1 - 4\b) - 8\b$ and $m - 8u\b$ for $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ respectively, with $m$ reducing to $b/(2\nu) = 8uw_+\b/(1 - w)$ in the limit $\b \ll 1$.) The coefficients contain the constants $c_J$ and $c_Y$ and if we use $c_J \propto \tx$ and $c_Y \propto \ty$ with $\tx$ and $\ty$ given in equation (\ref{eq:tsolxy}), we find that the second coefficient is proportional to $\tm$, too. (In the expression for $\ty$ we encounter the factor $m - 8u\b$ again.) Both coefficients contain also the factor $x_0 \sim \Pz$, therefore for $\eta$ close to $\eta_s$ we have $\Phi$ as well as $\Psi \sim \tm (k \te)^{-2} \Pz$. As $\eta$ grows, the first correction to the term proportional to $\te^{-2 - m}$, which is of order $\Pz$, may take over while the perturbation still remains stretched over the horizon. However, in order that our approximation is valid, this term must be negligible in the first period after the moment $\eta_s$. (Note that this does not hold for the potential $\Psi$ just after $\eta_s$: it equals $\Pz$ at $\eta_s$, hence it is dominated by the correction term for a short period afterwards.) As a result, $\tm$ must be not {\it too} close to zero, $\tm \gg (k \te_s)^2$. For large enough $\tm$, $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ can become much greater in absolute value not only than $\Pz$, but also than 1. The theory then seems to collapse, but it does not because, as can be checked by direct computation, $kB$, $\psi$ and $\E$ remain much less than 1. (A detailed discussion for $\D w = 0$ can be found in \cite{bsk0}.) Thus, the proper-time comoving gauge which we have implemented instead of more common, and intuitively more appealing, Newtonian gauge, is not only convenient computationally, but also preferable on principal grounds. Without it we would not know that the perturbations stay small and the linearized theory stays applicable after a solid with above-critical parameter $\tm$ was formed, causing the potentials $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ to rise beyond control. We are interested in the potential $\Phi$ after the moment $\eta_{rad}$, when both potentials coincide again. Denote the nondecaying part of $\Phi$ in that period as $\Po$. It holds $\Po = C_{J1}$, and by using the relation between $C_J$ and $c_J$ we obtain \begin{equation} \Po = 3u_0^2 \frac {w_{0+}}{\nu_{0+}} \ttx. \label{eq:P10} \end{equation} Here we must insert for $\ttx$ from equation (\ref{eq:ttxy}), with $\tX$ and $\tY$ given in equation (\ref{eq:tXtY}), $\tx$ and $\ty$ given in equation (\ref{eq:tsolxy}) and $x_0$ given by \begin{equation*} \Pz = 3u_0^2 \frac {w_{0+}}{\nu_{0+}} x_0. \end{equation*} The resulting expression for $\Po$ is \begin{equation} \Po = \frac 1{2\nu_0} \frac {u_0}u \frac 1{2n} (\hM_J p^{-m} - \hM_Y p^{-M}) \Pz, \label{eq:P1} \end{equation} with the coefficients $\hM_J$ and $\hM_Y$ defined as \begin{equation*} \hM_J = M_J (M - 8u \b), \quad \hM_Y = M_Y (m - 8u \b). \end{equation*} After some algebra the coefficients reduce to \begin{equation} \hM_J = 2\nu_0 \frac u{u_0} M - b, \quad \hM_Y = \mbox{ditto with } M \to m. \label{eq:MJMY} \end{equation} Let us now determine how fast the function $\Phi$ approaches its limit value. Denote $\ttz = q_0 \tte$, where $q_0 = \sqrt{w_0} k$. The decaying part of $\Phi$ in the period under consideration is \begin{equation} \D \Phi_1 = -2\nu_{0+} \frac {u_0}u \frac 1{2n} (\hN_J p^{-m} - \hN_Y p^{-M}) \ttz_{rad}^{-2} \z^{-2 \nu_{0+}} \Pz, \label{eq:DP1} \end{equation} where $\z$ is rescaled time normalized to 1 at the moment $\eta_{rad}$, $\z = \tte/\tte_{rad}$, and the coefficients $\hN_J$ and $\hN_Y$ are defined in terms of $N_J$ and $N_Y$ in the same way as the coefficients $\hM_J$ and $\hM_Y$ in terms of $M_J$ and $M_Y$. After rewriting the former coefficients similarly as we did with the latter ones, we obtain \begin{equation} \hN_J = \hN_Y = -\frac {w_0}{w_{0+}} 2b. \label{eq:NJNY} \end{equation} From these equations and equations (\ref{eq:P1}) and (\ref{eq:MJMY}) we find that the ratio of the decaying and nondecaying part of $\Phi$ at the moment of solid-to-radiation transition is \begin{equation} \left. \frac {\Delta \Phi_1}{\Po} \right|_{rad} = R \ttz_{rad}^{-2}, \quad R = 4\nu_{0} \nu_{0+} \frac {w_0}{w_{0+}} \frac{2u_0 b}{2\nu_0 u [n \coth (n \log p) + \nu] - u_0 b}. \label{eq:Rrad} \end{equation} The ratio is greater than one for $\b \gtrsim \ttz_{rad}^2$. The function $\Phi$ is then dominated by the decaying term at the moment $\eta_{rad}$, the nondecaying term taking over later, at the moment $\eta_{nd}$ given by \begin{equation} \ttz_{nd} = R^{\frac 1{2\nu_{0+}}} \ttz_{rad}^{1 - \frac 1{\nu_{0+}}}. \label{eq:zdec} \end{equation} The exponent at $\ttz_{rad}$ is positive for any $w_0 < 1$ (it equals 1/3 for $w_0 = 1/3$) and the constant $R$ is of order 1 or less. Thus, if the perturbation was stretched over the horizon at the moment the fluid originally filling the universe started to be dominating again ($\ttz_{rad} \ll 1$), it will stay so at the moment the nondecaying term prevails over the decaying one ($\ttz_{nd} \ll 1$). The time $\eta_{rad}$ must not be too close to the time of recombination $\eta_{re}$, if the spectrum of large-angle CMB anisotropies is not to be tilted too much. If we denote the wave number of perturbations crossing the sound horizon at recombination as $k^\0$, the perturbations with the longest wavelength that can be observed in CMB have $k \sim 0.01 k^\0$. For $w_0 = 1/3$, Newtonian potential after the moment $\eta_{rad}$ is $\Phi_1 = (1 + R \ttz_{rad}^{-2} \z^3) \Po = (1 + R \ttz_{rad} \ttz^{-3}) \Po$, and if we take into account that the value of $\ttz^\0_{re}$ is approximately 1, we find \begin{equation*} r \equiv \left. \frac {\Phi_1 (k^\0)}{\Phi_1 (0.01 k^\0)} \right|_{re} = \frac {1 + R \ttz_{rad}^\0}{1 + 10^4 R \ttz_{rad}^\0} \doteq 1 - 10^4 R \ttz_{rad}^\0. \end{equation*} The observational value of $r$ is 0.01$^{n_S - 1}$, where $n_S$ is the {\it scalar spectral index}, a characteristic of perturbations whose deviation from 1 (about $-0,04$ according to observations) describes the tilt of the scalar spectrum. If we allow for a tilt of the primordial spectrum, too, the expression for $r$ must be multiplied by 0.01$^{n_{S0} - 1}$. Denote $p_* = 1/\ttz_{rad}^\0 = \tte_{re}/\tte_{rad} = a_{re}/a_{rad} = T_{rad}/T_{re}$ and require that $n_S$ differs from $n_{S0}$ at most by some $\D n_S \ll 1$. To ensure that, $p_*$ must satisfy \begin{equation} p_* > 2 \times 10^3 R \D n_S^{-1}. \end{equation} For numerical calculations we need the value of $p$. It is a ratio of {\it times}, but can be rewritten in terms of a ratio of {\it scale parameters} or {\it temperatures}, $P = a_{rad}/a_s = T_s/T_{rad}$, as \begin{equation} p = P^{\frac 1{2u}}. \label{eq:pP} \end{equation} The value of $p$, or equivalently, $P$, determines the interval of admissible $w$'s. To obtain it, note that for $w_0 = 1/3$ equation (\ref{eq:aeq}) yields $P = (\e^{-1} - 1)^{1/\D} \doteq \e^{-1/\D}$, or \begin{equation} P \doteq \e^{- \frac 1{3\D w}}. \label{eq:Papp} \end{equation} (This is consistent with equation (\ref{eq:eeq}), which can be rewritten as $p = \e^{- \frac {\D/2 + 1}\D} = \e^{- \frac 1{6u\D w}}$.) Thus, the jump in the parameter $w$ for the given ratio $P$ must satisfy \begin{equation} \D w \doteq \frac {\log 1/\e}{3 \log P} \gtrsim \frac 1{3\log P}. \label{eq:Dw} \end{equation} The dependence of the quantities $\phi = \Po/\Pz$ and $R$ on the parameter $\b$ is depicted in fig.~1. \begin{figure}[ht] \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{stiff.eps}} \centerline{\parbox {13.5cm}{\caption{\small Final value of Newtonian potential in a universe with stiff solid (left) and normalized ratio of decaying to nondecaying part of the potential at solid-to-radiation transition (right), plotted as functions of dimensionless shear modulus}}} \label{fig:PP0} \end{figure} The values of $w_0$ and $w$ are 1/3 and 2/3 on both panels and the solid and dotted lines correspond to $P = 10^3$ and $P = 10^{13}$ respectively. The lines are terminated at $\b = 1/160$, which is the maximum value of $\b$ admitting non-oscillating solutions in a solid with $w = 2/3$. For completeness, we have included also values $\b < 0$ into the graphs. The transversal sound speed squared is negative for such $\b$, so that the vector perturbations start to grow exponentially once they have appeared. As a result, the theory is acceptable only if such perturbations are produced neither during inflation (which is the case in simplest models) nor in the subsequent phase transitions. The parameter $P$ assumes the smaller value if, for example, the solid dominated the dynamics of the universe between the electroweak and confinement scale, and the greater value, if the solid was formed as soon as at the GUT scale and dominated the dynamics of the universe up to the electroweak scale. Unless the parameter $w$ of the solid is close to that of radiation, the fraction of energy which remains stored in radiation after the solid has been formed must be quite small in the former case and very small in the latter case. For $w = 2/3$ this fraction equals $1/P$, so that for the greater $P$ the mechanism of the radiation-to-solid transition must transfer to the solid all but one part in 10 trillions of the energy of radiation. The quantity $\phi$ is the factor by which the value of the potential $\Phi$ changes due to the presence of stiff solid in the early universe. From the left panel of fig. 1 we can see that $\Phi$ is shifted upwards for $\b < 0$ and downwards for $\b > 0$, and the enhancement factor decreases monotonically with $\b$, the steeper the larger the value of $P$. For maximum $\b$ the function $\Phi$ is suppressed by the factor 0.41 if $P = 10^3$ and by the factor 0.004 if $P = 10^{13}$. The quantity $R$ determines, together with the parameter $\D n_S$, the minimal duration of the period between the moment when radiation took over again and recombination. According to the right panel of fig. 1, the temperature at the beginning of this period had to be at least $8 \times 10^3 \D n_S^{-1} T_{re} \doteq 0.2\ (\D n_S/0.01)^{-1}$ MeV for maximum $\b$ and $P = 10^3$. \section{Conclusion} \label{sec:con} We have studied a scenario with stiff solid appearing in the hot universe and dominating the evolution of the universe during a limited period before recombination. In comparison with the scenario containing radiation-like solid \cite{bsk}, a new effect is that the nondecaying part of Newtonian potential becomes suppressed. This might raise hope that the tensor-to-scalar ratio is enhanced, which would surely be interesting from the observational point of view. However, a straightforward calculation shows that the tensor perturbations are suppressed by exactly the same factor as the scalar ones. The shift in Newtonian potential towards less values means that the rms of primordial potential was in fact greater than supposed. As a result, there appears an additional freedom in the choice of the parameters of inflaton potential; for example, one can use potentials with smaller inclination of the plateau than in the case without solid when implementing slow-roll inflation.
\section{Extensions} \textbf{(I) Hybrid vertices with out-degree 1} Some papers (such as \cite{nak05}, \cite{mor04}, \cite{crv09}) require that in a network every hybrid vertex $v$ has out-degree 1. If $c$ is the unique child of $v$, then $cl(v)=cl(c)$, and the network cannot be distinct-cluster. The results in this paper may nevertheless apply to such networks as follows. A \emph{hybrid out-degree-1} $X$-network $N$ is $N=(V,E,r,X)$ where $(V,E)$ is a finite acyclic directed network with root $r$ and leaf set $X$ which satisfies that every hybrid vertex $v$ has out-degree 1. Let $H_{o1}(X)$ denote the collection of hybrid out-degree-1 $X$-networks. Given $N\in H_{o1}(X)$, form a new network as the result of contracting each edge between a hybrid vertex and its unique child. More specifically, given a hybrid vertex $v$ with parents $q_1, q_2, \cdots, q_k$ and a unique child $c$ let $V'=V-\{v\}$ and $E'=[E-\{(q_1,v),\cdots, (q_k,v), (v,c)\}] \cup \{(q_1,c),\cdots, (q_k,c)\}$. Thus the hybrid vertex has been replaced by its former child, which is now hybrid with in-degree $k$. No member of $X$ is deleted, so that $(V',E')$ is easily seen to be a finite acyclic directed network with root $r$ and leaf set $X$. It is possible that a hybrid vertex is now a leaf. If this procedure is used recursively until there are no more hybrid vertices with out-degree 1, we obtain a network we shall call the \emph{derivative of N with non-unit hybrid out-degree } and denote $H_{o\neq1}(N)$. The order of the various deletions do not affect the resulting network. Conversely, suppose $N=(V,E,r,X)$ satisfies that $(V,E)$ is a finite acyclic directed network with root $r$ and leaf set $X$ but no hybrid vertex has out-degree 1. We may construct a new network in which every hybrid vertex has out-degree 1 by reversing the previous procedure. More specifically, if $v$ is hybrid with parents $q_1, \cdots,q_k$ and out-degree either 0 or greater than 1, we insert a new vertex $w$, remove the arcs $(q_1,v), \cdots, (q_k,v)$ and add new arcs $(w,v)$ and $(q_1,w),\cdots,(q_k,w)$. Note that now $w$ is hybrid with out-degree 1 because it has a unique child $v$. If $v\in X$ then $v$ remains in $X$ after the construction. We perform this procedure until all hybrid vertices have out-degree 1. Call the result the \emph{derivative of N with unit hybrid out-degree} and denote it $H_{o1}(N)$. It is straightforward to see that if $N \in H_{o1}(X)$, then $H_{o1}(H_{o\neq1}(N))$ is isomorphic with $N$. The argument uses that there is a one-to-one correspondence between hybrid vertices of $N$ and hybrid vertices of $H_{o\neq1}(N)$, while every hybrid vertex of $N$ has out-degree 1. A network $N \in H_{o1}(X)$ is \emph{extended distinct-cluster} if $H_{o\neq1}(N)$ is distinct-cluster. Roughly, $N$ is extended distinct-cluster when distinct vertices have different clusters, except that a hybrid and its unique child are allowed to have the same cluster. Let $DC_{o1}(X)$ denote the set of extended distinct-cluster networks. For $N_1$ and $N_2$ in $DC_{o1}(X)$ define $$D_{o1}(N_1,N_2) = D(H_{o\neq1}(N_1), H_{o\neq1}(N_2)).$$ The definition makes sense since $H_{o\neq1}(N_1)$ and $H_{o\neq1}(N_2)$ are in $DC(X)$. \begin{thm} $D_{o1}$ is a metric on $DC_{o1}(X)$. \end{thm} \begin{proof} Suppose $D_{o1}(N_1,N_2)=0.$ By definition $D(H_{o\neq1}(N_1), H_{o\neq1}(N_2))=0$, so that $H_{o\neq1}(N_1) = H_{o\neq1}(N_2)$ because $D$ is a metric on $DC(X).$ But then $N_1 = H_{o1}(H_{o\neq1}(N_1)) = H_{o1}(H_{o\neq1}(N_2)) = N_2$. The other properties of a metric are immediate. \end{proof} \textbf{(II) Use of $p$-norms} The construction of the metric $D$ in section 4 can be easily generalized. For $p \geq 1$ let $|| . ||_p$ denote the $p$-norm for an $m\times m$ matrix $M$ regarded as being in $\mathbb{R}^{m^2}$. Thus $$||M||_p = \Big[\sum [|M_{u,v}|^p: 1 \leq u, v \leq m] \Big]^{1/p}.$$ Let $N_1$ and $N_2$ be in $DC(X)$. Let $C$ be a set of $X$-clusters containing all clusters of $N$ and $N'$. Our definition of the inheritance distance between $N$ and $N'$ is equivalent to $_CD(N,N') := ||_CH - \,_CH' ||_1$ and $D(N,N') = \,_CD(N,N')$ for any such $C$. By analogy we may define $_CD_p(N,N') := ||\,_CH - \,_CH' ||_p$ and then define the \emph{$p$-norm inheritance distance} between $N$ and $N'$ by $D_p(N,N') = \,_CD_p(N,N')$ for any such $C$. By an argument like that of Lemma 4.1, the result is the same for any $C$ containing the clusters of both $N$ and $N'$. Note that $D_p(N,N') $ will be the $p$-th root of an integer. In the example of Section 8, $D_2(N,N(5,8))= \sqrt{15}$. \begin{comment} \textbf{(III) Open problems } One natural problem is, given $N\in DC(X)$ and a number $M$ to determine the number of $N'\in DC(X)$ with $D(N,N') \leq M$. Another is to find the maximum possible value of $D(N,N')$; at the end of Section 4 is a conjectured answer. \end{comment} \textbf{Acknowledgments.} We wish to thank the anonymous referees whose recommendations provided substantial improvements to this paper.
\section{Introduction}\label{sec1} \subsection{Motivation and main results}\label{subsec1P1} In the author's preprint \cite{Bor15a}, we studied how having an automorphism with a \enquote{long} cycle restricts the structure of finite groups. One of the main results was that a finite group $G$ with an automorphism one of whose cycles has length greater than $\frac{1}{2}|G|$ is necessarily abelian. For proving these (and other) results, it turned out to be fruitful to study not only largest possible cycle lengths of automorphisms of finite groups $G$, but also of a more general type of bijective self-transformations, namely maps $\A_{g_0,\alpha}:G\rightarrow G$ of the form $g\mapsto g_0\alpha(g)$ for some fixed $g_0\in G$ and automorphism $\alpha$ of $G$. We called these maps \textit{periodic (left-)affine maps of $G$}. Although most of the techniques introduced in \cite{Bor15a} work under weaker assumptions as well, one important idea (that an automorphism cycle, in a finite group $G$ with $|G|\geq 3$, of length at least $\frac{1}{2}|G|$ must intersect with its pointwise inverse) makes explicit use of the fraction $\frac{1}{2}$, and it is not clear how one could derive similar results under the assumption that $G$ have an automorphism cycle of length at least, say, $\frac{1}{3}|G|$. We will tackle this problem here by studying consequences of conditions on finite groups $G$ of the form \enquote{$G$ has an automorphism cycle of length at least $\rho|G|$} (\enquote{first kind}) and \enquote{$G$ has a periodic affine map cycle of length at least $\rho|G|$} (\enquote{second kind}) for some fixed $\rho\in\left(0,1\right)$, and also of the form \enquote{$G$ has an automorphism cycle of length at least $|G|^e$} (\enquote{third kind}) and \enquote{$G$ has a periodic affine map cycle of length at least $|G|^e$} (\enquote{fourth kind}) for some fixed $e\in\left(0,1\right)$. Our main results, all of which rely on the classification of finite simple groups (CFSG), are as follows: \begin{theoremm}\label{mainTheo1} Let $\rho\in\left(0,1\right)$ be fixed, let $G$ be a finite group, and denote by $\Rad(G)$ the solvable radical of $G$. Then: \noindent (1) If $G$ has an automorphism cycle of length at least $\rho|G|$, then $[G:\Rad(G)]\leq\rho^{E_1}$, where $E_1=-1.778151\ldots$. \noindent (2) If $G$ has a periodic affine map cycle of length at least $\rho|G|$, then $[G:\Rad(G)]\leq\rho^{E_2}$, where $E_2=-5.906890\ldots$. \end{theoremm} So finite groups satisfying a condition of one of the first two forms are \enquote{not too far from being solvable}. An interesting question is for which values of $\rho$ such a condition actually implies solvability. Note that by \cite[Theorem 1.1.7]{Bor15a}, for conditions of the first form, this is the case whenever $\rho>\frac{1}{2}$. However, since solvability is a weaker condition than abelianity, one may hope to be able to do better, and actually, we will prove: \begin{corrollary}\label{mainCor} Let $G$ be a finite group. \noindent (1) If $G$ has an automorphism cycle of length greater than $\frac{1}{10}|G|$, then $G$ is solvable. On the other hand, the alternating group $\Alt_5$ has an automorphism cycle of length $6=\frac{1}{10}|\A_5|$. \noindent (2) If $G$ has a periodic affine map cycle of length greater than $\frac{1}{4}|G|$, then $G$ is solvable. On the other hand, $\Alt_5$ has a periodic affine map cycle of length $15=\frac{1}{4}|\Alt_5|$. \end{corrollary} As for the conditions of the third and fourth kind mentioned above, we cannot expect results as strong as Theorem \ref{mainTheo1} (see the discussion after Lemma \ref{fdsLcmLem}), but we have the following: \begin{theoremm}\label{mainTheo2} (1) Let $\epsilon>0$ be fixed. Then for every $\xi>0$, there exists a constant $K(\epsilon,\xi)$ such that for all finite groups $G$ having an automorphism cycle of length at least $|G|^{\frac{1}{3}+\epsilon}$, we have $[G:\Rad(G)]\leq\max(K(\epsilon,\xi),|G|^{1-\frac{3}{2}\epsilon+\xi})$. In particular, under a condition of the third kind with $e:=\frac{1}{3}+\epsilon$, for all $\xi>0$, we have $|G|^{\frac{3}{2}\epsilon-\xi}=o(|\Rad(G)|)$ for $|G|\to\infty$. \noindent (2) Let $\epsilon>0$ be fixed. Then for every $\xi>0$, there exists a constant $K_{\aff}(\epsilon,\xi)$ such that for all finite groups $G$ having a periodic affine map cycle of length at least $|G|^{\frac{2}{3}+\epsilon}$, we have $[G:\Rad(G)]\leq\max(K_{\aff}(\epsilon,\xi),|G|^{1-3\epsilon+\xi})$. In particular, under a condition of the fourth kind with $e:=\frac{2}{3}+\epsilon$, for all $\xi>0$, we have $|G|^{3\epsilon-\xi}=o(|\Rad(G)|)$ for $|G|\to\infty$. \noindent (3) There exists a sequence $(G_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ of finite groups $G_n$ such that $|\Rad(G_n)|=1$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $|G_n|\to\infty$ for $n\to\infty$, and for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $G_n$ has an automorphism cycle of length greater than $|G_n|^{\frac{1}{3}}$ and a periodic affine map cycle of length greater than $|G_n|^{\frac{2}{3}}$. \end{theoremm} We remark that we can and will give explicit definitions for $K(\epsilon,\xi)$, $K_{\aff}(\epsilon,\xi)$ and the sequence $(G_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$, see the proof of Theorem \ref{mainTheo2} at the end of Section \ref{sec3}. \subsection{Outline}\label{subsec1P2} In Section \ref{sec2}, we present the technical tools needed for proving our main results, some of which were already introduced in \cite{Bor15a} and are therefore given without proof here. None of them make use of the CFSG. It turns out that using (part of) these tools, the proof of all of the main results can be reduced to the proof of one technical lemma, namely Lemma \ref{mainLem}, which we will call the \enquote{main lemma}. It is a statement about maximum cycle lengths of automorphisms and of periodic affine maps of finite nonabelian characteristically simple groups, and its proof will use the CFSG. Section \ref{sec3} shows how the main lemma implies all the main results, and Section \ref{sec4} consists of the proof of the main lemma. \subsection{Notation and terminology}\label{subsec1P3} For the readers' convenience, we explain those parts of our notation that may be nonstandard. We denote by $\mathbb{N}$ the set of natural numbers (von Neumann ordinals, including $0$), and by $\mathbb{N}^+$ the set of positive integers. The image of a set $M$ under a function $f$ is denoted by $f[M]$. The identity function on a set $M$ is denoted by $\id_M$, and the symmetric group on $M$ is denoted by $\Sym_M$, except when $M$ is a natural number $n$, in which case we set $\Sym_n:=\Sym_{\{1,\ldots,n\}}$. Similarly, for a natural number $n$, $\Alt_n$ is the alternating group on $\{1,\ldots,n\}$. Let $G$ be a group. For an element $r\in G$, we denote by $\tau_r:G\rightarrow G,g\mapsto rgr^{-1}$ the inner automorphism of $G$ with respect to $r$. The centralizer and normalizer of a subset $X\subseteq G$ are denoted by $\C_G(X)$ and $\N_G(X)$ respectively. As in Theorems \ref{mainTheo1} and \ref{mainTheo2}, $\Rad(G)$ denotes the solvable radical of $G$. For linguistical simplicity, we will frequently use the following notation, see also \cite[Definitions 1.1.1, 2.1.1 and 2.1.2]{Bor15a} as well as \cite{GMPS15a}: \begin{deffinition}\label{lambdaDef} (1) Let $\psi$ be a permutation of a finite set $X$. We denote by $\Lambda(\psi)$ the maximum length of one of the disjoint cycles into which $\psi$ decomposes, and set $\lambda(\psi):=\frac{1}{|X|}\Lambda(\psi)$. \noindent (2) For a finite group $G$, we set $\Lambda(G):=\max_{\alpha\in\Aut(G)}{\Lambda(\alpha)}$ and $\lambda(G):=\frac{1}{|G|}\Lambda(G)$. \noindent (3) For a finite group $G$, the group of periodic left-affine maps of $G$ is denoted by $\Aff(G)$. We set $\Lambda_{\aff}(G):=\max_{A\in\Aff(G)}{\Lambda(A)}$ and $\lambda_{\aff}(G):=\frac{1}{|G|}{\Lambda_{\aff}(G)}$. \noindent (4) For a finite group $G$, we denote by $\meo(G)$ the maximum element order of $G$ and set $\mao(G):=\meo(\Aut(G))$, the maximum automorphism order of $G$. \end{deffinition} We also use some notation and terminology from the theory of finite dynamical systems: \begin{deffinition}\label{fdsDef} (1) A \textbf{finite dynamical system}, abbreviated henceforth by \textbf{FDS}, is a finite set $X$ together with a map $f:X\rightarrow X$ (a so-called \textbf{self-transformation of $X$}). It is called \textbf{periodic} if and only if $f$ is bijective. \noindent (2) If $(X_1,f_1),\ldots,(X_r,f_r)$ are FDSs, their \textbf{product} is defined as the FDS $(X_1\times\cdots\times X_r,f_1\times\cdots\times f_r)$, where $f_1\times\cdots\times f_r$ is the self-transformation of $X_1\times\cdots\times X_r$ mapping $(x_1,\ldots,x_r)\mapsto(f_1(x_1),\ldots,f_r(x_r))$. \noindent (3) If $(X,\psi)$ is a periodic FDS and $x\in X$, we denote the length of the cycle of $x$ under $\psi$ by $\cl_{\psi}(x)$. \end{deffinition} Finally, in this paper, $\exp$ mostly denotes the exponent of a group, although in the definition of $\Psi$ in Subsection \ref{subsec2P4}, it denotes the natural exponential function. $\log$ always denotes the natural logarithm, and for $c>1$, the logarithm with base $c$ is denoted by $\log_c$. \section{Some tools}\label{sec2} \subsection{Lemmata concerning maximum cycle lengths}\label{subsec2P1} Lemma \ref{fdsLcmLem} below was used in the proof of \cite[Lemma 2.1.6]{Bor15a}, of which Lemma \ref{productLem} is a part. \begin{lemmma}\label{fdsLcmLem} Let $(X_1,\psi_1),\ldots,(X_r,\psi_r)$ be periodic FDSs, and let $x=(x_1,\ldots,x_r)\in X_1\times\cdots\times X_r$. Then $\cl_{\psi_1\times\cdots\times\psi_r}(x)=\lcm(\cl_{\psi_1}(x_1),\ldots,\cl_{\psi_r}(x_r))$. In particular, $\Lambda(\psi_1\times\cdots\times\psi_r)\leq\Lambda(\psi_1)\cdots\Lambda(\psi_r)$.\qed \end{lemmma} We remark that by Lemma \ref{fdsLcmLem}, any condition on finite groups $G$ of the form $\lambda(G)\geq f(|G|)$, where $f:\mathbb{N}^+\rightarrow\left[0,1\right]$ is such that $f(n)\to 0$ for $n\to\infty$, is not strong enough to imply that the index $[G:\Rad(G)]$ is bounded from above. Indeed, under such a condition, any finite group $G_0$ (in particular, any nonabelian finite simple group $G_0$) may occur as a direct factor of $G$. To see this, let $p$ be a prime which is so large that $f(p|G_0|)\leq\frac{1}{2|G_0|}$. Considering the product automorphism $\id_{G_0}\times\alpha$ of $G:=G_0\times\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}$, where $\alpha\in\Aut(\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z})$ is the multiplication by any primitive root modulo $p$, it is not difficult to see by Lemma \ref{fdsLcmLem} that \[\lambda(G)\geq\lambda(\id_{G_0}\times\alpha)=\frac{p-1}{p|G_0|}=(1-\frac{1}{p})\cdot\frac{1}{|G_0|}\geq\frac{1}{2|G_0|}\geq f(|G|).\] As in \cite{Bor15a}, we say that a family $(G_i)_{i\in I}$ of groups has the \textit{splitting property} if and only if for every automorphism $\alpha$ of $\prod_{i\in I}{G_i}$, there exists a family $(\alpha_i)_{i\in I}$ such that $\alpha_i$ is an automorphism of $G_i$ for $i\in I$, and $\alpha((g_i)_{i\in I})=(\alpha_i(g_i))_{i\in I}$ for all $(g_i)_{i\in I}\in\prod_{i\in I}{G_i}$. \begin{lemmma}\label{productLem} Let $(G_1,\ldots,G_r)$ be a tuple of finite groups with the splitting property. Then: \noindent (1) $\Lambda(G_1\times\cdots\times G_r)\leq\Lambda(G_1)\cdots\Lambda(G_r)$. \noindent (2) For every periodic affine map $A$ of $G_1\times\cdots\times G_r$, there exists a tuple $(A_1,\ldots,A_r)$ such that $A_i\in\Aff(G_i)$ for $i=1,\ldots,r$ and $A=A_1\times\cdots\times A_r$. In particular, $\Lambda_{\aff}(G_1\times\cdots\times G_r)\leq\Lambda_{\aff}(G_1)\cdots\Lambda_{\aff}(G_r)$.\qed \end{lemmma} The following is a part of \cite[Lemma 2.1.4]{Bor15a}: \begin{lemmma}\label{transferLem} Let $G$ be a finite group, $N$ a characteristic subgroup of $G$. Then: \noindent (1) $\Lambda(G)\leq\Lambda_{\aff}(N)\cdot\Lambda(G/N)$, or equivalently, $\lambda(G)\leq\lambda_{\aff}(N)\cdot\lambda(G/N)$. In particular, $\lambda(G/N)\geq\lambda(G)$. \noindent (2) $\Lambda_{\aff}(G)\leq\Lambda_{\aff}(N)\cdot\Lambda_{\aff}(G/N)$, or equivalently, $\lambda_{\aff}(G)\leq\lambda_{\aff}(N)\cdot\lambda_{\aff}(G/N)$. In particular, $\lambda_{\aff}(G)\leq\min(\lambda_{\aff}(N),\lambda_{\aff}(G/N))$.\qed \end{lemmma} We will now prove some more results that are useful for the study of $\Lambda_{\aff}$-values of finite groups. For a more concise formulation, we define: \begin{deffinition}\label{shiftDef} Let $G$ be a finite group, $x\in G$, $\alpha$ an automorphism of $G$, $n\in\mathbb{N}^+$. \noindent (1) The element $\sh_{\alpha}^{(n)}(x):=x\alpha(x)\cdots\alpha^{n-1}(x)\in G$ is called the \textbf{$n$-th shift of $x$ under $\alpha$}. \noindent (2) The element $\sh_{\alpha}(x):=\sh_{\alpha}^{(\ord(\alpha))}\in G$ is called the \textbf{shift of $x$ under $\alpha$}. \end{deffinition} The following calculation rules for shifts are easy to show: \begin{lemmma}\label{shiftLem} Let $G$ be a finite group, $x\in G$, $\alpha$ an automorphism of $G$. \noindent (1) $\alpha(\sh_{\alpha}(x))=x\sh_{\alpha}(x)x^{-1}$. \noindent (2) If $d\in\mathbb{N}^+$ is such that $\cl_{\alpha}(x)\mid d\mid \ord(\alpha)$, then $\sh_{\alpha}(x)=\sh_{\alpha}^{(d)}(x)^{\frac{\ord{\alpha}}{d}}$.\qed \end{lemmma} Definition \ref{shiftDef} is motivated by the following: It is well-known that there is natural isomorphism between $\Aff(G)$, the product, inside $\Sym_G$, of the image of the left regular representation of $G$ with $\Aut(G)$, and the holomorph of $G$, $\Hol(G)=G\rtimes\Aut(G)$. The isomorphism is simply given by the map $\Aff(G)\rightarrow\Hol(G),\A_{x,\alpha}\mapsto(x,\alpha)$. It is therefore clear that $\ord(\alpha)\mid\ord(\A_{x,\alpha})$ for all $x\in G$ and all $\alpha\in\Aut(G)$, and thus $\ord(\A_{x,\alpha})=\ord(\alpha)\cdot\ord(\A_{x,\alpha}^{\ord(\alpha)})$. However, easy computations reveal that under said natural isomorphism, $\A_{x,\alpha}^{\ord(\alpha)}$ corresponds to the element $\sh_{\alpha}(x)\in G$. This shows that in general, we have the following formula for computing orders of periodic affine maps of finite groups: \[\ord(\A_{x,\alpha})=\ord(\alpha)\cdot\ord(\sh_{\alpha}(x)).\] When $\psi$ is a permutation of a finite set $X$ and $n\in\mathbb{N}^+$, we say that an orbit $O$ of the action of $\psi$ on $X$ \textit{induces} an orbit $\tilde{O}$ of $\psi^n$ (or that $\tilde{O}$ \textit{stems from} $O$) if and only if $\tilde{O}\subseteq O$, in which case $|\tilde{O}|=\frac{1}{\gcd(n,|O|)}|O|$. Every orbit of $\psi$ induces an orbit of $\psi^n$, and every orbit of $\psi^n$ stems from precisely one orbit of $\psi$. \begin{lemmma}\label{divisorLem} Let $G$ be a finite group, $x\in G$, $\alpha$ an automorphism of $G$. Then every cycle length of $\A_{x,\alpha}$ is divisible by $\LL_G(x,\alpha):=\ord(\sh_{\alpha}(x))\cdot\prod_{p}{p^{\nu_p(\ord(\alpha))}}$, where $p$ runs through the common prime divisors of $\ord(\sh_{\alpha}(x))$ and $\ord(\alpha)$. In particular, $\LL_G(x,\alpha)\mid|G|$. \end{lemmma} \begin{proof} Every orbit of $\A_{x,\alpha}^{\ord(\alpha)}$, the left multiplication by $\sh_{\alpha}(x)$ in $G$, has size $\ord(\sh_{\alpha}(x))$, so certainly every cycle length of $\A_{x,\alpha}$ is divisible by $\ord(\sh_{\alpha}(x))$. In particular, if $p$ is a common prime divisor of $\ord(\sh_{\alpha}(x))$ and $\ord(\alpha)$, and $O$ is any orbit of $\A_{x,\alpha}$, then $p\mid|O|$, but $p^{\nu_p(\ord(\sh_{\alpha}(x)))}$ still divides $|\tilde{O}|$, where $\tilde{O}$ is the orbit of $\A_{x,\alpha}^{\ord(\alpha)}$ induced by $O$. This is only possible if $|O|$ actually is divisible by $p^{\nu_p(\ord(\sh_{\alpha}(x)))+\nu_p(\ord(\alpha))}$, and the assertion follows. \end{proof} \begin{lemmma}\label{centralizerLem} Let $G$ be a finite group, $x,r\in G$. Then $x^{-1}r\in\C_G(\sh_{\tau_r}(x))$. In particular, if, for some subgroup $H\leq G$, $\C_G(\sh_{\tau_r}(x))\subseteq H$, then $x\in H$ if and only if $r\in H$. \end{lemmma} \begin{proof} This follows immediately from $r\sh_{\tau_r}(x)r^{-1}=\tau_r(\sh_{\tau_r}(x))=x\sh_{\tau_r}(x)x^{-1}$, where the first equality is by the definition of $\tau_r$ and the second by Lemma \ref{shiftLem}(1). \end{proof} \begin{lemmma}\label{lcmLem} (1) Let $G$ be a finite centerless group, $r,s\in G$. Set $x:=sr^{-1}$. Then $\sh_{\tau_r}(x)=s^{\ord(r)}$. In particular, $\ord(\A_{x,\tau_r})=\lcm(\ord(s),\ord(r))$. \noindent (2) Let $G$ be any finite group, $r,s\in G$, $x$ as in point (1). Then $\sh_{\tau_r}(x)=s^{\ord(\tau_r)}\cdot r^{-\ord(\tau_r)}$. In particular, if $\gcd(\ord(r),\ord(s))=1$, then $\ord(\A_{x,\tau_r})=\ord(s)\cdot\ord(r)$. \end{lemmma} \begin{proof} An easy induction on $n\in\mathbb{N}^+$ proves that in both cases, we have $\sh_{\tau_r}^{(n)}(x)=s^nr^{-n}$. Therefore, we have $\sh_{\tau_r}(x)=s^{\ord(r)}$ under the assumptions of point (1). This implies that \[\ord(\A_{x,\tau_r})=\ord(\tau_r)\cdot\ord(\sh_{\tau_r}(x))=\ord(r)\cdot\frac{\ord(s)}{\gcd(\ord(s),\ord(r))}=\lcm(\ord(s),\ord(r)),\] proving the statement of point (1). The proof of point (2) is similar, using that $r^{-\ord(\tau_r)}\in\zeta G$ and that the order of a product of two commuting elements with coprime orders is the product of their orders. \end{proof} \subsection{Some results on finite semisimple groups}\label{subsec2P2} In this Subsection, for the readers' convenience, we first briefly recall some basic facts on finite semisimple groups (finite groups without nontrivial solvable normal subgroups) which we will need later, following mostly the exposition in \cite[pp.~89ff.]{Rob96a}. Afterward, we generalize a result of Horo\v{s}evski\u{\i} on largest cycle lengths of automorphisms of finite semisimple groups to periodic affine maps of such groups. Any group $G$ has a unique largest normal centerless CR-subgroup, the centerless CR-radical of $G$, which we denote by $\CRRad(G)$. From now on, assume that $G$ is finite and semisimple. Then $\CRRad(G)$ coincides with $\Soc(G)$, the socle of $G$. $G$ canonically embeds into $\Aut(\Soc(G))$ by its conjugation action (which shows that for any finite centerless CR-group $R$, there are only finitely many isomorphism types of finite semisimple groups $G$ such that $\Soc(G)\cong R$), and the image $G^{\ast}$ of this embedding clearly contains $\Inn(\Soc(G))$. Conversely, for every finite centerless CR-group $R$, any group $G$ such that $\Inn(R)\leq G\leq\Aut(R)$ is semisimple. If $S_1,\ldots,S_r$ are pairwise nonisomorphic nonabelian finite simple groups, and $n_1,\ldots,n_r\in\mathbb{N}^+$, then the tuple $(S_1^{n_1},\ldots,S_r^{n_r})$ has the splitting property. In particular, $\Aut(S_1^{n_1}\times\cdots\times S_r^{n_r})=\Aut(S_1^{n_1})\times\cdots\times\Aut(S_r^{n_r})$. The structure of the automorphism groups of finite nonabelian characteristically simple groups (powers of finite nonabelian simple groups) can be described by permutational wreath products. More precisely, $\Aut(S^n)=\Aut(S)\wr\Sym_n$ for any finite nonabelian simple group $S$ and any $n\in\mathbb{N}^+$. Rose \cite[Lemma 1.1]{Ros75a} observed that, in generalization of the embedding of $G$ into $\Aut(\Soc(G))$ for finite semisimple groups $G$, if $G$ is any group, and $H$ a characteristic subgroup of $G$ such that $\C_G(H)=\{1_G\}$, then $G$ embeds into $\Aut(H)$ by its conjugation action on $H$, and, viewing $G$ as a subgroup of $\Aut(H)$, $\Aut(G)$ is canonically isomorphic to $\N_{\Aut(H)}(G)$. This implies, among other things, that automorphism groups of finite centerless CR-groups are complete. Let us now turn to the aforementioned theorem of Horo\v{s}evski\u{\i}. Following the terminology from \cite{GPS15a}, we define: \begin{deffinition}\label{regularDef} Let $\psi$ be a permutation of a finite set. A cycle of $\psi$ whose length equals $\ord(\psi)$ is called a \textbf{regular cycle of $\psi$}. \end{deffinition} Thus a permutation $\psi$ of a finite set has a regular cycle if and only if $\Lambda(\psi)=\ord(\psi)$. In the case of periodic affine maps $A$ of finite groups $G$, the order is often easier to compute than the $\Lambda$-value, since for computing the order, one can work with the compact representation $A=\A_{x,\alpha}$ for appropriate $x\in G$ and $\alpha\in\Aut(G)$, and composition of periodic affine maps translates, on the level of the compact representations, into some simple manipulations (by the isomorphism $\Aff(G)\rightarrow\Hol(G)$ mentioned above), without the need to \enquote{spread out} the entire element structure of $G$ to determine the cycle lengths of the elements of $G$ under $A$. In view of this, it would be nice to know at least for some classes of finite groups $G$ that all periodic affine maps of $G$ have a regular cycle to make computation of $\Lambda$- and $\Lambda_{\aff}$-values easier. Indeed, Horo\v{s}evski\u{\i} proved: \begin{theoremm}\label{horTheo}(\cite[Theorem 1]{Hor74a}) Let $G$ be a finite semisimple group. Then every automorphism of $G$ has a regular cycle.\qed \end{theoremm} We will extend this to: \begin{theoremm}\label{regularTheo} Let $G$ be a finite semisimple group. Then every periodic affine map of $G$ has a regular cycle. \end{theoremm} Our proof of Theorem \ref{regularTheo} is mostly an adaptation of Horo\v{s}evski\u{\i}'s proof of Theorem \ref{horTheo}, with the arguments getting slightly more complicated because of the more general situation. However, at one point, our proof significantly differs from the one of Horo\v{s}evski\u{\i}, using the recent result \cite[Theorem 3.2]{GPS15a} to settle one important case. Just like Horo\v{s}evski\u{\i}, we use the following: \begin{lemmma}\label{regularLem} Let $X$ be a finite set, $\psi\in\Sym_X$, $p$ a prime such that $p^2\mid\ord(\psi)$. The following are equivalent: \noindent (1) $\psi$ has a regular cycle. \noindent (2) $\psi^p$ has a regular cycle. \end{lemmma} \begin{proof} See \cite[Lemma 1]{Hor74a}. The assumption there that $\psi$ (called $\phi$ there) is an automorphism of a finite group is not needed. \end{proof} Before we continue with the next lemma, a quick reminder and an easy observation: Recall that for a group $G$, an automorphism $\alpha$ of $G$, and a normal subgroup $N\unlhd G$, $\alpha$-admissibility of $N$ (i.e., the property that $\alpha(N)=N$) is equivalent to the existence of an automorphism $\tilde{\alpha}$ of $G/N$ such that, denoting by $\pi:G\rightarrow G/N$ the canonical projection, $\pi\circ\alpha=\tilde{\alpha}\circ\pi$. In this case, $\tilde{\alpha}$ is unique and is called the \textit{automorphism of $G/N$ induced by $\alpha$}. More generally, if, for some permutation $\psi$ of $G$, there exists a permutation $\sigma$ of $G/N$ such that $\pi\circ\psi=\sigma\circ\pi$, we still call $\sigma$ \textit{induced by $\psi$}. It is not difficult to see that for any group $G$, any $N\unlhd G$ and any periodic affine map $A=\A_{x,\alpha}$ of $G$, $A$ induces a permutation $\tilde{A}$ of $G/N$ if and only if $N$ is $\alpha$-admissible, and in this case, $\tilde{A}$ is a periodic affine map of $G/N$; actually, $\tilde{A}=\A_{\pi(x),\tilde{\alpha}}$. \begin{lemmma}\label{centQuotLem} Let $G$ be a group, $B\unlhd G$, $A$ a periodic affine map of $G$ such that $A_{\mid B}=\id_B$. Then $\C_G(B)\unlhd G$, and $A$ induces the identity map in $G/\C_G(B)$. \end{lemmma} \begin{proof} In general, for all $x\in G$ and $\alpha\in\Aut(G)$, it follows immediately from the definition of $\A_{x,\alpha}$ that $\A_{x,\alpha}(1_G)=x$. Since $A(1_G)=1_G$ by assumption, $A$ thus actually is an automorphism of $G$, so the claim follows from \cite[Lemma 2]{Hor74a}. \end{proof} \begin{lemmma}\label{productRegLem} Let $X_1,\ldots,X_n$ be finite sets, $\psi_i$, $i=1,\ldots,n$, a permutation of $X_i$ with a regular cycle. Then $\psi_1\times\cdots\times\psi_n$ has a regular cycle.\qed \end{lemmma} One additional easy observation which we will need is the following: \begin{lemmma}\label{fixLem} Let $G$ be a group, $A=\A_{x,\alpha}$ a periodic left affine map of $G$ such that $\fix(A)\not=\emptyset$. Then $\fix(A)$ is a left coset of the subgroup $\fix(\alpha)\leq G$. \end{lemmma} \begin{proof} For all $g\in G$, we have that $g\in\fix(A)$ if and only if $x\alpha(g)=g$, or $x=g\alpha(g)^{-1}$. Therefore, if we fix $f\in\fix(A)$, then $\fix(A)$ can be desribed as $\{g\in G\mid g\alpha(g)^{-1}=f\alpha(f)^{-1}\}=\{g\in G\mid g^{-1}f\in\fix(\alpha)\}=f\fix(\alpha)$. \end{proof} \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{regularTheo}] The proof is by induction on $|G|$, the induction base $|G|=1$ being trivial, with an inner induction on $\ord(A)$, the induction base $\ord(A)=1$ being trivial. For the induction step, assume that $A=\A_{x,\alpha}$ is a periodic affine map of the finite semisimple group $G$. To show that $A$ has a regular cycle, we make a case distinction: \begin{enumerate} \item Case: $G$ is simple. This case is by contradiction, so assume that $A$ does not have a regular cycle. Note that by Lemma \ref{regularLem} and the induction hypothesis, $\ord(A)$ then must be squarefree, say $\ord(A)=p_1\cdots p_r$, with the $p_i$ pairwise distinct primes. Since by the induction hypothesis, $A^{p_1}$ has a cycle of length $\ord(A^{p_1})=p_2\cdots p_r$, but $A$ has no regular cycle, $A$ must also have a cycle of length $p_2\cdots p_r$, which implies $p_2\cdots p_r<|G|$. Now note that by the assumption that $A$ does not have a regular cycle, we have $G\subseteq\bigcup_{i=1}^r{\fix(A^{\prod_{j\not=i}{p_j}})}$. By Lemma \ref{fixLem}, denoting by $\alpha_i$ the underlying automorphism of $A^{\prod_{j\not=i}{p_j}}$, we have $|\fix(A^{\prod_{j\not=i}{p_j}})|=|\fix(\alpha_i)|$, and so there must exist $i\in\{1,\ldots,r\}$ such that $[G:\fix(\alpha_i)]\leq r$ (otherwise, $G$ could not be covered by the $r$ fixed point sets above). But since $G$ is simple, this implies that $|G|\leq r!\leq p_2\cdots p_r<|G|$, a contradiction. \item Case: $G$ is characteristically simple, but not simple. Let $S$ be a nonabelian finite simple group and $n\geq 2$ such that $G\cong S^n$. $\alpha$ is an element of the permutational wreath product $\Aut(S)\wr\Sym_n$, i.e., $\alpha$ is a composition $(\alpha_1\times\cdots\times\alpha_n)\circ\psi$, where each $\alpha_i$ is an automorphism of $S$ and $\psi$ is a permutation of coordinates on $S^n$. Writing $x=(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$, and denoting by $\mu_{x}$ the left multiplication by $x$ in $S^n$, it follows that $A=\mu_{x}\circ((\alpha_1\times\cdots\times\alpha_n)\circ\psi)=((\mu_{x_1}\times\cdots\times\mu_{x_n})\circ(\alpha_1\times\cdots\times\alpha_n))\circ\psi=(\A_{x_1,\alpha_1}\times\cdots\times\A_{x_n,\alpha_n})\circ\psi$. This proves that $A\in\Aff(S)\wr\Sym_n$ (actually, we just proved that $\Aff(S^n)=\Aff(S)\wr\Sym_n$). By induction hypothesis, every permutation from $\Aff(S)$ has a regular cycle, and so by \cite[Theorem 3.2]{GPS15a}, $A$ has a regular cycle. \item Case: $G$ is completely reducible, but not characteristically simple. Let $S_1,\ldots,S_r$ be pairwise nonisomorphic nonabelian finite simple groups, $n_1,\ldots,n_r\in\mathbb{N}^+$ such that $G\cong S_1^{n_1}\times\cdots\times S_r^{n_r}$, and note that $r\geq 2$ by assumption. Since $(S_1^{n_1},\ldots,S_r^{n_r})$ has the splitting property, by Lemma \ref{productLem}(2), $A$ can be written as a product of periodic affine maps over the single $S_i^{n_i}$, each of which has a regular cycle by the induction hypothesis, and so $A$ has a regular cycle by Lemma \ref{productRegLem}. \item Case: $G$ is not completely reducible. Set $B:=\Soc(G)$, and note that $B$ is proper in $G$ and $\C_G(B)=\{1_G\}$. Denote by $\tilde{A}$ the periodic affine map of $G/B$ induced by $A$, and let $k$ denote the length of the identity element of $G/B$ under $\tilde{A}$. Set $A_0:=A^k$. Then $A_0$ restricts to a periodic affine map of $B$, so by the induction hypothesis, ${A_0}_{\mid B}$ has a cycle of length $n:=\ord({A_0}_{\mid B})$; fix an element $x\in B$ such that $\cl_{A_0}(x)=n$. Now $A_0^n$ acts identically in $B$, and thus by Lemma \ref{centQuotLem} also in $G\cong G/\C_G(B)$. This means that $n=\ord(A_0)$, and so $\ord(A)\leq k\cdot n$. But clearly, $\cl_{A}(x)=k\cdot n$, since $k$ divides the cycle length under $A$ of any element from $B$. Therefore, $\ord(A)=k\cdot n$ and $A$ has a regular cycle. \end{enumerate} \end{proof} \begin{corrollary}\label{regularCor} (1) Let $G$ be a finite semisimple group. Then: (i) $\Lambda(G)=\mao(G)$. (ii) $\Lambda_{\aff}(G)=\meo(\Hol(G))$. \noindent (2) Let $R$ be a finite centerless CR-group. Then: (i) $\Lambda(\Aut(R))=\mao(R)$. (ii) $\Lambda_{\aff}(\Aut(R))=\meo(\Hol(\Aut(R)))$. \end{corrollary} \begin{proof} For (1): (i) is an immediate consequence of Theorem \ref{regularTheo}, and (ii) also follows from Theorem \ref{regularTheo} and the fact that $\Aff(G)\cong\Hol(G)$. For (2): As for (i), note that $\Aut(R)$ is semisimple, and so by (1,i), we have $\Lambda(\Aut(R))=\mao(\Aut(R))=\meo(\Aut(\Aut(R)))=\meo(\Aut(R))=\mao(R)$, where the second-to-last equality follows from the completeness of $\Aut(R)$. (ii) just is a special case of (1,ii). \end{proof} \subsection{Upper bounds on element orders in wreath products}\label{subsec2P3} We will need upper bounds on $\meo(G)$ and $\mao(G)$ for finite semisimple groups $G$. To this end, some bounds on orders of elements in wreath products in general come in handy. Before formulating and proving Lemma \ref{wreathLem} below, we introduce the following notation and terminology: \begin{deffinition}\label{wreathDef} Let $G$ be a finite group, $n\in\mathbb{N}^+$, and $\psi\in\Sym_n$. \noindent (1) Let $g=(g_1,\ldots,g_n)\in G^n$. For $i=1,\ldots,n$, we define $\el_i^{(\psi)}(g):=g_ig_{\psi^{-1}(i)}\cdots g_{\psi^{-\cl_{\psi}(i)+1}(i)}\in G$. Alternatively, one can describe $\el_i^{(\psi)}(g)$ as the image of $\sh_{\tau_{\psi}}^{(\cl_{\psi}(i))}(g)\in G^n\leq G\wr\Sym_n$ under the projection $\pi_i:G^n\rightarrow G$ onto the $i$-th component. \noindent (2) We denote the set of orbits of the action of $\psi$ on $\{1,\ldots,n\}$ by $\Orb(\psi)$. \noindent (3) An \textbf{assignment to $\psi$ in $G$} is a function $\beta:\Orb(\psi)\rightarrow G$. For such an assignment $\beta$, we define its \textbf{order} to be the least common multiple of the numbers $\ord(\beta(O)^{\frac{\ord(\beta)}{|O|}})$, where $O$ runs through $\Orb(\psi)$. \end{deffinition} \begin{lemmma}\label{wreathLem} Let $G$ be a finite group, $n\in\mathbb{N}^+$, denote by $\pi:G\wr\Sym_n\rightarrow\Sym_n$ the canonical projection, and let $\psi\in\Sym_n$. \noindent (1) Let $g=(g_1,\ldots,g_n)\in G^n$ and consider the element $x:=(g,\psi)\in G^n\rtimes\Sym_n=G\wr\Sym_n$. Then for $i=1,\ldots,n$, the $i$-th component of $x^{\ord(\psi)}\in G^n$ equals $\el_i^{(\psi)}(g)^{\frac{\ord(\psi)}{\cl_{\psi}(i)}}$. \noindent (2) In particular, the maximum order of an element $x\in G\wr\Sym_n$ such that $\pi(x)=\psi$ equals the product of $\ord(\psi)$ with the maximum order of an assignment to $\psi$ in $G$ and is bounded from above by $\ord(\psi)\cdot\meo(G^{|\Orb(\psi)|})$. \end{lemmma} \begin{proof} For (1): We may assume that $G$ is nontrivial. Fix $i$, and denote by $\pi_i:G^n\rightarrow G$ the projection onto the $i$-th component. It is clear that $x^{\ord(\psi)}=\sh_{\tau_{\psi}}(g)$ (where the shift is formed inside $G\wr\Sym_n$ and $\tau_{\psi}$ is the inner automorphism of $G\wr\Sym_n$ with respect to $\psi$), whence $\pi_i(x^{\ord(\psi)})=\pi_i(\sh_{\tau_{\psi}}(g))$. But the $i$-th component of $\sh_{\tau_{\psi}}(g)$ only depends on the components of $g$ whose indices are from the orbit $O_i$ of $i$ under $\psi$, so if we denote by $\tilde{g}$ the element of $G^n$ which has the same entries as $g$ in the components whose indices are in $O_i$ but all other entries equal to $1_G$, we have $\pi_i(x^{\ord(\psi)})=\pi_i(\sh_{\tau_{\psi}}(\tilde{g}))$. Now note that $\cl_{\psi}(i)$ is a multiple of $\cl_{\tau_{\psi}}(\tilde{g})$ and a divisor of $\ord(\psi)=\ord(\tau_{\psi})$, which gives us, by an application of Lemma \ref{shiftLem}(2), \[\pi_i(x^{\ord(\psi)})=\pi_i(\sh_{\tau_{\psi}}(\tilde{g}))=\pi_i(\sh_{\tau_{\psi}}^{(\cl_{\psi}(i))}(\tilde{g})^{\frac{\ord(\psi)}{\cl_{\psi}(i)}})=\pi_i(\sh_{\tau_{\psi}}^{(\cl_{\psi}(i))}(\tilde{g}))^{\frac{\ord(\psi)}{\cl_{\psi}(i)}}=\]\[\pi_i(\sh_{\tau_{\psi}}^{(\cl_{\psi}(i))}(g))^{\frac{\ord(\psi)}{\cl_{\psi}(i)}}=\el_i^{(\psi)}(g)^{\frac{\ord(\psi)}{\cl_{\psi}(i)}}.\] \noindent For (2): For any element $x\in G\wr\Sym_n$ of the form $(g,\psi)$, we have $\ord(x)=\ord(\psi)\cdot\ord(x^{\ord(\psi)})$, where, by (1), the second factor is the least common multiple of the numbers $\ord(\el_i^{(\psi)}(g)^{\frac{\ord(\psi)}{\cl_{\psi}(i)}})$ for $i=1,\ldots,n$. Fix a set $\mathcal{R}$ of representatives of the orbits of $\psi$, which is in canonical bijection with $\Orb(\psi)$. It is not difficult to see that if $i,j\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$ are from the same orbit under $\psi$, then $\el_i^{(\psi)}(g)^{\frac{\ord(\psi)}{\cl_{\psi}(i)}}$ and $\el_j^{(\psi)}(g)^{\frac{\ord(\psi)}{\cl_{\psi}(j)}}$ are conjugate in $G$ and thus have the same order, so $\ord(x^{\ord(\psi)})$ is equal to just the least common multiple of the numbers $\ord(\el_i^{(\psi)}(g)^{\frac{\ord(\psi)}{\cl{\psi}(i)}})$ for $i\in\mathcal{R}$. Therefore, composing the canonical bijection $\Orb(\psi)\to\mathcal{R}$ with the function $\mathcal{R}\rightarrow G,i\mapsto\el_i^{(\psi)}(g)$ gives an assignment to $\psi$ in $G$ whose order coincides with $\ord(x^{\ord(\psi)})$. Conversely, if any assignment $\beta$ to $\psi$ in $G$ is given, by choosing the components $g_1,\ldots,g_n$ of $G$ such that for all $O\in\Orb(\psi)$ there exists $i\in O$ such that $g_ig_{\psi^{-1}(i)}\cdots g_{\psi^{-\cl_{\psi}(i)+1}(i)}=\beta(O)$, we can assure that $\ord((g,\psi)^{\ord(\psi)})=\ord(\beta)$. This proves the claim. \end{proof} \subsection{Landau's and Chebyshev's function}\label{subsec2P4} Both Landau's function $g:\mathbb{N}^+\rightarrow\mathbb{N}^+,n\mapsto\meo(\Sym_n)$, and Chebyshev's function $\psi:\mathbb{N}^+\rightarrow\mathbb{N}^+,n\mapsto\log(\exp(\Sym_n))$, are well-studied in analytic number theory. Apart from information on their asymptotic growth behavior, explicit upper bounds are also available. More explicitly, Massias \cite[Th{\'e}or{\`e}me, p.~271]{Mas84a} proved that $\log(g(n))\leq 1.05314\cdot\sqrt{n\log(n)}$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}^+$, and Rosser and Schoenfeld \cite[Theorem 12]{RS62a} that $\psi(n)<1.03883\cdot n$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}^+$. The latter result translates into an exponential upper bound on $\Psi:=\exp\circ\psi$. For $n\leq 27$, the following best possible exponential bound on $g(n)$ is sharper than the subexponential bound by Massias, and its use will make some of our arguments easier: \begin{propposition}\label{landauProp} For all $n\in\mathbb{N}^+$, we have $g(n)\leq 3^{\frac{n}{3}}$, with equality if and only if $n=3$.\qed \end{propposition} We conclude with the following consequence of Lemma \ref{wreathLem}: \begin{lemmma}\label{boundLem} (1) Let $G$ be a finite group, $n\in\mathbb{N}+$. Then $\meo(G\wr\Sym_n)\leq g(n)\cdot\meo(G^n)$. \noindent (2) Let $S$ be a nonabelian finite simple group, $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Then $g(n)\cdot\meo(\Aut(S)^n)<|S|^{n/3}$ implies that $\Lambda(\Aut(S^n))<|S^n|^{1/3}$ and $\Lambda_{\aff}(\Aut(S^n))<|S^n|^{2/3}$. \end{lemmma} \begin{proof} For (1): This follows immediately from Lemma \ref{wreathLem}(2). \noindent For (2): Using Corollary \ref{regularCor}(2), we conclude that $\Lambda(\Aut(S^n))=\meo(\Aut(S^n))=\meo(\Aut(S)\wr\Sym_n)\leq g(n)\cdot\meo(\Aut(S)^n)<|S|^{n/3}=|S^n|^{1/3}$, and that $\Lambda_{\aff}(\Aut(S^n))=\meo(\Hol(\Aut(S^n)))=\meo(\Aut(S^n)\rtimes\Aut(\Aut(S^n)))\leq\meo(\Aut(S^n))\cdot\meo(\Aut(\Aut(S^n)))=\meo(\Aut(S^n))^2<|S^n|^{2/3}$. \end{proof} \section{Reduction to the main lemma}\label{sec3} The aforementioned \enquote{main lemma} is the following: \begin{lemma}\label{mainLem} Let $G$ be a finite nonabelian characteristically simple group. Then: \noindent (1) $\Lambda(\Aut(G))<|G|^{\frac{1}{3}}$, with the following exceptions: (i) $G\cong\PSL_2(q)$ for some primary $q\geq 5$. In this case, $\Lambda(\Aut(G))=q+1$, we have $\frac{1}{3}<\log_{|G|}(q+1)\leq\frac{\log(q+1)}{\log(\frac{1}{2}q(q^2-1))}$, and for $q\to\infty$, this upper bound converges to $\frac{1}{3}$ strictly monotonously from above. (ii) $G\cong\PSL_2(p)^2$ for some prime $p\geq 5$. In this case, $\Lambda(\Aut(G))=p(p+1)$, we have $\frac{1}{3}<\log_{|G|}(p(p+1))=\frac{\log(p(p+1))}{\log(\frac{1}{2}p(p^2-1))}$, and for $p\to\infty$, this upper bound converges to $\frac{1}{3}$ strictly monotonously from above. (iii) $G\cong\PSL_2(p)^3$ for some prime $p\geq 5$. In this case, $\Lambda(\Aut(G))=\frac{1}{2}p(p^2-1)=|G|^{\frac{1}{3}}$. \noindent (2) $\Lambda_{\aff}(\Aut(G))\leq|G|^{\frac{2}{3}}$, with the following exceptions: $G\cong\PSL_2(p)$ for some prime $p\geq 5$. In this case, $\Lambda_{\aff}(\Aut(G))=p(p+1)$, we have $\frac{2}{3}<\log_{|G|}(p(p+1))=\frac{\log(p(p+1))}{\log(\frac{1}{2}p(p^2-1))}$, and for $p\to\infty$, this upper bound converges to $\frac{2}{3}$ strictly monotonously from above. \end{lemma} The purpose of this section is to show how to deduce all the main results from Lemma \ref{mainLem}, so until the end of this section, the word \enquote{proof} means \enquote{proof conditional on Lemma \ref{mainLem}}. We first give the precise definition of the constants $E_1$ and $E_2$ from Theorem \ref{mainTheo1}: \begin{notation}\label{eNot} (1) We set $e_1:=\log_{60}(6)=0.437618\ldots$ and $E_1:=\frac{1}{e_1-1}=-1.778151\ldots$. \noindent (2) We set $e_2:=\log_{60}(30)$ and $E_2:=\frac{1}{e_2-1}=-5.906890\ldots$. \end{notation} \begin{lemma}\label{auxiliaryLem1} (1) For all finite nonabelian characteristically simple groups $G$, we have $\Lambda(\Aut(G))\leq|G|^{e_1}$, with equality if and only if $G\cong\PSL_2(5)\cong\Alt_5$. \noindent (2) For every $\epsilon>0$, we have $\Lambda(\Aut(G))\leq|G|^{\frac{1}{3}+\epsilon}$ for almost all finite nonabelian characteristically simple groups $G$. \noindent (3) For all finite nonabelian characteristically simple groups $G$, we have $\Lambda_{\aff}(\Aut(G))\leq|G|^{e_2}$, with equality if and only if $G\cong\PSL_2(5)\cong\Alt_5$. \noindent (4) For every $\epsilon>0$, we have $\Lambda_{\aff}(\Aut(G))\leq|G|^{\frac{2}{3}+\epsilon}$ for almost all finite nonabelian characteristically simple groups $G$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} The statements in (2) and (4) follow immediately from Lemma \ref{mainLem}. For (1), note that by Lemma \ref{mainLem}(1), we have $\Lambda(\Aut(\PSL_2(5)))=6=|\PSL_2(5)|^{e_1}$, and using the strict monotonicity of the upper bounds in Lemma \ref{mainLem}(1), it is not difficult to see that this is the only case where equality holds. The proof of (2) is analogous. \end{proof} \begin{lemma}\label{auxiliaryLem2} Let $H$ be a finite semisimple group. Then: \noindent (1) $\Lambda(H)\leq|\Soc(H)|^{e_1}$. \noindent (2) $\Lambda_{\aff}(H)\leq|\Soc(H)|^{e_2}$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Let $S_1,\ldots,S_r$ be pairwise nonisomorphic nonabelian finite simple groups, $n_1,\ldots,n_r\in\mathbb{N}^+$ such that $\Soc(H)\cong S_1^{n_1}\times\cdots\times S_r^{n_r}$. Using the facts that $\Aut(H)$ embeds into $\Aut(\Soc(H))$, that $\Lambda(G)=\meo(\Aut(G))$ for all finite semisimple groups $G$ (Corollary \ref{regularCor}(1,i)) and that $\Lambda(R)=\meo(\Aut(R))=\Lambda(\Aut(R))$ for all finite centerless CR-groups $R$ (Corollary \ref{regularCor}(1,i) and (2,i)), we conclude that \[\Lambda(H)=\meo(\Aut(H))\leq\meo(\Aut(\Soc(H)))=\Lambda(\Soc(H))=\Lambda(S_1^{n_1}\times\cdots\times S_r^{n_r})\leq\]\[\leq\Lambda(S_1^{n_1})\cdots\Lambda(S_r^{n_r})=\Lambda(\Aut(S_1^{n_1}))\cdots\Lambda(\Aut(S_r^{n_r}))\leq|S_1|^{e_1n_1}\cdots|S_r|^{e_1n_r}=|\Soc(H)|^{e_1},\] where the last inequality follows from Lemma \ref{auxiliaryLem1}(1). This proves the inequality in (1). For (2), we use the fact that $H$ embeds into $\Aut(\Soc(H))$, that $\Lambda_{\aff}(G)=\meo(\Hol(G))$ for all finite semisimple groups $G$ (Corollary \ref{regularCor}(1,ii)) and that, by completeness of $\Aut(S_1^{n_1}\times\cdots\times S_r^{n_r})=\Aut(S_1^{n_1})\times\cdots\times\Aut(S_r^{n_r})$, the tuple $(\Aut(S_1^{n_1}),\ldots,\Aut(S_r^{n_r}))$ has the splitting property, to conclude, with one application of Lemma \ref{auxiliaryLem1}(3) at the end, that \[\Lambda_{\aff}(H)=\meo(\Hol(H))\leq\meo(\Hol(\Aut(\Soc(H))))=\Lambda_{\aff}(\Aut(\Soc(H)))=\]\[=\Lambda_{\aff}(\Aut(S_1^{n_1})\times\cdots\times\Aut(S_r^{n_r}))\leq\Lambda_{\aff}(\Aut(S_1^{n_1}))\cdots\Lambda_{\aff}(\Aut(S_r^{n_r}))\leq\]\[\leq|S_1|^{e_2n_1}\cdots|S_r|^{e_2n_r}=|\Soc(H)|^{e_2}.\] \end{proof} \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{mainTheo1}] For (1), using the assumption as well as Lemmata \ref{transferLem}(1) and \ref{auxiliaryLem2}(1), we conclude that $\rho\leq\lambda(G)\leq\lambda_{\aff}(\Rad(G))\cdot\lambda(G/\Rad(G))\leq1\cdot|G/\Rad(G)|^{e_1-1}$, and so $[G:\Rad(G)]\geq\rho^{\frac{1}{e_1-1}}$. The proof for (2) is analogous. \end{proof} \begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary \ref{mainCor}] The statements about cycle lengths in $\Alt_5\cong\PSL_2(5)$ follow immediately from Lemma \ref{mainLem}. As for the two asserted implications: \noindent For (1): By Theorem \ref{mainTheo1}(1) (and strict monotonicity of power functions), $\lambda(G)>\frac{1}{10}$ implies that $[G:\Rad(G)]<(\frac{1}{10})^{E_1}=60$, and thus that $[G:\Rad(G)]=1$. \noindent For (2): This is similar to (1), but more involved. By Theorem \ref{mainTheo1}(2), $\lambda_{\aff}(G)>\frac{1}{4}$ implies that $[G:\Rad(G)]<(\frac{1}{4})^{E_2}=3600$. So if any nonsolvable finite group $G$ with $\lambda_{\aff}(G)>\frac{1}{4}$ existed, then $G/\Rad(G)$ would have socle a nonabelian finite simple group $S$ of order less than $3600$. By Lemma \ref{transferLem}(2), it would follow that $\lambda_{\aff}(S)>\frac{1}{4}$, so in order to get a contradiction, it suffices to check that $\lambda_{\aff}(S)\leq\frac{1}{4}$ for all nonabelian finite simple groups $S$ such that $|S|<3600$. By CFSG, there are precisely eight such $S$, namely $\PSL_2(q)$ for $q=5,7,9,8,11,13,17$ and $\Alt_7$. By Corollary \ref{regularCor}(1,ii), it is sufficient to compute $\frac{\meo(\Hol(S))}{|S|}$ for these eight $S$, which we did with the help of GAP \cite{GAP4}. For the $\PSL_2(q)$, the results are summarized in Table \ref{table1}, and we also got that $\lambda_{\aff}(\Alt_7)=\frac{1}{42}$: \begin{table}[h] \caption{$\lambda_{\aff}$-values of the nonabelian finite simple groups of order smaller than $3600$, excluding $\Alt_7$}\label{table1} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline $q$ & $5$ & $7$ & $9$ & $8$ & $11$ & $13$ & $17$ \\ \hline $\lambda_{\aff}(\PSL_2(q))$ & $\frac{1}{4}$ & $\frac{1}{6}$ & $\frac{1}{9}$ & $\frac{1}{8}$ & $\frac{1}{10}$ & $\frac{1}{12}$ & $\frac{1}{16}$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \end{table} \end{proof} For proving Theorem \ref{mainTheo2}, we introduce the following notation: \begin{notation}\label{constantsNot} (1) For $\kappa\in\left(0,\frac{2}{3}\right]$ and $\kappa_{\aff}\in\left(0,\frac{1}{3}\right]$, we denote by $\T^{(\kappa)}$ the set of finite nonabelian characteristically simple groups $T$ such that $\Lambda(\Aut(T))\geq|T|^{\frac{1}{3}+\kappa}$, and by $\T_{\aff}^{(\kappa_{\aff})}$ the set of finite nonabelian characteristically simple groups $T$ such that $\Lambda_{\aff}(\Aut(T))\geq|T|^{\frac{2}{3}+\kappa_{\aff}}$. Note that by Lemma \ref{mainLem}, $\T^{(\kappa)}$ and $\T_{\aff}^{(\kappa_{\aff})}$ are finite. \noindent (2) For $\epsilon\in\left(0,\frac{2}{3}\right]$, $\epsilon_{\aff}\in\left(0,\frac{1}{3}\right]$ and $\rho\in\left(0,1\right)$, set \[C^{(1)}(\epsilon,\rho):=\prod_{T\in\T^{(\rho\epsilon)}}{\frac{\Lambda(\Aut(T))}{|T|^{\frac{1}{3}+\rho\epsilon}}}\text{ and }C_{\aff}^{(1)}(\epsilon_{\aff},\rho):=\prod_{T\in\T_{\aff}^{(\rho\epsilon_{\aff})}}{\frac{\Lambda_{\aff}(\Aut(T))}{|T|^{\frac{2}{3}+\rho\epsilon_{\aff}}}},\] \[C^{(2)}(\epsilon,\rho):=\prod_{T\in\T^{(\frac{1}{2}\rho\epsilon)}}{|T|}\text{ and }C_{\aff}^{(2)}(\epsilon_{\aff},\rho):=\prod_{T\in\T_{\aff}^{(\frac{1}{2}\rho\epsilon_{\aff})}}{|T|},\] \[C(\epsilon,\rho):=C^{(1)}(\epsilon,\rho)^{\frac{1}{\rho/2\cdot\epsilon}}\cdot C^{(2)}(\epsilon,\rho)\text{ and }C_{\aff}(\epsilon_{\aff},\rho):=C_{\aff}^{(1)}(\epsilon_{\aff},\rho)^{\frac{1}{\rho/2\cdot\epsilon_{\aff}}}\cdot C_{\aff}^{(2)}(\epsilon_{\aff},\rho),\] \[D(\epsilon,\rho):=\max\{|H|+1\mid H\text{ a finite semisimple group such that }|\Soc(H)|<C(\epsilon,\rho)\},\] and \[D_{\aff}(\epsilon_{\aff},\rho):=\max\{|H|+1\mid H\text{ a finite semisimple group such that }|\Soc(H)|<C_{\aff}(\epsilon_{\aff},\rho)\}.\] \end{notation} Theorem \ref{mainTheo2}(1) will follow rather easily from the following: \begin{theorem}\label{auxiliaryTheo} Let $\epsilon\in\left(0,\frac{2}{3}\right],\epsilon_{\aff}\in\left(0,\frac{1}{3}\right],\rho\in\left(0,1\right)$. \noindent (1) Let $H$ be a finite semisimple group such that $|H|\geq D(\epsilon,\rho)$ holds. Then $\Lambda(H)\leq|\Soc(H)|^{\frac{1}{3}+\rho\epsilon}$. \noindent (2) Let $H$ be a finite semisimple group such that $|H|\geq D_{\aff}(\epsilon_{\aff},\rho)$ holds. Then $\Lambda_{\aff}(H)\leq|\Soc(H)|^{\frac{2}{3}+\rho\epsilon_{\aff}}$. \noindent (3) Let $G$ be a finite group such that $\Lambda(G)\geq|G|^{\frac{1}{3}+\epsilon}$. Then we have the following: $[G:\Rad(G)]\leq\max(D(\epsilon,\rho),|G|^{\frac{2/3-\epsilon}{2/3-\rho\epsilon}})$. \noindent (4) Let $G$ be a finite group such that $\Lambda_{\aff}(G)\geq|G|^{\frac{2}{3}+\epsilon_{\aff}}$. Then we have the following: $[G:\Rad(G)]\leq\max(D_{\aff}(\epsilon_{\aff},\rho),|G|^{\frac{1/3-\epsilon_{\aff}}{1/3-\rho\epsilon_{\aff}}})$. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} For (1): Let $S_1,\ldots,S_r$ be pairwise nonisomorphic nonabelian finite simple groups and $n_1,\ldots,n_r\in\mathbb{N}^+$ such that $\Soc(H)\cong S_1^{n_1}\times\cdots\times S_r^{n_r}$. For $i=1,\ldots,r$, set $T_i:=S_i^{n_i}$. Note that, as in the proof of Lemma \ref{auxiliaryLem2}(1), we have $\Lambda(H)\leq\Lambda(\Aut(T_1))\cdots\Lambda(\Aut(T_r))$. The idea is the following: We will bound each $\Lambda(\Aut(T_i))$ from above by a power $|T_i|^{f_i}$, and we would be done if all $f_i$ were less than or equal to $\frac{1}{3}+\rho\epsilon$. In view of the exceptional cases in Lemma \ref{mainLem}, we cannot expect this to happen, but since by the same lemma, almost all finite nonabelian characteristically simple $T$ satisfy $\Lambda(\Aut(T))<|T|^{\frac{1}{3}+\frac{\rho\epsilon}{2}}$, and this upper bound has some capacity to \enquote{swallow} factors greater than $1$ and still remain smaller than $|T|^{\frac{1}{3}+\rho\epsilon}$, if the order of $|\Soc(H)|$ is large enough, the \enquote{swallowing capacity} of the factors $T_i\notin\T^{(\frac{\rho\epsilon}{2})}$ will be big enough to make up for the \enquote{spillover} of all \enquote{problematic} factors coming from the finite set $\T^{(\rho\epsilon)}$. Formally, we proceed as follows. W.l.o.g., assume that there exist $k,l\in\mathbb{N}$ with $k+l\leq r$ such that $T_1,\ldots,T_k\in\T^{(\rho\epsilon)}$, $T_{k+1},\ldots,T_{k+l}\in\T^{(\frac{1}{2}\rho\epsilon)}\setminus\T^{(\rho\epsilon)}$ and $T_{k+l+1},\ldots,T_r\notin\T^{(\frac{1}{2}\rho\epsilon)}$. Note that by definition of $D(\epsilon,\rho)$ and the assumption, we have $|\Soc(H)|\geq C(\epsilon,\rho)$. By definition of $C_2(\epsilon,\rho)$, we have $|T_1|\cdots|T_{k+l}|\leq C_2(\epsilon,\rho)$, and so by definition of $C(\epsilon,\rho)$, we conclude that $|T_{k+l+1}|\cdots|T_r|=\frac{|\Soc(H)|}{|T_1|\cdots|T_{k+l}|}\geq\frac{C(\epsilon,\rho)}{C_2(\epsilon,\rho)}=C_1(\epsilon,\rho)^{\frac{1}{\rho/2\cdot\epsilon}}$. It follows that \[\Lambda(H)\leq\prod_{i=1}^k{\Lambda(\Aut(T_i))}\cdot\prod_{i=k+1}^{k+l}{\Lambda(\Aut(T_i))}\cdot\prod_{i=k+l+1}^r{\Lambda(\Aut(T_i))}\leq\]\[\leq\prod_{i=1}^k{|T_i|^{\frac{1}{3}+\rho\epsilon}}\cdot C_1(\epsilon,\rho)\cdot\prod_{i=k+1}^{k+l}{|T_i|^{\frac{1}{3}+\rho\epsilon}}\cdot\prod_{i=k+l+1}^r{|T_i|^{\frac{1}{3}+\rho\epsilon}}\cdot(\prod_{i=k+l+1}^r{|T_i|})^{-\frac{\rho\epsilon}{2}}\leq\]\[\leq|\Soc(H)|^{\frac{1}{3}+\rho\epsilon}\cdot C_1(\epsilon,\rho)\cdot(C_1(\epsilon,\rho)^{\frac{1}{\rho/2\cdot\epsilon}})^{-\frac{\rho\epsilon}{2}}=|\Soc(H)|^{\frac{1}{3}+\rho\epsilon}.\] \noindent For (2): This is analogous to the proof of (1). \noindent For (3): We show the contraposition: Assume that $G$ is a finite group such that $[G:\Rad(G)]>\max(D(\epsilon,\rho),|G|^{\frac{2/3-\epsilon}{2/3-\rho\epsilon}})$. We need to show that $\Lambda(G)<|G|^{\frac{1}{3}+\epsilon}$. Note that by (1), we have $\Lambda(G/\Rad(G))\leq|\Soc(G/\Rad(G))|^{\frac{1}{3}+\rho\epsilon}\leq|G/\Rad(G)|^{\frac{1}{3}+\rho\epsilon}$. It follows that \[\Lambda(G)\leq\Lambda_{\aff}(\Rad(G))\cdot\Lambda(G/\Rad(G))\leq|\Rad(G)|\cdot|G/\Rad(G)|^{\frac{1}{3}+\rho\epsilon}=\]\[=|\Rad(G)|^{\frac{2}{3}-\rho\epsilon}\cdot|G|^{\frac{1}{3}+\rho\epsilon}<(|G|^{1-\frac{2/3-\epsilon}{2/3-\rho\epsilon}})^{\frac{2}{3}-\rho\epsilon}\cdot|G|^{\frac{1}{3}+\rho\epsilon}=|G|^{\epsilon-\rho\epsilon}\cdot|G|^{\frac{1}{3}+\rho\epsilon}=|G|^{\frac{1}{3}+\epsilon}.\] \noindent For (4): This is analogous to the proof of (3). \end{proof} \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{mainTheo2}] For (1): Set $K(\epsilon,\xi):=D(\epsilon,\frac{2/3\xi}{\epsilon(1-3/2\epsilon+\xi)})$. Then by setting $\rho:=\frac{2/3\xi}{\epsilon(1-3/2\epsilon+\xi)}$ in Theorem \ref{auxiliaryTheo}(2), we find that $\Lambda(G)\geq|G|^{\frac{1}{3}+\epsilon}$ implies \[[G:\Rad(G)]\leq\max(D(\epsilon,\rho),|G|^{\frac{2/3-\epsilon}{2/3-\rho\epsilon}})=\max(K(\epsilon,\xi),|G|^{1-3/2\epsilon+\xi}).\] \noindent For (2): This is analogous to (1). \noindent For (3): Denote by $p_n$ the $n$-th prime number (starting with $p_0=2$) and set $G_n:=\PGL_2(p_{n+2})=\Aut(\PSL_2(p_{n+2}))$. That this choice of $G_n$ does the job follows from Lemma \ref{mainLem}, since $\log_{p(p^2-1)}(p+1)>\frac{1}{3}$ and $\log_{p(p^2-1)}(p(p+1))>\frac{2}{3}$ for all primes $p\geq 5$. \end{proof} \section{Proof of the main lemma}\label{sec4} We now tackle the final task of proving the main lemma, Lemma \ref{mainLem}. So let $G=S^n$, where $S$ is a nonabelian finite simple group and $n\in\mathbb{N}^+$. We make a case-by-case analysis using the CFSG. In most cases, Lemma \ref{boundLem}(2) will be sufficient to this end, but some cases require sharper upper bounds. \subsection{Case: \texorpdfstring{$S$}{S} is sporadic}\label{subsec4P1} Using Lemma \ref{boundLem}(2) and the information on $|S|,\Out(S)$ and $\meo(S)$ for sporadic $S$ from \cite{CCNPW85a}, this case only consists in some routine checks. \subsection{Case: \texorpdfstring{$S=\mathcal{A}_m,m\geq7$}{S=Am, m>=7}}\label{subsec4P2} Note that $\Alt_5\cong\PSL_2(5)$ and $\Alt_6\cong\PSL_2(9)$ will be treated in the next case. We also use Lemma \ref{boundLem}(2) here. That is, we want to show that $g(n)\cdot\meo(\Sym_m^n)<(\frac{1}{2}m!)^{n/3}$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}^+$ and all $m\geq 7$. For $n=1$, this is the inequality $g(m)<(\frac{1}{2}m!)^{1/3}$ for $m\geq 7$. But $g(m)<3^{m/3}$, and one easily verifies $3^{m/3}<(\frac{1}{2}m!)^{1/3}$ for all $m\geq 7$. For $n=2$, the inequality turns into $2\cdot\meo(\Sym_m^2)<(\frac{1}{2}m!)^{2/3}$. Now $\meo(\Sym_m^2)<g(m)^2$, and it is easy to verify $2\cdot g(m)^2<(\frac{1}{2}m!)^{2/3}$ for $m\geq 7$. For $n=3$, the inequality to show is $3\cdot\meo(\Sym_m^3)<\frac{1}{2}m!$, and it is easy to verify the stronger $3\cdot g(m)^3<\frac{1}{2}m!$. Finally, for $n\geq 4$, we use the bound $g(n)\cdot\meo(\Sym_m^n)<3^{n/3}\cdot\Psi(m)<3^{n/3}\cdot\e^{1.03883\cdot m}$, which reduces the inequality to $\e^{1.03883\cdot m}<(\frac{1}{6}m!)^{n/3}$ for $n\geq 4$ and $m\geq 7$, and this is easy to verify. \subsection{Case: \texorpdfstring{$S=\mathrm{PSL}_2(q),q\geq 5$}{S=PSL2(q), q>=5}}\label{subsec4P3} This is the most complicated case, requiring to investigate the five subcases $n=1,2,3,4$ and $n\geq 5$. Recall that $\Aut(\PSL_2(q))=\PGL_2(q)\rtimes\Gal(\mathbb{F}_q/\mathbb{F}_p)$, and in particular, there is a natural embedding $\PSL_2(q)\hookrightarrow\PGL_2(q)$. \subsubsection{Subcase: \texorpdfstring{$n=1$}{n=1}}\label{subsubsec4P3P1} Our goal is to show the following: \begin{theoremmm}\label{pslTheo} Let $q\geq 5$ be primary. Then: \noindent (1) $\Lambda(\Aut(\PSL_2(q)))=q+1$. \noindent (2) $\Lambda_{\aff}(\Aut(\PSL_2(q)))=\begin{cases}q(q+1), & \text{if }q\text{ is prime}, \\ q^2-1, & \text{if }q\text{ is even}, \\ \frac{1}{2}(q^2-1), & \text{if }q\text{ is odd and not prime.}\end{cases}$. \end{theoremmm} By Corollary \ref{regularCor}(2,i), $\Lambda(\Aut(\PSL_2(q)))=\meo(\Aut(\PSL_2(q)))$, which was already determined by Guest, Morris, Praeger and Spiga in \cite{GMPS15a}, see Table 3 there. The following lemma is an extract from the proof of \cite[Theorem 2.16]{GMPS15a}: \begin{lemmmma}\label{gmpsLem} Let $q\geq 5$ be primary, with prime base $p$. \noindent (1) Denote by $\pi:\Aut(\PSL_2(q))=\PGL_2(q)\rtimes\Gal(\mathbb{F}_q/\mathbb{F}_p)\rightarrow\Gal(\mathbb{F}_q/\mathbb{F}_p)$ the canonical projection. Let $\alpha\in\Aut(\PSL_2(q))$ such that $\ord(\pi(\alpha))=e$. Then $\ord(\alpha)\leq e\cdot (q^{1/e}+1)$. \noindent (2) $\mao(\PSL_2(q))=q+1$.\qed \end{lemmmma} They proved point (2) using point (1) (whose proof used Lang-Steinberg maps). Since point (1) of Theorem \ref{pslTheo} is now clear, let us outline the strategy for proving point (2): By Theorem \ref{regularTheo}, we know that the largest cycle length of any periodic affine map $\A_{x,\alpha}$ of $\Aut(\PSL_2(q))$ coincides with its order, which is the product $\ord(\alpha)\cdot\ord(\sh_{\alpha}(x))$. By completeness of $\Aut(\PSL_2(q))$, we know that $\ord(\alpha)$ is an element order in $\Aut(\PSL_2(q))$, so the order of any periodic affine map of $\Aut(\PSL_2(q))$ is the product of two automorphism orders of $\PSL_2(q)$. If we know a list of the first few largest automorphism orders of $\PSL_2(q)$ which is long enough to ensure that for any periodic affine map whose order exceeds the asserted $\Lambda_{\aff}$-value, the two factor orders must be in the list, we can systematically go through the possible combinations, deriving a contradiction in each case using Lemmata \ref{divisorLem} and \ref{centralizerLem}. It will then remain to show that the asserted $\Lambda_{\aff}$-value is indeed the $\Lambda$-value of some periodic affine map of $\Aut(\PSL_2(q))$, which can be done by Lemma \ref{lcmLem}. We can indeed extend the list of largest automorphism orders of $\PSL_2(q)$ to our needs in a way similar to how Guest, Morris, Praeger and Spiga derived point (2) of Lemma \ref{gmpsLem} from point (1): \begin{lemmmma}\label{largestOrdLem} (1) Let $q=2^f$ with $f\geq 3$. The two largest automorphism orders of $\PSL_2(q)$ are $q+1$ and $q-1$. \noindent (2) Let $q=p^f\geq 5$ with $p$ an odd prime and $f\geq 1$. (i) If $f=1$, then the five largest automorphism orders of $\PSL_2(q)$ are $q+1,q,q-1,\frac{q+1}{2},\frac{q-1}{2}$. (ii) If $f\geq 2$ and $(p,f)\not=(3,2)$, then the four largest automorphism orders of $\PSL_2(q)$ are $q+1,q-1,\frac{q+1}{2},\frac{q-1}{2}$. Also, $\ord(\alpha)\leq\frac{q-1}{2}$ for any $\alpha\in\Aut(\PSL_2(q))\setminus\PGL_2(q)$, where the inequality is strict for $q\not=25$. (iii) The four largest automorphism orders of $\PSL_2(9)\cong\Alt_6$ are $10,8,6,5$. \end{lemmmma} For those parts of the argument where we will use Lemma \ref{centralizerLem}, we will need some statements about centralizers in $\Aut(\PSL_2(q))$ for odd $q$: \begin{lemmmma}\label{pslCentLem} (1) Let $p\geq 5$ be prime, and let $\alpha\in\Aut(\PSL_2(p))=\PGL_2(p)$ be of order $p$. Then $\C_{\Aut(\PSL_2(p))}(\alpha)=\langle\alpha\rangle\subseteq\PSL_2(p)$. \noindent (2) Let $q\geq 5$ be odd, primary, $q\notin\{9,25\}$, and let $\alpha\in\Aut(\PSL_2(q))$ be of order $\frac{q-1}{2}$. Then $\C_{\Aut(\PSL_2(q))}(\alpha)\subseteq\PGL_2(q)$. \noindent (3) Let $q\geq 5$ be odd, primary, and let $\alpha\in\Aut(\PSL_2(q))$ be of order $q-1$. Then $\C_{\Aut(\PSL_2(q))}(\alpha)\subseteq\PGL_2(q)$. \noindent (4) Let $q\geq 5$ be odd, primary, and let $\alpha\in\Aut(\PSL_2(q))$ be of order $\frac{q+1}{2}$. Then $\C_{\Aut(\PSL_2(q))}(\alpha)\subseteq\PGL_2(q)$. \noindent (5) Let $q\geq 5$ be odd, primary, and let $\alpha\in\Aut(\PSL_2(q))$ be of order $q+1$. Then $\C_{\Aut(\PSL_2(q))}(\alpha)\subseteq\PGL_2(q)$. \end{lemmmma} Before proving Lemmata \ref{largestOrdLem} and \ref{pslCentLem}, for the readers' convenience, we quickly recall some basic facts on the element structure of $\PGL_2(q)$ for primary $q$ with prime base $p$. We denote by $\pi_0:\GL_2(q)\rightarrow\PGL_2(q)$ and $\pi_1:\GL_2(q^2)\rightarrow\PGL_2(q^2)$ the canonical projections. \begin{enumerate} \item Every element order in $\PGL_2(q)$ is a divisor of one of the following: $p,q+1,q-1$. \item Every element in $\PGL_2(q)$ of order $p$ is conjugate in $\PGL_2(q)$ to an element of the form $\pi_0(\begin{pmatrix}1 & x \\ 0 & 1\end{pmatrix})$ with $x\in\mathbb{F}_q^{\ast}$. These elements are also in $\PSL_2(q)$. \item Every element in $\PGL_2(q)$ of order a divisor of $q-1$ is conjugate in $\PGL_2(q)$ to an element of the form $\pi_0(\begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 \\ 0 & a\end{pmatrix})$ with $a\in\mathbb{F}_q^{\ast}$. Clearly, the order of such an element in $\PGL_2(q)$ equals the order of $a\in\mathbb{F}_q^{\ast}$, so all divisors of $q-1$ occur as element orders. Furthermore, such an element is in $\PSL_2(q)$ if and only if $a$ is a square in $\mathbb{F}_q$, whence for even $q$, all these elements are also in $\PSL_2(q)$, and for odd $q$, precisely those whose order is a divisor of $\frac{q+1}{2}$ are in $\PSL_2(q)$. \item Every element in $\PGL_2(q)$ of order a divisor of $q+1$, but not of $q-1$, is conjugate in $\PGL_2(q^2)$ to an element of the form $\pi_1(\begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 \\ 0 & a\end{pmatrix})$ with $a\in\mathbb{F}_{q^2}\setminus\mathbb{F}_q$. As before, all such divisors of $q+1$ occur as element orders, and among such elements, precisely those where $a$ is a square in $\mathbb{F}_{q^2}$ are in $\PSL_2(q)$, so again, for even $q$, all such elements are also in $\PSL_2(q)$, and for odd $q$, precisely those whose order is a divisor of $\frac{q+1}{2}$ are also in $\PSL_2(q)$. \end{enumerate} \begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{largestOrdLem}] Denote by $\pi:\Aut(\PSL_2(q))\rightarrow\Gal(\mathbb{F}_q/\mathbb{F}_p)$ the canonical projection. \noindent For (1): That $q+1$ is the largest automorphism order is just a special case of Lemma \ref{gmpsLem}(2), and $q-1$ is an automorphism order by the above facts on the element structure of $\PGL_2(q)$. It remains to show that $q=2^f$ is not an automorphism order, which goes as follows: If $\alpha\in\Aut(\PSL_2(q))$ had order $2^f$, then $2^f=\ord(\alpha)=\ord(\pi(\alpha))\cdot\ord(\alpha^{\ord(\pi(\alpha))})$. Now by the element structure, the only element orders in $\PGL_2(q)$ which are powers of $2$ are $1$ and $2$, and so $\ord(\alpha^{\ord(\pi(\alpha))})\leq 2$, and thus $\ord(\pi(\alpha))\geq 2^{f-1}$. But $\ord(\pi(\alpha))\mid|\Gal(\mathbb{F}_q/\mathbb{F}_2)|=f$, a contradiction. \noindent For (2,i): Since $\Aut(\PSL_2(q))=\PGL_2(q)$ if $q$ is prime, the statement follows from the element structure of $\PGL_2(q)$. \noindent For (2,ii): Again, by the element structure of $\PGL_2(q)$, the four listed numbers are certainly the four largest element orders in $\PGL_2(q)$, so it suffices to prove the second part of the claim. Let $\alpha\in\Aut(\PSL_2(q))\setminus\PGL_2(q)$, so that $e:=\ord(\pi(\alpha))>1$. We need to show that $\ord(\alpha)\leq\frac{q-1}{2}$, and actually $\ord(\alpha)<\frac{q-1}{2}$ unless $q=25$. By Lemma \ref{gmpsLem}(1), it is sufficient to show that $e(q^{1/e}+1)<\frac{q-1}{2}$ for $q\not=25$ (and to check that for $q=25$, where $e=2$, the left-hand side is equal to the right-hand side). For $q\not=25$ (i.e., $q\geq 27$), note that it suffices to show \begin{equation}\label{Eq1}\frac{4}{3}eq^{1/e}\leq\frac{13}{27}q,\end{equation} since \[e(q^{1/e}+1)=eq^{1/e}(1+\frac{1}{q^{1/e}})\leq\frac{4}{3}eq^{1/e},\] and \[\frac{q-1}{2}=q(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{2q})\geq q(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{54})=\frac{13}{27}q.\] (\ref{Eq1}) is equivalent to \[q\geq(\frac{36}{13}e)^{1+\frac{1}{e-1}},\] which is easy to verify in the case distinction $e=2$ (where $q\geq 49$) versus $e\geq 3$ (using that $q\geq 3^e$). \noindent For (2,iii): This is readily checked with GAP \cite{GAP4}. \end{proof} We remark that, as is easy to check with GAP \cite{GAP4}, $\PSL_2(25)$ actually has automorphisms of order $12=\frac{25-1}{2}$ that are not in $\PGL_2(25)$. \begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{pslCentLem}] For (1): By the element structure of $\PGL_2(p)$, we have $\alpha\in\PSL_2(p)$, and $\alpha$ is conjugate in $\PGL_2(p)$ to an element of the form $\pi_0(\begin{pmatrix}1 & x \\ 0 & 1\end{pmatrix})$ for some $x\in\mathbb{F}_p^{\ast}$, so it suffices to prove the assertion for all such elements. However, since they are powers of one another, it actually suffices to show the assertion for $\alpha=\pi_0(\begin{pmatrix}1 & 1 \\ 0 & 1\end{pmatrix})$. So let $\begin{pmatrix}a & b \\ c & d\end{pmatrix}\in\GL_2(p)$ such that \begin{equation}\label{Eq2}\pi_0(\begin{pmatrix}1 & 1 \\ 0 & 1\end{pmatrix}\cdot\begin{pmatrix}a & b \\ c & d\end{pmatrix}\cdot\begin{pmatrix}1 & -1 \\ 0 & 1\end{pmatrix})=\pi_0(\begin{pmatrix}a & b \\ c & d\end{pmatrix}).\end{equation} (\ref{Eq2}) is equivalent to the existence of some $\lambda\in\mathbb{F}_p^{\ast}$ such that \begin{equation}\label{Eq3}\begin{pmatrix}a+c & b+d-a-c \\ c & d-c\end{pmatrix}=\lambda\cdot\begin{pmatrix}a & b \\ c & d\end{pmatrix}.\end{equation} If $\lambda\not=1$, then a comparison of the bottom left entries in (\ref{Eq3}) implies $c=0$ and thus also $a=0$, a contradiction. So $\lambda=1$, turning (\ref{Eq3}) into a system of linear equations over $\mathbb{F}_p$ which one checks to be equivalent to $c=0,a=d$. It follows that \[\pi_0(\begin{pmatrix}a & b \\ c & d\end{pmatrix})=\pi_0(\begin{pmatrix}a & b \\ 0 & a\end{pmatrix})=\pi_0(\begin{pmatrix}1 & b/a \\ 0 & 1\end{pmatrix})\in\langle\alpha\rangle.\] \noindent For (2): Note that by Lemma \ref{largestOrdLem}(2,ii), $\alpha$ is an element of $\PGL_2(q)$, and so by the element structure of $\PGL_2(q)$, $\alpha$ is conjugate in $\PGL_2(q)$ to an element of the form $\pi_0(\begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 \\ 0 & x\end{pmatrix})$ with $x\in\mathbb{F}_q^{\ast}$ of order $\frac{q-1}{2}$ (i.e., $x$ generates the subgroup of squares in $\mathbb{F}_q^{\ast}$); it suffices to show that the centralizers in $\Aut(\PSL_2(q))$ of such elements are contained in $\PGL_2(q)$. We do so by contradiction: Assume that for some nontrivial field automorphism $\sigma=\Frob^e$ of $\mathbb{F}_q$, where $\Frob$ denotes the Frobenius automorphism of $\mathbb{F}_q$ and $1\leq e<f$, and for some $A=\begin{pmatrix}a & b \\ c & d\end{pmatrix}\in\GL_2(q)$, we have \begin{equation}\label{Eq4}\pi_0(A\sigma\cdot\begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 \\ 0 & x\end{pmatrix}\cdot\sigma^{-1}A^{-1})=\pi_0(\begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 \\ 0 & x\end{pmatrix}).\end{equation} Easy computations reveal that (\ref{Eq4}) is equivalent to the existence of some $\lambda\in\mathbb{F}_q^{\ast}$ such that \begin{equation}\label{Eq5}\frac{1}{ad-bc}\cdot\begin{pmatrix}ad-\sigma(x)bc & ab(\sigma(x)-1) \\ cd(1-\sigma(x)) & \sigma(x)ad-bc\end{pmatrix}=\lambda\cdot\begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 \\ 0 & x\end{pmatrix}.\end{equation} Comparing the coefficients in the bottom left and top right corners in (\ref{Eq5}), we find that $ab=0$ and $cd=0$, so either $a=d=0$ or $b=c=0$. In the latter case, comparing the coefficients in the top left corners of (\ref{Eq5}) yields $\lambda=1$, and thus comparing the bottom right coefficients in (\ref{Eq5}), we get that $\sigma(x)=x$, which implies $\frac{p^f-1}{2}\mid p^e-1$, or $p^f-1\mid 2(p^e-1)$, although $p^f-1>p^f-p=p\cdot(p^{f-1}-1)>2\cdot(p^e-1)$, a contradiction. In the first case, comparing the coefficients in the top left corners of (\ref{Eq5}) gives $\lambda=\sigma(x)$, and thus by comparing the coefficients in the bottom right corners of (\ref{Eq5}), $\sigma(x)=x^{-1}$, which implies $\frac{p^f-1}{2}\mid p^e+1$, or $p^f-1\mid 2(p^e+1)$, although it is easy to check that $2(p^e+1)\leq 2(p^{f-1}+1)<p^f-1$, a contradiction. \noindent For (3): This can be treated with an argument analogous to the one for (2) (of course, except for the cases $q=9,25$, the statement immediately follows from (2)). \noindent For (4): Consider the natural embedding \[\Aut(\PSL_2(q))=\PGL_2(q)\rtimes\Gal(\mathbb{F}_q/\mathbb{F}_p)\hookrightarrow\PGL_2(q^2)\rtimes\Gal(\mathbb{F}_{q^2}/\mathbb{F}_p)=\Aut(\PSL_2(q^2))\] extending the natural embedding $\PGL_2(q)\hookrightarrow\PGL_2(q^2)$, by means of which we view $\Aut(\PSL_2(q))$ as a subgroup of $\Aut(\PSL_2(q^2))$. By Lemma \ref{largestOrdLem}(2,ii), $\alpha\in\PGL_2(q)$, and by the element structure of $\PGL_2(q)$, $\alpha$ is conjugate in $\PGL_2(q^2)$ to an element of the form $\pi_1(\begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 \\ 0 & x\end{pmatrix})$, where the order of $x\in\mathbb{F}_{q^2}^{\ast}$ is $\frac{q+1}{2}$. Denote by $\Frob$ the Frobenius automorphism of $\mathbb{F}_{q^2}$. It is sufficient to show that $\C_{\Aut(\PSL_2(q^2))}(\pi_1(\begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 \\ 0 & x\end{pmatrix}))\subseteq\PGL_2(q^2)\rtimes\langle\Frob^f\rangle$, since this implies $\C_{\Aut(\PSL_2(q^2))}(\alpha)\subseteq\PGL_2(q^2)\rtimes\langle\Frob^f\rangle$, and so \[\C_{\Aut(\PSL_2(q))}(\alpha)=\C_{\Aut(\PSL_2(q^2))}(\alpha)\cap\Aut(\PSL_2(q))\subseteq\]\[\subseteq(\PGL_2(q^2)\rtimes\langle\Frob^f\rangle)\cap\Aut(\PSL_2(q))=\PGL_2(q).\] To see that among the elements of $\Aut(\PSL_2(q^2))$, $\pi_1(\begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 \\ 0 & x\end{pmatrix})$ only commutes with elements from $\PGL_2(q^2)\rtimes\langle\Frob^f\rangle$, we proceed by contradiction, with the same ansatz as in point (2). This time, the divisibility relations at which one arrives in the two cases are $p^f+1\mid 2(p^e-1)$ and $p^f+1\mid 2(p^e+1)$ respectively. Note that now, $1\leq e<2f$, so we cannot argue as in point (2) that the supposed multiple is always smaller than the supposed divisor. However, this idea at least excludes the case $e<f$, so we may write $e=f+k$ with $0\leq k<f$. Then it is easy to check that $2p^k-1<\frac{2(p^e-1)}{p^f+1}<2p^k$, making the first inequality contradictory. Similarly, one can exclude the case $k>0$ for the second inequality, leaving only the case $k=0$, i.e., $e=f$. \noindent For (5): This follows immediately from (4). \end{proof} \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{pslTheo}] As pointed out before, point (1) of the theorem follows from Lemma \ref{gmpsLem}(2), so we focus on the proof of point (2). Let $A=\A_{x,\alpha}\in\Aff(\Aut(\PSL_2(q)))$ be such that $\Lambda(A)=\Lambda_{\aff}(\Aut(\PSL_2(q)))$. Set $o_1:=\ord(\alpha)$ and $o_2:=\ord(\sh_{\alpha}(x))$, so that $\Lambda(A)=\ord(A)=o_1\cdot o_2$, and note that $o_1,o_2\leq q+1$. If $q$ is prime, then on the one hand, we cannot have $o_1=o_2=q+1$, since that would imply by Lemma \ref{divisorLem} that $(q+1)^2\mid|\Aut(\PSL_2(q))|=|\PGL_2(q)|=q(q^2-1)$, a contradiction. The next smaller potential order of $A$ is $q(q+1)$, which is indeed attained by Lemma \ref{lcmLem} and the fact that $\Aut(\PSL_2(q))=\PGL_2(q)$ contains both an element of order $q$ and of order $q+1$. If $q=2^f$ with $f\geq 3$, then Lemma \ref{divisorLem} again excludes the case $o_1=o_2=q+1=2^f+1$. By Lemma \ref{largestOrdLem}(1), the next smaller potential order of $A$ is $(q+1)\cdot(q-1)=q^2-1$, which can be attained in view of Lemma \ref{lcmLem}. Finally, consider the case $q=p^f$ with $p$ an odd prime and $f\geq 2$. First, one verifies with GAP \cite{GAP4} that $\Lambda_{\aff}(\Aut(\PSL_2(9)))=40=\frac{1}{2}(9^2-1)$ and $\Lambda_{\aff}(\Aut(\PSL_2(25)))=312=\frac{1}{2}(25^2-1)$, so we may assume $(p,f)\notin\{(3,2),(5,2)\}$ from now on. By the element structure of $\PGL_2(q)$ and Lemma \ref{lcmLem}, it is clear that $\frac{1}{2}(q^2-1)$ can be attained as the order of some periodic affine map of $\Aut(\PSL_2(q))$, so it remains to show that $o_1\cdot o_2\leq\frac{1}{2}(q^2-1)$. We do this in a case distinction. First assume that $o_1=q+1$, so that by Lemma \ref{largestOrdLem}(2,ii), $\alpha\in\PGL_2(q)$. Then the inequality is equivalent to $o_2\leq\frac{q-1}{2}$. If $o_2>\frac{q-1}{2}$, by Lemma \ref{largestOrdLem}(2,ii) again, it follows that $o_2\in\{q+1,q-1,\frac{q+1}{2}\}$. In each of these three cases, using Lemma \ref{centralizerLem} and Lemma \ref{pslCentLem}(5,3,4) respectively, we conclude that $x\in\PGL_2(q)$. This gives a contradiction when $o_2=q+1$ or $o_2=q-1$, since by the fact that $[\PGL_2(q):\PSL_(q)]=2$ and $o_1$ is even, we get that $\sh_{\alpha}(x)\in\PSL_2(q)$, but $\PSL_2(q)$ does not have any elements of order $q+1$ or $q-1$. The case $o_2=\frac{q+1}{2}$ can be refuted by Lemma \ref{divisorLem} (applied to $G:=\PGL_2(q)$) again. Next assume that $o_1=q-1$, in which case $\alpha\in\PGL_2(q)$ as well. The inequality is equivalent to $o_2\leq\frac{q+1}{2}$, so it remains to exclude the two cases $o_2=q+1$ and $o_2=q-1$, which can be done as in the previous case, deriving the contradictory $\sh_{\alpha}(x)\in\PSL_2(q)$. If $o_1=\frac{q+1}{2}$, we only need to exclude the case $o_2=q+1$, which can be done as in the case $o_1=q+1$ using Lemma \ref{divisorLem}. Finally, if $o_1\leq\frac{q-1}{2}$, then the inequality holds for sure. \end{proof} Theorem \ref{pslTheo} implies by some easy computations that for primary $q\geq 5$, $\Lambda_{\aff}(\PSL_2(q))>|\PSL_2(q)|^{\frac{2}{3}}$ if and only if $q$ is a prime, in which case $\Lambda_{\aff}(\PSL_2(q))=q(q+1)$, and verification of the statement about monotonous convergence of the upper bound is also easy. This settles our discussion of the subcase $n=1$. \subsubsection{Useful observations for the other subcases}\label{subsubsec4P3P2} The following lemma is immediate from the element structure of $\PGL_2(p)$: \begin{lemmmma}\label{affineDivLem} Let $p\geq 5$ be a prime, and let $A\in\Aff(\Aut(\PSL_2(p)))=\Aff(\PGL_2(p))$. Then $\ord(A)$ is a divisor of one of the following: $p(p+1),p(p-1),p^2-1$.\qed \end{lemmmma} Another useful observation (similar in spirit to Lemma \ref{boundLem}(2)) is the following: Since we have $\Lambda(\Aut(\PSL_2(q)^n))=\meo(\Aut(\PSL_2(q)^n))$, and $\Lambda_{\aff}(\Aut(\PSL_2(q)^n))\leq\meo(\Aut(\PSL_2(q)^n))^2$, whenever $\Lambda(\Aut(\PSL_2(q)^n))\leq|\PSL_2(q)|^{\frac{n}{3}}$, we also have $\Lambda_{\aff}(\Aut(\PSL_2(q)^n))\leq|\PSL_2(q)|^{\frac{2n}{3}}$. \subsubsection{Subcase: \texorpdfstring{$n=2$}{n=2}}\label{subsubsec4P3P3} Clearly, for primes $p\geq 5$, $\Lambda(\Aut(\PSL_2(p)^2))=\Lambda(\Aut(\PSL_2(p))\wr\Sym_2)$ is bounded from below by $p(p+1)=\meo(\Aut(\PSL_2(p))^2)$, and by Lemma \ref{wreathLem}, elements from $\Aut(\PSL_2(p)^2)\setminus\Aut(\PSL_2(p))^2$ have order bounded from above by $2\cdot(p+1)<p(p+1)$, so indeed, we have $\Lambda(\Aut(\PSL_2(p)^2))=\meo(\Aut(\PSL_2(p)^2))=p(p+1)$. As for $q\geq 5$ that are not prime, we first verify directly with GAP \cite{GAP4} that $\meo(\Aut(\PSL_2(9)^2))=40<360^{2/3}$. For all other odd $q$, we can use Lemma \ref{largestOrdLem}(2,ii) to see that $\meo(\Aut(\PSL_2(q)^2))=\frac{1}{2}(q^2-1)<(\frac{1}{2}q(q^2-1))^{\frac{2}{3}}$, and Lemma \ref{wreathLem} to treat automorphisms outside $\Aut(\PSL_2(q)^2)$ as before. Finally, for $q=2^f$ with $f\geq 3$, by Lemma \ref{largestOrdLem}(1), we have $\meo(\Aut(\PSL_2(q)^2))=q^2-1<(q(q^2-1))^{\frac{2}{3}}$, and we can treat all other automorphisms by Lemma \ref{wreathLem} again. As for $\Lambda_{\aff}$-values in the subcase $n=2$, by the \enquote{useful observation} after Lemma \ref{affineDivLem}, it remains to show that $\Lambda_{\aff}(\Aut(\PSL_2(p)^2))\leq|\PSL_2(p)|^{\frac{4}{3}}$ for primes $p\geq 5$. It is easily checked with GAP \cite{GAP4} that $\Lambda_{\aff}(\Aut(\PSL_2(5)^2))=120<60^{\frac{4}{3}}$, so we may assume $p\geq 7$ from now on. Let $A=\A_{x,\alpha}\in\Aff(\Aut(\PSL_2(p)^2))$. We know that we can identify $\alpha$ with an element in $\Aut(\PSL_2(p)^2)$, that $\meo(\Aut(\PSL_2(p))^2)=p(p+1)$ and that elements from $\Aut(\PSL_2(p)^2)\setminus\Aut(\PSL_2(p))^2$ have at most the order $2\cdot(p+1)$. Therefore, if not both $\alpha,\sh_{\alpha}(x)\in\Aut(\PSL_2(p))^2$, then the order of $A$ is at most $2(p+1)\cdot p(p+1)<(\frac{1}{2}p(p^2-1))^{\frac{4}{3}}$. So we may assume $\alpha,\sh_{\alpha}(x)\in\Aut(\PSL_2(p))^2$ from now on, and also $\ord(A)>2(p+1)\cdot p(p+1)$. The latter implies that the two components of $\sh_{\alpha}(x)$ must be of different order. But conjugation of $\sh_{\alpha}(x)$ by any element from $\Aut(\PSL_2(p)^2)\setminus\Aut(\PSL_2(p)^2)$ swaps the orders of the components, and so $\sh_{\alpha}(x)$ cannot commute with any such element. In other words, $\C_{\Aut(\PSL_2(p)^2)}(\sh_{\alpha}(x))\subseteq\Aut(\PSL_2(p))^2$, and so, by an application of Lemma \ref{centralizerLem}, we conclude that $x\in\Aut(\PSL_2(p))^2$. Together with $\alpha\in\Aut(\PSL_2(p))^2$, this implies that $A$ decomposes as a product $A_1\times A_2$, with $A_1,A_2\in\Aff(\Aut(\PSL_2(p)))$. Therefore, by Lemma \ref{affineDivLem}, $\ord(A)=\lcm(\ord(A_1),\ord(A_2))\leq p(p^2-1)<(\frac{1}{2}p(p^2-1))^{\frac{4}{3}}$. \subsubsection{Subcase: \texorpdfstring{$n=3$}{n=3}}\label{subsubsec4P3P4} Denote by $\pi_3:\Aut(\PSL_2(q)^3)=\Aut(\PSL_2(q))\wr\Sym_3\rightarrow\Sym_3$ the canonical projection. By a simple case distinction according to the cycle type of $\pi_3(\alpha)$, Lemma \ref{wreathLem} can be used to show that automorphisms $\alpha$ outside $\Aut(\PSL_2(q))^3$ have order bounded from above by $2q(q+1)<|\PSL_2(q)|$ in all cases. If $q$ is a prime, then since the element orders in $\Aut(\PSL_2(q))=\PGL_2(q)$ are just the divisors of $q+1,q$ and $q-1$, we have $\meo(\Aut(\PSL_2(q))^3)=\lcm(q+1,q,q-1)=\frac{1}{2}q(q^2-1)=|\PSL_2(q)|^{\frac{3}{3}}$. If $q=2^f$ with $f\geq 3$, by Lemma \ref{largestOrdLem}(1), we have $\meo(\Aut(\PSL_2(q)^3))<(q+1)(q-1)^2<|\PSL_2(q)|$. For $q=9$, one checks with GAP \cite{GAP4} that $\meo(\Aut(\PSL_2(9)^3))=120<360$, and for odd $q\geq 25$, using Lemma \ref{largestOrdLem}(2,ii), we conclude that $\meo(\Aut(\PSL_2(q))^3)<\frac{1}{2}(q+1)(q-1)^2<|\PSL_2(q)|$. \subsubsection{Subcase: \texorpdfstring{$n=4$}{n=4}}\label{subsubsec4P3P5} We will show $\Lambda(\Aut(\PSL_2(q)^4))<|\PSL_2(q)|^{\frac{4}{3}}$ for all primary $q\geq 5$. For $q=5$, one can check directly that $\meo(\Aut(\PSL_2(5))^4)=60<60^{\frac{4}{3}}$, and automorphisms $\alpha$ from outside $\Aut(\PSL_2(5))^4$ are treated with Lemma \ref{wreathLem} like before. Assuming $q\geq 7$, we have $\meo(\Aut(\PSL_2(q)^4))\leq g(4)\cdot\exp(\Aut(\PSL_2(q)))\leq 4\cdot \log_p(q)\cdot p\cdot\frac{q^2-1}{\gcd(2,q-1)}\leq 4\cdot |\PSL_2(q)|<|\PSL_2(q)|^{\frac{4}{3}}$. \subsubsection{Subcase: \texorpdfstring{$n\geq 5$}{n>=5}}\label{subsubsec4P3P6} Here we can use crude upper bounds and \enquote{get away with it}; it is sufficient and easy to verify that \[\Lambda(\Aut(\PSL_2(q)^n))\leq g(n)\cdot \exp(\Aut(\PSL_2(q)))<3^{\frac{n}{3}}\cdot|\PSL_2(q)|\leq|\PSL_2(q)|^{n/3}.\] \subsection{Case: \texorpdfstring{$S=\PSL_d(q),d\geq 3,q\geq 2$}{S=PSLd(q), d>=3, q>=2}}\label{subsec4P4} From now on, we will always work with Lemma \ref{boundLem}(2). Furthermore, we will use the information on maximum automorphism orders of finite simple groups from \cite[Table 3]{GMPS15a}. Note that since $\PSL_3(2)\cong\PSL_2(7)$, we may assume that $(d,q)\not=(3,2)$, and so $\mao(\PSL_d(q))=\frac{q^d-1}{q-1}$. In view of $\meo(\Aut(\PSL_d(q))^n)\leq\meo(\Aut(\PSL_d(q)))^n$, our goal is to show that \begin{equation}\label{eq2}g(n)\cdot\meo(\Aut(\PSL_d(q)))^n<|\PSL_d(q)|^{\frac{n}{3}}=(\frac{q^{d(d-1)/2}}{\gcd(d,q-1)}\cdot\prod_{i=2}^d{(q^i-1)})^{\frac{n}{3}}.\end{equation} \subsubsection{Subcase: \texorpdfstring{$d=3$}{d=3}}\label{subsubsec4P4P1} We need to treat the subsubcases $q=3$ and $q=4$ separately. Using GAP \cite{GAP4}, one finds that the list of element orders in $\Aut(\PSL_3(3))$ is $1,2,3,4,6,8,12,13$. This implies that \[g(1)\cdot\meo(\Aut(\PSL_3(3))^1)=1\cdot 13<5616^{\frac{1}{3}},\] that \[g(2)\cdot\meo(\Aut(\PSL_3(3)^2)=2\cdot 156<5616^{\frac{2}{3}},\] and that $g(n)\cdot\meo(\Aut(\PSL_3(3)^n))=g(n)\cdot 312<5616^{n/3}$ for $n\geq 3$. The subsubcase $q=4$ is treated analogously. For $q\geq 5$, using Proposition \ref{landauProp}, we see that for proving (\ref{eq2}), it is sufficient to show \[(q^2+q+1)^2<\frac{q^3}{3\gcd(3,q-1)}\cdot(q-1)(q^2-1),\] which is easy to verify. \subsubsection{Subcase: \texorpdfstring{$d=4$}{d=4} or \texorpdfstring{$d=5$}{d=5}}\label{subsubsec4P4P2} For $d=4$, splitting the factor $(q^2)^{\frac{n}{3}}$ from the beginning of the right-hand side of (\ref{eq2}), we can \enquote{swallow} the factor $g(n)$ on the left-hand side by Proposition \ref{landauProp}, and see that it is sufficient to show that \begin{equation}\label{eq6}(q^3+q^2+q+1)^2<\frac{q^4}{\gcd(4,q-1)}(q-1)(q^3-1)(q^2-1).\end{equation} Replacing the left-hand side of (\ref{eq6}) by the larger $q^8$, dividing both sides by $q^8$ and performing appropriate cancelations and distributions of factors $q$ among the factors on the right-hand side, we get the stronger inequality \begin{equation}\label{eq8}1<\frac{1}{\gcd(4,q-1)}(q-1)\cdot(\sqrt{q}-\frac{1}{q^{5/2}})\cdot(\sqrt{q}-\frac{1}{q^{3/2}}),\end{equation} which is obviously true. The subcase $d=5$ can be treated in a similar way. \subsubsection{Subcase: \texorpdfstring{$d\geq 6$}{d>=6}}\label{subsubsec4P4P3} One can check that $2d\leq\frac{d(d-1)}{2}-2$ for $d\geq 6$. The left-hand side of (\ref{eq2}) is therefore bounded from above by \[(q^2)^{\frac{n}{3}}\cdot(q^d-1)^n<(q^2)^{\frac{n}{3}}\cdot(q^d-1)^{\frac{n}{3}}\cdot (q^{2d})^{\frac{n}{3}}\leq(q^2)^{\frac{n}{3}}\cdot(q^d-1)^{\frac{n}{3}}\cdot (q^{\frac{d(d-1)}{2}-2})^{\frac{n}{3}}=(q^{d(d-1)/2}\cdot(q^d-1))^{\frac{n}{3}},\] which is obviously smaller than the right-hand side of (\ref{eq2}). \subsection{Case: \texorpdfstring{$S=\PSU_d(q),d\geq3,(d,q)\not=(3,2)$}{S=PSUd(q),d>=3,(d,q)!=(3,2)}}\label{subsec4P5} Note that $|\PSU_d(q)|=\frac{1}{\gcd(d,q+1)}q^{d(d-1)/2}\prod_{i=2}^d{(q^i-(-1)^i)}$. \subsubsection{Subcase: \texorpdfstring{$d=3$}{d=3}}\label{subsubsec4P5P1} It follows from \cite[Table 3]{GMPS15a} that $\mao(\PSU_3(q))\leq q^2+q$, and so it is sufficient to show that \begin{equation}\label{eq9}g(n)\cdot(q^2+q)^n<(\frac{1}{\gcd(3,q+1)}q^3(q^3+1)(q^2-1))^{\frac{n}{3}}.\end{equation} Splitting $q^{\frac{n}{3}}$ from the right-hand side of (\ref{eq9}) to \enquote{swallow} $g(n)$, we see that (\ref{eq9}) is implied by \begin{equation}\label{eq10}\gcd(3,q+1)<\frac{q^2-q+1}{q+1}\cdot(1-\frac{1}{q}).\end{equation} For $q\geq 7$, the first factor on the right-hand side of (\ref{eq10}) is bounded from below by $4$, and so the entire right-hand side is bounded from below by $4\cdot\frac{6}{7}>3\geq\gcd(3,q+1)$. For $q=3$ and $q=4$, one verifies the validity of (\ref{eq10}) directly. Finally, for $q=5$, one can check that \[g(n)\cdot\meo(\Aut(\PSU_3(5))^n)<126000^{\frac{n}{3}},\] like we did for $q=3$ in the subcase $d=3$ of the previous case (Subsubsection \ref{subsubsec4P4P1}). \subsubsection{Subcase: \texorpdfstring{$d\geq4$}{d>=4}}\label{subsubsec4P5P2} We read off from \cite[Table 3]{GMPS15a} that $\mao(\PSU_4(q))\leq q^3+4$, so for the subsubcase $d=4$, we want to show that \begin{equation}\label{eq11}g(n)\cdot(q^3+4)^n<(\frac{q^6}{\gcd(4,q+1)}(q^4-1)(q^3+1)(q^2-1))^{\frac{n}{3}}.\end{equation} Splitting $(q+1)^{\frac{n}{3}}$ from the right-hand side of (\ref{eq11}) to \enquote{swallow} $g(n)$, we see that (\ref{eq11}) is weaker than \[(q^3+4)^3<\frac{q^6}{\gcd(4,q+1)}(q^4-1)(q^3+1)(q-1),\] which is easy to prove for all $q\geq 2$. The subsubcase $d=5$ is similar to $d=4$, using that $\mao(\PSU_5(q))<q^5$. Finally, using $\mao(\PSU_d(q))<q^d$, we can treat the subsubcase $d\geq 6$ similarly to the subcase $d\geq 6$ of the previous case (Subsubsection \ref{subsubsec4P4P3}). \subsection{Case: \texorpdfstring{$S=\PSp_{2m}(q),m\geq 2,(m,q)\not=(2,2)$}{S=PSp2m(q),m>=2,(d,q)!=(2,2)} or \texorpdfstring{$S=\PO_{2m+1}(q),m\geq 3$}{S=POmega2m+1(q),m>=3}}\label{subsec4P6} By \cite[Table 3]{GMPS15a}, in both cases, $\mao(S)\leq\frac{q^{m+1}}{q-1}$. Also, $|S|=\frac{q^{m^2}}{\gcd(2,q-1)}\prod_{i=1}^m{(q^{2i}-1)}$ in both cases, so we can discuss them simultaneously. We want to show that \begin{equation}\label{eq12}g(n)\cdot\frac{q^{n(m+1)}}{(q-1)^n}<(\frac{q^{m^2}}{\gcd(2,q-1)}\prod_{i=1}^{m}{(q^{2i}-1)})^{\frac{n}{3}}.\end{equation} Split a factor $(q+1)^{\frac{n}{3}}$ from the right-hand side of (\ref{eq12}) to \enquote{swallow} $g(n)$. It follows that (\ref{eq12}) is weaker than \begin{equation}\label{eq13}q^{3(m+1)}<\frac{q^{m^2}}{\gcd(2,q-1)}\prod_{i=2}^m{(q^{2i}-1)}\cdot(q-1)^4,\end{equation} which is easy to verify for all $(m,q)\not=(2,2)$. \subsection{Case: \texorpdfstring{$S=\PO_{2m}^+(q),m\geq 4$}{S=POmegaPlus2m(q),m>=4} or \texorpdfstring{$S=\PO_{2m}^-(q),m\geq 4$}{S=POmegaMinus2m(q),m>=4}}\label{subsec4P7} In both cases, we have $\mao(S)\leq\frac{q^{m+1}}{q-1}$ and $|S|=\frac{q^{m(m-1)}(q^m-1)}{\gcd(4,q^m-1)}\prod_{i=1}^{m-1}{(q^{2i}-1)}$, so we want to show that \begin{equation}\label{eq14}g(n)\cdot\frac{q^{n(m+1)}}{(q-1)^n}<(\frac{q^{m(m-1)}(q^m-1)}{\gcd(4,q^m-1)}\prod_{i=1}^{m-1}{(q^{2i}-1)})^{\frac{n}{3}},\end{equation} which can be done analogously to the previous case (Subsection \ref{subsec4P6}). \subsection{Case: \texorpdfstring{$S$}{S} is an exceptional group of Lie type} Guest, Morris, Praeger and Spiga \cite[Proof of Theorem 1.2]{GMPS15a} derived upper bounds on $\mao(S)$ for such $S$, based on the information on largest element orders of exceptional Lie type groups of odd characteristic from \cite[Table A.7]{KS09a}, the upper bounds on largest element orders for those of even characteristic from \cite[Table 5]{GMPS15a}, and information on outer automorphism group orders of such groups from \cite[Table 5, p.~xvi]{CCNPW85a}. Denoting their upper bound by $o(S)$, one can, in almost all cases, prove the sufficient inequality \begin{equation}\label{eq16}g(n)\cdot o(S)^n<|S|^{\frac{n}{3}}\end{equation} with arguments similar to those used in the nonexceptional cases. There are two particular subcases where we use a sharper upper bound on $\mao(S)$, based on reading off the precise value of $\meo(S)$ (not just an upper bound on it) and of $|\Out(S)|$ from \cite{CCNPW85a} and setting $o(S):=\meo(S)\cdot|\Out(S)|$. These two cases are $S=\leftidx{^{3}}D_4(2)$ (with $o(S)=18\cdot 3=54$) and $S=\leftidx{^{2}}F_4(2)'$ (with $o(S)=16\cdot 2=32$). \section{Acknowledgements} The author would like to thank the following people: Michael Giudici for raising his awareness to the paper \cite{GPS15a}, Igor Shparlinski and Alina Ostafe for a valuable discussion stimulating this improved version of a previous paper by the author, and Peter Hellekalek for his support and helpful comments.
\section{Introduction} Perfect fluid spheres in general relativity have almost a full century of history, dating back to Schwarzschild's interior solution of 1916~\cite{interior}, (corresponding to a spatially uniform density with a spatially varying but isotropic pressure). More recently, some particularly important contributions are the Delgaty--Lake review article of 1998~\cite{delgaty}, and the subsequent rapid (and extensive) development of ``algorithmic techniques'' in the first decade of the 21$^{st}$ century~\cite{algorithmic1, algorithmic2, algorithmic3, algorithmic4, algorithmic5, algorithmic6, algorithmic7, algorithmic8, Lake:2002, Loranger:2008, Lake:2008, Grenon:2008}. However, when it comes to dealing with \emph{anisotropic} fluid spheres, (where the radial pressure need not equal the transverse pressure), the situation is considerably messier. See, for instance, references~\refcite{Bayin:1982}--\refcite{Schubring:2014}. Such anisotropic fluid spheres are sometimes believed to be physically relevant for the description of neutron stars, (see, for example, references~\refcite{Silva:2014}--\refcite{Heintzmann:1975}), and other compact objects, and are known to be relevant for the internal structure of gravastars~\cite{gravastar1, gravastar2}. At a pinch the formalism can also readily be adapted to anisotropic solid spheres, such as idealized spherically symmetric planets, or the possibly solid crust of a neutron star. Typically one can proceed only at the high cost of making some very specific ansatz; either for some specific metric component, or for some specific relationship between the components of the stress-energy tensor. Often these ansatze are less than well physically motivated. In the current article we shall endeavour instead to build a reasonably general theoretical model to ``mimic'' a generic anisotropic fluid sphere. We shall do this by ``mimicking'' the stress-energy of a generic anisotropic fluid sphere in terms of some linear combination of ``charged perfect fluid'' plus ``electromagnetic field'' plus ``massless scalar field''. By construction, the perfect fluid component in this model is automatically in internal equilibrium, with pressure (buoyancy) forces, electric forces, and scalar forces exactly balancing the gravitational pseudo-force. We shall investigate the extent to which such a decomposition can be carried out, the extent to which such a decomposition is (or can be made to be) unique, and the extent to which we can say something concerning the spacetime geometry. We shall also investigate the extent to which the classical energy conditions\,~\cite{wormholes, epoch1, epoch2, epoch3, cosmo99, twilight, Bekenstein:2013} are (or can be made to be) satisfied, and the extent to which we can pin down the (effective) electric charge density and scalar charge density that are used to ``mimic'' the anisotropies in the stress-energy. Overall, we will seek to build a simple and straightforward theoretical model that can be usefully used to ``mimic'' a very large class of anisotropic fluid spheres. \enlargethispage{30pt} For definiteness we shall adopt the conventions that the spacetime metric is presented in the usual Schwarzschild curvature coordinates \begin{equation} {\mathrm{d}} s^2 = - e^{-2\Phi(r)}{\mathrm{d}} t^2 + {{\mathrm{d}} r^2\over1-2m(r)/r} +r^2({\mathrm{d}}\theta^2+\sin^2\theta\; {\mathrm{d}}\varphi^2), \end{equation} and that in the associated orthonormal basis the \emph{total} stress-energy is: \begin{equation} T^{\hat a\hat b} = \left[ \begin{array}{cccc} \rho & 0& 0& 0\\ 0& p_r &0 &0 \\ 0&0 & p_t &0 \\0 &0 &0 & p_t\end{array}\right]. \end{equation} \section{Stress-energy tensors} \noindent The relevant stress-energy tensors we use are utterly standard, see for instance references~\refcite{Hell} and \refcite{BD}. \begin{itemize} \item For a perfect fluid we have \begin{equation} T_{\mathrm{f}}^{ab} = (\rho_{\mathrm{f}}+p_{\mathrm{f}}) V^a V^b + p_{\mathrm{f}} \, g^{ab}. \end{equation} \item For the electromagnetic field we have \begin{equation} T_{\mathrm{em}}^{ab} = F^{ac} g_{cd} F^{bd} - {1\over4} g^{ab} (F_{cd} F^{cd}). \end{equation} \item For the (minimally coupled) massless scalar field we have \begin{equation} T_{\mathrm{s}}^{ab} =\phi^{;a} \phi^{;b} - {1\over2} g^{ab} (g^{cd}\phi_{;c}\phi_{;d}). \end{equation} \end{itemize} Once one restricts to spherical symmetry, and adopts an orthonormal basis, the stress-energy for a perfect fluid is: \begin{equation} T^{\hat a\hat b}_{\mathrm{f}} = \left[ \begin{array}{cccc} \rho_{\mathrm{f}} & 0& 0& 0\\ 0& p_{\mathrm{f}} &0 &0 \\ 0&0 & p_{\mathrm{f}} &0 \\0 &0 &0 & p_{\mathrm{f}}\end{array}\right]. \end{equation} Similarly, spherical symmetry plus an orthonormal basis imply that the electromagnetic field-strength tensor is: \begin{equation} F^{\hat a\hat b} = E \left[ \begin{array}{rrrr} 0 & +1& 0& 0\\ -1 &0 &0 &0 \\ 0&0 & 0 &0 \\0 &0 &0 & 0\end{array}\right]. \end{equation} Consequently, spherical symmetry, an orthonormal basis, and tracelessness implies that the electromagnetic stress-energy is: \begin{equation} T^{\hat a\hat b}_{\mathrm{em}}= {1\over2} E^2 \left[ \begin{array}{rrrr} +1 & 0& 0& 0\\ 0& -1 &0 &0 \\ 0&0 & +1 &0 \\0 &0 &0 & +1\end{array}\right]. \end{equation} Finally, using spherical symmetry and an orthonormal basis, for a scalar field: \begin{equation} \phi^{;\hat a} \phi^{;\hat b} = (\nabla \phi)^2 \left[ \begin{array}{rrrr} 0 & 0& 0& 0\\ 0 &+1 &0 &0 \\ 0&0 & 0 &0 \\0 &0 &0 & 0\end{array}\right]. \end{equation} Consequently, the stress-energy for a massless minimally coupled scalar is: \begin{equation} T^{ab}_{\mathrm{s}} = {1\over2} (\nabla \phi)^2 \left[ \begin{array}{rrrr} +1 & 0& 0& 0\\ 0& +1 &0 &0 \\ 0&0 & -1 &0 \\0 &0 &0 & -1\end{array}\right]. \end{equation} Note that for the electromagnetic field we automatically have $(p_r)_{\mathrm{em}} < (p_t)_{\mathrm{em}}$, while in contrast for the scalar field $(p_r)_{\mathrm{s}}> (p_t)_{\mathrm{s}}$. It is this relative magnitude flip that is essential in mimicking an arbitrary anisotropic fluid sphere. \bigskip \noindent Combining these results we now have: \begin{eqnarray} \rho &=& \rho_{\mathrm{f}} +{1\over2} E^2 + {1\over2} (\nabla\phi)^2 ;\\ p_r &=& p_{\mathrm{f}} -{1\over2} E^2 + {1\over2} (\nabla\phi)^2 ;\\ p_t &=& p_{\mathrm{f}} +{1\over2} E^2 - {1\over2} (\nabla\phi)^2 . \end{eqnarray} Then in particular \begin{equation} p_r+p_t = 2 p_{\mathrm{f}}; \quad\hbox{and} \quad p_r-p_t = (\nabla\phi)^2-E^2. \end{equation} One specific way of inverting this, (by far the simplest), is to take: \begin{eqnarray} p_{\mathrm{f}} &=& {1\over2}(p_r+p_t); \\ \rho_{\mathrm{f}} &= &\rho - {1\over2}\,|p_r-p_t|; \\ (\nabla \phi)^2 &=& \max\{p_r-p_t,0\}; \\ E^2 &=& \max\{p_t-p_r,0\}. \end{eqnarray} By using this decomposition we see that \emph{any} static and spherically symmetric stress tensor can be mimicked by a linear superposition of \begin{equation*} \hbox{(perfect fluid)} + \hbox{(electromagnetic)} + \hbox{(massless scalar)}. \end{equation*} Indeed: \begin{itemize} \item If $p_r\leq p_t$ everywhere within the anisotropic fluid sphere, then one can get away with only using (perfect fluid) + (electromagnetic) contributions. \item If $p_r\geq p_t$ everywhere within the anisotropic fluid sphere, then one can get away with only using (perfect fluid) + (massless scalar) contributions. \end{itemize} Note that in regions where the transverse pressure is greater than the radial pressure the model has $|\nabla\phi|=0$, so the scalar field is constant. (We shall soon see that the scalar charge density is zero in such regions.) In such regions $E(r) \neq 0$, and the net charge inside the sphere of radial coordinate $r$ is simply $Q(r) = 4\pi \,E(r) \, r^2$. Unless $E(r)$ is fine-tuned so that $E(r)\propto 1/r^2$, there will be a non-zero electric charge \emph{density} in such regions. The electrically charged perfect fluid is then subject to both electric and pressure (buoyancy) forces, as well as the gravitational pseudo-force. Because the model is (by construction) static, these forces will automatically balance each other so that the model is in internal equilibrium --- more details on this point below, when we discuss the generalized TOV equations. \clearpage If the surface of the anisotropic fluid occurs in such a region, where the transverse pressure is greater than the radial pressure, then in order to match an exterior Schwarzschild geometry the electric field $E(r)$ would have to be discontinuous at the surface. (That is, $E(r_s^-)\neq 0$, but $E(r_s^+)=0$.) This implies the need for a surface charge density to cancel the immediate sub-surface electric field. This is merely a slightly unusual feature of our model, it is in no sense problematic. If one violently objects to the presence of surface charge density, then one could instead simply match the anisotropic sphere to a Reissner--Nordstr\"om spacetime; however that would leave the anisotropic fluid sphere with a net electric charge, which we would expect to be rapidly neutralised by quite standard astrophysical processes. Overall, it seems more appropriate to work with a non-zero surface charge density but net overall charge of zero. \bigskip In counterpoint, in those regions where the radial pressure is greater than the transverse pressure our model has $E=0$; this corresponds to both zero electric charge density \emph{and} the somewhat stronger requirement that the \emph{net} electric charge (interior to this region) be zero. Since $\nabla\phi \neq 0$ in such regions there will now typically be a non-zero scalar charge density. The scalar-charged perfect fluid is then subject to both scalar forces and pressure (buoyancy) forces, as well as the gravitational pseudo-force. Because the model is (by construction) static, these forces will automatically balance each other --- more details on this point below. If the surface of the anisotropic fluid occurs in such a region then to match an exterior Schwarzschild geometry the scalar field $\phi(r)$ must be continuous at the surface, and constant outside the anisotropic fluid sphere. The matching to an exterior Schwarzschild geometry is in this case trivial. \section{Stress-energy tensors and their covariant divergences} We now proceed to set up a generalized TOV system of equations, ultimately based, (as usual), on the covariant conservation $T^{ab}{}_{;b}=0$ of the \emph{total} stress-energy. (This allows us to study the internal forces acting on the various matter components in our model, and so directly address questions of internal equilibrium.) To do so, let us first calculate the covariant divergence for each component separately. \medskip \noindent For a perfect fluid it is a standard result that\,~\cite{Hell, BD, MTW} \begin{eqnarray} T_{\mathrm{f}}^{ab}{}_{;b} &=& \left\{ (\rho_{\mathrm{f}}+p_{\mathrm{f}}) V^a{}_{;b} V^b + (g^{ab} + V^a V^b) (p_{\mathrm{f}})_{;b} \right\} + \left\{ (\rho V^b)_{;b} + p (V^b{}_{;b}) \right\} V^a.\; \end{eqnarray} Here the two terms are by construction 4-orthogonal. One of these terms relates the 4-acceleration (in the present context, the gravitational pseudo-force) to the pressure gradient (buoyancy forces), the other ultimately provides a conservation law. \medskip \noindent For the electro-magnetic field one has \begin{equation} T_{{\mathrm{em}}}^{ab}{}_{;b}= F^{ac} g_{cd} (F^{bd}{}_{;b}) + g^{am} F_{md;b} F^{bd} -{1\over2} g^{ab} F_{cd;b} F^{cd}. \end{equation} Use of the Bianchi identity for $F$, and a few standard manipulations, quickly reduces this to\,~\cite{Hell, BD, MTW} \begin{equation} T_{{\mathrm{em}}}^{ab}{}_{;b}= - F^{ac} g_{cd} (F^{db}{}_{;b}). \end{equation} Now writing this in terms of the 4-current \begin{equation} (F^{db}{}_{;b}) = J^d = \sigma_{{\mathrm{em}}} V^d, \end{equation} where $\sigma_{em}$ is the electric charge density, we have the standard Lorentz force law\,~\cite{Hell, BD, MTW} \begin{equation} T_{{\mathrm{em}}}^{ab}{}_{;b}= - F^{ab} (\sigma_{{\mathrm{em}}} V_b) = - \sigma_{{\mathrm{em}}} \; F^{ab} V_b. \end{equation} Note that, simply because we have assumed everything is static, the 4-current is automatically parallel to the 4-velocity of the perfect fluid component. \medskip \noindent For the (minimally coupled) massless scalar field a brief computation yields\,~\cite{Hell, BD, MTW} \begin{equation} T_{\mathrm{s}}^{ab}{}_{;b} = \phi^{;a}{}_{;b} \phi^{;b} + \phi^{;a} \phi^{;b}{}_{;b} - g^{ab} (g^{cd} \phi_{;cb}\phi_d) = \phi^{;a} (\phi^{;b}{}_{;b}). \end{equation} Now set $ (\phi^{;b}{}_{;b}) = \sigma_{\mathrm{s}}$, where $\sigma_{\mathrm{s}}$ is the scalar charge density. Then the scalar force density is given by \begin{equation} T_{\mathrm{s}}^{ab}{}_{;b} = \sigma_s\; \phi^{;a}. \end{equation} \bigskip \noindent Finally, combine the three (perfect~fluid), (electro-magnetic~field), and (scalar field) components. \emph{In the absence of other forms of matter}, because the \emph{total} stress-energy must be covariantly conserved, $T^{ab}{}_{;b}=0$, we have \begin{eqnarray} &&\left\{ (\rho_{\mathrm{f}}+p_{\mathrm{f}}) V^a{}_{;b} V^b + (g^{ab} + V^a V^b) (p_{\mathrm{f}})_{;b} \right\} + \left\{ (\rho_{\mathrm{f}} V^b)_{;b} + p_{\mathrm{f}} (V^b{}_{;b}) \right\} V^a \nonumber\\ && \qquad - F^{ab} (\sigma_{{\mathrm{em}}} V_b) + \sigma_{{\mathrm{s}}} \phi^{;a} =0. \end{eqnarray} Projecting this first along the fluid 4-velocity $V$, and then perpendicular to $V$, we have the two equations \begin{equation} (\rho_{\mathrm{f}} V^b)_{;b} + p_{\mathrm{f}} (V^b{}_{;b}) = - \sigma_{\mathrm{s}} \phi_{;a} V^a, \label{E:1} \end{equation} and \begin{eqnarray} && (\rho_{\mathrm{f}}+p_{\mathrm{f}}) V^a{}_{;b} V^b + (g^{ab} + V^a V^b) ([p_{\mathrm{f}}]_{;b} + \sigma_{\mathrm{s}} \phi_{;b} ) - F^{ab} (\sigma_{{\mathrm{em}}} V_b) =0. \label{E:2} \end{eqnarray} These two equations nicely summarize how the scalar charge and electric charge interact with the perfect fluid pressure, perfect fluid density, and 4-acceleration. In particular, recall that the spacetime (and the matter content) has been assumed static, (so the timelike Killing vector $K^a$ is parallel to the fluid 4-velocity $V^a$). Then things simplify nicely. First of all, $\phi_{;a} V^a=0$, but we also have both $\rho_{;a} V^a=0$ and $p_{;a} V^a=0$. This then leads to $V^a{}_{;a}=0$, and in fact the first equation (\ref{E:1}) is vacuous. However the second equation (\ref{E:2}) is very definitely non-vacuous --- it simplifies only slightly to yield \begin{equation} (\rho_{\mathrm{f}}+p_{\mathrm{f}}) V^a{}_{;b} V^b + g^{ab} ([p_{\mathrm{f}}]_{;b} + \sigma_{\mathrm{s}} \phi_{;b} ) - F^{ab} (\sigma_{{\mathrm{em}}} V_b) =0. \label{E:2b} \end{equation} This will quickly lead to the generalized TOV equations. \section{Generalized TOV system of equations} Now consider again equation (\ref{E:2b}), and note that due to spherical symmetry the three individual pieces of this equation can point only in the radial direction. Let \begin{equation} n^a = \left(0,\sqrt{1-2m(r)/r},0,0\right) \end{equation} be the unit vector in the radial direction. Then from equation (\ref{E:2b}) we have \begin{equation} - (\rho_{\mathrm{f}}+p_{\mathrm{f}}) V^a V^b n_{a;b} + n^a ([p_{\mathrm{f}}]_{;b} + \sigma_{\mathrm{s}} \phi_{;b} ) + \sigma_{\mathrm{em}} E = 0. \end{equation} But we know that if $\sigma_{\mathrm{s}}=0=\sigma_{{\mathrm{em}}}$ this must be equivalent to the usual TOV system of equations \begin{equation} {{\mathrm{d}} p_{\mathrm{f}}\over{\mathrm{d}} r} = -{(\rho_{\mathrm{f}}+p_{\mathrm{f}})(m+4\pi\, p_{\mathrm{f}} \,r^3)\over r^2(1-2m/r)}; \qquad {{\mathrm{d}} m\over{\mathrm{d}} r} = 4\pi \rho_p r^2. \end{equation} Consequently, reinstating the charge densities by taking $\sigma_{\mathrm{s}}\neq0\neq\sigma_{{\mathrm{em}}}$, we see \begin{equation} {{\mathrm{d}} p_{\mathrm{f}}\over{\mathrm{d}} r}+ \sigma_{\mathrm{s}}{{\mathrm{d}} \phi\over{\mathrm{d}} r} = -{(\rho_{\mathrm{f}}+p_{\mathrm{f}})(m+4\pi \,p_{\mathrm{f}} \,r^3)\over r^2(1-2m/r)} - {\sigma_{{\mathrm{em}}} E\over\sqrt{1-2m/r}}. \end{equation} That is, the generalized TOV equation is now \begin{equation} {{\mathrm{d}} p_{\mathrm{f}}\over{\mathrm{d}} r} = -{(\rho_{\mathrm{f}}+p_{\mathrm{f}})(m+4\pi p_{\mathrm{f}} r^3)\over r^2(1-2m/r)} - {\sigma_{{\mathrm{em}}} E\over\sqrt{1-2m/r}} - \sigma_{\mathrm{s}} {{\mathrm{d}} \phi\over{\mathrm{d}} r}, \end{equation} supplemented by the generalized mass relation \begin{equation} {{\mathrm{d}} m\over{\mathrm{d}} r} = 4\pi \rho \, r^2 = 4\pi (\rho_{\mathrm{f}} +\rho_{\mathrm{em}}+\rho_s) r^2. \end{equation} Note that the first of these two equations explicitly and automatically balances the pressure force, electric force, and scalar force against the pseudo-force due to gravity. (This is as it must be, since we started from a static model there can be no motion of the perfect fluid component.) \bigskip \noindent Since this is a tricky point let us be explicit: Simply by construction the model is automatically in internal equilibrium. We cannot however, as yet say whether this equilibrium is stable, neutral, or unstable --- at least not without additional hypotheses, (such as some equation of state relating pressure, the mass density, and the charge densities). In general, the perfect fluid need not, of course, be homogeneous, but this was already true in the Schwarzschild interior geometry of 1916, and so should be no particular surprise in this more general context. Similarly, while the Schwarzschild interior solution is by construction automatically in internal equilibrium, we cannot say whether this equilibrium is stable, neutral, or unstable without some additional hypothesis. In this regard the model we are adumbrating in the current article is certainly no worse than the usual models for perfect fluid spheres. \medskip \noindent This generalized system of TOV equations still has to be supplemented with the equations of motion for the electromagnetic and scalar fields. Specifically, for the electric field we have (in the quite usual fashion) \begin{equation} E(r) = {Q(r)\over4\pi r^2}. \end{equation} Here $Q(r)$ is the total net charge interior to radius $r$. Explicitly \begin{equation} E(r) = {1\over4\pi r^2} \int_0^r {4\pi \bar r^2\over\sqrt{1-2m(\bar r)/\bar r}} \; \sigma_{{\mathrm{em}}}(\bar r) \; {\mathrm{d}} \bar r. \end{equation} For the scalar field we have $\Delta \phi = \sigma_{\mathrm{s}}$, which reduces to \begin{equation} {1\over\sqrt{-g}} \partial_r \Big( {\sqrt{-g}\; (1-2m/r)} \partial_r\phi\Big) = \sigma_{\mathrm{s}}(r). \end{equation} That is \begin{equation} \partial_r \left( e^\Phi r^2\sqrt{1-2m/r} \; \partial_r\phi\right) = \sigma_{\mathrm{s}}(r) \, e^\Phi r^2. \end{equation} This can now be integrated to explicitly yield \begin{eqnarray} \nabla_{\hat r} \phi &=& \sqrt{1-2m/r} \; \partial_r\phi = {1\over e^{\Phi(r)} r^2} \int_0^r \sigma_{\mathrm{s}}(\bar r) \, e^{\Phi(\bar r)} {\bar r}^2 \, {\mathrm{d}} \bar r. \end{eqnarray} If one desires an explicit formula for the scalar field itself then, up to an arbitrary additive constant, we have \begin{eqnarray} &&\phi(r) = \phi(0) + \lint_{\!\!\!\!\!0}^r {1\over \sqrt{1-{2m(\tilde r)\over{\tilde r}}} \, e^{\Phi(\tilde r)} \tilde r^2} \left\{\int_0^{\tilde r} \sigma_{\mathrm{s}}(\bar r) \, e^{\Phi(\bar r)} {\bar r}^2 \, {\mathrm{d}} \bar r\right\} {\mathrm{d}} \tilde r. \end{eqnarray} This is now a complete set of differential and integral equations which uniquely determine the three-component model used to mimic the anisotropic fluid sphere. \section{Classical energy conditions} Let us now consider the classical energy conditions, see for instance references \refcite{wormholes}--\refcite{Bekenstein:2013}. Since the electromagnetic and scalar field stress energy tensors both satisfy all the classical energy conditions, it is clear that provided the fluid component satisfies the classical energy conditions, then the total stress-energy must also satisfy the energy conditions. (The converse need not always hold.) Specifically, let us consider the NEC and note that \begin{equation} \rho_{\mathrm{f}} +p_{\mathrm{f}} = \rho + {p_r+p_t\over2} - {1\over2}\,|p_r-p_t|. \end{equation} This implies either \begin{equation} p_r > p_t: \qquad\qquad \rho_{\mathrm{f}} +p_{\mathrm{f}} = \rho + p_t; \end{equation} or \begin{equation} p_r < p_t: \qquad\qquad \rho_{\mathrm{f}} +p_{\mathrm{f}} = \rho + p_r. \end{equation} Therefore \begin{equation} \rho_{\mathrm{f}} +p_{\mathrm{f}} = \rho + \min\{p_r,p_t\}. \end{equation} That is, if the the total stress-energy satisfies the NEC, then so does the perfect fluid portion. (Likewise, if the the total stress-energy violates the NEC then so does the perfect fluid portion.) Similarly, consider the DEC (dominant energy condition). The DEC requires (among other things) $\rho\pm p\geq 0$. Now \begin{eqnarray} \rho_{\mathrm{f}}-p_{\mathrm{f}} &=& \rho - {(p_r+p_t)\over2} - {1\over2}\,|p_r-p_t| = \rho - \max\{p_r,p_t\}; \end{eqnarray} Combining this with the previous result for the NEC, we see that if the DEC is satisfied for the total matter, then the DEC is satisfied for the fluid component. In contrast, consider the TEC (trace energy condition, $\rho-3p\geq 0$). Note the TEC is not fundamental physics, and was for many years abandoned~\cite{twilight}. But the TEC has undergone a recent resurgence of interest, due mainly to the fact that it can nevertheless usefully be used to characterize normal laboratory matter~\cite{Bekenstein:2013}. We note \begin{equation} \rho_{\mathrm{f}}-3p_{\mathrm{f}} = \rho - {3(p_r+p_t)\over2} - {1\over2}\,|p_r-p_t|. \end{equation} Then \begin{eqnarray} \rho_{\mathrm{f}}-3p_{\mathrm{f}} &=& \rho - {(p_r+2p_t)} +p_t - \max\{p_r,p_t\} \leq \rho - {(p_r+2p_t)} . \end{eqnarray} So if the fluid component satisfies the TEC then the total matter satisfies the TEC. (In this particular case, the converse need not hold.) In summary, we see that the various classical energy conditions can quite easily be investigated in terms of the three-component model that we have set up to mimic any anisotropic fluid sphere. If there are any violations of the classical energy conditions, they are confined to the perfect fluid component of the model. \section{Discussion} So what have we accomplished here? On the one hand, we have constructed an explicit three-component model that is capable of mimicking any anisotropic fluid sphere, with two of the components (electro-magnetic field and scalar field) automatically being theoretically attractive and physically well behaved (eg, satisfying the classical energy conditions). It is only the perfect fluid component that has any risk of being ``exotic'' (ie, violating one or more of the classical energy conditions). On the one hand this is a very powerful result; on the other hand it is perhaps a little too powerful. Note that we are not claiming that any anisotropic fluid sphere \emph{is} physically one of these three-component models, but are instead making the more modest claim that both the spacetime geometry and the total stress-energy can be successfully mimicked by one of these three-component models. We feel that this is already an interesting observation, and that these three-component models may be of some theoretical (and maybe even practical) interest --- certainly, since our construction is entirely generic, one can eliminate the need for making any \emph{ad hoc} choices for the metric components or the equation of state, as is typically done for currently extant models of anisotropic fluid spheres. \section*{Acknowledgments} This research has been supported by Ratchadapisek Sompoch Endowment Fund, Chulalongkorn University (Sci-Super 2014-032), and by a grant for the professional development of new academic staff from the Ratchadapisek Somphot Fund at Chulalongkorn University, by the Thailand Toray Science Foundation (TTSF), by the Thailand Research Fund (TRF), by the Office of the Higher Education Commission (OHEC), Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn University (MRG5680171), and by the Research Strategic plan program (A1B1), Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn University. PB was additionally supported by a scholarship from the Royal Government of Thailand. TN was also supported by a scholarship from the Development and Promotion of Science and Technology talent project (DPST). MV was supported by the Marsden Fund, via a grant administered by the Royal Society of New Zealand.
\section{Introduction} The infrared (IR) behavior of Yang-Mills Green's functions in the Landau gauge has been the subject of numerous studies in the past few years, both in the continuum and on the lattice. Particularly important in this challenging quest has been the two-point sector of the theory, where it has been firmly established~\cite{Cucchieri:2007md,Cucchieri:2010xr,Bogolubsky:2007ud,Bogolubsky:2009dc,Oliveira:2009eh} that the gluon propagator saturates in the deep IR, a behavior directly associated with the dynamical generation of a momentum-dependent gluon mass~\cite{Cornwall:1981zr,Bernard:1982my,Donoghue:1983fy,Philipsen:2001ip,Aguilar:2004sw,Aguilar:2011ux,Binosi:2012sj,Aguilar:2014tka}, and that the ghost propagator remains massless, being accompanied by a dressing function that reaches a finite value at the origin~\cite{Boucaud:2008ky,Aguilar:2008xm}\footnote{For additional studies and alternative approaches, see~{\it e.g.}, ~\cite{Dudal:2008sp,Fischer:2008uz,Pennington:2011xs,Campagnari:2010wc} and references therein.}. Interestingly enough, these characteristic features persist when implementing the transition from pure Yang-Mills to real world QCD; specifically, the inclusion of a small number of dynamical light quarks induces quantitative but not qualitative changes to the gluon and ghost propagators~\cite{Sternbeck:2007ug,Bowman:2007du,Ayala:2012pb,Aguilar:2012rz,Aguilar:2013hoa}. Given that the Green's functions depend on both the gauge-fixing scheme employed and the choice of the gauge fixing parameter (gfp), it is important to explore their main dynamical features in different gauges, in order to filter out the truly gauge-independent properties of the theory. In particular, it would be interesting to establish the extent of validity and the possible modifications induced to the underlying mechanisms that endow the fundamental degrees of freedom, namely quarks and gluons, with their corresponding dynamical masses. Furthermore, even though physical observables are ostensibly gauge-independent, nonperturbative calculations are subject to truncations, which in turn may distort the delicate conspiracy of terms that produce the required gauge cancellations. It would be therefore a useful exercise to probe explicitly the gauge-(in)dependence of certain special combinations of Green's functions that are extensively used in a variety of phenomenological applications~\cite{Maris:1999nt,Aguilar:2009nf,Aguilar:2010gm,Qin:2011dd,Chang:2009zb,Cloet:2013jya,Binosi:2014aea}. Among the different classes of gauges, the linear covariant (or $R_\xi$) gauges~\cite{Fujikawa:1972fe} hold a prominent position. The corresponding gauge-fixing term that must be added to the standard Yang-Mills Lagrangian is given by $\frac{1}{2\xi} (\partial^\mu A^a_\mu)^2$, where $\xi$ represents the gfp; some characteristic values include the aforementioned Landau gauge ($\xi=0$) and the Feynman gauge ($\xi=1$). $R_\xi$ gauges have the advantage of manifest Lorentz covariance, and are particularly easy to use in diagrammatic calculations. In addition, by using the novel algorithm proposed in~\cite{Cucchieri:2009kk}, they can be implemented in numerical simulations of lattice regularized Yang-Mills theories even for $\xi\neq0$~\cite{Cucchieri:2011pp}. In the present work we initiate a study of the IR dynamics of the Yang-Mills two-point functions within this latter class of gauges, with the main objective to go beyond the standard Landau gauge paradigm. To that end, we will resort to two distinct but complementary approaches: on the one hand the Schwinger-Dyson equations (SDEs)~\cite{Roberts:1994dr} of the theory, and on the other the so-called Nielsen identities (NIs)~\cite{Nielsen:1975fs,Nielsen:1975ph}. Within the SDE context, we focus exclusively on the integral equation governing the dynamics of the ghost dressing function, $F(q^2)$, which has a much simpler structure than the corresponding equation for the gluon propagator.At the formal level, the SDE in question is written down for general $\xi$, and after approximating the ghost-gluon vertex by its tree-level value, the solutions are obtained for the range $0<\xi \le 1$, thus spanning the values between the Landau and the Feynman gauges.Our main finding is that, contrary to what occurs in the Landau gauge, $F(q^2)$ vanishes as $q^2\to 0$ for all values of $\xi$ within the aforementioned interval. This drastic change in the infrared behaviour of $F(q^2)$ away from the Landau gauge may be traced back to the massless contributions associated with the $\xi$-dependent part of the gluon propagator entering into the ghost SDE. Specifically, even if one assumes that the cofactor $\Delta(q^2)$ of the transverse part of the gluon propagator is finite in the deep IR (as happens in the Landau gauge), it is a text-book fact that the longitudinal part (proportional to $\xi$) receives no quantum corrections, and maintains its tree-level form [see \1eq{defprop}]. This massless contribution, in turn, introduces an infrared divergence into the ghost SDE, which, within the approximations employed, can be counteracted only if the solution for $F(q^2)$ vanishes in the deep IR. In particular, as we will see in detail, $F(q^2)$ vanishes at the very mild rate of $(-c\,\xi\log q^2/\mu^2)^{-1/2}$ (with $c>0$). We then turn to the NIs, which express the gauge-dependence of ordinary Green's functions (propagators, vertices, etc.) in terms of special auxiliary functions associated with the extended Becchi-Rouet-Stora-Tyutin (BRST) sector of the theory\footnote{The gfp-dependence of Green's functions can be in principle obtained also by using the so-called Landau-Khalatnikov-Fradkin (LKF) transformations~\cite{Landau:1955zz,Fradkin:1955jr}. These transformations have been used only in an Abelian context and are in general formulated in position space; therefore, their use for the problem at hand appears to be less direct.}. In the case of the ghost dressing function, the corresponding NI permits us to estimate its first derivative of $F(q^2)$ with respect to $\xi$, for arbitrary values of $\xi$; however, for practical purposes we limit our analysis to those $\xi$ that satisfy the condition $\xi\ll 1$. The reason for this choice is that, in this particular limit, the auxiliary functions appearing in the NI may be computed in their one-loop dressed approximation, using as input the gluon and ghost propagators known from the Landau gauge. The emerging expressions, when evaluated in the deep infrared, reproduce rather faithfully the behavior obtained from the ghost SDE; specifically, up to a multiplicative factor, one recovers precisely the derivative of $(-c\,\xi\log q^2/\mu^2)^{-1/2}$ with respect to $\xi$. Finally, taking advantage of the NI-based machinery developed here, we go one step further, and study the $\xi$-dependence of the gluon two-point function, which, in the low momentum region under scrutiny translates directly into a statement on the dynamically generated gluon mass. The relevant auxiliary functions are evaluated using again the approximations and assumptions employed in the previous case. The result reveals that the $\xi$-derivative of the gluon mass displays an IR logarithmic divergence, which can be traced back to the masslessness of the ghost propagator. As we explain in terms of an explicit example, such a divergent derivative may originate from perfectly IR finite gluon propagators, such as those found in the lattice simulations of~\cite{Cucchieri:2011pp} for $\xi\ll1$. The article is organized as follows. In Sect.~\ref{SDE} we set up the $R_\xi$ ghost gap equation, discuss the approximations and assumptions employed, and present its numerical solutions, paying particular attention to the deep IR behavior. In Sect.~\ref{NI} we address the same problem from the point of view of the NIs. Focusing on the identity satisfied by the ghost dressing function, we evaluate it numerically within the one-loop dressed approximation, which allows for the determination of the leading IR behavior of $F$. The result turns out to be in excellent qualitative agreement with that found in the previous section. In Sect.~\ref{sec:gluon-2p} the NI analysis is extended to the gluon propagator. In particular, a constraint on the IR behavior of the dynamical gluon mass is obtained, and an Ansatz for the possible $\xi$-dependence of the gluon mass is proposed. Our conclusions are presented in Sect.~\ref{sec:concl}. Finally, the technical details necessary to derive the Yang-Mills NIs are summarized in Appendix~\ref{app:Nielsen}. \section{\label{SDE}Schwinger-Dyson equation analysis} In this section we carry out a general analysis of the SDE that governs the ghost propagator, and eventually its dressing function. \subsection{\label{SDEapprox}General considerations and approximations} The ghost gap equation (\fig{fig:ghost-SDE}) can be obtained directly from the one-loop ghost self-energy equation by fully dressing the internal gluon and ghost lines and one of the gluon ghost vertices appearing in it~\cite{Roberts:1994dr}. Dressing the right vertex, the SDE for the ghost propagator in a linear covariant gauge reads (factoring out the trivial color structure $\delta^{ab}$) \begin{align} D_\xi^{-1}(q^2)&=q^2-i\Pi(q^2)\nonumber \\ &=q^2+ig^2 C_A\int_k(k+q)^\mu D_\xi(k+q)\Delta_{\mu\nu}(k)\Gamma^\nu(k+q,-k,-q), \label{ghSDE-rightdr} \end{align} where $\Pi(q^2)$ represent the ghost self-energy, $C_A$ is the Casimir eigenvalue of the adjoint representation, and the integral measure is defined as ~\mbox{$\int_{k}\equiv \mu^{\epsilon}/(2\pi)^{d}\!\int\!\mathrm{d}^d k$}, with $\mu$ the 't Hooft mass and $d=4-\epsilon$ the dimension of the space-time. $\Delta_{\mu\nu}$ and $D$ denote, respectively, the $R_\xi$ gluon and ghost propagators, defined according to\footnote{Our conventions can be found in Appendix~\ref{app:Nielsen}.} \begin{align} i\Delta_{\mu\nu}(q)&=-i\left[P_{\mu\nu}(q)\Delta_\xi(q^2)+\xi\frac{q_\mu q_\nu}{q^4}\right];& P_{\mu\nu}(q)=g_{\mu\nu}-\frac{q_\mu q_\nu}{q^2},\nonumber\\ iD(q^2)&=i\frac{F(q^2)}{q^2}, \label{defprop} \end{align} where $\xi$ is the non-negative gfp~\cite{Fujikawa:1972fe} (see also Appendix~\ref{A1}), and $F(q^2)$ is the so-called ghost ``dressing function''. $\Gamma^\nu$ represents the full ghost-gluon vertex, with (all momenta entering) \begin{equation} \Gamma^\nu(q_1+q_2,-q_1,-q_2) ={\cal A}(q_1+q_2,-q_1,-q_2)q_2^\nu+{\cal B}(q_1+q_2,-q_1,-q_2)q_1^\nu, \label{defvert} \end{equation} where $q_1$ ($q_2$) is the gluon (antighost) momentum; at tree-level, ${\cal A}^{(0)}=1$ and ${\cal B}^{(0)}=0$. \begin{figure}[!t] \centerline{\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{ghost-sde.eps}} \caption{\label{fig:ghost-SDE}The ghost gap equation. White (respectively, black) blobs represent connected (respectively, one-particle irreducible) Green's functions.} \end{figure} Then, using~\2eqs{defprop}{defvert}, we may rewrite~\1eq{ghSDE-rightdr} as \begin{align} D_\xi^{-1}(q^2)&=q^2+ig^2 C_A q^\mu q^\nu\int_kD_\xi(k+q)\Delta_\xi(k)P_{\mu\nu}(k){\cal A}\nonumber \\ &+i\xig^2 C_A\int_k D_\xi(k+q) \left(1+\frac{k\!\cdot\! q}{k^2}\right) \left({\cal B}+\frac{k\!\cdot\! q}{k^2} {\cal A} \right), \label{ghSDE-rightdr-1} \end{align} where the common argument $(k+q,-k,-q)$ of the form factors ${\cal A}$ and ${\cal B}$ has been suppressed. Solving this equation in its full generality would require either independent knowledge of the gluon propagator and the form factors of the ghost vertex for general $\xi$, or to couple \noeq{ghSDE-rightdr-1} to the corresponding SDEs describing $\Delta$, ${\cal A}$ and ${\cal B}$. However, apart from the lattice study of~\cite{Cucchieri:2011pp}, which investigated the gluon propagator for very small values of $\xi$ ($\xi< 10^{-3})$ , there is no direct knowledge of the aforementioned quantities. As for solving the full coupled system of SDEs, unfortunately it constitutes a task that lies beyond our present powers. Therefore, we will instead study the SDE of~\1eq{ghSDE-rightdr-1} within the one-loop dressed approximation, which is obtained by keeping the propagators fully dressed and assigning tree-level values to ${\cal A}$ and ${\cal B}$. In addition, we will approximate the $\Delta(q^2)$ appearing in the first term on the right-hand side (rhs) of~\1eq{ghSDE-rightdr-1} by the Landau gauge propagator $\Delta_\s{\mathrm{L}}(q^2)$. The main underlying assumptions behind this later approximation are that $\Delta(q^2)$ saturates in the IR, assuming the standard form \begin{equation} \Delta^{-1}(q^2)=q^2J(q^2)-m^2(q^2), \label{J-m} \end{equation} and that the deviation between $\Delta^{-1}(q^2)$ and $\Delta_\s{\mathrm{L}}(q^2)$ in the intermediate momenta region is relatively mild, at least for $0\le\xi\le 1$. Of course, as one approaches the region of larger momenta, the perturbative behavior will eventually set in; at one-loop order, $\Delta^{-1}(q^2)$ renormalized in the momentum-subtraction (MOM) scheme is given by \begin{equation} \Delta^{-1}(q^2) \sim q^2J(q^2) = q^2 \left[1+ \frac{\alpha_s C_A}{8\pi} \left(\frac{13}{3} - \xi \right)\log \frac{q^2}{\mu^2}\right ], \end{equation} where $\mu$ is the renormalization point. For example, for the typical values used in this work, {\it i.e.}, $\mu=4.3$ and $\alpha(\mu^2)=0.22$, the difference between the Landau and Feynman gauge perturbative tails is no more than 7\% in the momenta range $2\div 5$ GeV. In any case, as will become clear in the ensuing analysis, the behavior of $F(q^2)$ in the deep IR is not particularly sensitive to the above considerations; in fact, the complete knowledge of the gluon propagator would only affect the subleading terms. Thus, the simplified version \noeq{ghSDE-rightdr-1} that we will consider is given by \begin{equation} D_\xi^{-1}(q^2) = q^2+ig^2 C_A \int_kD_\xi(k+q) \left[q^\mu q^\nu\Delta_\s{\mathrm{L}}(k)P_{\mu\nu}(k) +\xi \left(1+\frac{k\!\cdot\! q}{k^2}\right)\frac{k\!\cdot\! q}{k^2} \right]. \label{ghSDE-simple0} \end{equation} This particular integral equation must be properly renormalized, through the introduction of the appropriate renormalization constants for $D_\xi$, $\Delta_\s{\mathrm{L}}$, and $\xi$. As is well-known, in principle the complete renormalization procedure must be carried out multiplicatively. As a result, in addition to the ghost renormalization constant $Z_c$ that will multiply the tree level term $q^2$, further constants multiplying the remaining terms on the rhs of \1eq{ghSDE-simple0} must be included; this, in turn, adds an inordinate amount of complexity to the entire problem. Following the standard approximation, we will simply replace $q^2 \to Z_c q^2$, and set all multiplicative constants equal to unity, thus employing subtractive instead of multiplicative renormalization~\cite{Curtis:1990zs,Kizilersu:2009kg}. The actual expression for $Z_c$ is fixed from \1eq{ghSDE-simple0} through the momentum subtraction (MOM) renormalization condition $D_\xi^{-1}_\s{\rm R}(\mu^2_\s{\rm R}) = \mu^2_\s{\rm R}$, where $\mu^2_\s{\rm R}$ is the renormalization point. As an elementary check, we may recover from \1eq{ghSDE-simple0} the one-loop expression for $F(q^2)$. In particular, setting tree-level values for $D_\xi(k+q)$ and $\Delta_\s{\mathrm{L}}(k)$, it is straightforward to show that \begin{equation} F^{-1}(q^2) = 1 + \frac{ig^2 C_A}{4} \left[(3-\xi)\int_k \frac{1}{k^2(k+q)^2} + 2(1-\xi)\int_k \frac{k\!\cdot\! q}{k^4(k+q)^2} \right]. \label{Foneloop} \end{equation} Using standard integration formulas, setting $\dE{q}^2=-q^2$, and renormalizing in the aforementioned scheme, one obtains for the renormalized ghost dressing function \begin{equation} F^{-1}_{\rm R}(\dE{q}^2) = 1 + \frac{\alpha_s C_A}{16\pi}(3-\xi) \log(\dE{q}^2/\mu^2), \end{equation} where we have defined $\alpha_s=g^2/4\pi$. \subsection{\label{SDEnum}Numerical analysis} After a set of basic algebraic manipulations, together with the shift $k+q \to k$, we may cast \1eq{ghSDE-simple0} in the form \begin{equation} D_\xi^{-1}(q^2) = q^2+ig^2 C_A \int_k D_\xi(k) \left\{\frac{q^2k^2-(k\!\cdot\! q)^2}{(k+q)^2}\Delta_\s{\mathrm{L}}(k+q) +\frac{\xi}{4}\left[\frac{(k^2-q^2)^2}{(k+q)^4}-1 \right]\right\}. \label{ghSDE-simple} \end{equation} This last form of the ghost SDE is more convenient for the numerical analysis that follows, because it allows us to carry out exactly the angular integration in the term proportional to $\xi$, while in the first term the angular dependence has been passed from the unknown function $D(k+q)$ to the function $\Delta_\s{\mathrm{L}}(k)$, which is known from the lattice. In order to solve this equation, we first pass to Euclidean space using the~standard substitution rules \begin{align} {\rm d}^4k &\to i{\rm d}^4\dE{k};& (q^2,k^2,k\!\cdot\! q)&\to (-\dE{q}^2,-\dE{k}^2,-\dE{k}\cdot\dE{q});& \Delta (q^2), D(q^2) \to -\Delta_{\rm{E}}(\dE{q}^2), -D_{\rm{E}}(\dE{q}^2), \end{align} and suppress throughout the subscript ``E'' in what follows. Next, we introduce spherical coordinates (in $d=4$), through the relations \begin{align} & x=q^2;\qquad y=k^2;\qquad z=(k +q)^2= x+y+2 \sqrt{xy}\cos\theta;\nonumber\\ & \int_{k_\s{\mathrm{E}}}=\frac1{(2\pi)^3}\int_0^\pi\!\mathrm{d}\theta\,\sin^2\theta\int_0^\infty\!\mathrm{d}y\,y, \label{sph-c} \end{align} use the result \begin{equation} \int_0^\pi\!{\rm d}\theta\,\frac{\sin^2\theta}{z^2} =\frac\pi2\left[\frac1{x(x-y)}\Theta(x-y)+\frac1{y(y-x)}\Theta(y-x)\right], \end{equation} where $\Theta(x)$ is the Heaviside function, and factor out a $q^2$ from both sides of \1eq{ghSDE-simple}. Thus, we obtain the final equation for the (subtractively renormalized) ghost dressing function $F(x)$, \begin{align} F^{-1}(x)&= Z_c - \frac{\alpha_s C_A}{2\pi^2} \int_0^\infty\!{\rm d} y\,y\,F(y) \int_0^\pi\!{\rm d}\theta\,\frac{\sin^4\theta}z\Delta_\s{\mathrm{L}}(z)\nonumber \\ &+\xi\frac{\alpha_s C_A}{16\pi}\left[\frac1{x^2}\int_0^x\!{\rm d} y\,yF(y)+\int_x^{\infty}\!{\rm d} y\,\frac{F(y)}y\right], \label{ghSDE-final} \end{align} Before proceeding to the full numerical treatment of this integral equation, it would be useful to identify some of its main IR features by means of a more direct method. In particular, if we assume that the $F(x)$ reaches a finite value in the IR ($x \to 0$), inspection of \1eq{ghSDE-final} reveals that the dominant term in that momentum region is the last one. Indeed, the first term corresponds {\it qualitatively} to the Landau gauge case: if the gluon propagator ($\Delta_\s{\mathrm{L}}$) saturates in the IR, this term is finite. The second term is also finite in the IR, as the simple change of variable $y=t x$ immediately demonstrates. Therefore, keeping only the dominant IR contribution on the rhs of \1eq{ghSDE-final} we obtain \begin{equation} F^{-1}(x)\underset{x\to0}{\sim} \xi\frac{\alpha_s C_A}{16\pi}\int_x^{\infty}\!{\rm d} y\,\frac{F(y)}y. \end{equation} This integral equation can be converted into a differential equation, by differentiating both sides with respect to $x$; we then obtain \begin{equation} F'(x)\underset{x\to0}{\sim} \xi c\frac{F^3(x)}x;\qquad c=\frac{\alpha_s C_A}{16\pi}, \end{equation} which is solved by \begin{equation} F(x)\underset{x\to0}{\sim}\pm\frac1{\sqrt{a-2\xi c\log(x/\mu^2)}}, \label{IR-sol} \end{equation} with $a$ a (possibly $\xi$ dependent) constant, and $\mu$ a suitable renormalization scale; the physical solution corresponds to the positive sign. Notice that the IR solution given in~\1eq{IR-sol} requires the aforementioned non-negativity condition $\xi\ge0$, since otherwise $F$ would become complex; in particular, from now on, we will restrict our attention to $\xi\in[0,1]$. \1eq{IR-sol} predicts an important qualitative modification in the IR behavior of the ghost dressing functions, compared to what is known from the Landau gauge studies. Specifically, whereas in the Landau gauge $F_\s{\mathrm{L}}(0)=$const, whenever $\xi>0$ one finds that $F$ is driven to zero at the origin, namely $F(0)=0$. \begin{figure}[!t] \centerline{\includegraphics[scale=0.725]{lattice-gluon-input.eps}} \caption{\label{fig:lattice-gluon-input} (color online). The lattice SU(3) gluon propagator evaluated in the Landau gauge~\cite{Bogolubsky:2009dc} and the corresponding fit used in our calculation~\cite{Aguilar:2010gm}. The dashed curve shows a fit featuring an IR maximum which is due to the presence of (divergent) contributions to the gluon (inverse) dressing function~\cite{Aguilar:2013vaa}. All functions are renormalized at~$\mu=4.3$~GeV.} \end{figure} We next focus on the complete numerical evaluation of \1eq{ghSDE-final}. To this end, we will use as input for $\Delta_\s{\mathrm{L}}$ the fit to the available SU(3) lattice data~\cite{Bogolubsky:2009dc} introduced in~\cite{Aguilar:2010gm} (see \fig{fig:lattice-gluon-input}). The value of the renormalization point within the MOM scheme is $\mu=4.3$ GeV. Notice that in~\fig{fig:lattice-gluon-input} we show also a fit displaying an IR maximum that must appear due to the presence of divergent terms contributing to the gluon (inverse) dressing function~\cite{Aguilar:2013vaa} (see also Sect.~\ref{sec:smallxi}); however, the results finally obtained from the solution of the SDE are completely insensitive to the implementation of this particular feature in the gluon propagator. \begin{figure}[!t] \centerline{\mbox{}\hspace{-1.5cm}\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{sde-various-xi-f-q.eps}}\vspace{0.5cm} \centerline{\mbox{}\hspace{-1.5cm}\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{sde-various-xi-d-q.eps}} \caption{\label{fig:SDE-various-xi} (color online). Solution of the SDE~\noeq{ghSDE-final} (upper panel) and the associated ghost propagator (lower panel) for various values of the gauge fixing parameter~$\xi$. In the IR the solution obtained is perfectly described by~\1eq{IR-sol} after fitting for determining the value of the arbitrary constant $a$. For comparison we plot also the Landau gauge lattice data of~\cite{Bogolubsky:2009dc}.} \end{figure} The solutions obtained for $\alpha_s=0.29$ and gfp values ranging from 0 to 1 are shown in the left panel of~\fig{fig:SDE-various-xi}. The value of $\alpha_s$ is chosen so that in the Landau gauge $\xi=0$ one reproduces the lattice data of~\cite{Bogolubsky:2009dc} (see the black continuous curve in~\fig{fig:SDE-various-xi}); the 30\% deviation from the expected value of $\alpha_s=0.22$ (at $\mu=4.3$ GeV) is due to the use of the tree-level ghost-vertex, as demonstrated in~\cite{Aguilar:2013xqa}. One immediately observes the drastic change in the IR behavior of the ghost dressing function: at $\xi=0$ $F_\s{\mathrm{L}}(0)$ is finite, whereas when $\xi\neq0$ $F(0)$ vanishes. The IR behavior is precisely the one described by the IR solution~\noeq{IR-sol}, where \begin{equation} a=a(\xi)=0.12(1+\xi); \qquad c=0.035. \end{equation} Evidently, the rate at which $F(q^2)$ approaches zero is very slow, and begins to set on at the rather low scale of about $100$ MeV (upper panel of \fig{fig:SDE-various-xi}). However, the first appreciable deviations from the $F_\s{\mathrm{L}}(q^2)$ obtained in the Landau gauge manifest themselves at the higher scale of about $300$ MeV, where the $F(q^2)$ displays a characteristic maximum. This particular feature, in turn, may serve as a guiding signal in future lattice simulations away from the Landau gauge. The overall effect of $F(q^2)$ on the full ghost propagator $D(q^2)$ is shown in the right panel of \fig{fig:SDE-various-xi}. In particular, one observes that the rate of divergence of the ghost propagator at the origin becomes slightly softer compared to that of the Landau gauge. Let us conclude this section by determining for later convenience the IR behavior of the derivative with respect to $\xi$ of the ghost dressing evaluated at $\xi=0$; one finds \begin{align} \left.\partial_\xi F(x)\right\vert_{\xi=0}&\underset{x\to0}{\sim}c_\s{\mathrm{SDE}}\log\frac x{\mu^2}\timesF_\s{\mathrm{L}}(0);& c_\s{\mathrm{SDE}}&=\frac{\alpha_s C_A}{16\pi}\frac{1}{a(0)}, \label{dbydxiSDE} \end{align} where we have used the fact that $F_\s{\mathrm{L}}(0)=1/\sqrt{a(0)}$. Clearly, this quantity displays an IR logarithmic divergence; substituting the numerical values of the constants involved one obtains~$c_\s{\mathrm{SDE}}=0.15$. \section{\label{NI}Nielsen identities} In this section we take a different but complementary look at the problem, by resorting to a set of identities originally introduced by Nielsen~\cite{Nielsen:1975fs,Nielsen:1975ph}; for all technical details the reader is referred to Appendix~\ref{app:Nielsen}, where the general derivation is summarized. \subsection{\label{NIghost1}Ghost propagator} Consider the ghost two-point sector of the theory. The corresponding NI is readily obtained by differentiating the functional identity~\noeq{NId-final} with respect to one antighost and one ghost field; setting afterwards all fields and sources to zero, one obtains the relation \begin{equation} \partial_\xi\Gamma_{c^a\bar c^b}(q^2)=i\Gamma_{\bar c^b\chi A^d_\mu}(q,0,-q)\Gamma_{c^a A^{*\mu}_d}(q)-i\Gamma_{c^a\chi c^*_d}(q,0,-q)\Gamma_{c^d\bar c^b}(q^2), \label{gh-Nielsen} \end{equation} where \begin{equation} \Gamma_{c^a\bar c^b}(q^2)=-i\delta^{ab}q^2F^{-1}(q^2);\qquad \Gamma_{c\bar c}(q^2)=-\Pi(q^2). \label{twop-F} \end{equation} In~\1eq{gh-Nielsen} $\phi^*$ denotes the antifield associated to the field $\phi$. In addition, $\chi$ represents the static ({\it i.e.}, momentum independent) source associated to the gfp $\xi$; therefore, and despite their appearance, all functions in the identity above are two-point functions. \1eq{gh-Nielsen} can be further simplified by noticing that the so-called ghost (or Faddeev-Popov) equation~\noeq{FPEq} yields \begin{equation} \Gamma_{c^aA^{*b}_\mu}(q)=i\delta^{ab}\frac{q_\mu}{q^2}\Gamma_{c^a\bar c^b}(q^2), \end{equation} a result which allows to trade the function $\Gamma_{cA^*}$ in~\noeq{gh-Nielsen} for a ghost two-point function $\Gamma_{c\bar c}$. Then, factoring out the trivial color structure $\delta^{ab}$, one is left with the identity \begin{align} \partial_\xi\Gamma_{c\bar c}(q^2)&=-\left[\frac{q^\mu}{q^2}\Gamma_{\bar c\chi A_\mu}(q,0,-q)+i\Gamma_{c\chi c^*}(q,0,-q)\right]\Gamma_{c\bar c}(q^2). \label{NId-last} \end{align} \begin{figure} \centerline{\includegraphics[scale=0.85]{ghost-nis-diagrams.eps}} \caption{\label{fig:ghost-NIs-diagrams}One-loop diagrams contributing to the auxiliary functions $\Gamma_{\bar c\chi A_\mu}$ and $\Gamma_{c\chi c^*}$ appearing in the ghost two-point Nielsen identity~\noeq{gh-Nielsen}. Notice the presence of the mixed propagator $\Delta_{bA}$.} \end{figure} In order to appreciate with a concrete example how the NIs work, let us consider the explicit realization of~\1eq{NId-last} at the one-loop level. The left-hand side (lhs) of \1eq{NId-last} can be immediately deduced from~\1eq{Foneloop}, yielding \begin{equation} \partial_\xi\Gamma^{(1)}_{c\bar c}(q^2) = - \frac{g^2C_A}4 q^2\left[\int_k\frac1{k^2(k+q)^2}+ 2\int_k\frac{k\!\cdot\! q}{k^4(k+q)^2}\right]. \label{SDE-result} \end{equation} Turning to the rhs of ~\noeq{NId-last}, the diagrams contributing to the auxiliary functions $\Gamma_{\bar c\chi A_\mu}$ and $\Gamma_{c\chi c^*}$ at one-loop level are shown in~\fig{fig:ghost-NIs-diagrams}. Using the Feynman rules reported in Appendix~\ref{app:Nielsen} and Ref.~\cite{Binosi:2008qk}, one has the results \begin{align} i\Gamma^{(1)}_{\bar c\chi A_\mu}(q,0,-q)&=\frac{g^2C_A}2\left[q_\sigma\int_k\frac1{k^4}P^\sigma_\mu(k+q)-\int_k\frac{k\!\cdot\! q}{k^4(k+q)^2}(k+q)_\mu\right], \nonumber \\ i\Gamma^{(1)}_{c\chi c^*}(q,0,-q)&=i\frac{g^2C_A}2\int_k\frac{k^2+k\!\cdot\! q}{k^4(k+q)^2}. \end{align} Notice that the contribution proportional to $\xi$ that could be in principle generated from diagram $(b)$ of~\fig{fig:ghost-NIs-diagrams} vanishes as a result of the Slavnov-Taylor identity \mbox{$q_1^\mu q_2^\nu q_3^\rho\Gamma_{\mu\nu\rho}(q_1,q_2,q_3)=0$}. Thus one finally has \begin{equation} \left[\frac{q^\mu}{q^2}\Gamma^{(1)}_{\bar c\chi A_\mu}(q,0,-q)+i\Gamma^{(1)}_{c\chi c^*}(q,0,-q)\right]\Gamma^{(0)}_{c\bar c}(q^2) =\frac{g^2C_A}4 q^2\left[\int_k\frac1{k^2(k+q)^2}+ 2\int_k\frac{k\!\cdot\! q}{k^4(k+q)^2}\right], \end{equation} which, in view of \1eq{SDE-result}, confirms the validity of~\1eq{NId-last} at one-loop. \subsection{\label{sec:smallxi}Small $\xi$ limit and the one-loop dressed approximation} Consider now the limit $\xi\ll1$; in this case, one can set $\xi=0$ on both sides of~\1eq{NId-last}, and use~\1eq{twop-F} to obtain \begin{equation} \left.\partial_\xi F(q^2)\right|_{\xi=0}=-\left[\frac{q^\mu}{q^2}\Gamma^\s{\mathrm{L}}_{\bar c\chi A_\mu}(q,0,-q)+i\Gamma^\s{\mathrm{L}}_{c\chi c^*}(q,0,-q)\right]F_\s{\mathrm{L}}(q^2), \label{NId-last-1} \end{equation} where the auxiliary ghost functions appearing on the rhs are now evaluated in the Landau gauge (see also the discussion at the end of Appendix~\ref{A1}). This last equation can be used to deduce the IR behavior of $F(q^2,\xi)$ from the knowledge of the basic Green's functions in the Landau gauge. In particular, it allows us to compare the result obtained from the direct evaluation of the rhs of \1eq{NId-last-1} in the limit $q^2\to0$ with the corresponding expression derived in \1eq{dbydxiSDE} in the SDE context. To this end, we will study the auxiliary functions $\Gamma^\s{\mathrm{L}}_{\bar c\chi A_\mu}$ and $\Gamma^\s{\mathrm{L}}_{c\chi c^*}$ in the one-loop dressed approximation, in which the diagrams contributing to each function are obtained from those shown in~\fig{fig:ghost-NIs-diagrams} by fully dressing the propagators, while keeping all vertices at their tree-level values\footnote{Note that the $b$-equation~\noeq{b-eq} implies that every Green's function which involves the Nakanishy-Lautrup multiplier $b$ remains fixed at its tree-level value: therefore in the $b$-sector the one-loop dressed approximation is exact.}. The simple inspection of the diagrams given in~\fig{fig:ghost-NIs-diagrams} suggests that, indeed, a logarithmic behavior similar to that of \1eq{NId-last-1} is expected to make its appearance. This is because diagrams ($a$) and ($c$) may be essentially regarded as closed ghost loops, which, due to the nonperturbative masslessness of the ghost propagators entering in them, are known to diverge logarithmically in the IR~\cite{Aguilar:2013vaa,Tissier:2011ey}. Let us then evaluate explicitly the one-loop dressed expressions of $\Gamma^\s{\mathrm{L}}_{\bar c\chi A_\mu}$ and $\Gamma^\s{\mathrm{L}}_{c\chi c^*}$; one has the following results \begin{align} \frac{q^\mu}{q^2}\Gamma^\s{\mathrm{L}}_{\bar c\chi A_\mu}(q,0,-q)&\underset{\mathrm{1ldr}}{=}i\frac{g^2C_A}2\left[\int_k\frac{(k\!\cdot\! q)(k\!\cdot\! q+q^2)}{q^2k^4(k+q)^2}F_\s{\mathrm{L}}(k)F_\s{\mathrm{L}}(k+q)\right.\nonumber \\ &\left.-\int_k\frac{k^2q^2-(k\!\cdot\! q)^2}{q^2k^4}F_\s{\mathrm{L}}(k)\Delta_\s{\mathrm{L}}(k+q)\right],\nonumber \\ i\Gamma^\s{\mathrm{L}}_{\bar c \chi c^*}(q,0,-q)&\underset{\mathrm{1ldr}}{=}i\frac{g^2C_A}2\int_k\frac{k^2+k\!\cdot\! q}{k^4(k+q)^2}F_\s{\mathrm{L}}(k)F_\s{\mathrm{L}}(k+q). \label{1l-dr} \end{align} The terms proportional to the product of two ghost dressing functions $F_\s{\mathrm{L}}$ in both functions are those corresponding to the aforementioned ghost-loops; therefore, in the deep IR both functions display a logarithmic divergence, so that, in turn, one has \begin{equation} \left.\partial_\xi F(q^2)\right\vert_{\xi=0}\underset{q^2\to0}{\sim} c_\s{\mathrm{NI}}\log \frac{q^2}{\mu^2}\timesF_\s{\mathrm{L}}(0), \label{IR-gh} \end{equation} where $c_\s{\mathrm{NI}}$ a suitable constant and $\mu$ the renormalization scale chosen. Notice that this is exactly the kind of behavior found in~\1eq{dbydxiSDE} from the SDE analysis. \begin{figure}[!t] \centerline{\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{ghost-ni-novert-q.eps}} \caption{\label{fig:Ghost-NI} (color online). Contributions of the one-loop dressed auxiliary functions to the ghost two-point function Nielsen identity. The IR region is perfectly described by the predicted $c_\s{\mathrm{NI}}\log q^2/\mu^2$ behavior yielding~$c_\s{\mathrm{NI}}=0.33$.} \end{figure} The qualitative agreement between \1eq{dbydxiSDE} and \1eq{IR-gh} motivates a further quantitative study, focusing on the actual value of the coefficient $c$ obtained within the two methods (SDE vs NI). To accomplish this, we evaluate numerically the one-loop dressed contributions~\noeq{1l-dr}, which are given by (Euclidean space) \begin{align} \frac{q^\mu}{q^2}\Gamma^\s{\mathrm{L}}_{\bar c\chi A}(q,0,-q)&\underset{\mathrm{1ldr}}{=}\frac{g^2 C_A}{2(2\pi)^3}\int_0^\pi\!{\rm d}\theta\,\sin^2\theta\cos\theta\int_0^\infty\!{\rm d} y\,\left(\cos\theta+\sqrt{\frac xy}\right)\frac1{z}F_\s{\mathrm{L}}(y)F_\s{\mathrm{L}}(z)\nonumber \\ &+\frac{g^2C_A}{3(2\pi)^3}\int_0^\pi\!{\rm d}\theta\,\sin^4\theta\int_0^\infty\!{\rm d} y\,F_\s{\mathrm{L}}(y)\Delta_\s{\mathrm{L}}(z)=(a)+(b), \nonumber \\ i\Gamma^\s{\mathrm{L}}_{\bar c \chi c^*}(q,0,-q)&\underset{\mathrm{1ldr}}{=}-\frac{g^2C_A}{2(2\pi)^3}\int_0^\pi\!{\rm d}\theta\,\sin^2\theta\int_0^\infty\!{\rm d} y\,\left(1+\sqrt{\frac xy}\cos\theta\right)\frac1{z}F_\s{\mathrm{L}}(y)F_\s{\mathrm{L}}(z)=(c), \label{ints-final} \end{align} where $(a)$, $(b)$ and $(c)$ denote the contributions of the diagrams appearing in~\fig{fig:ghost-NIs-diagrams}. At this point all integrals can be evaluated provided that we supply as input the Landau gauge gluon propagator $\Delta_\s{\mathrm{L}}$ and the ghost dressing function $F_\s{\mathrm{L}}$ (see~\fig{fig:lattice-gluon-input} and~\fig{fig:SDE-various-xi}, respectively). The results obtained for the three individual terms $(a)$, $(b)$ and $(c)$ of~\1eq{ints-final}, as well as their sum, are shown on the left-panel of~\fig{fig:Ghost-NI}. One sees that terms $(a)$ and $(c)$ show the claimed logarithmic divergence, while in the case of $(b)$ the gluon mass acts as an IR regulator, making the integral convergent. Adding the three contributions together one obtains the black continuous curve of~\fig{fig:Ghost-NI}, yielding the IR behavior~\noeq{IR-gh} with $c_\s{\mathrm{NI}}=0.33$; this value should be compared to the value $c_\s{\mathrm{SDE}}=0.15$ obtained from the SDE analysis. Given that the two values are derived from two {\it a priori} completely distinct methods, we find the proximity between the two values rather encouraging. \subsection{\label{sec:gluon-2p}Gluon propagator} The NI formalism may be extended in a straightforward way to the case of the gluon propagator. Specifically, the corresponding NI for the gluon two-point function $\Gamma_{AA}$ can be derived by differentiating~\1eq{NId-final} with respect to two gluon fields, and setting afterwards all fields to zero. In particular, one obtains the equation \begin{equation} \partial_\xi\Gamma_{A^a_\mu A^b_\nu}(q)=-i\Gamma_{A^a_\mu\chi A^{*\rho}_c}(q,0,-q)\Gamma_{A^c_\rho A^b_\nu}(q)-i\Gamma_{A^b_\nu\chi A^{*\rho}_c}(q,0,-q)\Gamma_{A^c_\rho A^a_\mu}(q). \label{gl-Nielsen} \end{equation} Given that $\Gamma_{AA}$ is transverse to all orders, with its tree-level value given by~\mbox{$\Gamma^{(0)}_{A^a_\mu A^b_\nu}(q)=iq^2\delta^{ab}P_{\mu\nu}(q)$} (see Appendix~\ref{app:Nielsen}), this identity can be further simplified to read \begin{equation} \partial_\xi\Gamma_{A A}(q^2)=-2i\Gamma_{A\chi A^*}(q,0,-q)\Gamma_{AA}(q^2), \label{gl-Nielsen-1} \end{equation} where the color structure has been factored out, and we have defined \begin{equation} \Gamma_{A\chi A^*}(q,0,-q)=\frac1{d-1}P^{\mu\nu}(q)\Gamma_{A_\mu\chi A^*_\nu}(q,0,-q). \end{equation} \begin{figure} \centerline{\includegraphics[scale=0.85]{gluon-nis-diagrams.eps}} \caption{\label{fig:gluon-NIs-diagrams}One-loop diagrams contributing to the auxiliary function $\Gamma_{A_\mu\chi A^*_\nu}$ appearing in the gluon two-point Nielsen identity~\noeq{gl-Nielsen}.} \end{figure} One can appreciate how the above identity works by evaluating it at lowest order in perturbation theory. The diagrams contributing to the function $\Gamma_{A\chi A^*}$ at the one-loop level are shown in~\fig{fig:gluon-NIs-diagrams}; then the rhs of~\1eq{gl-Nielsen-1} reads \begin{align} -2i\Gamma^{(1)}_{A_\mu\chi A^*_\rho}(q,0,-q)\Gamma^{(0)}_{A^\rho A_\nu}(q)&=g^2C_Aq^2P^\rho_\nu(q)\left\{\int_k\frac{(k^2-q^2)}{k^2(k+q)^2}P_{\mu\rho}(k)-\int_k\frac{(k+q)_\mu k_\rho}{k^4(k+q)^2}\right.\nonumber \\ &\left.+(1-\xi) q^2P_\mu^\sigma(q)\int_k\frac{k_\rho k_\sigma}{k^4(k+q)^4}\right\}. \label{gl-aux} \end{align} To complete the comparison, note that $\Pi^{(1)}_{\mu\nu}(q)$ has been evaluated in~\cite{Binosi:2009qm} [see Eq.~(2.56)]; its derivative with respect to $\xi$ coincides with the result~\noeq{gl-aux}, once we take into account that \mbox{$\Pi_{\mu\nu}(q)=-\Gamma_{A_\mu A_\nu}(q)$}. Next, we consider the $\xi\ll1$ limit of \1eq{gl-Nielsen-1}, obtaining \begin{align} \left.\partial_\xi\Delta^{-1}(q^2)\right|_{\xi=0}&=-2i\Gamma^\s{\mathrm{L}}_{A\chi A^*}(q,0,-q)\Delta_\s{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}(q^2);& \Gamma_{AA}(q^2)=i\Delta^{-1}(q^2). \label{NId-gl-1} \end{align} The rhs of this equation can then be evaluated within the one-loop dressed approximation, yielding the expression \begin{align} -2i\Gamma^\s{\mathrm{L}}_{A\chi A^*}(q,0,-q)&\underset{\mathrm{1ldr}}{=}-i\frac{g^2C_A}{d-1}\left\{\int_k\frac{k^2q^2-(k\!\cdot\! q)^2}{q^2k^4(k+q)^2}F_\s{\mathrm{L}}(k)F_\s{\mathrm{L}}(k+q) \right. \nonumber \\ &\left.+\int_k\frac{k^2-q^2}{(k+q)^4}\left[d-2+\frac{(k\!\cdot\! q)^2}{k^2q^2}\right]\Delta_\s{\mathrm{L}}(k)F_\s{\mathrm{L}}(k+q)\right\}. \end{align} One notices again the presence of a massless ghost loop, which implies in turn the divergent IR behavior \begin{equation} \left.\partial_\xi\Delta^{-1}(q^2)\right\vert_{\xi=0}\underset{q^2\to0}{\sim}\left.\partial_\xi m^2(q^2)\right\vert_{\xi=0}\underset{q^2\to0}{\sim}c_\s{\mathrm{NI}}\log \frac{q^2}{\mu^2}\timesm^2_\s{\mathrm{L}}(0), \label{IR-gl} \end{equation} where the first expression on the rhs originates from the fact that when $q^2\to0$, \mbox{$\Delta^{-1}(q^2) \to m^2(q^2)$} [see~\1eq{J-m}], and $m^2_\s{\mathrm{L}}(q^2)$ denotes the dynamical gluon mass in the Landau gauge~\cite{Aguilar:2011ux,Binosi:2012sj,Aguilar:2014tka}. The appearance of this particular behavior may be indeed confirmed numerically. Specifically, after passing to the Euclidean metric and introducing spherical coordinates, one obtains \begin{align} -2i\Gamma^\s{\mathrm{L}}_{A\chi A^*}(q,0,-q)&\underset{\mathrm{1ldr}}{=}-\frac{g^2C_A}{3(2\pi)^3}\int_0^\pi\!{\rm d}\theta\sin^4\theta\int_0^\infty\!{\rm d} y\,\frac1{z_1}F_\s{\mathrm{L}}(y)F_\s{\mathrm{L}}(z_1)\nonumber \\ &+\frac{g^2C_A}{3(2\pi)^3}\int_0^\pi\!{\rm d}\theta\,(3-\sin^2\theta)\sin^2\theta\int_0^\infty\!{\rm d} y\,\frac{y(y-x)}{z_1^2}\Delta_\s{\mathrm{L}}(y)F_\s{\mathrm{L}}(z_1)\nonumber \\ &=(d)+(e), \end{align} which can be evaluated using the Landau gauge propagator and ghost dressing function introduced before. The results are shown in~\fig{fig:Gluon-NI}; one observes a logarithmic IR divergence in diagram $(d)$, while the IR finiteness of diagram $(e)$ is due to the presence of the dynamical gluon mass. When summing everything together the IR behavior is indeed the one described by~\1eq{IR-gh}, with $c_\s{\mathrm{NI}}=0.13$. \begin{figure}[!t] \centerline{\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{gluon-ni-novert-q.eps}} \caption{\label{fig:Gluon-NI} (color online). Contributions of the one-loop dressed auxiliary functions to the gluon two-point function Nielsen identity. Also in the gluon case the IR region is perfectly described by the predicted $b\log q^2/\mu^2$ behavior, now with~$c_\s{\mathrm{NI}}=0.13$.} \end{figure} \begin{figure}[!t] \mbox{}\hspace{-0.4cm}\includegraphics[scale=1]{aminus.eps} \mbox{}\hspace{-0.4cm}\includegraphics[scale=1]{aplus.eps} \caption{\label{fig:aminus-aplus}(color online). $\xi$-dependence of the gluon mass (left panels) and gluon propagator (right panels) as predicted by the Ansatz~\noeq{mRxi} for $a_1=-0.2$ (upper panels) and $a_1=0.2$ (lower panels).} \end{figure} Finally, it is rather interesting to consider how the IR divergence found in~\noeq{IR-gl} might be reconciled with the underlying assumption of an IR finite gluon propagator. Given that, at present, the dynamical equation that describes the gluon mass has only been derived in the Landau gauge\footnote{For related studies in the Coulomb gauge, see~\cite{Szczepaniak:2001rg,Szczepaniak:2003ve,Epple:2007ut,Szczepaniak:2010fe}}, one may only proceed by postulating an Ansatz for $m^2(q^2)$ that would satisfy ~\noeq{IR-gl}, and study its consequences at the level of the corresponding gluon propagators. One such possibility is given by the following Ansatz for the $\xi$-dependent mass function\footnote{A simpler Ansatz would have been $$m^2(q^2)=\left[a(\xi)+c(\xi)\left(\frac{q^2}{\mu^2}\right)^{\!\xi}\right]m^2_{\s{\mathrm L}}(q^2),$$ with $$a(\xi)=1-c_0-a_1\xi+\cdots;\qquad c(\xi)=c_0+\cdots$$ and $c_0\equiv c_\s{\mathrm{NI}}\approx0.13$. In this case, however, the limits $\xi\to0$ and $q^2\to0$ do not commute, contrary to what happens with the Ansatz~\noeq{mRxi}.} \begin{equation} m^2(q^2)=\left[a(\xi)+c(\xi)\left(\frac{q^2}{\mu^2}\right)^{\!\!\xi}\log\frac{q^2}{\mu^2}\right]m^2_{\s{\mathrm L}}(q^2), \label{mRxi} \end{equation} with \begin{align} a(\xi)=a_0+a_1\xi+\cdots;\qquad c(\xi)=c_1\xi+\cdots. \end{align} Notice that the (resummed) behavior $\sim(q^2/\mu^2)^\xi$ has been also observed when studying the gfp-dependence of fermion propagators through LKF transformations~\cite{Curtis:1990zs,Bashir:2002sp}. Evidently, choosing $a_0=1$ and $c_1\equiv c_\s{\mathrm{NI}}=0.13$ ensures that \begin{align} m^2(q^2)&\underset{q^2\to0}{\sim}(1+a_1\xi)m^2_\s{\mathrm{L}}(0),\nonumber \\ \left.\partial_\xi m^2(q^2)\right|_{\xi=0}&\underset{q^2\to0}{\sim}c\log \frac{q^2}{\mu^2}\times m^2_\s{\mathrm{L}}(0), \end{align} in agreement with~\noeq{IR-gl}; in addition, small values of $a_1$ would make the $R_\xi$ and Landau-gauge propagators and dynamical masses to be rather close to each other, justifying in retrospect our replacing~$\Delta$ by ${\Delta}_{\s{\mathrm L}}$ when solving the ghost SDE. Evidently, within this approach, the sign of the coefficient $a_1$ remains undetermined. This sign, in turn, controls the leading behavior of the gfp-dependence of the gluon mass (and correspondingly of the propagator) in the deep IR: a positive $a_1$ implies an increasing (decreasing) mass (propagator), while for $a_1$ negative the behavior would be reversed. This is shown in~\fig{fig:aminus-aplus}, where the left panels depict the $\xi$-dependence of the gluon dynamical mass~\noeq{mRxi} for the two values $a_1=0.2$ (upper-left) and $a_1=-0.2$ (lower left), while the corresponding gluon propagators, obtained from the relation $\Delta^{-1}(q^2)=q^2J_{\s{\mathrm L}}(q^2)+m^2(q^2)$, are shown on the right panels of the same figure. Notice that the case $a_1=0$ would be particularly interesting, as it would imply that, at leading order in $\xi$, the $R_\xi$ gluon mass and propagator coincide in the IR with the corresponding quantities computed in the Landau gauge. In addition, as can be appreciated from~\fig{fig:a0}, the $\xi$-dependence over the entire range of momenta would be minimal. \begin{figure}[!t] \includegraphics[scale=1]{a0.eps} \caption{\label{fig:a0}(color online). $\xi$-dependence of the gluon mass (left) and gluon propagator (right) as predicted by the Ansatz~\noeq{mRxi} for $a_1=0$.} \end{figure} \section{\label{sec:concl}Conclusions} In the present work we have analyzed the nonperturbative behavior of Yang-Mills Green's functions quantized in a linear covariant gauge, paying particular attention to its dependence on the parameter $\xi$ characterizing this class of gauges. We have first focussed on the ghost two-point function and shown that, within a well-defined set of approximations, the solutions of the corresponding SDE for $\xi>0$ are such that the dressing function $F(q^2)$ vanishes as $q^2\to0$; this is in sharp contrast to the Landau gauge case ($\xi=0$) where $F(q^2)$ is known to saturate in the low momentum region. The particular IR behavior found for $F(q^2)$ turned out to be in notable agreement with that obtained from the Nielsen identity satisfied by this function, within the one-loop dressed approximation and for $\xi\ll1$. The NI analysis has been then extended to the gluon two-point function, and shown to predict the same kind of logarithmic divergence for the derivative with respect to $\xi$ of the dynamical gluon mass, $\left.\partial_\xi m^2(q^2)\right\vert_{\xi=0}\simc\log q^2/\mu^2\timesm^2_\s{\mathrm{L}}(0)$. A particular example of a $m^2(q^2)$ that reconciles this behavior with the assumed saturation of the gluon propagator away from the Landau gauge was given, and its main features were studied numerically. Undoubtedly, lattice simulations would be crucial for verifying or amending the findings of this preliminary SDE study. As already mentioned, exploratory simulations in the linear gauges have already been carried out for the gluon propagator~\cite{Cucchieri:2011pp}; it would be interesting to extend them to larger values of $\xi$, in order to determine whether the observed IR saturation persists. Furthermore, the IR suppression of the ghost dressing function predicted here may serve as a definite reference when attempting to simulate the ghost sector of the theory. From the point of view of the SDEs, one may envisage various improvements. To begin with, the replacement of the fully-dressed ghost-gluon vertex by the tree-level expression inside the ghost SDE ought to be ameliorated. This, in turn, would require the treatment of the corresponding vertex SDE, for a general $\xi$, in the spirit of the analysis presented in the Landau gauge~\cite{Aguilar:2013xqa}. To be sure, subtractive instead of multiplicative renormalizability is another longstanding drawback in practically all types of SDE analysis; however, given that this problem cannot be even solved within the context of the (easier) Landau gauge, the prospects for a notable refinement in this particular direction seem rather reduced. It is also clear that additional theoretical work at the level of the gluon propagator is an absolute requirement before any firm statements could be made. In particular, no study related to the possibility of gluon mass generation away from the Landau gauge has been carried out to date; in the present work we have simply assumed the realization of this scenario, based almost exclusively on the limited lattice evidence of~\cite{Cucchieri:2011pp}. In particular, it would be essential to derive the dynamical equation that governs the evolution of the gluon mass for an arbitrary $\xi$, and explore the type of solutions it might admit. This task is technically rather complex, mainly due to the proliferation of terms with respect to the Landau gauge case. Calculations in this direction are already in progress, and we hope to report progress in the near future. \acknowledgments The research of J.~P. is supported by the Spanish MEYC under grant FPA2011-23596 and the Generalitat Valenciana under grant “PrometeoII/2014/066”. The work of A.~C.~A is supported by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development - CNPq under the grant 306537/2012-5 and project 473260/2012-3, and by S\~ao Paulo Research Foundation - FAPESP through the project 2012/15643-1.
\section{Introduction} Cancer cells break the most basic rules of cell behavior by which multicellular organisms are built and maintained, and they exploit every kind of opportunity to do so \cite{Albert}. They proliferate without restraint and prosper at the expense of their neighbors in a multicellular environment. The development of cancer typically requires that a substantial number of independent, rare genetic and epigenetic accidents occur in the lineage of one cell. Cancer, therefore, involves changes in the pattern of gene expression in normal cells. It involves disruption in the normal mechanisms of gene control and regulation, which results in correlated gene networks in a cell going astray. Since cancer progresses with changes in the gene network, the structure of the gene network in cancer cells may be predictive of clinical risk and outcome \cite{Taylor2009,Chuang2007,Pavlidis2002,Doniger2003,Draghici2003,Subramanian2005,Tian2005,Wei2007,Rapaport2007}. Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is the most common acute leukemia in adults. Chemotherapy induces a complete remission in 70 to 80 percent of patients aged 16 to 60 years, but many of them have a relapse and die of their disease. Myeloablative conditioning followed by allogeneic stem-cell transplantation can prevent relapse, but this approach is associated with a high treatment-related mortality. Therefore, accurate predictors of the clinical outcome are needed to determine appropriate treatment for individual patients \cite{Bullinger2004,Giles2002}. Currently used prognostic indicators include age, cytogenetic findings, the white-cell count, and the presence or absence of an antecedent hematologic disorder \cite{Lowenberg}. Cancer is a microevolutionary process. We are motivated to study the hierarchical structure in cancer affected cells by a theory that relates development of hierarchy during evolution to environmental stress and variability \cite{Sun2007,Deem,Lorenz2011,Deem2013}. According to this theory, during evolution in a rugged fitness landscape amidst a changing environment a system tends to become more hierarchical, since hierarchy tends to increase the adaptability of the system. Therefore, we expect more aggressive cancer cells to exhibit a higher level of hierarchical organization in their cancer related gene network. Cancers with a more hierarchical cancer related gene network are expected to be more adaptable and competitive, and thus have a higher chance of relapsing. We here provide support for this theory in the case of AML. Structure in gene networks in cancer cells has been quantified, and it has been found to be useful in cancer prognosis. Vineetha \emph{et al.}\ applied a TSK-type recurrent neural fuzzy approach to extract regulatory relationship among genes and to reconstruct gene regulatory network from microarray data from colon cancer cells. Structure in this regulatory network provided new insights into colon cancer diagnostics \cite{Vineetha}. Taylor \emph{et al.}\ used the co-expression of hub proteins and their partners to identify whether interactions are context-specific, or constitutive. They found that loss of co-regulation in cancer results in disruptions in hub protein components of interaction networks \cite{Taylor2009,Chuang2007}. Ford \emph{et al.}\ used gene expression microarray data to predict the recurrence time in lung cancer \cite{Ford}. Hierarchy is a measure of modularity that exists in gene expression networks at different levels. Here, we quantify the hierarchy in cancer related gene networks and explore its relation with clinical risk and outcome in AML. That is, we study the relation between cancer relapse and the structural features of the gene network in cancer affected cells. We will show that the level of organization and hierarchy in the cancer related gene network in AML affected cells can serve as a biomarker in AML prognosis. There is a significant difference in the hierarchy measure between patients that have a cancer relapse (34 patients) and those that do not (43 patients) ($p$-value=0.0012). The area under the ROC curve for the classifier that discriminates between the relapse and no relapse patient cohorts on the basis of the hierarchy measure is $0.70$, which is significant compared to a random classifier. \section{Methods} \subsection{Patients} We performed a retrospective cohort analysis based on the gene expression profiles of acute myeloid leukemia patients (samples provided by the AML Study Group, Ulm, Germany). The gene expression data were previously obtained from samples obtained from 116 AML patients (median age, 50 years) \cite{Bullinger2004}. Of the various genes analyzed, 133 genes predictive of clinical outcome were identified \cite{Bullinger2004}. Relapse in patients was monitored during the follow up visits. Subsequent reports, working with other datasets, have also reported gene expression data in AML associated with prognosis \cite{Radmacher,Metzeler,Li}. During the follow up period, 68 of the 116 patients died, and 34 of the 79 patients who had complete remission relapsed. 20 patients were also reported to have developed a refractory cancer disease. For the patients who died during the follow up period, the overall survival since diagnosis was also reported. \subsection{Cytogenetics} Cytogenetic analysis can be used to classify AML patients as being at low risk [t(8;21), t(15;17), or inv(16)], intermediate risk [e.g., a normal karyotype or t(9;11)], or high risk [e.g., inv(3), -5/del(5q), -7, or a complex karyotype (three or more aberrations)] \cite{Grimwade1998,Byrd2002,Slovak2000}. We categorized the patients into these categories depending on the cytogenetic aberration reported for each patient \cite{Bullinger2004}. \subsection{Gene networks for different patient categories} To study the structure and organization of the gene network in different patient groups, we defined a network consisting of 133 genes previously identified as being predictive of clinical outcome in AML \cite{Bullinger2004} as nodes. The weight of the link between any two nodes was defined using the Pearson correlation coefficient as \begin{equation} l_{\alpha,\beta}=\sum_i^n\frac{(P_{i,\alpha}-\mu_{\alpha})(P_{i,\beta}-\mu_{\beta})}{\sigma_{\alpha}\sigma_{\beta}} \label{1} \end{equation} Here $P_{i,\alpha}$ is the expression data of gene $\alpha$ for patient $i$ from \cite{Bullinger2004}, $\mu_{\alpha}$ is the average expression value for gene $\alpha$ for the $n$ patients, and $\sigma_{\alpha}$ is the standard deviation of expression value of gene $\alpha$ for the $n$ patients. Using the above definition, we make comparisons between the following sets of categories of patients: \subsubsection{Relapse, remission with no relapse, and refractory disease groups} In order to make comparisons between these groups that contain a different number of patients each, we chose 16 patients randomly from each group and constructed the gene network. This random selection of patients from each category helps to mitigate the bias due to different group sizes. We repeated this procedure 100 times which gave us 100 networks for each group. Error bars were calculated using this bootstrap procedure. Representative networks are shown in Figure \ref{example}. \begin{figure}[tbh!] \begin{center} a)\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{CR.eps} b)\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{RD.eps} c)\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{REL.eps} \caption{Shown are representative gene expression networks for a) complete remission, b) refractory disease, and c) relapse. The nodes are the 133 cancer related genes and the links are calculated from Eq.\ (1) from one group of 16 patients from each of the three patient categories. The CCC values are $CCC_{\rm remission} = 0.2270 < CCC_{\rm refractory} = 0.2601 < CCC_{\rm relapse} = 0.5140 $. \label{example} } \end{center} \end{figure} \subsubsection{Low, intermediate, and high risk groups} The karyotype was used to classify AML patients into low risk, intermediate risk, or high risk categories depending on the cytogenetic aberration reported for each patient \cite{Bullinger2004}. We thus had three categories of patients: low risk group consisting of 38 patients, intermediate risk group consisting of 57 patients, and high risk group consisting of 16 patients. To make comparisons between these groups that contain a different number of patients each, we randomly chose 12 patients from each category and constructed the cancer related gene network. We repeated this procedure 100 times to mitigate any bias due to unequal sample sizes. This gave us 100 networks for each risk category. We calculated error bars using this bootstrap procedure. \subsubsection{Groups with cancer at different levels of progression} 68 of the 116 patients died during the follow up period. The overall survival since diagnosis had been reported for each of these patients \cite{Bullinger2004}. We sorted the survival time dataset in descending order and divided it into 6 groups, each consisting of 16.67\% of the dataset. Samples were assigned into groups (sextiles) based on length of survival from initial cancer diagnosis. We constructed the gene network for each of these groups as stated above using Eq.\ (1) to define links between nodes. \subsection{Gene network for each patient} We constructed a network with 133 cancer related genes as nodes for each patient in our dataset. Two different methods were used to define the weights of the links in the network. \subsubsection{Deviation of gene expression from average expression profile of AML cells} We defined the weight of the link between any two nodes $i$ and $j$ in the network for patient $\alpha$ as follows: \begin{equation} l_{i,j}^\alpha=\sum_{k=1}^{116} \vert X_{k}^i-X_{k}^j \vert \label{2} \end{equation} where $X_k^i =$ (expression of gene $i$ in patient $k$ - expression of gene $i$ in patient $\alpha$)$^2$, i.e. the deviation of gene expression $i$ for patient $\alpha$ from the average in the entire cancer dataset \cite{Bullinger2004}. We will show that the structure of such a network can discriminate between the patients that have cancer relapse and those that do not. \subsubsection{Deviation of gene expression from average expression in different normal human tissues} We used the gene expression data previously collected from 79 normal human tissues \cite{Su2004}. Cancer cells exhibit a gene expression profile different from cells in normal human tissues due to various mutations. We were motivated to study the deviations from normal expression profiles in different patients and the level of organization in these deviations. We, therefore, constructed a network with 133 cancer related genes as nodes and defined the weight of a link between nodes $i$ and $j$ as follows: \begin{equation} l_{i,j}^\alpha=\sum_{k=1}^{79} X_{k}^i *X_{k}^j \label{3} \end{equation} where $X_k^i =$ (average expression of gene $i$ in normal tissue $k$ - expression of gene $i$ in cancer cells in patient $\alpha$)$^2$, i.e.\ the deviation of expression of gene $i$ in patient $\alpha$ from the average expression of gene $i$ in normal human tissues \cite{Su2004}. \subsection{The $CCC$} To quantify the structure in these gene networks, we defined a measure of hierarchy that quantifies how ``tree-like'' a network is \cite{Man}. The motivation behind this is that a tree network topology is the typical hierarchical structure. To calculate this measure, we computed the distance matrix defined by the network. The distance between nodes $i$ and $j$, $d_{i,j}$, is defined by the square root of the commute time. The commute time is the expected time taken by a random walker to travel from one of the nodes to the other and back to the starting node \cite{Saerens2004}. Besides the weight of the link between the nodes $i$ and $j$, the commute time between nodes $i$ and $j$ also depends on all possible paths between the two nodes in the graph. In a weighted graph, the commute time between two nodes decreases with an increase in the number of possible paths from one node to the other and increases with an increase in the length of any path connecting the two nodes. Due to these properties, the commute time is well suited for clustering tasks. To define the commute time, we let $L$ denote the graph Laplacian, defined as $L = D - A$, where $A$ is the matrix of links, $A = l$ in Eq.\ (1), (2) or (3), and the diagonal matrix $D = {\rm diag} (A_i)$, with $A_i =\sum_j A_{ij}$. The commute time is obtained using $L_+$, the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse of the graph Laplacian $L$ by \cite{Barnett1990} \begin{equation} n(i, j)=V_G(e_i -e_j )^TL_+(e_i -e_j ). \end{equation} Here $(e_i)_j =\delta_{ij}$, and $V_G =\sum_{ij} a_{ij} $. Since $L_+$ is symmetric and positive semidefinite, $d_{ij} =\sqrt{n(i, j)}$ is a Euclidean distance metric, called the Euclidean commute time (ECT) distance. To construct a tree topology that best approximates our original network, we applied the average linkage hierarchical clustering algorithm \cite{Sokal}. This method takes the distance matrix defined by the gene network and produces a tree topology that best reproduces the original distances. The tree topology has the same nodes as the original network but different weights for the links between nodes. We calculated the correlation between the distances between all pairs of nodes in the original network and the distances between these pairs in the best-fitting tree. This gives the cophenetic correlation coefficient ($CCC$). The higher the correlation, the better does the tree topology approximate the original network and, thus, the more hierarchical is the original network. The best fitting tree to the distance metric data defines an approximation to the original network, termed the cophenetic matrix. The element $c_{ij}$ of the cophenetic matrix is the height where the network nodes $i$ and $j$ become members of the same cluster in the tree. It defines the distance between the nodes $i$ and $j$. The $CCC$ is defined as \begin{equation} CCC= \frac{\sum_{i<j}(d_{ij}-d)(c_{ij}-c)}{\sqrt{(\sum_{i<j}(d_{ij}-d)^2\sum_{i<j}(c_{ij}-c)^2}} \label{ccc} \end{equation} Here $d$ is the average of the distances in the original network, $d_{ij}$, and $c$ is the average of the tree distances, $c_{ij}$. \section{Results} \begin{figure}[tbh!] \begin{center} a)\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{outcome_CCC.eps} b)\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{risk_CCC.eps} \caption{a) The mean normalized $CCC$ of the cancer related gene network for the three categories of patients: patients that have a complete remission with no relapse during the follow up, patients that have a refractory disease, and patients that have a cancer relapse during the follow up. The links between nodes were calculated using Eq.\ (1). b) The mean normalized $CCC$ of the cancer related gene network for different risk groups: low risk, intermediate risk, and high risk. The links between nodes were calculated using Eq.\ (1). Error bars are one standard error. \label{fig1}} \end{center} \end{figure} \subsection{Clinical outcome groups} \begin{figure}[tbh!] \begin{center} \includegraphics[scale=0.45]{mean_prog.eps} \caption{The mean normalized $CCC$ in the cancer related gene network for patients in different sextiles of survival time from initial diagnosis. The hierarchy in the network increases, peaking in the intermediate sextiles of survival time. \label{fig2}} \end{center} \end{figure} We constructed networks comprising of 133 cancer related genes as nodes and the links calculated using Eq.\ (1) for each out of the three outcome categories: relapse, refractory disease, and complete remission with no relapse during follow up. Figure \ref{fig1}a shows the results. We compared these $CCC$ values with those from a random network with the same number of nodes and edges as the cancer related gene networks. We built 100 such random networks with redistributed link values. We defined a normalized cophenetic correlation coefficient as follows: $CCC_{norm} = (CCC-CCC_{rand})/(1-CCC_{rand})$ where $CCC_{rand}$ is the average $CCC$ for a random network of the same size. Normalized $CCC$ values are shown in Figure \ref{fig1}a. We computed the $z$-scores of the cancer-associated network $CCC$ relative to the distribution of the $CCC$ values of the random networks of the same size and sparsity: $Z_{CCC}=(CCC-CCC_{rand})/\sigma_{rand}$ . The $z$-scores for remission (no relapse), refractory disease, and relapse are $1.76, 2.84$, and $4.05$, respectively. The difference between remission and relapse groups is significant for a Student's t-test with a $p$-value $< 0.001$. \subsection{Risk groups} Figure \ref{fig1}b shows the normalized $CCC$ values for the three categories calculated as before. The high risk category has the maximum hierarchy among the three groups followed by intermediate, and low risk groups. The $z$-scores for low, intermediate, and high risk groups are $2.45,3.67$, and $3.90$, respectively. \subsection{Cancer Progression} We again constructed the cancer related gene network for patients exhibiting different sextiles of survival time and calculated the average normalized CCC and standard error in this average. The results are as shown in Figure \ref{fig2} wherein the independent axis indicates the time period between AML diagnosis and death, which we interpret as a measure of cancer progression, and the dependent axis indicates the mean normalized CCC. We observe that the variation of mean $CCC$ with increasing levels of cancer progression is non-monotonic. This result makes manifest the non-trivial changes that occur in the cancer related gene expression network as a function of remaining survival time. \subsection{Gene network for individual patients} We constructed a cancer related gene network for each of the 116 patients with 133 cancer related genes as nodes and links defined in two different ways: \subsubsection{Deviation of cancer cells gene expression from average expression profile of AML cells} The links between nodes were calculated using Eq.\ (2). The distribution of $CCC$ values for relapse, remission, and refractory disease are shown in Figure \ref{fig3}. The difference between patients exhibiting relapse and those exhibiting complete remission is statistically significant for a Student's t-test with a $p$-value of $0.0019$. We plot a $ROC$ curve for the prediction that patients with $CCC > $ cutoff have a relapse. The area under the $ROC$ curve $(AUC)$ is $0.67$ which is significant compared to a random classifier. \subsubsection{Deviation of cancer cells gene expression from average expression in different healthy human tissues} The links between nodes are calculated using Eq.\ (3). The difference between patients exhibiting relapse and those exhibiting complete remission is significant with a $p$-value of $0.0012$. We plot a $ROC$ curve for the prediction that patients with $CCC > $ cutoff have a relapse, shown in Figure \ref{fig4}a. The area under the $ROC$ curve $(AUC)$ is $0.70$ which is significant compared to a random classifier. We further used the $CCC$ values for individual patient gene networks to predict the risk of death within 3 years of cancer diagnosis. For this purpose, we used the cancer related gene network for each patient with links calculated using Eq.\ (2). We calculated the $CCC$ values for 68 patients who died during the follow up period and for the patients who were alive at the end of follow up. The difference between the two categories is statistically significant for a Student's t-test with a $p$-value $< 0.001$. Using these $CCC$ values for the two groups, we attempted to predict the chances of death within 3 years of cancer diagnosis by setting a cutoff on the $CCC$ values. The $AUC$ of the $ROC$ curve for this prediction is $0.69$ which is again significant as compared to a random classifier. \begin{figure}[tbh!] \begin{center} \includegraphics[scale=0.45]{gauss_rel.eps} \caption{The Gaussian distribution fit to $CCC$ values for the patients in different clinical outcome categories: patients that have a complete remission with no relapse during the follow up (solid), patients that have a refractory disease (dotted), and patients that have a cancer relapse during the follow up (dashed). We constructed a cancer related gene network for each patient in the dataset with 133 cancer related genes as nodes and links calculated using Eq.\ (1). \label{fig3}} \end{center} \end{figure} \begin{figure}[tbh!] \begin{center} a)\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{roc_tissue.eps} b)\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{kaplan.eps} \caption{a) The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for the prediction that $CCC >$ cutoff leads to future relapse. The $CCC$ is calculated for the cancer related gene network with links calculated using Eq.\ (2). The area under the curve$(AUC)$ is $0.70$ which is significant as compared to a random classifier. b) The probability of survival for patients with $CCC > $ cutoff (dashed) and patients with $CCC < $ cutoff (solid). For patients alive at the end of follow up ($n=48$), survival time represents the number of days to last follow up. The hazard ratio is $2.04$. Thus, higher $CCC$ implies lower chances of survival as compared to patients with lower $CCC$ in the cancer related gene network. Here, cutoff = mean $CCC$ for all 116 patients. \label{fig4}} \end{center} \end{figure} \section{Discussion} There are selection pressures on a tumor that are distinct from those upon the host. The proliferation and progression of cancer involves activation of cancer-specific gene pathways, perhaps hijacked ancestral host pathways \cite{Davies2011}. Thus, in contrast to the classical view of cancer as a dedifferentiation of the host, progression of a tumor may involve structuring of specific expression pathways. For example, we have here suggested that a more aggressive and resistant cancer is expected to have a more structurally organized and modular cancer-associated network. This is, indeed, observed in Figure \ref{fig1}a. The average $CCC$ is the highest for patients that exhibit a cancer relapse during the follow up. Post remission, there is competition between the residual cancerous cells and the normal or transplanted stem cells in the bone marrow. To compete against and to drive out these cells, there is selection for a more organized and modular cancer related genes network among the AML cells. Hence, we expected higher hierarchy in the gene network for patients that exhibit cancer relapse during follow up. For patients that exhibit complete cancer remission and no relapse, the average $CCC$ is the lowest. In these patients, the cancer cells are completely eradicated during chemotherapy. Any residual cells in the bone marrow, if present, are unable to compete against the normal stem cells and are unable to start proliferating again aggressively enough for cancer to relapse. Therefore, we expected cancer cells in these patients to exhibit the lowest level of organization in the cancer related genes network. In some AML cases, the cancer cells evolve mechanisms to resist the entry of anti-cancer chemo drugs into the cells. These cancers are thus resistant to existing chemotherapy procedures, and such patients are said to have a refractory cancer disease. In such cases, there is less selection pressure on AML cells since these are already resistant to anti-cancer drugs. Hence, we expected the cancer related gene network in such patients to be less organized as compared to patients that exhibit relapse. On the other hand, since these cancer cells are drug resistant and also compete with the normal bone marrow cells, they exhibit a higher level of organization as compared to cancer cells from patients exhibiting complete remission. Cancers exhibiting a higher level of organizational hierarchy and modularity in the cancer related genes network are expected to be more competitive, proliferative, and aggressive and, thus, present a higher level of risk for the host. This is, indeed, observed in Figure \ref{fig1}b wherein the average $CCC$ increases with increasing risk. Here, the different risk categories were determined depending of the cytogenetic profile of the patients \cite{Grimwade1998,Byrd2002,Slovak2000,Bullinger2004}. We also calculated the average $CCC$ of the cancer related gene network for patients as a function of survival time since initial cancer diagnosis. The results are shown in Figure \ref{fig2}. As cancer progresses, cancer cells compete with the host cells for oxygen and nutrition. The host immune system attempts to resist or eradicate tumor progression \cite{frey,finn, vesley, suzuki}. Cancer cells thus evolve in a rugged fitness landscape. Therefore, there is selection for more effective, aggressive, and proliferative gene pathways since cancer cells evolve amidst tremendous environmental pressure from the host cells and the host immune system \cite{vito}. During evolution in such a rugged fitness landscape, theory shows that modularity in gene networks is selected for \cite{Sun2007,Deem}. Therefore, the cancer related gene network becomes more organized and modular as cancer progresses and matures. However, once the cancer reaches a mature phase, the host immune system is severely compromised, especially in the cancer microenvironment \cite{dieu,buggins}. Also, cancer cells now dominate the tissue environment with their high proliferation rates, induced angiogenesis and reprogrammed energy metabolism \cite{hanahan}. Therefore, there is less selection pressure since the cancer cells do not have to compete as much with the host marrow cells or the impaired and compromised immune system. This presents a relatively smooth fitness landscape for cancer cell evolution with little or no selection, and theory shows that modularity is selected for less strongly \cite{Sun2007,Deem}. Thus, we expect the level of organization of the cancer associated gene network to decline once the cancer has dominated the host. That is, we suggest that the level of organization in the cancer related gene networks declines due to less selection pressure requiring this costly structure in the advanced phase of the cancer. Modifications to the expression network of the cancer associated genes may stem from mutations, compromised DNA replication, or other mechanisms in cancer cells \cite{negrini}. We suggest that nonmonotonic selection pressure may be the reason for the nonmonotonic variation of modularity with cancer progression seen in Figure \ref{fig2}. We also attempted to differentiate between patients that exhibit relapse during follow up from patients that do not show any relapse using the level of organization in cancer related gene network in their cancerous cells at the time of diagnosis. For this, we constructed a cancer related gene network for each patient with 133 cancer related genes as nodes and links defined with either Eq. (2) or (3). We then set a cutoff on the $CCC$ values to discriminate between patients with relapse and non-relapse cases. The area under the $ROC$ curve is $0.69$ and $0.70$, respectively, for the two cases which is significant as compared to a random classifier. We also constructed a cancer related gene network for each patient using Eq.\ (3), considering deviation of gene expression in cancer cells from normal, non-cancerous, healthy bone marrow, and myeloid blood cells only. When classifying using $CCC$ values calculated from these networks, the area under the $ROC$ curve (not shown) was $0.65$. Similarly, we attempted to predict the chances of death for a patient within 3 years of diagnosis using the $CCC$ value of the cancer related gene network at the time of diagnosis. We again set a cutoff on the $CCC$ values to discriminate between patients who died during the follow up from patients that were alive at the end of follow up. The $AUC$ is $0.69$ which is again statistically significant in comparison with a random classifier. The $CCC$ of the cancer related gene network in the cancerous cells of a patient is a biomarker in AML prognosis. It is discriminating and may help identify patients that are at a higher risk of a relapse after a typical chemotherapy regime before the treatment has begun. This biomarker may also help to identify the overall risk that the patient is subject to, which may be helpful in deciding upon a chemotherapy regime for each patient. \section{Conclusion} We defined a measure of hierarchical organization in gene pathways in AML cancer cells. With a retrospective cohort analysis based on the gene expression profiles of 116 acute myeloid leukemia patients, we found that the level of organization, indicated by $CCC$ values, correlates with the clinical outcome in AML and with the level of risk the cancer presents for the host. It also correlates with the survival period in the case of dead patients. We expected this result since a more organized and modular network of cancer associated genes is likely to contribute towards a more aggressive form of cancer. Further, since cancer cells evolve in a rugged fitness landscape, a more organized cancer related gene network will be selected for amidst the immense selection pressure in a changing, hostile environment \cite{Sun2007,Deem,Albert}. We also showed how the level of organization in cancer associated gene pathways varies as cancer progresses and matures. This variation is non-monotonic, likely due to a decrease in the selection pressure once the cancer dominates. Finally, the $CCC$ calculated for each patient can serve as a biomarker in AML prognosis to assess the risk of relapse and overall risk level for a patient and thus to inform a suitable personalized treatment regime. \section*{Acknowledgment} This work was supported by the US National Institutes of Health under grant 1 R01 GM 100468-01. Shubham Tripathi is a recipient of the Khorana Fellowship for the year 2014. \section*{Supplemental Information} Files listing the 133 cancer-related genes studied as well as clinical outcome, risk group, and CCC for each patient are available as supplemental information.
\section*{Introduction} Let $A$ be a finite-dimensional quasi-hereditary algebra, with standard modules $\Delta(\lambda)$ and costandard modules $\nabla(\lambda)$. The tilting modules for $A$ were first characterized by Ringel in \cite{ringel} as modules with both standard and costandard filtrations. The goal of this paper is to describe when tilting modules are rigid (i.e.~have identical radical and socle series). The paper can be split roughly into two parts. In the first part, we describe filtered algebras and the machinery for working with them in a derived setting. In the second part, we use this machinery to prove our rigidity results, which we apply to calculating the Loewy structure of some tilting modules. Our work was partially inspired by the work of Bowman, Doty, and Martin \cite{bdm-small,bdm-large} which described the indecomposable summands of the tensor product $L \otimes L'$ of two irreducible $SL_3(K)$ modules, where $K$ is a field of positive characteristic. For a general reductive algebraic group $G$, the category of rational $G$-modules is a highest-weight category, which is closely related to the notion of a quasi-hereditary algebra \cite{donkin}. This means that tilting modules can be defined for algebraic groups using Ringel's classification. In particular, tilting modules for algebraic groups naturally appear as some of the indecomposable summands of $L \otimes L'$. With few exceptions, the tilting modules in \cite{bdm-small,bdm-large} (and in a previous paper \cite{doty-henke} on the $SL_2(K)$ case) are all rigid. Andersen and Kaneda showed why this is the case by proving a rigidity result for tilting modules for quantum groups and algebraic groups in positive characteristic \cite{andersen-kaneda}. They showed that tilting modules above the Steinberg weight which are not ``too close'' to the walls of the dominant chamber or ``too high'' in the case of algebraic groups are rigid. We had hoped to use our rigidity result as a stepping-stone for similar tensor decomposition work for $SL_4(K)$. In the last section, we do succeed in showing that the restricted tilting modules are rigid and calculate their Loewy structures (a new result as far as we are aware). The calculations rely heavily on knowledge of the Weyl module structures, which can be difficult to compute in general. Further work in this direction seems necessary for this method to be extended to higher weight tilting modules. \section{Filtered algebras} Throughout this paper, $A$ denotes a finite-dimensional algebra over a field $K$. \begin{defn} A generalized filtration on $A$ is a collection of $K$-subspaces $F^i A$ (indexed by integers $i$) such that the $K$-linear span of $\{F^i A\}$ is $A$, $1 \in F^0 A$, and $(F^i A)(F^j A) \subseteq F^{i+j} A$ for all $i,j$. \end{defn} This is similar to the notion of an ascending or descending filtration on $A$, but without the containment condition. If $A$ has a generalized filtration $F^\bullet$ we call $A$ a generalized filtered algebra. In this paper we will often omit ``generalized'' for brevity. \begin{defn} \hfill \begin{itemize} \item A filtered module over a filtered algebra $A$ is an $A$-module $M$ equipped with a collection of $K$-subspaces $F^i M$ indexed over the integers such that the $K$-linear span of $\{F^i M\}$ is $M$ and $(F^i A)(F^j M) \subseteq F^{i+j} M$ for all $i,j$. \item A homomorphism between filtered $A$-modules $M$ and $M'$ with filtrations $F^\bullet$ and $F^{'\bullet}$ is an $A$-module homomorphism $f:M \rightarrow M'$ such that $f(F^i M) \subseteq F^{'i} M'$ for all $i$. \end{itemize} \end{defn} If $M$ is a filtered $A$-module and $M' \leq M$ is an $A$-module, then there are natural filtrations on $M'$ and $M/M'$ making them into filtered modules, namely $F^i M'=F^i M \cap M'$ and $F^i(M/M')=(F^i M+M')/M'$. Combining these two constructions, we can give any subquotient $M'/M''$ of $M$ the filtration \begin{equation*} F^i(M'/M'')=(F^i M \cap M'+M'')/M'' \end{equation*} by first considering $M'$ as a submodule of $M$ and then considering $M'/M''$ as a quotient of $M'$. This is well-defined, for if we apply these processes in the opposite order, we get \begin{align*} F^i(M/M'')& =(F^i M+M'')/M'' \\ F^i(M'/M'')& =((F^i M+M'') \cap M')/M'' \\ & =(F^i M \cap M'+M'')/M'' \end{align*} which gives the same filtration. We write $\filtmod{A}$ for the category of filtered modules over a filtered algebra $A$. This category is always additive and in fact pre-abelian, yet even in the case of ascending/descending filtrations, $\filtmod{A}$ is not necessarily abelian. \begin{exam} \label{exam:rad-filt} Let $J(A)$ be the Jacobson radical of $A$, and define the filtration $J^i A=J(A)^i$ for $i \geq 0$ and $J^i A=A$ for $i<0$. This gives $A$ a (descending) filtered structure, and any $A$-module $M$ can be given a filtration $J^i M=J(A)^i M=\rad^i M$ (and $J^i M=M$ for $i<0$) which is compatible with the filtration on $A$. In this case, we write $\radfiltmod{A}$ for the filtered module category. \end{exam} \section{Model categories} In order to define a functor analogous to $\Ext$ on $\filtmod{A}$ it will be necessary to use some technology from homotopy theory, which we describe below. The primary reference for this section is \cite[Chapter 1]{hovey}. Throughout this section, $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ denote arbitrary categories. \subsection{Model structures} \begin{defn} Suppose $i:U \rightarrow V$ and $p:X \rightarrow Y$ are maps in a category $\mathcal{A}$. Then $i$ has the left lifting property with respect to $p$ and $p$ has the right lifting property with respect to $i$ if for every commutative diagram of the following form \begin{equation*} \xymatrix{ U \ar[d]_{i} \ar[r]^{f} & X \ar[d]^{p} \\ V \ar[r]_{g} & Y } \end{equation*} there exists a map $h:V \rightarrow X$ such that two triangles introduced in the above diagram commute, i.e.~$hi=f$ and $ph=g$. \end{defn} In this situation we write $i \boxslash p$. A map $h$ fitting into such a commutative square is called a lift. \begin{defn} \label{defn:modcat} A model structure on a category $\mathcal{A}$ is a collection of three subclasses $\mathcal{W},\mathcal{C},\mathcal{F}$ of $\Mor \mathcal{A}$ which satisfy the following properties: \begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)] \item (2-out-of-3) Suppose $u,v \in \Mor \mathcal{A}$ such that $vu$ is defined. If two of $u$, $v$, and $vu$ are in $\mathcal{W}$ then so is the third. \item (Retracts) Given a commutative diagram of the following form \begin{equation*} \xymatrix{ U \ar[d]_{u} \ar[r] \ar@/^/[rr]^{{\rm id}} & C \ar[d]_{v} \ar[r] & A \ar[d]^{u} \\ V \ar[r] \ar@/_/[rr]_{{\rm id}} & D \ar[r] & B } \end{equation*} if $v$ is in $\mathcal{W}$, $\mathcal{C}$, or $\mathcal{F}$ then so is $u$. \item (Lifting) Using the obvious setwise extension of the symbol $\boxslash$, we have $(\mathcal{W} \cap \mathcal{C}) \boxslash \mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{C} \boxslash (\mathcal{W} \cap \mathcal{F})$. \item (Factorization) For every $f \in \Mor \mathcal{A}$, there exist two factorizations: \begin{itemize} \item $f=pi$ where $i \in \mathcal{W} \cap \mathcal{C}$ and $p \in \mathcal{F}$, \item $f=qj$ where $j \in \mathcal{C}$ and $q \in \mathcal{W} \cap \mathcal{F}$. \end{itemize} \end{enumerate} \end{defn} A map in one of $\mathcal{W}$, $\mathcal{C}$, or $\mathcal{F}$ is called a weak equivalence, cofibration, or fibration respectively. A map in $\mathcal{W} \cap \mathcal{C}$ or $\mathcal{W} \cap \mathcal{F}$ is called a trivial cofibration or a trivial fibration respectively. In categories with initial and terminal objects (denoted $0$ and $1$ respectively), an object $X$ of $\mathcal{A}$ is called cofibrant if $0 \rightarrow X$ is a cofibration or fibrant if $X \rightarrow 1$ is a fibration. Sometimes a distinction is made between a ``category with model structure'' and a so-called ``model category.'' A model category is simply a category with a model structure which contains all finite limits and colimits. A closed model category is a model category which additionally contains all small limits and colimits. Since the categories we will be using later have all such limits, we will freely use the phrase ``model category'' instead of ``category with model structure.'' \subsection{Homotopy categories and derived functors} The primary motivation for model structures is the homotopy category (sometimes also called the derived category). The homotopy category of a model category is a generalization of the classical derived category $\derivcat{\modcat{A}}$ obtained from the category of cochain complexes $\chmod(\modcat{A})$. Namely, the homotopy category is obtained by adding the inverses of certain ``equivalences'' to the original category. One can think of model categories as categories with just enough structure to enable calculations in homotopy categories. \begin{defn} Let $\mathcal{A}$ be a category with a model structure given by $\mathcal{W},\mathcal{C},\mathcal{F}$. The homotopy category (or derived category) of $\mathcal{A}$ is a category $\Ho \mathcal{A}$ and a functor $\gamma_\mathcal{A}:\mathcal{A} \rightarrow \Ho \mathcal{A}$ which is the localization of $\mathcal{A}$ at $\mathcal{W}$. In other words, $\gamma_\mathcal{A}$ maps $\mathcal{W}$ to isomorphisms, and $\Ho \mathcal{A}$ is universal with this property in the sense that if another functor $F:\mathcal{A} \rightarrow \mathcal{B}$ maps $\mathcal{W}$ to isomorphisms, there exists a unique factorization $F=(\Ho F)\gamma_\mathcal{A}$ for some functor $\Ho F:\Ho \mathcal{A} \rightarrow \mathcal{B}$. \end{defn} \begin{defn} Let $F:\mathcal{A} \rightarrow \mathcal{B}$ be a functor between two model categories. The left derived functor of $F$ is a functor $\mathbf{L} F:\Ho \mathcal{A} \rightarrow \Ho \mathcal{B}$ with a natural transformation $\varepsilon:(\mathbf{L} F)\gamma_\mathcal{A} \Rightarrow \gamma_\mathcal{B} F$ called the counit which is universal in the following sense: for any other functor $G:\Ho \mathcal{A} \rightarrow \Ho \mathcal{B}$ with a natural transformation $\zeta:G\gamma_\mathcal{A} \Rightarrow \gamma_\mathcal{B} F$, there is a unique $\lambda:G \Rightarrow \mathbf{L} F$ such that $\zeta=\varepsilon \circ \lambda\gamma_{\mathcal{A}}$. \begin{equation*} \xymatrix{ \mathcal{A} \ar[d]_{\gamma_\mathcal{A}} \ar[r]^{F} & \mathcal{B} \ar[d]^{\gamma_\mathcal{B}} & \ar@{}[d]|{=} & \mathcal{A} \ar[d]_{\gamma_\mathcal{A}} \ar[r]^{F} \ar[ddl]_{\gamma_\mathcal{A}} & \mathcal{B} \ar[d]^{\gamma_\mathcal{B}} \\ \Ho \mathcal{A} \ar[r]_{G} \ar@{=>}[ur]_{\zeta} & \Ho \mathcal{B} & & \Ho \mathcal{A} \ar[r]_{\mathbf{L} F} \ar@{=>}[ur]_{\varepsilon} & \Ho \mathcal{B} \\ & & \Ho \mathcal{A} \ar[urr]_{G} \ar@{==>}[ur]|{\lambda\gamma_{\mathcal{A}}} & & } \end{equation*} Similarly, the right derived functor of $F$ is a functor $\mathbf{R} F:\Ho \mathcal{A} \rightarrow \Ho \mathcal{B}$ with a natural transformation $\eta:\gamma_\mathcal{B} F \Rightarrow (\mathbf{R} F)\gamma_\mathcal{A}$ called the unit which has the following universal property: for any other functor $G:\Ho \mathcal{A} \rightarrow \Ho \mathcal{B}$ with a natural transformation $\theta:\gamma_\mathcal{B} F \Rightarrow G\gamma_\mathcal{A}$, there is a unique $\mu:\mathbf{R} F \Rightarrow G$ such that $\theta=\mu\gamma_{\mathcal{A}} \circ \eta$. \begin{equation*} \xymatrix{ \mathcal{A} \ar[d]_{\gamma_\mathcal{A}} \ar[r]^{F} & \mathcal{B} \ar[d]^{\gamma_\mathcal{B}} \ar@{=>}[dl]_{\theta} & \ar@{}[d]|{=} & \mathcal{A} \ar[d]_{\gamma_\mathcal{A}} \ar[r]^{F} \ar[ddl]_{\gamma_\mathcal{A}} & \mathcal{B} \ar[d]^{\gamma_\mathcal{B}} \ar@{=>}[dl]_{\eta} \\ \Ho \mathcal{A} \ar[r]_{G} & \Ho \mathcal{B} & & \Ho \mathcal{A} \ar[r]_{\mathbf{R} F} \ar@{==>}[dl]|{\mu\gamma_{\mathcal{A}}} & \Ho \mathcal{B} \\ & & \Ho \mathcal{A} \ar[urr]_{G} & & } \end{equation*} \end{defn} In general, calculating derived functors can be difficult if no extra information about the functor is given. Thus we will restrict ourselves to taking derived functors of functors which preserve some aspects of the model structure. \begin{defn} Let $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ be two model categories. \begin{itemize} \item A left Quillen functor $F:\mathcal{A} \rightarrow \mathcal{B}$ is a functor that is left adjoint and preserves cofibrations and trivial cofibrations. \item A right Quillen functor $G:\mathcal{B} \rightarrow \mathcal{A}$ is a functor that is right adjoint and preserves fibrations and trivial fibrations. \item A Quillen adjunction $F \dashv G:\mathcal{A} \leftrightarrows \mathcal{B}$ is an adjunction where $F$ is a left Quillen functor and $G$ is a right Quillen functor. \end{itemize} \end{defn} The following proposition shows that these definitions are overdetermined. \begin{prop}[\cite{zllow}] \label{prop:quillfuncttfae} Let $F \dashv G:\mathcal{A} \leftrightarrows \mathcal{B}$ be an adjunction between two model categories. The following are equivalent. \begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)] \item $F \dashv G$ is a Quillen adjunction. \item $F$ preserves cofibrations and trivial cofibrations. \item $G$ preserves fibrations and trivial fibrations. \item $F$ preserves cofibrations and $G$ preserves fibrations. \end{enumerate} \end{prop} If $F$ is a Quillen functor, then the derived functor of $F$ can be calculated via a process called (co)fibrant replacement. Suppose a category $\mathcal{A}$ with model structure has initial and terminal objects $0,1$. For any object $X$, we can factor the map $0 \rightarrow X$ as a map $0 \rightarrow QX \xrightarrow{q_X} X$, where $0 \rightarrow QX$ is a cofibration (and thus $QX$ is cofibrant) and $QX \xrightarrow{q_X} X$ is a trivial fibration. This mapping $X \mapsto QX$ defines a functor\footnote{Functoriality of $Q$ requires that the factorization in Definition \ref{defn:modcat} be functorial. See \cite[1.1.1 (2)]{hovey} for details.} called the cofibrant replacement functor, and $q_X$ defines the components for a natural transformation. Similarly there is a fibrant replacement functor $R$ and a natural trivial cofibration with components $X \xrightarrow{r_X} RX$. \begin{prop}[\cite{hovey},\cite{zllow}] If $F:\mathcal{A} \rightarrow \mathcal{B}$ is a left Quillen functor, the left derived functor of $F$ exists, and can be calculated as the following composition: \begin{equation*} \xymatrix{ \Ho \mathcal{A} \ar[r]^{\Ho \gamma_{\mathcal{A}}Q} & \Ho \mathcal{A}_c \ar[r]^{\Ho \gamma_{\mathcal{B}}F} & \Ho \mathcal{B} } \end{equation*} where $\Ho \mathcal{A}_c$ denotes the full subcategory of cofibrant objects in $\Ho \mathcal{A}$. \end{prop} For calculating the right derived functor of a right Quillen functor, we use the fibrant replacement functor in a similar way. Finally Quillen adjunctions have the property that they induce adjunctions in the derived categories, as described below. \begin{thm}[{\cite[1.3.10]{hovey}}] If $F\dashv G:\mathcal{A} \leftrightarrows \mathcal{B}$ is a Quillen adjunction, then $\mathbf{L} F,\mathbf{R} G:\Ho \mathcal{A} \leftrightarrows \Ho \mathcal{B}$ are also adjoint functors. This adjunction is called the derived adjunction of $F \dashv G$. \end{thm} \subsection{Some examples} We will first describe perhaps the most well-known model category, the category of cochain complexes of an abelian category. Let $\mathcal{A}$ denote the abelian category $\modcat{A}$ for some algebra $A$, and $\chmod{\mathcal{A}}$ the category of cochain complexes over $\mathcal{A}$. The first step is describing what projective or injective relative to a class of morphisms means. \begin{defn} Let $I$ be a subclass of maps in some category $\mathcal{A}$. \begin{itemize} \item $\injmap{I}=\{f \in \Mor \mathcal{A} \mid I \boxslash f\}$ \item $\projmap{I}=\{f \in \Mor \mathcal{A} \mid f \boxslash I\}$ \item $\cofmap{I}=\projmap{(\injmap{I})}$ \item $\fibmap{I}=\injmap{(\projmap{I})}$ \end{itemize} \end{defn} \begin{exam} Define the following complexes $S^n$ and $D^n$ in $\chmod{\mathcal{A}}$ \begin{align*} (S^n)^k& =\begin{cases} A & \text{if $k=n$} \\ 0 & \text{otherwise} \end{cases} & (D^n)^k& =\begin{cases} A & \text{if $k=n,n+1$} \\ 0 & \text{otherwise} \end{cases} \end{align*} where all differentials of $S^n$ are $0$, and the only non-trivial differential map of $D^n$ is $d^n:A \xrightarrow{{\rm id}} A$. For each $n \in \mathbb{Z}$ we have an injection $S^{n+1} \rightarrow D^n$ given by the identity in (homological) degree $n+1$ and $0$ elsewhere. Let \begin{align*} I& =\{S^{n+1} \rightarrow D^n \mid n \in \mathbb{Z}\} \\ J& =\{0 \rightarrow D^n \mid n \in \mathbb{Z}\} \\ \mathcal{W}& =\{f:X \rightarrow Y \mid \text{$H^n(f)$ is an isomorphism for all $n \in \mathbb{Z}$}\} \end{align*} Here $H^n(f)$ denotes the homomorphism on cohomology groups induced by a cochain map. In other words, $\mathcal{W}$ consists of the set of quasi-isomorphisms in $\chmod{\mathcal{A}}$. \begin{thm} \label{thm:chmod-proj-model} Let $\mathcal{C}=\cofmap{I}$ and $\mathcal{F}=\injmap{J}$. Then the sets $\mathcal{W},\mathcal{C},\mathcal{F}$ define a model structure called the projective model structure on $\chmod{A}$. \end{thm} \begin{proof} See, for example, \cite[2.3]{hovey} or \cite[1.2]{di-natale}. \end{proof} The fibrations in this model structure are the degreewise surjective cochain maps, and all complexes are fibrant. A cofibrant complex $X$ has the property that for each $n$, $X^n$ is a projective $A$-module. For bounded above complexes, the converse is also true, but unbounded cofibrant complexes are trickier to understand. The cofibrations are the degreewise split injective cochain maps with cofibrant cokernels. Throughout this paper we will use the abbreviation $\derivcat{\mathcal{A}}$ for $\Ho \chmod \mathcal{A}$. \end{exam} Here is another example of how one can extend this model structure to similar-looking categories. \begin{exam} Suppose $B$ is a graded $K$-algebra, i.e.~$B=\bigoplus_i B_i$ with $1 \in B_0$ and $B_i B_j \subseteq B_{i+j}$. Let $\mathcal{B}=\grmodcat{B}$, the category of graded $B$-modules. The category $\chmod{\mathcal{B}}$ of cochain complexes of graded modules has a projective model structure very similar to the one above. Let $S^n$ and $D^n$ take the obvious gradings from $B$: \begin{align*} ((S^n)^k)_i& =\begin{cases} B_i & \text{if $k=n$} \\ 0 & \text{otherwise} \end{cases} & ((D^n)^k)_i& =\begin{cases} B_i & \text{if $k=n,n+1$} \\ 0 & \text{otherwise} \end{cases} \end{align*} The differentials are all graded homomorphisms as they are all $0$ or ${\rm id}$. For a graded $B$-module $M$ and $r \in \mathbb{Z}$ define the grading shift $M(r)_i=M_{i-r}$. It is easy to see that shifting is functorial on $\mathcal{B}$ and $\chmod{\mathcal{B}}$. Now we define \begin{align*} I_{\rm gr}& =\{S^{n+1}(r) \rightarrow D^n(r) \mid n,r \in \mathbb{Z}\} \\ J_{\rm gr}& =\{0 \rightarrow D^n(r) \mid n,r \in \mathbb{Z}\} \\ \mathcal{W}_{\rm gr}& =\{f:X \rightarrow Y \mid \text{$H^n(f)$ is an isomorphism for all $n,i \in \mathbb{Z}$}\} \end{align*} \begin{thm} Let $\mathcal{C}_{\rm gr}=\cofmap{I_{\rm gr}}$ and $\mathcal{F}_{\rm gr}=\injmap{J_{\rm gr}}$. Then the sets $\mathcal{W}_{\rm gr},\mathcal{C}_{\rm gr},\mathcal{F}_{\rm gr}$ define a model structure called the projective model structure on $\chmod{\mathcal{B}}$. \end{thm} \begin{proof} Adapt the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:chmod-proj-model} to the graded case. This is especially easy because $\grmodcat{B}$ is an abelian category like $\modcat{A}$ so kernels, images, cokernels, etc.~all make sense. \end{proof} Again the fibrations in this model structure are the homological degreewise surjective cochain maps, and all complexes are fibrant. A bounded above complex $X$ is cofibrant if and only if $X^n$ is projective as a graded $B$-module for all $n$. The cofibrations are the degreewise split injective cochain maps with cofibrant cokernels. \end{exam} \section{Filtered cochain complexes} Suppose $A$ is a filtered algebra, and let $\mathcal{A}=\filtmod{A}$. Using the examples from the previous section, we define a model structure on $\chmod{\mathcal{A}}$ following \cite{di-natale}. \subsection{Model structure} Define the following filtrations on $S^n$ and $D^n$ defined above: \begin{align*} F^i (S^n)^k& =\begin{cases} F^i A & \text{if $k=n$} \\ 0 & \text{otherwise} \end{cases} & F^i (D^n)^k& =\begin{cases} F^i A & \text{if $k=n,n+1$} \\ 0 & \text{otherwise} \end{cases} \end{align*} It is easy to verify that the differentials are all homomorphisms of filtered modules. Now for a filtered $A$-module $M$ and $r \in \mathbb{Z}$ define the filtration shift $F^i (M\langle r\rangle)=F^{i-r} M$. It is evident that $M\langle r\rangle$ is still a filtered module, and that shifting is functorial on $\mathcal{A}$ and $\chmod{\mathcal{A}}$. In this vein we define \begin{align*} I_F& =\{S^{n+1}\langle r\rangle \rightarrow D^n\langle r\rangle \mid n,r \in \mathbb{Z}\} \\ J_F& =\{0 \rightarrow D^n\langle r\rangle \mid n,r \in \mathbb{Z}\} \\ \mathcal{W}_F& =\{f:X \rightarrow Y \mid \text{$H^n(F^i f)$ is an isomorphism for all $n,i \in \mathbb{Z}$}\} \end{align*} In other words, $\mathcal{W}_F$ consists of the set of filtration-wise quasi-isomorphisms in $\chmod{\mathcal{A}}$. \begin{thm} Let $\mathcal{C}_F=\cofmap{I_F}$ and $\mathcal{F}=\injmap{J_F}$. Then the sets $\mathcal{W}_F,\mathcal{C}_F,\mathcal{F}_F$ define a model structure called the projective model structure on $\chmod{\mathcal{A}}$. \end{thm} \begin{proof} See \cite[1.3]{di-natale} for a full proof in the case when $A$ has the trivial filtration ($F^i A=A$ for $i \geq 0$). This is an adaptation of the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:chmod-proj-model} but with extra care for filtration degrees. The general proof is essentially identical. \end{proof} As expected, the fibrations in this model structure are the (homological and filtration) degreewise surjective cochain maps, and all complexes are fibrant. A bounded below complex $X$ is cofibrant if and only if $X^n$ is projective as a filtered $A$-module for all $n$ (we explain what this means in greater detail in \ref{ss:filtproj}). The cofibrations are the degreewise split injective cochain maps with cofibrant cokernels. \subsection{The Rees algebra} Now we consider connections to the algebra \begin{equation*} B=\grees{A}=\bigoplus_{i \in \mathbb{Z}} (F^i A)t^i \end{equation*} which is a subalgebra of $A[t]$. It has a grading induced both by the grading on $A[t]$ and the filtration structure on $A$. Functionally the indeterminate $t$ does nothing but record the grading, so that $at^i$ is distinct from $at^j$ in $\grees{A}$ for any $a \in F^i A \cap F^j A$. Let $\mathcal{B}=\grmodcat{B}=\grmodcat{(\grees{A})}$. It is clear that the $\grees$ construction is functorial, i.e.~$\grees:\mathcal{A} \rightarrow \mathcal{B}$ is a functor mapping a filtered module $M$ to the graded $\grees(A)$-module \begin{equation*} \grees{M}=\bigoplus_i (F^i M)t^i \end{equation*} \begin{thm} The functor $\grees$ has a left adjoint $\varphi:\mathcal{B} \rightarrow \mathcal{A}$. The module structure on $\varphi(M)$ is the quotient $M/LM$ where $L$ is the two-sided ideal of $\grees{A}$ generated by \begin{equation*} \left\{ \sum_i a_i t^i \mathrel{}\middle\vert\mathrel{} a_i \in F^i A,\ \sum_i a_i=0 \right\} \end{equation*} The filtration on $\varphi(M)$ is given by defining $F^i M$ to be the image of $M_i$ in this quotient. \end{thm} \begin{proof} First we show that $\varphi$ is a well-defined functor. This amounts to showing that $(\grees{A})/L \cong A$ so that $M/LM$ has a natural $A$-module structure. There is a natural homomorphism of ordinary modules \begin{align*} \grees{A} & \longrightarrow A \\ a_i t^i & \longmapsto a_i \end{align*} and the kernel is clearly $L$. Also, it is surjective because the span of $\{F^i A\}$ is $A$. For the filtration, note that the span of the images of $M_i$ in the quotient $M/LM$ clearly span the quotient. Also, if $a_i \in F^i A$ and $m_j \in M_j$, then $a_i(m_j+LM)=a_i t^i(m_j+LM) \in M_{i+j}+LM$, so this truly gives a filtered $A$-module structure. To show the adjunction, we show that $\Hom_{F}(\varphi(M),N) \cong \Hom_{\rm gr}(M,\grees{N})$ for $M$ a graded $\grees(A)$-module and $N$ a filtered $A$-module. For $f \in \Hom_{F}(\varphi(M),N)$, we will define a corresponding $g \in \Hom_{\rm gr}(M,\grees{N})$ degreewise in $M$. Suppose $m_i \in M_i$. By the filtration on $\varphi(M), f(m_i+LM) \in f(F^i \varphi(M)) \subseteq F^i N$. So define $g(m_i)=f(m_i+LM)t^i$ and extend linearly. This defines a graded homomorphism as required. To go the other way, suppose $g \in \Hom_{\rm gr}(M,\grees{N})$. For $\overline{m_i} \in F^i \varphi(M)$, pick some $m_i \in M_i$ such that $m_i+LM=\overline{m_i}$. Define $f \in \Hom_{F}(\varphi(M),N)$ by setting $f(\overline{m_i})=n_i$ if $g(m_i)=n_i t^i$ and extending linearly. To see that this is well-defined, we need to show that $g(LM)=0$. Yet this is clearly true because $g(LM)=Lg(M) \subseteq L\grees{N}=0$ by action of $\grees{A}$ on $\grees{N}$. It is clear that this homomorphism is filtered, and these correspondences are inverse to each other. \end{proof} \begin{lem} The adjunction $\varphi \dashv \grees$ is a Quillen adjunction of model categories, i.e.~$\varphi$ preserves cofibrations and trivial cofibrations while $\grees$ preserves fibrations and trivial fibrations. \end{lem} \begin{proof} First we show that $\grees(\injmap{\varphi(I)}) \subseteq \injmap{I}$ and $\varphi(\cofmap{I}) \subseteq \cofmap{\varphi(I)}$ for an arbitrary class of maps $I$. Suppose $f \in \injmap{\varphi(I)}$ and $g \in I$ such that there is a diagram of the form \begin{equation*} \xymatrix{ A \ar[d]_{g} \ar[r]^{} & \grees{X} \ar[d]^{\grees f} \\ B \ar[r]_{} & \grees{Y} } \end{equation*} We need to show this diagram has a lift. By adjointness, we may form the following diagram \begin{equation*} \xymatrix{ \varphi(A) \ar[d]_{\varphi(g)} \ar[r]^{} & X \ar[d]^{f} \\ \varphi(B) \ar[r]_{} & Y } \end{equation*} which has a lift $h:\varphi(B) \rightarrow X$. It is easy to see that the corresponding map $h':B \rightarrow \grees{X}$ is a lift for the first diagram. We can abbreviate this argument to one line by abuse of notation and remembering that adjointness works similarly with the symbol $\boxslash$ as it does with $\Hom$: $\varphi(I) \boxslash \injmap{\varphi(I)} \Rightarrow I \boxslash \grees(\injmap{\varphi(I)})$. Similarly, we have \begin{align*} \cofmap{I} \boxslash \injmap{I} & \Rightarrow \cofmap{I} \boxslash \grees(\injmap{\varphi(I)}) \\ & \Rightarrow \varphi(\cofmap{I}) \boxslash \injmap{\varphi(I)} \\ & \Rightarrow \varphi(\cofmap{I}) \subseteq \cofmap{\varphi(I)} \end{align*} Now we apply the above to the model categories $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$. First note that $\varphi(J_\mathrm{gr})=J_F$ and $\varphi(I_\mathrm{gr})=I_F$. Now we have $\grees(\injmap{\varphi(J_\mathrm{gr})})=\grees(\injmap{J_F}) \subseteq \injmap{J_\mathrm{gr}}$, showing that $\grees$ maps fibrations to fibrations. Similarly, $\varphi(\cofmap{I_\mathrm{gr}}) \subseteq \cofmap{\varphi(I_\mathrm{gr})}=\cofmap{I_F}$ so $\varphi$ maps cofibrations to cofibrations. By Proposition \ref{prop:quillfuncttfae}, the adjunction is a Quillen adjunction. \end{proof} \subsection{Filtered projective modules} \label{ss:filtproj} \begin{defn} Let $A$ be a filtered algebra. A filtered module $P$ is called (filtered) projective if for any filtration surjective homomorphism $p:M \rightarrow N$ and any homomorphism $g:P \rightarrow N$, there exists a homomorphism $h:P \rightarrow M$ such that $ph=g$. \end{defn} There are many reasons for this to be the correct definition of projective in this context, including the following two lemmas. \begin{lem} An $A$-module $P$ is filtered projective if and only if it is a summand of a direct sum of (possibly filtration shifted) copies of $A$. \end{lem} \begin{proof} Suppose $P$ is a summand of $L=A\langle r_1\rangle \oplus \dotsb \oplus A\langle r_k\rangle$. Let $g:M \rightarrow N$ be a filtration surjective homomorphism and let $g:P \rightarrow N$ be any homomorphism. Write $q:L \rightarrow P$ for the projection map and $i:P \rightarrow L$ for the inclusion map. Let $n_1,\dotsc,n_k \in N$ be the images of $1$ (in each copy of $A$) under the composite map $gq$. Since the copies of $A$ are filtration shifted we have $n_i \in F^{r_i}N$ for each $i$. Let $m_i \in F^{r_i}M$ such that $p(m_i)=n_i$ for each $i$. There is a unique homomorphism $h':L \rightarrow M$ which maps the $i$th copy of $1$ to $m_i$, so the map $h=h'i$ is a lift and $P$ is projective. Conversely, suppose $P$ is projective. The module $P$ has a generating set $\{p_i\}$. By writing each generator as the sum of different filtration components, we may assume that each generator $p_i$ is contained in some filtered part $F^{r_i}P$ for integers $r_i$. As above, there is a unique homomorphism $q:L \rightarrow A$ where $L=\oplus_i A\langle r_i \rangle$ mapping the $i$th copy of $1$ to $p_i$. Clearly this map is surjective. If it isn't filtration surjective, suppose there is some $p \in F^r P$ such that $p \notin q(F^r F)$. Then we can add $p$ to the list of generators, replace $L$ with $L \oplus A\langle r\rangle$, and try again. Thus we have a filtration surjective homomorphism $q:L \rightarrow P$. Using projectivity, we show that $q$ has a right inverse $i:P \rightarrow L$ with $pi={\rm id}_P$. \end{proof} \begin{rem} It doesn't matter if $P$ is a summand as a filtered module or not. If $P$ is a summand of a module $L=\oplus_i A\langle r_i\rangle$ as a module over an ordinary algebra $A$, then $P$ can be given a filtration compatible with the filtration on $F$. Namely, define $F^i P=p(F^i L)$ where $p$ the canonical projection $p:F \rightarrow P$. \end{rem} \begin{lem} If $X$ is a cofibrant cochain complex in $\chmod{A}$ then for each $n \in \mathbb{Z}$, $X^n$ is filtered projective. Conversely, if $X$ is a complex which is bounded above such that $X^n$ is filtered projective, then $X$ is cofibrant. \end{lem} \begin{proof} Adapt the proof of the similar fact in \cite[2.3.6]{hovey}. The key fact here is that fibrations in this model structure are filtration surjective, not just surjective. \end{proof} \begin{defn} Let $M$ be a filtered $A$-module. A filtered projective resolution of $M$ consists of a complex $P$ (indexed following the chain complex convention, with $P_n=0$ for $n<0$) and a homomorphism $P_0 \rightarrow M$ such that \begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)] \item The complex $P$ is filtered exact at each $n>0$, i.e.~$H_n(F^i P)=0$ for all $i$. \item The homomorphism $P_0 \rightarrow M$ is filtered surjective. \end{enumerate} \end{defn} It is easy to see using the previous lemmas that filtered projective resolutions exist and are cofibrant replacements for complexes concentrated in one homological degree. \begin{defn} For two filtered modules $M,N$, define \begin{equation*} \Ext_{F}(M,N)=\Hom_{\derivcat{\mathcal{A}}}(\gamma M,\gamma N[i]) \end{equation*} \end{defn} \begin{prop} \label{prop:extfilt-extgr} For any two filtered $A$-modules $M$ and $N$, we have \begin{equation*} \Ext_{F}^i(M,N) \cong \Ext_{\rm gr}^i(\grees M,\grees N) \end{equation*} \end{prop} \begin{proof} As $\mathcal{B}$ is an abelian category, we know that \begin{equation*} \Ext_{\rm gr}^i(\grees M,\grees N)\cong \Hom_{\derivcat{\mathcal{B}}}(\gamma\grees M,\gamma\grees N[i]) \end{equation*} Now use the derived adjunction: \begin{align*} \Hom_{\derivcat{\mathcal{B}}}(\gamma\grees M,\gamma\grees N[i])& \cong \Hom_{\derivcat{\mathcal{B}}}(\gamma\grees M,\mathbf{R}\grees \gamma N[i]) \\ & \cong \Hom_{\derivcat{\mathcal{A}}}(\mathbf{L}\varphi\gamma\grees M,\gamma N[i]) \\ & \cong \Hom_{\derivcat{\mathcal{A}}}((\Ho \gamma\varphi)\circ (\Ho \gamma Q) \circ \gamma\grees M, \gamma N[i]) \\ & =\Hom_{\derivcat{\mathcal{A}}}((\gamma\varphi Q\grees M, \gamma N[i]) \\ \end{align*} Now suppose we have a projective resolution $P$ for $M$. As $\grees$ is clearly an additive functor, it maps projective modules to projective modules, since in both cases these are (possibly shifted) summands of the algebra. The map $P_0 \rightarrow M$ induces a trivial fibration $P \rightarrow M$, and as $\grees$ is a right Quillen functor, so is $\grees P \rightarrow \grees M$. Thus a cofibrant replacement for $\grees M$ is given by $\grees P$. Yet $\varphi(\grees{A}) \cong A$, and the same is true for any summand of $A$, so $\varphi(\grees{P}) \cong P$ and the final $\Hom$-space is really just \begin{equation*} \Hom_{\derivcat{\mathcal{A}}}(\gamma P, \gamma N[i]) \cong \Hom_{\derivcat{\mathcal{A}}}(\gamma M, \gamma N[i])=\Ext_{F}^i(M,N) \end{equation*} \end{proof} \begin{rem} The category $\mathcal{A}=\filtmod{A}$ is not abelian, but it is in fact what Schneiders calls quasi-abelian \cite{qacs}. Quasi-abelian categories are so close to being abelian categories that nearly all of the tools from homological algebra carry through, not just derived functors. As we only need the $\Ext$-groups in $\mathcal{A}$ for what follows, we decided to recharacterize this work in terms of model categories to keep the number of prerequisites down. \end{rem} \section{Rigidity of tilting modules} \subsection{Tilting modules for quasi-hereditary algebras} Let $A$ be a finite-di\-men\-sion\-al $K$-algebra. We recall the notion of a quasi-hereditary algebra. Suppose the irreducible $A$-modules $L(\lambda)$ are indexed by a poset $\Lambda$. Let $P(\lambda)$ and $I(\lambda)$ denote the projective cover and injective hull of $L(\lambda)$ respectively. Let $\Delta(\lambda)$ be the maximal quotient of $P(\lambda)$ whose composition factors are among $\{L(\mu) \mid \mu \leq \lambda\}$. These are the Weyl or standard modules. Define $\nabla(\lambda)$ (the good or costandard modules) dually. We say that $A$ is quasi-hereditary if for all $\lambda \in \Lambda$ \begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)] \item $\End_A \Delta(\lambda) \cong k$, \item $P(\lambda)$ has a $\Delta$-filtration, i.e.~there is a series of submodules \begin{equation*} 0=P_0<P_1<P_2<\dotsb<P_n=P(\lambda) \end{equation*} with $P_k/P_{k-1} \cong \Delta(\lambda_k)$ for some $\lambda_k \in \Lambda$. \end{enumerate} For graded quasi-hereditary algebras, a $\Delta$-filtration uses grade shifted copies of Weyl modules. In \cite{ringel} Ringel constructed tilting modules for a quasi-hereditary algebra $A$. There are several notions of tilting and cotilting modules throughout representation theory, but in the special case of quasi-hereditary algebras there is an elementary description. We summarize this characterization of tilting modules in the next theorem. \begin{thm Let $A$ be a quasi-hereditary algebra. For each weight $\lambda \in \Lambda$, there exists a unique indecomposable module $T(\lambda)$ such that \begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)] \item $T(\lambda)$ has both a $\Delta$-filtration and a $\nabla$-filtration. \item There is a unique embedding of $\Delta(\lambda)$ as a submodule of $T(\lambda)$ and a unique quotient of $T(\lambda)$ isomorphic to $\nabla(\lambda)$. \item If $L(\mu)$ is a composition factor of $T(\lambda)$ then $\mu \leq \lambda$. \end{enumerate} \end{thm} In fact a module $M$ has a $\nabla$-filtration if $\Ext^1(\Delta(\lambda),M)=0$ for all $\lambda \in \Lambda$. Similarly, $M$ has a $\Delta$-filtration if $\Ext^1(M,\nabla(\lambda))=0$ for all $\lambda \in \Lambda$. For the rest of this section we will assume that $A$ is a finite-dimensional quasi-hereditary algebra. We give $A$ a filtration structure using the radical series, as seen in Example \ref{exam:rad-filt}. Suppose $M$ is an $A$-module with a $\Delta$-filtration $0=M_0<M_1< \dotsb < M_n=M$. Following \cite{bowman-martin} let $[\rad_s M: \head \Delta(\lambda)]$ denote the number of successive subquotients $M_{n_{s,i}}/M_{n_{s,i}-1}$ isomorphic to $\Delta(\lambda)$ such that $M_{n_{s,i}} \leq \rad^s M$ and such that there is a map $\rad^s M \rightarrow \Delta(\lambda)$ extending the quotient map $M_{n_{s,i}} \rightarrow \Delta(\lambda)$. We note that the value of $[\rad_s M: \head \Delta(\lambda)]$ does not depend on the choice of $\Delta$-filtration. \begin{defn} Let $M$ be an $A$-module. We say that $M$ has a radical-respecting $\Delta$-filtration if $M$ has a $\Delta$-filtration such that the homomorphisms $\rad^s M \rightarrow \Delta(\lambda)$ used to calculate $[\rad_s M : \Delta(\lambda)]$ induce isomorphisms $(\rad^{s+t} M \cap M_{n_{s,i}}+M_{n_{s,i}-1})/M_{n_{s,i}-1} \cong \rad^t \Delta(\lambda)$ for all $i$ and all $t \geq 0$. \end{defn} Varying $s$ and $i$, consider each $M_{n_{s,i}}/M_{n_{s,i}-1}$ as a subquotient of $\rad^s M$, which should be viewed as a module in its own right (i.e.~$J^m \rad^s M=\rad^{s+m} M$). The definition above is equivalent to saying that the isomorphisms carrying the subquotient $M_{n_{s,i}}/M_{n_{s,i}-1}$ to $\Delta(\lambda)$ are actually filtered isomorphisms. This implies that the Loewy layers of $M$ can be determined from the $\Delta$-filtration and the Loewy structure of the modules $\Delta(\lambda)$ using the following formula: \begin{equation} [\rad_s M: L(\mu)]=\sum_{\substack{t \leq s\\ \lambda \in \Lambda}} [\rad_t M : \head \Delta(\lambda)][\rad_{s-t} \Delta(\lambda) : L(\mu)] \label{eq:radresploewy} \end{equation} \begin{lem} \label{lem:allradresp} If a module $M$ has at least one radical-respecting $\Delta$-filtration, then all $\Delta$-fil\-tra\-tions are radical-respecting. \end{lem} \begin{proof} Let $0=M_0<M_1< \dotsb < M_n=M$ be a $\Delta$-filtration. Say a subquotient $M_{k}/M_{k-1}$ isomorphic to $\Delta(\lambda_k)$ has a head on the $s_k$th radical layer of $M$, i.e.~the surjective quotient map $M_k \rightarrow \Delta(\lambda_k)$ extends to a map $\rad^{s_k} M \rightarrow \Delta(\lambda_k)$. Then for any $t \geq 0$, the restriction $\rad^{s_k+t} M \rightarrow \rad^t \Delta(\lambda_k)$ is still surjective. This shows that the composition factors from the $t$th radical layer of $\Delta(\lambda_k)$ occur at radical layer $h_{k,t} \geq s_k+t$. The $\Delta$-filtration is radical-respecting if $h_{k,t}=s_k+t$ in all such cases. So suppose not, and pick $k$ and $t$ such that $s_k+t$ is minimal among those subquotients with $h_{k,t}>s_k+t$. By minimality the multiset of composition factors in the $(s_k+t)$th layer of $M$ must be subset of the multiset given by \eqref{eq:radresploewy}. Since at least one of these factors is missing from the $(s_k+t)$th layer, it must be a strict subset. But we already know that the Loewy series is given by \eqref{eq:radresploewy}, so this is impossible. \end{proof} \begin{prop} \label{prop:grqhalg} If the projective modules of $A$ have radical-respecting $\Delta$-fil\-tra\-tions, then $\grees{A}$ is graded quasi-hereditary. \end{prop} \begin{proof} The projective modules for $\grees{A}$ are all of the form $\grees P(\lambda)$. The quotient map $P(\lambda) \rightarrow L(\lambda)$ is filtered surjective, so it is a fibration. As $\grees$ preserves fibrations we obtain a fibration of $\grees{A}$-modules, so $\grees L(\lambda)$ is a quotient of $\grees P(\lambda)$. It is clear that $\grees L(\lambda)$ is still irreducible as a $\grees{A}$-module, so this gives us both the irreducible $\grees{A}$-modules and their projective covers (up to grade shifting). Let $0=P_0<P_1<\dotsb<P_n=P(\lambda)$ be a radical-respecting $\Delta$-filtration of $P(\lambda)$. As $A$ is quasi-hereditary, $P_n/P_{n-1} \cong \Delta(\lambda)$ and for $k<n$, $P_k/P_{k-1} \cong \Delta(\mu_k)$ and $\mu_k>\lambda$. For each subquotient $P_k/P_{k-1}$ there exists some $s_k$ such that as a filtered module $P_k/P_{k-1} \cong \Delta(\mu_k)$ when $P_k/P_{k-1}$ is viewed as a subquotient of $\rad^{s_k} P(\lambda)$. This means that when viewed as a subquotient of $P(\lambda)$, $P_k/P_{k-1} \cong \Delta(\mu_k)\langle s_k\rangle$. The $\grees$ functor induces a chain of submodules $0=\grees P_0<\grees P_1<\dotsb<\grees P_n=\grees P(\lambda)$. In fact the subquotients in this filtration are isomorphic to $\grees \Delta(\mu)[s]$ for various $\mu$ and $s$, because \begin{equation*} \frac{\grees P_k}{\grees P_{k-1}} \cong \grees P_k/P_{k-1} \cong \grees(\Delta(\mu_k)\langle s_k\rangle) \cong \grees{\Delta(\mu_k)}(s_k) \end{equation*} Thus $\grees A$ is graded quasi-hereditary. \end{proof} \begin{defn} A Weyl-irreducible (or $\Delta$-$L$) subquotient of a module $M$ is a subquotient $M'/M''$ isomorphic to a non-trivial extension of a module $W$ by $L(\mu)$, for some quotient $W$ of $\Delta(\lambda)$ and some weights $\lambda,\mu$ with $\mu>\lambda$. The subquotient $M'/M''$ is called a stretched subquotient if $M'$ is not isomorphic as a filtered module to a (possibly shifted) quotient of $P(\lambda)$. An irreducible-good (or $L$-$\nabla$) subquotient of a module $M$ is a subquotient $M'/M''$ isomorphic to a non-trivial extension of $L(\mu)$ by $U$, for some submodule $U$ of $\nabla(\lambda)$ and some weights $\lambda,\mu$ with $\mu>\lambda$. The subquotient $M'/M''$ is called a stretched subquotient if $M'$ is not isomorphic as a filtered module to a (possibly shifted) submodule of $I(\lambda)$. \end{defn} \begin{thm} \label{thm:greestilt} Suppose $\grees A$ is quasi-hereditary. If a tilting module $T$ for $A$ has no stretched subquotients, then $\grees T$ is a tilting module for $\grees A$. \end{thm} \begin{proof} Let $\lambda \in \Lambda$ be a weight. Consider a minimal filtered projective resolution for $\Delta(\lambda)$. \begin{equation*} \dotsb \rightarrow P_2 \rightarrow P_1 \rightarrow P(\lambda) \rightarrow \Delta(\lambda) \rightarrow 0 \end{equation*} In particular $P_1$ is the direct sum of $P(\mu)\langle m \rangle$ ranging over $\mu,m$ such that $L(\mu)$ appears in the $m$th radical layer of $P(\lambda)$ and $\Ext^1(\Delta(\lambda),L(\mu)) \neq 0$. For $r \in \mathbb{Z}$ we will show that $\Ext^1(\Delta(\lambda),T\langle -r\rangle)=0$. We know that as an unfiltered module $\Ext^1(\Delta(\lambda),T)=0$ because $T$ is a tilting module. Let $f \in \Hom_{J}(P_1,T\langle -r\rangle)$ be a non-zero cycle. The cycle $f$ can be viewed as an unfiltered homomorphism $\Omega(\Delta(\lambda)) \rightarrow T$, where \begin{equation*} \Omega(\Delta(\lambda))=\ker(P(\lambda) \rightarrow \Delta(\lambda)) \end{equation*} By the unfiltered $\Ext$-vanishing condition $f$ is the boundary of some unfiltered boundary $g \in \Hom(P(\lambda),T)$. We claim that $g$ actually respects the filtrations. First, if $r<0$ there is nothing to prove, as \begin{equation*} g(J^i P(\lambda))=g(\rad^i P(\lambda)) \subseteq \rad^i T \subseteq \rad^{i+r} T=J^i T\langle -r\rangle \end{equation*} So suppose $r\geq 0$. Choose $r'\geq r$ maximal such that $f \in \Hom_{J}(P_1,T\langle -r'\rangle)$. Let $M=\im g$ and $N=\im f=\im g|_{\Omega(\Delta(\lambda))}$. The submodule $M$ is a quotient of $P(\lambda)$ and $N$ is a submodule which is a quotient of $\Omega(\Delta(\lambda))$. So $g$ induces a surjective homomorphism between the quotients, as shown in the following diagram. \begin{equation*} \xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r] & \Omega(\Delta(\lambda)) \ar[r] \ar[d]^{g|_{\Omega(\Delta(\lambda))}} & P(\lambda) \ar[r] \ar[d]^{g} & \Delta(\lambda) \ar[r] \ar[d] & 0 \\ 0 \ar[r] & N \ar[r] \ar[d] & M \ar[r] \ar[d] & M/N \ar[r] \ar[d] & 0 \\ & 0 & 0 & 0 & } \end{equation*} Thus $W=M/N$ is a quotient of $\Delta(\lambda)$. Let $0 \leq s \leq r'$ be maximal such that $M \subseteq \rad^s T$. In other words, the image of the head $L(\lambda)$ of $\Delta(\lambda)$ occurs in the $s$th radical layer of $T$. Pick an irreducible $L(\mu)$ appearing in $N/\rad N$ which is lowest in the radical series of $T$ and take a maximal submodule $N' \leq N$ such that $N/N' \cong L(\mu)$. Then $M/N'$ is a $\Delta$-$L$ subquotient of $T$. Since $N$ is also the image of $f$, it must be the case that the $L(\mu)$ factor is the head of some summand $P(\mu)\langle m \rangle$ of $P_1$, corresponding to a composition factor in the $m$th radical layer of $P(\lambda)$, with $m$ maximal. So $L(\mu)$ is in the $(r+m')$th radical layer of $T$, for some $m' \geq m$. If $s<r'$, then the filtration length of this subquotient is $r'+m'-s>m$, which is impossible as $m$ was chosen to be maximal and $T$ has no stretched subquotients. So $s=r'$, and thus \begin{equation*} g(J^i P(\lambda))=g(\rad^i P(\lambda))=\rad^i g(P(\lambda)) \subseteq \rad^{r'+i} T \subseteq \rad^{r+i} T=J^i T\langle -r\rangle \end{equation*} This shows that $\Ext_{J}^1(\Delta(\lambda),T\langle -r\rangle)=0$, so by applying the shift functor we have $\Ext_{J}^1(\Delta(\lambda)\langle r \rangle,T)=0$. By Proposition \ref{prop:extfilt-extgr} this means that \begin{equation*} \Ext_{\rm gr}^1(\grees \Delta(\lambda)(r),\grees T)=0 \end{equation*} As $\grees A$ is quasi-hereditary, this shows that $\grees T$ has a $\grees(\nabla)$-filtration. A similar method shows that $\Ext_{J}^1(T,\nabla(\lambda)\langle r \rangle)=0$ so $\grees T$ also has a $\grees(\Delta)$-filtration, and hence it is a tilting module for $\grees A$. \end{proof} In particular when the above situation occurs $\grees T(\lambda)$ is the indecomposable $\grees A$ tilting module corresponding to $\lambda$, because $\grees$ preserves the multiplicities of $\Delta$-filtrations. Another natural filtration that can be applied to modules is the socle filtration. For an $A$-module $M$, we can define a filtration $J^{\vee}$ by setting $J^{\vee (-i)} M=\soc^i M$ for $i\geq 0$ and $J^{\vee (-i)} M=0$ for $i<0$. It is easy to see that $M$ is a filtered $A$-module in this sense as well. Let $\grees^\vee$ denote the use of the $\grees$ functor using this alternative filtration. \begin{thm} \label{thm:rigidtilt} Suppose $\grees{A}$ is quasi-hereditary. If an indecomposable tilting module $T=T(\lambda)$ for $A$ has no stretched subquotients for either the radical or the socle filtration, then $T$ is rigid. \end{thm} \begin{proof} Suppose $T=T(\lambda)$ is an indecomposable tilting module for $A$. If $T$ has no stretched subquotients, then by applying Theorem \ref{thm:greestilt} we know that $\grees T$ and $\grees^\vee T$ are both tilting modules for $\grees A$ corresponding to $\lambda$. But in a graded quasi-hereditary algebra there is only one such tilting module up to isomorphism and grade shifting. Since the gradings of $\grees T$ and $\grees^\vee T$ correspond to the radical and socle layers of $T$, this shows that $T$ has identical radical and socle layers. \end{proof} There is a partial converse to the above theorem. \begin{cor} \label{cor:rigidtiltconv} Suppose $\grees A$ is quasi-hereditary. If $T=T(\lambda)$ is a rigid indecomposable tilting module for $A$ with radical-respecting $\Delta$- and $\nabla$-filtrations, then $T$ has no stretched subquotients. \end{cor} \begin{proof} From the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:grqhalg} $\grees{T}$ has $\grees(\Delta)$- and $\grees(\nabla)$-fil\-tra\-tions. So $\grees{T}$ is a tilting module, and from the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:greestilt} any stretched subquotients would give rise to a non-vanishing $\Ext^1(\Delta(\lambda)\langle r\rangle,T)$ or $\Ext^1(T,\nabla(\lambda)\langle r\rangle)$. \end{proof} \subsection{Duality of stretched subquotients} The hypotheses of Theorems \ref{thm:greestilt} and \ref{thm:rigidtilt} are rather difficult to check in all but the most basic cases. In many applications $A$ has additional properties which can reduce this checking significantly. \begin{cor} \label{cor:greestiltdual} Suppose $\grees A$ is quasi-hereditary. Let $T$ be a tilting module for $A$. If $T$ has a radical-respecting $\Delta$-filtration and has no stretched $\Delta$-$L$ subquotients, then $\grees T$ is a tilting module for $\grees A$. \end{cor} \begin{proof} From the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:greestilt}, $\grees T$ has a $\grees(\nabla)$-filtration. From the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:grqhalg}, $\grees T$ also has a $\grees(\Delta)$-filtration. Therefore $\grees T$ is tilting. \end{proof} The easiest way to show that $T$ has a radical-respecting $\Delta$-filtration is to show that $T$ has simple socle. For then $\head T \cong L(\lambda)$ for some $\lambda$, so $T$ is a quotient $P(\lambda)/U$ of $P(\lambda)$, which we assume already has a radical-respecting $\Delta$-filtration. As $T$ has a $\Delta$-filtration so does $U$ \cite[Theorem 3]{ringel}. Thus $\Delta$-filtrations of $T$ and $U$ give a $\Delta$-filtration of $P(\lambda)$, which is radical-respecting by Lemma \ref{lem:allradresp}. But the radical series of $T$ does not change from that of $P(\lambda)$, so $T$ also has a radical-respecting $\Delta$-filtration. Another way to reduce the number of cases to check is to use duality. A duality functor on $\modcat{A}$ is a contravariant, additive, $K$-linear, exact functor $\delta:\modcat{A} \rightarrow \modcat{A}$ such that $\delta \circ \delta$ is naturally isomorphic to the identity. A BGG algebra is a quasi-hereditary algebra $A$ equipped with a duality functor $\delta$ which fixes irreducibles, i.e.~$\delta(L(\lambda)) \cong L(\lambda)$ for all $\lambda \in \Lambda$. In a BGG algebra we have $\delta(P(\lambda)) \cong I(\lambda)$ and $\delta(\Delta(\lambda)) \cong \nabla(\lambda)$. \begin{cor} \label{cor:rigidtiltdual} Suppose $A$ is a BGG algebra and $\grees A$ is quasi-hereditary. If $T=T(\lambda)$ is an indecomposable tilting module for $A$ such that $\grees T$ is a tilting module for $\grees A$ then $T$ is rigid. \end{cor} \begin{proof} If $\grees T$ is a tilting module for $\grees A$, then $T$ has radical-respecting $\Delta$- and $\nabla$-filtrations. Thus $\delta(T)$ has socle-respecting-respecting $\nabla$- and $\Delta$-filtrations, so $\grees^\vee \delta(T)$ is also an indecomposable tilting module for $\grees A$. Yet $\delta(T) \cong T$, so $\grees^\vee \delta(T) \cong \grees^\vee T$. Proceed as in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:rigidtilt}. \end{proof} Finally, there is a slightly simpler version of Corollary \ref{cor:rigidtiltconv} in the case of a BGG algebra. \begin{cor} Suppose $A$ is a BGG algebra and $\grees A$ is quasi-hereditary. If $T=T(\lambda)$ is a rigid indecomposable tilting module for $A$ with radical-respecting $\Delta$-filtration, then $T$ has no stretched subquotients. \end{cor} \begin{proof} By duality $\delta(T) \cong T$ has a socle-respecting $\nabla$-filtration. Yet $T$ is rigid, so $T$ actually has a radical-respecting $\nabla$-filtration. Now use Corollary \ref{cor:rigidtiltconv}. \end{proof} \section{Eliminating stretched subquotients} Finding and eliminating possible stretched subquotients in a module is in general extremely difficult. In addition to calculating the radical series of a module, one must also know enough about the submodule structure to figure out which subquotients exist. We describe some techniques for doing this, which we apply in the next section. \subsection{Coefficient quivers} Tilting modules corresponding to high weights tend to have complicated structure, with several composition factors interacting in intricate ways. One common method to depict the structure of a finite-length module is to use Alperin diagrams \cite{alperin}. However, often the necessary axioms for Alperin diagrams described in \cite{benson-carlson} do not hold in practice. As a result, the approach in the Appendix of \cite{bdm-small} using coefficient quivers must be used instead. Coefficient quivers can be viewed as a generalization of Alperin diagrams which always exist. \begin{defn} Let $Q=(Q_0,Q_1,s,t)$ be a quiver, and let $X=(X_i)_{i \in Q_0}$ be a representation of $Q$ over a field $K$. Suppose $\mathcal{B}$ is a basis for $X$ as a quiver representation, i.e.~$\mathcal{B}$ is a union of bases for each vector space $X_i$. The coefficient quiver of $X$ with respect to $\mathcal{B}$ is denoted $\Gamma(X,\mathcal{B})$. It has vertices indexed by $\mathcal{B}$. For $b \in \mathcal{B} \cap X_i$, $b' \in \mathcal{B} \cap X_j$ there is an arrow $b \rightarrow b'$ in $\Gamma(X,\mathcal{B})$ if and only if there is an arrow $\rho:i \rightarrow j$ such that the corresponding matrix entry $(X_\rho)_{bb'}$ is non-zero. \end{defn} Drawing a coefficient quiver can be thought of as ``unlacing'' the representation $X$ into its $1$-di\-men\-sion\-al irreducible composition factors. For a general module $M$ over some finite-di\-men\-sion\-al algebra $A$, Gabriel's theorem \cite[Proposition 4.1.7]{benson} is used to replace $A$ with a Morita equivalent quotient of $KQ$, where $Q$ is the $\Ext$-quiver of $A$. Thus the coefficient quiver of $M$ depends on the particular quotient and on the chosen basis. Like Alperin diagrams, coefficient quivers are conventionally drawn such that all arrows point downwards so that the arrowheads may be omitted. Another convention is that if $\Lambda$ is a labelling set for irreducibles $L(\lambda)$, we write $\lambda$ instead of $L(\lambda)$ in the coefficient quiver. Arrow-closed subsets of a coefficient quiver $\Gamma$ for $M$ give submodules of $M$, and their complements give quotients. This describes much (but not all) of the submodule/quotient structure of $M$. For other submodules $M' \leq M$, it will be useful to describe which composition factors in $\Gamma$ correspond to composition factors of $M'$. Recall from linear algebra that we say a vector $v$ involves a basis vector $b$ if when $v$ is written as a linear combination of basis vectors, the coefficient corresponding to $b$ is non-zero. Since vertices of the coefficient quiver correspond to basis elements, we will say that a submodule $M'$ of $M$ involves a certain composition factor in $\Gamma$ if $M'$ contains a vector which involves the corresponding basis vector. An Alperin diagram is called ``strong'' if both the radical series and the socle series can be calculated from the diagram \cite{alperin}. This concept can be extended to coefficient quivers as well. Although there exist modules which do not have strong coefficient quivers (e.g.~$T(4,3)$ in \cite[Appendix]{bdm-small}), for every module $M$ there exists a coefficient quiver which accurately depicts the radical series. In fact, for any subquotient there exists a coefficient quiver which will accurately depict the subquotient's radical series. Stretched subquotients by necessity require ``stretched'' arrows connecting composition factors more than one radical layer apart. In most examples it will be impossible to draw a full coefficient quiver for a module. However, even knowing that certain arrows exist can be extremely helpful for eliminating stretched subquotients within tilting modules. We distinguish between two different kinds of arrows in a coefficient quiver: \begin{itemize} \item Solid lines ($\xymatrix@1{\lambda \ar@{-}[r] & \mu}$) denote arrows which definitely exist for the chosen basis. \item Dotted lines ($\xymatrix@1{\lambda \ar@{.}[r] & \mu}$) denote arrows which may exist given certain values of the representing matrices $X_\rho$. \end{itemize} The following lemma shows that in many cases this requires multiple copies of a composition factor. \begin{lem} \label{lem:stretched-repeated-factors} Let $M$ be a module with a radical-depicting coefficient quiver $\Gamma$. Suppose $\mu>\lambda$ are weights such that $L(\mu) \leq \rad_1 P(\lambda)$. Suppose further that some copy of $L(\lambda)$ in $M$ connects downward in $\Gamma$ to some factor $L(\lambda')$ which subsequently connects downward to a factor $L(\mu)$ with $\lambda'\nless \lambda$. Then $L(\lambda)$ is not involved in a stretched subquotient with this copy of $L(\mu)$ unless there is another copy of $L(\lambda')$ which connects downward from $L(\lambda)$ and downward to $L(\mu)$ or there is another copy of $L(\lambda)$ (possibly connected to $L(\mu)$) which connects downward to $L(\lambda')$. \begin{equation*} \xymatrix{ \lambda \ar@{-}[d] \ar@{-}[ddr] & \cdot & & \lambda \ar@{-}[d] \ar@{-}[dr] \ar@{-}[ddr] & \cdot & & \lambda \ar@{-}[d] \ar@{-}[ddr] & \lambda \ar@{-}[dl] \ar@{.}[dd] \\ \lambda' \ar@{-}[dr] & \cdot & \Longrightarrow & \lambda' \ar@{-}[dr] & \lambda' \ar@{-}[d] & \text{or} & \lambda'\ar@{-}[dr] & \cdot \\ \cdot & \mu & & \cdot & \mu & & \cdot & \mu } \end{equation*} \end{lem} \begin{proof} As $\lambda' \nless \lambda$, there is no composition factor $L(\lambda')$ within $\Delta(\lambda)$. If the given copy of $L(\lambda)$ connects to two copies of $L(\lambda')$, then we can change the basis for the $L(\lambda')$ vectors so that $L(\lambda)$ connects to one copy of $L(\lambda')$. In other words, we draw a new coefficient quiver \begin{equation*} \xymatrix{ \lambda \ar@{-}[d] \ar@{-}[ddr] & \cdot \\ \lambda' \ar@{.}[dr] & \lambda' \ar@{-}[d] \\ \cdot & \mu } \end{equation*} If both copies of $L(\lambda')$ connect downward to $L(\mu)$, then the proposed stretched subquotient is impossible. Thus the dotted arrow must not exist, so in particular in the original coefficient quiver both copies of $L(\lambda')$ must connect to $L(\mu)$, giving the first case. Now assume that $L(\lambda)$ connects to exactly one copy of $L(\lambda')$ which connects to $L(\mu)$. This copy of $L(\lambda)$ alone cannot be the head of a stretched subquotient, because there is no way to quotient out $L(\lambda')$ without losing $L(\mu)$ as well. So there must be another copy of $L(\lambda)$ connected to $L(\lambda')$, giving the second case. \end{proof} \subsection{Calculating Loewy series} The following results of Bowman and Martin on BGG algebras are extremely useful for calculating the radical series of projective modules. They will be used frequently in the following section. \begin{prop}[{\cite[Theorem 6]{bowman-martin}}] \label{prop:bgg-proj-recip} Let $A$ be a BGG algebra with poset $\Lambda$. For $\lambda,\mu \in \Lambda$ we have the following reciprocity: \begin{equation*} [\rad_s P(\mu):L(\lambda)]=[\rad_s P(\lambda):L(\mu)] \end{equation*} \end{prop} \begin{prop}[{\cite[Corollary 7]{bowman-martin}}] \label{prop:bgg-recip} Let $A$ be a BGG algebra with poset $\Lambda$. For weights $\lambda,\mu \in \Lambda$ we have \begin{equation*} [\rad_s P(\mu):\head \Delta(\lambda)]=[\rad_s \Delta(\lambda):L(\mu)] \end{equation*} \end{prop} Finally, we will use the following proposition to calculate socles of tilting modules from their characters. Its proof follows from \cite[Proposition A2.2]{donkin1998q}. \begin{prop} \label{prop:homdim} Let $A$ be a quasi-hereditary algebra with poset $\Lambda$, and suppose $M$ is a module with a $\Delta$-filtration and $N$ is a module with a $\nabla$-filtration. Then \begin{equation*} \dim \Hom_A(M,N)=\sum_{\lambda \in \Lambda} [M:\Delta(\lambda)][N:\nabla(\lambda)] \end{equation*} \end{prop} \section{Restricted tilting modules for $SL_4(K)$} \subsection{Notation} Our main source on representations of algebraic groups is \cite[II.1-7]{jantzen}. Let $G=SL_4(K)$, where $K$ is an algebraically closed field of characteristic $p>0$. For a dominant weight $\lambda$ let $\Delta(\lambda)$ be the Weyl module of highest weight $\lambda$, $\nabla(\lambda)$ its contravariant dual, and $L(\lambda)$ the simple head of $\Delta(\lambda)$. For any finite saturated set $\pi$ of dominant weights, the full subcategory of rational $G$-modules whose composition factors are indexed by weights in $\pi$ is equivalent to a module category $\modcat{S(\pi)}$, where $S(\pi)$ is a finite-dimensional algebra called a generalized Schur algebra \cite{donkin}. The algebra $S(\pi)$ is quasi-hereditary (in fact a BGG algebra) with standard and costandard modules $\Delta(\lambda)$ and $\nabla(\lambda)$ respectively. When necessary we will deal with $S(\pi)$-modules instead of rational $G$-modules for a sufficiently large set $\pi$. We fix a notation for the weights. The root system corresponding to $SL_4(K)$ is $A_3$. Let $\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\alpha_3$ be the simple roots (with $\langle \alpha_1,\alpha_3^\vee\rangle=0$), and let $\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega_3$ be the corresponding fundamental weights, which span the weight lattice $X$ of $A_3$. We will use the notation $(\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3) \in \mathbb{Z}^3$ to refer to the weight $\lambda_1 \omega_1+\lambda_2\omega_2+\lambda_3\omega_3$. In this notation, we have $\alpha_1=(2,-1,0)$, $\alpha_2=(-1,2,-1)$, and $\alpha_3=(0,-1,2)$. The set of dominant weights is therefore $X^+=\{(\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3) \mid \lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3 \geq 0\}$, which can be given a partial order via the dominance ordering. Recall that the affine Weyl group $W_p=W \rtimes pX$ acts on the vector space $X \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} \mathbb{R}$ via the dot action, which can be divided into simplicial fundamental regions called alcoves. There are $6$ alcoves in the restricted region $X_1$, which we label $C_i$ for $i$ one of $1$, $2$, $3$, $3'$, $4$, or $5$ (see Figure \ref{fig:alcoves}). The two alcoves $3$ and $3'$ are related `by symmetry' in a similar fashion to the $SL_3$ case. In addition, there are alcoves adjacent to (or ``flanking'') $3$ and $3'$ called $\mathrm{fl}$ and $\mathrm{fl}'$. The generators of $W_p$ are denoted $s_0,s_1,s_2,s_3$ where $s_i$ is the reflection in $\alpha_i$ and $s_0$ is the reflection in the upper wall of alcove $1$. \begin{figure}[h] \label{fig:alcoves} \begin{equation*} \xymatrix{ & C_5 \ar@{-}[d]^{s_2} \ar@{--}[dl] \ar@{--}[dr] & \\ C_{\mathrm{fl}} \ar@{-}[d]_{s_2} & C_4 \ar@{-}[dl]^{s_3} \ar@{-}[dr]_{s_1} & C_{\mathrm{fl}'} \ar@{-}[d]^{s_2} \\ C_3 \ar@{-}[dr]_{s_1} & & C_{3'} \ar@{-}[dl]^{s_3} \\ & C_2 \ar@{-}[d]^{s_0} & \\ & C_1 & } \end{equation*} \caption{The dominance lattice for the labelled alcoves. Solid lines indicate adjacent alcoves, with walls labelled using the $W_p$-generators. Dashed lines indicate dominance without adjacency.} \end{figure} The linkage principle for algebraic groups states that if $L(\lambda)$ and $L(\lambda')$ are in the same block, then $\lambda' \in W_p \cdot \lambda$. If $V$ is a rational $G$-module, let $\pr_\lambda(V)$ denote the summand of $V$ whose composition factors have highest weights in $W_p \cdot \lambda$, and write $\mathcal{B}_\lambda$ for the full subcategory of modules such that $\pr_\lambda(V)=V$. For a dominant alcove $C$ and $\lambda,\mu \in \overline{C}$ the translation functor is defined by \begin{equation*} T_\lambda^\mu(V)=\pr_\mu\left(\pr_\lambda(V) \otimes L(w(\mu-\lambda))\right) \end{equation*} where $w \in W$ is chosen so that $w(\mu-\lambda) \in X^+$. Note that $T_\lambda^\mu$ is always exact as the composition of several exact functors. The translation principle states that $T_\lambda^\mu,T_\mu^\lambda:\mathcal{B}_\lambda \leftrightarrows \mathcal{B}_\mu$ are adjoint and mutually inverse if $\lambda$ and $\mu$ belong to the same set of alcoves. Therefore we can use alcove notation and write $L(1)$, $\Delta(1)$, etc.~when discussing general module structure without referring to specific weights. Suppose $\lambda,\lambda' \in X^+$ belong to adjacent alcoves $C,C'$ with $\lambda<\lambda'$. Let $\mu$ be a weight on the wall between them, labelled by $s \in W$. The wall-crossing functor is defined to be $\theta_s=T_\mu^{\lambda'} \circ T_\lambda^\mu$, which is self-adjoint and exact. It is well-known that $\theta_s \Delta(\lambda)\cong \theta_s \Delta(\lambda')$, and we have the exact sequence \begin{equation} 0 \rightarrow \Delta(\lambda') \rightarrow \theta_s \Delta(\lambda) \rightarrow \Delta(\lambda) \rightarrow 0 \label{eq:wall-crossing} \end{equation} We will use this exact sequence to calculate the character of $\theta_s(M)$ from the character of $M$. Throughout this section we will use the notation $[L_0,L_1\dotsc,L_s]$ to depict the structure of the unique uniserial module $M$ with composition factors $L_0,\dotsc,L_s$ such that $\rad_i M \cong L_i$. \subsection{The result} From \cite{humphreys1976ordinary}, the character formulae of the labelled simple modules for type $A_3$ in terms of Weyl characters are fixed for $p$ sufficiently large. Alternatively, this fact can be viewed as a consequence of Lusztig's character formula for algebraic groups. We list these character formulae below. \begin{align*} [\Delta(1)]& =[L(1)] \\ [\Delta(2)]& =[L(2)]+[L(1)] \\ [\Delta(3)]& =[L(3)]+[L(2)] \\ [\Delta(\mathrm{fl})]& =[L(\mathrm{fl})]+[L(3)] \\ [\Delta(4)]& =[L(4)]+[L(3)]+[L(3')]+[L(2)]+[L(1)] \\ [\Delta(5)]& =[L(5)]+[L(4)]+[L(\mathrm{fl})]+[L(\mathrm{fl}')]+[L(3)]+[L(3')]+[L(2)] \end{align*} Our goal in this section is to prove the following theorem. \begin{thm} \label{thm:A_3-general} The regular restricted tilting modules for $G$ are all rigid. They have the following Loewy series and partial structure: \begin{align*} T(1)& =[1], & T(2)& =[1,2,1], \\ T(3)& =\begin{minipage}{34mm} \def\objectstyle{\scriptstyle}\xymatrix@=6pt{ & 2 \ar@{-}[dl] \ar@{-}[dr] & \\ 3 \ar@{-}[dr] & & 1 \ar@{-}[dl] \\ & 2 & } \end{minipage}, & T(\mathrm{fl})& =\begin{minipage}{34mm} \def\objectstyle{\scriptstyle}\xymatrix@=6pt{ & 3 \ar@{-}[dl] \ar@{-}[dr] & \\ \mathrm{fl} \ar@{-}[dr] & & 2 \ar@{-}[dl] \\ & 3 & } \end{minipage}, \\ T(4)& =\begin{minipage}{34mm} \def\objectstyle{\scriptstyle}\xymatrix@=6pt{ & 2 \ar@{-}[d] & \\ 3 \ar@{-}[d] & 1 & 3' \ar@{-}[d] \\ 2 & 4 \ar@{-}[dr] \ar@{-}[d] \ar@{-}[dl] & 2 \\ 3 \ar@{-}[dr] & 1 \ar@{-}[d] & 3' \ar@{-}[dl] \\ & 2 &} \end{minipage}, & T(5)& =\begin{minipage}{34mm} \def\objectstyle{\scriptstyle}\xymatrix@=6pt{ & & 3 \ar@{-}[d] & 3' \ar@{-}[d] & & \\ \mathrm{fl}' \ar@{-}[d] & \mathrm{fl} \ar@{-}[d] & 2 & 2 & 4 \ar@{-}[dr] \ar@{-}[d] \ar@{-}[dl] & \\ 3' & 3 & 5 \ar@{-}[dll] \ar@{-}[dl] \ar@{-}[d] \ar@{-}[dr] & 3 \ar@{-}[dr] & 1 \ar@{-}[d] & 3' \ar@{-}[dl] \\ \mathrm{fl} \ar@{-}[dr] & 2 \ar@{-}[d] \ar@{-}[dr] & 4 \ar@{-}[d] \ar@{-}[dl] & \mathrm{fl}' \ar@{-}[dl] & 2 & \\ & 3 & 3' & & & } \end{minipage} \end{align*} \end{thm} The remainder of this section is devoted to the proof of this theorem. \subsection{Weyl modules} First we calculate the structure of the Weyl modules. We claim that the labelled Weyl modules have the following structure. \begin{align*} \Delta(1)& =[1], & \Delta(2)& =[2,1], & \Delta(3)& =[3,2], \\ \Delta(\mathrm{fl})& =[\mathrm{fl},3], & \Delta(4)& =\begin{minipage}{34mm} \def\objectstyle{\scriptstyle}\xymatrix@=6pt{ & 4 \ar@{-}[dl] \ar@{-}[d] \ar@{-}[dr] & \\ 3 \ar@{-}[dr] & 1 \ar@{-}[d] & 3' \ar@{-}[dl] \\ & 2 & } \end{minipage}, & \Delta(5)& =\begin{minipage}{34mm} \def\objectstyle{\scriptstyle}\xymatrix@=6pt{ & & 5 \ar@{-}[dll] \ar@{-}[dl] \ar@{-}[dr] \ar@{-}[drr] & & \\ \mathrm{fl} \ar@{-}[dr] & 2 \ar@{-}[d] \ar@{-}[drr] & & 4 \ar@{-}[d] \ar@{-}[dll] & \mathrm{fl}' \ar@{-}[dl] \\ & 3 & & 3' & } \end{minipage} \end{align*} The cases for $1,2,3,\mathrm{fl}$ are obvious from the character formulae. We proceed to cases $4$ and $5$. If $L$ is a simple $G$-module, then from \eqref{eq:wall-crossing} we have \begin{equation*} \Hom_G(L,\Delta(4)) \leq \Hom_G(L,\theta_{s_3}\Delta(3)) \cong \Hom_G(\theta_{s_3}(L),\Delta(3)) \end{equation*} and similarly for $\theta_{s_1}(L)$ and $\Delta(3')$. As $\theta_{s_3}L(1)$, $\theta_{s_3}L(3')$, and $\theta_{s_1}L(3)$ are all $0$, we must have $\soc \Delta(4)=L(2)$. The Lusztig character formula imposes a parity condition on the vanishing of the $\Ext^1$-groups, namely, $\Ext^1(L(\lambda),L(\mu))=0$ if the parity between $\lambda$ and $\mu$ (as measured by the length of a Weyl group element $w$ which sends $\lambda$ to $\mu$) is even \cite{scott1994quasihereditary}. As the remaining composition factors $L(3)$, $L(3')$, and $L(1)$ have the same parity, the structure of $\Delta(4)$ must be the one depicted above. Similarly, for $L$ a simple $G$-module we have \begin{equation*} \Hom_G(L,\Delta(5))\leq \Hom_G(L,\theta_{s_2}\Delta(4)) \cong \Hom_G(\theta_{s_2}L,\Delta(4)) \end{equation*} As $\theta_{s_2}L(\mathrm{fl})$, $\theta_{s_2}L(\mathrm{fl}')$, and $\theta_{s_2}L(2)$ are all $0$ they cannot be summands of $\soc \Delta(5)$. From \eqref{eq:wall-crossing} we calculate \begin{align*} [\theta_{s_2}L(3)]& =[\theta_{s_2}\Delta(3)]-[\theta_{s_2}L(2)] \\ & =[\Delta(\mathrm{fl})]+[\Delta(3)] \\ & =[L(\mathrm{fl})]+2[L(3)]+[L(2)] \\ [\theta_{s_2}L(3')]& =[L(\mathrm{fl}')]+2[L(3')]+[L(2)] \\ [\theta_{s_2}L(4)]& =[\theta_{s_2}\Delta(4)]-[\theta_{s_2}L(3)]-[\theta_{s_2}L(3')]-[\theta_{s_2}L(2)]-[\theta_{s_2}L(1)] \\ & =[\Delta(5)]+[\Delta(4)]-[\theta_{s_2}L(3)]-[\theta_{s_2}L(3')] \\ & =[L(5)]+2[L(4)]+[L(1)] \end{align*} By considering the structure of $\Delta(4)$, $L(4)$ also is not contained in $\soc \Delta(5)$. So $\soc \Delta(5)$ contains at least one of $L(3)$ and $L(3')$, but by symmetry if it contains one it contains both, so $\soc \Delta(5)=L(3) \oplus L(3')$. Again, the remaining composition factors have the same parity so $\Delta(5)$ must have the structure depicted above. \subsection{Projective modules} The Loewy series and partial structures of the projective modules now follows using Propositions \ref{prop:bgg-proj-recip} and \ref{prop:bgg-recip}. \begin{align*} P(1)& =\begin{minipage}{34mm} \def\objectstyle{\scriptstyle}\xymatrix@=8pt{ & 1 & & \\ 2 \ar@{-} [d] & & 4 \ar@{-}[dl] \ar@{-}[d] \ar@{-}[dr] & \\ 1 & 3 \ar@{-}[dr] & 1 \ar@{-}[d] & 3' \ar@{-}[dl] \\ & & 2 & } \end{minipage}, & P(2)& =\begin{minipage}{34mm} \def\objectstyle{\scriptstyle}\xymatrix@=8pt{ & & 2 \ar@{-}[d] & & & & \\ & 3 \ar@{-}[dl] & 1 & 5 \ar@{-}[dll] \ar@{-}[dl] \ar@{-}[d] \ar@{-}[dr] & 3' \ar@{-}[dr] & & \\ 2 & \mathrm{fl} \ar@{-}[dr] & 2 \ar@{-}[d] \ar@{-}[dr] & 4 \ar@{-}[d] \ar@{-}[dl] & \mathrm{fl}' \ar@{-}[dl] & 2 & 4 \ar@{-}[dll] \ar@{-}[dl] \ar@{-}[d] \\ & & 3 & 3' & 3 \ar@{-}[d] & 1 \ar@{-}[dl] & 3' \ar@{-}[dll] \\ & & & & 2 & &} \end{minipage}, \\ P(3)& =\begin{minipage}{34mm} \def\objectstyle{\scriptstyle}\xymatrix@=8pt{ & & 3 \ar@{-}[d] & & \\ & 4 \ar@{-}[dl] \ar@{-}[d] \ar@{-}[dr] & 2 & \mathrm{fl} \ar@{-}[dr] & \\ 3 \ar@{-}[d] & 1 \ar@{-}[dl] & 3' \ar@{-}[dll] & 5 \ar@{-}[dll] \ar@{-}[dl] \ar@{-}[d] \ar@{-}[dr] & 3 \\ 2 & \mathrm{fl} \ar@{-}[dr] & 2 \ar@{-}[d] \ar@{-}[dr] & 4 \ar@{-}[d] \ar@{-}[dl] & \mathrm{fl}' \ar@{-}[dl] \\ & & 3 & 3' & } \end{minipage}, & P(\mathrm{fl})& =\begin{minipage}{34mm} \def\objectstyle{\scriptstyle}\xymatrix@=8pt{ & \mathrm{fl} \ar@{-}[d] & & \\ & 3 & 5 \ar@{-}[dll] \ar@{-}[dl] \ar@{-}[d] \ar@{-}[dr] & \\ \mathrm{fl} \ar@{-}[dr] & 2 \ar@{-}[d] \ar@{-}[dr] & 4 \ar@{-}[d] \ar@{-}[dl] & \mathrm{fl}' \ar@{-}[dl] \\ & 3 & 3' & } \end{minipage}, \\ P(4)& =\begin{minipage}{34mm} \def\objectstyle{\scriptstyle}\xymatrix@=8pt{ & 4 \ar@{-}[dl] \ar@{-}[d] \ar@{-}[dr] & & & \\ 3 \ar@{-}[d] & 1 \ar@{-}[dl] & 3' \ar@{-}[dll] & 5 \ar@{-}[dll] \ar@{-}[dl] \ar@{-}[d] \ar@{-}[dr] & \\ 2 & \mathrm{fl} \ar@{-}[dr] & 2 \ar@{-}[d] \ar@{-}[dr] & 4 \ar@{-}[d] \ar@{-}[dl] & \mathrm{fl}' \ar@{-}[dl] \\ & & 3 & 3' & } \end{minipage}, & P(5)& =\begin{minipage}{34mm} \def\objectstyle{\scriptstyle}\xymatrix@=8pt{ & & 5 \ar@{-}[dll] \ar@{-}[dl] \ar@{-}[dr] \ar@{-}[drr] & & \\ \mathrm{fl} \ar@{-}[dr] & 2 \ar@{-}[d] \ar@{-}[drr] & & 4 \ar@{-}[d] \ar@{-}[dll] & \mathrm{fl}' \ar@{-}[dl] \\ & 3 & & 3' & } \end{minipage} \end{align*} It should be noted that Proposition \ref{prop:bgg-recip} only specifies where the heads of Weyl modules are located in the Loewy series. Any other composition factor in a Weyl subquotient must be located at least as far down in the radical series relative to the head of the subquotient as in the Weyl module itself. If none of the composition factors appear any further down, then \eqref{eq:radresploewy} holds for the Loewy series and the projectives have radical-respecting $\Delta$-filtrations, so $\grees{A}$ is a quasi-hereditary algebra by Proposition \ref{prop:grqhalg}. There are several ways to show that \eqref{eq:radresploewy} holds. First of all, many possibilities can be ruled out using parity. For example, consider $P(1)$ and the factors $L(1)$, $L(3)$, and $L(3')$ inside $\Delta(4)$. These factors cannot occur any lower down the radical series, for this would require a connection (i.e.~a non-zero $\Ext^1$) between the $L(1)$ in $\Delta(2)$ and one of these modules, which is impossible by parity. Secondly, we can use the fact that the projectives of the Schur algebra corresponding to a saturated subset of the weights are quotients of the projectives above. For example, consider $P(1)$ and the factor $L(1)$ inside $\Delta(2)$. We know that the projective cover of $L(1)$ for the Schur algebra corresponding to the weight set $\{1,2\}$ is a quotient of $P(1)$ by $\Delta(4)$. Therefore $\Delta(4)$ must be a submodule of $P(1)$, so in particular $L(1)$ cannot occur lower down in the radical series. This shows that $P(1)$ has the depicted Loewy series. Finally, we can use Proposition \ref{prop:bgg-proj-recip} for any other cases which remain. For example, consider $P(2)$ and the factor $L(2)$ inside $\Delta(5)$. If $L(2)$ is lower down in the radical series, then it must be in the $4$th layer by parity. This would push $L(3)$ and $L(3')$ down to the $5$th layer, so $[\rad_5 P(2):L(3)]>0$. This implies that $[\rad_5 P(3):L(2)]>0$. But this is impossible (for the reasons above). Thus $L(2)$ (and similarly $L(4)$, $L(\mathrm{fl})$, and $L(\mathrm{fl}')$) are actually in the $3$rd layer as depicted above. \subsection{Tilting modules} Now we proceed to prove the rigidity of the labelled tilting modules. Since all the weights we are dealing with are in the lowest $p^2$-alcove, we can calculate the characters of these tilting modules using a result of Soergel \cite{soergel-KL,soergel-KM}. The tilting characters and the known Weyl module structures give the socles of the tilting modules using Proposition \ref{prop:homdim}. In fact for all the labelled tilting modules we have $\soc T(\lambda)=\soc \Delta(\lambda)$. Obviously $T(1)=[1]$, and $T(2)$ is $P_\pi(1)$ for $\pi=\{1,2\}$. If $\soc T(3) \cong \soc \Delta(3) \cong L(2)$ then $\head T(3) \cong L(2)$, so $T(3)$ is a quotient of $P_\pi(2)$ for $\pi=\{1,2,3\}$. The only quotient which possibly contains $\Delta(3)$ as a submodule is all of $P_\pi(2)$, and in order for it to have a $\nabla$-filtration there must be a connection between the $L(2)$ in $\Delta(3)$ and the $L(1)$ in $\Delta(2)$. The case for $T(\mathrm{fl})$ is similar. The case for $T(4)$ is more complicated. Assuming $\soc T(4) \cong \soc \Delta(4) \cong L(2)$ we must have $T(4)$ as a quotient of $P_\pi(2)$, where $\pi=\{1,2,3,3',4\}$. As $P_\pi(2)$ has a radical-respecting $\Delta$-filtration, $T(4)$ also has one, so we can apply Corollaries \ref{cor:greestiltdual} and \ref{cor:rigidtiltdual} if we can show $P_\pi(4)$ (and therefore $T(4)$) has no stretched $\Delta$-$L$ subquotients. The only possible stretched $\Delta$-$L$ subquotient is between the $L(1)$ in $\Delta(2)$ and the $L(2)$ in $\Delta(4)$. By Lemma \ref{lem:stretched-repeated-factors} this can only happen if there is no connection between this copy of $L(1)$ and $L(4)$. But in that case, $P_\pi(4)$ would not have a quotient isomorphic to $\nabla(4)$, which must be the case using the structure of $\nabla(4)$ and Proposition \ref{prop:homdim}. Thus $T(4)$ is rigid, so it must in fact be all of $P_\pi(4)$. Now assume $\soc T(5) \cong \soc \Delta(5) \cong L(3) \oplus L(3')$. Thus $T(5)$ is a quotient of $P(3) \oplus P(3')$. The only possible stretched $\Delta$-$L$ subquotient in $P(3) \oplus P(3')$ is between a copy of $L(2)$ in radical layer $1$ and $L(3)$ in the bottom radical layer (or the symmetric counterpart between $L(2)$ and $L(3')$). First, if $L(3)$ inside $\Delta(\mathrm{fl})$ does not connect downwards to anything, then $\soc(P(3) \oplus P(3'))$ is too large, and any quotient which eliminates this socle does not have a quotient isomorphic to a submodule of $\nabla(5)$. Similarly the $L(2)$ inside $\Delta(4)$ must connect downwards to some factor. We know that $L(2)$ is connected to this $L(3)$ by the structure of $T(\mathrm{fl})$. Thus we are in the situation of Lemma \ref{lem:stretched-repeated-factors}. The only other copy of $L(2)$ is not attached to this copy of $L(3)$. Thus $L(2)$ must also connect to the $L(3)$ inside $\Delta(4)$, which connects downwards to another $L(2)$. But we know that the first copy of $L(3)$ doesn't attach to this $L(2)$, because $\Delta(\mathrm{fl})$ is a submodule of $P_\pi(3)$ for $\pi=\{1,2,3,3',4,\mathrm{fl}\}$. Thus we do not have a stretched subquotient. This shows that $T(5)$ must be rigid, and so it must have the Loewy series given above as $P(3) \oplus P(3')$ doesn't have any other non-trivial rigid quotients. \bibliographystyle{hplain}
\section{Introduction} This chapter provides an introductory-level tutorial to AC/RF superconductivity. The emphasis is on the application to resonant cavities for particle accelerators. In this respect, we will present the basic theoretical concepts and experimental results related to the low-field surface impedance, the superheating field, and the field dependence of the surface resistance. All these topics are presented to a greater depth in the bibliography and some of the references listed at the end of this tutorial. Approximately 20 years after the discovery of superconductivity in 1911, experimental evidence of a large change in conductivity at the transition temperature was demonstrated by using Radio-Frequency (RF) currents~\cite{Silsbee1932,McLennan1932}. Shortly thereafter, a theory of the electrodynamics of superconductors, based on the phenomenological two-fluid model, was proposed by Fritz and Heinz London~\cite{London1934,London1935}. A new theory of the electrodynamics of superconductors by Mattis and Berdeen was published in 1958~\cite{Mattis1958}, based on the Bardeen--Cooper--Schrieffer (BCS) theory, which had been published one year earlier~\cite{BCS1957}. Experimental results based on far-infrared transmission through superconducting thin films and supporting the theory were published by Tinkham \textit{et al.} in the same period~\cite{Tinkham1956, Tinkham1960}. Regarding the highest AC/RF magnetic field that can be applied to a superconductor, the so-called \textit{superheating} field, the earliest theoretical work, based on the Ginzburg--Landau (GL) theory, dates back to the 1960s~\cite{Ginzburg1958, deGennes1965, Matricon1967}. Experimental results in the range 90--300 MHz for both type I and type II superconductors in the vicinity of the critical temperature, $T_\mathrm{c}$, and consistent with the theory, were published in 1977~\cite{Yogi1977}. Whereas niobium is the superconductor almost exclusively used to produce resonant cavities for particle accelerators, superconducting materials with higher critical temperatures are also being used for RF applications in passive microwave devices, such as filters, resonators, and antennas for mobile communications~\cite{Gallop1997}, and to produce microresonators for a variety of applications, such as photon detectors and quantum circuits~\cite{Zmuid2012}. \section{Basics of RF cavities} Generally speaking, a resonant cavity is any volume enclosed by metallic walls that contains oscillating electromagnetic fields. For application to particle accelerators, the electromagnetic energy stored within the cavity is used to accelerate a charged particle beam. The frequency range relevant for accelerator applications is RF (3 kHz -- 300 GHz). The electromagnetic field inside an RF cavity is the solution to the wave equation: \begin{equation} \left(\nabla^2-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2}\right)\left\{\begin{array}{c}\mathbf{E}\\ \mathbf{H}\end{array} \right\}= 0, \label{eq:a1} \end{equation} with the boundary conditions $\hat{n}\times\mathbf{E}=0$ and $\hat{n}\cdot\mathbf{H}=0$, where $\hat{n}$ is the unit vector normal to the surface. Solutions to Eq.~(\ref{eq:a1}) with the specified boundary conditions can be separated into two families of resonant modes with different eigenfrequencies, based on the direction of the electric and magnetic field: \begin{itemize} \item TE$_{mnp}$ modes having only transverse electric fields, and \item TM$_{mnp}$ modes having only transverse magnetic fields (but a longitudinal component of the electric field), \end{itemize} where $m$, $n$, and $p$ are indices denoting the number of zeros in the $\phi$, $\rho$, and $z$ directions, respectively, in cylindrical coordinates. A useful example of a resonant cavity is a metallic cylindrical waveguide of length $L$, shorted by metallic plates at both ends. This geometry is commonly referred to as `pill-box'. The mode used to accelerate charged particles in RF cavities having a geometry resembling that of a pill-box is the TM$_{010}$. The electric and magnetic fields, as well as the resonant frequency of this mode, can be calculated analytically for the pill-box geometry: \begin{align} \label{eq:a2} \begin{split} E_z = E_0J_0\left(\frac{2.405\rho}{R}\right)\mathrm{e}^{i\omega t}, \\ H_\phi = -i \frac{E_0}{\eta}J_1\left(\frac{2.405\rho}{R}\right)\mathrm{e}^{i\omega t}, \\ \omega_0 = \frac{2.405c}{R}, \end{split} \end{align} where $J_0$ and $J_1$ are Bessel functions of zeroth and first order, respectively, $R$ is the pill-box radius, $c$ is the speed of light, $\omega$ is the angular frequency, and $\eta=\sqrt{\mu_0/\epsilon_0}\simeq 377$ $\Omega$ is the impedance of a vacuum. Equation~(\ref{eq:a2}) shows that the electric field, being at a maximum on-axis, can be used to accelerate charged particles travelling along the axis of the cavity. A schematic representation of the electric and magnetic fields inside a pill-box type cavity is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:cavity}. \begin{figure}[ht] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=8cm]{cavity} \caption{Electric and magnetic fields for the TM$_{010}$ mode inside a pill-box cavity.} \label{fig:cavity} \end{center} \end{figure} Other resonant modes that are sometimes used are the TE$_{011}$ mode and the TM$_{110}$ mode. The first of these has a zero electric field on the cavity surface and is used to study the surface resistance of superconductors in RF magnetic fields. The second has a transverse component of the electric field on axis, tilting the beam, which is sometimes necessary in collider accelerators in order to provide a head-on collision between two beams and thereby increase the luminosity. The deflecting TM$_{110}$ mode has also been used in an SRF separator cavity to separate beams of different particles~\cite{Citron1979}. Although the resonant frequency of the TM$_{010}$ mode does not depend on the pill-box length, \textit{L}, the following condition for synchronism between the beam and the electric field in the cavity sets the cavity length: \begin{equation} L=\beta c\frac{T_\mathrm{RF}}{2}, \label{eq:a3} \end{equation} where $\beta$ is the speed of the particle relative to the speed of light and $T_\mathrm{RF}=2\pi/\omega_0$ is the period of oscillation of the RF field. The condition imposed by Eq.~(\ref{eq:a3}) assures that, as an example, a bunch of relativistic electrons entering the cavity at time $t = 0$, when $E_z=0$, will experience the maximum acceleration as they travel along the cavity axis. \subsection{Figures of merit} The accelerating field of the cavity, $E_\mathrm{acc}$, is defined as the ratio of the accelerating voltage, $V_\mathrm{c}$, divided by the cavity length. $V_\mathrm{c}$ is obtained by integrating the electric field at the particle's position as it traverses the cavity: \begin{equation} E_\mathrm{acc}=\frac{V_\mathrm{c}}{L} =\frac{1}{L}\left|\int_0^L E_z(\rho=0,z)\mathrm{e}^{i\omega_0z/c} \,\mathrm{d}z\right|. \label{eq:a4} \end{equation} Other important parameters are the ratios of the peak electric and magnetic fields on the cavity surface divided by the accelerating field, $E_\mathrm{p}/E_\mathrm{acc}$ and $B_\mathrm{p}/E_\mathrm{acc}$, respectively, as they are related to practical limitations of a cavity's performance, such as field emission and quench. The power dissipated as heat in the cavity wall, $P_\mathrm{c}$, and the energy stored within its volume, \textit{U}, are given by \begin{equation} P_\mathrm{c}=\frac{1}{2} \Re \left\{ \int_V \mathbf{J}\cdot\mathbf{E} \,\mathrm{d}v \right\} = \frac{1}{2} \int_S R_\mathrm{s}|\mathbf{H}|^2 \,\mathrm{d}a, \label{eq:a5} \end{equation} \begin{equation} U=\frac{1}{2} \mu_0 \int_V |\mathbf{H}|^2 \,\mathrm{d}v. \label{eq:a6} \end{equation} The quality factor of the cavity, $Q_0$, is defined, in the same way as for any resonator, as the ratio of the energy stored divided by the energy dissipated in in one RF period: \begin{equation} Q_0=\frac{\omega_0 U}{P_\mathrm{c}} =\frac{\omega_0 \mu_0 \int_V |\mathbf{H}|^2 \,\mathrm{d}v}{\int_S R_\mathrm{s}|\mathbf{H}|^2 \,\mathrm{d}a}. \label{eq:a7} \end{equation} $Q_0$ can be calculated from the Breit--Wigner resonance curve as the ratio of the resonant frequency, divided by the full width at half maximum, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:resonance}. Assuming that the surface resistance is uniform over the cavity surface and does not depend on the amplitude of the applied field, it is possible to define from Eq.~(\ref{eq:a7}) a geometry factor, \textit{G}, that depends only on the cavity shape (but not its size) and that provides a direct relation between $Q_0$ and $R_\mathrm{s}$: \begin{equation} G =\frac{\omega_0 \mu_0 \int_V |\mathbf{H}|^2 \,\mathrm{d}v}{\int_S |\mathbf{H}|^2 \,\mathrm{d}a} = Q_0R_\mathrm{s}. \label{eq:a8} \end{equation} The assumptions on the definition of \textit{G} are usually valid at low field amplitudes. The figures of merit for the TM$_{010}$ mode in a pill-box cavity, calculated from the analytical fields of Eq.~(\ref{eq:a2}), are as follows: \begin{align} \label{eq:a9} \begin{split} & E_\mathrm{acc} = \frac{2}{\pi} E_0, \\ & E_\mathrm{p}/E_\mathrm{acc} = \frac{\pi}{2} = 1.57,\\ & H_\mathrm{p}/E_\mathrm{acc} = \frac{\pi}{2} \frac{J_1(1.84)}{\eta} = 2430 \frac{\mathrm{A}\cdot\mathrm{m}^{-1}}{\mathrm{MV}\cdot\mathrm{m}^{-1}} = 30.5 \frac{\text{Oe}}{\mathrm{MV}\cdot\mathrm{m}^{-1}}, \\ & G = \eta \frac{2.405L}{2(R+L)} = \frac{453L/R}{1+L/R} \Omega . \end{split} \end{align} Practical RF cavities have more complex shapes than a simple pill-box, and require numerical solvers to calculate the electric and magnetic fields inside the cavity. \begin{figure}[ht] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=8cm]{resonance} \caption{The normalized stored energy as a function of frequency for a resonator with resonant frequency $\omega_0$ and $Q_0=10^4$.} \label{fig:resonance} \end{center} \end{figure} \subsection{SRF cavity performance} The performance of a superconducting RF cavity is described by a plot of the quality factor as a function of the accelerating gradient. The state-of-the-art performance of a 1.3 GHz bulk Nb cavity tested multiple times at 2.0 K is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:performance} \cite{Furuta2006}. The $Q_0$ value at low field corresponds to a surface resistance of $\simeq~8~\text{n}\Omega$, and the maximum $E_\mathrm{acc}$ value corresponds to a peak surface magnetic field $B_\mathrm{p}=\mu_0H_\mathrm{p}~\simeq 185$~mT. In the following sections, we will provide a basic description of what determines the $R_\mathrm{s}$ at low field as well as the maximum obtainable $B_\mathrm{p}$ value. \begin{figure}[ht] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=8cm]{performance} \caption{The state-of-the-art performance of a bulk Nb cavity at 1.3~GHz and 2.0~K~\cite{Furuta2006}.} \label{fig:performance} \end{center} \end{figure} \section{Surface impedance} The electromagnetic response of a metal, whether normal or superconducting, is described by a complex surface impedance defined as follows: \begin{equation} Z_\mathrm{s}=\frac{|E_\parallel|}{\int_0^{\infty} J(x) \,\mathrm{d}x} = \frac{|E_\parallel|}{|H_\parallel|} = R_\mathrm{s} + iX_\mathrm{s}, \label{eq:a10} \end{equation} where $R_\mathrm{s}$ is the surface resistance and $X_\mathrm{s}$ is the surface reactance. In Eq.~(\ref{eq:a10}), we have neglected the displacement current, which is reasonable for good conductors at frequencies less than $\sim10^{16}$~Hz. \subsection{The electrodynamics of normal conductors} The electrodynamics of normal conductors is based on Maxwell's equations and on material equations that specify the relations: between the electric displacement, \textit{D}, and the electric field; between the induction field, \textit{B}, and the magnetic field; and between the current density and the electric field. Since the inside volume of a cavity is typically under vacuum, we have $D=\epsilon_0E$, $B=\mu_0H$. A relation between \textit{J} and \textit{E} can be obtained from Drude's model of `nearly free electrons' in a solid and resulting in Ohm's law: \begin{equation} J=\frac{ne^2}{m\tau}\frac{1}{1+i\omega \tau} E = \sigma E, \label{eq:a11} \end{equation} where $\sigma=ne^2/m\tau$ is the conductivity and $\tau\simeq 10^{-14}$~s is the scattering time of the electrons, given by the ratio of the mean free path, $\ell$, divided by the Fermi velocity, $v_\mathrm{F}$. In Eq.~(\ref{eq:a11}), we have used the approximation $\omega\tau \ll 1$, which is valid at RF frequencies. Using Maxwell's equations with the material equations, the following equation for the magnetic field inside a metal is obtained: \begin{equation} \nabla^2H=i\sigma\mu_0\omega H. \label{eq:a12} \end{equation} The solution of Eq.~(\ref{eq:a12}) for a semi-infinite slab occupying the positive-\textit{x} region of space with a magnetic field of amplitude $H_0$ applied in the \textit{y}-direction is given by \begin{equation} H_y(x,t)=H_0\mathrm{e}^{-x/\delta}\mathrm{e}^{-i(x/\delta-\omega t)}, \label{eq:a13} \end{equation} which describes a wave propagating in the positive-\textit{x} direction with an exponentially decreasing amplitude. $\delta$ is the characteristic decay length, called the `skin depth', and given by \begin{equation} \delta=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\mu_0\sigma\omega}}. \label{eq:a14} \end{equation} The electric field, obtained from Ampere's law, has a behaviour similar to that of the magnetic field: \begin{equation} E_z(x,t)=-\frac{1+i}{\sigma\delta} H_y(x,t). \label{eq:a15} \end{equation} The surface impedance is then given by \begin{equation} Z_\mathrm{s}=\frac{|E_z(x=0)|}{H_y(x=0)} = \frac{1+i}{\sigma\delta}. \label{eq:a16} \end{equation} Therefore, $R_\mathrm{s}=X_\mathrm{s}=1/\sigma\delta$. If we consider, for example, copper ($\sigma \simeq 5.8\times 10^7~\mathrm{S}\cdot\mathrm{m}^{-1}$) at 1.5~GHz and 300~K, we obtain $\delta = 1.7~\mu$m and $R_\mathrm{s} = 10$~m$\Omega$. At lower temperatures, the conductivity increases and therefore $\delta$ decreases and may become shorter than the electrons' mean free path. This implies that the local relation between field and current given by Ohm's law is no longer valid at low temperatures, since the distance over which the field varies becomes less than the mean free path. A new relationship was introduced by Reuter and Sondheimer in 1948~\cite{Reuter1948}, in which \textit{J} is related to \textit{E} over a volume of the size of the mean free path: \begin{equation} \mathbf{J}(\mathbf{r},t)=\frac{3\sigma}{4\pi \ell}\int_V \frac{\mathbf{R}[\mathbf{R}\cdot \mathbf{E}(\mathbf{r'},t-R/v_F)]}{R^4} \mathrm{e}^{-R/\ell} \,\mathrm{d}\mathbf{r'}, \label{eq:a17} \end{equation} with $\mathbf{R} = \mathbf{r'} - \mathbf{r}$. An effective conductivity, $\sigma_\mathrm{eff} \approx (\delta/\ell)\sigma$, results from Eq.~(\ref{eq:a17}), showing that, unlike the DC case, increasing the purity of the metal does not improve its conductivity. This phenomenon is commonly referred to as the `anomalous skin effect'. The surface resistance in the extreme anomalous limit ($\ell \to \infty$), valid for very good conductors such as copper at low temperatures, is given by \begin{equation} R_\mathrm{n}(\ell \to \infty)=\left[ \sqrt{3} \left( \frac{\mu_0}{4\pi} \right)^2 \right]^{1/3}\omega^{2/3}(\rho \ell)^{1/3}. \label{eq:a18} \end{equation} The product $\rho \ell$ is a material constant and it is $6.8\times 10^{-16}~\Omega\cdot\mathrm{m}^{-2}$ for copper. If one were to operate a 1.5 GHz copper cavity at cryogenic temperatures such as, for example, 4.2~K, rather than 300~K, the surface resistance would decrease by a factor of $\approx0.14$, which is not sufficient to justify the cost of a refrigerator. \subsection{The electrodynamics of superconductors} \subsubsection{Theory} Unlike the DC case, superconductors in RF fields do not have zero resistance at finite temperatures. This is because a time-dependent magnetic field within the penetration depth generates an electric field (Faraday's law) that acts on normal electrons, as they are not shielded from it by the superconducting electrons (which form `Cooper pairs' of mass twice that of a single electron) due to their inertia. A simple way to describe the electrodynamics of superconductors was given by the London brothers in 1934, based on the phenomenological `two-fluid' model of Gorter and Casimir~\cite{Gorter1934}. According to the model, the charge carriers are divided into two subsystems: superconducting carriers of density $n_\mathrm{s}$ and normal electrons of density $n_\mathrm{n}$. The superconducting carriers were associated later on with Cooper pairs of charge $-2e$ and mass $2m_\mathrm{e}$~\cite{Cooper1956}. The normal current $J_\mathrm{n}$ and the supercurrent $J_\mathrm{s}$ are assumed to flow in parallel, and the total current is the sum of $J_\mathrm{s}$ and $J_\mathrm{n}$. $J_\mathrm{s}$ flows with no resistance and follows the London equations: \begin{equation} \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \mathbf{J}_\mathrm{s} = \frac{1}{\mu_0 \lambda_\mathrm{L}^2} \mathbf{E}, \label{eq:a19} \end{equation} \begin{equation} \nabla \times \mathbf{J}_\mathrm{s} = - \frac{1}{\lambda_\mathrm{L}^2} \mathbf{H}, \label{eq:a20} \end{equation} where $\lambda_\mathrm{L}=\sqrt{m/\mu_0n_\mathrm{s}e^2}$ is the so-called London penetration depth. Equation~(\ref{eq:a19}) (the first London equation) implies perfect conductivity, since a current would flow indefinitely in a superconductor even for zero electric field, and that an electric field is required to maintain an RF current. Equation~(\ref{eq:a20}) (the second London equation) implies the spontaneous flux exclusion from the bulk of a superconductor and that an induction field is the source of the supercurrent. Note that Eq.~(\ref{eq:a20}) can be written as follows: \begin{equation} \mathbf{J}_\mathrm{s} = - \frac{1}{\lambda_\mathrm{L}^2}\mathbf{A}, \label{eq:a21} \end{equation} where \textbf{A} is the magnetic vector potential. Equation~(\ref{eq:a21}) represents a local condition between current and field that is valid if $\xi_0 \ll \lambda_\mathrm{L}$ or $\ell \ll \lambda_\mathrm{L}$. $\xi_0$ is the coherence length, representing the distance between electrons forming a Cooper pair. In the presence of an RF current, $J=J_0\mathrm{e}^{i\omega t}$, the relation between \textit{J} and \textit{E} in a superconductor, is given by \begin{equation} J = J_\mathrm{n} + J_\mathrm{s} = (\sigma_1 - i\sigma_2)E, \label{eq:a22} \end{equation} where $\sigma_1=n_ne^2/m\tau$ is the conductivity of the normal component (the same as the normal-state conductivity) and $\sigma_2= n_se^2/m\omega$ is the conductivity of the superconducting component, obtained using Eq.~(\ref{eq:a20}). The electrodynamics of the superconductor become analogous to those of a normal conductor if one replaces $\sigma$ with $\sigma_1-i\sigma_2$ in the expressions for the skin depth, Eq.~(\ref{eq:a14}), and the magnetic field, Eq.~(\ref{eq:a13}). The skin depth becomes \begin{equation} \delta = \sqrt{\frac{2}{\mu_0\omega(\sigma_1-i\sigma_2)}} \simeq (1+i)\lambda_\mathrm{L} \left( 1+i\frac{\sigma_1}{2\sigma_2} \right), \label{eq:a23} \end{equation} where we have made use of the approximation $\sigma_1 \ll \sigma_2$, which is valid for superconductors at temperature $T \ll T_\mathrm{c}$. The magnetic field inside the superconductor becomes \begin{equation} H_y(x,t)=H_0\mathrm{e}^{-x/\lambda_\mathrm{L}}\mathrm{e}^{-i \left( \frac{x}{\lambda_\mathrm{L}} \frac{\sigma_1}{2\sigma_2} -\omega t \right) }, \label{eq:a24} \end{equation} and the amplitude of the magnetic field decreases exponentially with a characteristic length $\lambda_\mathrm{L}$. For niobium, $\lambda_\mathrm{L} \simeq 36$~nm, much shorter than the skin depth for copper at 1.5~GHz. The surface impedance of a superconductor can be obtained by substituting Eq.~(\ref{eq:a23}) into Eq.~(\ref{eq:a16}). After some calculus involving complex numbers and with the approximation $\sigma_1 \ll \sigma_2$, we obtain the following: \begin{equation} Z_\mathrm{s}=\frac{1}{2} \mu_0^2 \omega^2 \sigma_1 \lambda_\mathrm{L}^3 + i \omega \mu_0 \lambda_\mathrm{L} . \label{eq:a25} \end{equation} The equivalent circuit for a superconductor is a resistor of resistance $R_\mathrm{s}$ in parallel with an inductor of inductance $L_\mathrm{s}~=~\mu_0 \lambda_\mathrm{L}$, the so-called `kinetic inductance', due to the superconducting charge carriers. The dependence of $R_\mathrm{s}$ on $\omega$ and $\ell$ in Eq. (\ref{eq:a25}) indicates the following. \begin{itemize} \item The surface resistance increases quadratically with frequency, and therefore low-frequency cavities should be considered to reduce the dissipated power. \item The surface resistance increases with increasing purity of the material. An intuitive way to think about this is that normal-conducting electrons of higher conductivity draw a relatively higher fraction of the total current. \end{itemize} To understand the temperature dependence of the surface resistance, we consider the temperature dependence of $n_\mathrm{s}$ and $n_\mathrm{n}$: \begin{equation} \lambda_\mathrm{L}(T)^2 \propto 1/n_\mathrm{s}(T) \propto 1/[1-(T/T_\mathrm{c})^4], \label{eq:a26} \end{equation} \begin{equation} \sigma_1(T) \propto n_\mathrm{n}(T) \propto \mathrm{e}^{-\Delta/k_\mathrm{B} T}. \label{eq:a27} \end{equation} Equation~(\ref{eq:a27}), which is valid for $T \ll T_\mathrm{c}$, reflects the creation of normal electrons due to the thermal break-up of Cooper pairs. From Eqs.~(\ref{eq:a27}) and (\ref{eq:a25}), we obtain the following dependence of $R_\mathrm{s}$ on frequency, material purity, and temperature: \begin{equation} R_\mathrm{s} \propto \omega^2 \lambda_\mathrm{L}^3 \ell \mathrm{e}^{-\Delta/k_\mathrm{B} T}, \mbox{\hspace{10 mm} for $T < T_\mathrm{c}/2$.} \label{eq:a28} \end{equation} The exponential decrease of $R_\mathrm{s}$ with temperature indicates that low-temperature operation, such as 2.0~K for Nb cavities, is preferable to reduce RF losses. Similarly to the anomalous skin effect in normal conductors, if $\xi_0 \gg \lambda_\mathrm{L}$ and $\ell \gg \lambda_\mathrm{L}$, the local relation between current and field is no longer valid. In 1953, Pippard~\cite{Pippard1953} proposed replacing Eq.~(\ref{eq:a21}) with Eq.~(\ref{eq:a29}) below, $\xi_0$ playing a role analogous to that of $\ell$ in the non-local electrodynamics of normal conductors: \begin{equation} \mathbf{J}(\mathbf{r})=\frac{3}{4\pi \xi_0 \lambda_\mathrm{L}^2}\int_V \frac{\mathbf{R}[\mathbf{R}\cdot \mathbf{A}(\mathbf{r'})]}{R^4} \mathrm{e}^{-R/\xi} \,\mathrm{d}\mathbf{r'}, \label{eq:a29} \end{equation} with $\mathbf{R} = \mathbf{r'} - \mathbf{r}$ and $1/\xi \simeq 1/\xi_0 + 1/\ell$. The dependence of the penetration depth on the mean free path can be approximated as $\lambda \approx \lambda_\mathrm{L} \sqrt{1+\xi_0/\ell}$ and the dependence of $R_\mathrm{s}$ on material purity becomes \begin{equation} R_\mathrm{s} \propto \left( 1 + \frac{\xi_0}{\ell} \right)^{3/2} \ell . \label{eq:a30} \end{equation} Equation~(\ref{eq:a30}) shows that $R_\mathrm{s} \propto \ell$ increases with increasing mean free path if $\ell \gg \xi_0$ (the so-called `clean limit') as discussed above, and that $R_\mathrm{s} \propto \ell^{-1/2}$ increases with decreasing mean free path if $\ell \ll \xi_0$ (the so-called `dirty limit'). Therefore $R_\mathrm{s}(\ell)$ has a minimum at $\ell = \xi_0/2$. In 1958, Mattis and Bardeen~\cite{Mattis1958} obtained from the BCS theory a non-local equation between the total current density (including the supercurrent and the normal current) and the vector potential: \begin{equation} \mathbf{J}(\mathbf{r})=\frac{3}{4\pi^2 v_\mathrm{F} \hbar \lambda_\mathrm{L}^2}\int_V \frac{\mathbf{R}[\mathbf{R}\cdot \mathbf{A}(\mathbf{r'}) I(\omega, R, T) \mathrm{e}^{-R/\ell}]}{R^4} \,\mathrm{d}\mathbf{r'}, \label{eq:a31} \end{equation} where $I(\omega, R, T)$ is a function that decays over a characteristic length $R \sim \xi_0$. Equation~(\ref{eq:a31}) becomes a product of a kernel function $K(q)$ times the vector potential in the Fourier domain: $J(q)=-K(q)A(q)$ in one dimension. The surface impedance can be obtained as a function of the kernel $K(q)$, as follows: \begin{equation} Z_\mathrm{s} = \frac{i \mu_0 \omega \pi}{\int_0^\infty \ln (1+\frac{K(q)}{q^2}) \,\mathrm{d}q}, \label{eq:a32} \end{equation} for diffuse scattering of electrons at the metal surface, such as for the case of a `rough' surface on a scale of the mean free path, or \begin{equation} Z_\mathrm{s} = \frac{i \mu_0 \omega}{\pi} \int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{1}{q^2+K(q)} \,\mathrm{d}q, \label{eq:a33} \end{equation} for specular reflection of electrons at the metal surface. The calculation of the real and imaginary parts of $K(q)$ involves the solution of complex integrals, which can only be done numerically. A computer code that allows the BCS surface impedance to be calculated using Eqs.~(\ref{eq:a32}) and (\ref{eq:a33}) was written by Halbritter in 1970 \cite{Halb1970} and a copy is available from the author. An online calculator is also available~\cite{Liepe}. An analytical approximation of the BCS surface resistance valid in the local limit, for $T<T_c/2$ and $\omega~<~\Delta/\hbar$, is given by \cite{Gurevich2012} \begin{equation} R_\mathrm{s} \simeq \frac{\mu_0^2 \omega^2 \lambda^3 \sigma_1 \Delta}{k_\mathrm{B} T} \ln \left(\frac{2.246k_\mathrm{B} T}{\hbar \omega} \right) \exp \left(-\frac{\Delta}{k_\mathrm{B} T} \right). \label{eq:a34} \end{equation} Considering the case of niobium ($\lambda = 40$~nm, $\sigma_1 = 3.3\times 10^8~\mathrm{S}\cdot\mathrm{m}^{-1}$, $\Delta/k_\mathrm{B} T_\mathrm{c} = 1.85$, $T_\mathrm{c} = 9.25$~K) at 2.0 K and 1.5 GHz, we obtain $R_\mathrm{BCS} \simeq 20$~n$\Omega$ and $X_\mathrm{s} \simeq 0.47$~m$\Omega$. The ratio of $R_\mathrm{BCS}$ for Nb at 2.0~K divided by $R_\mathrm{s}$ for Cu at 300~K is $\simeq 2 \times 10^{-6}$. Even when the Carnot efficiency $\eta_\mathrm{C}~=~0.67\%$, due 2.0~K operation and the technical efficiency of a cryoplant, $\eta_\mathrm{T}~\simeq~20\%$, are included, the reduction in power consumption by using superconducting cavities instead of normal-conducting ones is still quite significant ($\simeq 10^3$ reduction factor). \subsubsection{Experimental results} Figure \ref{fig:freq_dep} shows the surface resistance measured in bulk Nb at 4.2 K over a broad range of frequencies~\cite{Halb1983}. Small deviations from the BCS theory can be explained by strong coupling effects or an anisotropic energy gap, in the presence of scattering by impurities or inhomogeneities. \subsubsection{Residual resistance} Improvements in the surface preparation of bulk Nb cavities over the past 40 years have reduced the typical residual resistance value from $\sim 100$~n$\Omega$ to $\sim 1-10$~n$\Omega$. $R_\mathrm{res}$ becomes the dominant term in the surface resistance at low frequency ($<\sim~750$~MHz) and low temperatures ($<\sim~2.1$~K), where $R_\mathrm{BCS}$ becomes exponentially small. There are several possibilities contributing to the residual resistance. Among those there are: \begin{itemize} \item losses due to trapped magnetic field, \item losses due to normal-conducting precipitates near the surface, \item grain boundary losses, \item metal/oxide interface losses, and \item losses due to normal-conducting electrons in subgap states. \end{itemize} \begin{figure}[ht] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=5cm]{Rs_f} \caption{The surface resistance measured in bulk Nb at 4.2~K as a function of frequency. The solid line is a fit to the experimental data, while the dashed line results from a calculation based on the BCS theory. Reprinted from~\cite{Halb1983} with permission from IEEE.} \label{fig:freq_dep} \end{center} \end{figure} Figure \ref{fig:mat_dep} shows the surface resistance of a Nb thin film deposited on Cu, measured at 4.2~K and 1.5~GHz, as a function of a parameter related to the purity of the film \cite{Benvenuti1999}. The data are consistent with the existence of a broad minimum of $R_\mathrm{BCS}(\ell)$, as predicted by calculations based on the BCS theory. \begin{figure}[ht] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=8cm]{Rs_ell} \caption{The surface resistance measured in Nb thin films at 4.2~K and 1.5~GHz as a function of a parameter related to the mean free path. The solid line is a result from a calculation based on the BCS theory. Reprinted from~\cite{Benvenuti1999} with permission from Elsevier.} \label{fig:mat_dep} \end{center} \end{figure} A measurement of the temperature dependence of the low-field surface resistance of bulk Nb at 1.3~GHz is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:T_dep} \cite{Aune2000}. The data show a clear deviation from the exponential dependence as the temperature decreases towards 0~K. This additive, $T$-independent contribution to the surface resistance is the so-called residual resistance, $R_\mathrm{res}$ (not to be confused with the DC residual resistivity $\rho_\mathrm{n}=1/\sigma_1$). \begin{figure}[ht] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=8.6cm]{Rs_T} \caption{The temperature dependence of the low-field surface resistance of bulk Nb at 1.3~GHz, showing a saturation to a $T$-independent value at low temperatures~\cite{Aune2000}.} \label{fig:T_dep} \end{center} \end{figure} A well-known contribution to $R_\mathrm{res}$ is due to trapped DC magnetic field, due to the incomplete Meissner effect in technical materials. Figure~\ref{fig:Rres_H} shows, for example, the low-field $R_\mathrm{s}(T)$ measured for different DC magnetic field amplitudes applied while cooling the cavity down from 300~K to 4.2~K \cite{Kneisel1994}. \begin{figure}[ht] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=8.7cm]{Rres_H} \caption{The low-field surface resistance as a function of temperature for bulk Nb at 1.5~GHz for different amplitudes of a DC magnetic field applied during the cavity cool-down. The solid lines are fitted with $R_\mathrm{s}(T)=R_\mathrm{BCS}(T)+R_\mathrm{res}$~\cite{Kneisel1994}.} \label{fig:Rres_H} \end{center} \end{figure} Any DC magnetic field at the cavity location can be trapped in the form of fluxoids pinned by defects in the material, as the cavity is cooled below $T_\mathrm{c}$. A simple estimate of this contribution can be made by assuming that all of the DC field, $H_\mathrm{ext}$, is trapped in the form of $N$ fluxoids, each carrying one flux quantum $\phi_0$, and that their normal-conducting cores, each of radius $\sim \xi_0$, dissipate according to the normal state surface resistance. An improved description was given by Gurevich, in which both the pinning strength and the dissipation due to the motion of the fluxoid's core under the RF field are taken into account \cite{Gurevich2013}. Figure~\ref{fig:fluxoid} shows a schematic representation of a pinned fluxoid with a segment of length $\ell_\mathrm{s}$ almost normal to the surface of the superconductor. At low RF frequency, the surface RF Meissner current causes rocking of the whole fluxoid segment. As the RF frequency increases, the RF oscillations of the segment are mostly localized closer and closer towards the surface, until only a tip of length $\sim\lambda$ vibrates in the high-frequency limit. The RF penetration depth and the pinned fluxoid segment set the frequency scales. The RF power dissipation due to the fluxoid's motion is given by \begin{equation} P_\mathrm{RF} = \left\langle \int_0^{\ell_\mathrm{s}} \dot{u}(z, t)F(z,t) \,\mathrm{d}z \right\rangle_\omega = - \frac{\omega F}{2} \mbox{Im}\int_0^{\ell_\mathrm{s}} u(z, \omega)\mathrm{e}^{-z/\lambda} \,\mathrm{d}z , \label{eq:a35} \end{equation} where $u(z, t)$ is the fluxoid displacement, obtained by solving the equation of motion, and $F=\phi_0 H_0/\lambda$ is the amplitude of the driving force from the RF field. The result from a calculation of $P_\mathrm{RF}(\omega)$ with Eq.~(\ref{eq:a35}) is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:fluxoid}, indicating a change from $\sim \omega^2$ dependence at low frequency to $\sim \sqrt{\omega}$ at intermediate frequency and frequency independent at high frequency. Experimental data on bulk Nb in the GHz range show that $R_\mathrm{res,mag} \propto \sqrt{\omega} H_\mathrm{ext}$. $R_\mathrm{res,mag}$ calculated from Eq.~(\ref{eq:a35}) in the intermediate frequency range is given by \begin{equation} R_\mathrm{res,mag} = \frac{H_\mathrm{ext}}{H_\mathrm{c}} \sqrt{\frac{\mu_0 \rho_\mathrm{n} \omega}{2g}}, \label{eq:a36} \end{equation} where $H_\mathrm{c}$ is the thermodynamic critical field and $g$ is a parameter related to the anisotropy of the superconductor. In the case of a 1.5~GHz Nb cavity ($\rho_\mathrm{n}\sim5\times10^{10}~\Omega\cdot\mathrm{m}^{-1}$, $H_\mathrm{c}=2000$~Oe, $2g=1$), the residual resistance due to the Earth's magnetic field ($\sim 0.5$~Oe) could be as high as $\sim 600$~n$\Omega$, about 30 times higher than $R_\mathrm{BCS}$ at 2.0~K. By applying magnetic shields around superconducting cavities, it is possible to shield external fields down to $\sim 1-10$~mOe. \begin{figure}[ht] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=14cm]{Rres_flux} \caption{(a) A schematic representation of a pinned fluxoid near the surface of a superconductor in the presence of an RF field. (b) The normalized power dissipation due to the oscillatory motion of a fluxoid, as a function of frequency normalized to $\omega_0=\epsilon_0/2\eta\lambda^2$, where $\epsilon_0$ is the fluxoid line energy and $\eta$ is the viscous drag coefficient~\cite{Gurevich2013}.} \label{fig:fluxoid} \end{center} \end{figure} Another well-known contribution to the residual resistance in Nb cavities is due to the precipitation of normal-conducting niobium hydride islands near the surface, if the bulk H concentration is greater than $\sim 5 \times 10^{-4}$~wt.$\%$ and if the cool-down rate is $<1~\mathrm{K}\cdot\mathrm{min}^{-1}$ in the temperature range 75--150~K. Figure~\ref{fig:hydride} shows an example of $Q_0(E_\mathrm{acc})$ measured in a 1.5~GHz bulk Nb cavity at 2.0~K after it was held in the region 100--150~K for various lengths of time~\cite{Bonin1991}. This problem can be mitigated by degassing the cavity in a ultra-high-vacuum furnace at 600--800$^\circ$C for 2--6~h. Tunnelling measurements of bulk Nb samples show the presence of electronic states within the energy gap. The density of states as a function of energy $N(\epsilon)$ obtained from the measurements can be described by the phenomenological model of Dynes~\cite{Dynes1978, Dynes1984}, resulting in a finite density of states at the Fermi level, $N(0)\simeq \gamma N_\mathrm{n}/\Delta$, where $\gamma$ is a damping parameter and $N_\mathrm{n}$ is the density of states in the normal state. The contribution to $R_\mathrm{res}$ from normal electrons occupying subgap states can be estimated from the two-fluid model surface resistance with $\gamma \sigma_n/\Delta$ replacing $\sigma_1$ \cite{Gurevich2012}: \begin{equation} R_\mathrm{res,subgap} \sim \mu_0^2 \omega^2 \lambda^3 \sigma_\mathrm{n} \gamma / \Delta, \label{eq:a37} \end{equation} Residual resistance values of $\sim 10$~n$\Omega$, similar to those obtained in bulk Nb cavities, could result from Eq.~(\ref{eq:a37}) for $\gamma /\Delta \sim 10^{-3}$. The origin of these subgap states is not well understood. They could be due to intrinsic effects, such as strong impurity scattering or strong electron--phonon coupling, or extrinsic effects, such as normal-conducting precipitates, defective oxides, or pinned fluxoids. \begin{figure}[ht] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=8cm]{Rres_Hydride} \caption{The degradation of the quality factor in a 1.5~GHz bulk Nb cavity at 2.0~K after it was held in the region 100--150~K for various lengths of time~\cite{Bonin1991}.} \label{fig:hydride} \end{center} \end{figure} \subsection{High-temperature superconductors} Superconductors with relatively low $T_\mathrm{c}$, such as Nb, have a `\textit{s}-wave' character, meaning that the energy gap is uniform in the momentum space. On the other hand, high-temperature cuprates ($T_\mathrm{c} \sim 90$~K) have a `\textit{d}-wave' character, indicating that the energy gap has four nodes along symmetric directions in momentum space. This leads to unfavorable consequences for RF application: the temperature dependence of the surface resistance follows a power law, instead of being exponential, and residual losses are higher. The $R_\mathrm{s}(H_p)$ dependence also exhibits strong non-linearity. The coherence length is much shorter than that of Nb (1--2~nm, instead of $\sim$~40 nm); therefore the pairing of electrons can easily be disrupted by defects. Cuprates are also `granular' superconductors, with high grain boundary resistance contributing to high $R_\mathrm{res}$. All these effects hinder their use for SRF cavity application where low $R_\mathrm{s}$ at high RF fields is required. Figure~\ref{fig:HTS} shows an example of $R_\mathrm{s}(T)$ measured in YBCO samples at 1.7 and 2~GHz~\cite{Hein1996}. Superconductors with higher $T_\mathrm{c}$ than Nb but still \textit{s}-wave, such as Nb$_3$Sn ($T_\mathrm{c} \simeq 18$~K), NbN, and NbTiN ($T_\mathrm{c} \simeq 17$~K), are more promising alternative materials for RF application. Their higher $T_\mathrm{c}$ value could allow operating cavities at 4.2~K instead of 2.0~K, therefore reducing the cost of refrigeration. \begin{figure}[ht] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=8cm]{Rs_HTS} \caption{$R_\mathrm{s}(T)$ measured on YBCO samples. Reprinted from~\cite{Hein1996} with permission from Nova Science Publishers, Inc.} \label{fig:HTS} \end{center} \end{figure} \section{The superheating field} In the previous section, we discussed the physics determining the quality factor of SRF cavities at low RF fields. However, the feasibility of SRF cavities for particle accelerator applications, particularly those for high-energy physics, relies on the ability to reach high accelerating gradients, corresponding to high RF magnetic fields on the cavity surface. In this respect, it is important to understand what is the maximum RF magnetic field that can be applied to the surface of a superconductor (assumed to be `defect-free'), before a transition to the normal state occurs. Theoretically, the critical RF magnetic field is considered to be the so-called superheating field, $H_\mathrm{sh}$, which is the highest field up to which the superconductor remains in the Meissner state, and is unaltered by the dissipative motion of fluxoids. At $H_0=H_\mathrm{sh}$, the screening surface current reaches the depairing value, $J_\mathrm{d}=n_\mathrm{s} e \Delta/p_\mathrm{F}$, meaning that the kinetic energy of the superconducting carriers exceeds the binding energy of the Cooper pairs. The magnetic field at which the Gibbs free energy has the same value whether the first fluxoid is inside or outside a type II superconductor is the so-called lower critical field, $H_\mathrm{c1}$. However, a fluxoid entering the surface of a superconductor has to overcome the so-called Bean--Livingston surface barrier~\cite{Bean1964}, which arises because of the attractive force between the fluxoid near the surface and its anti-fluxoid image, at the same distance from the surface but on the opposite side, required to ensure that the normal component of the current density at the boundary is zero. This is shown schematically in Fig.~\ref{fig:vortex}. The Gibbs free energy of a superconductor with a single fluxoid, as a function of the fluxoid position, is given by \begin{equation} G(x)=\phi_0 \left[ H_0 \mathrm{e}^{-x/\lambda} - \frac{\phi_0}{4\pi \lambda^2} K_0\left(\frac{2x}{\lambda} \right) + H_\mathrm{c1} - H_0 \right], \label{eq:a38} \end{equation} where the first term is the energy due to the Meissner current, the second term is half of the interaction energy between the fluxoid and its image, the third term is the fluxoid self-energy, and the last term is the work done by the source of the applied field. $K_0$ is the zeroth-order Hankel function. The behaviour of $G(x)$ is shown schematically in Fig.~\ref{fig:vortex}: the surface barrier disappears only at $H_0 = H_\mathrm{sh} > H_\mathrm{c1}$. \begin{figure}[ht] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=12cm]{Vortex} \caption{(a) A schematic representation of a fluxoid near the surface of a superconductor. (b) The Gibbs free energy as a function of the fluxoid position for different applied fields.} \label{fig:vortex} \end{center} \end{figure} Theoretical calculations of the superheating field as a function of the Ginzburg--Landau (GL) parameter, $\kappa_\mathrm{GL}$, close to $T_\mathrm{c}$ have been done since the 1960s using the GL theory~\cite{Ginzburg1958, deGennes1965, Matricon1967}. The metastability of the Meissner state leading to the existence of a superheating field represents a local minimum of the free energy, meaning that its second derivative is positive. The field up to which this metastability condition is satisfied has been evaluated considering fluctuations of the order parameter and the supercurrent along the boundary of the superconductor in one or two dimensions~\cite{Galaiko1966, Kramer1968}. $H_\mathrm{sh}$ resulting from the GL theory ($T \approx T_\mathrm{c}$) is given by \begin{align} \label{eq:a39} \begin{split} H_\mathrm{sh}\simeq 1.2 H_\mathrm{c}, \mbox{\hspace{10 mm}} \kappa_\mathrm{GL} \approx 1, \\ H_\mathrm{sh} = 0.745 H_\mathrm{c}, \mbox{\hspace{10 mm}} \kappa_\mathrm{GL} \gg 1. \end{split} \end{align} The calculation of $H_\mathrm{sh}$ has recently been extended over the whole temperature range, $0<T<T_\mathrm{c}$, by the numerical solution of Eilenberger equations~\cite{Catelani2008, Pei-Jen2012}. These equations were obtained from Gorkov's formulation of the BCS theory. The calculations were done in the high-$\kappa_\mathrm{GL}$ limit and as a function of the mean free path. In the clean limit, $H_\mathrm{sh}$ at 0~K is given by \begin{equation} H_\mathrm{sh}=0.845 H_c, \mbox{\hspace{10 mm}} \kappa_\mathrm{GL} \gg 1. \label{eq:a40} \end{equation} A weak dependence of $H_\mathrm{sh}$ on $\ell$ was found, if scattering was due to non-magnetic impurities, and an enhancement of $H_\mathrm{sh}$ (0~K) up to $\simeq 4.2\%$ at $T=0$ was found for $\pi \xi_0/\ell \simeq 0.6$~\cite{Pei-Jen2012}. Niobium, being a marginal type II superconductor ($\kappa_\mathrm{GL} \approx 1$), is a difficult material to study theoretically. Assuming the result in Eq.~(\ref{eq:a39}) to be valid at low $T/T_\mathrm{c}$, one can estimate the $H_\mathrm{sh}$ of Nb to be $\sim 240$~mT at 0~K. On the other hand, the $H_\mathrm{sh}$ of Nb$_3$Sn ($\kappa_\mathrm{GL} \approx 30$) obtained from Eq.~(\ref{eq:a40}) is of the order of 420~mT at 0~K. Results from experiments aimed at measuring the $H_\mathrm{sh}$ of bulk Nb and of a thin Nb$_3$Sn layer grown on a Nb cavity at 1.3~GHz as a function of temperature are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Hsh}~\cite{Hays}. The data show that RF magnetic fields above $H_\mathrm{c1}$ have been achieved in both materials, but the highest field for Nb$_3$Sn is much lower than the value of $H_\mathrm{sh}$ predicted by the theory. \begin{figure}[ht] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=8cm]{Hsh} \caption{Measurements of the maximum RF field achievable in bulk Nb and Nb$_3$Sn 1.3 GHz cavities as a function of temperature~\cite{Hays}. The solid, dashed, and dashed--dotted lines show the theoretical expectations for $H_\mathrm{c}(T), H_\mathrm{sh}(T)$, and $H_\mathrm{c1}(T)$, respectively. The solid black square shows the highest RF magnetic field ever measured on Nb cavities at 2.0~K.} \label{fig:Hsh} \end{center} \end{figure} Unfortunately, the surface barrier can easily be suppressed by defects, such as nano-precipitates or even roughness, making it quite difficult in practice to extend the Meissner state up to $H_{sh}$ in high-$\kappa_\mathrm{GL}$ materials (usually deposited as thin films on a substrate). In 2006, Gurevich proposed the use of multi-layered films of alternating superconductor--insulator--superconductor deposited on a bulk Nb cavity to achieve the superheating field on the cavity surface~\cite{Gurevich2006}. By making the thickness of the superconductor layer, \textit{d}, smaller than the penetration depth, the $H_\mathrm{c1}$ of the layer should increase significantly, as calculated by Abrikosov in 1964~\cite{Abrikosov1964}: \begin{equation} H_\mathrm{c1}=\frac{2 \phi_0}{\pi d^2} \left( \ln \frac{d}{\xi} - 0.07 \right). \label{eq:a41} \end{equation} \section{$R_\mathrm{s}(H_0)$ dependence due to thermal feedback} As we discussed in Sections 3 and 4, there are well-established theories to calculate the surface resistance and the RF critical field of superconductors. Unfortunately, there is no well-established theory describing the dependence of the surface resistance on the amplitude of the RF magnetic field, from low field up to $H_\mathrm{sh}$. In general terms, the surface resistance is expected to increase with increasing RF field because the density of thermally activated normal electrons increases. This occurs because the energy gap is reduced by the kinetic energy of the Cooper pairs to an effective gap $\Delta_\mathrm{eff}(v_\mathrm{s}) = \Delta - p_\mathrm{F} v_\mathrm{s}$, where $p_\mathrm{F}$ is the Fermi momentum and $v_\mathrm{s} = H_0/\lambda e n_\mathrm{s}$ is the superfluid velocity. A decrease of $Q_0$ with increasing $E_\mathrm{acc}$ is typically observed in SRF cavities, as shown, for example, in Fig.~\ref{fig:performance}. The measured slope of the $Q_0(E_\mathrm{acc})$ dependence changes significantly for different cavity treatments and for different cavity material (e.g. Nb bulk vs. thin film). In this section, we will discuss a thermal feedback model proposed by Gurevich~\cite{Gurev2006} as a simple mechanism causing an increase of $R_\mathrm{s}$ with increasing amplitude of the RF field. Let us consider the one-dimensional case of a superconductor of thickness \textit{d} with a vacuum on one side (the inner surface of an SRF cavity) and liquid He on the other side (the outer surface of an SRF cavity). An RF field of amplitude $H_0$ is applied on the vacuum side, parallel to the surface. The RF power dissipated on the inner surface at temperature $T_\mathrm{m}$ is transferred as heat to the He bath of temperature $T_0$. The temperature of the outer surface is $T_\mathrm{s}$. The temperature profile is shown schematically in Fig.~\ref{fig:Tfeedback}. The heat balance equations for the inner and outer surfaces can be written as follows: \begin{equation} \frac{1}{2} R_\mathrm{s}(T_\mathrm{m})H_0^2 = \int_{T_\mathrm{m}}^{T_\mathrm{s}} \kappa(T) \,\mathrm{d}T = h_\mathrm{K}(T_\mathrm{s}, T_0)(T_\mathrm{s} - T_0), \label{eq:a42} \end{equation} where $\kappa(T)$ is the thermal conductivity and $h_\mathrm{K}(T_\mathrm{s}, T_0)$ is the Kapitza conductance, which is the heat transfer coefficient between the outer surface and the superfluid He bath ($T_0 < 2.17~K$). \begin{figure}[ht] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=12cm]{T_fback} \caption{(a) A schematic of heat transfer from the inner to the outer cavity surface. (b) The $H_0(T_\mathrm{m})$ dependence calculated from Eqs. (\ref{eq:a43}) and (\ref{eq:a44}) for Nb at 1.5~GHz and $T_0 = 2.0$~K. The maximum in the $H_0(T_\mathrm{m})$ defines the point of thermal breakdown.} \label{fig:Tfeedback} \end{center} \end{figure} As will be shown below, the overheating of the inner surface is small relative to the He bath temperature ($T_\mathrm{m} - T_0 \ll T_0$); therefore we can neglect the temperature dependence of $\kappa$ and $h_\mathrm{K}$ and use their values at $T_0$. This simplifies Eq.~(\ref{eq:a42}) to the following: \begin{equation} \frac{1}{2} R_\mathrm{s}(T_\mathrm{m})H_0^2 = \frac{h_\mathrm{K} \kappa}{\kappa + d h_\mathrm{K}} (T_\mathrm{m} - T_0). \label{eq:a43} \end{equation} By substituting the following approximate dependence of $R_\mathrm{BCS}(T_\mathrm{m})$, \begin{equation} R_\mathrm{BCS}(T_\mathrm{m}) \simeq \frac{A \omega^2}{T_\mathrm{m}} \mathrm{e}^{-\Delta/k_\mathrm{B} T_\mathrm{m}}, \label{eq:a44} \end{equation} in $R_\mathrm{s}(T_\mathrm{m}) = R_\mathrm{BCS}(T_\mathrm{m}) + R_\mathrm{res}$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:a43}) gives a relation between $H_0$ and $T_\mathrm{m}$. This dependence is plotted, as an example, in Fig.~\ref{fig:Tfeedback} for 3~mm thick Nb at 1.5~GHz, with $R_\mathrm{BCS}$(2~K) = 20~n$\Omega$, $\Delta /k_\mathrm{B} = 17.1$~K, $h_\mathrm{K} = 5~\mathrm{kW}\cdot\mathrm{m}^{-2}\cdot\mathrm{K}^{-1}$, $\kappa = 10~\mathrm{kW}\cdot\mathrm{m}^{-1}\cdot\mathrm{K}^{-1}$, and $T_0=2.0$~K. The maximum of the $H_0(T_\mathrm{m})$ curve corresponds to a thermal quench of the cavity. This point defines the temperature of the inner surface, $T_\mathrm{b}$, and the magnetic field, $H_\mathrm{b}$, at which thermal breakdown occurs. $T_\mathrm{b}$ is the value of $T_\mathrm{m}$ that satisfies $\mathrm{d}H_0/\mathrm{d}T_m = 0$, where $H_0(T_\mathrm{m})$ is given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:a43}), with Eq.~(\ref{eq:a44}) for $R_\mathrm{BCS}$. Neglecting the residual resistance, one obtains \begin{equation} T_\mathrm{b} - T_0 \approx \frac{T_0^2}{\Delta}. \label{eq:a45} \end{equation} where $T_\mathrm{b} - T_0 \approx 0.23$~K for Nb at 2.0~K. Substituting Eq~(\ref{eq:a45}) into Eq.~(\ref{eq:a43}), one obtains \begin{equation} H_\mathrm{b}^2 \approx \frac{2 k_\mathrm{B} T_0^2 h_\mathrm{K} \kappa}{(\kappa + d h_\mathrm{K}) \Delta e R_\mathrm{BCS}}, \label{eq:a46} \end{equation} where $e=2.718$. The breakdown field estimated from Eq.~(\ref{eq:a46}) is that which occurs in the case of uniform heating of the inner surface, without any localized defect. Because both $H_0$ and $R_\mathrm{s}$ depend on the inner surface temperature, Eqs.~(\ref{eq:a43}) and (\ref{eq:a44}) provide a dependence of $R_\mathrm{s}$ on $H_0$, and it is therefore possible to calculate a $Q_0(H_0)$ curve ($Q_0=G/R_\mathrm{s}$). This is shown, as an example, in Fig.~\ref{fig:Q_curve} for a 1.5~GHz bulk Nb cavity with $G=280$~n$\Omega$ at 2.0~K and the thermal parameters mentioned earlier. For a thin film of thickness $d_\mathrm{tf}$ and thermal conductivity $\kappa_\mathrm{tf}$ deposited on a substrate, the total thermal conductance becomes $h_\mathrm{K}/[1+h_\mathrm{K}(d/\kappa + d_\mathrm{tf}/\kappa_\mathrm{tf})]$. In the case of a 1.5~$\mu$m thick Nb$_3$Sn film [$\kappa_\mathrm{tf} \simeq 10^{-2}~\mathrm{W}\cdot\mathrm{m}^{-1}\cdot\mathrm{K}^{-1}$] on top of a 3~mm thick Nb cavity, the heat transfer coefficient of the thin film, $d_\mathrm{tf}/\kappa_\mathrm{tf} \simeq 670~ \mathrm{W}\cdot\mathrm{m}^{-2}\cdot\mathrm{K}^{-1}$, is comparable to that of the Nb substrate, $d/\kappa \simeq 330~\mathrm{W}\cdot\mathrm{m}^{-2}\cdot\mathrm{K}^{-1}$, at 2.0~K. \begin{figure}[ht] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=8cm]{Q_H} \caption{$Q_0(B_0)$ calculated up to the thermal breakdown field for a 1.5~GHz Nb cavity at 2.0~K with the parameters mentioned in the text and $R_\mathrm{res}=10$~n$\Omega$.} \label{fig:Q_curve} \end{center} \end{figure} \section{Summary} Unlike the DC case, superconductors in an RF field have a non-zero surface resistance. The surface resistance can be easily understood in terms of a two-fluid model and is due to the interaction of the electric field (exponentially decaying from the surface) with normal-conducting electrons. At low RF fields, the surface resistance can be expressed as the sum of the BCS surface resistance and a residual resistance. The low-temperature BCS surface resistance: \begin{itemize} \item increases quadratically with frequency, \item decreases exponentially with temperature, and \item has a minimum as a function of the material purity. \end{itemize} There are many possible contributions to the residual resistance, and trapped fluxoids and niobium hydride precipitates have been proven to be among them. The maximum theoretical RF field that can be applied to the surface of a superconductor is the superheating field, which is of the order of the thermodynamic critical field. Superconductor--insulator--superconductor multilayer thin films might be a possible way to reach the superheating field for superconducting materials other than Nb. There exists no well-accepted theory of the surface resistance at high RF fields that could be used to describe the $Q_0(E_\mathrm{acc})$ curves of SRF cavities. Thermal feedback between RF power dissipation and surface temperature is a simple extrinsic mechanism causing an increase of the surface resistance with increasing RF field. \section*{Acknowledgements} I wish to thank Professor A. Gurevich of Old Dominion University for many fruitful discussions and for providing some of the figures.
\section{Introduction} A homomorphism from a graph~$G$ to a graph~$H$ is a function from~$V(G)$ to~$V(H)$ that preserves edges, in the sense of mapping every edge of~$G$ to an edge of~$H$; non-edges of~$G$ may be mapped to edges or non-edges of~$H$. Many structures arising in graph theory can be represented naturally as homomorphisms. For example, the proper $q$-colourings of a graph~$G$ correspond to the homomorphisms from~$G$ to a $q$-clique. For this reason, homomorphisms from $G$ to a graph~$H$ are often called ``$H$-colourings'' of~$G$. Independent sets of~$G$ correspond to the homomorphisms from~$G$ to the connected graph with two vertices and one self-loop (vertices of~$G$ which are mapped to the self-loop are out of the corresponding independent set; vertices which are mapped to the other vertex are in it). Homomorphism problems can also be seen as constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs) in which the constraint language consists of a single symmetric binary relation. Partition functions in statistical physics such as the Ising model, the Potts model, and the hard-core model arise naturally as weighted sums of homomorphisms~\cite{BG, GGJT}. In this paper, we study the complexity of counting homomorphisms modulo~$2$. For graphs $G$ and $H$, $\Homs{G}{H}$ denotes the set of homomorphisms from~$G$ to~$H$. For each fixed~$H$, we study the computational problem~\parhcol, which is the problem of computing~${\left|\Homs{G}{H}\right|} \bmod 2$, given an input graph~$G$. The structure of the graph~$H$ strongly influences the complexity of~$\parhcol$. For example, consider the graphs~$H_1$ and~$H_2$ in Figure~\ref{fig:example}. Our result (Theorem~\ref{thm:main}) shows that \parhcol[H_1] is \ensuremath{\oplus\mathrm{P}}{}-complete, whereas \parhcol[H_2] is in~\ensuremath{\mathrm{P}}{}. \begin{figure} \begin{center} \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1,node distance = 1.5cm] \tikzstyle{dot} =[fill=black, draw=black, circle, inner sep=0.15mm] \tikzstyle{vertex}=[fill=black, draw=black, circle, inner sep=2pt] \tikzstyle{dist} =[fill=white, draw=black, circle, inner sep=2pt] \tikzstyle{pinned}=[draw=black, minimum size=11mm, circle] \begin{scope}[shift={(-3,0)}] \node at (-2.25,0) {$H_1$:}; \node[vertex] (a) at (0,-0.5) {}; \node[vertex] (b) at (0, 0.5) {}; \node[vertex] (c) at ($(b)+(162:1)$) {}; \node[vertex] (d) at ($(c)+(234:1)$) {}; \node[vertex] (e) at ($(d)+(306:1)$) {}; \node[vertex] (f) at ($(b)+( 30:1)$) {}; \node[vertex] (g) at ($(f)+(330:1)$) {}; \node[vertex] (h) at ($(g)+(270:1)$) {}; \node[vertex] (i) at ($(h)+(210:1)$) {}; \draw (a) -- (b) -- (c) -- (d) -- (e) -- (a) -- (i) -- (h) -- (g) -- (f) -- (b); \draw (c) .. controls ($(c)+(54:1)$) and ($(f)+(150:0.4)$) .. (f); \end{scope} \begin{scope}[shift={(3,0)}] \node at (-2.25,0) {$H_2$:}; \node[vertex] (a) at (0,-0.5) {}; \node[vertex] (b) at (0, 0.5) {}; \node[vertex] (c) at ($(b)+(162:1)$) {}; \node[vertex] (d) at ($(c)+(234:1)$) {}; \node[vertex] (e) at ($(d)+(306:1)$) {}; \node[vertex] (f) at ($(b)+( 18:1)$) {}; \node[vertex] (g) at ($(f)+(306:1)$) {}; \node[vertex] (h) at ($(g)+(234:1)$) {}; \node[vertex] (i) at ($(c)+( 18:1)$) [label=90:$*$] {}; \draw (a) -- (b) -- (c) -- (d) -- (e) -- (a) -- (h) -- (g) -- (f) -- (b); \draw (c) -- (i) -- (f); \end{scope} \end{tikzpicture} \end{center} \caption{ Theorem~\ref{thm:main} shows that \parhcol[H_1] is \ensuremath{\oplus\mathrm{P}}{}-complete, whereas \parhcol[H_2] is in~\ensuremath{\mathrm{P}}{}. This, and the role of the starred vertex are explained later in the introduction.} \label{fig:example} \end{figure} The aim of research in this area is to understand for which graphs~$H$ the problem \parhcol{} is in~\ensuremath{\mathrm{P}}, for which graphs~$H$ the problem is \ensuremath{\oplus\mathrm{P}}{}-complete, and to prove that, for all graphs~$H$, one or the other is true. Note that it isn't obvious, a priori, that there are no graphs~$H$ for which \parhcol{} has intermediate complexity -- proving that there are no such graphs~$H$ is the main work of a so-called \emph{dichotomy theorem}. This line of work was introduced by Faben and Jerrum~\cite{FJ13}. They made the following important conjecture (which requires a few definitions to state). An \emph{involution} of a graph is an automorphism of order~$2$, i.e., an automorphism~$\rho$ that is not the identity but for which $\rho^2$ is the identity. Given a graph~$H$ and an involution~$\rho$, $H^\rho$ denotes the subgraph of~$H$ induced by the fixed points of~$\rho$. We write $H \Rightarrow H'$ if there is an involution~$\rho$ of~$H$ such that $H^\rho=H'$ and we write $H \Rightarrow^* H'$ if either $H$ is isomorphic to~$H'$ (written $H\cong H'$) or, for some positive integer~$k$, there are graphs $H_1, \dots, H_k$ such that $H \cong H_1$, $H_1 \Rightarrow \cdots \Rightarrow H_k$, and $H_k \cong H'$. Faben and Jerrum showed \cite[Theorem 3.7]{FJ13} that for every graph~$H$ there is (up to isomorphism) exactly one involution-free graph~$H^*$ such that $H \Rightarrow^* H^*\!$. This graph~$H^*$ is called the \emph{involution-free reduction} of~$H$. See \cite[Figure 1]{FJ13} for a diagram showing a graph being reduced to its involution-free reduction. Faben and Jerrum make the following conjecture. \begin{conjecture} \label{conj:FJ} (Faben and Jerrum~\cite{FJ13}) Let $H$ be a graph. If its involution-free reduction~$H^*$ has at most one vertex, then \parhcol{} is in \ensuremath{\mathrm{P}}{}; otherwise, \parhcol{} is \ensuremath{\oplus\mathrm{P}}{}-complete.\end{conjecture} Note that our claim in Figure~\ref{fig:example} is consistent with Conjecture~\ref{conj:FJ}. $H_1$ is involution-free, so it is its own involution-free reduction, but the involution-free reduction of~$H_2$ is the single vertex marked~$*$ in the figure. Faben and Jerrum \cite[Theorem 3.8]{FJ13} proved Conjecture~\ref{conj:FJ} for the case in which~$H$ is a tree. Subsequently, the present authors \cite[Theorem 1.6]{GGR14:Cactus} proved the conjecture for a well-studied class of tree-width-$2$ graphs, namely \emph{cactus graphs}, which are graphs in which each edge belongs to at most one cycle. The main result of this paper is to prove the conjecture for a much richer class of graphs. In particular, we prove the conjecture for every graph~$H$ whose involution-free reduction has no $4$-cycle (whether induced or not). Graphs without $4$-cycles are called ``square-free'' graphs. These graphs arise frequently in combinatorics, for example in connection with the strong perfect graph theorem~\cite{SF} and certain graph algorithms~\cite{SF2}. Our main theorem is the following. \newcommand{\statethmmain}{ Let $H$ be a graph whose involution-free reduction~$H^*$ is square-free. If $H^*$~has at most one vertex, then \parhcol{} is in \ensuremath{\mathrm{P}}{}; otherwise, \parhcol{} is \ensuremath{\oplus\mathrm{P}}{}-complete.} \begin{theorem} \label{thm:main} \statethmmain{} \end{theorem} If $H$ is square-free, then so is every induced subgraph, including its involution-free reduction~$H^*\!$. Thus, we have the following corollary. \begin{corollary} \label{cor:main} Let $H$ be a square-free graph. If its involution-free reduction~$H^*$ has at most one vertex, then \parhcol{} is in \ensuremath{\mathrm{P}}{}; otherwise, \parhcol{} is \ensuremath{\oplus\mathrm{P}}{}-complete. \end{corollary} In Section~\ref{sec:whysquares} we will discuss the reasons that we require $H^*$ to be square-free in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}. First, in Section~\ref{sec:intro:parity}, we will describe the background to counting modulo~$2$. In Section~\ref{sec:beyond}, we will explain why Conjecture~\ref{conj:FJ} is so much more difficult to prove for graphs with unbounded tree-width. Very briefly, in order to prove that \parhcol{} is \ensuremath{\oplus\mathrm{P}}{}-hard without having a bound on the tree-width of~$H$, it is necessary to take a much more abstract approach. Since it is not possible to decompose~$H$ using a tree-like decomposition as we did in~\cite[Theorem 1.6]{GGR14:Cactus}, we have instead come up with an abstract characterisation of graph-theoretic structures in~$H$ which lead to \ensuremath{\oplus\mathrm{P}}{}-hardness. As we shall see, the proof that such structures always exist in square-free graphs involves interesting non-constructive elements, leading to a more abstract, and less technical (graph-theoretic) proof than~\cite{GGR14:Cactus}, while applying to a substantially richer set of graphs~$H$, including graphs with unbounded tree width. \subsection{Counting modulo~2} \label{sec:intro:parity} Although counting modulo~$2$ produces a one-bit answer, the complexity of such problems has a rather different flavour from the complexity of decision problems. The complexity class \ensuremath{\oplus\mathrm{P}}{} was first studied by Papadimitriou and Zachos~\cite{PZ82:Counting} and by Goldschlager and Parberry~\cite{GP86:Parallel}. $\ensuremath{\oplus\mathrm{P}}{}$ consists of all problems of the form ``compute $f(x) \bmod 2$'' where computing $f(x)$ is a problem in \ensuremath{\mathrm{\#P}}. Toda~\cite{Tod91:PP-PH} has shown that there is a randomised polynomial-time reduction from every problem in the polynomial hierarchy to some problem in~\ensuremath{\oplus\mathrm{P}}. As such, \ensuremath{\oplus\mathrm{P}}{}~is a large complexity class and \ensuremath{\oplus\mathrm{P}}{}-completeness seems to represent a high degree of intractability. The unique flavour of modular counting is exhibited by Valiant's famous restricted version of $3$-SAT~\cite{Val06:Accidental} for which counting solutions is \ensuremath{\mathrm{\#P}}{}-complete~\cite{XZZ07:3-regular}, counting solutions modulo~$7$ is in polynomial-time but counting solutions modulo~$2$ is \ensuremath{\oplus\mathrm{P}}{}-complete~\cite{Val06:Accidental}. The seemingly mysterious number~$7$ was subsequently explained by Cai and Lu~\cite{CL11:Holographic}, who showed that the $k$-SAT version of Valiant's problem is tractable modulo any prime factor of $2^k-1$. Counting modulo~$2$ closely resembles ordinary, non-modular counting, but is still very different. Clearly, if a counting problem can be solved in polynomial time, the corresponding decision and parity problems are also tractable, but the converse does not necessarily hold. A characteristic feature of modular counting is cancellations, which can make the modular versions of hard counting problems tractable. For example, consider not-all-equal SAT, the problem of assigning values to Boolean variables such that each of a given set of clauses contains both true and false literals. The number of solutions is always even, since solutions can be paired up by negating every variable in one solution to obtain a second solution. This makes counting modulo~$2$ trivial, while determining the exact number of solutions is \ensuremath{\mathrm{\#P}}{}-complete~\cite{GGL14:Locally-optimal} and even deciding whether a solution exists is \ensuremath{\mathrm{NP}}{}-complete~\cite{Sch78:Satisfiability}. We use cancellations extensively in this paper. For example, if we wish to compute the size of a set~$S$ modulo~$2$ then, for any even-cardinality subset~$X\subseteq S$, we have $|S|\equiv |S\setminus X|\bmod2$. This means that we can ignore the elements of~$X$. It is also helpful to partition the set~$S$ into disjoint subsets $S_1, \dots, S_\ell$ exploiting the fact that $|S|$ is congruent modulo~$2$ to the number of odd-cardinality~$S_i$. We use this idea frequently. For work on counting modulo~$k$ in the \emph{constraint satisfaction} setting see~\cite{ghlx}. \subsection{Going beyond bounded tree-width} \label{sec:beyond} \subsubsection{Trees} All known hardness results for counting homomorphisms modulo~$2$ start with the following basic ``pinning'' approach. Let $\pin$ be a function from $V(G)$ to $2^{V(H)}$. A homomorphism $f\in \Homs{G}{H}$ \emph{respects} the pinning function~$\pin$ if, for every $v\in V(G)$, $f(v)$ is in the set~$\pin(v)$. Let $\mathrm{PinHom}(G,H,\pin)$ be the set of homomorphisms from~$G$ to~$H$ that respect the pinning function~$\pin$ and let \ensuremath{\oplus \prb{PinnedHomsTo}H}\ be the problem of counting, modulo~$2$, the number of homomorphisms in $\mathrm{PinHom}(G,H,\pin)$, given an input graph~$G$ and a pinning function~$\pin$. Faben and Jerrum~\cite[Corollary~4.18]{FJ13} give a polynomial-time Turing reduction from the problem $\ensuremath{\oplus \prb{PinnedHomsTo}H}$ to the problem $\parhcol$ for the special case in which the pinning function pins only two vertices of~$G$, and these are both pinned to entire orbits of the automorphism group of~$H$. The reduction relies on a result of Lov\'asz{}~\cite{Lov67:OpStruct}. In order to use the reduction, it is necessary to show that the special case of the problem $\ensuremath{\oplus \prb{PinnedHomsTo}H}$ is itself \ensuremath{\oplus\mathrm{P}}{}-hard. Faben and Jerrum restrict their attention to the case in which $H$ is a tree, and this is helpful. Every involution-free tree is asymmetric (so the orbit of every vertex is trivial), so the pinning function~$\pin$ is actually able to pin two vertices of~$G$ to any two \emph{particular} vertices of~$H$. The reduction that they used to prove hardness of $\ensuremath{\oplus \prb{PinnedHomsTo}H}$ is from \ensuremath{\oplus\prb{IS}}{}, the problem of counting independent sets modulo~$2$, which was shown to be \ensuremath{\oplus\mathrm{P}}{}-complete by Valiant~\cite{Val06:Accidental}. We first give an informal description of a general reduction from \ensuremath{\oplus\prb{IS}}{} to the problem $\ensuremath{\oplus \prb{PinnedHomsTo}H}$. (The general description is actually based on our current approach in this paper, but we can also present past approaches in this context.) The vertices and edges of an input~$G$ of \ensuremath{\oplus\prb{IS}}{} are replaced by gadgets to give a graph~$J$. In~$J$, the gadget corresponding to the vertex~$v$ of~$G$ has a vertex~$y^v$. We also choose an appropriate vertex~$i$ in~$H$. Any homomorphism~$\sigma$ from $J$ to the target graph~$H$ defines a set $I(\sigma) = \{v\in V(G)\mid \sigma(y^v)=i\}$ (mnemonic: ``$i$'' means ``in'' because $\sigma(y^v)$ is~$i$ exactly when $v$ is in $I(\sigma)$). The configuration of the gadgets ensures that a set $I \subseteq V(G)$ has an odd number of homomorphisms $\sigma$ with $I(\sigma)=I$ if and only if $I$ is an independent set of~$G$. Next, the homomoprhisms $\sigma\in\Homs{J}{H}$ can be partitioned according to the value of~$I(\sigma)$. By the partitioning argument mentioned at the end of Section~\ref{sec:intro:parity}, the number of independent sets in~$G$ is equivalent to $|\Homs{J}{H}|$, modulo~$2$. The gadgets are chosen according to the structure and properties of~$H$. Since Faben and Jerrum were working with trees, they were able to use gadgets with very simple structure: their gadgets are essentially paths and they exploit the fact that any non-trivial involution-free tree has at least two even-degree vertices and, of course, these have a unique path between them (which turns out to be useful). \subsubsection{Cactus graphs} The situation for cactus graphs is much more complicated. Non-trivial involution-free cactus graphs still contain even-degree vertices but the presence of cycles means that paths, even shortest paths, are no longer guaranteed to be unique. Our solution in~\cite{GGR14:Cactus} was to use more complicated gadgets. They are still (loosely) based on paths, since they are defined in terms of numbers of walks between vertices of~$H$. However, rather than requiring appropriate even-degree vertices (which might not exist), we used a second, and more complicated, gadget to ``select'' an even-cardinality subset of a vertex's neighbours. To find such gadgets in~$H$, we used tree-like decompositions. Given a decomposition that breaks $H$ into independent fragments, we inductively found gadgets (or, sometimes, partial gadgets) in the fragments, carefully putting them together across the join of the decomposition. All of this led to a very technical, very graph-theoretic solution, and also to a solution that does not generalise to graphs without tree-like decompositions. The proof is complicated by the fact that there are involution-free graphs (even involution-free cactus graphs!)\@ that have non-trivial automorphisms, unlike the situation for trees. Thus, the fact that the pinning function pins vertices to entire orbits (rather than to particular vertices) causes complications. The solution in~\cite[Section 8]{GGR14:Cactus} relies on special properties of cactus graphs, and it is not clear how it could be generalised. \subsubsection{Unbounded tree-width} Since they are based around a tree-like decomposition, the techniques of~\cite{GGR14:Cactus} are not suitable for graphs with unbounded tree-width. To prove Conjecture~\ref{conj:FJ} for a richer class of graphs, we adopt a much more abstract approach. Since we do not have tree-like decompositions, we instead mostly use structural properties of the whole graph to find gadgets. The structural properties do not always require technical detail -- as we will see below, re-examining a result of Lov\'asz{}~\cite{Lov67:OpStruct} even allows us to demonstrate non-constructively the existence of some of the gadgets that we use. In order to support our more general approach, we first have to modify the pinning problem \ensuremath{\oplus \prb{PinnedHomsTo}H}. For any graph~$H$, a \emph{partially $H$-labelled graph} $J=(G,\tau)$ consists of an \emph{underlying graph}~$G$ and a \emph{pinning function}~$\tau$, which in this paper is a partial function from $V(G)$ to~$V(H)$. Thus, every vertex $v$ in the domain of~$\tau$ is pinned to a \emph{particular} vertex of~$H$ and \emph{not} to a subset such as an orbit. A homomorphism from a partially labelled graph~$J=(G,\tau)$ to~$H$ is a homomorphism $\sigma\colon G\to H$ such that, for all vertices $v\in \mathrm{dom}(\tau)$, $\sigma(v) = \tau(v)$. The intermediate problem that we study then is \ensuremath{\oplus \prb{PartLabHomsTo}H}{}, the problem of computing $|\Homs{J}{H}| \bmod 2$, given a partially $H$-labelled graph~$J$. In Section~\ref{sec:pinning}, we generalise the application of Lov\'asz's theorem to show (Theorem~\ref{thm:partlabcol}) that $\ensuremath{\oplus \prb{PartLabHomsTo}H}\leq \parhcol$. Armed with a stronger pinning technique, we then abstract away most of the complications that arose for graphs with small tree-width by instead using more general gadgets, defined in Section~\ref{sec:gadgets}. Because they are not based on paths, they do not rely on uniqueness of any path in~$H$. Instead, the gadgets have three main parts. Our new reduction from \ensuremath{\oplus\prb{IS}}{} to \parhcol{} can be seen informally as assigning colours to both the vertices and the edges of~$G$, where each ``colour'' is a vertex of~$H$. One part of the gadget controls which colours can be assigned to each vertex, one controls which colours can be assigned to each edge and a third part determines how many homomorphisms there are from $G$ to~$H$, given the choice of colours for the vertices and edges. In addition to all of this, we identify two special vertices of~$H$, one of which is the vertex~$i$ mentioned above. The much more general nature of our gadgets compared to those used previously makes them much easier to find and, in some cases, allows us to prove the existence of parts of them non-constructively.\footnote{ Recall that gadgets depend only on the fixed graph~$H$ and not on the input~$G$ so they can be hard-coded into the reduction --- there is no need to find one constructively.} We no longer need to find unique shortest paths in~$H$ or, indeed, any paths at all. In fact, all the gadgets that we construct in this paper use a ``caterpillar gadget'' (Definition~\ref{defn:caterpillar}) which allows us to use \emph{any} specified path in the graph~$H$ instead of relying on a unique shortest path. Rather than finding hardness gadgets in components in some decomposition of~$H$, we mostly find gadgets ``in situ''. When a graph has two even-degree vertices, we can directly use those vertices and a caterpillar gadget to produce a hardness gadget (see Lemma~\ref{lem:two-even}). This already provides a self-contained proof of Faben and Jerrum's dichotomy for trees. Next, for graphs with only one even-degree vertex, we show (Corollary~\ref{cor:one-even-asym}) that deleting an appropriate set of vertices leaves a component with two even-degree vertices and show (Lemma~\ref{lem:even-deg}) how to simulate that vertex deletion with gadgets. This leaves only graphs in which every vertex has odd degree. In such a graph, we are able to use any shortest odd-length cycle to construct a gadget (Lemma~\ref{lem:odd-cycle}). If there are no odd cycles, the graph is bipartite. In this interesting case (Lemma~\ref{lem:always-even-gadget}) we use our version of Lov\'asz's result to find a gadget non-constructively. \subsection{Squares} \label{sec:whysquares} It is natural to ask why the involution-free reduction~$H^*$ in Theorem~\ref{thm:main} is required to be square-free. We do not believe that the restriction to square-free graphs is fundamental, since our results on pinning apply to all involution-free graphs (Section~\ref{sec:pinning}) and neither our definition of hardness gadgets (Definition~\ref{defn:hardness-gadget}) nor our proof that the existence of a hardness gadget for~$H$ implies that \parhcol{} is \ensuremath{\oplus\mathrm{P}}{}-complete (Theorem~\ref{thm:hardness-gadget}) requires $H$ to be square-free. However, all the actual hardness gadgets that we find for graphs do rely on the absence of $4$-cycles, as discussed in Section~\ref{sec:gadgets:squares}, and removing this restriction seems technically challenging. We note that dealing with $4$-cycles also caused significant difficulties in cactus graphs~\cite{GGR14:Cactus}. \subsection{Related work} We have already mentioned earlier work on counting graph homomorphisms modulo~$2$. The problem of counting graph homomorphisms (exactly, rather than modulo a fixed constant) was previously studied by Dyer and Greenhill~\cite{DG00:Homomorphisms}. They showed the problem of counting homomorphisms to a fixed graph~$H$ is solvable in polynomial time if every connected component of $H$~is a complete graph with a self-loop on every vertex or a complete bipartite graph with no self-loops, and is \ensuremath{\mathrm{\#P}}{}-complete, otherwise. Their work builds on an earlier dichotomy by Hell and Ne\v{s}et\v{r}il{}~\cite{HN90:Hcol} for the complexity of the graph homomorphism decision problem (the problem of distinguishing between the case where there are no homomorphisms and the case where there is at least one). \subsection{Organisation} We introduce notation in Section~\ref{sec:notation}. Section~\ref{sec:pinning} deals with pinning and consists mostly of adapting existing work to the precise framework we require. It can be skipped by the reader who is comfortable with pinning and happy to believe it can be done in our more general setting. The gadgets that we use are formally defined in Section~\ref{sec:gadgets}, where we also show that \parhcol{} is \ensuremath{\oplus\mathrm{P}}{}-complete if $H$~is an involution-free graph that has one of these gadgets. Section~\ref{sec:gadgets:caterpillar} introduces a gadget that we use extensively, but which requires $H$ to be square-free, as discussed in Section~\ref{sec:gadgets:squares}. In Section~\ref{sec:finding-gadgets}, we show how to find hardness gadgets for all square-free graphs and, in Section~\ref{sec:mainthm}, we tie everything together to prove the dichotomy theorem. \section{Notation} \label{sec:notation} We write $[n]$ for the set $\{1, \dots, n\}$. For a set~$S$ and an element~$x$, we often write $S-x$ for $S\setminus \{x\}$. \paragraph{Graphs.} In this paper, graphs are undirected and have no parallel edges and no loops. The one exception to this is that we briefly allow loops in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:Lovasz} (this is clearly stated in the proof). Paths and cycles do not repeat vertices; walks may repeat both vertices and edges. The length of a path or cycle is the number of edges that it contains. The \emph{odd-girth} of a graph is the length of its shortest odd-length cycle. $\Gamma_G(v)$ is the set of neighbours of a vertex~$v$ in~$G$. We write $G\cong H$ to indicate that graphs $G$ and~$H$ are isomorphic. $\mathrm{Aut}(H)$ denotes the automorphism group of a graph~$H$. An \emph{involution} is an automorphism of order~$2$ (i.e., an automorphism~$\rho$ that is not the identity such that $\rho\circ\rho$ is the identity). $\Homs{G}{H}$ denotes the set of homomorphisms from a graph~$G$ to a graph~$H$. \paragraph{Partially labelled graphs.} For any graph~$H$, a \emph{partially $H$-labelled graph} $J=(G,\tau)$ consists of an \emph{underlying graph}~$G$ and a \emph{pinning function}~$\tau$, which is a partial function from $V(G)$ to~$V(H)$. A vertex~$v$ in the domain of the pinning function is said to be \emph{pinned} or \emph{pinned to $\tau(v)$}. We will refer to these graphs as \emph{partially labelled graphs} where the graph~$H$ is clear from the context. We sometimes write $G(J)$ and~$\tau(J)$ for the underlying graph and pinning function of a partially labelled graph, respectively. We write partial functions as sets of pairs, for example, writing $\tau = \{a\mapsto s,b\mapsto t\}$ for the partial function~$\tau$ with $\mathrm{dom}(\tau) = \{a,b\}$ such that $\tau(a)=s$ and $\tau(b)=t$. A homomorphism from a partially labelled graph~$J=(G,\tau)$ to~$H$ is a homomorphism $\sigma\colon G\to H$ such that, for all vertices $v\in \mathrm{dom}(\tau)$, $\sigma(v) = \tau(v)$. We say that such a homomorphism \emph{respects}~$\tau$. \paragraph{Distinguished vertices.} It is often convenient to regard a graph as having some number of distinguished vertices $x_1, \dots, x_r$ and we denote such a graph by $(G, x_1, \dots, x_r)$. Note that the distinguished vertices need not be distinct. We sometimes abbreviate the sequence $x_1,\ldots,x_r$ as $\bar{x}$ and we use $G[\bar{x}]$ to denote the subgraph of~$G$ induced by the set of vertices $\{x_1,\ldots,x_r\}$. A homomorphism from a graph $(G, x_1, \dots, x_r)$ to $(H, y_1, \dots, y_r)$ is a homomorphism~$\sigma$ from $G$ to~$H$ with the property that $\sigma(x_i)=y_i$ for each $i\in[r]$. This is the same thing as a homomorphism from the partially $H$-labelled graph $(G, \{x_1\mapsto y_1, \dots, x_r\mapsto y_r\})$ to~$H$. Given a partially labelled graph~$J=(G,\tau)$ and vertices $x_1, \dots, x_r\notin \mathrm{dom}(\tau)$, a homomorphism from $(J, x_1, \dots, x_r)$ to $(H, y_1, \dots, y_r)$ is formally identical to a homomorphism from $J'=(G, \tau \cup \{x_1\mapsto y_1, \dots, x_r\mapsto y_r\})$ to~$H$. Similarly, we say that two graphs $(G, x_1, \dots, x_r)$ and $(H, y_1, \dots, y_s)$ are isomorphic if $r=s$ and there is an isomorphism $\rho\colon V(G) \to V(H)$ such that $\rho(x_i)=y_i$ for each $i\in[r]$ (note that we may have $G=H$). An automorphism of $(G, x_1, \dots, x_r)$ is just an automorphism~$\rho$ of~$G$ with the property that $\rho(x_i)=x_i$ for each $i\in[r]$. \paragraph{Diagram conventions.} In diagrams of partially labelled graphs, ordinary vertices are denoted by black dots, distinguished vertices by small white circles and pinned vertices (i.e., the vertices in $\mathrm{dom}(\tau)$) by large white circles. A label next to a vertex of any kind indicates the identity of that vertex; a label inside a white circle indicates what that vertex is pinned to. \section{Partially labelled graphs and pinning} \label{sec:pinning} The results in this section do not require~$H$ to be square-free. Because we use pinning in our gadgets, we mostly work with the problem of determining the number of homomorphisms from a partially $H$-labelled graph to~$H$, modulo~$2$: \begin{description} \setlength{\itemsep}{-0.9ex} \item \emph{Name:} \ensuremath{\oplus \prb{PartLabHomsTo}H}{}. \item \emph{Parameter:} A graph~$H$. \item \emph{Input:} A partially $H$-labelled graph $J$. \item \emph{Output:} $|\Homs{J}{H}| \bmod 2$. \end{description} Our goal in the remainder of this section is to prove the following theorem. \begin{theorem} \label{thm:partlabcol} For any involution-free graph~$H$, $\ensuremath{\oplus \prb{PartLabHomsTo}H}\leq \parhcol$. \end{theorem} The reader who is prepared to take Theorem~\ref{thm:partlabcol} on trust may safely skip the rest of this section. The theorem itself is used in later sections but the details of its proof are not. To prove the theorem, we need to develop some machinery. This closely follows the presentation of similar material by Faben and Jerrum~\cite{FJ13} and our earlier paper~\cite{GGR14:Cactus} which, in turn, draw on the work of Lov\'asz~\cite{Lov67:OpStruct} and Hell and Ne\v{s}et\v{r}il~\cite{HN04:HomBook}. This duplication is unfortunate but, at the end of the section, we explain how the results we have presented are subtly different from those in the literature so existing results could not be reused directly. After stating some elementary group theory results that we need, we prove in Section~\ref{sec:partlab:Lovasz} a version of a result originally due to Lov\'asz{}. This (Lemma~\ref{lem:Lovasz}) states that, if graphs with distinguished vertices $(H,\bar{y})$ and~$(H'\!,\bar{y}')$ are non-isomorphic, there is a graph $(G,\bar{x})$ that has an odd number of homomorphisms to one of $(H,\bar{y})$ and~$(H'\!,\bar{y}')$ and an even number of homomorphisms to the other. Taking $H'=H$, this allows us to distinguish two tuples of vertices in~$H$ from one another, as long as they are not in the same orbit of $\mathrm{Aut}(H)$. This is not quite enough for pinning, as it doesn't give us control over which of the two graphs receives an odd number of homomorphisms from $(G,\bar{x})$. In Section~\ref{sec:partlab:impvec}, we solve this problem algebraically, adapting a technique of Faben and Jerrum~\cite{FJ13}. This allows us to prove Theorem~\ref{thm:partlabcol} in Section~\ref{sec:partlab:pinning} and thereby implement the pinning we need for our reductions. \subsection{Group-theoretic background} \label{sec:partlab:groups} We will require two results from group theory. For the first, see, e.g., \cite[Theorem~13.1]{Arm88:GroupSym}. \begin{theorem}[Cauchy's group theorem] \label{thm:Cauchy} If $\ensuremath{\mathcal{G}}$ is a finite group and a prime~$p$ divides~$|\ensuremath{\mathcal{G}}|$, then $\ensuremath{\mathcal{G}}$~contains an element of order~$p$. \end{theorem} For a permutation group~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{G}}$ acting on a set~$X$, the \emph{orbit} of an element $x\in X$ is the set $\mathrm{Orb}_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{G}}}(x) = \{\pi(x)\mid \pi\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{G}}\}$. For a graph~$H$, we will abuse notation mildly by writing $\mathrm{Orb}_H(\cdot)$ instead of $\mathrm{Orb}_{\mathrm{Aut}{H}}(\cdot)$. The following is a corollary of the orbit--stabiliser theorem \cite[Corollary~17.3]{Arm88:GroupSym}. \begin{theorem} \label{thm:OrbStab} Let $\ensuremath{\mathcal{G}}$ be a finite permutation group acting on a set~$X$. For every $x\in X$, $\left|\mathrm{Orb}_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{G}}}(x)\right|$ divides~$|\ensuremath{\mathcal{G}}|$. \end{theorem} These two theorems have the following corollary about the size of orbits under the automorphism group of involution-free graphs. \begin{corollary} \label{cor:odd-orbit} Let $H$~be an involution-free graph. Every orbit of a tuple $\bar{y}\in V(H)^r$ under the action of $\mathrm{Aut}(H)$ has odd cardinality. \end{corollary} \begin{proof} By Theorem~\ref{thm:Cauchy}, $|\mathrm{Aut}(H)|$ is odd, since the group contains no element of order~$2$. Consider the natural action of $\mathrm{Aut}(H)$ on $V(H)^r\!$. By Theorem~\ref{thm:OrbStab}, the size of the orbit of~$\bar{y}$ in~$H$ divides $|\mathrm{Aut}(H)|$ so is also odd. \end{proof} \subsection{A Lov\'asz{}-style lemma} \label{sec:partlab:Lovasz} Lov\'asz{} proved that two graphs $H$ and~$H'$ are isomorphic if and only if $|\Homs{G}{H}| = |\Homs{G}{H'}|$ for every graph~$G$ (in fact, he proved the analogous result for general relational structures but we do not need this here). We show that this result remains true even if we replace equality of the number of homomorphisms with equivalence modulo~$2$. Faben and Jerrum also showed this \cite[Lemma~3.13]{FJ13}, though in a less general setting than the one that we need. Our proof is based on the presentation of \cite[Section~2.3]{HN04:HomBook}. For the proof we need some definitions, which are used only in this section. We say that two $r$-tuples $\bar{x}$ and~$\bar{y}$ \emph{have the same equality type} if, for all $i,j\in [r]$, $x_i=x_j$ if and only if $y_i=y_j$. Let $\InjHoms{(G,\bar{x})}{(H,\bar{y})}$ be the set of injective homomorphisms from $(G, \bar{x})$ to~$(H,\bar{y})$. Before proving the main lemma, we prove a simple fact about injective homomorphisms and equality types of distinguished variables. \begin{lemma} \label{lem:eq-type} Let $(G,\bar{x})$ and~$(H,\bar{y})$ be graphs, each with $r$~distinguished vertices. If $\bar{x}$ and~$\bar{y}$ do not have the same equality type, then $|\InjHoms{(G,\bar{x})}{(H,\bar{y})}| = 0$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} If there are $i,j\in[r]$ such that $x_i=x_j$ but $y_i\neq y_j$, then there are no homomorphisms (injective or otherwise) from $(G,\bar{x})$ to $(H,\bar{y})$, since $x_i$~cannot be mapped simultaneously to both $y_i$ and~$y_j$. Otherwise, there must be $i,j\in[r]$ such that $x_i\neq x_j$ but $y_i=y_j$. Then no homomorphism~$\eta$ can be injective because we must have $\eta(x_i) = \eta(x_j) = y_i$. \end{proof} \begin{lemma} \label{lem:Lovasz} Let $(H, \bar{y})$ and $(H'\!, \bar{y}')$ be involution-free graphs, each with $r$~distinguished vertices. Then $(H, \bar{y}) \cong (H'\!, \bar{y}')$ if and only if, for all (not necessarily connected) graphs $(G,\bar{x})$ with $r$~distinguished vertices, \begin{equation} \label{eq:Lovasz} |\Homs{(G,\bar{x})}{(H,\bar{y})}| \equiv |\Homs{(G,\bar{x})}{(H'\!,\bar{y}')}| \pmod2\,. \end{equation} \end{lemma} \begin{proof} If $(H,\bar{y})$ and $(H'\!,\bar{y}')$ are isomorphic, it follows trivially that \eqref{eq:Lovasz}~holds for all graphs $(G,\bar{x})$. For the other direction, suppose that \eqref{eq:Lovasz}~holds for all $(G,\bar{x})$. First, we claim that this implies that $\bar{y}$ and~$\bar{y}'$ have the same equality type. If they have different equality types then, without loss of generality, we may assume that there are distinct indices $i$ and~$j$ such that $y_i=y_j$ but $y'_i\neq y'_j$. Let $G$~be the graph on vertices $\{y_1, \dots, y_r\}$ with no edges: we see that $|\Homs{(G, \bar{y})}{(H,\bar{y})}| = 1 \neq |\Homs{(G,\bar{y})}{(H'\!,\bar{y}')}|=0$, contradicting the assumption that \eqref{eq:Lovasz} holds for all~$G$. Second, we show by induction on the number of vertices in~$G$ that, if \eqref{eq:Lovasz}~holds for all $(G,\bar{x})$ then, for all $(G,\bar{x})$, \begin{equation} \label{eq:injective} |\InjHoms{(G,\bar{x})}{(H,\bar{y})}| \equiv |\InjHoms{(G,\bar{x})}{(H'\!,\bar{y}')}| \pmod2\,, \end{equation} Specifically, under the assumption that \eqref{eq:Lovasz}~holds for all~$(G,\bar{x})$, we show that \eqref{eq:injective} holds for all $(G,\bar{x})$ with $|V(G)|\leq n_0$ for a suitable value~$n_0$ and that, if \eqref{eq:injective} holds for all $(G,\bar{x})$ with $|V(G)|<n$, it also holds for any $(G,\bar{x})$ with $|V(G)|=n$. Let $n_0 = |\{y_1, \dots, y_r\}| = |\{y'_1, \dots, y'_r\}|$ be the number of distinct elements in $\bar{y}$. For the base case of the induction, consider any graph $(G, \bar{x})$ with $|V(G)|\leq n_0$. If $\bar{x}$~does not have the same equality type as $\bar{y}$ and~$\bar{y}'$ (which is guaranteed if $|V(G)| < n_0$) then, by Lemma~\ref{lem:eq-type}, \begin{equation*} |\InjHoms{(G,\bar{x})}{(H,\bar{y})}| = |\InjHoms{(G,\bar{x})}{(H'\!,\bar{y}')}| = 0\,. \end{equation*} If $\bar{x}$~has the same equality type as $\bar{y}$ and~$\bar{y}'\!$ then, in particular, every vertex of~$G$ is distinguished. Any homomorphism from $(G,\bar{x})$ to $(H,\bar{y})$ or~$(H'\!,\bar{y}')$ is injective so we have \begin{align*} |\InjHoms{(G,\bar{x})}{(H,\bar{y})}| &= |\Homs{(G,\bar{x})}{(H,\bar{y})}| \\ &= |\Homs{(G,\bar{x})}{(H'\!,\bar{y}')}| \\ &= |\InjHoms{(G,\bar{x})}{(H'\!,\bar{y}')}|\,, \end{align*} where the second equality is by the assumption that \eqref{eq:Lovasz}~holds for~$(G,\bar{x})$. For the inductive step, let $n>n_0$ and assume that \eqref{eq:injective}~holds for all $(G,\bar{x})$ with $|V(G)|<n$. Now, consider some $(G,\bar{x})$ with $|V(G)|=n$. Given any homomorphism~$\sigma$ from $(G,\bar{x})$ to $(H,\bar{y})$, we can define an equivalence relation~$\theta$ on $V(G)$ by $(u,v)\in \theta$ if and only if $\sigma(u)=\sigma(v)$. (Note that, if $\sigma$~is injective, then $\theta$~is just the equality relation on~$V(G)$.) Write $\eqclass{u}$~for the $\theta$-equivalence class of a vertex $u\in V(G)$. Let $G/\theta$ be the graph whose vertex set is $\{\eqclass{u}\mid u\in V(G)\}$ and whose edge set is $\{(\eqclass{u},\eqclass{v})\mid (u,v)\in E(G)\}$. For graphs with distinguished vertices, we write $(G,x_1, \dots, x_r)/\theta = (G/\theta, \eqclass{x_1}, \dots, \eqclass{x_r})$. The homomorphism~$\sigma$ from $(G,\bar{x})$ to $(H,\bar{y})$ corresponds to an injective homomorphism from $(G,\bar{x})/\theta$ to $(H,\bar{y})$. Note that, if there are adjacent vertices $u$ and~$v$ in~$G$ such that $(u,v)\in\theta$ for some equivalence relation~$\theta$, the graph $G/\theta$ has a self-loop on the vertex~$\eqclass{u}$. This is not a problem. Because $H$~is loop-free, there are no homomorphisms (injective or otherwise) from such a graph $G/\theta$ to~$H$. For the same reason, there are no homomorphisms from $G$ to~$H$ that map adjacent vertices $u$ and~$v$ to the same place. Therefore, this particular~$\theta$ does not correspond to any homomorphism from $G$ to~$H$ and contributes zero to the sums below, as required. We have \begin{align*} |\Homs{(G,\bar{x})}{(H,\bar{y})}| &= |\InjHoms{(G,\bar{x})}{(H,\bar{y})}| + \sum_\theta |\InjHoms{(G,\bar{x})/\theta}{(H,\bar{y})}|\\ |\Homs{(G,\bar{x})}{(H'\!,\bar{y}')}| &= |\InjHoms{(G,\bar{x})}{(H'\!,\bar{y}')}| + \sum_\theta |\InjHoms{(G,\bar{x})/\theta}{(H'\!,\bar{y}')}|\,, \end{align*} where the sums are over all equivalence relations~$\theta$, except for the equality relation. The left-hand sides of these equations are equivalent modulo~$2$ by assumption. The sums over~$\theta$ on the right are equivalent modulo~$2$ by the inductive hypothesis since $\theta$~is not the equality relation, so $G/\theta$~has fewer vertices than~$G$. Therefore, \eqref{eq:injective}~holds for the graph under consideration. Finally, it remains to prove that \eqref{eq:injective}~holding for all $(G, \bar{x})$ implies that $(H,\bar{y}) \cong (H'\!,\bar{y}')$. To see this, take $(G,\bar{x}) = (H,\bar{y})$. An injective homomorphism from a graph to itself is an automorphism and, since $(H,\bar{y})$ is involution-free, $\mathrm{Aut}(H,\bar{y})$ has no element of order~$2$, so $|\mathrm{Aut}(H,\bar{y})|$ is odd by Cauchy's group theorem (Theorem~\ref{thm:Cauchy}). By~\eqref{eq:injective}, there are an odd number of injective homomorphisms from $(H,\bar{y})$ to $(H'\!,\bar{y}')$, which means that there is at least one such homomorphism. Similarly, taking $(G,\bar{x}) = (H'\!,\bar{y}')$ shows that there is an injective homomorphism from $(H'\!,\bar{y}')$ to $(H,\bar{y})$ and, therefore, the two graphs are isomorphic. \end{proof} For our nonconstructive proof that some gadgets exist, we use the following corollary of the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:Lovasz}, which restricts to a certain class of connected graphs. \begin{corollary}\label{cor:Lovasz} Let $(H, \bar{y})$ and $(H'\!, \bar{y}')$ be connected, involution-free graphs, each with $r$~distinguished vertices, such that $H[\bar{y}]$ and~$H'[\bar{y}']$ are also connected. Then $(H, \bar{y}) \cong (H'\!, \bar{y}')$ if and only if \eqref{eq:Lovasz}~holds for all connected graphs $(G,\bar{x})$ with $r$~distinguished vertices such that $G[\bar{x}]$ is connected. \end{corollary} \begin{proof} For brevity, we refer to $(G,\bar{x})$ as \emph{appropriate} if it is connected, it has $r$~distinguished vertices and $G[\bar{x}]$ is connected. As in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:Lovasz}, the ``only if'' direction is trivial, so we suppose that \eqref{eq:Lovasz} holds for all appropriate $(G,\bar{x})$. Also, $\bar{y}$ and~$\bar{y}'$ must have the same equality type. If they do not, we may assume there are distinct $i$ and~$j$ with $y_i=y_j$ but $y'_i\neq y'_j$, and take $G = H[\bar{y}]$. $(G,\bar{y})$ is appropriate but we have $|\Homs{(G,\bar{y})}{(H,\bar{y})}| = 1 \neq |\Homs{(G,\bar{y})}{(H'\!,\bar{y}')}| = 0$, which contradicts the assumption that \eqref{eq:Lovasz}~holds for all appropriate~$(G,\bar{x})$. The proof that \eqref{eq:Lovasz}~holding for every appropriate~$G$ implies that \eqref{eq:injective}~holds for every appropriate~$G$ proceeds by induction on $|V(G)|$, as in the proof of the lemma. The base cases are unchanged. To see that the inductive step remains valid, let $(G,\bar{x})$ be appropriate and let $\theta$ be any equivalence relation on~$V(G)$. We claim that $(G,\bar{x})/\theta$ is also appropriate. By construction, $(G,\bar{x})/\theta$ has $r$ distinguished vertices. It is connected because it is the result of identifying vertices in a connected graph; $(G/\theta)[\eqclass{x_1}, \dots, \eqclass{x_r}]$ is connected for the same reason. This establishes that \eqref{eq:injective}~holds for all appropriate~$(G,\bar{x})$. Since $(H,\bar{y})$ and $(H'\!,\bar{y}')$ are both appropriate, we can complete the proof in the same way as in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:Lovasz}, substituting each of these graphs in turn for~$(G,\bar{x})$ in~\eqref{eq:injective}. \end{proof} \subsection{Implementing vectors} \label{sec:partlab:impvec} The presentation in this section follows very closely that of Faben and Jerrum~\cite{FJ13}, extended to $r$-tuples of distinguished vertices. \begin{definition} \label{defn:lambdas} Let $H$ be an involution-free graph. We refer to a list $\bar{y}_1, \dots, \bar{y}_\lambda$ of elements of~$V(H)^r$ as an \emph{enumeration of~$V(H)^r$ up to isomorphism} if, for every $\bar{y}\in V(H)^r$, there is exactly one $i\in[\lambda]$ such that $(H,\bar{y})\cong (H,\bar{y}_i)$. \end{definition} Note that the number~$\lambda$ of tuples in the enumeration depends on~$H$. \begin{definition} Let $(G,\bar{x})$~be a graph with $r$~distinguished vertices. We define the vector $\mathbf{v}_H(G, \bar{x})\in\{0,1\}^\lambda$ where, for each $i\in[\lambda]$, the $i$th component of $\mathbf{v}_H(G, \bar{x})$ is given by \begin{equation*} \big(\mathbf{v}_H(G, \bar{x})\big)_i \equiv |\Homs{(G,\bar{x})}{(H,\bar{y}_i)}| \pmod2\,. \end{equation*} We say that $(G,\bar{x})$ \emph{implements} this vector. \end{definition} Define $\oplus$ and~$\otimes$ to be, respectively, component-wise addition and multiplication, modulo~$2$, of vectors in $\{0,1\}^\lambda\!$. \begin{lemma} \label{lem:otimesvec} Let $\bar{x} = x_1 \dots x_r$ and let $(G_1,\bar{x})$ and $(G_2,\bar{x})$ be graphs such that $V(G_1)\cap V(G_2) = \{x_1, \dots, x_r\}$. Then, \begin{equation*} \mathbf{v}_H(G_1\cup G_2, \bar{x}) = \mathbf{v}_H(G_1, \bar{x}) \otimes \mathbf{v}_H(G_2, \bar{x})\,. \end{equation*} \end{lemma} \begin{proof} A function $\sigma\colon V(G_1)\cup V(G_2)\to V(H)$ is a homomorphism from $(G_1\cup G_2, \bar{x})$ to~$(H,\bar{y})$ if and only if, for each $i\in\{1,2\}$, the restriction of~$\sigma$ to $V(G_i)$ is a homomorphism from $(G_i,\bar{x})$ to~$(H,\bar{y})$. \end{proof} In contrast, given $(G_1,\bar{x}_1)$ and $(G_2, \bar{x}_2)$, it is not obvious that there is a graph $(G,\bar{x})$ such that $\mathbf{v}_H(G,\bar{x}) = \mathbf{v}_H(G_1,\bar{x}_1) \oplus \mathbf{v}_H(G_2,\bar{x}_2)$. Following Faben and Jerrum~\cite{FJ13}, we side-step this issue by introducing a formal sum of graphs. Given graphs with distinguished vertices $(G_1, \bar{x}_1), \dots, (G_t, \bar{x}_t)$, we define \begin{equation*} \mathbf{v}_H\big((G_1,\bar{x}_1) + \dots + (G_t,\bar{x}_t)\big) = \mathbf{v}_H(G_1,\bar{x}_1) \oplus \dots \oplus \mathbf{v}_H(G_t,\bar{x}_t) \end{equation*} and we say that a vector $\mathbf{v}\in\{0,1\}^\lambda$ is \emph{$H$-implementable} if it can be expressed as such a sum. We require the following, which is essentially \cite[Lemma~4.16]{FJ13}. \begin{lemma} Let $S\subseteq \{0,1\}^\lambda$ be closed under $\oplus$ and~$\otimes$. If $1^\lambda\in S$ and, for every distinct $i,j\in[\lambda]$, there is a tuple $s=s_1\dots s_\lambda\in S$ with $s_i\neq s_j$, then $S = \{0,1\}^\lambda\!$. \end{lemma} \begin{corollary} \label{cor:implementable} Let $H$~be an involution-free graph. Every $\mathbf{v}\in\{0,1\}^\lambda$ is $H$-implementable. \end{corollary} \begin{proof} Let $S$ be the set of $H$-implementable vectors. $S$~is clearly closed under~$\oplus$, and is closed under~$\otimes$ by Lemma~\ref{lem:otimesvec}. Let $G$~be the graph on vertices $\{x_1, \dots, x_r\}$, with no edges. $1^\lambda$~is implemented by $(G,x_1, \dots, x_r)$, which has exactly one homomorphism to every $(H,\bar{y}_i)$. Finally, for every distinct pair $i,j\in [\lambda]$, $(H,\bar{y}_i)$ and $(H,\bar{y}_j)$ are not isomorphic, by definition of the enumeration of $r$-tuples (up to isomorphism). Therefore, by Lemma~\ref{lem:Lovasz}, there is a graph $(G,\bar{x})$ such that \begin{equation*} |\Homs{(G,\bar{x})}{(H,\bar{y}_i)}| \not\equiv |\Homs{(G,\bar{x})}{(H,\bar{y}_j)}| \pmod 2\,. \end{equation*} $(G,\bar{x})$ implements a vector~$\mathbf{v}$ whose $i$th and $j$th components are different. \end{proof} \subsection{Pinning} \label{sec:partlab:pinning} We now have almost everything we need to prove Theorem~\ref{thm:partlabcol}. Recall the definition of an enumeration $\bar{y}_1, \dots, \bar{y}_\lambda$ of $V(H)^r$ up to isomorphism (Definition~\ref{defn:lambdas}). \begin{lemma} \label{lem:sumvec} Let $H$~be an involution-free graph and let $\bar{y}_1, \dots, \bar{y}_\lambda$ be an enumeration of $V(H)^r$ up to isomorphism. For any graph~$(G, \bar{x})$ with $r$~distinguished vertices, \begin{equation*} |\Homs{G}{H}| \equiv \sum_{i\in[\lambda]} (\mathbf{v}_H(G,\bar{x}))_i \pmod2\,. \end{equation*} \end{lemma} \begin{proof} We have (for details see below), \begin{align*} \sum_{i\in[\lambda]} (\mathbf{v}_H(G,\bar{x}))_i\; &\equiv \sum_{i\in[\lambda]} |\Homs{(G,\bar{x})}{(H,\bar{y}_i)}| \pmod2\\ &\equiv \sum_{i\in[\lambda]} |\mathrm{Orb}_H(\bar{y}_i)|\, |\Homs{(G,\bar{x})}{(H,\bar{y}_i)}| \pmod2 \\ &= \sum_{i\in[\lambda]}\ \sum_{\bar{y}\in\mathrm{Orb}_H(\bar{y}_i)} |\Homs{(G,\bar{x})}{(H,\bar{y})}| \\ &= |\Homs{G}{H}|\,. \end{align*} The second equivalence modulo~$2$ is because all orbits have odd cardinality by Corollary~\ref{cor:odd-orbit} and multiplying the terms of the sum by odd numbers doesn't change the total, modulo~$2$. The first equality is because, for any $\bar{y}\in\mathrm{Orb}_H(\bar{y}_i)$, $|\Homs{(G,\bar{x})}{(H,\bar{y})}| = |\Homs{(G,\bar{x})}{(H,\bar{y}_i)}|$. This is because composing a homomorphism from $(G,\bar{x})$ to~$(H,\bar{y})$ with an isomorphism from $(H,\bar{y})$ to~$(H,\bar{y}_i)$ gives a homomorphism from $(G,\bar{x})$ to~$(H,\bar{y}_i)$. The final equality is because every homomorphism from $G$ to~$H$ must map~$\bar{x}$ to some tuple~$\bar{y}$ and (exactly) all such tuples are included exactly once in the double sum. \end{proof} We can now prove Theorem~\ref{thm:partlabcol}: for any involution-free graph~$H$, \ensuremath{\oplus \prb{PartLabHomsTo}H}{} is polynomial-time Turing-reducible to \parhcol{}. \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:partlabcol}] Let $J=(G,\tau)$ be an instance of \ensuremath{\oplus \prb{PartLabHomsTo}H}{}. Let $\bar{x}=x_1, \dots, x_r$ be an enumeration of $\mathrm{dom}(\tau)$ and let $\bar{y} = y_1, \dots, y_r = \tau(x_i), \dots, \tau(x_r)$. Moving from the world of partially $H$-labelled graphs to the equivalent view of graphs with distinguished vertices, we wish to compute $|\Homs{(G,\bar{x})}{(H,\bar{y})}|$, modulo~$2$. By definition of the enumeration (up to isomorphism) $\bar{y}_1, \dots, \bar{y}_\lambda$, there is some~$p$ such that $(H,\bar{y})\cong (H,\bar{y}_p)$. Let $\mathbf{v}$ be the vector that has a $1$~in position~$p$ and has $0$~in every other position. By Corollary~\ref{cor:implementable}, $\mathbf{v}$~is implemented by some sequence $(\Theta_1, \bar{x}_1), \dots, (\Theta_t, \bar{x}_t)$ of graphs with $r$-tuples of distinguished vertices. For each $i\in[t]$, let $(G_i,\bar{x})$ be the graph that results from taking the union of disjoint copies of $G$ and~$\Theta_i$ and identifying the $j$th element of~$\bar{x}$ with the $j$th element of $\bar{x}_i$ for each $j\in [t]$. We have \begin{align*} \mathbf{v}_H(G, \bar{x})\otimes \mathbf{v} &= \mathbf{v}_H(G,\bar{x})\otimes \mathbf{v}_H\big((\Theta_1,\bar{x}_1) + \dots + (\Theta_t,\bar{x}_t)\big) \\ &= \bigoplus_{i\in[t]} \big( \mathbf{v}_H(G,\bar{x})\otimes \mathbf{v}_H(\Theta_i, \bar{x}_i) \big)\, \\ &= \bigoplus_{i\in[t]} \mathbf{v}_H(G_i,\bar{x})\,. \end{align*} Now, sum the components of the vectors on the two sides of the equation. On the right, by Lemma~\ref{lem:sumvec}, we have a value congruent modulo~$2$ to $\sum_{i\in[t]} |\Homs{G_i}{H}|$. This can be computed by making $t$~calls to an oracle for \parhcol{}, and $t$~is bounded above by a constant, since $H$~is fixed. On the left, we have, $|\Homs{(G,\bar{x})}{(H,\bar{y})}|$, modulo~$2$, which is what we wish to compute. \end{proof} \begin{figure} \begin{center} \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.25] \tikzstyle{vertex}=[fill=black, draw=black, circle, inner sep=2pt] \node[vertex] (a1) at (0,0) [label=210:$a_1$] {}; \node[vertex] (a2) at (60:2) [label= 90:$a_2$] {}; \node[vertex] (a3) at (2,0) [label=330:$a_3$] {}; \node[vertex] (b1) at ($(a1) + (150:1)$) [label=150:$b_1$] {}; \node[vertex] (b2) at ($(a2) + ( 30:1)$) [label= 30:$b_2$] {}; \node[vertex] (b3) at ($(a3) + (270:1)$) [label=270:$b_3$] {}; \node[vertex] (c1) at ($(a2) + (150:1)$) [label=150:$c_1$] {}; \node[vertex] (c2) at ($(a3) + ( 30:1)$) [label= 30:$c_2$] {}; \node[vertex] (c3) at ($(a1) + (270:1)$) [label=270:$c_3$] {}; \node[vertex] (d1) at ($(a1) + ( 60:1)$) [label={[label distance=-4]-30:$d_1$}] {}; \node[vertex] (d2) at ($(a2) + (300:1)$) [label={[label distance=-4]210:$d_2$}] {}; \node[vertex] (d3) at ($(a3) + (180:1)$) [label={[label distance=-1] 90:$d_3$}] {}; \draw (a1) -- (b1) -- (c1) -- (a1) -- (a2) -- (c1); \draw (a2) -- (b2) -- (c2) -- (a2) -- (a3) -- (c2); \draw (a3) -- (b3) -- (c3) -- (a3) -- (a1) -- (c3); \end{tikzpicture} \end{center} \caption{An involution-free graph~$H$ illustrating the difference between pinning vertices to orbits of vertices and pinning a tuple of vertices to an orbit of a tuple.} \label{fig:difference} \end{figure} The result we have proved appears similar to \cite[Theorem~3.2]{GGR14:Cactus} but there is an important difference. In~\cite{GGR14:Cactus}, we wished to pin $r$~vertices of~$G$, each to the orbit of a vertex of~$H$. In this paper, we focus on the problem \ensuremath{\oplus \prb{PartLabHomsTo}H}, where we pin vertices of~$G$ to individual vertices of~$H$. In order to achieve this, we essentially pin an $r$-tuple of vertices of~$G$ to the orbit of an $r$-tuple of vertices in~$H$. To see the difference, consider the graph~$H$ in Figure~\ref{fig:difference}. The orbits of single vertices are $\{a_1, a_2, a_3\}, \dots, \{d_1,d_2,d_3\}$. There are six homomorphisms from the single edge~$(x,y)$ to~$H$ that map~$x$ to the orbit of~$a_1$ and $y$~to the orbit of~$d_1$ but only three that map the pair $(x,y)$ to the orbit of the pair $(a_1,d_1)$, which is $\{(a_1,d_1), (a_2,d_2), (a_3,d_3)\}$. \section{Hardness gadgets} \label{sec:gadgets} In this section, we define gadgets that we will use to prove \ensuremath{\oplus\mathrm{P}}{}-completeness of \parhcol{} problems, by reduction from the parity independent set problem $\ensuremath{\oplus\prb{IS}}$, i.e., the problem of computing the number of independent sets in an input graph, modulo~$2$. $\ensuremath{\oplus\prb{IS}}$~was shown to be \ensuremath{\oplus\mathrm{P}}{}-complete by Valiant~\cite{Val06:Accidental}. The gadgets we use are considerably more general than the ones we defined for cactus graphs in~\cite{GGR14:Cactus}. This allows us to quickly prove hardness for large classes of square-free graphs and even to find gadgets non-constructively. In fact, our definition of hardness gadgets and the proof that \parhcol{} is \ensuremath{\oplus\mathrm{P}}{}-complete if $H$~is involution-free and has a hardness gadget (Section~\ref{sec:gadgets:parp-complete}) does not require the graphs to be square-free. However, whenever we find a gadget for a particular graph, it involves the ``caterpillar gadgets'' we introduce in Section~\ref{sec:gadgets:caterpillar}. These gadgets do depend on $H$~being square-free, as we show in Section~\ref{sec:gadgets:squares}. \subsection{$\ensuremath{\oplus\mathrm{P}}$-completeness} \label{sec:gadgets:parp-complete} We now define the gadgets we use to prove hardness and show that they serve this purpose. Recall that a partially $H$-labelled graph $J$ consists of an underlying graph $G(J)$ and a pinning function $\tau(J)$. In the discussion that follows, we will choose a set $\ensuremath{\Omega_y}\subseteq V(H)$ and a vertex $i\in\ensuremath{\Omega_y}$. Given a graph~$G$ whose independent sets we wish to count modulo~$2$, we will construct a partially $H$-labelled graph~$J$ and consider homomorphisms from $J$ to~$H$. $G(J)$~will contain a copy of $V(G)$ and we will be interested in homomorphisms that map every vertex in this copy to~$\ensuremath{\Omega_y}$. Vertices mapped to~$i$ will be in the independent set under consideration; vertices mapped to $\ensuremath{\Omega_y}-i$ will not be in the independent set. \begin{definition} \label{defn:hardness-gadget} A \emph{hardness gadget} $(i,s,(J_1,y),(J_2,z),(J_3,y,z))$ for a graph~$H$ consists of vertices $i$ and~$s$ of~$H$ together with three connected, partially $H$-labelled graphs with distinguished vertices $(J_1,y)$, $(J_2,z)$ and $(J_3,y,z)$ that satisfy certain properties as explained below. Let \begin{align*} \ensuremath{\Omega_y} &= \{ a \in V(H) \mid |\Homs{(J_1, y)}{(H,a)}|\text{ is odd}\},\\ \ensuremath{\Omega_z} &= \{ b \in V(H) \mid |\Homs{(J_2, z)}{(H,b)}|\text{ is odd}\}, \mbox{ and}\\ \Sigma_{a,b} &=\Homs{(J_3,y,z)}{(H,a,b)}\,. \end{align*} The properties that we require are the following. \begin{enumerate} \item $|\ensuremath{\Omega_y}|$ is even and $i\in \ensuremath{\Omega_y}$. \item $|\ensuremath{\Omega_z}|$ is even and $s \in \ensuremath{\Omega_z}$. \item For each $o\in \ensuremath{\Omega_y}-i$ and each $x\in \ensuremath{\Omega_z}-s$, $|\ensuremath{\Sigma_{o,x}}|$ is even. \item $|\ensuremath{\Sigma_{i,s}}|$ is odd and, for each $o\in \ensuremath{\Omega_y}-i$ and each $x\in \ensuremath{\Omega_z}-s$, $|\ensuremath{\Sigma_{o,s}}|$ and $|\ensuremath{\Sigma_{i,x}}|$ are odd. \end{enumerate} \end{definition} Before proving that hardness gadgets give \ensuremath{\oplus\mathrm{P}}{}-completeness, we introduce some notation. Given partially $H$-labelled graphs $J_1=(G_1,\tau_1)$ and~$J_2=(G_2,\tau_2)$, with $\mathrm{dom}(\tau_1)\cap \mathrm{dom}(\tau_2) = \emptyset$, we write $J_1\cup J_2$ for the partially labelled graph~$J'=(G'\!,\tau')$, where $G' = G_1\cup G_2$ and $\tau' = \tau_1\cup \tau_2$. That is, $\mathrm{dom}(\tau') = \mathrm{dom}(\tau_1) \cup \mathrm{dom}(\tau_2)$ and \begin{equation*} \tau'(v) = \begin{cases} \ \tau_1(v) &\text{ if } v\in\mathrm{dom}(\tau_1) \\ \ \tau_2(v) &\text{ if } v\in\mathrm{dom}(\tau_2). \end{cases} \end{equation*} We will use the following notation to build partially labelled graphs containing many copies of some subgraph. For any ``tag''~$T$ (which we will treat just as an arbitrary string) and any partially labelled graph~$J$, denote by $J^T$ a copy of~$J$ with every vertex $v\in V(G(J))$ renamed~$v^T\!$. \begin{figure} \begin{center} \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.4,node distance = 1.5cm] \tikzstyle{vertex}=[fill=black, draw=black, circle, inner sep=1.5pt] \tikzstyle{blob1}=[cloud, cloud puffs=21, draw, minimum width=.1cm, minimum height=.1cm, aspect=2.1] \tikzstyle{blob2}=[cloud, cloud puffs=9, draw, minimum width=1cm, minimum height=.5cm, aspect=2.7] \begin{scope}[shift={(-25,0)}] \node[vertex] (u) at (0, 1.4) [label=180:{$u$}] {}; \node at (0.6,-1.6) {$e$}; \node[vertex] (v) at (0, -4.8) [label=180:{$v$}] {}; \node at (0.6,-8 ) {$f$}; \node[vertex] (w) at (0, -11 ) [label=180:{$w$}] {}; \draw (u)--(v)--(w); \node at (0,-14) {$G$}; \end{scope} \begin{scope}[shift={(-16.5,0)}] \draw (0, 0 ) circle [x radius=5cm, y radius=1.2cm, rotate=-20]; \draw (0,-3.2) circle [x radius=5cm, y radius=1.2cm, rotate=20]; \draw (0,-6.4) circle [x radius=5cm, y radius=1.2cm, rotate=-20]; \draw (0,-9.6) circle [x radius=5cm, y radius=1.2cm, rotate=20]; \node at (0, 0 ) {$J_3^{e,u}$}; \node at (0,-3.2) {$J_3^{e,v}$}; \node at (0,-6.4) {$J_3^{f,v}$}; \node at (0,-9.6) {$J_3^{f,w}$}; \node[vertex] at (-4 , 1.4) {}; \node at (-3.8, 2.9) {$y^u$}; \node[vertex] at (-4 ,-4.8) {}; \node at (-3.8,-3.2) {$y^v$}; \node[vertex] at (-4 ,-11 ) {}; \node at (-3.8,-9.4) {$y^w$}; \node[vertex] at (4,-1.6) {}; \node at (4, 0.1) {$z^e$}; \node[vertex] at (4,-8 ) {}; \node at (4,-6.2) {$z^f$}; \node at (0,-14 ) {$K$}; \end{scope} \draw (0, 0 ) circle [x radius=5cm, y radius=1.2cm, rotate=-20]; \draw (0,-3.2) circle [x radius=5cm, y radius=1.2cm, rotate=20]; \draw (0,-6.4) circle [x radius=5cm, y radius=1.2cm, rotate=-20]; \draw (0,-9.6) circle [x radius=5cm, y radius=1.2cm, rotate=20]; \node at (0, 0 ) {$J_3^{e,u}$}; \node at (0,-3.2) {$J_3^{e,v}$}; \node at (0,-6.4) {$J_3^{f,v}$}; \node at (0,-9.6) {$J_3^{f,w}$}; \node[vertex] at (-4 , 1.4) {}; \node at (-3.8, 2.9) {$y^u$}; \node[vertex] at (-4 ,-4.8) {}; \node at (-3.8,-3.2) {$y^v$}; \node[vertex] at (-4 ,-11 ) {}; \node at (-3.8,-9.4) {$y^w$}; \node[blob1] at (-6, 1.4) {$\quad\quad\quad$}; \node at (-6, 1.4) {$J_1^u$}; \node[blob1] at (-6,-4.8) {$\quad\quad\quad$}; \node at (-6,-4.8) {$J_1^v$}; \node[blob1] at (-6,-11 ) {$\quad\quad\quad$}; \node at (-6,-11 ) {$J_1^w$}; \node[vertex] at (4,-1.6) {}; \node at (4, 0.1) {$z^e$}; \node[vertex] at (4,-8 ) {}; \node at (4,-6.2) {$z^f$}; \node[blob2] at (6.5,-1.6) {$\quad\quad\quad\quad$}; \node at (6.5,-1.6) {$J_2^e$}; \node[blob2] at (6.5,-8 ) {$\quad\quad\quad\quad$}; \node at (6.5,-8 ) {$J_2^f$}; \node at (0,-14) {$J$}; \end{tikzpicture} \end{center} \caption{The construction of the partially labelled graphs $K$ and~$J$ from an example graph~$G$, as in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:hardness-gadget}.} \label{fig:hardness-gadget} \end{figure} \begin{theorem} \label{thm:hardness-gadget} If an involution-free graph $H$ has a hardness gadget then \parhcol{} is $\ensuremath{\oplus\mathrm{P}}$-complete. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} Let $(i,s,(J_1,y),(J_2,z),(J_3,y,z))$ be the hardness gadget for~$H$ and recall the sets $\ensuremath{\Omega_y}$ and $\ensuremath{\Omega_z}$ from Definition~\ref{defn:hardness-gadget}. We show how to reduce $\ensuremath{\oplus\prb{IS}}$ to \ensuremath{\oplus \prb{PartLabHomsTo}H}{}; the result then follows from Theorem~\ref{thm:partlabcol} and \ensuremath{\oplus\mathrm{P}}{}-completeness of $\ensuremath{\oplus\prb{IS}}$~\cite{Val06:Accidental}. Given an input graph~$G$ to $\ensuremath{\oplus\prb{IS}}$, we construct an appropriate partially $H$-labelled graph~$J$ and show that $|\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}(G)| \equiv |\Homs{J}{H}| \bmod2$, where $\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}(G)$ is the set of independent sets in~$G$. We construct~$J$ in two stages (see Figure~\ref{fig:hardness-gadget}). Take the union of disjoint copies~$J_3^{e,v}$ of~$J_3$ for every edge $e\in G$ and each endpoint~$v$ of~$e$. For each edge $e=(u,v)\in G$, identify the vertices $z^{e,u}$ and~$z^{e,v}$ and call this~$z^e$. For each vertex $v\in G$, identify all the vertices~$y^{e,v}$ such that $e$~has $v$~as an endpoint, and call this~$y^v$. Call the resulting graph~$K$. To make~$J$, take~$K$ and add a disjoint copy~$J_1^v$ of~$J_1$ for every vertex $v\in G$ and a disjoint copy~$J_2^e$ of~$J_2$ for every edge $e\in G$. For each vertex $v\in G$, identify the vertex $y^v$ in~$K$ with the vertex $y^v$ in $J_1^v$. For each edge $e=(u,v)$ in~$G$, identify the vertex $z^e$ in~$K$ with the vertex $z^e$ in $J_2^e$. We now proceed to show that $|\Homs{J}{H}|\equiv |\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}(G)| \bmod2$. For a homomorphism $\sigma\in\Homs{K}{H}$, let $\eqclass{\sigma}$ be the set of extensions of $\sigma$ to homomorphisms from $J$ to~$H$, i.e., \begin{equation*} \eqclass{\sigma} = \{\sigma'\in\Homs{J}{H}\mid \sigma(v) = \sigma'(v) \text{ for all } v\in V(G(K))\}\,. \end{equation*} Every homomorphism from $J$ to~$H$ is the extension of a unique homomorphism from $K$ to~$H$, so we have \begin{equation} \label{eq:sum-eq-classes} |\Homs{J}{H}| \ \ \ = \!\!\!\!\!\! \sum_{\sigma\in\Homs{K}{H}} \!\!\!\!\!\! |\eqclass{\sigma}|\,. \end{equation} From the structure of~$J$, we have \begin{equation*} |\eqclass{\sigma}| = \left(\prod_{v\in V(G)} \big|\Homs{(J_1,y)}{(H,\sigma(y^v)}\big|\right) \left(\prod_{e\in E(G)} \big|\Homs{(J_2,z)}{(H,\sigma(z^e)}\big|\right)\,. \end{equation*} By Definition~\ref{defn:hardness-gadget}, $|\Homs{(J_1,y)}{(H,a)}|$ is odd if and only if $a\in\ensuremath{\Omega_y}$ and $|\Homs{(J_2,z)}{(H,b)}|$ is odd if and only if $b\in\ensuremath{\Omega_z}$. Therefore, $|\eqclass{\sigma}|$~is odd if and only if $\sigma$~maps every vertex~$y^v$ into~$\ensuremath{\Omega_y}$ and every $z^e$ into~$\ensuremath{\Omega_z}$: call such a homomorphism ``legitimate'' (with respect to $J_1$ and~$J_2$). We can rewrite~\eqref{eq:sum-eq-classes} as \begin{equation} \label{eq:legitimate} |\Homs{J}{H}| \equiv |\{\sigma\in\Homs{K}{H}\mid \sigma\text{ is legitimate}\} \pmod2\,, \end{equation} and, from this point, we restrict our attention to legitimate homomorphisms. Given a legitimate homomorphism $\sigma\in\Homs{K}{H}$, let $\sigma|_Y$~be the restriction of~$\sigma$ to the domain $\{y^v\mid v\in V(G)\}$. Write $\sigma \sim_Y \sigma'$ if $\sigma|_Y = \sigma'|_Y$ and write $\eqclass{\sigma}_Y$ for the $\sim_Y$-equivalence class of~$\sigma$. The classes~$\eqclass{\sigma}_Y$ partition the legitimate homomorphisms from $K$ to~$H$. We have \begin{equation*} \big|\eqclass{\sigma}_Y\big| \ = \!\!\!\!\!\!\prod_{(u,v)\in E(G)}\!\!\!\!\!\! n(\sigma(u), \sigma(v))\,, \end{equation*} where \begin{equation*} n(a,a') = \sum_{b\in \ensuremath{\Omega_z}} \big|\Homs{(J_3,y,z)}{(H,a,b)}\big|\, \big|\Homs{(J_3,y,z)}{(H,a'\!,b)}\big|\,. \end{equation*} By Definition~\ref{defn:hardness-gadget}, $|\ensuremath{\Omega_z}|$~is even, so the sum defining $n(a,a')$ has an even number of terms. $|\Homs{(J_3,y,z)}{(H,a,b)}|= |\Sigma_{a,b}|$ is even if $a\in\ensuremath{\Omega_y}-i$ and $b\in\ensuremath{\Omega_z}-s$ and odd, otherwise. If $a=a'=i$, every term is odd and $n(a,a')$ is even; otherwise, exactly one term ($b=s$) is odd, so $n(a,a')$ is odd. Therefore, $|\eqclass{\sigma}_Y|$ is odd if and only if $\sigma$~does not map a pair of adjacent vertices to~$i$: that is, if the set $I(\sigma) = \{v\in V(G) \mid \sigma(y^v) = i\}$ is an independent set in~$G$. Choose representatives $\sigma_1, \dots, \sigma_k$, one from each $\sim_Y$-equivalence class. We have \begin{align*} |\Homs{J}{H}| &\equiv |\{\sigma\in\Homs{K}{H}\mid \sigma \text{ is legitimate}\}|\pmod2 \\ &= \ \sum_{j=1}^k \big|\eqclass{\sigma_j}_Y\big|\\ &\rule[-1.5ex]{0pt}{4ex} \equiv \ \big|\{j\in[k] \mid I(\sigma_j)\text{ is independent}\}\big| \pmod2 \\ &= \!\!\sum_{X\in \ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}(G)}\!\!\! \big|\{\sigma_j\mid j\in[k] \text{ and } I(\sigma_j)=X\}\big| \\ &\equiv \ |\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}(G)| \pmod2\,, \end{align*} where the final equivalence is because the number of $\sigma_j$ such that $I(\sigma)=X$ is exactly $|\ensuremath{\Omega_y}-i|^{|V(G)\setminus X|}$, which is odd because $|\ensuremath{\Omega_y}|$~is even. \end{proof} \subsection{Caterpillar gadgets} \label{sec:gadgets:caterpillar} All our hardness gadgets use the following ``caterpillar gadgets'' as~$J_3$. We will also use two further kinds of gadget, ``neighbourhood gadgets'' and ``$\ell$-cycle gadgets'', but we defer their definitions to the sections where they are used. As we will see in the following section, caterpillar gadgets rely on $H$~being square-free. \begin{definition} \label{defn:caterpillar} (See Figure~\ref{fig:caterpillar}). For a path $P=v_0\dots v_k$ in~$H$ of length at least~$1$, define the \emph{caterpillar gadget} $J_P=(G,\tau)$ as follows. $V(G)=\{u_1, \dots, u_{k-1}, w_1,\dots, w_{k-1},y,z\}$ and $G$~is the path $yu_1\dots u_{k-1}z$ together with edges $(u_j,w_j)$ for $1\leq j\leq k-1$. $\tau=\{w_1\mapsto v_1, \dots, w_{k-1}\mapsto v_{k-1}\}$. \end{definition} \begin{figure} \begin{center} \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.5,node distance = 1.5cm] \tikzstyle{dot} =[fill=black, draw=black, circle, inner sep=0.15mm] \tikzstyle{vertex}=[fill=black, draw=black, circle, inner sep=2pt] \tikzstyle{dist} =[fill=white, draw=black, circle, inner sep=2pt] \tikzstyle{pinned}=[draw=black, minimum size=11mm, circle] \node[dist] (y) at (0 ,1) [label=90:$y$] {}; \node[vertex] (u1) at (1 ,1) [label=90:$u_1$] {}; \node[vertex] (u2) at (2 ,1) [label=90:$u_2$] {}; \node[vertex] (u3) at (3.5,1) [label=90:$u_{k-2}$] {}; \node[vertex] (u4) at (4.5,1) [label=90:$u_{k-1}$] {}; \node[dist] (z) at (5.5,1) [label=90:$z$] {}; \node[pinned] (w1) at (1 ,0) [label=-90:$w_1$] {$v_1$}; \node[pinned] (w2) at (2 ,0) [label=-90:$w_2$] {$v_2$}; \node[pinned] (w3) at (3.5,0) [label=-90:$w_{k-2}$] {$v_{k-2}$}; \node[pinned] (w4) at (4.5,0) [label=-90:$w_{k-1}$] {$v_{k-1}$}; \draw (y) -- (u2); \draw (z) -- (u3); \foreach \x in {1,2,3,4} \draw (u\x) -- (w\x); \node[dot] (b) at ($(u2)!0.5!(u3)$) {}; \node[dot] (a) at ($(b)!1mm!(u2)$) {}; \node[dot] (c) at ($(b)!1mm!(u3)$) {}; \draw (u2) -- ($(u2)!0.75!(a)$); \draw (u3) -- ($(u3)!0.75!(c)$); \end{tikzpicture} \end{center} \caption{The caterpillar gadget corresponding to a path $v_0\dots v_k$. The vertices $w_1, \dots, w_{k-1}$ in the gadget are pinned to vertices $v_1, \dots, v_{k-1}$ in~$H$, respectively.} \label{fig:caterpillar} \end{figure} Note that, if $P$ is a single edge, $G(J_P)$~is also the single edge $(y,z)$ and $\tau(J_P) = \emptyset$. In the following, we will repeatedly make use of the following fact about square-free graphs: if two distinct vertices have a common neighbour, they must have a unique common neighbour, since a pair of vertices with two common neighbours would form a $4$-cycle. \begin{lemma} \label{lem:Jcat-tech} Let $H$ be a square-free graph, let $k>0$ and let $P=v_0\dots v_k$ be a path in $H$. \begin{enumerate} \item For any $a\in\Gamma_H(v_0)-v_1$ and $\sigma \in \Homs{(J_P,y)}{(H,a)}$, $\sigma(u_j) = v_{j-1}$ for all $j\in[k-1]$. \item For any $b\in\Gamma_H(v_k)-v_{k-1}$ and $\sigma \in \Homs{(J_P,z)}{(H,b)}$, $\sigma(u_j) = v_{j+1}$ for all $j\in[k-1]$. \end{enumerate} \end{lemma} \begin{proof} The result is trivial for $k=1$ so we assume $k>1$. We prove the first part, by induction on~$j$. The second part follows by symmetry (call the vertices on the path $v_k\dots v_0$ instead of $v_0\dots v_k$). First, take $j=1$. From the structure of~$J_P$, $\sigma(u_1)$ must be a neighbour of $\sigma(y)=a$ and of~$v_1$, which are distinct vertices. $v_0$~is a common neighbour of $a$ and~$v_1$, so it must be their unique common neighbour, so $\sigma(u_1) = v_0$. Now, suppose that $\sigma(u_{j-1}) = v_{j-2}$. As in the base case, $\sigma(u_j)$ must be some neighbour of $v_{j-2}$ and~$v_j$, which are distinct. $v_{j-1}$~is such a vertex, so it is the unique such vertex. \end{proof} \begin{lemma}\label{lem:J3-caterpillar} Let $H$ be a square-free graph. Let $k>0$ and let $P=v_0\dots v_k$ be a path in~$H$ with $\deg_H(v_j)$ odd for all $j\in\{1, \dots, k-1\}$. Let $\ensuremath{\Omega_y}\subseteq\Gamma_H(v_0)$ and $\ensuremath{\Omega_z}\subseteq\Gamma_H(v_k)$, with $i=v_1\in \ensuremath{\Omega_y}$ and $s=v_{k-1}\in \ensuremath{\Omega_z}$. For each $o\in\ensuremath{\Omega_y}-i$ and each $x\in\ensuremath{\Omega_z}-s$: \begin{enumerate} \item $|\Homs{(J_P,y,z)}{(H,o,x)}| = 0$,\label{cond:ox-cat} \item $|\Homs{(J_P,y,z)}{(H,o,s)}| = 1$,\label{cond:os-cat} \item $|\Homs{(J_P,y,z)}{(H,i,x)}| = 1$ and\label{cond:ix-cat} \item $|\Homs{(J_P,y,z)}{(H,i,s)}|$ is odd.\label{cond:is-cat} \end{enumerate} \end{lemma} \begin{proof} If $k=1$, $i=v_1$, $s=v_0$, $G(J_P)$ is the single edge $(y,z)$ and $\tau(J_P)=\emptyset$. For any $o\in \ensuremath{\Omega_y}-i$ and $x\in\ensuremath{\Omega_y}-s$, we have $(o,s), (i,s), (i,x)\in E(H)$ so $(o,x)\notin E(H)$ because $H$~is square-free. Parts 1--4 are immediate. For the remainder of the proof, we may assume that $k\geq 2$. Note that when $k=2$, $i=s=v_1$ and this is the unique common neighbour of $v_0$ and~$v_2$ in~$H$. For part~1, suppose, towards a contradiction, that $\sigma \in \Homs{(J_P,y,z)}{(H,o,x)}$. In particular, $\sigma \in \Homs{(J_P,y)}{(H,o)}$ so, by Lemma~\ref{lem:Jcat-tech}(1), $\sigma(u_1)=v_0$. We also have $\sigma \in \Homs{(J_P,z)}{(H,x)}$ so, by Lemma~\ref{lem:Jcat-tech}(2), $\sigma(u_1)=v_2$. But $P$~is a simple path so $v_0\neq v_2$. For part~2, let $\sigma\in \Homs{(J_P,y,z)}{(H,o,s)}$. Since $\sigma\in \Homs{(J_P,y)}{(H,o)}$, $\sigma(u_j) = v_{j-1}$ for all $i\in[k-1]$ by Lemma~\ref{lem:Jcat-tech}(1). But now, $\sigma$ is completely determined, so it is the unique element of $\Homs{(J_P,y,z)}{(H,o,s)}$. Part~3 follows similarly from Lemma~\ref{lem:Jcat-tech}(2). For part~4, first note that there is a homomorphism $\sigma^+\in \Homs{(J_P,y,z)}{(H,i,s)}$ with $\sigma^+(u_j) = v_{j+1}$ for all $j\in[k-1]$. Now, for $m\in [k-1]$, let \begin{equation*} S_m = \{\sigma \in \Homs{(J_P,y,z)}{(H,i,s)} \mid m \text{ is minimal such that }\sigma(u_m)\neq v_{m+1}\}\,. \end{equation*} The sets $\{\sigma^+\}$ and $S_1, \dots, S_{k-1}$ partition $\Homs{(J_P,y,z)}{(H,i,s)}$. We claim that, for any $\sigma\in S_m$, $\sigma(u_j) = v_{j-1}$ for all $j>m$. This is trivial for~$S_{k-1}$ so let $\sigma\in S_m$ with $m<k-1$. $\sigma(u_{m+1})$ must be a neighbour of both $\sigma(w_{m+1})=v_{m+1}$ and $\sigma(u_m)\in\Gamma_H(v_m)$. By definition of~$S_m$, these are distinct vertices so $v_m$~is their unique common neighbour and so $\sigma(u_{m+1}) = v_m$. Now, if $\sigma(u_j)=v_{j-1}$ for some $j\in \{m+1, \dots, k-2\}$, then $\sigma(u_{j+1})$ must be a neighbour of both $\sigma(w_{j+1}) = v_{j+1}$ and $v_{j-1}$: $v_j$~is the unique such vertex, so $\sigma(u_{j+1})=v_j$. This establishes the claim. But, now, for any $\sigma\in S_m$, we have $\sigma(u_j) = v_{j+1}$ for $j<m$ and $\sigma(u_j) = v_{j-1}$ for $j>m$. $\sigma(y)=i$, $\sigma(z)=s$ and $\sigma(w_j)=v_j$ for each $j\in[k-1]$. Finally, $\sigma(u_m)$ may take any value in $\Gamma_H(v_m)-v_{m+1}$. It follows that, for all~$m$, $|S_m| = \deg_H(v_m)-1$, which is even. $|\Homs{(J_P,y,z)}{(H,i,s)}| = 1 + \sum_m|S_m|$, which is odd, as required. \end{proof} \subsection{Caterpillar gadgets and 4-cycles} \label{sec:gadgets:squares} Before proceeding to find hardness gadgets for square-free graphs in the next section, we pause to show why $4$-cycles cause problems for caterpillar gadgets and, in particular, why Lemma~\ref{lem:J3-caterpillar} does not apply to graphs containing $4$-cycles. Consider first the one-edge caterpillar gadget~$J_1$ associated with the path~$v_0v_1$ in the graph~$H_1$ in Figure~\ref{fig:caterpillar-squares}. This corresponds to $k=1$ in Lemma~\ref{lem:J3-caterpillar} and we have $i=v_1$ and $s=v_0$. Taking $\ensuremath{\Omega_y} = \Gamma_{\!H_1}(v_0) = \{v'_0,v_1\}$ and $\ensuremath{\Omega_z} = \Gamma_{\!H_1}(v_1) = \{v_0,v'_1\}$ satisfies the conditions of the lemma. However, taking $o = v'_0 \in \ensuremath{\Omega_y}-i$ and $x = v'_1 \in \ensuremath{\Omega_z} - s$, we have $|\Homs{(J_1,y,z)}{(H,o,x)}| = 1$ so part~\ref{cond:ox-cat} of the lemma does not hold. However, the other three parts hold, as \begin{align*} |\Homs{(J_1,y,z)}{(H,o,s)}| &= |\Homs{(J_1,y,z)}{(H,i,x)}| \\ &= |\Homs{(J_1,y,z)}{(H,i,s)}| = 1\,. \end{align*} \begin{figure}[t] \begin{center} \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.2,node distance = 1.5cm] \tikzstyle{dot} =[fill=black, draw=black, circle, inner sep=0.15mm] \tikzstyle{vertex}=[fill=black, draw=black, circle, inner sep=2pt] \tikzstyle{dist} =[fill=white, draw=black, circle, inner sep=2pt] \tikzstyle{pinned}=[fill=white, draw=black, minimum size=9mm, circle,inner sep=0pt] \begin{scope}[shift={(-3,0)}] \node at (0,0.5) {$H_1$:}; \node[vertex] (o) at (2,1) [label=315:$o$] {}; \node[vertex] (s) at (2,0) [label= 45:$s$] [label=-90:$v_0$] {}; \node[vertex] (i) at (3,0) [label=135:$i$] [label=-90:$v_1$] {}; \node[vertex] (x) at (3,1) [label=225:$x$] {}; \node at ($(o) + (210:0.4)$) {$v'_0$}; \node at ($(x) + (330:0.4)$) {$v'_1$}; \node[vertex] (a) at ($(x) + (45:1)$) {}; \node[vertex] (b) at ($(o) + (150:1)$) {}; \node[vertex] (c) at ($(b) + (-1,0)$) {}; \draw (o) -- (s) -- (i) -- (x) -- (a); \draw (x) -- (o) -- (b) -- (c); \end{scope} \begin{scope}[shift={(-3,-2.5)}] \node at (0,1) {$J_1$:}; \node[dist] (yy) at (2,1) [label=90:$y$] {}; \node[dist] (zz) at (3,1) [label=90:$z$] {}; \draw (yy) -- (zz); \end{scope} \begin{scope}[shift={(3,0)}] \node at (-0.75,0.5) {$H_k$:}; \node[vertex] (v0) at (0.0,0) [label=-90:$v_0$] {}; \node[vertex] (v1) at (1.0,0) [label=-90:$v_1$] [label= 45:$i$] {}; \node[vertex] (vk1) at (2.5,0) [label=-90:$v_{k-1}$] [label=135:$s$] {}; \node[vertex] (vk) at (3.5,0) [label=-90:$v_k$] {}; \node[vertex] (vd0) at (0.0,1) [label=90:$v'_0$] [label=315:$o$] {}; \node[vertex] (vd1) at (1.0,1) [label=90:$v'_1$] {}; \node[vertex] (vdk1) at (2.5,1) [label=90:$v'_{k-1}$] {}; \node[vertex] (vdk) at (3.5,1) [label=225:$x$] {}; \node at ($(vdk) + (330:0.4)$) {$v'_k$}; \node[vertex] (d) at ($(vdk) + (45:1)$) {}; \draw (v0) -- (vd0); \draw (v1) -- (vd1); \draw (vk1) -- (vdk1); \draw (vk) -- (vdk); \draw (v0) -- (v1); \draw (vd0) -- (vd1); \draw (vk1) -- (vk); \draw (vdk1) -- (vdk) -- (d); \node[dot] (dot2) at ($(v1)!0.5!(vk1)$) {}; \node[dot] (dot1) at ($(dot2)!1mm!(v1)$) {}; \node[dot] (dot3) at ($(dot2)!1mm!(vk1)$) {}; \draw (v1) -- ($(v1)!0.75!(dot1)$); \draw (vk1) -- ($(vk1)!0.75!(dot3)$); \node[dot] (dot5) at ($(vd1)!0.5!(vdk1)$) {}; \node[dot] (dot4) at ($(dot5)!1mm!(vd1)$) {}; \node[dot] (dot6) at ($(dot5)!1mm!(vdk1)$) {}; \draw (vd1) -- ($(vd1)!0.75!(dot4)$); \draw (vdk1) -- ($(vdk1)!0.75!(dot6)$); \end{scope} \begin{scope}[shift={(3,-2.5)}] \node at (-0.75,1) {$J_P$:}; \node[dist] (y) at (0.0,1) [label=90:$y$] {}; \node[vertex] (u1) at (1.0,1) [label=90:$u_1$] {}; \node[vertex] (uk1) at (2.5,1) [label=90:$u_{k-1}$] {}; \node[dist] (z) at (3.5,1) [label=90:$z$] {}; \node[pinned] (w1) at (1.0,0) {$v_1$}; \node[pinned] (wk1) at (2.5,0) {$v_{k-1}$}; \draw (y) -- (u1) -- (w1); \draw (z) -- (uk1) -- (wk1); \node[dot] (dot8) at ($(u1)!0.5!(uk1)$) {}; \node[dot] (dot7) at ($(dot8)!1mm!(u1)$) {}; \node[dot] (dot9) at ($(dot8)!1mm!(uk1)$) {}; \draw (u1) -- ($(u1)!0.75!(dot7)$); \draw (uk1) -- ($(uk1)!0.75!(dot9)$); \end{scope} \end{tikzpicture} \end{center} \caption{Examples of graphs containing $4$-cycles for which caterpillar gadgets (Definition~\ref{defn:caterpillar} and Lemma~\ref{lem:J3-caterpillar}) fail. The graphs $H_1$ and~$H_k$ ($k\geq2$) are shown, along with the caterpillar gadgets $J_1$ and~$J_P$, corresponding to the paths $v_0v_1$ and $v_0\dots v_k$, respectively. The labels $o$, $s$, $i$ and~$x$ are referenced in the text.} \label{fig:caterpillar-squares} \end{figure} Now, consider longer paths such as the path $P=v_0\dots v_k$ in~$H_k$ in Figure~\ref{fig:caterpillar-squares}, for some $k\geq 2$. The associated caterpillar gadget~$J_P$ is also shown in the figure. For each $j\in \{1, \dots, k-1\}$, $\deg_{H_k}(v_i)$ is odd. We have $i = v_1$ and $s = v_{k-1}$ (with $i=s$ in the case $k=2$). Again, take $\ensuremath{\Omega_y} = \Gamma_{\!H_k}(v_0) = \{v'_0,v_1\}$, take $\ensuremath{\Omega_z} = \Gamma_{\!H_k}(v_k) = \{v_{k-1},v'_k\}$ and take $o = v'_0 \in \ensuremath{\Omega_y}-i$ and $x = v'_k \in \ensuremath{\Omega_z} - s$. Once again part~\ref{cond:ox-cat} of the lemma fails. We have $|\Homs{(J_P,y,z)}{(H_k,o,x)}| = 1$, since there is a homomorphism that maps $u_j$ to~$v'_j$ for each $j\in\{1, \dots, k-1\}$. This is the only possible homomorphism from $(J_P,y,z)$ to~$(H_k,o,x)$ since there is only one $k$-path from $o$ to~$x$ that the $k$-path in $J_P$ can be mapped to. For a hardness gadget, it would suffice for $|\Homs{(J_P,y,z)}{(H_k,o,x)}|$ to be even (not necessarily zero) but it is odd for every~$k$. For $H_k$, the other parts of the lemma fail, too. We have \begin{equation*} |\Homs{(J_P,y,z)}{(H,o,s)}| = |\Homs{(J_P,y,z)}{(H,i,x)}| = k. \end{equation*} When the target is~$(H,o,s)$, the $k$-path in $J_P$ can be mapped to any of the $k$ $k$-paths in~$H_k$ from $o$ to~$s$ (following along $v'_0, v'_1,\cdots$ and then dropping down along an edge $v'_j,v_j$ and then following $v_j,v_{j+1} \cdots v_{k-1}$). The case with target $(H,i,x)$ is similar. So in both cases, the number of homomorphisms is~$k$. When $k$~is odd, this is not a real problem. The purpose of Lemma~\ref{lem:J3-caterpillar} is to show that caterpillar gadgets can be used as~$J_3$ in a hardness gadget, and the definition of hardness gadgets only requires that $|\ensuremath{\Sigma_{o,s}}|$ and~$|\ensuremath{\Sigma_{i,x}}|$ (i.e., $|\Homs{(J_P,y,z)}{(H,o,s)}|$ and $|\Homs{(J_P,y,z)}{(H,i,x)}|$, respectively) be odd and not necessarily~$1$. However, this relaxation doesn't help when $k$~is even. Finally, for part~\ref{cond:is-cat}, consider a homomorphism from $(J_P,y,z)$ to~$(H,i,s)$. The image of the path $yu_1\dots u_{k-1}z$ in~$H$ must be a $k$-walk $v_1x_1\dots x_{k-1}v_{k-1}$ with the property that $x_j$~is adjacent to~$v_j$ for each $j\in\{1, \dots, k-1\}$. This means that $x_j\in\{v_{j-1}, v'_j, v_{j+1}\}$. There are two kinds of $k$-walk satisfying these criteria. The first kind uses only the vertices $\{v_0, \dots, v_k\}$. Such a walk must be either $v_1v_0v_1 v_2\dots v_{k-1}$ or $v_1\dots v_\alpha v_{\alpha+1} v_\alpha \dots v_{k-1}$ for some $\alpha\in\{1, \dots, k-1\}$. The second kind uses some of the vertices $\{v'_1, \dots, v'_{k-1}\}$. Such a walk must be of the form $v_1\dots v_\alpha v'_\alpha \dots v'_\beta v_\beta \dots v_{k-1}$ for some $1\leq \alpha\leq \beta\leq k-1$. There are $k$ walks of the first kind and $\tfrac12k(k-1)$ of the second. Thus, \begin{equation*} |\Homs{(J_1,y,z)}{(H,i,s)}| = k + \tfrac12k(k-1) = \tfrac12k(k+1)\,, \end{equation*} which is odd if and only if $k$~is congruent to $1$ or~$2$, mod~$4$ but is required to be odd for all~$k$. \begin{figure}[t] \begin{center} \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.2,node distance = 1.5cm] \tikzstyle{dot} =[fill=black, draw=black, circle, inner sep=0.15mm] \tikzstyle{vertex}=[fill=black, draw=black, circle, inner sep=2pt] \tikzstyle{dist} =[fill=white, draw=black, circle, inner sep=2pt] \tikzstyle{pinned}=[fill=white, draw=black, minimum size=9mm, circle,inner sep=0pt] \begin{scope}[shift={(-3,0)}] \node at (-0.75,0.5) {$H_k$:}; \node[vertex] (v0) at (0.0,0) [label=-90:{$\strut v_0$}] [label=45:$o$] {}; \node[vertex] (v1) at (1.0,0) [label=-90:{$\strut v_1$}] [label=45:$s$] {}; \node[vertex] (v2) at (2.0,0) [label=-90:{$\strut v_2$}] {}; \node[vertex] (vk) at (3.5,0) [label=-90:{$\strut v_k$}] {}; \node[vertex] (vd0) at (0.0,1) [label=90:{$\strut v'_0$}] {}; \node[vertex] (vd1) at (1.0,1) [label=90:{$\strut v'_1$}] [label=-45:$i$] {}; \node[vertex] (vd2) at (2.0,1) [label=90:{$\strut v'_2$}] [label=-45:$x$] {}; \node[vertex] (vdk) at (3.5,1) {}; \node at ($(vdk) + (345:0.4)$) {$\strut v'_k$}; \node[vertex] (d) at ($(vdk) + (45:1)$) {}; \draw (v0) -- (vd0); \draw (v1) -- (vd1); \draw (v2) -- (vd2); \draw (vk) -- (vdk); \draw (v0) -- (v2); \draw (vd0) -- (vd2); \draw (vdk) -- (d); \node[dot] (dot2) at ($(v2)!0.5!(vk)$) {}; \node[dot] (dot1) at ($(dot2)!1mm!(v2)$) {}; \node[dot] (dot3) at ($(dot2)!1mm!(vk)$) {}; \draw (v2) -- ($(v2)!0.75!(dot1)$); \draw (vk) -- ($(vk)!0.75!(dot3)$); \node[dot] (dot5) at ($(vd2)!0.5!(vdk)$) {}; \node[dot] (dot4) at ($(dot5)!1mm!(vd2)$) {}; \node[dot] (dot6) at ($(dot5)!1mm!(vdk)$) {}; \draw (vd2) -- ($(vd2)!0.75!(dot4)$); \draw (vdk) -- ($(vdk)!0.75!(dot6)$); \end{scope} \begin{scope}[shift={(3,1.75)}] \node at (0,0) {$J_1$:}; \node[pinned] (p1) at (1,0) {$\strut v'_0$}; \node[dist] (y) at (2,0) [label=-90:$y$] {}; \node[pinned] (p2) at (3,0) {$\strut v_1$}; \draw (p1) -- (y) -- (p2); \end{scope} \begin{scope}[shift={(3,0.5)}] \node at (0,0) {$J_2$:}; \node[pinned] (p3) at (1,0) {$\strut v'_1$}; \node[dist] (z) at (2,0) [label=-90:$z$] {}; \node[pinned] (p4) at (3,0) {$\strut v_2$}; \draw (p3) -- (z) -- (p4); \end{scope} \begin{scope}[shift={(3,-0.75)}] \node at (0,0) {$J_3$:}; \node[dist] (yy) at (1.5,0) [label=-90:$y$] {}; \node[dist] (zz) at (2.5,0) [label=-90:$z$] {}; \draw (yy) -- (zz); \end{scope} \end{tikzpicture} \end{center} \caption{A hardness gadget for the graph~$H_k$ (see also Figure~\ref{fig:caterpillar-squares}).} \label{fig:hardness-squares} \end{figure} We note that \parhcol[H_1] is \ensuremath{\oplus\mathrm{P}}{}-complete, as is \parhcol[H_k], for every $k\geq 2$. $H_1$~is an involution-free cactus graph with more than one vertex so it is hard by the main theorem of~\cite{GGR14:Cactus}. We claim that $\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}} = (i, s, (J_1,y), (J_2,z), (J_3,y,z))$, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:hardness-squares}, is a hardness gadget for~$H_k$. We have $\ensuremath{\Omega_y} = \{v_0, v'_1\} = \{o,i\}$ and $\ensuremath{\Omega_z} = \{v_1, v'_2\} = \{s,x\}$: both are even and $i\in\ensuremath{\Omega_y}$ and $s\in\ensuremath{\Omega_z}$. There is no edge~$ox$ in~$H_k$ so $|\ensuremath{\Sigma_{o,x}}|=0$, which is even. There are edges $os$, $ix$ and~$is$ in~$H_k$, so $|\ensuremath{\Sigma_{o,s}}| = |\ensuremath{\Sigma_{i,x}}| = |\ensuremath{\Sigma_{i,s}}| = 1$, which is odd. This establishes that $\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}$ is a hardness gadget so, since $H_k$~is involution-free, \parhcol[H_k] is \ensuremath{\oplus\mathrm{P}}{}-complete by Theorem~\ref{thm:hardness-gadget}. Ironically, the part~$J_3$ of~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}$ is the one-edge caterpillar gadget associated with the path~$v_1v'_1$ in~$H_k$. The failure of Lemma~\ref{lem:J3-caterpillar} in the presence of $4$-cycles only means that caterpillar gadgets are not guaranteed to work, not that they never work. \section{Finding hardness gadgets} \label{sec:finding-gadgets} In this section, we show how to find hardness gadgets for all connected, involution-free, square-free graphs. The simplest case is when the graph contains at least two vertices of even degree. Faben and Jerrum used the fact that all involution-free trees have at least two even-degree vertices~\cite{FJ13}, though we use different gadgets because we are dealing with graphs containing cycles as well as trees. For graphs with only one even-degree vertex, we show that an appropriate vertex deletion produces a component with more than one even-degree vertex and show how to simulate such a vertex deletion using gadgets. This leaves graphs where every vertex has odd degree. In Section~\ref{sec:odd-cycles}, we show how to use odd-length cycles to find a hardness gadget. The remaining case, bipartite graphs in which every vertex has odd degree, is covered in Section~\ref{sec:gadget:bipartite}, where we use Lemma~\ref{lem:Lovasz}, our version of Lov\'asz{}'s result, to non-constructively demonstrate that a hardness gadget always exists. We will use the following fact. \begin{lemma} \label{lem:invo-free-cycle} An involution-free graph with at least two vertices but at most one even-degree vertex contains a cycle. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} We prove the contrapositive. Let $G$ be an involution-free acyclic graph. At most one component of $G$~is an isolated vertex so, if $G$~has two or more vertices, it has at least one component with two or more vertices. This component is an involution-free tree which, by \cite[Lemma~5.3]{FJ13}, contains at least two vertices of even degree. \end{proof} \subsection{Even-degree vertices}\label{sec:even-degree} We prove that involution-free graphs containing at least one vertex of positive, even degree have a hardness gadget. In this section, we will use one extra kind of gadget. \begin{definition} For a vertex~$v\in V(H)$, define the \emph{neighbourhood gadget} $J_{\Gamma(v),x} = (G, \{w\mapsto v\})$, where $G$~is the single edge $(x,w)$. \end{definition} It is immediate from the definition that, for any $v\in V(H)$, \begin{equation*} |\Homs{(J_{\Gamma(v),x},x)}{(H,u)}| = \begin{cases} \ 1 & \text{if $u\in\Gamma_H(v)$} \\ \ 0 & \text{otherwise.} \end{cases} \end{equation*} We first show how to find hardness gadgets for connected graphs containing at least two even-degree vertices (their degree must be positive, since the graph is connected) and then deal with the harder case of graphs containing exactly one vertex of positive, even degree. The following lemma constructs a caterpillar gadget, so the lemma depends on $H$~being square-free. The extended conclusion about pinned vertices is needed for technical reasons in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:even-deg}. \begin{lemma}\label{lem:two-even} Let $H$ be a connected, square-free graph with at least two even-degree vertices. Then $H$ has a hardness gadget $(i, s, (J_1, y), (J_2, z), (J_3, y, z))$. Furthermore, we can choose $J_1$, $J_2$ and~$J_3$ so that each contains at least one pinned vertex. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Let $v_0\dots v_m$ be a path in~$H$ between distinct even-degree vertices $v_0$ and~$v_m$ and let $P=v_0\dots v_k$, where $k\in\{1, \dots, m\}$ is minimal such that $\deg_H(v_k)$ is even. We claim that $(v_1, v_{k-1}, (J_{\Gamma(v_0),y}, y), (J_{\Gamma(v_k),z}, z), (J_P,y,z))$ is a hardness gadget. $|\ensuremath{\Omega_y}|$ and~$|\ensuremath{\Omega_z}|$ are even because $v_0$ and~$v_k$ have even degree; and they contain $v_1$ and~$v_{k-1}$, respectively. The remaining properties required by Definition~\ref{defn:hardness-gadget} hold by Lemma~\ref{lem:J3-caterpillar}, since $v_1, \dots, v_{k-1}$ have odd degree. Each of $J_{\Gamma(v_0),y}$ and~$J_{\Gamma(v_k),z}$ contains a pinned vertex and, if $k>1$, $J_P$~also contains at least one pinned vertex. If $k=1$, then $G(J_P)$ is the single edge $(y,z)$ and $\tau(J_P) = \emptyset$. However, we may add to $G(J_P)$ a new vertex~$w_0$ and an edge $(w_0,y)$ and set $\tau(J_P) = \{w_0\mapsto v_0\}$: this requires $y$~to be mapped to a neighbour of~$v_0$. This has no effect on the hardness gadget since Definition~\ref{defn:hardness-gadget} only imposes requirements on $|\Homs{(J_3,y,z)}{(H,a,b)}|$ when $a\in \ensuremath{\Omega_y}$. Since $\ensuremath{\Omega_y} = \Gamma_H(v_0)$, we are already only considering homomorphisms that map $y$ to a neighbour of~$v_0$ and the change to~$J_3$ is merely restating this condition. \end{proof} It is worth noting that, since all involution-free trees have at least two even-degree vertices, Lemma~\ref{lem:two-even} implies Faben and Jerrum's dichotomy for \parhcol{} where $H$~is a tree~\cite{FJ13}. They also use two even-degree vertices but their gadgets rely on the fact that there is a unique path between two vertices of a tree, which doesn't hold in general graphs. However, from Lemma~\ref{lem:two-even}, we conclude that uniqueness of the path is not required and we can prove hardness even when there are multiple paths between even-degree vertices. To handle graphs with fewer than two vertices of even degree, we first investigate the results of deleting vertices from such graphs. If we delete the unique even-degree vertex from a connected graph, then each component of the resulting graph contains at least one vertex of even degree. If we are lucky, one of the resulting components will contain two or more vertices of even degree, raising the hope that we can use Lemma~\ref{lem:two-even} to prove \ensuremath{\oplus\mathrm{P}}{}-completeness. If all of the resulting components have exactly one even-degree vertex, then we can iterate, deleting those vertices to obtain yet more fragments. As long as the graph contains at least one cycle, it is not hard to see that we can eventually obtain a component with two or more even-degree vertices. However, to apply Lemma~\ref{lem:two-even}, we must ensure that the resulting component has no involution. We prove this in the following two lemmas. \begin{lemma} \label{lem:one-even-asym} Let $H$ be an involution-free graph with exactly one vertex~$v$ of positive, even degree. Then $H'=H-v$ is also involution-free. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Each vertex $u\in \Gamma_H(v)$ has odd degree in~$H$ and has exactly one neighbour removed, so $\deg_{H'}(u)$ is even. Suppose, towards a contradiction, that $\rho$~is an involution of~$H'\!$. No automorphism can map an odd-degree vertex to an even-degree vertex or vice-versa and $\Gamma_H(v)$~is exactly the set of even-degree vertices in $H'\!$. Therefore, the restriction of~$\rho$ to the neighbours of~$v$ is a permutation. Define $\hat\rho\colon V(H)\to V(H)$ by $\hat\rho(v)=v$ and $\hat\rho(w)=\rho(w)$ for $w\neq v$. $\hat\rho$ preserves all edges in~$H'$ and all edges incident on~$v$ in~$H$, so it is an involution of~$H$, contradicting the supposition that $H$~has no involution. \end{proof} So far, we have described our goal as being to iteratively delete vertices until we find a component with more than one even-degree vertex. This is a useful intuition but we do not know how to simulate such a sequence of vertex deletions using gadgets. Instead, we show how to achieve the goal of a component with more than one even-degree vertex by deleting a set of vertices, which we do know how to do with a gadget. For a vertex $v\in V(H)$ and an integer~$r\geq 0$, let $B_r(v) = \{u\in V(H) \mid \mathrm{dist}(u,v) = r\}$. \begin{corollary} \label{cor:one-even-asym} Let $H$ be an involution-free graph that has exactly one vertex~$v$ of positive, even degree. For some~$r$, $H-B_r(v)$ has an involution-free component~$H^*$ that does not contain~$v$ but does contain at least two even-degree vertices. Furthermore, we can take~$r = \min\, \{\mathrm{dist}(v,w)\mid w \text{ is on a cycle}\}$. \end{corollary} \begin{proof} $H$~contains a cycle by Lemma~\ref{lem:invo-free-cycle} so we can take~$r$ as in the statement of the lemma and this is well-defined. If $r=0$, then $v$~is in some cycle~$C$ in~$H$. $H-v$~has no involution by Lemma~\ref{lem:one-even-asym}, so no component of $H-v$ has an involution. The component~$H^*$ of $H-v$ that contains $C-v$ contains at least two vertices of $\Gamma_H(v)$ ($v$'s two neighbours in~$C$) and these vertices have even degree in~$H^*\!$. $H^*$~does not, of course, contain~$v$. Suppose that $r>0$. By the choice of~$r$, there must be a component~$H'$ of $H-B_{r-1}(v)$ that contains a vertex~$v_r\in B_r(v)$ that is in a cycle~$C'$ of~$H'$. Since no vertex at distance less than~$r$ from~$v$ is in a cycle in~$H$, there is a unique path from $v$ to~$v_r$. Let this be $v_0\dots v_r$, where $v=v_0$. A simple induction on $j=0, \dots, r-1$, using Lemma~\ref{lem:one-even-asym}, shows that the component of $H-v_j$ containing~$v_r$ has no involution, does not contain~$v$ and has exactly one even-degree vertex: namely, $v_{j+1}$. In particular, the component of $H-v_{r-1}$ that contains~$v_r$ is~$H'$. But, now, the component of $H'-v_r$ that contains $C'-v_r$ has no involution (because no component of $H'-v_r$ has an involution) and contains at least two vertices of even degree (because $v_r$ has at least two neighbours in~$C'$). Further, this component is the component~$H^*$ of $H-B_r(v)$ that we seek. \end{proof} Thus, starting with an involution-free graph~$H$ containing only one vertex of positive, even degree, we have shown how to make a set of vertex deletions (some set $B_r(v)$) to obtain an involution-free component~$H^*$ with at least two even-degree vertices. We now show that we can achieve these vertex deletions using gadgetry. The following technical lemma allows us to construct a gadget that, in a sense, ``selects'' the vertices of~$H^*$ within~$H$. \begin{lemma} \label{lem:Jpath} Let $H$ be a graph, let $P=x_0\dots x_{r+1}$ with $r\geq 0$ be a path in~$H$ and let $w\in V(H)$. If every vertex in~$H$ within distance $r-1$ of~$w$ has odd degree, then $|\Homs{(P,x_0)}{(H,w)}|$ has opposite parity to the number of distinct $r$-paths in~$H$ from $w$ to vertices of even degree. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} We prove the lemma by induction on~$r$. For $r=0$, the result is trivial. The condition on vertices within distance $r-1$ is vacuous. The number of $0$-paths from $w$ to vertices of even degree is zero if $\deg(w)$ is odd; it is one if $\deg(w)$ is even; and $|\Homs{(P,x_0)}{(H,w)}| = \deg(w)$. Suppose the result holds for the path $P=x_0\dots x_{r+1}$ and consider the path $Px_{r+2}$ and a graph~$H$ in which every vertex within distance~$r$ of~$w$ has odd degree. Every homomorphism~$\sigma$ from $(Px_{r+2},x_0)$ to~$(H,w)$ induces a homomorphism~$\hat\sigma$ from $(P,x_0)$ to $(H,w)$. Write $\sigma \sim \sigma'$ if $\hat\sigma = \hat\sigma'\!$. $\sim$~is an equivalence relation and its equivalence classes partition $\Homs{(Px_{r+2},x_0)}{(H,w)}$. Let $\eqclass{\sigma}$ be the $\sim$-equivalence class of~$\sigma$. If every vertex within distance~$r$ of~$w$ in~$H$ has odd degree, there are no $r$-paths from $w$ to vertices of even degree so, by the inductive hypothesis, there are an odd number of homomorphisms from $(P,x_0)$ to~$(H,w)$, so there are an odd number of equivalence classes. Further, $|\eqclass{\sigma}| = \deg(\sigma(x_{r+1}))$ (this is well-defined since $\sigma(x_{r+1})=\hat\sigma(x_{r+1})$, so all homomorphisms $\sigma'\in\eqclass{\sigma}$ agree on the value of $\sigma'(x_{r+1})$). Any vertex of even degree is at distance at least $r+1$ from~$w=\sigma(x_0)$ so, if $\deg_H(\sigma(x_{r+1}))$ is even, then the $r$-walk $\sigma(x_0) \sigma(x_1)\dots \sigma(x_{r+1})$ is, in fact, a simple $(r+1)$-path. Therefore, the number~$N$ of even-cardinality equivalence classes is equal to the number of $(r+1)$-paths in~$H$ from~$w$ to a vertex of even degree, and subtracting these from the total number of equivalence classes gives $|\Homs{(Px_{r+2},x_0)}{(H,w)}| \equiv 1-N \bmod2$, as required. \end{proof} Now, we can obtain a hardness gadget for~$H$ by combining the ``selection gadget'' with the hardness gadget for the subgraph~$H^*$ given to us by Corollary~\ref{cor:one-even-asym}. \begin{lemma}\label{lem:even-deg} Any involution-free, square-free graph~$H$ that has exactly one vertex~$v$ of positive, even degree has a hardness gadget. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Let $r = \min\,\{\mathrm{dist}(v,w)\mid w\text{ is on a cycle}\}$. By Corollary~\ref{cor:one-even-asym}, there is an involution-free component~$H^*$ of $H-B_r(v)$ that does not contain~$v$ but contains at least two vertices of even degree. $H^*$~is square-free because it is an induced subgraph of a square-free graph. Therefore, by Lemma~\ref{lem:two-even}, $H^*$~has a hardness gadget $\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}^* = (i, s, (J^*_1,y), (J^*_2,z), (J^*_3,y,z))$ in which each of $J_1^*$, $J_2^*$ and~$J_3^*$ contains a pinned vertex. We construct a hardness gadget~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}$ for~$H$ from~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}^*\!$. Let $P$~be a path of length $r+1\geq 1$, with vertices $x_0\dots x_{r+1}$. Let $J_1=(G,\tau)$ be the partially $H$-labelled graph such that $\tau=\tau(J^*_1)$ and $G$~is defined from $G(J^*_1)$ as follows: start with $G(J^*_1)$ and, for every vertex $u\in G(J^*_1)$, add a new copy of~$P$ and identify that copy's vertex~$x_0$ with~$u$. Define $J_2$ and~$J_3$ similarly, from $J_2^*$ and~$J_3^*$. We claim that the tuple \begin{equation*} \ensuremath{\mathcal{X}} = \big(i, s, (J_1, y), (J_2, z), (J_3, y, z)\big) \end{equation*} is the desired hardness gadget for~$H$. To find out what $\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}$ does, we first consider homomorphisms from one copy of the path~$P$ to~$H$. For a vertex $w\in V(H)$, let $N_w = |\Homs{(P,x_0)}{(H,w)}|$. If $\mathrm{dist}(v,w)=r$ (i.e., $w\in B_r(v)$), then there is a unique $r$-path from $w$ to a vertex of even degree. This is because $v$~is the unique vertex of even degree and, if there were distinct $r$-paths $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ from $w$ to~$v$ then $Q_1\cup Q_2$ would contain a cycle, which would contain vertices at distance strictly less than~$r$ from~$v$, contradicting the definition of~$r$. If $\mathrm{dist}(v,w)>r$, then there are no $r$-paths from $w$ to even-degree vertices. Therefore, by Lemma~\ref{lem:Jpath}, $N_w$~is even if $\mathrm{dist}(v,w)=r$ and $N_w$~is odd if $\mathrm{dist}(v,w)>r$ (we will see that the parity of~$N_w$ does not matter if $\mathrm{dist}(v,w)<r$). Now, let $a\in V(H)$ and consider homomorphisms $\sigma, \sigma'\in \Homs{(J_1,y)}{(H,a)}$. Write $\sigma\sim\sigma'$ if $\sigma(u)=\sigma'(u)$ for all $u\in V(G(J^*_1))$ and write $\eqclass{\sigma}$ for the $\sim$-equivalence class containing~$\sigma$. $|\Homs{(J_1,y)}{(H,a)}|$ is the sum of the sizes of the $\sim$-equivalence classes. For any~$\sigma$, we have \begin{equation*} |\eqclass{\sigma}| \ \ = \!\!\!\! \prod_{x\in V(G(J^*_1))}\!\!\!\! |\Homs{(P, x_0)}{(H, \sigma(x))}|\,. \end{equation*} Therefore, $|\eqclass{\sigma}|$ is even if $\sigma$~maps any vertex of $G(J^*_1)$ into $B_r(v)$. In this case, $|\eqclass{\sigma}|$ contributes nothing to the sum, modulo~$2$. Thus, we may restrict our attention to homomorphisms from $J_1^*$ to~$H$ that have no vertex in $B_r(v)$ in their image. $J_1^*$~is connected and contains a vertex pinned to a vertex in~$H^*\!$. Therefore, restricting to homomorphisms that have no vertex in $B_r(v)$ in their image means restricting to homomorphisms whose image is wholly within~$H^*\!$. For any vertex $w\in H^*\!$, $\mathrm{dist}_H(v,w)>r$, so this gives \begin{equation*} |\Homs{(J_1,y)}{(H,a)}| \equiv |\Homs{(J_1^*,y)}{(H^*\!,a)}| \pmod2\,, \end{equation*} for any $a\in V(H^*)$ and $|\Homs{(J_1,y)}{(H,a)}|\equiv 0 \bmod2$, for $a\notin V(H^*)$; and similarly for $J_2$ and~$J_3$. Thus, since $\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}^*$ is a hardness gadget for~$H^*$, $\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}$ is a hardness gadget for~$H$. \end{proof} The proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:even-deg} does not explicitly use caterpillar gadgets. However, the hardness gadget~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}$ is constructed from~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}^*\!$, which was produced by Lemma~\ref{lem:two-even}. It follows that $J_3^*$~is a caterpillar gadget, so Lemma~\ref{lem:even-deg} requires $H$ to be square-free, as stated. \subsection{Odd cycles} \label{sec:odd-cycles} In the previous section, we showed how to find a hardness gadget for any involution-free, square-free graph containing at least one vertex of even degree. In this section, we show that any square-free graph in which all vertices have odd degree has a hardness gadget if it has an odd cycle. We first introduce a gadget for selecting certain vertices in cycles. \begin{definition}\label{defn:Jcycle} (See Figure~\ref{fig:cycle}). Let $P=v_1\dots v_k$ be a path in~$H$. For any $\ell > \max\, \{2,k\}$, define the \emph{$\ell$-cycle gadget} $J_{\ell,P,x} = (G,\tau)$ where $G$~is the cycle $xu_1\dots u_{\ell-1}x$ and $\tau = \{u_1\mapsto v_1, \dots, u_k\mapsto v_k\}$. \end{definition} \begin{figure} \begin{center} \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=2,node distance = 1.5cm] \tikzstyle{dot} =[fill=black, draw=black, circle, inner sep=0.15mm] \tikzstyle{vertex}=[fill=black, draw=black, circle, inner sep=2pt] \tikzstyle{dist} =[fill=white, draw=black, circle, inner sep=2pt] \tikzstyle{pinned}=[draw=black, minimum size=8mm, circle] \node[dist] (x) at (180:1) [label=180:$x$] {}; \node[vertex] (u5) at (120:1)[label=90:$u_{\ell-1}$] {}; \node[vertex] (u4) at (60:1) [label=90:$u_{k+1}$] {}; \node[pinned] (u1) at (240:1) [label=-90:$u_1$] {$v_1$}; \node[pinned] (u2) at (300:1) [label=-90:$u_2$] {$v_2$}; \node[pinned] (u3) at ( 0:1) [label= 0:$u_k$] {$v_k$}; \draw (u5) -- (x) -- (u1) -- (u2); \draw (u3) -- (u4); \node[dot] (b) at ($(u2)!0.5!(u3)$) {}; \node[dot] (a) at ($(b)!1mm!(u2)$) {}; \node[dot] (c) at ($(b)!1mm!(u3)$) {}; \draw (u2) -- ($(u2)!0.75!(a)$); \draw (u3) -- ($(u3)!0.75!(c)$); \node[dot] (e) at ($(u4)!0.5!(u5)$) {}; \node[dot] (d) at ($(e)!1mm!(u4)$) {}; \node[dot] (f) at ($(e)!1mm!(u5)$) {}; \draw (u4) -- ($(u4)!0.67!(d)$); \draw (u5) -- ($(u5)!0.67!(f)$); \end{tikzpicture} \end{center} \caption{The $\ell$-cycle gadget $J_{\ell,P,x}$ corresponding to a path $P=v_1\dots v_k$ in an $\ell$-cycle in~$H$.} \label{fig:cycle} \end{figure} Recall that the odd-girth of a graph is the length of its shortest odd cycle. By convention, the odd-girth of a graph without odd cycles is infinite; in the following, we write ``a graph whose odd-girth is~$\ell$'' as a short-hand for ``a graph whose odd-girth is finite and equal to~$\ell$.'' \begin{lemma}\label{lem:cycle-to-cycle} Let $H$~be a graph whose odd-girth is~$\ell$ and let $G$~be an $\ell$-cycle. The image of~$G$ under any homomorphism from $G$ to~$H$ is an $\ell$-cycle in~$H$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Let $G = u_0\dots u_{\ell-1}u_0$. Since $G$~is an $\ell$-cycle and $H$~contains an $\ell$-cycle, $\Homs{G}{H}$ is non-empty so let $\sigma\in\Homs{G}{H}$. Let $C$~be the image of~$G$ under~$\sigma$, i.e., subgraph of~$H$ consisting of vertices $\{\sigma(u_0), \dots, \sigma(u_{\ell-1})\}$ and edges $\{(\sigma(u_j),\sigma(u_{j+1})) \mid 0\leq j<\ell\}$, with addition on indices carried out modulo~$\ell$. Suppose towards a contradiction that $C$~is not an $\ell$-cycle. Since $C$~has at most $\ell$~vertices and at most $\ell$~edges, it cannot have an $\ell$-cycle as a proper subgraph. Since $H$~has no odd cycles shorter than~$\ell$, $C$~must be bipartite. But then the walk $\sigma(u_0) \sigma(u_1) \dots \sigma(u_{\ell-1}) \sigma(u_0)$ is an odd-length walk from a vertex to itself and no such walk can exist in a bipartite graph. \end{proof} \begin{corollary}\label{cor:Jcycle} Let $H$ be a graph whose odd-girth is~$\ell$. For any path~$P$ on fewer than $\ell$~vertices, $|\Homs{(J_{\ell,P,x},x)}{(H,v)}|$ is the number of $\ell$-cycles in~$H$ that contain the path~$vP$. \end{corollary} \begin{proof} By Lemma~\ref{lem:cycle-to-cycle}, the image of $G(J_{\ell,P,x})$ under any homomorphism to~$H$ is an $\ell$-cycle in~$H$ and, because of the pinning and distinguished vertex, this cycle must contain the path~$vP$. \end{proof} Let $\ensuremath{\#C_\ell}(vw)$ be the number of $\ell$-cycles in~$H$ containing the edge $(v,w)$. \begin{lemma}\label{lem:RLv-even} Let $H$ be a graph whose odd-girth is~$\ell$. Every vertex $v\in V(H)$ has an even number of neighbours~$w$ such that $\ensuremath{\#C_\ell}(vw)$ is odd. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} If $v$~is not in any $\ell$-cycle, the claim is vacuous: the even number is zero. Otherwise, let $C=vw_1\dots w_{\ell-1}v$ be an $\ell$-cycle in~$H$. If $w_j\in\Gamma_H(v)$ for some even $j\neq \ell-1$, the odd cycle $vw_1\dots w_jv$ contradicts the stated odd-girth of~$H$. If $w_j\in\Gamma_H(v)$ for some odd $j\neq 1$, the odd cycle $vw_j\dots w_{\ell-1}v$ contradicts the odd-girth. Therefore, $w_1$ and~$w_{\ell-1}$ are the only vertices in~$C$ that are adjacent to~$v$ and every $\ell$-cycle through~$v$ contributes exactly~$2$ to $\sum_{w\in\Gamma_H(v)} \ensuremath{\#C_\ell}(vw)$. Therefore, the sum is even, so it has an even number of odd terms. \end{proof} \begin{lemma}\label{lem:edge-in-odd} Let $H$ be a square-free graph whose odd-girth is~$\ell$. If $H$~contains an edge that is in an odd number of $\ell$-cycles, then $H$~has a hardness gadget. \end{lemma} Note that, for the case $\ell=3$, any edge in a $3$-cycle in~$H$ must be in exactly one $3$-cycle since, if an edge $(x,y)$ is in distinct $3$-cycles $xyzx$ and $xyz'x$, then $xzyz'x$ is a $4$-cycle in~$H$, which is forbidden by the hypothesis of the lemma. The absence of $4$-cycles is also required for the caterpillar gadget produced in the proof. \begin{proof} Let $(i, s)$ be an edge in an odd number of $\ell$-cycles in~$H$. Let $J_1$~be the $\ell$-cycle gadget $J_{\ell,s,y}$ (so $\tau(J_1) = \{u_1\mapsto s\}$) and let $J_2$~be the $\ell$-cycle gadget $J_{\ell,i,z}$. Let $G(J_3)$~be the single edge $(y,z)$ and let $\tau(J_3)=\emptyset$ ($J_3$~is, technically, a caterpillar gadget but it is easier to analyse it directly). We claim that $(i, s, (J_1,y), (J_2,z), (J_3,y,z))$ is a hardness gadget for~$H$. By Corollary~\ref{cor:Jcycle}, $|\Homs{(J_{\ell,s,y},y)}{(H,v)}|$ is the number of $\ell$-cycles in~$H$ that contain the edge $(v,s)$, so \begin{equation*} \ensuremath{\Omega_y} = \{v\in V(H)\mid (v,s) \text{ is in an odd number of $\ell$-cycles}\}\,. \end{equation*} Thus, $|\ensuremath{\Omega_y}|$ is even by Lemma~\ref{lem:RLv-even}. $\ensuremath{\Omega_y}$~contains $i$ by the choice of the edge $(i,s)$ in an odd number of $\ell$-cycles. Similarly, $\ensuremath{\Omega_z}$~is even and contains~$s$. To verify the remaining properties required by Definition~\ref{defn:hardness-gadget}, note that $J_3$~is a single edge so, for any $a,b\in V(H)$, $|\Homs{(J_3,y,z)}{(H,a,b)}|$ is~$1$ if $(a,b)\in E(H)$ and~$0$, otherwise. We have $\ensuremath{\Omega_y}\subseteq \Gamma_{\!H}(s)$ and $\ensuremath{\Omega_z}\subseteq \Gamma_{\!H}(i)$ so, for any $o\in \ensuremath{\Omega_y}-i$ and any $x\in \ensuremath{\Omega_z}-s$, $H$~contains the edges $(o,s)$, $(s,i)$ and $(i,x)$ but it cannot contain the edge~$(o,x)$ because $H$~is square-free. \end{proof} \begin{figure}[t] \begin{center} \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1,node distance = 1.5cm] \tikzstyle{dot} =[fill=black, draw=black, circle, inner sep=0.15mm] \tikzstyle{vertex}=[fill=black, draw=black, circle, inner sep=2pt] \tikzstyle{dist} =[fill=white, draw=black, circle, inner sep=2pt] \tikzstyle{pinned}=[fill=white, draw=black, minimum size=9mm, circle,inner sep=0pt] \newcommand{\drawH}[1] { \foreach \x in {0, 40, ..., 360} { \node[draw=#1,fill=#1,circle,inner sep=2pt] at (\x:1.5) {}; } \draw[#1] (0,0) circle (1.5); \node[text=#1] at ( 0:1.1) {$v_k$}; \node[text=#1] at ( 40:1 ) {$v_{k-1}$}; \node[text=#1] at (160:1.1) {$v_1$}; \node[text=#1] at (200:1.1) {$v_0$}; \node[text=#1] at (240:1.1) {$v_{\ell-1}$}; \node[text=#1] at (320:1 ) {$v_{k+1}$}; \draw [#1,<-] (200:1.8) arc (-160:0:1.8); \node[text=#1,fill=white,draw=white,circle, inner sep=0.5pt] at (300:1.8) {$P$}; } % \begin{scope}[shift={(-4,0)}] \drawH{gray!80!white}; \node at (140:3.5) {$J_1$:}; \draw (0,0) circle (2.5); \node[pinned] at ( 0:2.5) {$v_k$}; \node[vertex] at ( 40:2.5) {}; \node[vertex] at ( 80:2.5) {}; \node[vertex] at (120:2.5) {}; \node[dist] at (160:2.5) {}; \node[pinned] at (200:2.5) {$v_0$}; \node[pinned] at (240:2.5) {$v_{\ell-1}$}; \node[pinned] at (280:2.5) {}; \node[pinned] at (320:2.5) {$v_{k+1}$}; \node at (160:2.85) {$y$}; \end{scope} % \begin{scope}[shift={(4,0)}] \drawH{gray!80!white}; \node at (140:3.5) {$J_2$:}; \draw (0,0) circle (2.5); \node[pinned] at ( 0:2.5) {$v_k$}; \node[dist] at ( 40:2.5) {}; \node[vertex] at ( 80:2.5) {}; \node[vertex] at (120:2.5) {}; \node[vertex] at (160:2.5) {}; \node[pinned] at (200:2.5) {$v_0$}; \node[pinned] at (240:2.5) {$v_{\ell-1}$}; \node[pinned] at (280:2.5) {}; \node[pinned] at (320:2.5) {$v_{k+1}$}; \node at (40:2.85) {$z$}; \end{scope} % % \begin{scope}[shift={(0,-6)}] \drawH{gray!80!white}; \node at (160:4.5) {$J_3$:}; \draw (0:3.3) arc (0:200:3.3); \node[dist] at ( 0:3.3) {}; \node[vertex] (u4) at ( 40:3.3) {}; \node[vertex] (u3) at ( 80:3.3) {}; \node[vertex] (u2) at (120:3.3) {}; \node[vertex] (u1) at (160:3.3) {}; \node[dist] at (200:3.3) {}; \node at (200:3.65) {$y$}; \node at ( 0:3.65) {$z$}; \node[pinned] (w4) at ( 40:2.3) {$v_{k-1}$}; \node[pinned] (w3) at ( 80:2.3) {}; \node[pinned] (w2) at (120:2.3) {}; \node[pinned] (w1) at (160:2.3) {$v_1$}; \foreach \x in {1,2,3,4} \draw (u\x) -- (w\x); \end{scope} \end{tikzpicture} \end{center} \caption{The parts $J_1$, $J_2$ and $J_3$ of the hardness gadget constructed in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:odd-cycle}. The corresponding cycle in~$H$ is indicated in grey within each gadget. The path~$P = v_k\dots v_{\ell-1}v_0$ is undirected but the arrow indicates the order in which the vertices are listed.} \label{fig:gadget-from-cycle} \end{figure} \begin{lemma}\label{lem:odd-cycle} Let $H$ be a square-free graph in which every vertex has odd degree. If $H$~contains an odd cycle, then it has a hardness gadget. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Let $\ell$ be the odd-girth of~$H$. If $H$~contains an edge in an odd number of $\ell$-cycles (which is guaranteed for $\ell=3$, since $H$ is square-free), then $H$~has a hardness gadget by Lemma~\ref{lem:edge-in-odd}. So, for the remainder of the proof, we may assume that the shortest odd cycle in~$H$ has length $\ell>4$ and that every edge is in a (not necessarily positive) even number of $\ell$-cycles. Let $P=v_k v_{k+1}\dots v_{\ell-1}v_0$ be a longest path that is in a positive, even number of $\ell$-cycles (see Figure~\ref{fig:gadget-from-cycle}; it turns out to be most convenient to label the vertices in this order; the path has length $\ell-k$). Such a path certainly exists because any edge in an $\ell$-cycle is in a positive, even number of them. So, in particular, $P$~contains at least one edge. Further $P$~has fewer than $\ell-1$ edges, because any path on $\ell-1$ edges is in at most one $\ell$-cycle, since $H$~has no parallel edges. Let $C=v_0v_1\dots v_{\ell-1}v_0$ be an $\ell$-cycle containing~$P$. Let $\mathrm{rev}(P) = v_0v_{\ell-1} \dots v_k$ be the path~$P$ with the vertices listed in the reverse order. Let $i=v_1$ and $s=v_{k-1}$. Let $J_1$~be the $\ell$-cycle gadget $J_{\ell,\mathrm{rev}(P),y}$, let $J_2$~be the $\ell$-cycle gadget $J_{\ell,P,z}$, and let $J_3$~be the caterpillar gadget $J_{v_0\dots v_k}$. We claim that $(i, s, (J_1, y), (J_2, z), (J_3, y, z))$ is a hardness gadget for~$H$. Since $P$~was chosen to be a longest path in a positive, even number of $\ell$-cycles, any path $uP$ in~$H$ must be in an odd number of $\ell$-cycles or in none at all. Since $P$~itself is in an even number of $\ell$-cycles, the number of extensions~$uP$ in an odd number of cycles must be even. By Corollary~\ref{cor:Jcycle}, $|\Homs{(J_{\ell,P,z},z)}{(H,u)}|$ is the number of $\ell$-cycles in~$H$ that contain the path~$uP$. Therefore, $\ensuremath{\Omega_z}$~is precisely the set of vertices~$u$ such that $uP$ is in an odd number of $\ell$-cycles, so we have established that $|\ensuremath{\Omega_z}|$~is even. Since $sP$~is an extension of~$P$, it is not in a positive, even number of $\ell$-cycles; it is in at least one $\ell$-cycle (namely, $C$) so it is in an odd number of them. Therefore, $s\in\ensuremath{\Omega_z}$. Similarly, $|\ensuremath{\Omega_y}|$~is even and $i\in\ensuremath{\Omega_y}$. It remains to verify that the conditions of Lemma~\ref{lem:J3-caterpillar} hold for~$J_3$, so that lemma gives us the remaining properties we need from Definition~\ref{defn:hardness-gadget}. All vertices in~$H$ have odd degree by assumption, including in particular the interior vertices of~$P$. We have already established that $i = v_1 \in \ensuremath{\Omega_y}$ and $s = v_{k-1} \in \ensuremath{\Omega_z}$. Finally, $\ensuremath{\Omega_y}\subseteq \Gamma_H(v_0)$ because, in $G(J_1)$, $y$~is adjacent to a vertex that is pinned to~$v_0$. Similarly, $\ensuremath{\Omega_z}\subseteq \Gamma_H(v_k)$. \end{proof} \subsection{Bipartite graphs} \label{sec:gadget:bipartite} The only remaining case is bipartite graphs~$H$ in which every vertex has odd degree. We show that, if $H$~has an ``even gadget'', it has a hardness gadget. And it turns out that every connected bipartite graph with more than one edge has an even gadget. \begin{definition} \label{defn:even-gadget} An \emph{even gadget} for a bipartite graph~$H$ with at least one edge is an edge $(a,b)$ of $H$ together with a connected bipartite graph~$G$ with a distinguished edge $(w,x)$ such that $|\Homs{(G,w,x)}{(H,a,b)}|$ is even. \end{definition} Note that, for bipartite $G$ and~$H$, with edges $(w,x)$ and $(a,b)$, respectively, there is always at least one homomorphism from $(G,w,x)$ to $(H,a,b)$, since the whole of~$G$ can be mapped to the edge $(a,b)$. So, although Definition~\ref{defn:even-gadget} only requires $|\Homs{(G,w,x)}{(H,a,b)}|$ to be even, the number of homomorphisms is always non-zero. Suppose that $H$ is any connected bipartite graph with more than one edge such that, for some edge $(a,b)$ of $H$, $(H,a,b)$ is involution-free. We will show that $H$ has an even gadget. If, furthermore, $H$~is square-free, this even gadget gives a hardness gadget. If $H$~is also involution-free, the hardness gadget implies \ensuremath{\oplus\mathrm{P}}{}-completeness of \parhcol{}, by Theorem~\ref{thm:hardness-gadget}. \begin{lemma} \label{lem:always-even-gadget} Suppose that $H$ is a connected bipartite graph with more than one edge such that, for some edge $(a,b)$ of $H$, $(H,a,b)$ is involution-free. Then $H$ has an even gadget. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Let $H$ be a graph satisfying the conditions in the statement of the lemma. Let $K_2$ be the graph consisting of the single edge $(a,b)$. Clearly, $(K_2,a,b)$ is involution-free (since there are no non-trivial automorphisms of~$K_2$ that fix~$a$ and~$b$) and $H \not\cong K_2$ since $H$ has more than one edge, so $(H,a,b) \not\cong (K_2,a,b)$. By Corollary~\ref{cor:Lovasz} (taking $H'=K_2$ and $\bar{y} = \bar{y}' = (a,b)$), there is a connected graph $(G,w,x)$ with distinguished vertices $w$ and $x$ such that $(w,x)$ is an edge and \begin{equation} |\Homs{(G,w,x)}{(H,a,b)}| \not\equiv |\Homs{(G,w,x)}{(K_2,a,b)}| \pmod2\,.\label{eq:August}\end{equation} $G$ must be bipartite --- otherwise $$ |\Homs{(G,w,x)}{(H,a,b)}| = |\Homs{(G,w,x)}{(K_2,a,b)}| =0\,,$$ contradicting~\eqref{eq:August}. Thus, $ |\Homs{(G,w,x)}{(K_2,a,b)}|=1$, so the edge $(a,b)$ of~$H$ together with $(G,w,x)$ is an even gadget. \end{proof} \begin{lemma} \label{lem:even-gadget} Suppose that $H$ is a connected, bipartite, square-free graph with more than one edge such that, for some edge $(a,b)$ of $H$, $(H,a,b)$ is involution-free. Suppose that every vertex of~$H$ has odd degree. Then $H$ has a hardness gadget. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} By Lemma~\ref{lem:always-even-gadget}, $H$~has an even gadget. Choose an even gadget consisting of an edge $(i,s)$ of~$H$ and a connected bipartite graph $G$ with distinguished edge $(w,x)$ so that $N = |\Homs{(G,w,x)}{(H,i,s)}|$ is even. Choose the even gadget so that the number of vertices of~$G$ is as small as possible. There is a homomorphism from~$G$ to the edge $(i,s)$ so $N>0$. $N$~is even, so $G$~cannot be a single edge. First, we show that $\deg_G(w)\geq 2$. Suppose, towards a contradiction, that $\deg_G(w)=1$, i.e., that $x$~is the only neighbour of~$w$ in~$G$. If this is the case, then $x$~must have some neighbour~$w'\neq w$, since $G$~is not a single edge. We have \begin{align*} 0&\equiv |\Homs{(G,w,x)}{(H,i,s)}| \pmod2 \\ &\equiv |\Homs{(G-w,x)}{(H,s)}| \pmod2 \\ &= \!\!\!\sum_{c\in\Gamma_{\!H}(s)}\!\!\! |\Homs{(G-w,x,w')}{(H,s,c)}|\,. \end{align*} Since every vertex in~$H$ has odd degree, the sum has an odd number of terms. Since the total is even, there must be some~$c$ such that $|\Homs{(G-w,x,w')}{(H,s,c)}|$ is even, contradicting the choice of~$G$. By the same argument, $\deg_G(x)\geq 2$, also. For any vertex~$v\in V(G)$, let \begin{equation*} C(v) = \{c\in V(H) \mid |\Homs{(G,w,x,v)}{(H,i,s,c)}| \text{ is odd}\}\,. \end{equation*} Note that, for any $v\in V(G)$, $|C(v)|$~is even since, otherwise, $N$~would be odd. We now show that $C(y)\neq\emptyset$ for every $y\in \Gamma_{\!G}(x) \setminus \{w\}$. If $C(y)=\emptyset$, then, in particular, $i\notin C(y)$, so $|\Homs{(G,w,x,y)}{(H,i,s,i)}|$ is even. But then $|\Homs{(G'\!,w,x)}{(H,i,s)}|$ is even, where $G'$~is the graph made from $G$ by identifying the (distinct) vertices $w$ and~$y$ and calling the resulting vertex~$w$. This contradicts minimality in the choice of~$G$. Similarly, $C(z)\neq\emptyset$ for every $z\in \Gamma_{\!G}(w) \setminus \{x\}$. Choose vertices $y\in \Gamma_{\!G}(x) \setminus \{w\}$ and $z\in \Gamma_{\!G}(w) \setminus \{x\}$. Finally, let $J$ be the partially $H$-labelled graph $(G, \{w\mapsto i, x\mapsto s\})$ and let $G(J_3)$~be the single edge $(y,z)$ and $\tau(J_3)=\emptyset$. We show that $(i, s, (J,y), (J,z), (J_3,y,z))$ is a hardness gadget for~$H$. $\ensuremath{\Omega_y} = C(y)$ is even and $i\in C(y)$; likewise, $\ensuremath{\Omega_z}=C(z)$ is even and $s\in C(z)$. By the choice of~$J$, $\ensuremath{\Omega_y}\subseteq \Gamma_{\!H}(s)$ and $\ensuremath{\Omega_z}\subseteq \Gamma_{\!H}(i)$. For any $o\in\ensuremath{\Omega_y}-i$ and $x\in\ensuremath{\Omega_z}-s$, $H$~contains edges $(o,s)$, $(s,i)$ and~$(i,x)$ so it does not contain the edge $(o,x)$ as it is square-free. Therefore, $|\ensuremath{\Sigma_{o,s}}| = |\ensuremath{\Sigma_{i,s}}| = |\ensuremath{\Sigma_{i,x}}| = 1$ and $|\ensuremath{\Sigma_{o,x}}| = 0$ and we have established all the conditions of Definition~\ref{defn:hardness-gadget}. \end{proof} \section{Main theorem} \label{sec:mainthm} We have shown that all connected, square-free, involution-free graphs (and some disconnected graphs, too) have hardness gadgets and that \parhcol{} is \ensuremath{\oplus\mathrm{P}}{}-complete for any involution-free graph that has a hardness gadget. To deal with graphs that have involutions, we use reduction by involutions. As we noted in the introduction, Faben and Jerrum showed that every graph~$H$ has a unique (up to isomorphism) involution-free reduction~$H^*$. They also proved~\cite[Theorem 3.4]{FJ13} that for any graph~$G$, $|\Homs{G}{H}| \equiv |\Homs{G}{H^*}| \bmod2$. Hence, \parhcol{} has the same complexity as $\parhcol[H^*]$. If $H$~is a tree (as it was for Faben and Jerrum), then its involution-free reduction $H^*$~is connected. However, for general graphs, the fact that $H$ is connected does not imply that $H^*$~is connected.\footnote{For example, consider non-isomorphic, disjoint, connected, involution-free graphs $H_1$ and~$H_2$ and let $H$~be a graph made by adding two disjoint paths of the same length from some vertex $x_1\in H_1$ to some vertex $x_2\in H_2$. The only involution of this graph exchanges the interior vertices of the two paths, so $H^* = H_1\cup H_2$, which is disconnected.} The final result that we need from Faben and Jerrum is \cite[Theorem~6.1]{FJ13}, which allows us to deal with disconnected graphs: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:disconnected} Let $H$~be an involution-free graph. If $H$~has a component~$H'$ for which \parhcol[H'] is \ensuremath{\oplus\mathrm{P}}{}-complete, then \parhcol{} is \ensuremath{\oplus\mathrm{P}}{}-complete. \end{lemma} We can now prove our main result. { \renewcommand{\thetheorem}{\ref{thm:main}} \begin{theorem} \statethmmain{} \end{theorem} } \begin{proof} As we noted above, \parhcol{} has the same complexity as $\parhcol[H^*]$. If $H^*$~has at most one vertex, then \parhcol[H^*] is in~\ensuremath{\mathrm{P}}{}: $|\Homs{G}{H^*}|=1$ if $G$ has no edges and $\Homs{G}{H^*}=\emptyset$ if $G$~has an edge. Otherwise, let $H^{**}$~be any component of~$H^*$ with more than one vertex. Such a component must exist since, otherwise, $H^*$~would be a graph with at least two vertices and no edges, and any such graph has an involution. If $H^{**}$~has two or more vertices of even degree, then it has a hardness gadget by Lemma~\ref{lem:two-even}. If $H^{**}$~has exactly one vertex of even degree, it has a hardness gadget by Lemma~\ref{lem:even-deg}. If the previous cases do not apply, then every vertex of~$H^{**}$ must have odd degree. By Lemma~\ref{lem:invo-free-cycle}, $H^{**}$~contains a cycle. If it contains an odd cycle, it has a hardness gadget by Lemma~\ref{lem:odd-cycle}. Otherwise, $H^{**}$~is bipartite. By construction, $H^{**}$ is connected and square-free. Since $H^{**}$ contains a cycle, it has more than one edge. Since it is involution-free, it certainly contains an edge $(a,b)$ so that $(H^{**},a,b)$ is involution-free. Every vertex of~$H^{**}$ has odd degree, so it has a hardness gadget by Lemma~\ref{lem:even-gadget}. We have established that either $H^*$ has at most one vertex, in which case \parhcol[H^*] and \parhcol{} are in~\ensuremath{\mathrm{P}}{}, or that some component $H^{**}$ of $H^*$~has a hardness gadget. In the latter case, \parhcol[H^{**}] is \ensuremath{\oplus\mathrm{P}}{}-complete by Theorem~\ref{thm:hardness-gadget}. \parhcol[H^*] is \ensuremath{\oplus\mathrm{P}}{}-complete by Lemma~\ref{lem:disconnected}, so \parhcol{} is \ensuremath{\oplus\mathrm{P}}{}-complete. \end{proof} \section{Acknowledgements} We thank the referees for very useful comments. \bibliographystyle{plain}
\section{Introduction} With the recent advances in image and video processing, wireless sensor nodes are doted of new capabilities that enable them the capture and the processing of visual information. Networks of such interconnected devices are called Wireless Video Sensor Networks (WVSN)s. They are actually investigated for various monitoring applications, for indoor and outdoor environments \cite{SurvWVSN2014}. In the WVSN, the video nodes collaborate in order to deliver visual information about an area on interest, to a destination called the sink, via multihops short range transmissions. The nodes operate with respect to the available and limited resources. In fact, these units are battery powered. The management of this component is therefore a crucial issue in the Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) context in general, and in the WVSN context in particular. In brief, the energy consumption has to be efficiently managed in all of the protocol stack's layers. In the WVSNs, the video nodes compress the video streams prior to the transmission. Several works have been conducted in order to propose video compression schemes adapted to the WVSNs. In some works \cite{WMSNTranMPEG}-\cite{cross1}, the authors use a video compression standard as is and try to enhance the energy consumption in lower layers. While others \cite{aghdasi}-\cite{MDCWVSN} prefer to slightly modify the standard to make it more appropriate to the video nodes. In \cite{fdili2013energy}, we adopt the second choice and propose an energy efficient and adaptive video compression scheme dedicated to the WVSNs. Actually this scheme relies on the H.264/AVC video compression standard \cite{Richardson} in its intra-only mode. In addition it outputs two macroblocks categories depending on which region each one belongs, namely the Region Of Interest (ROI) or the Background (BKGD). This is done to introduce the differentiated service paradigm that is strongly recommended for WVSN. The simulations results have proven the energy efficiency of the proposed scheme. Consequently, for efficiently transferring the output streams, the underlying routing protocol has to be able to manage and serve different classes of packets at the same time. The authors in \cite{mmspeed} propose a Multipath Multi-SPEED protocol (MMSPEED) that is able to handle multiple traffic classes. Actually, it considers two quality domains, namely the timeliness and the reliability. In the first one, MMSPEED tries to maintain a given packet's Progression Speed (PS) across the network in order to meet the desired delay. Thereafter, to offer a Desired Reliability (DR), a Total Reaching Probability (TRP) is computed by injecting the Reaching Probability (RP) of each of the candidate nodes until the TRP reaches the DR. In \cite{our}, we investigate the MMSPEED protocol and show the gain that can be observed in timeliness and reliability domains when considering the Available Buffer Size (ABS) in the node's queue during the routing process. In fact, taking into account the ABS of neighbour nodes handles the congestion and leads to a decrease of the packets' experienced delay as well as the ratio of the dropped packets. Nevertheless, there is still a need to the consideration of the energy during the routing process. Therefore, in this paper, we first present a cross-layer approach for video delivery over WVSNs based on the video compression scheme presented in \cite{fdili2013energy} and the routing protocol presented in \cite{our}. Then, we propose an Energy and Queue Buffer Size Aware MMSPEED (EQBSA-MMSPEED) protocol that introduces the residual energy as new routing metric in order to decrease the energy consumption and hence extending the network lifetime. In addition, EQBSA-MMSPEED proposes a way to enhance the packet delivery ratio, called the Last Chance Procedure (LCP). The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In section \ref{app} the main contributions of this paper are in detail explained. Section \ref{Sim}, presents and discusses the simulations results in terms of energy consumption, delay, reliability and received video quality. Finally, section \ref{conclu} concludes the paper. \section{Proposed Approach} \label{app} In this Section we present in detail the proposed approach which is based on an energy efficient video compression scheme and an Energy and Queue Buffer Size Aware routing protocol. \subsection{Energy Efficient Adaptive Video Compression Scheme} \label{videocomp} As shown on Fig.\ref{sec3} , the video compression scheme operates using two modes: the Standby and the Rush modes. In the first mode, the nodes capture the scene following a low Frame Rate (FR) to preserve their energies. Then, they compress the video signal with a given Quantization parameter (QP). In addition, they use the intra-only mode that has proven its efficiency and suitability to the WVSN context. In fact, the authors in \cite{JpegJ2K} propose a comparative study concerning the H.264/AVC intra mode against JPEG and JPEG2000. They conclude that the H.264/AVC intra mode offers an interesting compromise in terms of complexity, quality and coding efficiency. \begin{figure}[htb] \includegraphics[width=8.75cm,height=3.5cm]{sec3.pdf} \caption{Block diagram of the proposed scheme} \label{sec3} \end{figure} When an event occurs, the concerned nodes switch to the Rush mode. First, they adopt a higher frame rate to report the event. Then, the Flexible Macroblock Ordering (FMO) tool is used to produce two service differentiated streams corresponding to the ROI and the BKGD. Moreover, the nodes keep the same QP and apply a Frequency Selectivity (FS) bit rate adaptation in order to decrease the energy consumed for the transmission. Actually it consists on keeping a number of the coefficients, FP, after the transform operation. Note that the FS is a logical operation that doesn't add any complexity to the encoder, unlike the case when a requantization is used. Finally, the residual coefficients are entropy coded by the Context-Adaptive Variable-Length Coding (CAVLC) that can approach the entropy of the source with a reduced complexity, compared to the Context-Based Adaptive Binary Arithmetic Coding (CABAC). \subsection{Energy and Queue Buffer Size Aware MMSPEED Routing Protocol (EQBSA-MMSPEED)} Now that the video streams are encoded in two different categories, we need to transfer them to the sink. For this purpose, a service differentiated routing protocol is needed to serve each flow according to its traffic class (ROI or BKGD). In addition, this routing protocol has to consider the compulsory energy constraint, especially when dealing with energy consuming streams. First of all, let us mathematically define some terms that will be used. The first one is the Forwarding Set (FS), regrouping the nodes that are in the communication range and closer to the destination $D$ than the current node $i$, and it is formulated as follows: \begin{equation} FS_i(D)= \left\lbrace j \in NS_i /dist(i,D)-dist(j,D)>0 \right\rbrace \end{equation} where $dist(i,D)$ and $dist(j,D)$ are the Euclidean distances between $i$ and $D$, $j$ and $D$ respectively, and $NS_i$ is the neighbourhood set that contains the one-hop reachable neighbours. The Progression Speed (PS) of a packet towards the destination D, if the node $i$ forwards it to the node $j$ is given as follows \cite{mmspeed} : \begin{equation} \label{speedeq} Speed_{ij}(D)=\frac{dist(i,D)-dist(j,D)}{Delay_{ij}} \end{equation} The Reaching Probability (RP) of a packet to the destination D, if the node $i$ forwards it to the node $j$ is given by \cite{mmspeed}: \begin{equation} \label{RP} RP^{D}_{ij}=(1-e_{ij})(1-e_{ij})^{[\frac{dist(j,D)}{dist(i,j)}]} \end{equation} where $e_{ij}$ corresponds to the rate of lost packets sent to $j$. Then, the Total Reaching Probability (TRP) is given by \cite{mmspeed}: \begin{equation} \label{TRP} TRP_{New}=1-(1-TRP_{Old})(1-RP^{D}_{ij}) \end{equation} In order to consider the energy consumption during the routing process, we propose to inject the information about the residual energy in the delay packets that are periodically broadcasted by each node in its neighbourhood. Thus, the delay beacon in the proposed EQBSA-MMSPEED protocol has the following structure, reported by Fig \ref{packet}. \begin{figure}[htb] \centering \includegraphics[width=7cm,height=0.75cm]{packet.pdf} \caption{Delay beacon structure in EQBSA-MMSPEED} \label{packet} \end{figure} Consequently, when a node receives a delay packet, it updates the different fields of its neighbouring table that now contains the field of the remaining energy (see Fig.\ref{NT}). \begin{figure}[htb] \centering \includegraphics[width=7cm,height=1cm]{NT.pdf} \caption{Neighbour Table in EQBSA-MMSPEED} \label{NT} \end{figure} When a node receives a data packet of traffic class $l$ to be routed, the node processes it as follows. The proposed EQBSA-MMSPEED protocol starts by constructing the FS, then the subsets $FS_{high}$ and $FS_{low}$ that contains respectively the nodes with PS higher and lower than the requested one. Afterwards, a score is assigned to each of the nodes of the $FS_{high}$ subset. Actually, in the EQBSA-MMSPEED protocol, this score is based on three metrics: the Residual Energy (RE), the Available Buffer Size (ABS) and the RP. The calculation of a neighbour node $j$'s score is given by: \begin{equation} \label{eij} score(j)=\alpha \times RP^{D}_{ij}+ \beta \times ABS_l(j) + (1-\alpha-\beta) \times RE(j) \end{equation} where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are weighting coefficients to be fixed, and $ABS_l$ is the information about the available buffer space in node $j$'s queue at level $l$. Once the nodes are sorted according to the calculated scores, they are presented to the equation \ref{TRP} one by one until the TRP reaches the DR for the packet's traffic class. When the node fails to find forwarding nodes belonging to $FS_{high}$, MMSPEED protocol probabilistically drops the packet or forwards it to the best node in the $FS_{low}$ in terms of the PS. Therefore, in the proposed EQBSA-MMSPEED protocol, a new procedure called the Last Chance Procedure (LCP), is introduced. The purpose of this procedure is doing more network lifetime extension and achieving proper reliability even in such cases. The LCP consists in first dividing the subset $FS_{low}$ in two subsets, namely $FS_{low}^{LC}$ and $FS_{low}^{Rescue}$. Formally, $FS_{low}^{LC}$ can be defined as follows: \begin{equation} FS_{low}^{LC}=\left\lbrace j \in FS_{low} / PS(j)\geq PS_{avg} \right\rbrace \end{equation} Hence, the $FS_{low}^{LC}$ contains the nodes of the $FS_{low}$ that are able to offer a packet's PS higher than the average PS in $FS_{low}$. Otherwise, the node belongs to $FS_{low}^{Rescue}$. Subsequently, the nodes of $FS_{low}^{LC}$ are sorted according to their scores, calculated by the equation \ref{eij}. Then, they are injected in the equation \ref{TRP} until the TRP reaches the DR for the packet's traffic class. Finally, in case the presented nodes are not sufficient to meet the DR, the best nodes in terms of reliability in $FS_{low}^{Rescue}$ are selected one by one. In summary, the proposed EQBSA-MMSPEED protocol compared to its predecessors, is able to (1) meet the required deadlines since the nodes are chosen -when possible- from the $FS_{high}$, (2) to extend the network lifetime by taking into account the residual energy of the nodes and (3) tries to offer an acceptable packet delivery ratio as much as possible thanks to the LCP. \section{Simulations Results} \label{Sim} In order to validate the proposed approach, we conducted several simulations using the JSIM \cite{jsim1} simulator. We considered 100 nodes uniformly deployed in an area of interest where 50\% of them are video nodes. First, the nodes starts exchanging control packets for a given duration $XD$. Then the video nodes start the Standby mode, capturing the scene following a low FR, $FR_{SM}$, and compress it using a given $QP$. Each frame is then subdivided into a number of packets to be routed towards the sink according to a given packet rate, $PR_{SM}$. At the event time, the node that has detected it switches to the Rush mode following a higher FR , $FR_{RM}$. Each of the macroblocks of the captured frames is categorized as belonging to ROI or BKGD thanks to the FMO option. The BKGD component is then bit rate adapted using the FS of parameter $FP$. Afterwards, the ROI and the BKGD are encapsulated into packets to be routed towards the sink according to a packet rate, $PR_{RM}$, with suitable reliability and delay constraints. For reliable evaluation, the source nodes are randomly designated in each realisation. We evaluate the performances of the proposed approach during the video transmission until the last deliverable packet reaches the sink. Table \ref{config} reports the used simulations parameters. \begin{table}[htb] \centering \caption{Simulations setup} \label{config} \begin{footnotesize} \begin{tabular}{l l} \hline \hspace{1.5cm} \textbf{Environment} & \hspace{-1.25cm} \textbf{Settings} \\ \hline Video format & QCIF(176x144)\\ \hline $FR_{SM}$ & 1 (fps)\\ \hline $FR_{RM}$ & 3 (fps)\\ \hline $QP$ & 32\\ \hline $FP$ & 6\\ \hline ROI ratio & 0.5\\ \hline $XD$ & 50 (s)\\ \hline $PR_{SM}$ & 5 (pps)\\ \hline $PR_{RM}$ & 10 (pps)\\ \hline Packets per Frame & 33\\ \hline Queue size & 100 (Pckts)\\ \hline QBSA-MMSPEED$(\alpha)$ & 0.7\\ \hline EQBSA-MMSPEED$(\alpha,\beta)$ & (0.3,0.2)\\ \hline $DR_{ROI}$ & 0.7\\ \hline $DR_{BKGD}$ & 0.3\\ \hline $Delay_{ROI}$ & 1 (s)\\ \hline $Delay_{BKGD}$ & 2 (s)\\ \hline Radio range & 40 (m)\\ \hline Terrain & 200 x 200 (m$^2$) \\ \hline Bandwidth & 250 (kbps)\\ \hline \hspace{2cm} \textbf{Energy} & \hspace{-1.75cm} \textbf{Model} \\ \hline Initial energy & 10 (Joules)\\ \hline Current consumption for transmitting & 28.18 (mA)\\ \hline Current consumption for receiving & 39.5 (mA)\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{footnotesize} \end{table} Fig. \ref{EC} shows the average number of alive nodes during the video transmission over 50 realisations. We compare here three routing protocols: MMSPEED \cite{mmspeed}, QBSA-MMSPEED \cite{our} and the proposed EQBSA-MMSPEED. As can be seen, the proposed protocol extends the network lifetime of about 33\%. \begin{figure}[htb] \hspace{-0.80cm}\includegraphics[width=10.5cm,height=4.75cm]{Energyconsumption2.png} \caption{Number of alive nodes at runtime} \label{EC} \end{figure} Fig. \ref{D_RM} reports the results in the timeliness domain during the Rush mode. \begin{figure}[htb] \centering \includegraphics[width=7cm,height=3.5cm]{Delai.png} \caption{Delays during the Rush mode} \label{D_RM} \end{figure} One can observe that the three protocols treat the ROI and the BKGD differently. In addition, we observe the slight enhancement in the delays that is achieved by the EQBSA-MMSPEED. This can be explained by the introduced load balance thanks to the consideration of the residual energy. Hence, nodes with appropriate delay and ABS are not always selected to not lead them to the state of congestion, thus having less packets to be processed. Fig.\ref{PDR_RM} depicts the packet delivery ratio during the Rush mode. \begin{figure}[htb] \centering \includegraphics[width=7cm,height=3.5cm]{PDR.png} \caption{Packet delivery ratio during the Rush mode} \label{PDR_RM} \end{figure} We can observe that the proposed EQBSA-MMSPEED achieves interesting performances; this is due to four main reasons. The first one is, as said before, introducing new metric enables more load balancing. The second one is, even in worst cases, packet drop is avoided as much as possible while considering the energy consumption, thanks to the LCP. The third one is related to the fact that ignoring the remaining energy, in MMSPEED and QBSA-MMSPEED protocols, leads to a sort of acceleration in nodes' death. This fact creates holes specially in regions that are next to the destination, and this last becomes isolated. Consequently this leads to not receiving the packets at the sink. The last one is that the source nodes play also the role of forwarding nodes of others nodes' packets. Not considering their remaining energies accelerate their death as well, leading to their inability to send the whole video stream. \vspace{-0.5cm} \begin{figure}[htb] \hspace{-0.80cm}\includegraphics[width=10.5cm,height=4.5cm]{PSNRAcqRec.png} \caption{PSNR values of the displayed stream} \label{PSNR} \end{figure} Finally, Fig. \ref{PSNR} reports the performances of the proposed cross-layer approach with EQBSA-MMSPEED against MMSPEED \cite{mmspeed} and QBSA-MMSPEED \cite{our} in terms of video quality expressed by the Peak Signal to noise Ratio (PSNR). Note that, at the reception, a simple spatial error concealment procedure is applied to the received streams which exploits the inherent temporal correlation feature of the video signals. The proposed EQBSA-MMSPEED protocol allows the achievement of an average overall video quality enhancement of 3 dBs against MMSPEED and QBSA-MMSPEED. \section{Conclusion} \label{conclu} In this paper, a cross-layer approach for video delivery in the WVSNs is proposed. The approach relies on a energy efficient and adaptive video compression scheme that has proven its efficiency in both video quality and energy domains. The scheme is based on the H.264/AVC standard and uses simple techniques in order to be energy efficient. Finally, it outputs two macroblock categories namely the region of interest and the background. These lasts are handled by an Energy and Queue Buffer Size Aware MMSPEED protocol that is able to offer differentiated service with the consideration of the available space in the queue buffer size of adjacent nodes, their remaining energy as well as their reliability. The proposed protocol achieves 33\% of lifetime extension and 3 dBs of video quality enhancement. \bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
\section{Some knowledges } \subsection{Particle-hole symmetry and time-reversal symmetry} The BdG Hamiltonian, $\hat{H}$, of a superconductor has always particle-hole symmetry $\hat{C} \hat{H} \hat{C}=-\hat{H}$ where $\hat{C}$ is the particle-hole operator. In the basis $(c_{\uparrow},c_{\downarrow},c^{\dagger}_{\downarrow},-c^{\dagger}_{\uparrow})^{\rm T}$, the particle-hole operator is $\hat{C}=\tau_y \sigma_y K$ where $\tau$ and $\sigma$ are Pauli matrices in particle-hole and spin space respectively. The time-reversal operator has the form $\hat{T}=i\tau_0\sigma_y K$. If the system is time-reversal invariant, we have $\hat{T}^{-1} \hat{H} \hat{T}= \hat{H}$. \subsection{Definition of spin-singlet and spin-triplet gaps} Theoretically speaking, the Hamiltonian for superconducting pairing potential generally has the form \begin{eqnarray}\label{gap-1} H_{gap}=(\Delta_0 \Gamma_0+\tilde{\Delta}_0 \tilde{\Gamma}_0)+\sum_{i=1,2,3} (\Delta_j\Gamma_j+\tilde{\Delta}_j \tilde{\Gamma}_j), \end{eqnarray} where $\Delta_0(\tilde{\Delta}_0)$ is the real (imaginary) part of the s-wave gap, $\Delta_{j} (\tilde{\Delta}_j)$ is the imaginary (real) part of the p-wave gap, $\Gamma_{0,1,2,3}=(\tau_x \otimes \sigma_0,\tau_y\otimes \sigma_x, \tau_y\otimes \sigma_y ,\tau_y\otimes \sigma_z)$ and $\tilde{\Gamma}_{0,1,2,3}=(\tau_y \otimes \sigma_0,\tau_x\otimes \sigma_x, \tau_x\otimes \sigma_y ,\tau_x\otimes \sigma_z)$ in the basis $(c_{\uparrow},c_{\downarrow}, c^{\dagger}_{\downarrow},-c^{\dagger}_{\uparrow})^{\rm T}$. We find that the matrices $\Gamma_{0,1,2,3}$ and $\tilde{\Gamma}_{0,1,2,3}$ satisfy the Dirac algebra \begin{eqnarray}\label{Dirac-algebra-1} \left\{ \Gamma_{\mu}, \Gamma_{\nu} \right \}=2I_{4\times 4}, \ \ \left\{ \tilde{\Gamma}_{\mu}, \tilde{\Gamma}_{\nu} \right \}=2I_{4\times 4}, \ \ \tilde{\Gamma}_{\mu=0,1,2,3}=\Gamma_{5}\Gamma_{\mu=0,1,2,3}, \end{eqnarray} where $\Gamma_5=i\Gamma_1\Gamma_2\Gamma_3\Gamma_4=-i\tau_z\sigma_0$. Therefore, the pairing potential can be constructed from these eight gamma matrices. In the following, we will prove that $\Gamma_{i=1,2,3}$ expand a three dimensional vector space and construct a three dimensional representation of a SU(2) group whose generators correspond to the rotation in spin space. First, we define \begin{eqnarray}\label{SU(2)-1} \frac{i}{4}[\Gamma_{i},\Gamma_{j}]=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{ijk}\tau_0 \otimes \sigma_k=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{ijk}\left(\begin{array}{cc} \sigma_k & 0 \\ 0 & \sigma_k \end{array}\right)=\epsilon_{ijk}S_k, \end{eqnarray} where $S_{i=1,2,3}$ are three generators of a SU(2) algebra. Next, we will show that the matrix $e^{-i\bm S \cdot \bm n}$ corresponds to rotating the spin from z axis to the $\bm n$ direction where $\bm n$ is a three dimensional unit vector. Generally a wave function in the basis $(c_{\uparrow},c_{\downarrow},c^{\dagger}_{\downarrow},-c^{\dagger}_{\uparrow})^{\rm T}$ has the form \begin{eqnarray}\label{wf-10} \Psi=\left(\begin{array}{c} \psi_{\rm e} \\ i\sigma_y \psi_{\rm h} \end{array}\right). \end{eqnarray} where $\psi_{\rm e (h)}$ is the 2-component spinor wave function for the electron (hole). When we rotate the electron spin as \begin{eqnarray}\label{wf-11} \psi'_{\rm e}=e^{-i\bm \sigma \cdot \bm n/2}\psi_{\rm e}, \end{eqnarray} the spinor wave function for the hole will be transformed as \begin{eqnarray}\label{wf-12} \psi'_{\rm h}=e^{i\bm \sigma^* \cdot \bm n/2}\psi_{\rm h}. \end{eqnarray} Therefore the wave function is transformed as \begin{eqnarray}\label{wf-13} \Psi'=\left(\begin{array}{c} \psi'_{\rm e} \\ i\sigma_y \psi'_{\rm h} \end{array} \right)=\left(\begin{array}{c} e^{-i\bm \sigma \cdot \bm n}\psi_{\rm e} \\ i\sigma_y e^{i\bm \sigma^* \cdot \bm n /2}\psi_{\rm h} \end{array} \right)=\left(\begin{array}{c} e^{-i\bm \sigma \cdot \bm n /2}\psi_{\rm e} \\ e^{-i\bm \sigma \cdot \bm n} i\sigma_y\psi_{\rm h} \end{array} \right)=e^{-i\bm S \cdot \bm n} \Psi. \end{eqnarray} Therefore the matrix $e^{-i\bm S \cdot \bm n}$ corresponds to the rotation in the spin space. Because the SU(2) generators $S_{i=1,2,3}$ are constructed from the Eq.~\ref{SU(2)-1}, the three gamma matrices $\Gamma_{1,2,3}$ construct a three dimensional representation of a SU(2). Therefore $\Gamma_{1,2,3}$ are the spinnors of the SU(2) with generators $S_k=\epsilon_{ijk}\tau_0\sigma_k/2$. This is consistent to the fact the $\Gamma_{1,2,3}$ are the basis of spin-triplet pairing. It is easy to see that $(\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2)=(i\tau_y\sigma_x,i\tau_y\sigma_y)$ represent the superconducting pairing in the same spin channel. Therefore, as long as the superconducting pairing can be written as the superposition of the basis $\Gamma_{1,2,3}$, we can always find a rotation operator which can rotate a general spinor to the axis in which the electron and hole have the spin. Also it is easy to check that $\left[ \Gamma_0,S_{i=1,2,3} \right]=0$. Therefore $\Gamma_0$ is a one-dimensional representation of the SU(2) spin rotation group which is consistent to the fact that $\Gamma_0$ is the basis of the spin-singlet pairing. The similar results can be applied to $\tilde{\Gamma}_{0,1,2,3}$. \section{Spectral function and pairing density} The equal space spectral function at energy $E$ is defined as \begin{eqnarray*} A(E,x)=\frac{i}{2\pi}(G^{R}(E,x)-G^{A}(E,x)), \end{eqnarray*} which is a Hermitian matrix. Based on the Lehmann representation, the retarded Green's function is related to the spectral function as \begin{eqnarray}\label{GF-1} G^R(E,x)=(E-H+i\delta)^{-1}&=&\int _{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{A(\epsilon,x)}{E-\epsilon+i\delta} d\epsilon ={\rm P} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{A(\epsilon,x)}{E-\epsilon}d\epsilon-i\pi A(E,x) \nonumber, \end{eqnarray} where $x$ and $x'$ are the spatial coordinates. Because the spectral function $A(\epsilon,x)$ is hermitian, the principle integral ${\rm P} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{A(\epsilon,x)}{E-\epsilon}$ is hermitian, and $-i\pi A(E,x)$ is anti-hermitian. The spectral function can be written as $A(\epsilon)=\sum_{\epsilon_n=\epsilon}|\Psi_n(x)\rangle\langle \Psi_n(x)|$. As we are interested in the superconducting pairing, in the following, we will focus on the off diagonal part of the spectral function which has the form $A^{\rm off}(\epsilon)=d_{\mu}(\epsilon,x)\Gamma_{\mu}+\tilde{d}_{\mu}(\epsilon,x)\tilde{\Gamma}_{\mu}$ where $d_{\mu}$ and $\tilde{d}_{\mu}$ are the superconducting pairing amplitudes. Because $\Gamma_{\mu}$, $\tilde{\Gamma}_{\mu}$ and the spectral function $A(\epsilon,x)$ are hermitian, the coefficients $d_{\mu}$ and $\tilde{d}_{\mu}$ are real. We now focus on the retarded Green's function at $E=0$ because it is related to the MFs in the topological superconductors. As the Hamiltonian $H$ has particle-hole symmetry, the retarded Green's function at $E=0$ also respects particle-hole symmetry which is shown below: \begin{eqnarray}\label{GF-2} \hat{C} G^{\rm R}(0,x) \hat{C}^{-1}&=&\hat{C} (-H+i\delta)^{-1} \hat{C}^{-1}=-(-H+i\delta)^{-1}\equiv- {\rm P}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{A(\epsilon,x)}{-\epsilon} d\epsilon+i\pi A(E,x)\end{eqnarray} Particularly we are interested in the block off diagonal part of the retarded Green's function \begin{eqnarray}\label{GF-anoma} F^{\rm R}=\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0& f^{\rm R} \\ \overline{f}^{\rm R} & 0\end{array}\right). \end{eqnarray} Based on Eq.~\ref{GF-2}, the off diagonal retarded Green's function satisfies \begin{eqnarray}\label{GF-4} \hat{C} F^{\rm R}(0,x) \hat{C}^{-1}&=&{\rm P}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{A^{\rm off}(\epsilon,x)}{\epsilon} d\epsilon+i\pi A^{\rm off}(0,x)\nonumber \\ &=& {\rm P}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{d_{\mu}(\epsilon,x)\Gamma_{\mu}+\tilde{d}_{\mu}(\epsilon,x)\tilde{\Gamma}_{\mu}}{\epsilon} d\epsilon+i\pi \left(d_{\mu}(0,x)\Gamma_{\mu}+\tilde{d}_{\mu}(0,x)\tilde{\Gamma}_{\mu}\right). \end{eqnarray} On the other hand, particle-hole symmetry requires the anomalous Green's function to satisfy \begin{eqnarray}\label{GF-5} &&\hat{C} F^{\rm R}(0,x) \hat{C}^{-1}=\hat{C} \left({\rm P} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{A^{\rm off}(\epsilon,x)}{-\epsilon}-i\pi A^{\rm off}(0,x)\right) \hat{C}^{-1} \nonumber \\ &&= -{\rm P} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{d_{0}(\epsilon,x)\Gamma_{0}+\tilde{d}_{0}(\epsilon,x)\tilde{\Gamma}_{0}-d_{i}(\epsilon,x)\Gamma_{i}-\tilde{d}_{i}(\epsilon,x)\tilde{\Gamma}_{i}}{\epsilon}+i\pi \left(-d_{0}(0,x)\Gamma_{0}-\tilde{d}_{0}(0,x)\tilde{\Gamma}_{0}+d_{i}(0,x)\Gamma_{i}+\tilde{d}_{i}(0,x)\tilde{\Gamma}_{i}\right),\nonumber \\ \end{eqnarray} where we use the fact that \begin{eqnarray*} \hat{C} \Gamma_{\mu=0,1,2,3} \hat{C}^{-1}=(-\tau_x \sigma_0, \tau_y\sigma_x,\tau_y\sigma_y,\tau_y\sigma_z), \ \ \ \hat{C} \tilde{\Gamma}_{\mu=0,1,2,3} \hat{C}^{-1}=(-\tau_y\sigma_0,\tau_x\sigma_x,\tau_x\sigma_y,\tau_x\sigma_z). \end{eqnarray*} Comparing Eq.~\ref{GF-4} with Eq.~\ref{GF-5}, we conclude that spin-singlet pairing is completely forbidden in the anti-hermitian part of the anomalous Green's function $F^{\rm R}_{anti-hermitian}(0,x)=-i\pi A^{\rm off}(0,x)$ which indicates that the MFs cannot have spin-singlet pairing. \section{Scattering matrix theory for DIII topological superconductor} When a normal lead is attached to a superconductor, the Andreev reflection at the SC/NM interface will induce the superconducting condensate in the normal region. In the following and for a one-dimensional (1D) SC/NM junction, we use scattering matrix theory to show that the induced superconducting condensate by the MF resonant Andreev reflection is always spin-triplet. We first focus on a DIII class SC/NM junction. Because of time-reversal symmetry, the scattering matrix is self dual \cite{TSC:Beenakker1997} which requires that \begin{eqnarray*} S=\left(\begin{array}{cc} r_{ee} \sigma_0 & a_0\sigma_0+a_j\sigma_j \\ a\sigma_0-a_j\sigma_j & r_{\rm hh}\sigma_0 \end{array} \right). \end{eqnarray*} It is straightforward to show that the above scattering matrix satisfies the condition $\hat{T}S^{\dagger}(E)\hat{T}^{-1}=S(E)$. It is also noted that $a_{j=x,y,z}$ are the spin-triplet scattering amplitudes and $a_0$ is the spin-singlet scattering amplitude. We are interested in the Andreev reflection at $E=0$. In this case, according to the particle-hole symmetry of the system, we have \begin{eqnarray*} \tau_y\sigma_y S^* \tau_y\sigma_y &=& \left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & -i\sigma_y \\ i\sigma_y & 0 \end{array} \right) \left(\begin{array}{cc} r_{ee} \sigma_0 & a_0\sigma_0+a_j\sigma_j \\ a\sigma_0-a_j\sigma_j & r_{\rm hh}\sigma_0 \end{array} \right) \left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & -i\sigma_y \\ i\sigma_y & 0 \end{array} \right) \nonumber \\ &=&\left(\begin{array}{cc} r^*_{\rm hh} \sigma_0 & -(a_0^*\sigma_0+a_j^*\sigma_j) \\ -(a^*\sigma_0-a_j^*\sigma_j) & r_{ee}^*\sigma_0 \end{array} \right)\nonumber \\ &=&S=\left(\begin{array}{cc} r_{\rm ee} \sigma_0 & a_0\sigma_0+a_j\sigma_j \\ a_0\sigma_0-a_j\sigma_j & r_{\rm hh}\sigma_0 \end{array} \right). \end{eqnarray*} Therefore, we have $r_{ee}^*=r_{\rm hh}=b_0$ is real, $a_0$ and $a_j$ are pure imaginary. At last, the matrix $S$ should be unitary. This requires \begin{eqnarray*} S^{\dagger}S=\left(\begin{array}{cc} \sigma_0 & 0 \\ 0 & \sigma_0 \end{array} \right) \end{eqnarray*} Because \begin{eqnarray*} (S^{\dagger}S)_{\rm ee}=(|b_0|^2+|a_0|^2+|a_x|^2+|a_y|^2+|a_z|^2)\sigma_0+2a_0 a_j\sigma_j=\sigma_0, \end{eqnarray*} we have either $a_{j=x,y,z}=0$, $|b_0|^2+|a_0|^2=1$ or $a_0=0$, $|b_0|^2+|a_x|^2+|a_y|^2+|a_z|^2=1$. These indicate that the spin-singlet Andreev reflection (the former case) and spin-triplet Andreev reflection (the latter case) cannot coexist. For the spin-triplet Andreev reflection, we further have \begin{eqnarray*} (S^{\dagger}S)_{\rm eh}=2b_0a_j\sigma_j=0, \end{eqnarray*} which requires either $r^*=0$ or $a_{j=x,y,z}=0$ and indicates that the normal reflection and spin-triplet Andreev reflection also cannot coexist. Therefore, we conclude for a DIII class SC/NM junction and at $E=0$, the spin-triplet Andreev reflection must be a perfect Andreev reflection with vanished spin-singlet component. It is also straightforward to show that \begin{eqnarray*} \rm{Pf} \left( i\sigma_y\tau_0 \left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & a_j\sigma_j \\ - a_j\sigma_j & 0 \end{array} \right) \right)&=&\rm{Pf} \left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & i\sigma_y a_j\sigma_j \\ -i\sigma_y a_j\sigma_j & 0 \end{array} \right) \\ &=&-(|a_x|^2+|a_y|^2+|a_z|^2)=-1, \end{eqnarray*} which is consistent to the condition of the nontrivial topological quantum number \cite{TSC:Beenakker2014} in terms of the scattering matrix for a DIII class superconductor. \section{Spin precession angle and its effect for time-reversal invariant topological junction} The Hamiltonian of the SOC-semiconductor is \begin{eqnarray}\label{Ham-SOC-semi-1} H_{\rm semi}=(-2t\cos(ka)-\mu_{\rm s})\tau_z\otimes \sigma_0+2t'_{\rm so} \sin(ka) \tau_z\otimes \sigma_y, \end{eqnarray} where $k$ is the wave vector, $a$ is the lattice constant, $t'_{\rm so}$ is the SOC hopping constant in the SOC-semiconductor and the effective magnetic field of the SOC is along $y$ direction. SOC will shift the two spin-subbands to opposite direction in the momentum space. In the 1D tight-binding model with $k_x\sigma_y$-like SOC Hamiltonian at low energy limit, the dispersion relation is $E=2t(1-\cos(ka))\pm 2t_{\rm so}\sin(ka)=2t-2\sqrt{t^2+t_{\rm so}^2}\cos(ka\pm \delta \phi)$ where $\cos(\delta \phi)=t/\sqrt{t^2+t_{\rm so}^2}$. If there are N sites in the normal region, the electron and hole will take time $T=N/ v_f \approx N\hbar/2at\sin(k_f a)$ to go through the normal region. Because the effective magnetic field due to SOC is $B_{\rm soc}=2t'_{\rm so} \sin(k_f a)$, the spin precession angle of an electron or hole in the normal region is $\gamma=B_{\rm soc} T=Nt'_{\rm so}/t$. In the continuous limit, we have $t\rightarrow\hbar^2/2ma^2$, $t'_{\rm so}\rightarrow \alpha/a$. Therefore, the spin precession angle in the continuous limit is $\gamma=Nt'_{\rm so}/t=2m\alpha L$ where $L=Na$ is the length of the normal region. For a time-reversal invariant TSC, there is a pair of Majorana zero modes with opposite spins at the boundary. The induced spin-triplet condensates are described by $(|\uparrow\uparrow\rangle+|\downarrow\downarrow\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$ which is even under time-reversal operation. Here we assume the Majorana spins are parallel or anti-parallel to z axis. If the spin-orbit coupling (SOC) field direction is along y axis as we consider in the manuscript, the spins are rotated so that the spin-triplet states are changed to $(|\nearrow\nearrow\rangle+|\swarrow\swarrow\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$ where $\nearrow$ and $\swarrow$ represent the spins lying in the x-z plane with wave functions $(\cos(\theta/2),\sin(\theta)/2)^{\text T}$ and $(\sin(\theta/2),-\cos(\theta)/2)^{\text T}$ respectively. Therefore the projection of the condensates is \begin{eqnarray*} (\langle \uparrow\uparrow|+\langle \downarrow\downarrow|)(|\nearrow\nearrow\rangle+|\swarrow\swarrow\rangle)/2=1, \end{eqnarray*} which is independent of the SOC. Therefore in this case the TSC/SOC/TSC junction performs like a normal Josephson junction. However if the SOC field direction is along x axis so that the Majorana spin is rotated in y-z direction, the spins $\nearrow$ and $\swarrow$ correspond to $(\cos(\theta/2),i\sin(\theta)/2)^{\text T}$ and $(i\sin(\theta/2),\cos(\theta)/2)^{\text T}$ respectively. The projection is \begin{eqnarray*} (\langle \uparrow\uparrow|+\langle \downarrow\downarrow|)(|\nearrow\nearrow\rangle+|\swarrow\swarrow\rangle)/2=\cos\theta, \end{eqnarray*} which will result in a 0- and $\pi$- Josephson junction transition.
\section{Introduction}\label{section:introduction} Let $\Omega$ be a bounded Lipschitz domain of $\mathds{R}^d$ with boundary $\partial\Omega$. Let $\Gamma_0$ be a closed subset of $\partial\Omega$ with $\Gamma_0 \not= \partial\Omega$ and $\Gamma_1$ its complement in $\partial\Omega$. We consider the symmetric elliptic operator on $L^2(\Omega)$ given by the formal expression: $$ L_{a}(\lambda) := \sum_{k,j=1}^d \partial_k (a_{kj} \partial_j ) + \sum_{k=1}^d a_k \partial_k - \partial_k( \overline{a_k} . ) + a_0 - \lambda$$ where $a_{kj} = \overline{a_{jk}}, a_k, a_0 = \overline{a_0} \in L^\infty(\Omega)$ and $\lambda$ is a constant. We define the associated Dirichlet-to-Neumann (D-t-N) operator, $\mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1, a}(\lambda)$, with partial data as follows:\\ for $\varphi \in H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\partial\Omega)$ with $\varphi = 0 $ on $\Gamma_0$, one solves the Dirichlet problem \begin{equation}\label{eqh1} L_a(\lambda) u = 0 \, \, \text{weakly in}\ W^{1,2}(\Omega)\, \text{with}\ u = \varphi \, \, \text{on}\, \partial\Omega, \end{equation} and defines (in the weak sense) \begin{equation}\label{DTN1} {\mathcal N}_{\Gamma_1, a}(\lambda) \varphi := \sum_{j=1}^d \left( \sum_{k=1}^d a_{kj} \partial_k u + \overline{a_j} \varphi \right)\!\nu_j \, \, \text{on}\, \Gamma_1. \end{equation} Here $\nu = (\nu_1, \cdots, \nu_d)$ is the outer unit normal to the boundary of $\Omega$. The operator $\mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1, a}(\lambda)$ is interpreted as the conormal derivative on the boundary. It is an operator acting on $L^2(\partial\Omega)$. See Section \ref{sec1} for more details. Let us consider first the case where $a_{kj} = \sigma(x) \delta^{kj}$, $ a_k = 0, k= 0,1 \dots d$, where $\sigma \in L^\infty(\Omega)$ is bounded from below (by a positive constant). A. Calder\'on's well known inverse problem asks whether one could determine solely the conductivity $\sigma(x)$ from boundary measurements, i.e., from $ \mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1}(0)$. For the global boundary measurements, i.e., $\Gamma_1 = \partial\Omega$, the first global uniqueness result was proved by Sylvester and Uhlmann \cite{SU87} for a $C^2$-smooth conductivity when $d \ge 3$. This results was extended to $C^{1+ \epsilon}$-smooth conductivity by Greenleaf, Lassas and Uhlmann \cite{GLU} and then by Haberman and Tataru \cite{HT} to $C^1$ and Lipschitz conductivity close to the identity. Haberman \cite{Hab} proved the uniqueness for Lipschitz conductivity when $d= 3, 4$ and this was extended to all $d \ge 3$ by Caro and Rogers \cite{CR}. In the two-dimension case with $C^2$-smooth conductivity, the global uniqueness was proved by Nachman \cite{Na96}. This regularity assumption was completely removed by Astala and P\"aiv\"arinta \cite{AP06} dealing with $\sigma \in L^\infty(\Omega)$. \\ The inverse problem with partial data consists in proving uniqueness (either for the isotropic conductivity or for the potential) when the measurement is made only on a part of the boundary. This means that the trace of the solution $u$ in \eqref{eqh1} is supported on a set $\Gamma_D$ and the D-t-N operator is known on $\Gamma_N$ for some parts $\Gamma_D$ and $\Gamma_N$ of the boundary. This problem has been studied and there are some geometric conditions on $\Gamma_D$ and $ \Gamma_N$ under which uniqueness is proved. We refer to Isakov \cite{Isa}, Kenig, Sj\"ostrand and Uhlmann \cite{KSU}, Dos Santos et al. \cite{DKSU}, Imanuvilov, Uhlmann and Yamamoto \cite{IUY} and the review paper \cite{KS} by Kenig and Salo for more references and recent developments. Now we move to the anisotropic case. This corresponds to the general case where the conductivity is given by a general matrix $a_{kj}$. As pointed out by Lee and Uhlmann in \cite{LU89}, it is not difficult to see that a change of variables given by a diffeomorphism of $\Omega$ which is the identity on $\partial\Omega$ leads to different coefficients $b_{kj}$ without changing the D-t-N operator on the boundary. Therefore the single coefficients $a_{kj}$ are not uniquely determined in general. In \cite{LU89}, Lee and Uhlmann proved that for real-analytic coefficients the uniqueness up to a diffeomorphism holds when the dimension $d$ is $ \ge 3$. The same result was proved by Astala, Lassas and P\"aiv\"arinta \cite{ALP} for the case $d= 2$ and $L^\infty$-coefficients. In \cite{BR12}, Behrndt and Rohleder considered general elliptic expressions $L_a$ and $L_b$ as above and prove that if the corresponding D-t-N operators ${\mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1, a}}(\lambda)$ and ${\mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1, b}}(\lambda)$ coincide for all $\lambda$ in a set having an accumulation point in $\rho(L^D_a) \cap \rho(L^D_b)$ then the operators $L_a^D$ and $L_b^D$ are unitarily equivalent. Here $L_a^D$ is the elliptic operator $L_a$ with Dirichlet boundary conditions. This can be seen as a milder version of the uniqueness problem discussed above. The proof is based on the theory of extensions of symmetric operators and unique continuation results. It is assumed in \cite{BR12} that the coefficients are Lipschitz continuous on $\overline{\Omega}$. We give a different proof of this result which also works for other boundary conditions. Our main result is the following. \begin{theorem}\label{thm0} Suppose that $\Omega$ is a bounded Lipchitz domain of $\mathds{R}^d$ with $d \ge 2$. Let $\Gamma_0$ be a closed subset of $\partial\Omega$, $\Gamma_0 \not= \partial\Omega$ and $\Gamma_1$ its complement. Let $a= \{ a_{kj}, a_k, a_0 \}$ and $b = \{ b_{kj}, b_k, b_0 \}$ be bounded functions on $\Omega$ such that $a_{kj}$ and $b_{kj}$ satisfy the usual ellipticity condition. If $d \ge 3$ we assume in addition that the coefficients $a_{kj}, b_{kj}, a_k$ and $b_k$ are Lipschitz continuous on $\overline{\Omega}$. \\ Suppose that ${\mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1, a}}(\lambda) = {\mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1, b}}(\lambda)$ for all $\lambda $ in a set having an accumulation point in $\rho(L^D_a) \cap \rho(L^D_b)$. Then:\\ $i)$ The operators $L_a$ and $L_b$ endowed with Robin boundary conditions are unitarily equivalent.\\ $ii)$ The operators $L_a$ and $L_b$ endowed with mixed boundary conditions (Dirichlet on $\Gamma_0$ and Neumann type on $\Gamma_1$) are unitarily equivalent.\\ $iii)$ The operators $L_a$ and $L_b$ endowed with Dirichlet boundary conditions are unitarily equivalent. In addition, for Robin or mixed boundary conditions, the eigenfunctions associated to the same eigenvalue $\lambda \notin \sigma(L_a^D) = \sigma(L_b^D)$ coincide on the boundary of $\Omega$. \end{theorem} Note that unlike \cite{BR12} we do not assume regularity of the coefficients when $d= 2$. We shall restate this theorem in a more precise way after introducing some necessary material and notation. The proof is given in Section \ref{sec3}. It is based on spectral theory and differs from the one in \cite{BR12}. Our strategy is to use a relationship between eigenvalues of the D-t-N operator ${\mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1, a}}(\lambda)$ and eigenvalues of the elliptic operator with Robin boundary conditions $L_a^\mu$ on $\Omega$ where $\mu$ is a parameter. One of the main ingredients in the proof is that each eigenvalue of the latter operator is a strictly decreasing map with respect to the parameter $\mu$. Next, the equality of ${\mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1, a}}(\lambda)$ and ${\mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1, b}}(\lambda)$ allows us to prove that the spectra of $L_a^\mu$ and $L_b^\mu$ are the same and the eigenvalues have the same multiplicity. The similarity of the two elliptic operators with Dirichlet boundary conditions is obtained from the similarity of $L_a^\mu$ and $L_b^\mu$ by letting the parameter $\mu$ tend to $-\infty$. During the proof we use some ideas from the papers of Arendt and Mazzeo \cite{AM07} and \cite{AM12} which deal with a different subject, namely the Friendlander inequality for the eigenvalues of the Dirichlet and Neumann Laplacian on a Lipschitz domain. The ideas which we borrow from \cite{AM07} and \cite{AM12} are then adapted and extended to our general case of D-t-N operators with variable coefficients and partial data.\\ In Section \ref{sec1} we define the D-t-N operator with partial data using the method of sesquilinear forms. In particular, for symmetric coefficients it is a self-adjoint operator on $L^2(\Gamma_1)$. It can be seen as an operator on $L^2(\partial\Omega)$ with a non-dense domain and which we extend by $0$ to $L^2(\Gamma_0)$. Therefore one can associate with this D-t-N operator a semigroup $(T^{\Gamma_1}_t)_{t\ge 0}$ acting on $L^2(\partial\Omega)$. In Section \ref{sec2} we prove positivity, sub-Markovian and domination properties for such semigroups. In particular, $(T^{\Gamma_1}_t)_{t\ge 0}$ extends to a contraction semigroup on $L^p(\partial\Omega)$ for all $p \in [1, \infty)$. Hence, for $\varphi_0 \in L^p(\Gamma_1)$, one obtains existence and uniqueness of the solution in $L^p(\partial\Omega)$ to the evolution problem $$\partial_t \varphi + {\mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1, a}}(\lambda) \varphi = 0, \quad \varphi (0) = \varphi_0.$$ The results of Section \ref{sec2} are of independent interest and are not used in the proof of the theorem stated above. \section{The partial D-t-N operator}\label{sec1} Let $\Omega$ be a bounded open set of $\mathds{R}^d$ with Lipschitz boundary $\partial \Omega$. The boundary is endowed with the $(d-1)$-dimensional Hausdorff measure $d\sigma$. Let $$a_{kj}, a_k, \tilde{a_k}, a_0: \Omega \to \mathds{C}$$ be bounded measurable for $1 \le k, j \le d$ and such that there exists a constant $\eta > 0$ for which \begin{equation}\label{1-1} \Re \sum_{k,j=1}^d a_{kj} (x) \xi_k \overline{\xi_j} \ge \eta | \xi |^2 \end{equation} for all $\xi = (\xi_1, \cdots, \xi_d) \in \mathds{C}^d$ and a.e. $x \in \Omega$. \\ Let $\Gamma_0$ be an closed subset of $\partial\Omega$ and $\Gamma_1$ its complement in $\partial \Omega$. \\ \noindent\underline{{\it Elliptic operators on $\Omega$.}}\\ We consider the space \begin{equation}\label{1-3} V = \{ u \in W^{1,2}(\Omega),\, \text{Tr}(u) = 0\ \text{on}\ \Gamma_0 = 0 \}, \end{equation} where $\text{Tr}$ denotes the trace operator. We define the sesquilinear form $$\mathfrak{a} : V \times V \to \mathds{C}$$ by the expression \begin{equation}\label{1-4} \mathfrak{a}(u,v) = \sum_{k,j=1}^d \int_\Omega a_{kj} \partial_k u \overline{\partial_j v}\ dx + \sum_{k=1}^d \int_\Omega a_k \partial_k u \overline{ v} + \tilde{a_k} u \overline{ \partial_k v}\ dx + a_0 u \overline{v}\ dx \end{equation} for all $u, v \in V$. Here we use the notation $\partial_j $ for the partial derivative $\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}$. It follows easily from the ellipticity assumption (\ref{1-1}) that the form $\mathfrak{a}$ is quasi-accretive, i.e., there exists a constant $w$ such that \[ \Re \mathfrak{a}(u,u) + w \| u \|_2^2 \ge 0 \ \ \forall u \in V. \] In addition, since $V$ is a closed subspace of $W^{1,2}(\Omega)$ the form $\mathfrak{a}$ is closed. Therefore there exists an operator $L_a$ associated with $\mathfrak{a}$. It is defined by \begin{align*} D(L_a) &= \{ u \in V, \exists v \in L^2(\Omega): \mathfrak{a}(u, \phi) = \int_\Omega v \overline{\phi}\ dx \,\,\, \forall \phi \in V \},\\ L_a u &:= v. \end{align*} Formally, $L_a$ is given by the expression \begin{equation}\label{1-5} L_a u = - \sum_{k, j=1}^d \partial_k (a_{kj} \partial_j u ) + \sum_{k=1}^d a_k \partial_k u - \partial_k( \tilde{a_k} u ) + a_0 u. \end{equation} In addition, following \cite{AM07} or \cite{AM12} we define the conormal derivative $\frac{\partial}{\partial \nu}$ in the weak sense (i.e. in $H^{-1/2}(\partial\Omega)$ the dual space of $H^{1/2}(\partial\Omega) = \text{Tr}(W^{1,2}(\Omega))$), then $L_a$ is subject to the boundary conditions \begin{equation}\label{1-6} \left\{ \begin{aligned} \text{Tr}(u) &= 0 \quad \text{on } \Gamma_0\\ \frac{\partial u}{\partial \nu} &= 0 \quad \text{on } \Gamma_1. \end{aligned}\right. \end{equation} The conormal derivative in our case is usually interpreted as $$\sum_{j=1}^d \left( \sum_{k=1}^d a_{kj} \partial_k u + \tilde{a_j} u\right) \nu_j,$$ where $\nu = (\nu_1, \cdots, \nu_d)$ is the outer unit normal to the boundary of $\Omega$. For all this see \cite{Ouh05}, Chapter 4.\\ The condition (\ref{1-6}) is a mixed boundary condition which consists in taking Dirichlet on $\Gamma_0$ and Neumann type boundary condition on $\Gamma_1$. For this reason we denote this operator by $L^M_a$. The subscript $a$ refers to the fact that the coefficients of the operator are given by $a = \{ a_{kj}, a_k, \tilde{a_k}, a_0 \}$ and $M$ refers to mixed boundary conditions. We also define the elliptic operator with Dirichlet boundary condition $\text{Tr}(u) = 0 $ on $\partial\Omega$. It is the operator associated with the form given by the expression \eqref{1-4} with domain $D(\mathfrak{a}) = W^{1,2}_0(\Omega)$. It is a quasi-accretive and closed form and its associated operator $L^D_a$ has the same expression as in \eqref{1-5} and subject to the Dirichlet boundary condition $\text{Tr}(u) = 0$ on $\partial\Omega$. Similarly, we define $L_a^N$ to be the elliptic operator with Neumann type boundary conditions $$ \frac{\partial u}{\partial \nu} = 0 \quad \text{on } \partial\Omega.$$ It is the operator associated with the form given by the expression \eqref{1-4} with domain $D(\mathfrak{a}) = W^{1,2}(\Omega)$.\\ Note that $L_a^D$ coincides with $L_a^M$ if $\Gamma_0 = \partial\Omega$ and $L_a^N$ coincides with $L_a^M$ if $\Gamma_0 = \emptyset$. \\ Finally we define elliptic operators with Robin boundary conditions. Let $\mu \in \mathds{R}$ be a constant and define \begin{align}\label{Rob} \mathfrak{a}^\mu(u,v) &= \sum_{k,j=1}^d \int_\Omega a_{kj} \partial_k u \overline{\partial_j v}\ dx + \sum_{k=1}^d \int_\Omega a_k \partial_k u \overline{ v} + \tilde{a_k} u \overline{ \partial_k v}\ dx + a_0 u \overline{v}\ dx \nonumber\\ &{} \hspace{.3cm} - \mu \int_{\partial\Omega} \text{Tr}(u) \overline{\text{Tr}(v)} d\sigma \end{align} for all $u, v \in D(\mathfrak{a}^\mu) := V$. Again, $\text{Tr}$ denotes the trace operator. Using the standard inequality (see \cite{AM07} or \cite{AM12}), $$ \int_{\partial\Omega} | \text{Tr}(u) |^2 \le \varepsilon \| u \|_{W^{1,2}(\Omega)}^2 + c_\varepsilon \int_{\Omega} | u |^2$$ which is valid for all $\varepsilon > 0$ ($c_\varepsilon$ is a constant depending on $\varepsilon$) one obtains that for some positive constants $w$ and $\delta$ $$\Re \mathfrak{a}^\mu (u,u) + w \int_\Omega | u |^2 \ge \delta \| u \|_{W^{1,2}(\Omega)}^2.$$ From this it follows that $\mathfrak{a}^\mu$ is a quasi-accretive and closed sesquilinear form. One can associate with $\mathfrak{a}^\mu$ an operator $L_a^\mu$. This operator has the same expression \eqref{1-5} and it is subject to the Robin boundary conditions \begin{equation}\label{3-6} \left\{ \begin{aligned} \text{Tr}(u) &= 0 \quad \text{on } \Gamma_0\\ \frac{\partial u}{\partial \nu} &= \mu\ \text{Tr}(u) \quad \text{on } \Gamma_1. \end{aligned}\right. \end{equation} Actually, the boundary conditions (\ref{3-6}) are mixed Robin boundary conditions in the sense that we have the Dirichlet condition on $\Gamma_0$ and the Robin one on $\Gamma_1$. For simplicity we ignore the word "mixed" and refer to (\ref{3-6}) as the Robin boundary conditions.\\ According to our previous notation, if $\mu = 0$, then $\mathfrak{a}^0 = \mathfrak{a}$ and $L_a^0 = L_a^M$. \\ Note that we may choose here $\mu $ to be a bounded measurable function on the boundary rather than just a constant. \\ \noindent\underline{{\it The partial Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator on $\partial\Omega$.}}\\ Suppose as before that $a = \{ a_{kj}, a_k, \tilde{a_k}, a_0 \}$ are bounded measurable and satisfy the ellipticity condition \eqref{1-1}. Let $\Gamma_0, \Gamma_1, V$ be as above and $\mathfrak{a}$ is the sesquilinear form defined by \eqref{1-4}.\\ We define the space \begin{equation}\label{VH} V_H := \{ u \in V, \mathfrak{a}(u, g) = 0 \,\, \text{for all } g \in W^{1,2}_0(\Omega) \}. \end{equation} Then $V_H$ is a closed subspace of $V$. It is interpreted as the space of harmonic functions for the operator $L_a$ (given by \eqref{1-5}) with the additional property that $\text{Tr}(u) = 0$ on $\Gamma_0$.\\ We start with the following simple lemma. \begin{lemma}\label{lem1} Suppose that $0 \notin \sigma(L^D_a)$. Then \begin{equation}\label{1-10} V = V_H \oplus W^{1,2}_0(\Omega). \end{equation} \end{lemma} \begin{proof} We argue as in \cite{EO13}, Section 2 or \cite{AM07}. Let us denote by $\mathfrak{a}^D$ the form associated with $L_a^D$, that is, $ \mathfrak{a}^D$ is given by \eqref{1-4} with $D(\mathfrak{a}^D) = W^{1,2}_0(\Omega)$. There exists an operator ${\mathcal L}_a^D: W^{1,2}_0(\Omega) \to W^{-1,2}(\Omega) := W^{1,2}_0(\Omega)' $ (the anti-dual of $W^{1,2}_0(\Omega)$) associated with $\mathfrak{a}^D$ in the sense $$ \langle {\mathcal L}_a^D h, g \rangle = \mathfrak{a}^D (h, g)$$ for all $h, g \in W^{1,2}_0(\Omega)$. The notation $\langle \cdot , \cdot \rangle$ denotes the duality $W^{1,2}_0(\Omega)'- W^{1,2}_0(\Omega)$. Since $0 \notin \sigma(L_a^D)$, then $L_a^D$ is invertible. Therefore ${\mathcal L}_a^D$, seen as operator on $W^{1,2}_0(\Omega)'$ with domain $W^{1,2}_0(\Omega)$, is also invertible on $W^{1,2}_0(\Omega)'$ since the two operators $L_a^D$ and ${\mathcal L}_a^D$ have the same spectrum (see e.g., \cite{ABHN}, Proposition 3.10.3). Now we fix $u \in V$ and consider the (anti-)linear functional $$ F: v \mapsto \mathfrak{a}(u, v).$$ Clearly, $F \in W^{1,2}_0(\Omega)'$ and hence there exists a unique $u_0 \in W^{1,2}_0(\Omega)$ such that ${\mathcal L}_a^Du_0 = F$, i.e., $\langle {\mathcal L}_a^D u_0, g \rangle = F(g)$ for all $g \in W^{1,2}_0(\Omega)$. This means that $\mathfrak{a}(u-u_0, g) = 0$ for all $g \in W^{1,2}_0(\Omega)$ and hence $u-u_0 \in V_H$. Thus, $u = u - u_0 + u_0 \in V_H + W^{1,2}_0(\Omega).$ Finally, if $u \in V_H \cap W^{1,2}_0(\Omega)$ then $\mathfrak{a}(u, g) = 0$ for all $g \in W^{1,2}_0(\Omega)$. This means that $u \in D(L_a^D)$ with $L_a^D u = 0$. Since $L_a^D$ is invertible we conclude that $ u = 0$. \end{proof} As a consequence of Lemma \ref{lem1}, the trace operator $\text{Tr}: V_H \to L^2(\partial\Omega)$ is injective and \begin{equation}\label{1-101} \text{Tr} (V_H) = \text{Tr} (V). \end{equation} In the rest of this section we assume that $0 \notin \sigma(L^D_a)$. We define on $L^2(\partial\Omega, d\sigma)$ the sesquilinear form \begin{equation}\label{1-7} \mathfrak{b}(\varphi, \psi) := \mathfrak{a}(u,v) \end{equation} where $u, v \in V_H$ are such that $ \varphi = \text{Tr}(u)$ and $ \psi = \text{Tr}(v).$ This means that $D(\mathfrak{b}) = \text{Tr}(V_H)$ and by \eqref{1-101} \begin{equation}\label{dom} D(\mathfrak{b}) = \text{Tr} (V_H) = \text{Tr} (V). \end{equation} \begin{lemma}\label{lem2} There exist positive constants $w$, $\delta$ and $M$ such that \begin{equation}\label{1111} \Re \mathfrak{b}(\varphi, \varphi) + w \int_{\partial\Omega} | \varphi|^2 \ge \delta \| u \|_{W^{1,2}(\Omega)}^2 \end{equation} and \begin{equation}\label{1112} | \mathfrak{b}(\varphi, \psi) | \le M \left[ \Re \mathfrak{b}(\varphi, \varphi) + w \int_{\partial\Omega} | \varphi|^2\right]^{1/2} \left[ \Re \mathfrak{b}(\psi, \psi) + w \int_{\partial\Omega} | \psi |^2\right]^{1/2} \end{equation} for all $\varphi, \psi \in D(\mathfrak{b})$. In the first inequality, $u \in V_H$ is such that $\text{Tr}(u) = \varphi$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} It is well known that $\text{Tr} : W^{1,2}(\Omega) \to L^2(\partial\Omega)$ is a compact operator and since $\text{Tr}: V_H \to L^2(\partial\Omega)$ is injective it follows that for every $\epsilon > 0$ there exists a constant $c > 0$ such that \begin{equation}\label{1-104} \int_\Omega | u |^2 \le \epsilon \| u \|_{W^{1,2}}^2 + c \int_{\partial\Omega} | \text{Tr}(u)|^2 \end{equation} for all $u \in V_H$ (see, e.g., \cite{AM07}). In particular, \begin{equation}\label{1-1041}\int_\Omega | u |^2 \le \frac{\epsilon}{1- \epsilon} \int_\Omega |\nabla u|^2 + \frac{c}{1-\epsilon}\int_{\partial\Omega} | \varphi |^2. \end{equation} Now, let $\varphi \in D(\mathfrak{b}) = \text{Tr}(V_H)$ and $u \in V_H$ such that $\varphi = \text{Tr}(u)$. It follows from the ellipticity assumption \eqref{1-1} and the boundedness of the coefficients that for some constant $c_0 > 0$ \begin{equation*} \Re \mathfrak{a}(u, u)\ge \frac{\eta}{2} \int_\Omega | \nabla\ u |^2 - c_0 \int_\Omega | u |^2. \end{equation*} Therefore, using \eqref{1-1041} and the definition of $\mathfrak{b}$ we obtain \begin{eqnarray*} \Re \mathfrak{b}(\varphi, \varphi) &=& \Re \mathfrak{a}(u,u) \\ &\ge& (\frac{\eta}{2} - \frac{c_0 \epsilon}{1-\epsilon}) \int_\Omega | \nabla\ u |^2 - \frac{c c_0}{1-\epsilon} \int_{\partial\Omega} | \varphi |^2. \end{eqnarray*} Taking $\epsilon > 0$ small enough we obtain \eqref{1111}.\\ In order to prove the second inequality, we use the definition of $\mathfrak{b}$ and again the boundedness of the coefficients to see that \begin{eqnarray*} | \mathfrak{b}(\varphi, \psi) | &=& | \mathfrak{a}(u,v)|\\ &\le& C \| u \|_{W^{1,2}} \| v \|_{W^{1,2}}. \end{eqnarray*} Thus, \eqref{1112} follows from \eqref{1111}. \end{proof} \begin{corollary}\label{pro1} The form $\mathfrak{b}$ is continuous, quasi-accretive and closed. \end{corollary} \begin{proof} Continuity of $\mathfrak{b}$ is exactly \eqref{1112}. Quasi-accretivity means that $$\Re \mathfrak{b}(\varphi, \varphi) + w \int_{\partial\Omega} | \varphi|^2 \ge 0$$ for some $w$ and all $\varphi \in D(\mathfrak{b})$. This follows from \eqref{1111}. \\ Now we prove that $\mathfrak{b}$ is closed which means that $D(\mathfrak{b})$ is complete for the norm $$ \| \varphi \|_\mathfrak{b} := \left(\Re \mathfrak{b}(\varphi, \varphi) + w \int_{\partial\Omega} | \varphi|^2 \right)^{1/2}$$ in which $w$ is as in \eqref{1111}. If $(\varphi_n)$ is a Cauchy sequence for $\| \cdot \|_\mathfrak{b}$ then by \eqref{1111} the corresponding $(u_n) \in V_H$ with $\text{Tr}(u_n) = \varphi_n$ is a Cauchy sequence in $V_H$. Since $V_H$ is a closed subspace of $V$ it follows that $u_n$ is convergent to some $u$ in $V_H$. Set $\varphi := \text{Tr}(u)$. We have $\varphi \in D(\mathfrak{b})$ and the definition of $\mathfrak{b}$ together with continuity of $\text{Tr}$ as an operator from $W^{1,2}(\Omega)$ to $L^2(\partial\Omega)$ show that $\varphi_n$ converges to $\varphi$ for the norm $\| \cdot \|_\mathfrak{b}$. This means that $\mathfrak{b}$ is a closed form. \end{proof} Note that the domain $\text{Tr}(V_H)$ of $\mathfrak{b}$ may not be dense in $L^2(\partial\Omega)$ since functions in this domain vanish on $\Gamma_0$. Indeed, \begin{equation}\label{eq01010} H := \overline{D(\mathfrak{b})}^{L^2(\partial\Omega)} = L^2(\Gamma_1) \oplus \{0\}. \end{equation} The direct inclusion follows from the fact that if $\varphi_n \in D(\mathfrak{b})$ converges in $L^2(\partial\Omega)$ then after extracting a subsequence we have a.e. convergence. Since $\varphi_n = 0$ on $\Gamma_0$ we obtain that the limit $\varphi = 0$ on $\Gamma_0$. The reverse inclusion can be proved as follows. Let $\Gamma_2$ be a closed subset of $\mathds{R}^d$ with $\Gamma_2 \subset \Gamma_1$ and consider the space $E = \{ u_{\vert \Gamma_2}: u \in W^{1, \infty}(\mathds{R}^d), u_{\vert \Gamma_0} = 0 \}$. Then $E \subset C(\Gamma_2)$ and an easy application of the Stone-Weierstrass theorem shows that $E$ is dense in $C(\Gamma_2)$. Now given $\varphi \in C_c(\Gamma_1)$ and $\epsilon > 0$ we find $\Gamma_2 $ such that $\| \mathbbm{1}_{\Gamma_1 \setminus \Gamma_2} \|_2 < \epsilon $ and $u_{\vert \Gamma_2} \in E$ such that $\| u_{\vert \Gamma_2} - \varphi \|_{C(\Gamma_2)} < \epsilon$. Finally we take $\chi \in C_c^\infty(\mathds{R}^d)$ such that $\chi = 1$ on $\Gamma_2$. Then $(u \chi)_{\vert \Omega} \in V$ and \begin{eqnarray*} \| u \chi - \varphi \|_{L^2(\Gamma_1)} &\le& \| u - \varphi \|_{L^2(\Gamma_2)} + \| \chi \|_{L^2(\Gamma_1\setminus \Gamma_2)}\\ &\le& \epsilon | \Gamma_2 | + \| \chi \|_\infty \epsilon. \end{eqnarray*} Here $ | \Gamma_2 |$ denotes the measure of $ \Gamma_2 $. These inequalities together with the fact that $C_c(\Gamma_1)$ is dense in $L^2(\Gamma_1)$ imply \eqref{eq01010}. \vspace{.5cm} We return to the form $\mathfrak{b}$ defined above. We associate with $\mathfrak{b}$ an operator $\mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1}$. It is defined by $$D(\mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1}) := \{ \varphi \in D(\mathfrak{b}), \exists \psi \in H: \mathfrak{b}(\varphi, \xi) = \int_{\Gamma_1} \psi \overline{\xi} \, \; \forall \xi \in D(\mathfrak{b}) \}, \quad \mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1} \varphi = \psi.$$ The operator $\mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1}$ can be interpreted as an operator on $L^2(\partial\Omega)$ defined as follows: if $\varphi \in D(\mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1})$ then there exists a unique $u \in V_H$ such that $\varphi = \text{Tr }(u)$ and \begin{equation}\label{1-11} \varphi_{| \Gamma_0} = 0, \quad \mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1} (\varphi) = \frac{\partial u}{\partial \nu} \ \text{on } \Gamma_1. \end{equation} Again $\frac{\partial u}{\partial \nu}$ is interpreted in the weak sense as the conormal derivative that is $\sum_{j=1}^d \left( \sum_{k=1}^d a_{kj} \partial_k u + \tilde{a_j} \varphi \right)\!\nu_j$. In the particular case where $a_{kj} = \delta_{kj}$ and $a_1= \cdots = a_d = 0$ the right hand side of (\ref{1-11}) is seen as the normal derivative on the boundary. All this can be made precise by applying the Green formula if the boundary and the coefficients are smooth enough. \noindent We call $\mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1}$ the {\it partial Dirichlet-to-Neumann} operator on $L^2(\partial\Omega)$ or the {\it Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator with partial data}. The term {\it partial} refers to the fact that $\mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1}$ is known only on the part $\Gamma_1$ of the boundary $\partial\Omega$. \\ It follows from the general theory of forms that $-\mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1}$ generates a holomorphic semigroup $e^{-t\mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1}}$ on $H$. We define $T_t^{\Gamma_1}$ on $L^2(\partial\Omega)$ by $$ T_t^{\Gamma_1} \varphi = e^{-t \mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1}} (\varphi \mathbbm{1}_{\Gamma_1}) \oplus 0.$$ We shall refer to $(T_t^{\Gamma_1})_{t\ge0}$ as the "semigroup" generated by $-\mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1}$ on $L^2(\partial\Omega)$. It is clear that \begin{equation}\label{2-1} \| T^{\Gamma_1}_t \|_{{\mathcal L}(L^2(\partial\Omega))} \le e^{-w_0 t}, \ \ t \ge 0, \end{equation} for some constant $w_0$. Note that if the form $\mathfrak{a}$ is symmetric, then $\mathfrak{b}$ is also symmetric and hence $\mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1}$ is self-adjoint. In this case, \eqref{2-1} holds with $w_0 = \inf \sigma(\mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1})$ which also coincides with the first eigenvalue of $\mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1}$. For all this, see e.g. \cite{Ouh05}, Chapter 1. \section{Positivity and domination}\label{sec2} In this section we study some properties of the semigroup $(T^{\Gamma_1}_t)_{t\ge 0}$. We assume throughout this section that \begin{equation}\label{sym} a_{jk} = a_{kj}, \, \tilde{a_k} = a_k, a_0 \in L^\infty(\Omega, \mathds{R}). \end{equation} We recall that $L^D_a$ is the elliptic operator with Dirichlet boundary conditions defined in the previous section. Its associated symmetric form $\mathfrak{a}^D$ is given by \eqref{1-4} and has domain $W^{1,2}_0(\Omega)$. We shall need the accretivity assumption of $\mathfrak{a}^D$ (or equivalently the self-adjoint operator $L^D_a$ is non-negative) which means that \begin{equation}\label{2acc} \mathfrak{a}^D(u,u) \ge 0 \, \, \text{for all } u \in W^{1,2}_0(\Omega). \end{equation} \begin{theorem}\label{thm2-1} Suppose that $0 \notin \sigma(L^D_a)$, \eqref{sym} and that $L^D_a$ is accretive. \\ a) The semigroup $(T^{\Gamma_1}_t)_{t\ge 0}$ is positive (i.e., it maps non-negative functions of $L^2(\partial\Omega)$ into non-negative functions).\\ b) Suppose in addition that $a_0 \ge 0$ and $a_k = 0$ for all $k \in \{1, \cdots, d\}$. Then $(T^{\Gamma_1}_t)_{t\ge 0}$ is a sub-Markovian semigroup. \end{theorem} Recall that the sub-Markovian property means that for $\varphi \in L^2(\partial\Omega)$ and $t \ge 0$ $$ 0 \le \varphi \le 1 \Rightarrow 0 \le T^{\Gamma_1}_t \varphi \le 1.$$ This property implies in particular that $(T^{\Gamma_1}_t)_{t\ge 0}$ extends from $L^2(\partial\Omega)$ to $L^p(\partial\Omega)$ for all $p \in [2, \infty[$. Since $\mathfrak{a}$ is symmetric then so is $\mathfrak{b}$ and one obtains by duality that $(T^{\Gamma_1}_t)_{t\ge 0}$ extends also to $L^p(\partial\Omega)$ for $p \in [1, 2]$. \begin{proof} The proof follows exactly the same lines as for Theorem 2.3 in \cite{EO13}.\\ a) By the well known Beurling--Deny criteria (see \cite{Dav2}, Section~1.3 or \cite{Ouh05}, Theorem 2.6), it suffices to prove that $\varphi^+ \in D(\mathfrak{b})$ and $\mathfrak{b}(\varphi^+, \varphi^-) \leq 0$ for all real-valued $\varphi \in D(\mathfrak{b})$. Note that the fact that $D(\mathfrak{b})$ is not densely defined does not affect the the statements of the Beurling-Deny criteria. \\ Let $\varphi \in D(\mathfrak{b})$ be real-valued. There exists a real-valued $u \in H_V$ such that $\varphi = \text{Tr}(u)$. Then $\varphi^+ = \text{Tr} (u^+) \in \text{Tr}(V) = \text{Tr} H_V = D(\mathfrak{b})$. This follows from the fact that $v^+ \in V$ for all $v \in V$ (see \cite{Ouh05}, Section 4.2). \\ By Lemma \ref{lem1} we can write $u^+ = u_0 + u_1 $ and $u^- = v_0 + v_1 $ with $u_0, v_0 \in W_0^{1,2}(\Omega)$ and $u_1, v_1 \in H_V$. Hence, $ u = u^+ - u^- = (u_0 - v_0) + (u_1 - v_1)$. Since $u, u_1 -v_1 \in H_V$ it follows that $u_0 = v_0$. Therefore, \begin{eqnarray*} \mathfrak{b} (\varphi^+, \varphi^-) & = & \mathfrak{a}(u_1,v_1) = \mathfrak{a}(u_1, v_0 + v_1) = \mathfrak{a}(u_0 + u_1, v_0 + v_1) - \mathfrak{a}(u_0, v_0 + v_1) \\ & = & \mathfrak{a}(u^+,u^-) - \mathfrak{a}(u_0, v_0) = - \mathfrak{a}(u_0, v_0) \\ & = & - \mathfrak{a}(u_0, u_0) = - \mathfrak{a}^D(u_0, u_0). \end{eqnarray*} Here we use the fact that \begin{align*} \mathfrak{a}(u^+,u^-) =& \sum_{k,j=1}^d \int_\Omega a_{kj} \partial_k(u^+) \partial_j(u^-) + \sum_{k=1}^d \int_\Omega \, a_k \partial_k u^+ \, u^- + a_k u^+ \partial_k u^- \\ &+ \int_\Omega \, a_0 u^+ \, u^- = 0. \end{align*} By assumption \eqref{2acc} we have $\mathfrak{a}^D(u_0, u_0) \ge 0$ and we obtain $\mathfrak{b} (\varphi^+, \varphi^-) \le 0$. This proves the positivity of $(T^{\Gamma_1}_t)_{t\ge 0}$ on $L^2(\partial\Omega)$.\\ b) By \cite{Ouh96} or \cite{Ouh05}, Corollary 2.17 it suffices to prove that $ {\mathbbm 1} \wedge \varphi := \inf({\mathbbm 1}, \varphi) \in D(\mathfrak{b})$ and $\mathfrak{b}({\mathbbm 1} \wedge \varphi, (\varphi - {\mathbbm 1})^+) \ge 0$ for all $\varphi \in D(\mathfrak{b})$ with $\varphi \geq 0$. Let $\varphi \in D(\mathfrak{b})$ and suppose that $\varphi \geq 0$. Let $u \in H_V$ be real-valued such that $\varphi = \text{Tr} (u)$. Note that ${\mathbbm 1} \wedge u \in V$ (see \cite{Ouh05}, Section 4.3). We decompose ${\mathbbm 1} \wedge u = u_0 + u_1 \in W_0^{1,2}(\Omega) \oplus H_V$. Then \[ (u-{\mathbbm 1})^+ = u - {\mathbbm 1} \wedge u = (-u_0) + (u-u_1) \in W_0^{1,2}(\Omega) \oplus H_V.\] Therefore, \begin{eqnarray*} \mathfrak{b}({\mathbbm 1}\wedge \varphi, (\varphi - {\mathbbm 1})^+ ) & = & \mathfrak{a}(u_1, u - u_1) = \mathfrak{a}(u_0 + u_1, u - u_1) \\ & = & \mathfrak{a}(u_0 + u_1, -u_0 + u - u_1) + \mathfrak{a}(u_0 + u_1, u_0) \\ & = & \mathfrak{a}(u_0 + u_1, -u_0 + u - u_1) + \mathfrak{a}(u_0, u_0) \\ & = &\sum_{k,j=1}^d \int_\Omega a_{kj}\partial_k({\mathbbm 1} \wedge u) \partial_j((u-{\mathbbm 1})^+) + \\ && \int_\Omega a_0 ({\mathbbm 1} \wedge u) (u-{\mathbbm 1})^+ + \mathfrak{a}^D(u_0,u_0)\\ & = & \int_\Omega a_0 \, (u-{\mathbbm 1})^+ + \mathfrak{a}^D(u_0,u_0) \geq 0. \end{eqnarray*} This proves that $\mathfrak{b}({\mathbbm 1} \wedge \varphi, (\varphi - {\mathbbm 1})^+) \ge 0$. \end{proof} Next we have the following domination property. \begin{theorem}\label{thm2-2} Suppose that $a_{kj}$, $a_k$, $\tilde{a_k}$ and $a_0$ satisfy \eqref{sym}. Suppose also that $L^D_a$ is accretive with $0 \notin \sigma(L^D_a)$. Let $\Gamma_0$ and $\tilde{\Gamma_{0}}$ be two closed subsets of the boundary such that $\Gamma_0 \subseteq \tilde{\Gamma_{0}}$. Then for every $0 \le \varphi \in L^2(\partial\Omega)$ $$ 0 \le T^{\tilde{\Gamma_{1}}}_t \varphi \le T^{\Gamma_1}_t \varphi.$$ \end{theorem} \begin{proof} Let $\tilde{\Gamma_1}$ be the complement of $\tilde{\Gamma_0}$ in $\partial\Omega$. Denote by $\mathfrak{b}$ and $\tilde{\mathfrak{b}}$ the sesquilinear forms associated with $\mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1}$ and ${\mathcal{N}_{\tilde{\Gamma_1}}}$, respectively. Clearly, $\tilde{\mathfrak{b}}$ is a restriction of $\mathfrak{b}$ and hence it is enough to prove that $D(\tilde{\mathfrak{b}})$ is an ideal of $D(\mathfrak{b})$ and apply \cite{Ouh96} or \cite{Ouh05}, Theorem 2.24. For this, let $0 \le \varphi \le \psi$ with $\varphi \in D(\mathfrak{b})$ and $\psi \in D(\tilde{\mathfrak{b}})$. This means that $\varphi$ and $\psi$ are respectively the traces on $\partial\Omega$ of $u, v \in W^{1,2}(\Omega)$ such that $$ \varphi = \text{Tr}(u) = 0 \, \, \text{on } \Gamma_0 \quad \text{and } \psi = \text{Tr}(v) = 0 \, \, \text{on } \tilde{\Gamma_0}.$$ Since $0 \le \varphi \le \psi$ we have $\varphi = 0$ on $\tilde{\Gamma_0}$. This equality gives $\varphi \in D(\tilde{\mathfrak{b}})$ and this shows that $D(\tilde{\mathfrak{b}})$ is an ideal of $D(\mathfrak{b})$. \end{proof} The next result shows monotonicity with respect to the potential $a_0$. This was already proved in \cite{EO13} Theorem 2.4, in the case where $L_a^D = -\Delta + a_0$. The proof given there works also in the general framework of the present paper. As above let $a_{kj}$, $a_k$ and $a_0$ be real-valued and let $(T^{\Gamma_1, a_0}_t)_{t\ge 0}$ denote the semigroup $(T^{\Gamma_1}_t)_{t\ge 0}$ defined above. Suppose that $b_0 $ is a real-valued function and denote by $(T^{\Gamma_1, b_0}_t)_{t\ge 0}$ be the semigroup of $\mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1}$ with coefficients $a_{kj}$, $a_k$ and $b_0$ (i.e. $a_0$ is replaced by $b_0$). Then we have \begin{theorem}\label{thm2-3} Suppose that $a_{kj}$, $a_k$, $\tilde{a_k}$ and $a_0$ satisfy \eqref{sym}. Suppose again that $0 \notin \sigma(L^D_a)$ and $L^D_a$ is accretive. If $a_0 \le b_0$ then $$ 0 \le T^{\Gamma_1, b_0}_t \varphi \le T^{\Gamma_1, a_0}_t \varphi$$ for all $0 \le \varphi \in L^2(\partial\Omega)$ and $t \ge 0$. \end{theorem} \section{Proof of the main result }\label{sec3} In this section we prove Theorem \ref{thm0}. We recall briefly the operators introduced in Section \ref{sec1}. For $\mu \in \mathds{R}$ and recall the operator $L_a^\mu$ associated with the form $\mathfrak{a}^\mu$ given by \eqref{Rob} with domain $D(\mathfrak{a}^\mu) := V$ and $V$ is again given by \eqref{1-3}. The operator associated with $\mathfrak{a}^\mu$ is $L_a^\mu$. It is given by the formal expression \eqref{1-5} and it is subject to mixed and Robin boundary conditions \eqref{3-6}.\\ We also recall that $L_a^D$ is the operator subject to the Dirichlet boundary conditions and $L_a^M$ is subject to mixed boundary conditions. Fix $\lambda \notin \sigma(L_a^D)$. We denote by ${\mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1, a}}(\lambda)$ the partial D-t-N operator with the coefficients $\{ a_{kj}, a_k, a_0 - \lambda \}$. It is the operator associated with the form $$\mathfrak{b}(\varphi,\psi) := \sum_{k,j}^d \int_\Omega a_{kj} \partial_k u \overline{\partial_j v}\ dx + \sum_{k=1}^d \int_\Omega a_k \partial_k u \overline{ v} + \overline{a_k} u \overline{ \partial_k v}\ dx + (a_0 -\lambda) u \overline{v}\ dx$$ where $u, v \in V_H(\lambda)$ with $\text{Tr}(u) = \varphi, \ \text{Tr}(v) = \psi$ and \begin{equation}\label{VHla} V_H(\lambda) := \{ u \in V, \mathfrak{a}(u, g) = \lambda \int_\Omega u \overline{g} \,\, \, \text{for all } g \in W^{1,2}_0(\Omega) \}, \end{equation} This space is the same as in \eqref{VH} but now with $a_0$ replaced by $a_0 - \lambda$. We restate the main theorem using the notation introduced in Section \ref{sec1}. \begin{theorem}\label{thm003} Suppose that $\Omega$ is a bounded Lipchitz domain of $\mathds{R}^d$ with $d \ge 2$. Let $\Gamma_0$ be a closed subset of $\partial\Omega$, $\Gamma_0 \not= \partial\Omega$ and $\Gamma_1 = \partial \Omega \setminus \Gamma_0$. Let $a= \{ a_{kj} = \overline{a_{jk}}, a_k = \overline{\tilde{a_k}} , a_0 = \overline{a_0} \}$ and $b = \{ b_{kj} = \overline{b_{jk}}, b_k = \overline{\tilde{b_k}}, b_0 = \overline{b_0} \}$ be bounded measurable functions on $\Omega$ such that $a_{kj}$ and $b_{kj}$ satisfy the ellipticity condition \eqref{1-1}. If $d \ge 3$ we assume in addition that the coefficients $a_{kj}, b_{kj}, a_k$ and $b_k$ are Lipschitz continuous on $\overline{\Omega}$. \\ Suppose that ${\mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1, a}}(\lambda) = {\mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1, b}}(\lambda)$ for all $\lambda $ in a set having an accumulation point in $\rho(L^D_a) \cap \rho(L^D_b)$. Then:\\ $i)$ The operators $L_a^\mu$ and $L_b^\mu$ are unitarily equivalent for all $\mu \in \mathds{R}$.\\ $ii)$ The operators $L_a^M$ and $L_b^M$ are unitarily equivalent.\\ $iii)$ The operators $L_a^D$ and $L_b^D$ are unitarily equivalent. Moreover, for every $\lambda \in \sigma(L_a^\mu) = \sigma(L_b^\mu)$ with $\lambda \notin \sigma(L_a^D) = \sigma(L_b^D)$, the sets $\{ \text{Tr}(u), u \in \text{Ker}(\lambda I - L_a^\mu) \} $ and $\{ \text{Tr}(v), v \in \text{Ker}(\lambda I - L_b^\mu) \} $ coincide. The same property holds for the operators $L_a^M$ and $L_b^M$. \end{theorem} We shall need several preparatory results. We start with the following theorem which was proved in \cite{AM07} and \cite{AM12} in the case where $a_{kj} = \delta_{kj}$, $a_k = 0$, $a_0$ is a constant and $\Gamma_1 = \partial\Omega$. \begin{theorem}\label{thm3-1} Let $a= \{ a_{kj} = \overline{a_{jk}}, a_k = \overline{\tilde{a_k}} , a_0 = \overline{a_0} \}$ be bounded measurable functions on $\Omega$ such that $a_{kj}$ satisfy the ellipticity condition \eqref{1-1}.\\ Let $\mu, \lambda \in \mathds{R}$ and $\lambda \notin \sigma(L^D_a)$. Then:\\ 1) $\mu \in \sigma({\mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1, a}}(\lambda)) \Leftrightarrow \lambda \in \sigma(L_a^\mu)$. In addition, if $u \in \text{Ker}(\lambda - L_a^\mu)$, $u \not= 0$ then $\varphi := \text{Tr}(u) \in \text{Ker}(\mu - {\mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1, a}}(\lambda))$ and $\varphi \not = 0$. Conversely, if $\varphi \in \text{Ker}(\mu - {\mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1, a}}(\lambda))$, $\varphi \not= 0$, then there exists $u \in \text{Ker}(\lambda - L_a^\mu)$, $u \not= 0$ such that $\varphi = \text{Tr}(u)$.\\ 2) $\text{dim Ker} (\mu - {\mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1, a}}(\lambda)) = \text{dim Ker} (\lambda- L_a^\mu)$. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} We follow a similar idea as in \cite{AM07} and \cite{AM12}. It is enough to prove that the mapping $$ S : \text{Ker}(\lambda - L_a^\mu) \to \text{Ker}(\mu - {\mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1, a}}(\lambda)), \ u \mapsto \text{Tr}(u)$$ is an isomorphism. First, we prove that $S$ is well defined. Let $u \in \text{Ker}(\lambda - L_a^\mu)$. Then $u \in D(L_a^\mu)$ and $L_a^\mu u = \lambda u$. By the definition of $L_a^\mu$ we have $u \in V$ and for all $v \in V$ \begin{eqnarray} && \sum_{k,j=1}^d \int_\Omega a_{kj} \partial_k u \overline{\partial_j v} + \sum_{k=1}^d \int_\Omega a_k \partial_k u \overline{v} + \overline{a_k} u \overline{\partial_k v} \nonumber\\ && + \int_\Omega a_0 u \overline{v} - \lambda \int_\Omega u \overline{v} = \mu \int_{\partial\Omega} \text{Tr}(u) \overline{\text{Tr}(v)}. \label{3-3} \end{eqnarray} Taking $v \in W^{1,2}_0(\Omega)$ yields $u \in V_H(\lambda)$. Note that \eqref{3-3} also holds for $v \in V_H(\lambda)$. Hence it follows from the definition of ${\mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1, a}}(\lambda)$ that $$ \varphi := \text{Tr}(u) \in D({\mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1, a}}(\lambda)) \, \, \text{and } {\mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1, a}}(\lambda) \varphi = \mu \varphi.$$ This means that $S(u) \in \text{Ker}(\mu - {\mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1, a}}(\lambda))$. Suppose now that $u \in \text{Ker}(\lambda - L_a^\mu)$ with $u \not= 0$. If $S(u) = 0$ then $u \in W^{1,2}_0(\Omega)$. Therefore, it follows from \eqref{3-3} that for all $v \in V$ \begin{equation}\label{3-4} \sum_{k,j=1}^d \int_\Omega a_{kj} \partial_k u \overline{\partial_j v} + \sum_{k=1}^d \int_\Omega a_k \partial_k u \overline{v} + \overline{a_k} u \overline{\partial_k v} + \int_\Omega (a_0 - \lambda) u \overline{v} = 0. \end{equation} This implies that $u \in V_H(\lambda)$. We conclude by Lemma \ref{lem1} that $u = 0$. Thus $S$ is injective. \\ We prove that $S $ is surjective. Let $\varphi \in \text{Ker}(\mu - {\mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1, a}}(\lambda))$. Then by the definition of $\mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1, a}(\lambda)$, there exists $u \in V_H(\lambda)$ such that $\varphi = \text{Tr}(u)$ and $u$ satisfies \eqref{3-3} for all $v \in V_H(\lambda)$. If $v \in V$ we write $v = v_0 + v_1 \in W^{1,2}_0(\Omega) \oplus V_H(\lambda)$ and see that \eqref{3-3} holds for $u$ and $v$. This means that $u \in D(L_a^\mu)$ and $L_a^\mu u = \lambda u$. \end{proof} \begin{lemma}\label{lem5} For $\lambda \in \mathds{R}$ large enough, $(\lambda + L_a^\mu)^{-1}$ converges in ${\mathcal L}(L^2(\Omega))$ to $(\lambda + L_a^D)^{-1}$ as $\mu \to -\infty$. \end{lemma} This is Proposition 2.6 in \cite{AM07} when $a_{kj} = \delta_{kj},\ a_k = a_0 = 0$. The proof given in \cite{AM07} remains valid in our setting. Note that the idea of proving the uniform convergence here is based on a criterion from \cite{Dan03} (see Appendix B) which states that it is enough to check that for all $(f_n), f \in L^2(\Omega)$ \begin{equation}\label{1-1-1} f_n \rightharpoonup f \Rightarrow (\lambda + L_a^{\mu_n})^{-1} f_n \to (\lambda + L_a^D)^{-1} f, \end{equation} for every sequence $\mu_n \to -\infty$. The first convergence is in the weak sense in $L^2(\Omega)$ and the second one is the strong convergence. It is not difficult to check \eqref{1-1-1}. \vspace{.3cm} From now on, we denote by $(\lambda_{a,n}^\mu)_{n\ge1}$ the eigenvalues of $L_a^\mu$, repeated according to their multiplicities. We have for each $\mu \in \mathds{R}$ $$\lambda_{a,1}^\mu \le \lambda_{a,2}^\mu\le \dots \to + \infty.$$ Similarly for the eigenvalues $(\lambda_{a,n}^D)_{n\ge1}$ of $L_a^D$. These eigenvalues satisfy the standard min-max principle since the operators $L_a^\mu$ and $L_a^D$ are self-adjoint by our assumptions. A well known consequence of the previous lemma is that the spectrum of $L_a^\mu$ converges to the spectrum of $L_a^D$. More precisely, for all $k$, \begin{equation}\label{sigmaconv} \lambda_{a,k}^\mu \to \lambda_{a,k}^D \text{ as}\ \mu \to -\infty. \end{equation} In addition, we have the following lemma which will play a fundamental role. \begin{lemma}\label{decrease} Let $a= \{ a_{kj} = \overline{a_{jk}}, a_k = \overline{\tilde{a_k}} , a_0 = \overline{a_0} \}$ be bounded measurable functions on $\Omega$ such that $a_{kj}$ satisfy the ellipticity condition \eqref{1-1}. If $d \ge 3$ we assume in addition that the coefficients $a_{kj}$ and $a_k$ are Lipschitz continuous on $\overline{\Omega}$. Then for each $k$, $\mu \mapsto \lambda_{a,k}^\mu$ is strictly decreasing on $\mathds{R}$ and $\lambda_{a,k} \to -\infty$ as $\mu \to + \infty$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Firstly, by the min-max principle $ \lambda_{a,k}^\mu \le \lambda_{a,k}^D$ and the function $\mu \mapsto \lambda_{a,k}^\mu$ is non-increasing. Fix $ k\ge 0$ and suppose that $\mu \mapsto \lambda_{a,k}^\mu$ is constant on $[\alpha,\beta]$ for some $\alpha < \beta$. For each $\mu$ we take a normalized eigenvector $u^\mu$ such that $\text{Tr}(u^{\mu + h}) \to \text{Tr}(u^{\mu})$ in $L^2(\partial\Omega)$ as $h \to 0$ (or as $h_n \to 0$ for some sequence $h_n$). Indeed, due to regularity properties $\mu \mapsto \lambda_{a, k}^{\mu}$ is continuous (see \cite{Kat1}, Chapter VII) and hence $(\lambda_{a, k}^{\mu +h})_h$ is bounded for small $h$. The equality $\mathfrak{a}^{\mu+h}(u^{\mu +h}, u^{\mu +h}) = \lambda_{a, k}^{\mu +h}$ implies that $\mathfrak{a}^{\mu+h}(u^{\mu +h}, u^{\mu +h})$ is bounded w.r.t. $h$ (for small $h$). This latter property and ellipticity easily imply that $(u^{\mu +h})_h$ is bounded in $V$. After extracting a sequence we may assume that $(u^{\mu +h})_h$ converges weakly in $V$ to some $u$ as $h \to 0$. The compactness embedding of $V$ in $L^2(\Omega)$ as well as the compactness of the trace operator show that $(u^{\mu +h})_h$ converges to $u$ in $L^2(\Omega)$ and $\text{Tr}(u^{\mu + h})$ converges to $ \text{Tr}(u)$ in $L^2(\partial\Omega)$. On the other hand for every $v \in V$, the equality $$ \mathfrak{a}^{\mu+h}(u^{\mu +h}, v) = \lambda_{a, k}^{\mu +h} \int_\Omega u^{\mu +h} v \ dx$$ shows that the limit $u$ is a normalized eigenvector of $L_a^\mu$ for the eigenvalue $\lambda_{a,k}^\mu$. We take $u^\mu := u$ and obtain the claim stated above. Observe that \begin{equation}\label{ortho} \int_{\Gamma_1} \text{Tr}(u^{\mu + h}) \overline{\text{Tr}(u^\mu)} \ d\sigma = 0 \end{equation} for all $h \not= 0$ and $\mu, \mu + h \in [\alpha, \beta]$. Indeed, using the definition of the form $\mathfrak{a}^\mu$ (see \eqref{Rob}) we have \begin{eqnarray*} \lambda \int_\Omega u^{\mu + h} \overline{u^{\mu}}\ dx &=& \mathfrak{a}^{\mu +h}(u^{\mu + h}, u^\mu)\\ &=& \mathfrak{a}^{\mu}(u^{\mu + h}, u^\mu) - h \int_{\Gamma_1} \text{Tr}(u^{\mu + h}) \overline{\text{Tr}(u^{\mu})} \ d\sigma\\ &=& \lambda \int_\Omega u^{\mu + h} \overline{u^{\mu}}\ dx - h \int_{\Gamma_1} \text{Tr}(u^{\mu + h}) \overline{\text{Tr}(u^{\mu})}\ d\sigma. \end{eqnarray*} This gives \eqref{ortho}. Now, letting $h \to 0$ we obtain from \eqref{ortho} and the fact that $ \text{Tr}(u^{\mu + h})$ converges to $ \text{Tr}(u^{\mu })$ as $h \to 0$ that $ \text{Tr}(u^{\mu }) = 0$ on $\Gamma_1$ for all $\mu \in [\alpha, \beta]$. Hence $ \text{Tr}(u^{\mu }) = 0$ on $\partial \Omega$ since $u^\mu \in V$. Hence, $L^\mu$ has an eigenfunction $u^\mu \in W^{1,2}_0(\Omega)$. Note that if $d = 2$ or if $d \ge 3$ and the coefficients $a_{kj}$ and $a_k$ are Lipschitz continuous on $\overline{\Omega}$, then the operator $L_a$ has the unique continuation property (see \cite{Sc} for the case $d= 2$ and \cite{Wo} for $d \ge 3$). If $d \ge 3$ and hence the coefficients are Lipschitz on $\overline{\Omega}$, we apply Proposition 2.5 in \cite{BR12} to conclude that $u^\mu = 0$, but this is not possible since $\|u^\mu\|_2 = 1$. If $d = 2$ we argue in a similar way. Indeed, let $\widetilde{\Omega} $ be an open subset of $\mathds{R}^2$ containing $\Omega$ and such that $\Gamma_0 \subset \partial \widetilde{\Omega}$ and $\widetilde{\Omega}\setminus \Omega$ contains an open ball. We extend all the coefficients to bounded measurable function $\tilde{a}_{kj}, \tilde{a}_k$ and $\tilde{a}_0$ on $\widetilde{\Omega}$. In addition, $\tilde{a}_{kj} = \overline{\tilde{a}_{jk}}$ on $ \widetilde{\Omega}$ and satisfy the ellipticity condition. We extend $u^\mu$ to $\tilde{u^\mu} \in W^{1,2}_0( \widetilde{\Omega})$ by $0$ outside $\Omega$. We define in $\widetilde{\Omega}$ the elliptic operator $L_{\tilde{a}}$ as previously. For $v \in C_c^\infty( \widetilde{\Omega})$ we note that $v_{\vert \Omega} \in V$ and hence \begin{eqnarray*} \int_{\widetilde{\Omega}} L_{\tilde{a}} (\tilde{u^\mu}) \overline{v} dx &=& \mathfrak{a}^\mu( u^\mu, v_{\vert \Omega})\\ &=& \lambda \int_\Omega u^\mu \overline{v}_{\vert \Omega} = \lambda \int_{ \widetilde{\Omega}} \tilde{u^\mu} \overline{v}. \end{eqnarray*} The term $\int_{\widetilde{\Omega}} L_{\tilde{a}} (\tilde{u^\mu}) \overline{v}$ is of course interpreted in the sense of the associated sesquilinear form and the first equality uses the fact that $\tilde{u^\mu}$ is $0$ on $ \widetilde{\Omega} \setminus \Omega$ and $u^\mu \in W^{1,2}_0(\Omega)$. Hence, $\tilde{u^\mu}$ satisfies $$ (L_{\tilde{a}} - \lambda) (\tilde{u^\mu}) = 0$$ in the weak sense on $ \widetilde{\Omega}$. We conclude by the unique continuation property (\cite{Sc}) that $\tilde{u^\mu} = 0$ on $\widetilde{\Omega}$ since it is $0$ on an open ball contained in $ \widetilde{\Omega} \setminus \Omega$ . We arrive as above to a contradiction. Hence, $\mu \mapsto \lambda_{a,k}^\mu$ is strictly decreasing on $\mathds{R}$. It remains to prove that for any $k$, $\lambda_{a,k}^\mu \to -\infty$ as $\mu \to +\infty$. By the min-max principle $$\lambda_1^\mu \le \sum_{k,j=1}^d \int_{\Omega} a_{kj} \partial_k u \overline{\partial_j u} + 2 \Re \sum_{k=1}^d \int_\Omega a_k \partial_k u \overline{u} + \int_{\Omega} a_0 | u |^2 - \mu \int_{\Gamma_1} | \text{Tr}(u)|^2 $$ for every normalized $u \in V$. Taking $u$ such that $\text{Tr}(u) \not= 0$ shows that $\lambda_{a,1}^\mu \to -\infty$ as $\mu \to +\infty$. Suppose now that $\lambda_{a, k}^\mu > w $ for some $w \in \mathds{R}$, $ k > 1$ and all $\mu \in \mathds{R}$. Taking the smallest possible $k$ we have $\lambda_{a,j}^\mu \to -\infty$ as $\mu \to +\infty$ for $j= 1, \cdots, k-1$. Of course, $\lambda_{a, j}^\mu > w $ for all $j \ge k$ and we may choose $w \notin \sigma(L_a^D)$. Remember also that $\mu \mapsto \lambda_{a, j}^\mu$ is strictly decreasing for $j= 1, \cdots, k-1$. On the other hand, by Theorem \ref{thm3-1} we have $\sigma({\mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1, a}}(w)) \subset \{ \mu \in \mathds{R}, \lambda_{a,j}^\mu = w, j = 1, \cdots, k-1\}$. Using the fact that $\lambda_{a,j}^\mu \to -\infty$ as $\mu \to +\infty$ and $\mu \mapsto \lambda_{a, j}^\mu$ is strictly decreasing for $j = 1, \cdots, k-1$ we see that we can choose $w$ such that the set $\{ \mu \in \mathds{R}, \lambda_{a,j}^\mu = w, j = 1, \cdots, k-1\}$ is finite and hence $\sigma({\mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1, a}}(w))$ is finite which is not possible since $L^2(\Gamma_1)$ has infinite dimension. \end{proof} Related results to Lemma \ref{decrease} can be found in \cite{AM12} (see Proposition 3) and \cite{R14}. In both papers the proofs use the unique continuation property. We shall also need the following lemma. \begin{lemma}\label{lem4} For every $\varphi, \psi \in \text{Tr}(V)$, the mapping $$\lambda \mapsto \langle \mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1, a}(\lambda) \varphi, \psi \rangle$$ is holomorphic on $\mathds{C} \setminus \sigma(L_a^D)$. \end{lemma} This result is easy to prove, see Lemma 2.4 in \cite{BR12}. \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm0}] As above, we denote by $(\lambda_{b,n}^\mu)_{n\ge1}$ and $(\lambda_{b,n}^D)_{n\ge1}$ the eigenvalues of the self-adjoint operators $L_b^\mu$ and $L_b^D$, respectively. It follows from Lemma \ref{lem4} and the assumptions that $\mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1, a}(\lambda) = \mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1, b}(\lambda)$ for all $\lambda \in \mathds{C} \setminus (\sigma(L_a^D) \cup \sigma(L_b^D))$. \\ $i)$ We show that for all $\mu \in \mathds{R}$ \begin{equation}\label{3-8} \sigma(L_a^\mu) = \sigma(L_b^\mu), \end{equation} and the eigenvalues have the same multiplicity. \\ Fix $\mu \in \mathds{R}$ and suppose that $\lambda = \lambda_{a,k}^\mu \in \sigma(L_a^\mu) \setminus (\sigma(L_a^D) \cup \sigma(L_b^D))$. By Theorem \ref{thm3-1}, $ \mu \in \sigma(\mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1, a}(\lambda) )= \sigma( \mathcal{N}_{\Gamma_1, b}(\lambda)) $ and hence $\lambda \in \sigma(L_b^\mu)$. Thus, $\lambda = \lambda_{a,k}^\mu = \lambda_{b,j}^\mu$ for some $j \ge 1$. The second assertion of Theorem \ref{thm3-1} shows that $\lambda_{a,k}^\mu $ and $ \lambda_{b,j}^\mu$ have the same multiplicity. In addition, $j= k$. Indeed, if $k < j$ then $$\lambda_{b,1}^\mu \le \lambda_{b,2}^\mu \le \dots \le \lambda_{b,k}^\mu \le \dots \le \lambda_{b,j}^\mu = \lambda_{a,k}^\mu.$$ Each $\lambda_{b,m}^\mu$ coincides with an eigenvalue of $L_a^\mu$ (with the same multiplicity) and hence $\lambda_{a,k}^\mu$ is (at least) the $j-$th eigenvalue of $L_a^\mu$ with $j > k$ which is not possible. The same argument works if $j < k$. Using Lemma \ref{decrease} we see that for any $k$ there exists a discrete set $J \subset \mathds{R}$ such that $ \lambda_{a,k}^\mu = \lambda_{b,k}^\mu$ for every $\mu \in \mathds{R} \setminus J$. By continuity of $\mu \mapsto \lambda_{a,k}^\mu$ and $\mu \mapsto \lambda_{b,k}^\mu$ these two functions coincide on $\mathds{R}$. This proves \eqref{3-8} and also that the multiplicities of the eigenvalues $\lambda_{a,k}^\mu$ and $\lambda_{b,k}^\mu$ are the same. The similarity property follows by a classical argument. Recall that $L_a^\mu$ and $ L_b^\mu$ are self-adjoint operators with compact resolvents. It follows that here exist orthonormal bases $\Phi_n$ and $\Psi_n$ of $L^2(\Omega)$ which are eigenfunctions of $L_a^\mu$ and $L_b^\mu$, respectively. Define the mapping $$\mathcal U : L^2(\Omega) \to L^2(\Omega), \, \Phi_n \mapsto \Psi_n.$$ Thus for $ f = \sum_n (f, \Phi_n) \Phi_n \in L^2(\Omega)$, ${\mathcal U}(f) = \sum_n (f, \Phi_n) \Psi_n$. The notation $(f, \Phi_n)$ is the scalar product in $L^2(\Omega)$. Clearly, $$ \| {\mathcal U} (f) \|_2^2 = \sum_n | (f, \Phi_n)|^2 = \| f \|_2^2.$$ The mapping $\mathcal U$ is an isomorphism. In addition, if $L_a^\mu \Phi_n = \lambda_{a,n}^\mu \Phi_n$ then for $f \in D(L_b^\mu)$ \begin{eqnarray*} {\mathcal U} L_a^\mu {\mathcal U}^{-1} (f) &=& {\mathcal U} L_a^\mu {\mathcal U}^{-1}\left( \sum_n (f, \Psi_n) \Psi_n \right)\\ &=& {\mathcal U} L_a^\mu\left( \sum_n (f, \Psi_n) \Phi_n \right)\\ &=& {\mathcal U} \left( \sum_n (f, \Psi_n) \lambda_{a,n}^\mu \Phi_n \right)\\ &=& \sum_n (f, \lambda_{b,n}^\mu \Psi_n) \Psi_n\\ &=& L_b^\mu(f). \end{eqnarray*} Thus, $L_a^\mu$ and $L_b^\mu$ are unitarily equivalent. This proves assertion $i)$.\\ $ii)$ Choose $\mu = 0$ in the previous assertion.\\ $iii)$ As mentioned above, by Lemma \ref{lem5} we have \eqref{sigmaconv}. The same property holds for $L_b^\mu$, that is, $\lambda_{b,k}^\mu \to \lambda_{b,k}^D$ as $\mu \to -\infty$. It follows from assertion $(i)$ that $\lambda_{a,k}^D = \lambda_{b,k}^D$ for all $k \ge 1$ and have the same multiplicity. We conclude as above that $L_a^D$ and $L_b^D$ are unitarily equivalent. \\ Finally, another application of Theorem \ref{thm3-1} shows that $\text{Tr}(\text{Ker} (\lambda- L_a^\mu)) = \text{Tr}(\text{Ker} (\lambda- L_b^\mu))$ for $\lambda \notin \sigma(L_a^D)= \sigma(L_b^D)$. \end{proof} \noindent{\bf Acknowledgements.} The author wishes to thank Jonathan Rohleder for very helpful remarks and discussions on the proof of Lemma \ref{decrease}. He wishes also to thank the referee for his/her very careful reading of the manuscript.
\section{Introduction} A \emph{numerical semigroup} $S$ is a subset of the non-negative integers (denoted by $\mathbb{Z}_+$) that contains zero, is closed under addition and has finite complement in $\mathbb{Z}_+$. The set of non-zero elements in $S$ is denoted by $M(S)$. Elements in the complement $\mathbb{Z}_+\setminus S$ are called \emph{gaps}, and the number of gaps is the \emph{genus} of $S$. The smallest element of $M(S)$ is the \emph{multiplicity} of $S$ and it is denoted by $m(S)$. The largest integer not in $S$ is the \emph{Frobenius element} and is denoted by $F(S)$. The number $F(S)+1$ is called the \emph{conductor} of $S$ and is denoted by $c(S)$. An integer $x\not\in S$ is \emph{pseudo-Frobenius} if $x+s\in S$ for all $s\in M(S)$. The set of pseudo-Frobenius integers is denoted by $PF(S)$. Note that $F(S)\in PF(S)$ and that $F(S)$ is the maximum of the elements in $PF(S)$. It can be proved that, given a numerical semigroup $S$, there exists a unique minimal set of elements $B\subset M(S)$ such that any element in $S$ can be expressed as a linear combination of elements from $B$. The elements in $B$ are called \emph{minimal generators} of $S$ and they are exactly the elements of $M(S)$ that can not be obtained as the sum of two elements of $M(S)$. The cardinality of $B$ is always finite. More precisely it is always less or equal to the multiplicity of $S$. A numerical semigroup has \emph{ maximal embedding dimension} if the number of minimal generators equals the multiplicity. A \emph{relative ideal} of a numerical semigroup $S$ is a set $H\subseteq \mathbb{Z}$ satisfying $H+S\subseteq H$ and $H+d\subseteq S$ for some $d\in S$. A relative ideal contained in $S$ is an \emph{ideal} of $S$. An ideal is \emph{proper} if it is distinct from $S$. The set of proper ideals of $S$ has a maximal element with respect to inclusion. This ideal is called the \emph{maximal ideal} of $S$, and equals $M(S)$, the set of non-zero elements of $S$. The \emph{dual} of a relative ideal $H$ is the relative ideal $H^*=(S-H)=\{z\in \mathbb{Z}:z+H\subseteq S\}$. A \emph{pattern} admitted by an ideal $I$ of a numerical semigroup $S$ is a multivariate polynomial function $p(X_1,\dots,X_n)$ which returns an element $p(s_1,\dots,s_n)\in S$ when evaluated on any non-increasing sequence $(s_1,\dots,s_n)$ of elements in $I$. We say that the ideal $I$ \emph{admits} the pattern. If $I=S$, then we say that the numerical semigroup $S$ admits the pattern. Note that a pattern admitted by an ideal $I$ of a numerical semigroup $S$ is also admitted by any ideal $J\subseteq I$. We will identify the pattern with its polynomial, and, for example, say that the pattern is linear and homogeneous, when the pattern polynomial is linear and homogeneous. The length of a pattern is the number of indeterminates and its degree is the degree of the pattern polynomial. One pattern $p$ \emph{induces} another pattern $q$ if any ideal of a numerical semigroup that admits $p$ also admits $q$. Two patterns are equivalent if they induce each other. If any ideal satisfying a given condition $c$ that admits $p$ also admits $q$, then we say that $p$ induces $q$ under the condition $c$. Two patterns are equivalent under the condition $c$ if they induce each other under the condition $c$. Homogeneous linear patterns admitted by numerical semigroups were introduced by Bras-Amor\'os and Garc\'ia-S\'anchez in \cite{MariaPedro}. The patterns that they considered were all defined by homogeneous linear multivariate polynomials with the whole numerical semigroup as domain. Examples of homogeneous patterns are the homogeneous linear patterns with positive coefficients. It is easy to see that these patterns are admitted by any numerical semigroup. Arf numerical semigroup are characterized by admitting the homogeneous linear ``Arf pattern'' $X_1+X_2-X_3$. Homogeneous linear patterns of the form $X_1+\cdots+X_{k}-X_{k+1}$ generalise the Arf pattern and are called \emph{subtraction patterns}~\cite{MariaPedro}. The definition of pattern from $S$ to $S$ does not allow for non-homogeneous patterns with constant term outside $S$. To overcome this problem, when the non-homogeneous patterns were introduced in \cite{MariaPedroAlbert}, it was with $M(S)$ as domain. Note that with this definition $X+a$ with $a\in PF(S)$ is a non-homogeneous linear pattern admitted by $S$. Admitting the non-homogeneous linear pattern $X_1+X_2-m(S)$ is equivalent to the property of maximal embedding dimension. Since this pattern is induced by the pattern $X_1+X_2-X_3$, this implies that a numerical semigroup that is Arf is always of maximal embedding dimension. Further examples of non-homogeneous linear patterns can be found in the numerical semigroups associated to the existence of combinatorial configurations (see \cite{BrasStokes}). It was proved in \cite{StokesBras1,StokesBras2} that such numerical semigroups admit the patterns $X_1+X_2-n$ for $n\in \{1,\dots,\gcd(r,k)\}$ and $X_1+\dots+X_{rk/\gcd(r,k)}+1$, where $r$ and $k$ are positive integers that depend on the parameters of the combinatorial configuration. This example motivates the study of a set of patterns that are admitted simultaneously by the same numerical semigroup. Another example of a non-homogeneous linear pattern is $qX_1-qm(S)$, which is admitted by a Weierstrass semigroup $S$ of multiplicity $m(S)$ of a rational place of a function field over a finite field of cardinality $q$, for which the Geil-Matsumoto bound and the Lewittes' bound coincide~\cite{BrasVico}. Similarly, the pattern $(q-1)X_1-(q-1)m(S)$ is admitted if and only if the Beelen-Ruano's bound equals $1+(q-1)m$~\cite{MariaPedroAlbert}. Patterns can be used to explore the properties of the numerical semigroup admitting them. For example, the calculations of the formulae for the notable elements of Mersenne numerical semigroups in ~\cite{Branco} rely on the fact that all Mersenne numerical semigroups generated by a consecutive sequence of Mersenne numbers admit the non-homogeneous pattern $2X_1+1$. Similarly, the non-homogeneous patterns admitted by numerical semigroups associated to the existence of combinatorial configurations were used to improve the bounds on the conductor of these numerical semigroups. In this article we study patterns of ideals of numerical semigroups. Section~\ref{sec:image} contains basic results about the properties of the image of patterns. For example, it is proved that if the greatest common divisor of the coefficients of the pattern $p$ is one and $I$ is an ideal of a numerical semigroup $S$, then the image $p(I)$ of a pattern is always an ideal of a numerical semigroup. Also, sufficient conditions are given for when $p(I)\subseteq S$. Section~\ref{sec:calculate} presents an upper bound of the smallest element $c$ in $p(I)$ such that all integers larger than $c$ belong to $p(I)$, under the condition that the greatest common divisor of the coefficients of $p$ is one. By dividing $p$ by the greatest common divisor of its coefficients, this result makes it possible to calculate $p(I)$ for any admissible pattern $p$. Section~\ref{sec:patternsofideals} introduces the concepts endopattern and surjective pattern of an ideal, and gives some sufficient and necessary conditions on patterns to have these properties. In Section~\ref{sec:closure}, we generalize the notion of closure of a numerical semigroup with respect to a homogeneous linear pattern to the closure of an ideal of a numerical semigroup with respect to a non-homogeneous linear pattern. We also prove a necessary condition for when the closure of an ideal with respect to a non-homogeneous pattern can be calculated by repeatedly applying the pattern. In Section~\ref{sec:structures} we prove that the set of patterns admitted by an ideal of a numerical semigroup has the structure of a semigroup, semiring or semiring algebra, depending on if the length and the degree of the patterns is fixed. Section~\ref{sec:pseudofrobenius} introduces a generalization of pseudo-Frobenius as a useful tool in the analysis of the structures defined in Section~\ref{sec:structures}. Section~\ref{sec:image2} introduces infinite chains of ideals of numerical semigroups where the subsequent ideal $I_{i}$ is the image of the preceding ideal $I_{i-1}$ under a pattern $p$ which is admitted by the first pattern in the chain, and hence by them all. Finally, Section~\ref{sec:composition} defines polynomial composition of patterns, hence providing yet another operation that creates a pattern admitted by an ideal from several patterns admitted by that ideal. \section{The image of a pattern} \label{sec:image} A pattern $p$ admitted by an ideal $I$ of a numerical semigroup $S$ returns elements in $S$ when evaluated over the non-increasing sequences of elements of $I$. We will now study the image $p(I)$ of $I$ under $p$. We will need the following well-known result. \begin{lemma} \label{lemma_fincompl} Let $A\subseteq \mathbb{Z}_+$ be closed under addition. Then $A$ does not have finite complement in $\mathbb{Z}_+$ if and only if $A\subseteq u\mathbb{Z}$ for some $u>1$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} If $A$ does not have finite complement, then $A$ does not contain $x,y$ such that $\gcd(x,y)=1$, since otherwise the maximal ideal of the numerical semigroup $\langle x,y\rangle$, which has finite complement, would be contained in $ A$. Therefore $\gcd(A)=u$ for some $u>1$ so that $A\subseteq u\mathbb{Z}$. If $u\mathbb{Z}$ is an ideal of $\mathbb{Z}$ with $u>1$ and $A\subseteq u\mathbb{Z}$, then clearly $|\mathbb{Z}_+\setminus A|$ is infinite. \end{proof} \begin{lemma} \label{lem:conductor} If $I$ is an ideal of some numerical semigroup $S$, then there is a $c\in I$ such that $z\in I$ for all $z\in \mathbb{Z}$ with $z\geq c$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} If $I$ is an ideal of some numerical semigroup $S$, then $I+S\subseteq I$, implying that $|\mathbb{Z}_+\setminus I|<\infty$. Therefore there is a $c\in I$ such that $z\in I$ for all $z\in \mathbb{Z}$ with $z\geq c$. \end{proof} If, in Lemma \ref{lem:conductor}, $I=S$, then the integer $c$ is the conductor of $S$. If $I$ is a proper ideal, then we call $c$ the \emph{maximum of the small elements of $I$. } \begin{theorem} \label{thmhomideals} Let $p(X_1,\dots,X_n)=a_1X_1+\cdots+a_nX_n$ be a homogeneous linear pattern admitted by $\mathbb{Z}_+$ and let $I$ be an ideal of a numerical semigroup $S$. Then $p(I)$ is an ideal of some numerical semigroup if and only if $\gcd(a_1,\dots,a_n)=1$. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} Assume that $\gcd(a_1,\dots,a_n)=1$ and let $c$ be the maximum of the small elements of $I$ (see Lemma \ref{lem:conductor}). Let $u>1$ and $s\in I\cap u\mathbb{Z}$ with $s\geq c$. Then $s+1,s+u\in I$, with $s+1\not\in u\mathbb{Z}$, $s+u\in u\mathbb{Z}$ and $s+u>s+1>s$. Since $\gcd(a_1,\dots,a_n)=1$ there is an $i\in [1,n]$ such that $a_i$ is not a multiple of $u$. Therefore $\sum_{j=1}^{i-1}a_j(s+u)+a_i(s+1)+\sum_{j=i+1}^{n}a_js \in p(I)\setminus u\mathbb{Z}$. Lemma~\ref{lemma_fincompl} implies that $p(I)$ has finite complement in $\mathbb{Z}_+$. Note that if $x_1,\dots,x_n$ and $y_1,\dots,y_n$ are non-increasing sequences of $I$, then so is $x_1+y_1,\dots,x_n+y_n$. Since the pattern $p$ is linear and homogeneous we have $p(x_1,\dots,x_n)+p(y_1,\dots,y_n)=p(x_1+y_1,\dots,x_n+y_n)\in p(I)$ for all non-increasing sequences $x_1,\dots,x_n\in I$ and $y_1,\dots,y_n\in I$, that is, $a+b\in p(I)$ for all $a,b\in p(I)$. Hence $p(I)$ is closed under addition. (That linearity of $p$ implies that $p(I)$ is closed under addition was first noted in \cite{MariaPedro}.) Together, the above imply that if $0\in p(I)$, then $p(I)$ is a numerical semigroup, and if $0\not\in p(I)$, then $p(I)$ is the maximal ideal of the numerical semigroup $p(I)\cup \{0\}$. In any case, $p(I)$ is an ideal of a numerical semigroup. Now assume that $\gcd(a_1,\dots,a_n)=u>1$. Then clearly $p(I)\subseteq u\mathbb{Z}$, so that $p(I)$ does not have finite complement in $\mathbb{Z}_+$ and can not be the ideal of any numerical semigroup. \end{proof} Note that in Theorem~\ref{thmhomideals}, either $p(I)$ is a numerical semigroup, or $p(I)$ is the maximal ideal of the numerical semigroup $p(I)\cup \{0\}$, depending on whether $0\in p(I)$ or not. When $I$ is a proper ideal, then $0\in p(I)$ exactly when $\sum_{i=1}^na_i=0$ (see Proposition~\ref{propendM}). When $I=S$, then Theorem~\ref{thmhomideals} implies the following result. \begin{corollary} \label{lemmahomsem} Let $p(X_1,\dots,X_n)=a_1X_1+\cdots+a_nX_n$ be a homogeneous linear pattern admitted by $\mathbb{Z}_+$ and let $S$ be a numerical semigroup. Then $p(S)$ is a numerical semigroup if and only if $\gcd(a_1,\dots,a_n)=1$. \end{corollary} \begin{proof} Apply Theorem~\ref{thmhomideals} with $I=S$ and note that $p(0,\dots,0)=0\in p(S)$. \end{proof} Clearly the numerical semigroup $p(S)$ is contained in the original numerical semigroup $S$ if and only if $p$ is admitted by $S$. Following \cite{MariaPedro}, a linear homogeneous pattern $p(X_1,\dots,X_n)=\sum_{i=1}^na_iX_i$ is \emph{premonic} if $\sum_{i=1}^{n'}a_i=1$ for some $n'\leq n$. We say that a linear non-homogeneous pattern $p(X_1,\dots,X_n)=\sum_{i=1}^na_iX_i+a_0$ is premonic if $p(X_1,\dots,X_n)-a_0$ is premonic. If $a_1=1$ then $p$ is \emph{monic} and so all monic patterns are premonic. \begin{lemma} \label{lemmapremonic} If $p$ is a premonic linear homogeneous pattern admitted by a numerical semigroup $S$, then $p(S)=S$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} If $p$ is a linear homogeneous pattern admitted by $S$ and $p$ is premonic, then $\sum_{i=1}^{n'}a_i s + \sum_{j=n'+1}^na_j 0 =s$ for all $s\in S$, so that $S\subseteq p(S)$. Clearly $p(S)\subseteq S$, so that $p(S)=S$. \end{proof} Moreover, the image of a premonic linear pattern, homogeneous or not, admitted by an ideal $I$ of a numerical semigroup $S$, is an ideal of $S$. \begin{lemma} \label{lem:5} Let $p$ be a premonic linear pattern admitted by an ideal $I$ of a numerical semigroup $S$. Then $p(I)$ is an ideal of $S$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Clearly, if $p$ is a pattern admitted by $I$ then $p(I)\subseteq S$. If $p(X_1,\dots,X_n)=\sum_{i=1}^na_iX_i+a_0$ is a premonic pattern then $\sum_{i=1}^{n'}a_i=1$ for some $1\leq n'\leq n$. If $s_1,\dots,s_n$ is a non-increasing sequence of elements from $I$ and $s\in S$ then $s_1+s,\dots,s_{n'}+s,s_{n'+1},\dots,s_n$ is a non-increasing sequence of elements from $I$ for any $1\leq n'\leq n$. We have $p(s_1,\dots,s_n)+s=\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_is_i+a_0+s=\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_is_1+a_0+(\sum_{i=1}^{n'}a_i)s=\sum_{i=1}^{n'}a_i(s_i+s)+\sum_{i=n'+1}^na_is_i+a_0=p(s_1+s,\dots,s_{n'}+s,s_{n'+1},\dots,s_{n})\in p(I)$ for all non-increasing sequences $s_1,\dots,s_n$ of elements from $I$ and for all $s\in S$. Therefore $p(I)+S\subseteq p(I)$, and $p(I)$ is an ideal of $S$. \end{proof} Note that if $p(X_1,\dots,X_n)=\sum_{i=1}^na_iX_i$ is a premonic linear pattern admitted by the maximal ideal $M(S)$ of a numerical semigroups $S$, then $\gcd(a_1,\dots,a_n)=1$, so that, by Theorem~\ref{thmhomideals}, $p(M(S))$ is either a numerical semigroup contained in $S$ or the maximal ideal of a numerical semigroup contained in $S$. But although an ideal of $S$ that contains zero must be equal to $S$, it is not true in general that if $p$ is a premonic, homogeneous linear pattern admitted by $M(S)$, then $p(M(S))\cup\{0\}=S$. Consider for example the pattern $X_1+X_2$ with image $2M(S) \subsetneq M(S)$. However, as we have already seen, if $p$ is a premonic linear homogeneous pattern admitted by a numerical semigroup $S$, then $p(S)=S$. \begin{example} The Arf pattern $p(X_1,X_2,X_3)=X_1+X_2-X_3$ is a monic linear homogeneous pattern. If $S$ is a numerical semigroup Arf, then $p(S)=S$, and since $p(0,0,0)=0$ and $p^{-1}(0)=(0,0,0)$ also $p(M(S))=M(S)$. If $I$ is an ideal of $S$, then $I\subseteq p(I)$, but in general it is not true that $p(I)\subseteq I$. For example, if $S=\left\langle 3,5,7\right\rangle$ and $I=S\setminus\{0,7\}$, then $p(5,5,3)=7\in p(I)\setminus I$ and $p(I)=M(S)$. \end{example} Finally, we show that there is a relation between relative ideals and premonic linear non-homogeneous patterns. \begin{lemma} Let $p(X_1,\dots,X_n)=a_1X_1+\cdots+a_nX_n+a_0$ be a linear non-homogeneous pattern admitted by an ideal $I$ of a numerical semigroup $S$ and let $q(X_1,\dots,X_n)=p(X_1,\dots,X_n)-a_0$ be the homogeneous linear part of $p$. If $p$ is premonic (and therefore also $q$), then $q(I)$ is a relative ideal of $S$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Since $p(X_1,\dots,X_n)=q(X_1,\dots,X_n)+a_0$ by Lemma~\ref{lem:5} we have $q(I)+S\subseteq q(I)$ and $q(I)+a_0 \subseteq S$. \end{proof} \section{Calculating the image of a pattern} \label{sec:calculate} The following result is useful for calculating the image $p(I)$ of an admissible linear homogeneous pattern. \begin{lemma} \label{lemma:calc1} Let $I$ be an ideal of a numerical semigroup. Let $p(X_1,\dots,X_n)=\sum_{i=1}^na_iX_i$ be a homogeneous linear pattern with $\gcd(a_1,\dots,a_n)=d(\geq 1)$ and let $b_1,\dots,b_n$ be (non-unique) integers such that $a_1b_1+\cdots+a_nb_n=d$. It is not assumed that $p$ is admitted by $I$. Then $p(s_1,\dots,s_n)+d\in p(I)$ for all non-increasing sequences $s_1,\dots,s_n\in I$ such that $s_1+b_1,\dots,s_n+b_n$ is also a non-increasing sequence of elements from $I$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} We have $p(s_1,\dots,s_n)+d=p(s_1,\dots,s_n)+p(b_1,\dots,b_n)=p(s_1+b_1,\dots,s_n+b_n)$. Therefore, if $s_1+b_1,\dots,s_n+b_n$ is a non-increasing sequence of elements from $I$, then $p(s_1,\dots,s_n)+d\in p(I)$. \end{proof} Note that any choice of $b_1,\dots,b_n$ such that $a_1b_1+\cdots+a_nb_n=d$ will do. In practice it may be useful to instead require that $s_1\geq \cdots \geq s_n\geq c(I)$ and $s_1+b_1\geq \cdots \geq s_n+b_n\geq c(I)$ where $c(I)$ is the smallest element in $I$ such that $z\in I$ for all integers $z\geq c$. Clearly then both $s_1,\dots,s_n$ and $s_1+b_1,\dots,s_n+b_n$ are non-increasing sequences of elements from $I$. \begin{theorem} \label{thm:calc} Let $I$, $c(I)$, $p$, $d$ and $b_1,\dots,b_n$ be as in Lemma~\ref{lemma:calc1}. Then $J=p(I)/d$ is an ideal of a numerical semigroup. Let $c(J)$ be the maximum of the small elements of $J$. Also let $\alpha=\sum_{i=1}^na_i/d$. Then $c(J)< p(s_1,\dots,s_n)/d$ whenever $s_n\geq c(I)-\min(0,(\alpha-1) b_n)$ and $s_i\geq s_j + \max(0,(\alpha-1)(b_j-b_i))$ for $1\leq i< n$. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} If $d=\gcd(a_1,\dots,a_n)$ then $d$ divides all elements of $p(I)$. Dividing $p(I)$ by $d$ gives the image of $I$ under the pattern $q=p/d=\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{a_i}{d}X_i$ which has relatively prime coefficients $c_i=\frac{a_i}{d}$ such that $c_1b_1+\cdots+c_nb_n=1$ and $\sum_{i=1}^nc_i=\alpha$. Therefore, by Theorem~\ref{thmhomideals}, $J=q(I)$ is an ideal of some semigroup. Any non-increasing sequence $s_1,\dots,s_n\in \mathbb{Z}$ with $s_n\geq c(I)$ is a non-increasing sequence of elements of $I$. Note that the $b_i$:s can be negative integers. Take $s_n\geq c(I)-\min(0,(\alpha-1) b_n)$ and $s_i\geq s_j + \max(0,(\alpha-1)(b_j-b_i))$ for $1\leq i< n$. Under these conditions we have that $s_i+tb_i\geq s_j+tb_j\geq c(I)$ for all $1\leq i\leq j\leq n$ and $0\leq t\leq \alpha-1$, so that $q(s_1+tb_1,\dots,s_n+tb_n)\in q(I)$. Now note that $q(s_1+x+(t+1)b_1,\dots,s_n+x+(t+1)b_n)=q(s_1+x+tb_1,\dots,s_n+x+tb_n)+1$ for all $0\leq t\leq \alpha-1$ and for all $x\geq 0$. Also, $q(s_1+x,\dots,s_n+x)=q(s_1,\dots,s_n)+\alpha x$. Therefore $q(I)$ contains all integers larger or equal to $q(s_1,\dots,s_n)$ with $s_n\geq c(I)-\min(0,(\alpha-1) b_n)$ and $s_i\geq s_j + \max(0,(\alpha-1)(b_j-b_i))$ for $1\leq i< n$. \end{proof} Theorem~\ref{thm:calc} implies that the set of non-increasing sequences of $I$ which is needed for calculating explicitly $p(I)$ is finite. However, in practice this number will depend on the choice of $b_1,\dots,b_n$. \begin{comment} Let $\geq_{\circ}$ be the relation on the set $A(I)$ of non-increasing sequences of $I$ defined by $s\geq_{\circ} s'$ if and only if $s_n=s'_n$ and there is some $1\leq k< n$ such that $s_i\geq s'_i$ for $1\leq i\leq k$ and $s_i=s'_i$ for $k+1\leq i \leq n$. \begin{lemma} The relation $\geq_{\circ}$ is a partial order on $A(I)$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} For any $s,s',s''\in A(I)$ \begin{itemize} \item $s\geq_{\circ} s$, \item $s\geq_{\circ} s'$ and $s'\geq_{\circ} s$ implies that $s=s'$, and \item $s \geq_{\circ} s'$ and $s'\geq_{\circ} s''$ implies that $s\geq_{\circ} s''$. Indeed, let $s=(s_1,\dots,s_n)$, $s'=(s'_1,\dots,s'_n)$ and $s''=(s''_1,\dots,s''_n)$ such that $s\geq_{\circ}s'$ and $s'\geq_{\circ} s''$. Then $s_n=s'_n=s''_n$ and there is a $k$ and an $m$ such that $s_i\geq s'_i$ for all $1\leq i\leq k$, $s_i=s'_i$ for all $k+1\leq i\leq n$ and $s'_i\geq s''_i$ for all $1\leq i\leq m$ and $s'_i=s''_i$ for all $m+1\leq i\leq n$. This implies that $s_n=s''_n$ and $s_i\geq s''_i$ for all $1\leq i\leq \max(k,m)$ and $s_i=s''_i$ for all $\max(k,m)\leq i\leq n$, so that $s\geq_{\circ} s''$. \end{itemize} \end{proof} Let $p$ be an admissible pattern polynomial and define the relation $\geq_p$ on pairs $(s,s')\in A(I)\times A(I)$ as $s\geq_p s'$ if and only if $p(s)\geq p(s')$. \begin{lemma} \label{lemma:linext} The relation $\geq_p$ is a total (linear) order on $A(I)$ that extends $\geq_{\circ}$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} If $p$ is admissible pattern, then $$\begin{array}{rl}p(s_1,\dots,s_n)&=\sum_{i=1}^na_is_i+a_0\\ &=\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} (\sum_{j=1}^ia_j)(s_i-s_{i+1})+(\sum_{j=1}^na_j)s_n+a_0\\ &\geq \sum_{i=x}^{n-1} (\sum_{j=1}^ia_j)(s_i-s_{i+1})+(\sum_{j=1}^na_j)s_n+a_0\\ &=\sum_{i=1}^xa_is_x+\sum_{i=x+1}^na_is_i+a_0 \\ &=p(\underbrace{s_x,\dots,s_x}_{x},s_{x+1},\dots,s_n) \end{array}$$ for all non-increasing sequences $s_1,\dots,s_n\in I$~\cite{MariaPedro}. Therefore, if $s,s'\in A(I)$ and $s\geq_{\circ} s'$, then $p(s)\geq p(s')$, and so $s\geq_p s'$, implying that the total (linear) order $\geq_p$ extends $\geq_{\circ}$. \end{proof} \end{comment} A linear pattern $p(X_1,\dots,X_n)=\sum_{i=1}^na_iX_i+a_0$ is called \emph{strongly admissible} if the partial sums $\sum_{i=1}^{n'}a_i\geq 1$ for all $1\leq n'\leq n$. (Strongly admissible patterns were introduced differently in \cite{MariaPedro}, but the two definitions are equivalent). \begin{lemma} \label{lemma:Y} Let $C$ be a positive integer constant, and let $p(X_1,\dots,X_n)=\sum_{i=1}^na_iX_i+a_0$ be a strongly admissible linear pattern. Let $Y_t=\{(t,s_2,\dots,s_n): \forall~ 2\leq i \leq n~ s_i\in I, \forall~ 2\leq i \leq n-1 ~ s_i\geq s_{i+1}\}$ and let $Y(C)=\bigcup_{t\leq x,~t\in I} Y_t$ for the smallest $x\in I$ such that $p(x,s_2,\dots,s_n)\geq C$ for all $s_2,\dots,s_n\in I$ such that $x\geq s_1 \geq \cdots \geq s_n$. Then $Y(C)$ is a well-defined finite set and contains the set of non-increasing sequences $s_1,\dots,s_n\in I$ such that $p(s_1,\dots,s_n)<C$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} First we prove that if $\sum_{i=1}^{n'}a_i\geq 1$ for all $1\leq n'\leq n$, then there is an $x\in I$ such that $p(x,s_2,\dots,s_n)\geq C$ for all $s_2,\dots,s_n\in I$ such that $x\geq s_2 \geq \cdots \geq s_n$. Let $s_1\geq \cdots \geq s_n\geq 0$. Then $p(s_1,\dots,s_n)=\sum_{i=1}^na_is_i+a_0=\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}(\sum_{j=1}^ia_j)(s_i-s_{i+1})+\sum_{j=1}^na_js_n+a_0\geq \sum_{i=1}^{n-1}1\cdot (s_i-s_{i+1})+1\cdot s_n+a_0=s_1+a_0$. Therefore, by taking $x=s_1\geq C-a_0$, one has $p(x,s_2,\dots,s_n)\geq C$ for all $s_2,\dots,s_n\in I$ such that $x\geq s_2\geq \cdots \geq s_n$, so $Y$ is a well-defined finite set. Now note that we have also proved that for all $s_1,\dots,s_n\in I$ with $s_1>x$, $p(s_1,\dots,s_n)\geq C$. Consequently, if $s=(s_1,\dots,s_n)$ is a non-increasing sequence of elements of $I$ such that $p(s_1,\dots,s_n)<C$, then $s\in Y$. \end{proof} The following algorithm calculates $p(I)$ by calculating first an upper bound $C\geq c(J)$ and then calculating $p(s)$ for all $s\in Y(C)$. \begin{lemma} \label{lemma:alg} Let notation be as in Lemma~\ref{lemma:calc1} and Theorem~\ref{thm:calc}. Assume also that the admissible homogeneous pattern polynomial $p(X_1,\dots,X_n)=\sum_{i=1}^na_iX_i$ is strongly admissible. The following algorithm can be used to calculate $p(I)$. . \begin{enumerate} \item Set $q=p/d$. \item Calculate $C=q(s_1,\dots,s_n)$ with $s_n= c(I)+\min(0,\alpha b_n)$ and $s_i= s_j + \min(0,\alpha(b_j-b_i))$ for $1\leq i< n$. \item Calculate $Q:=\{q(s_1,\dots,s_n): (s_1,\dots,s_n)\in Y(C)\}$ where $Y(C)$ is the set defined in Lemma~\ref{lemma:Y}. \begin{comment} The following algorithm calculates $Q=q(Y(C))$:\bigskip\\ \hspace*{1cm} $Q=\{\}$;\\ \hspace*{1cm} $s_1:=\mu(I)=\min(I)$;\\ \hspace*{1cm} $end:=true$;\\ \hspace*{1cm} Do\\ \hspace*{2cm} For $\mu(I)\leq s_{2}\leq s_1$ and $s_2\in I$\\ \hspace*{3cm} For $\mu(I)\leq s_{3}\leq s_{2}$ and $s_3\in I$\\ \hspace*{4cm} $\vdots$\\ \hspace*{4cm} For $\mu(I)\leq s_n\leq s_{n-1}$ and $s_n\in I$\\ \hspace*{5cm} $a:=p(s_1,\dots,s_n)$;\\ \hspace*{5cm} Add $a$ to $Q$;\\ \hspace*{5cm} If $a<c(J)$\\ \hspace*{6cm} $end:=false$; \\ \hspace*{2cm} $s_1:=\min(s\in I:s\geq s_1)$;\\ \hspace*{1cm} while not $end$;\\ \hspace*{1cm} Return $Q$; \end{comment} \item Now $q(I)=Q\cup \{z\in \mathbb{Z}: z\geq C\}$ and $p(I)=\{ds: s\in q(I)\}$. \end{enumerate} \end{lemma} \begin{proof} By combining Theorem~\ref{thm:calc} and Lemma~\ref{lemma:Y}. \end{proof} Given a linear strongly admissible pattern polynomial and two ideals $I$ of a numerical semigroup $S$ and $J$ of a numerical semigroup $S'$, step 3 in the algorithm in Lemma~\ref{lemma:alg} alone can be used to determine whether or not $p(I)\subseteq J$, after defining $C=\min(s\in J: n\in J~ \forall~ n\in \{z\in \mathbb{Z}: z\geq s\})$. In the particular case when $I$ is an ideal of a numerical semigroup $S$ and $J=S$ (and so $C$ is the conductor of $S$), this calculation determines whether or not $I$ admits $p$. The existence of an algorithm that determines if a strongly admissible pattern is admitted by a numerical semigroup was first announced in \cite{MariaPedro}. \begin{lemma} \label{lemma:calc2} Let $I$ be an ideal of a numerical semigroup, let $p(X_1,\dots,X_n)=\sum_{i=1}^na_iX_i+a_0$ be an admissible linear pattern and let $$q(X_1,\dots,X_n)=p(X_1,\dots,X_n)-a_0.$$ Then $p(I)=q(I)+a_0$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Indeed, any element in $p(I)$ is of the form $p(s_1,\dots,s_n)=\sum_{i=1}^na_is_i+a_0=q(s_1,\dots,s_n)+a_0$. \end{proof} Together Lemma~\ref{lemma:alg} and Lemma~\ref{lemma:calc2} can be used to calculate the image of an ideal of a numerical semigroup under a linear strongly admissible pattern $p$ in a finite number of steps. \begin{comment} \subsection{partial orders} Consider the set $A$ of non-increasing sequences of $n$ elements from an ideal $I$ of a numerical semigroup $S$. Let $J$ be an ideal of a numerical semigroup $T$ and let $c(J)$ be the smallest element of $J$ such that $z\in J$ for all integers $z\geq c(J)$. Also, let $p(X_1,\dots,X_n)=\sum_{i=1}^na_iX_i+a_0$ be an admissible pattern polynomial. Define the total order $\geq_p$ on $A$ as $s\geq_p s'$ if and only if $p(s)\geq p(s')$ for two sequences $s,s'\in A$. \begin{lemma} \label{lemma:partialorder} The relation $s\tilde{\geq} s'$ on pairs $(s,s')$ of sequences of $A$ defined as $s\tilde{\geq} s'$ if and only if there is some $1\leq i\leq n$ such that $s=(s_1,\dots,s_n)$ and $s'=(\underbrace{t,\dots,t}_i,s_{i+1},\dots,s_n)$ and $s_j\geq t$ for all $1\leq j\leq i$, is a partial order on $A$. For any admissible pattern $p=\sum_{i=1}^na_iX_i+a_0$, the total order $\geq_p$ is a linear extension of $\tilde{\geq}$ on $A$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} To see that $\tilde{\geq}$ is a partial order on $A$, for $s,s',s''\in A$ note that \begin{itemize} \item $s\tilde{\geq} s$ (with $i=1$), \item $s\tilde{\geq} s'$ and $s'\tilde{\geq} s$ implies that $s=s'$, and \item $s\tilde{\geq} s'$ and $s'\tilde{\geq} s''$ implies that $s\tilde{\geq} s''$. Indeed, if $s=(s_1,\dots,s_n)$, $s'=(\underbrace{t,\dots,t}_i,s_{i+1},\dots,s_n)$, $s_j\geq t$ for all $1\leq j\leq i$ and $s'\tilde{\geq} s''$, then $s''=(\underbrace{k,\dots,k}_m,s_{m+1},\dots,s_n)$ for some $k\leq t$ and some $m\geq i$, implying that $s\tilde{\geq} s''$. \end{itemize} By Lemma 9 in \cite{MariaPedro} two sequences $s,s'\in A$ with $s\tilde{\geq} s'$ satisfy $p(s)\geq p(s')$, and so $s\geq_p s'$, implying that the total (linear) order $\geq_p$ extends $\tilde{\geq}$. \end{proof} Suppose that we want to test computationally if a given admissible pattern and two given ideals $I$ and $J$ of two numerical semigroups satisfy $p(I)\subseteq J$. Then it is interesting to determine a small finite subset $U$ of non-increasing sequences of elements of $I$ such that $p(s)\in J$ for all $s\in U$ implies that $p(I)\subseteq J$. Note that any set containing the set $U=\{s\in A: p(s)< c(J)\}$ satisfies this requirement, where $c(J)$ is the smallest element of $J$ such that $z\in J$ for all integers $z\geq c(J)$. However it is not computationally easy to determine $U$ given $p$, $I$ and $J$. The set $P=\{s\in A: m \geq_p s\}$ is a finite set that contains $U$ for any $m$ such that $p(m)\geq c(I)$ and can be calculated easily assuming that the total order $\geq_p$ is known. But typically we do not know $\geq_p$ beforehand when we want to test if $p(I)\subseteq J$. Then the following observation is useful. \begin{lemma} \label{lemma:B} Consider the partial order $\tilde{\geq}$ on $A$ from Lemma~\ref{lemma:partialorder}. Let $B$ be a finite subset of $A$ with the following three properties: \begin{enumerate} \item for any $s\in A$, either $s\tilde{\geq} b$ for some $b\in B$, or $b\tilde{\geq} s$ for some $b\in B$ and \item $p(b)\tilde{\geq} c(J)$ for all $b\in B$, \item $p(s)\in J$ for all $s\in A$ such that there is no $b\in B$ such that $s\tilde{\geq} b$. \end{enumerate} Then $p(I)\subseteq J$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Let $s=(s_1,\dots,s_n)$ be a sequence from $A$. If $s\tilde{\geq} b$ for some $b\in B$, then by Lemma~\ref{lemma:partialorder} $s\geq_p b$ so that $p(s)\geq p(b)\geq c(J)$ implying that $p(s)\in J$. If there is no $b\in B$ such that $s\tilde{\geq} b$, then by the third requirement in the definition of $B$ $p(s)\in J$. \end{proof} It is not obvious that a set $B$ satisfying requirement (1) and (2) in Lemma~\ref{lemma:B} always exists, but the following result ensures that it does. \begin{lemma} Given $I$, $J$ and $p$, there always exists a finite set $B\subseteq A$ satisfying requirements (1) and (2) of Lemma~\ref{lemma:B}. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Consider the Hasse diagram $H$ of the partial order $\tilde{\geq}$ on $A$. Then $H$ is an infinite directed graph on the vertex set $A$ where two vertices $s$, $s'$ are connected if and only if $s\tilde{\geq} s'$ and there is no $s''\in A$ such that $s\tilde{\geq} s'' \tilde{\geq} s'$. Consider the spanning tree $T$ of $H$ rooted at the vertex $(\mu(I))=(\mu(I),\dots,\mu(I))$ which satisfies that the distance between $s$ and the root $\mu(I))$ in the spanning tree equals the distance between $s$ and $(\mu(I))$ in $H$. This spanning tree exists since every sequence $s\in A$ satisfies $s\geq (\mu(I))$ and it is a locally finite tree, that is, each vertex has finitely many children (prove?). A set $B$ satisfying requirement (1) of Lemma~\ref{lemma:B} is now a finite subset of the vertices of $T$ such that any vertex in $T$ is either ancestor or descendant of some vertex in $B$. For any constant $k\geq 0$, the set of vertices in $T$ at distance $k$ from the root satisfies this requirement. (and is a finite set?) Indeed, any vertex $s$ of $T$ has infinitely descendants (but only a finite number of ancestors). If $d(s,(\mu(I)))<k$, since $T$ is locally finite, at least one of the infinitely many descendants must be at distance $k$ from $(\mu(I))$. If $d(s,(\mu(I)))=k$ then $s$ is both ancestor and descendant to itself. If $d(s,(\mu(I)))=d<k$, then $s$ has $d-1$ ancestors on distance $d-1, d-2, \dots,0$ from the root, hence $s$ has an ancestor at distance $k$ from the root. For $B$ to satisfy also requirement (2) we have to show that there is some $k\geq 0$ such that if $s$ is a vertex with distance more than $k$ from the root, then $p(s)\geq c(J)$. ... \end{proof} \end{comment} \section{Patterns of ideals of numerical semigroups} \label{sec:patternsofideals} In this article a pattern admitted by an ideal $I$ of a numerical semigroup $S$ is a multivariate polynomial function which evaluated on non-increasing sequences of elements from $I$ returns an element of $S$. This definition generalises previous definitions of patterns admitted by numerical semigroups. Indeed, a homogeneous linear pattern as defined in \cite{MariaPedro} is according to our definition still a pattern admitted by a numerical semigroup. However, a non-homogeneous linear pattern as defined in \cite{MariaPedroAlbert} is now a pattern admitted by the maximal ideal of some numerical semigroup. The concept can be generalised further, for example by relaxing the criteria that the codomain of a pattern admitted by an ideal necessarily should be a numerical semigroup containing the ideal. Then the codomain of the pattern can be another numerical semigroup, or generalising even more, an ideal of some numerical semigroup. It is possible to go even further by considering relative ideals instead of ideals. One can also restrict to patterns with some particular property like for example linearity or homogeneity. We say that a linear pattern that returns an element in $I$ when evaluated on the non-increasing sequences of elements of $I$ is an \emph{endopattern} of $I$. A pattern admitted by an ideal $I$ with codomain $J$ is \emph{surjective} when $p(I)=J$. A surjective endopattern of $I$ is therefore a pattern $p$ such that $p(I)=I$. Formally, an endopattern of $I$ is an endomorphism of the set of non-increasing sequences of $n$ elements from $I$. Note that, for example, the map $x\mapsto (x,\dots,x)$ is an embedding of the image of the pattern in the set of non-increasing sequences of $n$ elements from $I$. In this article, the focus is on linear endopatterns of numerical semigroups and ideals of numerical semigroups, in particular maximal ideal. To avoid confusion we will each time explicitly state the properties of the patterns that we consider in each moment. We start with necessary conditions for linear patterns to be endopatterns and surjective endopatterns of numerical semigroups. We will repeatedly make use of the following result, first proved in \cite{MariaPedro} for homogeneous linear patterns and in \cite{MariaPedroAlbert} for non-homogeneous linear patterns. Here we prove the result for ideals of numerical semigroups, making use of Abel's partial summation formula (this proof is due to Christian Gottlieb). \begin{lemma} \label{lemma:MPA} If $p(X_1,\dots,X_n)=\sum_{i=1}^na_iX_i+a_0$ is a linear pattern admitted by an ideal $I$ of a numerical semigroup $S$ (i.e. $p(s_1,\dots,s_n)\in S$ for all non-increasing sequences $s_1,\dots,s_n$ of elements from $I$), then \begin{itemize} \item $\sum_{i=1}^{n'}a_i\geq 0$ for all $1\leq n'\leq n$, and \item $\sum_{i=1}^na_is_i\geq \sum_{i=1}^na_is_n$ for all non-increasing sequences $s_1,\dots,s_n\in I$. \end{itemize} \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Assume there is an $n'$ with $1\leq n'\leq n$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^{n'}a_i< 0$. If $s$ is very large compared to $t$ we obtain $$p(\underbrace{s,\dots,s}_{n'},\underbrace{t,\dots,t}_{n-n'})=\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n'}a_i\right)s+ \left(\sum_{i=n'+1}^na_i\right)t<0,$$ implying that $p$ cannot be a pattern admitted by $I$. Now, let $A_{j}=\sum_{i=1}^{j}a_i$. By Abel's formula for summation by parts \cite{Apostol}, we have $\sum_{i=1}^na_i(s_i-s_n)=A_n(s_n-s_n) -\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}A_i(s_{i+1}-s_i)=-\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}A_i(s_{i+1}-s_i)\geq 0$. \end{proof} \begin{proposition} \label{lemmaendS} A linear endopattern of a numerical semigroup $S$ is simply a linear pattern defined by a polynomial $p(X_1,\dots,X_n)=\sum_{i=1}^na_iX_n+a_0$ admitted by $S$. Therefore \begin{itemize} \item $\sum_{i=1}^{n'}a_i\geq 0$ for all $1\leq n'\leq n$, and \item $a_0\in S$. \end{itemize} \end{proposition} \begin{proof} Let $p$ be a linear endopattern of $S$, then $p$ is a pattern defined by a linear multivariate polynomial $p(X_1,\dots,X_n)=\sum_{i=1}^na_iX_i+a_0$ such that evaluated on any non-increasing sequence of elements of $S$, the result is in $S$. In particular, $p(0,\dots,0)=a_0\in S$. For the rest of the statement, apply Lemma \ref{lemma:MPA}. \end{proof} \begin{proposition} \label{lemmaautS} A linear surjective endopattern $p$ of a numerical semigroup $S$ is necessarily homogeneous. If $p$ is a premonic homogeneous endopattern of $S$, then $p$ is always surjective. \end{proposition} \begin{proof} A surjective endopattern $p$ of $S$ is an endopattern of $S$, therefore, by Lemma~\ref{lemmaendS}, $p$ is a linear pattern defined by a polynomial of the form $p(X_1,\dots,X_n)=\sum_{i=1}^na_iX_i+a_0$ with $a_0\in S$ and $\sum_{i=1}^{n'}a_i\geq 0$ for all $1\leq n'\leq n$. But if $a_0>0$ then this gives $p(s_1,\dots,s_n)>0$ for all non-increasing sequences of $S$ so that $ p(S)\subsetneq S$. Consequently, if $p(S)=S$, then $p$ is defined by a homogeneous linear pattern. Finally, if $p$ is premonic then, by Lemma~\ref{lemmapremonic}, $p$ is surjective. \end{proof} The next result gives a necessary condition for when a polynomial defines a linear pattern admitted by a proper ideal of a numerical semigroup. When the ideal is a maximal ideal then this result strengthens the necessary condition given in \cite{MariaPedroAlbert}. \begin{lemma} \label{neccondreinf} If $S$ is a numerical semigroup and $p=\sum_{i=1}^na_iX_i+a_0$ is a linear pattern admitted by a proper ideal $I$ of $S$, then \begin{itemize} \item $\sum_{i=1}^{n'}a_i\geq 0$ for all $1\leq n'\leq n$ and, moreover, \item $\sum_{i=1}^na_i\geq \max(0,-a_0/\mu(I))$, where $\mu(I)=\min(I)$. \end{itemize} \end{lemma} \begin{proof} For the first part, apply Lemma \ref{lemma:MPA}. The second part is an improvement of $\sum_{i=1}^na_i\geq 0$ which is relevant only when $a_0<0$. There are no linear patterns admitted by $S$ with $a_0<0$ (see Proposition~\ref{lemmaendS}), but there may be linear patterns admitted by $I$ with that property. Therefore assume that $p(X_1,\dots,X_n)=\sum_{i=1}^na_iX_i+a_0$ is a linear pattern admitted by $I$ with $a_0<0$ and $\sum_{i=1}^na_i<\max(0,-a_0/\mu(I))=-a_0/\mu(I)$, then $p(\mu(I),\dots,\mu(I)))=\sum_{i=1}^na_i\mu(I)+a_0<\left(-a_0/\mu(I)\right)\cdot \mu(I)+a_0=0$ so that $p(\mu(I),\dots,\mu(I))\not\in S$. But then $p$ cannot be a pattern of $I$ and we have a contradiction. \end{proof} We now use Lemma~\ref{neccondreinf} to give necessary conditions for when a pattern is an endopattern of a proper ideal of a numerical semigroup. \begin{proposition} \label{propendM} A linear endopattern of a proper ideal $I$ of a numerical semigroup $S$ is a linear pattern $p(X_1,\dots,X_n)=\sum_{i=1}^na_iX_i+a_0$ admitted by $I$, and so (by Lemma~\ref{neccondreinf}) $p$ necessarily satisfies \begin{itemize} \item $\sum_{i=1}^{n'}a_i\geq 0$ for all $1\leq n'<n$, \item $\sum_{i=1}^na_i\geq \max(0,-a_0/\mu(I))$, \end{itemize} and additionally \begin{itemize} \item $a_0>0$ or $\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_i>\max(0,-a_0/\mu(I))$ (or both), \end{itemize} where $\mu(I)=\min(I)$. \end{proposition} \begin{proof} The first part of this result is Lemma~\ref{neccondreinf}. For the second part, assume that $a_0\leq 0$ and $\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_i=\max(0,-a_0/\mu(I))$. Then $\sum_{i=1}^na_i\mu(I)+a_0=\max(0,-a_0/\mu(I))\mu(I)+a_0=0$, so that $p(I)\not \subseteq I$. \end{proof} \begin{proposition} \label{propendomax} A linear pattern $p(X_1,\dots,X_n)=\sum_{i=1}^na_iX_i+a_0$ admitted by the maximal ideal $M(S)$ of a numerical semigroup $S$ is an endopattern of $M(S)$ if and only if $a_0>0$ or $\sum_{i=1}^na_i>\max(0,-a_0/m(S))$ (or both). \end{proposition} \begin{proof} By Proposition~\ref{propendM}, if $p$ is an endopattern, then $a_0>0$ or $\sum_{i=1}^na_i>\max(0,-a_0/m(S))$ (or both). Now assume that $p(X_1,\dots,X_n)=\sum_{i=1}^na_iX_i+a_0$ is a linear pattern admitted by $M(S)$. Then by Lemma~\ref{lemma:MPA}, $\sum_{i=1}^n a_is_i\geq \sum_{i=1}^na_is_n\geq 0$ for all non-increasing sequences $s_1,\dots,s_n\in M(S)$. Therefore, if $a_0>0$, then $p(s_1,\dots,s_n)=\sum_{i=1}^na_is_i+a_0\geq a_0>0$ for all non-increasing sequences $s_1,\dots,s_n\in M(S)$, so that $p(M(S))\subseteq M(S)$ and $p$ is an endopattern of $M(S)$. Also, if $\sum_{i=1}^na_i>\max(0,-a_0/m(S))$, then $p(s_1,\dots,s_n)=\sum_{i=1}^na_is_i+a_0\geq (\sum_{i=1}^na_i)m(S)+a_0>\max(0,-a_0/m(S))m(S)+a_0\geq 0$ for all non-increasing sequences $s_1,\dots,s_n\in M(S)$, so that $p(M(S))\subseteq M(S)$ and $p$ is an endopattern of $M(S)$. \end{proof} \begin{proposition} \label{prop:surendo} Any linear surjective endopattern of a proper ideal $I$ of a semigroup $S$ is necessarily of the form $p(X_1,\dots,X_n)=\sum_{i=1}^na_iX_i+a_0$ satisfying $a_0=-(\sum_{i=1}^na_i-1)\mu(I)$ where $\mu(I)$ is the smallest element of $I$. Also, if $p$ is a premonic endopattern of $I$, such that $a_0=-(\sum_{i=1}^na_i-1)\mu(I)$, then $p$ is surjective. \end{proposition} \begin{proof} Denote by $\mu(I)$ the smallest element of $I$. If $p=\sum_{i=1}^na_iX_i+a_0$ is a linear surjective endopattern of $I$, then by Lemma \ref{lemma:MPA} $\sum_{i=1}^na_i s_i\geq \sum_{i=1}^na_i s_n \geq \sum_{i=1}^na_i \mu(I)$ for all non-increasing sequences of $I$. Since $p$ is surjective, $\mu(I)$ is in $p(I)$, forcing $\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_i \mu(I)+a_0=\mu(I)$ so that $a_0=-(\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_i-1)\mu(I)$. Now, if $p$ is premonic, then $\sum_{i=1}^ja_i=1$ for some $j\leq n$ so that if $a_0=-(\sum_{i=1}^na_i -1)\mu$, then $a_0=-\sum_{i=j+1}^na_i\mu$ and so $p(s,\dots,s,\mu,\dots,\mu)=\sum_{i=1}^ja_is+\sum_{i=j+1}^na_i\mu+a_0= s$ for all $s\in I$, implying that $p(I)=I$. \end{proof} The linear patterns considered in the literature before this article are either homogeneous patterns admitted by $S$ or non-homogeneous patterns admitted by $M(S)$. They all have the numerical semigroup $S$ as codomain. The next result shows that almost all these patterns are also endopatterns of $M(S)$. \begin{corollary} \label{cor0} Let $S$ be a numerical semigroup and $M(S)$ its maximal ideal. \begin{itemize} \item If $p(X_1,\dots,X_n)=\sum_{i=1}^na_iX_i$ is a homogeneous linear pattern admitted by $S$ which is not an endopattern of $M(S)$, then $\sum_{i=1}^na_i=0$. \item If $p(X_1,\dots,X_n)=\sum_{i=1}^na_iX_i+a_0$ is a non-homogeneous linear pattern admitted by $M(S)$ which is not an endopattern of $M(S)$, then $a_0\leq 0$ and $\sum_{i=1}^na_i=-a_0/m(S)$. \end{itemize} \end{corollary} \begin{proof} \begin{itemize} \item If $p$ is a homogeneous linear pattern admitted by $S$, then $p$ is also admitted by $M(S)$. By Lemma~\ref{neccondreinf} and Proposition~\ref{propendomax}, if $p$ is not an endopattern then $\sum_{i=1}^n a_i=0$. \item If $p$ is a non-homogenous linear pattern admitted by $M(S)$, then by Lemma~\ref{neccondreinf}, Proposition~\ref{propendM} and Proposition~\ref{propendomax}, if $p$ is not an endopattern then $a_0\leq 0$ and $\sum_{i=1}^na_i=-a_0/m(S)$. \end{itemize} \end{proof} Examples of patterns admitted by a maximal ideal $M(S)$ of a semigroup $S$ that are not endopatterns of $M(S)$ can be found in the two non-homogeneous patterns in Weierstrass semigroups mentioned in the introduction. Corollary~\ref{cor0} shows that many of the important patterns previously considered in the literature are endopatterns of $M(S)$. For example, this is true for the Arf pattern, the subtraction patterns and the patterns of the form $X+a$ with $a$ pseudo-Frobenius. They all belong to the important class of monic linear patterns. \begin{lemma} \label{lemmamonic} Let $S$ be a numerical semigroup. If $S\neq \mathbb{Z}_+$ and $a_0\not\in M(S)$, then there are no monic linear patterns $p(X_1,\dots,X_n)=\sum_{i=1}^na_iX_i+a_0$ admitted by $S$ or by its maximal ideal $M(S)$ with $\sum_{i=1}^n a_i=\max(0,-a_0/m(S))$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Let $m=m(S)$ and let $p$ be a monic linear pattern with $\sum_{i=1}^na_i=\max(0,-a_0/m)$. If $a_0\leq 0$, then $\max(0,-a_0/m)=-a_0/m$. Let $s$ be the smallest element of $M(S)$ that is not a multiple of $m$, then $p(s,m,\dots,m)=s+\sum_{i=2}^na_im+a_0 = (s-m) + p(m,\dots,m)=s-m + \max(0,-a_0/m)m+a_0=s-m \in S$. Now $s-m< s$ and $s-m$ is not a multiple of $m$, but $s$ is the smallest element in $M(S)$ that is not a multiple of $m>1$, so there is a contradiction. So there are no monic linear patterns admitted by $S$ (or $M(S)$) with $\sum_{i=1}^na_i=\max(0,-a_0/m)$ and $a_0\leq 0$. If $a_0> 0$, then $\max(0,-a_0/m)=0$, implying that for all $s\in M(S)$ we have $p(s,\dots,s)=\sum_{i=1}^na_i s +a_0= a_0\in S$, and since $a_0>0$, we have $a_0\in M(S)$. Therefore, there are no monic linear patterns admitted by $S$ (or $M(S)$) with $\sum_{i=1}^na_i=\max(0,-a_0/m)$, $a_0>0$ and $a_0\not\in M(S)$. \end{proof} \begin{corollary} \label{cor:monic} If $S\neq \mathbb{Z}_+$, then any monic linear pattern admitted by $M(S)$ is an endopattern of $M(S)$. \end{corollary} \begin{proof} If $p$ is a monic linear pattern admitted by $M(S)$, then, by Lemma~\ref{neccondreinf} and Lemma~\ref{lemmamonic}, $\sum_{i=1}^na_i> \max(0,-a_0/m(S))$. Therefore, by Proposition~\ref{propendomax}, $p$ is an endopattern of $M(S)$. \end{proof} \section{Closures of ideals with respect to linear patterns} \label{sec:closure} A pattern is admissible if it is admitted by some numerical semigroup. In \cite{MariaPedro} the closure of a numerical semigroup $S$ with respect to an admissible homogeneous pattern $p$ was defined as the smallest numerical semigroup that admits $p$ and contains $S$. Here this definition is generalised to non-homogeneous patterns and to ideals of numerical semigroups. \begin{definition} \label{def:closure} Given an ideal $I$ of a numerical semigroup $S$ and an admissible pattern $p$ not necessarily admitted by $I$, define the closure of $I$ with respect to $p$ as the smallest ideal $\tilde{I}$ of some numerical semigroup $\tilde{S}$ that admits $p$ and contains $I$. It is not required that $I$ is an ideal of $\tilde{S}$, nor is it required that $\tilde{I}$ is an ideal of $S$. However, by definition, it is always true that $I\subseteq \tilde{I}\subseteq \tilde{S}$. \end{definition} Note that if $I$ is not contained in any ideal of a numerical semigroup that admits $p$, then the closure of $I$ with respect to $p$ will fail to exist. This is not a problem for homogeneous linear patterns since a homogeneous pattern $p$ is admissible if and only if $p$ is admitted by $\mathbb{Z}_+$~\cite{MariaPedro}. Therefore, if $p$ is admissible then there is always an ideal of a numerical semigroup that admits $p$ and contains $I$. An ordinary numerical semigroup is a numerical semigroup of the form $\{0,m,\rightarrow\}$. From \cite{MariaPedroAlbert}, Theorem 3.7, we know that if $p$ is an admissible non-homogeneous linear pattern then there is an ordinary numerical semigroup that admits $p$. If $\mu$ is the smallest integer such that $\{0,\mu,\rightarrow\}$ admits $p$, then we say that $p$ is $\mu$-admissible. \begin{lemma} The closure of an ideal $I$ of a numerical semigroup with respect to an admissible linear pattern $p$ is well-defined if $p$ is $\mu$-admissible for $\mu\leq \min(I)$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} If $p$ is $\mu$-admissible and $\min(I)\geq \mu$, then $I\subseteq \{0,\mu,\rightarrow\}$ so there is an ideal of a numerical semigroup that contains $I$ and admits $p$, implying that the closure of $I$ with respect to $p$ is well-defined. \end{proof} Note that the closure of $I$ with respect to $p$ can be well-defined although $p$ is not $\mu$-admissible for $\mu\leq \min(I)$. The smallest $m$ such that $\{0,m,\rightarrow\}$ admits the linear pattern $p(X_1)=X_1+X_2-3$ is $m=3$, so $p$ is $3$-admissible. However, the ideal $\{2,3,\rightarrow\}$ of the numerical semigroup $\mathbb{Z}_+$ also admits $p$. Therefore the closure of $I$ with respect to $p$ is well-defined for any ideal $I$ with $\min(I)\geq 2$. It was proved in \cite{MariaPedro} that if $p$ is a premonic homogeneous linear pattern, then the closure of $S$ with respect to $p$ can be calculated as $$\underbrace{p(p(\cdots (p}_k(S))\cdots )),$$ denoted as $p^k(S)$, for some $k$ large enough. The next result generalises this to premonic non-homogeneous patterns and proper ideals of numerical semigroups. \begin{theorem} \label{thm:closure} If $I$ is an ideal of a numerical semigroup and $p(X_1,\dots,X_n)=\sum_{i=1}^na_iX_i+a_0$ is a premonic linear pattern satisfying $a_0=-(\sum_{i=1}^na_i-1)\mu$ with $\mu=\min(I)$, then $I\subseteq p(I)$ and the chain $I_0=I\subseteq I_1=p(I_0)\subseteq I_2=p(I_2)\subseteq \cdots$ stabilizes. The ideal $I_k=p^k(I)$ for $k$ such that $p^{k+1}(I)=p^k(I)$ is the closure of $I$ with respect to $p$. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} As in the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:surendo}, since $p$ is premonic, $\sum_{i=1}^ja_i=1$ for some $j\leq n$, so that $a_0=-(\sum_{i=1}^na_i -1)\mu=-\sum_{i=j+1}^na_i\mu$. Therefore $p(s,\dots,s,\mu,\dots,\mu)=\sum_{i=1}^ja_is+\sum_{i=j+1}^na_i\mu+a_0= s$ for all $s\in I$, implying that $I\subseteq p(I)$. Note also that since $p$ is admissible, by Lemma \ref{lemma:MPA}, $p(s_1,\dots,s_n)=\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_is_i+a_0 \geq \sum_{i=1}^na_i\mu+a_0= \mu$ for all non-increasing sequences $s_1,\dots,s_n\in \{\mu,\rightarrow\}$, implying that $p^k(I)\subseteq \{\mu,\rightarrow\}$ for all $k\geq 1$. The ideal $I$ has finite complement in $\mathbb{Z}_+$, implying that the chain $$I_0=I\subseteq I_1=p(I_0)\subseteq I_2=p(I_2)\subseteq \cdots$$ stabilizes. Clearly if $p^{k+1}(I)=p^k(I)$ then $p^k(I)$ is an ideal of $S$ that admits $p$ and contains $I$. Finally, if $J$ is the closure of $I$ with respect to $p$, then $J$ must contain $p^i(I)$ for all $i\geq 1$, so that $J$ contains $p^k(I)$. Therefore $p^k(I)$ is the smallest ideal of $S$ that admits $p$ and contains $I$, so $p^k(I)$ is the closure of $I$ with respect to $p$. \end{proof} Note that the conditions on the pattern in Theorem~\ref{thm:closure} are the same as the sufficient conditions for surjective endopatterns in Proposition~\ref{prop:surendo}. \section{Giving structure to the set of patterns admitted by a numerical semigroup} \label{sec:structures} A numerical semigroup admits in general many patterns. These patterns can be combined in several ways. \begin{lemma} \label{lemma1} Let $I$ be an ideal of a numerical semigroup $S$ and suppose that $p$ and $q$ are two patterns admitted by $I$. Then $p+q$ and $rp$ are also patterns admitted by $I$ for any polynomial $r$ with coefficients in $\mathbb{Z}$ such that $r(I)\geq 0$ when evaluated on any non-increasing sequence of elements from $I$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} For all $s_1,\dots,s_n\in I$ we have $p(s_1,\dots,s_n)+q(s_1,\dots,s_n)=a+b$ for some $a,b\in S$, so that $a+b\in S$, implying that $p+q$ is a pattern admitted by $I$. Also, $r(s_1,\dots,s_n)p(s_1,\dots,s_n)=ab$ for some $a\geq 0$ and $b\in S$. Since $ab$ is the result of adding $b$ to itself $a$ times we have that $ab\in S$, implying that $rp$ is a pattern admitted by $I$. \end{proof} It can be argued that since a numerical semigroup is an additive structure, the linear patterns are the most important patterns. Note that linearity is necessary for the pattern to preserve the additivity of the numerical semigroup. Denote by $\mathcal{P}_n^d(I)$ the set of patterns of length at most $n$ and degree at most $d$ that are admitted by the ideal $I$ of a numerical semigroup $S$. Then $\mathcal{P}_n^1(I)$ is the set of linear patterns of length at most $n$ admitted by $I$. Lemma~\ref{lemma1} gives algebraic structure to $\mathcal{P}_n^d(I)$. \begin{lemma} \label{lemma1b} Let $I$ be an ideal of a numerical semigroup $S$, $n\geq 0$ and $d\geq 0$. Then $\mathcal{P}_n^d(I)$ is a semigroup with zero, a monoid. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} By Lemma~\ref{lemma1}, if $p$ and $q$ are patterns admitted by $I$, then $p+q$ is a pattern admitted by $I$. Also, if $p$ and $q$ are of length at most $n$ and degree at most $d$, then $p+q$ is a pattern of length at most $n$ and degree at most $d$. Therefore $\mathcal{P}_n^d(I)$ is a semigroup with respect to addition. The zero pattern is admitted by any ideal of any numerical semigroup and has length at most $n$ and degree at most $d$ for any $n\geq 0$ and $d\geq 0$, so $0\in \mathcal{P}_n^d(I)$. \end{proof} The set $\mathcal{P}_n^d(I)$ is not preserved by polynomial multiplication, but, if so is desired, this problem can be overcome by instead considering patterns of arbitrary degree. Denote by $\mathcal{P}_n(I)$ the set of patterns of length at most $n$ that are admitted by $I$. A semiring is a set $X$ together with two binary operations called addition and multiplication such that $X$ is a semigroup with both addition and multiplication, and multiplication distributes over addition. In general $X$ is not required to have neither zero nor unit element. \begin{lemma} \label{lemma2} Let $I$ be an ideal of a numerical semigroup $S$. Then $\mathcal{P}_n(I)$ is a semiring with zero element. There is a unit element if and only if $I=\mathbb{Z}_+$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} By Lemma~\ref{lemma1}, if $p$ and $q$ are patterns admitted by $I$, then $p+q$ and $pq$ are patterns admitted by $I$, so $\mathcal{P}_n(I)$ is a semigroup with respect to both addition and multiplication. Also, clearly multiplication distributes over addition. Note that the pattern $p(X_1,\dots,X_n)=0$ always is a pattern admitted by $S$. The semiring $\mathcal{P}_n(I)$ has a unit if and only if $1\in \mathcal{P}_n(I)$, which happens if and only if $I=S=\mathbb{Z}_+$. \end{proof} If $\Sigma$ is a (commutative) semiring with unit, then a semiring $X$ is a semi\-algebra over $\Sigma$ if there is a composition $(\sigma,x)=\sigma x$ from $\Sigma\times X$ to $X$ such that $(X,+)$ is a (left) $\Sigma$-semimodule with $(\sigma,x)=\sigma x$ and for $\sigma\in \Sigma$ and $x,y\in X$, $\sigma(xy)=(\sigma x)y=x(\sigma y)$. The semigroup $(X,+)$ is a (left) $\Sigma$-semimodule if $\sigma(x+y)=\sigma x+\sigma y$, $(\sigma+\rho)x=\sigma x+\rho y$, $(\sigma \rho)x=\sigma(\rho x)$ and $1\cdot x=x$ for all $\sigma,\rho\in \Sigma$ and for all $x,y\in X$. \begin{lemma} Let $I$ be an ideal of a numerical semigroup $S$ and consider the set of polynomials $R(I)=\{r\in \mathbb{Z}[X_1,\dots,X_n]: r(s_1,\dots,s_n) \geq 0 ~ \forall s_1\geq \cdots\geq s_n \in I\}$. Then $R(I)$ is a semiring (with zero and unit elements) and $\mathcal{P}_n(I)$ is an $R(I)$-semialgebra. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Following the proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma2}, we see that $R(I)$ is a semiring with zero and unit elements. By Lemma~\ref{lemma1} we have that $rp\in \mathcal{P}_n(I)$. Also, $r(pq)=(rp)q=p(rq)$ for all $r\in R(I)$ and for all $p,q\in \mathcal{P}_n(I)$. Now let $r$ and $s$ be elements in $R(I)$ and $p$ and $q$ be elements in $\mathcal{P}_n(I)$. Then it can easily be checked that $r(p+q)=rp+rq$, $(r+s)p=rp+sp$, $(rs)p=r(sp)$ and $1\cdot p=p$, implying that $\mathcal{P}_n(I)$ is an $R(I)$-semimodule. By Lemma~\ref{lemma2}, $\mathcal{P}_n(I)$ is also a semiring and consequently an $R(I)$-semialgebra. \end{proof} \section{Linear patterns and a generalisation of pseudo-Frobenius} \label{sec:pseudofrobenius} Let $J$ be an ideal of a numerical semigroup $S$ and let $p$ be an endopattern of $J$. We will now study sufficient conditions on $a_0$ for when $p$ induces the pattern $p+a_0$ on the ideals of $S$ contained in $J$. We are also interested in when this implies that $p+a_0$ is an endopattern of $J$. Finally we will also study sufficient conditions for when the endopatterns $p_1,\dots,p_n$ induce the pattern $p_1+\cdots+p_n+a_0$ on the ideals contained in $J$. \begin{lemma} If $p$ is an endopattern of $S$ and $a_0\in S$, then $p$ induces the pattern $p+a_0$ on any ideal $J$ of $S$. Additionally, $p+a_0$ is an endopattern of $S$ (but not necessarily of other ideals of $S$). \end{lemma} \begin{proof} If $p(s_1,\dots,s_n)\in S$ and $a_0\in S$, then $p(s_1,\dots,s_n)+a_0\in S$, so $p+a_0$ is admitted by $S$ and by any ideal $J$ of $S$. Endopatterns of $S$ are simply patterns admitted by $S$. \end{proof} In other words, an endopattern $p$ of a numerical semigroup $S$ induces the pattern $p+a_0$ on an ideal $J$ under the condition that (i) $a_0\in S$ and (ii) the ideal $J$ is an ideal of $S$. It is (of course) not true that if $p$ is an endopattern of $S$ and $a_0\in S$ then $p$ induces $p+a_0$ on any ideal of any numerical semigroup. \begin{lemma} If $p$ is an endopattern of $M(S)$ and $a_0\in PF(S)$, then $p$ induces $p+a_0$ on any ideal $J\subseteq M(S)$. Additionally, if $S\neq \mathbb{Z}_+$, then $p+a_0$ is an endopattern of $M(S)$ (but not necessarily of other ideals contained in $M(S)$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} By definition of pseudo-Frobenius the monic linear pattern $f(X)=X+a_0$ is admitted by $M(S)$, implying that $f(p)=p+a_0$ is admitted by $M(S)$ and by any ideal of $S$ contained in $M(S)$. By Corollary~\ref{cor:monic}, since $S\neq \mathbb{Z}_+$, $f$ is an endopattern of $M(S)$, implying that $f(p)=p+a_0$ is an endopattern of $M(S)$. \end{proof} Again, this means that an endopattern $p$ of a maximal ideal $M(S)$ of a numerical semigroup $S$ induces the pattern $p+a_0$ on an ideal $J$ under the condition that (i) $a_0\in PF(S)$ and (ii) the ideal $J\subseteq M(S)$. Consider for example the numerical semigroup $S$ generated by $2$ and $5$. There are no other pseudo-Frobenius than the Frobenius element, so $PF(S)=\{3\}$. Any numerical semigroup admits the trivial pattern defined by $p(X_1)=X_1$, which is always an endopattern of the maximal ideal, and consequently the pattern $X_1+3$ is admitted by any ideal of $S$ contained in $M(S)$. Also, $X_1+3$ is an endopattern of $M(S)$. Note that if $a_0\not\in S\cup PF(S)$, then an endopattern $p$ of $M(S)$ does not necessarily induce the pattern $p+a_0$ on $M(S)$. For example, the numerical semigroup $S=\langle 2,7\rangle=\{0,2,4,6,\rightarrow\}$ has $PF(S)=\{5\}$. We have that $M(S)$ admits the Arf endopattern $X_1+X_2-X_3$ and the non-homogeneous endopattern $X_1+X_2-X_3+5$, but $M(S)$ does not admit $X_1+X_2-X_3+3$. However, note that $1\not\in S\cup PF(S)$ but $X_1+X_2+X_3+1$ is an endopattern of $M(S)$. We have seen that the pseudo-Frobenius $PF(S)$ of a numerical semigroup $S$ are related to the linear endopatterns $X_1+a_0$ of $M(S)$, with $a_0\in PF(S)$. By replacing the variable $X_1$ by an endopattern $p$ of $M(S)$ this resulted in a statement on for which $a_0\in \mathbb{Z}$ $p$ induces the pattern $p+a_0$. We will now generalise this idea in more than one direction, to sums of several patterns and to any ideal of a numerical semigroups. \begin{definition} Let $I$ and $J$ be two ideals of the same numerical semigroup $S$. For $d\geq 1$, define the set $PF^d(I,J)=(I-dJ)\setminus (I-(d-1)J)$ and call it \emph{the set of elements at distance $d$ from $I$ with respect to $J$}. \end{definition} The elements at distance zero from $S$ with respect to any ideal $J$ of $S$, $PF^0(S,J)$, can be defined to be the elements in $S$, if so desired. The elements at distance $n$ from $S$ with respect to $S$, $PF^n(S,S)$, is the empty set when $n\geq 1$, reflecting the fact that the linear pattern $X_1+\cdots+X_d+a$ is admitted by $S$ if and only if $a\in S$ for all $d\geq 0$. The elements at distance one from $S$ with respect to $M(S)$, $PF^1(S,M(S)$, is the set of pseudo-Frobenius of $S$, and if $S\neq \mathbb{Z}_+$, then, by Corollary~\ref{cor:monic}, we have $PF^1(M(S),M(S))=PF^1(S,M(S))=PF(S)$. Note that $PF^d(S,J)$ are the elements $a\in\mathbb{Z}$ such that for any collection of $d$ (but not for any collection of $d-1$) endopatterns $q_1,\dots,q_d$ of $J$, the pattern $q_1+\cdots + q_d+a$ is also a pattern admitted by $J$, and therefore by any ideal contained in $J$. In general we have the following. \begin{lemma} Let $I$ and $J$ be two ideals of the same numerical semigroup $S$, let $p_1,\dots,p_d$ be endopatterns of $J$ and let $a_0\in PF^d(I,J)$. Then the pattern $q=p_1+\cdots+p_n+a_0$ is admitted by any ideal $K\subseteq J$ and its image satisfies $q(K)\subseteq I$. In particular, if $I\subseteq K$, then $q$ is an endopattern of $K$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} It is clear from the definition of $PF^d(I,J)$ that the pattern $X_1+\cdots+X_d+a_0$ is admitted by any ideal $K$ contained in $J$, and that its image is contained in $I$. The result follows from substituting $X_1,\dots,X_d$ with the endopatterns $p_1,\dots,p_d$ of $J$. \end{proof} The Lipman semigroup of $S$ with respect to a proper ideal $J$ is $L(S,J)=\bigcup_{h\geq 1} (hJ-hJ)$~\cite{Lipman, Barucci}. The semigroup $L(S):=L(S,M(S))$ is called the Lipman semigroup of $S$. There exists a $h_0\geq 1$ such that $L(S,J)=(hJ-hJ)$ for each $h\geq h_0$, and, for each $h\geq h_0$, $(h+1)J=hJ+\mu(J)$ where $\mu(J)=\min(J)$~\cite{Barucci}. \begin{proposition} When $S$ is of maximal embedding dimension, then $$PF^2(S,M(S)) = E(S)-2m(S).$$ \end{proposition} \begin{proof} Define $D(d,M(S))=\{z\in \mathbb{Z}: z+dM(S)\subseteq S, z+dM(S)\not\subseteq dM(S)\}$, that is, $D(d,M(S))=\{z\in \mathbb{Z}:z+dM(S)\subseteq S, (z+dM(S))\cap (S\setminus dM(S))\neq \emptyset\}$. Note that $S\setminus M(S)=\{0\}$, so that $D(1,M(S))=\{z\in \mathbb{Z}:z+M(S)\subseteq S, 0 \in z+M(S)\}$. Also, note that $S\setminus 2M(S)=E(S)$ is the set of minimal generators of $S$. By definition, if $d$ is such that $L(S)=(dM(S)-dM(S))$ then $(S-dM(S))=L(S)\cup D(d,M(S))$. When $S$ is of maximal embedding dimension, then the Lipman semigroup of $S$ is $L(S)=(hM(S)-hM(S))$ for all $h\geq 1$, so that $$ \begin{array}{rl} PF^2(S,M(S))&=(S-2M(S))\setminus (S-M(S))\\ &= D(2,M(S))\setminus D(1,M(S))\\ &=\{z\in \mathbb{Z}: z+2M(S)\subseteq S, z+2M(S)\not\subseteq 2M(S),z+M(S) \not\subseteq S\}\\ &= E(S)-2m(S). \end{array}$$ \end{proof} Compare this with the fact that the pattern $X_1+X_2-m(S)$ is admitted by a numerical semigroup if and only if $S$ is of maximal embedding dimension, and note that the smallest element in the set $E(S)-2m(S)$ is $-m(S)$. \begin{theorem} The cardinality of $PF^d(I,J)$ converges to $\mu(J)=\min(J)$. When $J$ is a proper ideal then the convergence follows the convergence of the Lipman semigroup of $S$ with respect to $I$. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} First note that $\min(S)=0$ and $PF^d(S,J)=\emptyset$ for $d\geq 1$ and for any ideal $J$ of $S$. If $J$ is a proper ideal of $S$, then consider the Lipman semigroup with respect to $J$, $L(S,J)=\bigcup_{h\geq 1} (hJ-hJ)$. There is a smallest $h_0\geq 1$ such that $L(S,J)=hJ-hJ$ whenever $h\geq h_0$, in which case we also have $(h+1)J=hJ+\mu(J)$ (see Proposition I.2.1 in \cite{Barucci}). Therefore, if $d\geq h_0$ then $z+(d+1)J=z+\mu(J)+dJ$ for $z\in \mathbb{Z}$ implying that $z + (d+1)J\subseteq I$ and $z+dJ\not\subseteq I$ if and only if $(z+\mu(J))+dJ\subseteq I$ and $(z+\mu(J))+(d-1)J\not\subseteq I$. Consequently $(I-(d+1)J)=(I-dJ)-\mu(J)$ so that $PF^{d+1}(I,J)=(I-(d+1)J)\setminus (I-dJ)=((I-dJ)-\mu(J) )\setminus (I-dJ)$, which has cardinality $\mu(J)$. \end{proof} This is not the only way to generalise the notion of pseudo-Frobenius. Let $S=\{0=s_0,s_1,\dots,s_n,\rightarrow\}$ be a numerical semigroup with conductor $s_n$. For $1\leq i \leq n$, consider the ideal $S_i=\{s\in S:s \geq s_i\}$, let $S(i)=S_i^*=(S-S_i)$ be its dual relative ideal, and let $T_i(S)=S(i)\setminus S(i-1)$. The \emph{type sequence} of a numerical semigroup $S$ is the finite sequence $(|T_i(S)|: 1\leq i \leq n)$~\cite{Barucci}. Since $T_1=PF$ and $|PF|$ is the type of $S$, this is a generalisation of pseudo-Frobenius, which is different from the one in this article. Next we will give examples of how the sets $PF^d(I,J)$ can be used to understand small semigroups of linear patterns better. \begin{example} Let $S$ be a numerical semigroup. Then, by definition, $M(S)$ admits the pattern $p_d(X_1,\dots,X_n)=\sum_{i=1}^dX_i+a_0$ for any $a_0\in PF^d(S,M(S))$. Clearly the pattern $p_d$ induces the pattern $q_d(X_1)=dX_1+a_0$. Therefore $\{ p(X_1)=a_1X_1+a_0\in \mathbb{Z}[X_1]: a_1\geq 0, a_0 \in S \cup \bigcup_{i=1}^{a_1}PF^i(S,M(S))\}\subseteq \mathcal{P}_1^1(M(S))$. \end{example} \begin{example} Let $S$ be an ordinary numerical semigroup, so that $z\in S$ for all $z\in \mathbb{Z}$ such that $z\geq m(S)$. Then, if $q_n(X_1)=nX_1+a_0$ is a pattern of $S$, so that $nm(S)+a_0\in M(S)$, we have that $p_n(s_1,\dots,s_n)=\sum_{i=1}^ns_i+a_0 \geq \sum_{i=1}^nm(S)+a_0=nm(S)+a_0$ so that $p_n(s_1,\dots,s_n)\in M(S)$, implying that $p_n(X_1,\dots,X_n)=\sum_{i=1}^nX_i+a_0$ is also a pattern of $S$, and so $p_n$ and $q_n$ are equivalent. Therefore $\mathcal{P}_1^1(S) = \{ p(X_1)=a_1X_1+a_0\in \mathbb{Z}[X_1]: a_1\geq 0, a_0\in S\cup \bigcup_{i=1}^{a_1}PF^i(S,M(S))\}$. \end{example} Note that if $S$ is not ordinary, then in general it is not true that $\mathcal{P}_1^1(S) = \{ p(X_1)=a_1X_1+a_0\in \mathbb{Z}[X_1]: a_1\geq 0, a_0\in S\cup \bigcup_{i=1}^{a_1}PF^i(S,M(S))\}$. For example, if $S=\left\langle 3,5\right\rangle$, then $2X_1-1$ is a pattern, but $-1\in PF^3(S,M(S))$, in particular $-1\not \in PF^i(S,M(S))$ for $i\leq 2$. \section{Numerical semigroups as the image of other numerical semigroups under linear patterns} \label{sec:image2} We saw in Corollary~\ref{lemmahomsem} that if $p(X_1,\dots,X_n)=\sum_{i=1}^na_iX_i$ is a homogeneous pattern admitted by the numerical semigroup $S$ then $p(S)$ is a numerical semigroup if and only if $\gcd(a_1,\dots,a_n)=1$. However, neither Theorem~\ref{thmhomideals} nor Corollary~\ref{lemmahomsem} say anything about the numerical semigroup $p(S)$. Clearly, any numerical semigroup is the image of some numerical semigroup under some pattern. Indeed, any numerical semigroup is the image of itself under the pattern $p(X)=X$. \begin{lemma} Any numerical semigroup $S=\left\langle a_1,\dots,a_e\right\rangle$ is the image of $\mathbb{Z}_+$ under the homogeneous pattern $p(X_1,\dots,X_e)=a_1X_1+\sum_{i=2}^{e} (a_i-a_{i-1})X_i$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Let $S=\left\langle a_1,\dots,a_e\right\rangle$ be a numerical semigroup, with $a_1\geq \cdots \geq a_e$ a (not necessarily minimal) set of generators of $S$. Let $p(X_1,\dots,X_e)=a_1X_1+\sum_{i=2}^{e} (a_i-a_{i-1})X_i$. Then for any non-increasing sequence $s_1,\dots,s_e\in \mathbb{Z}_+$ we have $p(s_1,\dots,s_e)= a_1s_1+\sum_{i=2}^{e}(a_i-a_{i-1})s_i= \sum_{i=1}^{e-1}a_i(s_i-s_{i+1})+a_es_e$ and since $s_i\geq s_{i+1}$ for all $i\in 1,\dots,e-1$ we have $s_i-s_{i+1}\geq 0$ so that $p(s_1,\dots,s_e)\geq 0$ and therefore $p$ is a homogeneous pattern admitted by $\mathbb{Z}_+$. Moreover, since $p(s_1,\dots,s_n)$ is of the form $\sum_{i=1}^ea_in_i$ with $n_i\geq 0$ we have that $p(s_1,\dots,s_e)\in \left\langle a_1,\dots,a_e\right\rangle=S$ so that $p(\mathbb{Z}_+)\subseteq S$. Now, for each generator $a_j$ of $S$, the non-increasing sequence $$s_1,\dots,s_e=\overbrace{1,\dots,1}^{j},\overbrace{0,\dots,0}^{e-j}$$ gives $p(s_1,\dots,s_n)=\sum_{i=1}^{j-1}a_i(1-1)+a_j(1-0)+\sum_{i=e-j}^{e-1}(0-0)+a_e0=a_j$, so that $a_j\in p(\mathbb{Z}_+)$. Finally, since $p$ is linear, $p(x_1,\dots,x_e)+p(y_1,\dots,y_e)=p(x_1+y_1,\dots,x_e+y_e)$ for all sequences $x_1,\dots,x_e$ and $y_1,\dots,y_e$ in $\mathbb{Z}_+$. Note that if $x_1,\dots,x_e$ and $y_1,\dots,y_e$ are non-increasing sequences of $\mathbb{Z}_+$ then so is $x_1+y_1,\dots,x_e+y_e$. Therefore, for all $a,b\in p(\mathbb{Z}_+)$, also $a+b\in p(\mathbb{Z}_+)$. (Compare the proof of Lemma~\ref{lemmahomsem}.) Consequently, we have $S=\left\langle a_1,\dots,a_e\right\rangle \subseteq p(S)$, implying $S=p(\mathbb{Z}_+)$. \end{proof} Note that if the numerical semigroup $S$ is the image of a numerical semigroup $S'\supseteq S$ under a pattern $p$, then $S$ admits $p$. Therefore it is possible to consider the chain of numerical semigroups $S_0=S\supseteq S_1=p(S_0)\supseteq S_2=p(S_1)\supseteq \cdots$. Observe that $p(p(S))$ is not the same as $p\circ (p,\dots,p)(S)$ (see Section~\ref{sec:composition}) and that this chain is not the same as the chain of numerical semigroups obtained in the closure of a numerical semigroup (see Definition~\ref{def:closure} and \cite{MariaPedro}). Indeed, in the closure of a numerical semigroup $S$ under a pattern $p$, the pattern is not necessarily admitted by the numerical semigroup, or, more precisely, it is only required that $p$ is admissible (i.e. admitted by some numerical semigroup) and that $S\subseteq p(S)$. Then $p$ is admitted by $S$ if and only if $S$ is the closure of $S$ under $p$, in which case $p(S)=S$. Now consider for a pattern $p$ admitted by a numerical semigroup $S$ the chain $S_0=S\supseteq S_1=p(S_0)\supseteq S_2=p(S_1)\supseteq \cdots$. The chain either stabilizes to some numerical semigroup or it does not. If it stabilizes, then it does so at once, in which case $p$ is a surjective endopattern of $S$. If it does not stabilize, then we want to explore relations between the consecutive numerical semigroups in the chain. The next result gives such a relation, under special conditions and when the length of the pattern is two. The quotient of a numerical semigroup $S$ by a positive integer $d$ is the numerical semigroup $\frac{S}{d}=\{x\in \mathbb{Z}_+:dx\in S\}$~\cite{Rosalesbok}. \begin{lemma} \label{lemmaquotient} Let $S$ be a numerical semigroup and let $p(X_1,X_2)=a_1X_1+a_2X_2$ be a linear homogeneous pattern in two variables (not necessarily admitted by $S$) such that $a_1\in S$ and $\gcd(a_1,a_2)=1$. Then $S=\frac{p(S)}{a_1+a_2}$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} For all $s\in S$ we have $p(s,s)=(a_1+a_2)s$, so that $S\subseteq \frac{p(S)}{a_1+a_2}$. Let $x\in \frac{p(S)}{a_1+a_2}$. Then there are $s_1,s_2\in S$ such that $p(s_1,s_2)=a_1s_1+a_2s_2=(a_1+a_2)x$, implying $a_1(s_1-x)=a_2(x-s_2)$. By assumption $\gcd(a_1,a_2)=1$, and so $a_1$ must divide $x-s_2$. Assume that $x<s_2$, then $a_1s_1+a_2s_2=(a_1+a_2)x<(a_1+a_2)s_2<a_1s_1+a_2s_2$, but that is impossible, and therefore $x\geq s_2$ and $x-s_2\geq 0$. Now since $a_1$ divides $x-s_2$ and $a_1,s_1\in S$, it follows that $x\in S$. Therefore $\frac{p(S)}{a_1+a_2}\subseteq S$. \end{proof} It was proved in~\cite{RosalesGarcia} that every numerical semigroup is one half of infinitely many symmetric numerical semigroups. This result was extended in~\cite{Swanson} to numerical semigroups that are the quotient of infinitely many symmetric numerical semigroups by an arbitrarily integer $d\geq 2$. The much weaker result that every numerical semigroup is one divided by $d$ of infinitely many numerical semigroups is easy to prove, just take $dS\cup\{ds+n:s\in S\}$ for distinct positive integers $n$ with $\gcd(n,d)=1$. However, we think that in light of Lemma~\ref{lemmaquotient}, it is interesting to see that if $S$ is a numerical semigroup, then the numerical semigroups $p(S)$ given by the linear homogeneous patterns of length two admitted by $S$ of the form $p(X_1,X_2)=a_1X_1+a_2X_2$, with $a_1+a_2=d$, $a_1\in S$ and $\gcd(a_1,a_2)=1$ so that $S=\frac{p(S)}{d}$, are all different. In other words, we let Lemma~\ref{lemmaquotient} imply that every numerical semigroup is the quotient of infinitely many numerical semigroups by an arbitrarily integer $d\geq 2$. \begin{corollary} Let $d$ be an integer satisfying $d\geq 2$. Any numerical semigroup $S$ is the quotient from division by $d$ of infinitely many numerical semigroups of the form $p(S)$ where $p$ is a pattern of length two admitted by $S$. More precisely, we have that $S=\frac{p(S)}{d}$ for all $p(X_1,X_2)=a_1X_1+a_2X_2$ such that $a_1+a_2=d$, $a_1\in S$ and $\gcd(a_1+a_2)=1$ . \end{corollary} \begin{proof} By Lemma~\ref{lemmaquotient}, any numerical semigroup $S$ is the quotient from division by $d$ of the numerical semigroup obtained as the image of $S$ by any pattern of the form $p(X_1,X_2)=a_1X_1+a_2X_2$ with $a_1+a_2=d$, $a_1\in S$ and $\gcd(a_1+a_2)=1$. (Note that since $a_1+a_2\geq 0$ and $\gcd(a_1,a_2)=1$, any pattern of a numerical semigroup of this form satisfies $d=a_1+a_2\geq 1$. ) There is only a finite number of pairs $(a_1,a_2)$ with $a_1,a_2>0$ and $a_1+a_2=d$, but there are infinitely many pairs $(a_1,a_2)$ with $a_1>0$, $a_2<0$, $a_1\in S$, $\gcd(a_1,a_2)=1$ and $a_1+a_2=d$. Let $\alpha_1$ be the smallest $a_1$ such that there is an $a_2<0$ with $a_1+a_2=d$ and let $\alpha_2=d-\alpha_1$. Then $\alpha_1=d+1$ and $\alpha_2=1$. The other pairs $(a_1,a_2)$ with $a_1>0$, $a_2<0$ and $a_1+a_2=d$ are obtained as $(a_1,a_2)=(\alpha_1+k,\alpha_2-k)$ with $k\in \mathbb{Z}_+$. Note that not all these pairs $(a_1,a_2)=(\alpha_1+k,\alpha_2-k)$ satisfy $\gcd(a_1,a_2)=1$. More precisely, $\gcd(a_1,a_2)=1$ if and only if $\gcd(a_1,d)=1$. Indeed, any factor of $a_1$ divides $d=a_1+a_2$ if and only if it divides $a_2$. Let $q_k(X_1,X_2)=(\alpha_1+k)X_1+(\alpha_2-k)X_2$. Clearly the set $D=\{ds: s\in S\}=\{q_k(s,s):s\in S\}\subseteq q_k(S)$ for all $k\in \mathbb{Z}_+$. Therefore, if $q_k(S)\neq q_{k'}(S)$, then they differ in the elements outside $D$. The elements in $q_k(S)\setminus D$ are of the form $q_k(s_1,s_2)$ with $s_1>s_2$, so that $s_1-s_2>0$. Therefore, for any $k,k'\in \mathbb{Z}_+$ with $k'>k$ we have $q_{k'}(s_1,s_2)=(\alpha_1+k')s_1+(\alpha_2-k')s_2=\alpha_1s_1+\alpha_2s_2+k'(s_1-s_2)>\alpha_1s_1+\alpha_2s_2 + k(s_1-s_2)=(\alpha_1+k)s_1+(\alpha_2-k)s_2=q_{k}(s_1,s_2)$. Now assume that $\gcd(\alpha_1+k,d)=1$ (so that $\gcd(\alpha_1+k,\alpha_2-k)=1$ and $q_k(S)$ is a numerical semigroup). Let $t_{k}=(\alpha_1+k)s_1+(\alpha_2-k)s_2$ be the smallest element in $q_{k}(S)$ which is not of the form $dn$ for $n\in\mathbb{Z}_+$, that is, the smallest element in $q_{k}(S)$ which is not divisible with $d=\alpha_1+\alpha_2$. (Note that we proved in Lemma~\ref{lemmaquotient} that if $dn\in q_{k}(S)$, then $n\in S$ so that $dn=q_{k}(n,n)$. ) Suppose that for some $k'>k$ we have $t_{k}\in q_{k'}(S)$. Then there are $s'_1, s'_2\in S$ such that $t_{k}=q_{k'}(s'_1,s'_2)=(\alpha_1+k')s'_1+(\alpha_2-k')s'_2=(\alpha_1+k)s'_1+(\alpha_2-k)s'_2+(k'-k)(s'_1-s'_2)$. But $(\alpha_1+k)s'_1+(\alpha_2-k)s'_2\in q_{k}(S)$ and since $k'-k>0$ and $s'_1-s'_2>0$, we have $(\alpha_1+k)s'_1+(\alpha_2-k)s'_2<t_{k}$. Now $t_{k}$ is the smallest element in $q_{k}(S)$ not divisible by $d$, so $d$ divides $(\alpha_1+k)s'_1+(\alpha_2-k)s'_2$. We have $(\alpha_1+k)s'_1+(\alpha_2-k)s'_2=(\alpha_1+k)(s'_1-s'_2)+ (\alpha_1+k+\alpha_2 - k)s'_2=(\alpha_1+k)(s'_1-s'_2)+ ds'_2$. By assumption $\gcd(d,\alpha_1+k)=1$, so that $d$ divides $s'_1-s'_2$. But then $d$ divides $t_{k}$, however by definition $d$ does not divide $t_{k}$, and we have a contradiction. Therefore $t_k\not\in q_{k'}(S)$ for $k'>k$, implying that $q_{k}(S)\neq q_{k'}(S)$ and the result follows. \end{proof} \section{Composition of patterns} \label{sec:composition} Let $I$, $J$ and $K$ be three ideals of three numerical semigroups. Also, for $i\in 1,\dots,n'$, let $q_i:\mathcal{S}_{n}(I)\rightarrow J$ be a pattern sending non-increasing sequences of length $n$ of elements in $I$ to elements in $J$ and let $p:\mathcal{S}_{n'}(J)\rightarrow K$ be a pattern sending non-increasing sequences of length $n'$ of elements in $J$ to elements in $K$. Define the polynomial composition of the patterns $p$ and $q_1,\dots,q_{n'}$ as $p\circ (q_1,\dots,q_{n'})=p(q_1(X_1,\dots,X_{n}),\dots,q_{n'}(X_1,\dots,X_{n}))$. Polynomial composition of patterns requires more than composition of polynomials for being well-defined. \begin{lemma} \label{lemmacomposition} The composition $p\circ (q_1,\dots,q_n')$ of the patterns $p:\mathcal{S}_{n'}(J)\rightarrow K$ and $q_1,\dots,q_n':\mathcal{S}_{n}(I)\rightarrow J$ is well-defined if the image of the $q_i$ is contained in the domain of $p$ and $q_1(s_1,\dots,s_{n})\geq \cdots \geq q_{n'}(s_1,\dots,s_{n})$ for any non-increasing sequence $(s_1,\dots,s_{n})\in \mathcal{S}_{n}(I)$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Clear from the definition of pattern. \end{proof} \begin{example} If $S$ is Arf, then $S$ admits $p_A(X_1,X_2,X_3)=X_1+X_2-X_3$. From Lemma~\ref{lemmacomposition} we know that if $p$ is a pattern of length $n$ admitted by $S$ and $q_1,\dots,q_{n}$ are patterns of length $n$ admitted by $S$ then $p\circ (q_1,\dots,q_{n})$ is also admitted by $S$, whenever that composition is well-defined. Therefore, since $Y_1$ and $Y_2$ are patterns, and assuming $Y_1\geq Y_2$, we can make the change of variables $X_1=X_2=Y_1$ and $X_3=Y_2$ and we see that $q(X_1,X_2)=p_A(X_1,X_1,X_2)=2X_1-X_2$ is admitted by $S$. In other words, $p_A(X_1,X_2,X_3)$ induces $q(X_1,X_2)$. Actually, as was proved in \cite{Campillo}, it turns out that $q$ also induces $p_A$, and so $q$ and $p_A$ are equivalent. With other changes of variables we can obtain for example, with $a,b,c\in\mathbb{Z}$ and $a\geq b\geq c\geq 0$, \begin{itemize} \item $X_1=aY_1+aY_2$ \item $X_2=bY_1+bY_2-bY_3$ \item $X_3=cY_3$ \end{itemize} we get $p_A(X_1,X_2,X_3)=(aY_1+aY_2)+(bY_1+bY_2-bY_3)-cY_3=(a+b)Y_1+(a+b)Y_2-(b+c)Y_3)$. With $a=b=1$ that gives $p_A(X_1,X_2,X_3)=2p_A(Y_1,Y_2,Y_3)$ and with $a=2$, $b=c=1$ it gives $p_A(X_1,X_2,X_3)=3Y_1+3Y_2-2Y_3$. If instead, with $a,b,c\in\mathbb{Z}$, $a\geq b\geq c\geq 0$ we define \begin{itemize} \item $X_1=aY_1+aY_2-aY_3$ \item $X_2=bY_1+bY_2-bY_3$ \item $X_3=cY_3$ \end{itemize} then we get $p_A(X_1,X_2,X_3)=(aY_1+aY_2-aY_3)+(bY_1+bY_2-bY_3)-cY_3=(a+b)Y_1+(a+b)Y_2-(a+b+c)Y_3$ which with $a=b=c=1$ gives $p_A(X_1,X_2,X_3)=2Y_1+2Y_2-3Y_3$. \end{example} \section*{Acknowledgements} My gratitute goes to Ralf Fr\"oberg and Christian Gottlieb without whom this article would not have been written, and for their extensive and invaluable help during its elaboration. I also want to thank Pedro Garc\'ia-S\'anchez for pointing out that the patterns in Lemma \ref{lemma:alg}, for which the partial sums of the coefficients are larger than one, are exactly the strongly admissible patterns. The author acknowledges partial support from the Spanish MEC project ICWT (TIN2012-32757) and ARES (CONSOLIDER INGENIO 2010 CSD2007-00004).
\section{Introduction} Locally repairable codes (LRCs) are a family of erasure codes which allow local correction of erasures, where any code symbol can be recovered by using a small (fixed) number of other code symbols. The concept of LRCs was motivated by application to distributed storage systems (DSSs), (see e.g.~\cite{dimakis_network_2010, dimakis_survey_2011} and references therein). DSSs store data across a network of nodes in a redundant form to ensure resilience against node failures. Using of LRCs to store data in DSSs enables to repair a failed node locally, i.e., by accessing a small number of other nodes in the system. The $i$th code symbol $c_i$, $1\leq i\leq n$, of an $\LIN{n}{k}{d}$ linear code~$\cC$ is said to have \emph{locality} $r$ if $c_i$ can be recovered by accessing at most $r$ other code symbols. A code $\cC$ is said to have locality $r$ if all its symbols have locality $r$. Such codes are referred to as locally repairable (or recoverable) codes (LRCs). LRCs were introduced by Gopalan~\textit{et al.} in~\cite{gopalan_locality_2012}. It was shown in~\cite{gopalan_locality_2012} that the minimum distance of an $[n,k,d]$ LRC with locality $r$ should satisfy the following generalization of the Singleton bound \begin{equation} \label{eq_GeneralizedSingleton} d \leq n-k+2-\left \lceil \frac{k}{r} \right \rceil. \end{equation} Constructions of LRCs which attain this bound were presented in~\cite{westerback_almost_2014,gopalan_explicit_2014,gopalan_locality_2012,tamo_family_2014}. Further generalizations of LRCs to the codes which can locally correct more than one erasure, to the LRCs with multiple repair alternatives, and to the vector LRCs were considered in~\cite{kamath_codes_2014, kamath_explicit_2013,pamies-juarez_locally_2013,papailiopoulos_locally_2014,prakash_optimal_2012,prakash_codes_2014, rawat_optimal_2014,rawat_locality_2014, silberstein_optimal_2013,tamo_family_2014}. However, to attain the bound~(\ref{eq_GeneralizedSingleton}) and its generalizations~\cite{kamath_codes_2014,papailiopoulos_locally_2014,prakash_optimal_2012,rawat_locality_2014}, the known codes should be defined over a large finite field. In~\cite{tamo_family_2014} Tamo and Barg presented LRCs satisfying the bound~(\ref{eq_GeneralizedSingleton}), which are defined over a field of size slightly greater than the length of the code. This is the smallest field size for optimal LRCs known so far. Codes over small (especially binary) alphabets are of a particular interest due to their implementation ease. Recently, a new bound for LRCs which takes the size of the alphabet into account was established by Cadambe and Mazumdar~\cite[Thm. 1]{cadambe_upper_2013}. They showed that the dimension $k$ of an \LIN{n}{k}{d} LRC $\cC$ over $\F_q$ with locality $r$ is upper bounded by \begin{equation} \label{eq_CMBound} k \leq \min_{t \in \Z^{+}} \left\{tr + k_{opt}^{(q)}\big( n-t(r+1), d \big) \right\}, \end{equation} where $k_{opt}^{(q)}(n, d)$ is the largest possible dimension of a code of length $n$, for a given alphabet size $q$ and a given minimum distance $d$. This bound applies to both linear and nonlinear codes. In the case of a nonlinear code, the parameter $k$ is defined as $|\cC|/ \log q$. Moreover, it was shown in~\cite{cadambe_upper_2013} that the family of binary simplex codes attains the bound~(\ref{eq_CMBound}) for $r=2$. To the best of our knowledge, there are only three additional works that consider constructions of binary LRCs, namely the papers of Shahabinejad~\textit{et al.}~\cite{shahabinejad_efficient_2014}, Goparaju and Calderbank~\cite{goparaju_binary_2014}, and Zeh and Yaakobi~\cite{zeh_optimal_2015}, where the constructions of \cite{goparaju_binary_2014} and \cite{zeh_optimal_2015} consider binary cyclic LRCs. In this paper we propose constructions of new binary LRCs which attain the bound~(\ref{eq_CMBound}). All our LRCs have a small locality ($r=2$ and $r=3$), moreover, most of our codes attain the Griesmer bound. Our constructions use a method of Farrell~\cite{farrell_linear_1970} based on anticodes. In particular, we modify a binary simplex code by deleting certain columns from its generator matrix. These deleted columns form an anticode. We investigate the properties of anticodes which allow constructions of LRCs with small locality. Also, we present optimal binary LRCs with locality 2 based on subspace codes. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section~\ref{sec:Preliminaries} we provide the necessary definitions, in particular, we define anticodes and describe a method of constructing a new code based on a simplex code and an anticode. In Section~\ref{sec:Constructions} we present our constructions based on various choices of anticodes. Conclusion is given in Section~\ref{sec:conclusion}. \section{Preliminaries} \label{sec:Preliminaries} \begin{comment} Let $\interval{a,b}$ denote the set of integers $\{a,a+1,\dots,b-1\}$ and $\interval{b}$ be the shorthand notation for $\interval{0,b}$. Let $\F_q$ denote the finite field of order $q$. A linear $\LIN{n}{k}{d}$ code of length $n$, dimension $k$ and minimum Hamming distance $d$ over $\F_q$ is denoted by a calligraphic letter like $\cC$. \begin{definition}[Locally Repairable Code (LRC)] \label{def_Locality} A linear \LIN{n}{k}{d} code $\cC$ is said to have $r$-locality if each of the $n$ code symbols $c_i, \forall i \in \interval{n}$ can be recovered by accessing at most $r$ other code symbols. \end{definition} The following generalization of the Singleton bound for LRCs was among others proven in~\cite[Thm. 3.1]{kamath_codes_2012} and \cite[Construction 8 and Thm. 5.4]{tamo_family_2014}. \begin{theorem}[Generalized Singleton Bound] \label{theo_GenSingleton} The minimum distance $d$ of an \LIN{n}{k}{d} linear $r$-locally repairable code $\cC$ (as in Definition~\ref{def_Locality}) is upper bounded by \begin{equation} \label{eq_GeneralizedSingleton} d \leq n-k+2-\left \lceil \frac{k}{r} \right \rceil. \end{equation} \end{theorem} For $r=k$ it coincides with the classical Singleton bound. Throughout this contribution we call a code \textit{Singleton-optimal} if its distance meets the bound in Thm.~\ref{theo_GenSingleton} with equality. The generalized Singleton bound as in Thm.~\ref{theo_GenSingleton} does not take the field size into account. We compare our constructions with the bound given by Cadambe--Mazumdar~\cite[Thm. 1]{cadambe_upper_2013} that is to our knowledge the only upper bound on the dimension of a code with $r$-locality which depends on the alphabet size. In general it holds also for nonlinear codes, but we state it only for linear codes in the following. \textbf{Linear Version} \begin{theorem}[Cadambe--Mazumdar (CM Bound)] \label{theo_CMBound} The dimension $k$ of an linear \LIN{n}{k}{d} $r$-local repairable code $\cC$ is upper bounded by \begin{equation} \label{eq_CMBound} k \leq \min_{t \in \Z} \left\{tr + k_{opt}^{(q)}\big[ n-t(r+1), d \big] \right\}, \end{equation} where $k_{opt}^{(q)}[n, d]$ is the largest possible dimension of a code of length $n$, for a given alphabet size $q$ and a given minimum distance $d$. \end{theorem} \begin{IEEEproof} See the proof of \cite[Thm. 1]{cadambe_upper_2013}. \end{IEEEproof} \end{comment} Let $\cC$ be a \emph{linear} $\LIN{n}{k}{d}$ \emph{code} of length $n$, dimension $k$ and minimum Hamming distance $d$ over $\F_q$. We say that a $k\times n$ generator matrix $G$ of $\cC$ is in a \emph{standard form} if it has the form $G=(I_k|A)$, where $I_j$ is an identity matrix of order~$j$ and $A$ is a $k\times (n-k)$ matrix. If $G$ is in a standard form then an $(n-k)\times n$ parity-check matrix $H$ can be easily obtained from $G$ in the following way: $H=(-A^{T}|I_{n-k})$. Note that for a binary code, we have $H=(A^T|I_{n-k})$. In the sequel, we will consider only binary codes. The following simple lemma shows a sufficient condition on a parity-check matrix of a code with locality $r$. \begin{lemma} \label{rm:locality from H} An $[n,k,d]$ linear code has locality $r$ if for every coordinate $i$, $1\leq i\leq n$, there exists a row $R_i$ of weight at most $r+1$ in its parity-check matrix, which has a nonzero entry in the $i$th coordinate. In this case we say that the coordinate~$i$ \emph{is covered} by the row $R_i$. \end{lemma} The following two bounds will be used in the sequel. The Plotkin bound (Thm.~\ref{thm:Plotkin}) holds for nonlinear codes, while the Griesmer bound is restricted to linear codes (Thm.~\ref{thm:Griesmer}). \begin{theorem}[Plotkin Bound~{\cite[p. 43]{macwilliams_theory_1988}}] \label{thm:Plotkin} Let $A_2(n,d)$ denote the largest number of codewords in a binary code of length $n$ and minimum distance $d$. If $d$ is even and $2d>n$ then $$A_2(n,d)\leq 2\left\lfloor\frac{d}{2d-n}\right\rfloor. $$ \end{theorem} \begin{theorem}[Griesmer Bound~{\cite[p. 547]{macwilliams_theory_1988}}] \label{thm:Griesmer} The length $n$ of a binary linear code with dimension $k$ and minimum distance~$d$ must satisfy \begin{equation*} n \geq \sum_{i=0}^{k-1}\left\lceil\frac{d}{2^i}\right\rceil. \end{equation*} \end{theorem} In the remaining part of this section we define an anticode and recall the anticode-based construction of binary linear codes by Farrell~\cite{farrell_linear_1970} (see also~\cite[p. 548]{macwilliams_theory_1988}). An \emph{anticode} is a code which may contain repeated codewords and which has an \emph{upper} bound on the distance between the codewords. More precisely, a binary linear anticode $\cA$ of length $n$ and maximum distance $\delta$ is a set of codewords in $\F_2^n$ such that the Hamming distance between any pair of codewords is less than or equal to $\delta$. The generator matrix $G_{\cA}$ of $\cA$ is a $k \times n$ binary matrix such that all the $2^k$ combinations of its rows form the codewords of the anticode. If $\text{rank}(G_A) = \gamma$, then each codeword occurs $2^{k-\gamma}$ times in the anticode. Due to linearity, we have \begin{equation} \delta = \max_{\mathbf{a} \in \cA} \text{wt}(\mathbf{a}), \end{equation} where $\text{wt}(\mathbf{v})$ denotes the Hamming weight of a vector $\mathbf{v}$. \begin{example} \label{ex_Anticode} Let $G_{\cA}$ be a $3\times 3$ generator matrix given by \begin{footnotesize} \begin{equation*} G_{\cA} = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 1 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 & 1 \end{pmatrix}. \end{equation*} \end{footnotesize} \hspace{-0.1cm}It generates a binary linear anticode $\cA$ of length $n=3$ and $\delta=2$, where the set of $2^3$ codewords is \begin{equation*} \cA = \big\{ (000),(110),(101),(011),(011),(101),(110),(000) \big\}. \end{equation*} \end{example} The construction of Farrell~\cite{farrell_linear_1970} which we use to construct optimal LRCs is based on a modification of a generator matrix for a binary simplex code. A binary \emph{simplex} code \simplex{m} is a $\LIN{2^m-1}{m}{2^{m-1}}$ code with generator matrix $G_m$ whose columns consist of all distinct nonzero vectors in $\F_{2}^m$. In the rest of the paper we assume w.l.o.g. that $G_m$ is in the standard form and that the columns of $G_m$ are ordered according to their Hamming weight. \begin{construction}[Farrell Construction~\cite{farrell_linear_1970}] \label{const_Farrell} Let $G_m$ be the ${m \times (2^m-1)}$ generator matrix of a binary simplex code \simplex{m} and let $G_{\cA}$ be the $k \times n$ generator matrix with distinct columns of a binary linear anticode $\cA$ of length $n$ and maximum distance~$\delta$. Then, the $m \times (2^m-1-n)$ matrix obtained by deleting the $n$ columns of $G_{\cA}$ from $G_m$ is a generator matrix of a binary $\LIN{2^m-1-n}{\leq m}{2^{m-1}-\delta}$ code. \end{construction} \begin{example} \label{ex_FarrelConstruction} Let $G_4$ be the $4 \times 15$ generator matrix of a simplex code \simplex{4} and let $G_{\cA}$ be the generator matrix of the anticode given in Example~\ref{ex_Anticode} with the additional first row of zeros. By deleting the columns of $G_{\cA}$ from $G_4$ we obtain the following matrix \begin{tikzpicture} \tikzset{BarreStyle/.style = {opacity=.5,line width=4 mm,line cap=round,color=#1}} \tikzstyle{every node}=[font=\footnotesize] \node(Z){$G_4\setminus G_{\cA}=$}; \matrix (A) [matrix of math nodes,column sep=0 mm, left delimiter={(},right delimiter={)}, right=10pt] at (Z.east) { 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ }; \draw [BarreStyle=black] (A-1-8.north) to (A-4-8.south) ; \draw [BarreStyle=black] (A-1-9.north) to (A-4-9.south) ; \draw [BarreStyle=black] (A-1-10.north) to (A-4-10.south) ; \end{tikzpicture}\\ where the shadowed columns in $\{8,9,10\}$ are deleted, which generates a $\LIN{12}{4}{6}$ code. Note that this code attains the Griesmer bound. \end{example} \section{Constructions of Optimal Binary LRCs} \label{sec:Constructions} In this section we provide constructions of binary LRCs based on the Farrell construction (see Construction~\ref{const_Farrell}), by using various anticodes. We prove that our codes have a small locality ($r=2$ or $r=3$) and attain the Cadambe--Mazumdar bound~(\ref{eq_CMBound}). Most of our codes also attain the Griesmer bound (see Thm.~\ref{thm:Griesmer}). \subsection{LRCs based on Anticodes} First, we generalize Example~\ref{ex_Anticode} and consider an anticode such that all the vectors of length $s$ and weight 2 form the columns of its generator matrix. We denote such an anticode by $\cA_{s,2}$. For example, the anticode from Example~\ref{ex_Anticode} is an $\cA_{3,2}$ anticode. First, we need the following theorem about the parameters of~$\cA_{s,2}$. \begin{theorem} \label{thm:anticode-2weight} Let $\cA_{s,2}$ be a binary anticode such that all weight-2 vectors of length $s$ form the columns of its generator matrix~$G_{\cA}$. Then $\cA_{s,2}$ has length $\binom{s}{2}$ and maximum weight ${\delta=\left\lfloor\frac{s^2}{4}\right\rfloor}$. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} There are $\binom{s}{2}$ vectors of weight 2 and length $s$, hence the number of columns in $G_{\cA}$ and the length of $\cA_{s,2}$ is $\binom{s}{2}$. Next, we prove that the value of the maximum weight~$\delta$ is $\left\lfloor\frac{s^2}{4}\right\rfloor$. Note that the $s\times \binom{s}{2}$ generator matrix $G_{\cA}$ is also an incidence matrix of a complete graph $K_s=(V,E)$ with $|V|=s$ and ${|E|=\binom{s}{2}}$. Therefore, the maximum weight $\delta$ of the anticode can be described in terms of maximum cut between a subset of vertices $S\subseteq V$ and its complement $S^c$, more precisely, $$\delta=\max_{1\leq i\leq s}|\textmd{Cut}(S_i,S_i^c)|, $$ where $S_i$ is a subset of $V$ of size $i$ and $S_i^c$ its complement of size $s-i$. Since $K_s$ is an $(s-1)$-regular graph, it holds that for all $1\leq i\leq s$, $(s-1)i=|\textmd{Cut}(S_i,S_i^c)|+2|E_i|$, where $E_i\subseteq E$ is the set of edges between the vertices in $S_i$. Note that the induced subgraph $(S_i, E_i)$ of $K_s$ is a complete graph $K_i$ and then $|E_i|=\binom{i}{2}$. Thus, $$|\textmd{Cut}(S_i,S_i^c)|=(s-1)i-i(i-1)=i(s-i) $$ and $$ \delta=\max_{1\leq i\leq s}\{i(s-i)\}=\left\lfloor\frac{s^2}{4}\right\rfloor. $$ \end{proof} As a consequence of Thm.~\ref{thm:anticode-2weight} and the Farrell construction we have the following theorem. \begin{theorem} \label{thm:anticode-weight2} Let $\simplex{m}$ be a $[2^m-1,m,2^{m-1}]$ simplex code, ${m\geq 4}$, and let $G_m$ be its generator matrix. Let $\cA_{s,2}$, ${s\leq m}$, be an anticode defined in Thm.~\ref{thm:anticode-2weight} and let $G_{\cA}$ be its generator matrix. We prepend $m-s$ zeros to every column of $G_{\cA}$ to form an $m\times \binom{s}{2}$ matrix whose columns are deleted from $G_m$ to obtain a generator matrix $G$ for a new code $\cC_{m,s,2}$. Then $\cC_{m,s,2}$ is a $[2^m-\binom{s}{2}-1,m,2^{m-1}-\left\lfloor\frac{s^2}{4}\right\rfloor]$ LRC with locality $r=2$. \begin{comment} \begin{itemize} \item Let $C_3$ be a code obtained by using the anticode $A_{3,2}$. Then $C_3$ is a $[2^m-4,m,2^{m-1}-2]$ LRC with locality $r=2$ which attains the Cadambe--Mazumdar bound. \item Let $C_4$ be a code obtained by using the anticode $A_{4,2}$. Then $C_4$ is a $[2^m-7,m,2^{m-1}-4]$ LRC with locality $r=2$ which attains the Cadambe--Mazumdar bound. \item Let $C_5$ be a code obtained by using the anticode $A_{5,2}$. Then $C_5$ is a $[2^m-11,m,2^{m-1}-6]$ LRC with locality $r=2$ which attains the Cadambe--Mazumdar bound. \end{itemize} \end{comment} \end{theorem} \begin{proof} The prepending of zeros to $G_{\cA}$ does not change the length and the maximum weight of the anticode. Hence, the length, the dimension, and the minimum distance of the obtained code $\cC_{m,s,2}$ directly follow from the Farrell construction and Thm.~\ref{thm:anticode-2weight}. To prove that the locality of $\cC_{m,s,2}$ is $r=2$, by Lemma~\ref{rm:locality from H} we need to show that every coordinate is covered by a row of weight 3 of the parity-check matrix for $\cC_{m,s,2}$ (note that clearly locality is not 1). Since $G_m$ is in the standard form, the generator matrix $G$ of $\cC_{m,s,2}$ is also in the standard form. We denote by $G^i$, $1\leq i\leq m$, the submatrix of $G$ which consists of the set of columns of $G$ of weight $i$. Then the parity-check matrix $H$ of $\cC_{m,s,2}$ has the following form: $$H=\left( \begin{array}{c|c|c|c|c} (G^2)^T & I_{\binom{m}{2}-\binom{s}{2}} & & & \\\hline \vdots & &\ddots & & \\\hline (G^{m-1})^T & && I_{m} & \\\hline (G^{m})^T & & & & 1 \\ \end{array} \right). $$ We will show that by a simple modification of $H$ with elementary operations on its rows we obtain a parity-check matrix $H'$ such that every coordinate of the code will be covered by a row of $H'$ of weight 3. We define a partition of columns of $H$ into the parts $\{H^1,\ldots,H^m\}$ as follows. The part $H^1$ contains the first $m$ columns, and the part $H^i$, $2\leq i\leq m$, corresponds to the columns which contain $I_{\binom{m}{i}}$ included in the rows which contain $(G^i)^T$. (Note that if $s=m$ then $H^2=\emptyset$.) Let consider the $x$th coordinate in $H^i$, $3\leq i\leq m-1$. There exists a row $R^{i}_{x}$ in $H$ with nonzero entry in this coordinate. This row $R^{i}_{x}$ also contains $i$ nonzero entries in the first $m$ coordinates. Let $R^{i+1}_{y}$ be a row in $H$ such that its $i+1$ nonzero entries in the first $m$ coordinates contain the first $i$ nonzero entries of $R^{i}_{x}$, and which also has one in the $y$th coordinate of $H^{i+1}$. Then the coordinates $x$ in $H^i$ and $y$ in $H^{i+1}$ are covered by $R^{i}_{x}+R^{i+1}_{y}$, the weight-3 row of $H'$. Note that for every $x$ in $H^i$ there is such $y$ in $H^{i+1}$. To show that any coordinate in $H^1\cup H^m$ has locality~2, note that when we add the last row of $H$ to each one of the $m$ rows which contain the rows of $(G^{m-1})^T$, we obtain $m$ rows of weight 3 in $H'$ with the first nonzero entry in the first $m$ coordinates and the last nonzero entry in the last coordinate. Thus, the obtained parity-check matrix $H'$ contains weight-3 rows which cover all the coordinates (and the last row of $H$, of weight $m+1$). \end{proof} In the following example we illustrate the idea of modification of a parity-check matrix described in the proof of Thm.~\ref{thm:anticode-weight2}. \begin{example} \label{ex_locality_reduction} We consider the parity-check matrix $H$ of the $[12,4,6]$ code of Example~\ref{ex_FarrelConstruction} based on the anticode $\anti{3}{2}$. It has the following form, where the vertical lines show the partition of its columns into the parts $H^1,H^2,H^3,H^4$. \begin{footnotesize} \begin{equation*} H= \begin{array}{c} \left(\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c} \tn{1 1 0 0} & \tn{1 0 0} & \tn{0 0 0 0} & \tn{0}\\ \tn{1 0 1 0} & \tn{0 1 0} & \tn{0 0 0 0} & \tn{0}\\ \tn{1 0 0 1} & \tn{0 0 1} & \tn{0 0 0 0} & \tn{0}\\ \tn{1 1 1 0} & \tn{0 0 0} & \tn{1 0 0 0} & \tn{0}\\ \tn{1 1 0 1} & \tn{0 0 0} & \tn{0 1 0 0} & \tn{0}\\ \tn{1 0 1 1} & \tn{0 0 0} & \tn{0 0 1 0} & \tn{0}\\ \tn{0 1 1 1} & \tn{0 0 0} & \tn{0 0 0 1} & \tn{0}\\ \tn{1 1 1 1} & \tn{0 0 0} & \tn{0 0 0 0} & \tn{1}\\ \end{tabular} \right) \end{array} \end{equation*} \end{footnotesize} We add to each one of the $i$th rows of $H$, $4\leq i\leq 7$, the last row and obtain the following parity-check matrix: \begin{footnotesize} $$H'=\begin{array}{c} \left(\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c} \tn{1 1 0 0} & \tn{1 0 0} & \tn{0 0 0 0} & \tn{0}\\ \tn{1 0 1 0} & \tn{0 1 0} & \tn{0 0 0 0} & \tn{0}\\ \tn{1 0 0 1} & \tn{0 0 1} & \tn{0 0 0 0} & \tn{0}\\ \tn{0 0 0 1} & \tn{0 0 0} & \tn{1 0 0 0} & \tn{1}\\ \tn{0 0 1 0} & \tn{0 0 0} & \tn{0 1 0 0} & \tn{1}\\ \tn{0 1 0 0} & \tn{0 0 0} & \tn{0 0 1 0} & \tn{1}\\ \tn{1 0 0 0} & \tn{0 0 0} & \tn{0 0 0 1} & \tn{1}\\ \tn{1 1 1 1} & \tn{0 0 0} & \tn{0 0 0 0} & \tn{1}\\ \end{tabular} \right), \end{array}$$ \end{footnotesize} such that every coordinate is covered by a weight-3 row. \end{example} \begin{comment} \begin{example}[Reduction Locality $r=2$] \label{ex_localitytwo} Let's consider the parity-check matrix of the constructed code of Example~\ref{ex_FarrelConstruction} based on the anticode $\anti{3}{2}$. If we have the generator matrix $\mathbf{G}$ of a linear code in systematic form $( \mathbf{I} | \mathbf{A})$, then $\mathbf{H}=(-\mathbf{A}^T| \mathbf{I})$ is a parity-check matrix. For the $\LIN{12}{4}{6}$ code of Example~\ref{ex_FarrelConstruction}, we have $\mathbf{A}_{S-A} = $ \begin{footnotesize} \begin{align*} \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 \\ 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \end{pmatrix} \underrightarrow{\tiny{ \setlength{\arraycolsep}{.01pt} \begin{array}{cc} (1,i) & \leftarrow \\ & (1,i)\\ + & (2,i) \end{array}}} \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 \\ 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \end{pmatrix} \underrightarrow{\tiny{ \setlength{\arraycolsep}{.01pt} \begin{array}{cc} (2,i) & \leftarrow \\ & (2,i)\\ + & (3,1) \end{array}}} \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \end{pmatrix}. \end{align*} \end{footnotesize} Adding a row to an existing one increases the weight in the row of $\mathbf{H}_{S-A}$ by one in the part that is not shown. Therefore the row-weight of $\mathbf{H}_{S-A}$ is three which corresponds to locality $r=2$. \end{example} \end{comment} \begin{corollary} For $3\leq s\leq 5$, the code $\cC_{m,s,2}$ obtained in Thm.~\ref{thm:anticode-weight2} attains the bound~(\ref{eq_CMBound}). More precisely, \begin{itemize} \item The code $\cC_{m,3,2}$ obtained by using the anticode $\cA_{3,2}$ is a $[2^m-4,m,2^{m-1}-2]$ LRC with locality $r=2$ which attains the bound~(\ref{eq_CMBound}). \item The code $\cC_{m,4,2}$ obtained by using the anticode $\cA_{4,2}$ is a $[2^m-7,m,2^{m-1}-4]$ LRC with locality $r=2$ which attains the bound~(\ref{eq_CMBound}). \item The code $\cC_{m,5,2}$ obtained by using the anticode $\cA_{5,2}$ is a $[2^m-11,m,2^{m-1}-6]$ LRC with locality $r=2$ which attains the bound~(\ref{eq_CMBound}). \end{itemize} \end{corollary} \begin{proof} To prove the optimality of the proposed codes we apply the bound~(\ref{eq_CMBound}) with $t=1$ and use the Plotkin bound (see Thm.~\ref{thm:Plotkin}): For $s=3$ we have $2+k_{opt}^{(2)}(2^m-7,2^{m-1}-2)\leq 2+\left\lfloor\log 2\left\lfloor\frac{2^{m-1}-2}{3}\right\rfloor\right\rfloor\leq 2+\left\lfloor\log(2^{m-1}-2)\right\rfloor=2+m-2=m$. For $s=4$ we have $2+k_{opt}^{(2)}(2^m-10,2^{m-1}-4)\leq 2+\left\lfloor\log 2\left\lfloor\frac{2^{m-1}-4}{2}\right\rfloor\right\rfloor= 2+\left\lfloor\log(2^{m-1}-4)\right\rfloor=2+m-2=m$. For $s=5$ we have $2+k_{opt}^{(2)}(2^m-14,2^{m-1}-6)\leq 2+\left\lfloor\log 2\left\lfloor\frac{2^{m-1}-6}{2}\right\rfloor\right\rfloor= 2+\left\lfloor\log(2^{m-1}-6)\right\rfloor=2+m-2=~m$. \end{proof} \begin{remark} One can check that the codes $\cC_{m,3,2}$ and $\cC_{m,5,2}$ attain the Griesmer bound. \end{remark} Note that to apply our modification of a parity-check matrix in the proof for locality 2, the generator matrix of a code obtained by the Farrell construction should contain columns of consecutive weights. Based on this observation, we propose a generalization of the previous construction of an anticode and prove that the LRCs obtained from this anticode have locality $r=2$ and attain the Griesmer bound. \begin{theorem} \label{thm:anticodeSm-1} Let $\simplex{m}$ be a $[2^m-1,m,2^{m-1}]$ simplex code, $m\geq 4$, and let $G_m$ be its generator matrix. Let $\cA_{t;2,3,\ldots, t-1}$, $3\leq t\leq m$, be an anticode such that its generator matrix $G_{\cA}$ consists of all the columns in $\F_2^t$ of weights in ${\{2,3,\ldots, t-1\}}$. We prepend $m-t$ zeros to every column of $G_{\cA}$ to form the $m\times \sum_{i=2}^{t-1}\binom{t}{i}$ matrix whose columns are deleted from $G_m$ to obtain a generator matrix $G$ for a new code $\cC_{m,t}$. Then $\cC_{m,t}$ is a $[2^{m}-2^t+t+1,m,2^{m-1}-2^{t-1}+2]$ LRC with locality $r=2$ which attains the Griesmer bound. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} First we prove that the anticode $\cA_{t;2,3,\ldots, t-1}$ has length $2^t-t-2$ and maximum weight $2^{t-1}-2$. Note that the generator matrix of $\cA_{t;2,3,\ldots, t-1}$ can be obtained from the generator matrix $G_t$ of the simplex code $\simplex{t}$ by removing $t$ columns of weight 1 and one column of weight $t$, and hence the length of $\cA_{t;2,3,\ldots, t-1}$ is $2^t-t-2$. Since all the codewords in $\simplex{t}$ have weight $2^{t-1}$ and from each row of $G_t$ we removed two ones to obtain a generator matrix for our anticode, where all the rows in $G_t$ have one of the removed ones in the same place, it follows that the maximum weight of $\cA_{t;2,3,\ldots, t-1}$ is $\delta=2^{t-1}-2$. Hence, since prepending zero rows to $G_{\cA}$ does not change the length and the maximum weight of the anticode, $\cC_{m,t}$ is a $[2^{m}-2^t+t+1,m,2^{m-1}-2^{t-1}+2]$ code. The proof of locality is similar to the proof in Thm.~\ref{thm:anticode-2weight}. To prove that $\cC_{m,t}$ attains the Griesmer bound we have $$\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} \left \lceil \frac{2^{m-1}-2^{t-1}+2}{2^i} \right \rceil =\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}2^i-\sum_{i=0}^{t-1}2^i+(2+t-1) $$ $$=2^m-1-2^t+1+t+1=2^{m}-2^t+t+1, $$ which completes the proof. \end{proof} In the following, we consider an anticode formed by another modification of a simplex code and prove that the LRC obtained from this anticode attains the bound~(\ref{eq_CMBound}) and has locality 3. \begin{theorem} \label{thm:anticodeSm-2} Let $\cA_{m-1}$ be the anticode with generator matrix $G_{\cA}$ given by $$G_{\cA}=\left( \begin{array}{c|c} 1&000\ldots 00 \\\hline \begin{array}{c} 0 \\ \vdots \\ 0 \\ \end{array} &G_{m-1} \\ \end{array} \right), $$ where $G_{m-1}$ is the generator matrix for the simplex code $\simplex{m-1}$. Let $\cC$ be a code obtained by the Farrell construction based on the simplex code $\simplex{m}$ and on the anticode $\cA_{m-1}$. Then $\cC$ is a $[2^{m-1}-1,m,2^{m-2}-1]$ LRC with locality $r=3$ which attains the bound~(\ref{eq_CMBound}). \end{theorem} \begin{proof} Since all the codewords in $\simplex{m-1}$ have the constant weight $2^{m-2}$, the maximum weight of $\cA_{m-1}$ is ${\delta=2^{m-2}+1}$. Then, by the Farrell construction, $\cC$ is a $[2^{m}-1-2^{m-1}, m, 2^{m-1}-2^{m-2}-1]=[2^{m-1}-1,m,2^{m-2}-1]$ code. Note that $\cC$ is the augmented simplex code $\simplex{m-1}$ with generator matrix: $$G=\left( \begin{array}{c} 111\ldots 11 \\\hline G_{m-1} \\ \end{array} \right). $$ To prove that the locality is 3, we note that all the codewords in the dual code of $\cC$ have even weight, and hence the locality $r$ is an odd number. Clearly, ${r>1}$. We construct the parity-check matrix $H$ of $\cC$ with all the rows of weight 4, and then every coordinate will be covered by a row of $H$ of weight~4, which by Lemma~\ref{rm:locality from H} implies that $r=3$. Recall that the dual code of $\simplex{m-1}$ is a $[2^{m-1},2^{m-1}-m,3]$ Hamming code~\cite{macwilliams_theory_1988}, and denote its generator matrix by $H^{m-1}$. We consider the construction of $H^{m-1}$ with all the rows of weight 3 from~\cite{cadambe_upper_2013}, where the rows have nonzero entries in the positions ${(i,2^j, i+2^j)}$, for $1\leq j\leq m-2$, $1\leq i\leq 2^j$. Let denote by $H_{i,2^j}^{m-1}$ a row of $H^{m-1}$ with nonzero entries in the positions ${(i,2^j, i+2^j)}$. The parity-check matrix $H$ will consist of $2^{m-1}-m-1$ weight-4 rows $H^{m-1}_{1,2}+H^{m-1}_{1,2^j}$, $2\leq j\leq m-2$, and $H^{m-1}_{i,2^j}+H^{m-1}_{i+1,2^j}$, $2\leq j\leq m-2$, $1\leq i\leq 2^{j}-2$. To prove the optimality of the obtained code $\cC$ we apply the bound~(\ref{eq_CMBound}) with $t=1$ and use the Plotkin bound: $$3+k_{opt}^{(2)}(2^{m-1}-1-4,2^{m-2}-1)\leq 3+\left\lfloor\log 2\cdot\left\lfloor\frac{2^{m-2}-1}{3}\right\rfloor\right\rfloor $$ $$ \leq 3+\left\lfloor\log(2^{m-2}-1)\right\rfloor=3+m-3=m.$$ \end{proof} \begin{remark} One can check that the code $\cC$ from Thm.~\ref{thm:anticodeSm-1} attains the Griesmer bound. \end{remark} \subsection{LRCs based on Subspace Codes} In this subsection we consider a construction of optimal binary LRCs with the parity-check matrix formed by the codewords of a \emph{subspace} code. In particular, we are interested in a special kind of subspace codes, called \emph{lifted rank-metric codes}~\cite{silberstein_codes_2011}, with the trivial distance 1 and the constant dimension 2. More precisely, let consider a $2^{2s-4}\times (2^s-2^{s-2})$ binary matrix $H^s$ whose columns are indexed by the vectors in $\F_2^s\setminus \{00v:v\in \F_2^{s-2}\}$ and whose rows are indexed by the 2-dimensional subspaces of $\F_2^s$ contained in $\F_2^s\setminus \{00v:v\in \F_2^{s-2}\}$. Every row of $H^s$ is the incidence vector of such a 2-dimensional subspace and then has weight~3 (note that the all-zero vector is not considered). It was proved in~\cite[Thm. 11]{silberstein_codes_2011} that the code $\cC^s$ with the parity-check matrix $H^s$ is a $[2^s-2^{s-2},s,\frac{2^s-2^{s-2}}{2}]$ $2^{s-2}$-quasi-cyclic code. Note that $H^s$ contains dependent rows. \begin{example} For $s=4$, the matrix $H^4$ has the following form. The four rows above this matrix represent the vectors which index the columns of $H^4$. For example, the first row of $H^4$ corresponds to the subspace which contains the vectors $\{(0,1,0,0),(1,0,0,0),(1,1,0,0)\}$: \begin{footnotesize} $$\begin{array}{c} \left. \begin{tabular}{c|c|c} \bf {0 0 0 0} & \bf {1 1 1 1} & \bf {1 1 1 1} \\ \bf {1 1 1 1} & \bf {0 0 0 0} & \bf {1 1 1 1} \\ \bf {0 0 1 1} & \bf {0 0 1 1} & \bf {0 0 1 1} \\ \bf {0 1 0 1} & \bf {0 1 0 1} & \bf {0 1 0 1} \\ \end{tabular} \right. \\ \left(\begin{tabular}{c|c|c}\hline\hline \tn{1 0 0 0} & \tn{1 0 0 0} & \tn{1 0 0 0} \\ \tn{0 1 0 0} & \tn{0 0 0 1} & \tn{0 0 1 0} \\ \tn{0 0 1 0} & \tn{0 1 0 0} & \tn{0 0 0 1} \\ \tn{0 0 0 1} & \tn{0 0 1 0} & \tn{0 1 0 0} \\ \hline \tn{1 0 0 0} & \tn{0 1 0 0} & \tn{0 1 0 0} \\ \tn{0 1 0 0} & \tn{0 0 1 0} & \tn{0 0 0 1} \\ \tn{0 0 1 0} & \tn{1 0 0 0} & \tn{0 0 1 0} \\ \tn{0 0 0 1} & \tn{0 0 0 1} & \tn{1 0 0 0} \\ \hline \tn{1 0 0 0} & \tn{0 0 1 0} & \tn{0 0 1 0} \\ \tn{0 1 0 0} & \tn{0 1 0 0} & \tn{1 0 0 0} \\ \tn{0 0 1 0} & \tn{0 0 0 1} & \tn{0 1 0 0} \\ \tn{0 0 0 1} & \tn{1 0 0 0} & \tn{0 0 0 1} \\ \hline \tn{1 0 0 0} & \tn{0 0 0 1} & \tn{0 0 0 1} \\ \tn{0 1 0 0} & \tn{1 0 0 0} & \tn{0 1 0 0} \\ \tn{0 0 1 0} & \tn{0 0 1 0} & \tn{1 0 0 0} \\ \tn{0 0 0 1} & \tn{0 1 0 0} & \tn{0 0 1 0} \\ \end{tabular} \right) \end{array}$$ \end{footnotesize} \end{example} In the following we prove that this code attains the bound~(\ref{eq_CMBound}) with locality 2. \begin{theorem} \label{thm:liftedMRd} Let $\cC^s$ be the linear code with the parity-check matrix $H^s$ defined above. Then $\cC^s$ is a $[3\cdot2^{s-2},s,3\cdot2^{s-3}]$ LRC with locality $r=2$ which attains the bound~(\ref{eq_CMBound}). \end{theorem} \begin{proof} The length, the dimension and the minimum distance are proved in~\cite[Thm. 11]{silberstein_codes_2011}. Since every row in $H^s$ has weight 3, the locality is 2. By applying the bound~(\ref{eq_CMBound}) with $t=1$ and using the Plotkin bound we have $$2+k_{opt}^{(2)}(3\cdot2^{s-2}-3,3\cdot2^{s-3}) \leq 2+\log 2\cdot\left\lfloor\frac{3\cdot2^{s-3}}{3}\right\rfloor$$ $$=2+\log 2^{s-2}=2+s-2=s$$ In other words, the code $\cC^s$ always attain the bound~(\ref{eq_CMBound}). \end{proof} \begin{remark} One can check that the code $\cC^s$ from Thm.~\ref{thm:liftedMRd} attains the Griesmer bound. \end{remark} \begin{remark} Note that the code $\cC^s$ from Thm.~\ref{thm:liftedMRd} can be also constructed by applying the Farrell construction on a simplex code $\simplex{s}$, when using a simplex code $\simplex{s-2}$ as an anticode, as follows. By the construction of $\cC^s$, the columns of the generator matrix for $\cC^s$ are formed by all the vectors in $\F_2^s\setminus \{00v:v\in \F_2^{s-2}\}$. Then the columns of the generator matrix for the anticode are formed by the vectors in $\{00v:v\in \F_2^{s-2}\}$. This anticode has length $2^{s-2}-1$ and maximum weight $2^{s-3}$. \end{remark} \begin{comment} We have that the length is at least: \begin{align*} \sum_{i=0}^{m-1} \left \lceil \frac{d}{2^i} \right \rceil & = \sum_{i=0}^{m-1} \left \lceil \frac{2^{m-1}-14}{2^i} \right \rceil \\ & = 2^{m-1} - 14 + 2^{m-2} - 7 + 2^{m-3} - 3 + \\ & \quad + 2^{m-4} -1 + 2^{m-5} + 2^{m-6} + \dots + 1 \\ & = 2^m-1-25. \end{align*} \end{comment} \section{Conclusion} \label{sec:conclusion} We presented a construction for four families of binary linear optimal LRCs with locality $r=2$ and $r=3$ (see Tab.~\ref{tab_CodeExamples} for some numerical examples). This construction is based on various anticodes. Besides the optimality with respect to the Cadambe--Mazumdar bound for a given locality, several of our families of codes fulfill the Griesmer bound with equality. \begin{table}[htb] \caption{Optimal Binary LRC with Locality Two and Three.} \label{tab_CodeExamples} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{lcll} $[n,k,d]$ & Locality $r$ & Reference & \\ \hline $[28,5,14]$ & 2 & Thm.~\ref{thm:anticode-weight2} & $m=5, s=3$ \\ $[25,5,12]$ & 2 & & $m=5, s=4$ \\ $[21,5,10]$ & 2 & & $m=5, s=5$ \\ \hline $[60,6,30]$ & 2 & Thm.~\ref{thm:anticode-weight2} & $m=6, s=3$ \\ $[57,6,28]$ & 2 & & $m=6, s=4$ \\ $[53,6,26]$ & 2 & & $m=6, s=5$ \\ \hline $[21,5,10]$ & 2 & Thm.~\ref{thm:anticodeSm-1} & $m=5$, $t=4$ \\ $[38,6,18]$ & 2 & & $m=6$, $t=5$ \\ \hline $[31,6,15]$ & 3 & Thm.~\ref{thm:anticodeSm-2} & $m=6$ \\ $[63,7,31]$ & 3 & & $m=7$ \\ \hline $[24,5,12]$ & 2 & Thm.~\ref{thm:liftedMRd} & $s=5$ \\ $[48,6,24]$ & 2 & & $s=6$ \end{tabular} \end{center} \end{table} \vspace{0.5cm}
\section{Introduction} Research into student difficulties at the upper-division level is a relatively new but growing area of Physics Education Research \cite{meltzer2012resource}. Students in upper-division courses are asked to manipulate increasingly sophisticated mathematical tools as they grapple with advanced physics content. To explore this dynamic, some of the literature around student difficulties at this level has focused on the use of mathematical tools and techniques during physics problem-solving \cite{caballero2014mathphys}. For example, one mathematical tool that appears repeatedly throughout the undergraduate physics curriculum is the Dirac delta function (hereafter referred to as simply, the $\delta$-function). The $\delta$-function represents an interesting topic to investigate student difficulties for several reasons. Despite often being discussed as a purely abstract, mathematical construct, it is rarely used in purely mathematical contexts. In fact, physicists often introduce the $\delta$-function into a problem in order to describe or model a concrete physical system. Additionally, it is the authors' experience that the $\delta$-function is often perceived by experts as trivial to manipulate, and is often introduced to simplify the mathematics of a problem. However, we still observe common and persistent student difficulties using the $\delta$-function. Moreover, while the $\delta$-function has appeared in literature around student difficulties with Fourier transforms and measurement in quantum mechanics \cite{sadaghiani2005thesis, mason2009thesis, zhu2011thesis, singh2006qcomputing}, we are unaware of any existing literature directly targeting student difficulties with the $\delta$-function. A physics student may be exposed to the $\delta$-function at several different points in the undergraduate curriculum. These include its use as a tool to express volume mass or charge densities, to describe potential energies or wavefunctions in quantum mechanics, in the context of Fourier transforms, and, for more advanced situations, in the context of Green's functions. In mathematics courses, the $\delta$-function is rigorously defined as a distribution \cite{lighthill1958fourier}, and is typically not seen by students until senior or masters level analysis courses. Such courses are not often taken by physics majors. Here, we will focus almost exclusively on the $\delta$-function as a tool to describe volume charge densities in the context of upper-division electrostatics as this is one of the earliest and perhaps simplest uses. Despite the general sense of many faculty at the authors' institution that students will be familiar with the $\delta$-function by the time they reach the junior-level, we find that for some (arguably many) students junior-level electrostatics will be their first exposure to the $\delta$-function. Given its many possible uses, we do not claim that the research presented here will span the space of all possible difficulties with the Dirac $\delta$-function; however, it will provide a sampling of the kinds of challenges that students face when manipulating $\delta$-functions. In this paper we utilize an analytical framework \cite{wilcox2013acer} describing the use of mathematical tools in physics problem solving to structure our investigation and analysis of student difficulties with $\delta$-functions (Sec.\ \ref{sec:methods}). We then present our findings, including common difficulties we identified in our student population and a brief discussion of implications for instruction (Sec.\ \ref{sec:results}). We end with limitations and future work (Sec.\ \ref{sec:discussion}). \section{\label{sec:methods}Methods} Problem solving at the upper-division level is often considerably longer and more complex than what is typical of the introductory level. Making sense of students' work around these upper-division problems can be difficult because students often make multiple mistakes at different stages of a problem, which then propagate through their solutions in unpredictable ways. To help manage this complexity, we make use of an analytical framework known as ACER (Activation, Construction, Execution, Reflection) to scaffold our analysis of student difficulties with the $\delta$-function \cite{wilcox2013acer, caballero2014mathphys}. \subsection{\label{sec:acer}The ACER Framework} The ACER framework organizes the problem-solving process into four general components: \emph{activation} of mathematical tools, \emph{construction} of mathematical models, \emph{execution} of the mathematics, and \emph{reflection} on the results. These components were identified by studying expert problem solving \cite{wilcox2013acer} and are consistent with both a resources \cite{hammer2000resources} and epistemic framing \cite{bing2008thesis} perspective on the nature of knowledge. However, the specific details of how a given mathematical tool is used in upper-division problem solving is often highly dependent on the context in which that tool is being used. For this reason, the ACER framework was designed to be operationalized for specific mathematical tools in specific physics contexts. The operationalization process results in a researcher-guided outline of key elements in a correct and complete solution to a particular problem or set of problems. This process will be discussed in greater detail in Sec.\ \ref{sec:Dacer}, and additional details about the ACER framework can be found in Ref.\ \cite{wilcox2013acer}. \subsection{\label{sec:context}Study Context} Data for this study were largely collected from the first half of a two semester Electricity and Magnetism sequence at the University of Colorado Boulder (CU). This course, called E\&M 1, typically covers electrostatics and magnetostatics (i.e., chapters 1-6 of Griffiths \cite{griffiths1999em}). The student population is composed of junior and senior-level physics, astrophysics, and engineering physics majors with a typical class size of 30-60 students. At CU, E\&M 1 is often taught with varying degrees of interactivity through the use of research-based teaching practices including peer instruction using clickers \cite{mazur1997pi} and tutorials \cite{chasteen2012transforming}. We collected data from three distinct sources for this investigation: student solutions to instructor designed questions on traditional midterm exams (N=372), responses to one question from the multiple-response Colorado Upper-division Electrostatics (CUE) Diagnostic \cite{wilcox2014cmr} (N=146 at CU, N=162 at external institutions), and two sets of think-aloud interviews (N=11). Exam data were collected from 7 semesters of the E\&M 1 course taught by 5 different instructors. Of these, four were traditional research faculty, and one was a physics education researcher. Two of these instructors, including the PER faculty member (SJP), taught the course twice during data collection. Questions on the exams were developed solely by the instructor for that semester; however, in all cases, the question provided a mathematical expression for a charge density and asked for a description and/or sketch of the charge distribution (e.g., A1-type prompt below, see Sec.\ \ref{sec:Dacer} for the naming convention). In one case, the students were also asked to calculate the integral of the given $\delta$-function expression. \begin{center} \begin{minipage}{.75\linewidth} {\bf \emph{A1-type Prompt:}} \vspace{-2mm} {\flushleft \emph{Sketch the charge distribution:}} \begin{center}$\rho (x,y,z) = c \delta (x-1)$ \end{center} {\flushleft \emph{Describe the distribution in words too. \\ What are the units of the constant, $c$? }} \end{minipage} \end{center} The multiple-response CUE is a research-based, end-of-semester conceptual assessment. Only one question on the CUE deals with $\delta$-functions, and it is of the same general type as the questions asked on the exams (A1-type). However, rather than an open-ended prompt, the CUE asks a two-part, multiple-choice question. The first part provides the student with the mathematical expression that corresponds to the \emph{mass} density of two point masses (i.e., $\rho(\vec{r})=m_1\delta(\vec{r}-\vec{r}_1)+m_2\delta(\vec{r}-\vec{r}_2)$) and asks what the integral of this expression is over all space. The second part asks what this mass density represents physically. This question along with the full CUE instrument can be accessed at Ref.\ \cite{q8cmr}. CUE data from CU were collected from four semesters of the E\&M 1 course; two of these were courses for which we also have exam data. In addition to the CU data, we also collected multiple-response CUE data from 9 courses at 7 external institutions. These institutions range from small liberal arts colleges to large research universities. Think-aloud interviews were conducted in two sets performed roughly a year apart. Interviewees were paid volunteers who had successfully completed E\&M 1 one to two semesters prior and responded to an email request for research participants. All interviewees took the course during one of the semesters for which we have exam data. Final course grades for interview participants ranged from D to A. Interview protocols for both sets of interviews were designed, in part, to probe more deeply into difficulties identified in the exam solutions, and thus included one or more exam style (i.e., A1-type) questions. In addition, the interview protocols also included questions designed to target aspects of the ACER framework not accessed by the exams and CUE. These questions will be discussed in greater detail in the next section. \subsection{\label{sec:Dacer}Operationalizing ACER} The process of operationalizing ACER is discussed in detail in Ref.\ \cite{wilcox2013acer}. Briefly, operationalization is accomplished through a modified form of task analysis \cite{catrambone2011taps, wilcox2013acer} in which a content expert works through the problems of interest while carefully documenting their steps and mapping these steps onto the general components of the framework. The resulting outline is then shared with other content experts and refined until consensus is reached that the key elements of the problem have been accounted for. This expert-guided scheme then serves as a preliminary coding structure for analysis of student work and, if necessary, is further refined to accommodate unanticipated aspects of student problem-solving. To guide our data collection and analysis, we operationalized ACER for problems involving the use of $\delta$-functions to express the volume charge (or mass) densities of 1, 2, and 3D charge distributions. For example, the volume charge density of a line charge running parallel to the z-axis and passing through the point (1,2,0) can be expressed as $\rho (\vec{r}) = \lambda\delta(x-1)\delta(y-2)$, where $\lambda$ is a \emph{unitful constant} representing the charge per unit length. Expressing volume charge densities in this way is often necessary when working with the differential forms of Maxwell's Equations and can facilitate working with the integral forms of both Coulomb's Law and the Biot-Savart law. The elements of the operationalized ACER framework for these types of $\delta$-functions problems is described below. Element codes are for labeling purposes only and are not meant to suggest a particular order, nor are all elements always necessary for every problem. \vspace{1mm}{\bf Activation of the tool:} The first component of the framework involves identifying $\delta$-functions as the appropriate mathematical tool. We identified two elements in the form of cues present in a prompt that are likely to activate resources associated with $\delta$-functions. \vspace{-2mm} \begin{enumerate}[label={\bf A\arabic*}:, align=left] \itemsep0pt \item The question provides an expression for volume charge density in terms of $\delta$-functions \item The question asks for an expression of the \emph{volume} charge density of a charge distribution that includes point, line, or surface charges \end{enumerate} \vspace{-2mm} We include element A1 because, in electrostatics, $\delta$-functions are often provided explicitly in the problem statement, effectively short-circuiting Activation. \vspace{1mm}{\bf Construction of the model:} Elements in this component are involved in mapping the mathematical expression for the charge density to a verbal or pictorial representation of the charge distribution or vice versa. \vspace{-2mm} \begin{enumerate}[label={\bf C\arabic*}:, align=left] \itemsep0pt \item Relate the shape of the charge distribution to the coordinate system and number of $\delta$-functions \item Relate the location of the charges with the argument(s) of the $\delta$-function(s) \item Establish the need for and/or physical meaning of the \emph{unitful constant} in front of the $\delta$-function \end{enumerate} \vspace{-2mm} For problems that also require integration of the $\delta$-function (e.g., to find total charge from $\rho(\vec{r})$) there are additional elements in construction related to setting up this integral. \vspace{-2mm} \begin{enumerate}[label={\bf C\arabic*}:, align=left] \itemsep0pt \setcounter{enumi}{3} \item Express a differential volume element consistent with the geometry of the charge distribution \item Select limits of integration consistent with the differential volume element and region of interest \end{enumerate} \vspace{-2mm} Alternatively, for sufficiently simple charge distributions, one can bypass setting up and computing integrals (elements C4 \& C5) by using the physical meaning of the unitful constant to simply state the total charge (e.g., Q(uniform, spherical shell) = $\sigma*4\pi R^2$). \vspace{1mm}{\bf Execution of the mathematics:} This component of the framework deals with elements involved in executing the mathematical operations related to the $\delta$-function. Because this component deals with actually performing mathematical operations, these elements are specific to problems requiring integration of the $\delta$-function. \vspace{-2mm} \begin{enumerate}[label={\bf E\arabic*}:, align=left] \itemsep0pt \item Execute (multivariable) integrals that include one or more (potentially multidimensional) $\delta$-functions \end{enumerate} \vspace{-2mm} When the results of the integrals in E1 must be simplified for interpretation, Execution would include a second element relating to algebraic manipulation; however, none of the integrals included in this study elicited or required significant algebraic manipulation. \vspace{1mm}{\bf Reflection on the result:} The final component includes elements related to checking and interpreting aspects of the solution, including intermediate steps and the final result. While many different techniques can be used to reflect on a physics problem, the following three are particularly common when dealing with $\delta$-functions. \vspace{-2mm} \begin{enumerate}[label={\bf R\arabic*:}, align=left] \itemsep0pt \item Check/determine the units of all relevant quantities (e.g., Q, $\rho$, the unitful constant) \item Check that the physical meaning of the unitful constant is consistent with its units and the units of all other quantities \item Verify that the value of the charge in a region is consistent with expectations \end{enumerate} \vspace{-2mm} While the first two elements are similar, we consider element R2 to be a distinct and potentially more sophisticated reflection task in that it is seeking consistency between the student's physical interpretation of the unitful constant and its units. The distinction between elements R1 and R2 was motivated in part by preliminary analysis of student work, which demonstrated that the link between the units of the constant and its physical interpretation may not be explicit for many students (see Sec.\ \ref{sec:reflection}). The operationalization of the ACER framework for $\delta$-functions revealed that the standard questions typically asked on midterm exams (A1-type) do not capture all aspects of problem-solving with the $\delta$-function. In particular, this type of question bypasses Activation at anything more than the most surface level assessment of whether a student recognize the $\delta$-function. To probe Activation more deeply, we began the first set of think-aloud interviews with a question that provided a description of the charge distribution and asked for a mathematical expression for the charge density (e.g., A2-type prompt below). This A2-type interview prompt also provides a different perspective on Construction than the A1-type exam prompt by requiring students to generate a multidimensional $\delta$-function expression rather than just interpreting it. However, participants in the first interview set often failed to activate the $\delta$-function in response to the A2-type prompt (see Sec.\ \ref{sec:results}) and thus never moved on to deal with Construction. In order to target the Construction component more clearly, the second set of interviews directly prompted students to use $\delta$-functions to express the charge density. \begin{center} \begin{minipage}{.75\linewidth} {\bf \emph{A2-type Prompt:}}\vspace{-2mm} \flushleft \emph{What is the volume charge density of an infinitely long, linear charge distribution running parallel to the z-axis and passing through the point (1,2,0)? Be sure to define any new symbols you introduce. \\ } \emph{Sketch this charge distribution. } \end{minipage} \end{center} Additionally, only one of the seven exam questions asked students to integrate an expression containing a $\delta$-function. To further probe students ability to integrate the $\delta$-function (element E1), both interview protocols included questions that prompted students to calculate the total charge within a finite region of space. The second set of interviews also ended by asking students to perform a set of context-free integrations of various $\delta$-function expressions (below) in order to more clearly investigate the Execution component. These particular integral expressions were each designed to target a specific difficulty we anticipated students might have with the procedural aspects of integrating the $\delta$-function. While all integrals were presented without a physical context, in the case of integral \emph{d)} students were also asked if they could come up with a physical situation in which they might set up this integral. \begin{center} \begin{minipage}{.75\linewidth} {\bf \emph{Context-free Integral problems:}}\vspace{-2mm} \flushleft \begin{enumerate}[label=\emph{\alph*)},align=left] \itemsep0pt \item $\int\limits_\infty^{-\infty} \delta(x)dx$ \item $\int\limits_\infty^{-\infty} x\delta(x)dx$ \item $\int\limits_0^{10} [a \delta(x-1)+b\delta(x+2)]dx$ \item $\iiint a \delta(r-r')r^2 sin(\theta)dr d\phi d\theta$ \end{enumerate} \end{minipage} \end{center} \section{\label{sec:results}Findings} This section presents the identification and analysis of common student difficulties with the Dirac $\delta$-function organized by component and element of the operationalized ACER framework (Sec.\ \ref{sec:Dacer}). \subsection{\label{sec:activation}Activation of the tool} Elements A1 and A2 of the framework represent two different types of of prompts that can cue students' to activate resources related to the $\delta$-function. In the case of A2-type prompts, the student must first recognize that the $\delta$-function is the appropriate mathematical tool before they can correctly answer the question. However, for A1-type questions, the $\delta$-function is given as part of the prompt, effectively short-circuiting Activation and providing little information about students ability to recognize \emph{when} the $\delta$-function is appropriate. None of the instructor-written exams included A2-type questions. Instead, this element was specifically targeted during the first of the two interview sets. When presented with the A2-type prompt shown in Sec.\ \ref{sec:Dacer}, 2 of 5 interviewees spontaneously suggested using $\delta$-functions. The remaining three participants all expressed confusion at being asked to provide a volume charge density for a line of charge. Two of these students attempted to reconcile this by defining an arbitrary cylindrical volume, $V$, around the line charge and using $\rho=Q/V$. This strategy, while incorrect, represents a reasonable attempt to make sense of the problem in lieu of the $\delta$-function. Later in the interview, all five of these students were presented with the $\delta$-functions expression for a linear charge density and all but one correctly interpreted this expression as describing a line charge. This result suggests that even immediately after completing a junior-level electrostatics course, many students may have difficulty recognizing \emph{when} the $\delta$-function is the appropriate mathematical tool even when they are able to provide a correct physical interpretation of it. Three participants in the second interview set had just completed one semester of upper-division quantum mechanics at the time of the interview. To investigate the context-dependent nature of student Activation of the $\delta$-function, we began these students' interviews by asking for a mathematical expression for the potential of a finite square well in the limit that the well became \emph{very} narrow and \emph{very} deep. Two of these three participants spontaneously suggested the $\delta$-function as the appropriate tool. Both of these students explicitly focused on the use of the words ``\emph{very} narrow and \emph{very} deep'' just before suggesting the $\delta$-function. The third student initially attempted to write the potential as a piecewise function but brought up the $\delta$-function when explicitly told there was a more compact way to represent the potential without using a piecewise notation. Successful activation of the $\delta$-function in the quantum case seemed to be linked to the high degree of similarity between the visual representation of a deep, narrow potential well and the commonly used graphical representation of $\delta(x)$. \subsection{\label{sec:construction}Construction of the model} The Construction component deals with mapping between the physics and mathematics of a problem. In the case of $\delta$-functions, this mapping can be done in two directions: from mathematics to physical description, or from physical description to mathematics. The A1-type prompts (see Sec.\ \ref{sec:context}) used on exams, the CUE, and in interviews investigated students' ability to translate a mathematical expression for the charge density into a physical description of the charge distribution. As part of this process, students needed to connect the coordinate system and number of $\delta$-functions in the given expression to the shape of the charge distribution (element C1). For example, the expression $\rho(x,y,z) = c\delta(x-1)$ contains one Cartesian $\delta$-function and thus represents an infinite plane of charge. Roughly a quarter of students (23\%, N=87 of 372) had an incorrect shape on exams. The most common error was misidentifying volume charge densities that included 1 or 2 $\delta$-functions as point charges (62\%, N=54 of 87). On the CUE diagnostic administered at the end of the semester, the fraction of students selecting the incorrect shape was roughly a third (35\%, N=51 of 146). This trend of selecting the incorrect shape is slightly more pronounced in student populations beyond CU who have taken the multiple-response CUE (49\%, N=79 of 162, 7 institutions) The most common error for this question was misidentifying the given point mass density ($\rho(\vec{r}) = m_1 \delta^3(\vec{r} - \vec{r}_1)$ ) as a solid sphere or spherical shell with radius $\vec{r}_1$ (76\%, N=99 of 130 incorrect responses, all institutions). This finding is interesting because, given students' tendency to misidentify charge densities as point charges on exams, we might expect that they would be more successful at identifying point charge densities. However, we hypothesize that the prevalence of this particular error may have been exacerbated by the apparent similarity between the expressions for this point mass density and that of a spherical shell (i.e., $\rho(\vec{r})=m_1\delta(r-r_1)$), which are distinguished only by the presence of the cube on the $\delta$-function and vectors in the argument. In interviews, 9 of 11 participants correctly identified the shape of one or more charge distributions from the mathematical expressions for the charge density. The remaining 2 students both sketched the charge distribution on 3D Cartesian axes as a very narrow spike originating at a point consistent with the argument of the $\delta$-function and extending upwards parallel to one of the axes (e.g., see Fig.\ \ref{fig:spike}). This `spike' representation was also seen in a small number of the exam solutions (5\%, N=17 of 311). The spike drawn by these students is highly reminiscent of the 1D graphical representation of $\delta(x)$ as an infinitely tall and thin Gaussian distribution at $x=0$ that is commonly used when first defining the $\delta$-function. Students who draw this `spike' when sketching the charge distribution may be attempting to apply this 1D representation of the $\delta$-function to a 3D sketch. The examples shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:spike} have a number of additional interesting features. For example, the student in Fig.\ \ref{fig:spike}(d) places the spike as $z=2c$ rather than $z=2$. Additionally, the spikes are not always parallel to the same axis despite all having the same prompt. These features may warrant further investigation in future studies; however, as they were observed in only a small number of exam solutions and in none of the interviews, we will not discuss them in further detail here. \begin{figure} \includegraphics[width=3.4in, height=2.5in]{Spikes-example.eps} \caption{Examples of the `spike' representation used by 5\% of exam students and 2 of 11 interview students. In this case, students were prompted to sketch the charge distribution described by $\rho(x,y,z)=c\delta(x)\delta(z-2)$. }\label{fig:spike} \end{figure} The interviews also included an A2-type prompt (see Sec.\ \ref{sec:Dacer}) to explore students' ability to translate a physical description of the charge distribution into a mathematical expression for the charge density. This process requires students to use the geometry of the charge distribution to select an appropriate coordinate system and number of $\delta$-functions. Of the eight interview participants who attempted to use $\delta$-functions in response to the A2-type prompt, three were able to correctly express the line charge density as the product of two 1D Cartesian $\delta$-functions. Four of the remaining five students instead attempted to use a single $\delta$-function whose argument was the difference between two vectors, for example $\rho \propto \delta(\vec{r}-\vec{r}_1)$ where $\vec{r}_1 = (1,2,z)$. These students did not explicitly acknowledge this as a 3D $\delta$-function either verbally or by cubing the $\delta$-function. Three of these students also described the line charge as a continuous sum of point charges and integrated their $\delta$-function expression over all $z$. This strategy reflects a fundamentally reasonable physical interpretation of the situation that can be used to construct a correct expression for the line charge density; however, none of these students was able to fully leverage this interpretation to correctly express the charge density. Determining the location of the charge distribution (element C2) was not a significant stumbling block for students in this study. None of the interview students and a tenth of the exam students (10\%, N=39 of 372) drew an incorrect position for the distribution. The most common errors were switching the signs of the coordinates (36\%, N=14 of 39, e.g., locating the plane described by $\rho(x,y,z)=c\delta(x-1)$ at x=-1) or having the wrong orientation of line or plane distributions (38\%, N=15 of 39). However, all relevant exam questions in this study dealt with locating charge distributions described by $\delta$-functions in Cartesian coordinates, and it is possible that student difficulties with element C2 would be more significant for other geometries or more abstract notation. The third element in Construction relates to the need for a unitful constant in the expression for $\rho(\vec{r})$. For A1-type questions, this constant is provided as part of the given expression for the charge density, and fully interpreting this expression requires recognizing the physical significance of this constant. For example, in the expression $\rho(x,y,z)=c\delta(x-1)$, the constant, $c$, represents the charge per unit area on the surface of the plane. Roughly a quarter of the exam students (27\%, N=70 of 255) presented with an arbitrary constant spontaneously commented on its physical meaning and most of these (81\%, N=57 of 70) had a correct interpretation. This fraction should be interpreted as a lower bound as additional students may have recognized the constant's physical significance but did not explicitly write it down on the exam. The interviews suggest that a students' interpretation of the constant can be facilitated or impeded by their identification of its units. This dynamic will be discussed in greater detail in relation to the Reflection component (Sec.\ \ref{sec:reflection}). The A2-type prompts used in interviews, on the other hand, do not include the unitful constant but instead require that a student recognize the need for this constant independently. Two of eight interviewees did not spontaneously include a multiplicative constant in their expression for the charge density. Alternatively, three of the remaining participants recognized the need for a multiplicative factor but expressed this factor as $\rho(\vec{r})$ (e.g., \emph{volume charge density} $= \rho(\vec{r})\delta(x-1)\delta(y-2)$). These students appeared to be interpreting the $\rho(\vec{r})$ term as representing only the magnitude of the charge density rather than the magnitude at a specific point in space. This also suggests that these students are not treating $\rho$ as the quantity defined by convention to be volume charge density and are instead treating it as the quantity conventionally defined as $\lambda$ (i.e., line charge density). Ultimately, four of the eight participants included a multiplicative constant \emph{and} articulated a correct physical interpretation of that constant before moving on from this question. The final two elements in Construction (elements 4 \& 5) are not specific to questions involving $\delta$-functions, but rather apply to any physics problem involving multivariable integration. These elements deal with expressing the differential volume element and selecting limit of integration. We have previously examined student work around these two elements in the context of Coulomb's law integrals \cite{wilcox2013acer} and observed a number of difficulties. However, only a small number of students (21\%, N=12 of 56) struggled with either the Cartesian differential volume element or limits of integration in the single semester where the exam question asked for total charge in a finite region of space. Furthermore, only one of eleven interviewees had clear difficulties expressing the differential charge element in spherical coordinates, and one other selected incorrect limits for their Cartesian integral. Thus, setting up integrals for the relatively simple Cartesian and spherical geometries used in this study was not a significant challenge for our upper-division students. \subsection{\label{sec:execution}Execution of the mathematics} The Execution component of the framework deals with the procedural aspects of working with mathematical tools in physics. The exams provide limited insight into this component as students were asked to actually calculate an integral of a $\delta$-function in only one semester. In this case, the students were given the expression for 3 point charges and asked to calculate $\int \rho(\vec{r})d\tau$. Roughly a quarter of the students (27\%, N=15 of 56) made significant mathematical errors related to the $\delta$-function while executing this integral (element E1). The most common error (73\%, N=11 of 15) amounted to a variation of equating the integral of the $\delta$-function with the integral of the zero point of its vector argument (e.g., $ \int \delta^3(\vec{r}-\vec{r}_1) d\tau = \int \vec{r}_1 d\tau$). Similarly, more than a third of students (36\%, N=53 of 146 at CU, 41\%, N=66 of 162 at external institutions) selected an incorrect value for the integral of a point mass density in response to the CUE question. The most common error (81\%, N=43 of 53 at CU, 68\% N=45 of 66 at external institutions) was equating the integral of the $\delta$-function with the value (vector or magnitude) of $\vec{r}$ at which the argument was zero (e.g., $\int \delta^3(\vec{r}-\vec{r}_1) d\tau = \vec{r}_1 $). This issue is different from (though potentially related to) the most common issue seen in the exam; however, none of the response options on the multiple-choice CUE question matched the outcome of the incorrect setup seen commonly on exams. Ultimately, these types of errors indicate that students have correctly recognized that the $\delta$-function somehow picks out the value $\vec{r}=\vec{r}_1$ but apply this reasoning in an ad hoc fashion in the integration process. The first set of interviews investigated Execution in the context of calculating the total charge on a uniformly charged spherical shell. Two of the five participants were not able to complete this calculation and explicitly stated this was because they could not recall how to integrate the $\delta$-function. When asked for the value of $\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \delta(x)dx$ these participants guessed it would be $x$ or $1/x$. Extending this logic into three dimensions, this response appears consistent with some of the common incorrect responses on the CUE and exam questions (e.g., $\int \delta^3(\vec{r}-\vec{r}_1) d\tau = \vec{r}_1 $ or $1/|\vec{r}_1|$). The second interview set (N=6) targeted the first element in Execution differently by asking students to perform the context-free integrations shown in Sec.\ \ref{sec:Dacer}. Two students stated that the integral in b) would be equal to x without evaluating this expression at x = 0, but none of the six participants had difficulty with the integrals in a) or c). Moreover, the 3D $\delta$-functions used on the exam and CUE seemed to evoke different, and potentially more fundamental, difficulties than the 1D $\delta$-functions used in interviews. Three of six interviewees also evaluated the $r$ integral in part d) in the following way, $\int \delta(r-r')r^2 dr=\frac{1}{3}r'^3$, despite correctly executing parts a)-c). Two of these students explicitly stated that the effect of the $\delta$-function was only to pick out the value $r=r'$. This result is consistent with that from the exams and CUE, and suggests that a significant fraction of our upper-division students have internalized the idea that the $\delta$-function picks out a particular value of the variable, but do not recognize the other impacts of the $\delta$-functions on the result of the integral, particularly when dealing with 3D or non-Cartesian $\delta$-functions. \subsection{\label{sec:reflection}Reflection on the results} The Reflection component deals with aspects of the problem-solving process related to interpreting and checking intermediate steps and the final solution. For the questions used in this study, one of the most powerful tools available for checking and interpreting the various $\delta$-function expressions is looking at units (elements R1 and R2). In particular, for A1-type problems, looking at the units of the given constant (e.g., the $c$ in $\rho(x,y,z)=c\delta(x-1)$) can facilitate interpretation of that constant's physical meaning. Five of the seven exam prompts explicitly asked students to comment on the units of the given constant and two-thirds of the students (70\%, N=178 of 255) responded with the correct units (element R1). Beyond just commenting on the units of the given constant, we would like our students to recognize the physical interpretation of this constant (element C3), and ensure that the units and physical interpretation are consistent (element R2). However, it was often difficult to assess if students did this on the exams, in part because only a quarter of our students (N=70 of 255) explicitly commented on the physical interpretation of the unitful constant (element C3, see Sec.\ \ref{sec:construction}). Most of these students (83\%, N=58 of 70) also provided units for the constant that were consistent with their physical interpretation of its meaning. However, a third of the students (32\%, N=82 of 255) gave units that were inconsistent with the shape they identified regardless of whether they commented on the constant's physical meaning. Some of these students had the correct shape but incorrect units (40\%, N=33 of 82), and others had the incorrect shape but correct units (30\%, N=25 of 82). For an expert, the units of the constant, its physical meaning, and the shape of the charge distribution are tightly linked; however, these results suggest that this relationship may still be developing for the students. Interviews offer additional insight into the connection between the units and physical interpretation of the unitful constant. When prompted to comment on units, 9 of 11 participants explicitly argued (incorrectly) that the $\delta$-function is unitless and thus, regardless of the geometry of the charge distribution, the units of the constant must be $C/m^3$. This argument was often justified by the statement that the $\delta$-function was `just a mathematical thing' and thus did not have units. The belief that the $\delta$-function is unitless was surprisingly persistent, and in some cases interfered with students' physical interpretation of the unitful constant. For example, four of these nine students had articulated a correct physical argument for the units of the constant prior to arguing that the $\delta$-function was unitless. Two of these students abandoned their previous physical argument in favor of a unitless $\delta$-function, and the other two were unable to reconcile their intuition about the constant's units with their belief that the $\delta$-function should be unitless. Ultimately, only 2 of the 9 students were able to independently convince themselves that the $\delta$-function had units of $1/m$ (in this case). The other 7 students were only convinced when specifically prompted by the interviewer to consider the units of $dx$ in the expression $\int\delta(x)dx=1$. The third element in Reflection deals with using the expression for the charge density to calculate the total charge within a finite region in order to ensure this value is consistent with expectations. While this is something that we saw experts do spontaneously, almost no students (N=3 of 255) explicitly executed such a check on the exams when not prompted to calculate total charge. Similarly, only one of the interview students spontaneously attempted to calculate total charge in a region to gain confidence in his answer. Interview students were also explicitly prompted to calculate total charge and to consider the units of this expression (element R1) later in the interview. This process helped 4 of the 9 students who argued that the $\delta$-function was unitless to realize there was a problem with the units of their expression. These findings underscore the potential value of these reflective practices (element R1-3) both in terms of catching errors and facilitating interpretation, but also suggest that our students rarely engaged in reflection spontaneously. \subsection{\label{sec:implications}Implications for Instruction} This study was not designed to investigate the impacts of different instructional strategies or curricular materials on the prevalence or persistence of students' difficulties with the Dirac $\delta$-function; however, our findings do suggest several implications for teaching or using the $\delta$-function at the upper-division level. For example, instructors should be aware that students are unlikely to encounter the $\delta$-function in their required mathematics courses, and that it may or may not be covered in a math methods course run within a Physics department. Thus, the assumption that all students in a junior-level course will be aware of the $\delta$-function and its properties may not be justified. Students' struggles with the procedural aspects of integrating more complex $\delta$-function expressions may be one manifestation of this lack of sufficient prior experience with the $\delta$-function. These students may benefit from additional opportunities to practice integrating both 1D and 3D delta functions and in multiple coordinate systems. Additionally, canonical $\delta$-functions questions rarely, if ever, require a student to consider \emph{when} the $\delta$-function is an appropriate tool. Questions that describe a charge distribution and ask for an expression for the charge density can provide a baseline assessment of student ability to activate the $\delta$-function when not prompted explicitly. This type of question also addresses another finding, that constructing a mathematical expression for the charge density is a distinct and potentially more challenging task for our students than interpreting that same expression. As the former task is arguably the more authentic, students may benefit from additional opportunities to construct various $\delta$-function expressions in multiple coordinate systems. The belief that the $\delta$-function is unitless was a surprisingly prevalent and persistent idea. This belief may be exacerbated by presenting the $\delta$-function as a purely abstract mathematical construct. Moreover, the idea of a unitless $\delta$-function can interfere with students' interpretation of the unitful constant. To facilitate student reflection on problems involving the $\delta$-function, specific emphasis should be placed not only on the fact that the $\delta$-function \emph{can} have units, but also on \emph{how} to determine them based on the argument of the $\delta$-function. \section{\label{sec:discussion}Conclusions} This paper contributes to the limited body of research on student difficulties with the Dirac $\delta$-function by presenting an application of the ACER framework to guide analysis of student problem-solving with the $\delta$-function in the context of expressing charge densities mathematically in junior-level electrostatics. The ACER framework provided an organizing structure for our analysis that helped us identify nodes in students' work where key difficulties appeared. It also informed the development of interview protocols that targeted aspects of student problem solving not accessed by traditional exams, particularly around activating the $\delta$-function as the appropriate tool and executing integrals of various $\delta$-function expressions. Our upper-division students encountered a number of issues when using/interpreting the $\delta$-function. These difficulties represent a subset of students' difficulties with the $\delta$-function and may not include issues that might arise from its uses in contexts outside of electrostatics. For example, our students often struggled to activate the $\delta$-functions as the appropriate mathematical tool when not explicitly prompted. As our upper-division students progress forward through the undergraduate and graduate curriculum, it becomes increasingly important that they be able to recognize situations in which particular tools will be useful. Additionally, we found that students have a greater degree of difficulty translating a verbal description of a charge distribution into a mathematical formula for volume charge density than the reverse process. While interpreting a mathematical formula for the charge density is a valuable skill for our physics majors, the ability to construct that same formula from scratch is potentially an even more valuable skill that our physics majors are likely to use in the future. Our students also encountered difficulties with the procedural aspects of integrating 3D and/or non-Cartesian $\delta$-functions despite often recognizing that the $\delta$-function picks out the value of the integral at a single point. These difficulties manifest both in solving integrals embedded in a physics context and those presented in a purely mathematical context. Finally, our students demonstrated significant difficulty determining the units of the $\delta$-function, thus limiting their ability to interpret or check their expressions for the charge density. Additional work is needed to identify student difficulties when utilizing the $\delta$-function in other contexts such as quantum mechanics, Fourier transforms, and Green's functions. Such investigations could also provide a longitudinal perspective on the growth of student understanding over time, allowing researchers and instructors to focus their efforts on addressing those difficulties that are most common and most persistent throughout the physics curriculum. \begin{acknowledgments} Particular thanks to the PER@C group and Marcos D. Caballero for their feedback. This work was funded by NSF-CCLI Grant DUE-1023028 and an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. DGE 1144083. \end{acknowledgments}
\section{Introduction} In general relativity, space-time diffeomorphism invariance is the local symmetry principle underlying gravitational interactions. One of most profound physical implications is the equivalence principle \cite{diff1}\cite{diff2}. However, on a specified space-time background, one or more of the diffeomorphisms are generally broken by gauge fixing, and the pattern of symmetry breaking constrains the low energy degrees of freedom and dynamics on that background. For instance, our expanding universe can be considered as a temporal diffeomorphism breaking system, because the future always looks different from the past. Theories of gravity with temporal diffeomorphism breaking have been extensively studied in the literature, e.g. k-essence \cite{ArmendarizPicon:1999rj}, the effective field theory of inflation \cite{Cheung:2007st}\cite{Weinberg:2008hq}, ghost condensation \cite{ArkaniHamed:2003uy}, Horava gravity \cite{Horava:2009uw}, generalized Horndeski theories\,\cite{Gleyzes:2014dya}\cite{Gao:2014soa}\cite{Lin:2014jga}\cite{Gao:2014fra} and so on. Spatial diffeomorphism breaking is also important for the description of our universe: an everyday example is the description of low energy excitations of solids (phonons), which can be derived as the theory of broken spatial diffeomorphism invariance in which the phonons are the Goldstone bosons \cite{Leutwyler:1996er}\cite{Nicolis:2015sra}. With the addition of a $U(1)$ symmetry to conserve particle number, the theory of broken spatial diffeomorphisms describes ``superfluid solids'' (``supersolids'') \cite{0501658v2}. In these systems, spatial diffeomorphism invariance is a hidden symmetry that is evidenced by the constrained form of the Goldstone bosons' interactions. At solar system and cosmological scales, spatial diffeomorphism invariance is a relevant symmetry in that these systems are accurately described by general relativity. However, the unexplained origins of inflation, the end of inflation and the late time accelerated expansion keep open the possibility that general relativity is modified at the largest and smallest length scales. It is therefore interesting to ask how broken spatial diffeomorphisms impact cosmological dynamics. In this work, we develop the effective theory for the long-wavelength ($k/a\sim H$ the Hubble constant) degrees of freedom in the presence of broken spatial diffeomorphisms. As in the condensed matter examples, spatial diffeomorphism invariance can be broken by non-gravitational interactions. Field theory provides a mechanism in the form of soliton field configurations, such as the hedgehog solution \begin{eqnarray}\label{hedgehog} \phi^a=f(r)\frac{x^a}{r}~,~~~~~a=1,2,3, \end{eqnarray} which describes a monopole in an $SU(2)$ gauge theory that is spontaneously broken down to $U(1)$. Here $a$ is the internal index when it is written as the superscript of scalar fields and is the spatial index when the superscript of coordinates. Taking into account gravity, this configuration of the $\phi^a$ fields breaks spatial diffeomorphisms, and in this case, translation and rotation symmetry are also broken to subgroups by fixing a preferred origin of the monopole. This background field configuration has been implemented to produce an inflationary phase in a model known as ``topological inflation'', given that the size of monopole is greater than the Hubble radius in the early universe \cite{Linde:1994hy}\cite{Vilenkin:1994pv}. The field configuration \req{hedgehog} is not the unique way to break spatial diffeomorphisms, and we will consider a more minimal way that preserves the translation and rotation symmetries. The low energy description of broken spatial diffeomorphisms exhibits three Goldstone bosons, scalar fields $\phi^a$ which physically can be thought of as measuring spatial position. In unitary gauge, these ``ruler fields" are identified with the coordinates, \begin{equation}\label{spatialcond} \phi^a=x^a, \qquad a=1,2,3. \end{equation} Translation and rotation invariance are preserved by implementing a shift symmetry $\phi^a\to\phi^a+c^a$ for constants $c^a$ and an $SO(3)$ internal symmetry in the triplet $\phi^a$. The scalars $\phi^a$ select a frame of reference, a background against which to measure perturbations. To restore the Goldstone bosons as dynamical degrees of freedom, we add a fluctuating component to the field \begin{equation}\label{condpis} \phi^a\to x^a+\pi^a \end{equation} with $\pi^a$ transforming under spatial diffeomorphisms opposite to the spatial coordinates and thus furnishing a nonlinear realization of the symmetry (known as the St\"uckelberg trick). To see how this describes a solid, think of the scalar functions $\phi^a(x)$ as locating each volume element or lattice site in space. In the long-wavelength limit $\lambda\gg$ lattice spacing, inhomogeneity at the sites is smoothed over, and fluctuations of the $\phi^a$ correspond to fluctuations of the site locations, i.e. phonons \cite{Leutwyler:1996er,Nicolis:2015sra}. Broken spatial diffeomorphism invariance is interesting in the context of gravitational theory, because it generates a mass for the graviton. This is easy to understand seeing that the presence of a fixed frame (one may think of a lattice) admits the propagation of additional compressional and rotational modes, which are the longitudinal modes of the graviton. The structure of the broken spatial diffeomorphism theory thus helps understand how to construct a general self-consistent theory of massive gravity. Indeed, it is a basic question in classical field theory whether an analog of Higgs mechanism exists that can give gravitons a small but non-vanishing mass. Experimentally, we do not know how gravity behaves at distances longer than $\sim 1$\,Gpc, and the extremely tiny energy-scale associated with the cosmic acceleration\cite{981,982} hints that gravity might need to be modified at such large scale. The theoretical and observational consistency of massive gravity has been a longstanding problem. In the pioneering attempt in 1939 by Fierz and Pauli \cite{Fierz1939}, the simplest extension of GR with a linear mass term suffers from the van Dam-Veltman-Zakharov discontinuity \cite{vdvz1}\cite{vdvz2}, giving rise to different predictions for the classical tests in the vanishing mass limit. This problem can be alleviated by introducing nonlinear terms \cite{Vainshtein}. However, in 1972, Boulware and Deser pointed out that a ghost generally reappears at the nonlinear level, which spoils the stability of the theory \cite{bdghost}. Inspired by effective field theory in the decoupling limit \cite{ArkaniHamed:2002sp}, people have learned that in principle the Boulware-Deser ghost can be eliminated by construction \cite{deRham:2010ik}\cite{deRham:2010kj}. This theory is now dubbed dRGT gravity. When we apply dRGT gravity to cosmology, a self-accelerating solution is found for the open FRW universe \cite{Gumrukcuoglu:2011ew}. However, follow-up cosmological perturbation analysis found a new ghost instability among the 5 gravitational degrees of freedom \cite{Gumrukcuoglu:2011zh}\cite{DeFelice:2012mx}\cite{DeFelice:2013awa}\cite{DeFelice:2013bxa}\cite{Khosravi:2013axa}, and further dRGT gravity might suffer from acausality problems \cite{Deser:2012qx}\cite{Deser:2013eua}. The dRGT ghost instability can be eliminated at the expense of introducing a new degree of freedom \cite{DeFelice:2013tsa}\cite{DeFelice:2013dua}. In this context, it is interesting to search for a simpler and self-consistent massive gravity theory, as an alternative to the Fierz-Pauli family of theories. An alternative way to realize a massive gravity theory is to break the Lorentz symmetry of vacuum configuration, in addition to the space-time diffeomorphisms. A broad class of Lorentz-symmetry breaking massive gravity theories have been discussed in Refs. \cite{Dubovsky:2004sg}\cite{Rubakov:2004eb}\cite{Bluhm:2007bd}\cite{Comelli:2013txa}\cite{Blas:2014ira}. Among these theories, a simple example is the spatial condensation scenario \req{spatialcond}; the non-vanishing spatial gradient breaks 3 spatial diffeomorphisms, while temporal diffeomorphism, translational and rotational invariance are preserved \cite{Lin:2013aha}\cite{Lin:2013sja}. Previous analyses focused on linear theory in the decoupling limit. As we will see below, the theory becomes degenerate in the Minkowski space time. On FRW backgrounds, there are exactly 5 degrees of freedom in the theory. In the unitary gauge, the graviton eats the Goldstone excitations $\pi^a$ in \req{condpis} and becomes a massive spin-2 particle, with 5 massive modes in the spectrum. The resulting theory has several interesting applications. For instance, the graviton mass removes the IR divergence in graviton scattering \cite{Lin:2013sja}, and leaves an interesting imprint on CMB primordial tensor spectrum \cite{Cannone:2014uqa}. A viable massive gravity theory also provides the basis for holographic study of dissipative systems\,\cite{Davison:2013jba,Blake:2013bqa,Blake:2013owa}. Several other gravitational phenomena associated with broken spatial diffeomorphisms have also been discussed in the literature \cite{Dubovsky:2005xd}\cite{Endlich:2010hf}\cite{Endlich:2012pz}\cite{Ballesteros:2012kv}\cite{Bartolo:2013msa}\cite{Ballesteros:2013nwa}\cite{Akhshik:2014gja}\cite{Kouwn:2014aia}\cite{Pearson:2014iaa}, without relating them explicitly to the massive gravity aspect of the theory. For example, by tuning the form of higher order interactions, Ref. \cite{Endlich:2012pz} builds a model of inflation, calling it ``solid inflation'', in which they calculate the two- and three-point correlation of primordial perturbation. Our analysis helps understand why the sound speeds of scalar and vector modes are related in such a theory. In this paper, we study the general gravitational action for broken spatial diffeomorphisms by constructing the appropriate low energy effective field theory. The effective field theory approach describes a system through the lowest dimension operators compatible with the underlying symmetries. Usually, when we study a gravitational system, we first write down a general covariant action, and space-time diffeomorphisms are broken ``spontaneously'' after solving the equation of motion. However, in this paper to learn more of the structure of the theory and resulting character of massive gravity, we start by writing down the most general gravitational action compatible with spatial diffeomorphisms breaking in the unitary gauge. We then recover general covariance by performing a change of spatial coordinates $x^i\to x^i+\xi^i$ and promote the parameters $\xi^i$ to Goldstone bosons which transform opposite to the spatial coordinates $\pi^a\to\pi^a-\xi^a$ under spatial diffs. This paper is organised as follows: In section \ref{sec:ugaugeaction}, before constructing the specific effective theory, we discuss the general set of terms allowable in unitary gauge. Because the unitary gauge action, in its initial background-independent form, does not make explicit the dynamical degrees of freedom, we must carefully select the terms so as to preserve the 5 desired degrees. Then in section \ref{sec:FRWaction}, we specify to the FRW background, discuss the physical scales of interest, including different requirements during inflation and late-time and requirements for the perturbativity of the theory. Restricting to $SO(3)$ rotational symmetry and shift symmetry, we determine the effective action in the FRW universe, and analyse all scalar, vector, and tensor degrees of freedom. In section V, we present several examples of the applications of our formalism. Conclusion and discussion will be in the final section VI. In this paper we use the $(-,+,+,+)$ convention in the space time metric. \section{Generic action in unitary gauge}\label{sec:ugaugeaction} To help show how a theory of broken spatial diffeomorphisms is a theory of massive gravity, we first discuss constructing the Lagrangian in the unitary gauge, in which we only have metric degrees of freedom. When we analyze perturbations, we identify which metric components become dynamical, corresponding to the longitudinal polarizations of the graviton, and thus in a given allowed operator we can track the real degrees of freedom. This is important because much previous study of modified gravity theories has shown that many forms of higher derivative operators lead to new degrees of freedom. To preserve exactly 5 dynamical degrees of freedom (2 graviton polarizations + 3 goldstone bosons), the set of operators must be additionally constrained. As these constraints apply to the construction in any background, it is worth investigating allowable terms in a ``generic'' action in unitary gauge, before specifying the background solution (and with it the relevant scales). This facilitates construction in other backgrounds. In unitary gauge, the action is only invariant under the temporal diffeomorphisms. There is a preferred spatial frame generated by the space like gradient of scalar fields, $g^{\mu\nu}\partial_{\mu}\phi^a\partial_{\nu}\phi^bh_{ab}>0$, where $\phi^a(t,\textbf{x})$ generally is a function of space and time, and $h_{ab}$ is the internal metric of scalar fields' configuration. In the unitary gauge, the spatial frame $x^a$ is chosen to coincide with $\phi^a$, \begin{eqnarray}\label{scond} \langle\phi^a\rangle=x^a,~~~~~~~~a=1,2,3. \end{eqnarray} They transform as the scalars under the residual diffeomorphisms, so that the additional degrees of freedom are in the space-time metric. Going systematically through the geometric objects, we have: \begin{enumerate} \item Terms that are invariant under all diffeomorphisms. These include polynomials of the Riemann tensor $R_{\mu\nu\kappa\lambda}$ and its covariant derivatives contracted to give a scalar. However, many such terms introduce additional unwanted degrees of freedom and/or break temporal diffeomorphisms. For instance, by doing a conformal transformation, $\mathcal{R}^2$ is equivalent to Einstein gravity plus a scalar field with non-trivial potential. To remain within the effective theory and its degrees of freedom, we need only the linear term in Ricci scalar $\mathcal{R}$ to the order considered. \item Any scalar function of coordinates $x^a$, as well as their covariant derivatives. In the unitary gauge, $\nabla_{\mu}x^a=\delta_{\mu}^a$. Higher than second order derivatives generally give rise to extra modes and the classical Ostrogradski ghost instability. However, provided we have a viable perturbative expansion, in which higher dimensioned operators including higher derivative operators are supporessed by a high scale $\Lambda$, the typical mass of the Ostrogradski ghost is at or above the cut-off scale of our effective field theory. For this reason, the would-be ghosty modes are non-dynamical and can be integrated out at the low energy scale \cite{Weinberg:2008hq}. Consider for instance the scalar field theory with higher order derivative terms \begin{eqnarray} \mathcal{L}=-\frac{1}{2}\left[\partial_{\mu}\phi\partial^{\mu}\phi+\Lambda^{-2}\left(\square\phi\right)^2\right], \end{eqnarray} for which the propagator reads \begin{eqnarray} \Delta(k)=\frac{1}{k^2+\frac{k^4}{\Lambda^2}}=\frac{1}{k^2}-\frac{1}{k^2+\Lambda^2}, \end{eqnarray} with two propagating degrees. The second appears to have the wrong sign propagator, which is the possible ghosty mode. However, the pole is at $k^2=-\Lambda^2$, which is around the cutoff scale of our theory. For momenta in the domain of the effective theory $k\ll \Lambda$, this degree of freedom is supermassive and can be integrated out. \item We can leave free the upper indices $i$ in every tensor. For instance we can use $g^{ij}$, $\mathcal{R}^{ij}$ and $\mathcal{R}^{ijkl}$. However, we notice that $\mathcal{R}^{ij}$ can be rewritten into higher order covariant derivatives of $x^a$ by partial integration, \begin{eqnarray} \mathcal{R}^{aa}=\mathcal{R}^{\mu\nu}\partial_{\mu}x^a\partial_{\nu}x^a=\left(\square x^a\right)^2-\left(\nabla_{\mu}\nabla_{\nu}x^a\right)\left(\nabla^{\mu}\nabla^{\nu}x^a\right)+\text{total derivatives}, \end{eqnarray} so is $\mathcal{R}^{ijkl}$ term. Thus $\mathcal{R}^{ij}$ and $\mathcal{R}^{ijkl}$ terms are irrelevant at low energy scale. \end{enumerate} We conclude that the most generic Lagrangian in the unitary gauge is given by \begin{eqnarray} S=\int d^4x\sqrt{-g}F\left(\mathcal{R}, x^a, \nabla_{\mu}, g^{ij}, \mathcal{R}^{ij}, \mathcal{R}^{ijkl}\right), \end{eqnarray} where all the free indices inside of the function $F$ must be $i$'s. The construction so far is general to the extent of a gravitational action respecting time diffeomorphism invariance and excluding degrees of freedom additional to the broken spatial diffeomorphisms. Additional symmetries must be respected when the theory is considered on a particular background, and in the next section we will discuss the restriction. \section{Expanding around a FRW background}\label{sec:FRWaction} \subsection{Scales, power counting and constraints}\label{ssec:pc} In the present work, we are primarily interested in cosmological phenomenology of the broken spatial diff theory, and hence we are looking at wavelengths of the Hubble scale. To be consistent with the high degree of spatial isotropy and homogeneity at cosmological lengths, the effective scalars $\pi^a$ have an $SO(3)$ internal symmetry and a shift symmetry $\pi^a\to\pi^a+c^a$. The shift symmetry requires the Goldstones have only derivative couplings, and consequently the effective theory is essentially an expansion in $k/M$ where $M$ is a scale appearing in association with the higher dimensioned operators. For the theory to be perturbative in that lower order (lower derivative) operators are more relevant than higher orders, we should have $H\ll \Lambda$ the breakdown momentum scale, which is approximately the momentum scale at which $\pi\pi$ scattering violates unitarity. $\Lambda$ is related to the $M$s appearing in various higher derivative operators and thus the condition $H\ll\Lambda$ yields constraints on the sizes of the higher order operators. Conversely, we constrain $M$ considering (lack of) evidence for higher order operators. Satisfying these constraints, power counting derivatives $k/M$ yields a consistent theory because the breakdown scale is parametrically above the dynamical range of the theory. Note that the nontrivial background, the FRW spacetime, introduces an important scale in the dynamics. $H$ and $\dot H$ enter by determining the characteristic scale of the background $\phi^a$ fields, and as a consequence their fluctuation components $\pi^a$. As we will show in the subsection \ref{Goldstone}, in the $\dot H\to 0$ limit, the theory becomes strongly coupled and encounters some of the issues well-known to massive gravity on Minkowski backgrounds, perhaps pointing to a deeper physics reason for these issues. On the other hand, it has been previously proven that the present theory is continuous with GR in the limit $M\to 0$, with the Goldstones decoupling, becoming nondynamical and restoring the full diffeomorphism symmetry \cite{Lin:2013sja}. Considering the early universe, the kinetic energy of a scalar field with $k\sim H$ is $\sim\sqrt{2\epsilon}M_{\mathrm{pl}} H$ where $\epsilon=-\dot H/H^2$ is the slow roll parameter, meaning its change in amplitude over a Hubble time $H^{-1}$ is $\sim\sqrt{2\epsilon}M_{\mathrm{pl}}$. Since the triplet of dynamical scalars $\pi^a$ can at most be responsible for inflation, the mass scale suppressing higher order terms must be larger $M\gtrsim\sqrt{2\epsilon}M_{\mathrm{pl}}$ \cite{Weinberg:2008hq}. As we will show, achieving a self-accelerating cosmology with a minimal form of this theory requires fine-tuning the parameters in such a way that the theory becomes strongly-coupled and loses its meaning. We can consider instead inflation by independent dynamics, with small $\pi^a$ fluctuations on top. In this case, the scale of the $\pi^a$ must be smaller than the inflation energy scale, but still large enough to validate an expansion in $k/M$; this scenario is quite natural in the context of GUT-scale inflation and the possibility of topological defects arising from breaking the GUT symmetry group. In fact, the energy density of the scalar kinetic term dilutes as $g^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu\pi^a\partial_{\nu}\pi^a\sim a^{-2}$ the same as a network of topological defects \cite{Brandenberger:1993by}\cite{Bucher:1998mh}, making such an identification tempting. Since the $\pi^a$ are small perturbations to dominant inflationary background, evidence of this scenario must be sought in the gravitational wave signal from inflation, via the (effective) mass for gravitational waves\:\cite{Cannone:2014uqa}. At late times $z\lesssim$ a few, $H$ is much smaller, and the mass scale of the spatial diff breaking mechanism certain to be higher, in particular if it is related to any standard model particle or astrophysics. Considering the present universe, we can constrain the scales via the resulting mass and sound speed. For non-vanishing graviton mass, the orbits of binary system will decay at a slightly faster rate than predicted by GR, due to the additional energy loss from in the emission of massive gravitational waves. The decay rate difference can be roughly estimated as $\delta\sim\left(\frac{m_g}{\omega}\right)^2,$ where $\omega$ is the frequency of gravitational waves, which is identical to the inverse of orbital period of binary, and $m_g$ is the graviton mass nowadays. Consider the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar, PSR B 1913+16, for which the observed orbital decay attributed to gravitational wave emission agrees with the predictions of GR to $0.3\%$, $\delta<0.3\%$ requires that $m_g<10^{-20}eV\sim 10^{12}H_0$ \cite{Sutton:2001yj}. Non-vanishing graviton mass also changes the propagating speed of gravitational waves, which leads to the upper bound on the graviton mass of $m_g<10^{-23}eV$\cite{Will:2005va}. The detection of gravitational waves in advanced LIGO could then bound the graviton mass potentially all the way down to $m_g<10^{-29}eV$ \cite{Will:2005va}\cite{Will:1997bb}\cite{Berti:2004bd}. See \cite{deRham:2014zqa} for a recent review on the theoretical and experimental aspects of massive gravity. \subsection{Construction of the Action} For a given FRW, the enhanced symmetry reduces the set of allowed operators from those discussed in the previous secion. In addition to preserving the unbroken temporal diffeomorphism invariance, we must preserve homogeneity (translation invariance) and isotropy. Terms like $x^a$ without covariant derivative operators acting on them are not allowed, because they break homogeneity and isotropy. Instead, $x^a$ terms must appear in the action with derivatives, \begin{eqnarray}\label{fidtensor} f_{\mu\nu}\equiv\partial_{\mu}x^a\partial_{\nu}x^b\delta_{ab}, \end{eqnarray} and any pair of $\partial_{\mu}x^a$ should be contracted with internal metric $\delta_{ab}$ to maintain the $SO(3)$ spatial rotation symmetry. Each $\partial_{\mu}x^a\partial_{\nu}x^b\delta_{ab}$ is contracted with the metric $g^{\mu\nu}$ and thus gives rise to terms proportional to the trace of spatial metric $g^{ii}$ and cross terms like $g^{ij}g^{ij}$ in the action. At linear perturbation level, the cross terms decompose into the trace sector, which is a function of $g^{ii}$, plus the traceless sector which only appears at quadratic order in the action for perturbations. As for higher derivative terms, they are ``less relevant" at low energy scale, as we discussed in the section \ref{sec:ugaugeaction}. Thus we only focus on lowest dimensional operators for the time being. The higher order derivative terms will be informatively discussed in section \ref{sechd}. We can now write down our most generic action in the unitary gauge as follows, \begin{eqnarray}\label{gact} S=\int d^4x\sqrt{-g}\left[\frac{1}{2}M_p^2\mathcal{R}+\Lambda+c\sum_ig^{ii}+...\right], \end{eqnarray} where the dots stand for terms which are of at least quadratic order in the fluctuations. The terms $g^{ii}$ is responsible for the ``spatial diffeomorphisms breaking". Notice that the above three terms contain linear perturbations around FRW background. Therefore, the coefficients $\Lambda$ and $c$ will be fixed by requiring that all tadpole terms cancel around the given FRW solution. The differences between models will be encoded into higher order terms. To fix the coefficients $\Lambda$ and $c$ of linear terms, we insert the FRW ansatz for the background space time metric, \begin{eqnarray} ds^2=-dt^2+a^2d\textbf{x}^2. \end{eqnarray} The Einstein equations read \begin{eqnarray} 3M_p^2H^2&=&-3\frac{c}{a^{2}}-\Lambda,\nonumber\\ M_p^2\dot{H}&=&\frac{c}{a^{2}}. \end{eqnarray} Solving these two equations for $c$ and $\Lambda$, we have \begin{eqnarray} \Lambda&=&-3M_p^2\left(H^2+\dot{H}\right),\nonumber\\ c&=&M_p^2a^2\dot{H}. \end{eqnarray} At the first glance, one may worry that temporal diffeomorphism invariance is broken since $c$ and $\Lambda$ are time dependent. However, the time dependence of the coefficients is not sufficient to break temporal diffs. One way to check is to perform a general coordinate transformation $x^{\mu}\to x^{\mu}+\xi^{\mu}$, and then promote all four parameters $\xi^{\mu}$ into fields, $\xi^\mu\to\pi^\mu(x)$. These four $\pi^\mu$ are the would-be Goldstone bosons associated with broken diffeomorphisms. It is easy to check that there is no dynamical Goldstone boson associated with temporal diffeomorphism breaking, or in other words, temporal diffeomorphisms $t\to t+\xi^0$ remain gauge redundant. We turn now to the fluctuation operator. The simplest form of operator that starts linear order in fluctuations is \begin{eqnarray}\label{deltagij} \bar{\delta} g^{ij}\equiv g^{ij}-3\frac{\sum_k g^{ik}g^{kj}}{\sum_k g^{kk}}. \end{eqnarray} To distinguish it from the metric fluctuation $\delta g^{\mu\nu}$, we put a bar over $\delta$. The trace vanishes up to linear order in fluctuations, $\sum_i\bar\delta_1 g^{ii}=0$, where the subscript 1 on $\bar\delta$ denotes linear order in the expansion. The term quadratic in fluctuations can be obtained equivalently as the second order of the operator $\sum_i\bar{\delta}_2 g^{ii}$ or the operator $\sum_{ij}\bar{\delta} g^{ij}\bar{\delta} g^{ij}$. The two differ only by a factor $a$ which can be absorbed by redefinition of the coefficient, and we do not need to write the $\sum_i\bar{\delta}_2 g^{ii}$ term. The construction of the operator \req{deltagij} is not unique. For instance, we can equally write \begin{eqnarray} &&g^{ij}-3\frac{\sum_{k,l} g^{ik}g^{kl}g^{lj}}{\sum_{k,l} g^{kl}g^{kl}}~,~~~g^{ij}-3\frac{\sum_{k,l,m} g^{ik}g^{kl}g^{lm}g^{mj}}{\sum_{k,l,m} g^{kl}g^{lm}g^{mk}}~,\nonumber\\ &&3\sum_{i,j,k}g^{ij}g^{jk}g^{ki}+2\sum_{i,j,k}g^{ii}g^{jk}g^{jk}-\left(\sum_ig^{ii}\right)^3,~~... \end{eqnarray} All of these operators as well as the products among them, give rise to exactly the same quadratic action as $\bar{\delta} g^{ij}\bar{\delta} g^{ij}$, up to a prefactor of scale factor $a$, which can be absorbed into the coefficient. The reason is quite simple. Suppose we have a general operator $T^{ij}$ constructed out of only the spatial metric $g^{ij}$. Expand the spatial metric around the FRW background and then decompose the linear perturbations into trace part and traceless part, \begin{eqnarray}\label{metricdecom} g^{ij}\equiv a^{-2}\delta^{ij}+\frac{1}{3}\delta g^{kk}\delta^{ij}+\bar{\delta}g^{ij}, \end{eqnarray} where $\bar{\delta}g^{ij}$ is traceless. The trace part of the perturbation can be absorbed by redefinition of the scale factor $a$. Therefore, if we demand that the background part of operator $T^{ij}$ vanishes, the trace part of the perturbation must also vanish, and we have $T^{ij}=f(a)\bar{\delta}g^{ij}$ at linear level, where $f(a)$ is a generic function of scale factor $a$. The quadratic order operator can be constructed out of the product of two $T^{ij}$s, i.e. $\bar{\delta} g^{ij}\bar{\delta} g^{ij}$. On the other hand, note that the trace $T\equiv \sum_iT^{ii}$ vanishes at linear perturbation level and at non-linear level $T\sim \bar{\delta}g^{ij}\bar{\delta}g^{ij}$ again. We have thus proven that $\bar{\delta} g^{ij}\bar{\delta} g^{ij}$ is the only quadratic order operator needed. Putting these elements together, we write the action Eq.(\ref{gact}) as \begin{eqnarray}\label{ggact} S=\int d^4x\sqrt{-g}\left[\frac{1}{2}M_p^2\mathcal{R}-3M_p^2\left(H^2+\dot{H}\right)+M_p^2a^2\dot{H}g^{ii}-M_p^2M_2^2\bar{\delta} g^{ij}\bar{\delta} g^{ij}+...\right], \end{eqnarray} where the dots stand for the operators starting from cubic order in fluctuations. For the simplicity of notation, we drop all summation symbols, all repeated indices should be summed up by default. Noted that $M_2^2$ could be a generic functions of $g^{ii}$ and thus time dependent. \subsection{Action for the Goldstone Bosons}\label{Goldstone} To exhibit the three Goldstone bosons that nonlinearly restore general covariance, we can perform a broken spatial diffeomorphism (so called $St\ddot{u}ckelberg$ trick). These three Goldstone bosons are decomposed into 1 scalar mode and 2 vector modes, in addition to the 2 tensor modes in GR. In the unitary gauge, the graviton ``eats'' the three Goldstone bosons and becomes a massive spin-2 particle with 5 polarizations: one helicity-0 mode and two helicity-1 modes in addition to the helicity-2 tensor modes. Under the broken spatial diffeomorphism, $x^i\to\tilde{x}^i=x^i+\xi^i$ and $t\to\tilde{t}=t$, the metric $g^{ij}$ transforms as \begin{eqnarray}\label{gijdiff} g^{ij}(x)\to\tilde{g}^{ij}\left(\tilde{x}(x)\right)=\frac{\partial\tilde{x}^i(x)}{\partial x^{\mu}}\frac{\partial\tilde{x}^j(x)}{\partial x^{\nu}}g^{\mu\nu}(x), \end{eqnarray} and $d^4x\sqrt{-g}$ is invariant under all space time diffeomorphisms. Recalling the construction of the action in the unitary gauge, $\Lambda$ and $c$ in eq. (\ref{gact}) are functions of $g^{ii}$, and their values are fixed by the background Einstein equations to cancel out tadpole terms. This requires that under the broken diffeomorphisms, $\Lambda$ transforms as \begin{eqnarray} \Lambda\to\Lambda+\frac{d\Lambda}{dt}\left(\frac{dg^{ii}}{dt}\right)^{-1}\delta_{\xi}g+\frac{1}{2!}\left(\frac{dg^{jj}}{dt}\right)^{-1}\frac{d}{dt}\left[\frac{d\Lambda}{dt}\left(\frac{dg^{ii}}{dt}\right)^{-1}\right]\delta_{\xi}g\delta_{\xi}g, \end{eqnarray} where $\delta_{\xi}g$ is the variation of $g^{ii}(x)$ under the broken diffeomorphisms, i.e. the trace of eq. (\ref{gijdiff}). Noted we have applied chain rule in the Taylor expansion. The coefficient $c$ transforms in the same way as $\Lambda$. After the spatial diffeomorphism transformation \req{gijdiff}, the action Eq. (\ref{ggact}) reads \begin{eqnarray} S=M_p^2\int d^4x\sqrt{-g}\left[\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{R}-3\left(H^2+\dot{H}\right)+a^2\dot{H}g^{\mu\nu}\frac{\partial\left(x^i+\xi^i\right)}{\partial x^\mu}\frac{\partial\left(x^i+\xi^i\right)}{\partial x^\nu}-\frac{1}{3}\left(2\dot{H}+\frac{\ddot{H}}{H}\right)\left(\partial_i\xi^i\right)^2+...\right].\nonumber\\ \end{eqnarray} Then we promote the nonlinear parameters $\xi^i$ into scalar fields, $\xi^i\to\pi^a\delta_a^i$, and assign to $\pi^a$ the transformation rule \begin{eqnarray}\label{pidif} \pi^a(x)\to\tilde{\pi}^a\left(\tilde{x}(x)\right)=\pi^a(x)-\delta_i^a\xi^i(x). \end{eqnarray} With this definition, the Goldstone scalars non-linearly recover general covariance and describe the fluctuation around the FRW background. The resulting action for the Goldstones is \begin{eqnarray} S=M_p^2\int d^4x\sqrt{-g}&&\left[\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{R}-3\left(H^2+\dot{H}\right)+a^2\dot{H}\left(g^{ii}+2\delta g^{a\mu}\partial_{\mu}\pi^a+g^{\mu\nu}\partial_{\mu}\pi^a\partial_{\nu}\pi^a\right)-\frac{1}{3}\left(2\dot{H}+\frac{\ddot{H}}{H}\right)\left(\partial_a\pi^a\right)^2\right. \nonumber\\ \label{GSaction} &&\left.-2M_2^2\partial_{a}\pi^b\bar{\delta} g^{ab}-\frac{2M_2^2}{a^4}\cdot\left(\partial_i\pi^a\partial_i\pi^a+\frac{1}{3}\left(\partial_a\pi^a\right)^2\right)+...\right], \end{eqnarray} One should keep in mind that the $\pi$s are the physical excitations over the 3 scalar fields' vevs in Eq.\,(\ref{scond}). Note that in the increased symmetry of the de Sitter limit $\dot H\to 0$, the kinetic term $(\dot\pi^a)^2$ vanishes and the expansion breaks down. When the energy scale is much greater than the mass of gauge boson, the mixing between longitudinal and transverse components of the gauge field becomes irrelevant (helicity is approximately conserved). The two sectors decouple and analysis is greatly simplified in the Goldstone language, where there are only interacting scalars. As seen in \req{GSaction}, the leading order mixing is determined by $\dot{H}$ or $M_2^2$ and this simplification is also achieved when the wavelength is small enough. The leading order mixing terms between Goldstone bosons and metric perturbations are \begin{eqnarray} M_p^2\dot{H}\delta g^{aj}\partial_{j}\pi^a~,~~~\text{and}~~~M_p^2M_2^2\partial_{a}\pi^b\bar{\delta} g^{ab}. \end{eqnarray} We canonically normalize the action for Goldstone pions and metric perturbations as $\pi_c^a\sim M_pa\dot{H}^{1/2}\pi^a$ and $\delta g_c^{ij}\sim M_p\delta g^{ij}$, after which the mixing terms read \begin{eqnarray}\label{mixing} \dot{H}^{1/2}\delta g_c^{aj}\partial_j\pi_c^a~,~~~\text{and}~~~a^{-1}M_2^2\dot{H}^{-1/2}\partial_{a}\pi_c^b\bar{\delta} g_c^{ab}. \end{eqnarray} Note that it is appropriate to compare 3-momentum scales here due to violation of Lorentz invariance. We can see that mixing can be neglected for energies above both of $\dot{H}^{1/2}$ and $M_2^2\dot{H}^{-1/2}$. As expected, the mixing scale is essentially the mass of dynamical modes on the metric perturbations derived below, as the co-factor $\epsilon^{1/2}$ is absorbed in canonical normalization. After neglecting the mixing, the action of Goldstone Bosons dramatically simplifies to \begin{eqnarray}\label{decoupling} S=M_p^2\int d^4x\sqrt{-g}\left[a^2\dot{H}g^{\mu\nu}\partial_{\mu}\pi^a\partial_{\nu}\pi^a-\frac{1}{3}\left(2\dot{H}+\frac{\ddot{H}}{H}\right)\left(\partial_a\pi^a\right)^2-\frac{2M_2^2}{a^4}\cdot\left(\partial_i\pi^a\partial_i\pi^a+\frac{1}{3}\left(\partial_a\pi^a\right)^2\right)+...\right].\nonumber\\ \end{eqnarray} Away from the short wavelength approximation, for $\dot{H}/H^2\sim \mathcal{O}(1)$ (also far away from de Sitter), the first coupling term in Eq.\,(\ref{mixing}) is important, and to understand dynamics of modes at the momentum scale of interest $k^2\sim a^2\dot{H}$, a full perturbations analysis is necessary, which will be presented in the next subsection. In the de Sitter limit $\dot{H}\to0$, the second mixing term diverges, another manifestation of the strong-coupling problem. We shall see below in Sec.\ref{sec:dSMink} that strong-coupling is avoided with the inclusion of higher derivative terms. If the coefficient $M_2$ is independent of or only weakly dependent on the scale factor, the mixing can become negligible at late time. Before moving to the perturbations analysis, we take advantage of the ease with which the breakdown scale can be estimated in the Goldstone language. Since Lorentz invariance is broken, $\Lambda$ can be written as a cutoff in 3-momentum or in energy, which are related approximately by a factor of the sound speed at large $k$. Reading from \req{GSaction}, the interaction terms should be subdominant compared to the kinetic energy for the theory to be perturbative. The most stringent constraint on the breakdown scale comes from looking at the 3-$\pi$ coupling inside the $M_2^2\bar\delta g^{ij}\bar\delta g^{ij}$ term. The $1\to 2$ amplitude becomes of order 1 at the 3-momentum scale \begin{equation}\label{breakdown} \Lambda \sim a^{7/2}\dot H^{3/4}\frac{M_p^{1/2}}{M_2}=a^{7/2}\epsilon^{3/4}H\frac{(HM_p)^{1/2}}{M_2}. \end{equation} where $\epsilon=-\dot H/H^2$ is the usual slow roll parameter. Provided $M_2$ is not too close to $M_{\mathrm{pl}}$, this is parametrically higher than the mixing scales given in \req{mixing}. On the other hand, for the effective theory to be useful in the cosmological context, the breakdown scale should be (much) larger than $H$ so that it effectively describes long wavelength near-horizon dynamics. The requirement $\Lambda\gg H$ is equivalent to \begin{equation}\label{Mconstraint} M_2\ll a^{7/2}\epsilon^{3/4}(HM_p)^{1/2}. \end{equation} Note that other operators, for example $\bar\delta g^{ij}\bar\delta g^{jk}\bar\delta g^{ki}$ at third order, also contribute to the 3-$\pi$ coupling. A priori, the corresponding coefficient $M_3^2$ (in obvious notation) is the same order of magnitude as $M_2^2$. However, when expanding the operator to obtain the $n$-$\pi$ interaction terms, each power of $\bar\delta g$ brings with it a factor $a^{-2}$. Consequently, the effect of operators that appear at higher order in unitary gauge is typically diluted faster in the expansion of the universe. Only if the associated coefficients scale with a compensating power of $a$ can these higher orders be relevant or worse lead to strong coupling at late time. As we do not observe a phase transition in the gravitational dynamics (except possibly the end of inflation), we may exclude this possibility and consider that terms higher than the $M_2^2$ term are suppressed. \subsection{Full Perturbations Analysis} We have learned that away from short wave length limit, generally the coupling between Goldstone bosons and gravity cannot be omitted. To perform the full perturbations analysis, we first decompose the modes according to helicity and then identify and integrate out non-dynamical metric degrees of freedom. This procedure results in the effective actions for the 5 dynamical modes, though the calculations are somewhat tedious. Due to the $SO(3)$ rotational symmetry of our background space time, we can decompose the metric perturbations into scalar modes, vector modes, and tensor modes. The helicities completely decouple at linear perturbation level. We define the metric perturbations as follows, \begin{eqnarray} g_{00}&=&-\left(1+2\phi\right)~,\nonumber\\ g_{0i}&=&a(t)\left(S_i+\partial_i\beta\right)~,\nonumber\\ g_{ij}&=&a^2(t)\left[\delta_{ij}+2\psi\delta_{ij}+(\partial_i\partial_j-\frac{1}{3}\partial^2)E+\frac{1}{2}(\partial_iF_j+\partial_jF_i)+\gamma_{ij}\right]~, \end{eqnarray} where $\phi,~\beta,~\psi,~E$ are scalar perturbations, $S_i,~F_i$ are vector perturbations and $\gamma_{ij}$ is the tensor perturbations. Vector modes satisfy the transverse condition, \begin{eqnarray} \partial_iS^i=\partial_iF^i=0~. \end{eqnarray} Tensor modes satisfy transverse and traceless condition, \begin{eqnarray} \gamma^i_i=\partial_i\gamma^{ij}=0~. \end{eqnarray} Under spatial diffeomorphisms, the vector field defined by \cite{Gumrukcuoglu:2011zh} \begin{eqnarray} Z^i\equiv\frac{1}{2}\delta^{ij}(\partial_j E+F_j) \end{eqnarray} transforms as \begin{eqnarray} Z^i\to Z^i+\xi^i~. \end{eqnarray} Comparing to Eq. (\ref{pidif}), we see that the combination $(Z^i+\pi^i)$ is a gauge invariant quantity. In the unitary gauge, $Z^i$ eats $\pi^i$, and survives in the linear perturbation theory. This is in contrast to general relativity, where both of $E$ and $F_i$ are non-dynamical and can be integrated out. In this section, we analyse the metric perturbations in unitary gauge, in which we fix $\pi^i=0$. \subsubsection{Scalar Modes} In the scalar sector, $\phi$, $\beta$ and $\psi$ are non-dynamical. After integrating them out, we obtain the quadratic action for scalar modes, \begin{eqnarray} S_{s}^{(2)}=M_p^2\int dtd^3k\:\left(\mathcal{K}_s\dot{E}^2-\Omega_sE^2\right)~, \end{eqnarray} where \begin{eqnarray}\label{scalardis} \mathcal{K}_s&=&\frac{-k^4a^5\dot{H}}{4\left(k^2-3a^2\dot{H}\right)},\nonumber\\ \Omega_s&=&\frac{a^3 k^4 \left[k^4 \ddot{H}-H \dot{H} \left(36 a^4 \dot{H}^2-21 a^2 k^2 \dot{H}+k^4\right)\right]}{12 H \left(k^2-3 a^2 \dot{H}\right)^2}+\frac{2k^4M_2^2}{3a}. \end{eqnarray} The scalar mode is ghost free, as long as $\dot{H}$ is negative. On the other hand, the kinetic term vanishes in the limit $\dot{H}\to0$, which implies the strong coupling in this background, as found in the previous subsection. The scalar action is canonically normalized by defining the field as \begin{eqnarray} \mathcal{E}\equiv \left(\frac{-M_p^2k^4a^2\dot{H}}{2k^2-6a^2\dot{H}}\right)^{1/2}E, \end{eqnarray} with the result that \begin{eqnarray} S_{s}^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2}\int dtd^3ka^3\left(\dot{\mathcal{E}}^2-\omega_s^2\mathcal{E}^2\right), \end{eqnarray} where \begin{eqnarray}\label{sdis} \omega_s^2=&&\frac{8M_2^2}{a^4}+\frac{8 k^2M_2^2}{3 a^6 H^2 \epsilon }+\frac{36 a^4 H^6 \epsilon ^3}{\left(k^2+3 a^2 H^2 \epsilon \right)^2}+\frac{3 a^2 H^4 k^2 \epsilon \left(\eta ^2+\eta -\eta s+2 \epsilon ^2-(\eta -22) \epsilon -2\right)}{2 \left(k^2+3 a^2 H^2 \epsilon \right)^2}\nonumber\\ &&-\frac{H^2 k^4 \left(\eta ^2+2 \eta (s+5)-(6 \eta +56) \epsilon +16\right)}{4 \left(k^2+3 a^2 H^2 \epsilon \right)^2}+\frac{k^6 (1 +2 \epsilon -\eta)}{3 a^2 \left(k^2+3 a^2 H^2 \epsilon \right)^2}~, \end{eqnarray} The ``slow roll" parameters used here are defined by \begin{eqnarray} \epsilon\equiv-\frac{\dot{H}}{H^2},~~~~~~ \eta\equiv\frac{\dot{\epsilon}}{H\epsilon},~~~~~~ s\equiv\frac{\dot{\eta}}{H\eta}. \end{eqnarray} In the IR regime $k^2\ll a^2H^2\epsilon$, the dispersion relation of scalar modes can be perturbatively expanded with respect to $k$, revealing a relativistic dispersion relation \begin{eqnarray} \omega_s^2\simeq \frac{c_s^2k^2}{a^2}+m_s^2, \end{eqnarray} where \begin{eqnarray}\label{IRscalar} c_s^2&\equiv&1+\frac{\epsilon}{3}-\frac{\eta}{6}-\frac{2-\eta^2-\eta+\eta s}{6\epsilon}+\frac{8M_2^2}{3a^4H^2\epsilon},\nonumber\\ m_s^2&\equiv&4 H^2 \epsilon+\frac{8 M_2^2}{a^4}~. \end{eqnarray} though the speed of sound at momenta $k>m_s$ differs from the speed of light. The mass and sound speed receive both model independent and model dependent contributions. In general $M_2^2$ is a function of $g^{ii}$ and thus scale factor and time dependent. If $M_2^2\propto a^4$, the mass of scalar mode will approach to a constant value at late times. At short distance, $k^2\gg a^2H^2$, the dispersion relation simplifies to \begin{eqnarray}\label{scaldispersionhik} \omega_s^2\simeq\frac{k^2}{a^2}\cdot \left(\frac{8 M_2^2}{3 a^4 H^2 \epsilon }+\frac{ 1+2 \epsilon-\eta}{3 }\right)+\frac{8 M_2^2}{a^4}-\frac{1}{4} H^2 \left[\eta ^2+2 \eta (s+5)+16 \epsilon ^2-2 (7 \eta +24) \epsilon +16\right]. \end{eqnarray} At short wavelength, the leading order of mass term in the dispersion relation can also be neglected. After doing so, this result agrees with the one calculated in the Goldstone gauge, i.e. eq. (\ref{decoupling}) under the helicity decomposition $\pi^i=\partial^i\varphi+A^i$ where $\varphi$ is the scalar mode considered just now in the unitary gauge. \subsubsection{Vector Modes} In the vector sector, $S_i$ is non-dynamical. After integrating it out, the effective action for the vector degrees of freedom reads \begin{eqnarray} S_v^{(2)}=M_p^2\int \mathcal{K}_v\dot{F}_i\dot{F}^i-\Omega_vF_iF^i, \end{eqnarray} where \begin{eqnarray}\label{vectordis} \mathcal{K}_v&=&\frac{-k^2 a^5 \dot{H}}{4 \left(k^2-4 a^2\dot{H}\right)},\nonumber\\ \Omega_v&=&-\frac{1}{4}k^2a^3\dot{H}+\frac{M_2^2k^2}{2a}. \end{eqnarray} Similar to the scalar modes, the vector modes are free from ghost instability when $\dot{H}<0$. We define the canonical field variable, \begin{eqnarray} \mathcal{F}_i\equiv \left(\frac{-M_p^2k^2a^2\dot{H}}{2k^2-8a^2\dot{H}}\right)^{1/2}F_i~. \end{eqnarray} and the canonically normalized action is \begin{eqnarray} S_v^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2}\int dtd^3ka^3\left(\dot{\mathcal{F}}_i\dot{\mathcal{F}}^i-\omega_v^2\mathcal{F}_i\mathcal{F}^i\right) \end{eqnarray} where \begin{eqnarray} \omega_v^2=&&\frac{8 M_2^2}{a^4}+\frac{2 k^2 M_2^2}{a^6 H^2 \epsilon }+\frac{64 a^4 H^6 \epsilon ^3}{ \left(4 a^2 H^2 \epsilon +k^2\right)^2}+\frac{2 a^2 H^4 k^2 \epsilon \left(\eta ^2+\eta -\eta s+2 \epsilon ^2-(\eta -24) \epsilon -2\right)}{\left(4 a^2 H^2 \epsilon +k^2\right)^2}\nonumber\\ &&-\frac{H^2 k^4 \left(\eta ^2+2 \eta (s+5)+8 \epsilon ^2-2 (5 \eta +36) \epsilon +16\right)}{4\left(4 a^2 H^2 \epsilon +k^2\right)^2}+\frac{k^6}{a^2 \left(4 a^2 H^2 \epsilon +k^2\right)^2}~. \end{eqnarray} In the IR regime $k^2\ll a^2H^2\epsilon$, the dispersion relation of vector modes is also approximated by the relativistic form \begin{eqnarray} \omega_v^2\simeq \frac{c_v^2k^2}{a^2}+m_v^2, \end{eqnarray} where \begin{eqnarray}\label{IRvector} c_v^2&\equiv&1+\frac{\epsilon}{4}-\frac{\eta}{8}-\frac{2-\eta-\eta^2+\eta s}{8\epsilon}+\frac{2M_2^2}{a^4H^2\epsilon},\nonumber\\ m_v^2&\equiv&\frac{8 M_2^2}{a^4}+4 H^2 \epsilon. \end{eqnarray} Comparing to Eq. (\ref{IRscalar}), we see that in the IR limit, the mass of vector modes is the same as that of scalar modes. At short distance $k^2\gg a^2H^2$, the dispersion relation of vector modes is simplified as \begin{eqnarray}\label{vecdispersionhik} \omega_v\simeq \frac{k^2}{a^2} \left(1+\frac{2 M_2^2}{a^4 H^2 \epsilon }\right)+\frac{8 M_2^2}{a^4}-\frac{1}{4} H^2 \left[\eta ^2+2 \eta (s+5)+8 \epsilon ^2-10 (\eta +4) \epsilon +16\right]. \end{eqnarray} Note that sound speeds of scalar modes and vector modes are not independent. In the short distance $k^2\gg a^2H^2$, they are related by $c_v^2\simeq \frac{3}{4}\left(1+c_s^2\right)$, under the approximation that all slow roll parameters are much smaller than unity, and in this limit agrees with the result of \cite{Endlich:2012pz}. This is due to the uniqueness of the quadratic operator $\bar{\delta} g^{ij}\bar{\delta} g^{ij}$ at linear perturbation level. \subsubsection{Tensor Modes} The quadratic action for tensor modes reads \begin{eqnarray}\label{tensor} S_T^{(2)}=\frac{M_p^2}{8}\int a^3\left[\dot{\gamma}_{ij}\dot{\gamma}^{ij}-\left(\frac{k^2}{a^2}+\frac{8M_2^2}{a^4}+4H^2\epsilon\right)\gamma_{ij}\gamma^{ij}\right]. \end{eqnarray} The tensor modes also become massive, with the same mass as the scalar and vector modes in the IR regime. In the observational aspect, the non-vanishing mass gap leads to a sharp peak on the stochastic gravitational waves spectrum. The position and height of the peak carry information on the present value of the mass term, as well as the duration of the inflationary stage \cite{Gumrukcuoglu:2012wt}. \subsection{Higher Order Derivatives}\label{sechd} In this subsection, we expand up to second order derivatives. In general, we may expect higher-derivative operators to arise at least after calculating loop corrections to the action~\cite{deRham:2013qqa}. To this order, a (over)complete set of operators is \begin{eqnarray}\label{hdterms} &&A_1\cdot\mathcal{R},~~~ A_2\cdot\mathcal{R}^{ii},~~~ A_3\cdot\mathcal{R}^{ijij},~~~ A_4\cdot\nabla^{\mu}\nabla^{\nu}x^a\nabla_{\mu}\nabla_{\nu}x^b\delta_{ab}, ~~~ A_5\cdot\square x^a\square x^b\delta_{ab},~~~ A_6\cdot\nabla^{\mu}A_7\nabla_{\mu}A_8, \nonumber\\ && A_9f_{\mu\nu}\nabla^\mu A_{10}\nabla^\nu A_{11},~~~ A_{10}\cdot\nabla^{\mu}\nabla^{\nu}x^a\nabla^{\rho}\nabla^{\sigma}x^b\delta_{ab}\cdot f_{\mu\nu}f_{\rho\sigma},~~~ A_{11}\cdot\nabla^{\mu}\nabla^{\nu}x^a\nabla^{\rho}\nabla^{\sigma}x^b\delta_{ab}\cdot f_{\mu\rho}f_{\nu\sigma}, \nonumber\\ &&A_{12}f_{\mu\nu}(\nabla^{\mu}f_{\rho\sigma})(\nabla^\nu x^a)\nabla^\rho\nabla^\sigma x^b\delta_{ab},~~~ A_{13}(\nabla^{\mu}f_{\rho\sigma})(\nabla^\rho f_{\mu\nu})(\nabla^\nu x^a)(\nabla^\sigma x^b)\delta_{ab}, ~~~\partial_{\mu}\bar{\delta}g^{ij}\partial^{\mu}\bar{\delta}g^{ij}, \end{eqnarray} where $A_n$s are generic functions of $g^{\mu\nu}$ and $f_{\mu\nu}\equiv\partial_{\mu}x^a\partial_{\nu}x^b\delta_{ab}$. Compared to first order derivative terms, these terms are suppressed by the UV scale $\Lambda^{-2}$ and thus less relevant at low energy. By means of the following metric field redefinition, a generalised conformal transformation, \begin{eqnarray} g_{\mu\nu}\to\left(1+B\right)g_{\mu\nu}\equiv \tilde g_{\mu\nu}, \end{eqnarray} a theory with second order derivatives is mapped to a theory with first order derivative terms plus third and higher derivatives \begin{eqnarray} \int d^4x\sqrt{-g}\left[\frac{1}{2}M_p^2\mathcal{R}+F\left(g^{\mu\nu},f_{\mu\nu}\right)+G\left(\nabla^{\mu}\nabla^{\nu}x^a,...\right)\right]\to \int d^4x\sqrt{-\tilde g}\left[\frac{1}{2}M_p^2\mathcal{R}+\tilde F\left(\tilde g^{\mu\nu},f_{\mu\nu}\right)+\mathcal{O}(\nabla^3x)\right]\nonumber\\ \end{eqnarray} where $B$ and $G$ are the functions of higher order derivative terms and \begin{eqnarray} B=A\left(g^{\mu\nu},f_{\mu\nu}\right)\cdot G, \end{eqnarray} where $A\left(g^{\mu\nu},f_{\mu\nu}\right)$ is a function of $g^{\mu\nu}~\text{and}~f_{\mu\nu}$, and its form is decided by the parameters in $F\left(g^{\mu\nu},f_{\mu\nu}\right)$. This field redefinition works equally well if the next leading derivative terms are third-order, with the resulting theory containing only first-order derivatives and fourth- and higher-order derivatives. The procedure could be repeated to remove derivatives up to a desired finite order: Starting at $n\geq 2$, $n$-order derivative operators can be removed in favor of $n+1$-order derivative and higher terms. As an example, consider an action with two second-derivative terms, \begin{eqnarray} \int\sqrt{-g}\left[\frac{1}{2}M_p^2\mathcal{R}+M_p^2m^2\left(c_0+c_1f+c_2f^2+c_3f^3\right)+M_pm\left(\nabla^{\mu}\nabla^{\nu}x^a\nabla_{\mu}\nabla_{\nu}x^b\delta_{ab}-\square x^a\square x^b\delta_{ab}\right)\right]\nonumber\\ \end{eqnarray} where $f\equiv g^{\mu\nu}f_{\mu\nu}$. It is equivalent to \begin{eqnarray} \int\sqrt{-\tilde{g}}\left[\frac{1}{2}M_p^2\tilde{\mathcal{R}}+M_p^2m^2\left(c_0+c_1\tilde{f}+c_2\tilde{f}^2+c_3\tilde{f}^3\right)\right] \end{eqnarray} with \begin{eqnarray}\label{gtilde} \tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}\equiv \left[1+ \frac{\left(\nabla^{\mu}\nabla^{\nu}x^a\nabla_{\mu}\nabla_{\nu}x^b\delta_{ab}-\square x^a\square x^b\delta_{ab}\right)}{M_pm\left(2c_0+c_1f-c_3f^3\right)}\right]g_{\mu\nu}. \end{eqnarray} We have used the approximation \begin{eqnarray} \sqrt{-g}\left[1+ \frac{\left(\nabla^{\mu}\nabla^{\nu}x^a\nabla_{\mu}\nabla_{\nu}x^b\delta_{ab}-\square x^a\square x^b\delta_{ab}\right)}{M_pm\left(2c_0+c_1f-c_3f^3\right)}\right]\mathcal{R}\simeq \sqrt{-g}\mathcal{R}, \end{eqnarray} because terms like $\square x^a\square x^b\delta_{ab}\cdot\mathcal{R}$ are third order derivative terms, so that they are additionally suppressed and we can neglect these terms when truncating at the second order derivatives. The effective action for Goldstone bosons is derived from eq. (\ref{ggact}) with $H^2$, $\dot{H}$ and $g^{ij}$ replaced by the ones induced by Eq. (\ref{gtilde}), and then performing the spatial diffeomorphism transformation shown in Sec.\,\ref{Goldstone}. Notably this field redefinition implies that the sound speeds of the scalar and vector modes (at $k^2\gg a^2H^2$, Eqs.\,\eqref{scaldispersionhik} and \eqref{vecdispersionhik} respectively) are modified only by small corrections to the cosmological parameters $H,\epsilon,\eta,s$ due to the change in metric. Since the expressions Eqs.\,\eqref{scaldispersionhik} and \eqref{vecdispersionhik} remain valid, the high energy relation \begin{equation} c_v^2\simeq \frac{3}{4}\left(1+c_s^2\right) \end{equation} is preserved even in the presence of second-order derivative terms. Repeating the metric redefinition procedure to remove derivatives terms of any finite order, we find that the relation is a robust prediction of the effective theory, valid as long as the underlying derivative expansion is valid. \subsection{de Sitter and Minkowski limits}\label{sec:dSMink} The higher derivative terms become important in the de Sitter $\dot{H}\to0$ and Minkowskian $\dot{H}=H^2\to 0$ limit. In the limit, the kinetic term from the lowest dimensional operators vanishes, and kinetic terms arising from higher derivative operators become leading order. This eliminates the strong coupling problem in the de Sitter and Minkowski limits. For instance, with higher order derivative term $\partial_{\mu}\bar{\delta}g^{ij}\partial^{\mu}\bar{\delta}g^{ij}$ taken into account, in Minkowskian limit $\dot{H}=H^2\to0$, we have \begin{eqnarray} S&=&\int d^4x\sqrt{-g}\left[-M_p^2M_2^2\bar{\delta}g^{ij}\bar{\delta}g^{ij}-d_2 M_pM_2\partial_{\mu}\bar{\delta}g^{ij}\partial^{\mu}\bar{\delta}g^{ij}+...\right]\nonumber\\ &=&\int d^4x\sqrt{-g}\left[2d_2 M_pM_2\left(\partial_i\dot{\pi}^j\partial_i\dot{\pi}^j+\frac{1}{3}\left(\partial_i\dot{\pi}^i\right)^2-\partial^2\pi^i\partial^2\pi^i-\frac{1}{3}\partial_i\partial_j\pi^j\partial_i\partial_k\pi^k\right)\right. \nonumber\\ \label{GSactionHD} &&\hspace{60mm}\left.-2M_p^2M_2^2\cdot\left(\partial_i\pi^a\partial_i\pi^a+\frac{1}{3}\left(\partial_a\pi^a\right)^2\right)+...\right], \end{eqnarray} where $\partial^2\equiv \partial_i\partial_j\delta_{ij}$. $d_2$ is an $\mathcal{O}(1)$ positive constant since a priori higher derivative terms may be similar in size to the leading term and suppressed primarily by the additional powers of $k^2/\Lambda^2$. The Goldstone action shows clearly how the goldstones obtain non-vanishing kinetic terms directly related to the higher derivative terms. After canonical normalization, we see that instead of strong coupling, the corresponding scalar and vector modes become massive in the Minkowskian space-time, with masses $m^2\sim d_2M_pM_2$. For the tensor modes, the situation is different: the quadratic term $M_2^2\bar{\delta}g^{ij}\bar{\delta}g^{ij}$ still provides a nonvanishing mass, as seen in the $H\to 0$ limit of Eq.\,\eqref{tensor}. The higher derivative terms only make a correction to the mass. For instance, if we include the higher order term $\partial_{\mu}\bar{\delta}g^{ij}\partial^{\mu}\bar{\delta}g^{ij}$ in the Minkowskian space-time limit, the tensor action is \begin{eqnarray} S&\supset&\frac{M_p^2}{8}\int\left(1+\frac{8d_2M_2}{M_p}\right)\left(\dot{\gamma}_{ij}\dot{\gamma}^{ij}-k^2\gamma_{ij}\gamma^{ij}\right)-8M_2^2\gamma_{ij}\gamma^{ij}, \end{eqnarray} Canonically normalizing $\gamma^{ij}$, the graviton mass is \begin{eqnarray} m_T^2\simeq 8M_2^2(1-\frac{8d_2M_2}{M_p}). \end{eqnarray} Consequently, the vector and scalar modes have masses $m_v,m_s\sim\sqrt{M_p/M_2}\cdot m_T$. Considering horizon-scale perturbations $k\sim H$, these modes are relatively heavy and could be integrated out, having $\sim1/M_p^2$ impact on tensor-mode observables. On the other hand, we would like to informatively mention that the sound speed of tensor mode will also be modified, with more of higher derivative terms in eq. (\ref{hdterms}) included. In this case, the sound speed of tensor mode deviates from unity by a factor of $M_2/M_p$. \\ \\ To conclude, in this section we have investigated perturbations on the FRW background. We first derived the Goldstone action up to quadratic order, which clearly isolated the strong coupling problem as well as a possible resolution by the inclusion of higher derivative terms. Seeing that mixing with the metric can not in general be neglected, we then performed a full perturbation analysis in the unitary gauge. This analysis exhibited a well-behaved massive spin two particle, with 5 polarizations: one scalar mode, two vector modes, and two tensor modes. All helicity modes are massive, and the masses shown to be identical in the low momentum regime. The dispersion relations of these 5 modes are fully characterized by the parameter set $\{H, \epsilon, \eta, s, M_2^2\}$. \section{Several Examples} \subsection{The Minimal Model and Next-to-minimal Model}\label{Eg:mini} The simplest example is obtained by setting $M_2^2=0$ in the general action Eq. (\ref{ggact}), and only keeping the first three terms. In the $\phi^a$ language, this theory corresponds to Einstein gravity and three canonical massless scalar fields with space like VEV \req{scond} \cite{Lin:2013sja}, \begin{eqnarray}\label{minimal} S=M_p^2\int d^4 x \sqrt{-g}\left(\frac{\mathcal{R}}{2}-\frac{1}{2}m^2g^{\mu\nu}\partial_{\mu}\phi^a\partial_{\nu}\phi^b\delta_{ab}-\Lambda\right), \end{eqnarray} where $\Lambda$ is the bare cosmological constant. The energy density of the spatial condensate scales as $\rho\propto a^{-2}$ and its equation of state equals to $-1/3$. In the linear perturbation theory, after canonical normalization, scalar, vector, and tensor polarizations of graviton have the same dispersion relations \begin{eqnarray}\label{sdisp} \omega_s^2=\omega_v^2=\omega_t^2= \frac{k^2}{a^2}+\frac{2m^2}{a^2}~, \end{eqnarray} with the same non-vanishing mass. These dispersion relations are identical due to the $SO(3)$ internal symmetry of the scalar fields, which has been imposed to ensure the rotational symmetry of the vev configuration. For the same reason, the scalars can be re-decomposed into 3 polarizations: two transverse modes and one longitudinal mode, \begin{eqnarray} \pi^a=\delta^{a i}\left(\partial_{i}\varphi+A_{i}\right), \end{eqnarray} where $\partial_iA^i=0$. Due to the $SO(3)$ symmetry, we could rotate longitudinal mode a bit ``into" transverse modes, and on the other hand transverse modes are rotated a bit ``into" longitudinal mode, and leave the action invariant. In the unitary gauge, these transverse and longitudinal modes are eaten by graviton, It implies the masses of scalar modes and vector modes of graviton should be the same. To see how the effective theory operator $\bar\delta g^{ij}\bar\delta g^{ij}$ in \req{GSaction} is related to a specific model, we consider as an example a general polynomial of the tensor defined in Eq. (\ref{fidtensor}), i.e. $f_{\mu\nu}\equiv\partial_{\mu}x^a\partial_{\nu}x^b\delta_{ab}, ~f\equiv g^{\mu\nu}f_{\mu\nu}$. For instance, starting from the theory truncated at cubic order, \begin{eqnarray} S=M_p^2\int d^4x \sqrt{-g}\left[\frac{\mathcal{R}}{2}-m^2\left(c_0+c_1f+c_2f^2+d_2f^{\mu}_{~\nu}f^{\nu}_{\mu~}+c_3f^3+d_3f^{\mu}_{~\rho}f^{\rho}_{~\sigma}f^{\sigma}_{~\mu}+g_3f\cdot f^{\mu}_{~\nu}f^{\nu}_{\mu~}\right)\right], \end{eqnarray} where $c_0$ is the bare cosmological constant. In this case, the coefficient $M_2^2$ equals to \begin{eqnarray} M_2^2=m^2\left(d_2+\frac{3 d_3 }{a^2}+\frac{3 g_3 }{a^2}\right). \end{eqnarray} The dispersion relations of the 5 polarizations of graviton can then be read from Eq. (\ref{scalardis})(\ref{IRscalar}), Eq. (\ref{vectordis})(\ref{IRvector}) and Eq. (\ref{tensor}) directly. Generally, given a Lagrangian with the function of $-\int\sqrt{-g}F\left(g^{\mu\nu},f_{\mu\nu}\right)$, we can calculate $M_2^2$ in this way: we first Taylor expand the Lagrangian around background, \begin{eqnarray} F\left(g^{\mu\nu},f_{\mu\nu}\right)=F_0+\frac{\delta F}{\delta g^{\mu\nu}}\delta g^{\mu\nu} +\frac{1}{2!} \frac{\delta^2F}{\delta g^{\mu\nu}\delta g^{\rho\sigma}}\delta g^{\mu\nu}\delta g^{\rho\sigma}+.... \end{eqnarray} Then note that at linear perturbation level, $\bar{\delta}g^{ij}$ equals the trace-less part of metric fluctuation $\delta g^{ij}$. Finally, we decompose the metric fluctuation into trace part and trace-less part, $\delta g^{ij}=\bar{\delta}g^{ij}+\frac{1}{3}\delta g^{kk}\delta^{ij}$. $M_2^2$ is identified as the coefficient in front of the sum of the trace-less terms (see the appendix \ref{app:M2} for more details). \subsection{Generalization to Spatially Non-flat Universe} Up to now, we have analysed the gravity theory with broken spatial diffeomorphisms in a flat FRW universe. It is straightforward to generalize it to a non-flat FRW universe. In this case, the internal metric of scalar fields configuration is replaced by one which is compatible with the metric on the non-flat spatial slice. For a spatially non-flat FRW universe, the space time metric can be written as \begin{eqnarray} ds^2=-dt^2+a(t)^2\Omega_{ij}dx^idx^j, \end{eqnarray} where $\Omega_{ij}dx^idx^j$ is the metric on a 3-sphere \begin{eqnarray} \Omega_{ij}\equiv \delta_{ij}+\frac{K\delta_{il}\delta_{jm}x^lx^m}{1-K\delta_{lm}x^lx^m}, \end{eqnarray} where $K=1$ for a closed universe and $K=-1$ for an open universe. In the unitary gauge, the tensor $f_{\mu\nu}$ takes the form which compatible with 3-sphere metric, \begin{eqnarray} f_{\mu\nu}\equiv \partial_{\mu}\phi^a\partial_{\nu}\phi^bG_{ab}(\phi^a)=(0,\Omega_{ij}). \end{eqnarray} A possible vacuum configuration for scalar fields is \begin{eqnarray} \phi^a=x^a,~~~~~~~G_{ab}(\phi)=\delta_{ab}+\frac{K\delta_{ac}\delta_{bd}\phi^c\phi^d}{1-K\delta_{cd}\phi^c\phi^d}. \end{eqnarray} It is easy to check that the above vacuum configuration are indeed on shell and satisfy the equations of motion, \begin{eqnarray} g^{\mu\nu}\nabla_{\mu}\nabla_{\nu}\phi^a+g^{\mu\nu}\partial_{\mu}\phi^b\partial_{\nu}\phi^c\Gamma^a_{bc}=0, \end{eqnarray} where $\Gamma^a_{bc}$ is the affine connection which derived from the inner metric $G_{ab}(\phi)$. The generalization of our effective field theory approach to a spatially non-flat universe is quite straight forward. Including spatial curvature, the effective action can be written as \begin{eqnarray} S=M_p^2\int d^4x\sqrt{-g}\left[\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{R}-3\left(H^2+\dot{H}\right)+\left(a^2\dot{H}-K\right)\Omega_{ij}g^{ij}-M_2^2\bar{\delta} g^{ij}\bar{\delta} g^{ij}+...\right], \end{eqnarray} where the quadratic order operator is defined by \begin{eqnarray} \bar{\delta} g^{ij}\equiv g^{ik}\Omega_{kj}-3\frac{g^{ik}g^{lm}\Omega_{kl}\Omega_{mj}}{g^{ij}\Omega_{ij}}. \end{eqnarray} Non-zero spatial curvature is sufficient to ensure the kinetic term is non-degenerate. This suggests that another way to cure the strong coupling problem of massive gravity in Minkowski space is to perturb in the direction of non-vanishing spatial curvature. \subsection{A Self-accelerating Universe} When we apply our massive gravity theory to cosmology, one of most interesting questions is whether or not a graviton mass term can accelerate the cosmic expansion. A similar question was studied in Ref. \cite{Endlich:2012pz}, in which they proposed an inflationary model ``solid inflation'', with de Sitter-like expansion driven by the vacuum energy of the ``solid", that is the spatial condensate vacuum configuration \req{scond}. In this section, we provide another way to realize a de Sitter phase. We work on the static chart of the de Sitter phase, where the metric takes the form \begin{eqnarray}\label{staticm} ds^2=-(1-H^2r^2)dt^2+\frac{1}{1-H^2r^2}dr^2+r^2d\theta^2+r^2\sin\theta^2d\phi^2~, \end{eqnarray} and $H$ is the Hubble constant of de-sitter space-time. The Einstein tensor reads, \begin{eqnarray}\label{staticET} G^{\mu}_{\nu}=-3H^2\delta^{\mu}_{\nu}~. \end{eqnarray} In terms of spherical coordinate, the 3 scalars can be written as \begin{eqnarray}\label{qsc} \phi^a=x^a~,~~~~x^a=r(\sin \theta \cos \phi ,\sin \theta \sin \phi ,\cos \theta )~, \end{eqnarray} and the tensor \begin{eqnarray} f_{\mu\nu}\equiv\partial_{\mu}\phi^a\partial_{\nu}\phi^b\delta_{ab}=(0,1,r^2,r^2\sin\theta^2)~. \end{eqnarray} Normally, such a field configuration is not compatible with the space time metric Eq. (\ref{staticm}), since the scalars do not satisfy their equation of motion. For instance, if we consider a canonical Lagrangian, \begin{eqnarray} M_p^2\int d^4x\sqrt{-g}\left\{\frac{\mathcal{R}}{2}-\frac{1}{2}m^2g^{\mu\nu}\partial_{\mu}\phi^a\partial_{\nu}\phi^b\delta_{ab}\right\}~, \end{eqnarray} the energy momentum tensor reads, \begin{eqnarray} T^{0}_{~0}&=&\frac{1}{2} H^2 r^2-\frac{3}{2},\nonumber\\ T^{1}_{~1}&=&-\frac{1}{2} H^2 r^2-\frac{1}{2},\nonumber\\ T^{2}_{~2}&=&\frac{1}{2}H^2 r^2-\frac{1}{2},\nonumber\\ T^{3}_{~3}&=&T^{2}_{~2}. \end{eqnarray} Comparing to Eq.(\ref{staticET}), we can see Einstein equations are not satisfied. On the other hand, the vacuum configuration does not satisfy the equations of motion for scalar fields $\phi^a$ either, \begin{eqnarray} g^{\mu\nu}\nabla_{\mu}\nabla{_\nu}\phi^a\propto H^2r \neq 0. \end{eqnarray} The $SO(3)$ scalar fields' configuration in the static chart of de Sitter phase implies that there are large shears and energy momentum flows in the non-static coordinates. Nevertheless, if we include the higher order kinetic interaction terms, by tuning the parameters we may be able to cancel out the shears and flows and realize a self-consistent de Sitter solution. We found this solution at least contains 4th order kinetic interactions, \begin{eqnarray} M_p^2m^2\int d^4x\sqrt{-g}&&\left[c_1f+c_{21}f^2+c_{22}f^{\mu}_{\nu}f^{\nu}_{\mu}+c_{31}f^3+c_{32}f^{\mu}_{\nu}f^{\nu}_{\rho}f^{\rho}_{\mu}+c_{33}f\cdot f^{\mu}_{\nu}f^{\nu}_{\mu}\right.\nonumber\\ &&c_{41}f^4+c_{42}f^{\mu}_{\nu}f^{\nu}_{\rho}f^{\rho}_{\lambda}f^{\lambda}_{\mu}+c_{43}f\cdot f^{\mu}_{\nu}f^{\nu}_{\rho}f^{\rho}_{\mu}+c_{44}(f^{\mu}_{\nu}f^{\nu}_{\mu})^2+c_{45}f^2\cdot f^{\mu}_{\nu}f^{\nu}_{\mu}\left.\right], \end{eqnarray} where all coefficients $c_1,~c_{21},~c_{22}...$ are coordinate independent constants. As a self-consistent solution, it must satisfy Einstein equations, $T^{\mu}_{\nu}=G^{\mu}_{\nu}=-3H^2\delta^{\mu}_{\nu}$, and the equation of motion for scalar fields as well. These conditions lead to a set of nontrivial constraints on the coefficients, \begin{eqnarray}\label{coefficients} c_{21}&=& \frac{1}{8} \left(-3 c_1-2 c_{33}\right),\nonumber\\ c_{22}&=& \frac{3}{8} \left(c_1-2 c_{33}\right),\nonumber\\ c_{41}&=& \frac{1}{48} c_1-\frac{1}{24} \left(c_{33}+4 c_{45}\right),\nonumber\\ c_{42}&=& \frac{3 c_1}{16}+c_{45}-\frac{c_{33}}{8},\nonumber\\ c_{43}&=& \frac{1}{6} \left(c_{33}-8 c_{45}\right)-\frac{1}{12} c_1,~\nonumber\\ c_{44}&=& \frac{1}{8} \left(-c_1-4 c_{45}\right),\nonumber\\ c_{32}&=& -c_{33},\nonumber\\ c_{31}&=&0~, \end{eqnarray} and the energy momentum tensor can be calculated as \begin{eqnarray} T^{\mu}_{\nu}=\frac{3}{8} \left(3 c_1-2 c_{33}\right)M_p^2m^2\delta^{\mu}_{\nu}~. \end{eqnarray} Indeed with this choice of parameters, the vacuum energy behaves as an effective cosmological constant. However, as we mentioned in the section III. B, in the de Sitter limit, Goldstone bosons become strongly coupled, and the theory breaks down. To show how it occurs in this model, we perturb the scalar fields' configuration by introducing the (Goldstone) excitations \begin{eqnarray} \phi^a=x^a+\pi^a~. \end{eqnarray} Then we take the decoupling limit to decouple Goldstone bosons and gravity, \begin{eqnarray} m\to0, ~~~M_p\to\infty,~~~\Lambda_2\equiv M_pm=\,\mathrm{const}. \end{eqnarray} In momentum space, the quadratic action for Goldstone bosons reads \begin{eqnarray} \mathcal{L}^{(2)}_{\pi}=\int \mathcal{K}\delta_{ab}\dot{\pi}^a\dot{\pi}^b-c_{diag}^2k^2\pi^a\pi^b\delta_{ab}-c_{mix}^2(k_a\pi^a)^2~, \end{eqnarray} where \begin{eqnarray} \mathcal{K}&=&-\left(c_1+6 c_{21}+2 c_{22}+27 c_{31}+3 c_{32}+9 c_{33}+108 c_{41}+4 c_{42}+12 c_{43}+12 c_{44}+36 c_{45}\right)~,\nonumber\\ c_{diag}^2&=&-\left(c_1+6 c_{21}+4 c_{22}+27 c_{31}+9 c_{32}+15 c_{33}+108 c_{41}+16 c_{42}+30 c_{43}+24 c_{44}+54 c_{45}\right)~,\nonumber\\ c_{mix}^2&=&2 \left(2 c_{21}+c_{22}+18 c_{31}+3 c_{32}+7 c_{33}+108 c_{41}+6 c_{42}+15 c_{43}+14 c_{44}+39 c_{45}\right). \end{eqnarray} After inputting the constraints on these coefficients, i.e. Eq.\,(\ref{coefficients}), we find that $\mathcal{K}=c_{diag}^2=c_{mix}^2=0$ and the quadratic action vanishes identically. As we saw above in the effective theory analysis, this degeneracy arises in the exact $\dot H=0$ limit, and one of possible solutions to the strong coupling problem is to introduce a small deviation from de Sitter space time. Another possible solution is to include higher order derivative terms. As discussed in section \ref{sec:dSMink}, the higher order derivative terms give rise to a non-vanishing kinetic term for Goldstone bosons even in de Sitter spacetime and thus heals the strong coupling problem. \section{Conclusion and Discussion} In this paper, we characterize the most general theory of spatial diffeomorphisms breaking. By means of effective field theory approach, after writing down all possible operators compatible with underlying symmetries, we are able to describe the effective theory of fluctuations around the FRW background with spatial diffeomorphisms breaking. We showed that the most generic action on a FRW background can be written in the form \begin{eqnarray} S=\int d^4x\sqrt{-g}\left[\frac{1}{2}M_p^2\mathcal{R}-3M_p^2\left(H^2+\dot{H}\right)+M_p^2a^2\dot{H}g^{ii}-M_p^2M_2^2\bar{\delta} g^{ij}\bar{\delta} g^{ij}+...\right], \end{eqnarray} where $\bar{\delta} g^{ij}$ is the covariant operator constructed out of $g^{ij}$ and starts from linear order in fluctuations. Differences among models (UV completions of the theory) are encoded in this operator as well as higher order operators. The three broken spatial diffeomorphisms acquire three Goldstone bosons. The couplings between different helicity modes are characterised by the scales $\dot{H}\text{~and~} M_2^4/\dot{H}$. Above the mixing scale, we can neglect the couplings between different helicity modes, and the action of Goldstone bosons dramatically simplifies to \begin{eqnarray} S=M_p^2\int d^4x\sqrt{-g}\left[a^2\dot{H}g^{\mu\nu}\partial_{\mu}\pi^a\partial_{\nu}\pi^a-\frac{1}{3}\left(2\dot{H}+\frac{\ddot{H}}{H}\right)\left(\partial_a\pi^a\right)^2-\frac{2M_2^2}{a^4}\cdot\left(\partial_i\pi^a\partial_i\pi^a+\frac{1}{3}\left(\partial_a\pi^a\right)^2\right)+...\right].\nonumber\\ \end{eqnarray} In the unitary gauge, the 3 Goldstone bosons are eaten by graviton, and the graviton becomes a massive spin-2 particle with 5 well-behaved degrees of freedom that are decomposed into 1 scalar mode, 2 vector modes, and 2 tensor modes. We performed the cosmological perturbation calculation, derived the effective quadratic action for each of the 5 polarizations, and found that at linear perturbation level, all 5 polarisations have non-vanishing masses. The dynamical properties of these 5 polarisations are characterised by the parameter set $\{H, \epsilon, \eta, s, M_2^2\}$, where $\epsilon, \eta, s$ are ``slow roll" parameters. With only first-order derivative operators, the kinetic terms of these three Goldstone bosons vanish in the de Sitter, as well as Minkowski limit, where $\dot{H}\to0$. In this limit, the kinetic terms arising from higher derivative operators become leading order. In this case, the three Goldstone bosons appear to be supermassive at the low energy scale, and thus can be integrated out, leaving two massive tensor modes as the only propagating degrees of freedom. Away from de Sitter and Minkowski limit, in the IR regime where $k^2\ll a^2H^2\epsilon$, the quadratic action of the 5 polarisations in the unitary gauge reads \begin{eqnarray} &&S^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2}\int dtd^3ka^3\left[\dot{\mathcal{E}}^2-\left(\frac{c_s^2k^2}{a^2}+m_g^2\right)\mathcal{E}^2 +\dot{\mathcal{F}}_i\dot{\mathcal{F}}^i-\left(\frac{c_v^2k^2}{a^2}+m_g^2\right)\mathcal{F}_i\mathcal{F}^i+\dot{\gamma}_{ij}\dot{\gamma}^{ij}-\left(\frac{k^2}{a^2}+m_g^2\right)\gamma_{ij}\gamma^{ij}\right],\nonumber\\ \end{eqnarray} where $\mathcal{E}$ is the scalar mode, $\mathcal{F}_i$ is the vector mode, $\gamma^{ij}$ is the tensor mode. The graviton mass $m_g^2=4 H^2 \epsilon+\frac{8 M_2^2}{a^4}$ takes the same value for all 5 polarisations in the long wavelength limit. The sound speeds of scalar and vector modes are functions of ``slow roll" parameters. Several examples on the applications of our formalism to cosmology are also presented. We started from the example of a flat FRW universe and a generic polynomial of derivative couplings and showed how to determine the dispersion relations of the 5 graviton polarizations. We also generalized to a spatially non-flat FRW universe and a static chart of de Sitter space time. Along this line, there are several possible extensions of our formalism. For instance, it would be necessary and more realistic to consider the matter distribution in the universe and develop a new effective theory with the coupling to mattertaken into account. On the other hand, if we go beyond linear perturbation theory, the interactions among three pions can be characterized by introducing the higher order operators like $\bar{\delta}g^{ij}\bar{\delta}g^{jk}\bar{\delta}g^{ki}$. This type of non-trivial interaction leads to non-Gaussianity in the metric fluctuations. It would be very interesting to study its possible imprint on CMB and large scale structure. \begin{acknowledgments} We would like to thank R. Brandenberger, S.-H. Dai, A. De Felice, K. Izumi, X. Gao, S. Mukohyama, R. Namba, R. Saitou, M. Sasaki, A. Taruya, Y. Wang, and S. Weinberg for useful discussions. Our thanks also go to the anonymous referee, for his/her useful comments and suggestions on the draft. In this work, C. Lin was supported by Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kyoto University, and the World Premier International Research Center Initiative (WPI Initiative), MEXT, Japan. \end{acknowledgments}
\section{Introduction} This article is part of a series of papers \cite{HoYou13}, \cite{Bitter01}, \cite{Bitter02}, \cite{Inaba01}, \cite{Perotti01} devoted to the investigation of water-hammer problems in fluid-filled pipes, both from the experimental and theoretical perspective. Water-hammer experiments are a prototype model for many situations in industrial and military applications (e.g., trans-ocean pipelines and communication networks) where we have fluid-structure interaction and a consequent propagation of shock-waves. After the pioneering work of Korteweg$^{\cite{Korteweg}}$ (1878) and Joukowsky$^{\cite{Joukowsky}}$ (1900), who modeled water-hammer waves by neglecting inertia and bending stiffness of the pipe, a more comprehensive investigation, developed by Skalak \cite{Skalak} in the Fifties, considered inertial effects both in the pipe and the fluid, including longitudinal and bending stresses of the pipe. Skalak combined the Shell Theory for the tube deformation and an acoustic model of the fluid motion. He shows there is a coexistence of two waves traveling at different speeds: the precursor wave (of small amplitude and of speed close the sound speed of the pipe wall) and the primary wave (of larger amplitude and lower speed). Additionally, a simplified four-equation one-dimensional model is derived based on the assumption that pressure and axial velocity of the fluid are constant across cross-sections \cite{Skalak}. Later studies of Tijsseling \cite{Tijsseling3}-\cite{Tijsseling} have regarded modeling of isotropic thin pipes including an analysis of the effect of thickness on isotropic pipes based on the four-equation model \cite{Tijsseling}. While all these papers consider the case of elastically isotropic pipes, the investigation of anisotropy in water-filled pipes of composite materials was first obtained in \cite{HoYou13} where stress wave propagation is investigated for a system composed of water-filled thin pipe with symmetric winding angles $\pm\theta$. In the same geometry, a platform of numerical computations, based on the finite element method, was developed in \cite{Perotti01} to describe the fluid-structure interaction during shock-wave loading of a water-filled carbon-reinforced plastic (CFRP) tube coupled with a solid-shell and a fluid solver. More complex situations involve systems of pipes mounted coaxially where the annular regions between the pipes can be filled with fluid. In this scenario, B\"urmann has considered the modeling of non-stationary flow of compressible fluids in pipelines with several flow sections \cite{Burmann}. His approach consists of reducing the system of partial differential equations governing the fluid-structure interaction in coaxial pipes into a 1-dimensional problem by the Method of Characteristics. Later works have appeared on the modeling of sound dispersion in a cylindrical viscous layer bounded by two elastic thin-walled shells \cite{Levitsky} and of the wave propagation in coaxial pipes filled with either fluid or a viscoelastic solid \cite{Cirovic}. Motivated by the recent experimental effort of J. Shepherd's group on the investigation of the water-hammer in annular geometries \cite{Beltman01}, \cite{Beltman02}, \cite{Bitter01}, \cite{Bitter02}, we extend the modeling work of \cite{Tijsseling} and \cite{HoYou13} to investigate the propagation of stress waves inside an annular geometry delimited by two water-filled coaxial pipes, in elastically isotropic and CFRP pipes. A projectile impact causes propagation of a water pressure wave causing the deformation of the pipes. Positive extension in the radial direction of the outer pipe, accompanied by negative extension (contraction) in the radial direction of the internal pipe, causes an increase in the annular area thus activating the fluid-structure interaction mechanism. The architecture of the paper is as follows. After reviewing the work of You and Inaba on the modeling of elastically anisotropic pipes, we present the six-equation one-dimensional model (Paragraph \ref{1311081717}) that rules the fluid-solid interaction in a two-pipe system. In Section \ref{1311081625} we compare our theoretical findings with experimental data obtained during a series of water-hammer experiments. Finally, in the case of fiber reinforced pipes, the wave propagation and the computation of hoop and axial strain are described in full detail in Paragraph \ref{1312181514}. \begin{table}[h!] \centering \caption{Notation. Here and in what follows subscript $i$ is either set to be equal to 1 (in the case in which we refer to the internal pipe) or 2 (external pipe).} \label{} \begin{tabular}{|l p{4.81cm}|l p{5.37cm}|} \hline $\overline{\ensuremath{\mathbf C}_{i}}$ & stiffness matrix (x,y and z coordinates) & $u_{i,r},u_{i,z}$ & two-dimensional displacement components of pipe $i$ along $r$ and $z$ axis\\ \hline $\overline{\SS_{i}}$ & compliance matrix (x,y and z coordinates) & $\dot{u}_{i,r},\dot{u}_{i,z} $ & two-dimensional velocity components of pipe $i$ along $r$ and $z$ axis \\ \hline $r,\varphi,z$ & cylindrical coordinates & $\overline{\dot{u}}_{i,r},\overline{\dot{u}}_{i,z} $ & one-dimensional velocity components of pipe $i$ along $r$ and $z$ axis\\ \hline $t$ & time & $\dot{u}_{i,z0} $ &magnitude of $\overline{\dot{u}}_{i,z}$ \\ \hline $V_f$ & volume fraction (fiber) & $\theta$ & fiber winding angle \\ \hline $p(r,z,t)$ & two-dimensional fluid pressure & $V$ & one-dimensional axial fluid velocity\\ \hline $P(z,t)$ & one-dimensional fluid pressure & $V_0$ & magnitude of $V$\\ \hline $P_0$ & magnitude of $P$ & $v_{r},v_{z}$ & two-dimensional fluid velocity components along $r$ and $z$ directions\\ \hline $P_{out}$ & pressure outside pipe 2 & $\varepsilon_{i},\gamma_i$ & normal and shear strain in pipe $i$\\ $P_{in}$ & pressure inside pipe 1 & &\\ \hline $R_i$ & inner radius of pipe $i$ & $c$ & wavespeed \\ \hline $e_{i}$ & thickness of pipe $i$ & $\sigma_{i},\tau_i$ & normal and shear stress \\ \hline $\rho_{i,t}$ & density (pipe $i$) & $\sigma_{i,r},\sigma_{i,\varphi},\sigma_{i,z}$ & two-dimensional stress components along $r,\varphi$ and $z$ axis \\ \hline $\rho_w$ &density of fluid & $\overline{\sigma}_{i,z}$ & one-dimensional axial stress \\ \hline $K$ &bulk modulus of fluid & $\sigma_{i,z0}$ & magnitude of $\overline{\sigma}_{i,z}$ \\ \hline $E_{(1)}, E_{(3)}$ & effective Young's modulus along transverse and longitudinal directions in a single ply & $E_{m}, E_f$ & Young's modulus for matrix and fiber \\ \hline $G_{31}$ & effective shear modulus in a single ply & $G_{m}, G_f$ & shear modulus for matrix and fiber \\ \hline $\nu_m,\nu_f$ & Poisson's ratio for matrix and fiber & $\rho_m, \rho_f $ & density of matrix and fiber \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table} \begin{figure}[h!] \centering \includegraphics[width=3.3cm]{pipe_ox2-eps-converted-to.pdf}% \qquad \quad \includegraphics[width=6.5cm]{pipes5-eps-converted-to.pdf}% \quad \caption{Schematic representation of coaxial thin pipes. LEFT: cross section. RIGHT: lateral view. Notice that here we are referring to the case of CFRP pipes with winding angles $\pm\theta$. }\label{1309241710} \end{figure} \section{Thin pipes modeling}\label{13010041448} \subsection{One-dimensional fluid-structure modeling}\label{1311081450} According to the technique of Tijsseling \cite{Tijsseling}, one-dimensional governing equations for the liquid and the pipes can be obtained upon averaging out the standard balance laws in the radial direction. By adopting a cylindrical coordinates system, this approach is based upon the assumption that the behavior of water velocity and pressure depend only on the spatial variable $z$. In what follows we define one-dimensional cross-averaged quantities and obtain the corresponding field equations. \subsubsection{Governing equations for the fluid} The balance laws in the coordinate system $(r,z)$ for the fluid read \cite{Tijsseling3} \begin{description} \item[(2-d) Axial motion equation:\quad] $\displaystyle{\rho_w\frac{\partial v_z}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial p}{\partial z}=0},$ \item[(2-d) Radial motion equation:\quad] $\displaystyle{\rho_w\frac{\partial v_r}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial p}{\partial r}=0},$ \item[(2-d) Continuity equation:\quad] $\displaystyle{\frac{1}{K}\frac{\partial p}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial v_z}{\partial z}+\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial(rv_r)}{\partial r}=0}.$ \end{description} Here $v_z(r,z,t)$ and $v_r(r,z,t)$ are, respectively, the axial and radial velocity of the fluid and $p(r,z,t)$ is the pressure; $K$ is the bulk modulus of the fluid and $\rho_w$ is the density of the fluid. We now introduce the cross-sectional averaged (one-dimensional) velocity and pressure, defined respectively as \begin{eqnarray} V(z,t):=\frac{1}{\pi\bigl(R_2^2-(R_1+e_1)^2\bigr)}\int_{R_1+e_1}^{R_2}2\pi r \,v_z(r,z,t)dr,\\ P(z,t):=\frac{1}{\pi\bigl(R_2^2-(R_1+e_1)^2\bigr)}\int_{R_1+e_1}^{R_2}2\pi r \,p(r,z,t)dr. \end{eqnarray} We are in a position to introduce the one-dimensional equations of balance for the fluid, which are \begin{description} \item[(1-d) Axial motion equation] \hfill \begin{eqnarray}\label{1305071550} \rho_w\frac{\partial V}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial P}{\partial z}=0 \end{eqnarray} \item[(1-d) Radial motion equation] \hfill \begin{eqnarray}\label{1305071133} \frac{1}{2}\rho_w R_2\frac{\partial v_r}{dt}\Bigr|_{r=R_2} + \frac{R_2^2 p\Bigl|_{r=R_2}-(R_1+e_1)^2p\Bigl|_{r=R_1+e_1}}{\bigl( R_2^2-(R_1+e_1)^2\bigr)} -P=0 \end{eqnarray} \item[(1-d) Continuity equation] \hfill \begin{eqnarray}\label{1305071132} \frac{1}{K}\frac{\partial P}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial V}{\partial z}+ \frac{2}{(R_2^2-(R_1+e_1)^2)}\Bigl[R_2\, v_r\bigr|_{r=R_2}-(R_1+e_1)\, v_r\bigr|_{r=R_1+e_1}\Bigr]=0. \end{eqnarray} \end{description} We remark that Eq. (\ref{1305071133}) has been obtained by multiplying the two-dimensional radial motion equation by $2\pi r^2$, integrating in $r$ from $R_1+e_1$ to $R_2$ and dividing by $2\pi(R_2^2-(R_1+e_1)^2)$. Here $R_1$ is the internal radius and $e_1$ the thickness of the internal pipe while $R_2$ is the internal radius and $e_2$ the thickness of the external pipe (see Fig \ref{1309241710}-LEFT). Moreover, in Eq. (\ref{1305071133}) it is assumed that \begin{eqnarray} r\frac{\partial v_r}{dt}=R_2\frac{\partial v_r}{dt}\Bigr|_{r=R_2}= (R_1+e_1)\frac{\partial v_r}{dt}\Bigr|_{r=R_1+e_1}. \end{eqnarray} This is consistent with the (2-d) Continuity equation under the hypothesis that $K$ is large and that the axial inflow $v_z$ is concentrated in the central axis in the limit $R_1\to 0$, $e_1/R_1\to 0$ \cite{Tijsseling}. \subsubsection{Governing equations for the pipes} Letting $i=1,2$, the equations of Axial motion and Radial motion in the pipes in the space $(r,z)$ are \begin{description} \item[(2-d) Axial motion equation:\quad] $\displaystyle{\rho_{i,t}\frac{\partial \dot{u}_{i,z}}{\partial t}-\frac{\partial \sigma_{i,z}}{\partial z}=0},$ \end{description} \begin{description} \item[(2-d) Radial motion equation:\quad ] $\displaystyle{\rho_{i,t}\frac{\partial \dot{u}_{i,t}}{\partial t}= \frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial (r\sigma_{i,r})}{\partial r} - \frac{ \sigma_{i,\varphi}}{r}}.$ \end{description} Here $\rho_{i,t}$ is the density of the pipe, $\sigma_{i,r}(r,z,t)$, $\sigma_{i,z}(r,z,t)$ and $\sigma_{i,\varphi}(r,z,t)$ are the radial, axial and hoop stress respectively and $\dot{u}_{i,r}$, $\dot{u}_{i,z}$ are the radial and axial velocity respectively. By applying the cross-sectional average technique we obtain \begin{description} \item[(1-d) Axial motion equation] \hfill \begin{eqnarray}\label{1305071551} \rho_{i,t}\frac{\partial \overline{\dot{u}}_{i,z}}{\partial t}-\frac{\partial \overline{\sigma}_{i,z}}{\partial z}=0, \end{eqnarray}\end{description} \begin{description} \item[(1-d) Radial motion equation] \hfill \begin{eqnarray}\label{1302021738} \rho_{i,t}\frac{\partial \overline{\dot{u}}_{i,r}}{\partial t}= \frac{ (R_i+e_i)\sigma_{i,r}\Bigr|_{R_i+e_i} }{e_i(R_i+e_i/2)} - \frac{ R_i\sigma_{i,r}\Bigr|_{R_i} }{e_i(R_i+e_i/2)} - \frac{1}{(R_i+e_i/2)}\overline{\overline{\sigma}}_{i,\varphi}, \end{eqnarray}\end{description} where \begin{eqnarray} \overline{\dot{u}}_{i,z}(z,t):=\frac{1}{\pi\bigl((R_i+e_i)^2-R_i^2\bigr)}\int_{R_i}^{R_i+e_i}2\pi r \,\dot{u}_{i,z}(r,z,t)dr, \end{eqnarray} \begin{eqnarray} \overline{\dot{u}}_{i,r}(z,t):=\frac{1}{\pi\bigl((R_i+e_i)^2-R_i^2\bigr)}\int_{R_i}^{R_i+e_i}2\pi r \,\dot{u}_{i,r}(r,z,t)dr, \end{eqnarray} \begin{eqnarray} \overline{\sigma}_{i,z}(z,t):=\frac{1}{\pi\bigl((R_i+e_i)^2-R_i^2\bigr)}\int_{R_i}^{R_i+e_i}2\pi r \,\sigma_{i,z}(r,z,t) dr, \end{eqnarray} are respectively the one-dimensional axial velocity, radial velocity and axial stress and \begin{eqnarray} \overline{\overline{\sigma}}_{i,\varphi}:=\frac{1}{e_i}\int_{R_i}^{R_i+e_i}\sigma_{i,\varphi}(r,z,t)dr. \end{eqnarray} \subsubsection{Elastic properties of pipes}\label{1312181655} By introducing the stiffness matrix $\overline{\ensuremath{\mathbf C}}_i$ and the compliance matrix $\overline{\SS}_i:=\overline{\ensuremath{\mathbf C}}_i^{-1}$, the stress-strain relation under the plane stress assumption reads, respectively, \cite[Eqs. (13, 14)]{HoYou13} \begin{eqnarray}\label{13112331723} \left( \begin{array}{ccc} \sigma_{i,x} \\ \sigma_{i,z} \\ \tau_{i,zx} \end{array} \right)= \left( \begin{array}{ccc} \overline{C}_{i,11} &\overline{C}_{i,13} & 0 \\ \overline{C}_{i,13} & \overline{C}_{i,33} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \overline{C}_{i,55} \end{array} \right) \left( \begin{array}{ccc} \varepsilon_{i,x} \\ \varepsilon_{i,z} \\ \gamma_{i,zx} \end{array} \right),\\ \left( \begin{array}{ccc} \varepsilon_{i,x} \\ \varepsilon_{i,z}\\ \gamma_{i,zx} \end{array} \right) = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} \overline{S}_{i,11} &\overline{S}_{i,13} & 0 \\ \overline{S}_{i,13} & \overline{S}_{i,33} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \overline{S}_{i,55} \end{array} \right) \left( \begin{array}{ccc} \sigma_{i,x} \\ \sigma_{i,z} \\ \tau_{i,zx} \end{array} \right).\nonumber \end{eqnarray} In the case of elastically homogenous and isotropic pipes, tensor $\overline{\ensuremath{\mathbf C}}_i$ reads \begin{eqnarray}\label{1305101405} \left( \begin{array}{ccc} \overline{C}_{i,11} &\overline{C}_{i,13} & 0 \\ \overline{C}_{i,13} & \overline{C}_{i,33} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \overline{C}_{i,55} \end{array} \right)\equiv \left( \begin{array}{ccc} E_{i,t}/(1-\nu_{i,t}^2) & \nu_{i,t} E_{i,t}/(1-\nu_{i,t}^2) & 0 \\ \nu_{i,t} E_{i,t}/(1-\nu_{i,t}^2) & E_{i,t}/(1-\nu_{i,t}^2) & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & G_{i,t} \end{array} \right) \end{eqnarray} and, in turn \begin{eqnarray}\label{1305101406} \left( \begin{array}{ccc} \overline{S}_{i,11} &\overline{S}_{i,13} & 0 \\ \overline{S}_{i,13} & \overline{S}_{i,33} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \overline{S}_{i,55} \end{array} \right)= \left( \begin{array}{ccc} 1/E_{i,t} & -\nu_{i,t}/E_{i,t} & 0 \\ -\nu_{i,t}/E_{i,t} & 1/E_{i,t} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1/G_{i,t} \end{array} \right) \end{eqnarray} where $E_{i,t}$, $\nu_{i,t}$ and $G_{i,t}=E_{i,t}/(2+2\nu_{i,t})$ are the Young's modulus, Poisson's ratio and shear modulus of the material from which pipe $i$ is made. \begin{SCfigure} \includegraphics[width=4cm]{pipe02-eps-converted-to.pdf}% \caption{Schematic representation of CFRP lay-up structures as a combination of single uniaxial plies. Axes $1,2$ and $3$ are the principal axes of a single ply.}\label{1311101716} \end{SCfigure} For anisotropic composite (fiber-reinforced) pipes the stiffness elements $\overline{C}_{i,kl}$ are necessarily a function of the geometric and elastic properties of fibers and of matrix, including the fiber winding angle $\theta$. The difficulty in describing the elastic properties of fiber-reinforced plastic thin pipes has been studied in \cite{HoYou13} under the assumption that pipes are obtained by rolling up a woven layer with symmetric angles $\pm\theta$. Each of these layers can be considered as a lay-up structure of multiple plies of same thickness as shown in Figure \ref{1311101716}. To keep the notation simple, in what follows we drop the subscript $i$. Elastic moduli are computed as a function of fiber volume fraction $V_f$ and fiber and matrix elastic coefficients \cite{KAW} \begin{gather} E_{(3)}=E_f V_f+E_m(1-V_f),\quad \frac{1}{E_{(1)}}=\frac{ V_f}{E_f}+\frac{(1-V_f)}{E_m},\quad \frac{1}{G_{31}}=\frac{V_f}{G_f}+\frac{(1-V_f)}{G_m},\label{1312091548}\\ \nu_{31}=\nu_f V_f+\nu_m(1-V_f),\qquad \rho_{i,t}=\rho_f V_f+\rho_m(1-V_f)\label{1312251840} \end{gather} where $E_m,G_m,\nu_m$ and $\rho_m$ are, respectively, the Young's modulus, shear modulus, Poisson's ratio and density of the matrix. Then $E_f,G_f,\nu_f$ and $\rho_f$ are, respectively, the fiber Young's modulus, shear modulus, Poisson's ratio and density of the fiber. The subscripts $3$ and $1$ indicate the longitudinal and transverse direction of a single ply (see Fig. \ref{1311101716}). The Poisson's ratio $\nu_{31}$ is defined as the ratio of the contracted normal strain in the direction 1 to the normal strain in the direction 3, when a normal load is applied in the longitudinal direction. The stiffness matrix for the composite is given by the volumetric average of the elastic stiffness matrices from each single $\pm \theta$ ply, denoted in what follows with $\overline{\ensuremath{\mathbf C}}^{\pm\theta}$. Precisely, if all plies have the same thickness, the stiffness matrix for a woven layer of pairs of $\pm\theta$ plies is given by \begin{eqnarray}\label{1312092133} \overline{\ensuremath{\mathbf C}}=\frac{1}{2}(\overline{\ensuremath{\mathbf C}}^{+\theta}+\overline{\ensuremath{\mathbf C}}^{-\theta}). \end{eqnarray} The components of $\overline{\ensuremath{\mathbf C}}^{\pm \theta}$ read \cite[Eq. (16)]{HoYou13} \begin{eqnarray} \begin{array}{llll} \overline{C}_{11}^{+\theta}=\overline{C}_{11}^{-\theta} &= \bigl[ \cos^4(\theta) E_{(1)}/E_{\sharp} + \sin^4(\theta)E_{(3)}/E_{\sharp}\bigr] +2\sin^2(\theta)\cos^2(\theta)\bigl[\nu_{31} E_{(1)}/E_{\sharp}+2G_{31}\bigr], \\[.2cm] \overline{C}_{33}^{+\theta}=\overline{C}_{33}^{-\theta} &= [\cos^4(\theta)E_{(3)}/E_{\sharp} + \sin^4(\theta)E_{(1)}/E_{\sharp}] +2\sin^2(\theta)\cos^2(\theta)\bigl[\nu_{31} E_{(1)}/E_{\sharp}+2G_{31}\bigr], \\[.2cm] \overline{C}_{13}^{+\theta}=\overline{C}_{13}^{-\theta} &= [ E_{(3)}/E_{\sharp} +E_{(1)}/E_{\sharp} -4 G_{31} -2\nu_{31} E_{(1)}/E_{\sharp} ]\sin^2(\theta)\cos^2(\theta) +\nu_{31} E_{(1)}/E_{\sharp},\\[.2cm] \overline{C}_{55}^{+\theta}=\overline{C}_{55}^{-\theta} &=[ E_{(1)}/E_{\sharp} -2 \nu_{31} E_{(1)}/E_{\sharp} + E_{(3)}/E_{\sharp}-4G_{31}] \cos^2(\theta) \sin^2(\theta) +G_{31} ,\\[.2cm] \end{array}\nonumber \end{eqnarray} with $E_{\sharp}=1-\nu_{31}^2 E_{(1)}/E_{(3)}$. Finally, the compliance elements read $\overline{S}_{11}=\overline{C}_{33}/\overline{C}_{\sharp}$, $\overline{S}_{33}=\overline{C}_{11}/\overline{C}_{\sharp}$, $\overline{S}_{13}=-\overline{C}_{13}/\overline{C}_{\sharp}$ and $\overline{C}_{\sharp}=\overline{C}_{11}\overline{C}_{33}-\overline{C}_{13}^2$, where $\overline{C}_{kl}$ are the elements of the matrix $\overline{\ensuremath{\mathbf C}}$ defined in (\ref{1312092133}). \subsection{Six-equation model}\label{1311081717} The axial and hoop strains in pipe $i$ can be written as \cite{HoYou13} \begin{eqnarray}\label{1303281553} \varepsilon_{i,z}=\overline{S}_{i,13}\sigma_{i,\varphi}+\overline{S}_{i,33}\sigma_{i,z},\quad \varepsilon_{i,\varphi}=\overline{S}_{i,11}\sigma_{i,\varphi}+\overline{S}_{i,13}\sigma_{i,z}, \end{eqnarray} respectively. By using the strain-displacements relations \begin{eqnarray}\label{1311091742} \varepsilon_{i,z}=\frac{\partial u_{i,z}}{\partial z}, \end{eqnarray} by differentiating in time and by taking the cross-sectional average, Eq. $(\ref{1303281553})$-LEFT becomes \begin{eqnarray}\label{1302022228} \frac{\partial \overline{\dot{u}}_{i,z}}{\partial z}=\overline{S}_{i,13}\frac{\partial\overline{\sigma}_{i,\varphi}}{\partial t}+\overline{S}_{i,33}\frac{\partial \overline{\sigma}_{i,z}}{\partial t} \end{eqnarray} where \begin{eqnarray} \overline{\sigma}_{i,\varphi}(z,t):=\frac{2\pi}{\pi\bigl((R_i+e_i)^2-R_i^2\bigr)}\int_{R_i}^{R_i+e_i} r\,\sigma_{i,\varphi}(r,z,t)dr \end{eqnarray} is the one-dimensional (cross-averaged) hoop stress. The radial displacement equation is obtained by plugging another strain-displacement relation, which is, \begin{eqnarray}\label{} \varepsilon_{i,\varphi}=\frac{u_{i,r}}{r} \end{eqnarray} into Eq. (\ref{1303281553})-RIGHT yielding \begin{eqnarray}\label{1305071058} u_{i,r}=r \overline{S}_{i,11}\sigma_{i,\varphi}+r \overline{S}_{i,13}\sigma_{i,z}. \end{eqnarray} The equations of fluid and pipes are coupled by boundary conditions along the interfaces. Indeed, at each fluid-solid interface, we equate the radial velocity and radial stress of the fluid with those of the solid. \begin{eqnarray}\label{1309251040} \begin{array}{llll} \sigma_{2,r}\bigr|_{r=R_2} &= -p\bigr|_{r=R_2} ,&\quad \dot{u}_{2,r}\bigr|_{r=R_2}&=v_r\bigr|_{r=R_2}, \\[.2cm] \sigma_{1,r}\bigr|_{r=R_1+e_1} &= -p\bigr|_{r=R_1+e_1} ,&\quad \dot{u}_{1,r}\bigr|_{r=R_1+e_1}&=v_r\bigr|_{r=R_1+e_1}, \\[.2cm] \sigma_{2,r}\bigr|_{r=R_2+e_2} &= -P^{out}=const. , &\quad \dot{u}_{2,r}\bigr|_{r=R_2+e_2}&=V_r^{out}=const. \,\,(=0 \,m/s),\\[.2cm] \sigma_{1,r}\bigr|_{r=R_1} &=-P^{in} = const. , &\quad \dot{u}_{1,r}\bigr|_{r=R_1}&=V_r^{in}\,\,=const.\,\, (=0 \,m/s).\\[.2cm] \end{array} \end{eqnarray} As in \cite{Tijsseling}, we assume that the external and internal pressures in each pipe induce a hoop stress which is constant in $\varphi$. Accordingly, we have \cite{HoYou13}, \cite{Timoshenko} \begin{eqnarray}\label{1309251543} \begin{array}{rcl} \sigma_{1,\varphi}&=&\displaystyle{-\frac{1}{r^2} \frac{R_1^2(R_1+e_1)^2(P-P^{in} )}{2(R_1+e_1/2)e_1}+\frac{R_1^2P_{in}-(R_1+e_1)^2 P}{2(R_1+e_1/2)e_1}} \\[.4cm] \sigma_{2,\varphi}&=&\displaystyle{-\frac{1}{r^2} \frac{R_2^2(R_2+e_2)^2(P_{out}-P)}{2(R_2+e_2/2)e_2}+\frac{R_2^2 P-(R_2+e_2)^2 P_{out}}{2(R_2+e_2/2)e_2}}. \\[.1cm] \end{array} \end{eqnarray} By plugging Eqs. (\ref{1309251040}-Lines 1 and 2, RIGHT) into Eq. (\ref{1305071132}) we obtain \begin{eqnarray}\label{1305071407} \frac{1}{K}\frac{\partial P}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial V}{\partial z}+ \frac{2}{(R_2^2-(R_1+e_1)^2)}\Bigl[R_2\, \dot{u}_{2,r}\Bigr|_{r=R_2}-(R_1+e_1)\, \dot{u}_{1,r}\Bigr|_{r=(R_1+e_1)}\Bigr]=0. \end{eqnarray} Now, assuming that radial inertial forces are ignored in both fluid and pipes and that the pipes cross-sections remain plane for axial stretches (thus implying the independency of $\sigma_{i,z}(z,t)$ on $r$, especially in thin pipes) we obtain a simplified model. Upon substitution of Eqs. (\ref{1305071058}) and (\ref{1309251543}) into Eq. (\ref{1305071407}) and upon substitution of Eq. (\ref{1309251543}) into (\ref{1302022228}) (by replacing $\sigma_{1,z}\bigr|_{r=R_1+e_1}=\overline{\sigma}_{1,z}$, $\sigma_{2,z}\bigr|_{r=R_2}=\overline{\sigma}_{2,z}$) we obtain new equations \begin{eqnarray}\label{1305071553} m_{21} \frac{\partial P}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial V}{\partial z}+m_{24} \frac{\partial\overline{\sigma}_{2,z}}{\partial t} - m_{23}\frac{\partial\overline{\sigma}_{1,z}}{\partial t}=0, \end{eqnarray} and \begin{eqnarray}\label{1305071555} \frac{\partial \overline{\dot{u}}_{1,z}}{\partial z}=m_{51}\frac{\partial P}{\partial t}+\overline{S}_{1,33}\frac{\partial \overline{\sigma}_{1,z}}{\partial t},\qquad \frac{\partial \overline{\dot{u}}_{2,z}}{\partial z}=m_{61}\frac{\partial P}{\partial t}+\overline{S}_{2,33}\frac{\partial \overline{\sigma}_{2,z}}{\partial t} \end{eqnarray} where \begin{eqnarray}\label{1309302334} \begin{array}{rcl} m_{21}&:=& \displaystyle{\frac{1}{K}}+\frac{\displaystyle{2\Bigl\{R_2^2\Bigl[\overline{S}_{2,11}\frac{(R_2+e_2)^2+R_2^2}{2(R_2+e_2/2)e_2}\Bigr]+ (R_1+e_1)^2\Bigl[\overline{S}_{1,11}\frac{R_1^2+(R_1+e_1)^2}{2(R_1+e_1/2)e_1}\Bigr]\Bigr\}}}{\displaystyle{(R_2^2-(R_1+e_1)^2)}}\\[.4cm] &\approx& \displaystyle{\frac{1}{K}}+ \displaystyle{\frac{2}{R_2^2-(R_1+e_1)^2}\Bigl[\overline{S}_{2,11}\frac{R_2^3}{e_2}+ \overline{S}_{1,11}\frac{(R_1+e_1)^3}{e_1}\Bigr]} \\[.4cm] m_{23} &:=&\displaystyle{ \overline{S}_{1,13} \frac{2(R_1+e_1)^2}{R^2_2-(R_1+e_1)^2}} \\[.4cm] m_{24} &:=&\displaystyle{\overline{S}_{2,13} \frac{2R_2^2}{R^2_2-(R_1+e_1)^2}}\\[.4cm] m_{51} &:=&\displaystyle{ \overline{S}_{1,13} H_1} \\[.4cm] m_{61} &:=&\displaystyle{\overline{S}_{2,13}H_2}\\[.4cm] \end{array} \end{eqnarray} with \begin{eqnarray}\label{1311101645} \begin{array}{rcl} H_1&:=& \displaystyle{-\ln\Bigl(1+\frac{e_1}{R_1}\Bigr) \Bigl[\frac{(R_1+e_1)^2}{2(R_1+e_1/2)e_1}\Bigr]\frac{2 R_1^2}{e_1(2R_1+e_1)}-\frac{ (R_1+e_1)^2 }{2(R_1+e_1/2)e_1}}\approx -\Bigl(\frac{R_1+e_1}{e_1}\Bigr)\\[.4cm] H_2&:=& \displaystyle{\ln\Bigl(1+\frac{e_2}{R_2}\Bigr) \Bigl[\frac{(R_2+e_2)^2}{2(R_2+e_2/2)e_2}\Bigr]\frac{2 R_2^2}{e_2(2R_2+e_2)}+\frac{R_2^2 }{2(R_2+e_2/2)e_2}\approx\frac{R_2}{e_2}}.\\[.4cm] \end{array} \end{eqnarray} The simplified expressions in Eqs. (\ref{1309302334}) and (\ref{1311101645}) are obtained under the assumption $(e_1/(R_1+e_1))\ll 1$, $e_2/R_2\ll 1$. Note that it is not possible for the terms in Eq. ((\ref{1309302334}) to become singular, since the denominator becomes zero only when the annulus of water has zero thickness. Summarizing, the six-equations model with the six unknowns($P,V, \overline{\sigma}_{i,z}, \overline{\dot{u}}_{i,z}$) for the two-pipe system read \begin{description} \item[Fluid (axial motion - continuity equation)] \hfill \begin{eqnarray}\label{1305071618} \rho_w\frac{\partial V_z}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial P}{\partial z}=0,\\ m_{21} \frac{\partial P}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial V}{\partial z}+m_{24} \frac{\partial\overline{\sigma}_{2,z}}{\partial t} -m_{23}\frac{\partial\overline{\sigma}_{1,z}}{\partial t}=0, \end{eqnarray} \item[Pipes (axial motion - axial strain equation)] \hfill \begin{eqnarray} \rho_{i,t}\frac{\partial \overline{\dot{u}}_{i,z}}{\partial t}-\frac{\partial \overline{\sigma}_{i,z}}{\partial z}=0,\\ \frac{\partial \overline{\dot{u}}_{i,z}}{\partial z}-\overline{S}_{i,13}H_i\frac{\partial P}{\partial t}-\overline{S}_{i,33}\frac{\partial \overline{\sigma}_{i,z}}{\partial t}=0. \label{1305071619}\end{eqnarray} \end{description} We seek solutions of (\ref{1305071618}-\ref{1305071619}) in the form of wave functions, \begin{eqnarray}\label{1305071636} P=P_0 f(z-ct), \quad V=V_0 f(z-ct), \quad \overline{\sigma}_{i,z}=\sigma_{i,z0} f(z-ct), \quad\overline{\dot{u}}_{i,z}=\dot{u}_{i,z0} f(z-ct), \end{eqnarray} where $P_0,V_0,\sigma_{i,z0}$ and $\dot{u}_{i,z0}$ are magnitudes and $c$ is the wave speed. Substitution of (\ref{1305071636}) into (\ref{1305071618}-\ref{1305071619}) leads to six linear homogeneous equations which we write in a compact form \begin{eqnarray}\label{1305091615} \underbrace{\left[ \begin{array}{cccccc} m_{11} & -c &0 &0 &0 &0 \\ -cm_{21} & 1 & cm_{23} &- cm_{24} &0 &0 \\ 0 &0 &-m_{33} &0 & -c & 0 \\ 0 & 0 &0 &-m_{44} &0 & -c \\ cm_{51} & 0 & cm_{53} & 0 & 1 &0 \\ cm_{61} & 0 & 0 & cm_{64} & 0 & 1 \end{array}\right]}_{\ensuremath{\mathbf M}} \left( \begin{array}{c} P_0 \\ V_0 \\ \sigma_{1,z0}\\ \sigma_{2,z0}\\ \dot{u}_{1,z0}\\ \dot{u}_{2,z0}\\ \end{array} \right)= \left( \begin{array}{c} 0 \\ 0 \\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ \end{array} \right). \end{eqnarray} To keep a uniform notation we have defined $m_{11}=\rho_w^{-1}$, $m_{33}=\rho_{1,t}^{-1}$, $m_{44}=\rho_{2,t}^{-1}$, $m_{53}=\overline{S}_{1,33}$ and $m_{64}=\overline{S}_{2,33}$. Existence of non-trivial solutions to (\ref{1305091615}) requires the determinant of $\ensuremath{\mathbf M}$ to be zero, yielding, in turn, the following dispersion relation: \begin{gather} \bigl( m_{24} m_{53} m_{61} - m_{23} m_{51} m_{64} - m_{21} m_{53} m_{64}\bigr) c^6 +\nonumber \\ ( m_{21} m_{33} m_{64} + m_{21} m_{44} m_{53} + m_{23} m_{44} m_{51} - m_{24} m_{33} m_{61} + m_{11} m_{53} m_{64} ) c^4 +\nonumber\\ (-m_{21} m_{33} m_{44} - m_{11} m_{33} m_{64} - m_{11} m_{44} m_{53})\, c^2 + m_{11} m_{33} m_{44}=0.\label{1305071655} \end{gather} Natural frequencies of the system $c_k$, with $k=1,...,6$, are the roots of (\ref{1305071655}). In general, Eq. (\ref{1305071655}) has to be solved by means of numerical methods. However, if $\rho_{1,t}=\rho_{2,t}$, $\overline{S}_{1,13}=\overline{S}_{2,13}$ and $\overline{S}_{1,33}=\overline{S}_{2,33}$ (e.g., if the pipes are composed of a matrix and fiber with the same volume fraction and elastic properties) we can find exact solutions of Eq. (\ref{1305071655}) analytically. Indeed, if we define $p:=m_{33}/m_{53}=(\rho_{1,t}\overline{S}_{1,33})^{-1}$, $q:=m_{11}/m_{21}=(\rho_w m_{21})^{-1}$ and $\delta:=(m_{24}m_{61}-m_{23}m_{51})/(m_{53}m_{21})$, with $\delta\geq 0$ then Eq. (\ref{1305071655}) reads \begin{eqnarray} -(c^2-p)^2(c^2-q)+\delta c^4(c^2 - p)=0, \end{eqnarray} with roots \begin{eqnarray}\label{1309302314} \begin{array}{rcl} c_1&=&\sqrt{p},\label{1305072249} \\[.2cm] c_2&=&\displaystyle{\sqrt{\frac{(p+q)}{2(1-\delta)}+\sqrt{\frac{(p+q)^2}{4(1-\delta)^2} -\frac{4pq(1-\delta)}{4(1-\delta)^2}}}},\label{1304042252} \\[.5cm] c_3&=&\displaystyle{ \sqrt{\frac{(p+q)}{2(1-\delta)}- \sqrt{\frac{(p+q)^2}{4(1-\delta)^2} -\frac{4pq(1-\delta)}{4(1-\delta)^2}}}}:=c_w \end{array} \end{eqnarray} $c_4=-c_1$, $c_5=-c_2$, $c_6=-c_3=-c_w$. Here $c_1,c_2$ and $c_w$ are positive (forward traveling) while $c_4,c_5$ and $c_6$ are negative (backward traveling) wave speeds. Since $c_w$ is smaller than $c_1$ and $c_2$, we refer to it as the speed of the primary wave. Accordingly, we call $c_1$ and $c_2$ the speeds of the precursor waves related to pipe 1 and 2, respectively. \subsubsection{Reconstruction of the physical quantities}\label{1309301406} We are now able to recover the mechanical strain in the hoop and axial directions as functions of $P,V,\overline{\sigma}_{i,z},\overline{\dot{u}}_{i,z} $. Thanks to Eq. $(\ref{1303281553})$-RIGHT we can write the one-dimensional hoop strain as follows $$ \varepsilon_{i,hoop}=\overline{\varepsilon}_{i,\varphi}=\frac{1}{2\pi(R_i+e_i/2)e_i}\int_{R_i}^{R_i+e_i}2\pi r\, \varepsilon_{i,\varphi}dr=\overline{S}_{i,11}\overline{\sigma}_{i,\varphi}+\overline{S}_{i,13}\overline{\sigma}_{i,z}, $$ where $\overline{\sigma}_{i,\varphi}$ has been obtained in (\ref{1309251543}) (with $P_{in}= P_{out}=0$). In turn, we have \begin{eqnarray}\label{1305101150} \varepsilon_{i,hoop}=\overline{S}_{i,11}H_i P_0 f(z-ct)+\overline{S}_{i,13}\sigma_{i,z0}f(z-ct). \end{eqnarray} The cross-sectional averaged axial strain can be obtained by Eqs. (\ref{1311091742}) and (\ref{1305071619}) \begin{eqnarray} \varepsilon_{i,ax}=\overline{\varepsilon}_{i,z}=\frac{1}{2\pi(R_i+e_i/2)e_i}\int_{R_i}^{R_i+e_i}2\pi r\varepsilon_{i,z}dr=\frac{\partial \overline{u}_{i,z}}{\partial z} =-\frac{\dot{u}_{i,z0} }{c}f(z-ct)=\nonumber\\ \overline{S}_{i,13}H_i P_0 f(z-ct)+\overline{S}_{i,33}\sigma_{i,z0}f(z-ct).\label{1309251620} \end{eqnarray} Notice that here $ \overline{u}_{i,z}=(-\dot{u}_{i,z0} /c)F(z-ct)$ follows from integrating the last equation in (\ref{1305071636}) over time with $F'=f$. Then, from the system of equations (\ref{1305091615}) we can easily derive the following relations \begin{eqnarray}\label{1309291450} \dot{u}_{i,z0} =\frac{c \overline{S}_{i,13} H_iP_0}{\displaystyle{(-1+c^2\overline{S}_{i,33}\rho_{i,t})}},\qquad \sigma_{i,z0} =-c\rho_{i,t}\frac{c \overline{S}_{i,13}H_i P_0}{ \displaystyle{(-1+c^2\overline{S}_{i,33}\rho_{i,t})}},\label{1303281900} \end{eqnarray} and, by taking $c=c_3=c_w$, \begin{eqnarray}\label{1305091618} P_0=c_w\rho_w V_0. \end{eqnarray} Thanks to Eq. (\ref{1305091618}) we can express averaged hoop and axial stress dependent on either the fluid velocity $V_0$ or, upon inversion of Eq. (\ref{1305091618}), on the fluid pressure $P_0$. By plugging Eqs. (\ref{1303281900})-RIGHT and (\ref{1305091618}) into Eq. (\ref{1305101150}) and (\ref{1309251620}) with $c=c_w$ we obtain \begin{gather} \varepsilon_{i,hoop}=\Bigl\{\overline{S}_{i,11}H_i +\overline{S}_{i,13}\Bigl[-c_w\rho_{i,t}\frac{c_w \overline{S}_{i,13}H_i}{(-1+c_w^2 \overline{S}_{i,33}\rho_{i,t})}\Bigr]\Bigr\}c_w\rho_w V_0 f(z-c_wt),\label{1311100014}\\ \varepsilon_{i,ax}=-\frac{\overline{S}_{i,13}H_i}{(-1+c_w^2 \overline{S}_{i,33}\rho_{i,t})} c_w\rho_w V_0 f(z-c_w t),\label{1309291512}\\ \sigma_{i,z0} =-\rho_{i,t}c_w^2\frac{\overline{S}_{i,13}H_i}{ \displaystyle{(-1+c_w^2\overline{S}_{i,33}\rho_{i,t})}}c_w\rho_w V_0.\nonumber \end{gather} \section{Water-hammer experiments}\label{1311081625} Armed with the set of analytic expressions from Section \ref{13010041448}, we turn now to the simulation of experimental measurements for the water-hammer experiment for a set of pipes including homogeneous (isotropic) metal pipes and fiber-reinforced (anisotropic) pipes. \subsection{Experimental setup} The propagation of waves in the annular space between two pipes is studied experimentally using the apparatus shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:experiment}. For all experiments, the outer pipe is a thick-walled cylindrical vessel made from 4140 high strength steel with an inner radius $R_2=$ 38.1~mm, wall thickness $e_2=$ 25.4~mm, and length 0.97~m. Tubes of various sizes can be mounted concentrically inside of this vessel; these tubes are held in place at both ends by polycarbonate plugs and sealed with gland seals. The plug at the right end of Fig.~\ref{fig:experiment} is fixed to the base of the setup while the plug at the left end is fixed to a ``support plate'' (Fig.~\ref{fig:experiment} inset) which features four holes that allow pressure waves to pass freely while still providing support for the inner tube. \begin{figure}[t] \centering \includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{diagram-eps-converted-to.pdf} \caption{Diagram of apparatus used to measure wave propagation speeds (rotated 90$^\circ$ counterclockwise). ``Electrical feedthrough'' provides a sealed connection between the leads of strain gauges (attached to specimen tube) and the data acquisition electronics external to the setup. The web version of this article contains the above plot figure in color.} \label{fig:experiment} \end{figure} The annular space between the two pipes is filled with distilled water while the sealed cavity inside of the inner pipe remains filled with air at ambient pressure. The water inside the annular cavity is also at atmospheric pressure at the beginning of the test. An aluminum ``buffer'' is then inserted into the top of the apparatus, and any air that remains in the system is vented through a hole in the buffer that is later sealed. The buffer is composed of a 125~mm long aluminum cylinder capped by a 25~mm thick steel striker plate which prevents damage of the buffer during projectile impact; this striker plate is bolted to the aluminum buffer using eight 1/4-20 machine screws. Next a projectile is fired from a gas gun into the buffer, and the stress wave that develops in the buffer is transmitted into the water as a shock wave which travels along the annular space between the inner and outer pipes. Examples of pressure traces plotted on an $x-t$ diagram are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:pressureTrace}; they demonstrate a sharp shock wave followed by an approximately exponential decay. Slight steepening of the wavefront is visible as the wave progresses. The high frequency fluctuations in the pressure signal are the result of axisymmetric vibrations of the inner pipe, as was confirmed by hoop strain measurements (not shown) at multiple locations around the circumference. The axial propagation speed of the pressure wave is measured using a row of six pressure transducers, PCB model 113A23, which have a response time less than 1~$\mu s$, resonant frequency above 500~kHz, and are sampled at 1~MHz. These transducers are mounted flush with the inner surface of the outer pipe. The response of the tube is recorded using bonded strain gauges oriented in the hoop direction, which are coated with a compliant sealant (Vishay PG, M-Coat D) to avoid electrical interference from the water. Signals are amplified using Vishay 2310B signal conditioners and digitized at 1~MHz. The speed of the pressure wave is measured by marking the time of arrival of the pressure wave at each transducer and fitting a line to the data as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:pressureTrace}; the slope of this line is the wave speed. The time of arrival of the pressure wave at each transducer is determined as the first instant at which the pressure exceeds a chosen threshold. Because the shock wave steepens as it progresses, the wave speed depends slightly on chosen threshold level. For the results reported in this paper, wave speeds were calculated using both 50\% and 80\% of the maximum pressure of the incident wave as threshold values, and in every case the results differed by less than 5\%. The lower threshold value of 50\% was chosen because it is larger than the amplitude of the precursor wave, which ensures that the measured primary wave speed is not influenced by that of the precursor wave. For each specimen tube, between 3 and 8 shots were conducted. After each shot, wave speeds were calculated using both 50\% and 80\% of the maximum pressure as the threshold described above, and the average of these two values was taken as the measured wave speed for the shot. Finally, the average wave speed over all 3-8 shots was calculated, and this number was taken to be the wave speed associated with the specimen. The uncertainty in the measured wave speed was calculated as twice the standard deviation of the measured wave speeds over all 3-8 shots; this uncertainty is typically less than 10\%. The difference in measured wave speed between shots depends mainly on the quality of the impact between the projectile and buffer. Slight non-normal impact is unavoidable and leads to slight differences in the measured velocity. Further details about the experimental setup are recorded in Refs. \cite{Bitter01,Bitter02}. It may be noted that the experiment was designed for the study of plastic deformation and buckling of tubes loaded by dynamic external pressure, which is the reason for the rather high pressure of the shock wave (on the order of 1-10 MPa). For all results reported in this paper, the pressure and total impulse of the pressure load were low enough to prevent plastic deformation of both the inner and outer pipes, as was verified by hoop strain measurements. Although the hoop strain measurements indicated slight non-axisymmetric deformation of the inner pipe (elastic buckling) in most shots, these effects do not appear to significantly influence the propagation of pressure waves so long as the buckles remain elastic (see Ref. \cite{Bitter01}). \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{shot237P-eps-converted-to.pdf} \caption{Example of experimental pressure traces used to determine wave propagation speed. } \label{fig:pressureTrace} \end{figure} \begin{table}[h!] \centering \caption{Parameters of the large 4140 steel tube (referred as pipe 2 in Section \ref{1311081625}) and water.}\label{1311101234} \begin{tabular}{llcccccc} \hline 4140 Steel (pipe 2) \\ \hline Young's modulus & $E_{2,t}$ & 198 GPa & & & Inner radius & $R_2$ & 38.1 mm\\ Density & $\rho_{2,t}$ & 7800 kg/m$^3$ & & & Thickness & $e_2$ & 25.4 mm\\ Poisson's ratio & $\nu_{2,t}$ & 0.3 & & & & & \\ \hline Water\\ \hline Bulk modulus & $K$ & 2.14 GPa & & & & & \\ Density & $\rho_w$ & 999 kg/m$^3$ & & & & & \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table} \begin{table}[h!] \centering \caption{Parameters of stainless steel and aluminum.}\label{1312281935} \begin{tabular}{llcclcc} \hline Aluminum (pipe 1) & & & & Stainless steel (pipe 1) & & \\ \hline Young's modulus & $E_{1,t}$ & 68.9 GPa & & Young's modulus & $E_{1,t}$ & 198 GPa\\ Density & $\rho_{1,t}$ & 2700 kg/m$^3$ & & Density & $\rho_{1,t}$ & 8040 kg/m$^3$ \\ Poisson's ratio & $\nu_{1,t}$ & 0.33 & & Poisson's ratio & $\nu_{1,t}$ & 0.29 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table} \subsection{Results and discussion}\label{1312181656} We now address our experimental measurements of the speed of the primary wave, the fluid pressure and the hoop strain in the internal pipe against the prediction based on our modeling work. The geometrical and physical properties of the external pipe are reported in Table \ref{1311101234}. The smaller interior tubes are mounted concentrically and are made from either aluminum, stainless steel (with properties listed in Tables \ref{1312281935} and \ref{1311101332}) or a carbon fiber-epoxy resin matrix composite. The elastic coefficients matrices $\overline{\ensuremath{\mathbf C}}_i$ and $\overline{\SS}_i$ for both the internal ($i=1$) and external ($i=2$) pipe are computed as in Paragraph \ref{1312181655} with the only exception being the CFRP pipe for which a clarification of the method is given in the Remark below. Notice that since the physical properties of the external and internal pipes are different, and in particular $\overline{\ensuremath{\mathbf C}}_1\neq\overline{\ensuremath{\mathbf C}}_2$, computation of the primary wave speed $c_w$ needs to be accomplished by solving Eq. (\ref{1305071655}) numerically. Results displayed in Table \ref{1311101332} show a good match between the experimental data and the predicted values. However, there are some slight differences; in particular, the measured wave speeds are consistently greater than those predicted by the model. One possible explanation is that the steepening wavefront of the pressure wave biases the experimental measurements toward higher wave speeds. Comparisons of experimental measurements and predictions for hoop and axial strain in the internal pipe, given in Table~\ref{1310091629}, show that the calculated data match with experimental results reasonably well. In this table the measured data points are the peak values of the pressure and hoop strain, which were determined after applying a 50~kHz low-pass filter to the recorded signals. The computed values of these physical variables are based on $c_w$ since the primary wave generates larger magnitudes in both axial and hoop strain than the precursor waves. Differences between the computed and measured values are the result of modeling idealizations that are not completely satisfied in the experiment. For instance, radial inertia of the fluid and pipes, strain rate effects, axial bending of the pipe in the vicinity of the wavefront, non-planar features of the pressure wavefront, and transient phenomena, may well contribute to the differences between measurement and computation. Although only direct measurements for the fluid pressure are available, we are able to report estimated data for the fluid velocity as well. Since a direct measurement of the fluid velocity is not available, the fluid velocity behind the wavefront is estimated as being equal to the initial velocity of the buffer (see Fig. 3). The initial buffer velocity was estimated by equating the momentum of the projectile prior to impact with that of the buffer after impact. In other experiments using the same experimental setup, high speed video of the projectile-buffer impact has shown that this estimate of the buffer velocity is typically within 10-20\% of its actual velocity. \begin{table}[h!] \centering \caption{Geometrical parameters of pipe 1 (six different cases). $\dagger=$ aluminum, $\ddagger=$ stainless steel, $\star=$ carbon-epoxy composite. } \label{1311101332} \begin{tabular}{clccccc} \hline &\multicolumn{2}{l}{ } &\multicolumn{4}{ c}{Speed of primary wave $c_w$ [m/s]} \\ \cline{5-7} Tube ID & $R_1$ [m] & $e_1$ [mm] & & Measurement & & Computation\\ \hline $27^{\dagger}$ & 0.0199 & 1.47 & & $1245\pm 14.72$ & & 1207\\ $34^{\dagger}$ & 0.0218 & 0.89 & & $1078\pm 123.50$ & & 1054\\ $35^{\dagger}$ & 0.0154 & 0.89 & & $1309\pm 36.50$ & & 1281\\ $38^{\dagger}$ & 0.0154 & 0.89 & & $1312\pm 46.76$ & & 1281\\ \hline $36^{\ddagger}$ & 0.0154 & 0.89 & & $1379\pm 95.92$ & & 1369\\ \hline $40^{\star}$ & 0.019 & 1.45 & & $1157\pm 38.03$ & & 1100\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table} % % \begin{table}[h!] \centering \caption{ Comparison of measurements and predictions of maximum hoop strain accompanying the water-hammer wave (pipe 1) and fluid velocity. Here the fluid velocity $V_0^{\dagger}$ was not measured, but instead was estimated at the post-processing level. Variables with a superscript $^{\sharp}$ have been computed using the water pressure $P_0$ determined from the experiments and by using Eqs. (\ref{1305091618}) and (\ref{1311100014}). } \label{1310091629} \begin{tabular}{llcccccc} \hline &\multicolumn{2}{l}{Experiments} &\multicolumn{4}{r}{Computations} \\ \cline{2-4} \cline{6-7} Shoot ID & $P_0$ & $\varepsilon_{1,hoop}$ & $V_0^{\dagger}$ & &$\varepsilon_{1,hoop}^{\sharp}$ & $V_0^{\sharp}$ \\ & [MPa] &[mstr] & [m/s] & & [mstr] & [m/s] \\ \hline 100 (tube ID 27) & 3.10 & -0.61 & 2.86 & & -0.6581 & 2.57 \\ 106 (tube ID 27) & 6.44 & -1.23 & 5.69 & & -1.3672 & 5.34 \\ 137 (tube ID 34) & 2.64 & -0.93 & 2.83 & & -0.9816 & 2.51 \\ 151 (tube ID 35) & 4.98 & -1.37 & 3.97 & &-1.3325 &3.89 \\ 200 (tube ID 38) & 3.05 & -0.55 & 3.14 & & -0.8161 & 2.38 \\ \hline 159 (tube ID 36) & 7.92 & -0.61 & 5.22 & & -0.7054 & 5.76 \\ 160 (tube ID 36) & 11.10 & -0.76 & 6.19 & & -0.9886 & 8.07 \\ \hline 398 (tube ID 40) & 3.12 & -1.56 & - & & -1.3 & - \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table} \begin{figure}[h!] \centering \includegraphics[width=6.5cm, height=4.5cm]{shep005bis-eps-converted-to.pdf}% \includegraphics[width=6.5cm, height=4.5cm]{shep006bis-eps-converted-to.pdf}% \caption{ Comparison of computed primary wave speed $c_w$ and experimental measurements. LEFT: aluminum, tube IDs 34 and 35 (prediction reported as continuous line); stainless steel, tube ID 36 (prediction reported as dashed line). RIGHT: carbon-epoxy composite, tube ID 40 (prediction reported as a continuous line); aluminum, tube ID 27 (prediction reported as dashed line) and ID 38 (dash-dotted line). The web version of this article contains the above plot figures in color. }\label{1406101408} \end{figure} \paragraph{Remark 1.} \begin{figure}[h!] \centering \includegraphics[width=7cm]{shep007-eps-converted-to.pdf} \includegraphics[width=7cm]{shep008-eps-converted-to.pdf} \caption{ LEFT: Computation of the primary wave speed $c_w$ as a function of the thickness of the outer tube. Here various plots correspond to increasing values of the Young's modulus of pipe 2 including the asymptotic case of an ideally rigid outer pipe. The experimental measurement is reported for tube ID 36. RIGHT: Computation of the primary wave speed $c_w$ for different values of the thickness of the outer tube. The experimental result available for tube ID 36 is to be compared with the curve obtained for $e_2=25.4$ mm.}\label{1406271625} \end{figure} While our analysis is valid for pipes of various thicknesses and elastic moduli, experimental results are available only for a system where thin internal pipes are coupled to a relatively thick and stiff outer pipe. In this regime, the external pipe is almost rigid and the main contributions to the fluid-structure interaction are due to the internal pipe. To clarify this point, we analyze the dependence of the primary wave speed on certain parameters of the external pipe. As an example, we limit our analysis to systems with an internal pipe made of stainless steel with parameters reported in Table 3. Similar results can be obtained by considering an aluminum or composite pipe. In Fig. \ref{1406271625}-LEFT we report the computation of the primary wave speed as a function of the thickness of the external pipe and considering the Young's modulus of pipe 2 as a parameter. Therefore the continuous curve corresponds to 4140 steel while the other curves correspond to a material with increasing stiffness including the limit case of an ideally rigid material. Interestingly, the computed value of the primary wave speed for a 4140 steel pipe with internal radius $R_1=38.1$ mm and thickness of $e_1=25.4$ mm ($c_w=1369$ m/s, Table \ref{1311101332}) is reasonably close to asymptotic value obtained for a perfectly rigid external pipe ($c_w=1404$ m/s) thus confirming that the external pipe is, with a good approximation, almost rigid. Fig. \ref{1406271625}-RIGHT shows the dependence of $c_w$ on $e_2$ to clarify the effect of a softer outer pipe. Again, we consider an internal pipe made of stainless steel and with $e_1=0.89$ mm while the external pipe is in 4140 steel and with fixed $R_2=38.1$ mm. The plot of the wave speed, as a function of $R_1$, generalizes the one in Fig. \ref{1406101408}-LEFT as the thickness of the outer pipe is now regarded as a parameter. Indeed, for $e_2=25.4 $ mm we obtain the dashed curve plotted in Fig. \ref{1406101408}-LEFT for which a comparison with an experimental result is available. For $e_2=2.54$ mm we have $R_2/e_2=15$ which may well be regarded in the regime of thin pipes. As $e_2$ decreases we obtain decreasing profiles and values of the wave speed and, by Eq. (\ref{1305091618}), of the fluid pressure as well. Indeed, softer pipes undergo large radial deformations causing an increase of the annular area and consequently a drop of pressure. \paragraph{Remark 2.} The computations of the elastic stiffness for carbon-epoxy composite tubes deserves a special comment. When we have more fibers in one direction than in another we must adapt the method used in Paragraph \ref{1312181655}. Indeed, since tube 40 is a lay-up structure of layers containing fibers in both axial ($\theta=0^o$) and transverse ($\theta=90^o$) direction, its stiffness matrix, denoted by $\overline{\ensuremath{\mathbf C}}^{ce}_1$, is determined by a volumetric average of the two stiffness matrices obtained by plugging $\theta=0^o$ or $\theta=90^o$ into $\overline{\ensuremath{\mathbf C}}^{+\theta}$. Although the exact proportion of plies with fibers in either direction is unknown, we have been able to estimate the elastic coefficients by simply assuming that the known coefficient $\overline{C}_{1,33}^{ce}$ is given by a linear combination of $\overline{C}_{33}^{0^o}$ and $\overline{C}_{33}^{90^o}$ \cite{KOLLAR}. Indeed, by solving the system of equations \begin{eqnarray} \overline{C}_{1,11}^{ce}=\xi \,\overline{C}_{11}^{0^o}+(1-\xi) \overline{C}_{11}^{90^o},\qquad \overline{C}_{1,33}^{ce}=\xi\, \overline{C}_{33}^{0^o}+(1-\xi) \overline{C}_{33}^{90^o}, \end{eqnarray} we are able to compute the two unknown variables $\overline{C}_{1,11}^{ce}$ and $\xi$. The latter, $\xi$, is the relative amount of fibers in the axial direction, a non-dimensional parameter which takes into account both the percentage of plies with fibers \text{in the axial direction} and their thickness. For pipes composed of uniaxial layers with all fibers in direction $\theta=0^o$ we have $\xi=1$, while in the dual case of fiber-reinforced pipes with winding angle $\theta=90^o$ we have $\xi=0$. Notice that the elastic coefficient for CFRP pipes in Paragraph \ref{1312181655} have been computed for $\xi=0.5$ since we have the same amount of plies with winding angle $+\theta$ as those with winding angle $-\theta$ and all the plies have the same thickness. By plugging $\overline{C}_{33}^{0^o}=\overline{C}_{11}^{90^o}=142$ GPa and $\overline{C}_{11}^{0^o}=\overline{C}_{33}^{90^o}=9$ GPa \cite{private} and $\overline{C}_{1,33}^{ce}=117$ GPa \cite{url} yields $\overline{C}_{1,11}^{ce}\approx 34$ GPa and $\xi\approx 0.8$. Finally, the computation of the density of the composite and of the Poisson's ratio follow as in Eq. (\ref{1312251840}) by assuming $\rho_{f}=1770$ $\textrm{kg/m}^3$, $\nu_f=0.2$ (carbon fiber) and $\rho_{m}=1208$ $\textrm{kg/m}^3$, $\nu_m=0.39$ (epoxy resin) \cite{HoYou13} with fiber volume fraction $V_f=2/3$ \cite{url} yielding $\nu_{31}=0.26$ and $\rho_{1,t}=1583$ kg/m$^3$. \\ \quad \\ Investigation of the pressure waves and mechanical strain profiles becomes particularly transparent when the system is composed of two coaxial carbon-reinforced pipes and when fibers and matrix have the same physical properties in both pipes. Even though for this case experimental results are not available, in the following we report the analysis for the readers convenience thus generalizing the one-pipe modeling work of \cite{HoYou13}. \subsection{Fiber-reinforced plastic pipes}\label{1312181514} The study of the fluid-structure interaction in anisotropic structures, considered for the first time in this paper with the modeling tube ID 40 in Paragraph \ref{1312181656}, is now analyzed in full detail for a system of two coaxial water-filled CFRP pipes composed of pairs of $\pm\theta$ plies of same thickness. To keep our analysis simpler, we assume that the physical properties of matrix and fibers (including the winding angle) are identical to one another in both pipes (see Table \ref{1309291458}) yielding $\overline{C}_{1,kl}=\overline{C}_{2,kl}$. As in Paragraph \ref{1312181655} we drop the subscript $i$ in the stiffness and compliance coefficients. The general case of pipes with different properties, including different winding angles $\theta_1\neq\theta_2$, can be studied with similar techniques and is left to the brave reader. The plots of the stiffness and compliance elements $\overline{C}_{kl}$ and $\overline{S}_{kl}$ as a function of the winding angle $\theta$ are contained in \cite{HoYou13}. Here it is enough to recall that at $\theta=0^{\circ}$, the direction of the fibers coincides with the axial direction of the pipes and consequently the axial stiffness $\overline{C}_{33}$ has a maximum while the hoop stiffness $\overline{C}_{11}$ has a minimum. As $\theta$ increases, $\overline{C}_{11}$ increases while $\overline{C}_{33}$ decreases due to the fiber reinforcement in the hoop direction. Conversely, as $\theta$ increases, $\overline{S}_{11}$ decreases while $\overline{S}_{33}$ increases. Then, the absolute values of the coupling terms $\overline{C}_{13}$ and $\overline{S}_{13}$ have a maximum at $\theta=45^o$ and are minimized at $\theta=0^o$ and $90^o$. \begin{table}[h!] \centering \caption{Geometrical and physical data for coaxial CFRP pipes, \cite{HoYou13}. }\label{1309291458} \begin{tabular}{llcclcc} \hline Carbon fiber & & & & Epoxy resin (matrix) & & \\ \hline Young's modulus & $E_{f}$ & 238 GPa & & Young's modulus & $E_{m}$ & 2.83 GPa\\ Density & $\rho_{f}$ & 1770 kg/m$^3$ & & Density & $\rho_{m}$ & 1208 kg/m$^3$ \\ Poisson's ratio & $\nu_{f}$ & 0.2 & & Poisson's ratio & $\nu_{m}$ & 0.39 \\ \hline Composite pipes & & & & & & \\ \hline Inner radius (pipe 1) & $R_{1}$ & 19.15 mm & & Inner radius (pipe 2) & $R_2$ & 54 mm\\ Thickness (pipe 1, 2) & $e_1\hbox{=}e_2$ & 1.66 mm & & Fiber volume fraction & $V_{f}$ &0.7 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table} \noindent The calculated primary and precursor waves are shown in Fig. \ref{1305101143} as functions of $\theta$. Similar to the one-pipe scenario of \cite{HoYou13}, as $\theta$ increases the result is a reinforcement of the hoop stiffness and an increase in the primary wave speed which corresponds to the breathing mode of the pipes. Conversely, the speed of the precursor waves (corresponding to a longitudinal mode of the pipes) diminishes due to decreased axial stiffness. We remark that the computation of the physical variables is based on the incident wave $c=c_w$ because its magnitude is much larger than those of precursor waves. In this case, by Eq. (\ref{1305091618}) we have $P_0/V_0=c_w\rho_w $ and therefore the graph of the fluid pressure is not reported. Precursor wave speeds $c_1$ and $c_2$ are very similar when the parameter $\delta$ is very small which happens for either small or large $\theta$. This is consistent with Eq. (\ref{1309302314}) where for $\delta=0$ we have $c_1=c_2$. It is possible to prove that this corresponds to the cases for which the coupling stiffness $\overline{S}_{13}$ as a function of $\theta$ is minimal. On the other hand, it follows that for intermediate values of $\theta$ wavespeed $c_1$ becomes slower while $\delta$ becomes larger and is maximized at $\theta\approx 43^o$ when also $\overline{S}_{13}$ is large. Proof of the dependence of $\delta$ on the coupling term $\overline{S}_{13}$ requires a more detailed asymptotic analysis and it is therefore left to a forthcoming paper. Plots of the hoop and axial strain in pipes 1 and 2 calculated from Eqs. (\ref{1311100014}) and (\ref{1309291512}) are reported in Fig. \ref{1305101157}. As the impulsive impact by the projectile generates a positive water pressure, pipe 2 undergoes a positive expansion in the radial direction (hoop strain is positive) while pipe 1 is contracted in the radial direction (hoop strain is negative). Note that the radial expansion of pipe 2 accompanies the contraction in the axial direction while the radial contraction of pipe 1 accompanies the expansion in the axial direction. This explains why hoop and axial strain have opposite signs. The hoop strain is essentially determined by the hoop compliance $\overline{S}_{11}$ and therefore the absolute values of the hoop strains in both pipe 1 and 2 are large for small $\theta$ and are decreasing for increasing $\theta$. Then, at a first order of approximation, the axial strain is mainly determined by the coupling term $\overline{S}_{13}$ \cite[Sect. 5]{HoYou13} and therefore the axial strains in both pipe 1 and 2 are maximized (in absolute value) for $\theta\approx 52^o$. \begin{figure}[h!] \centering \includegraphics[width=6.5cm,height=4.3cm]{pipe012a-eps-converted-to.pdf}% \includegraphics[width=6.5cm,height=4.3cm]{pipe020a-eps-converted-to.pdf}% \caption{LEFT: plot of the primary wave speed $c_w$, RIGHT: plot of the precursor wave speeds $c_1$ and $c_2$ as a function of the winding angle $\theta$ and of the coefficient $\delta$ (non-dimensional, multiplied by $2000$) as a function of $\theta$. The web version of this article contains the above plot figure in color.}\label{1305101143} \end{figure} \begin{figure}[h!] \centering \includegraphics[width=6.5cm, height=4.3cm]{pipe023a-eps-converted-to.pdf}% \includegraphics[width=6.5cm ,height=4.3cm]{pipe022a-eps-converted-to.pdf}% \caption{LEFT: plot of the maximum hoop strains accompanying the water-hammer wave normalized by $V_0=1$ m/s as a function of the winding angle $\theta$ (Eqs. (\ref{1311100014})). RIGHT: plot of the maximum axial strains accompanying the water-hammer wave normalized by $V_0=1$ m/s as a function of the winding angle $\theta$ (Eq. (\ref{1309291512})). } \label{1305101157} \end{figure} \section{Summary and future perspectives} We have investigated the propagation of stress waves in water-filled pipes in an annular geometry. A six-equation model that describes the fluid-structure interaction has been derived and adapted to both elastically isotropic and anisotropic (fiber-reinforced) pipes. The natural frequencies of the system (eigenvalues) and the amplitude of the pressure and velocity of the fluid, along with the mechanical strains and stresses in the pipes (eigenvectors) have been computed and compared with experimental data of water-hammer tests. It is observed that the projectile impact causes a positive expansion of the external pipe in the radial direction and a contraction in the axial direction (Poisson's effect). Vice versa, the internal pipe is contracted in the radial direction and expanded axially. In the last section of the paper, which is a benchmark for future experimental investigation, we have analyzed in full detail the propagation of waves in CFRP pipes with a special emphasis on the influence of the winding angle on the wave speeds and the axial and hoop strains in the pipes. Most interestingly, we found that the speed of the primary wave (breathing mode) increases with the increasing winding angle due to increasing hoop stiffness in both pipes. This is in agreement with the one-pipe model and analysis of \cite{HoYou13}. Conversely, the profile of the speed of the precursor waves (longitudinal modes) is large when the winding angle is small (and therefore the axial stiffness is large) and it decreases with increasing winding angle. Additionally, we have observed that the two precursor waves travel at almost the same speed when the fiber winding angle is equal to either $0^o$ or $90^o$ while a separation of the velocities is observed for $\theta$ in between these values, a phenomenon which is the object of further analysis. \subsection*{Acknowledgments} The authors are indebted to Prof. K. Bhattacharya and J. Shepherd for many useful discussions and their advice. P.C. acknowledges support from the Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration under Award Number DE-FC52-08NA28613. This work was written when P.C. was a postdoctoral student at the California Institute of Technology.
\section{Introduction} A celebrated theorem of Matsusaka (cf. \cite{matsusaka}) states that for a smooth $n$-dimensional complex projective variety $X$ and an ample divisor $D$ on it, there exists a positive integer $M$, only depending on the Hilbert polynomial $\chi(X,\mathcal{O}_X(kD))$, such that $mD$ is very ample for all $m\ge M$. Koll\'ar and Matsusaka improved the result in \cite{kollar_matsusaka}, showing that the integer $M$ only depends on the intersection numbers $(D^n)$ and $(K_X \cdot D^{n-1})$. The first effective versions of this result are due to Siu (cf. \cite{siu}, \cite{siu1}) and Demailly (cf. \cite{demailly}, \cite{demailly1}): their methods are cohomological and rely on vanishing theorems. See also \cite{lazarsfeld1} for a full account of this approach. Although the minimal model program for surfaces in positive characteristic has been recently established, thanks to the work of Tanaka (cf. \cite{tanaka1} and \cite{tanaka2}), some interesting effectivity questions remain open in this setting, after the influential papers of Ekedahl and Shepherd-Barron (cf. \cite{ekedahl} and \cite{shepherdbarron}). The purpose of this paper is to present a complete solution for the following problem. \begin{question}\label{qmats} Let $X$ be a smooth surface over an algebraically closed field of positive characteristic, let $D$ and $B$ be an ample and a nef divisor on $X$ respectively. Then there exists an integer $M$ depending only on $(D^2), \ (K_X\cdot D)$ and $(D\cdot B)$ such that $$mD-B$$ is very ample for all $m \ge M.$ \end{question} The analogous question in characteristic zero with $B=0$ was totally solved in \cite{fernandezdelbusto} and a modified technique allows one to partially extend the result in positive characteristic (cf. \cite{ballico}). The main result of this paper is the following. \begin{thm}\label{main} Let $D$ and $B$ be respectively an ample divisor and a nef divisor on a smooth surface $X$ over an algebraically closed field $k$, with $\ch k =p>0$. Then $mD-B$ is very ample for any $$m> \frac{2D\cdot (H+B)}{D^{2}}\left((K_{X}+2D)\cdot D+1\right),$$ where \begin{itemize} \item $H:=K_{X}+4D$, if $X$ is neither quasi-elliptic with $\kappa(X)=1$ nor of general type; \item $H:=K_{X}+8D$, if $X$ is quasi-elliptic with $\kappa(X)=1$ and $p=3$; \item $H:=K_{X}+19D$, if $X$ is quasi-elliptic with $\kappa(X)=1$ and $p=2$; \item $H:=2K_{X}+4D$, if $X$ is of general type and $p\ge3$; \item $H:=2K_{X}+19D$, if $X$ is of general type and $p=2$. \end{itemize} \end{thm} The effective bound obtained with $H=K_{X}+4D$ is expected to hold for all surfaces. Note that this bound is not far from being sharp even in characteristic zero (cf. \cite{fernandezdelbusto}). The proof of Theorem \ref{main} does not rely directly on vanishing theorems, but rather on Fujita's conjecture on base point freeness and very ampleness of adjoint divisors, which is known to hold for smooth surfaces in characteristic zero (cf. \cite{reider}) and for smooth surfaces in positive characteristic which are neither quasi-elliptic with $\kappa(X)=1$ nor of general type (cf. \cite{shepherdbarron} and \cite{terakawa}). \begin{conjecture}[Fujita] Let $X$ be a smooth $n$-dimensional projective variety and let $D$ be an ample divisor on it. Then $K_X+kD$ is base point free for $k\ge n+1$ and very ample for $k\ge n+2$. \end{conjecture} If Fujita's conjecture on very ampleness holds then the bound of Theorem \ref{main} with $H=K_{X}+4D$ would work for arbitrary smooth surfaces in positive characteristic. For surfaces which are quasi-elliptic with $\kappa(X)=1$ or of general type we can prove the following effective result in the spirit of Fujita's conjecture (cf. Section 4). \begin{thm}\label{main2} Let $X$ a smooth surface over an algebraically closed field of characteristic $p>0$, $D$ an ample Cartier divisor on $X$ and let $L(a,b):=aK_X+bD$ for positive integers $a$ and $b$. Then $L(a,b)$ is very ample for the following values of $a$ and $b$: \begin{enumerate} \item if $X$ is quasi-elliptic with $\kappa(X)=1$ and $p=3$, $a=1$ and $b\ge 8$; \item if $X$ is quasi-elliptic with $\kappa(X)=1$ and $p=2$, $a=1$ and $b\ge 19$; \item if $X$ is of general type with $p\ge3$, $a=2$ and $b\ge 4$; \item if $X$ is of general type with $p=2$, $a=2$ and $b\ge 19$. \end{enumerate} \end{thm} The key ingredient of Theorem \ref{main2} is a combination of a Reider-type result due to Shepherd-Barron and bend-and-break techniques. For other results on the geography of pathological surfaces of Kodaira dimension smaller than two, see the recent work \cite{langer}. In Section 5, a Kawamata-Viehweg-type vanishing theorem which holds for surfaces which are quasi-elliptic with $\kappa(X)=1$ or of general type is proved (cf. Theorem \ref{injectivity} and Corollary \ref{finale}): this generalises the vanishing result in \cite{terakawa}. The core of our approach is a beautiful construction first introduced by Tango for the case of curves (cf. \cite{tango}) and Ekedahl (cf. \cite{ekedahl}) and Shepherd-Barron (cf. \cite{shepherdbarron}) for surfaces. The same strategy was generalised by Koll\'ar in \cite{kollar} in order to investigate the geography of varieties where Kodaira-type vanishing theorems fail, via the bend-and-break techniques. \section*{Acknowledgements} We would like to thank Paolo Cascini, Yoshinori Gongyo and Hiromu Tanaka for useful comments and the referee for helping us to improve our exposition. The second author is funded by the grant {\it Roth Scholarship} of the Department of Mathematics at Imperial College London. \section{Preliminary results} In this section we recall some techniques we will need later in this paper. \subsection{Volume of divisors} Let $D$ be a Cartier divisor on a normal variety $X$, not necessarily a surface. The volume of $D$ measures the asymptotic growth of the space of global sections of multiples of $D$. We will recall here few properties of the volume and we refer to \cite{lazarsfeld1} for more details. \begin{definition} Let $D$ be a Cartier divisor on $X$ with $\dim(X)=n$. The volume of $D$ is defined by \begin{displaymath} \vol(D):=\limsup_{m\to \infty}\frac{h^{0}(X,\mathcal{O}_{X}(mD))}{m^{n}/n!}. \end{displaymath} The volume of $X$ is defined as $\vol(X):=\vol(K_X)$. \end{definition} It is easy to show that if $D$ is big and nef then $\vol(D)=D^{n}$. In general, it is a hard invariant to compute but thanks to Fujita's approximation theorem, some of its properties can be deduced from the case where $D$ is ample. For a proof of the theorem in characteristic $0$ we refer to \cite{lazarsfeld1}. More recently, Takagi gave a proof of the same theorem in positive characteristic (see \cite{takagi}). In particular, we can deduce the log-concavity of the volume function even in positive characteristic. The proof is exactly the same as Theorem 11.4.9 in \cite{lazarsfeld1}. \begin{thm} \label{logconc} Let $D$ and $D'$ be big Cartier divisors on a normal variety $X$ defined over an algebraically closed field. Then \begin{displaymath} \vol(D+D')^{1/n}\geq \vol(D)^{1/n}+\vol(D')^{1/n}. \end{displaymath} \end{thm} \subsection{Bogomolov's inequality and Sakai's theorems} We start with the notion of semi-stability for rank-two vector bundles on surfaces. Let $X$ be a smooth surface defined over an algebraically closed field. \begin{definition}\label{inst_bog} A rank-two vector bundle $\mathcal{E}$ on $X$ is {\it unstable} if it fits in a short exact sequence $$0 \rightarrow \mathcal{O}_X(D_1)\rightarrow \mathcal{E}\rightarrow \mathcal{I}_Z \cdot \mathcal{O}_X(D_2)\rightarrow 0$$ where $D_1$ and $D_2$ are Cartier divisors such that $D':=D_1-D_2$ is big with $(D'^2)>0$ and $Z$ is an effective $0$-cycle on $X$. The vector bundle $\mathcal{E}$ is {\it semi-stable} if it is not unstable. \end{definition} In characteristic zero, the following celebrated result holds (cf. \cite{bogomolov}). \begin{thm}[Bogomolov] Let $X$ be defined over a field of characteristic zero. Then every rank-two vector bundle $\mathcal{E}$ for which $c_1^2(\mathcal{E}) > 4c_2(\mathcal{E})$ is unstable. \end{thm} As a consequence, one can deduce the following theorem, due to Sakai (cf. \cite[Proposition 1]{sakai}), which turns out to be an equivalent statement as shown in \cite{dicerbo}. \begin{thm}\label{sakai_1} Let $D$ be a nonzero big divisor with $D^2 > 0$ on a smooth projective surface $X$ over a field of characteristic zero. If $H^1(X, \mathcal{O}_X (K_X + D))\neq 0$ then there exists a non-zero effective divisor $E$ such that \begin{itemize} \item $D - 2E$ is big; \item $(D-E)\cdot E \le 0$. \end{itemize} \end{thm} The previous result easily implies a weaker version of Reider's theorem. \begin{thm}\label{sakai_2} Let $D$ be a nef divisor with $D^2 > 4$ on a smooth projective surface $X$ over a field of characteristic zero. Then $K_X + D$ has no base point unless there exists a non-zero effective divisor $E$ such that $D \cdot E = 0$ and $(E^2) = -1$ or $D \cdot E = 1$ and $(E^2) = 0$. \end{thm} The following result, conjectured by Fujita, can be deduced for smooth surfaces in characteristic zero. \begin{corollary}[Fujita Conjectures for surfaces, char 0]\label{shepherd} Let $D_1, \ldots, D_k$ be ample divisors on $X$ smooth, over a field of characteristic zero. Then $K_X+D_1+\ldots+D_k$ is base-point free if $k\ge3$ and very ample if $k\ge 4$. \end{corollary} We remark that Theorem \ref{sakai_1} is not known in general for smooth surfaces in positive characteristic, although Fujita's conjectures are expected to hold. \subsection{Ekedahl's construction and Shepherd-Barron's theorem} In this section we recall some classical results on the geography of smooth surfaces in positive characteristic (see \cite{ekedahl}, \cite{shepherdbarron} and \cite{shepherdbarron1}). For a good overview on the geography of surfaces in positive characteristic, see \cite{liedtke}. We discuss here a construction which is due to Tango for the case of curves (cf. \cite{tango}) and Ekedahl (cf. \cite{ekedahl}) for surfaces. There are many variations on the same theme, but we will focus on the one which is more related to stability of vector bundles. We need this fundamental result. \begin{thm}[Bogomolov]\label{pe_unstable} Let $\mathcal{E}$ be a rank-two vector bundle on a smooth projective surface $X$ over a field of positive characteristic such that the Bogomolov's inequality does not hold (i.e. such that $c_1^2(\mathcal{E}) > 4c_2(\mathcal{E})$). Then there exists a reduced and irreducible surface $Y$ contained in the ruled threefold $\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{E})$ such that \begin{itemize} \item the restriction $\rho\colon Y\rightarrow X$ is $p^e$-purely inseparable for some $e>0$; \item $(F^*)^e (\mathcal{E})$ is unstable. \end{itemize} \end{thm} \proof See \cite[Theorem 1]{shepherdbarron} \endproof The previous result also provides an explicit construction of the purely inseparable cover (cf. \cite{shepherdbarron}). \begin{construction}\label{constr} Take a rank-two vector bundle $\mathcal{E}$ such that the Bogomolov's inequality does not hold and let $e$ be an integer such that $F^{e*}\mathcal{E}$ is unstable. We have the following commutative diagram $$\begin{xymatrix} { \mathbb{P}(F^{e*}\mathcal{E}) \ar[r]^G \ar[d]_{p'} & \mathbb{P}(\mathcal{E})\ar[d]^p\\ X \ar[r]^{F^e} & X } \end{xymatrix}.$$ The fact that $F^{e*}\mathcal{E}$ is unstable gives an exact sequence $$0 \rightarrow \mathcal{O}_X(D_1)\rightarrow F^{e*}\mathcal{E}\rightarrow \mathcal{I}_Z \cdot \mathcal{O}_X(D_2)\rightarrow 0$$ and a quasi-section $X_0$ of $\mathbb{P}(F^{e*}\mathcal{E})$ (i.e. $p'_{|X_0}\colon X_0\rightarrow X$ is birational). Let $Y$ be the image of $X_0$ via $G$. One can show that the induced morphism. $$\rho\colon Y \rightarrow X$$ is $p^e$-purely inseparable. Let us define $D':=D_1-D_2$. One can show (cf. \cite[Corollary 5]{shepherdbarron}) that $$K_Y \equiv \rho^*\bigg(K_X - \frac{p^e-1}{p^e}D'\bigg).$$ \end{construction} \begin{rmk}\label{rem_eff} We will be particularly interested in the case when the rank-two vector bundle $\mathcal{E}$ comes as a nontrivial extension $$0\rightarrow \mathcal{O}_X \rightarrow \mathcal{E} \rightarrow \mathcal{O}_X(D)\rightarrow 0$$ associated to a non-zero element $\gamma \in H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X(-D)),$ where $D$ is a big Cartier divisor such that $(D^2)>0$. Indeed, the instability of $F^{e*}\mathcal{E}$ guarantees the existence of a diagram (keeping the notation as in Definition \ref{inst_bog}) $$\begin{xymatrix} { & & 0 \ar[d] & & \\ & & \mathcal{O}_X(D'+D_2)\ar[d]^{f_1} & & \\ 0 \ar[r] & \mathcal{O}_X \ar[r]^{g_1} \ar[rd]_\sigma & F^{e*}\mathcal{E} \ar[r]^{g_2} \ar[d]^{f_2} & \mathcal{O}_X(p^e D) \ar[r] & 0 \\ & & \mathcal{I}_Z \cdot \mathcal{O}_X(D_2) \ar[d] & & \\ & & 0 & & } \end{xymatrix}.$$ First, we claim that the composition map $\sigma$ is non-zero. Assume, by contradiction that $\sigma \equiv 0$. This gives a nonzero section $\sigma'\colon \mathcal{O}_X \rightarrow \mathcal{O}_X(D'+D_2)$. This forces the composition $\tau:= g_2 \circ f_1$ to be zero. But this implies that $D'+D_2 \le 0$. This is a contradiction (cf. the proof of \cite[Proposition 1]{sakai} and \cite[Lemma 16]{shepherdbarron}). This implies that $D_2 \simeq E \ge 0$: one can then rewrite the vertical exact sequence as follows: $$0 \rightarrow \mathcal{O}_X(p^eD-E)\rightarrow F^{e*}\mathcal{E}\rightarrow \mathcal{I}_Z \cdot \mathcal{O}_X(E)\rightarrow 0.$$ \end{rmk} Since \cite[Corollary 8]{shepherdbarron} guarantees that Corollary \ref{shepherd} holds true for smooth surfaces in positive characteristic which are neither quasi-elliptic with $\kappa(X)=1$ nor of general type, we need to deduce effective base-point-freeness and very ampleness results only for these two classes of surfaces. We recall here the following key result from \cite{shepherdbarron}. \begin{thm} Let $\mathcal{E}$ be a rank-two vector bundle on a smooth projective surface $X$ over an algebraically closed field of positive characteristic such that the Bogomolov's inequality does not hold and is semi-stable. Then \begin{itemize} \item if $X$ is not of general type, then $X$ is quasi-elliptic with $\kappa(X)=1$; \item if X is of general type and $$c_1^2(\mathcal{E}) - 4c_2(\mathcal{E}) > \frac{\vol(X)}{(p-1)^2},$$ then $X$ is purely inseparably uniruled. More precisely, in the notation of Theorem \ref{pe_unstable}, $Y$ is uniruled. \end{itemize} \end{thm} \proof This is \cite[Theorem 7]{shepherdbarron}, since the volume of a surface $X$ with minimal model $X'$ equals $(K_{X'}^2).$ \endproof The consequence we are interested in is the following (cf. \cite[Corollary 8]{shepherdbarron}). \begin{corollary}[Shepherd-Barron]\label{unir} Corollary \ref{shepherd} holds in positive characteristic if $X$ is neither of general type nor quasi-elliptic. \end{corollary} \subsection{Bend-and-break lemmas} We recall here a well-known result in birational geometry, based on a celebrated method due to Mori (see \cite{kollar} for an insight into these techniques). First we need to recall some notation. Mori theory deals with effective 1-cycles in a variety $X$; more specifically we will consider non-constant morphisms $h\colon C\rightarrow X$, where $C$ is a smooth curve. In particular, these techniques allow to deform curves for which $$(K_X \cdot C):= \deg_C h^* K_X <0.$$ In what follows, we will denote with $\overset{e}{\approx}$ the {\it effective algebraic equivalence} defined on the space of effective 1-cycles $Z_1(X)$ (see \cite[Definition II.4.1]{kollar}). \begin{thm}[Bend-and-break]\label{b-a-b} Let $X$ be a variety over an algebraically closed field and let $C$ be a smooth, projective and irreducible curve with a morphism $h\colon C\rightarrow X$ such that $X$ has local complete intersection singularities along $h(C)$ and $h(C)$ intersects the smooth locus of $X$. Assume the following numerical condition holds: $$(K_X\cdot C) <0.$$ Then for every point $x \in C$, there exists a rational curve $C_x$ in $X$ passing through $x$ such that \begin{equation}\label{alg_rel1} h_*[C]\overset{e}{\approx} k_0 [C_x] + \sum_{i\neq 0} k_i[C_i] \end{equation} (as algebraic cycles) with $k_i \ge 0$ for all $i$ and $$-(K_X\cdot C_x) \le \dim X +1.$$ \end{thm} \proof See \cite[Theorem II.5.14 and Remark II.5.15]{kollar}. The relation (\ref{alg_rel1}) can be deduced looking directly at the proofs of the bend-and-break lemmas (cf. \cite[Corollary II.5.6 and Theorem II.5.7]{kollar}): our notation is slightly different, since in (\ref{alg_rel1}) we have isolated a rational curve with the required intersection properties. \endproof In this paper we will need the following consequence of the previous theorem. \begin{corollary}\label{b-a-b-cor} Let $X$ be a surface which fibres over a curve $C$ via $f\colon X\rightarrow C$ and let $F$ be the general fibre of $f$. Assume that $X$ has only local complete intersection singularities along $F$ and that $F$ is a (possibly singular) rational curve such that $$(K_X\cdot F) <0.$$ Then $$-(K_X\cdot F) \le 3.$$ \end{corollary} \proof We are in the hypothesis of Theorem \ref{b-a-b}, so we can take a point $x$ in the smooth locus of $X$ and deduce the existence of a rational curve $C'$ passing through $x$ such that $$-(K_X\cdot C') \le 3 \mbox{ and } [F]\overset{e}{\approx} k_0[C'] +\sum_{i\neq 0} k_i[C_i].$$ By Exercise II.4.1.10 in \cite{kollar}, the curves appearing on the right hand side of the previous equation must be contained in the fibers of $f$. Since $F$ is the general fibre, the second relation implies that $k_0=1$ and $k_i=0$ for all $i\neq 0$ and so that $C'=F$. \endproof \section{Effective Matsusaka's theorem}\label{6} In this section we prove Theorem \ref{main} assuming the results on effective very ampleness that we will prove in the next section. If not specified, $X$ will denote a smooth surface over an algebraically closed field of arbitrary characteristic. First, let us recall the following numerical criterion for bigness, whose characteristic-free proof is based on Riemann-Roch (cf. \cite{lazarsfeld}, Theorem 2.2.15). \begin{thm}\label{bigcr} Let $D$ and $E$ be nef $\mathbb{Q}$-divisors on $X$ and assume that $$D^2>2(D\cdot E).$$ Then $D-E$ is big. \end{thm} Before proving Theorem \ref{main}, we need some lemmas. \begin{lemma} \label{trick} Let $D$ be an ample divisor on $X$. Then $K_{X}+2D+C$ is nef for any irreducible curve $C\subset X$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} If $X=\mathbb{P}^{2}$ then the lemma is trivial. By the cone theorem and the classification of surfaces with extremal rays of maximal length, we have that $K_{X}+2D$ is always a nef divisor. This implies that $K_{X}+2D+C$ may have negative intersection number only when intersected with $C$. On the other hand, by adjunction, $(K_{X}+C)\cdot C=2g-2\geq -2$, where $g$ is the arithmetic genus of $C$. Since $D$ is ample, the result follows. \end{proof} We can now prove on of the main results of this section (cf. \cite{lazarsfeld1}, Theorem 10.2.4). \begin{thm}\label{matsu} Let $D$ be an ample divisor and let $B$ be a nef divisor on $X$. Then $mD-B$ is nef for any $$ m\geq \frac{2D\cdot B}{D^{2}}\left((K_{X}+2D)\cdot D+1\right)+1. $$ \end{thm} \begin{proof} To simplify the notation in the proof let us define the following numbers: \begin{align}\notag &\eta=\eta(D,B):=\inf\left\{t\in\mathbb{R}_{>0}\:|\: t D- B \;\text{is nef}\right\}, \\ \notag &\gamma=\gamma(D,B):=\inf\left\{t\in\mathbb{R}_{>0}\:|\: t D- B \;\text{is pseudo-effective}\right\} \end{align} The theorem will follow if we find an upper bound on $\eta$. Note that $\gamma\leq \eta$ since a nef divisor is also pseudo-effective. By definition $\eta D -B$ is in the boundary of the nef cone and by Nakai's theorem we have two possible cases: either \begin{itemize} \item $(\eta D-B)^{2}=0$, or \item there exists an irreducible curve $C$ such that $(\eta D-B)\cdot C=0$. \end{itemize} If $(\eta D-B)^{2}=0$, then it is easy to see that $$ \eta\leq 2\frac{D\cdot B}{D^{2}}. $$ So we can assume that there exists an irreducible curve $C$ such that $\eta D\cdot C=B\cdot C$. Let us define $G:=\gamma D-B$. Then $$ G\cdot C=(\gamma-\eta)D\cdot C\leq (\gamma-\eta). $$ Let us define $A:=K_{X}+2D$. By Lemma \ref{trick} and the definition of $G$, we have that $(A+C)\cdot G\geq 0$. Combining with the previous inequality we get $$ (\eta-\gamma)\leq -G\cdot C\leq A\cdot G= \gamma A\cdot D-A\cdot B. $$ In particular, $$\eta\leq \gamma (A\cdot D+1)-A\cdot B\leq \gamma (A\cdot D+1).$$ The statement of our result follows from Theorem \ref{bigcr}, which guarantees that $\gamma< \frac{2D\cdot B}{D^{2}}$. \end{proof} \begin{rmk} The previous proof is characteristic-free, although the new result is for surfaces in positive characteristic. \end{rmk} We can now prove our main theorem, assuming the results in the next section. \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{main}] By Corollary \ref{unir}, if $X$ is neither of general type nor quasi-elliptic and $H=K_X+4D$ then $H+N$ is very ample for any nef divisor $N$. By Theorem \ref{matsu}, $mD-(H+B)$ is nef for any $m$ as in the statement. Then $K_X+4D+(mD-K_X-4D-B)$ is very ample. For surfaces in the other classes use Theorem \ref{main_va_qell} and Theorem \ref{mainc} to obtain the desired very ample divisor $H$. \end{proof} \section{Effective very ampleness in positive characteristic}\label{6} The aim of this section is to complete the proof of Theorem \ref{main} for quasi-elliptic surfaces of Kodaira dimension one and for surfaces of general type. Our ultimate goal is to prove Theorem \ref{main2} via a case-by-case analysis. First we need some notation (cf. Theorem \ref{sakai_1}). \begin{definition} A big divisor $D$ on a smooth surface $X$ with $(D^2)>0$ is $m$-unstable for a positive integer $m$ if either \begin{itemize} \item $H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X(-D))= 0$; or \item $H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X(-D))\neq 0$ and there exists a nonzero effective divisor $E$ such that \begin{itemize} \item $mD - 2E$ is big; \item $(mD-E)\cdot E \le 0$. \end{itemize} \end{itemize} \end{definition} \begin{rmk} Theorem \ref{sakai_1} tells us that in characteristic zero every big divisor $D$ on a smooth surface $X$ with $(D^2)>0$ is $1$-unstable. The same holds in positive characteristic, if we assume that the surface is neither of general type nor quasi-elliptic of maximal Kodaira dimension: this is a consequence of Corollary \ref{unir}. Our goal here is to clarify the picture in the remaining cases. \end{rmk} We can start our analysis with quasi-elliptic surfaces of maximal Kodaira dimension. \begin{proposition}\label{q_ell} Let $X$ be a quasi-elliptic with $\kappa(X)=1$ and let $D$ be a big divisor on $X$ with $(D^2)>0$. Then \begin{enumerate} \item if $p=3$, then $D$ is $3$-unstable; \item if $p=2$, then $D$ is $4$-unstable. \end{enumerate} \end{proposition} \proof Assume that $p=3$ and $H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X(-D))\neq 0$. This nonzero element gives a non-split extension $$0\rightarrow \mathcal{O}_X \rightarrow \mathcal{E} \rightarrow \mathcal{O}_X(D)\rightarrow 0.$$ Theorem \ref{pe_unstable} implies that $(F^*)^e\mathcal{E}$ is unstable for $e$ sufficiently large. To prove the proposition in this case we need to show that $e=1$. Assume $e\ge 2$ and let $F$ be the general element of the pencil which gives the fibration in cuspidal curves $f\colon X\rightarrow B$. Let $\rho\colon Y \rightarrow X$ be the $p^e$-purely inseparable morphism of Construction \ref{constr}. Then $\{C_i:=\rho^*F\}$ is a family of movable rational curves in $Y$. Let us define $g:= f \circ \rho$ and consider its Stein factorisation: $$\xymatrix{ Y \ar[dr]^h \ar[d]_\rho \ar@/_{2.0pc}/[dd]_g \\ X \ar[d]_f & B' \ar[dl]^c \\ B \\}.$$ Since the family $\{C_i\}$ are precisely the fibres of $h$, we can use Corollary \ref{b-a-b-cor} on $h\colon Y\rightarrow B'$ ($Y$ is defined via a quasi-section in a $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle over $X$, so it has hyper surface singularities along the general element of $\{C_i\}$) and deduce that $$0<-(K_Y\cdot C_i)\le 3.$$ This gives a contradiction, since $$3\ge-(K_Y\cdot C_i) = \bigg(\rho^*\bigg(\frac{p^e-1}{p^e}(p^eD-2E)-K_X\bigg)\cdot C_i\bigg) = p^e\bigg(\bigg(\frac{p^e-1}{p^e}(p^eD-2E)-K_X\bigg)\cdot F\bigg)$$ $$=((p^e-1)(p^eD-2E)\cdot F)\ge p^e-1 \ge 8,$$ where $E$ is the one appearing in Remark \ref{rem_eff}. The same proof works for $p=2$, although in this case we can only prove that $e\le 2.$ \endproof We can now focus on the general type case. We need the following theorem by Shepherd-Barron (cf. \cite[Theorem 12]{shepherdbarron}). \begin{thm}\label{eff_reid} Let $D$ be a big Cartier divisor on a smooth surface $X$ of general type which verifies one of the following hypothesis: \begin{itemize} \item $p\ge 3$ and $(D^2)>\vol(X);$ \item $p=2$ and $(D^2)>\max\{\vol(X),\vol(X)-3\chi(\mathcal{O}_X)+2\}.$ \end{itemize} Then $D$ is $1$-unstable. \end{thm} Since the bound of the previous theorem depends on $\chi(\mathcal{O}_X)$ if $p=2$, we need an additional result for this case. First we recall a result by Shepherd-Barron (cf. \cite[Theorem 8]{shepherdbarron1}). \begin{thm}\label{sb_char_2} Let $X$ be a surface in characteristic $p=2$ of general type with $\chi(\mathcal{O}_X)<0$. Then there is a fibration $f\colon X\rightarrow C$ over a smooth curve $C$, whose generic fibre is a singular rational curve with arithmetic genus $2\le g\le 4$. \end{thm} We can prove now our result. \begin{proposition}\label{char_2} Let $D$ be a big Cartier divisor on a surface in characteristic $p=2$ of general type with $\chi(\mathcal{O}_X)<0$ such that $(D^2)>\vol(X)$. Then $D$ is $4$-unstable. \end{proposition} \proof Assume that $H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X(-D))\neq 0$. As in the proof of Proposition \ref{q_ell} we have a non-split extension $$0\rightarrow \mathcal{O}_X \rightarrow \mathcal{E} \rightarrow \mathcal{O}_X(D)\rightarrow 0.$$ Using Theorem \ref{pe_unstable} we deduce the instability of $(F^*)^e\mathcal{E}$ for $e$ sufficiently large. Let $F$ be the general element of the pencil which gives the fibration in singular rational curves given by Theorem \ref{sb_char_2}. Let $\rho\colon Y \rightarrow X$ be the $p^e$-purely inseparable morphism of Construction \ref{constr}. Like in the proof of Proposition \ref{q_ell}, we use Corollary \ref{b-a-b-cor} on $Y$ and deduce that $0<-(K_Y\cdot C_i)\le 3.$ This gives $$3\ge-(K_Y\cdot C_i) = \bigg(\rho^*\bigg(\frac{2^e-1}{2^e}(2^eD-2E)-K_X\bigg)\cdot C_i\bigg) = 2^e\bigg(\bigg(\frac{2^e-1}{2^e}(2^eD-2E)-K_X\bigg)\cdot F\bigg)$$ $$=(((2^e-1)(2^eD-2E)-2^eK_X)\cdot F)\ge 1.$$ This implies that $$(((2^e-1)(2^{e-1}D-E)-2^{e-1}K_X)\cdot F)= 1.$$ As a consequence, we apply Theorem \ref{sb_char_2} to bound the intersection $(K_X\cdot F)$: $$(2^e-1)((2^{e-1}D-E)\cdot F) = 2^{e}(g-1)+1,$$ where $g$ is the arithmetic genus of $F$. Some basic arithmetic give that the only possibilities for the pair $(g,e)$ are $(2,1)$, $(3,1)$, $(3,2)$ and $(4,1)$. \endproof We will use Theorem \ref{eff_reid} to prove a variant of Reider's theorem in positive characteristic. We state a technical proposition we will need later (cf. \cite[Proposition 2]{sakai}). \begin{proposition} Let $\pi:Y\rightarrow X$ be a birational morphism between two normal surfaces. Let $\tilde{D}$ be a Cartier divisor on $Y$ such that $\tilde{D}^{2}>0$. Assume there is a nonzero effective divisor $\tilde{E}$ such that \begin{itemize} \item $\tilde{D}-2\tilde{E}$ is big and \item $(\tilde{D}-\tilde{E})\cdot \tilde{E}\leq 0$. \end{itemize} Set $D:=\pi_{*}\tilde D$, $E:=\pi_{*}\tilde{E}$ and $\alpha= D^{2}-\tilde{D}^{2}$. If $D$ is nef and $E$ is a non-zero effective divisor, then \begin{itemize} \item $0\leq D\cdot E < \alpha/2$, \item $D\cdot E -\alpha/4 \leq E^{2} \leq (D\cdot E)^{2} / D^{2}$. \end{itemize} \end{proposition} The corollary we need is the following. \begin{corollary}\label{push} Let $\pi:Y\rightarrow X$ be a birational morphism between two smooth surfaces and let $\tilde{D}$ be a big Cartier divisor on $Y$ such that $(\tilde{D}^2)>0$. Assume that \begin{itemize} \item $H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X(-\tilde{D}))\neq 0$; \item $\tilde{D}$ is $m$-unstable for some $m>0$. \end{itemize} Set $D:=\pi_{*}\tilde D$ and $\alpha= D^{2}-\tilde{D}^{2}$. Then if $D$ is nef, there exists a nonzero effective divisor $E$ on $X$ such that \begin{itemize} \item $0\leq D\cdot E < m\alpha/2$, \item $mD\cdot E -m^2\alpha/4 \leq E^{2} \leq (D\cdot E)^{2} / D^{2}$. \end{itemize} \end{corollary} We can derive our effective base point freeness results. We will start with quasi-elliptic surfaces, applying Theorem \ref{q_ell} and the previous corollary. \begin{proposition}\label{quasi_ell_reider} Let $X$ be a quasi-elliptic surface with maximal Kodaira dimension. Let $D$ be a big and nef divisor on $X$. Then the following holds. \begin{itemize} \item $p=3:$ \begin{itemize} \item if $D^{2}>4$ and $|K_{X}+D|$ has a base point at $x\in X$, there exists a curve $C$ such that $D\cdot C \leq 5$; \item if $D^{2}>9$ and $|K_{X}+D|$ does not separate any two points $x,y\in X$, there exists a curve $C$ such that $D\cdot C \leq 13$; \end{itemize} \item $p=2:$ \begin{itemize} \item if $D^{2}>4$ and $|K_{X}+D|$ has a base point at $x\in X$, there exists a curve $C$ such that $D\cdot C \leq 7$; \item if $D^{2}>9$ and $|K_{X}+D|$ does not separate any two points $x,y\in X$, there exists a curve $C$ such that $D\cdot C \leq 17$; \end{itemize} \end{itemize} \end{proposition} \proof We start with the case $p=3$. Assume that $|K_{X}+D|$ has a base point at $x\in X$. Let $\pi: Y\rightarrow X$ be the blow up at $x$. Since $x$ is a base point we have that $H^{1}(Y,\mathcal{O}_{Y}(K_{Y}+\pi^{*}D-2F))\neq 0$, where $F$ is the exceptional divisor of $\pi$. Let $\tilde{D}:= \pi^{*}D-2F$. By assumption we have that $\tilde{D}^{2}>0$. By Theorem \ref{q_ell} we can find an effective divisor $\tilde{E}$ such that $p\tilde{D}-2\tilde{E}$ is big and $(p\tilde{D}-\tilde{E})\cdot \tilde{E}\leq 0$. The previous inequality easily implies that $\tilde{E}$ is not a positive multiple of the exceptional divisor and in particular $E:=\pi_{*}\tilde{E}$ is a non-zero effective divisor. Moreover, $D=\pi_{*}\tilde{D}$ is nef by assumption, thus we can apply Corollary \ref{push}. Since $\alpha=(D^{2}-\tilde{D}^{2})=4$, the first inequality of the corollary implies that $D\cdot E\leq 5$. \\The statement on separation of points follows exactly in the same way. Note that we allow the case $x=y$. The bounds for the case $p=2$ can be obtained the same way, remarking that $\tilde{D}$ is $p^2$-unstable in this case. \endproof The previous results can be used to derive effective very ampleness statements for quasi elliptic surfaces when $D$ is an ample divisor. \begin{thm}\label{main_va_qell} Let $D$ be an ample Cartier divisor on a smooth quasi-elliptic surface $X$ with $\kappa(X)=1$. Then \begin{itemize} \item if $p=3$, the divisor $K_X+kD$ is base-point free for any $k\geq 4$ and it is very ample for any $k\geq 8$; \item if $p=2$, the divisor $K_X+kD$ is base-point free for any $k\geq 5$ and it is very ample for any $k\geq 19$. \end{itemize} In particular, if $N$ is any nef divisor, $K_{X}+k D+N$ is always very ample for any $k\geq 8$ (resp. $k\geq 19$) in characteristic $3$ (resp. $2$). \end{thm} \proof The proof consists in explicitly computing the minimal multiple of $D$ which contradicts the second inequality of Corollary \ref{push}. Let us start with base-point-freeness for $p=3$. Assume that $k\ge 5$, $K_X+kD$ has a base point and define $D':=kD$. Then, by Proposition \ref{quasi_ell_reider}, we know that there exists an effective divisor $E$ such that $(D'\cdot E)\le 5$. This implies $$(D\cdot E)\le 1.$$ Now use the second inequality of Corollary \ref{push} on $D'$ to deduce $$ 15 - 9\le 3(D'\cdot E)-9 \le \frac{(D'\cdot E)^2}{(D'^2)}\le 1.$$ This is a contradiction. Similar computations give the other bounds. \endproof We now deal with surfaces of general type. The analogous of Proposition \ref{quasi_ell_reider} is the following. \begin{proposition}\label{gen_type_reider} Let $X$ be a surface of general type and let $D$ be a big and nef divisor on $X$. Then the following holds. \begin{itemize} \item $p\ge3:$ \begin{itemize} \item if $D^{2}>\vol(X)+4$ and $|K_{X}+D|$ has a base point at $x\in X$, there exists a curve $C$ such that $D\cdot C \leq 1$; \item if $D^{2}>\vol(X)+9$ and $|K_{X}+D|$ does not separate any two points $x,y\in X$, there exists a curve $C$ such that $D\cdot C \leq 2$; \end{itemize} \item $p=2:$ \begin{itemize} \item if $D^{2}>\vol(X)+6$ and $|K_{X}+D|$ has a base point at $x\in X$, there exists a curve $C$ such that $D\cdot C \leq 7$; \item if $D^{2}>\vol(X)+11$ and $|K_{X}+D|$ does not separate any two points $x,y\in X$, there exists a curve $C$ such that $D\cdot C \leq 17$; \end{itemize} \end{itemize} \end{proposition} \proof The proof is basically the same as Proposition \ref{quasi_ell_reider}. Let $p\ge 3$ and assume that $|K_{X}+D|$ has a base point at $x\in X$. Using the same notation as Proposition \ref{quasi_ell_reider}, we can blow up $x$ and deduce the existence of an effective divisor $\tilde{E}$ such that $\tilde{D}-2\tilde{E}$ is big and $(\tilde{D}-\tilde{E})\cdot \tilde{E}\leq 0$ (in order to deduce $1$-instability we use Theorem \ref{eff_reid}). Also here, the first inequality of Corollary \ref{push} implies that $(D\cdot E)\leq 1$. \\The statement on separation of points follow the same way. The bounds for the case $p=2$ we use the same strategy, using a combination of Theorem \ref{sb_char_2} and Proposition \ref{char_2}. \endproof The following effective very ampleness statement can be deduced. Applying directly Proposition \ref{gen_type_reider} would provide bounds that depend on the volume. It is possible to get a uniform bound if we work with linear systems of the type $|2K_{X}+mD|$. Note that we get sharp statements for those linear systems. \begin{thm}\label{mainc} Let $D$ be an ample Cartier divisor on a smooth surface $X$ of general type. Then \begin{itemize} \item if $p\ge 3$, the divisor $2K_X+kD$ is base-point free for any $k\geq 3$ and it is very ample for any $k\geq 4$. \item if $p=2$ the divisor $2K_X+kD$ is base-point free for any $k\geq 5$ and it is very ample for any $k\geq 19$. \end{itemize} In particular, if $N$ is any nef divisor, $2K_{X}+k D+N$ is always very ample for any $k\geq 4$ (resp. $k\geq 19$) in characteristic $p\ge3$ (resp. $p=2$). \end{thm} \proof Since negative extremal rays of general type surfaces have length $1$, if $m\geq 3$, we know that $L:=K_{X}+mD$ is an ample divisor and $L\cdot C\geq 2$ for any irreducible curve $C\subset X$. Moreover, by log-concavity of the volume function (see Theorem \ref{logconc}) we have that \begin{equation}\notag L^{2}=\vol(L)\geq \vol(K_{X})+9 D^{2}> \vol(X)+4. \end{equation} Proposition \ref{gen_type_reider} implies that $K_{X}+L=2K_{X}+kD$ is base point free for any $k\geq 4$. A similar computation allows us to derive very ampleness. The same strategy gives the result for $p=2$. \endproof \proof[Proof of Theorem \ref{main2}] This is simply given by Theorem \ref{main_va_qell} and Theorem \ref{mainc} \endproof \begin{rmk} In \cite{terakawa}, similar results can be found. Nonetheless our approach allows to deduce effective base point free and very ampleness also on quasi-elliptic surfaces and arbitrary surfaces of general type. \end{rmk} \section{A Kawamata-Viehweg-type Vanishing Theorem in positive characteristic} In this section we give an extension of the results in \cite{terakawa}. In that paper, the author uses the results in \cite{shepherdbarron} to deduce a Kawamata-Viehweg-type theorem for non-pathological surfaces. Using our methods we are able to discuss pathological surfaces and obtain an effective Kawamata-Viehweg type theorem in positive characteristic. Let us first recall the classical Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing theorem in its general version (see \cite{kollarmori} for the general notation). \begin{thm}\label{kv} Let $(X,B)$ be a klt pair over an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero and let $D$ be a Cartier divisor on $X$ such that $D-(K_X + B)$ is big and nef. Then $$H^i(X, \mathcal{O}_X(D)) = 0$$ for any $i > 0$. \end{thm} In positive characteristic, even for non-pathological smooth surfaces, there are counterexamples to Theorem \ref{kv}: Xie provided examples in \cite{xie1} of relatively minimal irregular ruled surfaces in every characteristic where Theorem \ref{kv} fails. Nonetheless, assuming $B=0$, we have the following result (cf. \cite{mukai}). \begin{thm}\label{char_pat} Let $X$ be a smooth surface in positive characteristic. Assume that there exists a big and nef Cartier divisor $D$ on $X$ such that $$H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X(K_X+D))\neq 0.$$ Then: \begin{itemize} \item $X$ is either quasi-elliptic of Kodaira dimension one or of general type; \item up to a sequence of blow-ups, $X$ has the structure of a fibered surface over a smooth curve such that every fibre is connected and singular. \end{itemize} \end{thm} Furthermore, Terakawa deduced the following vanishing result in \cite{terakawa}, using the techniques in \cite{shepherdbarron}. \begin{thm} Let $X$ be a smooth projective surface over an algebraically closed field of characteristic $p>0$ and let $D$ be a big and nef Cartier divisor on $X$. Assume that either \begin{enumerate} \item $\kappa(X)\neq 2$ and $X$ is not quasi-elliptic with $\kappa(X)=1$; or \item $X$ is of general type with \begin{itemize} \item $p\ge 3$ and $(D^2)>\vol(X);$ or \item $p=2$ and $(D^2)>\max\{\vol(X), \vol(X)-3\chi(\mathcal{O}_X)+2\}.$ \end{itemize} \end{enumerate} Then $$H^i(X, \mathcal{O}_X(K_X + D)) = 0$$ for all $i > 0$. \end{thm} Our aim is to improve this theorem for arbitrary surfaces, via bend-and-break techniques. More generally, we want to deduce some results on the injectivity of cohomological maps $$H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X(-D)) \xrightarrow{F^*} H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X(-pD))$$ where $D$ is a big divisor on $X$. The following result by Koll\'ar is an application of bend-and-break lemmas (cf. Theorem \ref{b-a-b}), specialised in our two-dimensional setting. \begin{thm}\label{kollar} Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety over a field of positive characteristic and let $D$ be a Cartier divisor on $X$ such that: \begin{enumerate} \item $H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X(-mD)) \xrightarrow{F^*} H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X(-pmD))$ is not injective for some integer $m>0$; \item there exists a curve $C$ on $X$ such that $$(p-1)(D\cdot C) - (K_X\cdot C) >0.$$ \end{enumerate} Then through every point $x$ of $C$ there is a rational curve $C_x$ such that \begin{equation}\label{alg_rel} [C]\overset{e}{\approx} k_0 [C_x] +\sum_{i\neq 0} k_i[C_i] \end{equation} (as algebraic cycles), with $k_i\ge 0$ for all $i$ and $$(p-1)(D\cdot C_x)-(K_X\cdot C_x)\le \dim(X)+1.$$ \end{thm} \proof This is essentially a slight modification of \cite[Theorem II.6.2]{kollar}. For the reader's convenience, we sketch it ab initio. Assumption (1) allows us to construct a finite morphism $$\pi\colon Y \rightarrow X,$$ where $Y$ is defined as a Cartier divisor in the projectivisation of a non-split rank-two bundle over $X$ (cf. \cite[Construction II.6.1.6]{kollar}, which is a slight modification of Construction \ref{constr}). Furthermore, the following property holds: $$K_Y=\pi^*(K_X+(k(1-p)D)),$$ where $k$ is the largest integer for which $H^1(X,-kD)\not=0$. Now take the curve given in (2) and consider $C':=\red \pi^{-1}(C)$. The hypothesis on the intersection numbers and the formula for the canonical divisor of $Y$ guarantee that $(K_Y\cdot C')<0$. Let $y \in C'$ be a pre-image of $x$ in $Y$. So we can apply Theorem \ref{b-a-b} and deduce the existence of a rational curve $C'_y$ passing through $y$. Using the projection formula, we obtain a curve $C_x$ on $X$ for which: $$(p-1)(D\cdot C_x)-(K_X\cdot C_x)\le \dim(X)+1.$$ \endproof If we assume the dimension to be two and the divisor $D$ to be big and nef, the asymptotic condition $$H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X(-mD))=0,$$ for $m$ sufficiently large is guaranteed by a result of Szpiro (cf. \cite{szpiro}). This remark gives the following corollary. \begin{corollary}\label{sz} Let $X$ be a smooth projective surface over a field of positive characteristic and let $D$ be a big and nef Cartier divisor on $X$ such that $H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X(-D))\neq 0$. Assume there exists a curve $C$ on $X$ such that $$(p-1)(D\cdot C) - (K_X\cdot C) >0.$$ Then through every point $x$ of $C$ there is a rational curve $C_x$ such that $$(p-1)(D\cdot C_x)-(K_X\cdot C_x)\le 3.$$ \end{corollary} We will show later how Corollary \ref{sz} can be used to deduce an effective version of Kawamata-Viehweg-type vanishing for arbitrary smooth surfaces In what follows, we will also need the following lemma on fibered surfaces, which explicitly gives a bound on the genus of the fibre with respect to the volume of the surface. \begin{lemma}\label{volume_genus} Let $f\colon X \rightarrow C$ be a fibered surface of general type and let $g$ be the arithmetic genus of the general fibre $F$. Then $$\vol(X)\ge g-4.$$ \end{lemma} \proof We divide our analysis according to the genus $b$ of the base, after having assumed the fibration is relatively minimal (i.e. that $K_{X/C}$ is nef). \begin{description} \item [$b\ge 2$] In this case we can deduce a better estimate. Indeed, $$\vol(X)\ge (K_X^2) = (K_{X/C}^2)+8(g-1)(b-1) \ge 8g-8.$$ \item [$b=1$] In this case we need a more careful analysis, since in positive characteristic we cannot assume the semipositivity of $f_*K_{X/C}$. Nonetheless the following general formula holds: \begin{equation}\label{rr} \deg(f_*K_{X/C}) = \chi(\mathcal{O}_X) - (g-1)(b-1), \end{equation} which specialises to $$\deg(f_*K_{X/C}) = \chi(\mathcal{O}_X)\ge 0.$$ Formula (\ref{rr}) can be obtained via Riemann-Roch, since we know that $R^1f_*K_{X/C}=\mathcal{O}_C$ and that $R^1f_*nK_{X/C}=0$ for $n\ge 2$ by relative minimality. The last inequality can be assumed by \cite[Theorem 8]{shepherdbarron1}. Furthermore, one can apply the following formula $$\deg(f_*(nK_{X/C})) = \deg(f_*K_{X/C}) + \frac{n(n-1)}{2}(K_{X/C}^2).$$ Since $K_{X/C}$ is big, we deduce that $$\deg(f_*(2K_{X/C}))\ge 1.$$ As a consequence, we can apply the results of \cite{atiyah} and deduce a decomposition of $f_*(2K_{X/C})$ into indecomposable vector bundles $$f_*(2K_{X/C})= \bigoplus_i E_i,$$ where we can assume that $\deg(E_1)\ge 1$. This implies that all quotient bundles of $E_1$ have positive degree. We want to show now that there exists a degree-one divisor $L_1$ on $C$ such that $h^0(C,f_*(2K_{X/C})\otimes \mathcal{O}_C(-L_1))\neq0$. \\But this is clear, since, for all degree-one divisor $L$ on $C$, one has that all quotient bundles of $f_*(2K_{X/C})\otimes \mathcal{O}_C(-L)$ have degree zero and, up to a twisting by a degree-zero divisor on $C$, one can assume there exists a quotient $$f_*(2K_{X/C}\otimes \mathcal{O}_C(-L_1)) \rightarrow \mathcal{O}_C \rightarrow 0.$$ This implies that $h^0(X,\mathcal{O}_X(2K_{X/C}-F)) (= h^0(C,f_*(2K_{X/C})\otimes \mathcal{O}_C(-L_1)))\neq0$, where $F$ is the general fibre of $f$ and, since $K_X = K_{X/C}$ is nef, that $$(K_X \cdot (2K_X-F))\ge 0.$$ This gives the bound $$\vol(X)\ge (K_X^2) \ge g-1.$$ \item[$b=0$] Also in this case we can assume that $\chi(\mathcal{O}_X)\ge0$ and, as a consequence, that $$\deg(f_*K_{X/\mathbb{P}^1}) = \chi(\mathcal{O}_X) + g-1 \ge g-1.$$ If $g\ge 6$, $$\deg(f_*K_{X/\mathbb{P}^1}) \ge 5.$$ This implies that $\deg(f_*K_X\otimes\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1}(3)) \ge 0$ and, as a consequence of Grothendieck's theorem on vector bundles on $\mathbb{P}^1$, $$h^0(X,\mathcal{O}_X(K_X-f^*\mathcal{O}_C(-3)))\neq 0.$$ As before, we have assumed that $K_{X/\mathbb{P}^1}= K_X + f^*\mathcal{O}_C(2)$ is nef, so $$((K_X + f^*\mathcal{O}_C(2))\cdot (K_X-f^*\mathcal{O}_C(-3)))\ge 0.$$ So, in this case $$\vol(X)\ge (K_X^2) \ge 2g-2.$$ If $g\le 5,$ we simply use the trivial inequality $\vol(X)\ge 1$ to deduce $$\vol(X) \ge g-4.$$ \end{description} \endproof Our result in this setting is an effective bound, depending only on the birational geometry of $X$, to guarantee the injectivity on the induced Frobenius map on the $H^1$'s. \begin{thm}\label{injectivity} Let $X$ be a smooth surface in characteristic $p>0$ and let $D$ be a big Cartier divisor $D$ on $X$. Then, for all integers $$m >m_0=\frac{2\vol(X)+9}{p-1},$$ the induced Frobenius map $$H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X(-mD)) \xrightarrow{F^*} H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X(-pmD))$$ is injective. \\(If $\kappa(X)\neq 2$, the volume $\vol(X)=0$). \end{thm} \begin{rmk} The previous result is trivial if $H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_{X}(-D))=0$, Furthermore, combined with Corollary \ref{sz}, gives an effective version of Kawamata-Viehweg theorem (cf. Corollary \ref{finale}) in the case of big and nef divisors. Our hope is to generalise this strategy in order to deduce effective vanishing theorems also in higher dimension. \end{rmk} \proof Assume, by contradiction, that $$H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X(-\lceil m_0\rceil D)) \xrightarrow{F^*} H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X(-p\lceil m_0\rceil D))$$ has a nontrivial kernel. Then, after a sequence of blow-ups $f\colon X' \rightarrow X$, we can assume the existence of a (relatively minimal) fibration (possibly with singular general fibre) of arithmetic genus $g$ $$\pi\colon X' \rightarrow C.$$ We remark that we can reduce to prove our result on $X'$, since $D':=f^*D$ is a big divisor we have the following commutative diagram $$\begin{xymatrix} { H^1(X', \mathcal{O}_{X'}(-\lceil m_0\rceil D')) \ar[r]^{F^*} \ar[d]_{\simeq} & H^1(X', \mathcal{O}_{X'}(-p\lceil m_0\rceil D') \ar[d]^{\simeq}\\ H^1(X, \mathcal{O}_X(-\lceil m_0\rceil D)) \ar[r]^{F^*} & H^1(X, \mathcal{O}_X(-p\lceil m_0\rceil D)) } \end{xymatrix},$$ where the vertical isomorphisms holds because of $R^1f_*\mathcal{O}_{X'}=0.$ We can now apply Theorem \ref{kollar} to $\lceil m_0\rceil D'$: we can choose $C$ to be a general fibre $F$ of $\pi$, which certainly intersects positively $D',$ and we can use Lemma \ref{volume_genus} and obtain \begin{equation}\label{>3} (p-1)\lceil m_0\rceil (D'\cdot F) - (K_{X'}\cdot F) \ge (p-1)\lceil m_0\rceil -(2g-2) > 3. \end{equation} So we can apply Theorem \ref{kollar}: fix a point $x \in F$ and find a rational curve $C_x$ such that $$(p-1)m_0(D\cdot C_x) - (K_X\cdot C_x) \le 3.$$ Notice that, by construction, $F=C_x$, because of (\ref{alg_rel}) in Theorem \ref{kollar}. But this is a contradiction, because of (\ref{>3}). \endproof We finally obtain our effective vanishing theorem. \begin{corollary}\label{finale} Let $X$ be a smooth surface in characteristic $p>0$ and let $D$ be a big and nef Cartier divisor $D$ on $X$. Then, $$H^1(X, \mathcal{O}_X(K_X+mD))=0$$ for all integers $m >m_0,$ where \begin{itemize} \item $m_0=\frac{3}{p-1}$ if $X$ is quasi-elliptic with $\kappa(X)=1$; \item $m_0=\frac{2\vol(X)+9}{p-1}$ if $X$ is of general type. \end{itemize} \end{corollary} \proof For surfaces of general type, one simply applies the previous result. For quasi-elliptic surfaces, a better bound can be obtained, since, in this case, $(K_X\cdot F)=0$, where $F$ is the general fibre. \endproof
\section{Introduction} A modular organization of neural activity can facilitate more rapid cognitive function, because much of the rewiring of connections required for adaptation is performed within the modules, which is easier and faster than within the entire network \citep{Wagner,Lipson2002,Alon2005,Alon2007,jun,Dirk,Callahan2009}. On the other hand, modularity may restrict possible cognitive function, because a modular neural architecture is a subset of all possible architectures \citep{Alon2005,Alon2007,jun,Dirk}. Modularity in the neural activity of the human brain has been demonstrated \citep{Mountcastle,Fodor}, with activation of neural activity in different parts of the brain observed by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) \citep{Stanford,Schwarz,Ferrarini,Meunier2009,He,Chavez2010,Meunier2010}. Remarkably, correlated neural activity can also be generated from free-streaming, subject-driven, cognitive states \citep{Stanford}. Models of developing neural activity have shown a self-organization of modular structure \citep{Rubinov2009}. We here hypothesize that selection for neural responsiveness is strong during childhood and peaks during young adulthood. Since modularity increases responsiveness, we expect that modularity of neural activity in the brain might peak during adulthood as well. These modules are correlated with physical structure of the brain \citep{Carlson2013}, but they are not completely hard coded at birth. Cognitive demands upon the brain promote development of modular neural activity, which empowers the brain with increased responsiveness and task switching ability. A dynamic network of neural activity in the brain that can reconfigure its architecture will converge to a value of the modularity that depends on the pressure upon it \citep{jun,Dirk}. Here we show that modularity of neural activity in the human brain increases from age 4 and peaks in young adulthood. We use a model to interpret these results, showing that highly modular neural activity favors rapid, low-level tasks, whereas less modular neural activity promotes less rapid, effortful, high-level tasks. The model shows that increased connection between stored memories or faster required response times for adults versus children can explain the observed development of modularity in neural activity. The structure of functional networks constructed from fMRI data is age dependent. For example, analysis of fMRI data from young adults and old adults shows the modularity of human brain functional networks decreases with age \citep{Meunier2009,Dirk,Onoda}. Additionally, the architecture of the default network of the brain extracted from fMRI data changes as children develop into adults \citep{Fair}, and working memory performance has been shown to be related in an age-dependent way with functional networks \citep{Satterthwaite2013}. That functional network constructed from fMRI data can be age dependent was emphasized in a study showing subject age can be estimated from 5 minutes of fMRI data from individual subjects \citep{Dosenbach}. These works suggests a clear developmental and age dependence of the networks constructed from fMRI data. In other work, connection matrices averaged over ages were constructed and the modularity of these average matrices was computed, observing no trend of modularity with age \citep{Fair2009}. The lack of observed trend in that study may be due to the construction of averaged connection matrices, rather than consideration of the connection matrices constructed from each individual. Measurements of task switching costs, both mixing and switching, show that young adults are more efficient than both children and old adults at task switching \citep{Karbach}. We suggest selection for neural task switching peaks during young adulthood, and that selection for task switching is one mechanism to explain the observed peak of modularity in neural activity in young adulthood. We demonstrate the cross-task utility of modularity in a model of memory recall. In other words, in this model, we show that modularity measured during the task of watching a movie has functional implications for a task such as memory recall. Previous results show that regions of interest observed during resting state activity strongly overlap with known functional regions \citep{Stanford,Carlson2013}. Thus, it is likely that the modularity observed during the task of movie watching has functional implications for other tasks, such as memory recall. Indeed, it has been demonstrated that modularity of resting-state neural activity is positively correlated with working memory capacity \citep{Stevens}. A number of studies have reported that children move their heads more than adults, and that this motion can affect properties computed from the observed fMRI data. Thus, it has been suggested that calculations should separately account for head motion and age when drawing conclusions about the effect of development on correlations of neural activity. In some subject populations, with particular alignment methods, spurious correlations between the computed network properties and extent of head motion have been observed \citep{Satterthwaite}. Further work showed that the underlying age-dependent changes to the spatial dependence of correlations persist after head motion correction, although the magnitude of the age dependence decreases \citep{Satterthwaite2013b}. A study using the SPM2 software showed an apparent increase in local connectivity and decrease in large-scale, distributed networks due to head motion \citep{Dijk}. A study using in-house software showed an effect of head motion on extracted time series data \citep{Power}. A study using FSL showed a negative correlation between modularity and head motion for motions above 0.07~mm \citep{Satterthwaite}. Since head motion is negatively correlated with age, these studies caution that artifacts due to head motion might erroneously be interpreted to predict that modularity is positively correlated with age. We quantify head motion artifacts, showing that with the alignment procedure and strict censor cutoff used used in our study, effects of head motion are negligible after alignment. In this work, we analyzed patterns of neural activity measured by fMRI for children of different ages and for young adults watching a movie. We show that a mathematical definition of modularity, using several different basis sets, leads to the conclusion that modularity increases from childhood to young adulthood. These results are consistent with very recent results showing increased within-module connectivity during development \citep{Satterthwaite2013b}. Theory suggests that highly modular neural activity favors rapid, low-level tasks, whereas less modular neural activity promotes less rapid, effortful, high-level tasks \citep{jun,Dirk,Meunier2010}. We test the general predictions of this theory relating modularity to performance and we derive a fitness function for a quasispecies description of the modularity dynamics. We describe details of the data analysis in the Methods section. The Results section describes these results. In the Model section, we introduce a model to show that a more modular neural architecture leads to more accurate recognition of memory at short times. We also show that a more modular neural architecture leads to more accurate recognition of memories when stored memories are more overlapping. This model suggests that overlapping stored memories or faster required response times for adults versus children are mechanisms that could explain the observed development of near-resting state modularity in neural activity. We conclude with experimental and clinical implications in the Discussion section. \section{Methods} \subsection{Subjects} We analyzed fMRI data from 21 adults age 18--26 and 24 children age 4--11 watching 20 minutes of Sesame Street \citep{Cantlon}. Image acquisition details are provided in \citep{Cantlon}. These data were taken from a set of 27 children (16 female) and 21 adults (13 female). Three children were excluded due to excessive head motion ($>5$ mm), opting-out, or experimenter error. All children were typically developing. In addition, screening for neurological abnormalities was performed on all participants \citep{Cantlon}. Raw, KBIT-2 overall IQ scores are known for 17 of the children and range from 18.5 to 66 \citep{Cantlon}. \subsection{Processing of fMRI Data} The two-dimensional fMRI data slices \citep{Cantlon} were combined into a three-dimensional fMRI representation of the neural activity as a function of time, with 2 sec time resolution and 4~mm spatial resolution. The first six fMRI images of each subject were discarded to allow the blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD) signal to stabilize. The time series images for each subject were registered to 1~mm resolution, deskulled anatomical data, which created a normalized image in standard space. The time series images were then despiked, and the spike values were interpolated using a non-linear interpolation \citep{afni}. The images were then slice time corrected, registered, scaled into Talarirach brain coordinates \citep{Talairach}, motion corrected, bandpass filtered, and blurred (Cox, 1996). Frame-to-frame motion of a subjects' head was corrected by regressing out rigid translations and rotations of the fMRI data and derivatives of these parameters during the time course. Motion was censored with a threshold of 0.2, i.e.\ RMSD of 2 mm or 2 degrees based on the Euclidean Norm of the derivative of the translation and rotation parameters. Outliers were censored with a threshold of 10\%. Due to excessive censoring, 2 of the child and 1 of the adult subject data were excluded. For the individuals remaining in the study, a small fraction of the time slices were removed by this censoring, also termed scrubbing, and the values replaced with values linearly interpolated from neighboring time points. All calculations were performed with AFNI \citep{afni}. The block of analysis code of example 9a in the afni\_proc.py was applied. \subsection{Calculation of Modularity} \begin{figure}[tb!] \begin{center} a) \includegraphics[width=0.4\columnwidth,clip=]{Figure1a.eps} b) \includegraphics[width=0.4\columnwidth,clip=]{Figure1b.eps}\\ c) \includegraphics[width=0.4\columnwidth,clip=]{Figure1c.eps} d) \includegraphics[width=0.4\columnwidth,clip=]{Figure1d.eps} \end{center} \caption{Brain neural activity is clustered into modules. a) fMRI neural activity data are projected onto Brodmann areas, shown as colored regions. b) Neural activity between different Brodmann areas is correlated for subjects watching 20 minutes of Sesame Street, shown here for one adult subject. Only the elements of the correlation matrix above a cutoff are retained (white). c) Modules are defined as the clusters that maximize Newman's modularity. The four modules identified from the 84 Brodmann areas for this subject are shown, of size 16 (green), 20 (red), 27 (yellow), and 21 (orange). The modularity is 0.6441, with contributions of 0.1585, 0.1310, 0.1592, and 0.1954 from each module respectively. d) The four modules of neural activity for this subject. } \label{fig1} \end{figure} We computed modularity from correlations in neural activity of the brain extracted from fMRI data \citep{Schwarz,Meunier2009,Fortunato2010}. Fig.\ \ref{fig1} illustrates the process. Correlations were computed for each subject between Brodmann areas, a standardized basis set describing regions of the human cerebral cortex \cite{Nolte}. Modularity was computed using the Newman algorithm \citep{Newman2006}. We projected the $N_{\rm edge}$ largest values of the correlation matrix to unity, and set the remaining values to zero. We computed the modularity of this projected matrix. These values of modularity depend on the parameter $N_{\rm edge}$, and it will be confirmed that adult modularity is greater than child modularity for all $N_{\rm edge}$ values. The value for the $N_{\rm edge}$ parameter must be large enough that the projected correlation matrix is fully connected, which implies $N_{\rm edge} \ge$ 200 for our data set. We considered 200 $\le N_{\rm edge} \le$ 500 so that the non-linear effect of the projection were significant, i.e.\ the projected matrix was not simply all unity. The numerical value of the modularity is the probability to have correlations within the modules, minus the probability expected for a randomized matrix with the same degree sequence \citep{Newman2006}. In other words, \begin{equation} M = \frac{1}{2 e} \sum_{\rm all~modules} \sum_{\rm ~~~~areas~ i,j~ within~ this~ module} \left( A_{ij} - \frac{a_i a_j}{2 e} \right) \label{1} \end{equation} where $A_{ij}$ is one if there is an edge between Brodmann area $i$ and Brodmann area $j$ and zero otherwise, The value of $a_i = \sum_j A_{ij}$ is the degree of Brodmann area $i$, and $e = \frac{1}{2} \sum_i a_i$ is the total number of edges, as in Fig.\ \ref{fig1}. Edges are established if the correlation between Brodmann areas $i$ and $j$ is greater than the cutoff value, which is implicitly determined by the desired number of edges to keep in the matrix, see Fig.\ \ref{fig1}b. Modules are defined by the grouping that maximizes $M$ \citep{Newman2006}. The Newman algorithm \citep{Newman2006} is used to calculate values of modularity and the identity of the modules. This algorithm gives a unique answer for the modularity and set of modules for a given connection matrix. The value of the modularity depends on how the Brodmann areas are grouped into modules, in Eq.\ \ref{1}, and the Brodmann areas are clustered into modules by choosing the grouping that maximizes the modularity, Eq.\ \ref{1}. It is not necessary to use a cutoff in the calculation of the modularity. The Newman modularity calculation can be applied to a full matrix, with real number values, rather than the binary projection. That is, the matrix $A$ in Eq.\ (\ref{1}) can simply be the full correlation matrix, without projection. Modularity computations on the full, real-valued matrix will also be presented. Finally, it is also not necessary to use the Brodmann areas as regions of interest. That is, the $i$ and $j$ in Eq.\ (\ref{1}) can simply be voxels, rather than Brodmann areas. Results for (8~mm)$^3$ and (12~mm)$^3$ voxels will be presented. Thus, modularity values for three different basis sets were computed. \section{Results} \begin{figure}[tb!] \begin{center} a) \includegraphics[width= 0.45\columnwidth,clip=]{Figure2a.eps} b) \includegraphics[height=0.45\columnwidth,clip=]{Figure2c.eps} \end{center} \caption{a) Average modularity of the neural activity in the brain for the child and adult cohorts. Modularity is greater for adults than for children. Modularity is computed from the correlation matrix of neural activity between Brodmann areas. The number of entries in the correlation matrix above the cutoff, denoted by edges, is chosen so that the matrix is fully connected yet still sparse. Modularity computed using different values of the cutoff persistently shows a higher value for adults than for children. The error bars are one standard error. b) top) The three Brodmann areas whose domains grow the most in size from children to adults, and bottom) the three Brodmann areas whose domains shrink the most, for 400 edges. } \label{fig3} \end{figure} Figure \ref{fig3}a shows modularity of neural activity for children and adults. The modularity of neural activity of adults is greater than that of children ($p$-value $< 0.001$ for 400 edges). This result persists when different cutoff values are used to calculate modularity from the correlation matrix. The results for 400 edges are representative, and unless otherwise noted, we used this criterion to construct the projected correlation matrix. Modularity of neural activity increases with age during childhood development. The average Pearson correlation between modularity and age, corresponding to the data in Fig.\ \ref{fig3}a, is 0.44 ($p$-value 0.02, sample size 22). Similarly, the average Pearson correlation between modularity and raw, not-age-normalized KBIT-2 overall IQ score is 0.234 ($p$-value 0.16, sample size 16, as some children did not have reported IQ scores). The positive correlation of modularity with both age and raw IQ shows the development of modularity in neural activity in the brain during childhood. \subsection{Modularity of a Full Matrix with Real-Numbered Connection Weights} Figure \ref{sfig0} shows the results when the full matrix is computed, the ``Brodmann area'' values. The modularity of adults and children are significantly different, p-value $7 \times 10^{-5}$. \begin{figure}[tb!] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth,clip=]{Mvs3projections.eps} \end{center} \caption{Calculation of modularity when the full matrix of correlations is used. Calculations were performed using Brodmann areas as nodes and a $84 \times 84$ matrix of correlations. Calculations were also performed without masking the data to Brodmann areas, and using the original data at a resolution of 12~mm and a $2160 \times 2160$ correlation matrix or a resolution of 8~mm and a $6426 \times 6426$ correlation matrix. The $p$-values for the significance of the difference between the modularity of adults and children are $7 \times 10^{-5}$, $9 \times 10^{-5}$, and $4 \times 10^{-5}$, respectively. These results confirm the generality of the results in Fig.\ \ref{fig3}. Modularity develops during childhood. \label{sfig0} } \end{figure} \subsection{Effect of Head Motion on Calculation of Modularity.} The extent of head motion was measured by the Euclidean norm of the derivatives of the motion parameters, termed EN. To illustrate this point, a number of correlations were carried out to illustrate the effect of head motion. The correlations for children are shown in Table \ref{tables2} and Fig.\ \ref{sfig2}. \begin{table} \center \caption{Quantification of the persistence of modularity and module identity with optimization of modularity.} \begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline Dependent variable & $R^2$ & $p$-value & $\partial M / \partial$ age\\ and independent variable(s)\\ \hline M with age & 0.1904 & 0.0211 & 0.0102\\ M with EN & 0.0158& 0.2897 \\ EN with age & 0.0071& 0.3545 \\ M with age and EN & 0.2170 & 0.0490 & 0.0106\\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{tables2} \end{table} Modularity is significantly correlated with age. Furthermore, inclusion of EN to the correlation of modularity with age only very slightly increases the goodness of fit ($R^2$), and does not change the positive slope of the correlation of M with age. The coefficient relating modularity to age, $\partial M / \partial$ age, is the same whether head motion is included as an independent variable or not. Thus, the head motion is not biasing the estimated relationship between modularity and age. The correlations of modularity or age with EN are small and not significant. \begin{figure}[tb!] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=0.45\columnwidth,clip=]{ChildrenMvsAge.eps} \includegraphics[width=0.45\columnwidth,clip=]{ChildrenMvsScore.eps} \includegraphics[width=0.45\columnwidth,clip=]{ChildrenMvsEN.eps} \includegraphics[width=0.45\columnwidth,clip=]{ChildrenENvsAge.eps} \end{center} \caption{The correlation of modularity with age, IQ score, and Euclidean norm (EN) from AFNI for children. Also shown is the correlation of EN with age. \label{sfig2} } \end{figure} The correlation of modularity with EN for adults is also small and not significant, $p$-value = 0.32. \begin{figure}[tb!] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth,clip=]{AdultsMvsEN.eps} \end{center} \caption{The correlation of modularity with Euclidean norm from AFNI (EN) for adults. The correlation is small and not significant, $p$-value = 0.32. \label{sfig3a} } \end{figure} \subsection{Development of Modules} Not only is the modularity of neural activity in the children and adults different, but also the identity of the modules changes with development. We computed the probability that Brodmann areas $i$ and $j$ were in the same module, as estimated from the data by the observed fraction. Consider a single person. The probability that area $i$ and $j$ are in the same module, $p_{ij}$, is either 0 or 1 (they either are, or are not, in the same module in one given subject sample). The sum of this quantity over $j$ is the size of the module in which $i$ is a member, $S_i$. Averaging $S_i$ over all children or all adults gives the average size of the module in which $i$ participates, $\langle S_ i \rangle_{\rm child}$ or $\langle S_ i \rangle_{\rm adult}$, respectively. These two quantities were calculated for each Brodmann area. Also reported are the three $i$ for which $ \langle S_ i \rangle_{\rm adult} - \langle S_ i \rangle_{\rm child} $ is largest and the three $i$ for which $ \langle S_ i \rangle_{\rm adult} - \langle S_ i \rangle_{\rm child} $ is smallest. We found the three Brodmann areas that had the largest positive difference between the average module size in adults and children, shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig3}b. These are the areas whose modules grew most in size with development. They are left Brodmann area 23, 29, and 31. We also found the three Brodmann areas that had the largest negative difference in average module size between adults and children, i.e. the areas whose modules shrink most with development, shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig3}b. They are left Brodmann area 21, right 40, and right 43. \subsection{Near Degeneracy of Modularity Values} In the definition of modularity, Eq.\ (\ref{1}), there can be partitions that give values of modularity near but slightly below the optimal value. The optimal value is denoted by $M$, and the nearby values are denoted by $Q$. To address the near degeneracy of modularity values, that is values of $Q$ that are near the optimal value of modularity $M$, the Newman algorithm was generalized to include the possibility of accepting a move that decreases $Q$, with probability $\min[1, \exp(\Delta Q/T)]$. This generalization leads to sampling the near-optimal values of Q, roughly in the range $M-T$ to $M$. How the average $Q$ varies with $T$ was calculated. Also calculated was how often the set of the 3 Brodmann areas for $ \langle S_ i \rangle_{\rm adult} - \langle S_ i \rangle_{\rm child} $ is largest changes identity in 100 runs, and similarly for the set of the 3 for which it is smallest . From these results, one sees that $M$ values reported are representative, i.e. the nearly degenerate $\langle Q \rangle$ values are close to the optimal value, $M$. The identification of 3 Brodmann areas for which $ \langle S_ i \rangle_{\rm adult} - \langle S_ i \rangle_{\rm child} $ is largest and the 3 for which it is smallest is relatively stable among these nearly degenerate states. Essentially only the least stable member of the latter is lost at finite $T$ (3/3 and 2/3 of the members are stable, respectively). \begin{table} \center \caption{Quantification of modularity and module identity persistence with optimization of modularity.} \begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline $T$ & $\langle Q\rangle$ & $\langle Q \rangle$ & (Number top areas & (Number of bottom areas \\ &(adults) & (children) & in common with & in common with \\ &&& $T=0$ case)/3 & $T=0$ case)/3 \\ \hline 0 & 0.4885 & 0.4237 & 1.00 & 1.00 \\ 0.01 & 0.4885 & 0.4237 & 1.00 & 0.65 \\ 0.05 & 0.4883 & 0.4233 & 0.97 & 0.62 \\ 0.10 & 0.4871 & 0.4220 & 0.86 & 0.60 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{tables1} \end{table} The top areas are more stable than the bottom areas, because there is a gap in the distribution of $ \langle S_ i \rangle_{\rm adult} - \langle S_ i \rangle_{\rm child} $ after the 3rd highest value, see Fig.\ \ref{sfig0a}. This distribution shows there is a natural set of highest and lowest outliers. \begin{figure}[tb!] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth,clip=]{SvsJ.eps} \end{center} \caption{The distribution of the values of $ \langle S_ i \rangle_{\rm adult} - \langle S_ i \rangle_{\rm child} $ They are ordered from smallest to largest; $j(i)$ denotes this ordering. \label{sfig0a} } \end{figure} \section{Model} \subsection{Model of the Response Function for Memory Recall} We will explore a mechanism to understand the results with a model of neural activity and cognitive function. We build upon the Hopfield neural network model \citep{Hopfield}. Models of brain activity with different levels of detail and complexity have been developed. At the detailed level, there are models of individuals neuron activation and spiking \citep{FitzHugh,Nagumo,Wang}. These models have been generalized to a population of neurons, in which synchronization of the spike trains has been calculated \citep{Buzsaki,Rubinov2011}. The data analyzed are at the resolution of 4~mm, and a voxel of (4~mm)$^3$ contains roughly a million neurons. The modeling is, therefore, of interactions between groups of neurons, with each group containing a million neurons. In addition, the time resolution of the fMRI BOLD signal data is 2 s. The fMRI BOLD signal results from the difference in magnetic spin properties of oxygenated and deoxygenated hemoglobin. This signal is, therefore, a representation of blood flow to each region of the brain. The regional blood flow is an indication of local neural activity \citep{Ogawa}. At this time and length scale, a model such as the Hopfield neural network is appropriate. As with the data, neural activity is the only observable in this model. We used a neural network model to describe the dynamics of neural activation that was measured by the fMRI experiments. The voxels of neural activation measured in the fMRI are subgroups of neurons in the brain. In the model, the activation state of subgroup $i$ is given by $\sigma_i(t)$, which takes on values $1$ or $-1$ to indicate that the subgroup of neurons is active or inactive on average at time $t$, respectively. Thus, for each physical region of the brain in Fig.\ \ref{fig1}a, there is a $\sigma_i(t)$. The neural state at time $t+1$ was created from the neural state at time $t$, based upon connections between neurons and stored memories. We here took the connections between the neurons to be modular, with modularity $M$. These functional connections, denoted by the matrix $A_{ij}$ below, correspond roughly to the modules identified in Fig. \ref{fig1}d. The model describes how neural states in the brain are driven to match stored patterns, with the $\mu$th pattern denoted by $\xi_i^\mu$. We also took the stored memories to be clustered. The correlation between these stored patterns is denoted by the weight matrix $W_{ij}$. The clustering of the stored memories is quantified a parameter $p$, described below. The modules identified in the fMRI experiments, Fig. \ref{fig1}d, are described in detail in the model through the combined influence of the connection matrix and the memory correlation matrix, $A_{ij} W_{ij}$. We related the modularity of the neural activation in the model to the modularity of the neural activity as measured by fMRI. The connection matrix denotes whether neural region $i$ is connected to region $j$. Due to physiological changes that occur during development, these connections change, as shown in Figs.\ \ref{fig3} and \ref{sfig0}. In particular, we set the connection matrix of the neural network to be modular \citep{Pradhan}, with modularity $M$. Crucially, we also set the stored memory patterns to be clustered as well, with modularity $p$. The neural state is propagated from a random initial state to recall a stored memory according to the Hebbian learning rule \citep{Amit}. We computed the average overlap between the final neural state and the stored memory. In terms of an experiment, overlap at time $t$ can be interpreted as quantifying how well a subject correctly identifies an image that is visible for a time, $t$. In the neural network model, memory $\mu$ is defined by the pattern $\xi_i^\mu=\pm 1$ of length $N=256$ bits \citep{Hopfield}. The weight matrix is defined by $W_{ij} = \sum_\mu \xi_i^\mu \xi_j^\mu$. The $N/4 \times N/4$ block diagonals define the four modules. Four distinct patterns are stored, one per module. Each pattern $\mu$ has $N/4$ values with $\xi_i^\mu=+1$, each of which has probability $(1 + 3 p)/4$ of being within the $\mu^{\rm th}$ block diagonal. The neural state is defined by $\sigma_i(t)$ and updated by the Hebbian learning rule \citep{Amit} $\sigma_i(t+1) = {\rm sign}[ \sum_j A_{ij} W_{ij} \sigma_j(t)]$. The connection matrix $A$ is binary and sparse, with average degree $\langle k \rangle = 30$. The probability for a connection to be at a given site within the block diagonal is given by $(1 + 3M) \langle k \rangle/N$. The overlap of the neural state with the target memory is given by $\max_\mu \sum_i \xi_i^\mu \sigma_i(t)/N$. \subsection{A Hierarchical Generalization} It has been argued that at the largest scales, the brain structure is hierarchical, not simply modular. Thus, the modular Hopfield neural network described above was also generalized to an hierarchical model. A similar hierarchical model was studied by Rubinov \emph{et al}.\ in a computational analysis to show the effect of self-organized criticality and neuronal information processing \citep{Rubinov2011}. In the modular model, the connection matrix $A$ is made modular. In the hierarchical model discussed here, 5 levels, $\gamma$, are defined. The level for matrix position $ij$ is defined as the smallest $\gamma$ for which $\lfloor i/4^\gamma \rfloor = \lfloor j/4^\gamma \rfloor $. For example, $\gamma = 0$ is the diagonal, and $\gamma = 4$ is the entire matrix, excluding the all the $4 \times 4$ block diagonals. See Fig.\ \ref{sfig3b}. \begin{figure}[tb!] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth,clip=]{HierarchicalMatrix.eps} \end{center} \caption{Pictorial representation of the hierarchical matrix. The levels are 4 (black), 3 (red), 2 (orange), 1 (yellow), and 0 (white). matrix. \label{sfig3b} } \end{figure} The probability to be within region $\gamma$ is assigned to be proportional to $1 - \gamma \epsilon $, with the proportionality determined so that the average number of connections per node remains at 30. Here $\epsilon= 1/4$ is a measure of the asymmetry introduced by the hierarchy. \subsection{Model Results} \begin{figure}[t!] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth,clip=]{Figure3.eps} \end{center} \caption{ More modular neural architectures give better performance at short times (a or d, short time) and less modular memory architectures can give better performance at long times (a or d, long time). The greater modularity in adults than children, Fig. \ref{fig3}, is consistent with either cognitive performance at short times is more important in adults than children (top arrow) or that memories are less clustered in adults than children (bottom arrow). Overlap is a measure of the probability that the neural state correctly recalls a memory. The modularity of the connection matrix is $M$. The timescale is of order seconds. The clustering of the stored patterns is denoted by $p$. } \label{fig2} \end{figure} The cognitive ability of the brain, i.e.\ its ability to solve a challenge, depends on modularity of the neural activity. The responses of the model neural system with high modularity and lower modularity are shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig2}. In this figure, cognitive performance is quantified by overlap between evolved neural state and target memory state. These performance curves as a function of time and neural architecture depend on the clustering of the stored memories, $p$. The overlap typically increases with time, as the target memory is dynamically recalled. At short times, a more modular memory architecture can lead to a better recall, i.e.\ greater overlap with the stored memory. At longer times, a less modular memory architecture can give better performance. We view this crossing of the performance as a function of time to be a generic result of an evolving dynamical system with a rugged fitness landscape \citep{Deem2013b} and not unique to the particular model used here. The variation in performance, shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig2}, helps to explain the change of modularity during development. We use quasispecies theory to quantify the relationship between performance and change of modularity. In this theory, systems with different modularity, $m$, are assigned a fitness, $f(m)$, that quantifies the benefit of performance. This theory predicts how modularity changes with time, given the fitness function, and the rate at which entries in the connection matrix change, $\mu$. We take the overlap in Fig.\ \ref{fig2} as the fitness for modularity, $f(m)$, in the brain and use quasispecies theory \citep{Deem2014} to predict how modularity develops with age. The average modularity, $M(t) = \langle m(t) \rangle$, changes with age according to \begin{equation} \frac{d M}{d t} = N \langle m f[p(t),m] \rangle - N M \langle f \rangle - \mu M \label{eq1} \end{equation} where $\mu$ is the rate of mutations in the connection matrix \citep{Deem2014}. Following the bottom arrow of Fig.\ \ref{fig2}, the response time is taken to be 15, and it is assumed that $p(t)$ changes from 0.8 at birth to 0.6 in middle age and 0.7 in old age, This $p(t)$ is shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig5}a. Previous studies have shown that the modularity, measured with an automated anatomical labeling (AAL) basis set for resting state activity, of neural activity in adults with average age of 70 is roughly 7\% below that of adults with average age of 22 \citep{Meunier2009,Dirk}. Another study of 193 adults aged 34--87, also using the AAL basis set, found that on average, modularity decreased 8\% over 50 years \citep{Onoda}. These results imply $p$ should be lower in old age than in young adulthood. The prediction from Eq.\ (\ref{eq1}), shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig5}b, is a qualitative prediction for the developing human brain. Due to mutation \citep{Deem2014}, the observed modularity in Fig.\ \ref{fig5}b is below the value that maximizes the fitness, $M^*(t)$, defined by $f[p(t), M^*(t)] \ge f[p(t), M] ~\forall~ M$. We calculate the modularity in the adiabatic limit, $M^\infty(t)$, from the steady-state average fitness derived from a solution of the quasispecies theory \citep{Deem2014}: \begin{eqnarray} f_{\rm pop} &=& \max_\xi \{ f[p(t), \xi] - \mu C [(N-L) L / N^2] [2 + (N/L-2) \xi \nonumber \\ && - 2 \sqrt{ (1-\xi) (1 + (N/L-1) \xi) } ] \} \nonumber \\ &=& f[p(t), M^\infty(t)] \label{eq2} \end{eqnarray} where $C$ is the average number of connections in the connection matrix, per row. \begin{figure}[t!] \begin{center} a) \includegraphics[width=0.4\columnwidth,clip=]{Fig5a.eps} b) \includegraphics[width=0.4\columnwidth,clip=]{Fig5b.eps} \end{center} \caption{a) The clustering of memories versus age, after the bottom arrow in Fig.\ \ref{fig2}. b) The average modularity versus age predicted by quasispecies theory (solid). Here, the fitness is $10 \times$ the overlap in Fig.\ \ref{fig2}, and the rate of mutation is $\mu = 0.1$ \citep{Deem2014}. Also shown is the adiabatic approximation to the modularity, $M^\infty$ (dashed) as well as the modularity that maximizes the fitness, $M^*$ (dotted). } \label{fig5} \end{figure} Results for the hierarchical model, analogous to those in Fig.\ \ref{fig3}, are shown in Figs.\ \ref{sfig3} and \ref{sfig4}. These results show that this hierarchical generalization of the Hopfield model also shows a crossing of the response function at intermediate times. That is, low levels of hierarchy lead to better responses at long times. And high levels of hierarchy can lead to better responses at short times. \begin{figure}[tb!] \begin{center} a) \includegraphics[width=0.25\columnwidth,clip=]{Hierarchicalp=0.8-1.eps} b) \includegraphics[width=0.25\columnwidth,clip=]{Hierarchicalp=0.8-2.eps} c) \includegraphics[width=0.25\columnwidth,clip=]{Hierarchicalp=0.8-3.eps} \end{center} \caption{Hierarchical Hopfield model results. Here $p = 0.8$. \label{sfig3} } \end{figure} \begin{figure}[tb!] \begin{center} a) \includegraphics[width=0.25\columnwidth,clip=]{Hierarchicalp=0.6-1.eps} b) \includegraphics[width=0.25\columnwidth,clip=]{Hierarchicalp=0.6-2.eps} c) \includegraphics[width=0.25\columnwidth,clip=]{Hierarchicalp=0.6-3.eps} \end{center} \caption{Hierarchical Hopfield model results. Here $p = 0.6$. \label{sfig4} } \end{figure} \section{Discussion} We have observed that modularity of neural activity in the brain increases with age from children to young adults, as measured by fMRI experiments. These data are summarized in Fig.\ \ref{fig3}. The analysis separately takes into account head motion, and the present study finds that after censoring and alignment, the effects of head motion are negligible. The $N_{\rm edge}$ cutoff parameter from Fig.\ \ref{fig3} can be viewed as a clustering parameter. What Fig.\ \ref{fig3} shows is that the modularity of adults is greater than that of children, persistently with the value of the $N_{\rm edge}$ cutoff parameter. In other words, the conclusion that modularity develops from children to adults is robust with respect to the particular value of the cutoff parameter. Previous analysis of fMRI data from young adults and old adults has shown that modularity of neural activity in the brain decreases with age \citep{Meunier2009,Dirk,Onoda}. Taken together with the present results, it appears that modularity of neural activity peaks in young adulthood. The calculation of modularity was done using both the Brodmann areas as a basis and using raw voxel data. Both calculations show the modularity of children is greater than that of young adults. Additionally, the calculated values of modularity were shown to be representative of the full distribution of near-optimal values. The Brodmann areas that grew most during development, left Brodmann area 23, 29, and 31, are in the posteromedial cortex. They play a central role in the brain neural network and in communication with the rest of the brain \citep{man1,man2,man3}. These areas also play important roles in memory retrieval \citep{man4,man5}. It is interesting that all three areas in the left brain, generally associated with logic, language and analytical thinking. The Brodmann areas identified to be in the modules that grow the most with development are somewhat sensitive to the number of edges used in the projection of the correlation matrix. For the range of edges show in Fig.\ \ref{fig3}a, 80\% of the identified Brodmann areas are in the left hemisphere. Additionally, the area with the most dominantly growing module, left Brodmann 29, is identified 80\% of the time. Our results are consistent with the observation that the right brain is dominant in infants, and that left brain develops later into adulthood \citep{Chiron}. The Brodmann areas that shank most during development, They are left Brodmann area 21, right 40, and right 43, are related to language perception and processing, accessing word meaning, and face recognition \citep{man6,man7}. The area with the most dominantly shrinking module, left Brodmann 21, is identified 80\% of the time. Prior results show that young adults are able to more quickly solve task-switching challenges than are children or old adults \citep{Karbach}. The present model shows that modularity allows for rapid responses. That is, a more modular neural activity can allow the brain to switch more quickly from one type of neural activation to another. This conclusion is robust to refinements in the hierarchical structure of the model. Therefore, selective pressure for rapid cognition should lead to the emergence of modularity in neural activity of the brain during childhood development. The present model suggests that modularity of neural activity may develop to facilitate rapid cognitive function. Modularity may be larger in young adults than in children because the typical required response time is shorter (upper arrow of Fig.\ \ref{fig2}). Modularity may also be larger because there are more connections between memories in adults than children, i.e.\ memories are less clustered, quantified by a smaller $p$ (lower arrow Fig.\ \ref{fig2}). A module offers a pre-computed solution to a problem that has been previously encountered. Development of modularity from children to adults, thus, can improve task-switching performance. \subsection{Experimental Implications} Experiments to determine cognitive performance, as it depends on modularity, would be interesting to carry out. Predictions from quasispecies theory using this fitness function could test the significance of the measured task for developmental selection. Cognitive performance of subjects could be challenged while fMRI data are collected. For example, as suggested by the model, the probability of a subject to correctly identify an image visible for a time $t$ may be measured. The cognitive performance should depend, among other parameters, on the modularity of the correlations in the subject's neural activity in the brain. Measuring performance as a function of modularity would provide the cognitive performance function, e.g.\ Fig.\ \ref{fig2}a or d, for this particular task. Perhaps the cognitive performance function will peak at different values of modularity for different tasks. It has been suggested that cognitive processes which are fast are more modular than those which are slow \citep{Meunier2010}. The results in Fig.\ \ref{fig2} show why this is the case: modular networks provide better performance at short times (Fig.\ \ref{fig2}b or e), but less modular networks can provide better performance at long times (Fig.\ \ref{fig2}c or f). Measurements of cognitive performance for high-level and low-level tasks would complement these results. We predict that performance curves as a function of time will cross for subject samples with different values of modularity, as in Fig.\ \ref{fig2}a. \subsection{Modularity as a Biomarker} A biomarker for brain function may be developed from modularity. For example, modularity of neural activity in epileptic patients is less than that in normal subjects \citep{Chavez2010}. Anecdotal evidence \citep{Leclercq} suggests that neural activity in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) is less modular than that in healthy subjects. Thus, we predict that background neural activity in the brains of TBI patients will be less modular than that of healthy subjects. If so, modularity may be useful to quantify the extent of TBI, which is currently difficult to determine. Effectiveness of treatment is also difficult to quantify, and measurements of modularity may be helpful to track progress of TBI rehabilitation treatments. Measurements of modularity may even be useful as feedback during treatment. Interestingly, modularity seems to increase in response to disease progression and reduced cognitive function in multiple sclerosis patients \citep{Gamboa}, perhaps because the system is compensating for increased stress due to reduced function with increased modularity \citep{Dirk}. \section*{Acknowledgments} We thank Jessica Cantlon for providing the fMRI, age, and IQ data \citep{Cantlon}. This research was supported by the US National Institutes of Health under grant 1 R01 GM 100468--01.
\section*{Introduction} Frieze patterns were introduced by Coxeter~\cite{Cox}, and studied by Coxeter and Conway~\cite{CoCo}. Frieze patterns are closely related to classical notions of number theory, such as continued fractions, Farey series, as well as the Catalan numbers. Recently friezes have attracted much interest, mainly because of their deep relation to the theory of cluster algebras developed by Fomin and Zelevinsky, see~\cite{FZ1}--\cite{FZ4}. This relation was pointed out in~\cite{FZ2} and developed in~\cite{CaCh}. Generalized frieze patterns were defined in~\cite{ARS}. Further relations to moduli spaces of configurations of points in projective spaces and linear difference equations were studied in~\cite{MGOT,SVRS}. The main goal of this paper is to study superanalogs of Coxeter's frieze patterns. We believe that ``superfriezes'' introduced in this paper provide us with a first example of cluster superalgebra. We hope to investigate this notion in a more general setting elsewhere. Our approach to friezes uses the connection with linear difference equations. The discrete Sturm-Liouville (one-dimensional Schr\"odinger) equation is a second order equation of the form: $$ V_i=a_iV_{i-1}-V_{i-2}, $$ where the sequence $(V_i)$ is unknown, and where the potential (or coefficient) $(a_i)$ is a given sequence. Importance of linear difference equations is due to the fact that many classical sequences of numbers, orthogonal polynomials, special functions, etc. satisfy such equations. Linear difference equations with periodic coefficients, i.e., $a_{i+n}=a_i$, were recently used to study discrete integrable systems related to cluster algebras, see \cite{OST,MGOT,SVRS,Kr}. It turns out that one particular case, where all the solutions of the above equation are antiperiodic: $$ V_{i+n}=-V_i $$ are of a special interest. We call this special class of discrete Sturm-Liouville equations Hill's equations. They form an algebraic variety which is isomorphic to the space of Coxeter's friezes. We understand a frieze pattern as just another way to represent the corresponding Hill equation. Roughly speaking, a frieze is a way to write potential and solutions of a difference equation in the same infinite matrix. Friezes provide a very natural coordinate system of the space of Hill's equations that defines a structure of cluster manifold. To the best of our knowledge, supersymmetric analogs of difference equations have never been studied. We introduce a class of supersymmetric difference equations that are analogous to Hill's (or Sturm-Liouville, one-dimensional Schr\"odinger) equations. We show that these difference equations can be identified with superfriezes. The main ingredient of difference equations we consider is the {\it shift operator} acting on sequences. In the classical case, the shift operator is the linear operator $T$ defined by $(TV)_i=V_{i-1}$, discretizing the translation vector field $\frac{d}{dx}$. We define a supersymmetric version of $T$, as a linear operator $\mathfrak{T}$ acting on pairs of sequences and satisfying $\mathfrak{T}^2=-T$. This operator is a discretization of the famous odd supersymmetric vector field $D=\partial_\xi-\xi\partial_x$. The corresponding ``superfriezes'' are constructed with the help of modified Coxeter's frieze rule where $\mathrm{SL}_2$ is replaced with the supergroup $\mathrm{OSp}(1|2)$. Discrete Sturm-Liouville equations with periodic potential can be understood as discretization of the Virasoro algebra. Two different superanalogs of the Virasoro algebra are known as Neveu-Schwarz and Ramond algebras. The first one is defined on the supercircle $S^{1|1}$ related to the trivial $1$-dimensional bundle over $S^1$, while the second one is associated with the twisted supercircle $S_+^{1|1}$ related to the M\"obius bundle. The supersymmetric version we consider is the M\"obius (or Ramond) one. The main results of the paper are Theorems~\ref{Glade} and~\ref{ISOMTH}. The first theorem describes the main properties of superfriezes that are very similar to those of Coxeter's friezes. The second theorem identifies the spaces of superfriezes and Hill's equations. The paper consists in three main sections. In Section~\ref{LDOS}, we consider supersymmetric difference operators. The space of such operators with (anti)periodic solutions that we call Hill's operators is an algebraic supervariety. In Section~\ref{SFS}, we introduce analogs of Coxeter's friezes in the supercase. We establish the glide symmetry and periodicity of generic superfriezes. We prove that the space of superfriezes is an algebraic supervariety isomorphic to that of Hill's operators. We give a simple direct proof of the Laurent phenomenon occurring in superfriezes. Each of these main section includes a short introduction outlining the main features of the respective classical theory. Finally, in Section~\ref{OPSEc}, we formulate and discuss some of the open problems. The space of Coxeter's frieze patterns is a cluster variety associated to a Dynkin graph of type~$A$, see~\cite{CaCh}. Frieze patterns can be taken as the basic class of cluster algebras which explains the exchange relations and the mutation rules. \section{Supersymmetric linear difference operators}\label{LDOS} In this section, we introduce supersymmetric linear finite difference operators and the corresponding linear finite difference equations, generalizing the classical difference operators and difference equations. The difference operators are defined using the supersymmetric shift operator. \subsection{Classical discrete Sturm-Liouville and Hill's operators}\label{ClSec} We start with a brief reminder of well-known second order operators. The Sturm-Liouville operator (also known as discrete one-dimensional Schr\"odinger operators or Hill's operators) is a linear differential operator $$ \left(\frac{d}{dx}\right)^2+u(x) $$ acting on functions in one variable. The discrete version of the Sturm-Liouville operator is the following linear operator $$ L=T^2-a\,T+\textup{Id}, $$ acting on infinite sequences $V=(V_i)$, where $i\in\mathbb{Z}$ and $T$ is the {\it shift operator} $$ (TV)_i=V_{i-1}, $$ and where $a=(a_i)$ is a given infinite sequence called the {\it coefficient}, or {\it potential} of the operator. The coefficient generates a diagonal operator, i.e., $(aV)_i=a_iV_i$. The sequence $(a_i)$ is usually taken with values in $\mathbb{R}$, or $\mathbb{C}$. Given an operator $L$, one can define the corresponding linear recurrence equation $L(V)=0$, that reads: \begin{equation} \label{SLEq} V_i=a_iV_{i-1}-V_{i-2}, \end{equation} for all $i\in\mathbb{Z}$. The sequence $(V_i)$ is a {\it variable}, or {\it solution} of the equation. The spectral theory of linear difference operators was extensively studied; see~\cite{Kr,KN} and references therein. The importance of second order operators and equations is due to the fact that many sequences of numbers and special functions satisfy such equations. We will impose the following two conditions: \begin{enumerate} \item[(a)] the potential of the operator is $n$-periodic, i.e., $a_{i+n}=a_i$; \item[(b)] {\it all} solutions of the equation~(\ref{SLEq}) are $n$-antiperiodic: $$ V_{i+n}=-V_i. $$ \end{enumerate} The condition (a) implies the existence of a {\it monodromy operator} $M\in\mathrm{SL}_2$ (defined up to conjugation). The space of solutions of the equation~(\ref{SLEq}) is 2-dimensional; the monodromy operator is defined as the action of the operator of shift by the period, $T^n$, to the space of solutions. The condition (b) means that the monodromy operator is: $$ M= \left( \begin{array}{rr} -1&0\\[4pt] 0&-1 \end{array} \right). $$ Note that condition (b) implies condition (a), since the coefficients can be recovered from the solutions. Any Sturm-Liouville operator satisfying conditions (a) and (b) will be called {\it Hill's operator}. The following statement is almost obvious; for a more general discussion, see~\cite{SVRS}. \begin{prop} \label{ClSLProp} The space of Hill's operators is an algebraic variety of dimension $n-3$. \end{prop} \noindent Indeed, the coefficients of the monodromy operator are polynomials in $a_i$'s, and the condition $M=-\mathrm{Id}$ implies that the codimension is $3$. It turns out that the algebraic variety of Hill's operators has a geometric meaning. Consider the {\it moduli space} of configurations of $n$ points in the projective line, i.e., the space of $n$-tuples of points: $$ \{v_1,\ldots,v_n\}\subset{\mathbb{P}}^1, \qquad v_{i+1}\not=v_i $$ modulo the action of $\mathrm{SL}_2$. We will use the cyclic order, so that $v_{i+n}=v_i$, for all $i\in\mathbb{Z}$. This space will be denoted by $\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_{0,n}$. Note that this space is slightly bigger than the classical space~$\mathcal{M}_{0,n}$, which is the configuration moduli space of $n$ {\it distinct} points in ${\mathbb{P}}^1$. The following statement is a particular case of a theorem proved in~~\cite{SVRS}. \begin{thm} \label{ClSLPropDva} If $n$ is odd, then the algebraic variety of Hill's operators is isomorphic to~$\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_{0,n}$. \end{thm} \noindent For a detailed proof of this statement, see~\cite{SVRS}. The idea is as follows. Given Hill's operator, choose arbitrary basis of two linearly independent solutions, $V^{(1)}$ and $V^{(2)}$. One then defines a configuration of $n$ points in~${\mathbb{P}}^1$ taking for every $i\in\mathbb{Z}$ $$ v_i=(V_i^{(1)}:V_i^{(2)}). $$ This $n$-tuple of points is defined modulo linear-fractional transformations (homographies) corresponding to the choice of the basis of solutions. \subsection{Supersymmetric shift operator} Let $\mathcal{R}=\mathcal{R}_{\bar0}\oplus\mathcal{R}_{\bar1}$ be an arbitrary supercommutative ring, and $\widehat \mathcal{R}=\mathcal{R}\oplus \xi\mathcal{R}$ its extension, where $\xi$ is an odd variable. We will be considering infinite sequences $$ V+\xi{}W:=(V_i+\xi{}W_i), \qquad{}i\in\mathbb{Z}, $$ where $V_i,W_i\in\mathcal{R}$. The above sequence is {\it homogeneous} if $V_i$ and $W_i$ are homogeneous elements of~$\mathcal{R}$ with opposite parity. \begin{defn} The supersymmetric shift operator is the linear operator \begin{equation} \label{OperT} \mathfrak{T}=\frac{\partial}{\partial{}\xi}-\xi\,T, \end{equation} where $T$ is the usual shift operator. More explicitly, the action of $\mathfrak{T}$ on sequences is given by $$ \mathfrak{T}\left(V+\xi{}W\right)_i=W_i-\xi{}V_{i-1}. $$ \end{defn} \begin{rem} The operator $\mathfrak{T}$ can be viewed as a discrete version (or ``exponential'') of the odd vector field $$ D=\frac{\partial}{\partial{}\xi}-\xi\frac{\partial}{\partial{}x}, $$ satisfying $D^2=-\frac{\partial}{\partial{}x}$. This vector field is sometimes called the ``SUSY-structure'', or the contact structure in dimension $1|1$; for more details, see~\cite{Man,Lei,LeiR}. The vector field $D$ is characterized as the unique odd left-invariant vector field on the abelian supergroup $\mathbb{R}^{1|1}$, see Appendix. We believe that the operator $\mathfrak{T}$ is a natural discrete analog of $D$ because of the following properties (that can be checked directly): \begin{enumerate} \item[(i)] One has $\mathfrak{T}^2=-T$. \item[(ii)] The operator $\mathfrak{T}$ is equivariant with respect to the following action of $\mathbb{Z}\oplus\mathcal{R}_{\bar1}$ on sequences in $\widehat \mathcal{R}$: $$ (k,\lambda):\left(V+\xi{}W\right)_i\longmapsto V_{i+k}-\lambda{}W_{i+k}+\xi\left(\lambda{}V_{i+k-1}+W_{i+k}\right), $$ which is a discrete version of the (left) action of the supergroup $\mathbb{R}^{1|1}$ on itself, see Appendix. \end{enumerate} \end{rem} \noindent It is natural to say that $\mathfrak{T}$ is a difference operator of {\it order}~$\frac{1}{2}$. \subsection{Supersymmetric discrete Sturm-Liouville operators} We introduce a new notion of {\it supersymmetric discrete Sturm-Liouville operator} (or one-dimensional Schr\"odinger operator), and the corresponding recurrence equations. \begin{defn} The supersymmetric discrete Sturm-Liouville operator with potential $U$ is the following odd linear difference operator of order~$\frac{3}{2}$: \begin{equation} \label{SuperSL} \mathcal{L}=\mathfrak{T}^3+U\mathfrak{T}^2+\Pi, \end{equation} where $U$ is a given odd sequence: $$ U_i=\beta_i+\xi{}a_i, $$ with $a_i\in\mathcal{R}_{\bar0},\;\beta_i\in\mathcal{R}_{\bar1}$, and where $\Pi$ is the standard {\it parity inverting} operator: $$ \Pi\left(V+\xi{}W\right)_i=W_i+\xi{}V_i. $$ \end{defn} More explicitly, the operator $\mathcal{L}$ acts on sequences as follows $$ \begin{array}{rcl} \mathcal{L}\left(V+\xi{}W\right)_i&=& W_i-W_{i-1}-\beta_iV_{i-1}\\[6pt] &&\displaystyle +\xi\left(V_i-a_iV_{i-1}+V_{i-2}+\beta_iW_{i-1}\right). \end{array} $$ The corresponding linear recurrence equation $\mathcal{L}\left(V+\xi{}W\right)=0$ is the following system: $$ \left\{ \begin{array}{rcl} V_i&=&a_iV_{i-1}-V_{i-2}-\beta_iW_{i-1},\\[4pt] W_i&=&W_{i-1}+\beta_iV_{i-1}, \end{array} \right. $$ for all $i\in\mathbb{Z}$. It can be written in the matrix form: \begin{equation} \label{SuperHE} \left( \begin{array}{l} V_{i-1}\\[4pt] V_i\\[4pt] W_i \end{array} \right)= A_i\left( \begin{array}{l} V_{i-2}\\[4pt] V_{i-1}\\[4pt] W_{i-1} \end{array} \right), \qquad \hbox{where} \qquad A_i= \left( \begin{array}{cc|c} 0&1&0\\[4pt] -1&a_i&-\beta_i\\[4pt] \hline 0&\beta_i&1 \end{array} \right). \end{equation} This is a supersymmetric analog of the equation~(\ref{SLEq}). It is easy to check that the matrix in the right-hand-side belongs to the supergroup $\mathrm{OSp}(1|2)$; see Appendix. \begin{rem} The continuous limit of the operator~(\ref{SuperSL}) is the well-known supersymmetric Sturm-Liouville Operator: $$ D^3+U(x,\xi), $$ considered by many authors, see, e.g.,~\cite{Rad,GT}. This differential operator is self-adjoint with respect to the Berezin integration. It is related to the coadjoint representation of the Neveu-Schwarz and Ramond superanalogs of the Virasoro algebra; see~\cite{DMV}. More precisely, $U(x,\xi)=U_1(x)+\xi{}U_0(x)$, and in the Neveu-Schwarz case the function is periodic: $U_0(x+2\pi)=U_0(x)$ and $U_1(x+2\pi)=U_1(x)$, while in the Ramond case it is (anti)periodic: $$ U_0(x+2\pi)=U_0(x), \qquad U_1(x+2\pi)=-U_1(x). $$ This corresponds to two different versions of the supercircle, the one related to the trivial bundle over $S^1$, and the second one related to the M\"obius bundle. \end{rem} \subsection{Supersymmetric Hill equations, monodromy and supervariety $\mathcal{E}_n$} We will always assume the following periodicity condition on the coefficients of the Sturm-Liouville operator: \begin{equation} \label{SPerEq} a_{i+n}=a_i, \qquad \beta_{i+n}=-\beta_i. \end{equation} Periodicity of coefficients does not, of course, imply periodicity or antiperiodicity of solutions. Any such equation has a {\it monodromy operator}, acting on the space of solutions $$ \left( \begin{array}{l} V_{i+n-1}\\[4pt] V_{i+n}\\[4pt] W_{i+n} \end{array} \right)= M \left( \begin{array}{l} V_{i-1}\\[4pt] V_{i}\\[4pt] W_{i} \end{array} \right). $$ This operator can be represented as a matrix $M_i$ which is a product of $n$ consecutive matrices: \begin{equation} \label{MonEq} M_i=A_{i+n-1}A_{i+n-2}\cdots{}A_{i+1}A_i, \end{equation} where $A_i$ is the matrix of the system~(\ref{SuperHE}), and therefore $M_i\in\mathrm{OSp}(1|2)$. \begin{defn} \label{DefHEq} A {\it supersymmetric Hill equation} is the equation (\ref{SuperHE}) such that all its solutions $V+\xi{}W=(V_i+\xi{}W_i),\;i\in\mathbb{Z}$ satisfy the following (anti)periodicity condition: \begin{equation} \label{PeriodSol} V_{i+n}=-V_i, \qquad W_{i+n}=W_i, \end{equation} for all $i\in\mathbb{Z}$. \end{defn} Since the space of solutions has dimension $2|1$, the condition~\eqref{PeriodSol} is equivalent to the fact that the monodromy matrix of such equation is: \begin{equation} \label{MonCond} M_i=\left( \begin{array}{rr|c} -1&0&\;\;0\\[4pt] 0&-1&\;\;0\\[4pt] \hline 0&0&\;\;1 \end{array} \right). \end{equation} Remarkably enough, the condition~\eqref{MonCond} does not depend on the choice of the initial $i$. \begin{lem} \label{MInd} If the condition~\eqref{MonCond} holds for some $i$, then it holds for all $i\in\mathbb{Z}$. \end{lem} \begin{proof} Let $M_i$ be as in~\eqref{MonCond} for some $i$. By definition~\eqref{MonEq}, and using (anti)periodicity of the coefficients~\eqref{SPerEq}, we have: $$ \begin{array}{rcl} M_{i+1}=A_{i+n}M_iA_i^{-1}&=& \left( \begin{array}{cc|c} 0&1&0\\[4pt] -1&a_i&\beta_i\\[4pt] \hline 0&-\beta_i&1 \end{array} \right) \left( \begin{array}{rr|c} -1&0&\;\;0\\[4pt] 0&-1&\;\;0\\[4pt] \hline 0&0&\;\;1 \end{array} \right) \left( \begin{array}{cc|c} a_i&-1&-\beta_i\\[4pt] 1&0&0\\[4pt] \hline -\beta_i&0&1 \end{array} \right)\\[22pt] &=& \left( \begin{array}{rr|c} -1&0&\;\;0\\[4pt] 0&-1&\;\;0\\[4pt] \hline 0&0&\;\;1 \end{array} \right). \end{array} $$ The result follows by induction. \end{proof} The condition~\eqref{PeriodSol} is a strong condition on the potential of Hill's equation. More precisely, one has the following. \begin{prop} \label{HillProp} The space of Hill's equations satisfying the condition~(\ref{PeriodSol}) is an algebraic supervariety of dimension $\left(n-3\right)|\left(n-2\right)$. \end{prop} \begin{proof} The space of all Hill's equations with arbitrary (anti)periodic potential is just a vector space of dimensional $n|n$. The matrix $M$ is given by the product~(\ref{MonEq}), and therefore has polynomial coefficients in $a$'s and $\beta$'s. Thus, the condition~(\ref{PeriodSol}) defines an algebraic variety. Furthermore, the condition~(\ref{PeriodSol}) has codimension $3|2$, i.e., the dimension of~$\mathrm{OSp}(1|2)$. \end{proof} We will denote by $\mathcal{E}_n$ the supervariety of Hill's equations satisfying the condition~(\ref{PeriodSol}). \begin{rem} The condition~\eqref{SPerEq} is manifestly a discrete version of the Ramond superalgebra, i.e., it corresponds to the M\"obius supercircle. We do not know if the Neveu-Schwarz algebra can be discretized with the help of linear difference operators. This case would correspond to periodic sequences $a$'s and $b$'s, but then the monodromy $M$ would have to be $\pm\mathrm{Id}$. However, the case $M=\mathrm{Id}$ cannot be related to Coxeter's friezes, and $M=-\mathrm{Id}$ is not an element of $\mathrm{OSp}(1|2)$. \end{rem} \subsection{Supervariety $\mathcal{E}_n$ for small values of $n$}\label{MonEx} Using the condition~(\ref{MonCond}), one can write down explicitly the algebraic equations determining the supervariety $\mathcal{E}_n$. We omit straightforward but long computations. a) The supervariety $\mathcal{E}_3$ has dimension $0|1$. Every Hill's equation satisfying (\ref{PeriodSol}) for $n=3$ has coefficients $a_i\equiv1$, and $\beta_i=(-1)^i\beta$, for all $i\in\mathbb{Z}$, where $\beta$ is an arbitrary odd variable. This means that the $\beta_i$ satisfy the system: $$ \left( \begin{array}{ccc} 0&1&1\\[4pt] -1&0&1\\[4pt] -1&-1&0 \end{array} \right) \left( \begin{array}{r} -\beta_3\\[4pt] \beta_1\\[4pt] \beta_2 \end{array} \right)=0. $$ b) The supervariety $\mathcal{E}_4$ has dimension $1|2$; the coefficients of the Hill's equation satisfy: $$ \begin{array}{rcl} a_1a_2-2+\beta_1\beta_2&=&0,\\[4pt] a_2a_3-2+\beta_2\beta_3&=&0,\\[4pt] a_3a_4-2+\beta_3\beta_4&=&0,\\[4pt] a_4a_1-2+\beta_4\beta_1&=&0, \end{array} \qquad \hbox{and} \qquad \left( \begin{array}{cccc} 0&1&a_1&1\\[4pt] -1&0&1&a_2\\[4pt] -a_1&-1&0&1\\[4pt] -1&-a_2&-1&0 \end{array} \right) \left( \begin{array}{r} -\beta_4\\[4pt] \beta_1\\[4pt] \beta_2\\[4pt] \beta_3 \end{array} \right)=0. $$ The matrix of the linear system has rank $2$. c) One can check by a direct computation that the supervariety $\mathcal{E}_5$ is the $2|3$-dimensional supervariety defined by the following polynomial equations on $5$ even and $5$ odd variables $(a_1,\ldots,a_5,\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_5)$: $$ \begin{array}{rcl} a_1a_2-a_4-1+\beta_1\beta_2&=&0,\\[4pt] a_2a_3-a_5-1+\beta_2\beta_3&=&0,\\[4pt] a_3a_4-a_1-1+\beta_3\beta_4&=&0,\\[4pt] a_4a_5-a_2-1+\beta_4\beta_5&=&0,\\[4pt] a_5a_1-a_3-1-\beta_5\beta_1&=&0, \end{array} \qquad \hbox{and} \qquad \left( \begin{array}{ccccc} 0&1&a_1&a_4&1\\[4pt] -1&0&1&a_2&a_5\\[4pt] -a_1&-1&0&1&a_3\\[4pt] -a_4&-a_2&-1&0&1\\[4pt] -1&-a_5&-a_3&-1&0 \end{array} \right) \left( \begin{array}{r} -\beta_5\\[4pt] \beta_1\\[4pt] \beta_2\\[4pt] \beta_3\\[4pt] \beta_4 \end{array} \right)=0. $$ Notice that exactly $3$ even and $2$ odd equations are independent. d) The supervariety $\mathcal{E}_6$ is determined by six ``even'' equations on variables $(a_1,\ldots,a_6,\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_6)$, namely: $$ a_1+a_3+a_5-a_3a_4a_5-a_3\beta_4\beta_5-a_5\beta_3\beta_4-\beta_3\beta_5=0, $$ and its cyclic permutations, together with the following system of linear equations: $$ \left( \begin{array}{cccccc} 0&1&a_1&a_1a_2-1&a_5&1\\[8pt] -1&0&1&a_2&a_2a_3-1&a_6\\[8pt] -a_1&-1&0&1&a_3&a_3a_4-1\\[8pt] 1-a_1a_2&-a_2&-1&0&1&a_4\\[8pt] -a_5&1-a_2a_3&-a_3&-1&0&1\\[8pt] -1&-a_6&1-a_3a_4&-a_4&-1&0 \end{array} \right) \left( \begin{array}{r} -\beta_6\\[8pt] \beta_1\\[8pt] \beta_2\\[8pt] \beta_3\\[8pt] \beta_4\\[8pt] \beta_5 \end{array} \right)=0. $$ Observe that the above equations for the even variables $a_i$ are projected (modulo $\mathcal{R}_{\bar1}$) to the equations defining classical Coxeter frieze patterns. The odd variables $\beta_i$ in each of the above examples satisfy a systems of linear equations. The (skew-symmetric) matrices of the linear systems are nothing other than the matrices of Coxeter's friezes (for more details, see Section~\ref{CoSec}). \section{Superfriezes}\label{SFS} In this section, we introduce the notion of {\it superfrieze}. It is analogous to that of Coxeter frieze, and the main properties of superfriezes are similar to those of Coxeter friezes. The space of all superfriezes is an algebraic supervariety isomorphic to the supervariety $\mathcal{E}_n$ of supersymmetric Hill's equations. In this sense, a frieze as just another, equivalent, way to record Hill's equations. Superfriezes provide a good parametrization of the space of Hill's equations. \subsection{Coxeter frieze patterns and Euler's continuants}\label{CoSec} We start with an overview of the classical Coxeter frieze patterns, and explain an isomorphism between the spaces of Sturm-Liouville operators and that of frieze patterns. For more details, we refer to~\cite{Cox,CoCo,ARS,CaCh,MG,SVRS,Ust}. The notion of frieze pattern (or a frieze, for short) is due to Coxeter \cite{Cox}. We define a frieze as an infinite array of numbers (or functions, polynomials, etc.): $$ \begin{array}{cccccccccccc} &\cdots&&0&&0&&0&&0&&\cdots\\[4pt] \cdots&&1&&1&&1&&1&&\cdots\\[4pt] &\cdots&&a_{i}&&a_{i+1}&&a_{i+2}&&a_{i+3}&&\cdots\\[4pt] && \cdots&& \cdots&& \cdots&& \cdots&& \end{array} $$ where the entries of each next row are determined by the previous two rows via the following frieze rule: for each elementary ``diamond'' $$ \begin{array}{ccc} &b&\\[2pt] a&&d\\[2pt] &c& \end{array} $$ one has $ ad-bc=1. $ For instance, the entries in the next row of the above frieze are $a_ia_{i+1}-1$, and the following row has the entries $a_ia_{i+1}a_{i+2}-a_i-a_{i+2}$. Starting from generic values in the first row of the frieze, the frieze rule defines the next rows. For a {\it generic} frieze, the entries of the $k$-th row are equal to the following determinant $$ K(a_i,\ldots,a_{i+k-1})= \left| \begin{array}{cccc} a_i&1&&\\[4pt] 1&a_{i+1}&1&\\[4pt] &\ddots&\ddots&1\\[4pt] &&1&a_{i+k-1} \end{array} \right| $$ which is a classical {\it continuant}, already considered by Euler, see~\cite{Mui}. A frieze pattern is called {\it closed} if a row of $1$'s appears again, followed by a row of~$0$'s: $$ \begin{array}{ccccccccccc} &0&&0&&0&&0&&\cdots\\[4pt] \cdots&&1&&1&&1&&1&&\cdots\\[4pt] &a_i&&a_{i+1}&&a_{i+2}&&a_{i+3}&&a_{i+4}\\[4pt] && \cdots&& \cdots&& \cdots&& \cdots&&\\[4pt] \cdots&&1&&1&&1&&1&&\cdots\\[4pt] &0&&0&&0&&0&&\cdots \end{array} $$ The {\it width} $m$ of a closed frieze pattern is the number of non-trivial rows between the rows of~$1$'s. In other words, a frieze is closed of width $m$, if and only if $K(a_i,\ldots,a_{i+m})=1$, and $K(a_i,\ldots,a_{i+m+1})=0$, for all $i$. Friezes introduced and studied by Coxeter \cite{Cox} are exactly the closed friezes. Let us recall the following results on friezes,~\cite{Cox,CoCo,ARS}: \begin{enumerate} \item A closed frieze pattern is horizontally periodic with period $n=m+3,$ that is, $a_{i+n}=a_i$. \item Furthermore, a closed frieze pattern has ``glide symmetry'' whose second iteration is the horizontal parallel translation of distance~$n$. \item A frieze pattern with the first row $(a_i)$ is closed if and only if the Sturm-Liouville equation with potential $(a_i)$ has antiperiodic solutions. \end{enumerate} The name ``frieze pattern" is due to the glide symmetry. \begin{prop} \label{CloP} The space of closed friezes of width $m$ is an {\it algebraic variety} of dimension~$m$. \end{prop} \noindent Indeed, a closed frieze is periodic, so that one has a total of $2n=2m+6$ algebraic equations, $K(a_i,\ldots,a_{i+m})=1$ and $K(a_i,\ldots,a_{i+m+1})=0$ in $n$ variables $a_1,\ldots,a_n$. It turns out that exactly~$3$ of these equations are algebraically independent, and imply the rest. Based on results of \cite{Cox}, one can formulate the following statement: the two algebraic varieties below are isomorphic: \begin{enumerate} \item the space of Sturm-Liouville equations with $n$-antiperiodic solutions; \item the space of Coxeter's frieze patterns of width $m=n-3$; \end{enumerate} for details, see \cite{MGOT}, \cite{SVRS}. The idea of the proof is based on the fact that every diagonal of a frieze pattern is a solution to the Sturm-Liouville equation with potential $(a_i),\;i\in\mathbb{Z}$. More precisely, one has the recurrence formula for continuants $$ K(a_i,\ldots,a_j)=a_jK(a_i,\ldots,a_{j-1}) -K(a_i,\ldots,a_{j-2}) $$ already known to Euler. The above isomorphism allows one to identify Hill's equations and frieze patterns. The main interest in associating a frieze to a given Sturm-Liouville equation is that the frieze provides remarkable local coordinate systems. The coordinates are known as ``cluster coordinates''. \begin{ex} \label{CEx} {\rm A generic Coxeter frieze pattern of width~$2$ is as follows: $$ \begin{array}{ccccccccccc} \cdots&&1&& 1&&1&&\cdots \\[4pt] &x_1&&\frac{x_2+1}{x_1}&&\frac{x_1+1}{x_2}&&x_2&& \\[4pt] \cdots&&x_2&&\frac{x_1+x_2+1}{x_1x_2}&&x_1&&\cdots \\[4pt] &1&&1&&1&&1&& \end{array} $$ for some $x_1,x_2\not=0$. (Note that we omitted the first and the last rows of $0$'s.)} This example is related to the work of Gauss~\cite{Gau} on so-called {\it Pentagramma Mirificum}. It was noticed by Coxeter~\cite{Cox} that the values of various elements of self-dual spherical pentagons, calculated by Gauss, form a frieze of width $2$. \end{ex} \subsection{Introducing superfrieze}\label{TheDef} Similarly to the case of classical Coxeter's friezes, a superfrieze is a horizontally-infinite array bounded by rows of $0$'s and $1$'s. Even and odd elements alternate and form ``elementary diamonds''; there are twice more odd elements. \begin{defn} \label{TheMainDefn} A superfrieze, or a supersymmetric frieze pattern, is the following array $$ \begin{array}{ccccccccccccccccccccccccc} &\ldots&0&&&&0&&&&0\\[10pt] \ldots&{\color{red}0}&&{\color{red}0}&&{\color{red}0} &&{\color{red}0}&&{\color{red}0}&&\ldots\\[10pt] \;\;\;1&&&&1&&&&1&&&\ldots\\[10pt] &{\color{red}\varphi_{0,0}}&&{\color{red}\varphi_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}}}&&{\color{red}\varphi_{1,1}} &&{\color{red}\varphi_{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}}}&&{\color{red}\varphi_{2,2}}&&\ldots\\[12pt] &&f_{0,0}&&&&f_{1,1}&&&&f_{2,2}\\[10pt] &{\color{red}\varphi_{-\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}}}&&{\color{red}\varphi_{0,1}} &&{\color{red}\varphi_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}}} &&{\color{red}\varphi_{1,2}}&&{\color{red}\varphi_{\frac{3}{2},\frac{5}{2}}}&&\ldots\\[10pt] f_{-1,0}&&&&f_{0,1}&&&&f_{1,2}&&\\[4pt] &\iddots&&\iddots&& \ddots&&\ddots&& \ddots&&\!\!\!\ddots\\[4pt] &&f_{2-m,1}&&&&f_{0,m-1}&&&&f_{1,m}&&&&\\[10pt] \ldots&{\color{red}\varphi_{\frac{3}{2}-m,\frac{3}{2}}}&&{\color{red}\varphi_{2-m,2}}&&\ldots &&{\color{red}\varphi_{0,m}}&&{\color{red}\varphi_{\frac{1}{2},m+\frac{1}{2}}}&&{\color{red}\varphi_{1,m+1}}\\[10pt] \;\;\;1&&&&1&&&&1&&&&&\\[10pt] \ldots&{\color{red}0}&&{\color{red}0}&&{\color{red}0} &&{\color{red}0}&&{\color{red}0}&&{\color{red}0}&\\[10pt] &\ldots&0&&&&0&&&&0&\ldots \end{array} $$ where $f_{i,j}$ are even and $\varphi_{i,j}$ are odd, and where every {\it elementary diamond}: $$ \begin{array}{ccccc} &&B&&\\[4pt] &{\color{red}\Xi}&&{\color{red}\Psi}&\\[4pt] A&&&&D\\[4pt] &{\color{red}\Phi}&&{\color{red}\Sigma}&\\[4pt] &&C&& \end{array} $$ satisfies the following conditions: \begin{equation} \label{Rule} \begin{array}{rcl} AD-BC&=&1+\Sigma\Xi,\\[4pt] A\Sigma-C\Xi&=&\Phi,\\[4pt] B\Sigma-D\Xi&=&\Psi, \end{array} \end{equation} that we call the {\it frieze rule}. The integer $m$, i.e., the number of even rows between the rows of $1$'s is called the {\it width} of the superfrieze. \end{defn} \begin{rem} As usual, in the ``supercase'' there exists a projection to the classical case. Indeed, choosing all the odd variables $\varphi_{i,j}=0$, the above definition is equivalent to the definition of a classical Coxeter frieze pattern with entries $f_{i,j}$. \end{rem} Let us comment on the notation. The indices $i,j$ of the entries of the frieze stand to number of diagonals of the frieze. More precisely, the first index $i$ numbers South-East diagonals, and the second index $j$ numbers North-East diagonals. \subsection{More about the frieze rule} The last two equations of~(\ref{Rule}) are equivalent to $$ B\Phi-A\Psi=\Xi, \qquad D\Phi-C\Psi=\Sigma. $$ Note also that these equations also imply $\Xi\Sigma=\Phi\Psi$, so that the first equation of~(\ref{Rule}) can also be written as follows: $$ AD-BC=1+\Psi\Phi. $$ Another way to express the last two equations of the frieze rule is to consider the odd entries neighboring the elementary diamond. Then for every configuration $$ \begin{array}{ccccccc} &&{\color{red}\widetilde{\Psi}}&&{\color{red}\widetilde{\Xi}}\\[4pt] &&&B&&\\[4pt] {\color{red}\widetilde{\Phi}}&&{\color{red}\Xi}&&{\color{red}\Psi}&&{\color{red}\widetilde{\Sigma}}\\[4pt] &A&&&&D\\[4pt] &&{\color{red}\Phi}&&{\color{red}\Sigma}&\\[4pt] &&&C&& \end{array} $$ of the frieze, one has: $$ B\,(\Phi-\widetilde{\Phi})= A\,(\Psi-\widetilde{\Psi}), \qquad B\,(\Sigma-\widetilde{\Sigma})= D\,(\Xi-\widetilde{\Xi}). $$ The relation to the group $\mathrm{OSp}(1|2)$ is as follows. One can associate an elementary diamond with every element of the supergroup $\mathrm{OSp}(1|2)$ (see Appendix) using the following formula: $$ \left( \begin{array}{cc|c} a&b&\gamma\\[4pt] c&d&\delta\\[4pt] \hline \alpha&\beta&e \end{array} \right) \qquad \longleftrightarrow \qquad \begin{array}{ccccc} &&\!\!\!-a&&\\[4pt] &{\color{red}\gamma}&&{\color{red}\alpha}&\\[4pt] b&&&&\!\!\!\!-c\\[4pt] &\!\!\!{\color{red}-\beta}&&{\color{red}\delta}&\\[4pt] &&d&& \end{array} $$ so that the relations~(\ref{Rule}) coincide with the relations defining an element of $\mathrm{OSp}(1|2)$. The frieze rule~(\ref{Rule}) implies the following elementary but useful properties. \begin{prop} \label{EasyOne} (i) The entries $\varphi_{i,i}$ in the first non-trivial row of a generic superfrieze consist of pairs of equal ones: $\varphi_{i,i}=\varphi_{i+\frac{1}{2},i+\frac{1}{2}}$, where $i\in\mathbb{Z}$. (ii) The entries $\varphi_{i,i}$ in the last non-trivial row of a generic superfrieze consist of pairs of opposite ones: $\varphi_{i,i+m}=-\varphi_{i-\frac{1}{2},i+m-\frac{1}{2}}$, where $i\in\mathbb{Z}$. \end{prop} \subsection{Examples of superfriezes}\label{SecESF} The generic superfrieze of width $m=1$ is of the following form: $$ \begin{array}{ccccccccccccccccccccccc} &&0&&&&0&&&&\!\!0&&&&0\\[8pt] &{\color{red}0}&&{\color{red}0}&&{\color{red}0}&& \!\!\!{\color{red}0}&&{\color{red}0}&&{\color{red}0}&&\;\;\;{\color{red}0}&&\!\!\!{\color{red}0}\\[8pt] 1&&&&1&&&&1&&&&\!\!1&&&&1\\[8pt] &{\color{red}\xi}&&{\color{red}\xi}&&{\color{red}\xi'} &&{\color{red}\xi'}&&{\color{red}\xi-x\eta}&&{\color{red}\xi-x\eta} &&{\color{red}\eta}&&{\color{red}\eta}\\[10pt] &&x&&&&x'&&&&\!\!\!x&&&&x'\\[10pt] &{\color{red}\xi-x\eta}&&\;\;\;{\color{red}x\eta-\xi}&&\;{\color{red}\eta}&&{\color{red}-\eta} &&{\color{red}-\xi}&&{\color{red}\xi}&&{\color{red}-\xi'}&&{\color{red}\xi'}\\[8pt] 1&&&&1&&&&1&&&&\!\!1&&&&1\\[8pt] &{\color{red}0}&&{\color{red}0}&&\;\;{\color{red}0} &&\!{\color{red}0}&&{\color{red}0}&&{\color{red}0}&&\;\;\;{\color{red}0}&&\!\!\!{\color{red}0}\\[10pt] &&0&&&&0&&&&\!\!0&&&&0\ \end{array} $$ where $$ x'=\frac{2}{x}+\frac{\eta\xi}{x}, \qquad \xi'=\eta-\frac{2\xi}{x}. $$ One can choose local coordinates $(x,\xi,\eta)$ to parametrize the space of friezes. The following example is the superanalog of the frieze from Example~\ref{CEx} related to the Gauss Pentagramma mirificum. $$ \begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccccc} 0&&&&\!\!\!0&&&&\!\!0&&&&\!\!\!0&&&&0&&\ldots\\[10pt] &{\color{red}0}&&\!\!{\color{red}0}&&{\color{red}0} &&{\color{red}0}&&{\color{red}0}&&{\color{red}0}&&\!\!{\color{red}0}&&{\color{red}0}&&{\color{red}0}\\[10pt] \ldots&&1&&&&1&&&&1&&&&\!\!1&&&&\!\!1\\[4pt] &{\color{red}-\zeta} &&\!\!{\color{red}\xi}&&{\color{red}\raisebox{.5pt}{\textcircled{\raisebox{-.3pt} {$\xi$}}}}&&{\color{red}\xi'}&&{\color{red}\xi'} &&\color{red}{\nu} &&\color{red}{\nu} &&\!\!{\color{red}\zeta^*}&&{\color{red}\zeta^*} \\[10pt] y'&&&& \!\!{\raisebox{.5pt}{\textcircled{\raisebox{-.3pt} {$x$}}}}&&&&\!\!x' &&&&x''&&&&y\\[10pt] &\!\!\!{\color{red}-\eta'}&& \!\!\!{\color{red}\eta^*} &&\color{red}{\tau} &&{\color{red}\raisebox{.5pt}{\textcircled{\raisebox{-.1pt} {$\eta$}}}} &&\color{red}{\tau'} &&{\color{red}\eta'} &&\!\!\!{\color{red}\eta^*}&&\!\!{\color{red}-\tau} &&{\color{red}\eta}\\[10pt] &&x''&&&&{\raisebox{.5pt}{\textcircled{\raisebox{-.1pt} {$y$}}}} &&&&y'&&&&x &&&&\!\!\!x'\\[10pt] &\color{red}{\nu} &&\color{red}{-\nu} &&{\color{red}\zeta^*} &&{\color{red}-\zeta^*} &&{\color{red}\raisebox{.5pt}{\textcircled{\raisebox{-.3pt} {$\zeta$}}}} &&\!\!{\color{red}-\zeta}&&\!\!\!{\color{red}-\xi} &&{\color{red}\xi}&&{\color{red}-\xi'}\\[10pt] 1&&&&\!\!1&&&&1&&&&1&&&&1&&\ldots\\[10pt] &{\color{red}0}&&\!\!{\color{red}0}&&{\color{red}0}&&{\color{red}0}&&{\color{red}0} &&{\color{red}0}&&\!\!{\color{red}0}&&{\color{red}0}&&{\color{red}0}\\[10pt] \ldots&&0&&&&0&&&&0&&&&0&&&&\!\!0 \end{array} $$ The frieze is defined by the initial values $(x,y,\xi,\eta,\zeta)$, the next values are easily calculated using the frieze rule. The even entries of the superfrieze are as follows: $$ x'=\frac{1+y}{x}+\frac{\eta\xi}{x}, \qquad y'=\frac{1+x+y}{xy}+\frac{\eta\xi}{xy}+\frac{\zeta\eta}{y}, \qquad x''=\frac{1+x}{y}+\frac{\eta\xi}{y}+\xi\zeta+\frac{x}{y}\zeta\eta. $$ For the odd entries of the superfrieze, one has: $$ \begin{array}{lll} \displaystyle \xi'=\eta-\frac{1+y}{x}\xi, & \displaystyle \eta'=\zeta-\frac{1+x+y}{xy}\xi-\frac{\xi\eta\zeta}{y}, & \displaystyle \tau'= \frac{1+y}{x}\zeta-\frac{1+x+y}{xy}\eta-\frac{\xi\eta\zeta}{x}, \end{array} $$ $$ \begin{array}{llll} \displaystyle \zeta^*=\eta-y\zeta, & \quad \displaystyle \eta^*=\xi-x\zeta, & \quad \displaystyle \nu= \frac{(1+x)}{y}\eta-\xi-\zeta, & \quad \displaystyle \tau= x\eta-y\xi, \end{array} $$ The superfriezes exhibited in the above example have many symmetries and periodicities. Our next task is to derive these properties of superfriezes in general. \subsection{Generic superfriezes and Hill's equations}\label{RecuRSSec} Like Coxeter's friezes, superfriezes enjoy remarkable properties, under some conditions of genericity. We begin with the most elementary way to define generic superfriezes. \begin{defn} \label{GenDef} A superfrieze is called {\it generic} if every even entry is invertible. \end{defn} The following lemma explains the relation between superfriezes and linear difference equations. \begin{lem} \label{RecurLem} The entries of every South-East diagonal of a generic superfrieze $$ (W_i,V_i):=(\varphi_{j,i},\,f_{j,i}), $$ where $j$ is an arbitrary (fixed) integer, satisfy Hill's equation~(\ref{SuperHE}) with the potential $U_i=\beta_i+\xi{}a_i$, where $a_i$ and $\beta_i$ are given by the first two rows of the superfrieze, i.e., $a_i=f_{i,i}$ and $\beta_i=\varphi_{i,i}$. \end{lem} \begin{proof} We proceed by induction. Assume that the following fragment of a superfrieze: $$ \begin{array}{ccccccccc} &&&&0\\ &&&\iddots&&{\color{red}0}\\[2pt] &&\;B&&&&1\\[2pt] &\;{\color{red}\Xi}&&{\color{red}\Psi}&&\iddots&&{\color{red}\beta_i}\\[2pt] A&&&&D&&&&a_i\\[2pt] &\;{\color{red}\Phi}&&{\color{red}\Sigma}&&{\color{red}\Lambda}&&\iddots\\[2pt] &&\;C&&&&F\\[2pt] &&&{\color{red}\Omega}&&\iddots\\[2pt] &&&&E \end{array} $$ satisfies the relations $$ F=a_iD-B-\beta_i\Psi, \qquad \Lambda=\Psi+\beta_iD $$ corresponding to the recurrence~\eqref{SuperHE}. We need to prove that these relations propagate on the next diagonal, i.e., that $$ E=a_iC-A-\beta_i\Phi, \qquad \Omega=\Phi+\beta_iC. $$ Indeed, using the superfrieze rule $D(\Omega-\Phi)=C(\Lambda-\Psi)$, we deduce that $D(\Omega-\Phi)=\beta_iCD$, and canceling $D$, we obtain the second desired relation. For the even entries, we use the rule: $CF-DE=1+\Lambda\Omega$ together with $AD-BC=1-\Phi\Psi$. We have: $$ \begin{array}{rcl} DE &=& CF-1-\Lambda\Omega\\[4pt] &=& a_iCD-CB-\beta_iC\Psi-1-\Lambda\Omega\\[4pt] &=& a_iCD+1-\Phi\Psi-AD-\beta_iC\Psi-1-\Lambda\Omega\\[4pt] &=& a_iCD-(\Phi+\beta_iC)\Psi-AD-(\Psi+\beta_iD)(\Phi+\beta_iC)\\[4pt] &=& a_iCD-AD-\beta_iD\Phi, \end{array} $$ and again canceling $D$ we obtain the desired relation. Note that canceling $D$ twice is possible due the genericity assumption. \end{proof} A similar property holds for North-East diagonals. \begin{lem} \label{RecurLemDual} The entries of every North-East diagonal of a generic superfrieze $$ (W^*_i,V^*_i):=(\varphi_{i+\frac32,j+\frac12},\,f_{i+2,j}), $$ where $j$ is an arbitrary (fixed) integer, satisfy the following Hill equation \begin{equation} \label{SuperHEDual} \left( \begin{array}{l} V^*_{i-1}\\[4pt] V^*_{i}\\[4pt] W^*_{i} \end{array} \right)= \left( \begin{array}{rr|r} 0&1&0\\[4pt] -1&a_i&\beta_i\\[4pt] \hline 0&-\beta_i&1 \end{array} \right) \left( \begin{array}{l} V^*_{i-2}\\[4pt] V^*_{i-1}\\[4pt] W^*_{i-1} \end{array} \right), \end{equation} where $a_i=f_{i,i}$ and $\beta_i=\varphi_{i+\frac12,i+\frac12}$. \end{lem} \begin{proof} Consider the $j$th North-East diagonal $(V'_i,W'_i):=(f_{i,j},\,\varphi_{i+\frac12,j+\frac12})$. As in the proof of Lemma~\ref{RecurLem}, by induction one establishes the following system: $$ \begin{array}{rcl} V'_i&=&a_iV'_{i+1}-V'_{i+2}+\beta_iW'_{i+1},\\[4pt] W'_i&=&\beta_iV'_{i+1}+W'_{i+1}. \end{array} $$ Inverting the matrix of the system and shifting the indices, one obtains~\eqref{SuperHEDual}. \end{proof} Note that the difference between the equation~\eqref{SuperHE} and the equation~\eqref{SuperHEDual} is in the sign of the odd coefficients $\beta_i$. The following properties are crucial for the notion of variety of friezes introduced in the sequel. \begin{prop} \label{Easy} (i) A generic superfrieze is completely determined by the first two non-trivial rows, $\varphi_{i,i}$ and $f_{i,i}$, below the row of $1$'s. (ii) The entries $f_{j,i}$, $\varphi_{j,i}$ and $\varphi_{j-\frac12,i+\frac12}$ of a generic superfrieze are polynomials in the entries $\beta_i$ and $a_i$ of the first two rows, defined by the recurrent formula: \begin{equation} \label{RecForm} \left( \begin{array}{l} f_{j,i-1}\\[2pt] f_{j,i}\\[2pt] \varphi_{j,i} \end{array} \right)= A_i \left( \begin{array}{c} f_{j,i-2}\\[2pt] f_{j,i-1}\\[2pt] \varphi_{j,i-1} \end{array} \right), \end{equation} where $A_i$ is the matrix of the system~(\ref{SuperHE}), starting from the initial conditions \begin{equation} \label{RecInitForm} (f_{j,j-3},f_{j,j-2},\varphi_{j,j-2})=(-1,0,0), \end{equation} and $\varphi_{j-\frac12,i+\frac12}=f_{j,i}\varphi_{j-1,i}-f_{j-1,i}\varphi_{j,i}$. \end{prop} \begin{proof} Lemma~\ref{RecurLem} implies that every diagonal of a generic superfrieze is determined by~$\beta_i$ and~$a_i$ via the Hill equation~(\ref{SuperHE}). Therefore, the entries of the frieze are obtained as solutions $(V_i+\xi{}W_i)$ with the initial conditions $$ V_{-1}=0, \quad V_0=1, \qquad W_0=0. $$ Finally, these initial conditions imply $V_{-2}=-1,W_{-1}=0$. Hence the result. \end{proof} \begin{ex} \label{PolyEx} A generic superfrieze starts as follows: $$ \begin{array}{cccccccccccccc} &&\ldots&&0&&\ldots\\[10pt] &&&{\color{red}0}&&{\color{red}0}\\[10pt] &&1&&&&1\\[10pt] &{\color{red}\beta_0}&&{\color{red}\beta_1}&&{\color{red}\beta_1}&&{\color{red}\beta_2}\\[10pt] a_0&&&&a_1&&&&a_2\\[10pt] & {\color{red} \begin{array}{c} a_0\beta_1\\ +\beta_0 \end{array}} &&{\color{red} \begin{array}{c} a_1\beta_0\\ +\beta_1 \end{array}} &&{\color{red} \begin{array}{c} a_1\beta_2\\ +\beta_1 \end{array}} &&{\color{red} \begin{array}{c} a_2\beta_1\\ +\beta_2 \end{array}}\\[10pt] && \begin{array}{c} a_0a_1-1\\ +\beta_0\beta_1 \end{array} &&&& \begin{array}{c} a_1a_2-1\\ +\beta_1\beta_2 \end{array}\\[10pt] &&& {\color{red} \begin{array}{r} \beta_0\beta_1\beta_2\\ +\beta_0-\beta_2\\ +a_0a_1\beta_2\\ +a_0\beta_1 \end{array}} && {\color{red} \begin{array}{r} \beta_0\beta_1\beta_2\\ -\beta_0+\beta_2\\ +a_1a_2\beta_0\\ +a_2\beta_1 \end{array}}\\[20pt] &&\vdots&& \begin{array}{r} a_0a_1a_2-a_0\\ +\beta_0\beta_2-a_2\\ +a_0\beta_1\beta_2\\ +a_2\beta_0\beta_1\\ \end{array} &&\vdots\\ &&&& \vdots&& \end{array} $$ that can be deduced directly from~\eqref{Rule}. \end{ex} The fact that the frieze is closed, i.e., ends with the rows of $1$'s and $0$'s, imposes strong conditions on the values of $(\beta_i)$ and $(a_j),\;i,j\in\mathbb{Z}$. These conditions will be described in Section~\ref{GladSec}. \subsection{The glide symmetry and periodicity}\label{GladSec} The properties of periodicity and glide symmetry are analogous to Coxeter's glide symmetry of frieze patterns. In the classical case, it was proved by Coxeter~\cite{Cox}. This periodicity is usually considered in contemporary works as an illustration of Zamolodchikov's periodicity conjecture; see~\cite{Kel} and references therein. \begin{lem} \label{PerCol} The entries of a superfrieze of width $m$ satisfy the following periodicity property: $$ \varphi_{i+n,j+n}=-\varphi_{i,j}, \qquad f_{i+n,j+n}=f_{i,j}, \qquad \hbox{for all} \quad i,j\in\mathbb{Z}, $$ where $n=m+3$; in particular, the entries of the first two rows satisfy $a_{i+n}=a_i,\,\beta_{i+n}=\beta_i$, for all $i\in\mathbb{Z}$. \end{lem} \begin{proof} Let us first prove that the entries of the first two non-trivial rows $a_i=f_{i,i}$ and $\beta_i=\varphi_{i,i}$ are $n$-(anti)periodic. Indeed, consider the bottom part of the frieze: $$ \begin{array}{ccccccccccccccccc} &&&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!f_{i-m-1,i-2}&&&&&&&\\[10pt] &&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!{\color{red}\varphi_{i-m-\frac32,i-\frac32}} &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!{\color{red}\varphi_{i-m-1,i-1}}&&&\\[10pt] &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!f_{i-m-2,i-2}&&&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!f_{i-m-1,i-1}&&&&\\[10pt] &\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!{\color{red}\varphi_{i-m-\frac52,i-\frac32}}&&\!\!{\color{red}0} &&\!\!{\color{red}0}&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!{\color{red}\varphi_{i-m-1,i}}&&\\[10pt] f_{i-m-3,i-2}&&&&\!\!0&&&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!f_{i-m-1,i} \end{array} $$ We use the odd ``South-East relation'' of Lemma~\ref{RecurLem} with $j=i-m-1$: $$ \underbrace{\varphi_{i-m-1,i}}_{=0}= \varphi_{i-m-1,i-1}+\beta_i\underbrace{f_{i-m-1,i-1}}_{=1} $$ to obtain $\varphi_{i-m-1,i-1}=-\beta_i$. We use the odd ``North-East relation'' of Lemma~\ref{RecurLemDual} with $j=i-2$: $$ \varphi_{i-m-\frac32,i-\frac32}= -\beta_{i-m-3}\underbrace{f_{i-m-2,i-2}}_{=1}+ \underbrace{\varphi_{i-m-\frac52,i-\frac32}}_{=0} $$ to obtain $\varphi_{i-m-\frac32,i-\frac32}=-\beta_{i-m-3}$. By Proposition~\ref{EasyOne}, Part (ii), one deduces the antiperiodicity of the odd coefficients $\beta_i=-\beta_{i-m-3}$. Similarly, using the even relations, one deduces the periodicity of the even coefficients $a_i=a_{i-m-3}$. Since the first two non-trivial rows determine the frieze, see Proposition~\ref{Easy}, Part (i), the periodicity follows. \end{proof} Furthermore, the following statement is analogous to the glide symmetry of friezes discovered by Coxeter~\cite{Cox}. \begin{thm} \label{Glade} A generic superfrieze satisfies the following glide symmetry \begin{equation} \label{GladeEq} \begin{array}{rcl} f_{i,j}&=&f_{j-m-1,i-2},\\[4pt] \varphi_{i,j}&=&\varphi_{j-m-\frac{3}{2},i-\frac32},\\[4pt] \varphi_{i+\frac12,j+\frac12}&=&-\varphi_{j-m-1,i-1}, \end{array} \end{equation} for all $i,j\in\mathbb{Z}$. \end{thm} \begin{proof} This statement readily follows from Lemmas~\ref{RecurLem}, \ref{RecurLemDual} and~\ref{PerCol}. Indeed, choosing $j=1$, the South-East diagonal $(W_i,V_i)=(\varphi_{1,i},\,f_{1,i})$ is determined by the recurrence~\eqref{SuperHE} and the initial condition $$ V_{-1}=0, \quad V_0=1, \qquad W_0=0. $$ On the other hand, choosing $j=m+2$, the North-East diagonal $(W^*_i,V^*_i)=(\varphi_{i+\frac32,m+\frac52},\,f_{i+2,m+2}),$ is determined by the recurrence~\eqref{SuperHEDual} and the same initial condition $$ V^*_{-1}=0, \quad V^*_0=1, \qquad W^*_0=0. $$ The two recurrence relations differ only by the sign of the odd coefficients, therefore one has $(W_i,V_i)=(-W^*_i,V^*_i)$. The arguments for arbitrary $j$ are similar, and we obtain $$ (\varphi_{j,i},\,f_{j,i})=(-\varphi_{i+\frac32,m+j+\frac32},\,f_{i+2,m+j+1}). $$ Finally, using the antiperiodicty of the whole pattern established in Lemma~\ref{PerCol}, we deduce the set of relations \eqref{GladeEq}. \end{proof} The above statement can be illustrated by the following diagram representing the diagonals of the superfrieze: $$ \begin{array}{ccccccccccccccccccccccccccc} &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&\!\!{\color{red}0}&&\!\!{\color{red}0}&&\!\!{\color{red}0}\\ &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&\!\!1&&&&\!\!1\\ \!\!{\color{red}\alpha}&&\!\!{\color{red}\alpha'}&&&&&&&&&&&& \!\!\!\!{\color{red}-\beta}&&\!\!{\color{red}\beta'}&&&&\!\!\!\!{\color{red}-\alpha}&&\!\!\!\!{\color{red}-\alpha'}\\ &\!\!a&&&&&&&&&&&&\!\!b&&&&&&&&\!\!a&\\ &&\!\!\ddots&&\!\!\ddots&&&&&&&&\!\!\iddots&&\!\!\iddots&&&&&&&&\!\!\ddots&&\!\!\ddots\\ &&&\!\!b&&&&&&&&\!\!a&&&&&&&&&&&&\!\!b\\ &&&&\!\!{\color{red}\beta}&&\!\!{\color{red}\beta'}&&&&\!\!\!\!\!{\color{red}-\alpha}&&\!\!{\color{red}\alpha'} &&&&&&&&&&&&\!\!\!\!\!{\color{red}-\beta}&&\!\!\!\!\!{\color{red}-\beta'}\\ &&&&&\!\!1&&&&\!\!1&&&&\\ &&&&&&\!\!{\color{red}0}&&\!\!{\color{red}0}&&\!\!{\color{red}0}&&&&&&\\ \end{array} $$ \subsection{The algebraic variety of superfriezes: isomorphism with~$\mathcal{E}_m$}\label{ISoSec} The above properties of generic superfriezes motivate the following important definition of the space of superfriezes that includes generic ones. \begin{defn} \label{AlgVSF} The algebraic supervariety of superfriezes is the supervariety defined by $2n$ even and $n$ odd polynomial equations in variables $(a_1,\ldots,a_n,\beta_1,\ldots\beta_n)$ expressing that the last three rows of the superfrieze consist in $1$'s and $0$'s. More precisely, for all $j\in\mathbb{Z}$ and $m=n-3$, one has: \begin{equation} \label{Zamk} f_{j,j+m}=1, \qquad f_{j,j+m+1}=0, \qquad \varphi_{j,j+m+1}=0, \end{equation} where $f_{j,i}$ and $\varphi_{j,i}$ are the polynomials defined by Proposition~\ref{Easy}, Part (ii). \end{defn} \noindent Note that equations~\eqref{Zamk}, together with the frieze rule, immediately imply $\varphi_{j+\frac12,j+m+\frac32}=0$. It turns out that the algebraic supervarieties of friezes and that of supersymmetric Hill's equations~(\ref{SuperHE}) can be identified. \begin{thm} \label{ISOMTH} The space of superfriezes of width $m$ is an algebraic supervariety isomorphic to the supervariety $\mathcal{E}_{m+3}$. \end{thm} \begin{proof} By definition of $f_{j,i}$ and $\phi_{j,i}$, one has for all $i,j\in \mathbb{Z}$, \begin{equation}\label{use} \left( \begin{array}{l} f_{j,i+n-2}\\[2pt] f_{j,i+n-1}\\[2pt] \varphi_{j,i+n-1} \end{array} \right)= M_i \left( \begin{array}{c} f_{j,i-2}\\[2pt] f_{j,i-1}\\[2pt] \varphi_{j,i-1} \end{array} \right), \end{equation} where $M_i$ is as in~\eqref{MonEq}. Given Hill's equation with potential $\beta_i+\xi{}a_i$, the condition that the monodromy is as in~\eqref{MonCond} implies the relations~\eqref{Zamk}, by substituting $i=j-1$ into~\eqref{use}, and using~\eqref{RecInitForm}. Conversely, assume that the variables $(a_1,\ldots,a_n,\beta_1,\ldots\beta_n)$ satisfy the relations~\eqref{Zamk}. Substituting $i=j-1$ and next $i=j$ into~\eqref{use}, one obtains, respectively $$ M_{j} \left( \begin{array}{r} \!\!-1\\ 0\\ 0 \end{array} \right) =\left( \begin{array}{c} 1\\ 0\\ 0 \end{array} \right), \qquad M_{j} \left( \begin{array}{r} 0\\ \!\!-1\\ 0 \end{array} \right) =\left( \begin{array}{r} 0\\ 1\\ 0 \end{array} \right). $$ for all $j\in\mathbb{Z}$. Hence, $M_j$ is of the form $$ M_j= \left( \begin{array}{rr|c} -1&0&\gamma\\[4pt] 0&-1&\delta\\[4pt] \hline 0&0&e \end{array} \right). $$ Finally, since $M_j\in \mathrm{OSp}(1|2)$, one deduces that $M_j$ is as in~\eqref{MonCond}. \end{proof} Proposition~\ref{HillProp} now implies the following. \begin{cor} \label{DimProp} The space of superfriezes of width $m$ is an algebraic supervariety of dimension $m|m+1$. \end{cor} \subsection{Explicit bijection} Given Hill's equation~(\ref{SuperHE}), let us define the corresponding superfrieze. Fix $j\in\mathbb{Z}$, and choose a solution $(V^j_i+\xi{}W^j_i)$, $i\in\mathbb{Z}$, with the initial conditions $ (V^j_{j-2}, W^j_{j-1}, V^j_{j-1})= (0,0,1). $ Form the superfrieze defined by $$ (\varphi_{j,i},f_{j,i}):=(W^j_i,V^j_i), $$ for all $i,j\in\mathbb{Z}$. Note that the odd entries with half-integer indices are defined by the frieze rule: $$ \varphi_{j-\frac12,i+\frac12}=f_{j,i}\varphi_{j-1,i}-f_{j-1,i}\varphi_{j,i}. $$ The chosen initial condition implies that $V^j_{j-3}=-1$ and $W_{j-2}=0$. The (anti)periodicity condition~\eqref{PeriodSol} then reads: $$ V^j_{j+n-3}=f_{j,j+n-3}=1, \qquad W^j_{j+n-2}=\varphi_{j,j+n-2}=0, \qquad V^j_{j+n-2}=f_{j,j+n-2}=0. $$ Therefore, we obtain a point of the supervariety of superfriezes. \subsection{Laurent phenomenon for superfriezes} The following Laurent phenomenon occurs in the Coxeter friezes: every entry can be expressed as a Laurent polynomial in the entries of any diagonal. Example \ref{CEx} illustrates this property. Similar phenomenon occurs in the superfriezes. \begin{prop} \label{Laurent} Every entry of any superfrieze is a Laurent polynomial in the entries of any diagonal. \end{prop} \begin{proof} Let us fix a South-East diagonal $(W_i,V_i)$ in the superfrieze. By Lemma~\ref{RecurLem}, one can express the first rows as $$ \beta_i=\frac{W_{i-1}-W_i}{V_{i-1}}, \qquad a_i=\frac{V_i+V_{i-2}-\beta_iW_{i-1}}{V_{i-1}}. $$ Therefore, the first two rows are Laurent polynomials in $(W_i,V_i),\;i\in\mathbb{Z}$. All the entries of the superfrieze are polynomials in the first two rows. Hence the proposition. \end{proof} \section{Open problems}\label{OPSEc} Here we formulate a series of problems naturally arising in the study of superfriezes and supersymmetric difference equations. \subsection{Supervariety $\mathcal{E}_n$} Our first two problems concern an explicit form of the equations characterizing the supervariety $\mathcal{E}_n$. \begin{pb} \label{PbOne} Determine the formula for the entries of a superfrieze\footnote{A solution to this problem has been given by Alexey Ustinov, see Appendix~2.}. \end{pb} In other words, the problem consists in calculating ``supercontinuants''. The first examples are: $$ \begin{array}{l} K(a_i,\beta_i)=a_i, \qquad K(a_i,a_{i+1},\beta_i,\beta_{i+1})=a_ia_{i+1}-1+\beta_i\beta_{i+1},\\[6pt] K(a_i,\ldots,\beta_{i+2})= a_ia_{i+1}a_{i+2}-a_{i}-a_{i+2}+ \beta_ia_{i+1}a_{i+2}+a_ia_{i+1}\beta_{i+2}+\beta_i\beta_{i+2}, \end{array} $$ cf. Example~\ref{PolyEx}. Is there a determinantal formula (using Berezinians) analogous to the classical continuants? The next question concerns the odd entries of a superfrieze. \begin{pb} Do the odd variables $\beta_i$ of the first odd row satisfy a system of linear equations generalizing the systems of Section~\ref{MonEx}? \end{pb} Examples considered in Section~\ref{MonEx} show that, for small values of $n$, the variables $\beta_i$ satisfy linear systems with matrices given by the purely even Coxeter frieze patterns obtained by projection of superfriezes. In this paper, we do not investigate the geometric meaning of superfriezes and Hill's equations. Recall that classical Hill's equations and Coxeter's friezes are related to the spaces $\mathcal{M}_{0,n}$; see Section~\ref{ClSec} and~\cite{SVRS,Sop}. We believe that the situation is similar in the supercase. \begin{pb} Does the algebraic supervariety $\mathcal{E}_n$ contain the superspace $\mathfrak{M}_{0,n}$ (see~\cite{Wit}) as an open dense subvariety? \end{pb} \noindent An important role in the geometric interpretation of superfriezes must be played by the super cross-ratio, see e.g.~\cite{MD}. \subsection{Operators of higher orders} In this paper, we do not consider the general theory of supersymmetric difference operators. We believe that such a theory can be constructed with the help of the shift operator $\mathfrak{T}$, see formula~(\ref{OperT}), and formulate here a problem to develop such a theory in full generality. The corresponding theory of superfriezes must generalize the notion of $\mathrm{SL}_k$-friezes, see~\cite{ARS,SVRS}. To give an example, we investigate the next interesting case after the Sturm-Liouville operators, namely the operators of order $\frac{5}{2}$. We omit the details of computations. In the continuous case, the operators we consider are of the form $$ D^5+F(x,\xi)D+G(x,\xi), $$ where the $\mathcal{R}$-valued functions $F(x,\xi)$ and $G(x,\xi)$ (for some supercommutative ring $\mathcal{R}=\mathcal{R}_{\bar0}\oplus\mathcal{R}_{\bar1}$) are even and odd, respectively. The discrete version is as follows $$ \mathfrak{T}^5+\mathfrak{T}^4+U\mathfrak{T}^3+V\mathfrak{T}^2-\Pi, $$ and the corresponding equation written in the matrix form is as follows: $$ \left( \begin{array}{l} V_{i-2}\\[4pt] V_{i-1}\\[4pt] V_i\\[4pt] W_{i-1}\\[4pt] W_i \end{array} \right)= \left( \begin{array}{ccc|cc} 0&1&0&0&0\\[4pt] 0&0&1&0&0\\[4pt] 1&-a_i'&a_i&0&\beta_i\\[4pt] \hline 0&0&0&0&1\\[4pt] 0&0&\beta_i'&-1&a_i'-1 \end{array} \right) \left( \begin{array}{l} V_{i-3}\\[4pt] V_{i-2}\\[4pt] V_{i-1}\\[4pt] W_{i-2}\\[4pt] W_{i-1} \end{array} \right), $$ where $$ F_i=a_i'-1+\xi(\beta_i+\beta_i'), \qquad G_i=\beta_i'+\xi{}a_i, $$ with $a_i,a'_i$ and $\beta_i,\beta'_i$ arbitrary periodic coefficients. The periodicity condition in this case should be: $$ V_{i+n}=V_i,\qquad W_{i+n}=-W_i. $$ We conjecture that the above difference equations correspond to a variant of superfriezes analogous to the $2$-friezes, see~\cite{MGOT,MG}. \section*{Appendix~1: Elements of superalgebra} To make the paper self-contained, we briefly describe several elementary notions of superalgebra and supergeometry used above. For more details, we refer to the classical sources~\cite{Ber,Lei,Man,Man1}. \medskip \noindent {\bf Supercommutative algebras.} Let Latin letters denote even variables, and Greek letters the odd ones. Consider algebras of polynomials $\mathbb{K}[x_1,\ldots,x_n,\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_k]$, where $\mathbb{K}=\mathbb{R},\mathbb{C}$, or some other supercommutative ring, and where $x_i$ are standard commuting variables, while the odd variables $\xi_i$ commute with $x_i$ and anticommute with each other: $$ \xi_i\xi_j=-\xi_j\xi_i, $$ for all $i,j$; in particular, $\xi_i^2=0$. Every supercommutative algebra is a quotient of a polynomial algebra by some ideal. Every supercommutative algebra is the algebra of regular functions on an algebraic supervariety (which can be taken for a definition of the latter notion). Every Lie superalgebra is the algebra of derivations of a supercommutative algebra, for instance, vector fields are derivations of the algebra of regular functions on an algebraic supervariety. An example of supercommutative algebra is the Grassmann algebra of differential forms on a vector space. Let $(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ be coordinates, and $(dx_1,\ldots,dx_n)$ their differentials, one replaces all the differentials $dx_i$ by the odd variables $\xi_i$, to obtain an isomorphic algebra. We often need to calculate rational functions with odd variables. The main ingredient is the obvious formula $(1+\xi)^{-1}=1-\xi$. For instance, we have: $$ \frac{y}{x+\xi}=\frac{y}{x(1+\xi/x)}=\frac{y}{x}-\xi\frac{y}{x^2}. $$ \medskip \noindent {\bf The supergroup $\mathrm{OSp}(1|2)$.} The supergroup $\mathrm{OSp}(1|2)$ is isomorphic to the supergroup of linear symplectic transformations of the ${2|1}$-dimensional space equipped with the symplectic form $$ \omega=dp\wedge{}dq+\frac{1}{2}d\tau\wedge{}d\tau, $$ where $p,q,\tau$ are linear coordinates. Let $\mathcal{R}=\mathcal{R}_{\bar0}\oplus\mathcal{R}_{\bar1}$ be a commutative ring. The set of $\mathcal{R}$-points of the supergroup $\mathrm{OSp}(1|2)$ is the following $3|2$-dimensional supergroup of matrices with entries in $\mathcal{R}$: $$ \left( \begin{array}{cc|c} a&b&\gamma\\[4pt] c&d&\delta\\[4pt] \hline \alpha&\beta&e \end{array} \right) \qquad \hbox{such that} \qquad \left\{ \begin{array}{rcl} ad-bc&=&1-\alpha\beta,\\[4pt] e&=&1+\alpha\beta,\\[4pt] -a\delta+c\gamma&=&\alpha\\[4pt] -b\delta+d\gamma&=&\beta, \end{array} \right. $$ where $a,b,c,d,e\in\mathcal{R}_{\bar0}$, and $\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta\in\mathcal{R}_{\bar1}$. For properties and applications of this supergroup, see~\cite{Man,GLS}. Note that the above relations also imply: $$ \gamma=a\beta-b\alpha, \quad \delta=c\beta-d\alpha, $$ and $\alpha\beta=\gamma\delta$. \medskip \noindent {\bf Left-invariant vector fields on $\mathbb{R}^{1|1}$ and supersymmetric linear differential operators.} Consider the space $\mathbb{R}^{1|1}$ with linear coordinates $(x,\xi)$. We understand the algebra of algebraic functions on this space as the algebra of polynomials in one even and one odd variables: $$ F(x,\xi)=F_0(x)+\xi{}F_1(x), $$ where $F_0$ and $F_1$ are usual polynomials in $x$. The following two vector fields, characterized by Shander's superversion of the rectifiability of vector fields theorem~\cite{Sha} $$ X=\frac{\partial}{\partial{}x}, \qquad D=\frac{\partial}{\partial{}\xi}-\xi\frac{\partial}{\partial{}x} $$ are important in superalgebra and supergeometry. These vector fields are left-invariant with respect to the supergroup structure on $\mathbb{R}^{1|1}$ given by the following multiplication of $\mathcal{R}$-points: $$ (r,\lambda)\cdot(s,\mu)=(r+s+\lambda\mu,\,\lambda+\mu). $$ Moreover, $X$ and $D$ are characterized (up to a constant factor) by the property of left-invariance, as the only even and odd left-invariant vector fields on $\mathbb{R}^{1|1}$, respectively. The vector fields $X$ and $D$ form a $1|1$-dimensional Lie superalgebra since $$ D^2=\frac{1}{2}[D,D]=-X, $$ and $[X,D]=0$, with one odd generator $D$. The space $\mathbb{R}^{1|1}$ equipped with the vector field $D$ is often called by physicists the $1|1$-dimensional ``superspacetime''. A {\it supersymmetric} differential operator on $\mathbb{R}^{1|1}$ is an operator that can be expressed as a polynomial in~$D$. \section*{Appendix~2: Supercontinuants (by Alexey Ustinov)} This Appendix gives a solution to Problem~\ref{PbOne}: determine the formula for the entries of a superfrieze. Let $\mathcal{R}=\mathcal{R}_{\bar0}\oplus\mathcal{R}_{\bar1}$ be an arbitrary supercommutative ring, and the sequences $\{v_i\}$, $\{w_i\}$, with $v_i\in\mathcal{R}_{\bar0}$, $w_i\in\mathcal{R}_{\bar1}$, be defined by the initial conditions $v_{-1}=0$, $v_0=1$, $w_0=0$ and the recurrence relation \begin{equation} \label{1} v_i=a_iv_{i-1}-v_{i-2}-\beta_iw_{i-1},\quad w_i=w_{i-1}+\beta_iv_{i-1}\quad(i\in \mathbb{Z}). \end{equation} In particular, \begin{gather*} v_1=a_1,\quad v_2=a_1a_2-1+\beta_1\beta_2,\quad v_3=a_1a_2a_3-a_1-a_3+a_1\beta_2\beta_3+a_3\beta_1\beta_2+\beta_1\beta_3;\\[6pt] w_1=\beta_1,\quad w_2=a_1\beta_2+\beta_1,\quad w_3= a_1a_2\beta_3+a_1\beta_2+\beta_1\beta_2\beta_3+\beta_1-\beta_3. \end{gather*} The problem is to express $v_n$, $w_n$ in terms of $a_1$, \ldots, $a_n$ and $\beta_1$, \ldots, $\beta_n$. Such expression will be called \textit{supercontinuants}. (For the properties of the classical continuants, see~\cite{Knu}.) We define two sequences of supercontinuants $$\{K\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} a_1\\ \begin{smallmatrix} \beta_1 & \beta_1 \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}|\begin{smallmatrix} a_2\\\begin{smallmatrix} \beta_2 & \beta_2 \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}|\ldots |\begin{smallmatrix} a_n\\\begin{smallmatrix} \beta_n & \beta_n \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}\bigr)\}\text{\quad and \quad} \{K\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} a_1\\\begin{smallmatrix} \beta_1 & \beta_1 \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}|\ldots |\begin{smallmatrix} a_{n-1}\\\begin{smallmatrix} \beta_{n-1} & \beta_{n-1} \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}|\beta_n\bigr)\}$$ by the initial conditions $K()=1$, $K(\begin{smallmatrix} a_1\\ \begin{smallmatrix} \beta_1 & \beta_1 \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix})=a_1$, $K(\beta_1)=\beta_1$ and the recurrence relations \begin{gather}\nonumber K\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} a_1\\[6pt] \begin{smallmatrix} \beta_1 & \beta_1 \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}|\ldots |\begin{smallmatrix} a_n\\\begin{smallmatrix} \beta_n & \beta_n \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}\bigr)=a_nK\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} a_1\\[6pt] \begin{smallmatrix} \beta_1 & \beta_1 \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}|\ldots |\begin{smallmatrix} a_{n-1}\\\begin{smallmatrix} \beta_{n-1} & \beta_{n-1} \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}\bigr)-K\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} a_1\\ \begin{smallmatrix} \beta_1 & \beta_1 \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}|\ldots |\begin{smallmatrix} a_{n-2}\\\begin{smallmatrix} \beta_{n-2} & \beta_{n-2} \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}\bigr) \\ \label{2}-\beta_nK\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} a_1\\ \begin{smallmatrix} \beta_1 & \beta_1 \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}|\ldots |\begin{smallmatrix} a_{n-2}\\\begin{smallmatrix} \beta_{n-2} & \beta_{n-2} \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}|\beta_{n-1}\bigr),\\ \nonumber K\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} a_1\\\begin{smallmatrix} \beta_1 & \beta_1 \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}|\ldots |\begin{smallmatrix} a_{n-1}\\\begin{smallmatrix} \beta_{n-1} & \beta_{n-1} \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}|\beta_n\bigr)=\beta_nK\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} a_1\\\begin{smallmatrix} \beta_1 & \beta_1 \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}|\ldots |\begin{smallmatrix} a_{n-1}\\\begin{smallmatrix} \beta_{n-1} & \beta_{n-1} \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}\bigr)+K\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} a_1\\\begin{smallmatrix} \beta_1 & \beta_1 \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}|\ldots |\begin{smallmatrix} a_{n-2}\\\begin{smallmatrix} \beta_{n-2} & \beta_{n-2} \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}|\beta_{n-1}\bigr). \end{gather} From~\eqref{1} and~\eqref{2} it easily follows that \begin{equation*} v_n=K\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} a_1\\ \begin{smallmatrix} \beta_1 & \beta_1 \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}|\ldots |\begin{smallmatrix} a_n\\\begin{smallmatrix} \beta_n & \beta_n \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}\bigr), \qquad w_n=K\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} a_1\\\begin{smallmatrix} \beta_1 & \beta_1 \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}|\ldots |\begin{smallmatrix} a_{n-1}\\\begin{smallmatrix} \beta_{n-1} & \beta_{n-1} \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}|\beta_n\bigr). \end{equation*} The classical continuants $K(a_1,\ldots,a_n)$, corresponding to reduced regular continued fractions $$a_1-\cfrac{1}{a_2-{\atop\ddots\,\displaystyle{-\cfrac{1}{a_n}}}},$$ are defined by $$K()=1,\quad K(a_1)=a_1,\quad K(a_1,\ldots,a_n)=a_nK(a_1,\ldots,a_{n-1})-K(a_1,\ldots,a_{n-2}).$$ There is Euler's rule which allows one to write down all summands of $K(a_1,\ldots,a_n)$: starting with the product $a_1 a_2 \ldots a_n$, we strike out adjacent pairs $a_ia_{i+1}$ in all possible ways. If a pair $a_ia_{i+1}$ is struck out, then it must be replaced by $-1$. We can represent Euler's rule graphically by constructing all ``Morse code'' sequences of dots and dashes having length $n$, where each dot contributes $1$ to the length and each dash contributes $2$. For example $K(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4)$ consists of the following summands: \begin{center} \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.6] \draw (2,0) -- (3,0);\draw (0,1) -- (1,1); \filldraw (0,0) circle (0.07);\filldraw (0,1) circle (0.07);\filldraw (0,2) circle (0.07); \filldraw (1,0) circle (0.07);\filldraw (1,1) circle (0.07);\filldraw (1,2) circle (0.07); \filldraw (2,0) circle (0.07);\filldraw (2,1) circle (0.07);\filldraw (2,2) circle (0.07); \filldraw (3,0) circle (0.07);\filldraw (3,1) circle (0.07);\filldraw (3,2) circle (0.07); \filldraw [right] (5,1) node {$\mapsto -a_3a_4$}; \filldraw [right] (5,0) node {$\mapsto -a_1a_2$}; \filldraw [right] (5,2) node {$\mapsto a_1a_2a_3a_4$}; \begin{scope}[scale=1, xshift=280] \filldraw (0,1) circle (0.07);\filldraw (0,2) circle (0.07); \filldraw (1,1) circle (0.07);\filldraw (1,2) circle (0.07); \filldraw (2,1) circle (0.07);\filldraw (2,2) circle (0.07); \filldraw (3,1) circle (0.07);\filldraw (3,2) circle (0.07); \draw (0,1) -- (1,1);\draw (2,1) -- (3,1);\draw (2,2) -- (1,2); \filldraw [right] (5,1) node {$\mapsto 1$}; \filldraw [right] (5,2) node {$\mapsto -a_1a_4$}; \end{scope} \end{tikzpicture} \end{center} By analogy with Euler's rule, we can construct a similar rule for calculation of supercontinuants. \begin{thm} \label{Thm1U} The summands of $K\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} a_1\\ \begin{smallmatrix} \beta_1 & \beta_1 \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}|\begin{smallmatrix} a_2\\\begin{smallmatrix} \beta_2 & \beta_2 \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}|\ldots \bigr)$ can be obtained from the product $\beta_1\beta_1\beta_2\beta_2\ldots$ by the following rule: we strike out adjacent pairs and adjacent 4-tuples $\beta_i\beta_i\beta_{i+1}\beta_{i+1}$ in all possible ways; for deleted pairs and 4-tuples we make the substitutions $\beta_i\beta_i\to a_i$, $\beta_i \beta_{i+1}\to 1$, $\beta_i\beta_i\beta_{i+1}\beta_{i+1}\to -1.$ \end{thm} This rule can be represented graphically as well. To each monomial there corresponds a sequence of total length $2n$ (or $2n-1$) consisting of dots (of the length one), dashes (of the length two) and long dashes (of the length four). For example, the monomials of $K\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} a_1\\ \begin{smallmatrix} \beta_1 & \beta_1 \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}|\begin{smallmatrix} a_2\\\begin{smallmatrix} \beta_2 & \beta_2 \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}|\beta_{3}\bigr)$ can be obtained from the product $\beta_1\beta_1 \beta_2\beta_2\beta_{3}$ as follows: \begin{center} \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.6] \draw (0,1) -- (1,1);\draw (3,1) -- (4,1);\draw (0,2) -- (1,2);\draw (2,2) -- (3,2); \filldraw (0,0) circle (0.07);\filldraw (0,1) circle (0.07);\filldraw (0,2) circle (0.07); \filldraw (1,0) circle (0.07);\filldraw (1,1) circle (0.07);\filldraw (1,2) circle (0.07); \filldraw (2,0) circle (0.07);\filldraw (2,1) circle (0.07);\filldraw (2,2) circle (0.07); \filldraw (3,0) circle (0.07);\filldraw (3,1) circle (0.07);\filldraw (3,2) circle (0.07); \filldraw (4,0) circle (0.07);\filldraw (4,1) circle (0.07);\filldraw (4,2) circle (0.07); \filldraw [right] (5,1) node {$\mapsto a_1\beta_2$}; \draw (1,0) -- (2,0); \filldraw [right] (5,0) node {$\mapsto\beta_1\beta_2\beta_3$}; \filldraw [right] (5,2) node {$\mapsto a_1a_2\beta_3$}; \begin{scope}[scale=1, xshift=280] \filldraw (0,1) circle (0.07);\filldraw (0,2) circle (0.07); \filldraw (1,1) circle (0.07);\filldraw (1,2) circle (0.07); \filldraw (2,1) circle (0.07);\filldraw (2,2) circle (0.07); \filldraw (3,1) circle (0.07);\filldraw (3,2) circle (0.07); \filldraw (4,1) circle (0.07);\filldraw (4,2) circle (0.07); \draw (1,2) -- (2,2);\draw (3,2) -- (4,2);\draw (0,1) -- (3,1); \filldraw [right] (5,1) node {$\mapsto-\beta_3$}; \filldraw [right] (5,2) node {$\mapsto\beta_1$}; \end{scope} \end{tikzpicture} \end{center} Let us note that the odd variables anticommute with each other. In particular, $\beta_i^2=0$, and in each pair $\beta_i\beta_i$ at least one variable must be struck out. Supercontinuants become the usual continuants if all odd variables are replaced by zeros. Supercontinuants can be expressed as determinants. \begin{thm} \label{Thm2U} \begin{gather}\label{3} K\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} a_1\\ \begin{smallmatrix} \beta_1 & \beta_1 \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}|\ldots |\begin{smallmatrix} a_n\\\begin{smallmatrix} \beta_n & \beta_n \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}\bigr)=\begin{vmatrix} a_1 & -1+\beta_1\beta_2 & \beta_1\beta_3 & \cdots & \beta_1\beta_{n-1} & \beta_1\beta_n \\ -1 & a_2 & -1+\beta_2\beta_3 & \cdots & \beta_2\beta_{n-1} & \beta_2\beta_n \\ 0 & -1 & a_3 & \cdots & \beta_3\beta_{n-1} & \beta_3\beta_n \\ \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\ 0 & \cdots & 0 & -1 & a_{n-1} & -1+\beta_{n-1}\beta_n \\ 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & -1 & a_n \\ \end{vmatrix},\\[10pt] \nonumber K\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} a_1\\\begin{smallmatrix} \beta_1 & \beta_1 \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}|\ldots |\begin{smallmatrix} a_{n-1}\\\begin{smallmatrix} \beta_{n-1} & \beta_{n-1} \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}|\beta_n\bigr)=\begin{vmatrix} a_1 & -1+\beta_1\beta_2 & \beta_1\beta_3 & \cdots & \beta_1\beta_{n-1} & \beta_1\\ -1 & a_2 & -1+\beta_2\beta_3 & \cdots & \beta_2\beta_{n-1} & \beta_2 \\ 0 & -1 & a_3 & \cdots & \beta_3\beta_{n-1} & \beta_3\\ \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\ 0 & \cdots & -1 & a_{n-2} & -1+\beta_{n-2}\beta_{n-1} & \beta_{n-2}\\ 0 & \cdots & 0 & -1 & a_{n-1} & \beta_{n-1}\\ 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & -1 & \beta_n \\ \end{vmatrix}. \end{gather} \end{thm} The second determinant in Theorem~\ref{Thm2U} is well-defined because odd variables occupy only one column. The proofs of Theorems~\ref{Thm1U} and~\ref{Thm2U} follow by induction from recurrence relations~\eqref{2}, and we do not dwell on them. The supercontinuants of the form $ K\bigl(\beta_1|\begin{smallmatrix} a_2\\\begin{smallmatrix} \beta_2 & \beta_2 \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}|\ldots |\begin{smallmatrix} a_{n-1}\\\begin{smallmatrix} \beta_{n-1} & \beta_{n-1} \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}|\beta_n\bigr) $ also may be defined by the rule from the Theorem~\ref{Thm1U}. For example $$K(\beta_1|\beta_2)=\beta_1\beta_2+1,\quad K\bigl(\beta_1|\begin{smallmatrix} a_2\\\begin{smallmatrix} \beta_2 & \beta_2 \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}|\beta_3\bigr)=a_2\beta_1\beta_3+\beta_1\beta_2+\beta_2\beta_3+1.$$ These supercontinuants can be represented in terms of determinants as well (we assume that the determinant is expanded in the first column, and the same rule is applied to all determinants of smaller matrices). \begin{thm} \label{Thm3U} The supercontinuants $K\bigl(\beta_1|\begin{smallmatrix} a_2\\\begin{smallmatrix} \beta_2 & \beta_2 \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}|\ldots |\begin{smallmatrix} a_{n-1}\\\begin{smallmatrix} \beta_{n-1} & \beta_{n-1} \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}|\beta_n\bigr)$ satisfy the recurrence relation \begin{equation} \label{5} \begin{array}{rcl} K\bigl(\beta_1|\begin{smallmatrix} a_2\\\begin{smallmatrix} \beta_2 & \beta_2 \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}|\ldots |\begin{smallmatrix} a_{n-1}\\\begin{smallmatrix} \beta_{n-1} & \beta_{n-1} \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}|\beta_n\bigr) &=& -\beta_nK\bigl(\beta_1|\begin{smallmatrix} a_2\\\begin{smallmatrix} \beta_2 & \beta_2 \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}|\ldots |\begin{smallmatrix} a_{n-1}\\\begin{smallmatrix} \beta_{n-1} & \beta_{n-1} \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}\bigr)\\[6pt] &&+K\bigl(\beta_1|\begin{smallmatrix} a_2\\\begin{smallmatrix} \beta_2 & \beta_2 \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}|\ldots |\beta_{n-1}\bigr) \end{array} \end{equation} and can be expressed in the following form: \begin{gather*} K\bigl(\beta_1|\begin{smallmatrix} a_2\\\begin{smallmatrix} \beta_2 & \beta_2 \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}|\ldots |\begin{smallmatrix} a_{n-1}\\\begin{smallmatrix} \beta_{n-1} & \beta_{n-1} \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}|\beta_n\bigr)=\begin{vmatrix} \beta_1 & \beta_2 & \beta_3 & \cdots & \beta_{n-1} & 1\\ -1 & a_2 & -1+\beta_2\beta_3 & \cdots & \beta_2\beta_{n-1} & \beta_2 \\ 0 & -1 & a_3 & \cdots & \beta_3\beta_{n-1} & \beta_3\\ \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\ 0 & \cdots & -1 & a_{n-2} & -1+\beta_{n-2}\beta_{n-1} & \beta_{n-2}\\ 0 & \cdots & 0 & -1 & a_{n-1} & \beta_{n-1}\\ 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & -1 & \beta_n \\ \end{vmatrix}. \end{gather*} \end{thm} The proof of formula~\eqref{5} is an application of the rule from Theorem~\ref{Thm1U}. The determinant formula follows by induction from the recurrence relation~\eqref{5}. Finally, the even supercontinuants $K\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} a_1\\ \begin{smallmatrix} \beta_1 & \beta_1 \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}|\ldots |\begin{smallmatrix} a_n\\\begin{smallmatrix} \beta_n & \beta_n \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}\bigr)$ can be also expressed as Berezinians. Recall that the Berezinian of the matrix $$ \mathrm{Ber} \begin{pmatrix} A&B\\mathbb{C}&D\\ \end{pmatrix}, $$ where $A$ and $D$ have even entries, and $B$ and $C$ have odd entries, is given by (see, e.g.,~\cite{Ber}): \begin{equation} \label{Ber} \det(A-BD^{-1}C)\det(D)^{-1}. \end{equation} \begin{thm} \label{Thm4U} \begin{gather*} K\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} a_1\\ \begin{smallmatrix} \beta_1 & \beta_1 \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}|\ldots |\begin{smallmatrix} a_n\\\begin{smallmatrix} \beta_n & \beta_n \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}\bigr)=\mathrm{Ber}\begin{pmatrix} A&B\\mathbb{C}&D\\ \end{pmatrix}, \end{gather*} where \begin{gather*} A=\begin{pmatrix} a_1&-1&0&\cdots&0\\-1&a_2&-1&\ddots&\vdots\\ 0&-1&a_3&\ddots&0\\ \vdots&\ddots&\ddots&\ddots&-1\\ 0&\cdots&0&-1&a_n\\ \end{pmatrix},\qquad B=\begin{pmatrix} \beta_1&\beta_2 &\beta_3&\cdots&\beta_n \\0&\beta_2&\beta_3&\ddots&\vdots\\ 0&0&\beta_3&\ddots&\beta_n\\ \vdots&\ddots&\ddots&\ddots&\beta_n\\ 0&\cdots&0&0&\beta_n\\ \end{pmatrix},\\[10pt] C=\begin{pmatrix} -\beta_1&0&0&\cdots&0\\0&-\beta_2&0&\ddots&\vdots\\ 0&0&-\beta_3&\ddots&0\\ \vdots&\ddots&\ddots&\ddots&0\\ 0&\cdots&0&0&-\beta_n\\ \end{pmatrix},\qquad D=\begin{pmatrix} 1&0 &0&\cdots&0 \\0&1&0&\ddots&\vdots\\ 0&0&1&\ddots&0\\ \vdots&\ddots&\ddots&\ddots&0\\ 0&\cdots&0&0&1\\ \end{pmatrix}. \end{gather*} \end{thm} Theorem~\ref{Thm4U} is direct corollary of~\eqref{5} and~\eqref{Ber}. It follows from recurrence relations~\eqref{2} and~\eqref{5} that the number of terms in supercontinuants $ K\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} a_1\\ \begin{smallmatrix} \beta_1 & \beta_1 \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}|\ldots |\begin{smallmatrix} a_n\\\begin{smallmatrix} \beta_n & \beta_n \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}\bigr)$, $K\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} a_1\\\begin{smallmatrix} \beta_1 & \beta_1 \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}|\ldots |\begin{smallmatrix} a_{n-1}\\\begin{smallmatrix} \beta_{n-1} & \beta_{n-1} \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}|\beta_n\bigr)$ and $K\bigl(\beta_1|\begin{smallmatrix} a_2\\\begin{smallmatrix} \beta_2 & \beta_2 \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}|\ldots |\begin{smallmatrix} a_{n-1}\\\begin{smallmatrix} \beta_{n-1} & \beta_{n-1} \end{smallmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}|\beta_n\bigr)$ coincide respectively with the sequences (see~\cite{OEIS}) \begin{align*} A077998&:1, 3, 6, 14, 31, 70, 157, 353, 793, 1782, 4004, \ldots\\ A006054&:1, 2, 5, 11, 25, 56, 126, 283, 636, 1429, 3211, \ldots\\ A052534&:1, 2, 4, 9, 20, 45, 101, 227, 510, 1146, 2575, \ldots \end{align*} \vskip 0.5cm {\bf Acknowledgements}. The first three authors would like to thank the Centro Internazionale per la Ricerca Matematica, the Mathematics Department of the University of Trento and the foundation Bruno Kessler for excellent conditions they offered us. We are pleased to thank Frederic Chapoton and Dimitry Leites for interesting discussions, special thanks to Dimitry for a careful reading of the first version of this paper. S.~M-G. and V.~O. are grateful to the Institute for Computational and Experimental Research in Mathematics for its hospitality. S.~M-G. and V.~O. were partially supported by the PICS05974 ``PENTAFRIZ'' of CNRS. S.~T. was supported by NSF grant DMS-1105442. A.~U.'s research was supported by Russian Science Foundation (Project N~14-11-00335).
\section{Introduction} \label{intro} We investigate the behaviour of retrograde circumbinary discs for eccentric orbit binaries. When the binary orbit is circular, retrograde circumbinary discs can behave fundamentally differently to their prograde counterparts, due to the absence of orbital resonances (\citealt{Nixonetal2011a}). In the prograde binary case, resonances between the binary and disc transfer angular momentum from the binary to the disc. This transfer causes the binary orbit to shrink somewhat, perhaps also changing the binary eccentricity, while the disc gains angular momentum and experiences gap opening \citep[see the review by][]{LA2000}. In a one dimensional idealisation, the prograde disc is therefore often described as a {\it decretion} disc \citep{Pringle1991} in which there is a central torque and no gas flow onto the central binary, rather than a standard {\it accretion} disc in which there is no central torque and there is gas flow onto the central object \citep{PR1972,Pringle1981}. However, this idealisation of a decretion disc is often not realized in multi-dimensional studies. Although a tidally produced gap does form, gas flows through the gap in the form of streams, resulting in substantial accretion onto the binary \citep{AL1996,GK2002,MM2008,Shietal2012}. The accretion rates can be comparable to the rates expected from an accretion disc that surrounds a point mass whose mass is equal to the binary mass. The gap is formed by the resonant interaction of the binary with the disc \citep{AL1994}. In contrast to the prograde case, a retrograde circumbinary disc experiences no resonances and therefore flows towards the binary as a standard accretion disc until the disc orbits are perturbed significantly by close passages with the binary. The perturbed material is then captured into circumprimary or circumsecondary discs \citep{Nixonetal2011a}. For a circular orbit binary in a coplanar circumbinary Keplerian disc, Lindblad resonances occur where \begin{equation} \label{pp77} \Omega^2(r) = m^2(\Omega(r)-\Omega_{\rm b})^2\,, \end{equation} where $\Omega_{\rm b}$ is the binary orbital frequency, $r$ is the distance from the binary center of mass in the binary orbit plane, $\Omega(r)$ is the disc orbital frequency, and $m>0$ is the integer wave mode number \citep[e.g.,][]{GT1979}. For a retrograde disc, the two frequencies have opposite signs and the right hand side of Equation (\ref{pp77}) is always larger than the left hand side. Therefore there can be no resonances in the disc. In the case of eccentric orbit binaries, many more resonances are produced whose associated torques depend on the binary eccentricity \citep{GT1980}. Such resonances are capable of opening central gaps in prograde coplanar circumbinary discs \citep{AL1994}, while allowing gas flow through the gap in the form of time-modulated gas streams \citep{AL1996}. However, as we shall see below, when the binary is eccentric, it is possible to generate resonances between the binary and a counter-rotating disc. This effect is due to components of the eccentric binary potential that rotate in the opposite sense to the binary, and therefore progradely with respect to the disc. We describe this effect analytically and explore it with three dimensional hydrodynamic simulations. Retrograde circumbinary discs \citep{Nixonetal2011a,Nixon2012,RS2014} have received relatively little attention compared to prograde discs \citep[e.g.][]{AL1996,Escalaetal2005,Lodatoetal2009,Cuadraetal2009,Roedigetal2012,DOrazioetal2013}. The simulations of \cite{Nixonetal2012a} and \cite{Nixon2012} focussed on circular orbit binaries, with only a few simulations with $e \ne 0$, in which the eccentricity was always small. \cite{RS2014} performed simulations of retrograde discs with eccentricities as high as $e=0.9$, but due to the strongly self-gravitating discs employed, and the induction of disc tilt due to the dominant disc angular momentum \citep[cf.][]{Kingetal2005,Nixonetal2011b}, the subtle resonant effects sought here may have been missed. In this paper we focus on the case where the disc mass is negligible and so the binary dominates the system angular momentum, even in the highest eccentricity cases. We present an analytic model and simulations of retrograde circumbinary discs, varying both the binary mass ratio and eccentricity. In Section \ref{mode_decomp} we define mode strengths that are an extension of the definition given by \cite{Lubow1991b} to handle retrograde discs. In Section \ref{sec:torque}, we evaluate by means of linear theory the torques produced in a retrograde disc due to an eccentric orbit binary. Section \ref{sec:sim} describes a set of simulations and their agreement with the analytic model, Section \ref{sec:discussion} contains a discussion, and Section \ref{sec:conclusions} contains the conclusions. \section{Mode Strengths} \label{mode_decomp} In order to gain insight into the response of a disc to tidal forcing, we decompose this response into different modes that are characterized by azimuthal mode numbers $m$ and frequency mode numbers $\ell$. We consider a surface density distribution $\Sigma(r, \theta, t)$ and write \begin{equation} \Sigma(r, \theta, t) = \sum \limits_{\ell=-\infty}^\infty \sum \limits_{m=0}^\infty Re[\Sigma_{\ell, m}(r) \exp{[i (m \theta - \ell \tau)] \,]}, \label{sigsum} \end{equation} where $\Sigma_{\ell, m}(r)$ is a complex function and $\tau = \Omega_{\rm b} t$ is the mean anomaly of the binary orbit that may be eccentric, with mean motion $\Omega_{\rm b}>0$ (defined as $2 \pi/P_{\rm b}$ for binary orbital period $P_{\rm b}$). We invert Equation (\ref{sigsum}) to obtain \begin{equation} \Sigma_{\ell, m}(r) = \frac{1}{2 \pi^2 (1 + \delta_{\ell, 0} \delta_{m,0})} \int_0^{2 \pi} \int_0^{2 \pi} \Sigma(r, \theta, t) \exp{[- i (m \theta - \ell \tau)]} \, d\theta \, d\tau. \label{siglm} \end{equation} Writing the integral in Equation (\ref{siglm}) in terms of real functions, we obtain \begin{equation} \Sigma_{\ell, m}(r) = \Sigma_{\rm{cos, cos}, \ell, m}(r) + \Sigma_{\rm{sin, sin}, \ell, m}(r) + i \, (\Sigma_{\rm{sin, cos}, \ell, m}(r) - \Sigma_{\rm{cos, sin}, \ell, m}(r)) \end{equation} where \begin{equation} \Sigma_{\rm{f, g}, \ell, m}(r) = \frac{1}{2 \pi^2 (1 + \delta_{\ell, 0} \delta_{m,0})} \int_0^{2 \pi} \int_0^{2 \pi} \Sigma(r, \theta, t) f(m \theta) g(\ell \tau) \, d\theta \, d\tau, \end{equation} and $f$ and $g$ each can be the $\cos$ and $\sin$ functions. We define a radially integrated quantity $X$ as $\tilde{X}$ so that \begin{equation} \tilde{\Sigma}_{\ell, m} = \int_0^{\infty} \Sigma_{\ell, m}(r) \,r \, dr = \tilde{\Sigma}_{\rm{cos, cos}, \ell, m}+ \tilde{\Sigma}_{\rm{sin, sin}, \ell, m} + i \, (\tilde{\Sigma}_{\rm{sin, cos}, \ell, m} - \tilde{\Sigma}_{\rm{cos, sin}, \ell, m}), \label{Siglmreim} \end{equation} where \begin{equation} \tilde{\Sigma}_{\rm{f, g}, \ell, m} = \int_0^{\infty} \Sigma_{\rm{f, g}, \ell, m}(r) \, r \,dr \,. \end{equation} We then determine the square of the radially integrated mode amplitudes that are given by $|\Sigma_{\ell, m}|^2$ as \begin{eqnarray} \label{A} |\tilde{\Sigma}_{\ell, m}|^2 &=& (\tilde{\Sigma}_{\rm{cos, cos}, \ell, m} + \tilde{\Sigma}_{\rm{sin, sin}, \ell, m})^2 + (\tilde{\Sigma}_{\rm{sin, cos}, \ell, m} - \tilde{\Sigma}_{\rm{cos, sin}, \ell, m})^2 \\ &=& \tilde{\Sigma}_{\rm{cos, cos}, \ell, m}^2 + \tilde{\Sigma}_{\rm{sin, sin}, \ell, m}^2+ \tilde{\Sigma}_{\rm{cos, sin}, \ell, m}^2 + \tilde{\Sigma}_{\rm{sin, cos}, \ell, m}^2 + 2 \left( \tilde{\Sigma}_{\rm{cos, cos}, \ell, m} \tilde{\Sigma}_{\rm{sin, sin}, \ell, m} - \tilde{\Sigma}_{\rm{sin, cos}, \ell, m} \tilde{\Sigma}_{\rm{cos, sin}, \ell, m} \right). \nonumber \end{eqnarray} We define the dimensionless mode strength $S_{\ell, m}$ such that $S_{0,0}$ is unity \begin{equation} S_{\ell, m} = \frac{2 \pi \, |\tilde{\Sigma}_{\ell, m}|}{M_{\rm d}}, \label{S} \end{equation} where $M_{\rm d}$ is the disc mass. This definition of mode strength is similar to that given in \cite{Lubow1991b}. One difference is that the definition in \cite{Lubow1991b} included only the squared terms in the second line of Equation (\ref{A}) and omitted the cross terms. To see the effect of the omission, consider the case of density distribution \begin{equation} \Sigma(r,\theta,t) = \delta(r-1) \cos{(m' \theta - \ell' \Omega_{\rm b} t )}. \label{S1} \end{equation} In that case, we have that \begin{equation} |\tilde{\Sigma}_{\ell, m}|^2 = \delta_{\ell,\ell'} \delta_{m,m'}. \end{equation} Using only the squared terms on the second line of Equation (\ref{A}), as in \cite{Lubow1991b}, we find that \begin{equation} \label{almnot} |\tilde{\Sigma}_{\ell, m}|^2 - 2 \left( \tilde{\Sigma}_{\rm{cos, cos}, \ell, m} \tilde{\Sigma}_{\rm{sin, sin}, \ell, m} - \tilde{\Sigma}_{\rm{sin, cos}, \ell, m} \tilde{\Sigma}_{\rm{cos, sin}, \ell, m} \right) = \frac{1}{2}\delta_{|\ell| , |\ell'|} \delta_{m,m'}. \end{equation} Equation (\ref{almnot}) shows that the previous definition of mode strengths does not distinguish between prograde and retrograde modes in which the sign of $\ell$ differs. It was adequate for the analysis of the superhump instability cycle that only involved prograde ($\ell>0$) modes, but is not adequate for the current study. Instead we must use the definition of $S_{\ell, m}$ given by Equation (\ref{S}). In Appendix \ref{sec:mssph}, we describe how mode strengths are computed in SPH simulations. \section{Resonant Torques} \label{sec:torque} \subsection{Torque equation} We determine the resonant torque on a gas disc due to an eccentric binary that is exerted on a counter-rotating disc. The disc mass is assumed to be very small compared to the binary mass. We take the binary to be on a prograde orbit with mean motion $\Omega_{\rm b}>0$, while the disc orbit is prograde $\Omega(r)>0$ or retrograde $\Omega(r) <0$ with respect to the binary. We adopt a cylindrical coordinate system whose origin is at the binary center of mass and so the $z=0$ plane coincides with the binary orbit plane. Following \cite{GT1979}, we decompose the potential as \begin{equation} \Phi(r, \theta, t) = \sum_{\ell, m} \Phi_{\ell, m}(r) \cos{(m \theta - \ell \Omega_{\rm b} t)}\,, \label{Phi} \end{equation} where $m \ge 0$ and $\ell$ ranges over all integers (negative, zero, and positive). The binary potential has contributions from the primary star of mass $M_1$ and the secondary star of mass $M_2$. We determine the potential components $\Phi_{\ell, m}$ for $\ell \ne 0$ and $m \ge 0$, by \begin{equation} \Phi_{\ell, m}(r) = \Phi^{(1)}_{\ell, m}(r)+ \Phi^{(2)}_{\ell, m}(r) \end{equation} for $m>0$ where the superscripts 1 and 2 denote the primary and secondary objects. Following \cite{MA2008}, we invert Equation~(\ref{Phi}) by using the eccentric anomaly of the binary orbit $\zeta$ as a variable of integration in place of the mean anomaly, $\Omega_{\rm b} t$. We then have for $i=1,2$ \begin{equation} \Phi^{(i)}_{\ell, m}(r) = -\frac{G M_i}{2 \pi^2 a} \left(1- \frac{\delta_{m,0}}{2} \right) \int_0^{2 \pi}d \theta \int_0^{2 \pi} d \zeta\,\, \frac{\left(1- e \cos{\zeta}\right)\cos{( m \theta -\ell (\zeta - e \sin{\zeta}) )}}{\sqrt{\beta^2 + x_i^2 (1-e \cos{\zeta})^2- 2 \beta x_i g(\theta,\zeta)}}, \end{equation} where \begin{eqnarray} g(\theta,\zeta) = (\cos{\zeta} -e) \cos{(\theta)}+\sqrt{1-e^2} \sin{(\zeta)} \sin{(\theta)}, \end{eqnarray} $x_1 = - M_2/(M_1+M_2)$ and $x_2=M_1/(M_1+M_2)$, $e$ is the binary eccentricity, and $\beta=r/a$, for a binary with semi-major axis $a$. The advantage of this method is that we can determine $\Phi^{(i)}_{\ell, m}$ numerically for arbitrary binary eccentricity. We have verified analytically in expansions for small $e$ that this method recovers potentials $\Phi_{1,1}$, $\Phi_{1,2}$, and $\Phi_{1,3}$ given by Equations (18), (21), and (23) respectively of \cite{AL1994}. We determine the resonant torque on the circumbinary disc due to outer Lindblad resonances that occur where \begin{equation} m \Omega(r) - \ell \Omega_{\rm b} = -\kappa(r), \label{Omr} \end{equation} where $\kappa$ is the epicyclic frequency. Note that we do not assume the disc is Keplerian. We take into account the non-Keplerian effects of the binary gravitational potential by determining $\Omega(r)$ and $\kappa(r)$ as \begin{equation} \Omega^2(r) = \frac{1}{r}\frac{d \Phi_{0, 0}}{d r} \label{Om} \end{equation} and \begin{equation} \kappa^2(r) = \frac{3}{r}\frac{d \Phi_{0, 0}}{d r} + \frac{d^2 \Phi_{0, 0}}{d^2 r}, \label{kappa} \end{equation} where we take $\Omega$ and $\kappa$ to be negative for a counter-rotating disc. In the case of a Keplerian disc, we have that $\Omega=\kappa$ and so \begin{equation} \Omega(r) = \frac{\ell \Omega_{\rm b}}{m+1} \label{Omrk} \end{equation} at an outer Lindblad resonance. This estimate treats the binary as a point mass which is valid at large distances from binary. However, as noted above, we do not make this approximation in the torque calculations that we carry out. The magnitude of the resonant torque on the disc \citep{GT1979} is given by \begin{equation} T_{\ell,m} = \frac{ m \pi^2 \Sigma \Psi_{\ell,m}^2}{|\cal D|} , \label{Tlm} \end{equation} where \begin{equation} \Psi_{\ell,m} = r \frac{d \Phi_{\ell, m} }{dr}+ \frac{2m \Omega}{m \Omega(r)-\ell \Omega_{\rm b}} \Phi_{\ell, m} \end{equation} and \begin{equation} {\cal D} = r \frac{d(\kappa^2 - (m \Omega- \ell \Omega_{\rm b})^2)}{dr}. \label{calD} \end{equation} In Equations (\ref{Tlm}) - (\ref{calD}), all radially dependent quantities are evaluated at the resonance radius given by Equation (\ref{Omr}). We find that the outer Lindblad resonance torques we consider lead to pushing material outward for both prograde and retrograde discs. \subsection{Results} We describe here the results of the application of the torque model to the cases that we have analysed in the simulations discussed later in Section \ref{sec:sim} that have $(\ell, m)$ values of (1,1), (1,2), (-1,0), (-1,1), and (-1,2). From Equation (\ref{Omrk}), it is then clear that torques with negative $\ell$ values are possible in counter-rotating discs for eccentric binaries, since $\Omega$ is negative at resonance. However, since $m \ge 0$, it then follows that such resonances involve $\ell < 0 \le m$. \cite{GT1980} showed that $T_{l,m} \propto e^{2 |\ell-m|}$ for $e \ll 1$. That is, resonant torques are possible in a counter-rotating disc for eccentric binaries ($e > 0$) provided that $\ell <0< m$, but they are generally weaker for larger differences between $m$ and $\ell$. We then expect that the strongest Lindblad torques that are produced in a disc that counter-rotates with respect to the sense of orbital rotation of a binary to have $\ell=-1$. For this reason, we have concentrated on resonances with $\ell=-1$. For the cases of disc modes $(\ell, m)$ of (1,1) and (1,2), we see from the approximate Equation (\ref{Omrk}) that resonances occur only for $\Omega(r) >0$. Since the simulated discs are retrograde $\Omega <0$, we expect that there are no resonant torques for these simulated cases. Therefore, we predict that $S_{1,1}$ and $S_{1,2}$ are both zero. These cases serve as as useful check on the both the theory and the numerical accuracy of the mode strength determinations from simulations. For the case of disc mode $(-1, 1)$, Equation (\ref{Omrk}) estimates that the resonance is located at $r=1.58 a$. This resonance is sufficiently close to the binary that nonKeplerian effects can be important. In addition, the binary may cause the disc to be dynamically unstable. Consider first the case of a circular binary. If we approximate the disc as consisting of simple periodic orbits in the corotating frame of the binary, we can apply the previously known results on ballistic particle orbits in the restricted three-body problem to study the existence and stability of disc streamlines near the resonance. A similar approach for the prograde case with a circular binary was taken by \cite{Paczynski1977}. Circumbinary, retrograde, simple periodic orbits are known to be quite stable, even if they come close to the binary, although the orbits become increasingly noncircular close to the binary \citep{Szebehely1967}. We have found that there are only mild departures from circular orbits near this resonance location in the case of a circular binary. \begin{figure} \center{\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{ecr.eps}} \caption{The heavy lines plot critical eccentricity values for which the epicyclic frequency $\kappa$ vanishes as a function of radius. The light lines plot the critical eccentricity values for which the apocentre of the secondary object reaches a radius on the horizontal axis. The solid, dashed, and dotted lines are for binary mass ratios of $q=1$, $q=0.3$, and $q=0.1$, respectively. No light solid line is plotted because a member of an equal mass binary cannot reach the plotted radii ($r/a > 1$) for any value of eccentricity.} \label{ecr} \end{figure} In the case that the binary is eccentric, the situation is somewhat different. Due to the non-Keplerian effects of the binary, the epicyclic frequency $\kappa$ is a function of binary eccentricity. At locations close to the binary, $\kappa$ can vanish for sufficiently high binary eccentricity. In Figure \ref{ecr}, we plot as heavy lines the critical values of binary eccentricity $e_{\rm cr}$ for which $\kappa$ vanishes as a function of distance from the binary center of mass. The plot shows that $e_{\rm cr}$ is smaller closer to the binary, as one would expect. For eccentricities above the line, $\kappa^2$ is negative which means that the epicyclic motions are unstable and resonance is not possible. The equal mass binary case is more stable than the unequal mass cases, possibly because the binary members are located farther inward from a given radius in the circumbinary disc. Also in Figure \ref{ecr}, we plot in light lines the critical eccentricity for which the apocentre of the secondary object reaches a given radius. Above these lines, the secondary member of the binary would cross the given radius. Consequently, disc-like orbits should not exist at such radii. For an equal mass binary, the apocentre reaches a radius $r/a =1$ when $e=1$. The binary cannot extend beyond $r/a >1$ for any value of $e \le1$. Consequently, we do not plot a light solid line in the figure. The light lines lie above the corresponding heavy lines. The plot then shows that for such critical binary eccentricities with $1 \ge q \ge 0.1$, the disc orbit is already unstable, since $\kappa^2 <0$. The angular speed $\Omega(r)$, as well as $\kappa(r)$, is affected by the binary eccentricity. As a consequence, the resonance location given by Equation (\ref{Omr}) changes with binary eccentricity. For the (-1,1) resonance, we find that the effect of binary eccentricity is to pull the resonance inward of the Keplerian location of $1.58 a$. As a result, the critical value for the eccentricity at this resonance is even smaller than would be predicted by Figure \ref{ecr} for the Keplerian location. We find that the critical value of eccentricity for a binary of mass ratio $q=0.3$ is $e_{\rm cr} \simeq 0.55$. Above the value, we expect $T_{-1,1}$ and $S_{-1,1}$ to vanish for $q=0.3$. In addition, from symmetry considerations, it it easy to see that $\Phi_{-1,1}=0$ for $q=1$. Therefore, $T_{-1,1}$ and $S_{-1,1}$ should vanish in the case of an equal mass binary. Similar stability considerations apply to the resonance for (-1,0) that lies even closer to the binary. In this case, the torque is always zero because $m=0$ for this mode. However, an energy flux can be generated at such a resonance and $S_{-1,0}$ can in principle be nonzero. Equation (\ref{Omrk}) suggests that the resonance occurs where $\Omega=-\Omega_{\rm b}$, if the disc were Keplerian there. Due to the strong nonKeplerian effects, we expect that the resonance condition is even more difficult to satisfy in this case than in the (-1,1) case. Consequently, we expect $S_{-1,0}$ to also be small. Torque $T_{-1,2}$ occurs near $\Omega(r)=-\Omega_{\rm b}/3$ or $r \simeq 2.08 a$ that is far enough from the binary to permit resonances to operate. At this resonance, the disc is in nearly Keplerian motion. In this case, for small $e$, we expect that $T_{-1,2} \propto e^{2|l-m|} \propto e^6$ and the torque is consequently very sensitive to the binary eccentricity. In a prograde disc, torque $T_{1,2}$ occurs at the same radial location. The prograde counterpart to torque $T_{-1,2}$ in a retrograde disc is then $T_{1,2}$. This torque $T_{1,2}$ is frequently found to truncate the inner regions of prograde discs that orbit around binaries with modest eccentricity $e \sim 0.1$ \citep{AL1994}. In Figure \ref{TR}, we plot the ratio $T_{-1,2}/T_{1,2}$ as a function of eccentricity in the two cases of a retrograde ($T_{-1,2}$) and prograde ($T_{1,2}$) disc. Notice that the retrograde torque is quite weak compared to the prograde torque and there is a strong dependence on eccentricity that is expected to be $\propto e^4$ for $e \ll1$, as seen in the figure. In Figure \ref{Tm12}, we plot the torque $T_{-1,2}$ and the viscous torque at the resonance for the disc parameters adopted in the simulations of Section \ref{sec:sim}. The dashed line shows that $T_{-1,2}$ follows the expected dependence on eccentricity $e^6$ for small $e$. For fairly high values for $e \sim 0.5$, the resonant torque can overpower the viscous torque and truncate the disc. \begin{figure} \center{\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{TorqueRatio.eps}} \caption{Torque ratio of the resonant torques $T_{-1,2}/T_{1,2}$ at the $\mp$1:3 eccentric outer Lindblad resonance for an equal mass binary, assuming the same disc density at the resonance in the two cases of a retrograde and prograde disc, respectively. The solid line is the result of numerical evaluation of Equation \ref{Tlm}. The dashed line follows $\propto e^4$ that is expected to be valid for $e \ll 1$. } \label{TR} \end{figure} \begin{figure} \center{\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{Tm12.eps}} \caption{Upper solid line plots torque $T_{-1,2}$ due to eccentric outer -1:3 retrograde Lindblad resonance in units of $\Sigma \Omega_{\rm b}^2 r^4$ at the resonance as a function of binary eccentricity $e$ for an equal mass binary. The lower solid line is for a binary mass ratio of 0.1. The dashed line follows $\propto e^6$ that is expected to be valid for $e \ll 1$. The horizontal dotted line plots the viscous torque at the resonance for the disc parameters used in the simulations.} \label{Tm12} \end{figure} In summary, of the disc mode strengths we consider, we expect $S_{1,1}$, $S_{1,2}$ and $S_{-1,0}$ to be small compared to $S_{-1,1}$ and $S_{-1,2}$. Whereas $S_{-1,1}$ can be significant for intermediate eccentricities that are less than about 0.55, it vanishes for equal mass binaries. $S_{-1,2}$ should dominate among these cases at higher eccentricities $e > 0.6$, especially for $q=1$. \section{Simulations} \label{sec:sim} We present numerical simulations using the smoothed particle hydrodynamics \citep[SPH; e.g.][]{Price2012a} code {\sc phantom} \citep[e.g.][]{PF2010,LP2010}. This code has already been applied to many types of accretion in binary systems \citep{Nixon2012,Rosottietal2012,Nixonetal2013,Facchinietal2013,Martinetal2014a,Martinetal2014b}. The simulations include the effects of disc pressure and viscosity, while effects of disc self-gravity are ignored. The binary is modelled as two Newtonian point masses which affect the gas orbits through gravity and accrete any particles which come close enough. The back reaction on the binary orbit is also included, but the disc mass is too small to result in any significant changes on the simulation timescale. \subsection{Setup} We set up a binary with mass ratio $q = M_2/M_1$ and total mass $M = M_1+M_2 = 1$, semimajor axis $a=1$, and eccentricity $e$ initially at apocentre of the orbit. The binary is taken to rotate with positive angular speed and so rotate with positive mean motion $\Omega_{\rm b}$ (defined as $2 \pi/P_{\rm b}$ for binary orbital period $P_{\rm b}$), while the disc rotates in the opposite sense with $\Omega <0$. The binary sink particles have accretion radii of $0.2a$, inside which gas is removed from the simulation and its mass and momentum added to the sink particle. We initialise the disc with 8 million particles in Keplerian orbit about the binary centre of mass. The disc initially extends from an inner radius of $2a$ to an outer radius of $8a$ with a surface density distribution of $\Sigma(r) = \Sigma_0 (r/r_0)^{-3/2}$, where the value of $\Sigma_0$ is set to provide a disc mass of $M_{\rm d} = 10^{-3}M$. Throughout the simulations the binary accretes $\lesssim 10$\% of the disc. The simulations adopt the locally isothermal assumption in which the disc sound speed is $c_{\rm s}(R) = c_{{\rm s,}0}(R/R_0)^{-3/4}$ for spherical radius $R$ and $c_{\rm s,0}$ corresponds to aspect ratio $H/R = 0.05~(0.035)$ at the disc inner (outer) edge at all times. Since the discs are thin, the difference between between the cylindrical radius $r$ and spherical radius $R$ at any point in the main body of the disc is small. We employ an explicit accretion disc viscosity which corresponds to an approximately constant \cite{SS1973} $\alpha=0.05$ throughout the initial disc \citep[Section 3.2.3 of][]{LP2010}. The viscous stresses include a nonlinear term with a coefficient $\beta_{\rm AV}=2$ (AV stands for artificial viscosity) that suppresses inter-particle penetration, as is standard in SPH codes. For this configuration, the shell averaged smoothing length per disc scale--height \citep[see][]{LP2010} is $\left<h\right>/H \approx 0.16$ for $8$ million particles. The simulations reported below span $q \approx 0.1, 0.3,$ and $1.0$ (more precisely $9\colon\!1$, $3\colon\!1$ and $1\colon\!1$) and $e = 0.0,~0.2,~0.4,~0.6$, and $0.8$. \subsection{Results} In Figures~\ref{fig1}, \ref{fig2}, and \ref{fig3} we show the surface density renderings of the simulations at their completion after 100 binary orbits. For each mass ratio the general results are the same: for a circular binary there are no disc structures that signify resonances between the disc and the binary, when the binary is eccentric the disc structures appear and generally grow stronger with increasing eccentricity. The unequal mass ratio simulations, $q = 0.1, 0.3$, show significantly asymmetric structures, whereas the equal mass ratio simulations (which begin with symmetric initial conditions) remain bisymmetric throughout the duration of the simulation. The form of the disc disturbances seen in the figures is of spiral waves that have $\chi=r {\rm d} \theta_{\rm s}/ {\rm d}r >0$, where $\theta_{\rm s}(r)$ is the azimuthal angle of the spiral. This sign of $\chi$ is expected from the theory of disc resonances in Section \ref{sec:torque} because each resonance is due to a retrograde bar that excites ``trailing'' waves in the retrograde disc. We note that if the disc were responding to a prograde disturbance, the sign of the $\chi$ would be negative. Only if the retrograde disc is responding to a disturbance that rotates in a retrograde sense at a faster speed than the gas can $\chi$ be positive, as we find. That condition occurs at an outer Lindblad resonance due to a retrograde bar. In addition, the gas streams in the gap are also expected to have $\chi>0$ because the streams approximately conserve angular momentum as they flow towards the binary. The gas then rotates faster in the retrograde sense, resulting in $\chi>0$. The circular equal mass ratio simulation displays weak streams feeding the sink particles from the inner edge of the disc. Such features may be present in the unequal mass ratio cases, but here the secondary sink is closer to the disc inner edge and accretes the gas which might form them. \begin{figure*} \begin{center} \includegraphics[angle=0,width=\textwidth]{q0.1.eps} \caption{Surface density rendering of each simulation with $q = 0.1$ at $t=628$ (after 100 binary orbits). The binary rotates in a counter-clockwise sense and the disc rotates in a clockwise sense. The binary eccentricity is shown on each panel. The colour scheme, from lowest surface density (black) to highest surface density (white) covers approximately 2 orders of magnitude. The binary is represented by the two red filled--circles, with the circle size denoting the accretion radius inside which particles are removed from the simulation.} \label{fig1} \end{center} \end{figure*} \begin{figure*} \begin{center} \includegraphics[angle=0,width=\textwidth]{q0.3.eps} \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig1}, but for $q = 0.3$.} \label{fig2} \end{center} \end{figure*} \begin{figure*} \begin{center} \includegraphics[angle=0,width=\textwidth]{q1.0.eps} \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig1}, but for $q = 1.0$.} \label{fig3} \end{center} \end{figure*} In Figures~\ref{fullmodes1}, \ref{fullmodes2}, and \ref{fullmodes3} we show the mode strengths against time for a selection of the simulations. As the disc is not set up in equilibrium with the binary orbit, there is some initial settling of the disc which appears in the mode strengths. Figure~\ref{fullmodes1} shows the five calculated mode strengths for the $q=0.1$, $e=0.4$ simulation. Figure~\ref{fullmodes2} shows the five calculated mode strengths for the $q=0.3$, $e=0.6$ simulation. Figure~\ref{fullmodes3} shows the five calculated mode strengths for the $q=1.0$, $e=0.8$ simulation. These figures illustrate the general trends found in this work: (1) smaller mass ratios create weaker resonances, (2) higher eccentricities create stronger resonances, and (3) for strong enough resonances the $(-1,2)$ mode can prevent gas from reaching the $(-1,1)$ resonance on circular orbits, depleting its strength. In addition, the $(-1,1)$ resonance is likely unstable at higher eccentricties, as discussed in Section \ref{sec:torque}. \begin{figure*} \begin{center} \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.5\textwidth]{fullmodes1.eps} \caption{The different mode strengths as a function of time for the $q=0.1$, $e=0.4$ simulation. The time axis is in units where $2\pi$ is one binary orbital period.} \label{fullmodes1} \end{center} \end{figure*} \begin{figure*} \begin{center} \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.5\textwidth]{fullmodes2.eps} \caption{The different mode strengths as a function of time for the $q=0.3$, $e=0.6$ simulation. The time axis is in units where $2\pi$ is one binary orbital period.} \label{fullmodes2} \end{center} \end{figure*} \begin{figure*} \begin{center} \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.5\textwidth]{fullmodes3.eps} \caption{The different mode strengths as a function of time for the $q=1.0$, $e=0.8$ simulation. The time axis is in units where $2\pi$ is one binary orbital period.} \label{fullmodes3} \end{center} \end{figure*} The extent of the gap and the (-1, 2) mode strengths are fairly stable at the end of the simulations. However, since the simulations are limited to 100 binary orbits, we cannot be certain of the behaviour over the longer term evolution of the disc. The $(l,m) = (-1,2)$ mode strength is the largest and displays the clearest trend of increasing strength with increasing eccentricity, as expected by the analytic model in Section \ref{sec:torque}. The $(1,1)$ mode strength is small for all parameters, while the $(1,2)$ mode strength displays some fluctuations with increasing eccentricity. The (-1,1) mode strength nearly vanishes for an equal mass binary and is weaker than the $(-1,2)$ mode strength. The behavior of the mode strengths is then in good agreement with the expectations of the analytic model discussed in Section \ref{sec:torque}. \subsection{Binary evolution and accretion} \label{sec:binev} \cite{Nixonetal2011a} developed an analytic model for the interaction of a binary with a circumbinary retrograde disc. The secondary object is taken to be of small mass compared to the primary. The model assumed that the secondary object (or its surrounding disc) experiences an impact and accretion from the circumbinary gas that is locally counter-rotating at circular Keplerian speeds. In the model, the binary loses angular momentum by gravitational interaction with the retrograde gas. Its semi-major axis decreases, while it eccentricity increases, provided that its eccentricity is greater than a threshold value $\sim H/r$. In the case that the binary opens a gap in a retrograde circumbinary disc, the situation is somewhat different. The binary exerts a tidal torque at a resonance, such as the $(-1,2)$ resonance, due to a retrograde component of its potential that is prograde with the rotation of the disc, as discussed in Section \ref{sec:torque}. The resonance has the effect of pushing gas outward, away from binary, which adds negative angular momentum to the $\Omega <0$ disc and therefore adds positive angular momentum to the binary. The resonant torque on the disc is then negative and the torque on the binary is positive. In addition, the gas that impacts the secondary flows in the form of gas streams that originate at the disc inner edge. These streams are retrograde to the binary and should reduce the angular momentum on the binary. However, they are not in circular motion. Therefore, it is unclear how well the model of \cite{Nixonetal2011a} applies to the case of a highly eccentric binary. Here we report the evolution of the binary eccentricity and the mass flow rates on to the sink particles in the simulations. In Figure~\ref{ae} we plot the semi--major axis and eccentricity evolution of the binary orbit with time for all of the simulations. In all plots the semi--major axis decreases with time, as expected from the capture of angular momentum and energy of retrograde gas orbits. The eccentricity evolution of the binary is consistent with the analytical predictions of \cite{Nixonetal2011a}. The circular binaries (for which $e \ll H/r$) remain circular as accretion at apocentre of the binary, which increases eccentricity, is offset by accretion at pericentre, which decreases eccentricity. For these simulations the eccentricity varies little and is approximately $10^{-4}$. The model of \cite{Nixonetal2011a} predicts that the eccentricity $e$ should grow if it satisfies $e \gtrsim H/r$, and our simulations generally confirm this. Some of the simulations show eccentricity decay at early times before the disc has settled into a quasi-steady state. The only simulation which does not follow the predicted trend is $q=1.0$, $e=0.8$. For this case the eccentricity decays from $0.8$ to $0.799$ over the timescale of the simulation. It is unclear if the eccentricity would continue to decrease if the simulation were run for longer, or instead later increase. The remaining eccentric simulations all show eccentricity growth with ${\rm d}e/{\rm d}t \sim 10^{-7}$ in units of time where $2\pi$ is one binary orbital period. This is in agreement with the analytical prediction of $\sim {\dot M}/M_2$ of \cite{Nixonetal2011a} (see Figures~\ref{mdot01}, \ref{mdot03}, and \ref{mdot10} for the accretion rates). \begin{figure*} \begin{center} \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.84\textwidth]{eccn0.0.eps} \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.84\textwidth]{eccn0.2.eps} \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.84\textwidth]{eccn0.4.eps} \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.84\textwidth]{eccn0.6.eps} \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.84\textwidth]{eccn0.8.eps} \caption{Evolution of the binary semi--major axis, $a$, and eccentricity, $e$. The time is in units where $2\pi$ is one binary orbital period. The semi--major axis is shown on the left hand panel and the eccentricity is shown in the right hand panel. From top to bottom the rows show the different initial eccentricities from $e = 0.0 - 0.8$. The time resolution of the plot is one data point every 10 binary orbits.} \label{ae} \end{center} \end{figure*} In Figures~\ref{mdot01}, \ref{mdot03}, and \ref{mdot10}, we plot the accretion rate of gas on to the two sink particles as a function of time. The curves are binned with width equal to one binary dynamical time, $1/\Omega_{\rm b}$. We do not separate the primary and secondary accretion rates, as the secondary accretes almost all the gas, except for the equal mass case, where the rates are similar. In general the accretion rate is similar to the circular binary case, but with an obvious binary orbital period modulation. This modulation has an amplitude of approximately 1.5 orders of magnitude for $q=0.1$ and $q=0.3$, but up to $3-4$ orders of magnitude for the equal mass case. This periodicity is marked by strong accretion at apocentre and little accretion at pericentre of the binary orbit. In the prograde case, there is also a strong periodic modulation of accretion rate over the binary period for eccentric orbit binaries. However, the accretion rate is highest near periastron \citep{AL1996}. \begin{figure*} \begin{center} \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.5\textwidth]{mdot_q0.1.eps} \caption{Accretion rate of gas flowing on to the binary for the $q=0.1$ simulations. This measures the mass flux through the sink particle radii. The accretion is binned with width equal to one binary dynamical time, $1/\Omega_{\rm b}$. The accretion is the total amount on to the primary and secondary sinks. Only the last 10 orbits of the binary are shown for clarity.} \label{mdot01} \end{center} \end{figure*} \begin{figure*} \begin{center} \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.5\textwidth]{mdot_q0.3.eps} \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{mdot01} but for $q=0.3$.} \label{mdot03} \end{center} \end{figure*} \begin{figure*} \begin{center} \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.5\textwidth]{mdot_q1.0.eps} \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{mdot01} but for $q=1.0$.} \label{mdot10} \end{center} \end{figure*} \section{Discussion} \label{sec:discussion} We first discuss the limitations of our simulations, and possible improvements. We then consider the consequences of our results for possible astrophysical applications. The simulations described above employ a simple locally isothermal thermodynamic treatment for the gas, where the sound speed is a radial power--law from the centre of mass. This approximation should not alter the fundamental behaviour of the discs, but does prevent any thermodynamic effects from arising. It would be interesting to run these simulations with an equation of state that accounts for shock and viscous heating while allowing the gas to cool on an appropriate timescale. This may affect the propagation of waves \citep[e.g.][]{LP1993} and thus the redistribution of angular momentum by the resonances. Similarly our simulations neglect the effects of self-gravity in the gas, and the effects of magneto--hydrodynamic turbulence induced by the magneto--rotational instability, instead employing an accretion disc viscosity through an $\alpha$ parameter. These additional physical processes should be included in a full treatment of the problem, but are not expected to significantly alter our conclusions. The simulations could also be run for longer to discover longer timescale evolution of the disc structures. However, the limiting factor is that accretion and disc spreading can deplete the gas to the point where there is too little of it in regions of interest. Therefore it would be worthwhile including mass input into the disc to allow a quasi--steady state to be achieved over a long timescale simulation. Binaries exist in a variety of astrophysical scenarios. However, to create a retrograde planar disc probably requires a chaotic environment which can introduce gas to the binary with random orientations (but see also e.g. \citealt{Pringle1996,Pringle1997} for a tilting instability which can cause the tilt of an initially planar disc to grow to retrograde angles). The two most likely chaotic scenarios are stellar binaries formed in dense star forming regions \citep[e.g.][]{Bateetal2010} and SMBH binaries accreting from the host galaxy \citep[e.g.][]{KP2006,KP2007,Kingetal2008}. In both cases, a significant fraction of randomly oriented discs are expected to align or counteralign with the binary plane depending primarily on the initial disc--binary inclination angle, but also on the ratio of disc to binary angular momentum \citep{Kingetal2005,Nixonetal2011b}. Retrograde accretion from circumbinary discs has recently been proposed by \cite{Nixonetal2011a} as a possible solution to the last parsec problem \citep{Begelmanetal1980,MM2001}. This model relied on the eccentricity growth, promoted by the capture of negative angular momentum gas, continuing to drive the binary eccentricities to large values, forcing the binary into the gravitational wave regime. If the resonances discussed here for retrograde circumbinary discs inhibit eccentricity growth as is expected in the prograde case for large eccentricities, then this may not be possible. However, these resonances require significant eccentricity to achieve large strengths, and even so are of significantly smaller strength than their prograde counterparts. Therefore it is quite possible that efficient eccentricity growth to values approaching unity is still possible. For this discussion the accretion rates on to the binary are highly suggestive, as the mean accretion rate appears to be insensitive to the binary eccentricity (see Figs \ref{mdot01}, \ref{mdot03}, and \ref{mdot10}). Instead the eccentricity acts to introduce significant periodicity in the mass flow rates through the sink accretion radii. As the binary is still capturing the same amount of material each orbit, it appears likely that the conclusions of \cite{Nixonetal2011a} are independent of the presence of these resonances. This also appears likely from Figure~\ref{ae} as the eccentricity generally grows in our simulations and at a rate consistent with the analytical prediction of \cite{Nixonetal2011a}. However, as discussed in Section \ref{sec:binev}, the assumptions of the \cite{Nixonetal2011a} model may not be well satisfied at high eccentricity, We shall revisit this issue in more detail in future work. \section{Conclusions} \label{sec:conclusions} We have presented an analytical model and three-dimensional hydrodynamical simulations of retrograde circumbinary discs covering a range in binary mass ratio and eccentricity. These simulations are consistent with the analytical prediction that binary eccentricity causes disc resonances to occur, which leads to angular momentum exchange between the binary and the disc. For circularly orbiting binaries, there are no disturbances (modes) excited at Lindblad resonances in a retrograde disc. But for eccentric orbit binaries, Lindblad resonances can be excited in such a disc. The Lindblad torques increase with eccentricity. At high eccentricity $e \ga 0.6$, the most strongly excited disc mode $(-1,2)$ found in the simulations is also the mode expected to be most strongly excited in the analytic model by the Lindblad resonance at $\Omega(r) \simeq -\Omega_{\rm b}/3$. The Lindblad torques associated with this mode can open a gap in the disc at binary eccentricity $e \ga 0.6$ for typical disc parameters. The inner resonances are destabilized at high eccentricities. We also find that the binary semi--major axis and eccentricity evolution are in general agreement with the analytical predictions of \cite{Nixonetal2011a}. The binary eccentricity evolution is affected by gas accretion and resonant interactions with the disc. Future simulations will focus on whether the binary eccentricity can grow to approximately unity or if there is a smaller limiting value. By including mass injection into the disc it will be possible to evolve the discs to a quasi-steady state and explore longer term evolution than is described here. \section*{Acknowledgments} We thank Andrew King for useful comments on the manuscript. CJN was supported for this work by NASA through the Einstein Fellowship Program, grant PF2--130098. S.H.L. acknowledges support from NASA grant NNX11AK61G. We used {\sc splash} \citep{Price2007} for the visualisation. This work utilised the Janus supercomputer, which is supported by the National Science Foundation (award number CNS-0821794) and the University of Colorado Boulder. The Janus supercomputer is a joint effort of the University of Colorado Boulder, the University of Colorado Denver and the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Janus is operated by the University of Colorado Boulder. \bibliographystyle{mn2e}
\section{Introduction}\label{intro} Plateau's problem consists in looking for a surface of minimal area among those surfaces spanning a given boundary. A considerable amount of the development of Geometric Measure Theory in the last fifty years has been devoted to provide generalized concepts of surface, area and of ``spanning a given boundary'', in order to apply the direct methods of the calculus of variations to the Plateau's problem. In particular we recall the notions of sets of finite perimeter \cite{DeGiorgiSOFP1,DeGiorgiSOFP2}, of currents \cite{federer60} and of varifolds \cite{Allard, Allardboundary, Almgren68}, introduced respectively by De Giorgi, Federer, Fleming, Almgren and Allard. A more ``geometric'' approach was proposed by Reifenberg in \cite{reifenberg1}, where Plateau's problem was set as the minimization of Hausdorff \(d\)-dimensional measure among compact sets and the notion of spanning a given boundary was given in term of inclusions of homology groups. Any of these approach has some drawbacks: in particular, not all the ``reasonable'' boundaries can be obtained by the above notions and not always the solutions are allowed to have the type of singularities observed by soap bubble (the so called Plateau's laws). Recently in \cite{HarrisonPugh14} Harrison and Pugh, see also \cite{Harrison2014}, proposed a new notion of spanning a boundary, which seems to include all reasonable physical boundaries and they have been able to show, in the co-dimension one case, existence of least area surfaces spanning a given boundary. In the recent paper \cite{DelGhiMag}, De Lellis, Maggi and the third author have proposed a direct approach to the Plateau's problem, based on the ``elementary'' theory of Radon measures and on a deep result of Preiss concerning rectifiable measures. Roughly speaking they showed, in the co-dimension one case, that every time one has a class which contains ``enough'' competitors (namely the cone and the cup competitors, see \cite[Definition 1]{DelGhiMag}) it is always possible to show that the infimum of the Plateau's problem is achieved by the area of a rectifiable set. They then applied this result to provide a new proof of Harrison and Pugh theorem as well as to show the existence of sliding minimizers, a new notion of minimal sets proposed by David in \cite{davidplateau,DavidBeginners} and inspired by Almgren's \((\mathbf{M},0,\infty)\), \cite{Almgren76}. \medskip In this note, we extend the result \cite{DelGhiMag} to any co-dimension. More precisely, we prove that every time the class of competitors for the Plateau's Problem consists of rectifiable sets and it is closed by Lipschitz deformations, it is always possible to show that the infimum is achieved by a compact set \(K\) which is, away from the ``boundary'', an analytic manifold outside a closed set of Hausdorff dimension at most \((d-1)\), see Theorem \ref{thm generale} below for the precise statement. We then apply this result to provide existence of sets spanning a given boundary according to the natural generalization of the notion introduced by Harrison and Pugh, Theorem \ref{thm generale}, and to show the existence of sliding minimizers in any co-dimension, Theorem \ref{thm david}. Although the general strategy of the proof is the same of \cite{DelGhiMag}, some non-trivial modifications have to be done in order to deal with sets of any co-dimension. In particular, with respect to \cite{DelGhiMag}, we use a different notion of ``good class'', the main reason being the following: one of the key step of the proof of our main result consists in showing a precise density lower bound for the measure obtained as limit of the sequence of Radon measures naturally associated to a minimizing sequence \((K_j)\), see Steps 1 and 4 in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm generale}. In order to obtain such a lower bound, instead of relying on relative isopermetric inequalities on the sphere as in \cite{DelGhiMag} (which are peculiar of the co-dimension one case) we use the deformation theorem of David and Semmes in \cite{DavidSemmes} to obtain suitable competitors, following a strategy already introduced by Federer and Fleming for rectifiable currents, see \cite{federer60} and \cite{Almgren76}. Moreover since our class is essentially closed by Lipschitz deformations, we are actually able to prove that any set achieving the infimum is a stationary varifold and that, in addition, it is smooth outside a closed set of relative co-dimension one (this does not directly follows by Allard's regularity theorem, see Step 7 in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm generale}). Simple examples show that this regularity is actually optimal. \medskip In order to precise state our main results, let us introduce some notations and definitions, referring to Section \ref{notation} for more details. We will always work in \(\mathbb R^n\) and \(1\le d\le n \) will always be an integer number, we recall that a set \(K\) is said to be \(d\)-rectifiable if it can be covered up to an \(\mathcal H^d\) negligible set by countably many \(C^1\) manifolds, see \cite[Chapter 3]{SimonLN}, where \(\mathcal H^d\) is the \(d\)-dimensional Hausdorff measure. We also let $\mathsf{Lip}(\mathbb R^n)$ be the space of Lipschitz maps in $\mathbb R^n$. \begin{definition}[Lipschitz deformations]\label{d:deform} Given a ball $B_{x,r}$, we let $\mathfrak D(x,r)$ be the set of functions $\varphi:\mathbb R^n \rightarrow \mathbb R^n$ such that $\varphi(z)=z$ in $\mathbb R^n\setminus B_{x,r}$ and which are smoothly isotopic to the identity inside $B_{x,r}$, namely those for which there exists a smooth isotopy $\lambda:[0,1]\times \mathbb R^n\rightarrow\mathbb R^n$ such that $$\lambda(0,\cdot) = \mathrm{Id}, \quad \lambda(1,\cdot)=\varphi, \quad \lambda(t,h)=h \quad\forall\,(t,h)\in [0,1]\times (\mathbb R^n \setminus B_{x,r}) \quad \mbox{ and } $$ $$ \lambda(t,\cdot) \mbox{\ is a diffeomorphism of } \mathbb R^n \ \forall t \in [0,1]. $$ We finally set $\mathsf{D}(x,r):=\overline{\mathfrak D(x,r)}^{C^0}\cap \mathsf{Lip}(\mathbb R^n)$, the intersection of the Lipschitz maps with the closure of $\mathfrak D(x,r)$ with respect to the uniform topology. \end{definition} The following definition describes the properties we require to the comparison sets: the key property we ask for $K'$ to be a competitor of $K$ is that $K'$ must be close in energy to sets obtained from $K$ via deformation maps in Definition \ref{d:deform}. This allows a larger flexibility on the choice of the admissible sets, since a priori $K'$ might not belong to the competition class. \begin{definition}[Deformed competitors and good class]\label{def good class} Let $H\subset \mathbb R^{n}$ be closed. Given $K\subset \mathbb R^{n}\setminus H$ relatively closed countably $\mathcal H^d$-rectifiable and $B_{x,r}\subset \mathbb R^{n}\setminus H$, a {\em deformed competitor} for $K$ in $B_{x,r}$ is any set of the form \begin{equation*} \varphi \left ( K \right ) \quad \mbox{ where } \quad \varphi \in \mathsf{D}(x,r). \end{equation*} Given a family $\mathcal{P} (H)$ of relatively closed \(d\)-rectifiable subsets $K\subset \mathbb R^{n}\setminus H$, we say that $\mathcal{P} (H)$ is a {\em good class} if for every $K\in\mathcal{P} (H)$, for every $x\in K$ and for a.e. $r\in (0, \mathop{\mathrm{dist}} (x, H))$ \begin{equation} \label{inf good class} \inf \big\{ \mathcal H^d (J) : J\in \mathcal{P} (H)\,,J\setminus \overline{B_{x,r}} =K\setminus \overline {B_{x,r}} \big\} \leq \mathcal H^d (L)\, \end{equation} whenever $L$ is any deformed competitor for $K$ in $B_{x,r}$. \end{definition} Once we fix a closed set $H$, we can formulate Plateau's problem in the class $\mathcal{P}(H)$: \begin{equation} \label{plateau problem generale} m_0 := \inf \big\{\mathcal H^d (K) : K\in \mathcal{P}(H)\big\}\,. \end{equation} We will say that a sequence $(K_j) \subset \mathcal{P} (H)$ is a {\em minimizing sequence} if $\mathcal{H}^d (K_j) \downarrow m_0$. The following theorem is our main result and establishes the behavior of minimizing sequences. \begin{theorem}\label{thm generale} Let $H\subset \mathbb R^{n}$ be closed and $\mathcal{P} (H)$ be a good class. Assume the infimum in Plateau's problem \eqref{plateau problem generale} is finite and let $(K_j)\subset \mathcal{P}(H)$ be a minimizing sequence. Then, up to subsequences, the measures $\mu_j := \mathcal H^d \mathop{\llcorner} K_j$ converge weakly$^\star$ in $\mathbb R^{n}\setminus H$ to a measure $\mu = \mathcal H^d \mathop{\llcorner} K$, where $K = {\rm spt}\, \mu \setminus H$ is a countably $\mathcal H^d$-rectifiable set. Furthermore: \begin{itemize} \item[(a)] the integral varifold naturally associated to $\mu$ is stationary in $\mathbb R^{n}\setminus H$; \item[(b)] $K$ is a real analytic submanifold outside a relatively closed set $\Sigma\subset K$ with $\dim_\mathcal H(\Sigma) \leq d-1$. \end{itemize} In particular, $\liminf_j\mathcal H^d(K_j)\ge \mathcal H^d(K)$ and if $K \in \mathcal{P} (H)$, then $K$ is a minimum for \eqref{plateau problem generale}. \end{theorem} We wish to apply Theorem \ref{thm generale} to two definitions of boundary conditions. The first one is the natural generalization of the one considered in \cite{HarrisonPugh14}: \begin{definition}\label{def plateau first} Let $H$ be a closed set in $\mathbb R^{n}$. Let us consider the family \[ \mathcal{C}_H=\big\{\gamma:S^{n-d}\to\mathbb R^{n}\setminus H:\mbox{$\gamma$ is a smooth embedding of $S^{n-d}$ into $\mathbb R^{n}$}\big\}\,. \] We say that $\mathcal{C}\subset\mathcal{C}_H$ is closed by isotopy (with respect to $H$) if $\mathcal{C}$ contains all elements $\gamma'\in \mathcal{C}_H$ belonging to the same smooth isotopy class $[\gamma]$ in $\mathbb R^{n}\setminus H$ of any $\gamma \in \mathcal{C}$, see \cite[Ch. 8]{Hirsch94}. Given $\mathcal{C}\subset\mathcal{C}_H$ closed by isotopy, we say that a relatively closed subset $K$ of $\mathbb R^{n}\setminus H$ is a $\mathcal{C}$-spanning set of $H$ if \begin{equation*} \mbox{$K\cap\gamma\ne\emptyset$ for every $\gamma\in\mathcal{C}$}\,. \end{equation*} We denote by $\mathcal{F} (H, \mathcal{C})$ the family of countably $\mathcal{H}^d$-rectifiable sets which are $\mathcal{C}$-spanning sets of $H$. \end{definition} We can prove the following closure property for the class $\mathcal{F}(H,\mathcal{C})$: \begin{theorem}\label{thm plateau} Let $H$ be closed in $\mathbb R^{n}$ and $\mathcal{C}$ be closed by isotopy with respect to $H$, then: \begin{itemize} \item[(a)] $\mathcal{F} (H,\mathcal{C})$ is a good class in the sense of Definition \ref{def good class}. \item[(b)] Assume the infimum \eqref{plateau problem generale} corresponding to $\mathcal{P}(H)=\mathcal{F}(H,\mathcal{C})$ is finite, then the set \(K\) provided by Theorem \ref{thm generale} belongs to \(\mathcal{F}(H,\mathcal{C})\). In particular the Plateau's problem in the class \(\mathcal{F}(H,\mathcal{C})\) has a solution. \end{itemize} \end{theorem} The second type of boundary condition we want to consider is the one related to the notion of ``sliding minimizers'' introduced by David in \cite{davidplateau,DavidBeginners}. \begin{definition}[Sliding minimizers] Let $H\subset \mathbb R^{n}$ be closed and $K_0 \subset \mathbb R^{n}\setminus H$ be relatively closed. We denote by $\Sigma(H)$ the family of Lipschitz maps $\varphi:\mathbb R^{n}\to\mathbb R^{n}$ such that there exists a continuous map $\Phi:[0,1]\times\mathbb R^{n}\to\mathbb R^{n}$ with $\Phi(1,\cdot)=\varphi$, $\Phi(0,\cdot)=\mathrm{Id}$ and $\Phi(t,H)\subset H$ for every $t\in[0,1]$. We then define \[ \mathcal A(H,K_0)=\big\{K:\mbox{$K=\varphi(K_0)$ for some $\varphi\in\Sigma(H)$}\big\}\, \] and say that $K_0$ is a sliding minimizer if $\mathcal H^d(K_0)=\inf\{\mathcal H^d(J):J\in\mathcal A(H,K_0)\}$. \end{definition} \begin{remark}\label{remark david} For every $K_0 \subset \mathbb R^{n}\setminus H$ relatively closed and $d$-rectifiable, $\mathcal A(H,K_0)$ is a good class in the sense of Definition \ref{def good class}, since $\mathsf{D}(x,r)\subset\Sigma(H)$ for every $B_{x,r}\subset\mathbb R^n\setminus H$. \end{remark} Applying Theorem \ref{thm generale} to the contest of sliding minimizers we obtain the following result which is the analogous of \cite[Theorem 7]{DelGhiMag} in any codimension. Here and in the following $U_\delta (E)$ denotes the $\delta$-neighborhood of a set $E\subset \mathbb R^n$. \begin{theorem}\label{thm david} Assume that \begin{itemize} \item[(i)] $K_0$ is bounded $d$-rectifiable with $\mathcal H^d(K_0)<\infty$; \item[(ii)] $\mathcal H^d(H)=0$ and for every $\eta>0$ there exist $\delta>0$ and $\Pi\in\Sigma(H)$ such that \begin{equation*} \label{retraction} {\rm Lip}\,\Pi\le1+\eta\,,\qquad \Pi(U_\delta(H))\subset H\,. \end{equation*} \end{itemize} Then, given any minimizing sequence $(K_j)$ in the Plateau's problem corresponding to $\mathcal{P}(H)=\mathcal A(H,K_0)$ and any set $K$ as in Theorem \ref{thm generale}, we have \begin{equation*} \inf \big\{\mathcal H^d (J) : J\in \mathcal A (H, K_0)\big\} =\mathcal H^d(K)=\inf\big\{\mathcal H^d(J):J\in\mathcal A(H,K)\big\}\,. \end{equation*} In particular $K$ is a sliding minimizer. \end{theorem} The paper is structured as follows, in Section \ref{notation} we will recall some basic definitions and recall some known theorems we are going to use, in particular Preiss rectifiability criterion and a version of the deformation theorem due to David and Semmes. In Section \ref{mainresult} we prove Theorem \ref{thm generale} and in Section \ref{harrisonanddavid} we prove Theorems \ref{thm plateau} and \ref{thm david}. \begin{ack} The authors are grateful to Camillo De Lellis, Francesco Maggi and Emanuele Spadaro for many interesting comments and suggestions. This work has been supported by ERC 306247 {\it Regularity of area-minimizing currents} and by SNF 146349 {\it Calculus of variations and fluid dynamics}. \end{ack} \section{Notation and preliminaries}\label{notation} We are going to use the following notations: $Q_{x,l}$ denotes the closed cube centered in $x$, with edge length $l$; moreover we set \[ R_{x,a,b}:=x+\Big[-\frac a2,\frac a2\Big]^d \times \Big[-\frac b2,\frac b2\Big]^{n-d}\quad \textrm{ and} \quad B_{x,r}:=\{y \in \mathbb R^n \ : \ |y-x|<r\}. \] When cubes, rectangles and balls are centered in the origin, we will simply write $ Q_{l}, \ R_{a,b}$ and $B_{r}$. Cubes and balls in the subspace $\mathbb R^d\times\{0\}^{n-d}$ are denoted with $Q_{x,l}^d$ and $B_{x,r}^{d}$ respectively. We also let $\omega_d$ be the Lebesgue measure of the unit ball in $\mathbb R^d$. Let us recall the following deep structure result for Radon measures due to Preiss \cite{Preiss, DeLellisNOTES} which will play a key role in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm generale}. \begin{theorem}\label{Preiss} Let $d$ be an integer and $\mu$ a locally finite measure on $\mathbb R^n$ such that the $d$-density $$ \theta(x):= \lim_{r\rightarrow 0}\frac{\mu(B_{x,r})}{\omega_d r^d} $$ exists and satisfies $0<\theta(x)<+\infty$ for $\mu$-a.e. $x$. Then $\mu = \theta \mathcal H^d\mathop{\llcorner} K$, where $K$ is a countably $\mathcal H^d$-rectifiable set. \end{theorem} In order to apply Preiss' Theorem we will rely on the monotonicity formula for minimal surfaces, which roughly speaking can be obtained by comparing the given minimizer with a cone. To this aim let us introduce the following definition: \begin{definition}[Cone competitors] In the setting of Definition \ref{def good class}, the cone competitor for $K$ in $B_{x,r}$ is the following set \begin{equation} \label{cone comp} \mathbf{C}_{x,r}(K) = \big(K\setminus B_{x,r}\big) \cup \big\{\lambda x+(1-\lambda)z:z\in K\cap\partial B_{x,r}\,,\lambda\in[0,1]\big\}\,. \end{equation} \end{definition} Let us note that in general a cone competitor in $B_{x,r}$ is not a deformed competitor in $B_{x,r}$. On the other hand as in \cite{DelGhiMag} we can show that: \begin{lemma}\label{l:10} Given a good class $\mathcal{P} (H)$ in the sense of Definition \ref{def good class}, for any $K\in \mathcal{P} (H)$ countably $ \mathcal{H}^d\mbox{-rectifiable}$ and for every $x\in K$, the set $K$ verifies for a.e. $r\in (0, \mathop{\mathrm{dist}} (x, H))$: \begin{equation*} \inf \big\{ \mathcal H^d (J) : J\in \mathcal{P} (H)\,,J\setminus \overline {B_{x,r}} =K\setminus \overline {B_{x,r}} \big\} \leq \mathcal H^d (\mathbf{C}_{x,r}(K)). \end{equation*} \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Without loss of generality let us consider balls $B_r$ centered at $0$ with $B_r\subset\subset\mathbb R^{n}\setminus H$. We assume in addition that $K\cap\partial B_r$ is $\mathcal H^{d-1}$-rectifiable with $\mathcal H^{d-1}(K\cap\partial B_r)<\infty$ and that $r$ is a Lebesgue point of $t\in(0,\infty)\mapsto \mathcal H^{d-1}(K\cap\partial B_t)$. All these conditions are fulfilled for a.e. $r$ and, again by scaling, we can assume that $r=1$ and use $B$ instead of $B_1$. For $s\in(0,1)$ let us set \[ \varphi_s(r)=\left\{ \begin{array}{l l} 0\,,&r\in[0,1-s)\,, \\ \frac{r-(1-s)}s\,,&r\in[1-s,1]\,, \\ r\,,&r\ge 1\,, \end{array} \right . \] and $\phi_s(x)=\varphi_s(|x|)\frac{x}{|x|}$ for $x\in\mathbb R^{n}$. In this way, one easily checks that $\phi_s:\mathbb R^{n}\to\mathbb R^{n} \in \mathsf{D}(0,1)$. Since $\phi_s(K\cap \overline{B_{1-s}})=\{0\}$, we need to show that \[ \limsup_{s\to 0^+}\mathcal H^d\big(\phi_s(K\cap (B\setminus B_{1-s}))\big)\le\frac{\mathcal H^{d-1}(K\cap\partial B)}d = \mathcal H^d(\mathbf{C}_{x,r}(K))\,. \] Let $x_0\in K\cap\partial B_t$ and let us fix an orthonormal base $\nu_1,\dots,\nu_d$ of the approximate tangent space $T_{x_0}K$ such that $\nu_i\in T_{x_0}K\cap T_{x_0}\partial B_t$ for $i\leq d-1$. Let $$ J_d^K\phi_s = \Big|(\bigwedge^d D\phi_s) (T_{x_0}K)\Big| = |D\phi_s(\nu_1)\wedge\dots\wedge D\phi_s(\nu_d)| $$ be the $d$-dimensional tangential Jacobian of $\phi_s$ with respect to $K$. Letting $I$ be the (at most countable) set of those $t\in(0,1)$ such that $\mathcal H^{d-1}(K\cap\partial B_t)>0$, we find with the aid of the area and co-area formulas, \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber &&\mathcal H^d\big(\phi_s(K\cap (B\setminus B_{1-s}))\big)=\int_{K\cap(B\setminus B_{1-s})}J_d^K\phi_s\,d\mathcal H^d \\\label{ignoriamo} &=&\int_{1-s}^1\,dt\int_{K\cap\partial B_t}\frac{J_d^K\phi_s}{|\nu_d\cdot\hat x|}\,d\mathcal H^{d-1}+ \sum_{t\in I\cap(1-s,1)}\left(\textstyle{\frac{t- (1-s)}{1-s}}\right)^d\mathcal H^d( K\cap\partial B_t), \end{eqnarray} where $\hat x=x/|x|$ and we have used that \(|\nu_d\cdot\hat x|\) is the tangential co-area factor of the map \(f(x)=|x|\). We first notice that, for $t\in (1-s,1)$, $t-(1-s) \leq s$. Moreover \[ \lim_{s\to 0}\sum_{t\in I\cap(1-s,1)}\mathcal H^d(K\cap\partial B_t)=0\,, \] and thus the second term in \eqref{ignoriamo} can be ignored. At the same time, for a constant $C$, \[ J_d^K\phi_s(x)\le C+|\hat x\cdot\nu_d|\,\varphi_s'(|x|)\,\Big(\frac{\varphi_s(|x|)}{|x|}\Big)^{d-1}\,,\qquad\mbox{for $\mathcal H^d$-a.e. $x\in K$}\,. \] The constant $C$ gives a negligible contribution in the integral as $s\downarrow 0$; as for the second term, having $\varphi_s'=1/s$ on $(1-s,1)$, we find \[ \int_{1-s}^1 \mathcal H^{d-1}(K\cap\partial B_t)\,\varphi_s'(t)\,\Big(\frac{\varphi_s(t)}{t}\Big)^{d-1}\,dt =\frac1s\int_{1-s}^1 \mathcal H^{d-1}(K\cap\partial B_t)\,\Big(\frac{\varphi_s(t)}{t}\Big)^{d-1}\,dt\,. \] Since $t=1$ is a Lebesgue point of $t\in(0,\infty)\mapsto \mathcal H^{d-1}(K\cap\partial B_t)$, we have \[ \lim_{s\to 0}\frac1s\int_{1-s}^1 |\mathcal H^{d-1}(K\cap\partial B_t)-\mathcal H^{d-1}(K\cap\partial B)|\,dt=0\,, \] so that, combining the above remarks we find \[ \limsup_{s\to 0^+}\mathcal H^d(\phi_s(K\cap B))\le \mathcal H^{d-1}(K\cap\partial B)\, \limsup_{s\to 0^+}\frac1s\int_{1-s}^1 \Big(\frac{\varphi_s(t)}{t}\Big)^{d-1}\,dt=\frac{\mathcal H^{d-1}(K\cap\partial B)}d\,, \] as required. \end{proof} The second key result we are going to use is a deformation theorem for closed sets due to David and Semmes \cite[]{DavidSemmes}, analogous to the one for rectifiable currents \cite{SimonLN,FedererBOOK}. We provide a slightly extended statement for the sake of forthcoming proofs. Before stating the theorem, let us introduce some further notation. Given a closed cube $Q$ of edges length $l$ in $\mathbb R^n$ and $\varepsilon > 0$, we cover $Q$ with closed smaller cubes with edges length $\varepsilon \ll l$, non empty intersection with $\mbox {Int} (Q)$ and such that the decomposition is centered in $x$ (i.e. one of the subcubes is centered in $x$). The family of this smaller cubes is denoted $\L_\varepsilon(Q)$. We set \begin{equation}\label{cornici} \begin{gathered} C_1:=\bigcup \left \{T \cap Q: T \in \L_\varepsilon(Q), T \cap \partial Q \neq \emptyset \right \},\\ C_2:= \bigcup \left \{T \in \L_\varepsilon(Q) : T \not \subset C_1, T \cap \partial C_1 \neq \emptyset \right \},\\ Q_1:=\overline{Q \setminus (C_1 \cup C_2)} \end{gathered} \end{equation} and consequently $$\L_\varepsilon(Q_1 \cup C_2):= \left \{T \in \L_\varepsilon(Q) : T \subset (Q_1 \cup C_2)\right \}$$ For each nonnegative integer $m\leq n$, let $\L_{\varepsilon,m}(Q_1 \cup C_2)$ denote the collection of all $m$-dimensional faces of cubes in $\L_\varepsilon(Q_1 \cup C_2)$ and $\L^*_{\varepsilon,m}(Q_1 \cup C_2)$ will be the set of the elements of $\L_{\varepsilon,m}(Q_1 \cup C_2)$ which are not contained in $\partial (Q_1 \cup C_2)$. We also let $S_{\varepsilon,m}(Q_1 \cup C_2):= \bigcup \L_{\varepsilon,m}(Q_1 \cup C_2)$ be the the $m$-skeleton of order $\varepsilon$ in $Q_1 \cup C_2$. \begin{theorem}\label{deformationcube} Let $r>0$ and $E$ be a compact subset of $Q$ such that $\mathcal H^d(E)<+\infty$ and $Q \subset B_{x,r}$. There exists a map $\Phi_{\varepsilon,E} \in \mathsf{D}(x,r)$ satisfying the following properties: \begin{itemize} \item[(1)] $\Phi_{\varepsilon,E}(x)=x \ \mbox{for} \ x \in \mathbb R^n \setminus (Q_1 \cup C_2)$; \item[(2)] $\Phi_{\varepsilon,E}(x)=x \ \mbox{for} \ x \in S_{\varepsilon,d}(Q_1 \cup C_2)$; \item[(3)] $\Phi_{\varepsilon,E}(E)\subset S_{\varepsilon,d}(Q_1 \cup C_2)\cup \partial(Q_1 \cup C_2)$; \item[(4)] $\Phi_{\varepsilon,E}(T)\subset T$ for every $T \in \L_{\varepsilon,m}(Q_1 \cup C_2)$, with $m=d,...,n$; \item[(5)] either $\mathcal H^d(\Phi_{\varepsilon,E}(E\cap T))=0$ or $\mathcal H^d(\Phi_{\varepsilon,E}(E\cap T))=\mathcal H^d(T)$, for every $T \in \L^*_{\varepsilon,d}(Q_1)$; \item[(6)] $\mathcal H^d(\Phi_{\varepsilon,E}(E\cap T)) \leq k_1\mathcal H^d(E\cap T)$ for every $T \in \L_{\varepsilon}(Q_1 \cup C_2)$; \end{itemize} where $k_1$ depends only on $n$ and $d$ (but not on $\varepsilon$). \end{theorem} \begin{proof} Proposition $3.1$ in \cite{DavidSemmes} provides a map $\widetilde{\Phi_{\varepsilon,E}}\in \mathsf{D}(x,r)$ satisfying properties (1)-(4) and (6). We want to set $$\Phi_{\varepsilon,E}:=\Psi \circ \widetilde{\Phi_{\varepsilon,E}},$$ where $\Psi$ will be defined below. We first define $\Psi$ on every $T \in \L_{\varepsilon,d}(Q_1 \cup C_2)$ distinguishing two cases \begin{itemize} \item[(a)] if either $\mathcal H^d(\widetilde{\Phi_{\varepsilon,E}}(E)\cap T)=0$ or $\mathcal H^d(\widetilde{\Phi_{\varepsilon,E}}(E)\cap T)=\mathcal H^{d}(T)$ or $T \not \in \L^*_{\varepsilon,d}(Q_1)$, then we set $\Psi_{|T}=\mathrm{Id}$; \item[(b)] otherwise since $\widetilde{\Phi_{\varepsilon,E}}(E)$ is compact, there exists $y_T \in T$ and $\delta_T>0$ such that $B_{\delta_T}(y_T)\cap \widetilde{\Phi_{\varepsilon,E}}(E)=\emptyset$; we define $$\Psi_{|T}(x)=x+\alpha(x-y_T) \min \left \{1,\frac{|x-y_T|}{\delta_T}\right\},$$ where $\alpha>0$ such that the point $x+\alpha(x-y_T)\in \left (\partial T\right ) \times \{0\}^{n-d}$. \end{itemize} The second step is to define $\Psi$ on every $T' \in \L_{\varepsilon,d+1}(Q_1 \cup C_2)$. Without loss of generality we can assume $T'$ centered in $0$. We divide $T'$ in pyramids $P_{T,T'}$ with base $T\in \L_{\varepsilon,d}(Q_1 \cup C_2)$ and vertex $0$. Assuming $T \subset \{x_{d+1}=-\frac \varepsilon 2, x_{d+2},...,x_n=0\}$ and $T' \subset \{x_{d+2},...,x_n=0\}$, we set $$\Psi_{|P_{T,T'}}(x)=-\frac{2x_{d+1}}{\varepsilon}\Psi_{|T}\left(-\frac{x}{x_{d+1}}\frac \varepsilon 2\right).$$ We iterate this procedure on all the dimensions till to $n$, defining it well in $Q_1 \cup C_2$. Since $\Psi_{|\partial (Q_1 \cup C_2)}=\mathrm{Id}$ we can extend the map as the identity outside $Q_1 \cup C_2$. In addition one can easily check that $\Psi \in \mathsf{D}(x,r)$ and thus, since \(\widetilde{\Phi_{\varepsilon,E}}\in \mathsf{D}(x,r)\) and the class \( \mathsf{D}(x,r)\) is closed by composition, this concludes the proof. \end{proof} Later we will need to implement the above deformation of a set $E$ on a rectangle rather than a cube: the deformation theorem can be proved for very general cubical complexes, \cite{almgren86}; however, for the sake of exposition, we limit ourselves to note the following simple observation: given a closed rectangle $R:=R_{x,a,b}$, using a linear map, and covering this time with rectangles homothetic to $R$, one can easily deduce the same thesis as in Theorem \ref{deformationcube}. The only key point is the area estimate (6), which holds with a constant $k_1$ depending on the ratio $a/b$. We will apply this construction to rectangles where the ratio is approximately $2$. \section{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm generale}}\label{mainresult} \begin{proof} [Proof of Theorem \ref{thm generale}] Up to extracting subsequences we can assume the existence of a Radon measure $\mu$ on $\mathbb R^n\setminus H$ such that \begin{equation}\label{muj va a mu} \mu_j\stackrel{*}{\rightharpoonup}\mu\,,\qquad\mbox{as Radon measures on $\mathbb R^n\setminus H$}\,, \end{equation} where $\mu_j=\mathcal H^d \mathop{\llcorner} K_j$. We set $K = {\rm spt}\, \mu \setminus H$ and divide the argument in several steps. \medskip \noindent {\it Step one}: We show the existence of $\theta_0=\theta_0(n,d)>0$ such that \begin{equation} \label{lower density estimate mu ball} \mu(B_{x,r})\ge\theta_0\,\omega_d r^d\,,\qquad \textrm{ \(x\in{\rm spt}\,\mu\) and \( r<d_x :=\mathop{\mathrm{dist}}(x,H)\)} \end{equation} To this end it is sufficient to prove the existence of $\beta=\beta(n,d)>0$ such that \begin{equation*} \mu(Q_{x,l})\ge\beta\, l^d\,,\qquad \textrm{ \(x\in{\rm spt}\,\mu\) and \( l<2d_x/\sqrt{n}\)}\, . \end{equation*} Let us assume by contradiction that there exist $x\in{\rm spt}\,\mu$ and $l<2d_x/\sqrt{n}$ such that \begin{equation*} \frac{\mu(Q_{x,l})^\frac{1}{d}}{l}<\b. \end{equation*} We claim that this assumption, for $\beta$ chosen sufficiently small depending only on \(d\) and \(n\), implies that for some $l_\infty \in (0,l)$ \begin{equation} \label{absurd lower bound} \mu(Q_{x,l_\infty})=0, \end{equation} which is a contradiction with the property of $x$ to be a point of ${\rm spt}\,\mu$. In order to prove \eqref{absurd lower bound}, we assume that $\mu(\partial Q_{x,l})=0$, which is true for a.e. $l$. To prove \eqref{absurd lower bound} we construct a sequence of nested cubes $Q_i = Q_{x,l_i}$ such that, if $\beta$ is sufficiently small it holds: \begin{itemize} \item[(i)] $Q_0 = Q_{x,l}$; \item[(ii)] $\mu(\partial Q_{x,l_i})=0$; \item[(iii)] setting $m_i:=\mu( Q_i)$ it holds: $$ \frac{m_i^{\frac{1}{d}}}{l_i}<\beta; $$ \item[(iv)] $m_{i+1}\leq(1-\frac{1}{k_1})m_i$, where $k_1$ is the constant in Theorem \ref{deformationcube} (6); \item[(v)] $(1-4\varepsilon_i)l_i\geq l_{i+1}\geq (1-6\varepsilon_i)l_i$, where \begin{equation}\label{eq:epsi} \varepsilon_i:=\frac{1}{k\beta}\frac{m_i^{\frac{1}{d}}}{l_i} \end{equation} and \(k=\max\{6,6 / (1-(\frac{k_1-1}{k_1})^\frac{1}{d})\}\) is a universal constant. \item [(vi)] $\lim_i m_i =0$ and $\lim_i l_i >0$. \end{itemize} Following \cite{DavidSemmes}, we are going to construct the sequence of cubes by induction: the cube $Q_0$ satisfies by construction hypotheses (i)-(iii). Suppose that cubes until step $i$ are already defined. Setting $m_i^j:=\mathcal H^d(K_j \cap Q_i)$ we cover $Q_i$ with the family $\L_{\varepsilon_i l_i}(Q_i)$ of closed cubes with edge length $\varepsilon_i l_i$ as described in Section \ref{notation} and we set \(C_1^i\) and \(C_2^i\) for the corresponding sets defined in \eqref{cornici}. We define $Q_{i+1}$ to be the internal cube given by the construction, and we note that $C^i_2$ and $Q_{i+1}$ are non-empty if, for instance, \[ \varepsilon_i = \frac{1}{k\beta}\frac{m_i^{\frac{1}{d}}}{l_i} <\frac{1}{k}\le\frac{1}{6} , \] which is guaranteed by our choice of $k$. Observe moreover that $C^i_1\cup C^i_2$ is a strip of width at most $2\varepsilon_i l_i$ around $\partial Q_i$, hence the side $l_{i+1}$ of $Q_{i+1}$ satisfies $(1-4\varepsilon_i)l_i\leq l_{i+1} <(1-2\varepsilon_i) l_i $. Now we apply Theorem \ref{deformationcube} to $Q_i$ with $E=K_j$ and $\varepsilon=\varepsilon_i l_i$, obtaining the map $\Phi_{i,j}= \Phi_{K_j,\varepsilon_i l_i}$. We claim that, for every $j$ sufficiently large, \begin{equation} \label{conditionji} m_i^j \leq k_1 (m_i^j-m_{i+1}^j) + o_j(1). \end{equation} Indeed, since $(K_j)$ is a minimizing sequence, by the definition of good class we have that \begin{equation*} \begin{split} m_i^j &\leq m_i + o_j(1)\leq \mathcal H^d \left(\Phi_{i,j} \left(K_j \cap Q_0 \right) \right) +o_j(1) \\ &= \mathcal H^d \left( \Phi_{i,j} \left(K_j \cap Q_{i+1} \right) \right) + \mathcal H^d \left( \Phi_{i,j} \left(K_j \cap (C^i_1\cup C^i_2) \right) \right)+o_j(1)\\ &\leq k_1\mathcal H^d \left( K_j \cap (C^i_1\cup C^i_2) \right) +o_j(1) = k_1 (m_i^j-m_{i+1}^j) + o_j(1). \end{split} \end{equation*} The last inequality holds because $\mathcal H^d \left( \Phi_{i,j} \left(K_j \cap Q_{i+1} \right) \right)=0$, otherwise by property (5) of Theorem \ref{deformationcube} there would exists $T \in \L^*_{\varepsilon_i l_i,d}(Q_{i+1})$ such that $\mathcal H^d(\Phi_{i,j}(K_j\cap T))=\mathcal H^d(T)$. Together with property (ii) this would imply \begin{equation*} l_i^d\varepsilon_i^d = \mathcal H^d(T) \leq \mathcal H^d\left( \Phi_{i,j}\left(K_j\right) \cap Q_i \right) \leq k_1\mathcal H^d\left( K_j \cap Q_i \right) \leq k_1 m_i^j \rightarrow k_1 m_i \end{equation*} and therefore substituting \eqref{eq:epsi} $$ \frac{m_i}{ k^d\beta^d} \leq k_1 m_i,$$ which is false if $ \beta$ is sufficiently small ($m_i>0$ because $x\in{\rm spt}(\mu)$). Passing to the limit in $j$ in \eqref{conditionji} we obtain (iv): \begin{equation}\label{eq:stimai} m_{i+1}\leq \frac{k_1-1}{k_1} m_i. \end{equation} Since $l_{i+1}\geq(1-4\varepsilon_i)l_i$ we can slightly shrink the cube $Q_{i+1}$ to a concentric cube $Q'_{i+1}$ with $l'_{i+1}\geq(1-6\varepsilon_i) l_i>0$, $\mu(\partial Q'_{i+1})=0$ and for which (iv) still holds, since just $m_{i+1}$ decreased. With a slight abuse of notation we rename this last cube $Q'_{i+1}$ as $Q_{i+1}$. We now show (iii). Using \eqref{eq:stimai} and condition (iii) for $Q_i$ we obtain \begin{equation*} \frac{m_{i+1}^\frac{1}{d}}{l_{i+1}} \leq \left(\frac{k_1-1}{k_1}\right)^\frac{1}{d} \frac{m_i^\frac{1}{d}}{(1-6\varepsilon_i)l_i} < \left(\frac{k_1-1}{k_1}\right)^\frac{1}{d} \frac{\beta}{1-6\varepsilon_i} \end{equation*} The last quantity will be less than $\beta$ if \begin{equation}\label{eq:i} \left(\frac{k_1-1}{k_1}\right)^\frac{1}{d} \leq 1-6\varepsilon_i=1-\frac{6}{k \beta} \frac{m_i^\frac{1}{d}}{l_i} . \end{equation} In turn inequality \eqref{eq:i} is true because (iii) holds for $Q_i$, provided we choose $k\geq 6 / \big(1-(1-1/k_1)^\frac{1}{d}\big)$. Furthermore, estimating $\varepsilon_0<1/k$ by (iii) and (v) we also have $\varepsilon_{i+1}\leq\varepsilon_i$. We are left to prove (vi): $\lim_i m_i=0$ follows directly from (iv); regarding the non degeneracy of the cubes, note that \begin{equation*} \begin{split} \frac{l_\infty}{l_0}:=\liminf_i \frac{l_i}{l_0} &\geq \prod_{i=0}^{\infty}(1-6\varepsilon_i)=\prod_{i=0}^{\infty}\left (1-\frac{6}{k \beta}\frac{m_i^\frac{1}{d}}{l_i}\right ) \\ &\geq \prod_{i=0}^{\infty}\left (1-\frac{6m_0^\frac{1}{d}}{k \beta l_0 \prod_{h=0}^{i-1}(1-6\varepsilon_h)}\left(\frac{k_1-1}{k_1}\right)^\frac{i}{d} \right)\\ &\geq\prod_{i=0}^{\infty}\left (1-\frac{6}{k(1-6\varepsilon_0)^i}\left(\frac{k_1-1}{k_1}\right)^\frac{i}{d}\right), \end{split} \end{equation*} where we used $\varepsilon_h\leq \varepsilon_0$ in the last inequality. Since $\varepsilon_0<1/k$ the last product is strictly positive provided $$ k>\frac{6}{1-\left(\frac{k_1-1}{k_1}\right)^\frac{1}{d}} $$ which is guaranteed by our choice of $k$. We conclude that $l_\infty>0$ which ensures claim \eqref{absurd lower bound}. \medskip \noindent {\it Step two}: We fix $x\in {\rm spt}\, \mu \setminus H$, and prove that \begin{equation}\label{monotonicity mu} r\mapsto \frac{\mu(B_{x,r})}{r^d}\quad\mbox{is increasing on $(0,d_x)$.} \end{equation} The proof is a straightforward adaptation of the corresponding one in \cite[Theorem 2]{DelGhiMag}, and amounts to prove a differential inequality for the function $f(r):=\mu(B_{x,r})$. In turn, this inequality is obtained in a two step approximation: first one exploits the rectifiability of the minimizing sequence $(K_j)$ and property \eqref{inf good class} to compare $K_j$ with the cone competitor $\mathbf{C}_{x,r}(K_j)$, see \eqref{cone comp}. The comparison a priori is only allowed with elements of $\mathcal{P}(H)$, so for almost every $r<d_x$ it holds: \begin{equation*} \begin{split} f_j(r) &= \mathcal H^d(K_j)-\mathcal H^d(K_j\setminus \overline{B_{x,r}})\le m_0 + o_j(1)-\mathcal H^d(K_j\setminus \overline{B_{x,r}}) \\ &\le o_j(1)+ \inf_{\substack{K'\in \mathcal{P}(H)}} \mathcal H^d(K') -\mathcal H^d(K_j\setminus \overline{B_{x,r}}) \leq o_j(1)+ \inf_{\substack{K'\in \mathcal{P}(H) \\ K'\setminus \overline{B_{x,r}} = K_j\setminus \overline{B_{x,r}}}} \mathcal H^d(K'\cap \overline{B_{x,r}}), \end{split} \end{equation*} where $f_j(r):=\mathcal H^d(K_j\cap B_{x,r})$ and \(\eta_j\) is infinitesimal. Nevertheless $K_j$ can be compared with its cone competitor, up to an error infinitesimal in $j$, thanks to Lemma \ref{l:10}. We recover \begin{equation*} \begin{split} \inf_{\substack{K'\in \mathcal{P}(H) \\ K'\setminus \overline{B_{x,r}} = K_j\setminus \overline{B_{x,r}}}} \mathcal H^d(K'\cap \overline{B_{x,r}}) &\leq o_j(1)+ \mathcal H^d(\mathbf{C}_{x,r}(K_j)\cap \overline{B_{x,r}}) \\ &\leq o_j(1) +\frac rd \mathcal H^{d-1}(K_j\cap\partial B_{x,r}) = o_j(1)+ \frac rd f_j'(r)\,. \end{split} \end{equation*} One then passes to the limit in $j$ and obtains the desired monotonicity formula. We refer to \cite[Theorem 2]{DelGhiMag} for the conclusion of the proof of \eqref{monotonicity mu}. \medskip \noindent {\it Step three}: By \eqref{lower density estimate mu ball} and \eqref{monotonicity mu} the $d$-dimensional density of the measure $\mu$, namely: \[ \theta(x)=\lim_{r\to 0^+}\frac{f(r)}{\omega_d r^d}\ge{\theta_0}\, , \] exists, is finite and positive $\mu$-almost everywhere. Preiss' Theorem \ref{Preiss} implies that $\mu = \theta \mathcal H^d \mathop{\llcorner} \tilde{K}$ for some countably $\mathcal H^d$-rectifiable set $K$ and some positive Borel function $\theta$. Since $K$ is the support of $\mu$, $\mathcal H^d (\tilde{K}\setminus K) =0$. On the other hand, by differentiation of Hausdorff measures, \eqref{lower density estimate mu ball} yields $\mathcal H^d (K\setminus \tilde{K}) =0$. Hence $K$ is \(d\)-rectifiable and $\mu = \theta \mathcal H^d\mathop{\llcorner} K$. \medskip \noindent {\it Step four}: We prove that $\theta(x)\ge 1$ for every $x\in K$ such that the approximate tangent space to $K$ exists (thus, $\mathcal H^d$-a.e. on $K$). Fix any such $x\in K\setminus H$ without loss of generality we can suppose that $\pi = \{x_{d+1}= ... = x_n =0\}$ is the approximate tangent space to $K$ at $x$, and that $x=0$: in particular, \[ \mathcal H^d\mathop{\llcorner} \frac{K}{r} \rightharpoonup^* \mathcal H^d\mathop{\llcorner} \pi\,,\qquad\mbox{as $r\to 0^+$}\,. \] The above convergence, together with the lower density estimates \eqref{lower density estimate mu ball} imply that, for every $\varepsilon>0$ there is $\rho>0$ such that \begin{equation}\label{e:uniforme} K\cap B_{r} \subset \left\{|y_{d+1}|,...,|y_{n}|< \frac \e2 \,r\right\} \qquad \forall r<\rho\, . \end{equation} Let us now assume, by contradiction, that $\theta(0)<1$. Thanks to \eqref{monotonicity mu} and \eqref{e:uniforme}, there exist $r \in (0,d_x)$ and $\alpha <1$ such that \begin{equation}\label{eq:7} \frac{\mu (Q_{\rho})}{\rho^d} \le\alpha <1, \quad \mu(\partial Q_{r}) = 0, \quad K\cap (Q_{\rho} \setminus R_{\rho,\varepsilon \rho}) = \emptyset \qquad \forall \,\rho\le r\,. \end{equation} In particular, since \(\mu_j\) are weakly converging to \(\mu\) we get that for \(j\) large \begin{equation}\label{eq:10} \frac{\mu_j (Q_{r})}{r^d} \le \alpha < 1 \quad \mbox{and} \quad \mu_j(Q_{r} \setminus R_{r,\varepsilon r}) =o_j(1), \end{equation} We now wish to clear the small amount of mass appearing in the complement of $R_{r,\varepsilon r}$: we achieve this by repeatedly applying Theorem \ref{deformationcube}. We set $Q_{r}\cap \{x_{d+1}\geq \frac \e2 \,r\}=:R$, and we apply Theorem \ref{deformationcube} to this rectangle with parameter $\varepsilon r$ and $E=K^0_j:=K_j$, obtaining the map $\varphi_{1,j}$. We recall that the obtained constant $k_1$ for the area bound is universal, since it depends on the side ratio of $R$, which is bounded from below by $1$ and from above by $4$, provided $\varepsilon$ small enough. We set $K^1_j:=\varphi_{1,j}(K^0_j) $ and repeat the argument with $Q_{r}\cap \{x_{d+1}\leq- \frac \e2 \,r\}=:R$ and $E:=K^1_j$, obtaining the map $\varphi_{2,j}$. We again set $K^2_j:=\varphi_{2,j}(K^1_j) $ and iterate this procedure to the rectangles $Q_{r}\cap \{x_{d+2}\geq \frac \e2 \,r\},...,Q_{r}\cap \{x_{n}\leq- \frac \e2 \,r\}$. After $2(n-d)$ iteration, we set $$K_j^{2(n-d)}:= \varphi_{2(n-d),j} \circ ... \circ \varphi_{1,j} (K_j). $$ We are going to use the cube $Q_{r(1-\sqrt{\varepsilon})}$ because, taking $\varepsilon$ small enough, then $\sqrt{\varepsilon}>4C\varepsilon$, where $C>1$ is the side ratio considered before. This allows us to claim that \begin{equation}\label{em} \mathcal H^d(K_j^{2(n-d)}\cap (Q_{r(1-\sqrt{\varepsilon})}\setminus R_{r(1-\sqrt{\varepsilon}),6\varepsilon r}))=0. \end{equation} Otherwise there would exist a $d$-face of a smaller rectangle $T \subset (Q_{r} \setminus R_{r,\varepsilon r})$ such that \[ \mathcal H^d(K_j^{2(n-d)}\cap T)=\mathcal H^d(T)\geq \varepsilon^d r^d\,, \] which would lead to the following contradiction for $j$ large: \begin{equation*} \varepsilon^d r^d \leq \mathcal H^d(T) \leq \mathcal H^d\left( K_j^{2(n-d)} \cap (Q_{r} \setminus R_{r,\varepsilon r}) \right) \leq k_1^{2(n-d)}\mathcal H^d\left( K_j \cap (Q_{r} \setminus R_{r,\varepsilon r}) \right) =o_j(1) \end{equation*} In particular, we cleared any measure on every slab \[ \bigcup_{i=d+1}^{n}\left \{3\varepsilon r<|x_i|<(1-\sqrt{\varepsilon})\frac r2 \right \}\cap Q_{r(1-\sqrt{\varepsilon})}. \] We want now to construct a map $P \in \mathsf{D}(0,r)$, collapsing $R_{r(1-\sqrt{\varepsilon}),6\varepsilon r}$ onto the tangent plane. To this end, for $x\in \mathbb R^n$, $x=(x',x'')$ with $x'\in \mathbb R^d$ and $x''\in \mathbb R^{n-d}$ we set \begin{equation}\label{infinito} \|x'\|:=\max\{|x_i|: i=1,\dots,d\}\qquad \|x''\|:=\max\{|x_i|: i=d+1,\dots,n\} \end{equation} and we define $P$ as follows: \begin{equation} \label{P} P(x)= \begin{cases} \big(x', g(\|x'\|)\frac{(\|x''\|-3\varepsilon r)_+}{1-6\varepsilon}\frac{x''}{\|x''\|}+(1-g(\|x'\|))x''\big)\quad&\textrm{if \(\max\{\|x'\|,\|x''\|\}\le r/2\)}\\ \mathrm{Id}&\textrm{otherwise,} \end{cases} \end{equation} where \(g: [0,r/2]\to [0,1]\) is a compactly supported cut off function such that \[ g\equiv 1\quad \textrm{on \([0,r(1-\sqrt{\varepsilon})/2]\)}\qquad \textrm{and} \qquad |g'|\le 10/r\sqrt{\varepsilon}\,. \] It is not difficult to check that \(P\in \mathsf{D}(0,r)\) and that \({\rm Lip} \,P\le 1+C\sqrt{\varepsilon}\) for some dimensional constant \(C\). We now set $\widetilde{K_j}:=P(K_j^{2(n-d)})$, which verifies, thanks to \eqref{em}, \begin{equation}\label{empty} \mathcal H^d\Big(\widetilde{K_j}\cap \big(Q_{(1-\sqrt{\varepsilon})r}\setminus Q_{(1-\sqrt{\varepsilon})r}^d\big)\Big)=0 \end{equation} and \begin{equation}\label{small} \begin{split} &\mathcal H^d\big(\widetilde{K_j}\cap \big(Q_{r} \setminus Q_{r(1-\sqrt{\varepsilon})}\big)\big) \leq (1+C\sqrt{\varepsilon})^d \mathcal H^d\big(K_j^{2(n-d)}\cap \big(Q_{r} \setminus Q_{r(1-\sqrt{\varepsilon})}\big)\big) \\ &\leq (1+C\sqrt{\varepsilon})k_1^{2(n-d)} \mathcal H^d\big(K_j\cap \big(Q_{r} \setminus (Q_{r(1-\sqrt{\varepsilon})}\cup R_{r,\varepsilon r})\big)\big) \\ & \quad +(1+C\sqrt{\varepsilon})\mathcal H^d\big(K_j\cap \big(R_{r,\varepsilon r} \setminus Q_{r(1-\sqrt{\varepsilon})}\big)\big) \\ &\leq o_j(1)+ (1+C\sqrt{\varepsilon})\mathcal H^d\big(K_j\cap \big(R_{r,\varepsilon r} \setminus Q_{r(1-\sqrt{\varepsilon})}\big)\big)\,, \end{split} \end{equation} where in the last inequality we have used \eqref{eq:10}. Moreover, by using \eqref{eq:7}, \eqref{eq:10} and \eqref{empty} we also have that, for \(\varepsilon\) small and \(j\) large: \begin{equation}\label{dens} \begin{split} \frac{\mathcal H^d(\widetilde{K_j}\cap Q^d_{r(1-\sqrt{\varepsilon})})}{r^d(1-\sqrt{\varepsilon})^d}=\frac{\mathcal H^d(\widetilde{K_j}\cap Q_{r(1-\sqrt{\varepsilon})})}{r^d(1-\sqrt{\varepsilon})^d} &\leq (1+C\sqrt{\varepsilon})\frac{\mathcal H^d(K_j^{2(n-d)}\cap Q_{r})}{r^d}\\ &\leq (1+C\sqrt{\varepsilon}) \frac{\mathcal H^d(K_j\cap Q_{r})+o_j(1)}{r^d} \\ &\le \alpha + o_j(1) < 1. \end{split} \end{equation} As a consequence of \eqref{dens} and the compactness of $\widetilde{K_j}$, there exist $y'_j \in Q_{(1-\sqrt{\varepsilon})r}^d$ and $\delta_j >0$ such that, if we set $y_j:=(y'_j, 0)$, then \begin{equation}\label{eq:11} \widetilde{K_j} \cap B^{d}_{y_j,\delta_j} = \emptyset \quad \mbox{and} \quad B^{d}_{y_j,\delta_j}\subset Q_{(1-\sqrt{\varepsilon})r}^d. \end{equation} After the last deformation, our set $\widetilde{K_j}\cap Q_{r(1-\sqrt{\varepsilon})}$ lives on the tangent plane and we want to use the property \eqref{eq:11} to collapse $\widetilde{K_j}\cap Q_{r(1-\sqrt{\varepsilon})}$ into $\left (\partial Q_{(1-\sqrt{\varepsilon})r}^d\right ) \times \{0\}^{n-d}$. To this end let us define for every $j \in \mathbb N$, the following Lipschitz map: \begin{equation*} \varphi_j(x)= \begin{cases} \big (x'+ z'_{j,x},\, x''\big) & \mbox{if } x \in R_{r(1-\sqrt{\varepsilon}), r}\\ x & \mbox{otherwise}, \end{cases} \end{equation*} with $$ z'_{j,x} := \min \left \{1,\frac{\left |x'-y'_j\right |}{\delta_j}\right \}\frac{\left (r-4\|x''\|\right)_+}{r}\gamma_{j,x}(x'-y'_j),$$ where $\gamma_{j,x}>0$ is such that $x'+\gamma_{j,x}(x'-y'_j) \in \partial Q_{(1-\sqrt{\varepsilon})r}^d \times \{0\}^{n-d}$ and \(\|x''\|\) is defined in \eqref{infinito}. One can easily check that $\varphi_j \in \mathsf{D}(0,r)$. Moreover, setting $\varphi_j(\widetilde{K_j})=: K'_j$ we have that $$K'_j \setminus Q_{r} = K_j \setminus Q_{r}$$ and \begin{equation}\label{:)} \mathcal H^d(K_j'\cap Q_{r(1-\sqrt{\varepsilon})})=0, \end{equation} thanks to \eqref{empty}, since \[ \mathcal H^d\Big (\partial Q_{(1-\sqrt{\varepsilon})r}^d \times \{0\}^{n-d}\Big )=0. \] Since \(\mathcal{P} (H)\) is a good class, by \eqref{inf good class} there exists a sequence of competitors $(J_j)_{j \in \mathbb N} \subset \mathcal{P} (H)$ such that $J_j\setminus \overline B_{0,r} =K_j\setminus \overline B_{0,r} $ and $\mathcal H^d (J_j)= \mathcal H^d (K'_j)+o_j(1)$. Hence, thanks to \eqref{small} and \eqref{:)} we get \begin{equation*} \begin{split} \mathcal H^d(K_j)-\mathcal H^d(J_j) &\geq \mathcal H^d(K_j)-\mathcal H^d(K'_j) -o_j(1) = \mathcal H^d(K_j\cap Q_{r})-\mathcal H^d(K'_j\cap Q_{r}) -o_j(1)\\ &\geq \mathcal H^d\left(K_j\cap Q_{r(1-\sqrt{\varepsilon})} \right) + \mathcal H^d\left(K_j\cap (R_{r,\varepsilon r} \setminus Q_{r(1-\sqrt{\varepsilon})}) \right) + \\ &\quad-o_j(1)-(1+C\sqrt{\varepsilon})\mathcal H^d\left(K_j\cap (R_{r,\varepsilon r} \setminus Q_{r(1-\sqrt{\varepsilon})}) \right)\\ &\geq \mathcal H^d\left(K_j\cap Q_{r(1-\sqrt{\varepsilon})} \right)-C\sqrt{\varepsilon}\mathcal H^d\left(K_j\cap (R_{r,\varepsilon r} \setminus Q_{r(1-\sqrt{\varepsilon})}) \right)-o_j(1). \end{split} \end{equation*} Passing to the limit as \(j\to \infty\), and using \eqref{muj va a mu}, \eqref{lower density estimate mu ball} and \eqref{eq:7} we get that \[ \begin{split} \liminf_{j} \mathcal H^d(K_j)&\ge \liminf_{j} \mathcal H^d(J_j)+\mu(Q_{r(1-\sqrt{\varepsilon})})-C\sqrt{\varepsilon}r^d\\ &\ge \liminf_{j} \mathcal H^d(J_j)+(\theta_0(1-\sqrt{\varepsilon})^d-C\sqrt{\varepsilon})r^d. \end{split} \] Since, for \(\varepsilon\) small, this is in contradiction with \(K_j\) be a minimizing sequence we finally conclude that \(\theta(0)\ge 1\). \medskip \noindent {\it Step five}: We prove that $\theta(x)\leq 1$ for every $x\in K$ such that the approximate tangent space to $K$ exists. Arguing by contradiction, we assume that $\theta(x)=1+\sigma>1$ for some $x$ where $K$ admits an approximate tangent plane $T$. As usually we assume that $x=0$ and $T = \{y: y_{d+1},...,y_{n} =0\}$. By the monotonicity of the density established in Step 2, for every \(\varepsilon>0\) we can find $r_0>0$ such that \begin{equation} \label{mancoilnome} K\cap Q_{r}\subset R_{r,\varepsilon r}\,,\qquad 1+\sigma\le\frac{\mu(Q_{r})}{r^d}\le1+\sigma+ \varepsilon\,\sigma\,, \qquad \forall\, r\le r_0\, . \end{equation} Let us also note that for every $r<r_0$ there exists $j_0 $ such that \begin{equation} \label{buonpunto} \mathcal H^d(K_j\cap Q_{r})>\Big(1+\frac{\sigma}2\Big)\,r^d\,,\qquad \mathcal H^d( (K_j\cap Q_{r})\setminus R_{r,\varepsilon r})<\frac\sigma{4}\,r^d,\qquad\forall j\ge j_0\,, \end{equation} Consider the map $P:\mathbb R^{n}\to\mathbb R^{n}\in \mathsf{D}(0,r)$ with ${\rm Lip}\, P\le 1+C\,\sqrt\varepsilon$ defined in \eqref{P} which collapses \(R_{(r(1-\sqrt{\varepsilon}),\varepsilon r}\) onto the tangent plane. By exploiting the fact the \(\mathcal P(H)\) is a good class we find that \begin{equation*} \begin{split} \mathcal H^d(K_j\cap Q_{r})-o_j(1) &\le \underbrace{\mathcal H^d( P(K_j\cap R_{(1-\sqrt{\varepsilon})r,\varepsilon r}))}_{I_1} + \underbrace{\mathcal H^d( P(K_j\cap(R_{r,\varepsilon r}\setminus R_{(1-\sqrt{\varepsilon})r,\varepsilon r})))}_{I_2} \\ &+ \underbrace{\mathcal H^d( P(K_j\cap (Q_{r}\setminus R_{r,\varepsilon r})))}_{I_3}\,. \end{split} \end{equation*} By construction, $I_1\le r^d$, while, by \eqref{buonpunto}, $\mathcal H^d(K_j\cap Q_{r})>(1+(\sigma/2))r^d$ and \[ I_3\le({\rm Lip}\, P)^d\,\mathcal H^d(K_j\cap (Q_{r}\setminus R_{r,\varepsilon r}))<(1+C\,\sqrt\varepsilon)^d\,\frac{\sigma}{4}\,r^d\,. \] Hence, as $j\to\infty$, \[ \Big(1+\frac{\sigma}2\Big)r^d\le r^d+\liminf_{j\to\infty}I_2+(1+C\,\sqrt\varepsilon)^d\,\frac{\sigma}{4}\,r^d\,, \] that is, \begin{equation}\label{this} \Big(\frac12-\frac{(1+C\,\sqrt\varepsilon)^d}4\Big)\,\sigma\le\liminf_{j\to\infty}\frac{I_2}{r^d}\,. \end{equation} By \eqref{mancoilnome}, we finally estimate that \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber \limsup_{j\to\infty}\,I_2&\le&(1+C\sqrt{\varepsilon})^d\,\mu(Q_{r}\setminus Q_{(1-\sqrt\varepsilon)r}) \\\label{that} &\le&(1+C\sqrt{\varepsilon})^d\Big((1+\sigma+\varepsilon\sigma)-(1+\sigma)(1-\sqrt\varepsilon)^d\Big)\,r^d \end{eqnarray} By choosing \(\varepsilon\) sufficiently small, \eqref{this} and \eqref{that} provide the desired contradiction. Hence \(\theta \le 1\) and, combining this with the previous step, \(\mu=\mathcal H^{d}\mathop{\llcorner} K\). \medskip \noindent {\it Step six}: We now show that the canonical density one rectifiable varifold associated $K$ is stationary in $\mathbb R^{n}\setminus H$. In particular, applying Allard's regularity theorem, see \cite[Chapter 5]{SimonLN}, we will deduce that there exists an $\mathcal H^d$-negligible closed set $\Sigma\subset K$ such that $\Gamma = K \setminus \Sigma$ is a real analytic manifold. Since being a stationary varifold is a local property, to prove our claim it is enough to show that for every ball \(B \subset\subset \mathbb R^n\setminus H\) we have \begin{equation}\label{diffeomin} \mathcal H^d(K)\le\mathcal H^d(\phi(K)) \end{equation} whenever $\phi$ is a diffeomorphism such that \({\rm spt}\{\phi-\mathrm{Id}\}\subset B\). Indeed, by exploiting \eqref{diffeomin} with \(\phi_t=\mathrm{Id}+tX\), \(X\in C_c^1(B)\) we deduce the desired stationarity property. To prove \eqref{diffeomin} we argue as in \cite[Theorem 7]{DelGhiMag}. Given $\varepsilon>0$ we can find $\delta>0$ and a compact set $\hat{K} \subset K\cap B$ with $\mathcal H^d(K\setminus \hat{K})\cap B )<\varepsilon$ such that $K$ admits an approximate tangent plane $\pi(x)$ at every $x\in\hat K$, \begin{eqnarray} \label{approx cont} \sup_{x\in \hat{K}}\sup_{y\in B_{x,\delta}}|\nabla\phi(x)-\nabla\phi(y)|\le \varepsilon\,,\qquad \sup_{x\in \hat{K}}\sup_{y\in \hat{K}\cap B_{x,\delta}}{\rm d}(\pi(x),\pi(y))<\varepsilon\,, \end{eqnarray} where \({\rm d}\) is a distance on \(G(d)\), the \(d\)-dimensional Grassmanian. Moreover, denoting by $S_{x,r}$ the set of points in $B_{x,r}$ at distance at most $\varepsilon\,r$ from $x+\pi(x)$, then $K\cap B_{x,r}\subset S_{x,r}$ for every $r<\delta$ and $x\in\hat{K}$. By Besicovitch covering theorem we can find a finite disjoint family of closed balls $\{\overline B_i\}$ with $B_i=B_{x_i,r_i}\subset B\subset\subset \mathbb R^{n}\setminus H$, $x_i\in \hat{K} $, and $r_i<\delta$, such that $\mathcal H^d(\hat{K} \setminus\bigcup_iB_i)<\varepsilon$. By exploiting the construction of Step four, we can find $j(\varepsilon)\in\mathbb N$ and maps $P_i: \mathbb R^n\to \mathbb R^n$ with ${\rm Lip}\,(P_i)\le 1+C\,\sqrt{\varepsilon}$ and $P_i=\mathrm{Id}$ on \(B_i^c\), such that, for a certain $X_i\subset S_i=S_{x_i,\varepsilon\,r_i}$, \begin{equation} \label{ober1} \begin{aligned} &P_i(X_i)\subset B_i\cap(x_i+\tau(x_i))\,, \\ &\mathcal H^d\Big(P_i\big((K_j\cap B_i)\setminus X_i\big)\Big)\le C\,\sqrt\varepsilon\,\omega_d\,r_i^d\,,\qquad\forall j\ge j(\varepsilon)\,. \end{aligned} \end{equation} Exploiting \eqref{approx cont}, \eqref{ober1}, the area formula and that $\omega_d\,r_i^d\le\mathcal H^d(K\cap B_i)$ (by the monotonicity formula), and setting $\a_i=\mathcal H^d((K\setminus \hat K)\cap B_i)$, we get (denoting with \(J_d^{\pi}\) the \(d\)-dimensional tangential jacobian with respect to the plane \(\pi\) and by \(J^K_d\) the one with respect to \(K\)) \begin{equation}\label{diavolo} \begin{split} \mathcal H^d(\phi(P_i(K_j\cap X_i)))&=\int_{P_i(K_j\cap X_i)}J_d^{\pi(x_i)}\phi(x)\,d\mathcal H^d(x)\le(J^{\tau(x_i)}\phi(x_i)+\varepsilon)\,\omega_d\,r_i^d \\ &\le(J_d^{\pi(x_i)}\phi(x_i)+\varepsilon)\,\mathcal H^d(K\cap B_i) \le(J_d^{\pi(x_i)}\phi(x_i)+\varepsilon)\,(\mathcal H^d(\hat K\cap B_i)+\a_i) \\ &\le\int_{\hat K\cap B_i}(J_d^{K}\phi(x)+2\varepsilon)\,\,d\mathcal H^d(x)+(({\rm Lip}\,\phi)^d+\varepsilon)\,\a_i \\ &=\mathcal H^d(\phi(\hat K\cap B_i))+2\varepsilon\,\mathcal H^d(K\cap B_i)+(({\rm Lip}\,\phi)^d+\varepsilon)\,\a_i\,, \end{split} \end{equation} where in the last identity we have used the area formula and the injectivity of $\phi$. Since \(P_i=\mathrm{Id}\) on \(B_i^c\), \(\phi=\mathrm{Id}\) on \(B^c\), \(B_i\subset B\) and the balls \(B_i\) are disjoint, the map \(\tilde \phi\) which is equal to \(\phi\) on \(B\setminus \cup_{i} B_i\), equal to the identity on \(B^c\) and equal to \(\phi\circ P_i\) on \(B_i\) is well defined. Moreover, by \eqref{diavolo}, we get \[ \mathcal H^d(\tilde \phi(K_j))\le \mathcal H^d(\phi(K))+C\varepsilon \] where \(C\) depends only on \(K\). By exploiting the definition of good class, we get that \[ \mathcal H^d(K)\le \mathcal H^d(\tilde \phi(K_j))+\eta_j\le \mathcal H^d(\phi(K))+C\varepsilon+o_j(1). \] Letting \(j\to \infty\) and \(\varepsilon\to 0\) we obtain \eqref{diffeomin}. \medskip \noindent {\it Step seven}: We finally address the dimension of the singular set. Recall that, by monotonicity, the density function \[ \Theta^d(K,x)=\lim_{r\to 0}\frac{\mathcal H^d(K\cap B_{x,r})}{\omega_d r^d} \] is everywhere defined in $\mathbb R^n\setminus H$ and equals $1$ $\mathcal H^d$-almost everywhere in $K$. Fixing $x\in K$ and a sequence $r_k\downarrow 0$, the monotonicity formula, the stationarity of $\mathcal H^d\mathop{\llcorner} K$ and the compactness theorem for integral varifolds \cite[Theorem 6.4]{Allard} imply that (up to subsequences) \begin{equation}\label{tanvar} \mathcal H^d\mathop{\llcorner}\left(\frac{K-x}{r_k}\right)\rightharpoonup V\quad\mbox{ locally in the sense of varifolds,} \end{equation} with \begin{itemize} \item[(a)] $V$ is a stationary integral varifold: in particular $\Theta^d(\|V\|,y)\geq 1$ for $y\in{\rm spt}(V)$; \item[(b)] $V$ is a cone, namely $(\delta_{\lambda})_{\#}V=V$, where $\delta_{\lambda}(x) = \lambda x$, $\lambda>0$; \item[(c)] $\Theta^d(\|V\|,0) = \Theta^d(K,x) \geq \Theta^d(\|V\|,y)$ for every $y\in\mathbb R^n$. \end{itemize} Recall that the tangent varifold $V$ depends (in principle) on the sequence $(r_k)$. We denote by ${\rm TanVar}(K,x)$ the (nonempty) set of all possible limits $V$ as in \eqref{tanvar} varying among all sequences along which \eqref{tanvar} holds. Given a cone $W$ we set \begin{equation}\label{spine} {\rm Spine}(W):=\{y\in\mathbb R^n : \Theta^d(\|W\|,y) = \Theta^d(\|W\|,0) \}: \end{equation} by \cite[2.26]{almgrenBIG} ${\rm Spine}(W)$ is a vector subspace of $\mathbb R^n$, see also \cite{whitestrat}. We can stratify $K$ in the following way: for every $k=0,\dots,n$ we let \begin{equation*} A_k := \{x \in K : \textrm{ for all } V\in {\rm TanVar}(K,x),\,\dim {\rm Spine}(V)\leq k\}. \end{equation*} Clearly $A_0\supset\dots\supset A_{d+1}=\dots=A_n=\emptyset$; moreover it holds: $\dim_\mathcal H A_k\leq k$, see \cite[2.28]{almgrenBIG}. In order to prove our claim, we need to show that $A_d\setminus A_{d-1}\subset K\setminus \Sigma$, where $\Sigma$ as in Step six is the singular set of $K$, namely that every point in $K$ having at least one tangent cone of maximal dimension $d$ must be regular (note that, as the example of complex varieties shows, this is not true in general for a stationary varifold). First, note that if $x\in A_d\setminus A_{d-1}$ and $V\in{\rm TanVar}(K,x)$ satisfies $\dim {\rm Spine}(V)=d$, then $V = \mathcal H^d\mathop{\llcorner} {\rm Spine}(V)$: indeed up to a rotation ${\rm spt}(V) = {\rm Spine}(V)\times \Gamma$, where $\Gamma$ is a cone in $\mathbb R^{n-d}$. If $\Gamma\neq\{0\}$ then $\Theta^d(\|V\|,0)>\Theta^d(\|V\|,y)$ for any $y\in {\rm Spine}(V)\setminus\{0\}$, which contradicts \eqref{spine}. Hence by \eqref{spine} and (c), $\Theta^d(\|V\|,0)$ is an integer and $V = \Theta^d(K,x)\mathcal H^d\mathop{\llcorner} {\rm Spine}(V)$ (see also \cite[Theorem 2.26 (4)]{almgrenBIG}). Second, the density lower bound $\Theta^d(K,\cdot)\geq 1$ and \eqref{tanvar} imply that for every $\varepsilon>0$ $$ \frac{K-x}{r}\subset U_\varepsilon({\rm Spine}(V))\quad\mbox{and}\quad \mathcal H^d\left(\frac{K-x}{r}\cap Q_{0,1}\right)\leq (1+\varepsilon)\Theta^d(K,x $$ if $r$ is sufficiently small. By arguing as in Step five (i.e. roughly speaking comparing $K$ with $P(K)$ in $Q_{x,r}$, where $P$ is the squeezing map \eqref{P} although one has to rigorously get through the minimizing sequence \(K_j\)) we obtain $$ \mathcal H^d\left(\frac{K-x}{r}\cap Q_{0,1}\right)\leq (1+C\sqrt{\varepsilon}). $$ Letting $r\downarrow 0$ thanks to \eqref{tanvar} we obtain $\|V\|(Q_{0,1})\le (1+C\sqrt{\varepsilon})$, implying $\Theta^d(K,x) =1$. We therefore fall into the hypotheses of Allard's regularity Theorem \cite[Regularity Theorem, Section 8]{Allard}, $K\cap Q_{x,\frac{r}{2}}$ is a real analytic submanifold. Equivalently $x\not\in \Sigma$. \end{proof} \section{Proof of Theorems \ref{thm plateau} and \ref{thm david}}\label{harrisonanddavid} In this Section we prove Theorem \ref{thm plateau} and \ref{thm david}. With Theorem \ref{thm generale} at hand, the proofs are quite similar to the corresponding ones in \cite{DelGhiMag} (see Theorems 4 and 7 there), hence we limit ourselves to provide a short sketch underlying only the main differences. \begin{proof} [Proof of Theorem \ref{thm plateau}] We start by proving that $\mathcal{F}(H,\mathcal{C})$ is a good class in the sense of Definition \ref{def good class}: let $\widetilde{K}\in\mathcal{F} (H,\mathcal{C})$, $x\in K$, $r\in (0, \mathop{\mathrm{dist}} (x, H))$ and $\varphi \in \mathsf{D}(x,r)$. We show that $\varphi(\widetilde{K})\in\mathcal{F}(H,\mathcal{C})$ arguing by contradiction: assume that $\gamma(S^{n-d})\cap \varphi(\widetilde{K}) = \emptyset$ for some $\gamma\in\mathcal{C}$ and, without loss of generality, suppose also that $\gamma(S^{n-d})\cap(\widetilde{K}\setminus B_{x,r})=\emptyset$. By Definition \ref{d:deform} there exists a sequence $$ (\varphi_{j})\subset \mathfrak D(x,r)\qquad\mbox{ such that }\qquad\lim_{j}\|\varphi_{j} - \varphi\|_{C^0}=0. $$ Since $\gamma(S^{n-d})$ is compact and $\varphi_j=\mbox{Id}$ outside $ B_{x,r}$, for $j$ sufficiently large $\gamma(S^{n-d})\cap \varphi_j(\widetilde{K}) = \emptyset$; moreover $\varphi_j$ is invertible, hence $\varphi_{j}^{-1}\left(\gamma(S^{n-d})\right )\cap \widetilde{K} = \emptyset$. But the property for $\varphi_{j}$ of being isotopic to the identity implies $\varphi_{j}^{-1} \circ \gamma \in \mathcal{C}$, which contradicts $V\in\mathcal{F} (H,\mathcal{C})$. This proves (a). Given a minimizing sequence $(K_j )\subset\mathcal{F}(H,\mathcal{C})$ which consists of rectifiable sets, we can therefore find a set $K$ with the properties stated in Theorem \ref{thm generale}. In order to conclude (b), namely that $K\in\mathcal{F}(H,\mathcal{C})$, we refer to \cite[Theorem 4(b)]{DelGhiMag}: the proof is the same. \end{proof} \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm david}] As already observed in Remark \ref{remark david}, $\mathcal A (H, K_0)$ is a good class and we can therefore apply Theorem \ref{thm generale}. We thus know that $\mathcal H^d\mathop{\llcorner} K_j\stackrel{*}{\rightharpoonup}\mu= \ \mathcal H^d\mathop{\llcorner} K\) and that \(K\) is a smooth set away from \(H\) and from a relatively closed set \(\Sigma\) of dimension less or equal than \((d-1)\). The conclusion of the proof can now be obtained by repeating verbatim Steps 4 and 6 in the proof of Theorem 7 in \cite{DelGhiMag}. \end{proof}
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro} The consistency of the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics is tested at high-energy colliders primarily through the production and subsequent decay of unstable particles. New particles, if discovered, are most likely also short-lived. At the current high-energy frontier all known fundamental interactions are perturbatively weak, allowing for very precise theoretical computations in principle. Nevertheless, the application of perturbation theory to processes with unstable particles is not always straightforward. The very notion of an unstable particle requires clarification. In quantum field theory the fundamental entities are the fields from which the Lagrangian is constructed, but the excitations of the fundamental fields may not correspond to the asymptotic particle states assumed in scattering theory, if they are strongly interacting as is the case for the quarks and gluons of QCD, or unstable with respect to decay into lighter particles. Relevant cases include the electroweak gauge bosons and the top quark, which although all very short-lived, have width over mass ratios of a few percent, larger than the accuracy of precision calculations. Principal questions related to field theories with unstable ``particles'' such as their unitarity on the Hilbert space built upon the one-particle states of only stable particles have been answered many years ago \cite{Veltman:1963th}. The construction of the unitary $S$-matrix is based on certain properties of the exact two-point function of the unstable-particle field. Although a diagrammatic interpretation is assumed, there is no explicit reference to a perturbation expansion in the coupling that renders the particle unstable. Since exact two-point functions are not at hand, this raises the question of consistent, successive approximations. Ordinary perturbation theory in the Lagrangian coupling $g$ does not work, since the lowest-order propagator of the unstable particle leads to singularities in scattering amplitudes. A well-known remedy of the singularity is the resummation of self-energy corrections to the propagator, which results in the substitution \begin{equation} \frac{1}{p^2-M^2}\,\to\,\frac{1}{p^2-M^2-\Pi(p^2)}. \end{equation} The self-energy has an imaginary part of order $M^2 g^2 \sim M\Gamma$, where $\Gamma$ is the on-shell decay width of the resonance, rendering the propagator large but finite. ``Dyson resummation'' sums a subset of singular terms of order $(g^2 M^2/[p^2-M^2])^n\sim 1$ (near resonance where $p^2\sim M\Gamma$) to all orders in the expansion in $g^2$. This procedure leaves open the question of how to identify all terms (and only these) required to achieve a specified accuracy in $g^2$ and $\Gamma/M$. Failure to address this question may lead to a lack of gauge invariance and unitarity of the resummed amplitude, since these properties are guaranteed only order-by-order in perturbation theory, and for the exact amplitude. Despite the fact that unstable particle fields have no corresponding asymptotic particle states and hence their propagators should never be cut, this point is often ignored in practice and the particle is treated in Feynman diagram and cross section calculations as if it were stable (``narrow-width approximation''). This can be justified when the width is very small, since \begin{equation} \frac{M \Gamma}{(p^2-M^2)^2+M^2\Gamma^2} \stackrel{\Gamma\to 0}{\to} \pi\delta(p^2-M^2). \label{eq:deltafnapprox} \end{equation} The limit holds in the distribution sense and is therefore valid only, if the phase-space of the unstable particle is integrated sufficiently inclusively, such that the integration contour in the variable $p^2$ can be deformed far away from $M^2$. This is not always the case. An obvious example is the line-shape, but also distributions may trap the contour near $M^2$. A more accurate treatment than (\ref{eq:deltafnapprox}) is also required, when the desired precision exceeds the leading-order approximation in $\Gamma/M$. Somewhat surprisingly, systematic computational schemes to obtain approximations to scattering processes involving unstable particles in weak coupling expansions are relatively recent. The two, which are general, are the {\em unstable-particle effective theory} and the {\em complex mass scheme}. \subsection{Unstable-particle effective theory} The singularity of the unstable particle propagator indicates sensitivity to a time scale larger than the Compton wave-length $1/M$ of the particle, evidently its lifetime $1/\Gamma$. The presence of two different scales $\Gamma\ll M$ lies in the very nature of the problem, since a resonance with $\Gamma \sim M$ would not be identified as such. The main idea of unstable-particle effective field theory \cite{Beneke:2003xh,Beneke:2004km} is to exploit this hierarchy of scales in order to systematically organize the calculations in a series in the coupling $g$, and $\Gamma/M$. The short-distance scale $M$ is integrated out by performing standard perturbative computations and the full theory is matched to an effective Lagrangian that reproduces the physics at the scale $\Gamma$. The effective theory contains a field $\phi_v$, which describes a resonance with momentum $p=M v+k$, where only $k\sim \Gamma$ is fluctuating. The resonant field can interact with other soft fields with momenta of order $\Gamma$, but off-shell effects at the scale $M$ are part of the matching coefficients. The power-counting of fields and interactions in the effective theory leads to a systematic construction of the expansion in $\Gamma/M$. The expansion of amplitudes in matching calculations is performed around the gauge-invariant location \begin{equation} M_\star^2 = M^2 - i M\Gamma \label{eq:complexpole} \end{equation} of the pole in the complex $p^2$ plane corresponding to the resonance, where $M$ is identified with the pole mass, and $\Gamma$ with the on-shell width. The expansion is similar to the one performed in the ``pole'' \cite{Stuart:1991xk,Aeppli:1993rs} or ``double-pole'' (in pair production of resonances) \cite{Beenakker:1998gr,Denner:1999kn} approximation. In a certain sense, unstable-particle effective field theory represents the field-theoretic formulation of the diagrammatic pole approximation, and generalizes it to all orders in perturbation theory and beyond the leading power in the $\Gamma/M$ expansion. A first step in this direction had already been presented in \cite{Chapovsky:2001zt}. The effective theory approach is minimal as it identifies precisely the terms required to achieve a specified accuracy in $g^2$, and $\Gamma/M$, and does not include more. This makes the calculations particularly simple. Furthermore, the operator interpretation allows for the summation of large logarithms of $\Gamma/M$ through renormalization group equations and anomalous dimensions. There is a draw-back: the details of the effective theory depend on the inclusiveness of the observable and is not valid locally over the entire phase-space, where some portions may involve further soft scales of order $\Gamma$ in addition to $(p^2-M^2)/M$. Even the prediction of the resonance line-shape requires matching of the resonant (peak) region calculation within the effective theory to the off-resonance region computed with standard perturbation theory. \subsection{The complex-mass scheme} The complex-mass scheme is an extension of the standard on-shell renormalization scheme to unstable particles. It defines the complex mass and field renormalization constant from the location and residue of the pole (\ref{eq:complexpole}) of the unstable-particle propagator. The bare mass $M_0$ is split into a renormalized mass and counterterm through \begin{equation} M_0^2 = M_\star^2 +\delta M_\star^2, \label{eq:cms} \end{equation} and $\delta M_\star^2$ is part of the interaction Lagrangian and treated as a perturbation. The unstable-particle propagator $i/(p^2-M_\star^2)$ is never infinite for physical, real momenta. The complex-mass scheme was discussed already in \cite{Stuart:1990vk}, but it was used for the first time in a full one-loop calculation only in 2005 \cite{Denner:2005fg} for the process $e^+ e^- \to 4\,\mbox{fermions}\,(+\gamma)$ at high energies, which receives important contributions from the unstable $W^+ W^-$ intermediate state. Although the standard rules of perturbation theory and an expansion in the number of loops apply to the complex-mass scheme, a re-ordering and resummation of the $g^2$ expansion is implicit, since the propagator is of order $1/(M^2 g^2)$ in the resonance region. The assumption is that the complex mass in the propagator captures all terms that need to be resummed which is indeed the case (see also next section). Since the scheme is only a reparameterization of the bare theory, which is not modified, it is obvious that no double counting occurs. Likewise, gauge invariance is assured, since the split (\ref{eq:cms}) is gauge-invariant and the algebraic identities that guarantee gauge invariance are valid in the presence of complex parameters. Unitarity might be a concern, since the unitarity equation involves complex conjugation. However, since the bare theory is unitary, so must be the reparameterized one. What needs to be shown is that the theory with the complex-mass prescription is perturbatively unitary in the sense that unitarity violation in any given order in the loop expansion are of higher order in the expansion parameters (counting $\Gamma/M\sim g^2$). This point was demonstrated explicitly at one-loop for fermion-fermion scattering through a vector-boson resonance~\cite{Bauer:2012gn}, and in general in \cite{Denner:2014zga}. The complex-mass scheme is conceptually straightforward. It does not require separate treatments of the resonance and off-resonance regions, and can easily be applied to kinematic distributions. Compared to the effective field theory method the scheme does not make use (explicitly) of expansions in $\Gamma/M$ and hence does not simplify the problem as much as possible in principle. The difficulty of the calculation is equivalent to the corresponding standard loop calculation with the additional complication of loop integrals with complex masses. This is not a practical problem at the one-loop order, making the complex-mass scheme the method of choice for automated next-to-leading order calculations. On the other hand, calculations beyond this order would presently be difficult and the resummation of logarithms $\ln M/\Gamma$ cannot be performed. In the following I do not discuss the complex-mass scheme further, but focus on unstable-particle effective theory. I use the line-shape of a resonance to illustrate the framework and the discuss results on pair production of W-bosons and top quarks near threshold which (I believe) benefit particularly from this method. \section{Line-shape of an unstable particle} In this section, which follows \cite{Beneke:2003xh,Beneke:2004km}, we consider a toy model that involves a massive scalar field, $\phi$, and two fermion fields. The scalar as well as one of the fermion fields, $\psi$, (the ``electron'') are charged under an abelian gauge symmetry, whereas the other fermion, $\chi$, (the ``neutrino'') is neutral. The model allows for the scalar to decay into an electron-neutrino pair through a Yukawa interaction. The model describes the essential features of the $Z$-boson line-shape in the SM \cite{Bardin:1989qr}. Its Lagrangian is \begin{eqnarray} \label{model} {\cal L} &=& (D_\mu\phi)^\dagger D^\mu\phi - \hat M^2 \phi^\dagger\phi + \bar\psi i \!\not\!\!D\psi + \bar\chi i\!\!\not\!\partial\chi \nonumber \\ && - \, \frac{1}{4} F^{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2\xi} \, (\partial_\mu A^\mu)^2 \nonumber\\ && + \, y\phi\bar\psi\chi + y^* \phi^\dagger \bar\chi\psi -\frac{\lambda}{4}(\phi^\dagger \phi)^2+ {\cal L}_{\rm ct}\, , \end{eqnarray} where $\hat{M}$ denotes the renormalized mass, not necessarily the pole mass $M$ defined by (\ref{eq:cms}), ${\cal L}_{\rm ct}$ the counterterm Lagrangian, and $D_\mu=\partial_\mu-i g A_\mu$. We define $\alpha_g\equiv g^2/(4\pi)$, $\alpha_y\equiv (y y^*)/(4 \pi)$ (at the scale $\mu$) and assume $\alpha_g \sim \alpha_y \sim \alpha$, and $\alpha_\lambda\equiv\lambda/(4\pi) \sim \alpha^2/(4\pi)$. The line-shape is the totally inclusive cross section for the process \begin{equation} \bar\nu(q) + e^-(p)\to X \label{process} \end{equation} as a function of $s\equiv (p+q)^2$, which can be calculated from the imaginary part of the forward scattering amplitude ${\cal T}(s)$.\footnote{The total cross section of process (\ref{process}) is not infrared finite for massless electrons due to an initial-state collinear singularity, which has to be absorbed into the electron distribution function. In what follows it is understood that this singularity is subtracted minimally.} In particular, we are interested in the region $s\approx M^2$, or more precisely $s-M^2 \sim M\Gamma\sim\alpha M^2 \ll M^2$, where we expect an enhancement of the cross section due to the resonant production of the scalar. Defining the dimensionless variable \begin{equation} \label{eq:deltadef} \delta\equiv \frac{s-\hat M^2}{\hat M^2} \sim \frac{\Gamma}{M}, \end{equation} the cross section far away from the resonance can be expanded in $g^2$ in the usual manner according to \begin{equation} \sigma =g^4f_1(\delta)+g^6 f_2(\delta)+\ldots. \end{equation} At every order, the coefficient $f_n(\delta)$ is a function of the variable $\delta \sim 1$. On the other hand, near resonance we may exploit $\delta \ll 1$ to expand the amplitude in $\delta$. At the same time, as $g^2/\delta\sim 1$ since $\Gamma\sim M g^2$, some terms must be summed to all orders. A systematic approximation to the line-shape in the resonance region therefore takes the form \begin{eqnarray} \sigma &\sim& \sum_n \left(\frac{g^2}{\delta}\right)^{\!n}\!\times \{1 \,{\rm (LO)}; g^2,\delta\, {\rm (NLO)}, \ldots\} \nonumber\\ &=& h_1(g^2/\delta)+ g^2 h_2(g^2/\delta)+\ldots \label{eq:reorganizedexp} \end{eqnarray} with non-trivial functions $h_n(g^2/\delta)$ at every order in the reorganized expansion. The effective theory identifies the relevant terms and constructs the expansion (\ref{eq:reorganizedexp}). \subsection{Relevant modes and reduced scattering diagrams} The effective theory is based on the hierarchy of scales $\Gamma\ll M$. In a first step we integrate out hard momenta $k\sim M$. The effective theory will then not contain any longer dynamical hard modes since their effect is included in the coefficients of the operators. The hard effects are associated with what is usually called factorizable corrections, whereas the effects of the dynamical modes correspond to the non-factorizable corrections \cite{Chapovsky:2001zt}. On the level of Feynman diagrams, the hard contribution can be identified directly using the method of regions to separate loop integrals into various contributions~\cite{Beneke:1997zp}. The hard part is obtained by expanding the full-theory integrand in $\delta$. The modes to be described by the effective Lagrangian correspond to kinematically allowed scattering processes with virtualities much smaller than $M^2$. Particles with masses above $M\Gamma$ are no longer present, except for the unstable particle, which by construction is close to mass-shell. To account for this, we write the momentum of the scalar particle as $P=\hat{M}v + k$, where the velocity vector $v$ satisfies $v^2=1$ and the residual momentum $k$ scales as $M\delta \sim \Gamma$. In analogy to heavy-quark effective theory (HQET) we remove the rapid spatial variation $e^{-i\hat{M} v\cdot x}$ from the $\phi$ field and define $\phi_v(x) \equiv e^{i\hat{M} v\cdot x}\, {\cal P}_+ \phi(x)$, where ${\cal P}_+$ projects onto the positive frequency part to ensure that $\phi_v$ is a pure destruction field. A field with momentum fluctuations $k\sim \Gamma$ is called a ``soft'' field. Thus, for the soft scalar field $\phi_v$ we have $P^2-\hat{M}^2 \sim M^2\delta$. This remains true if the scalar particle interacts with a soft gauge boson with momentum $M\delta$, so the effective Lagrangian should contain soft (s) fields for every massless field of the full theory. The unstable particle is produced in the scattering of on-shell particles with large energy of order $M$. These can remain near mass-shell by radiating further energetic particles in their direction of flight. The effective Lagrangian must therefore also contain hard-collinear (c1) modes with momentum scaling \begin{equation} n_+ p \sim M, \quad p_\perp \sim M\delta^{1/2}, \quad n_- p \sim M\delta \end{equation} for all massless fields of the original Lagrangian. Here $n_\pm$ are two light-like vectors with $n_+\cdot n_-=2$, $n_-$ is the direction of the electron four-momentum, and $p_\perp$ is transverse to $n_-$ and $n_+$.\footnote{In the general case several types of collinear modes are required, one for each direction defined by energetic particles in the initial and final state. For the inclusive line-shape we calculate the forward-scattering amplitude, so no direction is distinguished in the final state. We then need two sets of collinear modes, one for the direction of the incoming electron, labelled by ``c1'' (or often simply ``c''), the other for the direction of the incoming neutrino (labelled ``c2''). Since the neutrino is electrically neutral, the collinear fields $\psi_{c2}$, $A_{c2}$ and $\chi_{c1}$ appear only in highly suppressed terms, so we can ignore them here.} \begin{figure} \vskip0.2cm \begin{center} \hskip-0.3cm \includegraphics[width=7.8cm]{figures/fig_skeleton.png} \end{center} \vspace*{-0.3cm} \caption{\label{fig:skeleton} Reduced diagram topologies in $2\to2$ scattering near resonance. Left: resonant scattering. Right: non-resonant scattering. } \end{figure} The space-time picture of the kinematically allowed processes is very simple and the corresponding reduced diagram topologies are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:skeleton} for the forward-scattering amplitude. The left diagram describes the production of the resonance through a hard process, represented in the effective theory by some local operator ${\cal O}_p^{(k)}$, and its subsequent propagation over distances of order $1/\Gamma$. The resonance (double line) can interact with soft fluctuations. The initial-state electron leg can be dressed with collinear corrections. However, collinear modes cannot be exchanged across the double line, since this would not leave enough energy to produce the scalar near resonance. The process just described is represented in the effective theory by the first line of the master formula \begin{eqnarray} i \,{\cal T} &=& \sum_{k,l} \int d^4 x \, \langle \nu e |T(i {\cal O}_p^{(k)}(0)i{\cal O}_p^{(l)}(x))|\nu e \rangle \nonumber\\ && +\, \sum_{k} \,\langle \nu e|i {\cal O}_{\rm nr}^{(k)}(0)|\nu e\rangle. \label{eq:master} \end{eqnarray} for the forward-scattering amplitude. The scattering may also occur without the production of the scalar near its mass-shell (right diagram in Figure~~\ref{fig:skeleton}). In the present toy theory this still requires an intermediate scalar line, since the neutrino has only Yukawa interactions. The scalar may be off-shell, because the electron has radiated an energetic (hard or collinear) photon before it hits the neutrino. In this case the invariant mass of the colliding electron-neutrino system is of order $M^2$ but not near $M^2$, producing a non-resonant scalar. In the effective theory this process is represented by a local four-fermion operator ${\cal O}_{\rm nr}^{(k)}$, without $\phi_v$ fields. In general, non-resonant scattering includes all ``background processes'', which produce one of the final states under consideration. This topology does not involve a resonant heavy scalar, and both soft and collinear fields can be exchanged across the diagram. The matrix elements in (\ref{eq:master}) are understood to be evaluated with the effective Lagrangian. \subsection{Construction of the effective Lagrangian} We divide the effective Lagrangian into three parts. Roughly speaking, the first, ${\cal L}_{\rm HSET}$, describes the heavy scalar field near mass-shell and its interaction with the gauge field. The second part, ${\cal L}_{\pm}$, describes energetic fermions and their interactions with the gauge field. Finally, the third part, ${\cal L}_{\rm int}$ contains the local operators ${\cal O}_p^{(k)}$ and ${\cal O}_{\rm nr}^{(k)}$ responsible for the production of the resonance and off-shell processes. In the following, we write down all terms needed for a next-to-leading order (NLO) calculation of the line-shape. The soft Lagrangian ${\cal L}_{\rm HSET}$ is an extension of the HQET Lagrangian \cite{Eichten:1989zv} to a (here scalar) particle whose mass-shell is defined by the complex pole location (\ref{eq:cms}). The residual mass term which is usually set to zero in HQET by choosing $M$ to be the pole mass of the heavy quark, is now necessarily non-vanishing and complex. The relevant terms are \begin{eqnarray} {\cal L}_{\rm HSET} &=& 2 \hat{M} \phi_v^\dagger\, \left( i v \cdot D_s - \frac{\Delta^{(1)}}{2} \right) \phi_v \nonumber \\ && \hspace*{-1cm} +\,2 \hat{M} \phi_v^\dagger\, \left( \frac{(i D_{s,\top})^2}{2\hat{M}} + \frac{[\Delta^{(1)}]^2}{8\hat{M}} - \frac{\Delta^{(2)}}{2} \right) \phi_v \nonumber \\ && \hspace*{-1cm}-\,\frac{1}{4} F_{s\mu\nu} F_s^{\mu\nu} +\bar\psi_s i\!\not\!\!D_s \psi_s +\bar\chi_s i\!\not\!\partial \chi_s, \label{eq:heavyNLO} \end{eqnarray} where $\psi_s$ ($\chi_s$) denotes the soft electron (neutrino) field and the covariant derivative $D_s\equiv \partial -ig A_s$ includes the soft photon field. Furthermore, $a^\mu_\top\equiv a^\mu-(v\cdot a)\, v^\mu$ for any vector. The only non-trivial short-distance matching coefficients in this expression are the quantities $\Delta^{(i)}$ to be defined below. The bilinear terms in the soft scalar field $\phi_v$ are determined by the requirement that ${\cal L}_{\rm HSET}$ reproduces the two-point function of the scalar in the full theory close to resonance. Denoting the complex pole of the propagator by $M_\star^2$ and the residue at the pole by $R_\phi$, the propagator near resonance can be written as \begin{equation} \frac{i\, R_\phi}{P^2 - M_\star^2} = \frac{i\, R_\phi}{2 \hat{M} v \cdot k + k^2 -(M_\star^2 -\hat{M}^2)}. \label{eq:propagator} \end{equation} We now define the matching coefficient $\Delta \equiv (M_\star^2 -\hat{M}^2)/\hat{M}$. There are two solutions to $P^2=M_\star^2$, one of which is irrelevant since it scales as $v\cdot k\sim\hat{M}$. For the other we find \begin{eqnarray} v\cdot k &=& -\hat{M}+\sqrt{\hat{M}^2+\hat{M}\Delta-k_\top^2} \nonumber \\ &=& \frac{\Delta}{2}-\frac{\Delta^2+4 k_\top^2}{8\hat{M}} + {\cal O}(\delta^3) , \label{eq:propexp} \end{eqnarray} where we expanded in $\delta$ in the second line, using $\Delta \sim k_\top \sim M\delta$. Expanding $\Delta = \sum_{i=1} \Delta^{(i)}$ into terms of order $g^{2 i}$, we deduce the bilinear terms in (\ref{eq:heavyNLO}) from the dispersion relation (\ref{eq:propexp}). Gauge invariance of the effective Lagrangian implies that the leading soft-photon interactions can be obtained from the bilinear terms by replacing $\partial\to D_s$. The gauge invariance of the matching coefficient follows from the invariance of the unstable-particle pole $M_\star$. In the underlying theory the full renormalized propagator of the unstable particle is given by $i (s-\hat{M}^2-\Pi(s))^{-1}$, where $-i\,\Pi(s)$ corresponds to the amputated 1PI graphs including counterterms. Comparing this to (\ref{eq:propagator}) and expanding $\Pi(s)$ around $\hat M^2$ and in the number of loops in the form $\Pi(s) = \hat{M}^2\, \sum_{k,l} \delta^l \, \Pi^{(k,l)}$, where it is understood that $\Pi^{(k,l)}\sim g^{2k}$, we obtain \begin{equation} \Delta = \hat{M}\, \Pi^{(1,0)} + \hat{M} \left(\Pi^{(2,0)}+\Pi^{(1,1)}\Pi^{(1,0)} \right) + \ldots. \label{eq:Deltaexp} \end{equation} $\Pi^{(1,0)}$ and $\Pi^{(2,0)}+\Pi^{(1,1)}\Pi^{(1,0)}$ (but not $\Pi^{(2,0)}$ and $\Pi^{(1,1)}$ separately) are infrared-finite, which justifies the interpretation of $\Delta$ as a short-distance coefficient. Explicit results for $\Delta^{(1)}$ and $\Delta^{(2)}$ in the $\overline{\rm MS}$ and pole renormalization scheme can be found in \cite{Beneke:2004km}. Here we only note that in the pole scheme ($\hat{M} \equiv M$), we have $\Delta = -i\Gamma$, in which case the residual ``mass'' is purely imaginary and coincides with the on-shell width. Each term in ${\cal L}_{\rm HSET}$ can be assigned a scaling power in $\delta$. Since $D_s \sim k \sim \Gamma\sim M\delta$ and $\Delta^{(1)}\sim M g^2\sim M\delta$, both terms in the first line of (\ref{eq:heavyNLO}) are of equal size and leading terms. The unstable-particle propagator is therefore \begin{equation} \frac{i}{2 \hat{M} (v\cdot k-\Delta^{(1)}/2)}, \label{eq:unstableprop} \end{equation} which corresponds to a fixed-width prescription. The linearity of the propagator in the (residual) momentum makes calculations in the effective theory particularly simple. The fact that only $\Delta^{(1)}$ appears in the leading-order Lagrangian proves that only the two-point function in the original theory needs to be resummed by including the one-loop self-energy into the unperturbed Lagrangian. No higher-point functions require resummation, which is intuitively obvious, since the origin of the long-distance scale is associated with a single-particle effect, the life-time of the resonance. In momentum space the propagator (\ref{eq:unstableprop}) of the $\phi_v$ field scales as $1/\delta$. Hence, because $\int d^4 k$ counts as $\delta^4$, the soft scalar field $\phi_v(x)$ scales as $\delta^{3/2}$. It follows that the terms in the second line of (\ref{eq:heavyNLO}) scale as $\delta^5$. Being suppressed by one power in $\delta$ or $g^2$ relative to the first line, they must be included only in a calculation of the line-shape with NLO precision. Finally, since $A^\mu_s$ scales as $\delta$ and the soft fermion fields scale as $\delta^{3/2}$, the terms in the last line of (\ref{eq:heavyNLO}) scale as $\delta^4$ and represent leading interactions among the soft, massless modes. By adding further terms the Lagrangian can be improved to any accuracy desired. Next, we turn to the construction of the effective Lagrangian, ${\cal L}_\pm$, associated with the energetic fermions. The interactions of collinear modes with themselves and with soft modes are described within soft-collinear effective theory (SCET) \cite{Bauer:2000yr,Bauer:2001yt,Beneke:2002ph,Beneke:2002ni}. The coupling of collinear modes to the scalar field $\phi_v$, and among collinear fields with different directions produces off-shell fluctuations, which are not part of the effective Lagrangian. The momenta associated with generic collinear fields $\psi_{c1}$ and $\bar{\chi}_{c2}$ do not add up to a momentum of the form $P=M v+k$. This kinematic constraint is implemented by adding the production and non-resonant operators, ${\cal O}_{\rm p}^{(k)}$ and ${\cal O}_{\rm nr}^{(k)}$, respectively, as external ``sources'' for the specific process. The line-shape is then given by the correlation function (\ref{eq:master}). Alternatively, the dynamical hard-collinear modes can be integrated out in a second matching step, in which the collinear functions (labelled ``C'' in Figure~\ref{fig:skeleton}) appear as matching coefficients of (non-local) operators. The new effective Lagrangian contains an ``external-collinear'' electron mode with momentum $\hat{M} n_-/2+k$, which describes the remaining soft fluctuations $k\sim\delta$ around the fixed large component. Similar to the resonance field, we extract the large component and define $\psi_{n_-}(x) \equiv e^{i\hat{M}/2\,(n_- x)}\, {\cal P}_+\,\psi_{c1}(x)$, where ${\cal P}_+$ projects on the positive frequency part of $\psi_{c1}$. Adding the corresponding field with $n_-$ and $n_+$ exchanged for the neutrino, the soft interactions of the external-collinear field are given by \begin{equation} {\cal L}_{\pm} = \bar{\psi}_{n_-} \!i n_- D_s \frac{\!\not\!n_+}{2} \, \psi_{n_-} + \bar{\chi}_{n_+} \! i n_+ \partial\, \frac{\!\not\!n_-}{2} \, \chi_{n_+} . \label{eq:Lpm} \end{equation} at leading power. With the external-collinear modes we can implement the production and non-resonant sources as interaction terms in ${\cal L}_{\rm int}$. At NLO the relevant terms read \begin{eqnarray} {\cal L}_{\rm int} &=& C\, y\, \phi_v \bar{\psi}_{n_-}\chi_{n_+} + C\, y^* \phi_v^\dagger \bar{\chi}_{n_+}\psi_{n_-} \nonumber \\ &+& D\, \frac{y y^*}{\hat{M}^2} \left(\bar{\psi}_{n_-} \chi_{n_+}\right) \! \left(\bar{\chi}_{n_+} \psi_{n_-}\right) , \label{eq:Lint} \end{eqnarray} where $C=1+{\cal O}(\alpha)$ and $D$ are the matching coefficients. The two lines correspond to the two reduced diagram topologies in Figure~\ref{fig:skeleton}. We note that the effective Lagrangian is not manifestly hermitian, since it describes the decay of the scalar. Nevertheless, it generates a unitary time evolution, since it reproduces by construction the unitary underlying theory to the specified order in the expansion in $\delta$. The external fields scale as $\delta^{3/2}$. Thus, an insertion of a $\phi\psi\chi$ operator results in $\int d^4x\, \phi_v \bar{\psi}_{n_-}\chi_{n_+} \sim \delta^{1/2}$. The forward-scattering amplitude requires two insertions of this operator. Accounting for the scaling of the external state $\langle \bar{\nu} e^-| \sim \delta^{-1}$, we find ${\cal T}^{(0)} \sim g^2/\delta$ for the amplitude at leading order, which is the expected result. The four-fermion operator is suppressed in $\delta$ and results in a contribution of order $g^2$ to ${\cal T}$. Thus, to compute the NLO correction ${\cal T}^{(1)}$ we need $C^{(1)}$, the ${\cal O}(g^2)$ contribution to the matching coefficient $C$, while $D$ is only needed at tree level. The matching coefficients are obtained from the hard contributions to the corresponding on-shell three- and four-point functions in the full theory. I refer to \cite{Beneke:2004km} for the precise matching equation as well as the explicit results. \subsection{Example diagram} \begin{figure} \vskip0.2cm \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=2.3cm]{figures/fig_selfenergydiag.png} \end{center} \vspace*{-0.3cm} \caption{\label{fig:selfenergy} Scalar self-energy correction to the forward-scattering amplitude.} \end{figure} It is instructive to discuss how the self-energy correction to the intermediate scalar in the full theory, see Figure~\ref{fig:selfenergy}, is represented in the effective description. We first separate the hard and soft contributions the one-loop self-energy, $\Pi(s)=\Pi_h(s)+\Pi_s(s)$, and then expand the hard part $\Pi_h(s) = \hat{M}^2 \sum_{l}\delta^l \, \Pi^{(1,l)}$. The soft part is reproduced by the effective theory self-energy. The first term $\Pi^{(1,0)}$ in the hard expansion is gauge-invariant and contributes to $\Delta^{(1)}$ as discussed before. This term is already relevant to the leading-order line-shape. The next term $\Pi^{(1,1)}$ cancels one of the adjacent scalar propagators, such that the self-energy correction merges with the local production vertex. $\Pi^{(1,1)}$ is gauge-dependent. The gauge dependence cancels with the vertex diagram to produce a gauge-independent NLO hard-matching coefficient $C^{(1)}$. Continuing in this way, we find that $\Pi^{(1,2)}$ contributes to the one-loop matching coefficient $D^{(1)}$ of the four-fermion operator $\left(\bar{\psi}_{n_-} \chi_{n_+}\right) \! \left(\bar{\chi}_{n_+} \psi_{n_-}\right)$, because the scalar propagators to the left and right are both cancelled. The contribution is again required to obtained a gauge-invariant one-loop matching coefficient \cite{Beneke:2004km}, though it is already a NNLO term for the line-shape. This example illustrates the power of the effective field theory method. It automatically breaks a diagram into different pieces and organizes them into gauge-invariant objects. The power-counting associated with the Lagrangian allows one to identify the terms relevant for a specified accuracy before any explicit calculation needs to be performed. \subsection{Line-shape at next-to-leading order} Our goal is to carry out this programme for the forward-scattering amplitude ${\cal T}^{(0)} +{\cal T}^{(1)}$ at NLO, where ${\cal T}^{(0)}$ sums up all terms that scale as $(g^2/\delta)^n\sim 1$ and ${\cal T}^{(1)}$ contains all terms that are suppressed by an additional power of $g^2$ or $\delta$. At leading order there is only one diagram, involving two three-point vertices and one resonant scalar propagator. We get \begin{equation} \label{eq:LOT0} i {\cal T}^{(0)} = \frac{- i\, y y^*}{2\hat M {\cal D}} \, [\bar{u}(p)v(q)]\,[\bar{v}(q)u(p)] , \end{equation} where we defined ${\cal D}\equiv \sqrt{s}-\hat M-\Delta^{(1)}/2$. The inclusive line-shape is related to ${\cal T}^{(0)}$ by $\sigma = \mbox{Im}\,{\cal T}^{(0)}/s$ through the optical theorem. The above expression gives a Breit-Wigner distribution in $\sqrt{s}$. In the effective theory there are three classes of diagrams that contribute to ${\cal T}^{(1)}$, corresponding to hard, hard-collinear and soft contributions. The hard-collinear corrections to the external lines lead to scaleless integrals and vanish. The hard corrections consist of a propagator insertion $[\Delta^{(1)}]^2/4 - \hat{M} \Delta^{(2)}$, a production vertex insertion $C^{(1)}$, and a four-point vertex diagram due to the $(\bar{\psi}\chi)(\bar{\chi}\psi)$ operator in ${\cal L}_{\rm int}$, as shown in the upper diagrams of Figure~\ref{fig:NLO}. The sum of these diagrams reads \begin{equation} i\,{\cal T}^{(1)}_{h} = i\,{\cal T}^{(0)} \times \Bigg[ 2 C^{(1)} - \frac{[\Delta^{(1)}]^2}{8{\cal D}\hat{M}} + \frac{\Delta^{(2)}}{2{\cal D}}-\frac{{\cal D}}{2\hat{M}} \ \Bigg].\quad \end{equation} The soft-photon one-loop corrections (lower set of diagrams in Figure~\ref{fig:NLO}) computed in the effective theory result in \begin{equation} i\,{\cal T}^{(1)}_{s} = i\,{\cal T}^{(0)} \times \,\frac{g^2}{(4\pi)^2}\, \Bigg[4 L^2 - 4 L + \frac{5\pi^2}{6} \Bigg] \quad \label{eq:softNLO} \end{equation} with $L = \ln\left(-2{\cal D}/\mu\right)$. The partonic line-shape is obtained after subtracting the initial-state collinear singularity and taking the imaginary part. The partonic line-shape must then be convoluted with the electron distribution function. \begin{figure} \vskip0.2cm \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{figures/matrixelement.png} \end{center} \vspace*{-0.3cm} \caption{\label{fig:NLO} Hard (upper) and soft (lower diagrams) contributions to ${\cal T}^{(1)}$.} \end{figure} We note the simplicity of the result, which is a consequence of the fact that the complete calculation is broken into separate single-scale calculations by factorizing the hard and soft regions. The NLO correction leads to a distortion of the line-shape relative to the Breit-Wigner form, which in non-inclusive situations can depend on the final state. Fitting a measured line-shape to the Breit-Wigner form rather than the true shape predicted by theoretical calculations leads to errors in mass determinations. In the present toy model, choosing the pole mass $M=100$~GeV (such that the $\overline{\rm MS}$ mass is $\hat{M}=98.8$~GeV at LO and $\hat{M}=99.1$~GeV at NLO) and couplings $g^2/(4\pi) = |y|^2/(4\pi) = 0.1$ to mimick the parameters of electroweak gauge bosons, the error would be of order 100 MeV. \begin{figure} \vskip0.2cm \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=7cm]{figures/lineshape_pitha0313.png} \end{center} \vspace*{-0.1cm} \caption{\label{fig:ls} The line-shape (in GeV$^{-2})$ in the effective theory at LO (light grey/magenta dashed) and NLO (light grey/magenta) and the LO cross section off resonance in the full theory (dark grey/blue dashed) as a function of the centre-of-mass energy (in GeV). Figure from \cite{Beneke:2003xh}.} \end{figure} Figure~\ref{fig:ls} shows the leading-order partonic line-shape in the effective theory and the tree-level (order $\alpha^2$) cross section off resonance in the full theory. The two results agree in an intermediate region where both calculations are valid. This allows to obtain a consistent LO result for all values of $\sqrt{s}$. The figure also shows the NLO line-shape for the numerical values given above. In order to obtain an improved NLO result in the entire region of $\sqrt{s}$, the NLO line-shape would have to be matched to the NLO off-resonance cross section in the full theory. The method discussed here makes NNLO line-shape calculations in $2\to2$ scattering possible with present techniques. An outline of such a calculation has been given in \cite{Beneke:2004km}, though no complete calculation has been performed to date. \section{Pair production near threshold} I reviewed in some detail the case of the line-shape, since it serves well to illustrate the general framework of unstable-particle effective theory. However, some of the more interesting results concern pair production of unstable particles, specifically the $W$ bosons and top quarks, near threshold. In $e^+ e^-$ collisions very precise measurement of the masses of these particles can be obtained from a threshold scan. The threshold dynamics is determined by the interplay of the strength of the electromagnetic ($W$ bosons) or colour (top quarks) Coulomb force and the size of the decay width of the particle. The small parameters are \begin{equation} \delta\equiv \frac{\Gamma}{M},\quad v^2 \equiv (\sqrt{s}-[2 M+i \Gamma])/M,\quad \end{equation} and the coupling $\alpha=g^2/(4\pi)$. For $W$ bosons, $\Gamma_W \sim M_W \alpha_{\rm EW}$ and therefore the effective strength of the Coulomb force is $\alpha_{\rm em}/v \sim \sqrt{\delta}\ll 1$. This leads to an enhancement, but the Coulomb force is never ${\cal O}(1)$, and no resummation is needed~\cite{Fadin:1995fp}. The rapid decay of the $W$ boson prevents the formation of any visible $W^+ W^-$ resonance. The situation is different for top quarks, since the Coulomb force is generated by QCD, while the decay still occurs through the electroweak interaction. Counting $\alpha_s \sim \alpha_{\rm EW}^2$, we now find $\alpha_s/v \sim 1$. Diagrammatically, ladder diagrams that contain these enhanced terms must be summed to all orders in perturbation theory, which generates toponium bound-states in the spectral functions. Since the characteristic energy near threshold $E\sim M v^2$ is of order $\Gamma$, the bound-states appear as broad resonances, of which only the first one leaves a distinctive feature in the $t\bar t$ cross section~\cite{Fadin:1987wz,Fadin:1988fn}. In the following I review results for $W$ and top pair production near threshold obtained within the effective field theory approach, leaving out all the technical details that can be found in the original papers. \subsection{$W$ bosons} This subsection summarizes results from \cite{Beneke:2007zg, Actis:2008rb}. We consider the process $e^- e^+ \to \mu^-\bar\nu_\mu u\bar{d} \,X$ with centre-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s} = 160 ... 170\,$GeV, where it is dominated by a $W^+ W^-$ intermediate state near threshold with subsequent semi-hadronic decay. The inclusive cross section is extracted from specific cuts of the forward amplitude \begin{equation} \hat \sigma =\frac{1}{s} \,\mbox{Im}\,{\cal A}(e^-e^+\to e^- e^+)_{| \mu^-\bar\nu_\mu u\bar{d}}, \end{equation} which also includes diagrams with only a single internal $W$ line. We perform a ``QCD-style'' calculation of the ``partonic'' cross section $\hat \sigma$ with massless electrons in the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme, and convolute it with the $\overline{\rm MS}$ electron distribution function: \begin{equation} \sigma(s) = \int_0^1 dx_1 dx_2 \,f_{e/e}(x_1) \,f_{e/e}(x_2)\, \hat\sigma(x_1 x_2 s). \end{equation} The $\overline{\rm MS}$ electron distribution function depends on $m_e$, but not on $\sqrt{s}$, $M$, $\Gamma$. In the effective field theory (EFT) the $W$ bosons are described by two non-relativistic three-vector fields $\Omega^i_a$, where $a=\pm$ refers to the charge of the $W$. The HSET Lagrangian relevant to a single (scalar) unstable particle is replaced by the PNRQED Lagrangian \cite{Pineda:1998kn}, generalized to the case of an unstable vector particle. The relevant terms are \begin{widetext} \begin{equation} \hspace*{-0.65cm} {\cal L}_{\rm PNRQED} = \sum_{a=\mp} \left[\Omega_a^{\dagger i} \left( i D_s^0 + \frac{\vec{\partial}^2}{2 {M}_W} - \frac{\Delta}{2} \right) \Omega_a^i + \Omega_a^{\dagger i}\, \frac{(\vec{\partial }^2-{M}_W \Delta)^2}{8 {M}_W^3}\, \Omega_a^i\right] +\!\int \!d^3 \vec{r}\, \left[\Omega_-^{\dagger i} \Omega^i_-\right]\!(x+\vec r\,) \left(-\frac{\alpha_{\rm em}}{r}\right) \left [\Omega_+^{\dagger j}\Omega^j_+\right]\!(x).\, \label{LPNR} \end{equation} \end{widetext} \hspace*{-0.06cm} The master formula for the forward amplitude ${\cal A}$ coincides with (\ref{eq:master}), but the production and non-resonant operators are now of the form \begin{equation} {\cal O}_p^{(k)} = C^{(k)}_{p} \left(\bar{e}_{c_2,L/R} \gamma^{[i} n^{j]} e_{c_1,L/R} \right) \left(\Omega_-^{\dagger i} \Omega_+^{\dagger j}\right) , \label{LPlead} \end{equation} \begin{equation} \label{eq:4eLag} {\cal O}^{(k)}_{\rm nr}= C^{(k)}_{\rm nr}\, (\bar e_{c_1}\Gamma_1 e_{c_2})(\bar e_{c_2}\Gamma_2 e_{c_1}), \end{equation} with $\Gamma_1$, $\Gamma_2$ Dirac matrices, $a^{[i} b^{j]}\equiv a^i b^j + a^j b^i$, and $\vec{n}$ the unit-vector in the direction of the incoming electron three-momentum. Due to the $1/v$ enhancement of electromagnetic Coulomb exchange, the systematic expansion of ${\cal A}$ goes in powers of $\sqrt{\delta}$. Also, the non-resonant term appears as such a ``N$^{1/2}$LO'' correction, since the leading imaginary parts of $C^{(k)}_{\rm nr}$ are proportional to $\alpha^3$, while ${\cal A} \sim \alpha^2\sqrt{\delta}$.\footnote{The factor $\sqrt{\delta}$ arises from the leading-order EFT matrix element and corresponds to the phase-space suppression near threshold.} \begin{figure} \vskip0.2cm \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=7cm]{figures/fig_eftvsborn_plot.pdf} \end{center} \vspace*{-0.3cm} \caption{Successive EFT approximations: LO (long-dashed/blue), $\mbox{N}^{1/2}$LO (dash-dotted/red) and NLO (short-dashed/green). The solid/black curve is the full Born result computed with Whizard/ Comp\-Hep. The $\mbox{N}^{3/2}$LO EFT approximation is indistinguishable from the full Born result on the scale of this plot. Figure from \cite{Beneke:2007zg}.} \label{fig:eft} \end{figure} The EFT constructs an expansion in $\Gamma/M$ and $(\sqrt{s}- 2M)/M$ of the full theory Born cross section. Before turning to radiative corrections it is instructive to compare successive terms in this expansion to the full Born result computed numerically (using Whizard \cite{Kilian:2007gr} and CompHep \cite{Pukhov:1999gg}). This is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:eft}. The LO non-relativistic approximation overestimates the true result. The N$^{1/2}$LO non-resonant correction yields a (nearly) constant, negative term and provides already good agreement close to the nominal threshold at $\sqrt{s}\approx 161\,$ GeV. To extend the approximation in a wider region around the threshold, it is necessary to include all terms up to N$^{3/2}$LO. \begin{figure} \vskip0.2cm \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=2.5cm]{figures/wwgraph_hard.png} \hskip0.5cm \includegraphics[width=2.5cm]{figures/wwgraph_soft.png} \end{center} \vspace*{-0.3cm} \caption{One-loop diagram for the hard-matching coefficient (left) and a soft NLO contribution to the forward-scattering amplitude in the effective theory (right).} \label{fig:wwdiags} \end{figure} While constructing an expansion of the Born cross section when an exact, numerical result is readily available, appears as an unnecessary complication, the computation of the NLO radiative correction in unstable-particle effective theory \cite{Beneke:2007zg} is remarkable simple compared to the corresponding calculation in the complex-mass scheme \cite{Denner:2005fg,Denner:2005es}. The most complicated part is the computation of the NLO matching coefficient of the operator (\ref{LPlead}), which, however, is a standard one-loop calculation. A representative diagram is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:wwdiags} left. The diagram on the right displays a soft, ``non-factorizable'' NLO correction to the two-point function of production operators in (\ref{eq:master}), and results again in a simple expression, similar to (\ref{eq:softNLO}). A comparison with the complex-mass scheme calculation and the double-pole approximation (DPA), including QCD corrections and initial-state radiation is given in the following table.\footnote{The ``full ee4f'' column refers to the erratum of \cite{Denner:2005es}.} The numerical difference of 1\% between the EFT and full ee4f results is presumably in part due to the N$^{3/2}$LO correction associated with the NLO matching coefficient of ${\cal O}^{(k)}_{\rm nr}$, which is implicitly contained in the NLO full ee4f calculation. \begin{center} {\footnotesize \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline& \multicolumn{3}{c}{ $\sigma(e^-e^+\to \mu^-\bar\nu_\mu u\bar d\,X)$(fb)}& \\\hline $\sqrt{s}\,[\mbox{GeV}]$& Born (SM) & EFT & full ee4f & DPA \\\hline 161 & 107.06(4) &117.38(4) & 118.77(8)& 115.48(7)\\\hline 170 & 381.0(2) & 399.9(2) & 404.5(2) & 401.8(2) \\\hline \end{tabular} } \end{center} \begin{figure} \vskip-0.2cm \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=7cm]{figures/mass_dependence.pdf} \end{center} \vspace*{-0.5cm} \caption{$W$-mass dependence of the total cross section. All the cross sections are normalized to $\sigma(s,M_W=80.377\,\mbox{GeV})$. See text for explanations. Figure from \cite{Beneke:2007zg}.} \label{fig:massuncertainty} \end{figure} We can now estimate the theoretical uncertainty in the $W$ mass determination from a threshold scan. Figure~\ref{fig:massuncertainty} shows $\kappa = \sigma(s,M_W+\delta M_W)/\sigma(s,M_W)$ for $M_W=80.377\,\mbox{GeV}$ and different values of $\delta M_W$ as function of the cms energy. The relative change in the cross section is shown as dashed lines for $\delta M_W=\pm 15,\pm 30, \pm 45 \, \mbox{MeV}$. The shape of these curves shows that the sensitivity of the cross section to the $W$ mass is largest around the nominal threshold $\sqrt{s}\approx 161\,$GeV, as expected, and rapidly decreases for larger $\sqrt{s}$. (The loss in sensitivity is partially compensated by a larger cross section, implying smaller statistical errors of the anticipated experimental data.) The shaded areas provide an estimate of the uncertainty from uncalculated N$^{3/2}$LO terms. The inner band is associated with the interference of single Coulomb exchange with one-loop hard or soft corrections, which are genuine NNLO corrections in other schemes. The outer band accounts for the non-resonant term already mentioned above. Finally, the line marked ``ISR'' estimates ambiguities in the implementation of initial-state radiation. This represents the largest current uncertainty. In order to obtain a competitive determination of $M_W$, one eventually needs a more accurate computation of the electron distribution function. Since this is not a fundamental problem and since the full theory NLO ee4f calculation is available, the accuracy of the theoretical prediction is limited by the N$^{3/2}$LO terms in the $\delta$ expansion, which correspond to two-loop corrections (in the complex-mass scheme). Some of the diagrams together with their EFT representation are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:nnlo}. These consist of mixed hard-Coulomb corrections (first column), interference of Coulomb exchange with soft and collinear radiative corrections (2nd and 3rd column, respectively), and a correction to the electromagnetic Coulomb potential itself. These genuine higher-order corrections have been computed \cite{Actis:2008rb} and were found to be below 0.5\%, leading to shifts of $W$ mass of less than 5 MeV. \begin{figure} \vskip0.2cm \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=2.3cm]{figures/nnloradiative1.png} \includegraphics[width=4.6cm]{figures/nnloradiative2.png} \end{center} \vspace*{-0.5cm} \caption{Some NNLO diagrams that count as N$^{3/2}$LO in the $\delta$ expansion and their EFT representation (upper line).} \label{fig:nnlo} \end{figure} Up to now, we considered the total cross section for the flavour-specific final state $\mu^-\bar\nu_\mu u\bar{d} \,X$. Since experimentally certain cuts must be applied, it would be desirable to compute directly the cut cross section in the EFT. A framework to implement arbitrary cuts while maintaining an expansion in the power-counting parameter $\delta$ is not available and probably difficult to achieve. The specific case of invariant-mass cuts $|M_{f_if_j}^2-M_W^2| < \Lambda^2$ on the $W$-decay products has been considered in \cite{Actis:2008rb}. The implementation depends on how $\Lambda$ scales with the parameter $\delta$. For loose cuts, $\Lambda \sim M_W$. Since by assumption the virtualities in the EFT are at most of order $M \Gamma \sim M\delta$, the loose cut does not affect the EFT diagrams. However, the hard-matching coefficients are modified and acquire a dependence on $\Lambda$ in addition to the other short-distance scales. The situation is reversed for tight cuts with $\Lambda \sim M \Gamma \sim M\sqrt{\delta}$. The tight cut cuts into the (approximate) Breit-Wigner distribution of the single-$W$ invariant mass distribution and therefore must be applied to the calculation of the EFT loop integrals. On the other hand, it eliminates off-shell contributions, and hence the short-distance coefficient $C^{(k)}_{\rm nr}$ of the non-resonant four-electron operator (\ref{eq:4eLag}) vanishes. Figure~\ref{fig:nonresW} shows good agreement of the effective-theory calculation of the cut Born cross section with the numerical result from WHIZARD in the regions where the respective loose/tight-cut counting rule is appropriate. \begin{figure} \vskip0.2cm \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=7cm]{figures/Cutcross.pdf} \end{center} \vspace*{-0.5cm} \caption{Comparison of the Born cross section in the full SM at $\sqrt s =161$ GeV computed with WHIZARD (red dots) with the effective-theory result for the loose-cut implementation (dashed blue curve) and the tight-cut implementation (solid black curve). Figure from \cite{Actis:2008rb}.} \label{fig:nonresW} \end{figure} \subsection{Top quarks} \begin{figure} \vskip0.2cm \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=7cm]{figures/ttbar2ndorder.pdf} \end{center} \vspace*{-0.3cm} \caption{Top quark pair production cross section near threshold, normalized to $4\pi\alpha_{\rm em}^2/(3 s)$ at NNLO in non-relativistic, resummed perturbation theory in the PS mass scheme \cite{Beneke:1998rk}. The width of the band reflects the theoretical uncertainty estimated from scale variation in the indicated range. $m_{t,\rm PS}(20\,\mbox{GeV})=171.5\,$GeV, $\Gamma_t=1.33\,$GeV.} \label{fig:topNNLO} \end{figure} The strong Coulomb attraction of the coloured top quarks, when their relative velocity is small near threshold, requires the resummation of certain QCD corrections to all orders in perturbation theory. A systematic formalism employs a sequence of matching steps to define hard matching coefficients and potentials in non-relativistic effective field theory. The ingredients required up to the third order in non-relativistic perturbation theory are reviewed in \cite{Beneke:2013jia}. Figure~\ref{fig:topNNLO} shows the second-order (NNLO) result from~\cite{Beneke:1999qg}, which exhibits a toponium resonance slightly below the nominal threshold. Note the order counting here is such that $v\sim \alpha_s$ defines the expansion parameter. The top-quark width $\Gamma_t/m_t\sim \alpha_{\rm EW} \sim \alpha_s^2$ is second-order in this counting. QCD predictions of the top-pair production cross section such as the one shown in the figure are based on the calculation of QCD correlation functions with the substitution $E=\sqrt{s}-2 m_t \to E+i\Gamma_t$ to account for the top-quark width~\cite{Fadin:1987wz,Fadin:1988fn}. This prescription corresponds to computing the first (resonant) term in (\ref{eq:master}) with ${\cal O}_p^{(k)}$ given by the non-relativistic top-quark (axial-) vector current, and with an effective Lagrangian that accounts for the width through $\Delta = - i\Gamma_t$ in the first bilinear term in (\ref{LPNR}) (adapted to quarks), but not in the further kinetic corrections. The limitations of this approximation manifest themselves within the (NR)QCD calculation itself. The current correlation function $G(E)$ exhibits an uncancelled ultraviolet divergence from an overall divergence of the form $[\delta G(E)]_{\rm overall} \propto \alpha_s E/\epsilon$ in dimensional regularization ($d=4-2\epsilon$) \cite{Beneke:2008cr}. Since $E$ acquires an imaginary part $\Gamma_t \sim m_t\alpha_{\rm EW}$, the divergence survives in the cross section, \begin{equation} \mbox{Im}\,[\delta G(E)]_{\rm overall} \propto m_t\times \frac{\alpha_s\alpha_{\rm EW}}{\epsilon}, \end{equation} and appears first at NNLO (since at LO, $G(E) \sim v \sim \alpha_s$). A consistent calculation therefore requires that one considers the process $e^+ e^- \to W^+W^- b\bar b$ within unstable-particle effective theory including the effects of off-shell top quarks and processes that produce the $W^+W^- b\bar b$ final state with no or only one intermediate top-quark line. The two terms of (\ref{eq:master}) can be identified with \begin{widetext} \begin{equation} \hskip 3cm \sigma_{e^+ e^- \to W^+W^- b\bar b} = \underbrace{\sigma_{e^+ e^- \to [t\bar t]_{\rm res}}(\mu_w)}_{ \mbox{\footnotesize pure (NR)QCD}} + \, \sigma_{e^+ e^- \to W^+W^- b\bar b{}_{\rm nonres}}(\mu_w). \end{equation} \end{widetext} \hspace*{0.04cm} Both terms separately have a ``finite-width scale dependence'' related to the uncancelled $1/\epsilon$ poles, and only the sum is well-defined. For consistency, both terms have to be defined with the same (dimensional) regularization prescription. While the explicit finite-width scale dependence is seen first at NNLO, the leading non-resonant contribution already appears at NLO. Somewhat surprisingly, this was realized only recently. At this order the matching coefficient of the non-resonant operator is equivalent to the dimensionally regulated $e^+ e^- \to b W^+\bar t$ process with $\Gamma_t=0$, expanded in the hard region around $s=4 m_t^2$. The corresponding calculation has been performed in two independent ways~\cite{Beneke:2010mp,Penin:2011gg}. In \cite{Beneke:2010mp} invariant-mass cuts $m_t -\Delta M_t \le M_{t,\bar{t}} \le m_t +\Delta M_t$ on the decay products of the (anti-) top quark can be included following the method discussed above for $W$ bosons. It is convenient to represent the calculation of the cut two-loop diagrams contributing to $e^+ e^- \to b W^+\bar t$ in the form \begin{equation} \int_{\Delta^2}^{m_t^2} dp_t^2 \,(m_t^2-p_t^2)^{\frac{d-3}{2}} H_i\Big(\frac{p_t^2}{m_t^2},\frac{M_W^2}{m_t^2} \Big) \label{eq:ptint} \end{equation} leaving the integration over $p_t^2 \equiv (p_b+p_{W^+})^2$ to the end. The lower limit depends on the invariant-mass cut and is given by $\Delta = M_W^2$, when no cut is applied. The finite-width infrared divergence of the non-resonant matching coefficient that cancels the corresponding ultraviolet divergence of the non-relativistic current correlation function appears as an endpoint divergence of the integral above as $p_t^2 \to m_t^2$ approaches the on-shell value. At NLO, the divergence arises only from the diagram shown in Figure~\ref{fig:diagh1}. The integrand behaves as \begin{equation} H_1\Big(\frac{p_t^2}{m_t^2},\frac{M_W^2}{m_t^2} \Big) \;\;\stackrel{p_t^2\to m_t^2}{\rightarrow} \;\;\mbox{const} \times \frac{1}{(m_t^2-p_t^2)^2}, \end{equation} which leads to a divergent integral (\ref{eq:ptint}) in four dimensions. Dimensional regularization sets such linearly divergent integrals to finite numbers, which explains the absence of explicit $\mu_w$ scale dependence at this order. \begin{figure} \vskip0.2cm \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=4.5cm]{figures/topoffshelldiagram.png} \end{center} \vspace*{-0.3cm} \caption{Hard, off-shell top diagram contribution to $e^+ e^- \to b W^+\bar t$, which leads to a linear infrared divergence.} \label{fig:diagh1} \end{figure} Similar to the case of $W$-boson pair production, the leading non-resonant contribution to the top-pair cross section is a nearly energy-independent, negative correction, which amounts to a few percent above the toponium peak, and to around 20\% a few GeV below the peak. With an invariant-mass cut the NLO correction is shown as the lower (black) solid and dashed lines in Figure~\ref{fig:topNNLOnonres}. \begin{figure} \vskip0.2cm \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=7cm]{figures/sizeNNLOvsLO.pdf} \end{center} \vspace*{-0.3cm} \caption{Relative sizes of the non-resonant corrections with respect to the $t\bar{t}$ LO cross section in percent: NNLO singular terms $\sigma_{\rm non-res}^{(2)}/\sigma_{t\bar{t}}^{(0)}$ (upper blue lines) and NLO $\sigma_{\rm non-res}^{(1)}/\sigma_{t\bar{t}}^{(0)}$ (lower black lines). Solid (dashed) lines correspond to an invariant-mass cut $\Delta M_t=35$~GeV ($\Delta M_t=15$~GeV). Figure from \cite{Jantzen:2013gpa}. Here the top pole mass $m_t=172\,$GeV is used as input parameter.} \label{fig:topNNLOnonres} \end{figure} Since the largest sensitivity to the top-quark mass comes from the steep rise of the cross section below the peak, the non-resonant contributions at NLO and even NNLO are essential. The NNLO terms correspond to three-loop cut diagrams. The complete calculation has not yet been performed. However, in the presence of an invariant-mass cut satisfying $\Gamma_t \ll \Delta M_t \ll m_t$, the singular terms as $m_t/\Delta M_t \to \infty$ have been extracted in two different ways \cite{Jantzen:2013gpa,Hoang:2010gu}.\footnote{Further, the leading term in an expansion in the parameter $\rho=1-M_W/m_t$ has been obtained in \cite{Penin:2011gg} and \cite{Ruiz-Femenia:2014ava}, with different results.} The calculation of \cite{Jantzen:2013gpa}, which starts from the non-resonant side, also confirms explicitly the cancellation of $1/\epsilon$ finite-width divergence poles with the non-relativistic contributions. The upper set of lines (blue solid and dashed) in Figure~\ref{fig:topNNLOnonres}, shows that the NNLO correction is only about half as large than the NLO one. \section{Summary and further results} In this article I reviewed the treatment of unstable particles in perturbative quantum field theory based on the scale hierarchy $\Gamma \ll M$. Once scale separation is taken as the guiding principle, and an effective field theory is constructed, gauge-invariance and the consistency of the all-order resummation is automatic. The effective theory describes the scattering processes that leave the resonance close to its complex mass shell. Some aspects are therefore closely related to other effective theories that describe heavy particles close to their mass-shell. The concrete applications considered so far can be described by the master formula (\ref{eq:master}), which captures resonant production and decay, as well as all non-resonant ``background'' processes. The effective theory approach appears most fruitful, when it is applied to inclusive quantities, where it leads to particularly simple, even completely analytic results; to processes that require other resummations on top of the self-energy of the unstable particle; and to processes where high precision is required, beyond NLO accuracy, for which automated tools are not yet available. The line-shape and pair production near threshold discussed here are examples of such situations. As with other effective theories it is more difficult to predict differential distributions, unless the scales associated with the observable can be assigned a unique scaling with respect to the small parameters that define the EFT expansion. To circumvent this problem, a hybrid approach has been followed in \cite{Falgari:2010sf,Falgari:2013gwa}, applicable to NLO calculations, in which the simplifications provided by the EFT are used in the virtual corrections (which have tree kinematics), while real emission is computed in the full theory with the complex-mass prescription. A fully differential calculation has been done recently for the mixed ${\cal O}(\alpha_{\rm em}\alpha_s)$ corrections to Drell-Yan production \cite{Dittmaier:2014qza} employing a mixture of diagrammatic and EFT-inspired techniques. \subsection*{Acknowledgements} \noindent This review summarizes work performed within and supported by the DFG Sonderforschungsbereich/Trans\-regio~9 ``Computational Theoretical Particle Physics''. I wish to thank my collaborators on this project, in particular P.~Falgari, B.~Jantzen, P.~Ruiz-Femenia, Ch.~Schwinn, A. Signer and G.~Zanderighi. \bibliographystyle{elsarticle-num}
\section{Introduction} \label{intro} Controlling quantum systems by using time-dependent fields~\cite{krotov} is of primary importance in different branches of science, ranging from chemical reactions~\cite{Zewail80, brif10}, NMR~\cite{stefanatos04}, molecular physics~\cite{tannor99} to the emergent quantum technologies~\cite{rabitz93, campo12, wamsley}. Investigations on optimal control of open quantum systems mostly focus on memoryless environments ~\cite{sugny07, sauer13, haas14} and specifically on those situations where the reduced dynamics can be described by a Markovian master equation of the Lindblad form \cite{LKGS}. In this context, optimal control applications to open quantum systems have been explored in different settings~\cite{tannor99,lloydviola,rebentrost,hwang,roloff, carlini06,carlini08} and recently the ultimate limits to optimal control dictated by quantum mechanics in closed and open systems~\cite{caneva09, campo13,taddei13,heydari13} and the complexity of dealing with many-body systems~\cite{doria11, caneva14, lloyd14} have been determined. Time-optimal quantum control has been extensively discussed for one qubit systems in a dissipative environment~\cite{sugny07,lapert10} and the optimal relaxation times determined in~\cite{mukherjee13}. These studies might have both fundamental and practical applications, for example in assessing the ultimate efficiency of quantum thermal machines ~\cite{kosloff}, or to implement fast cooling schemes which have already proven to be advantageous~\cite{machnes10, hoffmann}.\\ However, introducing a Markovian approximation requires some constraints on system and environment, which may not be valid in general~\cite{breuer03, huelga11}. Consequently, incorporating non-Markovian (NM) effects of the environment, in a sense that will be defined more precisely below, might be a necessity in a many experimental situations. Recently, the possible influence of memory effects on the orthogonality catastrophe \cite{sindona13}, on quantum speed of evolution \cite{deffner13} and on quantum control \cite{koch14, maniscalco15} have been analyzed. Here, we present a study of the optimal control strategies to manipulate quantum systems in the presence of NM dissipative baths and compare the performance of optimal control with the case of operating subject to a Markovian (M) environment. Intuitively, the absence of memory effects in the dynamics of open quantum systems is linked to the possibility of identifying well separated time scales in the evolution of system and environment. Recently, a number of proposals have been put forward to quantitatively characterize this effect in terms of explicit non-Markovianity measures \cite{apollaro11, lorenzo13, plenio14,addis14}. In this light, one can define an evolution to be Markovian if described by a quantum dynamical semigroup (time-homogeneous Lindbladian evolution) \cite{eisert}, which would be the traditional Markovianity considered in most previous work on open system control. However, other definitions encompass this as a special case while allowing for more general, non-homogeneous generators, albeit still ensuring the divisibility of the associated dynamical map and the unidirectionality of the system-environment information flow, and therefore the absence of memory effects in the dynamics of the system \cite{rivas11, santos14, wudarski15, santos15}. Relevant for our analysis is the definition of Markovian evolution in terms of the divisibility of the associated dynamical map \cite{huelga10}. When the dynamics is parametrized using a time-local master equation, the requirement of trace and hermiticity preservation, yields a generator of the form \begin{eqnarray}\label{FIRST} \dot{\rho_s}(t) &=& -{i}\left[H_s(t),\rho(t)\right]+ \bar{\cal{L}}(t)(\rho(t)) \nonumber\\ &=& -{i}\left[H_s(t),\rho(t)\right] + \sum_k \gamma_k(t) (A_k(t)\rho(t)A_k^{\dagger}(t)\\ \nonumber &-&\frac{1}{2}\{A_k^{\dagger}(t)A_k(t) \rho(t)\}), \end{eqnarray} where $\bar{\cal{L}}(t)$ is a time dependent Lindblad superoperator, $\gamma_k(t)$ are generalized (i.e. not necessarily positive) decay rates, the $A_k(t)$'s form an orthonormal basis for the operators for the system, see e.g. Ref.~\cite{hall14} (hereafter $\hbar$ has been set equal to one for convenience) and $H_s(t)$ is the effective Hamiltonian acting on the system. Equation~(\ref{FIRST}) generalizes the familiar Lindbladian structure to include NM effects while maintaining a time-local structure. However, apart from same special cases, it not known which are the conditions which $H_s(t)$, $A_k(t)$, and $\gamma_k(t)$ have to satisfy in order to guarantee Complete Positivity (CP)~\cite{hall14,Kossakowski10,hall08,won,sab}, i.e. the fundamental prerequisite which under fairly general assumptions is needed to describe a proper quantum evolution~\cite{breuer03,huelga11}. In what follows we will focus on a simplified scenario where the $\gamma_k(t)$'s either are null or coincide with an assigned function $\gamma(t)$, and where the $A_k(t)$'s are explicitly time-independent. Accordingly, in the absence of any control Hamiltonian applied during the course of the evolution, we assume a dynamical evolution described by the equation \begin{eqnarray} \dot{\rho}(t) = \gamma(t) {\cal L} (\rho(t))\;, \label{mastergen} \end{eqnarray} where ${\cal L}$ is a (time-independent) Lindblad generator characterized by having a unique fixed point $\rho_{fp}$ (i.e. ${\cal L}(\rho) = 0$ iff $\rho= \rho_{fp}$). For this model, in the absence of any Hamiltonian term (i.e. $H_s(t) =0$) CP over a time interval $[0,T]$ is guaranteed when~\cite{Kossakowski10} \begin{eqnarray} \int^{t}_0 \gamma(t') dt' \geq 0\;, \qquad \forall t\in[0,T]\;, \label{JNEWCON} \end{eqnarray} while divisibility (i.e, Markovianity) is tantamount to the positivity of the single decay rate at all times \cite{hall14}: if there exists a time interval where $\gamma(t)$ becomes negative, the ensuing dynamics is no longer divisible and the evolution is NM. In this context we will assume a control Hamiltonian $H_s(t)$ to represent time-localized infinitely strong pulses, which induce instantaneous unitary transformations at specific control times. This corresponds to writing $H_s(t) = \sum_{j} \delta(t-t_j) \Theta_s^{(j)}$, where $\Theta_s^{(j)}$ are time independent operators which act impulsively on the system at $t=t_j$ ($\delta(t)$ being the Dirac delta-function), at which instants one can neglect the contribution from the non-unitary part, and represent the master equation by $\dot{\rho}(t) \approx -{i}\left[H_s(t),\rho(t)\right]$. Therefore the resulting dynamics is described by a sequence of free evolutions induced by the noise over the intervals $t\in [t_j , t_{j+1}]$ interweaved with unitary rotations $U_{j} = \exp[-i \Theta_s^{(j)}]$, i.e. \begin{eqnarray} \label{JNEWEQ} \rho(t) &=&{\cal U}_{fin} \circ {\cal D}_{j} \circ {\cal U}_{j} \circ {\cal D}_{j-1} \circ \cdots \nonumber \\ &&\qquad \qquad \cdots \circ {\cal U}_{1}\circ {\cal D}_{0} \circ {\cal U}_{in}(\rho(0))\;, \label{fullevol} \end{eqnarray} where ${\cal D}_{j} = \exp\left[ \int^{t_{j+1}}_{t_j} \bar{\cal L}(t)\right]$, ${\cal U}(\cdots) = U (\cdots) U^{\dag}$ and ``$\circ$" is the composition of super-operators. When only two control pulses are applied (the first ${\cal U}_{in}$ at the very beginning and the second ${\cal U}_{fin}$ at the very end of the temporal evolution), the non-unitary evolution is described by Eq. (\ref{mastergen}) and CP of the trajectory (\ref{fullevol}) is automatically guaranteed by Eq.~(\ref{JNEWCON}), the scenario corresponding to the realistic case where one acts on the system with very strong control pulses at the state preparation stage and immediately before the measuring stage. When more ${\cal U}_{j}$'s are present, the situation however becomes more complex. There is no clear physical prescription which one can follow to impose the associated dynamics on the system at least when the dissipative evolution is assumed to be NM. Consider for instance the case ${\cal U}_{fin} \circ {\cal D}_1 \circ {\cal U}_{1}\circ {\cal D}_{0} \circ {\cal U}_{in}(\rho(0))$ where ${\cal U}_1$ is a non trivial unitary. Even admitting that the latter is enforced by applying at time $t_1$ a strong instantaneous control pulse, there is absolutely no clear evidence that the open dynamics for $t\geq t_1$ should be still described by the same generalized Lindbladian $\gamma(t) {\cal L}$, the system environment being highly sensitive to whatever the system itself has experienced in its previous history. We note that in a more realistic scenario, any control pulse will have a non-zero width $\delta t$ in time. Clearly, a sufficiently large $\delta t$ can invalidate the assumption of applying control pulses only at the very beginning and the very end, thereby modifying the dynamics significantly as described above. However, one can expect the assumption of instantaneous pulses to be valid as long as $\delta t$ is negligible compared to the time scale associated with the dynamics in absence of any control. Keeping in mind the above limitations, in this work we attempt for the first time a systematic study of optimal control protocols which would allow one to speed up the driving of a generic (but known) initial state $\rho(0)$ toward the fixed point~$\rho_{fp}$ of the bare dissipative evolution for the model of Eq.~(\ref{mastergen}) which explicitly includes NM effects. We arrive at the quantum speed limit times when application of only two control pulses ${\cal U}_{in}$ and ${\cal U}_{fin}$, at initial and final times respectively, is enough to follow the optimal trajectory. On the other hand, we present lower bounds to the same when optimal control strategy demands unitary pulses at intermediate times as well. We show that the efficiency of optimal control protocols is not determined by the M/NM divide alone but it depends drastically on the behaviour of the NM channel: if the system displays NM behavior {\it before} reaching the fixed point for the first time, NM effects might be exploited to obtain an increased optimal control efficiency as compared to the M scenario. On the contrary, NM effects are detrimental to the optimal control effectiveness if information back-flow occurs only {\it after} the system reaches the fixed point (see Fig.~\ref{schematic}). These results are valid irrespective of the detailed description of the system, i.e. its dimension, Hamiltonian, control field, or the explicit form of the dissipative bath. \section{The model\label{Rgen}} The divisibility measure for the model Eq.~(\ref{mastergen}) is equivalent to the characterization of memory effects by means of the time evolution of the trace distance \cite{breuer09}. This provides an intuitive characterization of the presence of memory effects in terms of a temporary increase in the distinguishability of quantum states as a result of an information back-flow from the system and into the environment that is absent when the evolution is divisible \cite{breuer2}. As a result, a divisible evolution for which the single decay rate $\gamma(t) \ge 0$ at all times will exhibit a monotonic decrease of the trace distance of any input state towards a (assumed to be unique) fixed point $\rho_{fp}$ of the Lindblad generator ${\cal L}$ \cite{breuer3}. On the contrary, as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{schematic}, the behaviour of the trace distance can be non-monotonic when the dynamics is NM. In this case, there exist time interval(s) where $\gamma(t)$ becomes negative. Denoting by $d(t) = ||\rho(t) -\rho_{fp}||$ the trace distance between $\rho(t)$ and the fixed point $\rho_{fp}$, it straightforwardly follows that $\dot{d}(t) \leq 0$ $\forall t$ in the M limit. Looking at this quantity one can classify NM dynamics into two distinct classes (see Fig.~\ref{schematic}): the first one (Class A) is defined by those dynamics where the system reaches the fixed point at time $T_{F}$ before $\gamma(t)$ changes sign i.e., $\gamma(t) \geq 0$ and $\dot{d}(t) \leq 0$ for $0 \leq t < T_{F}$. In this case, the NM dynamics reaches the fixed point $\rho_{fp}$ and then start to oscillate. On the other hand, Class B dynamics is characterized by $\gamma(t)$ that changes sign (and correspondingly $\dot{d}(t) > 0$) at some time $t < T_{F}$, that is the solutions of the equation $\gamma(t_s) = 0$ are such that $t_s < T_F$ for at least one $s$. In contrast, in the M dynamics $d(t)$ always decreases monotonically and asymptotically to $d(t \to \infty) = 0$. NM channels of class A/B arise from different physical implementations. As an illustration, the damped Jaynes Cummings model exemplifies a Class A dynamics. Here a qubit is coupled to a single cavity mode which in turn is coupled to a reservoir consisting of harmonic oscillators in the vacuum state (see Eq. (\ref{JC}))\cite{breuer99, garraway97, breuer03, madsen11}. On the other hand, dynamics similar to Class B can arise for example in a two level system in contact with an environment made of another two level system, as realized recently in an experimental demonstration of NM dynamics \cite{souza13}. \begin{figure}[t] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width= 8 cm, angle = 0]{fig1.ps} \end{center} \caption {(Color online) Schematic diagram of NM dynamics in Class A (red line) and Class B (black line). The instantaneous trace distance $d(t) = ||\rho(t) - \rho_{fp}||$ starts increasing only after the system reaches the fixed point when $|\gamma_t| \to \infty$ in case of Class A, while it shows oscillatory behavior even before it reaches the fixed point in case of Class B. In comparison dynamics for a M channel is shown by the blue line where $d(t)$ decreases monotonically and assymptotically to $d(t \to \infty) = 0$. The speedup obtained by M dynamics is always bigger than that obtained for the NM one, i.e., $R^A_{M}/R^A_{NM} \geq 1$ in case the NM evolution is of Class A, while the Markovian limit can be surpassed by NM of class B.} \label{schematic} \end{figure} As we will see hereafter, the difference between Class A and B appears to drastically affect the performance of any possible optimal control strategy to improve the speed of relaxation of the system towards the fixed point. \newline We assume full knowledge of the initial state and we allow for an error tolerance of $0 < \epsilon \ll 1$, considering that the target is reached whenever the condition $|d(t)| \leq \epsilon$ is satisfied. To obtain a lower bound on the minimum time $T_{QSL}$ needed to fulfill such constraint we restrict our analysis to the ideal limit of infinite control which allows us to carry out any unitary transformation instantaneously along the lines of (and with all the limitations associated with) the formalism detailed in Eq.~(\ref{JNEWEQ}). In the limit of infinite control an important role is played by the Casimir invariants $\Gamma_j$ ($j = 2,3,...,N$ for a $N$ level system). The Casimir invariants of a state $\rho$ are related to the trace invariants $\rm{Tr}(\rho^j)$ ($j = 2, 3, ..., N$) and they cannot be altered by unitary transformation alone \cite{khaneja03, sauer13}. For example, a two level system has a single Casimir invariant --its purity $P = \rm{Tr}\left(\rho^2 \right)$, which remains unchanged under any unitary transformation. Consequently, any optimal strategy with the controls restricted to unitary transformations only, would be to reach a state $\rho$ characterired by all Casimir invariants same as those of $\rho_{fp}$ in the minimum possible time. Following this we can apply a unitary pulse to reach the fixed point instantaneously. Clearly, any constrained control will at most be as efficient as the results we present hereafter, based on the analysis we have presented previously for the case of M dynamics~\cite{tannor99, mukherjee13}. In what follows, we will analyse Class A and B channels independently. {\bf Class A}: As shown in Fig.~\ref{schematic}, in the NM regime $d(t)$ goes to zero at $t = T_{F}$ when $\rho = \rho_{fp}$ and ${\cal L}(\rho_{fp}) = 0$. At the same time we expect $|\gamma(t)| \to \infty$ at $t \approx T_{F}$ in order to have finite $\dot{\rho}(t) = \gamma(t) {\cal L}(\rho(t))$ even for ${\cal L}(\rho(t)) \approx {\cal L}(\rho_{fp}) = 0$, as is required for a non-monotonic $d$ of the form shown in Fig.~\ref{schematic}. Notice that $\gamma(t)$ and hence the time $t = T_{F}$ at which $\gamma(t) \to \infty$ are in general independent of $\rho$. Consequently any optimal control protocol which involves unitary transformation of $\rho(t)$ generated by $H_s(t)$ at earlier times $t < T_{F}$ followed by non-unitary relaxation to $\rho_{fp}$ is expected to be ineffective in this case and we have $T_{QSL} = T_{F}$. That is, the gain (or efficiency) of optimal trajectory in the NM class is $R_{NM}^A=T_F/T_{QSL}=1$. One can easily see $T_F/T_{QSL} = 1$ implies absence of any speed up, whereas any advantage one gains by optimal control can be quantified by $T_F/T_{QSL} > 1$. On the other hand in the M limit $\gamma(t)=\gamma_0$ is finite and constant, and the system relaxes asymptotically to the fixed point in the absence of any control. In this case we introduce an error tolerance $\epsilon \ll 1$, such that we say the target state is reached if $|d(T_{F})| \leq \epsilon$. Clearly, $T_{F}$ increases with decreasing $\epsilon$ diverging to $T_{F} \to \infty$ in the limit $\epsilon \to 0$, as can be expected for finite $\gamma_0$. Therefore the above argument of $|\gamma(t)| \to \infty$ at $t \approx T_{F}$ does not apply in this case and in general one can expect the time of evolution to depend on the initial state. Consequently the quantum speed up ratio $R_{M}^A$ can exceed $R_{NM}^A \approx 1$, as is explicitly derived below in the case of a two level system in presence of an amplitude damping channel. Similar arguments apply also in the case when an additional unitary transformation is needed at the end of the evolution to reach $\rho_{fp}$, where $R_{M}^{A} \to \infty$ for $\epsilon \to 0$ \cite{mukherjee13}. Our above result $R_{M}^A \geq R_{NM}^A$ can be expected to be valid in a more generic scenario with $\dot{\rho}(t) = \sum_k \gamma_k(t) {\cal L}_k (\rho(t))$ as well, where not all $\gamma_k$'s ($\neq 0$) are same, ${\cal L}_k$'s are the time independent Lindblad generators and the unique fixed point $\rho_{fp}$ is defined by ${\cal L}_k(\rho_fp) = 0$ for all $k$. In this case at least one of the $\gamma_k$'s can be expected to diverge at time $t = T_F$ in order to ensure Class A NM dynamics as shown in Fig (\ref{schematic}), thus making any optimal control ineffective as detailed above. We note that one can have dynamics with time dependent Lindblad generators and uncontrollable drift Hamiltonians acting on the system during the course of the evolution, in addition to the instantaneous control pulses, as well. The drift Hamiltonians can be expected to modify the Lindblad generators thus making the problem more complex; however the analysis in this case is beyond the scope of our present work. {\bf Class B:} Here we focus on systems of Class B where as already mentioned $\gamma(t)$ changes sign for $t_s < T_{F}$ with $s = 1, \dots, N_s$. Clearly, in this case $|\gamma(t)|$ does not necessarily diverge for any $t$. Consequently the arguments presented above for class A fails to hold any longer and the time of relaxation to the fixed point can in general be expected to depend on $\rho(t)$ (and hence on $H_s$). Furthermore, it might be possible to exploit the NM effects such that even though $\dot{d}(t) > 0$ for $t_1 \leq t \leq t_2$ one can, by application of optimal control, make sure that $\dot{\Gamma}_j(t) > 0$ and maximum $\forall~t,j$ (where we have assumed $\Gamma_j(t = 0) < \Gamma_{jf}$ $\forall~j$ and $\Gamma_{jf}$ denotes the $j$th Casimir invariants for the fixed point $\rho_{fp}$). This presents the possibility of exploiting NM effects to achieve better control as opposed to the M dynamics, as is presented below for the case of a two level system in the presence of an amplitude damping channel. However we stress that this is not a general result and explicit examples can be constructed where this is actually not true. \subsection{Generalized amplitude damping channel \label{AD1}} Let us now analyze in detail the generic formalism outlined above for the specific case of a two level system in contact with NM amplitude damping channels of the two classes introduced before. We consider the non-unitary dissipative dynamics described by the time local master equation acting on a $2 \times 2$ reduced density matrix $\rho(t)$ of a qubit and we consider the time independent Linbladian ${\cal L}$ given by \begin{eqnarray} {\cal L}(\rho(t)) &=& {\cal L}_1(\rho(t)) + e^{\beta}{\cal L}_2(\rho(t)), \nonumber\\ {\cal L}_1(\rho(t)) &=& \left(\sigma_+\rho(t)\sigma_- - \frac{1}{2}\{\sigma_-\sigma_+, \rho(t)\}\right), \nonumber\\ {\cal L}_2(\rho(t)) &=& \left(\sigma_-\rho(t)\sigma_+ - \frac{1}{2}\{\sigma_+\sigma_-, \rho(t)\}\right)\;, \label{ADsuper} \end{eqnarray} with $\sigma_{\pm}$ being the raising/lowering qubit operators and $1/\beta$ gives the temperature of the bath. The system evolution is given by Eq.~\ref{mastergen}, and we will focus on two different functional dependence of the parameter $\gamma(t)$ corresponding to the Class A and B dynamics. We will analyze the system evolution following the Bloch vector $\vec r$ representing the state $\rho = \left(I + \vec{r}.\vec{\sigma} \right)/2$ inside the Bloch sphere, where the unitary part of the dynamics generated by $H_s$ induce rotations, thus preserving the purity $P = (1 + |\vec r|^2)/2$. In contrast, in general the action of the noise is expected to modify the purity as well. {\bf Class A}: An example of this class of dynamics is obtained under the assumption \begin{eqnarray} \gamma(t) = \frac{2\lambda \gamma_0 \sinh \frac{tg}{2}}{g \cosh\frac{tg}{2} + \lambda \sinh\frac{tg}{2}}; ~~g = \sqrt{\lambda^2 - 2\gamma_0 \lambda}. \label{JC} \end{eqnarray} In the above expression $\lambda$ and $\gamma_0$ are two positive constants whose ratio determines the bath behavior: $\lambda > 2\gamma_0$ corresponds to a M bath, whereas $g$ becomes imaginary in the limit $\gamma_0 > \lambda/2$ resulting in NM dynamics. In the NM limit of $\gamma_0 \gg \lambda, 1$ the bath time scale is determined by the product $\lambda \gamma_0$ and is independent of the specific form of the super-operator ${\cal L}$. It can be easily seen that $\gamma(t)$ increases monotonically from $0$ to $\gamma(t) \to \infty$ at \begin{eqnarray} \lim_{\gamma_0/\lambda \to \infty} T_{F} \approx \frac{\pi}{\sqrt{2\lambda\gamma_0}}, \label{Tfreenm} \end{eqnarray} where $T_{F}$ is independent of the initial state and the system reaches the fixed point when $\gamma(t)$ diverges. With this choice of $\gamma(t)$ in Eq. (\ref{JC}) the time scale is given by $\sqrt{2\lambda \gamma_0}$ in the NM limit $\gamma_0 \gg \lambda$, while $\gamma(t) \approx \gamma_0$ sets the time scale in the M limit $\lambda \gg \gamma_0$. Therefore the time taken to reach the fixed point can be expected to decrease as $1/\sqrt{\lambda\gamma_0}$ in the NM limit while it scales as $\sim 1/\gamma_0$ in the M limit. As mentioned above, this form of $\gamma(t)$ arises in the damped Jaynes-Cummings model at absolute zero temperature, where one considers only a single excitation in the qubit-cavity system and Eq. (\ref{ADsuper}) reduces to ${\cal L}(\rho(t)) = {\cal L}_2(\rho(t))$. However, here we consider a phenomenological form of the Lindblad generator (\ref{ADsuper}) with arbitrary $\beta$ to show the generality of our results. In this context the parameter $\lambda$ in $\gamma(t)$ denotes the spectral width of the coupling to the reservoir, while $\gamma_0$ characterizes the strength of the coupling. In the absence of any control the qubit relaxes to a fixed point $\rho_{fp}$ characterized by the Bloch vector $\left(0,0,\frac{1 - e^\beta}{1 + e^\beta}\right)$ and the optimal control we analyze here aims to accelerate the relaxation towards this state with unconstrained unitary control. Following the strategy proposed above, we look for the extremal speed $v = \partial P/\partial t$ of purity change for every $r$. For this model, the speed of change of purity is given by $v(r,\theta,t) = -\gamma(t) (e^{\beta} - 1) r \left[\cos\theta + \frac{r}{2r_{fp}}\left(1 + \cos^2 \theta \right) \right]$ : note that a positive (negative) $v$ denotes increasing (decreasing) purity. The two strategies differ slightly in case of cooling or heating (i.e. the final purity is lower or higher than the initial one); but both cases correspond to applying unitary rotations at the beginning and at the end (for heating) of the dynamical evolution, thus yielding a trajectory of the form Eq.~(\ref{JNEWEQ}) which is fully compatible with the CP requirement and which doesn't pose any problem in terms of physical implementation (see discussion in Sec.~\ref{Rgen}). Specifically we need to apply unitary control so that the system evolves along $\theta = \pi$ till the final purity is reached in the case of cooling, while $\theta = 0$ is the optimal path in the case of heating \cite{mukherjee13}, in agreement with a recent work on quantum speed limit in open quantum systems~\cite{deffner13} (see Appendix~\ref{A1} for details). \begin{figure}[t] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width= 9.4 cm,height = 4.5 cm, angle = 0]{fig2.ps} \end{center} \caption {(Color online) (a) Parametric plot showing variation of time $T_{QSL}^{cool}$ of reaching the fixed point with $\lambda$ and $\gamma_0$ for $\beta = 2$, $r_i = 0.5$ and $\epsilon = 0.01$. The Markovian (M) and non-Markovian (NM) regions are separated by the blue line on the $\lambda - \gamma_0$ plane. (b) Plot showing variation of quantum speed up ratio $R^A$ with $\lambda$ and $\gamma_0$ for $\beta = 2$, $r_{xi} = 0.3$, $r_{yi} = 0$, $r_{zi} = 0.4$ and $\epsilon = 0.01$. $R^{A}$ saturates to $R^A_M \approx 2$ ($R^A_{NM} \approx 1$) in the extreme M (NM) limit.} \label{Tqsl} \end{figure} Our analysis clearly shows that $T_{QSL}^{cool}$ decreases with increasing $\lambda$ as $\sim 1/\sqrt{\lambda}$ for small $\lambda$, finally saturating to $\lambda$ independent constant values in the M limit ($\lambda \gg 1$). However, it would be misleading to conclude about the role of Markovianity on $T_{QSL}$ from this alone, since both $T_{QSL}^{cool}$ and $T_{QSL}^{heat}$ decrease with increasing $\gamma_0$ as well. In particular, they scale as $ \sim 1/\gamma_0$ in the M limit of small $\gamma_0$, while the scaling changes to $1/\sqrt{\gamma_0}$ for $\lambda/\gamma_0 \to 0$. Indeed, the behavior depends more on the specific path in the $(\gamma_0, \lambda)$ plane rather than whether the system is M or NM (see Fig.~\ref{Tqsl}a). However, if one analyzes the speedup obtained by means of optimal control strategies, the scenario changes: in this case (as shown in Fig.~\ref{Tqsl}b) the ratio $R^A = T_F/T_{QSL}^{cool}$ clearly distinguishes between M and NM dynamics with typical limiting values given by $\lim_{\epsilon \to 0, \lambda/\gamma_0 \to \infty} R_{M}^{A} \to 2$ and $\lim_{\epsilon \to 0, \lambda/\gamma_0 \to 0} R_{NM}^{A} \to 1$ (see Appendix for details). Finally, one can show that a control pulse can be considered to be instantaneous as long as its width in time $\delta t \ll 1/\left[\gamma_0 (e^{\beta} + 1) \right]$ in the M limit of $\lambda \gg \gamma_0$, while in the NM limit $\lambda \ll \gamma_0$ one has $\delta t \ll 1/\sqrt{\lambda \gamma_0 (e^{\beta} + 1)}$. {\bf Class B:} Finally, we investigate a particular case belonging to the class B dynamics and compare it to the previous case. As in the previous case we consider a time evolution described by a master equation Eq.~(\ref{mastergen}) with ${\cal L}$ given by Eq. (\ref{ADsuper}); however for our present purpose we formulate a $\gamma(t)$ given by \begin{eqnarray} \gamma(t) = e^{-\zeta t} \cos(\Omega t)\;, \label{nmgenII} \end{eqnarray} with $\zeta, \Omega$ being two positive constants satisfying the CP condition Eq.~(\ref{JNEWCON}). With this choice, in the absence of the control Hamiltonian, NM effects manifest themselves for $(2n + 1)\pi/2 < \Omega t < (2n + 3)\pi/2$ for integer $n \geq 0$ as $\gamma(t)$ changes sign at $\Omega t = (2n + 1)\pi/2$, simultaneously altering the sign of $\dot{d}(t)$ to $\dot{d}(t) > 0$. With a proper choice of parameters one can make $\gamma(t)$ (and hence $d(t)$) exhibit oscillatory dynamics for $1 > d > 0$. As for the previous example, also in this case the extremals of $v$ are independent of $\gamma(t)$ and determined by $\mathcal{L}(\rho(t))$ only. Therefore they occur at exactly the same points as for class A (\ref{JC}), i.e., at $\theta = 0, \pi$ and $\arccos (r/r_{f})$. In this case an instantaneous pulse would correspond to its time width $\delta t \ll \rm{min}\{1/\zeta, 1/\Omega, 1/\left(e^{\beta} + 1 \right) \}$. \begin{figure}[t] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=8.0 cm,height = 3.4cm, angle = 0]{fig3.ps} \end{center} \caption { (Color online) (a) Plot showing the variation of the ratio of the gains $R_{NM}^B/R_M^B$ of the optimal trajectory as a function of $\Omega$ in case of Class B (cooling) with $\gamma(t) = exp(- t) \cos(\Omega t), \beta = 2, \epsilon = 0.01$ and initial state given by $ r_{xi} = 0.3, r_{yi} = 0, r_{zi} = 0.4$. Clearly gain $R_M^B$ ($= 3.4$) in the M limit $\Omega = 0$, shown by the green dot, is less than that ($R_{NM}^B$) in the NM limit $\Omega > 0$. (b) Schematic diagram showing optimal path in the $x-z$ plane of the Bloch sphere (red curve) in case of cooling a qubit in Class B (Eq. (\ref{nmgenII})), when we start from an arbitrary state $\rho_i$. The fixed point $\rho_f$ is denoted by brown star. } \label{ADIIfig} \end{figure} The unconstrained optimal strategies are now modified as follows. In the case of cooling, the optimal strategy is to follow the path $\theta = \pi$ for $0 \leq t < T_{QSL}^{cool}$, during which time the purity increases monotonically, where we have assumed the system reaches the target at $t = T_{QSL}^{cool} < \pi/(2 \Omega)$ for simplicity. Consequently the optimal strategy demands a single pulse at time $t = 0$ only to make $\theta = \pi$, which corresponds to an evolution operator of the form ${\cal U}_{fin} \circ D \circ {\cal U}_{in}$. Clearly, this evolution is CPT as already discussed in section \ref{intro} with $D$ depending on $\gamma_t$ and $\mathcal{L}$ (see Eqs. (\ref{ADsuper}) and (\ref{nmgenII})) and is thus possible to implement physically. In Fig.~\ref{ADIIfig}(a) we report the speedup obtained by such optimal strategy for different values of $\Omega$ in Eq. (\ref{nmgenII}), where we have taken $\epsilon = 0.01$ large enough so that $\Omega T_{QSL}^{cool} < \pi/2$. In this case we arrive at the M limit by setting $\Omega=0$; as can be clearly seen the speed up in the NM limit is such that $R_{NM}^{B} > R_M^{B}, \forall ~\Omega >0$ showing that there exist scenarios where NM effects can be exploited to improve the control effectiveness. On the contrary, if the system does not reach the target for $\Omega T_{QSL}^{cool} < \pi/2$, the optimal strategy changes: at $\Omega t = \pi/2$, $\gamma(t)$ and hence $v$ change sign, leading to decrease (increase) of purity for $\theta = \pi$ ($\theta = 0$). Interestingly, we can take advantage of this effect by making $\theta = 0$ at $t = \pi/(2\Omega)$, where $v$ exhibits a maximum for $\gamma(t) < 0$. As mentioned before, application of a unitary pulse during the course of an evolution may change the form of $\gamma(t)$ and $\mathcal{L}$ (see Eq. (\ref{fullevol})). However, for simplicity let us assume $v$ changes sign at $t = (2n + 1)\pi/2$ and assumes extremum values at $\theta = 0,\pi$ and $\arccos\left(-r/r_{fp}\right)$ even in presence of unitary control. One can easily extend our analysis to a more generic case where the simplifying assumptions do not hold by following the path of maximum (minimum) $v$ for cooling (heating). Let us first consider the case where the system reaches the target $r_z = r_{f} - \epsilon$ at $t = T^{cool}_{QSL}< 3\pi/(2 \Omega)$. In such a scenario, as depicted in Fig.~\ref{ADIIfig} (b), we let the system evolve freely for $\pi/(2\Omega) < t \leq T_{QSL}^{cool}$, following which we take the system to $\theta = \pi$ and $r_z = -r_{f} + \epsilon$, thus obtaining the desired goal. Clearly, an optimal path exists in case of the class B non-Markovian channel, which if possible to be followed by application of suitable unitary controls, helps in cooling and in particular might make it possible to reach the fixed point in finite time (if $\epsilon = 0$). Generalization to the case $\Omega T_{QSL}^{cool} > 3\pi/2$ where multiple $\pi$ rotations are needed is straightforward. However, we emphasize that the strategy presented above for $\Omega T_{QSL}^{cool} > \pi/2$ follows an evolution operator of the form Eq.~(\ref{fullevol}) with unitary pulses applied at intermediate times. Consequently our analysis gives a lower bound to $T_{QSL}^{cool}$ only, achieved by following the optimal path shown in Fig. \ref{ADIIfig}(b), for which at present we do not have any implementation strategy. Finally, we address the problem of heating the system in the shortest possible time, which amounts to minimizing $v$ $\forall~t$. Therefore, the optimal path dictates to set $\theta = 0$ at $t = 0$ and then let it evolve freely till $\Omega t = \pi/2$, where $\gamma(t)$ and hence $v$ change sign. Unfortunately in contrast to the cooling problem, now $v > 0$ $\forall \theta$ making it impossible to take advantage of the NM effects to accelerate the evolution. However, even in this case one can always minimize the unwanted effect of information backflow for $\gamma(t) < 0$ by increasing $\theta$ to $\theta = \arccos (- r_{fp}/r)$ where $v$ has a minimum. \section{Conclusion \label{concl}} We have studied the effectiveness of unconstrained optimal control of a generic quantum system in the presence of a non-Markovian dissipative bath. Contrary to common expectations, the speedup does not crucially depend on the Markovian versus non-Markovian divide, but rather on the specific details of the non-Markovian evolution. We showed that the speed up drastically depends on whether the system dynamics is monotonic or not before reaching the fixed point for the first time, as determined by the trace distance to the fixed point (class A and class B dynamics respectively). Indeed, in the former case, the speed up obtained via optimal control is always higher in presence of a Markovian bath as compared to a non-Markovian one, while the reverse can be true in the latter case. Finally, we have presented some specific examples of these findings for the case of a two level system subject to an amplitude damping channel. Note that, in the more realistic scenario where one can apply control pulses of finite strength only, the presented results serve as theoretical bounds to the optimal control effectiveness.\\ {\em Acknowledgements --} The authors acknowledge Andrea Mari, Andrea Smirne, Alberto Carlini and Eric Lutz for helpful discussions. We ackowledge support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinshaft (DFG) within the SFB TR21 and the EU through EU-TherMiQ (Grant Agreement 618074), QUIBEC, SIQS, the STREP project PAPETS and QUCHIP.
\section{Introduction} Let $X$ be a smooth, projective curve of genus $g\geq 2$ over $\mathbb{C}$. We fix a line bundle $L$ of odd degree over $X$. Let $M_{_{X}}$ be the moduli space of rank 2, stable vector bundles $E$ such that det$E\simeq L$. It is known that $M_{_X}$ is a smooth, projective and unirational variety. Consequently it follows, by \cite[Lemma 1]{Se}, that the Hodge numbers $h^{0,p}=h^{p,0}=0$. Therefore, we have the following Hodge decomposition: \[H^3(M_{_{X}},\mathbb{C})=H^{1,2}\oplus \overline{H^{1,2}},\] where $\overline{\alpha}$ is the complex conjugate of $\alpha \in H^3(M_{_X},\mathbb{C})=H^3(M_{_X},\mathbb{R})\otimes \mathbb{C}$ and $H^{1,2}\simeq H^2(M_{_X},\Omega^1_{_{M_{_X}}})$. Let $pr_1:H^3(M_{_{X}},\mathbb{C})\rightarrow H^{1,2}$ be the first projection. Since $H^3(M_{_X},\mathbb{R})\cap H^{1,2}=\{0\}$, we get that the image $pr_1(H^3(M_{_{X}},\mathbb{Z}))$ is a full lattice in $H^{1,2}$. We associate a complex torus corresponding to the above Hodge structure: \begin{equation}\label{inter}J^2(M_{_X}):=\frac{H^{1,2}}{pr_1(H^3(M_{_{X}},\mathbb{Z}))} \end{equation} It is known as the second intermediate Jacobian of $M_{_{X}}$. We remark that the complex torus, defined above, varies holomorphically in an analytic family of smooth projective, unirational varieties and is a principally polarised abelian variety. It is known that the second Betti number $b_{_2}(M_{_X})=1$ (\cite{ne}). Let $\omega$ be the unique ample, integral, K\"ahler class on $M_{_X}$. Then the principal polarisation on $J^2(M_{_{X}})$ is induced by the following paring: \begin{equation}(\alpha,\beta) \mapsto \int_{_{M_X}} \omega^{n-3}\wedge \alpha \wedge \overline{\beta},\end{equation} where $\alpha,\beta \in H^{1,2}$ and $n=dim_{_{\mathbb{C}}}M_{_{X}}$. We denote this polarisation on $J^2(M_{_X})$ by $\theta'$. The theorem of Mumford and Newstead (\cite[Theorem in page 1201]{mum-new}) asserts that there is a natural isomorphism $\phi:J(X)\to J^2(M_{_X})$ such that $\phi^{*}(\theta')=\theta$, where $J(X)$ is the Jacobian of the curve and $\theta$ is the canonical polarisation on $J(X)$. In \cite[Section 5, page 625]{Ba2}) there is a detailed proof of the fact $\phi^{*}(\theta')=\theta$. Hence, appealing to the classical Torelli theorem one can recover the curve $X$ from the moduli space $M_{_X}$. Let $X_{_0}$ be a projective curve with exactly two smooth irreducible components $X_{_1}$ and $X_{_2}$ meeting at a simple node $p$. Fix two rational numbers $0<a_{_1},a_{_2}<1$ such that $a_{_1}+a_{_2}=1$ and let $\chi$ be an odd integer. Under some numerical conditions, Nagaraj and Seshadri construct in \cite[Theorem 4.1]{ns}, the moduli space $M(2,(a_{_1},a_{_2}),\chi)$ of rank $2$, $(a_{_1},a_{_2})$-semistable torsion free sheaves on $X_{_0}$ with Euler charachteristic $\chi$. Moreover, they show that $M(2,(a_{_1},a_{_2}),\chi)$ is the union of two smooth, projective varieties intersecting transversally along a smooth divisor. We will observe that there exists a determinant morphism $det:M(2,(a_{_1},a_{_2}),\chi)\to J^{\chi-(1-g)}(X_{_0})$ where $J^{\chi-(1-g)}(X_{_0})$ is the Jacobian parametrising the line bundles with Euler characteristic $\chi-(1-g)$ over $X_{_0}$ (see Proposition \ref{determin} in Appendix). We further observe that the fibres of the morphism $det$ is again the union of two smooth projective varieties intersecting transversally (see Proposition \ref{tran} in Appendix). Fix $\xi\in J^{\chi-(1-g)}$. We denote the fibre $det^{-1}(\xi)$ by $M_{_{0,\xi}}$. Since $M_{_{0,\xi}}$ is a singular variety, a priori $H^3(M_{_{0,\xi}},\mathbb{C})$ has an intrinsic mixed Hodge structure. Let $g$ be the arithmetic genus of $X_{_0}$. Note that $g=g_{_1}+g_{_2}$, where $g_{_i}$ is the genus of $X_{_i}$ for $i=1,2$. Under the assumption $g_{_i}>3$, $i=1,2$, we will show that $H^3(M_{_{0,\xi}},\mathbb{Q})\simeq \mathbb{Q}^{2g}$, and that it has a pure Hodge structure with Hodge numbers $h^{^{3,0}}=h^{^{0,3}}=0$. Thus we have an intermediate Jacobian $J^2(M_{_{0,\xi}})$, as defined earlier, corresponding to the Hodge structure on $H^3(M_{_{0,\xi}},\mathbb{C})$ which is a priori only a complex torus of dimension $g$. Let $\pi:\mathcal{X}\to C$ be a proper, flat and surjective family of curves, parametrised by a smooth, irreducible curve $C$. Fix $0\in C$. We assume that $\pi$ is smooth outside the point $0$ and $\pi^{-1}(0)=X_{_0}$, where $X_0$ is as above, $g_i>3$ for $i=1,2$. Let $X_{_t}$ be the fibre $\pi^{-1}(t)$ over $t\in C$. Fix a line bundle $\mathcal{L}$ over $\mathcal{X}$ such that the restrictions $\mathcal{L}_{_t}$ to $X_{_t}$ are line bundles with Euler characteristics $\chi-(1-g)$ for $t\neq 0$ and $\mathcal{L}_{_0}$ is isomorphic to the line bundle $\xi$. In this situation, it is observed in \cite[Lemma 7.2]{ns} that there is a family $\pi':\mathcal{M}_{_{\mathcal{L}}}\to C$ such that the fibre $\pi'^{-1}(t)$ over a point $t\neq 0$ is $M_{_{t,\mathcal L_t}}$, the moduli space of rank $2$, semistable locally free sheaves with $det\simeq \mathcal L_t$ over the smooth projective curve $X_{_t}$ and $\pi'^{-1}(0)=M_{_{0,\xi}}$ (see Section \ref{degen}). We should mention a related work by X Sun \cite{sun}. In \cite{sun} the author constructs a family of rank $r$ fixed determinant, semistable bundles over smooth projective curves degenerating to a ``fixed determinant'' moduli space of rank $r$ torsion free sheaves over $X_{_0}$. Though his methods are different we believe, in rank $2$ case, the relative moduli space in \cite{sun} coincides with $\mathcal{M}_{_{\mathcal{L}}}$. We consider an analytic disc $\Delta$ around the point $0$ and we denote the family $\pi':\pi'^{-1}(\Delta)\to \Delta$ by $\{M_{_{t, \mathcal L_t}}\}_{_{t\in \Delta}}$. With these notations we state one of the main results of this paper : \begin{theorem}\label{m}{\ } \begin{enumerate} \item There is a holomorphic family $\{J^2(M_{t,\mathcal{L}_{t}})\}_{_{t\in \Delta}}$ of intermediate Jacobians corresponding to the family $\{M_{_{t, \mathcal L_t}}\}_{_{t\in \Delta}}$. In other words, there is a surjective, proper, holomorphic submersion \[\pi_{_2} : J^2(\mathcal{M}_{_{\mathcal{L}}})\longrightarrow \Delta\] such that $\pi_2^{-1}(t)=J^2(M_{_{t, \mathcal L_t}})~ \forall ~ t\in \Delta^{*}:=\Delta \setminus \{0\}$ and $\pi_2^{-1}(0)=J^2(M_{_{0,\xi}})$. Further, there exists a relative ample class $\Theta'$ on $J^2(\mathcal{M}_{_{\mathcal{L}}})_{|\Delta^*}$ such that $\Theta'_{|J^2(M_{_{t,\mathcal L_t}})}=\theta'_{_t}$, where $\theta'_{_t}$ is the principal polarisation on $J^2(M_{_{t, \mathcal L_t}})$. \item There is an isomorphism \begin{equation} \xymatrix{ J^0(\mathcal{X}) \ar[rr]^{\Phi}_{\sim} \ar[rd]_{\pi_{_1}} && J^2(\mathcal{M}_{_{\mathcal{L}}})\ar[ld]^{\pi_{_2}} \\ & \Delta } \end{equation} such that $\Phi^*\Theta'_{|\pi_1^{-1}(t)}=\theta_{_t}$ for all $t\in \Delta^*$, where $\pi_1: J^0(\mathcal X)\to \Delta$ is the holomorphic family $\{J^0(X_{_t})\}_{_{t\in \Delta}}$ of Jacobians and $\theta_{_t}$ is the canonical polarisation on $J^0(X_{_t})$. In particular $J^2(\mathcal{M}_{_{\mathcal{L}}})_{_0}:=\pi_{_2}^{-1}(0)$ is an abelian variety. \end{enumerate} \end{theorem} By the above theorem we deduce the following: \begin{corollary} Let $X_{_0}$ be a projective curve with exactly two smooth irreducible components $X_1$ and $X_2$ meeting at a simple node $p$. We further assume that $g_{_i}>3$, $i=1,2$. Then, there is an isomorphism $J^0(X_{_0})\simeq J^2(M_{_{0,\xi}})$, where $\xi\in J^{\chi}(X_{_0})$. In particular, $J^2(M_{_{0,\xi}})$ is an abelian variety. \end{corollary} Since $J^0(X_{_0})$ is isomorphic to $J^0(X_{_1})\times J^0(X_{_2})$, we observe the Jacobian $J^0(X_{_0})$ is independent of the nodal point in $X_{_0}$. Hence, the classical Torelli theorem fails for such curves (see \cite[Page 6 ]{mummay}). On the other hand, it is known that under suitable choice of the polarisation on the Jacobian $J^0(X_{_0})$, one can recover the normalization $\tilde {X_{_0}}$ of $X_{_0}$, but not the curve $X_{_0}$. In otherwords one can recover both the components of $X_{_0}$ but not the nodal point(see \cite[page 125]{RH}). We see that the moduli space $M_{_{0,\xi}}$ of rank $2$ torsion free sheaves carries more information than the Jacobian $J(X_{_0})$. In fact, we show that we can actually recover the curve $X_{_0}$ from $M_{_{0,\xi'}}$ by following a strategy of \cite{bbd}. More precisely, we will prove the following analogue of the Torelli theorem for reducible curves: \begin{theorem} Let $X_{_0}$ ( resp. $Y_{_0}$) be the projective curve with two smooth irreducible components $X_i$ (resp. $Y_i$), $i=1,2$ meeting at a simple node $p$ (resp. $q$). We assume that $\mbox{genus}(X_{_i})=\mbox{genus}(Y_{_i})$, for $i=1,2$, and $X_{_1}\ncong X_{_2}$(resp. $Y_{_1}\ncong Y_{_2}$). Let $M_{_{0,\xi_{_{X_0}}}}$ (resp. $M_{_{0,\xi_{_{Y_0}}}}$) be the moduli space of rank $2$, semistable torsion free sheaves $E$ with $detE\simeq \xi_{_{X_0}}$, $\xi_{_{X_0}}\in J^{\chi}(X_{_0})$, on $X_{_0}$ (resp. on $Y_{_0}$). If $M_{_{0,\xi_{_{X_0}}}}\simeq M_{_{0,\xi_{_{Y_0}}}}$ then we have $X_{_0}\simeq Y_{_0}$. \end{theorem} {\it Acknowledgements: I am extremely thankful to Prof V. Balaji who introduced me to this problem and discussed this work with me. I thank Prof. C.S Seshadri for suggesting a way to define a certain ''determinant'' morphism and for several helpful discussions. I thank B Narasimha Chary for a very careful reading of the previous draft and suggesting many changes. I have greatly benefited from the discussions with Dr. Ronnie Sebastian. I also thank Prof. D.S Nagaraj, Rohith Varma and Krisanu Dan for many helpful discussions. Finally I wish to thank the referee for being extremely patient with the previous manuscript and generously suggesting many changes. The proofs of the Proposition \ref{determin} and \ref{reldet} are suggested by the referee. } \section{Preliminaries} In this section, we briefly recall the main results in \cite{ns} which will be extensively used in the present work. Before proceeding further we will fix the following notations: \subsubsection{Notation}\label{note1} \begin{itemize} \item Throughout we work over the field $\mathbb C$ of complex numbers. We assume that all the schemes are reduced, separated and finite type over $\mathbb{C}$. \item Let $p_{_i}: X_{_1}\times \cdots \times X_{_n}\to X_{i}$ be the $i^{th}$ projection, where $X_{_i}$ is a scheme for $i=1,\ldots,n$. By abuse of notation, we denote $p_{_i}^{*}(E_{_i})$ also by $E_{_i}$, where $E_{_i}$ is a sheaf of $\mathcal{O}_{_{X_{_i}}}$ module. \item Let $X$ be a projective scheme and $E$ be a vector bundle over $X$. Then we set $h^i(E):=dim_{_{\mathbb{C}}}H^i(X,E)$. Let $S$ be another projective scheme and $\mathcal{E}$ be a coherent sheaf over $X\times S$ then we set $\mathcal{E}_{_s}:=\mathcal{E}|_{_{X\times s}}$, $s\in S$. \item By cohomology of a scheme $X$, we mean the singular cohomology of the space $X_{_{ann}}$, the analytic space with complex analytic topology associated to $X$. \item Let $E$ be coherent sheaf over $X$. We denote by $E(p):=\frac{E_{_p}}{m_{_p}E_{_p}}$ the fibre of E at $p\in X$. \item Let $X$ be a smooth projective curve and $E$ be a vector bundle over $X$. Then we denote $E\otimes \mathcal{O}_{_X}(np)$ by $E(np)$, where $p\in X$ is a closed point and $n$ is an integer. \item If $Z$ is a closed subvariety of a smooth variety $X$, then we denote by $Codim(Z,X)$, the codimension of $Z$ in $X$. \end{itemize} \subsection{Triples associated to a torsion free sheaves on a reducible nodal curve} Let $X_{_0}$ be a projective curve of arithmetic genus $g$ with exactly two smooth irreducible components $X_{_1}$ and $X_{_2}$ meeting at a simple node $p$. The arithmetic genus $g$ of such a curve is $g=g_1+g_2$, where $g_{_i}$ is the genus of $X_{_i}$ for $i=1,2$. By a torsion free sheaf over $X_0$ we always mean a coherent $\mathcal{O}_{_{X_{0}}}$-module of depth $1$. Let $\stackrel{\to}{C}$ be a category whose objects are triples $(F_{_1},F_{_2},A)$ where $F_{_i}$ are vector bundles on $X_{_i}$, for $i=1,2$ and $A:F_{_1}(p)\to F_{_2}(p)$ is a linear map. Let $(F_{_1},F_{_2},A), (G_{_1},G_{_2},B)\in \stackrel{\rightarrow}{C}$. We say $\phi: (F_{_1},F_{_2},A)\to (G_{_1},G_{_2},B)$ is a morphism if there are morphisms $\phi_{_i}: F_{_i}\to G_{_i}$ of $\mathcal{O}_{_{X_{_i}}}$-modules for $i=1,2$ such that the following diagram is commutative: \begin{equation}\label{mor1} \xymatrix{F_{_1}(p) \ar[r]^{\phi_1 \otimes k(p) } \ar[d]^{A} & G_{_1}(p) \ar[d]^{B} \\ F_{_2}(p) \ar[r]^{\phi_2 \otimes k(p)} & G_{_2}(p)} \end{equation} In \cite[Lemma 2.8]{ns}, it is shown that there is an equivalence of categories between $\stackrel{\to}{C}$ and the category of torsion free sheaves over $X_{_0}$. \begin{remark}\label{direction} Similarly, we define another category $\stackrel{\leftarrow}{C}$ whose objects are triples $(F_{_1},F_{_2},A)$ where $F_{_i}$ are vector bundles over $X_{_i}$ for $i=1,2$ and $A:F_{_2}(p)\to F_{_1}(p)$ is a linear map. The morphism between any two such triples is defined in the same way before. The category of torsion free sheaves is equivalent to the category $\stackrel{\leftarrow}{C}$ (see \cite[Remark 2.9]{ns}). Now if the triples $(F_{_1},F_{_2},A)\in \stackrel{\to}{C}$ and $(F'_{_1},F'_{_2},B)\in \stackrel{\leftarrow}{C}$ correspond the same torsion free sheaf $F$, then they are related by the following diagram: \begin{equation}\label{mor2} \xymatrix{F_{_1}(p) \ar[r]^{i_{_p}} \ar[d]^{A} & F'_{_1}(p) \\ F_{_2}(p) &\ar[l]^{j_{_p}} \ar[u]^{B} F'_{_2}(p)} \end{equation} where $i:F_{_1}\to F'_{_1}$ (resp. $j:F'_{_2}\to F_{_2}$) is a morphism of vector bundle which is an isomorphism outside the point $p$ and $ker(i_{_p})=ker(A)$ (resp $Im(j_{_p})=Im(A)$)(see \cite[Remark 2.5]{ns}). $F_{_i}'$ is called the Hecke-modification of $F_{_i}$ for $i=1,2$. \end{remark} \subsubsection{Notion of semistability} Fix an ample line bundle $\mathcal{O}_{_{X_0}}(1)$ on $X_{_0}$. Let $deg(\mathcal{O}_{_{X_{_0}}}(1)|_{_{X_i}})=c_{_i}$, $i=1,2$, and $a_{_i}=\frac{c_{_i}}{c_{_1}+c_{_2}}$. Then $0<a_{_1},a_{_2}<1$ and $a_{_1}+a_{_2}=1$. We say $a=(a_{_1},a_{_2})$ a polarisation on $X_{_0}$. A torsion free sheaf $F$ on $X_{_0}$ is of rank type $(r_{_1},r_{_2})$ if the generic rank of the restrictions $F|_{_{X_{_i}}}$ are $r_{_i}$, $i=1,2$. \begin{definition}\label{semi} For a torsion free sheaf $F$ of rank type $(r_{_1},r_{_2})$, we define the rank $r:=a_{_1}r_{_1}+a_{_2}r_{_2}$ and the slope $\mu(F):=\frac{\chi(F)}{r}$, where $\chi(F):=h^0(F)-h^1(F)$. A torsion free sheaf $F$ is said to be semistable(resp. stable) with respect to the polarisation $a=(a_{_1},a_{_2})$ if $\mu(G)\leq \mu(F)$(resp. $<$) for all nontrivial proper subsheaves $G$ of $F$. We define the Euler characteristic and the slope of a triple $(F_{_1},F_{_2},A)\in \stackrel{\to}{C}$ to be: \begin{equation} \chi((F_{_1},F_{_2},A))=\chi(F_1)+\chi(F_2)-rk(F_2)~ \mbox{and}~ \mu(F_1,F_2,A)=\frac{\chi((F_1,F_2,A))}{r}. \end{equation} A triple $(F_1,F_2,A)$ is said to be semistable(resp. stable) if $\mu(G_1,G_2,B)\leq \mu(F_1,F_2,A)$ for all nontrivial proper subtriples of $(F_1,F_2,A)$ (for definition of a subtriple see \cite[Definition 2.3]{ns}). \end{definition} \begin{remark} If a torsion free sheaf $F$ is associated to a triple $(F_1,F_2,A)$ then $\chi(F)=\chi(F_1,F_2,A)$(see \cite[Remark 2.11]{ns}). We have already remarked the category of torsion free sheaves is equivalent to the category of triples in a fixed direction. Therefore, a torsion free sheaf $F$ is $a=(a_{_1},a_{_2})$-semistable (resp. stable) if and only if the corresponding triple $(F_1,F_2,A)$ is $a=(a_{_1},a_{_2})$-semistable (resp. stable). \end{remark} \subsection{Moduli space of rank \texorpdfstring{$2$}{} torsion free sheaves over a reducible nodal curve} \subsubsection{Euler Characteristic bounds for rank $2$ semistable sheaves} Fix an integer $\chi$ and a polarisation $a=(a_{_1},a_{_2})$ on $X_{_0}$ such that $a_{_1}\chi$ is not an integer. Then we have the following Euler characteristic restrictions: \begin{lemma}\label{bounds2} Let $\chi_{_1}$, $\chi_{_2}$ be the unique integers satisfying \begin{equation}\label{inq1} a_{_1}\chi< \chi_{_1}< a_{_1}\chi+1 ~ , ~ a_{_2}\chi+1< \chi_{_2}< a_{_2}\chi+2 \end{equation} and $\chi=\chi_{_1}+\chi_{_2}-2$. If $F$ is a rank $2$, $a=(a_{_1},a_{_2})$-semistable sheaf then $\chi(F_{_1})=\chi_{_1}$, $\chi(F_{_2})=\chi_{_2}$ or $\chi(F_{_1})=\chi_{_1}+1$, $\chi(F_{_2})=\chi_{_2}-1$ and $rk(A)\geq1$ where $(F_{_1},F_{_2},A)\in \stackrel{\to}{C}$ is the unique triple representing $F$. Moreover if $F$ is non-locally free then $\chi(F_{_1})=\chi_{_1}$ and $\chi(F_{_2})=\chi_{_2}$. \begin{proof} See \cite[Theorem 3.1]{ns}. \end{proof} \end{lemma} \textbf{For the rest of the paper we fix an odd integer $\chi$ and a polarization $a:=(a_{_1},a_{_2})$ ($a_{_1}<a_{_2}$) on $X_{_0}$ such that $a_{_1}\chi$ is not an integer}. With these notations, one of the main results of \cite{ns} is the following: \begin{theorem}(\cite[Theorem 4.1]{ns}) The moduli space $M(2,a,\chi)$ of isomorphism classes rank $2$, $(a_{_1},a_{_2})$ stable torsion free sheaves exists as a reduced,connected, projective scheme. Moreover, it has two smooth, irreducible components meeting transversally along a smooth divisor $D$. \end{theorem} \subsection{Fixed determinant moduli space} Let $J^{\chi_{_i}-(1-g_{_i})}(X_{_i})$ be the Jacobian of isomorphism classes of line bundles over $X_{_i}$ with Euler characteristic $\chi_{_i}-(1-g_{_i})$, $i=1,2$ and $J_{_0}:=J^{\chi_{_1}-(1-g_{_1})}(X_{_1})\times J^{\chi_{_2}-(1-g_{_2})}(X_{_2})$. In the Appendix we will show that there is a well defined determinant morphism $det:M(2,a,\chi)\to J_{_0}$ whose fibres are again the union of two sooth, projective varieties intersecting transversally along a smooth divisor ( see Proposition \ref{determin}). \subsection{Moduli space of triples} Fix $\xi\in J_{0}$ and let $det^{-1}(\xi):=M_{_{0,\xi}}$. In this subsection we will discuss a different description of the moduli spaces $M(2,a,\chi)$ and $M_{_{0,\xi}}$ in terms of certain moduli space of triples glued along a certain divisor. This description is given in section $5$ of the article \cite{ns}. This description will be useful for the cohomology computations later. The following facts are well known. For the completeness we shall indicate a proof. \begin{fact}\label{para} Let $(X,x)$ be a smooth,projective curve together with a marked point $x$ and $(E,0\subset F^2E(x)\subset E(x))$ be a parabolic vector bundle with weights $0<\beta_{_1}<\beta_{_2}< 1$. Suppose the weights satisfy $|\beta_{_1}-\beta_{_2}|<\frac{1}{2}$. Then we have-\\ $(a)$ $E$ is parabolic semistable implies $E$ is parabolic stable.\\ $(b)$ $E$ is parabolic semistable implies $E$ is semistable.\\ $(c)$ If $E$ is stable then any quasi parabolic structure $(E,0\subset F^2E(x)\subset E(x))$ is parabolic semistable with respect to the weights $0<\beta_{_1}<\beta_{_2}<1$. \begin{proof} From our assumption on weights we get that $|\frac {\beta_{_1}+\beta_{_2}}{2}-\beta_{_i}|<\frac {1}{2}$ for $i=1,2$. Suppose $E$ is strictly parabolic semistable. Let $L$ be a parabolic line subbundle of $E$. Then we have-\[deg(L)=\frac{deg(E)}{2}+\frac{\beta_{_1}+\beta_{_2}}{2}-\beta_{_i}.\] Since $|\frac {\beta_{_1}+\beta_{_2}}{2}-\beta_{_i}|<\frac {1}{2}$ and $deg(L)$ is an integer this is not possible. This completes the proof of $(a)$. Let $L$ be a line subbundle of $E$. The parabolic stability of $E$ implies \[deg(L)<\frac{deg(E)}{2}+\frac{\beta_{_1}+\beta_{_2}}{2}-\beta_{_i}.\] Therefore, $deg(L)<\frac{deg(E)}{2}\pm \frac{1}{2}$. Since $deg(L)$ is an integer the above inequality will imply $deg(L)\leq \frac{deg(E)}{2}$. This completes the proof of $(b)$. Let $L$ be a subbundle of $E$. If $L(x)\cap F^2E(x)\neq 0$ then we associate the weight $\beta_{_1}$ otherwise we associate the weight $\beta_{_2}$. Now as $E$ is stable we have \[deg(L)<\frac{deg(E)}{2}.\] Since $|\frac {\beta_{_1}+\beta_{_2}}{2}-\beta_{_i}|<\frac {1}{2}$ and $deg(L)$ is an integer we conclude that \[deg(L)<\frac{deg(E)}{2}+\frac{\beta_{_1}+\beta_{_2}}{2}-\beta_{_i}.\] This completes the proof of $(c)$. \end{proof} \end{fact} The following result is proved in \cite{ns} \begin{fact}\label{semistable} Let $(F_{_1},F_{_2},A)\in \stackrel{\to}{C}$ (resp. $(F_{_1}',F_{_2}',B)\in \stackrel{\leftarrow}{C}$) be a rank $2$, $(a_{_1},a_{_2})$-semistable and the Euler characteristic $\chi(F_{_i})$, $i=1,2$, satisfy the inequality \ref{inq1}(resp. the inequality \ref{inq3}, then $F_{_i}$(resp. $F_{_i}'$) are semistable over $X_{_i}$ for $i=1,2$ (see \cite[Theorem 5.1]{ns}). \end{fact} Conversely we have the following: \begin{lemma}\label{semistable1} Let $F_{_i}$ be rank $2$ semistable bundles over $X_{_i}$ and the Euler characteristic $\chi(F_{_i})$, $i=1,2$, satisfy the inequalities \ref{inq1}. Let $A:F_{_1}(p)\to F_{_2}(p)$ be a linear map and $rk(A)=2$, then $(F_{_1},F_{_2},A)\in \stackrel{\to}{C}$ is $(a_{_1},a_{_2})$-semistable. Moreover, if $F_{_1}$ and $F_{_2}$ are both stable then $(F_{_1},F_{_2},A)$ is $(a_{_1},a_{_2})$-semistable if $rk(A)\geq 1$. \begin{proof} Case 1: Let $rk(A)=2$ The proof of the statement $(1)$ follows from \cite[Lemma 3.1.12 page 39]{barik}. Now suppose $rk(A)=1$. In this case we need both $F_{_i}$ to be stable. Since $rk(A)=1$ we get a parabolic structure on $F_{_1}$ given by $0\subset ker(A)\subset F_{_1}(p)$ and a parabolic structure on $F_{_2}(p)$ given by $0\subset Im(A)\subset F_{_2}(p)$. By Fact \ref{para} $(c)$ we conclude that the above two quasi parabolic structure are parabolic stable with respect to the weights $0<\frac{a_{_1}}{2}<\frac{a_{_2}}{2}<1$. Thus by \cite[Theorem 6.1]{ns} we get that $(F_{_1},F_{_2},A)$ is semistable. \end{proof} \end{lemma} \begin{remark}\label{other} The same results hold true for the triples in the other direction i.e if $F_{_i}$ are semistable over $X_{_i}$, $i=1,2$ satisfying the inequality \ref{inq3} and $rk(A)=2$ then the triple $(F_{_1},F_{_2},A)\in \stackrel{\leftarrow}{C}$ is $(a_{_1},a_{_2})$-semistable. Moreover, if $F_{_i}$ are stable and $rk(A)\geq 1$ then $(F_{_1},F_{_2},A)\in \stackrel{\leftarrow}{C}$ is $(a_{_1},a_{_2})$-semistable. \end{remark} $(I)$ {\bf Semistable triple of type (I)}: We say a rank $2$, $(a_{_1},a_{_2})$-semistable triple $(F_{_1},F_{_2},A)\in \stackrel{\to}{C}$ is of type $(I)$ if $\chi(F_{_i})$, $i=1,2$, satisfy the following inequalities: \begin{equation}\label{inq2} a_{_1}\chi\textrm{<} \chi_{_{X_{_1}}}(F_{_1})\textrm{<} a_{_1}\chi+1 ~ , ~ a_{_2}\chi+1\textrm{<} \chi_{_{X_{_2}}}(F_{_2})\textrm{<} a_{_2}\chi+2 \end{equation} and $rk(A)\geq 1$. $(II)$ {\bf Semistable triple of type (II)}: We say a $(a_{_1},a_{_2})$-semistable triple $(F_{_1},F_{_1},B)\in \stackrel{\leftarrow}{C}$ is of type $(II)$ if $\chi(F_{_i})$, $i=1,2$ satisfy the following inequalities: \begin{equation}\label{inq3} a_{_1}\chi+1\textrm{<} \chi_{_{X_{_1}}}(F'_{_1})\textrm{<} a_{_1}\chi+2 ~ , ~ a_{_2}\chi\textrm{<} \chi_{_{X_{_2}}}(F'_{_2})\textrm{<} a_{_2}\chi+1\end{equation} and $rk(B)\geq 1$. Let $S$ be a scheme. We say $(\mathcal{F}_{_1},\mathcal{F}_{_2},\mathcal{A})$ a family of triples parametrised by $S$ if $\mathcal{F}_{_i}$'s are locally free sheaves on $X_{_i}\times S$, $i=1,2$ and $\mathcal{A}:\mathcal{F}_{_1}|_{_{p\times S}}\to \mathcal{F}_{_2}|_{_{p\times S}}$ is a $\mathcal{O}_{_S}$-module homomorphism of locally free sheaves. \begin{remark}\label{family} Given a family of triples $(\mathcal{F}_{_1},\mathcal{F}_{_2},\mathcal{A})$ parametrised by $S$ we can associate a family of torsion free sheaves $\mathcal{F}$ parametrised by $S$ i.e a coherent sheaf $\mathcal{F}$ on $X_{_0}\times S$ which is flat over $S$ such that $\mathcal{F}_{_s}$ is torsion free for all $s\in S$. The association is the following: Let $G$ be the locally free subsheaf of $\mathcal{F}_{_1}|_{_{p\times S}}\oplus \mathcal{F}_{_2}|_{_{p\times S}}$ generated by the graph of the homomorphism $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{_S}:=\frac{\mathcal{F}_{_1}|_{_{p\times S}}\oplus \mathcal{F}_{_2}|_{_{p\times S}}}{G}$. Consider the exact sequence- \[0\to \mathcal{F}\to \mathcal{F}_{_1}\oplus \mathcal{F}_{_2}\to \mathcal{L}_{_S}\to 0.\] Since, $\mathcal{F}_{_1}\oplus \mathcal{F}_{_2}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{_S}$ are both flat over $S$. Hence $\mathcal{F}$ is flat over $S$. \end{remark} In \cite[Theorem 5.3]{ns} it is shown that there is a smooth, irreducible projective variety which has the coarse moduli property for family of semistable triple of type $I$. We denote this space by $M_{_{12}}$. By the same construction one can construct another smooth, irreducible, projective variety which has the coarse moduli property of semistable triples of type $(II)$. We denote this space by $M_{_{21}}$. Let \[D_{_1}:=\{[(F_{_1},F_{_2},A)\in M_{_{12}}\mid rk(A)=1\}.\] and \[D_{_2}:=\{[(F'_{_1},F'_{_2},B)]\in M_{_{21}}\mid rk(B)=1\}.\] Then, by \cite[Theorem 6.1]{ns} it follows $D_{_1}$ (resp. $D_{_2}$) is a smooth divisor in $M_{_{12}}$(resp. $M_{_{21}}$). Now if $(F_{_1},F_{_2},A)\in \stackrel{\to}{C}$ and $rk(A)=1$, then by Remark \ref{direction}, we get a unique triple $(F'_{_1},F'_{_2},B)\in \stackrel{\leftarrow}{C}$ such that $rk(B)=1$ and $\chi(F'_{_1})=\chi(F_{_1})+1$, $\chi(F_{_2}')=\chi(F_{_2})-1$. Therefore, this association defines a natural isomorphism between $D_{_1}$ and $D_{_2}$. Let us denote this isomorphism by $\Psi$ and $M_{_0}$ be the variety obtained by identifying the closed subschemes $D_{_1}$ and $D_{_2}$ via the isomorphism $\Psi$. Now by Remark \ref{family} we get a morphism $f_{_1}:M_{_{12}}\to M(2,a,\chi)$ (resp. $f_{_2}:M_{_{21}}\to M(2,a,\chi)$) by associating a triple $(F_{_1},F_{_2},A)$ to the corresponding torsion free sheaf $F$. Clearly $f_{_1}$ and $f_{_2}$ are compatible with the gluing morphism $\Psi$. Thus we get a morphism $M_{_0}\to M(2,a,\chi)$. This morphism is bijective. Also this morphism induces an isomorphism on the dense open subvariety of $M_{_0}$ consisting of rank $2$ triples. Therefore it is a birational morphism. Thus by \cite[Theorem 2.4]{Vit} the variety $M_{_0}$ is isomorphic to the moduli space $M(2,a,\chi)$ as the latter space is projective and seminormal, being the union of two smooth projective variety intersecting transversally, without any one dimensional component. Let $S$ be a finite type scheme and $\chi_{_i}'=\chi_{_i}-(1-g_{_i})$. Given a family of type $(I)$, $(a_{_1},a_{_2})$ semistable triples $(\mathcal{F}_{_1},\mathcal{F}_{_2},\mathcal{A})$ parametrised by $S$ we get two families of line bundles $\wedge^2\mathcal{F}_{_i}$ over $X_{_i}\times S$, $i=1,2$. Thus by the universal property of $J^{\chi_{_i}'}(X_{_i})$ we get a morphism \[det_{_1}:M_{_{12}}\to J_{_0}:=J^{\chi_{_1}'}(X_{_1})\times J^{\chi_{_2}'}(X_{_2}).\] such that $det_{_1}((F_{_1},F_{_2},A))=(\wedge^2F_{_1},\wedge^2F_{_2})$ for all closed points $(F_{_1},F_{_2},A)\in M_{_{12}}$. Similarly, we get another morphism: \[det_{_2}:M_{_{21}}\to J_{_0}':=J^{\chi_{_1}'+1}(X_{_1})\times J^{\chi_{_2}'-1}(X_{_2}).\] such that $det_{_2}((F_{_1},F_{_2},A))=(\wedge^2F_{_1},\wedge^2F_{_2})$ for all closed points $(F_{_1},F_{_2},A)\in M_{_{21}}$. \begin{lemma}\label{det3} The fibres of $det_{_i}$ are smooth and the fibres of $det_{_i}$ intersect $D_{_i}$ transversally, $i=1,2$. \begin{proof} The group $J^0(X_{_1})\times J^{0}(X_{_2})$ acts on $M_{_{21}}$ (resp. $M_{_{21}}$) by $(F_{_1},F_{_2},A)\mapsto (F_{_1}\otimes L_{_1},F_{_2}\otimes F_{_2}\otimes L_{_2},A)$ and on $J_{_0}$ (resp. $J_{_0}'$ ) by $(M_{_1},M_{_2})\mapsto (M_{_1}\otimes L_{_1},M_{_2}\times L_{_2})$ where $(L_{_1},L_{_2})\in J^0(X_{_1})\times J^{0}(X_{_2})$. The morphism $det_{_1}$ (resp. $det_{_2}$) is clearly compatible with the above actions. Thus $det_{_1}$ (resp. $det_{_2}$) is smooth. As $M_{_{12}}$ (resp. $M_{_{21}}$) and $J_{_0}$ (resp. $J'_{_0}$) are smooth, the fibres of $det_{_1}$ (resp. $det_{_2}$) are smooth. Clearly, the divisor $D_{_1}$ (resp. $D_{_2}$) is invariant under the above action. Therefore, $det_{_i}|_{_{D_{_i}}}$ are smooth, $i=1,2$. Thus the fibres of $det_{_i}|_{_{D_{_i}}}$ are also smooth. Clearly, the intersection of a fibre of $det_{_i}$ with $D_{_i}$ is the fibre of $det_{_i}|_{_{D_{_i}}}$. Hence we are done. \end{proof} \end{lemma} Fix $\xi=(\xi_{_1},\xi_{_2})\in J^{\chi_{_1}'}(X_{_1})\times J^{\chi_{_2}'}(X_{_2})$. Let $det_{_1}^{-1}(\xi):=M_{_{12}}^{\xi}$ and $det_{_2}^{-1}(\xi'):=M_{_{21}}^{\xi'}$ where $\xi'=(\xi(p),\xi(-p))$. By Lemma \ref{det3} the fibre $det_{_1}^{-1}(\xi)$ (resp. $det_{_2}^{-1}(\xi')$) intersects $D_{_1}$ (resp. $D_{_2}$) transversally. Hence $D_{_1}^{\xi}:=det_{_1}^{-1}(\xi)\cap D_{_1}$ and $D_{_2}^{\xi'}:=det_{_2}^{-1}(\xi')\cap D_{_2}$. Let $M_{_{0,\xi}}$ be the closed subvariety of $M_{_0}$ obtained by gluing $M_{_{12}}^{\xi}$ and $M_{_{21}}^{\xi'}$ along the closed subschemes $D_{_1}^{\xi}$ and $D_{_2}^{\xi'}$ via the isomorphism $\Psi$. Let $det$ be the morphism defined in Proposition \ref{determin}. We can easily show that $det^{-1}(\xi)$, $\xi\in J_{_0}$ is isomorphic to the variety $M_{_{0,\xi}}$. In the next section we will compute some of the cohomology groups of $M_{_{0,\xi}}$. \subsubsection{Notation} Henceforth, we will denote by $M_{_{0,\xi}}$, the moduli space of rank $2$, $(a_{_1},a_{_2})$- semistable bundles with $det\simeq \xi$ and its components by $M_{_{12}}$ and $M_{_{21}}$. We also denote the smooth divisor $D_{_1}^{\xi}$ in $M_{_{12}}$ by $D_{_1}$ and the smooth divisor $D_{_2}^{\xi}$ in $M_{_{21}}$ by $D_{_2}$. We conclude this section by proving a geometric fact about the moduli space $M_{_{12}}$ (resp. $M_{_{21}}$). \begin{lemma} The moduli space $M_{_{12}}$ (resp, $M_{_{21}}$) is a unirational variety. \end{lemma} \begin{proof}\label{unirational} To prove $M_{_{12}}$ is unirational we can assume, after tensoring by line bundles, it consists of all triples $(F_{_1},F_{_2},A)$, where $F_{_i}$ is semistable over $X_{_i}$ such that $deg(F_{_i})>2(2g_{_i}-1)$ $i=1,2$. Then, any such $F_{_i}$ can be obtained as an extension: \[0\to \mathcal{O}_{_{X_{_i}}} \to F_{_i}\to \xi_{_i}\to 0,\] where $\xi_{_i}=det(F_{_i})$ for $i=1,2$. The exact sequences of this type are classified by $V_{_{\xi_{_i}}}:=Ext^1(\mathcal{O}_{_{X_{_i}}},\xi_{_i})=H^1(X_{_i},\xi_{_i}^*)$. Let $\mathcal{E}_{i}$ be the universal extension over $X_{_i}\times V_{_{\xi_{_i}}}$. We denote the restriction ${\mathcal{E}_{_i}}_{_{|p\times V_{_{\xi_{_i}}}}}$ by ${\mathcal{E}_{_i}}_{_p}$. Clearly, $Hom(\mathcal{E}_{_1},\mathcal{E}_{_2})$ parametrises a family of triples in the sense we have defined family of triples and if $(F_{_1},F_{_2},A)$ be a triple corresponding to the closed point $A\in Hom(\mathcal{E}_{_1},\mathcal{E}_{_2})$ then $F_{_i}$'s are the extensions of the type described before. Now as $F_{_i}$'s are semistable if we choose an isomorphism $A:F_{_1}(p)\to F_{_2}(p)$ then by Lemma \ref{semistable}, $(F_{_1},F_{_2},A)$ is semistable. Thus we conclude the set of points $W$ where the corresponding triple is semistable is a nonempty Zariski open set of $Hom(\mathcal{E}_{_1},\mathcal{E}_{_2})$. Therefore, by the coarse moduli property of $M_{_{ 12}}$, we get a morphism from $W$ to $M_{_{12}}$. Clearly the morphism $W\to M_{_{12}}$ is surjective. Hence, $M_{_{12}}$ is a unirational variety. The same argument shows the moduli space $M_{_{21}}$ is also a unirational variety. \end{proof} \section{Topology of \texorpdfstring{$M_{_{0, \xi}}$}{}}\label{top} In this section, our main aim is to outline a strategy to compute the cohomology groups of $M_{_{0,\xi}}$ and compute explicitly the third cohomology group. We make the following convention: Let $X$ be a topological space. By $H^k(X)$ we mean the cohomology groups of $X$ with the coefficients in $\mathbb{Q}$, $k\geq 0$. Whenever we obtain any results for other coefficients, e.g $\mathbb{Z}$, we will specifically mention it. Suppose $X$ and $Y$ be varities over $\mathbb{C}$. Whenever we say $X\to Y$ a topological fibre bundle, we assume the underlying topology of $X$ and $Y$ to be complex analytic topology. Let $Y$ be a smooth,projective curve of genus $g_{_Y}\geq 2$ and $M_{_Y}$ be the moduli space of rank $2$ semistable bundles with fixed determinant. The cohomology groups of $M_{_Y}$ are quite well studied in the literature. When the determinant is odd $M_{_Y}$ is a smooth projective variety of dimension $3g_{_Y}-3$ and the cohomology groups with integral coefficients are completely known. When the determinant is even $M_{_Y}$ need not be smooth. In fact it is known that the singular locus of $M_{_Y}$ is precisely the complement $M_{_Y}\setminus M_{_Y}^{s}$ if $g_{_Y}\geq 3$ where $M_{_Y}^s$ is the open subset consisting of stable bundles (see \cite[Theorem 1]{NAR}). In this case also the Betti numbers are determined in the work of \cite{bs}. We will summarize some of the results concerning the cohomology groups of $M_{_Y}$ in both the cases i.e odd determinant and even determinant: \begin{lemma}\label{topology} \begin{enumerate} \item Let $M_{_Y}$ be the moduli space of rank $2$ semistable bundles with odd determinant. Then $M_{_Y}$ is a smooth, projective rational variety (\cite{ne1}) and hence it is simply connected and $H^3(M_{_Y},\mathbb{Z})_{_{tor}}=0$. Furthermore, $b_{_1}(M_{_Y})=0$, $b_{_2}(M_{_Y})=1$, $b_{_3}(M_{_Y})=2g_{_Y}$, where $b_{_i}$ are the Betti numbers (\cite{ne}). \item Let $M_{_Y}$ be the moduli space of rank $2$ semistable bundles with even determinant. Then $M_{_Y}^s$ is a simply connected variety (\cite[Proposition 1.2]{bbgn}). Furthermore, we have $b_{_1}(M_{_Y})=0$, $b_{_2}(M_{_Y})=1$ and $b_{_3}(M_{_Y}^s)=2g_{_Y}$, where $b_{_i}$ are the Betti numbers (\cite{N}, \cite[Section 3]{bs}). \end{enumerate} \end{lemma} Let $M_{_1}$ (resp. $M_{_1}'$) be the moduli space of rank $2$, semistable bundles over $X_{_1}$ with $det\simeq \xi_{_1}$ (resp. with $det\simeq \xi_{_1}(p)$) and $M_{_2}$ (resp. $M_{_2}'$) be the moduli space of rank $2$, semistable bundes over $X_{_2}$ with $det\simeq \xi_{_2}$ (resp. $\det\simeq \xi_{_2}(-p)$) where $\xi_{_i}$'s are line bundles of degree $d_{_i}=\chi_{_i}-2(1-g_{_i})$ for $i=1,2$ and the integers $\chi_{_1}$, $\chi_{_2}$ satisfy the inequality \ref{inq1}. Since $\chi$ is odd, one of the integer in the pair $(d_{_1},d_{_2})$ is odd and the other is even. We assume that $d_{_1}$ is odd and $d_{_2}$ is even. Therefore, $M_{_1}$ and $M_{_2}'$ are smooth projective varieties. Let $M_{_2}^s$ be the open subvariety of $M_{_2}$ consisting of all the isomorphism classes of stable bundles over $X_{_2}$ and $M_{_1}'^s$ be the open subvariety of $M_{_1}'$ consisting of all the isomorphism classes of stable bundles over $X_{_1}$. Note that $M_{_2}\setminus M_{_2}^s$ is precisely the singular locus of $M_{_2}$ if $g_{_2}\geq 3$ and $M_{_1}'\setminus M_{_1}'^s$ is precisely the singular locus of $M_{_1}'$ if $g_{_1}\geq 3$. Let us denote the open subvariety $M_{_1}\times M_{_2}^s$ of $M_{_1}\times M_{_2}$ by $B$. We will show the following, \begin{proposition}\label{morphism} There is a surjective morphism $p: M_{_{12}}\to M_{_1}\times M_{_2}$. Moreover, $p:P\to B$ is a topological ${\mathbb P}^3$-bundle where $P:=p^{-1}(B)$. \begin{proof} Let $S$ be a finite type scheme and $(\mathcal{F}_{_1},\mathcal{F}_{_2},\mathcal{A})$ be a family of triples parametrised by $S$ such that $({\mathcal{F}_{_1}}_{_s},{\mathcal{F}_{_2}}_{_s},\mathcal{A}_{_s})$ is $(a_{_1},a_{_2})$-semistable of type $(I)$ for all $s\in S$ where ${\mathcal{F}_{_i}}_{_s}:=\mathcal{F}_{_i}|_{_{X_{_0}\times s}}$. We also assume $\wedge^2{\mathcal{F}_{_i}}_{_s}\simeq \xi_{_i}$, $i=1,2$. Then by Fact \ref{semistable} ${\mathcal{F}_{_i}}_{_s}$, $i=1,2$, are semistable for all $s\in S$. Thus we get a morphism $p:M_{_{12}}\to M_{_1}\times M_{_2}$. Let $([F_{_1}],[F_{_2}])\in M_{_1}\times M_{_2}$. Choose any isomorphism $A:F_{_1}(p)\to F_{_2}(p)$. Then, by Fact \ref{semistable1} $(F_{_1},F_{_2},A)$ is $(a_{_1},a_{_2})$-semistable. Therefore, $p$ is surjective. Now we show that $p:P\to B$ is a topological ${\mathbb P}^3$-bundle. Let $b=([F_{_1}],[F_{_2}])\in B$. Our first claim is the fibre $p^{-1}(b)$ is homeomorphic to ${\mathbb P} Hom(F_{_1}(p),F_{_2}(p))\simeq {\mathbb P}^3$. Let $A\in Hom(F_{_1}(p),F_{_2}(p))$ and $A\neq 0$. Since both $F_{_i}$'s are stable, by Lemma \ref{semistable1}, $(F_{_1},F_{_2},A)$ is $(a_{_1},a_{_2})$-stable. Thus we get a morphism $i_{_b}:Hom(F_{_1}(p),F_{_2}(p))\setminus 0\to M_{_{12}}$. Clearly, $i_{_b}(Hom(F_{_1}(p),F_{_2}(p)))\setminus 0)=p^{-1}(b)$. Note that $(F_{_1},F_{_2},A)$ and $(F_{_1},F_{_2},\lambda A)$ are isomorphic for all $\lambda\in \mathbb{C}^*$. Thus $i_{_b}$ descends to a morphism $i_{_b}:{\mathbb P} Hom(F_{_1}(p),F_{_2}(p))\to p^{-1}(b)$. Now we show that $i_{_b}$ is injective. Then the claim will follow. Let $A, B\in {\mathbb P} Hom(F_{_1}(p),F_{_2}(p))$ are disticnt points. Then the triples $(F_{_1},F_{_2},A)$, $F_{_1},F_{_2},B)$ are non isomorphic. Suppose, $(F_{_1},F_{_2},A)$ and $(F_{_1},F_{_2},B)$ are isomorphic as triples. Then there are isomorphisms $\phi_{_i}:F_{_i}\to F_{_i}$, $i=1,2$ such that we have the following commutative diagram: \begin{equation} \xymatrix{F_{_1}(p) \ar[r]^{\phi_{_1}(p)} \ar[d]^{A} & F_{_1}(p) \ar[d]^{B} \\ F_{_2}(p)\ar[r]^{\phi_{_2}(p)} & F_{_2}(p)} \end{equation} Since $F_{_i}$ are stable the only isomorphisms of $F_{_i}$ are $\lambda I$ for some scalor $\lambda$. Thus we have $\phi_{_i}(p)=\lambda_{_i} I$, $i=1,2$. From the commutativity of the above diagram we get $B\lambda_{_1}=\lambda_{_2}A$. Thus $B=\lambda_{_1}^{-1}\lambda_{_2}A$. Hence a contradiction as $A$ and $B$ are disticnt in ${\mathbb P} Hom(F_{_1}(p),F_{_2}(p))$. Therefore, the morphism is injective. Since the fibres of $p:P\to B$ are compact, $p:P\to B$ is a proper, analytic map. Our next claim is that the induced map $dp:T_{_F}\to T_{_{p(F)}}$ at the level of Zariski tangent space is surjective for all $F=(F_{_1},F_{_2},A)\in P$. Let $(F_{_1},F_{_2})\in B$. Since $F_{_i}$ are both stable, $i=1,2$, the Zariski tangent space $T_{_{F_{_i}}}\simeq H^1(End(F_{_i}))_{_0}$ where $H^1(End(F_{_i}))_{_0}=Ker(tr^1:H^1(End(F_{_i}))\to H^1(\mathcal{O}_{_{X_{_i}}}))$ and $tr^1$, the trace homomorphism (see \cite[Theorem 4.5.4]{huy}). Thus the tangent space $T_{_{(F_1,F_2)}}B\simeq H^1(End(F_{_1}))_{_0}\times H^1(End(F_{_2}))_{_0}$. Now a cocycle in $H^1(End(F_{_i}))$ corresponds to a locally free sheaf $\mathcal{F}_{_i}$ over $X_{_i}\times D$ such that ${\mathcal{F}_{_i}}_{t_0}\simeq F_{_i}$ where $D=Spec\frac{\mathbb{C}[\varepsilon]}{\varepsilon^2}$ and $t_{_0}=(\varepsilon)$. Choose an isomorphism $\mathcal{A}:F_{_1}(p)\to F_{_2}(p)$. Then clearly, $A$ lifts to a $\mathcal{O}_{_D}$-module homomorphism $\mathcal{A}:F_{_1}|_{_{p\times D}}\to F_{_2}|_{_{p\times D}}$. Thus we get a triple $(\mathcal{F}_{_1},\mathcal{F}_{_2},\mathcal{A})$ parametrised by $D$ such that $({\mathcal{F}_{_1}}_{t_0},{\mathcal{F}_{_2}}_{t_0},\mathcal{A}_{_{t_0}})=(F_{_1},F_{_2},A)$. By the coarse moduli property of $M_{_{12}}$ we get a morphism $x:D\to M_{_{12}}$ such that $x(t_{_0})=(F_{_1},F_{_2},A)$. In otherwords we get a point of the Zariski tangent space at $(F_{_1},F_{_2},A)$. Thus $dp$ is surjective. Therefore, $p$ is a proper, surjective, holomorphic submersion. Hence, $p:P\to B$ is a topological ${\mathbb P}^3$- bundle. \end{proof} \end{proposition} \begin{remark}\label{2} By the same arguments as before we get a morphism $p':M_{_{21}}\to M'_{_1}\times M'_{_2}$, where $M'_{_1}$ is the moduli space of rank $2$ semistable bundles over $X_{_1}$ with $det\simeq \xi'_{_1}$ and $M'_{_2}$ be the moduli space of rank $2$ semistable bundles over $X_{_2}$ with $det\simeq \xi'_{2}$, where $\xi'_{_1}:=\xi_{_1}(p)$ and $\xi'_{_2}:=\xi_{_2}(-p)$. Moreover, $p': \overline P\to B'$ is a ${\mathbb P}^3$-fibration where $B'=M_{_1}^s\times M_{_2}$ and $\overline P= p'^{-1}(B')$. \end{remark} \subsection{Codimension computations} In the following proposition we compute the codimension of the complement of the open subvariety $P$ in $M_{_{12}}$ (resp. the complement of $\overline P$ in $M_{_{21}}$). Let $K'$ denote the complement of $P$ in $M_{_{12}}$ and $K_{_2}'$ denote the complement of $\overline P$ in $M_{_{21}}$. Then we have \begin{proposition}\label{codimension}{\ } \noindent $(a)$ $Codim (K',M_{_{12}})= g_{_2}-1.$ where $g_{_2}$ is the genus of $X_{_2}$\\ $(b)$ $Codim (K_{_2}',M_{_{21}})= g_{_1}-1$ where $g_{_1}$ is the genus of $X_{_1}$. \end{proposition} \begin{proof} We will only show $(a)$. The proof of $(b)$ is similar. Note that if $(F_{_1},F_{_2},A)\in K'$ then $F_{_2}$ is a strictly semistable bundle on $X_{_2}$. Therefore, $K'=p^{-1}(M_{_1}\times K)$, where $K=M_{_2}\setminus M_{_2}^s$ and $p$ is the morphism as in Proposition \ref{morphism}. . Now $F_{_2}\in K$ if and only if there is a short exact sequence \[0\to L_{_2}\to F_{_2}\to L_{_1}\to 0,\] for some line bundles $L_{_1}$, $L_{_2}$ with $deg(L_{_i})=\frac{d_{_2}}{2}$, $i=1,2$. Clearly, $L_{_1}\otimes L_{_2}\simeq det(F_{_2})\simeq \xi_{_2}$. Thus $K$ consists of all S-equivalance classes $[L_{_1}\oplus L_{_2}]$ of semistable bundles on $X_{_2}$ where $L_{_1},L_{_2}\in J^{d'_{_2}}(X_{_2})$, $d_{_2}'=\frac{d_{_2}}{2}$ such that $L_{_1}\otimes L_{_2}\simeq \xi_{_2}$. Let $K^{0}$ be the subset of $K$ consisting of all S- equivalence classes $[L_{_1}\oplus L_{_2}]$ such that $L_{_1}\ncong L_{_2}$. Then by \cite[Lemma 4.3]{NAR} $K^{0}$ is an open and dense subset of $K$. Let $K''=p^{-1}(M_{_1}\times K^{0})$. Then $K''$ is open and dense in $K'$. Therefore, we get $dim(K')=dim(K'')$. Now we will find a parameter variety of isomorphism classes of all $(a_{_1},a_{_2})$-semistable triples $(F_{_1},F_{_2},A)$ where $F_{_1}\in M_{_1}$ and $F_{_2}\in {\mathbb P} Ext^1(L_{_1},L_{_2})$ for some $L_{_i}\in J^{d'_{_2}}(X_{_2})$, $i=1,2$ with $L_{_1}\ncong L_{_2}$ and show that this parameter variety has same dimension as $K''$. Let $J^{\xi_{_2}}=\{(L_{_1},L_{_2})\in J^{d'_{_2}}(X_{_2})\times J^{d'_{_2}}(X_{_2})\mid L_{_1}\otimes L_{_2}\simeq \xi_{_2}\}$. Note that $J^{d'_{_2}}(X_{_2})$ is isomorphic to $J^{\xi_{_2}}$ by $L\mapsto (L,\xi_{_2}\otimes L^{-1})$. Therefore, $J^{\xi_{_2}}$ is a closed subvariety of $J^{d'_{_2}}(X_{_2})\times J^{d'_{_2}}(X_{_2})$ of dimension $g_{_2}$. Let $J'=\{(L_{_1},L_{_2})\in J^{d_{_2}}(X_{_2})\times J^{d'_{_2}}(X_{_2})\mid L_{_1}\ncong L_{_2}\}$. Then, clearly $J'$ is an open and dense subvariety of $J^{d'_{_2}}(X_{_2})\times J^{d'_{_2}}(X_{_2})$. Let $J'^{\xi_{_2}}:=J'\cap J^{\xi_{_2}}$. We will construct a projective bundle ${\mathbb P}$ over $J'$ such that the fibre over a point $(L_{_1},L_{_2})\in J'$ is isomorphic to ${\mathbb P} Ext^1(L_{_1},L_{_2})$: Let $\mathcal{L}$ be the Poincare line bundle over $X_{_2}\times J^{d'_{_2}}(X_{_2})$ and $\mathcal{L}_{_i}:=(id\times p_{_i})^{*}\mathcal{L}$ where $p_{_i}:J^{d'_{_2}}(X_{_2})\times J^{d'_{_2}}(X_{_2})\to J^{d'_{_2}}(X_{_2}) $ is the $i$th projection for $i=1,2$. Then $V:=R^1{p_{_{J'}}}_{_*}Hom(\mathcal{L}_{_1},\mathcal{L}_{_2})$ is a locally free sheaf of rank $g_{_2}-1$ over $J'$ where $p_{_{J'}}:X_{_2}\times J'\to J'$ is the projection. Let ${\mathbb P}$ over $J'$ be the projective bundle associated to $V$. Then the fibre over a point $(L_{_1},L_{_2})\in J'$ is isomorphic to ${\mathbb P} Ext^1(L_{_1},L_{_2})$. Let $P'={\mathbb P}|_{_{J'^{\xi_{_2}}}}$. Let $\mathcal{G}$ be the universal extension over $X_{_2}\times P'$ (see \cite[Proposition 3.1]{NAR}) and $F$ be a universal bundle over $X_{_2}\times M_{_1}$ (note that $F$ exists as the degree and rank of the vector bundles in $M_{_1}$ are coprime). Let $\mathcal{G}_{_p}:=\mathcal{G}|_{_{_{p\times P'}}}$ and $F_{_p}:=F|_{_{_{p\times M_{_1}}}}$. Clearly, $Hom(F_{_p},G_{_p})$ parametrises a family of triples of type $(I)$ such that every closed point in $ \ Hom(F_{_p},G_{_p})$ corresponds to a triple $(F_{_1},F_{_2},A)$ where $F_{_1}\in M_{_1}$ and $F_{_2}\in P'$. Note that if $E\in {\mathbb P} Ext^1(L_{_1},L_{_2})$ then $Aut(E)\simeq \mathbb{C}^*$ whenever $L_{_1}\ncong L_{_2}$ (see \cite[Lemma 4.1]{NAR}). Let $A,B\in {\mathbb P} Hom(F_{_p},\mathcal{G}_{_p})$ be two distinct closed points and $(F_{_1},F_{_2},A)$, $(G_{_1},G_{_2},B)$ be the corresponding triples. Then $(F_{_1},F_{_2},A)$ and $(G_{_1},G_{_2},B)$ are non isomorphic. This follows from the two facts: if $E_{_1}\in M_{_1}$ and $E_{_2}\in P'$ then $Aut(E_{_i})\simeq \mathbb{C}^*$. If $E_{_1},E_{_2}\in {\mathbb P} Ext^1(L_{_1},L_{_2})$ are distinct then $E_{_1}$ and $E_{_2}$ are non isomorphic ( \cite[Lemma 3.3]{NAR}). Let $K_{_1}$ be the subset of ${\mathbb P} Hom(F_{_p},\mathcal{G}_{_p})$ whose closed points correspond to the triples $(F_{_1},\mathcal{G}_{_2},A)$ such that $rk(A)=2$. Then $K_{_1}$ is an open subset in ${\mathbb P} Hom(F_{_p},\mathcal{G}_{_p})$. Note that by Lemma \ref{semistable1}, any closed point of $K_{_1}$ is semistable. Therefore, by the coarse moduli property of $M_{_{12}}$, we get a morphism $i_{_K}:K_{_1}\to M_{_{12}}$. By the above discussions $i_{_K}$ is injective. Clearly, the image $i_{_K}(K_{_1})$ is dense in $K''$ since if $(F_{_1},F_{_2},A)\in K''\setminus i_{_K}(K_{_1})$ then $F_{_2}\simeq L_{_1}\oplus L_{_2}$ for some $L_{_1},L_{_2}\in J^{d_{_2}'}(X_{_2})$. Therefore, $dim(K_{_1})= dim(K'')$ We have $\mbox{dim}(M_{_1})=3g_{_1}-3$ and $\mbox{dim}(P')=2g_{_2}-2$. Therefore, ${\mathbb P} Hom(F_{_p},\mathcal{G}_{_p})=dim(K_{_1})=3g_{_1}-3+2g_{_2}-2+3=3g_{_1}+2g_{_2}-2$. Note that $P$ is an dense open subvariety of $M_{_{12}}$, therefore $dim(P)=dim(M_{_{12}})$. Now, from the proof of Proposition \ref{morphism}, $p:P\to B$ is flat with fibres isomorphic to ${\mathbb P}^3$ as algebraic varieties. Therefore, $dim(P)=dim(B)+3=3(g_{_1}+g_{_2})-3$. Hence, we have $\mbox{dim} M_{_{12}}=3g_{_1}+3g_{_2}-3$. Since $Codim(K',M_{_{12}}) = dim(M_{_{12}})-dim(K')$ and $dim(K_{_1})= dim(K'')$, we see \begin{equation*} \begin{split} & Codim(K',M_{_{12}}) = 3g_{_1}+3g_{_2}-3-3g_{_1}-2g_{_2}+2\\ & \hspace{3cm} =g_{_2}-1. \qedhere \end{split} \end{equation*} \end{proof} Now we recall a well-known fact (see \cite[Lemma 12]{bs}). \begin{lemma}\label{excision} Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety and $k:=Codim(X/U)$, where $U$ be an open subset of $X$ . Then we have $H^i(X,\mathbb{Z})\simeq H^i(U,\mathbb{Z})$ for all $i< 2k-1$. \end{lemma} Using the above Lemma and Proposition \ref{codimension} we immediately get the following \begin{proposition}\label{imp} With the above notations, \begin{item} \item[(i)] $H^i(M_{_{12}},\mathbb{Z})\simeq H^i(P,\mathbb{Z})$ for $i<2k-1$ where $k=g_{_2}-1$. \item[(ii)] $H^i(M_{_{21}},\mathbb{Z})\simeq H^i(\overline P,\mathbb{Z})$ for $i<2k'-1$ where $k'=g_{_1}-1$. \end{item} \end{proposition} \subsection{Computation of cohomology groups of \texorpdfstring{$M_{_{0, \xi}}$}{}} In this subsection we will outline the strategy to compute the Betti numbers of the component $M_{_{12}}$(resp. $M_{_{21}}$) and compute the third cohomology of $M_{_{0,\xi}}$ in full details. First we compute the Betti numbers of $P$ (resp. $\overline P$) using Leray-Hirsh Theorem: \begin{theorem}\label{LH}(Leray-Hirsh) Let $f:X\to Y$ be a topological fibre bundle with fibres isomorhic to $F$. Suppose, $e_{_1},\cdots,e_{_n}\in H^*(X)$ such that $H^*(X_{_y})$ is freely generated by $i_{_y}^*e_{_1},\cdots, i_{_y}^*e_{_n}$ for all $y\in Y$ where $X_{_y}=f^{-1}(y)$ and $i_{_y}:X_{_y}\to X$ is the inclusion. Then $H^*(X)$ is freely generated as a $H^*(Y)$-module by $e_{_1},\cdots,e_{_n}$. \end{theorem} \begin{proposition}\label{lbetti} The $k$-th Betti number $b_{_{k}}(P)=\sum_{_{l+m=k}}b_{_l}(B)b_{_m}({\mathbb P}^3)$ (resp. $b_{_{k}}(\overline P)=\sum_{_{l+m=k}}b_{_l}(\overline B)b_{_m}({\mathbb P}^3)$. \begin{proof} Since $P$ and $B$ are both smooth varieties and $p:P\to B$ is a submersion we get $p$ is smooth. Therefore, the fibres of $p|_{_P}$ are smooth. From the proof of Proposition \ref{morphism}, it follows that the fibres of $p$ are isomorphic to ${\mathbb P}^3$ as algebraic varieties. Choose a relatively ample line bundle $L$ over $P$. Now $p_{_*}L$ is locally free by Zariski Main theorem. Therefore, we get that the dimension of $H^0(p^{-1}(b),L|_{_{p^{-1}(b)}})$ is constant for all $b\in B$. Hence, $L|_{_{p^{-1}(b)}}=\mathcal{O}(k)$ for some $k>0$ for all $b\in B$. Consider the cohomolgy classes $c_{_1}(L)$, $c_{_1}(L)^2$, $c_{_1}(L)^3$. We denote by $j_{_b}:p^{-1}(b)\to P$ the inclusion. Then $H^*(p^{-1}(b))$ is freely generated by $j_{_b}^*c_{_1}(L)$, $j_{_b}^*c_{_1}(L)^2$ and $j_{_b}^*c_{_1}(L)^3$ for all $b\in B$. Thus using Leray-Hirsch theorem we get: \[b_{_k}(P)=\sum_{_{l+m=k}}b_{_l}(B)b_{_m}({\mathbb P}^3).\] where $b_{_k}(X)$ denotes the $k$th Betti number of a space $X$. \end{proof} \end{proposition} As a corollary of the above Proposition we immediately get: \begin{corollary}\label{betti} $(i)$ $b_{_1}(P)=0$ (resp.$b_{_1}(\overline P)=0$) , $(ii)$ $b_{_2}(P)=3$ (resp. $b_{_2}(\overline P)=3$) and $(iii)$ $b_{_3}(P)=2g$ (resp. $b_{_3}(\overline P)=2g$) where $g$ is the arithmatic genus of $X_{_0}$ and $b_{_i}$'s are the Betti numbers, $i=1,2,3$. \begin{proof} By Lemma \ref{topology} and the Kunneth formula it follows that $b_{_1}(B)=b_{_1}(M_{_1})+b_{_1}(M_{_2}^s)=0$, $b_{_2}(B)=b_{_2}(M_{_1})+b_{_2}(M_{_2}^s)=1+1=2$ and $b_{_3}(B)=b_{_3}(M_{_1})+b_{_3}(M_{_2}^s)=2g_{_1}+2g_{_2}=2g$. Thus by Proposition \ref{lbetti} we get $b_{_1}(P)=0$, $b_{_2}(P)=3$ and $b_{_3}(P)=2g$. \end{proof} \end{corollary} \begin{remark} By above proposition all the Betti numbers of $P$ can be computed using the above argument as the Betti numbers of the varities $M_{_1}$ and $M_{_2}^s$ are well known (see \cite[page 113]{bs}). \end{remark} Let $g_{_1},g_{_2}>3$. Then as a consequence of Proposition \ref{imp} and Corollary \ref{betti} we immediately get: \begin{theorem}\label{great} \begin{enumerate} With the notations above, \item $H^1(M_{_{12}})=0$ (resp. $H^1(M_{_{21}})=0$). \item $H^2(M_{_{12}})\simeq \mathbb{Q}\oplus \mathbb{Q} \oplus \mathbb{Q}$ (resp. $H^2(M_{_{21}})\simeq \mathbb{Q}\oplus \mathbb{Q} \oplus \mathbb{Q}$). \item $H^3(M_{_{12}})\simeq \mathbb{Q}^{2g}$ (resp. $H^2(M_{_{21}})\simeq \mathbb{Q}^{2g}$). \end{enumerate} \begin{remark} $M_{_{12}}$ (resp. $M_{_{21}}$) is a smooth, projective unirational variety by Lemma \ref{unirational}. Therefore, by a result of Serre (\cite{Se}) $M_{_{12}}$ (resp. $M_{_{21}}$) is a simply connected variety. \end{remark} \end{theorem} \subsection{Continuation of the cohomology computation} We have $M_{_{0,\xi}}=M_{_{12}}\cup M_{_{21}}$. Let $D=M_{_{12}}\cap M_{_{21}}$. We will compute the third cohomology group of $M_{_{0,\xi}}$ using Mayer-Vietoris sequence. Before we compute the cohomology group we will make few more observations. Let $P_{_1}$ be the moduli space of rank $2$, parabolic semistable bundles $(F_{_1},0\subset F^2F_{_1}\subset F_{_1}(p))$ on $X_{_1}$ with parabolic weights $0<\frac {a_{_1}}{2}< \frac {a_{_2}}{2}<1$ and $detF_{_1}\simeq \xi_{_1}$. Let $P_{_2}$ be the moduli space of rank $2$, parabolic semistable bundles $(F_{_2},0\subset F^2F_{_2}(p)\subset F_{_2}(p))$ on $X_{_2}$ with parabolic weights $0<\frac {a_{_1}}{2}< \frac {a_{_2}}{2}<1$ and $detF_{_2}\simeq \xi_{_2}$. By Fact \ref{para} $(a)$ any parabolic semistable bundle in $P_{_1}$ (resp. in $P_{_2}$) is parabolic stable. Therefore, one can show that $P_{_i}$'s are smooth, $i=1,2$. Since $E\in P_{_i}$ is semistable by Fact \ref{para} $(b)$, we get morphisms $q_{_i}:P_{_i}\to M_{_i}$, $i=1,2$. Let $P_{_2}^s=q_{_2}^{-1}(M_{_2}^s)$. Thus we get a morphism $q:=(q_{_1},q_{_2}):P_{_1}\times P_{_2}\to M_{_1}\times M_{_2}$ such that $q^{-1}(B)=P_{_1}\times P_{_2}^s$ where $B:=M_{_1}\times M_{_2}^s$. Now by using the same argument given in \cite[Theorem 6.1]{ns} we can show that there is an embedding $i:P_{_1}\times P_{_2}\to M_{_{12}}$ such that the image is isomorphic to $D$. Thus we have a commutative diagram of morphisms: \begin{equation}\label{parab} \xymatrix{ P_{_1}\times P_{_2} \ar[rr]^{i} \ar[rd]_{q} && M_{_{12}}\ar[ld]^{p} \\ &M_{_1}\times M_{_2} } \end{equation} where $p$ is the morphism in Proposition \ref{morphism}. Let $q_{_1}':P_{_1}\to M_{_1}'$ be the morphism defined by $E_{_1}\to E_{_1}'$ and $q_{_2}':P_{_2}\to M_{_2}'$ defined by $E_{_2}\to E_{_2}'$ where $E_{_i}'$ are the Hecke modifications of $E_{_i}$, $i=1,2$ (see Remark \ref{direction}). Then we get another commutative diagram of morphisms: \begin{equation}\label{parab1} \xymatrix{ P_{_1}\times P_{_2} \ar[rr]^{j} \ar[rd]_{q'} && M_{_{21}}\ar[ld]^{p} \\ &M_{_1}'\times M_{_2}' } \end{equation} where the morphism $q':P_{_1}\times P_{_2}\to M_{_1}'\times M_{_2}'$ is given by the association $(E_{_1},E_{_2})\mapsto (E_{_1}',E_{_2}')$ and $p'$ is the morphism in Remark \ref{2}. In the following lemma we summarize some topological facts about the moduli spaces $P_{_i}$, $i=1,2$. \begin{lemma}\label{topology1}{\ } \noindent$(i)$ $P_{_i}$, $i=1,2$, are smooth, projective and rational variety being ${\mathbb P}^1$- bundles associated to algebraic vector bundles over coprime moduli spaces (see Remark \ref{rational}). In particular, $P_{_i}$ are simply connected and $Pic(P_{_i})\simeq H^2(P_{_i},\mathbb{Z})$ for $i=1,2$.\\ $(ii)$ $H^1(P_{_i},\mathbb{Z})=0$, $H^2(P_{_i},\mathbb{Z})\simeq \mathbb{Z}\oplus \mathbb{Z}$ and $H^3(P_{_i},\mathbb{Z})\simeq \mathbb{Z}^{2g_{_i}}$ for $i=1,2$ (follows from the previous statement).\\ \end{lemma} \begin{lemma}\label{third} \noindent $(1)$ $q^*:H^3(P_{_1}\times P_{_2}^s)\simeq H^3(M_{_1}\times M_{_2}^{s})$.\\ $(2)$ $p^*:H^3(P)\simeq H^3(M_{_1}\times M_{_2}^s)$.\\ \begin{proof} $(1)$ From the fact \ref{para} $(c)$ it follows that the topological fibre of $q:P_{_1}\times P_{_2}^s\to M_{_1}\times M_{_2}^s$ is ${\mathbb P}^1\times {\mathbb P}^1$. Using the similar arguments given in \ref{morphism} and \ref{betti} we can show that $q$ is a topological ${\mathbb P}^1\times {\mathbb P}^1$- bundle satisfying the hypothesis of the Leray-Hirsch theorem. Thus by Leray-Hirsch theorem $q^*:H^3(P_{_1}\times P_{_2}^s)\simeq H^3(M_{_1}\times M_{_2}^{s})$. $(2)$ The proof is already given in \ref{betti}. \end{proof} \end{lemma} \begin{lemma}\label{third1} $i^*:H^3(P_{_1}\times P_{_2})\simeq H^3(M_{_{12}})$ where $i:P_{_1}\times P_{_2}\to M_{_{12}}$ is the inclusion. \begin{proof} First note that $i(P_{_1}\times P_{_2}^s)\subset P$. Therefore, we have- \begin{equation} \xymatrix{ P_{_1}\times P_{_2}^s \ar[rr]^{i} \ar[rd]_{q} && P\ar[ld]^{p} \\ &M_{_1}\times M_{_2}^s } \end{equation} By the commutativity of the above diagram we get $i^*p^*=q^*$. Since, by Lemma \ref{third}, $p^*$ and $q^*$ are isomorphisms, we get $i^*:H^3(P)\to H^3(P_{_1}\times P_{_2}^s)$ is an isomorphism. By an argument given in \cite[Proposition 7]{Ba1} we can show that $Codim(K,P_{_1}\times P_{_2})=g_{_2}-1$ where $K=P_{_1}\times P_{_2}\setminus P_{_1}\times P_{_2}^s$. Thus, by Lemma \ref{excision}, we get $i_{_1}^*:H^3(P_{_1}\times P_{_2})\to H^3(P_{_1}\times P_{_2}^s)$ is an isomorphism where $i_{_1}:P_{_1}\times P_{_2}^s\to P_{_1}\times P_{_2}$ is the inclusion. Also, we have shown $i_{_2}^*:H^3(M_{_{12}})\to H^3(P)$ is an isomorphism where $i_{_2}:P\to M_{_{21}}$ is the inclusion. Thus $i^*:H^3(M_{_{12}})\to H^3(P_{_1}\times P_{_2})$ is an isomorphism. \end{proof} \end{lemma} It is known the Picard groups $Pic(M_{_i})$ (resp. $Pic(M_{_i}')$), $i=1,2$, are isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}$. Let $\theta_{_i}$ (resp. $\theta_{_i}'$), $i=1,2$, be the unique ample generators of $Pic(M_{_i})$ (resp. $Pic(M_{_i}')$). Let us denote the projections $M_{_1}\times M_{_2}\to M_{_i}$ by $s_{_i}$; the projections $M_{_1}'\times M_{_2}'\to M_{_i}'$ by $s_{_i}'$ and the projections $P_{_1}\times P_{_2}\to P_{_i}$ by $r_{_i}$, $i=1,2$. Then we immediately get the following relations: $$ r_{_1}^*q_{_1}^*\theta_{_1}=q^*s_{_1}^*\theta_{_1}, \hspace{0.5cm} r_{_1}^*q_{_1}'^*\theta_{_1}'=q'^*s_{_1}'^*\theta_{_1}', $$ $$r_{_2}^*q_{_2}^*\theta_{_2}=q^*s_{_2}^*\theta_{_2}, \hspace{0.5cm} r_{_2}^*q_{_2}'^*\theta_{_2}'=q'^*s_{_2}'^*\theta_{_2}'. $$ Let $\Theta_{_1}:=q^*s_{_1}^*\theta_{_1}$, $\Theta_{_2}:=q'^*s_{_1}'^*\theta'_{_1}$, $\Theta_{_3}:=q^*s_{_2}^*\theta_{_2}$ and $\Theta_{_4}:=q'^*s_2'^*\theta'_{_2}$. \begin{lemma}\label{ind} The line bundles $\Theta_{_i}$, $i=1,\cdots 4$ are linearly independent on $P_{_1}\times P_{_2}$. \begin{proof} Note that $q_{_1}^*\theta_{_1}'$ and $q_{_1}'^*\theta_{_1}'$ are linearly independent line bundles over $P_{_1}$. This follows from the observation: The line bundles $\theta_{_1}$ (resp. $\theta_{_1}'$) is ample over $M_{_1}$ (resp. $M_{_1}'$) and $M_{_1}$, $M_{_1}'$ are normal varieties. Moreover, by Fact \ref{para} the fibre $q_{_1}^{-1}(F)$ is isomorphic to ${\mathbb P}^1$ for all $F\in M_{_1}$ and the fibre $q_{_1}'^{-1}(F)$ is isomorphic to ${\mathbb P}^1$ for all $F\in M_{_1}'^s$. The image of the morphism, inside some projective space, defined by the linear system corresponding to the sufficiently large power of $q_{_1}^*\theta_{_1}$ (resp. $q_{_1}'^*\theta_{_1}'$) will be isomorphic to $M_{_1}$ (resp. $M_{_1}'$) (this follows by Lemma \ref{good}). Since $M_{_1}$ and $M_{_1}'$ are not isomorphic we have $q_{_1}^*\theta_{_1}'$ and $q_{_1}'^*\theta_{_1}'$ are linearly independent. Now $r_{_i}:P_{_1}\times P_{_2}\to P_{_i}$ are the projection maps, $i=1,2$. Therefore, $\Theta_{_1}= r_{_1}^*q_{_1}^*\theta_{_1}$ and $\Theta_{_2}=r_{_1}^*q_{_1}'^*\theta_{_1}'$ are linearly independent. Similarly $\Theta_{_3}$ and $\Theta_{_4}$ are linearly independent. Next we will show that the relation $\Theta_{_1} ^{a_{_1}}\otimes \Theta_{_2}^{a_{_2}}=\Theta_{_3} ^{a_{_3}}\otimes \Theta_{_4}^{a_{_4}}$, with all $a_{_i}$ non zero will never occur. The above relation would imply $r_{_1}^*L=r_{_2}^*M$ where $L$ is a non trivial line bundle on $P_{_1}$ and $M$ is a nontrivial line bunlde on $P_{_2}$. But this is impossible as $r_{_1}^*L|_{_{q_{_1}^{-1}(x)}}$ is trivial but $r_{_2}^*M|_{_{q_{_1}^{-1}(x)\simeq P_{_2}}}\simeq M$ is non trivial for $x\in P_{_1}$. From the above observation we conclude that $\Theta_{_i}$ are linealy independent, $i=1,2,3,4$. \end{proof} \end{lemma} In section $5$ we will observe that $P_{_i}$'s are rational varieties and $Pic(P_{_i})\simeq \mathbb{Z}\oplus \mathbb{Z}$, $i=1,2$. Thus $Pic(P_{_1}\times P_{_2})\simeq Pic(P_{_1})\times Pic(P_{_2})\simeq \mathbb{Z}^4$. Therefore, the line bundles $\Theta_{_i}$ generate the picard group $Pic(P_{_1}\times P_{_2})$. Now we will prove the following: \begin{lemma}\label{key} The morphism $i^*-j^*:H^2(M_{_{12}})\oplus H^2( M_{_{21}})\to H^2(P_{_1}\times P_{_2})\simeq H^2(D)$, is surjective where $i$ and $j$ are the inclusions in the diagrams \ref{parab}, \ref{parab1}. \begin{proof} Since $P_{_i}$ are rational varieties, we have $c_{1}:Pic(P_{_1}\times P_{_2})\to H^2(P_{_1}\times P_{_2},\mathbb{Z})$ is an isomorphism where $c_{_1}$ is the first chern class homomorphism. By Lemma \ref{topology1} we get $Pic(P_{_1}\times P_{_2})\simeq H^2(P_{_1}\times P_{_2},\mathbb{Z})\simeq \mathbb{Z}^{4}$ Therefore, by Lemma \ref{ind} $H^2(P_{_1}\times P_{_2})$ is generated by $c_{_1}(\Theta_{_1})$, $c_{_1}(\Theta_{_2})$, $c_{_1}(\Theta_{_3})$ and $c_{_1}(\Theta_{_4})$. From commutative diagrams \ref{parab} and \ref{parab1} we get \[\Theta_{_1}=i^*(p^*s_{_1}^*\theta_{_1}), ~ \Theta_{_2}=j^*(p'^*s_{_1}'^*\theta_{_1}'), ~ \Theta_{_3}=i^*(p^*s_{_2}^*\theta_{_2}) ~ \mbox{and } ~ \Theta_{_4}=j^*(p'^*s_{_2}'^*\theta_{_2}').\] Therefore, $H^2(M_{_{12}})\oplus H^2(M_{_{21}})\to H^2(P_{_1}\times P_{_2}^s)$ is surjective. \end{proof} \end{lemma} We will now prove the main theorem of this section. \begin{theorem} $(i)$ $H^2(M_{_{0,\xi}})\simeq \mathbb{Q}^{2}$ and $(ii)$ $H^3(M_{_{0,\xi}})\simeq \mathbb{Q}^{2g}$. \begin{proof} By Lemma \ref{key}, \ref{third1} and using Mayer-Vietoris sequence we get- \[0\to H^2(M_{_{0,\xi}})\to H^2(M_{_{12}})\oplus H^2(M_{_{21}})\to H^2(D)\to 0.\] and \[0\to H^3(M_{_{0,\xi}})\to H^3(M_{_{12}})\oplus H^3(M_{_{21}})\to H^3(D)\to 0.\] Now $b_{_2}(M_{_{12}})=b_{_2}(M_{_{21}})=2$ by Theorem \ref{great} and $b_{_2}(D)=b_{_2}(P_{_1}\times P_{_2})=4$ by Lemma \ref{topology1}. Therefore, $b_{_2}(M_{_{0,\xi}})=2$. Also we have $b_{_3}(M_{_{12}})=b_{_3}(M_{_{21}})=2g$ by Theorem \ref{great} and $b_{_3}(D)=b_{_3}(P_{_1}\times P_{_2})=2g$ by Lemma \ref{topology1}. Therefore, $b_{_3}(M_{_{0,\xi}})=b_{_3}(M_{_{12}})+b_{_3}(M_{_{21}})-b_{_3}(D)=2g$. \end{proof} \end{theorem} \subsection{Hodge structure on \texorpdfstring{$H^3(M_{_0},\mathbb{Z})$}{}} \begin{theorem}\label{pure} The Hodge structure on $H^3(M_{_0},\mathbb{Z})$ is pure of weight $3$ with $h^{^{3,0}}=h^{^{0,3}}=0$. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} We have the following short exact sequence: \[0\to H^3(M_{_{0,\xi}},\mathbb{C})\stackrel{r^*}{\to} H^3(M_{_{12}},\mathbb{C})\oplus H^3(M_{_{21}},\mathbb{C})\stackrel{i^*-j^*}{\to} H^3(D,\mathbb{C})\to 0.\] where all the morphisms are the morphism of Hodge structures. Thus $Ker(i^*-j^*)$ is a pure sub Hodge structure of $H^3(M_{_{12}},\mathbb{C})\oplus H^3(M_{_{21}},\mathbb{C})$ of weight $3$. This induce a Hodge structure of weight $3$ on $H^3(M_{_{0,\xi}},\mathbb{C})$ as $H^3(M_{_{0,\xi}},\mathbb{C})$ is isomorphic to $Ker(i^*-j^*)$. Since $M_{_{12}}$ and $M_{_{21}}$ are smooth unirational varieties (see Lemma \ref{unirational}) and their intersection $D=M_{_{12}}\cap M_{_{21}}$ is also a smooth unirational variety, we have $h^{^{3,0}}(M_{_{12}})=h^{^{3,0}}(M_{_{21}})=0$ and $h^{^{3,0}}(D)=0$. Hence we conclude $h^{^{3,0}}(Ker(i^*-j^*))=h^{^{3,0}}(H^3(M_{_{0,\xi}},\mathbb{Z}))=0$. This completes the proof. \end{proof} \begin{remark} Thus we can define the intermediate Jacobian as in \ref{inter} corresponding to the Hodge structure on $H^3(M_{_{0,\xi}},\mathbb{Z})$. We will denote this intermediate Jacobian by $J^2(M_{_0})$. \end{remark} \section{Degeneration of the intermediate Jacobian of the moduli space}\label{degen1} Let $\pi:\mathcal{X}\to C$ be a proper, flat and surjective family of curves, parametrised by a smooth, irreducible curve $C$. We assume that $\mathcal{X}$ is a smooth variety over $\mathbb{C}$. Fix a point $0\in C$. We assume that $\pi$ is smooth outside the point $0$ and $\pi^{-1}(0)=X_{_0}$ where $X_{_0}$ is a reducible curve with two smooth, irreducible components meeting at a node. Fix a line bundle $\mathcal{L}$ over $\mathcal{X}$ such that the restriction $\mathcal{L}_{_t}$ to $X_{_t}$ is a line bundle with Euler characteristic $\chi-(1-g)$ for all $t\in C$ where $g$ is the genus of $X_{_t}$. We denote the restriction $\mathcal{L}|_{_{X_{_0}}}$ by $\xi$. In Appendix we will show that there is a proper, flat, surjective family $\pi':\mathcal{M}_{_{\mathcal{L}}}\to C$ such that $\pi'^{-1}(0)=M_{_{0,\xi}}$, the moduli space of rank $2$, stable torsion free sheaves with determinant $\xi$ and for $t\neq 0$, $\pi'^{-1}(t)=M_{_{t,\mathcal{L}_t}}$, the moduli space of rank $2$ stable bundles on $X_{_t}$ with determinant $L_{_t}$ (see Proposition \ref{reldet} and Remark \ref{reldet1} in the Appendix). Moreover, $\mathcal{M}_{_{\mathcal{L}}}$ is smooth over $\mathbb{C}$. Choose a neighbourhood of the point $0$ which is analytically isomorphic to the open unit disk $\Delta$ such that both the morphisms $\pi'|_{_{\Delta^*}}$ and $\pi|_{_{\Delta^*}}$ are smooth, $\Delta^*:=\Delta-0$. Denote the family $\pi'|_{_{\Delta^*}}:\pi'^{-1}(\Delta^*)\to \Delta^*$ by $\{M_{_t}\}_{_{t\in \Delta^*}}$ and the family $\pi|_{_{\Delta^*}}:\pi^{-1}(\Delta^*)\to \Delta^*$ by $\{X_{_t}\}_{_{t\in \Delta^*}}$ . \subsubsection{\bf {Variation of Hodge structure corresponding to the family \texorpdfstring{$\{M_{_t}\}_{_{t\in \Delta^*}}$}{} and \texorpdfstring{$\{X_{_t}\}_{_{t\in \Delta^*}}$}{}}} Since $\pi'|_{_{\Delta^*}}$ (resp.$\pi|_{_{\Delta^*}}$) is smooth we get a local system $R^i\pi'_{_*}\mathbb{Z}$ (resp. $R^i\pi_{_*}\mathbb{Z}$) for $i\geq 0$, of free abelian groups whose fibre over a point $t\in \Delta^*$ is isomorphic to $H^i(M_{_t},\mathbb{Z})$ (resp. $H^i(X_{_t},\mathbb{Z})$). Let $H_{_{\mathbb{Z}}}(\mathcal{M}):=R^3\pi_{_*}'\mathbb{Z}$ and $H_{_{\mathbb{Z}}}(\mathcal{X}):=R^1\pi_{_*}\mathbb{Z}$. Let $H_{_{\mathbb{C}}}(\mathcal{M})$ (resp. $H_{_{\mathbb{C}}}(\mathcal{X})$) be the holomorphic bundle over $\Delta^*$ whose sheaf of section is $H_{_{\mathbb{Z}}}(\mathcal{M})\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\mathcal{O}_{_{\Delta^*}}$ (resp. $H_{_{\mathbb{Z}}}(\mathcal{X})\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\mathcal{O}_{_{\Delta^*}}$). Then $H_{_{\mathbb{C}}}(\mathcal{M})$(resp. $H_{_{\mathbb{C}}}(\mathcal{X})$) admits a flat connection $\nabla_{_{\mathcal{M}}}$ (resp. $\nabla_{_{\mathcal{X}}}$). Let $T$ (resp. $T'$) be the monodromy operator defined by the flat connection $\nabla_{_{\mathcal{M}}}$ (resp. $\nabla_{_{\mathcal{X}}}$) corresponding to the positive generator of $\pi_{_1}(\Delta^*,t_{_0})$. Since the fibre $\pi'^{-1}(0)$ (resp. $\pi^{-1}(0)$) is union of two smooth projective varities intersecting transversally, $T$ (resp. $T'$) is unipotent. It is known that the unipotency index of $T$ is atmost $4$ and $T'$ is atmost $2$ (see \cite[Monodromy Theorem page 106]{M}). Recall that there is a decreasing filtration $\{F^p\}$,$p=0,1,2,3$ (resp. $\{G^q\}$, $q=0,1$) of the holomorphic vector bundle $H_{_{\mathbb{C}}}(\mathcal{M})$ (resp. $H_{_{\mathbb{C}}}(\mathcal{X})$) by holomorphic subbundles such that \begin{enumerate} \item for each $t\in \Delta^*$ the filtration $\{F^p(t)\}$ (resp. $\{G^p(t)\}$) gives the Hodge filtration on $H_{_{\mathbb{C}}}(\mathcal{M})(t)=H^3(M_{_t},\mathbb{C})$. \item the flat connection $\nabla_{_{\mathcal{M}}}$ (resp. $\nabla_{_{\mathcal{X}}}$ ) satisfies $\nabla_{_{\mathcal{M}}}(F^p)\subset F^{p-1}\otimes {\Omega^1_{_{\Delta^*}}}$ (resp. $\nabla_{_{\mathcal{X}}}(G^q)\subset G^{q-1}\otimes {\Omega^1_{_{\Delta^*}}}$) where ${\Omega^1_{_{\Delta^*}}}$ is the sheaf of holomorphic $1$ forms on $\Delta^*$. \end{enumerate} We say the triple $(H_{_\mathbb{C}}(\mathcal{M}),F^p,H_{_{\mathbb{Z}}}(\mathcal{M}))$ (resp. $(H_{_\mathbb{C}}(\mathcal{M}),G^q,H_{_{\mathbb{Z}}}(\mathcal{M}))$ a variation of Hodge structure corresponding to the local system $H_{_{\mathbb{Z}}}(\mathcal{M})$ (resp.$H_{_{\mathbb{Z}}}(\mathcal{X})$). Set $V=H_{_{\mathbb{C}}}(\mathcal{M})/F^2$. Then $V$ is a holomorhic vector bundle over $\Delta^*$ of rank $2g$. Since $H_{_{\mathbb{Z}}}(\mathcal{M})(t)\cap F^2(t)=(0)$ for all $t\in \Delta^*$, we get $H_{_{\mathbb{Z}}}(\mathcal{M})$ is a cocompact lattice inside $V$ i.e for each $t\in \Delta^*$ $H_{_{\mathbb{Z}}}(\mathcal{M})(t)\subset V(t)$ is a cocompact lattice of rank $2g$. Therefore, we can construct a complex manifold $J^{2*}:=V/H_{_{\mathbb{Z}}}(\mathcal{M})$ and a proper, surjective, holomorphic submersion $\pi_{_1}:J^2\to \Delta^*$ such that $\pi_{_1}^{-1}(t)=J^2(M_{_t})$ for all $t\in \Delta^*$. Similarly, we can construct a proper, holomorphic, submerssion $\pi':J^{0*}\to \Delta^*$ such that $\pi'^{-1}(t)=J^0(X_{_t})$. Note that the principal polarisations $\{\Theta'_{_t}\}_{_{t\in \Delta^*}}$, induced by the intersection form $(1.0.2)$, fit together to give a relative polarisation $\Theta'$ on $J^{2*}$. Also the family of Jacobians $\pi':J^{0*}\to \Delta^*$ carries a canonical relative principal polarisation induced by the intersection pairing on $H^1(X_{_t},\mathbb{Z})$, $t\in \Delta^*$. We denote this relative polarisation by $\Theta$. We recall that there is a unique extension $\overline{H}_{_{\mathbb{C}}}(\mathcal{M})$ (resp. $\overline{H}_{_{\mathbb{C}}}(\mathcal{X})$) of the holomorphic vector bundle $H_{_{\mathbb{C}}}(\mathcal{M})$ such that the extended connection $\overline{\nabla}_{_{\mathcal{M}}}$ (resp. $\overline{\nabla}_{_{\mathcal{X}}}$) is regular singular and the residue $N=log(T)$ (resp. $N'=log(T')$) of $\overline{\nabla}_{_{\mathcal{M}}}$ (resp. $\overline{\nabla}_{_{\mathcal{X}}}$) is nilpotent ((see \cite[Page 91-92]{de}). There is also an extension $\overline{F^2}$ (resp. $\overline{G^1}$) of the subbundle $F^2$ (resp. $G^1$) such that $\overline{\nabla}_{_{\mathcal{M}}}(\overline{F^2})\subset \overline{F^1} \otimes \Omega_{\Delta}^1(log(0))$ (\cite{S}, Nilpotent orbit Theorem). Let $\overline{H}_{_{\mathbb{Z}}}(\mathcal{M}):=j_{_*}(H_{_{\mathbb{Z}}}(\mathcal{M}))$ (resp. $\overline{H}_{_{\mathbb{Z}}}(\mathcal{X}):=j_{_*}(H_{_{\mathbb{Z}}}(\mathcal{X}))$ where $j:\Delta^*\to \Delta$ is an inclusion. We denote by $\overline{H}(\mathcal{M})(0)$ (resp. $\overline{H}(\mathcal{X})(0)$) and $\overline{F}^2(0)$ ($\overline{G}^1(0)$) the fibre of $\overline{H}_{_{\mathbb{C}}}(\mathcal{M})$ (resp. $\overline{H}_{_{\mathbb{C}}}(\mathcal{X})$) and $\overline{F}^2$ (resp. $\overline{G}^1$) at $0$. \subsubsection{\bf{Limiting mixed Hodge structure on the fibre \texorpdfstring{$\overline{H}(\mathcal{M})(0)$}{} and \texorpdfstring{$\overline{H}(\mathcal{X})(0)$}{}}}\label{clem} In general the filtration $\{\overline{F^p}(0)\}$ (resp. $\{\overline{G^q}(0)\}$) does not define a Hodge structure on $\overline{H}(\mathcal{M})(0)$ (resp. $\overline{H}(\mathcal{X})(0)$). However, it follows that from a theorem of W Schmid \cite{S} (see \cite[Theorem 10]{RH} for the statement), for each $t\in \mathbb{C}^*$, the data $(t^N\overline{H}_{_{\mathbb{Z}}}(\mathcal{M})(0),\overline{F^p}(0), W_{_r})$ (resp. $(t^{N'}\overline{H}_{_{\mathbb{Z}}}(\mathcal{X})(0),\overline{G^q}(0), W'_{_r})$) defines a mixed Hodge structure (see \cite[definition 11]{RH} for the definition) where $N$ (resp. $N'$) is the residue of the monodromy operator $T_{_{\mathcal{M}}}$ (resp.$T_{_{\mathcal{M}}}$) and $W_{_r}$ (resp. $W'_{_r}$) is the weight filtration defined by $N$ (resp. $N'$) (see also \cite{M}). Thus, in particular, if the residue of the monodromy operator is trivial then there is no monodromy weight filtration and we have pure Hodge structure. In the next lemma we will show that $N'=0$. As a consequence of this we can extend the family $J^{0*}\to \Delta^*$ to a family $J^0\to \Delta$. \begin{lemma}\label{lim} The limiting Hodge structure on $\overline{H}(\mathcal{X})(0)$ is pure and is isomorphic to the Hodge structure on $H^1(X_1,\mathbb{C})\oplus H^1(X_2,\mathbb{C})$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Since the singular fiber $X_{_0}$ is the union of two smooth curves meeting transversally at a node we have $N'=0$ (see \cite[page 111]{M}). So, in this case, there is no weight filtration and hence the limiting Hodge structure on $\overline{H}(\mathcal{X})(0)$ is pure. Now we have a morphism of MHS, $i^*:H^1(X_{_0},\mathbb{Z})\to \overline{H}(\mathcal{X})(0)$ of $(0,0)$ type (see \cite[Clemens-Schmid I,page 108]{M}). By Local Invariance Cycle Theorem \cite[page 108]{M}), it known that: \[Ker(N)=Im(i^*).\] Since $Ker(N')=\overline{H}(0)$, $i^*$ is surjecive. Now $rk(H^1(X_{_0},\mathbb{Z}))=2g=rk(\overline{H}(\mathcal{X})(0)))$. Therefore, $i^*:H^1(X_{_0},\mathbb{Z})\to \overline{H(\mathcal{X})}(0)$ is an isomorphism of Hodge structure. (see \cite[page 111]{M}). \end{proof} \begin{corollary} There is a holomorphic family $\pi_{_2}:J^0\to \Delta$ extending the family $\pi_{_2}:J^{0*}\to \Delta^*$ such that $\pi_{_2}^{-1}(0)=J^0(X_{_0})$. \end{corollary} \begin{proof} Since $N'=0$, we get that $\overline{G^1}(0)\cap \overline{H}_{_{\mathbb{Z}}}(\mathcal{X})(0)=(0)$. As a consequence $\overline{H}_{_{\mathbb{Z}}}(\mathcal{X})(0)$ is a full lattice inside $\overline{H}_{_{\mathbb{C}}}(\mathcal{X})(0)/\bar{G}^1(0)$. Thus there is a holomorphic family $\pi_{_2}:J^0(\mathcal{X})\to \Delta$ extending the family $\pi_{_1}:J^{0*}\to \Delta^*$ such that $\pi_{_2}^{-1}(0)=V/\overline{H}_{_{\mathbb{Z}}}(0)$ where $V:=\overline{H}_{_{\mathbb{C}}}(0)/\overline{F^1}(0)$. By Lemma \ref{lim}, it follows that $\pi_{_2}^{-1}(0)\simeq J^0(X_{_0})$. \end{proof} Next we shall show, \begin{lemma}\label{Hodge} There is an isomorphism $\overline{\phi}:\overline{H_{_{\mathbb C}}}(\mathcal{X})\to \overline{H_{_{\mathbb C}}}(\mathcal{M})$ such that $\overline{\phi}(\overline{G^q})= \overline{F^{q+1}}$ and $\overline{\phi}(\overline{H_{_{\mathbb Z}}}(\mathcal{X}))=\overline{H_{_{\mathbb Z}}}(\mathcal{M})$, $q=0,1$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Let $\mathcal{U}$ be the relative universal bundle over $\mathcal{X}^*\times_{_{\Delta^*}} \mathcal{M}^*$ i.e $\mathcal{U}_{_{_{|X_{_t}\times M_{_t}}}}$ is the corresponding universal bundle. Now if we consider $(1,3)$ Kunneth-component $[c_{_2}(\mathcal{U})|_{_{X_{_t}\times M_{_t}}}]_{_{1,3}} \in H^1(X_{_t},\mathbb{Z})\otimes H^3(M_{_t},\mathbb{Z})$ of $c_{_2}(\mathcal{U}|_{_{X_{_t}\times M_{_t}}})$, then we get a morphism $\phi_t:H^1(X_{_t},\mathbb{Z})\to H^3(M_{_t},\mathbb{Z})$, $t\in \Delta^*$ such that $\phi_t(G^q(t))\subseteq F^{q+1}(t)$ for $q=0,1$ (see \cite{mum-new}). Thus we get a morphism $\phi:H_{_{\mathbb{Z}}}(\mathcal{X})\to H_{_{\mathbb{Z}}}(\mathcal{M})$ of local systems, preserving the Hodge filtrations. Since the filtration $\{\overline{G^q}(0)\}$ (resp. $\{\overline{F^p}(0)\}$) is canonically determined by the filtrations $\{G^q(t)\}$ (resp. $\{F^q(t)\}$)(see \cite[Theorem(Schmid),page 116]{M}), we get a morphism $\phi_0:\overline{H}(\mathcal{X})(0)\to \overline{H}(\mathcal{M})(0)$ such that $\phi_0(\overline{G^q}(0))\subseteq \overline{F^{q+1}}(0)$. Therefore, the morphism $\phi$ extends to a morphism $\overline{\phi}:\overline{H_{_{\mathbb{C}}}}(\mathcal{X})\to \overline{{H}_{_{\mathbb{C}}}}(\mathcal{M})$ such that $\overline{\phi}(\bar{G^q})\subseteq \overline {F^{q+1}}$; further, we have $\phi^*(\Theta')=\Theta$ (see \cite[Section 5,page 625]{ Ba2}). By the Mumford-Newstead theorem \cite[Proposition 1, page 1204]{mum-new} we conclude that $\overline{\phi}$ is an isomorphism. \end{proof} Now we will state the main theorem of this section: \begin{theorem}\label{main}{\ } \begin{enumerate} \item There is a holomorphic family $\{J^2(M_{t,\mathcal{L}_{t}})\}_{_{t\in \Delta}}$ of intermediate Jacobians corresponding to the family $\{M_{_{t, \mathcal L_t}}\}_{_{t\in \Delta}}$. In other words, there is a surjective, proper, holomorphic submersion \[\pi_{_2} : J^2(\mathcal{M}_{_{\mathcal{L}}})\longrightarrow \Delta\] such that $\pi_2^{-1}(t)=J^2(M_{_{t, \mathcal L_t}})~ \forall ~ t\in \Delta^{*}:=\Delta \setminus \{0\}$ and $\pi_2^{-1}(0)=J^2(M_{_{0,\xi}})$. Further, we show that there exists a relative ample class $\Theta'$ on $J^2(\mathcal{M}_{_{\mathcal{L}}} )_{|\Delta^*}$ such that $\Theta'_{|J^2(M_{_{t,\mathcal L_t}})}=\theta'_{_t}$, where $\Theta'_{_t}$ is the principal polarisation on $J^2(M_{_{t, \mathcal L_t}})$. \item There is an isomorphism \begin{equation} \xymatrix{ J^0(\mathcal{X}) \ar[rr]^{\Phi}_{\sim} \ar[rd]_{\pi_{_1}} && J^2(\mathcal{M}_{_{\mathcal{L}}})\ar[ld]^{\pi_{_2}} \\ & \Delta } \end{equation} such that $\Phi^*\Theta'_{|\pi_1^{-1}(t)}=\Theta_{_t}$ for all $t\in \Delta^*$, where $\pi_1: J^0(\mathcal X)\to \Delta$ is the holomorphic family $\{J^0(X_{_t})\}_{_{t\in \Delta}}$ of Jacobians and $\Theta_{_t}$ is the canonical polarisation on $J^0(X_{_t})$. In particular, $J^2(\mathcal{M}_{_{\mathcal{L}}})_{_0}:=\pi_{_2}^{-1}(0)$ is an abelian variety. \end{enumerate} \begin{proof} Proof of $(1)$: By Lemma \ref{Hodge} we get the local system $H_{_{\mathbb{Z}}}(\mathcal{M})$ is isomorphic to the local system $H_{_{\mathbb{Z}}}(\mathcal{X})$ over $\Delta^*$. Since by Lemma \ref{lim} the local system $H_{_{\mathbb{Z}}}(\mathcal{X})$ has trivial monodromy, therefore the local system $H_{_{\mathbb{Z}}}(\mathcal{M})$ also has trivial monodromy. Hence $N=0$. Thus we have $\overline{F^2}(0)\cap \overline{H}_{_{\mathbb{Z}}}(\mathcal{M})(0)=(0)$. As a consequence we have a holomorphic family $\pi_{_1}:J^2(\mathcal{M}_{_{\mathcal{L}}})\to \Delta$ extending the family $\pi_{_1}:J^{2*}\to \Delta^*$ such that $\pi^{-1}(0)=V'/\overline{H}_{_{\mathbb{Z}}}(\mathcal{M})(0)$ where $V'=\overline{H}_{_{\mathbb{C}}}(\mathcal{M})(0)/\overline{F}^2(0)$. Now we claim: $\pi_{_1}^{-1}(0)\simeq J^2(M_{_{0,\xi}})$. By Theorem \ref{pure}, we see that the Hodge structure on $H^3(M_{_{0,\xi}},\mathbb{Z})$ is pure and it has rank $2g$. Now there is a morphism $i^*: H^3(M_{_{0,\xi}},\mathbb{Z})\to \overline{H}_{_{\mathcal{M}}}(0)$ of MHS of $(0,0)$ type and $Ker(N)=Im(i^*)$. Since $Im(N)=0$ and both the Hodge structures have the same rank $2g$, $\overline{H}_{_{\mathbb{Z}}}(\mathcal{M})(0)$ and $H^3(M_{_{0,\xi}},\mathbb{Z})$ are isomorphic as Hodge structures. This completes the proof of $(1)$. Proof of $(2)$: This immediately follows from Lemma \ref{Hodge}. \end{proof} \end{theorem} As a corollary of the theorem we get the following result: \begin{corollary}\label{MN} Let $X_{_0}$ be a projective curve with exactly two smooth irreducible components $X_1$ and $X_2$ meeting at a simple node $p$. We further assume that $g_{_i}>3$, $i=1,2$. Then, there is an isomorphism $J^0(X_{_0})\simeq J^2(M_{_{0,\xi}})$, where $\xi\in J^{\chi}(X_{_0})$. In particular, $J^2(M_{_{0,\xi}})$ is an abelian variety. \end{corollary} \begin{proof} By our genus assumption: $g_{_i}>3$ for i=1,2, the curve $X_{_0}$ is stable i.e, they have finite number of automorphisms. As the moduli space of stable curves is complete, we get an algebraic family $r:\mathcal{X}\to {\mathbb P}^1$ such that $r_{_1}^{-1}(t)$ is smooth if $t\neq t_{_0}$ and $r_{_1}^{-1}(t_{_0})=X_{_0}$. Moreover, we can choose $\mathcal{X}$ to be regular over $\mathbb{C}$. Therefore, by Theorem \ref{main}, we get $J^2(M_{_{0,\xi}})\simeq J(X_{_0})$. Hence, $J^2(M_{_{0,\xi}})$ is an abelian variety. \end{proof} \section{ Torelli type Theorem for the moduli space of rank \texorpdfstring{$2$}{} degree \texorpdfstring{$1$}{} fixed determinant torsion free sheaves over a reducible curve }\label{torel} In this section our goal is to investigate the moduli space $M_{_{0,\xi}}$ more carefully, and show that we can actually recover the curve $X_0$ i.e both the components as well as the node, from the moduli space $M_{_{0,\xi}}$ following a strategy given in \cite{bbd}. Let $\pi:\tilde X_0\to X_0$ be the normalization map and $\pi^{-1}(p)=\{x_{_1},x_{_2} \}$, where $p\in X_{_1}\cap X_{_2}$. Note that $\tilde X_{_0}=X_{_1}\sqcup X_{_2}$, the disjoint union of $X_{_1}$ and $X_{_2}$. Fix a line bundle $\xi$ on $X_{_0}$ and let $\xi_{_i}=\xi|_{X_{_i}}$, $i=1,2$. Recall that that the moduli space $M_{_{0,\xi}}$ of rank $2$ stable torsion free sheaves with determinant $\xi$ over $X_0$ is the union of two irreducible, smooth, projective varieties intersecting transversally along a divisor $D$. We have also observed that $D$ is isomorphic to the product $P_1\times P_2$, where $P_{_1}$ is the moduli space of rank $2$ parabolic semistable bundles $(F_{_1},0\subset F^2F_{_1}(x_{_1})\subset F_{_1}(x_{_1}))$ over $X_1$ with $det\simeq \xi_{_1}$ and weights $(\frac{a_{_1}}{2},\frac{a_{_2}}{2})$, and $P_{_2}$ is the moduli space of rank $2$ parabolic semistable bundles $(F_{_2},0\subset F^2F_{_2}(x_{_2})\subset F_{_2}(x_{_2}))$ over $X_2$ with $det\simeq \xi_{_2}$ and weights $(\frac{a_{_1}}{2},\frac{a_{_2}}{2})$, where $a=(a_{_1},a_{_2})$ is the polarisation on $X_{_0}$. Without loss of generality, we can assume that $deg(\xi_{_1})=1$ and $deg(\xi_{_2}=0$. Let $M_{_1}$ (resp. $ M'_{_1}$) be the moduli space of rank $2$, deg $1$, semistable bundles over $X_1$ with det $E\simeq \xi_{_1}$ (resp. moduli space of rank $2$, deg $0$ semistable bundles over $X_{_2}$ with $detE\simeq \xi_{_1}(-x_{_1})$). Note that $Pic(M_{_1})\simeq \mathbb{Z}$ (resp. $Pic(M'_{_1})\simeq \mathbb{Z}$). Let $\theta_{_1} $ (resp. $\theta_{_1}' $) be the unique ample generator of $Pic(M_{_1})$ (resp. of $Pic(M'_{_1})$). It is known that there exists a unique rank $2$ bundle $\mathcal{E}$ over $X_{_1}\times M_{_1}$ such that $\wedge^2\mathcal{E}_{_{x_{_1}}}\simeq \theta_{_1}$, where $\mathcal{E}_{_{x_{_1}}}:=\mathcal{E}_{_{|x_{_1}\times M_{_1}}}$ (see \cite[Definition 2.10]{R}). Since the weights $0<\frac{a_{_1}}{2},\frac{a_{_2}}{2}<1$ are very small, we can show that: $P_{_1}\simeq {\mathbb P}(\mathcal{E}_{_{x_{_1}}})$ (see \cite[Proposition 6]{Ba1}). Therefore, it follows that $Pic(P_{_1})\simeq Pic(M_{_1})\oplus Pic({\mathbb P}^1) \simeq \mathbb{Z}\oplus \mathbb{Z}$. We define a morphism $\pi_1': {\mathbb P}(\mathcal{E}_{_{x_{_1}}})\to M'_{_1}$ as follows: Any closed point of ${\mathbb P}(\mathcal{E}_{_{x_{_1}}})$ over $E\in M_{_1}$ looks like $\{E , V(x_{_1})\}$, where $V(x_{_1})$ is a one dimensional subspace of the fibre $E(x_{_1})$. Consider the vector bundle $V$ which fits into the following exact sequence \begin{equation}0\to V\to E\to (i_{_{x_{_1}}})_{_*}(E(x_{_1})/V(x_{_1}))\to 0.\end{equation} As $E(x_{_1})/V(x_{_1})$ is 1-dimensional vector space supported over the point $x_{_1}$, it follows that $det(V)\simeq \xi_{_1}(-x_{_1})$. We can easily check that $V$ is semistable (see \cite[page 11]{Ba1}). Thus we get a Hecke correspondence: \begin{equation} \xymatrix{{\mathbb P}(\mathcal{E}_{_{x_{_1}}}) \ar[r]^{\pi_1'} \ar[d]^{\pi_1} & M'_{_1} \\ M_{_1}} \end{equation} Similarly, let $M_{_2}$ (resp. $M'_{_2}$) be the moduli space of rank $2$, deg $1$ semistable bundles over $X_2$ with $detE\simeq \xi_{_2}(x_{_2})$ (resp. the moduli space of rank $2$, deg $0$ semistable bundles over $X_2$ with $detE\simeq \xi_{_2}$). Let $\theta_{_2}$ (resp. $\theta_{_2}'$) be the unique ample generator of $Pic(M_{_2})$ (resp. $Pic(M'_{_2})$). Then there is a unique universal bundle $\mathcal{E}'$ over $X_2\times M_{_2}$ such that $\wedge^2 \mathcal{E}'_{_{x_{_2}}}\simeq \theta_{_2}$ where $\mathcal{E}'_{_{x_{_2}}}:=\mathcal{E}'_{_{|x_{_2}\times M_{_2}}}$. Again, for the choice of weights $0<\frac{a_{_1}}{2},\frac{a_{_2}}{2}<1$, we have $P_2\simeq {\mathbb P}(\mathcal{E}'_{_{x_{2}}})$ and we have a Hecke correspondence as in the previous case: \begin{equation}\label{eq:hecke} \xymatrix{{\mathbb P}(\mathcal{E}'_{_{x_{_2}}}) \ar[r]^{\pi_2'} \ar[d]^{\pi_2} & M'_{_2} \\ M_{_2}} \end{equation} So, we have the following: \begin{equation} \xymatrix{{\mathbb P}(\mathcal{E}_{_{x_{_1}}})\times {\mathbb P}(\mathcal{E}'_{_{x_{_2}}}) \ar[r]^{p_{_1}} & {\mathbb P}(\mathcal{E}_{_{x_{_1}}}) \ar[d]^{\pi_1} \ar[r]^{\pi_1'} & M'_{_1} \\ & M_{_1} } \end{equation} and \begin{equation} \xymatrix{{\mathbb P}(\mathcal{E}_{_{x_{_1}}})\times {\mathbb P}(\mathcal{E}'_{_{x_{_2}}}) \ar[r]^{p_{_2}} & {\mathbb P}(\mathcal{E}'_{_{x_{_2}}}) \ar[d]^{\pi_2} \ar[r]^{\pi_2'} & M'_{_2} \\ & M_{_2} } \end{equation} \begin{remark}\label{rational} Note that $M_{_1}$ and $M_{_2}$ are smooth ,projecive, rational varieties. Now $P_{_1}$ (resp. $P_{_2}$) is isomorphic to the projective bundle ${\mathbb P}(\mathcal{E}_{_{x_{_1}}})$ (resp. ${\mathbb P}(\mathcal{E}'_{_{x_{_2}}})$). Therefore, $P_{_i}$'s are rational varieties, $i=1,2$. \end{remark} For the rest of the section we will fix the following notations: $$ \vartheta_{_1}:=(\pi_1 \circ p_{_1})^*\theta_{_1}, \hspace{0.5cm} \vartheta_{_2}:=(\pi_1' \circ p_{_1})^*\theta_{_1}', $$ $$\vartheta_{_3}:=(\pi_2 \circ p_{_2})^*\theta_{_2}, \hspace{0.5cm} \vartheta_{_4}:=(\pi_2' \circ p_{_2})^*\theta_{_2}'. $$ \begin{proposition}\label{nef} The numerically effective cone of $P_{_1}\times P_{_2}$ is generated by the line bundles $ \vartheta_{_i} $, $i=1,2,3,4$. \end{proposition} \begin{proof} Clearly, $ \vartheta_{_i} $, $i=1,\cdots, 4$ are numerically effective (nef) line bundles as they are the pull backs of the ample line bundles. First we show that $ \vartheta_{_i} $, $i=1,\cdots, 4$, are linearly independent. Note that $\pi_{_1}^*\theta_{_1}$ and $\pi_{_1}'^*\theta_{_1}'$ are linearly independent over $\mathbb{Z}$ (see the proof of \cite[page 4, Theorem 2.1]{bbd} for an argument). Therefore, $\vartheta_{_1}=p_{_1}^*\pi_{_1}^*\theta_{_1}$ and $\vartheta_{_2}:=p_{_1}^{*}\pi'^*\theta'_{_1}$ are linearly independent. By similar reason $\vartheta_{_3}$ and $\vartheta_{_4}$ are linearly independnt. Now we show that the relation $\vartheta_{_1} ^{a_{_1}}\otimes \vartheta_{_2}^{a_{_2}}=\vartheta_{_3} ^{a_{_3}}\otimes \vartheta_{_4}^{a_{_4}}$ for some $a_{_i}\neq 0$,$i=1,\cdots 4$ will not occur. Suppose, $\vartheta_{_1} ^{a_{_1}}\otimes \vartheta_{_2}^{a_{_2}}=\vartheta_{_3} ^{a_{_3}}\otimes \vartheta_{_4}^{a_{_4}}$. Then this would imply $p_{_1}^*({\pi_{_1}^*\theta_{_1}}^{a_{_1}}\otimes {\pi_{_1}'^*\theta'_{_1}}^{a_{_2}})=p_{_2}^*({\pi_{_2}^*\theta_{_2}}^{a_{_3}}\otimes {\pi_{_2}'^*\theta'_{_2}}^{a_{_4}})$. But this is impossible for the following reason: The line bundle $p_{_1}^*(\pi_{_1}^*\theta_{_1}\otimes \pi_{_1}'^*\theta'_{_1})$ is trivial on the fibres of $p_{_1}$. But as the fibres of $p_{_1}$ are $P_{_2}$ and $\pi_{_2}^*\theta_{_2}\otimes \pi_{_2}'^*\theta'_{_2}$ is a non trivial line bundle on $P_{_2}$ we get $p_{_2}^*(\pi_{_2}^*\theta_{_2}\otimes \pi_{_2}'^*\theta'_{_2})$ is non trivial on the fibres of $p_{_1}$. From the above observation, it follows that $\vartheta_{_i}$, $i=1,\cdots 4$ are linearly independent. Since $P_{_1}$ and $P_{_2}$ are both rational varieties we get $Pic(P_{_1}\times P_{_2})\simeq Pic(P_{_1})\times Pic(P_{_2})\simeq \mathbb{Z}^4$. Therefore, any nef line bundle on $P_{_1}\times P_{_2}$ is a non negative linear combination of $ \vartheta_{_1} $, $ \vartheta_{_2}$, $ \vartheta_{_3}$, $\vartheta_{_4}$. Next we show that $\bigotimes\limits_{i=1}^4 \vartheta_{_i}^{a_{_i}}$ is ample if $a_{_i}>0$ for all $i=1,\ldots,4$. It is enough to show that $\bigotimes\limits_{i=1}^4 \vartheta_{_i}$ is ample. We observe that $\pi_1^{*}\theta_{_1} \otimes \pi_1'^{*}\theta'_{_1} $ (resp. $\pi_2^{*}\theta_{_2}\otimes \pi_2'^{*}\theta'_{_2}$) is ample on $P_{_1}$(resp. on $P_2$)(see the proof of \cite[Theorem 2.1, page 4, 3rd paragraph]{bbd}). Therefore , $\bigotimes\limits_{i=1}^4 \vartheta_{_i}$ is ample on $P_{_1}\times P_{_2}$. Finally, we have to show $\bigotimes\limits_{i=1}^4 \vartheta_{_i}^{a_{_i}}$ is not ample if $a_{_i}=0$ for some $i$. Now fix $j\in \{1,\ldots,4\}$ such that $a_{_j}=0$. Then $\bigotimes\limits_{\substack{i=1 \\ i\neq j}}^4 \vartheta_{i}$ is not ample as it is the pull back of an ample line bundle from $P_{_k}\times M_{l}$ or $P_{_k}\times M_{_k}'$ for $l,k\in \{1,2\}$, $k\neq l$. Next we observe that if $i\in \{1,2\}$ and $j\in \{3,4\}$, then $\vartheta_{_i}\otimes \vartheta_{_j}$ is not ample. Since in this case it is pull back of an ample line bundle from $M_{_k}\times M_{l}$ or $M_{k}'\times M_{_l}'$ for $k,l\in \{1,2\}$, $k\neq l$. We have already observed that $\vartheta_{_1}\otimes \vartheta_{_2}$ and $\vartheta_{_3}\otimes \vartheta_{_4}$ is not ample. So, from the above observations, we conclude the proposition. \end{proof} \begin{lemma}\label{good} Let $f:X\to Y$ be a projective morphism with Y, a normal variety. Suppose, each fibre of $f$ is a rational variety. Let $L$ be a line bundle on $Y$ then $H^0(X,f^*L)\simeq H^0(Y,L)$. \begin{proof} Since the fibres of $f$ are connected and $Y$ is normal we have $\mathcal{O}_{_Y}\simeq f_{_*}\mathcal{O}_{_{X}}$. Thus $L\simeq f_{_*}f^{*}L$. Since all the fibres of $f$ are rational we get $H^i(X_{_y},L_{_y})=H^i(X_{_y},\mathcal{O}_{_{X_{_y}}})=0$ for all $i>0$. Hence $H^0(X,f^*L)\simeq H^0(Y,f_{_*}f^{*}L)=H^0(Y,L)$ \end{proof} \end{lemma} \begin{remark}\label{ima} Note that $\pi_1^{*}\theta_1\otimes \pi_1'^{*}\theta_1'$ (resp. $\pi_2^{*}\theta_2\otimes \pi_2'^{*}\theta_2'$) is ample on $P_{_1}$ (resp. on $P_{_2}$) (see the proof of \ref{nef}). Now $\vartheta_1\otimes \vartheta_2=p_{_1}^*(\pi_1^{*}\theta_1\otimes \pi_1'^{*}\theta_1')$ and $\vartheta_3\otimes \vartheta_4=p_{_1}^*(\pi_1^{*}\theta_3\otimes \pi_1'^{*}\theta_4')$. Since $P_{_1}$ and $P_{_2}$ are both rational varaities, by Lemma \ref{good}, the image of the morphism $|(\vartheta_1 \otimes \vartheta_2)^n|: P_1\times P_2\to {\mathbb P}^N$ is isomorphic to $P_{_1}$ for some $n\gg 0$. Similarly, the image of the morphism $(\vartheta_3\otimes \vartheta_4)^m:P_1\times P_2\to {\mathbb P}^M$ is isomorphic to $P_2$ for some $m\gg 0$. \end{remark} \begin{lemma}\label{nefc} Let $\theta$ be a nef but not ample line bundle on $P_1\times P_2$ (i.e, $\theta$ lies in the boundary of the nef cone of $P_{_1}\times P_{_2}$) and $\theta \neq \vartheta_1^a\otimes \vartheta_2^b ~ \mbox{or} ~ \vartheta_3^c\otimes \vartheta_4^d$, where $a, b, c$ and $d$ are some positive integers. Let $Z$ be the image of the morphism $P_1\times P_2\to {\mathbb P}^{N'}$ induced by the linear system $|\theta^n|$ for some large $n$. Then we have $dim(Z)\neq dim(P_{_i})$ for $i=1,2$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Assume that $\theta \neq \vartheta_1\otimes \vartheta_2 ~ or ~ \vartheta_3\otimes \vartheta_4$. Then $\theta$ is either of the form $\bigotimes\limits_{i\neq j} \vartheta_{i}$ for $i,j\in \{1,\ldots,4\}$ or $\vartheta_{_i}\otimes \vartheta_{_j}$ for $i\in \{1,2\}$ and $j\in \{3,4\}$ (see the proof of \ref{nef}). Fix $j\in \{1,2,3,4\}$. If $\theta$ is of the form $\bigotimes\limits_{\substack{i=1 \\ i\neq j}}^4 \vartheta_{i}$, then the image $Z$ of the morphism $|\theta^n|$, for sufficiently large $n$, is either isomorphic to $P_{_k}\times M_{_l}$ or $P_{_k}\times M_{_l}'$ for $k,l\in \{1,2\}$, $k\neq l$. If $\theta$ is of the form $\vartheta_{_i}\otimes \vartheta_{_j}$ then the image $Z$ of the morphism $|\theta^n|$ is either isomorphic to $M_{_k}\times M_{_l}$ or $M_{_k}\times M_{_l}'$, for $k,l\in \{1,2\}$, $k\neq l$. In both the cases we see $dim(Z)\neq dim(P_{_i})$ and hence we are done. \end{proof} Now we prove the main theorem of this section: Let $X_{_0}$ (resp. $Y_{_0}$) be a reducible curve with two components $X_{_1}$, $X_{_2}$ (resp. $Y_{_1}$, $Y_{_2}$) meeting transversally at a point $p$ (resp. $q$). Let $\pi_{_1}:\tilde X_{_0}\to X_{_0}$ (resp. $\pi_{_2}:\tilde Y_{_0}\to Y_{_0}$) be the normalisation map and $\pi_{_1}^{-1}(p)=\{x_{_1},x_{_2}\}$, $\pi_{_2}^{-1}(q)=\{y_{_1},y_{_2}\}$. We will make the following assumption on the components of $X_{_0}$ and $Y_{_0}$. \begin{itemize} \item $g(X_{_i})=g(Y_{_i})\geq 2$ for $i=1,2$. \item $X_{_1}\ncong X_{_2}$ (resp. $Y_{_1}\ncong Y_{_2}$). \end{itemize} Fix $\xi_{_{X_0}}\in J^{\chi}(X_{_0})$ (resp. $\xi_{_{Y_0}}\in J^{\chi}(Y_{_0})$). Let $M_{_{0,\xi_{_{X_0}}}}$ (resp. $M_{_{0,\xi_{_{Y_0}}}}$) be the moduli space of rank $2$, $a=(a_{_1},a_{_2})$-stable torsion free sheaves with $detE\simeq \xi_{_{X_0}}$ (resp.$detE\simeq \xi_{_{Y_0}}$) on $X_{_0}$ (resp. on $Y_0$). Let $D\subset M_{_{0,\xi_{_{X_0}}}}$ (resp. $D'\subset M_{_{0,\xi_{_{Y_0}}}}$) be the singular locus of $M_{_{0,\xi_{_{X_0}}}}$ (resp. $M_{_{0,\xi_{_{Y_0}}}}$) and $P_{_i}$ (resp. $P_{_i}'$) be the parabolic moduli spaces, described before, with parabolic structure over $x_{_i}$ (resp. $y_{_i}$). Then $D\simeq P_{_1}\times P_{_2}$ and $D'\simeq P'_{_1}\times P'_{_2}$. Now we have the following Torelli type theorem. \begin{theorem} If $M_{_{0,\xi_{_{X_0}}}}\simeq M_{_{0,\xi_{_{Y_0}}}}$ then we have $X_{_0}\simeq Y_{_0}$. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} Let $\Psi:M_{_{0,\xi_{_{X_0}}}}\simeq M_{_{0,\xi_{_{Y_0}}}}$ be an isomorphism. Then $\Psi(D)=D'$ as $D$ is the singular locus of $M_{_{0,\xi}}$. Therefore, $\Psi$ induces an isomorphism $\Psi:P_{_1}\times P_{_2}\simeq P_{_1}'\times P_{_2}'$. Now if we can show that the above statement will imply $P_{_i}\simeq P'_{_\sigma(i)}$ for $i\in\{1,2\}$ and $\sigma$ is a permutation on $\{1,2\}$. Then by \cite[Theorem 2.1]{bbd}, we get an isomorphism $f_{_i}:X_{_i}\to Y_{_{\sigma(i)}}$ such that $f_{_i}(x_{_i})=y_{_\sigma(i)}$. Hence, we get $X_{_0}\simeq Y_{_0}$. We will show that if $\Psi:P_{_1}\times P_{_2}\simeq P_{_1}'\times P_{_2}'$, then $P_{_i}\simeq P'_{_{\sigma(i)}}$. Let $\varsigma_1$, $\varsigma_2$, $\varsigma_3$, $\varsigma_4$ be the generators of the nef cone of $P_1'\times P_2'$ as in Proposition \ref{nef}. Let $N:=\varsigma_1\otimes \varsigma_2$ and $N':=\varsigma_{_3}\otimes \varsigma_{_4}$. Then $\Psi^{*}N$, $\Psi^*N'$ lie in the boundary of the nef cone of $P_1\times P_2$. Note that, for sufficiently large $n,m$, the image of the morphism $|\Psi^{*}N^n|$ is isomorphic to $P_{_1}'$ and the image of the morphism $|\Psi^{*}N'^m|$ is isomorphic to $P_{_2}'$. Now we claim that $\Psi^{*}(N)=\vartheta_{_1} ^a\otimes \vartheta_{_2}^b$ or $\vartheta_{_3}^c\otimes \vartheta_{_4}^d$ for some $a,b,c,d>0$. Otherwise, by Lemma \ref{nefc}, the dimension of the image of $|\Psi^{*}(N)^n|$ will be different from the dimension of $P'_{_1}$. Suppose that $\Psi^{*}(N)=\vartheta_{_1} ^a\otimes \vartheta_{_2}^b$ for some $a,b>0$. Then, by our assumption $Y_{_1}\ncong Y_{_2}$, we have $\Psi^*(N')=\vartheta_{_3}^c\otimes \vartheta_{_4}^d$ for some $c,d>0$. Therefore, by Remark \ref{ima}, for sufficiently large $n,m\gg 0$, the images of the morphisms defined by the linear systems $|\Psi^*N^{n}|$ and $|\Psi^*N'^m|$ will be isomorphic to $P_{_1}$ and $P_{_2}$. Hence, we have isomorphisms $\Phi_{_1}:P_1\to P_1'$ and $\Phi_{_2}:P_{_2}\to P_{_2}'$ such that the following diagrams commute: \begin{equation} \xymatrix{P_1\times P_2 \ar[r]^{\Psi} \ar[d]^{|\Psi^{*}(N)^n|} & P_1'\times P_2' \ar[d]^{|N^{n}|} \\ P_1 \ar[r]^{\Phi_{_1}} & P_1'} \end{equation} \begin{equation}\xymatrix{P_1\times P_2 \ar[r]^{\Psi} \ar[d]^{|\Psi^{*}(N')^m|} & P_1'\times P_2' \ar[d]^{|N'^{m}|} \\ P_2 \ar[r]^{\Phi_{_2}} & P_2'} \end{equation} Therefore, by \cite[Theorem 2.1]{bbd}, there is an isomorphism $f_{_1}:X_{_1}\to Y_1$ such that $f_{_1}(x_{_1})=y_{_1}$ and an isomorphism $f_{_2}:X_2\to Y_2$ such that $f_{_2}(x_{_2})=y_{_2}$. Suppose that $\Psi^{*}(N)=\vartheta_{_2} ^c\otimes \vartheta_{_4}^d$, $c,d>0$. Then, by similar arguments as above, we can show that $P_{_2}\simeq P_{_1}'$ and $P_{_1}\simeq P_{_2}'$. Therefore, there is an isomorphism $f'_{_1}:X_{_2}\to Y_{_1}$ such that $f'_{_1}(x_{_2})=y_{_1}$ and an isomorphism $f'_{_2}(x_{_1})=y_{_2}$ Hence, we conclude $X_0\simeq Y_0$. This completes the proof. \end{proof} \section{Appendix} In this section we will continue with the notations of the preleminary section. Fix an ample line bundle $\mathcal{O}_{_{X_{_0}}}(1)$ on $X_{_0}$. Let $c_{_i}=deg(\mathcal{O}_{_{X_{_0}}}(1)|_{_{X_{_i}}})$, and $a_{_i}=\frac{c_{_i}}{c_{_1}+c_{_2}}$, $i=1,2$. Let $S(r,\chi)$ be the set of all rank $r$, $a=(a_{_1},a_{_2})$ semistable torsion free sheaves on $X_{_0}$ with Euler charachteristic $\chi$. Note that the Hilbert polynomial $P(E,n)=(c_{_1}+c_{_2})n+\chi(E)$ for all $E\in S(r,\chi)$ (this can be easily computed from equation $(2.1.3)$). \begin{lemma}(\cite[Septieme Partie]{ns})\label{bounded} There exists an integer $m_{_0}$ such that- \begin{enumerate} \item $H^1(F(m))=0$ for all $F\in S(r,\chi)$ and $m\geq m_{_0}$ \item $F(m)$ is globally generated by its sections for all $F\in S(r,\chi)$. \end{enumerate} \end{lemma} \subsection{Moduli space of rank \texorpdfstring{$1$}{} torsion free sheaves over a reducible nodal curve}\label{rank1} In this subsection we prove that the moduli space of rank $1$,semistable torsion free sheaves with respect to certain choice polarisation is isomorphic to the product of the Jacobians. \subsubsection{Euler Characteristic bounds for rank $1$ semistable sheaves} Fix three integers $\chi\neq 0$, $\chi_{_1}$ and $\chi_{_2}\neq 1$ with $\chi > \chi_{_i}$ such that $\chi=\chi_{_1}+\chi_{_2}-1$. Let $\mathcal{O}_{_{X_0}}(1)$ be an ample line bundle such that $deg(\mathcal{O}_{_{X_{_0}}}(1)|_{_{X_1}})=\chi_{_1}-1$ and $deg(\mathcal{O}_{_{X_{_0}}}(1)|_{_{X_2}})=\chi_{_2}$. Since $\chi=\chi_{_1}+\chi_{_2}-1$, the Hilbert polynomial $P(L,n)=(n+1)\chi$ for all $L\in S(1,\chi)$. Let $b_{_1}=\frac{\chi_{_1}-1}{\chi}$ and $b_{_2}=\frac{\chi_{_2}}{\chi}$. In this subsection whenever we say a semistable rank $1$ torsion free sheaf we assume the semistability with respect to the polarisation $b=(b_{_1},b_{_2})$. \begin{lemma}\label{line} Let $L\in S(1,\chi)$ and $(L_{_1},L_{_2},\lambda)\in \stackrel{\to}{C}$ be the unique triple representing $L$. Then $\chi(L_{_i})$, the Euler characteristic of $L_{_i}$, satisfy the following: \[\chi_{_1}\leq \chi(L_{_1})\leq \chi_{_1}+1,~ \chi_{_2}-1\leq \chi(L_{_2})\leq \chi_{_2}.\] Moreover if $L$ is semistable and non locally free then we have $\chi(L_{_1})=\chi_{_1}$ and $\chi(L_{_2})=\chi_{_2}$. Conversely, suppose $L$ be a rank $1$ torsion free sheaf with $\chi(L_{_i})$ satisfy the above conditions then $L\in S(1,\chi)$. \begin{proof} By Lemma \cite[Lemma 5.2]{ns} we can easily derive the following: if $L$ is a rank $1$,locally free and $(L_{_1},L_{_2},\lambda) \in \stackrel{\to}{C}$ be the unique triple representing $L$ then we only have to check the semistability condition for the subtriples $(L_{_1}(-p),0,0)$ and $(0,L_{_2},0)$. If $L$ is a rank $1$, non locally free sheaf and $(L_{_1},L_{_2},0)$ be the triple representing $L$ then we only have to check the semistability for the subtriples $(L_{_1},0,0)$ and $(0,L_{_2},0)$. Now by using the definition of semistability (see \ref{semi}) we immediately get the above Lemma. \end{proof} \end{lemma} Fix an integer $m\geq m_{_0}$ such that Lemma \ref{bounded} holds for all $F\in S(1,\chi)$ and let $P(n)=(n+1)\chi$. Let $Q(1,\chi)$ be the Quot scheme parametrising all coherent quotients \[\mathcal{O}_{_{X_{_0}}}^{\oplus p(m)}\to L\to 0\] with Hilbert polynomial $P(n)$ and $\mathcal{U}^1$ be the universal quotient sheaf of $\mathcal{O}_{_{X_{_0}\times Q(1,\chi)}}^{\oplus p(m)}$ on $X_{_0}\times Q(1,\chi)$. Let $R(1,\chi)^{ss}$ be the open subset of $Q(1,\chi)$ such that if $q\in R(1,\chi)^{ss}$ then $\mathcal{U}^1_{_q}:=\mathcal{U}^1|_{_{X_{_0}\times q}}$ is a rank $1$ semistable torsion free quotient and the natural map \[H^0(\mathcal{O}_{_{X_{_0}\times q}})\to H^0(\mathcal{U}^1_{_q})\] is an isomorphism. Note that if $L\in S(1,\chi)$ then ,by Lemma \ref{bounded}, $L(m)$ is globally generated. Thus $L(m)$ is a quotient of a trivial sheaf of rank $p(m):=h^0(L(m))$ and the natural map $H^0(\mathcal{O}_{_{X_{_0}}}^{\oplus p(m)})\to H^0(L(m))$ is an isomorphism. Therefore $L(m)\simeq \mathcal{U}^{1}_{_q}$ for some $q\in R(1,\chi)^{ss}$. The group $GL(p(m))$ acts on $Q(1,\chi)$ and $R(1,\chi)^{ss}$ is invariant under the action of $GL(p(m))$. Moreover, the action of $GL(p(m))$ goes down to an action of $PGL(p(m))$. By a general result in (see \cite[Septieme partie,III, Theorem 15]{se1}) the good quotient $R(1,\chi)^{ss} \parallelslant PGL(p(m))$ exists as a reduced, projective scheme. Let $R_{_0}$ be the open subset of $R(1,\chi)^{ss}$ consisting of only rank $1$, locally free sheaves. Then $R_{_0}=R_{_1}\sqcup R_{_1}'$ where $R_{_1}$ consists of those rank $1$ locally free sheaves $L$ such that $\chi(L_{_1})=\chi_{_1}$, $\chi(L_{_2})=\chi_{_2}$ and $R_{_1}'$ consists of those rank $1$ locally free sheaves $L$ such that $\chi(L_{_1})=\chi_{_1}+1$, $\chi(L_{_2})=\chi_{_2}-1$. Let $J^{\chi_{_i}}(X_{_i})$ be the Jacobian of isomorphism classes of line bundles over $X_{_i}$ with Euler characteristic $\chi_{_i}$, $i=1,2$. With these notations the main theorem of this subsection is: \begin{theorem}\label{moduli} The good quotient $R(1,\chi)^{ss}\parallelslant PGL(p(m))$ is isomorphic to $J^{\chi_{_1}}(X_{_1})\times J^{\chi_{_2}}(X_{_2})$. \begin{proof} Let $q:R(1,\chi)^{ss}\to R(1,\chi)^{ss}\parallelslant PGL(p(m))$ be the quotient map. Note that, since $Hom(L,L)=\mathbb{C}$ for all $L\in R_{_1}$, $PGL(p(m))$ acts freely on $R_{_1}$. Moreover, $R_{_1}$ is smooth and irreducible. Therefore, the quotient $R_{_1}/PGL(p(m))$ is smooth and irreducible (see \cite[Corollary 4.2.13]{huy}). \noindent {\em Claim 1:} The quotient $q(R_{_1})=R_{_1}/PGL(p(m))$ is isomorphic to $J^{\chi_{_1}}(X_{_1})\times J^{\chi_{_2}}(X_{_2})$. To see this consider $\mathcal{U}$ over $X_{_0}\times R_{_1}$. Then $\mathcal{U}$ is locally free and hence $\mathcal{U}_{_i}=\mathcal{U}|_{_{X_{_i}}\times R_{_1}}$ is locally free. Moreover, $\chi(\mathcal{U}_{_i}|_{_{X_{_i}\times q}})=\chi_{_i}$, $i=1,2$. Thus by the universal property of $J^{\chi_{_i}}(X_{_i})$ we get a morphism $f_{_i}:R_{_1}\to J^{\chi_{_i}}$, $i=1,2$. Therefore, we get a morphism $f=(f_{_1},f_{_2}):R_{_1}\to J_{_0}=J^{\chi_{_1}}(X_{_1})\times J^{\chi_{_2}}(X_{_2})$. Clearly, this morphism is $PGL(p(m))$-invariant and the fibres of this morphism are isomorphic to the orbits of the $PGL(p(m))$ action. Therefore, we get a bijective morphism $R_{_1}/PGL(p(m))\to J_{_0}$. Since $R_{_1}/PGL(p(m))$, $J_{_0}$ are integral and $J_{_0}$ is smooth, we have $R_{_1}/PGL(p(m))$ is isomorphic to the variety $J_{_0}=J^{\chi_{_1}}(X_{_1})\times J^{\chi_{_2}}(X_{_2})$. \noindent {\em Claim 2:} We have an equality: \[R_{_1} / PGL(p(m))=R(1,\chi)^{ss} \parallelslant PGL(p(m).\] Note that Claims 1 and 2 together prove the theorem. Let $[L_{_0}]\in R(1,\chi)^{ss}\parallelslant PGL(p(m)$ where $[]$ is orbit closure equivalence class. Then we want to show there is a $L\in R_{_1}$ such that $q(L)=[L_{_0}]$. In other words the orbit closure $\overline{O(L)}$ intersects the orbit closure $\overline{O(L_{_0})}$. Suppose, $L_{_0}$ is locally free with $\chi(L_{_0}|_{_{X_{_i}}})=\chi_{_i}$, $i=1,2$ then there is nothing to prove. So we assume that $L_{_0}$ is a rank $1$ torsion free but non-locally free sheaf. Then as $L_{_0}$ is semistable, by Lemma \ref{line}, we get $\chi(L_{_i})=\chi_{_i}$, $i=1,2$ where $(L_{_1},L_{_2},0)\in \stackrel{\to}{C}$ is the unique triple representing $L_{_0}$. Let $L$ be the rank $1$ locally free sheaf corresponding to the triple $(L_{_1},L_{_2},\lambda)\in \stackrel{\to}{C}$ where $\lambda:L_{_1}(p)\to L_{_2}(p)$ is an isomorphism. We will show now the orbit closure $\overline{O(L)}$ intersects the orbit $O(L_{_0})$. For this, let $p_{_i}:X_{_i}\times \mathbb{A}^1\to X_{_i}$, $i=1,2$, be the two projections. We again denote the pullback $p_{_i}^*L_{_i}$ by $L_{_i}$. Since $L_{_i}$, $i=1,2$, are free $\mathcal{O}_{_{\mathbb{A}^1}}$-module, we can choose a $\mathcal{O}_{_{\mathbb{A}^1}}$-module homomorphism $\lambda:L_{_1}|_{_{p\times \mathbb{A}^1}}\to L_{_2}|_{_{p\times \mathbb{A}^1}}$ such that $\lambda(t):L_{_1}(p,t)\to L_{_2}(p,t)$ is an isomorphism for all $t\neq 0$ and $\lambda(0)=0$. Let $G$ be the graph of the morphism $\lambda$ in $L_{_1}|_{_{p\times \mathbb{A}^1}}\oplus L_{_1}|_{_{p\times \mathbb{A}^1}}$ and $G':=\frac{L_{_1}|_{_{p\times \mathbb{A}^1}}\oplus L_{_2}|_{_{p\times \mathbb{A}^1}}}{G}$. Let $\mathcal{L}:=Ker(L{_1}\oplus L_{_2}\to G')$ over $X_{_0}\times \mathbb{A}^1$. Now $L_{_1}\oplus L_{_2}$ and $G'$, being free $\mathcal{O}_{_{\mathbb{A}}}^1$-module, are flat over $\mathbb{A}^1$. Therefore, $\mathcal{L}$ is flat over $\mathbb{A}^1$. We also see that $\mathcal{L}_{_t}$ is the torsion free sheaf corresponding to the triple $(L_{_1},L_{_2},\lambda(t))$. Therefore, $\mathcal{L}_{_t}\simeq L$ for all $t\neq 0$ and $\mathcal{L}_{_0}\simeq L_{_0}$. Note that, as $\mathcal{L}_{_t}\in R(1,\chi)^{ss}$ for all $t\in \mathbb{A}^1$, $H^1(\mathcal{L}_{_t})=0$ and $\mathcal{L}_{_t}$ is globally generated for all $t\in \mathbb{A}^1$. By semicontinuity theorem, we get ${p_{_2}}_*\mathcal{L}$ is locally free sheaf of rank $p(m)$ on $\mathbb{A}^1$. Since any locally free sheaf on $\mathbb{A}^1$ is free, ${p_{_2}}_*\mathcal{L}\simeq {\mathcal{O}_{_{\mathbb{A}^1}}}^{\oplus p(m)}$. Thus we get a quotient \[\mathcal{O}_{_{X_{_0}\times \mathbb{A}^1}}^{\oplus p(m)}\simeq p_{_2}^*{p_{_2}}_*\mathcal{L} \to \mathcal{L}\to 0.\] such that $H^0(\mathcal{O}_{_{X_0\times t}}^{p(m)})\to H^0(\mathcal{L}_{ _t})$ is an isomorphism for all $t\in \mathbb{A}^1$. Hence we get a morphism $\phi:\mathbb{A}^1\to R(1,\chi)^{ss}$ such that $\phi^*\mathcal{U}^1\simeq \mathcal{L}$. Since $\mathcal{L}_{_t}\simeq L$ for all $t\in \mathbb{A}^1-0$, $\phi(\mathbb{A}^1-0)$ lies in the $PGL(p(m))$ orbit of $L$ and $\phi(0)=L_{_0}$. Therefore, $L_{_0}$ is in the orbit closure of $L$. Clearly, $\chi(L_{_i})=\chi(L_{_i}|_{_{X_{_i}}})=\chi_{_i}$, $i=1,2$. Thus $L\in R_{_1}$ and we are done. Finally suppose, $L_{_0}$ is rank $1$, locally free sheaf such that $\chi(L_{_1})=\chi_{_1}+1$ and $\chi(L_{_2})=\chi_{_1}-1$ where $(L_{_1},L_{_2},\lambda)$, $\lambda:L_{_2}(p)\to L_{_1}(p)$ an isomorphism, is the unique triple representing $L_{_0}$. Let $L$ is the rank $1$ locally free sheaf represented by $(L_{_1}(-p),L_{_2}(p),\lambda)\in \stackrel{\to}{C}$. Then the orbit closure $\overline{O(L_{_0})}$ intersects the orbit closure $\overline{O(L)}$ in $R(1,\chi)^{ss}$. This easily follows from the observation: The torsion free sheaf $L'$ represented by the triple $(L_{_1},L_{_2},0)\in \stackrel{\leftarrow}{C}$ is in the orbit closure of $L_{_0}$. Note, by Remark \ref{direction}, $L'$ is isomorphic to the torsion free sheaf represented by $(L_{_1}(-p),L_{_2}(p),0)\in \stackrel{\to}{C}$. Thus , by Lemma \ref{line}, $L'$ is semistable and is also in the orbit closure of $L$. Thus given any $[L_{_0}]\in R(1,\chi)^{ss}\parallelslant PGL(p(m)$ we have seen that there is a $L\in R_{_1}$ such that $q(L)=[L_{_0}]$. \end{proof} \end{theorem} \subsection{Determinant morphism} Fix an odd integer $\chi$ and a polarisation $(a_{_1},a_{_2})$ on $X_{_0}$ such that $a_{_1}\chi$ is not an integer. We also fix an integer $m'$ such that Lemma \ref{bounded} holds for all $E\in S(2,\chi)$ . Let $Q(2,\chi)$ be the Quot scheme parametrising all coherent quotients \[\mathcal{O}_{_{X_{_0}}}^{\oplus p(m')}\to E\to 0\] and $\mathcal{U}^2$ be the universal quotients sheaf of $\mathcal{O}_{_{X_{_0}\times Q(2,\chi)}}^{\oplus p(m')}$ on $X_{_0}\times Q(2,\chi)$. Let $R(2,\chi)^{ss}$ be the open subset of $Q(2,\chi)$ such that if $q\in R(2,\chi)^{ss}$ then $\mathcal{U}^2_{_q}:=\mathcal{U}^2|_{_{X_{_0}\times q}}$ is a rank $2$ semistable torsion free quotient and the natural map \[H^0(\mathcal{O}_{_{X_{_0}\times q}})\to H^0(\mathcal{U}^1_{_q})\] is an isomorphism. The moduli space $M(2,a,\chi)$ is isomorphic to the quotient $R(2,\chi)^{ss}/PGL(p(m'))$. Let $M_{_{12}}$ and $M_{_{21}}$ be the two smooth components of $M(2,a,\chi)$. Let $M_{_{12}}^{0}\subset M_{_{12}}$ (resp. $M_{_{21}}^{0}\subset M_{_{21}}$) be the open subvariety of $M_{_{12}}$ (resp. $M_{_{21}}$) consisting of isomorphism classes of rank $2$ semistable locally free sheaves. \begin{proposition}\label{determin} There exists a determinant morphism $det:M(2,a,\chi)\to J^{\chi_{_1}'}(X_{_1})\times J^{\chi_{_2}'}(X_{_2})$ where $\chi_{_i}'=\chi_{_i}-(1-g_{_i})$, $i=1,2$. \begin{proof} Let $R_{_2}$ be the open subset of $R(2,\chi)^{ss}$ such that for all $q\in R_{_2}$, $\mathcal{U}_{_q}$ is rank $2$ semistable locally free and $\chi(\mathcal{U}_{_q}|_{_{X_{_i}}})=\chi_{_i}$, $i=1,2$. Then $M_{_{12}}^{0}\simeq R_{_2}/PGL(p(m')$. Let $R_{_1}$ be the open subset of $R(1,\chi')^{ss}$, where $\chi':=\chi-(1-g)$, such that for all $q\in R_{_1}$, $\mathcal{U}^1_{_q}$ is rank $1$, semistable locally free and $\chi(\mathcal{U}^1_{_q}|_{_{X_{_i}}})=\chi_{_i}-(1-g_{_i})$, $i=1,2$. Let us restrict the universal quotient sheaf $\mathcal{U}^2$ on $X_{_0}\times R_{_2}$. Then $\mathcal{U}^2$ is a rank $2$ locally free shef on $X_{_0}\times R_{_2}$ such that $\mathcal{U}^2_{_q}$ is semistable and $\chi(\mathcal{U}^2_{_q}|_{_{X_i}})=\chi_{_i}$ for all $q\in R_{_2}$, $i=1,2$. Thus $\wedge^2\mathcal{U}^2$ is a flat family of rank $1$ locally free sheaves on $X_{_0}\times R_{_2}$ such that $\chi(\wedge^2\mathcal{U}^2_{_q}|_{_{X_i}})=\chi_{_i}-(1-g_{_i})$ for all $q\in R_{_2}$, $i=1,2$. By Lemma \ref{line} $\wedge^2\mathcal{U}^2_{_q}$ is semistable for all $q\in R_{_2}$. By Lemma \ref{bounded} there exists an integer $m$ such that $H^1(\wedge^2\mathcal{U}^2_{_q}(m))=0$ and $\wedge^2\mathcal{U}^2_{_q}(m)$ is globally generated for all $q\in R_{_2}$. Therefore, there is an open covering $\{U_{_i}\}$ of $R_{_2}$ and morphisms $det_{_i}:U_{_i}\to R_{_1}$ such that, for any non-empty open set $U_{_{ij}}:=U_{_i}\cap U_{_j}$ if we denote by $det_{{ij}}=det_{_i}|_{_{U_{_{ij}}}}$, then there exists $g\in PGL(n)(U_{_{ij}})$ with the property $det_{_{ij}}=gdet_{_{ji}}$, where $n=h^0(\wedge^2\mathcal{U}^2_{_q}(m))$. Therefore, we get a well-defined morphism $det:R_{_2}\to R_{_1}/PGL(n)=J^{\chi_{_1}'}(X_{_1})\times J^{\chi_{_2}'}(X_{_2})$. Since $M_{_{12}}$ is a smooth projective variety and $J_{_0}$ is an abelian variety the morphism $det_{_1}^0$ extends to a morphism $det_{_1}:M_{_{12}}\to J_{_0}:=J^{\chi_{_1}'}(X_{_1})\times J^{\chi_{_2}'}(X_{_2})$. By similar arguments we get a morphism $det_{_2}:M_{_{21}}\to J_{_0}':=J^{\chi_{_1}'+1}(X_{_1})\times J^{\chi_{_2}'-1}(X_{_2})$. Let $F\in M_{_{12}}\cap M_{_{21}}$. Then $F$ is represented by a unique triple $(F_{_1},F_{_2},A)\in \stackrel{\to}{C}$ where $rk(A)=1$. $F$ is also represented by another triple $(F_{_1}',F_{_2}',B)\in \stackrel{\leftarrow}{C}$ such that $F_{_i}$ and $F_{_i}'$ are related by the diagram in Remark \ref{direction}. Note that $\wedge^2F_{_1}'\simeq \wedge^2F_{_1}(p)$ and $\wedge^2F_{_2}'\simeq \wedge^2F_{_2}(-p)$. Claim $det_{_1}(F)=(\wedge^2F_{_1},\wedge^2F_{_2})$ and $det_{_2}(F)=(\wedge^2F_{_1}',\wedge^2F_{_2}')$. First we construct a flat family $\mathcal{F}$ over $X\times \mathbb{A}^1$ such that $\mathcal{F}_{_t}$ is rank $2$, semistable locally free sheaf for all $t\neq 0$ and $\mathcal{F}_{_0}\simeq F$. Moreover, $\mathcal{F}_{_t}|_{_{X_{_1}}}\simeq F_{_1}$ and $\mathcal{F}_{_t}|_{_{X_{_2}}}\simeq F_{_2}$ for all $t\neq 0$ (this can be done using the similar construction given in the proof of Theorem \ref{moduli}). Thus we get a morphism $\phi:\mathbb{A}^1\to M_{_{12}}$ such that $\phi(\mathbb{A}^1-0)\subset M_{_{12}}^0$ and $\phi(0)=F$. Denote the restriction of $\mathcal{F}$ over $X_{_0}\times(\mathbb{A}^1-0)$ by $\mathcal{F}'$. Then $\wedge^2\mathcal{F}'$ induces a morphism $\wedge^2\phi:\mathbb{A}^1-0\to J_{_0}$. Since $\mathcal{F}_{_t}|_{_{X_{_i}}}\simeq F_{_i}$, $i=1,2$, we get $\wedge^2\mathcal{F}'_{_t}\simeq L$ for all $t\neq 0$ where $L$ is the line bundle represented by the triple $(\wedge^2F_{_1},\wedge^2F_{_2},\lambda)$. Thus $\wedge^2\phi$ is constant for all $t\neq 0$. Thus $\wedge^2\phi$ extends as a constant morphism over whole $\mathbb{A}^1$ and $\wedge^2\phi(t)=(\wedge^2F_{_1},\wedge^2F_{_2})$ for all $t\in \mathbb{A}^1$ . Clearly, $det_{_1}(\phi(t))=\wedge^2\phi(t)$ for all $t\in \mathbb{A}^1$. By similar arguments we can show that $det_{_2}(F)=(\wedge^2F_{_1}',\wedge^2F_{_2}')$. Now we define a morphism $det:M(2,a,\chi)\to J_{_0}$ in the following way: \[det(F):=det_{_1}(F) ~ \mbox{if} ~ F\in M_{_{12}}\] \[det(F):=f^{-1}(det_{_2}(F)) ~ \mbox{if} ~ F\in M_{_{21}}\] where $f:J_{_0}\to J_{_0}'$ is an isomorphism defined by the association $(L_{_1},L_{_2})\to (L_{_1}(p),L_{_2}(-p))$. By the above discussion clearly, $det$ is a well defined morphism. \end{proof} \end{proposition} \begin{proposition}\label{tran} The fibres of the morphism $det:M(2,a,\chi)\to J^{\chi_{_1}'}(X_{_1})\times J^{\chi_{_2}'}(X_{_2})$ are the union of two smooth, irreducible projective varieties meeting transversally along a smooth divisor. \begin{proof} Let $J^0(X_{_0})$ be the variety parametrising all isomorphism classes of line bundles $L$ such that $deg(L|_{X_{_i}})=0$, $i=1,2$. Then we can show that $J^0(X_{_0}):=J^{0}(X_{_1})\times J^{0}(X_{_2})$ where $J^{0}(X_{_i})$ are the Jacobians of $X_{_i}$, $i=1,2$. Now $J^0(X_{_i})$ acts on $M(2,a,\chi)$ by $F\to F\otimes L$. Clearly, both the components of $M(2,a,\chi)$ and the divisor $D$ are fixed by this action. Also we can easily check that the morphism $det$ is compatible with action of $J^0(X_{_0})$ where action of $J^0(X_{_0})$ on $J_{_0}$ is given by $(\eta_{_1},\eta_{_2})\mapsto (\eta_{_1}\otimes L_{_1},\eta_{_2}\otimes L_{_2})$. Now $det|_{_{M_{_{12}}}}=det_{_1}$ and $det|_{_{M_{_{21}}}}=f^{-1}odet_{_2}$. Clearly, the morphism $det_{_1}:M_{_{12}}\to J_{_0}$ is compatible with the action of $J^0(X_{_0})$. Thus it is a smooth morphism. Since both $M_{_{12}}$ and $J_{_0}$ are smooth we conclude that the fibres of $det_{_1}$ are smooth. Also, by the same reasoning, the fibres of $det_{_1}|_{_D}$ , the restriction to the divisor $D$, are also smooth. Thus the fibres of $det_{_1}$ intersects $D$ transversally. By the same arguments we can show that the fibres of $det_{_2}$ intersects $D$ transversally. Hence, we conclude that the intersection of $det_{_1}^{-1}(\xi)$ with $det_{_2}^{-1}(f(\xi))$, $\xi\in J_{0}$ is smooth. Therefore, the fibres of $det$ are the union of two smooth, projective varieties intersecting transversally. \end{proof} \end{proposition} \subsection{Relative moduli space and relative determinant morphism} Let $C=SpecR$ where $R$ is a complete discrete valuation ring and $\mathcal{X}\to B$ be a flat family of proper, connected curves. We assume the generic fibre $\mathcal{X}_{_{\eta}}$ is smooth and the closed fibre $\mathcal{X}_{_0}$ is the curve $X_{_0}$. We further assume that $\mathcal{X}$ is regular over $\mathbb{C}$. For any $C$ scheme $S$ we denote $\mathcal{X}\times_{_C} S$ by $\mathcal{X}_{_S}$. Fix an integer $\chi$. \subsubsection{Relative moduli of rank $1$, torsion free sheaves}\label{degen}: Fix a relatively ample line bundle $\mathcal{O}_{_{\mathcal{X}}}(1)$ over $\mathcal{X}$ such that $\mathcal{O}_{_{\mathcal{X}}}(1)|_{_{X_0}}$ gives the polarisation of type $(b_{_1},b_{_2})$. Let $\mathcal{Q}_{_1}\to C$ be the relative Quot scheme parametrising all rank $1$ coherent quotients \[\mathcal{O}_{_{\mathcal{X}}}^{p(N)}\to \mathcal{L}\to 0.\] which has the fixed Hilbert polynomial $p(n):=(n+1)\chi'$, $\chi'=\chi-(1-g)$, along the fibre of $\mathcal{X}$ and flat over $C$. Let $\mathcal{U}$ be the universal quotient sheaf of $\mathcal{O}_{_{\mathcal{X}_{_{\mathcal{Q}_1}}}}^{\oplus p(N)}$ on $\mathcal{X}_{_{\mathcal{Q}_1}}$. Let $\mathcal{G}=Aut(\mathcal{O}_{_{\mathcal{X}}}^{p(N)})$ be the reductive group scheme over $C$. Then $\mathcal{G}$ acts on $\mathcal{Q}_{_1}$. Let $\mathcal{R}_{_1}^{ss}$ be the open subvariety of $\mathcal{Q}_{_1}$ consisting of those quotients $\mathcal{L}$ which are semistable along the fibre of $\mathcal{X}$ and the natural map $H^0(\mathcal{O}_{_{\mathcal{X}}}^{p(N)})\to H^0(\mathcal{L})$ is an isomorphism. We can construct a good quotient $\mathcal{J}:=\mathcal{R}_{_1}^{ss}\parallelslant\mathcal{G}$, projective over $C$ using GIT over arbitrary base. Also note that $({\mathcal{R}_{_1}}^{ss}\parallelslant\mathcal{G})_{_t}={\mathcal{R}_{_1}}^{ss}_{_t}\parallelslant\mathcal{G}_{_t}$ for all $t\in C$ (\cite[Theorem 4]{se2}). Thus the general fibre $\mathcal{J}_{_{\eta}}$ is the Jacobian $J^{\chi'}(\mathcal{X}_{_{\eta}})$ and by Theorem \ref{moduli} the closed fibre $\mathcal{J}_{_0}$ is isomorphic to $J^{\chi'_{_1}}(X_{_1})\times J^{\chi'_{_2}}(X_{_2})$. \subsubsection{Relative moduli of rank $2$, torsion free sheaves}: Fix a relatively ample line bundle $\mathcal{O}_{_{\mathcal{X}}}(1)'$ over $\mathcal{X}$ such that $\mathcal{O}_{_{\mathcal{X}}}(1)'|_{_{X_0}}=\mathcal{O}_{_{X_{_0}}}(1)$ gives the polarisation of type $(a_{_1},a_{_2})$ such that $a_{_1}\chi$ is not an integer. Let $\mathcal{Q}_{_2}\to C$ be the relative Quot scheme parametrising all rank $2$ coherent quotients \[\mathcal{O}_{_{\mathcal{X}}}^{p(N)}\to \mathcal{E}\to 0.\] which has the fixed Hilbert polynomial $p(n):=(c_{_1}+c_{_2})n+\chi$, where $c_{_i}=deg(\mathcal{O}_{_{X_{_0}}}(1)|_{_{X_{_i}}}$, along the fibre of $\mathcal{X}$ and flat over $C$.Let $\mathcal{U}''$ be the universal quotient sheaf of $\mathcal{O}_{_{\mathcal{X}_{_{\mathcal{Q}_1}}}}^{\oplus p(m')}$ on $\mathcal{X}_{_{\mathcal{Q}_2}}$. Let $\mathcal{G}'=Aut(\mathcal{O}_{_{\mathcal{X}}}^{p(N)})$ be the reductive group scheme over $C$. Then $\mathcal{G}'$ acts on $\mathcal{Q}_{_2}$. Let $\mathcal{R}_{_2}^{ss}$ be the open subvariety of $\mathcal{Q}_{_2}$ consisting of those quotients $\mathcal{E}$ which are semistable along the fibre of $\mathcal{X}$ and the natural map $H^0(\mathcal{O}_{_{\mathcal{X}}}^{p(N)})\to H^0(\mathcal{E})$ is an isomorphism. It is shown in \cite[Theorem 4.2]{ns} a relative moduli space $\mathcal{M}:=\mathcal{R}_{_2}^{ss}\parallelslant\mathcal{G}'$ exists and it is projective over $C$ using GIT over arbitrary base. Thus the general fibre $\mathcal{M}_{_{\eta}}$ is the moduli space $M_{_{\mathcal{X}_{_\eta}}}(2,\chi)$ of rank $2$, semistable sheaves with Euler characteristic $\chi$ and $\mathcal{M}_{_0}$ is the moduli space $M(2,a,\chi)$. Note that, if $\mathcal{X}$ is a regular surface, by \cite[Remark 4.2]{ns}, $\mathcal{R}_{_2}^{ss}$ is smooth over $\mathbb{C}$. If we assume $\chi$ to be odd then $\mathcal{R}_{_2}^{ss}=\mathcal{R}_{_2}^{s}$. Therefore, $P\mathcal{G}'$ acts on $\mathcal{R}_{_2}^{s}$ freely. Since $\mathcal{R}_{_2}^{ss}$ is smooth we conclude that $\mathcal{M}=\mathcal{R}_{_2}^{s}/P\mathcal{G}'$ is regular over $\mathbb{C}$ (see \cite[Corollary 4.2.23]{huy}). \begin{proposition}\label{reldet} There exists a morphism $Det:\mathcal{M}\to \mathcal{J}$ such that the following diagram commutes- \begin{equation}\label{det2} \xymatrix{ \mathcal{M} \ar[rr]^{Det} \ar[rd]_{\pi'} && \mathcal{J}\ar[ld]^{\pi''} \\ &C } \end{equation} Moreover, we have $Det|_{_{\mathcal{M}_{_0}}}=det$. \begin{proof} Let $\mathcal{R}_{_2}^0$ be the open subscheme of $\mathcal{R}_{_2}^{ss}$ such that if $q\in \mathcal{R}_{_2}^0$ then $\mathcal{U}''_{_q}$ is rank $2$,locally free. Then by similar arguments as in the proof of Proposition \ref{determin} we get a morphism $Det'^{0}:\mathcal{R}_{_2}^0\to \mathcal{J}$ and this descends to a morphism $Det^0:\mathcal{M}^0=\mathcal{R}_{_2}^0/P\mathcal{G}'\to \mathcal{J}$. Let $Z=\mathcal{M}\setminus \mathcal{M}^0$. Then $Z$ is supported on the fibre $\mathcal{M}_{_0}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{_0}\setminus Z$ is a dense open set. Clearly, $Det^0|_{_{\mathcal{M}_{_0}\setminus Z}}=det$. Thus if we can show that $Det^0$ extends as a morphism $Det:\mathcal{M}\to \mathcal{J}$ then we have $Det|_{_{\mathcal{M}_{_0}}}=det$. Let $\Gamma$ be the graph of the morphism $Det^0$ in $\mathcal{M}\times_{_C} \mathcal{J}$ and $\overline {\Gamma}$ be the Zariski closure of $\Gamma$ in $\mathcal{M}\times_{_C} \mathcal{J}$. Let $p_{_1}$, $p_{_2}$ be the restriction of the two projections to $\overline{\Gamma}$. Then the morphism $p_{_1}:\overline {\Gamma}\to \mathcal{M}$ is clearly birational. We will show that it is bijective. Since $\mathcal{M}$ is smooth over $\mathbb{C}$ it will follow that $p_{_1}$ is an isomorphism. Thus we define $Det:=p_{_2}p_{_1}^{-1}$ which clearly extends the morphism $Det^0$. Let $(F,G_1)$ and $(F,G_2)$ be the closed points of $\overline {\Gamma}\setminus \Gamma$. Then we claim that $G_{_1}\simeq G_{_2}$. The claim follows from the following observation: Let $\tilde R$ be a complete discrete valuation ring such that $\tilde C\to C$ is dominant, where $\tilde C:= Spec \tilde R$. Let $t$ be the generic point of $\tilde C$ and $0$ be the closed point of $\tilde C$,. Let $\mathcal{F}$ be a coherent sheaf on $\mathcal{X}\times_{_C} \tilde C$, flat over $\tilde C$ such that $\mathcal{F}_{_t}$ is a rank $2$ semistable bundle over $\mathcal{X}_{_t}$ and $\mathcal{F}_{_0}\simeq F$ and $\mathcal{G}$ be a locally free sheaf on $\mathcal{X}_{_{\tilde C}}:=\mathcal{X}\times_{_{ C}} \tilde C$ such that $\mathcal{G}_{_t}\simeq \wedge^2\mathcal{F}_{_t}$ and $\mathcal{G}_{_0}\simeq G_{_1}$. Let $\pi: \tilde {\mathcal{X}}_{_{\tilde C}}\to \mathcal{X}_{_{\tilde C}}$ be the disingularization of $\mathcal{X}_{_{\tilde C}}$ at $p$. The exceptional divisor $\pi^{-1}(p)=\Sigma_{_i}D_{_i}$ is a chain of $(-2)$ curves, and the special fibre $\tilde {\mathcal{X}}_{_0}$ of $\tilde {\mathcal{X}}_{_{\tilde C}}\to \tilde C$ at $0$ is $X_{_1}+X_{_2}+\Sigma D_{_i}$ and $X_{_1}\cap (X_{_2}+\Sigma D_{_i})=p_{_1}$, $X_{_2}\cap(X_{_1}+\Sigma D_{_i})=p_{_2}$. Let $\mathcal{F}''$ be the restriction of $\mathcal{F}$ on $(\mathcal{X}-p)\times_{_C} \tilde C$. Identifying $\tilde {\mathcal{X}}_{_{\tilde C}}\setminus \pi^{-1}(p)\simeq \mathcal{X}_{_{\tilde C}}\setminus {p}=(\mathcal{X}-p)_{_{\tilde C}}$, we can extend the line bundle $\wedge^2\mathcal{F}''$ into a line bundle $\overline {\wedge^2\mathcal{F}''}$ on $\tilde {\mathcal{X}}_{_{\tilde C}}$. This is possible since $\tilde{\mathcal{X}}_{_{\tilde C}}$ is non singular. Therefore, we can show $Pic(\tilde{\mathcal{X}}_{_{\tilde C}})=Pic(\mathcal{X}_{_{ \tilde C}}\setminus p)\oplus_{_i} \mathbb{Z} D_{_i}$. Clearly, we have $\overline {\wedge^2\mathcal{F}''}_{_t}\simeq \pi^*\mathcal{G}_{_t}$. Thus one has \[\overline {\wedge^2\mathcal{F}''}\simeq \pi^*\mathcal{G}\otimes \mathcal{O}_{_{\tilde {\mathcal{X}}_{_{\tilde C}}}}(V),\] where $V\subsetneqq \tilde{\mathcal{X}}_{_0}$ is a vertical divisor i.e of the form $\Sigma n_{_i}D_{_i}$. Therefore, $\overline {\wedge^2\mathcal{F}''}|_{_{X_{_i}}}\simeq \pi^*\mathcal{G}_{_0}|_{_{X_{_i}}}(n_{_i}p_{_i})$ for some integers $n_{_i}$, $i=1,2$ since $\mathcal{O}_{_{\tilde {\mathcal{X}}_{_{\tilde C}}}}(V)|_{_{X_{_i}}}=\mathcal{O}_{_{X_{_i}}}(n_{_i}p_{_i})$. Let $e_{_i}=deg(\overline {\wedge^2\mathcal{F}''}|_{_{X_{_i}}})$, $i=1,2$. Then $n_{_i}=e_{_i}-deg(\mathcal{G}_{_0}|_{_{X_{_i}}})$. Therefore the integers $n_{_i}$ only depend on $deg(\mathcal{G}_{_0}|_{_{X_{_i}}})$. Let $L_{_i}=\overline {\wedge^2\mathcal{F}''}|_{_{X_{_i}}}(-n_{_i}p_{_i})$. Then $G_{_1}=\mathcal{G}_{_0}$ is isomorphic to the line bundle $L$ which is uniquely represented by the triple $(L_{_1},L_{_2},\lambda)$. Suppose $\mathcal{G}'$ be another locally free sheaf on $\mathcal{X}_{_{\tilde C}}$ such that $\mathcal{G}'_{_t}=\wedge^2\mathcal{F}_{_t}$ and $\mathcal{G}'_{_0}\simeq G_{_2}$. Since $deg(G_{_1}|_{_{X_{_i}}})=deg(G_{_2}|_{_{X_{_i}}})$ , by the above argument, we can show that $G_{_2}\simeq L$. Thus $G_{_1}\simeq G_{_2}$. \end{proof} \end{proposition} \begin{remark}\label{reldet1} By similar arguments as in the proof of Proposition \ref{tran} we can show that $Det$ is a smooth morphism. Fix a section $\sigma:C\to \mathcal{J}$ such that $\sigma(0)=\xi$. This corresponds to a line bundle $\mathcal{L}$ over $\mathcal{X}$ such that $\mathcal{L}|_{_{\mathcal{X}_{_0}}}=\xi$. Let us denote $Det^{-1}(\sigma(C))$ by $\mathcal{M}_{_{\mathcal{L}}}$. Since both the varieties $\mathcal{M}$ and $\mathcal{J}$ are smooth we conclude that $\mathcal{M}_{_{\mathcal{L}}}$ is smooth over $\mathbb{C}$. \end{remark} \bibliographystyle{amsplain}
\section{Introduction} \begin{sloppypar} Supersymmetry (SUSY)~\cite{Miyazawa:1966,Ramond:1971gb,Golfand:1971iw,Neveu:1971rx,Neveu:1971iv,Gervais:1971ji,Volkov:1973ix,Wess:1973kz,Wess:1974tw} proposes the existence of new particles with spin differing by one half unit from that of their Standard Model (SM) partners. In the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM)~\cite{Fayet:1976et,Fayet:1977yc,Farrar:1978xj,Fayet:1979sa,Dimopoulos:1981zb}, charginos, $\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^\pm}$, and neutralinos, $\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_{1,2,3,4}^0}$, are the mass-ordered eigenstates formed from the linear superposition of the SUSY partners of the Higgs and electroweak gauge bosons (higgsinos, winos and bino). In $R$-parity-conserving models, SUSY particles are pair-produced in colliders and the lightest SUSY particle (LSP) is stable. In many models the LSP is assumed to be a bino-like $\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$, which is weakly interacting. Naturalness arguments~\cite{Barbieri:1987fn,deCarlos:1993yy} suggest that the lightest of the charginos and neutralinos may have masses at the electroweak scale, and may be accessible at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)~\cite{Evans:2008zzb}. Furthermore, direct pair production of charginos and neutralinos may be the dominant production of supersymmetric particles if the superpartners of the gluon and quarks are heavier than a few TeV. \end{sloppypar} In SUSY scenarios where the masses of the pseudoscalar Higgs boson and the superpartners of the leptons are larger than those of the produced chargino and neutralino, the chargino decays to the lightest neutralino and the $W$ boson, while the next-to-lightest neutralino decays to the lightest neutralino and the SM-like Higgs or $Z$ boson. This paper focuses on SUSY scenarios where the decay to the Higgs boson is the dominant one. This happens when the mass splitting between the two lightest neutralinos is larger than the Higgs boson mass and the higgsinos are much heavier than the winos, causing the composition of the lightest chargino and next-to-lightest neutralino to be wino-like and nearly mass degenerate. A simplified SUSY model~\cite{Alwall:2008ag,ArkaniHamed:2007fw} is considered for the optimisation of the search and the interpretation of results. It describes the direct production of $\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}$ and $\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_2^0}$, where the masses and the decay modes of the relevant particles ($\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}$, $\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$, $\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_2^0}$) are the only free parameters. It is assumed that the $\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}$ and $\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_2^0}$ are pure wino states and degenerate in mass, while the $\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ is a pure bino state. The prompt decays $\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}\to W^\pm\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ and $\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_2^0}\to h\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ are assumed to have 100\% branching fractions. The Higgs boson mass is set to $125\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$, which is consistent with the measured value~\cite{Aad:2014aba}, and its branching fractions are assumed to be the same as in the SM. The latter assumption is motivated by those SUSY models in which the mass of the pseudoscalar Higgs boson is much larger than the $Z$ boson mass. The search presented in this paper targets leptonic decays of the $W$ boson and three Higgs boson decay modes as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:Feyn}. The Higgs boson decays into a pair of $b$-quarks, or a pair of photons, or a pair of $W$ bosons where at least one of the bosons decays leptonically. The final states therefore contain missing transverse momentum from neutrinos and neutralinos, one lepton ($\ell=e$ or $\mu$), and one of the following: two $b$-quarks (\ensuremath{\ell{}bb}), or two photons (\ensuremath{\ell\gamma\gamma}), or an additional lepton with the same electric charge (\ensuremath{\ell^{\pm}\ell^{\pm}}). The Higgs boson candidate can be fully reconstructed with the \ensuremath{\ell{}bb}{} and \ensuremath{\ell\gamma\gamma}{} signatures. The \ensuremath{\ell^{\pm}\ell^{\pm}}{} signature does not allow for such reconstruction and it is considered because of its small SM background. Its main signal contribution is due to $h\to{}WW$, with smaller contributions from $h\to{}ZZ$ and $h\to{}\tau\tau$ when some of the visible decay products are missed during the event reconstruction. \begin{figure*} \centering\hfill \subfigure[One lepton and two $b$-quarks channel]{\includegraphics{fig_01a}}\hfill\hfill \subfigure[One lepton and two photons channel]{\includegraphics{fig_01b}}\hfill\hfill \subfigure[Same-sign dilepton channel]{\includegraphics{fig_01c}}\hfill\ \caption{ Diagrams for the direct pair production of $\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_2^0}$ and the three decay modes studied in this paper. For the same-sign dilepton channel (c), only the dominant decay mode is shown. \label{fig:Feyn}} \end{figure*} The analysis is based on 20.3\,\ifb\ of $\sqrt{s}=8\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Te\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Te\kern -0.1em V}\fi$ proton--proton collision data delivered by the LHC and recorded with the ATLAS detector. Previous searches for charginos and neutralinos at the LHC have been reported by the ATLAS~\cite{ATLAS:3L8TeV,ATLAS:2L8TeV,Aad:2014yka} and CMS~\cite{Khachatryan:2014qwa,Khachatryan:2014mma} collaborations. Similar searches were conducted at the Tevatron~\cite{D0-2009,CDF-2008} and LEP~\cite{LEPSUSYWG:01-03.1,Heister:2003zk,Abdallah:2003xe,Acciarri:1999km,Abbiendi:2003sc}. The results of this paper are combined with those of the ATLAS search using the three-lepton and missing transverse momentum final state, performed with the same dataset~\cite{ATLAS:3L8TeV}. The three-lepton selections may contain up to two hadronically decaying $\tau{}$ leptons, providing sensitivity to the $h\rightarrow\tau\tau/WW/ZZ$ Higgs boson decay modes. The statistical combination of the results is facilitated by the fact that all event selections were constructed not to overlap. This paper is organised in the following way: the ATLAS detector is briefly described in Sect.~\ref{sec:atlas-detector}, followed by a description of the Monte Carlo simulation in Sect.~\ref{sec:mc-simulation}. In Sect.~\ref{sec:event-reco} the common aspects of the event reconstruction are illustrated; Sects.~\ref{sec:lbb}, \ref{sec:lgg}, and \ref{sec:ss-2l} describe the channel-specific features; Sect.~\ref{sec:systematics} discusses the systematic uncertainties; the results and conclusions are presented in Sects.~\ref{sec:results} and \ref{sec:conclusions}. \section{The ATLAS detector} \label{sec:atlas-detector} \begin{sloppypar} ATLAS is a multipurpose particle physics experiment~\cite{atlas-det}. It consists of detectors forming a forward-backward symmetric cylindrical geometry.\footnote{% ATLAS uses a right-handed coordinate system with its origin at the nominal interaction point (IP) in the centre of the detector and the $z$-axis along the beam line. The $x$-axis points from the IP to the centre of the LHC ring, and the $y$-axis points upward. Cylindrical coordinates $(r,\phi)$ are used in the transverse plane, $\phi$ being the azimuthal angle around the $z$-axis. The pseudorapidity is defined in terms of the polar angle $\theta$ as $\eta=-\ln\tan(\theta/2)$.} The inner detector (ID) covers $|\eta|\,$$<\,$2.5 and consists of a silicon pixel detector, a semiconductor microstrip tracker, and a transition radiation tracker. The ID is surrounded by a thin superconducting solenoid providing a 2$\,$T axial magnetic field. A high-granularity lead/liquid-argon (LAr) sampling calorimeter measures the energy and the position of electromagnetic showers within $|\eta|\,$$<\,$3.2. Sampling calorimeters with LAr are also used to measure hadronic showers in the endcap (1.5$\,$$<\,$$|\eta|\,$$<\,$3.2) and forward (3.1$\,$$<\,$$|\eta|\,$$<\,$4.9) regions, while a steel/scintil\-la\-tor tile calorimeter measures hadronic showers in the central region ($|\eta|\,$$<\,$1.7). The muon spectrometer (MS) surrounds the calorimeters and consists of three large superconducting air-core toroid magnets, each with eight coils, precision tracking chambers ($|\eta|\,$$<\,$2.7), and fast trigger chambers ($|\eta|\,$$<\,$2.4). A three-level trigger system selects events to be recorded for permanent storage. \end{sloppypar} \section{Monte Carlo simulation} \label{sec:mc-simulation} \begin{table*} \centering \caption{\label{tab:MCsamples} Simulated samples used for background estimates. ``Tune'' refers to the choice of parameters used for the underlying-event generation. } \scalebox{0.94}{ \footnotesize \begin{tabular}{lllll} \toprule Process & Generator & Cross section & Tune & PDF set \\ \midrule Single top, $t$-channel & {\textsc{AcerMC}}\xspace{}~\cite{Kersevan:2004yg}+{\textsc{Pythia6}}\xspace~\cite{Sjostrand:2006za} & NNLO+NNLL~\cite{Kidonakis:2011wy} & {\textsc{AUET2B}}\xspace~\cite{ATLAS:2011zja} & {\textsc{CTEQ6L1}}\xspace~\cite{Pumplin:2002vw} \\ Single top, $s$-channel & {\textsc{Powheg}}\xspace~\cite{Nason:2004rx,Frixione:2007vw}+{\textsc{Pythia6}}\xspace & NNLO+NNLL~\cite{Kidonakis:2010tc} & {\textsc{Perugia2011C}}\xspace~\cite{Skands:2010ak} & {\textsc{CT10}}\xspace~\cite{CT10pdf} \\ $tW$ & \textsc{Powheg}+\textsc{Pythia6} & NNLO+NNLL~\cite{Kidonakis:2010ux} & {\textsc{Perugia2011C}}\xspace & {\textsc{CT10}}\xspace \\ $\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}$ & \textsc{Powheg}+\textsc{Pythia6} & NNLO+NNLL~\cite{Cacciari:2011hy,Baernreuther:2012ws,Czakon:2012zr,Czakon:2012pz,Czakon:2013goa,Czakon:2011xx} & {\textsc{Perugia2011C}}\xspace & {\textsc{CT10}}\xspace \\ $\ensuremath{t\bar{t}} W$, $\ensuremath{t\bar{t}} Z$ & {\textsc{MadGraph}}\xspace~\cite{Alwall:2007st}+{\textsc{Pythia6}}\xspace & NLO & {\textsc{AUET2B}}\xspace & {\textsc{CTEQ6L1}}\xspace \\ $W$, $Z$ (\ensuremath{\ell{}bb}{} channel) & {\textsc{Sherpa}}\xspace~\cite{Sherpa} & NLO & -- & {\textsc{CT10}}\xspace \\ $W$, $Z$ (\ensuremath{\ell^{\pm}\ell^{\pm}}{} channel) & {\textsc{Alpgen}}\xspace{}~\cite{Mangano:2002ea}+{\textsc{Pythia6}}\xspace & NLO & {\textsc{Perugia2011C}}\xspace & {\textsc{CTEQ6L1}}\xspace \\ $WW$, $WZ$, $ZZ$ & {\textsc{Sherpa}}\xspace & NLO & -- & {\textsc{CT10}}\xspace \\ $W\gamma$ $W\gamma\gamma$ & {\textsc{Alpgen}}\xspace{}+{\textsc{Pythia6}}\xspace & NLO & {\textsc{AUET2B}}\xspace & {\textsc{CTEQ6L1}}\xspace \\ $Z\gamma$, $Z\gamma\gamma$ & {\textsc{Sherpa}}\xspace & NLO & -- & {\textsc{CT10}}\xspace \\ $Wh$, $Zh$ & {\textsc{Pythia8}}\xspace~\cite{Sjostrand:2007gs} & NNLO(QCD)+NLO(EW)~\cite{CERNYellowReport3} & {\textsc{AU2}}\xspace~\cite{ATLAS:2012uec} & {\textsc{CTEQ6L1}}\xspace \\ $\ensuremath{\ttbar h}$ & {\textsc{Pythia8}}\xspace & NLO(QCD)~\cite{CERNYellowReport3} & {\textsc{AU2}}\xspace & {\textsc{CTEQ6L1}}\xspace \\ \bottomrule \end{tabular}} \end{table*} The event generators, the accuracy of theoretical cross sections, the underlying-event parameter tunes, and the parton distribution function (PDF) sets used for simulating the SM background processes are summarised in Table~\ref{tab:MCsamples}. The SUSY signal samples are produced with {\textsc{Herwig{\tt++}}}\xspace~\cite{herwigplusplus} using the {\textsc{CTEQ6L1}}\xspace\ PDF set. Signal cross sections are calculated at next-to-leading order (NLO) in the strong coupling constant using {\textsc{Prospino2}}\xspace~\cite{Beenakker:1996ch}. These agree with the NLO calculations matched to resummation at next-to-leading-logarithmic (NLL) accuracy within $\sim$2\%~\cite{Fuks:2012qx,Fuks:2013vua}. For each cross section, the nominal value and its uncertainty are taken respectively from the centre and the spread of the cross-section predictions using different PDF sets and their associated uncertainties, as well as from variations of factorisation and renormalisation scales, as described in Ref.~\cite{Kramer:2012bx}. The propagation of particles through the ATLAS detector is modelled with {\textsc{GEANT4}}\xspace~\cite{Agostinelli:2002hh} using the full ATLAS detector simulation~\cite{:2010wqa} for all Monte Carlo (MC) simulated samples, except for $\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}$ production and the SUSY signal samples in which the Higgs boson decays to two $b$-quarks, for which a fast simulation based on a parametric response of the electromagnetic and hadronic calorimeters is used~\cite{atlfastII}. The effect of multiple proton--proton collisions in the same or nearby beam bunch crossings (in-time or out-of-time pile-up) is incorporated into the simulation by overlaying additional minimum-bias events generated with {\textsc{Pythia6}}\xspace{} onto hard-scatter events. Simulated events are weighted so that the distribution of the average number of interactions per bunch crossing matches that observed in data, but are otherwise reconstructed in the same manner as data. \section{Event reconstruction} \label{sec:event-reco} The data sample considered in this analysis was collected with a combination of single-lepton, dilepton, and diphoton triggers. After applying beam, detector, and data-quality requirements, the dataset corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 20.3\,\ifb{}, with an uncertainty of 2.8\%{} derived following the methodology detailed in Ref.~\cite{Aad:2013ucp}. Vertices compatible with the proton-proton interactions are reconstructed using tracks from the ID. Events are analysed if the primary vertex has five or more tracks, each with transverse momentum $\ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}>400\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Me\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Me\kern -0.1em V}\fi$, unless stated otherwise. The primary vertex of an event is identified as the vertex with the largest $\sum\ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}^2$ of the associated tracks. \begin{sloppypar} Electron candidates are reconstructed from calibrated clustered energy deposits in the electromagnetic calorimeter and a matched ID track, which in turn determine the $\ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}$ and $\eta$ of the candidates respectively. Electrons must satisfy ``medium'' cut-based identification criteria, following Ref.~\cite{Aad:2014fxa}, and are required to have $\ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}>10\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$ and $|\eta|<2.47$. \end{sloppypar} Muon candidates are reconstructed by combining tracks in the ID and tracks or segments in the MS~\cite{Aad:2014rra} and are required to have $\ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}>10\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$ and $|\eta|<2.5$. To suppress cosmic-ray muon background, events are rejected if they contain a muon having transverse impact parameter with respect to the primary vertex $|d_0|>0.2$\,mm or longitudinal impact parameter with respect to the primary vertex $|z_0|>1$\,mm. Photon candidates are reconstructed from clusters of energy deposits in the electromagnetic calorimeter. Clusters without matching tracks as well as those matching one or two tracks consistent with a photon conversion are considered. The shape of the cluster must match that expected for an electromagnetic shower, using criteria tuned for robustness under the pile-up conditions of 2012~\cite{Aad:2014nim}. The cluster energy is calibrated separately for converted and unconverted photon candidates using simulation. In addition, $\eta$-dependent correction factors determined from $Z\to e^+e^-$ events are applied to the cluster energy, as described in Ref.~\cite{Aad:2014nim}. The photon candidates must have $\ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}>20\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$ and $|\eta|<2.37$, excluding the transition region $1.37<|\eta|<1.56$ between the central and endcap electromagnetic calorimeters. The tighter $\eta$ requirement on photons, as compared to electrons, reflects the poorer photon resolution in the transition region and for $2.37\leq|\eta|<2.47$. Jets are reconstructed with the anti-$k_t$ algorithm~\cite{Cacciari:2008gp} with a radius parameter of 0.4 using three-dimensional clusters of energy in the calorimeter~\cite{Lampl:2008zz} as input. The clusters are calibrated, weighting differently the energy deposits arising from the electromagnetic and hadronic components of the showers. The final jet energy calibration corrects the calorimeter response to the particle-level jet energy~\cite{Aad:2011he,Aad:2014bia}; the correction factors are obtained from simulation and then refined and validated using data. Corrections for in-time and out-of-time pile-up are also applied, as described in Ref.~\cite{TheATLAScollaboration:2013pia}. Events containing jets failing to meet the quality criteria described in Ref.~\cite{Aad:2011he} are rejected to suppress non-collision background and events with large noise in the calorimeters. Jets with $\ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}>20\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$ are considered in the central pseudorapidity ($|\eta|<2.4$) region, and jet $\ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}>30\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$ is required in the forward ($2.4<|\eta|<4.5$) region. For central jets, the \ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}\ threshold is lower since it is possible to suppress pile-up using information from the ID, the ``jet vertex fraction'' (JVF). This is defined as the \ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}-weighted fraction of tracks within the jet that originate from the primary vertex of the event, and is $-1$ if there are no tracks within the jet. Central jets can also be tagged as originating from bottom quarks (referred to as $b$-jets) using the MV1 multivariate $b$-tagging algorithm based on quantities related to impact parameters of tracks and reconstructed secondary vertices~\cite{btag}. The efficiency of the $b$-tagging algorithm depends on the operating point chosen for each channel, and is reported in Sects.~\ref{sec:lbb} and \ref{sec:ss-2l}. Hadronically decaying $\tau$ leptons are reconstructed as 1- or 3-prong hadronic jets within $|\eta|<2.47$, and are required to have $\ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}>20\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$ after being calibrated to the $\tau$ energy scale~\cite{Aad:2014rga}. Final states with hadronically decaying $\tau$ leptons are not considered here; however, identified $\tau$ leptons are used in the overlap removal procedure described below, as well as to ensure that the same-sign lepton channel does not overlap with the three-lepton search~\cite{ATLAS:3L8TeV} that is included in the combined result. \begin{sloppypar} Potential ambiguities between candidate leptons, photons and jets are resolved by removing one or both objects if they are separated by $\Delta{}R\equiv\sqrt{(\Delta\phi)^2+(\Delta\eta)^2}$ below a threshold. This process eliminates duplicate objects reconstructed from a single particle, and suppresses leptons and photons contained inside hadronic jets. The thresholds and the order in which overlapping objects are removed are summarised in Table~\ref{tab:overlap}. In the same-sign channel, $e^+e^-$ and $\mu^+\mu^-$ pairs with $m_{\ell^+\ell^-}<12~\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi{}$ are also removed. The remaining leptons and photons are referred to as ``preselected" objects. \end{sloppypar} \begin{table} \centering \caption{\label{tab:overlap} Summary of the overlap removal procedure. Potential ambiguities are resolved by removing nearby objects in the indicated order, from top to bottom. Different $\Delta{}R$ separation requirements are used in the three channels. } \begin{tabular}{llllr} \toprule Candidates & \multicolumn{3}{c}{$\Delta{}R$ threshold} & Candidate removed \\ \cmidrule{2-4} & \ensuremath{\ell{}bb}{} & \ensuremath{\ell\gamma\gamma}{} & \ensuremath{\ell^{\pm}\ell^{\pm}}{} & \\ \midrule $e$--$e$ & 0.1 & --- & 0.05 & lowest-\ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}{} $e$ \\ $e$--$\gamma$ & --- & 0.4 & --- & $e$ \\ jet--$\gamma$ & --- & 0.4 & --- & jet \\ jet--$e$ & 0.2 & 0.2 & 0.2 & jet \\ $\tau{}$--$e$ or $\tau{}$--$\mu{}$ & --- & --- & 0.2 & $\tau$ \\ $\mu$--$\gamma$ & --- & 0.4 & --- & $\mu$ \\ $e$--jet or $\mu$--jet & 0.4 & 0.4 & 0.4 & $e$ or $\mu$ \\ $e$--$\mu$ & $0.1$ & --- & $0.1$ & both \\ $\mu$--$\mu$ & $0.05$ & --- & $0.05$ & both \\ jet--$\tau$ & --- & --- & 0.2 & jet \\ \bottomrule \end{tabular} \end{table} \begin{sloppypar} Isolation criteria are applied to improve the purity of reconstructed objects. The criteria are based on the scalar sum of the transverse energies \ensuremath{E_\mathrm{T}}{} of the calorimeter cell clusters within a radius $\Delta{}R$ of the object (\etcone{\Delta{}R}), and on the scalar sum of the \ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}{} of the tracks within $\Delta{}R$ and associated with the primary vertex (\ptcone{\Delta{}R}). The contribution due to the object itself is not included in either sum. The values used in the isolation criteria depend on the channel; they are specified in Sects.~\ref{sec:lbb}, \ref{sec:lgg} and \ref{sec:ss-2l}. \end{sloppypar} The missing transverse momentum, $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{\,miss}$ (with magnitude $\ensuremath{E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}}$), is the negative vector sum of the transverse momenta of all preselected electrons, muons, and photons, as well as jets and calorimeter energy clusters with $|\eta|\,$$<\,$4.9 not associated with these objects. Clusters that are associated with electrons, photons and jets are calibrated to the scale of the corresponding objects~\cite{Aad:2012re,Aad:2013oia}. The efficiencies for electrons, muons, and photons to satisfy the reconstruction and identification criteria are measured in control samples, and corrections are applied to the simulated samples to reproduce the efficiencies in data. Similar corrections are also applied to the trigger efficiencies, as well as to the jet $b$-tagging efficiency and misidentification probability. \section{One lepton and two $b$-jets channel} \label{sec:lbb} \begin{table*}[t]\centering \caption{\label{tab:SRlbb} Selection requirements for the signal, control and validation regions of the one lepton and two $b$-jets channel. The number of leptons, jets, and $b$-jets is labelled with \ensuremath{n_\mathrm{lepton}}, \ensuremath{n_\mathrm{jet}}, and \ensuremath{n_{b\mhyphen\mathrm{jet}}} respectively.} \begin{tabular}{ccccccc} \toprule & SR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1 & SR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2 & CR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}T & CR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}W & VR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1 & VR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2 \\ \midrule \ensuremath{n_\mathrm{lepton}}\ & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ \ensuremath{n_\mathrm{jet}}\ & 2--3 & 2--3 & 2--3 & 2 & 2--3 & 2--3 \\ \ensuremath{n_{b\mhyphen\mathrm{jet}}}\ & 2 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 2\\ \ensuremath{E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}}\ [GeV] & $>100$ & $>100$ & $>100$ & $>100$ & $>100$ & $>100$ \\ \ensuremath{m_\mathrm{CT}}\xspace\ [GeV] & $>160$ & $>160$ & 100--160 & $>160$ & 100--160 & $>160$ \\ \ensuremath{m_\mathrm{T}^W}\ [GeV] & 100--130 & $>130$ & $>100$ & $>40$ & 40--100 & 40--100 \\ \bottomrule \end{tabular} \end{table*} \subsection{Event selection} The events considered in the one lepton and two $b$-jets channel are recorded with a combination of single-lepton triggers with a \ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}\ threshold of 24 GeV. To ensure that the event is triggered with a constant high efficiency, the offline event selection requires exactly one signal lepton ($e$ or $\mu$) with $\ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}>25\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$. The signal electrons must satisfy the ``tight'' identification criteria of Ref.~\cite{Aad:2014fxa}, as well as $|d_0|/\sigma_{d_0}<5$, where $\sigma_{d_0}$ is the error on $d_0$, and $|z_0\sin\theta|<0.4$\,mm. The signal muons must satisfy $|\eta|<2.4$, $|d_0|/\sigma_{d_0}<3$, and $|z_0\sin\theta|<0.4$\,mm. The signal electrons (muons) are required to satisfy the isolation criteria $\etcone{0.3}/\ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}<0.18$ (0.12) and $\ptcone{0.3}/\ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}<0.16$ (0.12). Events with two or three jets are selected, and the jets can be either central ($|\eta|<2.4$) or forward ($2.4<|\eta|<4.9$). Central jets have $\ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}>25~\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$, and forward jets have $\ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}>30~\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$. For central jets with $\ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}<50\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$, the $\ensuremath\mathrm{JVF}{}$ must be $>0.5$. Events must contain exactly two $b$-jets and these must be the highest-\ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}{} central jets. The chosen operating point of the $b$-tagging algorithm identifies $b$-jets in simulated $\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}$ events with an efficiency of 70\%; it misidentifies charm jets 20\% of the time and light-flavour (including gluon-induced) jets less than $1\%$ of the time. After the requirement of $\ensuremath{E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}}>100$~GeV, the dominant background contributions in the \ensuremath{\ell{}bb}{} channel are \ensuremath{t\bar{t}}{}, \ensuremath{W+\mathrm{jets}}{}, and single-top $Wt$ production. Their contributions are suppressed using the kinematic selections described below, which define the two signal regions (SR) SR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1{} and SR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2{} summarised in Table~\ref{tab:SRlbb}. The contransverse mass \ensuremath{m_\mathrm{CT}}\xspace~\cite{Tovey:2008ui,Polesello:2009rn} is defined as \begin{equation} \ensuremath{m_\mathrm{CT}}\xspace = \sqrt{(E_\mathrm{T}^{b_1}+E_\mathrm{T}^{b_2})^2 - |\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^{b_1}-\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^{b_2}|^2}, \end{equation} where $E_\mathrm{T}^{b_i}$ and $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^{b_i}$ are the transverse energy and momentum of the $i$-th $b$-jet. The SM \ensuremath{t\bar{t}}{} background has an upper endpoint at $\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{CT}}\xspace$ of approximately $m_t$, and is efficiently suppressed by requiring $\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{CT}}\xspace>160\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$. The transverse mass \ensuremath{m_\mathrm{T}^W}, describing $W$ candidates in background events, is defined as \begin{equation} \ensuremath{m_\mathrm{T}^W} = \sqrt{2 E_\mathrm{T}^\ell \ensuremath{E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}} - 2 \vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\ell \cdot \vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}}, \end{equation} where $E_\mathrm{T}^\ell$ and $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\ell$ are the transverse energy and momentum of the lepton. Requiring $\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{T}^W}>100\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$ efficiently suppresses the $W$\,+\,jets background. The two SRs are distinguished by requiring $100<\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{T}^W}<130\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$ for SR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1\ and $\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{T}^W}>130\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$ for SR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2. The first signal region provides sensitivity to signal models with a mass splitting between \ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}\ and \ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_2^0}\ similar to the Higgs boson mass, while the second one targets larger mass splittings. In each SR, events are classified into five bins of the invariant mass \ensuremath{m_{bb}}\xspace\ of the two $b$-jets as 45--75--105--135--165--195\,GeV. In the SRs, about 70\% of the signal events due to $h\to\ensuremath{b\bar{b}}$ populate the central bin of 105--135\,\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi. The other four bins (sidebands) are used to constrain the background normalisation, as described below. \begin{figure*}\centering \subfigure[\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{CT}}\xspace\ in CR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}T, SR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1\ and SR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2, central \ensuremath{m_{bb}}\xspace\ bin] {\includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{fig_02a}}\hspace{1.8cm} \subfigure[\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{CT}}\xspace\ in CR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}T, SR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1\ and SR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2, \ensuremath{m_{bb}}\xspace\ sidebands] {\includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{fig_02b}} \subfigure[\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{T}^W}\ in VR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2, SR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1\ and SR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2, central \ensuremath{m_{bb}}\xspace\ bin] {\includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{fig_02c}}\hspace{1.8cm} \subfigure [\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{T}^W}\ in VR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2, SR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1\ and SR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2, \ensuremath{m_{bb}}\xspace\ sidebands] {\includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{fig_02d}} \subfigure[Number of $b$-jets in SR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1\ and SR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2\ without the $b$-jet multiplicity requirement, central \ensuremath{m_{bb}}\xspace\ bin] {\includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{fig_02e}}\hspace{1.8cm} \subfigure[\ensuremath{m_{bb}}\xspace\ in SR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1\ and SR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2] {\includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{fig_02f}} \caption{\label{fig:SRlbb} Distributions of contransverse mass \ensuremath{m_\mathrm{CT}}\xspace, transverse mass of the $W$-candidate \ensuremath{m_\mathrm{T}^W}, number of $b$-jets, and invariant mass of the $b$-jets \ensuremath{m_{bb}}\xspace\ for the one lepton and two $b$-jets channel in the indicated regions. The stacked background histograms are obtained from the background\hyp only fit. The hashed areas represent the total uncertainties on the background estimates after the fit. The rightmost bins in (a)--(d) include overflow. The distributions of a signal hypothesis are also shown without stacking on the background histograms. The vertical arrows indicate the boundaries of the signal regions. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the SM background prediction. } \end{figure*} \begin{table*}[th!] \caption{ Event yields and SM expectation in the one lepton and two $b$-jets channel obtained with the background\hyp only fit. ``Other'' includes $Z$ + jets, $WW$, $WZ$, $ZZ$, $Zh$ and $Wh$ processes. The errors shown include statistical and systematic uncertainties. \label{tab:results_blinded_bkgOnlyFit}} \begin{center} \footnotesize \begin{tabular}{l*{8}{r@{\,$\pm$\,}r}} \toprule & \multicolumn{2}{c}{SR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\ \ \ SR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{SR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{SR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{CR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}T} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{CR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}W} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{VR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{VR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2}\\ & \multicolumn{4}{c}{$105<\ensuremath{m_{bb}}\xspace<135$ \ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\ensuremath{m_{bb}}\xspace\ sidebands}\\ \midrule Observed events & \multicolumn{2}{l}{4} & \multicolumn{2}{l}{\ \ \ 3} & \multicolumn{2}{l}{14} & \multicolumn{2}{l}{10} & \multicolumn{2}{l}{651} & \multicolumn{2}{l}{1547} & \multicolumn{2}{l}{885} & \multicolumn{2}{l}{235} \\ SM expectation & 6.0&1.3 & \ \ \ 2.8&0.8 & 13.1&2.4 & \phantom{0}8.8&1.7 & 642&25 & 1560&40 & 880&90 & 245&17 \\ \midrule \ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\ & 3.8&1.2 & \ \ \ 1.4&0.7 & 8.0&2.4 & 3.1&1.4 & 607&25 & 680&60 & 680&90 & 141&18 \\ $W$ + jets & 0.6&0.3 & \ \ \ 0.2&0.1 & 2.7&0.5 & 1.7&0.3 & 11& 2 & 690&60 & 99&12 & 62& 8 \\ Single top & 1.3&0.4 & \ \ \ 0.7&0.4 & 1.9&0.6 & 2.5&1.1 & 20& 4 & 111&14 & 80&10 & 27& 4 \\ Other & 0.3&0.1 & \ \ \ 0.5&0.1 & 0.5&0.1 & 1.5&0.2 & 4& 1 & 76& 8 & 16& 2 & 15& 1 \\ \bottomrule \end{tabular} \end{center} \end{table*} \subsection{Background estimation} \label{sec:lbb-bkg} The contributions from the \ensuremath{t\bar{t}}{} and \ensuremath{W+\mathrm{jets}}{} background sources are estimated from simulation, and normalised to data in dedicated control regions defined in the following paragraphs. The contribution from multi-jet production, where the signal lepton is a misidentified jet or comes from a heavy-flavour hadron decay or photon conversion, is estimated using the ``matrix method'' described in Ref.~\cite{ATLAS:2L8TeV}, and is found to be less than 3\% of the total background in all regions and is thus neglected. The remaining sources of background (single top, $Z$ + jets, $WW$, $WZ$, $ZZ$, $Zh$ and $Wh$ production) are estimated from simulation. Two control regions (CR), CR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}T{} and CR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}W{}, are designed to constrain the normalisations of the \ensuremath{t\bar{t}}{} and \ensuremath{W+\mathrm{jets}}{} backgrounds respectively. The acceptance for \ensuremath{t\bar{t}}{} events is increased in CR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}T{} by modifying the requirement on \ensuremath{m_\mathrm{CT}}\xspace{} to $100<\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{CT}}\xspace<160\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$. The acceptance of \ensuremath{W+\mathrm{jets}}{} events is increased in CR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}W{} by requiring $\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{T}^W}{}>40\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$ and exactly two jets, of which only one is $b$-tagged. These two control regions are summarised in Table~\ref{tab:SRlbb}. The control regions are defined to be similar to the signal regions in order to reduce systematic uncertainties on the extrapolation to the signal regions; at the same time they are dominated by the targeted background processes and the expected contamination by signal is small. As in the signal regions, the control regions are binned in \ensuremath{m_{bb}}\xspace (\ensuremath{m_{bj}}\xspace in the case of CR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}W). A ``background\hyp only" likelihood fit is performed, in which the predictions of the simulated background processes without any signal hypothesis are fit simultaneously to the data yields in eight \ensuremath{m_{bb}}\xspace{} sideband bins of the SRs and the ten \ensuremath{m_{bb}}\xspace{} bins of the CRs. This fit, as well as the limit-setting procedure, is performed using the {\textsc{HistFitter}}{} package described in Ref.~\cite{Baak:2014wma}. The two free parameters of the fit, namely the normalisations of the \ensuremath{t\bar{t}}{} and \ensuremath{W+\mathrm{jets}}{} background components, are constrained by the number of events observed in the control regions and signal region sidebands, where the number of events is described by a Poisson probability density function. The remaining nuisance parameters correspond to the sources of systematic uncertainty described in Sect.~\ref{sec:systematics}. They are taken into account with their uncertainties, and adjusted to maximise the likelihood. The yields estimated with the background\hyp only fit are reported in Table~\ref{tab:results_blinded_bkgOnlyFit}, as well as the resulting predictions in SR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1\ and SR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2\ for $105<\ensuremath{m_{bb}}\xspace<135$ GeV. While CR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}T{} is dominated by \ensuremath{t\bar{t}}{} events, CR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}W{} is populated evenly by \ensuremath{t\bar{t}}{} and \ensuremath{W+\mathrm{jets}}{} events, which causes the normalisations of the \ensuremath{t\bar{t}}{} and \ensuremath{W+\mathrm{jets}}{} contributions to be negatively correlated after the fit. As a result, the uncertainties on individual background sources do not add up quadratically to the uncertainty on the total SM expectation. The normalisation factors are found to be $1.03\pm0.15$ for \ensuremath{t\bar{t}}{} and $0.79\pm0.07$ for \ensuremath{W+\mathrm{jets}}{}, where the errors include statistical and systematic uncertainties. To validate the background modelling, two validation regions (VR) are defined similarly to the SRs except for requiring $40<\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{T}^W}<100\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$, and requiring $100<\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{CT}}\xspace<160\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$ for VR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1{} and $\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{CT}}\xspace>160\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$ for VR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2{} as summarised in Table~\ref{tab:SRlbb}. The yields in the VRs are shown in Table~\ref{tab:results_blinded_bkgOnlyFit} after the background\hyp only fit, which does not use the data in the VRs to constrain the background. The data event yields are found to be consistent with background expectations. Figure~\ref{fig:SRlbb} shows the data distributions of \ensuremath{m_\mathrm{CT}}\xspace, \ensuremath{m_\mathrm{T}^W}, \ensuremath{n_{b\mhyphen\mathrm{jet}}}\ and \ensuremath{m_{bb}}\xspace\ compared to the SM expectations in various regions. The data agree well with the SM expectations in all distributions. \section{One lepton and two photons channel} \label{sec:lgg} \subsection{Event Selection} Events recorded with diphoton or single-lepton triggers are used in the one lepton and two photons channel. For the diphoton trigger, the transverse momentum thresholds at trigger level for the highest-\ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}\ (leading) and second highest-\ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}\ (sub-leading) photons are $35\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$ and $25\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$ respectively. For these events, the event selection requires exactly one signal lepton ($e$ or $\mu$) and exactly two signal photons, with \ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}\ thresholds of $15\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$ for electrons, $10\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$ for muons, and 40 (27) GeV for leading (sub-leading) photons. In addition, events recorded with single-lepton triggers, which have transverse momentum thresholds at trigger level of 24 GeV, are used. For these events, the selection requires \ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}\ thresholds of $25\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$ for electrons and muons, and 40 (20) GeV for leading (sub-leading) photons. \begin{table}[b] \centering \caption{\label{tab:SRlgg} Selection requirements for the signal and validation regions of the one lepton and two photons channel. The number of leptons and photons is labelled with \ensuremath{n_\mathrm{lepton}}\ and \ensuremath{n_{\gamma}}\ respectively.} \begin{tabular}{lcccc} \toprule & SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1 & SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2 & VR$\ell\gamma\gamma$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1 & VR$\ell\gamma\gamma$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2 \\ \midrule \ensuremath{n_\mathrm{lepton}} & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ \ensuremath{n_{\gamma}} & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 \\ \ensuremath{E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}}~[GeV] & $>40$ & $>40$ & $<40$ & --- \\ \ensuremath{\Delta\phi(W,h)} & $>2.25$& $>2.25$ & ---& $<2.25$ \\ \ensuremath{m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\smash{W\!\gamma_1}}} [GeV] & $>150$ & $<150$ & & \\ & and & or & --- & ---\\ \ensuremath{m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\smash{W\!\gamma_2}}} [GeV] & $> 80$ & $< 80$ & & \\ \bottomrule \end{tabular} \end{table} \begin{figure*}[t!]\centering \subfigure[\ensuremath{E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}}\ in SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1\ and SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2\ without \ensuremath{E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}}\ cut] {\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig_03a}}\hfil \subfigure[\ensuremath{\Delta\phi(W,h)}\ in SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1\ and SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2\ without \ensuremath{\Delta\phi(W,h)}\ cut] {\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig_03b}} \subfigure[\ensuremath{m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\smash{W\!\gamma_1}}}\ in SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1\ and SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2\ without $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\smash{W\!\gamma_i}}$ cuts] {\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig_03c}}\hfil \subfigure[\ensuremath{m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\smash{W\!\gamma_2}}}\ in SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1\ and SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2\ without $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\smash{W\!\gamma_i}}$ cuts] {\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig_03d}} \caption{\label{fig:SRlggvars} Distributions of missing transverse momentum \ensuremath{E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}}, azimuth difference between the $W$ and Higgs boson candidates \ensuremath{\Delta\phi(W,h)}, transverse mass of the $W$ and photon system \ensuremath{m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\smash{W\!\gamma_1}}}\ and \ensuremath{m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\smash{W\!\gamma_2}}}{} in the one lepton and two photons signal regions for the Higgs-mass window ($120<\ensuremath{m_{\gamma\gamma}}<130\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$). The vertical arrows indicate the boundaries of the signal regions. The filled and hashed areas represent the stacked histograms of the simulation-based background cross check and the total uncertainties. The contributions from non-Higgs backgrounds are scaled by 10 \ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi\ / 50 \ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi\ = 0.2 from the \ensuremath{m_{\gamma\gamma}}{} sideband ($100<\ensuremath{m_{\gamma\gamma}}<120\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$ and $130<\ensuremath{m_{\gamma\gamma}}<160\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$) into the Higgs-mass window. The rightmost bins in (a), (c), and (d) include overflow. Scaled data in the sideband are shown as squares, while events in the Higgs-mass window are shown as circles. The distributions of a signal hypothesis are also shown without stacking on the background histograms.} \end{figure*} \begin{figure*}[ht!]\centering \subfigure[SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1] {\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig_04a}}\hfil \subfigure[SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2] {\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig_04b}} \subfigure[VR$\ell\gamma\gamma$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1] {\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig_04c}}\hfil \subfigure[VR$\ell\gamma\gamma$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2] {\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig_04d}} \caption{\label{fig:SRlgg} Results of the background\hyp only fit to the diphoton invariant mass, \ensuremath{m_{\gamma\gamma}}, distribution in the one lepton and two photons signal and validation regions. The contributions from SM Higgs boson production are constrained to the MC prediction and associated systematic uncertainties. The band shows the systematic uncertainty on the fit. The fit is performed on events with 100 GeV $< \ensuremath{m_{\gamma\gamma}} <$ 160 GeV, with events in SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1{} or SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2{} in the Higgs-mass window (120 GeV $\le \ensuremath{m_{\gamma\gamma}} \le$ 130 GeV), indicated by the arrows, excluded from the fit. } \end{figure*} In this channel, a neural network algorithm, based on the momenta of the tracks associated with each vertex and the direction of flight of the photons, is used to select the primary vertex, similarly to the ATLAS SM $h\to\gamma\gamma$ analysis described in Ref.~\cite{ATLAS:higgs2013}. Signal muons must satisfy $|d_0|<1$\,mm and $|z_0|<10$\,mm. The isolation criteria for both the electrons and muons are $\etcone{0.4}/\ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}<0.2$ and $\ptcone{0.2}/\ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}<0.15$. Signal photons are required to satisfy $\etcone{0.4}<6\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$ and $\ptcone{0.2}<2.6\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$. The two largest background contributions are due to multi-jet and $Z\gamma$ production, with leptons or jets misreconstructed as photons. These background contributions are suppressed by requiring $\ensuremath{E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}}>40\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$. \begin{sloppypar} The $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}$ of the $W\to\ell\nu$ system, reconstructed assuming background events with neutrino $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}=\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{\,miss}$, is required to be back-to-back with the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}$ of the $h\to\gamma\gamma$ candidate ($\ensuremath{\Delta\phi(W,h)}>2.25$). Only events with a diphoton invariant mass, \ensuremath{m_{\gamma\gamma}}, between 100 and 160~GeV are considered. Events in the sideband, outside the Higgs-mass window between 120 and 130~GeV, are included to constrain the non-Higgs background as described in Sect.~\ref{sec:lyy-bkg}. \end{sloppypar} Selected events are split into two SRs with different expected signal sensitivities based on two variables \ensuremath{m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\smash{W\!\gamma_1}}}\ and \ensuremath{m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\smash{W\!\gamma_2}}}, which are defined as \begin{equation} m_\mathrm{T}^{\smash{W\!\gamma_i}} = \sqrt{ (\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{T}^W})^2 + 2 \ensuremath{E_\mathrm{T}}^W \ensuremath{E_\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma_i} - 2 \vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^W\cdot\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^{\gamma_i}}, \end{equation} where $\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{T}^W}$, $\ensuremath{E_\mathrm{T}}^W$ and $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^W$ are the transverse mass, energy and momentum of the $W$ candidate, and $\ensuremath{E_\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma_i}$ and $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^{\gamma_i}$ are the transverse energy and momentum of the $i$-th, $\ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}$-ordered, photon. Including a photon in the transverse mass calculation provides a means to identify leptonically decaying $W$ bosons in the presence of a final-state radiation photon. Events with $\ensuremath{m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\smash{W\!\gamma_1}}}>150\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$ and $\ensuremath{m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\smash{W\!\gamma_2}}}>80\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$ are classified into SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1, and those with either $\ensuremath{m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\smash{W\!\gamma_1}}}<150\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$ or $\ensuremath{m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\smash{W\!\gamma_2}}}<80\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$ into SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2. Most of the sensitivity to the signal is provided by SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1{}, while SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2{} assists in constraining systematic uncertainties. Two overlapping validation regions are defined by inverting and modifying the \ensuremath{E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}}\ and $\ensuremath{\Delta\phi(W,h)}$ criteria relative to those of the signal regions. The first region VR$\ell\gamma\gamma$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1\ requires $\ensuremath{E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}}<40\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$ and has no requirement on \ensuremath{\Delta\phi(W,h)}, and the second region VR$\ell\gamma\gamma$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2\ requires $\ensuremath{\Delta\phi(W,h)}<2.25$ and has no requirement on \ensuremath{E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}}. The signal and validation regions are summarised in Table~\ref{tab:SRlgg}. \begin{table*}[ht!] \caption{\label{tab:lggbackground} Event yields and SM expectation in the Higgs-mass window of the lepton plus two photon channel ($120<\ensuremath{m_{\gamma\gamma}}<130\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$) after the background\hyp only fit. The Higgs-mass window is excluded from the fit in the two signal regions. The errors shown include statistical and systematic uncertainties.} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{ll@{\,$\pm$\,}ll@{\,$\pm$\,}ll@{\,$\pm$\,}ll@{\,$\pm$\,}l} \toprule & \multicolumn{2}{c}{SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{VR$\ell\gamma\gamma$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{VR$\ell\gamma\gamma$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2}\\ \midrule Observed events & \multicolumn{1}{l}{1}& & \multicolumn{1}{l}{5}& & \multicolumn{1}{l}{30}& & \multicolumn{1}{l}{26}& \\ SM expectation & 1.6 &0.4 & 3.3 &0.8 & 30.2 &2.3 & 20.4 &1.9 \\ \midrule Non-Higgs & 0.6 &0.3 & 3.0 &0.8 & 29.2 &2.3 & 19.8 &1.9 \\ $Wh$ & 0.85&0.02 & 0.23&0.01& 0.71 &0.02 & 0.29 &0.01 \\ $Zh$ & 0.04&0.01 & 0.02&0.01& 0.14 &0.02 & 0.05 &0.01 \\ \ensuremath{\ttbar h} & 0.14&0.01 & 0.02&0.01& 0.11 &0.01 & 0.25 &0.01 \\ \bottomrule \end{tabular} \end{center} \end{table*} \begin{sloppypar} Distributions in the Higgs-mass window of the four kinematic variables used to define the SRs are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:SRlggvars}. For illustration purposes, the observed yield in the sideband region is shown for each distribution, scaled into the corresponding Higgs-mass window by the relative widths of the Higgs-mass window and the sideband region, 10 \ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi\ / 50 \ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi\ = 0.2. Also shown, for each distribution, is a simulation-based cross-check of the background estimate. To reduce statistical uncertainties originating from the limited number of simulated events, the non-Higgs contributions are obtained in the sideband and scaled into the Higgs-mass window by 0.2. The simulation-based prediction of the non-Higgs background is estimated from the W/Z($\gamma,\gamma\gamma$) +jets samples, after applying a data-driven correction for the probability of electrons or jets to be reconstructed as photons. The contribution from backgrounds with jets reconstructed as leptons is determined by using the ``fake factor'' method described in Ref.~\cite{PhysRevD.87.052002}. This simulation-based background estimate is only used as a cross-check of the sideband-data-based background estimate described above. It gives results consistent with the data estimate, but it is not used for limit setting. \end{sloppypar} \subsection{Background estimation} \label{sec:lyy-bkg} The contribution from background sources that do not contain a $h\to\gamma\gamma$ decay can be statistically separated by a template fit to the full \ensuremath{m_{\gamma\gamma}}\ distribution, from 100~GeV to 160~GeV. The approach followed is similar to the one in Ref.~\cite{ATLAS:higgs2013}: the non-Higgs background is modelled as $\exp(-\alpha\ensuremath{m_{\gamma\gamma}})$, with the constant $\alpha$ as a free, positive parameter in the fit. Alternative functional models are used to evaluate the systematic uncertainty due to the choice of background modelling function. The $h\to\gamma\gamma$ template, used for the Higgs background and signal, is formed by the sum of a Crystal Ball function~\cite{Oreglia:1980cs} for the core of the distribution and a Gaussian function for the tails. This functional form follows the one used in the SM $h\to\gamma\gamma$ analysis~\cite{ATLAS:higgs2013}, with the nominal values and uncertainties on the fit parameters determined by fits to the simulation in SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1{} and SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2{}. The results of the fit to the simulation are used as an external constraint on the template during the fit to data. The width of the Gaussian core of the Crystal Ball function quantifies the detector resolution and is determined in simulation to be 1.7 \ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi\ in SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1\ and 1.8 \ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi\ in SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2. This is comparable to the resolution found in the SM $h\to\gamma\gamma$ analysis~\cite{ATLAS:higgs2013}. Contributions from SM processes with a real Higgs boson decay are estimated by simulation and come primarily from $Wh$ associated production, with smaller amounts from $\ensuremath{t\bar{t}} h$ and $Zh$. The contributions from SM Higgs boson production via gluon fusion or vector boson fusion are found to be negligible. Systematic uncertainties on the yields of these SM processes are discussed in Sect.~\ref{sec:systematics}. Figure~\ref{fig:SRlgg} shows the background\hyp only fits to the observed \ensuremath{m_{\gamma\gamma}}\ distributions in the signal and validation regions, with the signal region Higgs-mass window ($120<\ensuremath{m_{\gamma\gamma}}<130\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$) excluded from the fit. Table~\ref{tab:lggbackground} summarises the observed event yields in the Higgs-mass window and the background estimates, from the background\hyp only fits, in the signal and validation regions. The errors are dominated by the statistical uncertainty due to the number of events in the \ensuremath{m_{\gamma\gamma}}\ sidebands. \section{Same-sign dilepton channel} \label{sec:ss-2l} \subsection{Event Selection} \label{sec:ss-2l-sel} \begin{sloppypar} Events recorded with a combination of dilepton triggers are used in the same-sign dilepton channel. The \ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}{} thresholds of the dilepton triggers depend on the flavour of the leptons. The triggers reach their maximum efficiency at \ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}{} values of about $14-25$~\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi{} for the leading lepton and $8-14$~\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi{} for the sub-leading lepton. \begin{table*}[ht!]\centering \caption{\label{tab:SRll} Selection requirements for the signal regions of the same-sign dilepton channel.} \begin{tabular}{ccccccc} \toprule & SR$ee$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1 & SR$ee$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2 & SR$\mu\mu$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1 & SR$\mu\mu$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2 & SR$e\mu$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1 & SR$e\mu$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2 \\ \midrule Lepton flavours & $ee$ & $ee$ & $\mu\mu$ & $\mu\mu$ & $e\mu$ & $e\mu$ \\ \ensuremath{n_\mathrm{jet}} & 1 & 2 or 3 & 1 & 2 or 3 & 1 & 2 or 3 \\ Leading lepton \ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}\ [GeV] & $>30$ & $>30$ & $>30$ & $>30$ & $>30$ & $>30$ \\ Sub-leading lepton \ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}\ [GeV] & $>20$ & $>20$ & $>20$ & $>30$ & $>30$ & $>30$ \\ $|\ensuremath{m_{\ell\ell}}-m_Z|$ [GeV] & $>10$ & $>10$ & -- & -- & -- & -- \\ \ensuremath{\Delta\eta_{\ell\ell}}\ & -- & -- & $<1.5$ & $<1.5$ & $<1.5$ & $<1.5$ \\ \ensuremath{E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss,rel}}}\ [GeV] & $>55$ & $>30$ & -- & -- & -- & -- \\ \ensuremath{m_\mathrm{eff}}{} [GeV] & $>200$ & -- & $>200$ & $>200$ & $>200$ & $>200$ \\ \ensuremath{m_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{max}}{} [GeV] & -- & $>110$ & $>110$ & -- & $>110$ & $>110$ \\ \ensuremath{m_{\ell j}}\ or \ensuremath{m_{\ell jj}}\ [GeV] & $<90$ & $<120$ & $<90$ & $<120$ & $<90$ & $<120$ \\ \bottomrule \end{tabular} \end{table*} The offline event selection requires two same-sign signal leptons ($ee$, $e\mu$ or $\mu\mu$) with $\ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}>30\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$ or $20\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$ as shown in Table~\ref{tab:SRll} and no additional preselected lepton. The signal electrons must satisfy the ``tight'' identification criteria from Ref.~\cite{Aad:2014fxa}, $|d_0|/\sigma_{d_0}<3$, and $|z_0\sin\theta{}|<0.4$\,mm. The signal muons must satisfy $|\eta|<2.4$, $|d_0|/\sigma_{d_0}<3$, and $|z_0\sin\theta{}|<1$\,mm. The isolation criteria for electrons (muons) are $\etcone{0.3}/$$\min(\ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}},60\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi)$$<0.13$ (0.14) and $\ptcone{0.3}/$$\min(\ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}},60\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi)$$<0.07$ (0.06). Events containing a hadronically decaying preselected $\tau$ lepton are rejected in order to avoid statistical overlap with the three-lepton final states~\cite{ATLAS:3L8TeV}. \end{sloppypar} Events are required to contain one, two, or three central ($|\eta|<2.4$) jets with $\ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}>20\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$. If a central jet has $\ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}{}<50\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$ and has tracks associated to it, at least one of the tracks must originate from the event primary vertex. To reduce background contributions with heavy-flavour decays, all the jets must fail to meet the $b$-tagging criterion at the 80\% efficiency operating point. There must be no forward ($2.4<|\eta|<4.9$) jet with $\ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}>30\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$. \begin{sloppypar} The dominant background contributions in the \ensuremath{\ell^{\pm}\ell^{\pm}}{} channel are due to SM diboson production ($WZ$ and $ZZ$) leading to two ``prompt" leptons and due to events with ``non-prompt" leptons (heavy-flavour decays, photon conversions and misidentified jets). These background contributions are suppressed with the tight identification criteria described above, and with the kinematic requirements summarised in Table~\ref{tab:SRll}. The requirements were optimised separately for each lepton flavour combination ($ee$, $\mu\mu$, and $e\mu$), and for different numbers of reconstructed jets, leading to six signal regions. \end{sloppypar} The dilepton invariant mass \ensuremath{m_{\ell\ell}}\ is required to differ by at least 10\,GeV from the $Z$-boson mass for the $ee$ channel, in which contamination due to electron charge misidentification is significant. The visible mass of the Higgs boson candidate is defined for the one jet signal regions as the invariant mass (\ensuremath{m_{\ell j}}) of the jet and the lepton that is closest to it in terms of $\Delta R$, and for the two or three jet signal regions as the invariant mass (\ensuremath{m_{\ell jj}}) of the two highest-\ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}\ jets and the lepton that is closest to the dijet system. In the signal regions, $\ensuremath{m_{\ell j}}{}<90$~\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi{} is required for SR$\ell\ell$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1{} and $\ensuremath{m_{\ell jj}}{}<120$~\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi{} for SR$\ell\ell$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2{}. \begin{figure}[b!] \centering \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig_05} \caption{\label{fig:fakeVRll} Distribution of effective mass \ensuremath{m_\mathrm{eff}}{} in the validation region of the same-sign $e\mu$ channel. This validation region is defined by requiring one, two, or three jets, and reversing the \ensuremath{m_{\ell j}}{}, \ensuremath{m_{\ell jj}}{} criteria. The hashed areas represent the total uncertainties on the background estimates that are depicted with stacked histograms. The distribution of a signal hypothesis is also shown without stacking on the background histograms. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the SM background prediction. } \end{figure} \begin{figure*}[p] \centering \subfigure[\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{eff}}{} in SR$\ell\ell$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1\ without \ensuremath{m_\mathrm{eff}}\ cut] {\includegraphics[width=0.38\textwidth]{fig_06a}}\hspace{1.8cm} \subfigure[\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{eff}}{} in SR$\ell\ell$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2\ without \ensuremath{m_\mathrm{eff}}\ cut] {\includegraphics[width=0.38\textwidth]{fig_06b}} \subfigure[\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{max}}\ in SR$\ell\ell$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1\ without \ensuremath{m_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{max}}\ cut] {\includegraphics[width=0.38\textwidth]{fig_06c}}\hspace{1.8cm} \subfigure[\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{max}}\ in SR$\ell\ell$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2\ without \ensuremath{m_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{max}}\ cut] {\includegraphics[width=0.38\textwidth]{fig_06d}} \subfigure[\ensuremath{m_{\ell j}}\ in SR$\ell\ell$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1\ without \ensuremath{m_{\ell j}}\ cut] {\includegraphics[width=0.38\textwidth]{fig_06e}}\hspace{1.8cm} \subfigure[\ensuremath{m_{\ell jj}}\ in SR$\ell\ell$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2\ without \ensuremath{m_{\ell jj}}\ cut] {\includegraphics[width=0.38\textwidth]{fig_06f}} \caption{\label{fig:SRll}Distributions of effective mass \ensuremath{m_\mathrm{eff}}{}, largest transverse mass \ensuremath{m_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{max}}{}, invariant mass of lepton and jets \ensuremath{m_{\ell j}}{} and \ensuremath{m_{\ell jj}}{} for the same-sign dilepton channel in the signal regions with one jet (left) and two or three jets (right). SR$\ell\ell$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1{} is the sum of SR$ee$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1{}, SR$e\mu$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1{}, and SR$\mu\mu$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1{}; SR$\ell\ell$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2{} is the sum of SR$ee$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2{}, SR$e\mu$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2{}, and SR$\mu\mu$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2{}. All selection criteria are applied, except for the one on the variable being shown. The vertical arrows indicate the boundaries of the signal regions, which may not apply to all flavour channels. The hashed areas represent the total uncertainties on the background estimates that are depicted with stacked histograms. The distributions of a signal hypothesis are also shown without stacking on the background histograms. The lower panels show the ratio between data and the SM background prediction. The rightmost bins of each distribution include overflow. } \end{figure*} \begin{table*}[ht!] \caption{ \label{tab:ss2l_results_blinded_bkgOnlyFit} Event yields and SM expectation in the same-sign dilepton channel signal regions. The $WW$ background includes both $W^{\pm}W^{\pm}$ and $W^{\pm}W^{\mp}$ production, the latter due to electron charge mis-measurement. ``Other'' background includes \ensuremath{t\bar{t}}{}, single top, \ensuremath{Z+\mathrm{jets}}{}, $Zh$ and $Wh$ production. The errors shown include statistical and systematic uncertainties. } \begin{center} \scalebox{0.98}{ \begin{tabular}{l*{6}{l@{\,$\pm$\,}l}} \toprule & \multicolumn{2}{c}{SR$ee$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{SR$ee$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{SR$\mu\mu$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{SR$\mu\mu$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{SR$e\mu$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{SR$e\mu$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2} \\ \midrule Observed events & \multicolumn{2}{l}{2} & \multicolumn{2}{l}{1} & \multicolumn{2}{l}{6} & \multicolumn{2}{l}{4} & \multicolumn{2}{l}{8} & \multicolumn{2}{l}{4} \\ SM expectation & 6.0 & 1.2 & 2.8 & 0.8 & 3.8 & 0.9 & 2.6 & 1.1 & 7.0 & 1.3 & 1.9 & 0.7 \\ \midrule Non-prompt & 3.4 & 1.0 & 1.6 & 0.5 & 0.00 & 0.20 & 0.3 & 0.4 & 3.0 & 0.9 & 0.48 & 0.28 \\ $WZ$, $ZZ$ & 2.2 & 0.6 & 0.7 & 0.4 & 3.4 & 0.8 & 1.8 & 0.9 & 3.3 & 0.8 & 1.1 & 0.5 \\ $WW$ & 0.33 & 0.31 & 0.22 & 0.23 & 0.24 & 0.29 & 0.4 & 0.5 & 0.4 & 0.4 & 0.23 & 0.26 \\ Other & 0.13 & 0.13 & 0.31 & 0.31 & 0.14 & 0.14 & 0.06 & 0.06 & 0.19 & 0.17 & 0.09 & 0.08 \\ \bottomrule \end{tabular}} \end{center} \end{table*} Depending on the final state, additional kinematic variables are used to further reduce the background. Requiring the pseudorapidity difference between the two leptons $\ensuremath{\Delta\eta_{\ell\ell}}<1.5$ decreases the $WZ$ and $ZZ$ background. Requirements on \ensuremath{E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss,rel}}}, defined as \begin{equation} \ensuremath{E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss,rel}}} = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \ensuremath{E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}} & \mathrm{if}\ \Delta\phi>\pi/2, \\ \ensuremath{E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}} \sin\left(\Delta\phi\right) & \mathrm{if}\ \Delta\phi<\pi/2, \\ \end{array} \right. \end{equation} where $\Delta\phi$ is the azimuthal angle difference between $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ and the nearest lepton or jet, reduce the $Z$ + jets and non-prompt lepton background in the $ee$ channel. The \ensuremath{E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss,rel}}}{} is defined so as to reduce the impact on \ensuremath{E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}}{} of any potential mismeasurement, either from jets or from leptons. The scalar sum \ensuremath{m_\mathrm{eff}}{} of the transverse momenta of the leptons, jets and the missing transverse momentum is used to suppress the diboson background. Requiring $\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{max}}>110\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$, where \ensuremath{m_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{max}}\ is the larger of the two \ensuremath{m_\mathrm{T}^W}\ values computed with one of the leptons and the missing transverse momentum, suppresses background events with one leptonically decaying $W$ boson, whose transverse mass distribution has an endpoint at $m_W$. To test the non-prompt lepton and charge mismeasurement backgrounds, validation regions are defined by applying only the number of jets \ensuremath{n_\mathrm{jet}}{} and lepton \ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}{} requirements from Table~\ref{tab:SRll} and requiring $\ensuremath{m_{\ell j}}>90\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$ or $\ensuremath{m_{\ell jj}}>120\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi$. \subsection{Background estimation} \label{sec:ss-2l-bkg} The irreducible background in the same-sign dilepton channel is dominated by $WZ$ and $ZZ$ diboson production, in which both vector bosons decay leptonically and one or two leptons do not satisfy the selection requirements, mostly the kinematic ones. These contributions are estimated from the simulation. Background contributions due to non-prompt leptons are estimated with the matrix method described in Ref.~\cite{ATLAS:2L8TeV}. It takes advantage of the difference between the efficiencies for prompt and non-prompt leptons, defined as the fractions of prompt and non-prompt preselected leptons respectively, that pass the signal-lepton requirements. The number of events containing non-prompt leptons is obtained from these efficiencies and the observed number of events using four categories of selection with preselected or signal leptons. The efficiencies for prompt and non-prompt leptons are derived, as a function of \ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}{} and $\eta$, for each process leading to either prompt or non-prompt leptons using the generator-level information from simulated events. They are then corrected for potential differences between simulation and data with correction factors measured in control regions, as described in Ref.~\cite{ATLAS:2L8TeV}. The contributions from each process leading to either prompt or non-prompt leptons are then used to compute a weighted-average efficiency, where the weight for each process is determined as its relative contribution to the number of preselected leptons in the region of interest. \begin{sloppypar} Same-sign background events where the lepton charge is mismeasured are usually due to a hard bremsstrahlung photon with subsequent asymmetric pair production. The charge mismeasurement probability, which is negligible for muons, is measured in data as a function of electron \ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}{} and $|\eta|$ using $Z\to e^+e^-$ events where the two electrons are reconstructed with the same charge. The probability, which is below $1\%$ for most of the \ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}{} and $\eta$ values, is then applied to the simulated opposite-sign $ee$ and $e\mu$ pairs to estimate this background~\cite{ATLAS:ss2lstrong8TeV}. Although any process with the $e^{\pm}e^{\mp}$ or $e^{\pm}\mu^{\mp}$ final state can mimic the same-sign signature with charge mismeasurement, most of this background contribution is due to the production of \ensuremath{Z+\mathrm{jets}}{} events, amounting to less than $10\%$ of the background yield in each of the \ensuremath{\ell^{\pm}\ell^{\pm}}{} signal regions. \end{sloppypar} Estimates of non-prompt lepton and charge mismeasurement background are tested in the validation regions; the number of observed events agrees with the expected background in all validation regions. Figure~\ref{fig:fakeVRll} shows the distribution of \ensuremath{m_\mathrm{eff}}{} in the validation region of the same-sign $e\mu$ channel. The number of observed and expected events in each signal region is reported in Table~\ref{tab:ss2l_results_blinded_bkgOnlyFit}. Figure~\ref{fig:SRll} shows the data distributions of \ensuremath{m_\mathrm{eff}}{}, \ensuremath{m_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{max}}{}, \ensuremath{m_{\ell j}}{}, and \ensuremath{m_{\ell jj}}{} compared to the SM expectations in the same-sign dilepton signal regions. No significant excess is observed over the SM background expectations in any channel. \section{Systematic uncertainties} \label{sec:systematics} \begin{table*}[ht!] \caption{\label{tab:systematics} Summary of the statistical and main systematic uncertainties on the background estimates, expressed in per cent of the total background yields in each signal region. Uncertainties that are not considered for a particular channel are indicated by a ``--''. The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add in quadrature to the total background uncertainty. } \begin{center} \scalebox{0.93}{ \begin{tabular}{lcccccc} \toprule & SR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1 & SR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2 & SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1 & SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2 & SR$\ell\ell$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1 & SR$\ell\ell$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2 \\ \midrule Number of background events & $6.0\pm1.3$ & $2.8\pm0.8$ & $1.6\pm0.4$ & $3.3\pm0.8$ & $16.8\pm2.8$ & $7.3\pm1.5$ \\ \midrule Statistical & 9 & 7 & 22 & 23 & 7 & 7 \\ Modelling \ensuremath{t\bar{t}} & 23 & 25 & -- & -- & -- & -- \\ Modelling single top & 5 & 11 & -- & --& -- & -- \\ Modelling $Wh$, $Zh$, $\ensuremath{\ttbar h}$ & -- & -- & 3 & 1 & -- & -- \\ Modelling $WZ$ & -- & -- & -- & -- & 11 & 22 \\ Electron reconstruction & 3 & 3 & 1 & 1 & $<1$& $<1$ \\ Muon reconstruction & 1 & 1 & $<1$& $<1$& 1 & $<1$ \\ Photon reconstruction & -- & -- & 4 & 5 & -- & -- \\ Jet energy scale and resolution & 6 & 14 & 1 & 3 & 2 & 11 \\ $b$-jet identification & 6 & 4 & -- & -- & -- & -- \\ \ensuremath{m_{bb}}\xspace\ shape & 8 & 12 & -- & -- & -- & -- \\ Background \ensuremath{m_{\gamma\gamma}}\ model & -- & -- & 5 & 7 & -- & -- \\ Non-prompt estimate & -- & -- & -- & -- & 10 & 11 \\ Charge mismeasurement estimate & -- & -- & -- & -- & 2 & 3 \\ Other sources & 4 & 5 & $<1$& 2 & 2 & 2 \\ \bottomrule \end{tabular}} \end{center} \end{table*} Table~\ref{tab:systematics} summarises the dominant systematic uncertainties on the total expected background yields in the six signal regions. \begin{sloppypar} For the one lepton and two $b$-jets channel, theoretical uncertainties on the \ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\ and single-top background estimates are the most important. They are evaluated by comparing different generators ({\textsc{Powheg}}\xspace, {\textsc{MC@NLO}}\xspace~\cite{Frixione:2002ik,Frixione:2005vw} and {\textsc{AcerMC}}\xspace) and parton shower algorithms ({\textsc{Pythia6}}\xspace\ and {\textsc{Herwig}}\xspace~\cite{Marchesini:1991ch,herwig}), varying the QCD factorisation and renormalisation scales up and down by a factor of two, and taking the envelope of the background variations when using different PDF sets. Statistical uncertainties from the data in the CRs result in uncertainties on the normalisations of the \ensuremath{t\bar{t}}{} and \ensuremath{W+\mathrm{jets}}{} backgrounds, while the limited number of simulated events yields uncertainty on the shape of the background \ensuremath{m_{bb}}\xspace\ distributions. The largest experimental systematic uncertainties are those on the jet energy scale~\cite{Aad:2014bia} and resolution~\cite{Aad:2012ag}, derived from a combination of test-beam data and in-situ measurements, followed by the uncertainty on the $b$-jet identification efficiency~\cite{ATLAS-CONF-2014-004}. The uncertainty on the $W$ boson background modelling is dominated by the uncertainty on the cross section for the production of the $W$ boson in association with heavy-flavour jets, and is reported within the ``Other sources". The $W$ boson background component is small in \ensuremath{\ell{}bb}\ SRs, and its uncertainty is constrained by the CRs with a similar composition. \end{sloppypar} For the one lepton and two photons channel, the background uncertainties are dominated by the data statistics in the \ensuremath{m_{\gamma\gamma}}\ sidebands. The only source of systematic uncertainty on the non-Higgs background estimate is the choice of \ensuremath{m_{\gamma\gamma}}\ model. The systematic uncertainties on the Higgs background estimates are dominated by the theoretical uncertainties on the $Wh$, $Zh$, and $\ensuremath{\ttbar h}$ production cross sections and the photon reconstruction. The main theoretical uncertainties are those on the QCD scales and the parton distribution functions~\cite{CERNYellowReport3}. The effect of scale uncertainties on the modelling of Higgs boson production is evaluated by reweighting the simulated Higgs boson \ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}\ distribution to account for doubling and halving the scales. The experimental systematic uncertainty from photon reconstruction is determined with the tag-and-probe method using radiative $Z$ decays~\cite{ATLAS-CONF-2012-123}. For the same-sign dilepton channel, the two main sources of systematic uncertainty are related to the non-prompt lepton estimate, and to the modelling of the $WZ$ background. The uncertainty on the non-prompt estimate originates mainly from the limited accuracy of the efficiency correction factors, and on the production rate of non-prompt leptons, in particular their $\eta$ dependence. The uncertainty on the $WZ$ background modelling is determined using a same-sign, $WZ$-enriched sample used to validate the {\textsc{Sherpa}}\xspace{} prediction. This validation sample is selected by requiring three leptons, two of which must have same flavour, opposite sign, $|\ensuremath{m_{\ell\ell}}{}-m_{Z}|<10~\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi{}$, and then considering only the highest-\ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}{} same-sign pair. None of the other requirements from Table~\ref{tab:SRll} are applied, except for the lepton \ensuremath{p_\mathrm{T}}{} and \ensuremath{n_\mathrm{jet}}{} selections. \section{Results and interpretations} \label{sec:results} The event yields observed in data are consistent with the Standard Model expectations within uncertainties in all signal regions. The results are used to set exclusion limits with the frequentist hypothesis test based on the profile log-likelihood-ratio test statistic and approximated with asymptotic formulae~\cite{Cowan:2010js}. \begin{table}[b!] \begin{center} \caption{\label{tab:limits} From left to right, observed 95\% CL upper limits (\ensuremath{\langle\sigma_{\rm vis}\rangle_{\mathrm{obs}}^{95}}) on the visible cross sections, the observed (\ensuremath{S_\mathrm{obs}^{95}}) and expected (\ensuremath{S_\mathrm{exp}^{95}}) 95\% CL upper limits on the number of signal events with $\pm1\sigma$ excursions of the expectation, the observed confidence level of the background\hyp only hypothesis (\ensuremath{CL_B}), and the discovery $p$-value (\ensuremath{p_0}), truncated at $0.5$. } \begin{tabular}{lrrrrr} \toprule & \ensuremath{\langle\sigma_{\rm vis}\rangle_{\mathrm{obs}}^{95}} [fb] & \ensuremath{S_\mathrm{obs}^{95}} & \ensuremath{S_\mathrm{exp}^{95}} & \ensuremath{CL_B} & \ensuremath{p_0} \\ \midrule SR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1 & 0.26 & 5.3 & ${6.3}^{+3.4}_{-2.0}$ & 0.28 & 0.50 \\ SR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2 & 0.27 & 5.5 & ${5.1}^{+2.6}_{-1.4}$ & 0.56 & 0.43 \\ \midrule SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1 & 0.18 & 3.6 & ${4.1}^{+2.0}_{-0.7}$ & 0.25 & 0.50 \\ SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2 & 0.34 & 7.0 & ${5.9}^{+2.0}_{-1.2}$ & 0.75 & 0.19 \\ \midrule SR$\ell\ell$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1 & 0.51 & 10.4 & $10.9^{+3.8}_{-3.1}$ & 0.51 & 0.50 \\ SR$\ell\ell$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2 & 0.51 & 10.3 & $8.1^{+3.3}_{-1.5}$ & 0.72 & 0.32 \\ \bottomrule \end{tabular} \end{center} \end{table} \begin{figure*}[ht!] \begin{center} \subfigure[One lepton and two $b$-jets channel] {\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{fig_07a}} \subfigure[One lepton and two photons channel] {\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{fig_07b}} \subfigure[Same-sign dilepton channel] {\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{fig_07c}} \subfigure[Combination] {\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{fig_07d}} \caption{\label{fig:simplified1d} Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95\% CL upper limits on the cross section normalised by the simplified model prediction as a function of the common mass $m_{\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_2^0}}$ for $\ensuremath{m_{\smash{\ninoone}}}=0$. The combination in (d) is obtained using the result from the ATLAS three-lepton search~\cite{ATLAS:3L8TeV} in addition to the three channels reported in this paper. The dash-dotted lines around the observed limit represent the results obtained when changing the nominal signal cross section up or down by the $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}^{\text{SUSY}}$ theoretical uncertainty. The solid band around the expected limit represents the $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ uncertainty band where all uncertainties, except those on the signal cross sections, are considered. } \end{center} \end{figure*} \begin{figure*}[ht!] \begin{center} \subfigure[One lepton and two $b$-jets channel]{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{fig_08a}} \subfigure[One lepton and two photons channel]{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{fig_08b}} \subfigure[Same-sign dilepton channel]{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{fig_08c}} \subfigure[Combination]{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{fig_08d}} \caption{\label{fig:simplified} Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95\% CL exclusion regions in the mass plane of $m_{\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}}$ vs.~ $m_{\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_2^0},\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}}$ in the simplified model. The combination in (d) is obtained using the result from the ATLAS three-lepton search~\cite{ATLAS:3L8TeV} in addition to the three channels reported in this paper. The dotted lines around the observed limit represent the results obtained when changing the nominal signal cross section up or down by the $\pm 1 \sigma_{\text{theory}}^{\text{SUSY}}$ theoretical uncertainty. The solid band around the expected limit shows the $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ uncertainty band where all uncertainties, except those on the signal cross sections, are considered. } \end{center} \end{figure*} Exclusion upper limits at the 95\% confidence level (CL) on the number of beyond-the-SM (BSM) signal events, $S$, for each SR are derived using the CL$_\mathrm{s}${} prescription~\cite{Read:2002hq}, assuming no signal yield in other signal and control regions. Normalising the upper limits on the number of signal events by the integrated luminosity of the data sample provides upper limits on the visible BSM cross section, $\sigma_{\rm vis} = \sigma \times A \times \epsilon$, where $\sigma$ is the production cross section for the BSM signal, $A$ is the acceptance defined as the fraction of events passing the geometric and kinematic selections at particle level, and $\epsilon$ is the detector reconstruction, identification and trigger efficiency. Table~\ref{tab:limits} summarises, for each SR, the observed 95\% CL upper limits (\ensuremath{\langle\sigma_{\rm vis}\rangle_{\mathrm{obs}}^{95}}) on the visible cross section, the observed (\ensuremath{S_\mathrm{obs}^{95}}) and expected (\ensuremath{S_\mathrm{exp}^{95}}) 95\% CL upper limits on the number of signal events with $\pm1\sigma$ excursions of the expectation, the observed confidence level (\ensuremath{CL_B}) of the background\hyp only hypothesis, and the discovery $p$-value (\ensuremath{p_0}), truncated at $0.5$. The results are also used to set exclusion limits on the common mass of the \ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}\ and \ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_2^0}\ for various values of the \ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}\ mass in the simplified model of $pp\to\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_2^0}$ followed by $\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}\to W^\pm\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ and $\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_2^0}\to h\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$. In this hypothesis test, all the CRs and SRs, including the data in the Higgs-mass windows of the \ensuremath{\ell{}bb}\ and \ensuremath{\ell\gamma\gamma}\ channels, are fitted simultaneously, taking into account correlated experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties as common nuisance parameters. The signal contamination in the CRs is accounted for in the fit, where a single non-negative normalisation parameter is used to describe the signal model in all channels. \begin{sloppypar} Systematic uncertainties on the signal expectations stemming from detector effects are included in the fit in the same way as for the backgrounds. Theoretical systematic uncertainties on the signal cross section described in Sect.~\ref{sec:mc-simulation} are not included directly in the fit. In all resulting exclusions the dashed (black) and solid (red) lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits respectively, including all uncertainties except for the theoretical signal cross-section uncertainty. The (yellow) bands around the expected limit show the $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ expectations. The dotted $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}^{\text{SUSY}}$ (red) lines around the observed limit represent the results obtained when changing the nominal signal cross section up or down by its theoretical uncertainty, and reported limits correspond to the $-1\sigma{}$ variation. \end{sloppypar} \begin{sloppypar} Figure~\ref{fig:simplified1d} shows the 95\% CL upper limits on the signal cross section normalised by the simplified-model prediction as a function of $m_{\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_2^0},\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}}$ for $\ensuremath{m_{\smash{\ninoone}}}=0$. The sensitivity of the individual one lepton and two $b$-jets, one lepton and two photons, and same-sign dilepton channels is illustrated in Figs.~\ref{fig:simplified1d}(a)--(c) respectively. The corresponding limit combining all channels and the ATLAS three-lepton search is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:simplified1d}(d). For $m_{\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_2^0},\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}}>250$~\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi{} the same-sign dilepton channel is not considered. In Fig.~\ref{fig:simplified1d}(a), the expected exclusion region below $m_{\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_2^0},\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}}=140$~\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi{} is largely due to SR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}1, which targets models with small mass splitting between the neutralinos, while the expected exclusion region around $m_{\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_2^0},\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}}=240$~\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi{} is driven by SR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2\ designed for larger mass splittings. The upper limit shows slow variation with increasing $m_{\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_2^0},\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}}$ as the acceptance of SR$\ell bb$\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}2{} increases and compensates for the decrease of the production cross section. Figure~\ref{fig:simplified1d}(d) shows that in the $m_{\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_2^0},\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}}<170$~\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi{} range all channels show similar sensitivity, while for $m_{\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_2^0},\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}}>170$~\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi{} the one lepton and two $b$-jets channel is the dominant one. Nevertheless, the contribution from the other channels to the combination is important to extend the excluded range significantly compared to Fig.~\ref{fig:simplified1d}(a). \end{sloppypar} Figures~\ref{fig:simplified}(a)--(c) show the 95\% CL exclusion regions in the $(m_{\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_2^0},\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}}, m_{\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}})$ mass plane of the simplified model obtained from the individual one lepton and two $b$-jets, one lepton and two photons, and same-sign dilepton signal regions, respectively. Figure~\ref{fig:simplified}(d) shows the corresponding exclusion region obtained by combining the three channels described in this paper with the ATLAS three-lepton search, which by itself excludes $m_{\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_2^0}{}, \ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}{}}$ up to 160~\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi{} for $m_{\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}}=0$ as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:simplified}(d). The combination of these four independent searches improves the sensitivity significantly, and the 95\% CL exclusion region for $\ensuremath{m_{\smash{\ninoone}}}=0$ is extended to 250\,GeV. The wide uncertainty bands of the expected limits in Fig.~\ref{fig:simplified} are due to the slow variation of the sensitivity with increasing $m_{\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_2^0},\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}}$ and $m_{\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}}$, as can also be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:simplified1d}. In a similar search by the CMS Collaboration~\cite{Khachatryan:2014mma}, the observed limit on $m_{\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_2^0}{}, \ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}{}}$ is 210 GeV for $\ensuremath{m_{\smash{\ninoone}}}=0$. \section{Conclusions} \label{sec:conclusions} \begin{sloppypar} A search for the direct pair production of a chargino and a neutralino $pp\to\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_2^0}$ followed by $\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}^\pm}\to \ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}(W^{\pm}\to\ell^{\pm}\nu)$ and $\ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_2^0}\to \ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_1^0} (h\to bb/\gamma\gamma/\ell^{\pm}\nu qq)$ has been performed using 20.3\,\ifb\ of $\sqrt{s}=8\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Te\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Te\kern -0.1em V}\fi$ proton--proton collision data delivered by the Large Hadron Collider and recorded with the ATLAS detector. Three final-state signatures are considered: one lepton and two $b$-jets, one lepton and two photons, and two same-sign leptons, each associated with missing transverse momentum. Observations are consistent with the Standard Model expectations. Limits are set in a simplified model, combining these results with the three-lepton search presented in Ref.~\cite{ATLAS:3L8TeV}. For the simplified model, common masses of \ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}\ and \ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_2^0}\ are excluded up to 250\,GeV\ for a massless \ensuremath{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}. \end{sloppypar} \section*{Acknowledgements} \sloppy \input{Acknowledgements} \bibliographystyle{atlasBibStyleWoTitle}
\section*{Introduction} \subsection{Functional spaces} Let $\Omega$ be a bounded domain in $\mathbb{R}^3$ and let $\varepsilon$ and $\mu$ be measurable $(3\times 3)$-matrix-valued functions in $\Omega$. The functions $\varepsilon$ and $\mu$ describe the electric permittivity and the magnetic permeability of the medium filling the domain. We assume that they are real, positively definite and bounded: \begin{equation} \label{01} \varepsilon(x) = \overline{\varepsilon(x)}, \quad \mu(x) = \overline{\mu(x)}, \quad 0 < \varepsilon_0 1\!\!\!\!1 \le \varepsilon(x) \le \varepsilon_1 1\!\!\!\!1\,, \quad 0 < \mu_0 1\!\!\!\!1 \le \mu(x) \le \mu_1 1\!\!\!\!1\, . \end{equation} The Hilbert spaces $$ F (\Omega, s) = \{ u \in L_2 (\Omega, \mathbb{C}^3) :\operatorname{rot} u, \operatorname{div} (su) \in L_2\}, \quad s = \varepsilon \text{ or } \mu, $$ endowed with the norm $$ \|u\|_{F(\Omega,s)}^2 = \|\operatorname{rot} u\|_{L_2}^2 + \|\operatorname{div}(su)\|_{L_2}^2 + (su,u)_{L_2} $$ are natural settings in studying electromagnetic waves. We distinguish the subspaces of functions satisfying boundary conditions of perfect conductivity \begin{equation*} F (\Omega, \varepsilon, \tau) = \{E \in F(\Omega,\varepsilon) : \left.E_\tau \right|_{\partial\Omega} = 0 \}, \end{equation*} \begin{equation*} F (\Omega, \mu, \nu) = \{H \in F(\Omega,\mu) : \left.(\mu H)_\nu \right|_{\partial\Omega} = 0 \}. \end{equation*} Here $\tau$ and $\nu$ mean, respectively, the tangent and the normal components of a vector on the boundary $\partial\Omega$; conditions \begin{equation} \label{014} \left.E_\tau \right|_{\partial\Omega} = 0 \quad \text{and} \quad \left.(\mu H)_\nu \right|_{\partial\Omega} = 0 \end{equation} are understood in the sense of integral identities. \begin{defi} \label{o11} Let $w\in L_2 (\Omega, \mathbb{C}^3)$, $\operatorname{rot} w\in L_2 (\Omega, \mathbb{C}^3)$. The equality $\left. w_\tau\right|_{\partial\Omega} = 0$ means that $$ \int_\Omega \<w, \operatorname{rot} h\> dx = \int_\Omega \<\operatorname{rot} w, h\> dx \quad \forall \ h \in L_2(\Omega, \mathbb{C}^3) : \operatorname{rot} h \in L_2 (\Omega, \mathbb{C}^3) . $$ \end{defi} Here $\<\,.\,,\,.\,\>$ denotes the standard scalar product in $\mathbb{C}^3$. \begin{defi} \label{o12} Let $w\in L_2 (\Omega, \mathbb{C}^3)$, $\operatorname{div} w\in L_2 (\Omega)$. The equality $\left. w_\nu\right|_{\partial\Omega} = 0$ means that $$ \int_\Omega \<w, \nabla \varphi\> dx = - \int_\Omega \operatorname{div} w\,\overline{\varphi}\, dx \quad \forall \ \varphi \in W_2^1(\Omega) . $$ \end{defi} \begin{rem} If $\partial\Omega$ is Lipschitz and $w \in W_2^1(\Omega,\mathbb{C}^3)$, then these definitions of equalities $\left. w_\tau\right|_{\partial\Omega} = 0$ and $\left. w_\nu\right|_{\partial\Omega} = 0$ are equivalent to the definitions in the sense of traces. \end{rem} For \begin{equation} \label{04} \varepsilon,\mu\in{W_3^1 (\Omega)}, \end{equation} we introduce the subspaces of Sobolev space with appropriate boundary conditions: \begin{eqnarray*} W_2^1 (\Omega, \tau) = \{u \in W_2^1 (\Omega, \mathbb{C}^3) : \left.u_\tau \right|_{\partial\Omega} = 0 \}, \\ W_2^1 (\Omega, \mu, \nu) = \{v \in W_2^1 (\Omega, \mathbb{C}^3) : \left.(\mu v)_\nu \right|_{\partial\Omega} = 0 \}. \end{eqnarray*} Assumptions \eqref{01} and \eqref{04} for domains with Lipschitz boundary ensure the implication $$ u \in W_2^1 (\Omega) \quad \Rightarrow \quad s u \in W_2^1 (\Omega) , $$ therefore, $$ W_2^1 (\Omega, \tau) \subset F (\Omega, \varepsilon, \tau), \quad W_2^1 (\Omega, \mu, \nu) \subset F (\Omega, \mu, \nu) . $$ Our goal is to prove the coincidence of these spaces \begin{equation} \label{05} F (\Omega, \varepsilon, \tau) = W_2^1 (\Omega, \tau), \quad F (\Omega, \mu, \nu) = W_2^1 (\Omega, \mu, \nu) \end{equation} in domains locally $(W^2_3\cap W^1_\infty)$-diffeomorphic to convex domains (see Definition \ref{o03} below). \subsection{Maxwell operator} Let us distinguish the subspace $$ J=\{ E \in L_2 (\Omega, \mathbb{C}^3) : \operatorname{div} (\varepsilon E) = 0 \} \oplus \{ H \in L_2 (\Omega, \mathbb{C}^3) : \operatorname{div} (\mu H) = 0 , \left.(\mu H)_\nu\right|_{\partial\Omega} = 0\} $$ in the space $L_2 (\Omega, \mathbb{C}^6; \varepsilon, \mu)$ endowed with the norm $$ \l\|\left( \begin{array}{cc} E \\ H \end{array} \right)\r\|_{L_2 (\Omega, \mathbb{C}^6; \varepsilon, \mu)}^2 = \int_\Omega \l( \<\varepsilon E, E\> + \<\mu H, H\> \r) \, dx . $$ The Maxwell operator acts on the subspace $J$ by the formula \begin{equation} \label{06} {\cal M} \left( \begin{array}{cc} E \\ H \end{array} \right) = \left( \begin{array}{cc} i \varepsilon^{-1} \operatorname{rot} H \\ -i \mu^{-1} \operatorname{rot} E \end{array} \right) \end{equation} on the domain $$ \operatorname{Dom} {\cal M} = \{E \in F(\Omega, \varepsilon, \tau) : \operatorname{div} (\varepsilon E) = 0\} \oplus \{H \in F(\Omega, \mu, \nu) : \operatorname{div} (\mu H) = 0 \}. $$ Here $E$ and $H$ are electric and magnetic components of field, subject to the divergence free condition \begin{equation} \label{07} \operatorname{div} (\varepsilon E) = \operatorname{div} (\mu H) = 0 \end{equation} and to the boundary conditions of perfect conductivity \eqref{014}. It is easy to show (see \cite{BS89aa}), that the Maxwell operator is self-adjoint, ${\cal M} = {\cal M}^*$. One introduces also the "strong"\ Maxwell operator ${\cal M}_s$, determined by the same expression \eqref{06} on the domain $$ \operatorname{Dom} {\cal M}_s = \{E \in W_2^1 (\Omega, \tau) : \operatorname{div} (\varepsilon E) = 0\} \oplus \{H \in W_2^1 (\Omega, \mu, \nu) : \operatorname{div} (\mu H) = 0 \}. $$ It is well known that the "strong"\ Maxwell operator does not always coincide with the "weak" one: if the domain $\Omega$ is a polyhedron with an incoming edge, $\varepsilon = \mu = 1\!\!\!\!1$\,, then the "strong"\ operator ${\cal M}_s$ is symmetric, but not self-adjoint, and has infinite deficiency indices. One consider the extended Maxwell operator ${\cal L}$ besides the operators ${\cal M}$ and ${\cal M}_s$. It acts on the space $L_2 (\Omega, \mathbb{C}^8; \varepsilon, \mu)$ with the norm $$ \l\|X\r\|_{L_2 (\Omega, \mathbb{C}^8; \varepsilon, \mu)}^2 = \int_\Omega \l( \<\varepsilon E, E\> + |\varphi|^2 + \<\mu H, H\> + |\eta|^2\r) \, dx, \quad X = \left( \begin{array}{cc} E \\ \varphi \\ H \\ \eta\end{array} \right). $$ The operator ${\cal L}$ is determined by the formulas \begin{equation} \label{08} {\cal L} = \left( \begin{array}{cccc} 0 & 0 & i \varepsilon^{-1} \operatorname{rot} & i\nabla \\ 0 & 0 & - i \operatorname{div} (\mu \cdot) & 0 \\ -i \mu^{-1} \operatorname{rot} & -i\nabla & 0 & 0 \\ i \operatorname{div} (\varepsilon \cdot) & 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array} \right), \end{equation} $$ {\cal L} \left( \begin{array}{cc} E \\ \varphi \\ H \\ \eta \end{array} \right) = \left( \begin{array}{cc} i \varepsilon^{-1} \operatorname{rot} H + i \nabla\eta \\ -i \operatorname{div} (\mu H) \\ -i \mu^{-1} \operatorname{rot} E - i \nabla \varphi \\ i \operatorname{div} (\varepsilon E) \end{array} \right) $$ on the domain $$ \operatorname{Dom} {\cal L} = F(\Omega, \varepsilon, \tau) \oplus W_2^1 (\Omega, \mathbb{C}) \oplus F (\Omega, \mu, \nu) \oplus \mathring W_2^1 (\Omega, \mathbb{C}) . $$ It is easy to see that the operator ${\cal L}$ is also self-adjoint, ${\cal L} = {\cal L}^*$. The subspace $$ \{ E \in L_2 (\Omega, \mathbb{C}^3) : \operatorname{div} (\varepsilon E) = 0 \} \oplus \{ 0 \} \oplus \{ H \in L_2 (\Omega, \mathbb{C}^3) : \operatorname{div} (\mu H) = 0 , \left.(\mu H)_\nu \right|_{\partial\Omega} = 0\} \oplus \{ 0 \} $$ reduces the operator ${\cal L}$, and the restriction of the operator ${\cal L}$ on this subspace is unitarily equi\-va\-lent to the operator ${\cal M}$. The functions from $\operatorname{Dom} {\cal L}$ admit a multiplication by smooth cut-off functions, but divergence free conditions \eqref{07} break under such a multiplication, so it is more convenient to work with the operator ${\cal L}$. The "strong"\ operator ${\cal L}_s$ is determined by the expression \eqref{08} on the domain $$ \operatorname{Dom} {\cal L}_s = W_2^1 (\Omega, \tau) \oplus W_2^1 (\Omega, \mathbb{C}) \oplus W_2^1 (\Omega, \mu, \nu) \oplus \mathring W_2^1 (\Omega, \mathbb{C}) . $$ The operator ${\cal L}_s$, as opposed to ${\cal M}_s$, is elliptic. We will show (see Theorem \ref{t11} below) that under assumptions \eqref{01} and \eqref{04} in domains locally $(W^2_3\cap W^1_\infty)$-diffeomorphic to convex domains, the equality ${\cal L} = {\cal L}_s$ (and hence, ${\cal M} = {\cal M}_s$) holds, as well as the equalities \eqref{05} . \subsection{Domains} In this subsection we describe the classes of the domains under consideration. \begin{defi} A domain $\Lambda \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ is called special Lipschitz domain, if $$ \Lambda = \{ (x', x_n) \in \mathbb{R}^n : x_n > \phi (x') \} , $$ where $\phi : \mathbb{R}^{n-1} \to \mathbb{R}$ is a Lipschitz function, $$ |\phi (x') - \phi (y')| \le K |x'-y'| \quad \forall\ x', y' \in \mathbb{R}^{n-1} , $$ and $K$ is the Lipschitz constant of the domain $\Lambda$. \end{defi} \begin{defi} \label{o02} If for every point $x \in\partial\Omega$ there exists a neighborhood $D$ of the point $x$ and a special Lipschitz domain $\Lambda$, such that $D\cap\Omega = D\cap \Lambda$, then a bounded domain $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ is called domain with Lipschitz boundary. \end{defi} \begin{defi} \label{o03} Let $X(D,\mathbb{R}^n)$ be a space of functions defined in a domain $D\subset \mathbb{R}^n$. We say that the bounded domain $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ belongs to the class $\mathcal{C}(X)$, if for every point $x \in\partial\Omega$ there exists a neighborhood $U$ of the point $x$, a bijection $$ \psi:U\to \tilde{U},\quad \psi\in X(U),\quad \psi^{-1}\in X(\tilde{U}), $$ and a special Lipschitz domain $V$, such that $\psi(U\cap \Omega)= \tilde{U}\cap V$, and the set $\tilde{U}\cap V$ is {\it convex}. \end{defi} It is clear that the convex domains and the domains with boundary of class $X$ belong to $\mathcal{C}(X)$. Further, consider $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^n$, $x \in \partial\Omega$. Denote the open ball of radius $R$ centered at the point $x$ by $B_R(x)$. Denote $$ R(x) = \sup \{ R : \exists\, z \in \mathbb{R}^n \text{ such that } |x-z| = R,\ \ B_R (z)\cap \Omega = \emptyset \} $$ to be the radius of the biggest ball, which can touch the point $x$ from outside the domain $\Omega$, if such balls exist, and set $R(x) = 0$ if such balls do not exist. \begin{defi} \label{o04} A domain $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ is said to satisfy external ball condition (EBC) if $$ R(\Omega) : = \inf _{x\in\partial\Omega} R(x) > 0 . $$ \end{defi} Examples: \begin{itemize} \item Every convex domain $\Omega$ satisfies EBC; moreover, $R(\Omega)= +\infty$. \item Every bounded domain with $C^2$-smooth boundary satisfies EBC. \item Corner on the plane, described in the polar coordinates by the formula\\ $\Omega = \{ (\rho, \theta) : \theta \in (\pi/2, 2\pi) \}$ does not satisfy EBC, because $R(0) = 0$. \end{itemize} It turns out that external ball condition can be described in terms of diffeomorphisms. \begin{theorem} \label{t01} For bounded domains with Lipschitz boundary, EBC is equivalent to belonging to the class $\mathcal{C}(C^2)$. \end{theorem} We will prove this theorem in \S \ref{p21}. \subsection{Acknowledgements} The authors are grateful to prof. A.~I.~Nazarov for informative comments to the paper. \section{Regularity of electromagnetic fields} \subsection{Statement of the result} \begin{theorem} \label{t11} Let $\Omega$ be a bounded domain in $\mathbb{R}^3$, $\Omega\in\mathcal{C}(W^2_3\cap W^1_\infty)$. Let $\varepsilon$, $\mu$ be matrices-functions satisfying conditions \eqref{01} and \eqref{04}. Then the "weak"\ Maxwell operators coincide with the "strong" Maxwell operators, ${\cal L} = {\cal L}_s$, ${\cal M} = {\cal M}_s$, the equalities \eqref{05} and the estimates \begin{equation} \label{11} \|E\|_{W_2^1} \le C \|E\|_{F(\Omega,\varepsilon)} \quad \forall \ E \in F(\Omega,\varepsilon,\tau) , \quad \|H\|_{W_2^1} \le C \|H\|_{F(\Omega,\mu)} \quad \forall \ H \in F(\Omega,\mu,\nu) \end{equation} hold. Thus, the $F$-norm and the $W_2^1$-norm in these spaces are equivalent. \end{theorem} \begin{rem} The bounded domains with Lipschitz boundary, satisfying EBC meet the requirements of the Theorem (see Theorem \ref{t01}). Our class $\mathcal{C}(W^2_3\cap W^1_\infty)$ is bigger. For example, the domain $$ \Omega= \{ (x', x_3) \in \mathbb{R}^3 : -|x'|^{3/2} < x_3 < 1 -|x'|^{3/2},|x'|<1\} $$ does not satisfy EBC, because $R(0)=0$, but belongs to $\mathcal{C}(W^2_3\cap W^1_\infty)$; one can take the mapping $(x',x_3)\to (x',x_3+|x'|^{3/2})$ as a bijection $\psi$. \end{rem} \begin{rem} The assumptions on the coefficients $\varepsilon$, $\mu$ and the boundary $\partial\Omega$ can be slightly relaxed. As follows from the proof, it is enough to require \eqref{01} and the next condition in the spirit of the theory of multipliers (see \cite{MSh}): {\it for every positive $\delta$ there exists a number $C(\delta)$, such that} \begin{equation} \label{125} \int_\Omega |\partial_j s|^2 |u|^2 dx \le \delta \|\nabla u\|_{L_2 (\Omega)}^2 + C(\delta) \|u\|_{L_2 (\Omega)}^2, \quad u \in W_2^1 (\Omega), \quad s = \varepsilon \ \text{or}\ \mu . \end{equation} For $s \in W_3^1 (\Omega)$ the condition \eqref{125} is satisfied (see below Lemma \ref{l32}). For diffeomorphisms $\psi$ which map the domain $\Omega$ locally to the convex domain, it is sufficient to require $\psi \in W_\infty^1$ and the property \eqref{125} for $s = \nabla\psi$. \end{rem} For simplicity, we formulate and prove Theorem \ref{t11} only for bounded domains. It is clear from the proof, that it can be extended to unbounded domains with appropriate modification of the assumptions on the coefficients. We now state the case of the operator with periodic coefficients in the infinite cylinder. \begin{theorem} \label{t11'} Let $\Omega = U \times \mathbb{R}$ be a cylinder, $U \subset \mathbb{R}^2$ be a bounded domain, $U \in \mathcal{C}(W^2_p)$, $p>2$. Let $\varepsilon$, $\mu$ satisfying \eqref{01} be periodic along the axis of the cylinder with period $a$ and $\varepsilon, \mu \in W_3^1 (U \times [0,a])$. Then ${\cal L} = {\cal L}_s$, ${\cal M} = {\cal M}_s$ and the relations \eqref{05} and \eqref{11} hold. \end{theorem} \begin{rem} Assumptions on the boundary of the domain were relaxed to $\mathcal{C}(W^2_p)$, $p>2$, since corresponding diffeomorphisms depend only on two variables; it is easy to see that if $s = s(x_1, x_2)$, $s \in W_p^1 (U)$, $p>2$, then the requirement \eqref{125} is fulfilled for $\Omega = U \times [0,a]$. \end{rem} \subsection{Comments} It is natural to consider the Maxwell operator on manifolds of arbitrary dimension, see \cite{Weck, DF}. In the present paper we consider only the case of the domain in $\mathbb{R}^3$. Inequalities \eqref{11} for $\varepsilon = \mu = 1\!\!\!\!1$, written in the language of differential forms, are known as the Gaffney-Friedrichs inequalities. They were proved (without connection with the Maxwell operator) respectively by Gaffney for manifolds without boundary \cite{Ga} and by Friedrichs in the case of smooth manifolds with boundary \cite{Fr}. It should be noted that the inequalities \eqref{11}, established only for fields in $W_2^1$, {\it do not imply} that the spaces \eqref{05} coincide: for example, in a polyhedron with an incoming edge, \eqref{11} holds for $\varepsilon = \mu = 1\!\!\!\!1$, but \eqref{05} fails. Without claiming completeness of the review, we list some known results for bounded domains. R.~Leis proved in 1968 equalities \eqref{05} for $\partial\Omega \in C^3$, $\varepsilon, \mu \in C^5 (\overline\Omega)$ \cite{L68}. J.~Gobert obtained in 1971 the result (in multidimensional case) for $\partial\Omega \in C^2$, $\varepsilon = \mu = 1\!\!\!\!1$ \cite{Go}, and C.~Weber in 1981 for $\partial\Omega \in C^2$, $\varepsilon, \mu \in C^1 (\overline\Omega)$ (see also the next subsection) \cite{Weber}. In 1982 J.~Saranen proved "electric"\ equality \eqref{05} in the case of convex domain $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^3$ for $\varepsilon \in \operatorname{Lip} (\overline\Omega)$ \cite{Sa}. "Magnetic"\ equality \eqref{05} for convex domains was established by F.~Kikuchi and S.~Kaizu in 1986 for $\mu = 1\!\!\!\!1$ \cite{KaKi}. In 2001 M.~Mitrea found out \eqref{05} for Lipschitz domains, satisfying EBC, for $\varepsilon = \mu = 1\!\!\!\!1$ \cite{Mi}. In a recent paper \cite{AC} G.~Alberti and Y.~Capdeboscq investigated regularity of solutions of Maxwell system with nonselfadjoint $\varepsilon$ and $\mu$. In particular, they established equalities \eqref{05} in bounded domains with $C^{1,1}$ smooth boundary under the following assumptions about the coefficients: $$ \varepsilon + \varepsilon^* \ge \varepsilon_0 1\!\!\!\!1 > 0, \quad \mu + \mu^* \ge \mu_0 1\!\!\!\!1 > 0, \qquad \varepsilon, \mu \in W^1_p (\Omega), \ p >3 . $$ Thus, one can say that the "electric"\ case of Theorem \ref{t11} was practically known. On the contrary, "magnetic"\ case for varying coefficients $\mu$ in the convex domain was not analyzed. For convenience, we give one proof for both cases. It should be noted that the question of compactness of embeddings $$ F(\Omega,\varepsilon,\tau) \subset L_2(\Omega) \quad \text{and} \quad F(\Omega,\mu,\nu) \subset L_2(\Omega) $$ was also actively studied. This compactness provides Fredholm solvability for corresponding problems and discreteness of spectra of the corresponding operators. If the equalities \eqref{05} hold, then the embeddings are certainly compact. But compactness of this embeddings takes place already for arbitrary Lipschitz manifolds with boundary (see \cite{P} and the references therein). \subsection{Result in the smooth domain} In this paragraph we follow the papers \cite{BS87smzh, BS89aa}. We introduce the spaces of gradients of solutions of scalar elliptic problems $$ E (\Omega,\varepsilon,\tau) = \{ \nabla\varphi : \varphi \in \mathring W_2^1 (\Omega),\ \operatorname{div} (\varepsilon\nabla\varphi) \in L_2 (\Omega) \}, $$ $$ E (\Omega,\mu,\nu) = \{ \nabla\eta : \eta \in W_2^1 (\Omega),\ \operatorname{div} (\mu\nabla\eta) \in L_2 (\Omega), \left.(\mu\nabla\eta)_\nu\right|_{\partial\Omega} = 0 \}. $$ These spaces are subspaces of $F(\Omega,\varepsilon,\tau)$ and $F(\Omega,\mu,\nu)$ respectively. For bounded domains with Lipschitz boundary, the following decomposition takes place \begin{equation} \label{13} F(\Omega,\varepsilon,\tau) = W_2^1(\Omega,\tau) + E(\Omega,\varepsilon,\tau). \end{equation} In \cite{BS87smzh} it was proved for the case $\varepsilon = 1\!\!\!\!1$, but the proof works without changes for $\varepsilon \in W_3^1 (\Omega)$. The similar decomposition for magnetic fields \begin{equation} \label{14} F(\Omega,\mu,\nu) = W_2^1(\Omega,\mu,\nu) + E(\Omega,\mu,\nu) \end{equation} is not always true. In \cite{BS87zns} it was shown that this decomposition holds for $\mu \in C^1 (\overline\Omega)$ in "domains with edges and vertices"; see \cite{BS87zns} for the precise description of the class of domains; it includes all domains locally $C^2$-diffeomorphic to polyhedrons. In \cite{F}, \eqref{14} was shown in the case of $\partial\Omega \in C^{3/2+\epsilon}$, $\epsilon > 0$, $\mu \in W_3^1 (\Omega)$. Also the domain $\Omega$ with the boundary of class $C^{3/2}$ was constructed there, for which the equality \eqref{14} does not hold (for $\mu = 1\!\!\!\!1$). It should be noted also, that equalities \eqref{13}, \eqref{14} take place for "domains with screens"\ \cite{BS93, F96}. If the equality \eqref{13} (resp. \eqref{14}) holds, then possible singularities of functions from the class $F(\Omega,\varepsilon,\tau)$ (resp. $F(\Omega,\mu,\nu)$) are reduced to the singularities of functions from $E(\Omega,\varepsilon,\tau)$ (resp. $E(\Omega,\mu,\nu)$), i.e. gradients of the solutions of the Dirichlet (resp. Neumann) problem for scalar elliptic equation of the second order with right hand side from $L_2(\Omega)$. Scalar elliptic problems are well studied. Strong solvability is known both for smooth and for convex domains, or more generally, for domains of class ${\mathcal C} (W^2_3\cap W^1_\infty)$ in our terminology (see \cite{LU} and \cite{Gr}) \footnote{As a matter of fact, it was the analogy with scalar equations of second order that stimulated our confidence that in convex domains the "weak" Maxwell operator coincides with the "strong" one.}. The inclusions $$ E(\Omega,\varepsilon,\tau) \subset W_2^1 (\Omega,\tau)\quad \text{and} \quad E(\Omega,\mu,\nu) \subset W_2^1 (\Omega,\mu,\nu) $$ follow from the strong solvability of scalar problems for $\varepsilon, \mu \in W_3^1 (\Omega)$. These results, in particular, imply \begin{theorem} \label{localsmooth} Let $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^3$ be a bounded domain, $\partial\Omega \in C^2$, $\varepsilon, \mu$ be matrices-functions satisfying conditions \eqref{01} and \eqref{04}. Then the equalities \eqref{05} and the estimates \eqref{11} hold. \end{theorem} \subsection{Plan of the paper} Using localization and admissible diffeomorphisms, we reduce the proof of Theorem \ref{t11} to the case of special Lipschitz domain. Considering this case, we follow the idea of \cite{Mi}: model domains are approximated by smooth ones (\S 2), in smooth domains uniform a priori estimates are proved (\S 4), where the crucial point was the algebraic Lemma \ref{l31} (\S 3). It should be noted, that the estimate \eqref{11}, established in Theorem \ref{localsmooth} for smooth domains, is not sufficient for our purposes. We need the estimate, which is {\it uniform} with respect to the smooth domain, approximating the convex nonsmooth domain. Finally, in \S 5 Theorem \ref{t11} is deduced from a priori estimates. \section{Classes of domains} \subsection{Domains, satisfying EBC} \label{p21} \begin{lemma} \label{l21} Let $\Omega$ be a special Lipschitz domain, \begin{equation} \label{20} \Omega = \{ (x', x_n) \in \mathbb{R}^n : x_n > \phi (x') \} , \end{equation} \begin{equation} \label{21} |\phi (x_1') - \phi (x_2')| \le K |x_1'-x_2'| \quad \forall\ x_1', x_2' \in \mathbb{R}^{n-1} . \end{equation} If $\Omega$ satisfies EBC on the part of the boundary $\partial\Omega \cap \{x = (x',x_n) : |x'| < \rho\}$, then there are positive constants $\epsilon_0$, $C_0$, such that \begin{equation} \label{22} \phi(y+z) + \phi(y-z) - 2\phi(y) \ge - C_0 |z|^2 \qquad \forall \ y \in \mathbb{R}^{n-1}: |y| <\rho, \quad \forall \ z \in \mathbb{R}^{n-1}: |z| < \epsilon_0 . \end{equation} \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Fix a point $y \in \mathbb{R}^{n-1}$, $|y| < \rho$. Let $(p,q)$ be a center of a ball of radius $R = R(\Omega)$, touching the domain $\Omega$ from outside at the point $(y, \phi (y))$, \begin{equation} \label{23} |y-p|^2 + (\phi(y)-q)^2 = R^2 . \end{equation} This external ball lies outside the cone $\{ (x', x_n)\in\mathbb{R}^n: x_n>\phi(y)+K|x'-y|\}$. Hence, $\frac{|y-p|}{\phi(y)-q} \le K$ and \begin{equation} \label{24} \phi(y)-q\ge\frac{R}{\sqrt{1+K^2}} \,. \end{equation} Further, $$ \phi(y+z) - q \ge \sqrt{R^2 - |y+z-p|^2} = \sqrt{R^2 - |y-p|^2} \left(1 - \frac{2 \<z,y-p\>}{R^2 - |y-p|^2} - \frac{z^2}{R^2 - |y-p|^2}\right)^{1/2} . $$ In view of \eqref{23} and the Taylor formula $$ \sqrt{1+\alpha} = 1 + \frac\alpha{2} - \frac{\alpha^2}8 +O (\alpha^3), \quad \alpha \to 0, $$ we obtain \begin{equation} \label{25} \phi(y+z) - q \ge \phi(y) - q - \frac{\<z,y-p\>}{\phi(y) - q} - \frac{z^2}{2(\phi(y) - q)} - \frac{\<z,y-p\>^2}{2(\phi(y) - q)^3} + O(|z|^3), \quad z \to 0 . \end{equation} Due to \eqref{24} we can choose $\epsilon > 0$ independent on $y$ such that $$ \frac{\left|2 \<z,y-p\> +z^2\right|}{(\phi(y) - q)^2} \le \frac12 \quad \text{for} \ |z| \le \epsilon . $$ In this case the constant in the simbol $O$ in the formula \eqref{25} is uniform with respect to $y \in \mathbb{R}^{n-1}$, $|y| < \rho$. Summarizing the equation \eqref{25} for vectors $z$ and $-z$, we get $$ \phi(y+z) + \phi(y-z) - 2\phi(y) \ge - \frac{z^2}{\phi(y) - q} - \frac{\<z,y-p\>^2}{(\phi(y) - q)^3} + O(|z|^3) \ge - C_0 |z|^2 \quad \text{for} \ |z| \le \epsilon_0 $$ for sufficiently small $\epsilon_0$. \end{proof} \begin{lemma} \label{l22} Let $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ be a domain, $0\in\partial\Omega$, $$ \hat{B}=\{(x', x_n)\in\mathbb{R}^n:|x'|^2+|x_n-R|^2<R^2\}\subset B_1(0), $$ and $\hat{B}\cap \Omega=\emptyset$. Let $\psi:B_1(0)\to U$ be a $C^2$-diffeomorphism. Then the set $U$ contains a ball $\tilde{B}$ of radius $a$, nonintersecting with $\psi(\Omega\cap B_1(0))$. Also, $\psi(0)\in\partial\tilde{B}$, and the radius $a$ depends only on $R$ and on $\|\psi^{-1}\|_{C^2(U)}$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Denote the new variables as $y=\psi(x)$, $x = \psi^{-1} (y)$. Without loss of generality, one may assume that \begin{equation} \label{255} x(0)=0,\quad \dfrac{\partial x_n}{\partial y_i}(0)=0,\ i = 1, \dots, n-1, \quad \dfrac{\partial x_n}{\partial y_n}(0)>0. \end{equation} Let us show that for sufficiently small $a$ the implication \begin{equation} \label{256} (y_n-a)^2+|y'|^2<a^2 \quad \Rightarrow \quad (x_n-R)^2+|x'|^2<R^2. \end{equation} holds. Since $\psi^{-1}$ belongs to $C^2(U)$, and \eqref{255} holds, we have $$ \quad |x|\le c_1|y|\quad \text{ and }\quad x_n\ge\gamma y_n - c_2|y|^2,\quad \gamma>0. $$ Substituting this estimates in \eqref{256}, we get that it is sufficient to establish an implication $$ |y|^2<2a y_n \quad \Rightarrow \quad -2R\gamma y_n + (2Rc_2+c_1^2)|y|^2<0. $$ It is true for $a<\dfrac{R\gamma}{2Rc_2+c_1^2}$. \end{proof} {\it Proof of the Theorem \ref{t01}.} Let $\Omega$ be a Lipschitz domain, satisfying EBC, $x_0\in\partial\Omega$. Let $D$ and $\Lambda$ be a neighbourhood of the point $x_0$ and a special Lipschitz domain from the Definition \ref{o02} respectively. Without loss of generality, we may suppose that $x_0 = 0$, $D = B_{2\rho} (0)$. By Lemma \ref{l21} the function $\phi$ defining $\Lambda$ satisfies \eqref{22} with some constants $C_0$ and $\epsilon_0$. Consider $C^2$-diffeomorphism $\psi: \mathbb{R}^n \to \mathbb{R}^n$, $$ \psi: (x',x_n) \mapsto (y',y_n) = (x',x_n + \xi(x')) , $$ where $\xi$ is a smooth function of $x'$, $\xi(x') = C_0 |x'|^2$ for $|x'| < \rho$, and $\xi$ satisfies also the Lipschitz condition on the whole $\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$. Domain $\psi(\Lambda)$ is the special Lipschitz domain, which is determined by function $\tilde{\phi}$, satisfying inequality $$ \tilde{\phi}(y'+z) + \tilde{\phi}(y'-z) - 2\tilde{\phi}(y') \ge 0 \qquad \forall \ y' \in \mathbb{R}^{n-1}: |y'| <\rho, \quad \forall \ z \in \mathbb{R}^{n-1}: |z| < \epsilon_0 . $$ Thus, the set $\psi(\Lambda) \cap B_r(0)$, $r<\rho$ is convex; one can take $\psi(\Lambda)$ and $\psi^{-1} (B_r (0))$ with sufficiently small $r$ as the neighbourhoods $V$ and $U$ from the Definition \ref{o03}. Therefore $\Omega \in {\cal C} (C^2)$. Let us establish the inverse inclusion. Since convex domains satisfy EBC, it follows from Lemma \ref{l22} that at every point of the boundary of a domain of class $\mathcal{C}(C^2)$ there is an external ball, and its radius can be chosen to be independent of the point. $\qed$ \begin{rem} Actually we have shown that the class of domains with Lipschitz boundary, satisfying EBC, coincides with $\mathcal{C}(C^\infty)$ too. \end{rem} \subsection{Approximation of the convex domains by the smooth ones} \begin{theorem} \label{t22} Let $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ be a special Lipschitz domain \eqref{20}, \eqref{21}, and the set $$ \Omega \cap \{ x = (x',x_n) : |x'| < 2\rho \} $$ be convex. Then there exists an ascending collection of special Lipschitz domains $\{\Omega_\alpha\}_{\alpha \in (0,1)}$ of class $C^\infty$, such that 1) The domains $\Omega_\alpha$ are described by the formula \begin{equation} \label{26} \Omega_\alpha = \{ (x', x_n) \in \mathbb{R}^n : x_n > \phi_\alpha (x') \} , \end{equation} \begin{equation*} |\phi_\alpha (x_1') - \phi_\alpha (x_2')| \le K |x'_1-x'_2| \ \ \forall\ x_1', x_2' , \end{equation*} $\mathop{\bigcup}\limits_{\alpha \in (0,1)} \Omega_\alpha = \Omega$, and the domains $\Omega_\alpha \cap \{ x = (x',x_n) : |x'| < \rho \}$ are convex. 2) There are extension operators $$ P_\alpha : W_2^1 (\Omega_\alpha) \to W_2^1 (\mathbb{R}^n), \quad \|P_\alpha\| \le C_1 , $$ such that $\|\nabla (P_\alpha u)\|_{L_2 (\mathbb{R}^n)} \le C_1 \|\nabla u\|_{L_2 (\Omega_\alpha)}$ for all $u \in W_2^1 (\Omega_\alpha)$. 3) For $n>2$ $$ \|u\|_{L_{\frac{2n}{n-2}} (\Omega_\alpha)} \le C_2 \|\nabla u\|_{L_2(\Omega_\alpha)} \quad \forall \ u \in W_2^1 (\Omega_\alpha) . $$ The constants $C_1, C_2$ do not depend on $\alpha$. \end{theorem} \begin{rem} Theorem \ref{t22} is taken from \cite{Mi}, where its analogue in more general case of special Lipschitz domains satisfying EBC was obtained. The case of convex domains is sufficient for our purposes. To give a complete picture, we provide the corresponding proof. \end{rem} \begin{proof} Take $$ \omega \in C_0^\infty (\mathbb{R}^{n-1}), \quad \operatorname{supp} \omega \subset B_\rho (0), \quad \omega(x') \ge 0, \quad \int_{\mathbb{R}^{n-1}} \omega(x')\, dx' = 1. $$ Define functions $\phi_\alpha$ as mollifications of functions $\phi$, shifted by a constant: \begin{equation} \label{27} \phi_\alpha (x') = M \alpha + \int_{\mathbb{R}^{n-1}} \omega(z') \varphi (x'-\alpha z')\, dz' , \end{equation} where $M > K \int_{\mathbb{R}^{n-1}} \omega(z') |z'|\, dz'$. Then \begin{equation} \label{28} \frac{\partial\phi_\alpha (x')}{\partial\alpha} = M - \int_{\mathbb{R}^{n-1}} \omega(z') \<z', \nabla\varphi (x'-\alpha z')\> dz' \ge M - K \int_{\mathbb{R}^{n-1}} \omega(z') |z'|\, dz' > 0 . \end{equation} We define the domains $\Omega_\alpha$ by the formula \eqref{26}. 1) It is clear that \begin{equation} \label{29} \left|\phi_\alpha(x_1') - \phi_\alpha (x_2')\right| = \left|\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n-1}} \omega(z') \left(\phi (x_1'-\alpha z') - \phi (x_2'-\alpha z')\right)dz' \right| \le K |x'_1-x'_2| . \end{equation} It follows from definition \eqref{27} that \begin{eqnarray*} \phi_\alpha (x'+y') + \phi_\alpha (x'-y') - 2\phi_\alpha (x') \\ = \int_{\mathbb{R}^{n-1}} \omega(z') \left(\phi(x'+y'-\alpha z') + \phi(x'-y'-\alpha z') - 2\phi(x'-\alpha z')\right) dz' \ge 0 \end{eqnarray*} for all $x', y'$, such that $x' \pm y' \in B_\rho$, i.e. functions $\phi_\alpha$ are convex in $B_\rho$. By \eqref{28} and convergence $\phi_\alpha (x') \mathop{\longrightarrow}\limits_{\alpha\to 0} \phi (x')$ we get that the domains $\Omega_\alpha$ are ascending and together they cover the whole $\Omega$, $\mathop{\bigcup}\limits_{\alpha \in (0,1)} \Omega_\alpha = \Omega$. 2) It is well known (see \cite{St}) that for special Lipschitz domains there exists an extension operator $P_\alpha : W_2^1 (\Omega_\alpha) \to W_2^1 (\mathbb{R}^n)$, $\|P_\alpha\| \le C_1$, and the estimate $\|\nabla (P_\alpha u)\|_{L_2 (\mathbb{R}^n)} \le C_1 \|\nabla u\|_{L_2 (\Omega_\alpha)}$ holds with constant $C_1$ depending only on the Lipschitz constant of the domain $\Omega_\alpha$. It remains to refer to \eqref{29}. 3) By the Sobolev inequality we have $$ \|u\|_{L_{\frac{2n}{n-2}} (\Omega_\alpha)} \le \|P_\alpha u\|_{L_{\frac{2n}{n-2}} (\mathbb{R}^n)} \le C \|\nabla (P_\alpha u)\|_{L_2 (\mathbb{R}^n)} \le C C_1 \|\nabla u\|_{L_2 (\Omega_\alpha)} \quad \forall \ u \in W_2^1 (\Omega_\alpha) . \quad \qedhere $$ \end{proof} \section{Auxiliary statements} \subsection{Algebraic lemma} \begin{lemma} \label{l31} Let $B$ be a self-adjoint $(3\times 3)$ matrix, $$ 0 < \beta_0 1\!\!\!\!1 \le B \le \beta_1 1\!\!\!\!1 \,, $$ $U$ be an arbitrary $(3\times 3)$ matrix. Then \begin{equation} \label{31} \operatorname{tr} (B U \overline{B U}) + \beta_1^2 \left( \operatorname{tr} (U U^*) - \operatorname{tr} (U \overline U) \right) \ge \beta_0^2 \operatorname{tr} (U U^*) . \end{equation} \end{lemma} \begin{proof} The matrix $B$ can be diagonalized, $B = O\Lambda O^*$, where $O$ is the unitary matrix, $$ \Lambda = \operatorname{diag} (\lambda_1, \lambda_2, \lambda_3), \qquad \beta_1 \ge \lambda_1 \ge \lambda_2 \ge \lambda_3 \ge \beta_0 . $$ Put $W=O^* U \overline{O}$. Then \eqref{31} is equivalent to the inequality $$ \operatorname{tr}(\Lambda W \overline{\Lambda W}) + \beta_1^2 \left(\operatorname{tr}(WW^*)-\operatorname{tr}(W\overline{W})\right) \ge \beta_0^2 \operatorname{tr}(WW^*) $$ or $$ \sum_{i,j} \left( \lambda_i \lambda_j w_{ij} \overline{w_{ji}} + \beta_1^2 (w_{ij} \overline{w_{ij}} - w_{ij} \overline{w_{ji}}) \right) \ge \beta_0^2 \sum_{i,j} w_{ij} \overline{w_{ij}} . $$ Since $\lambda_i \ge \beta_0$, it is sufficient to consider the terms with $i \neq j$. The corresponding inequality "splits" into three independent inequalities: \begin{equation} \label{32} \lambda_1 \lambda_2 (w_{12} \overline{w_{21}} + w_{21} \overline{w_{12}}) + \beta_1^2 \left(|w_{12}|^2 + |w_{21}|^2 - w_{12} \overline{w_{21}} - w_{21} \overline{w_{12}}\right) \ge \beta_0^2 \left(|w_{12}|^2 + |w_{21}|^2\right) \end{equation} and the same inequality for pairs of indices $\{1,3\}$ and $\{2,3\}$. Clearly, the left hand side of \eqref{32} can be estimated from below in the following way: \begin{eqnarray*} \beta_1^2 \left(|w_{12}|^2 + |w_{21}|^2\right) - 2 (\beta_1^2 - \lambda_1 \lambda_2) \operatorname{Re} (w_{12} \overline{w_{21}})\\ \ge \beta_1^2 \left(|w_{12}|^2 + |w_{21}|^2\right) - (\beta_1^2 - \lambda_1 \lambda_2) \left(|w_{12}|^2 + |w_{21}|^2\right) \ge \beta_0^2 \left(|w_{12}|^2 + |w_{21}|^2\right) . \quad \qedhere \end{eqnarray*} \end{proof} \subsection{Estimates of minor terms} \begin{lemma} \label{l32} Let $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^3$ be a special Lipschitz domain, the set $\Omega \cap \{ x = (x',x_n) : |x'| < 2\rho \}$ be convex, $0\in \partial\Omega$. Let $v$ be a vector-function with compact support, $v\in W_2^1 (\Omega, \mathbb{R}^3)$, $\operatorname{supp} v \subset \overline\Omega \cap B_\rho (0)$. Let $s$ be a self-adjoint $(3\times 3)$-matrix-function, $s \in W_3^1 (\Omega \cap B_\rho)$ and $$ 0 < \beta_0 1\!\!\!\!1 \le s \le \beta_1 1\!\!\!\!1 \,. $$ Take $\delta > 0$. Then \begin{equation} \label{33} \int_{\Omega_\alpha\cap B_\rho} |\partial_i s_{jk}|^2 |v_l|^2 dx \le \delta \|\nabla v\|_{L_2 (\Omega_\alpha)}^2 + C(\delta, \rho, s) \|v\|_{L_2 (\Omega_\alpha)}^2 \end{equation} and \begin{equation} \label{34} \int_{\Omega_\alpha\cap B_\rho} |s_{ij} \partial_k s_{lm} v_n \partial_p v_q|\, dx \le \delta \|\nabla v\|_{L_2 (\Omega_\alpha)}^2 + C(\delta, \rho, s) \|v\|_{L_2 (\Omega_\alpha)}^2 , \end{equation} where $\{\Omega_\alpha\}$ is the collection of domains, constructed in Theorem \ref{t22}; the constant $C(\delta, \rho, s)$ is independent on $\alpha$ and $v$. \end{lemma} \begin{rem} These estimates are well known. To give a complete picture, we provide the proof. \end{rem} \begin{proof} For any $\delta_0 > 0$, the function $\partial_i s_{jk} \in L_3 (\Omega \cap B_\rho)$ can be represented in the form $\partial_i s_{jk} = \nu_1 + \nu_2$, where $\nu_1 \in L_\infty (\Omega \cap B_\rho)$, $\nu_2 \in L_3 (\Omega \cap B_\rho)$, and $\|\nu_2\|_{L_3 (\Omega \cap B_\rho)} \le \delta_0$. Therefore, \begin{equation} \label{35} \|\partial_i s_{jk} v_l\|_{L_2 (\Omega_\alpha)} \le \|\nu_1\|_{L_\infty (\Omega \cap B_\rho)} \|v_l\|_{L_2 (\Omega_\alpha)} + \delta_0 \|v_l\|_{L_6 (\Omega_\alpha)} \le C \delta_0 \|\nabla v_l\|_{L_2 (\Omega_\alpha)} + C (\delta_0, \rho, s) \|v_l\|_{L_2 (\Omega_\alpha)} , \end{equation} where we used the statement 3) of the Theorem \ref{t22}. Thus, \eqref{33} is proved. Furthermore, in view of \eqref{35} we have the estimate \begin{eqnarray*} \int_{\Omega_\alpha\cap B_\rho} |s_{ij} \partial_k s_{lm} v_n \partial_p v_q|\, dx \le \beta_1 \|\partial_k s_{lm} v_n\|_{L_2 (\Omega_\alpha)} \|\partial_p v_q\|_{L_2 (\Omega_\alpha)} \\ \le \beta_1 \left(C \delta_0 \|\nabla v_n\|_{L_2 (\Omega_\alpha)} + C (\delta_0, \rho, s) \|v_n\|_{L_2 (\Omega_\alpha)}\right) \|\nabla v_q\|_{L_2 (\Omega_\alpha)} , \end{eqnarray*} which implies \eqref{34}. \end{proof} From lemmas \ref{l31} and \ref{l32} one can deduce \begin{lemma} \label{l33} Let $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^3$ be a special Lipschitz domain, the set $$ \Omega \cap \{ x = (x',x_n) : |x'| < 2\rho \} $$ is convex, $0\in \partial\Omega$. Let $v$ be a vector-function with compact support, $$ v\in W_2^1 (\Omega, \mathbb{R}^3), \quad \operatorname{supp} v \subset \overline\Omega \cap B_\rho (0) . $$ Let $s$ be a self-adjoint $(3\times 3)$ matrix-function, $s \in W_3^1 (\Omega \cap B_\rho)$ and $$ 0 < \beta_0 1\!\!\!\!1 \le s \le \beta_1 1\!\!\!\!1 \,. $$ Then $$ \int_{\Omega_\alpha\cap B_\rho} \left(|\nabla (sv)|^2 - |\operatorname{rot} (sv)|^2 + \beta_1^2 |\operatorname{rot} v|^2\right) dx \ge \frac{\beta_0^2}2 \int_{\Omega_\alpha} |\nabla v|^2 dx - C(\rho, s) \int_{\Omega_\alpha} |v|^2 dx, $$ where $\{\Omega_\alpha\}$ is the collection of the domains, constructed in Theorem \ref{t22}; the constant $C(\rho, s)$ is independent on $\alpha$ and $v$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} We have $$ |\nabla v|^2 = \operatorname{tr} (U U^*) , \quad |\nabla v|^2 - |\operatorname{rot} v|^2 = \operatorname{tr} (U \overline U), \quad \text{where} \ U_{kj}= \partial_j v_k . $$ Therefore, $$ |\nabla (sv)|^2 - |\operatorname{rot} (sv)|^2 + \beta_1^2 |\operatorname{rot} v|^2 = \operatorname{tr} (\tilde U \overline{\tilde U}) + \beta_1^2 \left( \operatorname{tr} (U U^*) - \operatorname{tr} (U \overline U) \right) , $$ where $\tilde U_{ij} = \partial_j (s_{ik} v_k)$. So, the main terms on the left hand side (when all derivatives fall on $v$) are estimated by Lemma \ref{l31}, applied to matrices $B=s$, $U_{kj}= \partial_j v_k$, \begin{eqnarray*} \int_{\Omega_\alpha\cap B_\rho} \left(\operatorname{tr} (B U \overline{B U}) + \beta_1^2 \left( \operatorname{tr} (U U^*) - \operatorname{tr} (U \overline U) \right) \right) dx \ge \beta_0^2 \int_{\Omega_\alpha} |\nabla v|^2 dx . \end{eqnarray*} The minor terms do not exceed $\frac{\beta_0^2}2 \|\nabla v\|_{L_2(\Omega_\alpha)}^2 + C(\rho, s) \|v\|_{L_2(\Omega_\alpha)}^2$ by virtue of Lemma \ref{l32}. \end{proof} \subsection{Density of smooth functions} We will need to approximate functions from Sobolev space, satisfying tangent or normal boun\-da\-ry condition, by smooth functions with the same boundary condition. We give the proof of this fact for the convenience of the reader. \begin{lemma} \label{l335} Let $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^3$ be a special Lipschitz domain, \begin{equation*} \Omega = \{x \in \mathbb{R}^3 : x_3 > \phi (x_1,x_2) \} , \end{equation*} and $\phi \in C^3 (\mathbb{R}^2)$, $\phi (0) = 0$. Then a) for every $u\in W_2^1 (\Omega, \tau)$, $\operatorname{supp} u \subset B_\rho$, there exists a sequence of functions \\ $u^k\in W_2^1 (\Omega, \tau) \cap C^2(\overline\Omega, \mathbb{R}^3),$ such that $\operatorname{supp} u^k \subset B_\rho$, $u^k\mathop{\longrightarrow}\limits_{k\rightarrow\infty}^{W_2^1}u$; b) for every $u\in W_2^1 (\Omega,1\!\!\!\!1, \nu)$, $\operatorname{supp} u \subset B_\rho$, there exists a sequence of functions \\ $u^k\in W_2^1 (\Omega,1\!\!\!\!1, \nu) \cap C^2(\overline\Omega, \mathbb{R}^3),$ such that $\operatorname{supp} u^k \subset B_\rho$, $u^k\mathop{\longrightarrow}\limits_{k\rightarrow\infty}^{W_2^1}u$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Let us consider the matrix-function $$ M(x) = \left(\begin{array}{ccc} 1&0&\partial_1 \phi (x_1, x_2) \\ 0&1& \partial_{2} \phi (x_1, x_2) \\ -\partial_1 \phi (x_1, x_2) &-\partial_2 \phi (x_1, x_2) & 1 \end{array}\right) . $$ This matrix is nondegenerate, $\operatorname{det} M=1+|\nabla\phi|^2\neq 0$. Take $u\in W_2^1 (\Omega,\mathbb{C}^3),$ $\operatorname{supp} u \subset B_\rho$. Denote $v=Mu\in W_2^1 (\Omega,\mathbb{C}^3),$ $\operatorname{supp} v \subset B_\rho$. Then $$ \left.u_\tau\right|_{\partial\Omega}=0 \Leftrightarrow \left.v_1\right|_{\partial\Omega}=\left.v_2\right|_{\partial\Omega}=0, $$ $$ \left.u_\nu\right|_{\partial\Omega}=0 \Leftrightarrow \left.v_3\right|_{\partial\Omega}=0. $$ We will consider electric case. Magnetic case is treated in a similar way. We can approximate $v_1, v_2$ by $v_1^k, v_2^k \in C_0^\infty(B_\rho)$, and $v_3$ by $v_3^k\in C^2(\overline\Omega)$, $\operatorname{supp} v \subset B_\rho$. Then $$ u^k=M^{-1}v^k\in W_2^1 (\Omega, \tau) \cap C^2(\overline\Omega, \mathbb{R}^3), \quad u^k\mathop{\longrightarrow}\limits_{k\rightarrow\infty}^{W_2^1}u.\quad \qedhere$$ \end{proof} \section{A priori estimates} \subsection{Magnetic fields} \begin{lemma} \label{l34} Let $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^3$ be a special Lipschitz domain, \begin{equation*} \Omega = \{x \in \mathbb{R}^3 : x_3 > \phi (x_1,x_2) \} , \end{equation*} and $\phi \in C^3 (\mathbb{R}^2)$. Let $w \in W_2^1 (\Omega)$, $\left. w_\nu\right|_{\partial\Omega} = 0$. Then the integration by part formula $$ \int_\Omega \left( |\operatorname{rot} w|^2 + |\operatorname{div} w|^2 \right) dx = \int_\Omega |\nabla w|^2 dx + \int_{\partial\Omega} \< Aw, w \> dS $$ holds, where \begin{equation} \label{36} A (x_1, x_2, \phi(x_1, x_2)) = \frac1{\sqrt{1+|\nabla\phi(x)|^2}} \left( \begin{array}{ccc} \partial_1^2 \phi (x) & \partial_1 \partial_2 \phi (x) & 0 \\ \partial_1 \partial_2 \phi (x) & \partial_2^2 \phi (x) & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array} \right) \end{equation} is the Weingarten mapping (see \cite{BZ}). \end{lemma} \begin{proof} In view of Lemma \ref{l335} it is sufficient to consider smooth functions $w$. We have \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber \int_\Omega \left( |\nabla w|^2 - |\operatorname{rot} w|^2 \right) dx = \int_\Omega \partial_j w_k \partial_k \overline w_j \, dx = - \int_\Omega w_k \partial_j \partial_k \overline w_j \, dx + \int_{\partial\Omega} \nu_j w_k \partial_k \overline w_j \, dS \\ = \int_\Omega |\operatorname{div} w|^2 dx + \int_{\partial\Omega} \nu_j w_k \partial_k \overline w_j \, dS - \int_{\partial\Omega} \nu_k w_k \partial_j \overline w_j \, dS , \label{37} \end{eqnarray} where $$ \nu (x_1, x_2, \phi(x_1, x_2)) = \frac1{\sqrt{1+|\nabla\phi(x)|^2}} \left( \begin{array}{cc} \partial_1 \phi (x) \\ \partial_2 \phi (x) \\ -1 \end{array}\right) $$ is the unit external normal to the boundary $\partial\Omega$. We assume $\left. \<w,\nu\> \right|_{\partial\Omega} = 0$, therefore the last term in \eqref{37} vanishes. Moreover, $w_k \partial_k (\nu_j \overline w_j) = 0$, since the operator $w_k \partial_k$ acts in the tangent plane only. Thus, $$ \int_\Omega \left( |\operatorname{rot} w|^2 + |\operatorname{div} w|^2 - |\nabla w|^2 \right) dx = \int_{\partial\Omega} \partial_k \nu_j w_k \overline w_j \, dS . $$ Furthermore, $$ \partial_k \nu = \frac1{\sqrt{1+|\nabla\phi|^2}} \ \partial_k \left( \begin{array}{cc} \partial_1 \phi \\ \partial_2 \phi \\ -1 \end{array}\right) + \partial_k \left(\frac1{\sqrt{1+|\nabla\phi|^2}}\right) \left( \begin{array}{cc} \partial_1 \phi \\ \partial_2 \phi \\ -1 \end{array}\right) . $$ Using again the condition $\left. \<w,\nu\> \right|_{\partial\Omega} = 0$, one can deduce from here that $$ \<\overline w, \partial_k \nu\> = \frac1{\sqrt{1+|\nabla\phi|^2}} \left\< \overline w, \left( \begin{array}{cc} \partial_1 \partial_k \phi \\ \partial_2 \partial_k \phi \\ 0 \end{array}\right) \right\> $$ and $w_k \overline w_j \partial_k \nu_j = \< Aw, w \>$. \end{proof} \begin{theorem} \label{t35} Let $\Omega$ be a special Lipschitz domain, $$ \Omega = \{x \in \mathbb{R}^3 : x_3 > \phi (x_1,x_2) \}, $$ the set $\Omega \cap \{x \in \mathbb{R}^3 : \sqrt{x_1^2 + x_2^2} <2 \rho \}$ be convex, $\Omega_\alpha = \{x \in \mathbb{R}^3 : x_3 > \phi_\alpha (x_1,x_2) \}$ be the collection of domains constructed in Theorem \ref{t22}. Let $0 \in \partial\Omega$, matrix-function $\mu$ be defined in $\Omega \cap B_\rho (0)$ and satisfy \eqref{01} and \eqref{04} in $\Omega\cap B_\rho (0)$. Then $$ \|v\|_{W_2^1 (\Omega_\alpha)} \le C(\rho, \mu) \|v\|_{F(\Omega_\alpha, \mu)} \quad \forall v \in W_2^1 (\Omega_\alpha, \mu, \nu), \ \operatorname{supp} v \subset B_\rho, $$ the constant $C(\rho, \mu)$ does not depend on $v$ and $\alpha$. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} Take $v \in W_2^1 (\Omega_\alpha, \mu, \nu)$, $\operatorname{supp} v \subset B_\rho$. By virtue of Lemma \ref{l34}, applied to the domain $\Omega_\alpha$ and the function $w = \mu v$, we have \begin{eqnarray*} \int_{\Omega_\alpha} |\operatorname{div} (\mu v)|^2 dx + \mu_1^2 \int_{\Omega_\alpha} |\operatorname{rot} v|^2 dx \\ = \int_{\Omega_\alpha} \left(|\nabla (\mu v)|^2 - |\operatorname{rot} (\mu v)|^2 + \mu_1^2 |\operatorname{rot} v|^2\right) dx + \int_{\partial\Omega_\alpha} \< A_\alpha \mu v, \mu v \> dS =: I_1 + I_2, \end{eqnarray*} where the matrix $A_\alpha$ is determined by the formula \eqref{36} with the function $\phi$ changed by $\phi_\alpha$. By Lemma \ref{l33} $$ I_1 \ge \frac{\mu_0^2}2 \int_{\Omega_\alpha} |\nabla v|^2 dx - C(\rho, \mu) \int_{\Omega_\alpha} |v|^2 dx. $$ Furthermore, by Theorem \ref{t22} $D^2\phi_\alpha\ge 0$ for $\sqrt{x_1^2 + x_2^2} < \rho$, therefore $I_2\ge 0$. Thus, $$ \int_{\Omega_\alpha} |\operatorname{div} (\mu v)|^2 dx + \mu_1^2 \int_{\Omega_\alpha} |\operatorname{rot} v|^2 dx \ge \frac{\mu_0^2}2 \int_{\Omega_\alpha} |\nabla v|^2 dx - C(\rho, \mu) \int_{\Omega_\alpha} |v|^2 dx.\quad \qedhere $$ \end{proof} \subsection{Electric field} Recall that we assume the coefficient $s$ to be real. Note that it is the subsection where we use this assumption. \begin{lemma} \label{l36} Let $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^3$ be a bounded domain, $\partial\Omega \in C^2$. Let $u \in C^2 (\overline\Omega, \mathbb{R}^3)$, $s$ be a $(3\times 3)$ matrix-function with real entries, $s \in W_3^1 (\Omega)$. Then $$ \int_\Omega \left(|\operatorname{rot}(su)|^2 + |\operatorname{div}(su)|^2\right) dx = \int_\Omega |\nabla (su)|^2 dx + \int_{\partial\Omega} K(x, u(x)) \, dS + I_3 , $$ where \begin{equation} \label{415} K(x, u(x)) = s_{jm} s_{kn} (\nu_k \partial_j u_m - \nu_j \partial_k u_m) \overline u_n , \end{equation} $\nu(x)$ is the unit external normal to $\partial\Omega$, $I_3$ is the linear combination of integrals of type \begin{equation} \label{38} \int_\Omega \partial_i s_{jk} \partial_l s_{mn} u_p \overline u_q dx \quad \text{and} \quad \int_\Omega s_{ij} \partial_k s_{lm} u_n \partial_p \overline u_q dx . \end{equation} \end{lemma} \begin{rem} In this proof we will denote different linear combinations of type \eqref{38} by the same letter $I_3$. \end{rem} \begin{proof} We have \begin{eqnarray*} \int_\Omega \left(|\nabla (su)|^2 - |\operatorname{rot}(su)|^2\right) dx = \int_\Omega \partial_k (s_{jm} u_m) \partial_j (s_{kn} \overline u_n) dx \\ = \int_\Omega s_{jm} \partial_k u_m s_{kn} \partial_j \overline u_n dx + I_3 = - \int_\Omega s_{jm} \partial_j \partial_k u_m s_{kn} \overline u_n dx + \int_{\partial\Omega} s_{jm} \partial_k u_m s_{kn} \nu_j \overline u_n dS + I_3 \\ = \int_\Omega s_{jm} \partial_j u_m \partial_k (s_{kn} \overline u_n) dx + \int_{\partial\Omega} s_{jm} \partial_k u_m s_{kn} \nu_j \overline u_n dS - \int_{\partial\Omega} s_{jm} \nu_k \partial_j u_m s_{kn} \overline u_n dS + I_3 \\ = \int_\Omega |\operatorname{div}(su)|^2 dx - \int_{\partial\Omega} K(x, u(x)) \, dS + I_3 .\quad \qedhere \end{eqnarray*} \end{proof} \begin{lemma} \label{l37} Let $\partial\Omega \in C^2$, $0 \in \partial\Omega$. Assume that in the neighbourhood of zero domain $\Omega$ is described by the formula $x_3 > \psi (x_1, x_2)$, and $$ \psi (0) = 0, \quad \nabla \psi (0) = 0, \quad D^2 \psi (0) \ge 0 . $$ Let $s$ be a fixed matrix with real entries, $s > 0$. Let $u \in C^1 (\overline \Omega, \mathbb{R}^3)$, $\left. u_\tau \right|_{\partial\Omega} = 0$. Then $$ K (0, u(0)) = s_{jm} s_{kn} (\nu_k (0) \partial_j u_m (0) - \nu_j (0) \partial_k u_m (0)) \overline u_n (0) \ge 0 . $$ \end{lemma} \begin{proof} We have $$ \nu (x) = \frac1{\sqrt{1+|\nabla\psi(x)|^2}} \left( \begin{array}{cc} \partial_1 \psi (x) \\ \partial_2 \psi (x) \\ -1 \end{array}\right) , $$ and in particular, \begin{equation} \label{39} \nu (0) = \left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 \\ 0 \\ -1 \end{array}\right) \end{equation} If we introduce the tangent vectors $$ \tau_1 (x) = \left( \begin{array}{cc} 1 \\ 0 \\ \partial_1 \psi (x) \end{array}\right) , \qquad \tau_2 (x) = \left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 \\ 1 \\ \partial_2 \psi (x) \end{array}\right) , $$ then the condition $\left. u_\tau \right|_{\partial\Omega} = 0$ can be rewritten in the form \begin{equation} \label{310} \< u(x_1, x_2, \psi (x_1, x_2)), \tau_j (x_1, x_2)\> = 0, \quad j = 1, 2 ; \end{equation} At the origin it becomes \begin{equation} \label{311} u_1(0) = u_2(0) = 0 . \end{equation} Differentiating \eqref{310} with respect to $x_i$, $i = 1, 2$, at the point $0$, and taking into account the equality $\nabla\psi (0) = 0$, we get \begin{equation} \label{312} \partial_i u_j (0)= -u_3 (0) \partial_i \partial_j \psi (0), \quad i, j = 1, 2 . \end{equation} According to \eqref{39} and \eqref{311} $$ K (0, u(0)) = - s_{jm} s_{33} \partial_j u_m (0) \overline u_3 (0) + s_{3m} s_{k3} \partial_k u_m (0) \overline u_3 (0) . $$ The terms with $m=3$ cancel out. Moreover, the first term with $j=3$ cancels with the second term with $k=3$. Therefore, $$ K (0, u(0)) = \sum_{j,m = 1,2} \left(s_{jm} s_{33} - s_{3m} s_{j3}\right) \partial_j \partial_m \psi (0) |u(0)|^2 , $$ where we used \eqref{312}. Without loss of generality, one may assume that matrix $(\partial_j \partial_m \psi (0))$ is diagonal, $$ (D^2 \psi (0)) = \left( \begin{array}{cc} \lambda_1 & 0 \\ 0 & \lambda_2 \end{array} \right), \quad \lambda_i \ge 0 . $$ Therefore, $$ K (0, u(0)) = \sum_{j = 1,2} \left(s_{jj} s_{33} - s_{3j} s_{j3}\right) \lambda_j |u(0)|^2 \ge 0, $$ because the matrix $s$ is positively definite. \quad$\qedhere$\end{proof} \begin{theorem} \label{t38} Let $\Omega$ be a special Lipschitz domain, $0 \in \partial\Omega$, the set $$ \Omega \cap \{x \in \mathbb{R}^3 : \sqrt{x_1^2 + x_2^2} <2 \rho \} $$ be convex, $\Omega_\alpha = \{x \in \mathbb{R}^3 : x_3 > \phi_\alpha (x_1,x_2) \}$ be domains constructed in Theorem \ref{t22} and filling $\Omega$. Let $\varepsilon$ be a matrix-function defined in $\Omega\cap B_\rho (0)$ and satisfying \eqref{01} and \eqref{04} in $\Omega\cap B_\rho (0)$. Then $$ \|u\|_{W_2^1 (\Omega_\alpha)} \le C(\rho, \varepsilon) \|u\|_{F(\Omega_\alpha, \varepsilon)} \quad \forall u \in W_2^1 (\Omega_\alpha, \tau), \ \operatorname{supp} u \subset B_\rho, $$ and the constant $C(\rho, \varepsilon)$ does not depend on $v$ and $\alpha$. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} Due to Lemma \ref{l335} it is sufficient to consider smooth functions $u$. By virtue of Lemma \ref{l36} \begin{eqnarray*} \int_{\Omega_\alpha} |\operatorname{div} (\varepsilon u)|^2 dx + \varepsilon_1^2 \int_{\Omega_\alpha} |\operatorname{rot} u|^2 dx \\ = \int_{\Omega_\alpha} \left(|\nabla (\varepsilon u)|^2 - |\operatorname{rot} (\varepsilon u)|^2 + \varepsilon_1^2 |\operatorname{rot} u|^2\right) dx + \int_{\partial\Omega_\alpha} K(x, u(x))\, dS + I_3, \end{eqnarray*} where $K(x, u(x))$ is defined by \eqref{415}, $I_3$ is a linear combination of integrals of type \eqref{38}. By Lemma \ref{l33} $$ \int_{\Omega_\alpha} \left(|\nabla (\varepsilon u)|^2 - |\operatorname{rot} (\varepsilon u)|^2 + \varepsilon_1^2 |\operatorname{rot} u|^2\right) dx \ge \frac{\varepsilon_0^2}2 \int_{\Omega_\alpha} |\nabla u|^2 dx - C(\rho, \varepsilon) \int_{\Omega_\alpha} |u|^2 dx . $$ By construction of $\Omega_\alpha$, $(D^2 \phi_\alpha)(x) \ge 0$ for $\sqrt{x_1^2 + x_2^2} <\rho$. The trace of a positive definite matrix-function on the boundary is also positive definite, so $K (x, u(x)) \ge 0$ for a.e. $x \in \partial\Omega_\alpha$ due to the Lemma \ref{l37}. Therefore, $$ \int_{\partial\Omega_\alpha} K(x, u(x))\, dS \ge 0. $$ Finally, by Lemma \ref{l32} $$ |I_3| \le \frac{\varepsilon_0^2}4 \int_{\Omega_\alpha} |\nabla u|^2 dx + C(\rho, \varepsilon) \int_{\Omega_\alpha} |u|^2 dx, $$ and therefore $$ \int_{\Omega_\alpha} \left(|\operatorname{div} (\varepsilon u)|^2 + \varepsilon_1^2 |\operatorname{rot} u|^2\right) dx \ge \frac{\varepsilon_0^2}4 \int_{\Omega_\alpha} |\nabla u|^2 dx - C(\rho, \varepsilon) \int_{\Omega_\alpha} |u|^2 dx .\quad \qedhere $$ \end{proof} \section{Proof of Theorem \ref{t11}} \subsection{Case of special Lipschitz domain} \begin{lemma} \label{l51} Let $\{\Omega_k\}$ be an ascending sequence of domains, $\Omega_k \subset \Omega_{k+1}$, $\cup_k \Omega_k = \Omega$. Suppose that $f_k \in L_2 (\Omega_k)$, $\|f_k\|_{L_2 (\Omega_k)} \le C_0$, and there exists $f \in L_2 (\Omega)$, such that $\left.f_k\right|_{\Omega_m} \to \left.f\right|_{\Omega_m}$ weakly in $L_2 (\Omega_m)$ \footnote{Here and in similar situations below we mean tendency via the sequence $k = m, m+1, \dots$.} for all $m$. Then $$ (f_k, z)_{L_2 (\Omega_k)} \to (f, z)_{L_2(\Omega)} \quad \forall \ z \in L_2 (\Omega) . $$ \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Let $\varepsilon>0$. Choose $m$ such that $$ (C_0 + \Vert f\Vert_{L_2 (\Omega)}) \, \Vert z\Vert_{L_2 (\Omega\setminus\Omega_m)}\le \varepsilon/2. $$ Then for $k>m$ we have \begin{eqnarray*} |(f_k, z)_{L_2 (\Omega_k)}-(f, z)_{L_2 (\Omega)}| \\ \le |(f_k, z)_{L_2 (\Omega_m)}-(f, z)_{L_2 (\Omega_m)}|+ (\Vert f_k\Vert_{L_2 (\Omega_k)} +\Vert f\Vert_{L_2 (\Omega)}) \Vert z\Vert_{L_2 (\Omega\setminus\Omega_m)} \\ \le |(f_k, z)_{L_2 (\Omega_m)}-(f, z)_{L_2 (\Omega_m)}| +\varepsilon/2. \end{eqnarray*} It remains to choose $k$ such that the first term is less than $\varepsilon/2$. \end{proof} Recall that the operators ${\cal L}$ and ${\cal L}_s$ are determined by the formula \eqref{08} on the domains \begin{equation*} {\cal D} (\Omega) := F(\Omega, \varepsilon, \tau) \oplus W_2^1 (\Omega, \mathbb{C}) \oplus F (\Omega, \mu, \nu) \oplus \mathring W_2^1 (\Omega, \mathbb{C}) \end{equation*} and $$ {\cal A} (\Omega) := W_2^1 (\Omega, \tau) \oplus W_2^1 (\Omega, \mathbb{C}) \oplus W_2^1 (\Omega, \mu, \nu) \oplus \mathring W_2^1 (\Omega, \mathbb{C}) . $$ It is natural to introduce the graph norm $\|X\|_{{\cal D} (\Omega)}^2 = \|{\cal L} X\|^2_{L_2} + \|X\|_{L_2}^2$ as a norm in the space ${\cal D} (\Omega)$, and the $W_2^1$-norm as a norm in the space ${\cal A} (\Omega)$. \begin{theorem} \label{t52} Let $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^3$ be a special Lipschitz domain, the set $$ \Omega \cap \{x \in \mathbb{R}^3 : \sqrt{x_1^2 + x_2^2} <2 \rho \} $$ be convex, $0 \in \partial\Omega$. Let $\varepsilon$ and $\mu$ be matrix-functions defined in $\Omega\cap B_{2\rho} (0)$ and satisfying there conditions \eqref{01} and \eqref{04}. Let $$ X = \left( \begin{array}{cc} E \\ \varphi \\ H \\ \eta\end{array} \right) \in {\cal D} (\Omega), \qquad \operatorname{supp} X \subset \overline\Omega \cap B_{\rho/2} (0) . $$ Then $$ X \in {\cal A} (\Omega) , \quad \|X\|_{W_2^1} \le C(\rho,\varepsilon,\mu) (\|{\cal L} X\|_{L_2} + \|X\|_{L_2}) . $$ \end{theorem} \begin{rem} The idea of the proof of this theorem is borrowed from \cite{Mi}. \end{rem} \begin{proof} Let $\Omega_\alpha$ be the domains constructed in Theorem \ref{t22}. Put $$ f_\alpha = \left.(({\cal L} - i I) X)\right|_{\Omega_\alpha\cap B_{2\rho}} , \quad f_\alpha \in L_2 (\Omega_\alpha\cap B_{2\rho}, \mathbb{C}^8; \varepsilon, \mu) . $$ Let ${\cal L}_\alpha$ be the self-adjoint operator, defined by formula \eqref{08} on the domain ${\cal D} (\Omega_\alpha\cap B_{2\rho})$. Introduce $X_{1,\alpha} = ({\cal L}_\alpha - i I)^{-1} f_\alpha \in {\cal D} (\Omega_\alpha\cap B_{2\rho})$. We have $$ \|X_{1,\alpha}\|_{{\cal D} (\Omega_\alpha\cap B_{2\rho})} = \|f_\alpha\|_{L_2(\Omega_\alpha\cap B_{2\rho})} \le \|X\|_{{\cal D} (\Omega)} \quad \forall \ \alpha\in(0,1) . $$ Let us consider the field $$ X_{2,\alpha} : = \left.X\right|_{\Omega_\alpha \cap B_{2\rho}} - X_{1,\alpha} , \quad \|X_{2,\alpha}\|_{{\cal D} (\Omega_\alpha\cap B_{2\rho})} \le 2 \|X\|_{{\cal D} (\Omega)} . $$ Without loss of generality one can assume that $X_{2,\alpha_k} \mathop{\to}\limits_{\alpha_k \to 0} X_3$ (see footnote to Lemma \ref{l51}) weakly in the space \begin{equation} \label{515} F(\Omega_\beta\cap B_{2\rho}, \varepsilon) \oplus W_2^1 (\Omega_\beta\cap B_{2\rho}, \mathbb{C}) \oplus F (\Omega_\beta\cap B_{2\rho}, \mu) \oplus W_2^1 (\Omega_\beta\cap B_{2\rho}, \mathbb{C}) \end{equation} for any fixed $\beta > 0$, and $$ X_3 \in F(\Omega\cap B_{2\rho}, \varepsilon) \oplus W_2^1 (\Omega\cap B_{2\rho}, \mathbb{C}) \oplus F (\Omega\cap B_{2\rho}, \mu) \oplus W_2^1 (\Omega\cap B_{2\rho}, \mathbb{C}). $$ Let us show that the components of the field $$ X_3 = \left( \begin{array}{cc} E_3 \\ \varphi_3 \\ H_3 \\ \eta_3\end{array} \right) $$ satisfy appropriate boundary conditions, i.e. $X_3 \in {\cal D} (\Omega\cap B_{2\rho})$. Indeed, let $h \in L_2(\Omega\cap B_{2\rho}, \mathbb{C}^3)$, $\operatorname{rot} h \in L_2 (\Omega\cap B_{2\rho}, \mathbb{C}^3)$. By virtue of Lemma \ref{l51} we have \begin{eqnarray*} ( E_3,\operatorname{rot} h)_{L_2(\Omega\cap B_{2\rho})}-(\operatorname{rot} E_3,h)_{L_2(\Omega\cap B_{2\rho})} \\ = \mathop{\lim}\limits_{\alpha_k\rightarrow 0} \left((E_{2,\alpha_k},\operatorname{rot} h)_{L_2(\Omega_{\alpha_k}\cap B_{2\rho})} - (\operatorname{rot} E_{2,\alpha_k},h)_{L_2(\Omega_{\alpha_k}\cap B_{2\rho})}\right) \\ = \mathop{\lim}\limits_{\alpha_k\rightarrow 0} \left(( E,\operatorname{rot} h)_{L_2(\Omega_{\alpha_k}\cap B_{2\rho})} - (\operatorname{rot} E,h)_{L_2(\Omega_{\alpha_k}\cap B_{2\rho})}\right) \\ = (E,\operatorname{rot} h)_{L_2(\Omega)}-(\operatorname{rot} E,h)_{L_2(\Omega)} = 0, \end{eqnarray*} since fields $X_{1,\alpha}$ and $X$ satisfy the conditions $\left.\left(E_{1,\alpha}\right)_\tau\right|_{\partial(\Omega_\alpha\cap B_{2\rho})} = 0$ and $\left.E_\tau\right|_{\partial\Omega} = 0$ respectively. Thus, $\left.(E_3)_\tau\right|_{\partial(\Omega\cap B_{2\rho})} = 0$. One can establish similarly the equalities $\left.\left(\mu H_3\right)_\nu\right|_{\partial(\Omega\cap B_{2\rho})} = 0$ and $\left.\eta_3\right|_{\partial(\Omega\cap B_{2\rho})} = 0$. Finally, $\left.\left(({\cal L}_{\alpha_k} - i) X_{1,\alpha_k}\right)\right|_{\Omega_\beta\cap B_{2\rho}} = f_\beta$ for $\alpha_k \le \beta$. Therefore, $$ \left.\left(({\cal L} - i) X_{2,\alpha_k}\right)\right|_{\Omega_\beta\cap B_{2\rho}} =0 \ \text{ for } \ \alpha_k\le\beta, $$ where ${\cal L}$ is understood as differential expression \eqref{08}. Hence, $({\cal L} - i) X_3 = 0$ in $\Omega$. Since $X_3 \in {\cal D} (\Omega)$, we conclude that $X_3 = 0$. Therefore, $X_{1,\alpha}$ converges to $X$ weakly in the space \eqref{515} for all $\beta > 0$. Further, introduce the vector $X_\alpha=\chi_{{\rho}}X_{1,\alpha}\in {\cal D} (\Omega_\alpha\cap B_{2\rho})$. Here $\chi_{{\rho}}\in C_0^\infty(\mathbb{R}^3), $ \[\chi_\rho(x)=\left\lbrace \begin{array}{cc} 1,& x\in B_{\rho/2}\\ 0,&x\notin B_\rho\\ \end{array}. \right. \] On the boundary of the set $\Omega_\alpha\cap B_{2\rho}$ the function $X_\alpha$ can be different from zero only on $\partial\Omega_\alpha$. By Theorem \ref{localsmooth} $X_{\alpha} \in {\cal A} (\Omega_\alpha)$. According to Theorems \ref{t35} and \ref{t38} $$ \|X_{\alpha}\|_{W_2^1 (\Omega_\alpha)} \le C(\rho,\varepsilon,\mu) \|X_{\alpha}\|_{{\cal D} (\Omega_\alpha)} \le C(\rho,\varepsilon,\mu) \|X\|_{{\cal D} (\Omega)} . $$ Thus, there exists a sequence $\alpha_k \to 0$ and the field $X_0 \in W_2^1 (\Omega, \mathbb{C}^8)$ such that $X_{\alpha_k} \to X_0$ weakly in $W_2^1 (\Omega_\beta, \mathbb{C}^8)$ (see footnote to Lemma \ref{l51}) for all $\beta > 0$; $\|X_0\|_{W_2^1(\Omega)} \le C(\rho,\varepsilon,\mu) \|X\|_{{\cal D} (\Omega)}$. So, $X = X_0 \in {\cal A} (\Omega)$. \end{proof} \subsection{($W^2_3\cap W^1_\infty$)-diffeomorphisms} \begin{lemma} \label{l52} Let $\Omega$, $\tilde\Omega$ be bounded domains in $\mathbb{R}^3$, $\psi: \Omega \to \tilde\Omega$ be a bijection such that $$ \psi \in W^2_3 \cap W^1_\infty (\Omega), \quad \psi^{-1} \in W^2_3 \cap W^1_\infty (\tilde\Omega). $$ Let $u$ and $v$ be functions, connected via the relation \begin{equation} \label{52} u_j (x) = \partial_j \psi_k (x) v_k (\psi(x)). \end{equation} Let $s$ be a matrix-function. Denote $J_{jk}(x)= \partial_j \psi_k (x), y=\psi(x).$ Then for a.e. $x\in\Omega$ $$ (\operatorname{rot}_x u)(x)=(|\operatorname{det} J| (J^{-1})^t \operatorname{rot}_y v)(y), $$ $$ (\operatorname{div}_x(su))(x)= \left(|\operatorname{det} J|\operatorname{div}_y\left(\dfrac{J^tsJ v}{|\operatorname{det} J|}\right)\right)(y). $$ \end{lemma} \begin{proof} We have $$ (\operatorname{rot}_x u)_i=[\nabla_x,u]_i= \<e_i,[J\nabla_y,Jv]\>=|\operatorname{det} J|\<J^{-1}e_i,[\nabla_y,v]\> =|\operatorname{det} J| ((J^{-1})^t \operatorname{rot}_y v)_i. $$ Here in the third equality the derivatives of $J$ cancel out, since $$ \partial_{x_j} J_{km} v_m - \partial_{x_k} J_{jm} v_m = (\partial_j \partial_k \psi_m - \partial_j \partial_k \psi_m) v_m = 0. $$ Using the definition of the divergence in terms of distributions, we have \begin{eqnarray*} \intop\limits_\Omega\operatorname{div}_x(su)\eta dx=-\intop\limits_\Omega \< su,\nabla_x\eta\> dx =-\intop\limits_{\tilde{\Omega}} \<sJv,J\nabla_y\eta\>|\operatorname{det} J|^{-1}dy\\ =\intop\limits_{\tilde{\Omega}}\operatorname{div}_y\left(\dfrac{J^tsJv}{|\operatorname{det} J|} \right)\eta dy =\intop\limits_\Omega|\operatorname{det} J|\operatorname{div}_y\left(\dfrac{J^tsJv}{|\operatorname{det} J|}\right)\eta dx, \quad \forall \eta \in C_0^\infty(\Omega, \mathbb{R}). \quad\qedhere \end{eqnarray*} \end{proof} \begin{theorem} \label{t54} Let $\Omega$, $\tilde\Omega$ be bounded domains in $\mathbb{R}^3$, $\psi: \Omega \to \tilde\Omega$ be a bijection such that $ \psi \in W^2_3 \cap W^1_\infty (\Omega)$, $\psi^{-1} \in W^2_3 \cap W^1_\infty (\tilde\Omega)$. The transformation \eqref{52} maps the space $F(\Omega, \varepsilon, \tau)$ to the space $F(\tilde\Omega, \tilde\varepsilon, \tau)$, $F(\Omega, \mu, \nu)$ to $F(\tilde\Omega, \tilde\mu, \nu)$, $W_2^1(\Omega, \tau)$ to $W_2^1(\tilde\Omega, \tau)$, and $W_2^1(\Omega, \mu, \nu)$ to $W_2^1(\tilde\Omega, \tilde\mu, \nu)$. Here the matrix-functions $$ \tilde{\varepsilon}(y)=\dfrac{J^t \varepsilon(x) J}{|\operatorname{det} J|},\quad \tilde{\mu}(y)=\dfrac{J^t \mu(x) J}{|\operatorname{det} J|} $$ satisfy \eqref{01} and \eqref{04} simultaneously with $\varepsilon$ and $\mu$, $y=\psi(x)$, $J_{jk}(x)= \partial_j \psi_k (x)$. Moreover, the norm estimates $$ c_1 \|u\|_{F(\Omega, s)} \le \|v\|_{F(\tilde\Omega,\tilde s)} \le c_2 \|u\|_{F(\Omega, s)}, \quad s = \varepsilon\ \text{or}\ \mu, $$ $$ c_1 \|u\|_{W^1_2(\Omega)} \le \|v\|_{W^1_2(\tilde\Omega)} \le c_2 \|u\|_{W^1_2(\Omega)} $$ take place. Here $c_1$ and $c_2$ depend only on the norms of $\psi$ and $\psi^{-1}$ in $W_3^2$ and $W^1_\infty$ . \end{theorem} \begin{proof} Let $u$ and $v$ satisfy the relation \eqref{52}, $u\in F(\Omega,s)$, $s=\varepsilon$ or $\mu$. Lemma \ref{l52} implies that $v\in F(\tilde{\Omega},\tilde{s})$, and two-sided estimates take place. Further, let $$ u\in F(\Omega,\varepsilon,\tau), \quad h\in L_2(\Omega,\mathbb{C}^3), \quad \operatorname{rot} h\in L_2(\Omega,\mathbb{C}^3), \quad \tilde{h}(y) = J(x)^{-1} h(x) . $$ Then \[ (\operatorname{rot}_y v,\tilde h)_{L_2(\tilde\Omega)} = (\operatorname{rot}_x u,h)_{L_2(\Omega)} = (u,\operatorname{rot}_x h)_{L_2(\Omega)} = (v,\operatorname{rot}_y \tilde{h})_{L_2(\tilde\Omega)}, \] Therefore, $\left.v_\tau\right|_{\partial \tilde{\Omega}}=0$. Similarly, if $u\in F(\Omega,\mu,\nu), \varphi\in W^1_2(\Omega,\mathbb{C})$, then \[ (\operatorname{div}_y(\tilde{\mu}v),\varphi)_{L_2(\tilde\Omega)} =(\operatorname{div}_x(\mu u),\varphi)_{L_2(\Omega)} =-(\mu u,\nabla_x\varphi)_{L_2(\Omega)} =-(\tilde{\mu}v,\nabla_y\varphi)_{L_2(\tilde\Omega)}, \] which means that $\left.(\tilde{\mu}v)_\nu\right|_{\partial \tilde{\Omega}}=0$. Finally, multiplication by $J\in W^1_3\cap L_\infty$ is the bounded operator in Sobolev space $W^1_2$. \end{proof} \subsection{Localization} It is easy to see that multiplication by smooth bounded function does not move elements of the space ${\cal D} (\Omega)$ from this space (see e.g. \cite{BS87smzh}). \begin{lemma} \label{l53} Let $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^3$, $X \in {\cal D} (\Omega)$, $\zeta \in C_0^\infty (\mathbb{R}^3)$. Then $$ \zeta X \in {\cal D} (\Omega), \qquad \|\zeta X\|_{{\cal D} (\Omega)} \le C \left(\|\nabla\zeta\|_{L_\infty} + \|\zeta\|_{L_\infty}\right) \|X\|_{{\cal D} (\Omega)} . $$ \end{lemma} {\it Proof of Theorem \ref{t11}.} Let $\Omega$ be a bounded domain, $\Omega \in \mathcal{C}(W_3^2\cap W^1_\infty)$. By Definition \ref{o03} the boundary $\partial\Omega$ can be covered by finite number of domains $D_j$, such that for each of them there exists a corresponding diffeomorphism $\psi_j$. This collection of domains may be completed up to covering of the whole domain $\Omega$. Denote the new covering as $ \mathcal{W}_j$ and denote the subordinate partition of unity as $\zeta_j$: $$ \label{razb} \zeta_j \in C_0^\infty (\mathbb{R}^n), \ \ 0 \le \zeta_j (x) \le 1, \ \ \operatorname{supp} \zeta_j \subset \mathcal{W}_j, \ \ \sum_j \zeta_j (x) = 1 \ \text{for} \ x \in \overline\Omega. $$ Let $$ X = \left( \begin{array}{cc} E \\ \varphi \\ H \\ \eta\end{array} \right)\in {\cal D} (\Omega) \quad \text{and} \quad X_j = \zeta_j X = \left( \begin{array}{cc} E_j \\ \varphi_j \\ H_j \\ \eta_j \end{array} \right) . $$ By Lemma \ref{l53} $$ X_j \in {\cal D} (\Omega), \quad \|X_j\|_{{\cal D} (\Omega)} \le C \|X\|_{{\cal D} (\Omega)} \quad \text{and} \quad \operatorname{supp} X_j \subset \mathcal{W}_j. $$ Put $$ Y_j (y) = \left( \begin{array}{cc} J_j(x)^{-1} E_j(x)\\ \varphi_j(x)\\ J_j(x)^{-1} H_j(x)\\ \eta_j(x) \end{array} \right), $$ where the variables $x$ and $y$ are connected by the formula $y = \psi_j (x)$, $J_j$ is the Jacobi matrix of mapping $\psi_j$. By virtue of Theorem \ref{t54} $Y_j\in \mathcal{D}(\psi_j(\mathcal{W}_j)\cap V_j)$, where $V_j$ is the corresponding special Lipschitz domain. Since $\operatorname{supp} Y_j\subset \psi_j(\mathcal{W}_j)$, the vector $Y_j$ belongs to the space $\mathcal{D}( V_j)$. Furthermore, due to Theorem \ref{t52} $Y_j \in {\cal A} (V_j)$. Applying Theorem \ref{t54} once again, we get $X_j \in {\cal A} (\mathcal{W}_j\cap \Omega)$ and $$ \|X_j\|_{W_2^1 (\Omega)} \le C_1 \|Y_j \|_{W_2^1 (V_j)} \le C_2 \|Y_j \|_{{\cal D} (V_j)} \le C_3 \|X_j\|_{{\cal D} (\Omega)}. $$ Hence, $$ X = \sum_j X_j \in {\cal A} (\Omega) \quad \text{and} \quad \|X\|_{W_2^1 (\Omega)} \le \sum_j \|X_j\|_{W_2^1 (\Omega)} \le C_4 \sum_j \|X_j\|_{{\cal D} (\Omega)} \le C_5 \|X\|_{{\cal D} (\Omega)} .\quad \qed $$
\section{Introduction} The latest results from the WMAP and {\it Planck} collaborations fit beautifully within a very simple model of inflation \cite{Hinshaw:2012aka,Ade:2013uln}. On the other hand, there are a number of intriguing large scale anomalies in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) data that clearly deserve some attention. These anomalies include the low power of the quadrupole \cite{Hinshaw:1996ut}, the alignment of the quadrupole and octopole \cite{Tegmark:2003ve,Schwarz:2004gk}, the oscillation in the power of low $\ell<10$ multiples with $P_{odd} < P_{even}$ \cite{Land:2005jq}, as well as the so-called dipolar modulation \cite{Eriksen:2003db, Akrami:2014eta}. Although the statistical significance of some of these effects is still under debate, it is particularly interesting to think that they might be related. Here we explore the possibility that they may be due to a particular state of the universe at the onset of inflation. Several authors have investigated the idea that some of these anomalies could be due to a period of anisotropic inflation \cite{Ackerman:2007nb, Watanabe:2009ct,Barrow:2009gx,Emami:2010rm,Bartolo:2013msa,Ohashi:2013mka}. These models require the existence of some kind of matter during inflation that sustains an anisotropic energy momentum tensor and bypass the no-hair theorems for a spacetime with a positive cosmological constant \cite{Wald:1983ky}. It is interesting to see that some of these models lead to an attractor behavior for this anisotropic period making their predictions more robust (See, for example \cite{Soda:2012zm}). There is however another way to explain these large scale anomalies without invoking the presence of new anisotropic energy sources. The idea is to assume that inflation only lasted for a relatively short number of e-foldings, in fact, just enough to solve the horizon, flatness and isotropy problems. In a situation like this one could be seeing the effects of the initial state of inflation at the largest possible scales of the CMB today. This obviously requires a degree of fine-tuning of the number of e-foldings, but taking into account the number of suspicious effects at those scales one is tempted to consider this possibility seriously. In particular one would like to explain the apparent violation of rotational symmetry at the largest scales by a initial period of anisotropic evolution. Considering a universe dominated by a pure cosmological constant, one would find (in agreement with the no-hair theorems) a rapid approach to isotropic expansion. In other words, there is only a {\it primordial anisotropic stage} of inflation. This is the kind of scenario we are contemplating in this paper. Such period of primordial anisotropic inflation was first considered in \cite{Gumrukcuoglu:2007bx} and \cite{Pitrou:2008gk}. One of the crucial points of this scenario is that, of course, one does not have a long period of inflation that would settle the quantum state to a Bunch-Davis vacuum, as one has for a regular inflationary model with a large number of e-folds. This makes the initial state of the vacuum before inflation potentially observable. Here we would like to explore this possibility in more detail by looking at some of the simple models that have been proposed for primordial anisotropic inflation. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. We show in Section II that the models studied in the literature can be extended past their apparent Big Bang hypersurface to a spacelike region that has a timelike singularity. Furthermore, the quantum state for perturbations in these models could not be specified without some knowledge about the conditions on the singularity. This makes it impossible to make precise predictions on these scenarios. We present in section III a different scenario where we replace the region with the singularity with a lower dimensional compactified spacetime. This gives a new interpretation to the background geometry for anisotropic inflation as an anisotropic bubble created by the decompactification of the lower dimensional state and allows us to obtain a consistent quantum initial state for the cosmological perturbations in this model. We discuss the way to find this quantum state in Section IV. Finally in section V we study the observational consequences of such model and demonstrate that in some cases the new quantum state alleviates some of the pathologies found in the power spectrum of perturbations. We end in section VI with some discussion and conclusions. \setcounter{page}{1} \setcounter{footnote}{0} \section{The Background Anisotropic Geometry} \subsection{A Cosmological Background} In this paper, we consider the possibility that the geometry of our universe is described by the Bianchi I metric of the form, \begin{eqnarray} ds^2= -dt^2 + \sum_{i=1}^3 a_i(t)^2dx_i^2, \end{eqnarray} where $a_i(t)$ ($i=1,2,3$) are the scale factors in the three different spatial directions. If the existence of matter is ignored in the primordial stage of the universe, the initial metric can be approximated by the Kasner solution, \begin{eqnarray} \label{kasner} ds^2= -dt^2 + \sum_{i=1}^3 t^{2p_i}dx_i^2, \end{eqnarray} the vacuum solution of Einstein's equations, where the three exponents satisfy the relations \begin{eqnarray} \label{p-conditions} \sum_i p_i= \sum_i p_i^2=1. \end{eqnarray} In the presence of a positive cosmological constant $\Lambda>0$ (or the equivalent potential energy), one can find solutions of Einstein's equations whose geometries interpolate between the initial Kasner \eqref{kasner} solution and a late-time isotropic de Sitter phase. These solutions are given by the so-called Kasner-de Sitter solution \cite{Saunders, Ellis, Sato, Hervik:2000ed, Gumrukcuoglu:2007bx,Pitrou:2008gk,Kim:2012bv,Dey:2013tfa,Dey:2012qp,Dey:2011mj}, \begin{eqnarray} \label{kasner-ds} ds^2= -dt^2 + \sum_{i=1}^3 \sinh^{\frac{2}{3}} (3Ht) \Big\{\tanh\Big(\frac{3Ht}{2}\Big)\Big\}^{2(p_i-\frac{1}{3})} dx_i^2, \end{eqnarray} where $H:=\sqrt{\frac{\Lambda}{3}}$ is the Hubble rate of the de Sitter in the late-time limit and the $p_i$ parameters satisfy the same conditions as before, namely, Eq. (\ref{p-conditions}). These spacetimes are initially anisotropic but this phase is short lived and within a period of $t\sim ({\rm a\,\,\, few})\times H^{-1}$ the universe becomes isotropic in agreement with the expectation of the cosmic no-hair theorem \cite{Wald:1983ky}. The curvature invariant $R^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}R_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}$ at $t=0$ diverges for a generic Kasner spacetime $\eqref{kasner}$, and thus the geometry is initially singular except for the particular branch where $p_1=1$ and $p_2=p_3=0$ of the Kasner-de Sitter solution \eqref{kasner-ds} that takes the form \begin{equation} ds^2= -dt^2 + \left({2\over 3} H^{-1} \sinh{{ 3 H t}\over {2 }} \left(\cosh {{3 H t }\over {2 }}\right)^{-{1\over 3}}\right)^2 dr^2 + \left(\cosh {{3 H t}\over {2}}\right)^{4\over 3} dx_\perp^2~, \label{Kasner-deSitter-1} \end{equation} where $0<t<\infty$ and $x_\perp$ represents the coordinates of the 2d symmetric plane. \footnote{This is a Bianchi I spacetime with an extra rotational symmetry in the $x_\perp$ plane. The authors of \cite{Gumrukcuoglu:2007bx} found two different solutions of this form for a universe with a pure cosmological constant. By choosing $p_1=-\frac{1}{3}$ and $p_2=p_3=\frac{2}{3}$ in \eqref{kasner-ds}, the other planar branch of the Kasner-de Sitter solution can be found in this gauge to be, \begin{equation} ds^2= -dt^2 +\left( {2\over 3} H^{-1} \cosh{{ 3 H t}\over {2 }} \left(\sinh {{3 H t }\over {2 }}\right)^{-{1\over 3}}\right)^2dr^2 + \left(\sinh {{3 H t}\over {2}}\right)^{4\over 3} dx_\perp^2, \end{equation} However, this spacetime is singular at $t=0$.} This is indeed a very anisotropic spacetime near $t=0$ where the $r$ direction grows linearly with time while the expansion rate in the $x_\perp$ plane goes to zero, in other words, it becomes static. The authors in \cite{Gumrukcuoglu:2007bx} noted that $t=0$ is not a real singularity in this case, but just a coordinate singularity and the universe near this point is represented by a non-singular Kasner solution of the form, \begin{equation} ds^2 \approx -dt^2 + t^2 dr^ +dx_\perp^2. \label{Milne2} \end{equation} This is in fact a piece of the 4d Minkkowski space. Looking at the $t- $ subspace one identifies a 2d Milne space, which covers the interior of the future lightcone of any point in the 2d Minkowski spacetime so one can perform a change of variables that brings this metric into the usual 4d Minkowski space metric form. This means that the hypersurface of $t=0$ is not the real Big Bang singularity but there is a part of spacetime that lies behind it. One could be tempted to set the initial state of the vacuum at $t=0$ \cite{Gumrukcuoglu:2007bx,Pitrou:2008gk,Kim:2012bv,Dey:2013tfa,Dey:2012qp,Dey:2011mj}, but it is clear that in this geometry one should go beyond this hypersurface since any disturbances can propagate freely through this null hypersurface all the way to us. We will show this in the following section. \subsection{Maximally Extended Spacetime} Taking into account the considerations made above regarding the $t=0$ hypersurface, it is clear that one would like to know how to extend the spacetime beyond this point. As shown in the Appendix B, there are several different gauges to describe the Kasner-de Sitter spacetime \eqref{Kasner-deSitter-1}. In order to do this it will prove convenient to rewrite the metric given above in a different gauge, namely, \begin{equation} ds^2= - {{dT^2}\over {f(T)}} + f(T) dr^2 + T^2 dx_\perp^2 \label{Kasner-deSitter-2} \end{equation} where \begin{equation} \label{ft} f(T): = H^2 T^2 - {{R_0}\over T}. \end{equation} In order for $T$ to be the timelike coordinate, and $f(T)>0$, we take $L<T<\infty$, where \be \label{L} L:= H^{-2/3} R_0^{1/3}, \end{eqnarray} such that $f L)=0$. In this form, the metric resembles the solution of a de Sitter black hole written in Schwarzschild coordinates, but there are several important differences. The first one is that the $x_\perp$ part of the metric represents a plane and it does not have a spherical symmetry as in the usual black hole geometries. This explains why there is no constant term in \eqref{ft}. Furthermore this is a time-dependent solution so, as it is, it only describes a region similar to the Schwarzschild-de Sitter (SdS) solutions beyond the cosmological horizon. Finally, let us look at the relative sign of each of the terms on the function $f(T)$. The first term describes the existence of a positive cosmological constant in our energy-momentum tensor as we should since we want our metric to approach de Sitter space asymptotically but the factor $R_0$ seems to represents a negative mass term.\footnote{The case with positive mass term $R_0$ does not have any horizon but only the singularity at $T=0$. This is in fact, the negative branch solution mentioned earlier.} In this new coordinate system, the $t=0$ region is mapped into a finite time $T=L$, \footnote{We can also set the value of $R_0$ to exactly match the solution found in the previous form.} which in this language corresponds to the horizon of this geometry. In fact, it is the analog of the cosmological horizon in the SdS geometry. In summary, this metric can be thought of as describing the region behind a cosmological horizon of a planar black hole of negative mass embedded in de Sitter space. The detailed coordinate transformations between the two descriptions of the Kasner-de Sitter metric \eqref{Kasner-deSitter-1} and \eqref{Kasner-deSitter-2} are explained in the Appendix B. The important point of having this representation for our spacetime is that it becomes now clear how to interpret the region {\it before} $t=0$. One should do what is normally done in the black hole geometries to obtain the part of the spacetime beyond the horizon so that $T$ becomes spacelike and $r$ becomes timelike in the region where $T<L$. Replacing $T$ and $r$ with the new coordinates $R$ and $\tau$, respectively, we can write the metric in the form, \begin{equation} ds^2= - {\tilde f}(R) d\tau^2 + {{dR^2}\over {\tilde f(R)}} + R^2dx_\perp^2 \end{equation} where $0<R<L$, so that \begin{equation} \tilde f(R) := H^2 \Big({L^3 \over R}-R^2\Big)>0. \end{equation} The other difference with the black hole case is that $\tilde f(R)$ does not have another horizon, there is no other root of this function so the metric plunges directly into a singularity at $R=0$. The relevant question for us is to what extent this singularity could affect the initial conditions in our universe; the initial conditions for our anisotropic inflation. This is a question about the causal structure of this spacetime which is better addressed in a Kruskal diagram. In order to do this we introduce the new coordinate system given by \footnote{Look at the Appendix A for the details of this coordinate transformation.}, \begin{figure} \begin{centering} \includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth,origin=tl]{KRUSKAL-KASNER-dS.pdf} \end{centering} \caption{Kruskal diagram for the maximally extended Kasner-de Sitter solution. The shaded region is covered by the original Bianchi I metric \eqref{Kasner-deSitter-1} (and also by \eqref{Kasner-deSitter-2}). The lightlike lines at $R=L$ and the thick solid timelike curves at $R=0$ correspond to the cosmological horizon and the timelike singularity, respectively. The red curve denotes the constant time hypersurface in the metric given by Eq. \eqref{Kasner-deSitter-1}. Each point in this diagram corresponds to a $2d$ plane. } \label{fig:KKdS2} \end{figure} \begin{eqnarray} \label{Kruskal} ds^2= -{\cal F}(R) dU dV + R^2dx_\perp^2, \end{eqnarray} where \begin{eqnarray} \label{F} {\cal F}(R):=\left(\frac{2}{3 H L}\right)^2 {\rm exp}\left[ -\sqrt{3} {\rm arctan} \left(\frac{L + 2 R} {\sqrt{3} L}\right) \right] \frac{\big(R^2+ LR+ L^2\big)^{\frac{3}{2}}}{R}, \end{eqnarray} and the coordinates $U$ and $V$ read \begin{eqnarray} \label{UV_def} V:={\rm exp}\Big(-{\frac{3 H^2 L}{2 }}\tau\Big) {\cal H} R)^{\frac{1}{2}}, \quad U:=-{\rm exp}\Big({\frac{3 H^2 L}{2 }}\tau\Big) {\cal H} R)^{\frac{1}{2}}, \end{eqnarray} with \begin{eqnarray} {\cal H}(R) := {\rm exp}\left[\sqrt{3}{\rm arctan} \left(\frac{L+ 2R}{\sqrt{3}L}\right)\right] \left(\frac {L-R}{\sqrt{R^2+ L R+L^2} }\right), \label{hr} \end{eqnarray} and where $R$ is obtained from the relation, \begin{equation} U V = {\cal H}(R). \end{equation} Using this coordinate system we see that nothing special happens at the horizon where $R=L$. On the other hand, there is a real singularity that appears at $R=0$, a timelike singularity that lies on a hyperbolic line on the $U-V$ plane. Finally, hypersurfaces of constant $T$ (or constant $t$ in the original metric \eqref{Kasner-deSitter-2}) in the time-dependent part of the spacetime are given by hyperbolas in the interior of the lightcone. Following a similar procedure as one does in the Schwarzschild case one can find the maximal extension of this geometry. We show in Fig. (\ref{fig:KKdS2}) the Kruskal diagram of this maximal extension. Its structure is similar to the Schwarzschild diagram rotated by 90 degrees. We show in red a typical hypersurface of constant time in the cosmological part of the spacetime described by Eq. (\ref{Kasner-deSitter-1}). This can be thought of a constant time hypersurface at the beginning of inflation. It is clear that the past lightcone of any point in this hypersurface would intersect the timeline singularity (the thick black curves in the spacelike part of the geometry) and therefore one cannot disregard its possible effect on the quantum state of the perturbations in our current universe. \subsection{Quantum Initial State} The study of cosmological perturbations in our background is complicated by the fact that we are evolving not in an FRW universe but in an anisotropic Bianchi I universe. This brings the additional complication of the mixing of scalar- and tensor-type perturbations during the initial anisotropic stage of the universe \cite{Gumrukcuoglu:2007bx,Pitrou:2008gk}. In the following we will concentrate on the study of the perturbations of a massless scalar field and its evolution on this background as a simplified model for perturbations. This is of course an approximation and one should really perform the correct evolution of perturbations along the lines of \cite{Gumrukcuoglu:2007bx,Pitrou:2008gk}. We leave this for future work. The lesson drawn from the previous section is that to study the quantum state of the universe in the cosmological region (the shaded region in Fig. (\ref{fig:KKdS2})), one should first understand the form of the metric in the spacelike region outside of the horizon. In order to do that let us start by writing the extension of the solution given by Eq. (\ref{Kasner-deSitter-1}) beyond the horizon in a similar gauge, namely, \begin{equation} ds^2= - \left( {2\over 3} H^{-1} \sin{{ 3 H \rho}\over {2 }} \left(\cos {{3 H \rho }\over {2 }}\right)^{-{1\over 3}}\right)^2 d\tau^2 + d\rho^2+ \left(\cos {{3 H \rho}\over {2}}\right)^{4\over 3} dx_\perp^2. \end{equation} There are two relevant regions in this metric. The near horizon part of the geometry where $\rho\approx 0$ and the metric approaches the Minkowski space in a Rindler form, \begin{equation} ds^2= - \rho^2 d\tau^2 + d\rho^2 + dx_\perp^2 \label{Rindler} \end{equation} and the singularity region at \rho=\rho_{max}:=\frac{\pi}{3H}$ where the metric approaches the Taub geometry \cite{Taub:1950ez} \begin{equation} ds^2= - (\rho_{max}-\rho)^{-2/3} d\tau^2 + d\rho^2 + (\rho_{max}-\rho)^{4/3}dx_\perp^2. \end{equation} Not all timelike singularities are harmful and the quantization of a scalar field in this background could be possible if the information of the singularity were to be shielded from the actual cosmological observers inside of the horizon. In order to investigate this possibility we study the quantization of a massless scalar field in the vicinity of this Taub timelike singularity. Following \cite{Blau:2006gd}, it would be useful to write this metric in the following gauge $\xi:=(\rho_{\rm max}-\rho)^{4/3}$ \begin{equation} ds^2= - \xi^{-1/2} \left(d\tau^2 - d\xi^2\right) + \xi dx_\perp^2 \end{equation} where the singularity occurs at $\xi \rightarrow 0$. To understand the behavior of the massless scalar field modes in this background, we start by decomposing the scalar field as \begin{equation} \phi_{k_\perp,E} = \xi^{-1/2} \psi_{k_\perp, E}(\xi) e^{-i k_{\perp} x_{\perp}} e^{-i E \tau} \end{equation} so the equation for the field $\psi_{k_\perp, E}$ takes the form, \begin{equation} \left[-{{d^2}\over {d\xi^2}} + V_{k_\perp}(\xi) \right] \psi_{k_\perp,E} = E^2 \psi_{k_\perp,E} \end{equation} where \begin{equation} \label{potential_singularity} V_{k_\perp}(\xi) := - {{1} \over {4}} \xi^{-2} + k^2_{\perp} \xi^{-3/2}. \end{equation} This is a Schr\"{o}dinger type equation for the field $\psi$ with a divergent potential near $\xi=0$ where $V_{k_\perp}(\xi) \approx - (2 \xi)^{-2}$. Potentials of this type have been discussed in the literature in \cite{Horowitz:1995gi,Blau:2006gd} where it was argued that this potential would lead to $2$ normalizable solutions near the singularity. This means that we would have to impose some sort of boundary condition at the singularity, making the solution for the scalar field and, in turn, our quantum state unpredictable. Note that the coefficient in front of the $1/\xi^2$ term in the potential is rather special since a slightly more negative value would lead to a much more serious problem with an ill-defined quantum mechanical problem \cite{Landau:1990qp}. We would of course like to have a different type of singularity where the potential is not attractive but repulsive so that the perturbations are uniquely specified by their asymptotic value far away from the singularity. Taking into account the backreaction of the scalar field in this background may improve the behavior of the fluctuations near the singularity and achieve such a repulsive potential. This is precisely what one finds in another closely related singular instanton, the so-called Hawking-Turok instanton \cite{Hawking:1998bn}. In this case one can show that the situation improves dramatically taking into account backreaction. See the discussion in \cite{Garriga:1998tm}. On the other hand, to study this in our case would require a careful treatment of the anisotropic nature of the scalar perturbations in this part of the geometry using a decomposition of the form described in \cite{Gumrukcuoglu:2007bx,Pitrou:2008gk}. We leave the investigation of this point for future work. \section{Anisotropic Inflation as a result of Quantum Tunneling} The arguments presented in the previous section show that one should take into account the spacelike region of the geometry in order to describe the quantum state of the cosmological fluctuations in the timelike region. On the other hand, the extension of the simple Kasner-de Sitter geometry across the horizon yields a timelike singularity that is ``visible'' from our universe, spoiling the predictability of this spacetime. One could think of different ways to improve on this situation, either by introducing some regulating procedure, by cutting out entirely the singularity from the spacetime \footnote{Similarly what is done for the Hawking-Turok instanton in \cite{Garriga:1998tm,Bousso:1998pk}.} or making it ``invisible'' by adding some other form of matter that dominates near the singularity \footnote{Another possibility would be to allow the spacetime to end similarly to what happens in the ``bubble from nothing'' geometry \cite{BlancoPillado:2011me,Garriga:1998ri}.}. In this paper we would like to take a different approach and give a new interpretation to the anisotropic Kasner-de Sitter solution as the outcome of a quantum tunneling process of a previously compactified space. In order to make the connection to this interpretation we should first imagine that the coordinates $x_\perp$ are not infinite but compact such that collectively represent a $2d$ torus, $T_2$. This does not change anything in terms of the solutions presented earlier, they are still solutions of Einstein's equations with a pure cosmological constant. The difference is that we should think of the spatial topology of the universe as $R \times T_2$ instead of $R^3$. This does not suppose a radical change at least for the timelike part of the geometry where these directions are expanding and this new view will only impose a minor restriction on the size of these extra dimensions over our past cosmological history in order for them to be compatible with phenomenology. Looking at the form of the solution near the $t=0$ we see that these extra dimensions approach a static configuration. This suggests a possible modification of the region of the space across the horizon that considers this spacelike region as a part of the universe where the extra-dimensions were static. These two regions together would therefore describe a decompactification transition. These type of transdimensional transitions were first discussed in models of flux compactification in \cite{BlancoPillado:2009di,Carroll:2009dn} in the context of a higher-dimensional landscape of multiple vacua. In \cite{BlancoPillado:2010uw,Graham:2010hh,Adamek:2010sg} the authors discussed another example of decompactification from a lower dimensional spacetime very similar to the one we have now. The difference between those models and the present work is the symmetry of the space. In their case, the spacetime had anisotropic spatial curvature (it had either open or closed subspaces) that led to a lower bound in the number of e-foldings after the anisotropic initial expansion of the transition \footnote{This is due to the limits on the induced quadrupole generated by the late time anisotropic expansion due to curvature. See \cite{Demianski:2007fz,BlancoPillado:2010uw,Graham:2010hh,Adamek:2010sg} for details.}. This requirement made it difficult to get an observational effect in the spectrum of cosmological perturbations since, as we explained earlier, a large number of e-foldings would move all the effects from primordial anisotropic inflation out of our present horizon. Here on the other hand, we do not have this problem since both sections of spacetime are spatially flat and the number of e-folds could be as low as 60. The decompactification solutions presented in \cite{BlancoPillado:2010uw,Adamek:2010sg} were described by instantons that also mediated the creation of black objects in de Sitter space similar to the ones presented in \cite{BlancoPillado:2009mi,Carroll:2009dn}. In those cases the solutions had two different horizons, a cosmological horizon that led to the anisotropic universe dominated by the cosmological constant and the ``black hole'' horizon that would lead to a spacetime resembling a lower dimensional compactified universe. In our case, we only have one horizon, the cosmological horizon. The difference is again the lack of curvature in our spacetime, so we need to supply the solution with some extra ingredient that allows for this other horizon that would substitute and regularize the geometry in the spacelike region. One can try to do this by adding an electric charge to this solution. This can be accomplished easily in the {\it Schwarzschild-like} gauge by introducing a new term in the solution for $f(T)$ proportional to $Q^2/T^2$. We discuss this possibility in the Appendix C where we show that this geometry also leads to a single horizon and an again a visible singularity. The timelike continuation of this spacetime has been considered recently in \cite{Chen:2013eaa,Chen:2013tna}. Much of our discussion in this paper applies to these solutions as well. \begin{figure}[tbph] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth,origin=tl]{PENROSE-DIAGRAM-dS2-T2.pdf} \end{center} \caption{The Penrose diagram for the Kasner-de Sitter bubble nucleation from a $\text{de~Sitter}_2 \times T_2$ parent vacuum. Each point in this figure corresponds to a $2d$ torus, the $T_2$. The region of the spacetime shaded in gray is the part of the metric described by Eq. (\ref{Kasner-deSitter-1}). The white region corresponds to compactified parent vacuum described by the metric in (\ref{dS2-metric-spacelike}). The asymptotic constant time slices represented in red rapidly approach an isotropic de Sitter space in $4d$.} \label{ds2t2ds4} \end{figure} It is interesting to note that one could, in principle, obtain an exact solution with the properties we are looking for by changing the sign of the coefficient in front of the kinetic term for the Maxwell field. This is a rather exotic possibility and we will not consider it further in this paper. A much more interesting possibility was discussed in \cite{Arnold:2011cz} where the authors found the instanton transitions we are interested in considering the contribution to the geometry from the Casimir type of calculation. It is temped to think of this geometry as the quantum corrected geometry of the singular classical toroidal black hole in de Sitter space we have been discussing. The Penrose diagram of this type of solution is shown in Fig. (\ref{ds2t2ds4}) where we denote by $\Sigma$ the Cauchy surface for this geometry. In the following we will approximate the geometry in this spacelike region by the simpler $dS_2 \times T_2$ solution. This corresponds, in fact, to the Hawking-Moss limit of the instanton transition, where the size of the extra dimension does not change in the region between the horizons. Written in this gauge the solution becomes, \begin{equation} ds^2= \left[- {{1}\over {H_{2d}^2}}\sin (H_{2d} \, r) ^2 d\tau^2 + dr^2 \right] + dx_\perp^2, \label{dS2-metric-spacelike} \end{equation} which clearly takes the correct Rindler form given by Eq. (\ref{Rindler}) to match to the cosmological Kasner-de Sitter solution across the lightcone. Another possibility is to assume that the initial state of the universe was in a static $M_2 \times T_2$ configuration right before its decompactification transition. The metric outside of horizon will now be given by $M_2 \times T_2$ in Rindler coordinates, \begin{equation} ds^2= -r^2 d\tau^2 + dr^2 + dx_\perp^2 . \end{equation} This initial state is also compatible with the boundary conditions of the cosmological evolution inside of our bubble and it is therefore worth considering even if its interpretation as a tunneling process is not so clear in this case. A diagram of such a transition is given by Fig. (\ref{m2t2ds4}). \begin{figure}[tbph] \begin{centering} \includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth,origin=tl]{PENROSE-DIAGRAM-M2-T2.pdf} \end{centering} \caption{The Penrose diagram for the Kasner-de Sitter bubble nucleation from a $\text {Minkowski}_2 \times T_2$ parent vacuum. Each point in this figure corresponds to a $2d$ torus, the $T_2$.} \label{m2t2ds4} \end{figure} Here we do not specify the matter content that could give rise to these parent compactified states and simply assume that they exist. It is also important to stress that in order to identify a model for this setup one would also have to study its perturbative stability which in many simple models would not be easy to achieve either for $dS_2 \times T_2$ or $M_2 \times T_2$. Finally there is one more appealing point for this new interpretation of the non-singular Kasner-de Sitter solution. From the point of view of a generic Kasner solution the spacetime we discussed seems to be fine-tuned to avoid the initial Big-Bang singularity. On the other hand, the interpretation of the metric as a tunneling transition gives an explanation for this rather unnatural initial conditions. The regularity of the instanton enforces the form of the solution around the lightcone and therefore its regularity is necessary in order to be able to have a transition. This new interpretation of the spacelike region of our solution will allow us to set up the initial quantum state on the $\Sigma$ hypersurfaces. This is what we do next. \section{Quantization of a scalar field} We are interested in understanding the spectrum of perturbations in this background geometry. As a first approximation we will study the spectrum of fluctuations for a massless scalar field $\varphi$ minimally coupled to gravity: \begin{equation} S_{\varphi} = \int{d^4x \sqrt{-g} \left(-{1\over 2} g^{\mu \nu} \partial_{\mu} \varphi \partial_{\nu} \varphi \right)}. \end{equation} Although we do not specify a concrete origin of this massless scalar field, one can imagine that this is a simplified analog of the fluctuation of the inflaton field in this anisotropic background \cite{Gumrukcuoglu:2007bx,Pitrou:2008gk} or the isocurvature fluctuation of a subdominant light degree of freedom during inflation which could be converted into the adiabatic perturbation after inflation \cite{BlancoPillado:2010uw}. The background metric in the shaded region of Fig. (\ref{fig:KKdS2}) can be written in several different gauges as we described earlier. For our purposes in this section it will be useful to express it in the following form\footnote{Look at the Appendix B for a detailed explanation of the change of coordinates among the different gauges used throughout this paper.} \begin{equation} ds^2 = -{{d\eta^2}\over {\sinh^2 (-H_{2d}\eta)}} + \alpha^4 {{e^{4H_{2d}\eta/3}}\over {\sinh^{2/3} (-H_{2d} \eta)}} dr^2 + \alpha^{-2} {{e^{-2H_{2d}\eta/3}}\over {\sinh^{2/3} (-H_{2d} \eta)}} dx_\perp^2 \label{conformal-Kasner-deSitter} \end{equation} where $-\infty < \eta< 0$ and we have introduced the definitions, $\alpha=2^{1/3}$ and $H_{2d} = H$. The expansion of the quantized scalar field in this region of spacetime can be given in general by, \begin{equation} \phi(\eta,r,x_{\perp}) = \int{dk \sum_{k_{\perp}} \left[{1\over {(2 \pi)^{3/2} }} \tilde a_{k_{\perp},k} ~f_{k_{\perp},k}(\eta) e^{i k_{\perp} x_{\perp}} e^{-i k r} + \text{h.c}\right]}~, \end{equation} where the evolution equations of each mode functions are, \begin{equation} \label{evolution} \left[{{d^2}\over {d\eta^2}} + \Omega^2(k_{\perp},k,\eta) \right] f_{k_\perp,k} (\eta) = 0 \end{equation} with, \begin{equation} \Omega^2(k_{\perp},k,\eta) = \alpha ^{-4} \sinh ^{-4/3} (-H_{2d} \eta) ~~ e^{2 H_{2d} \eta /3} \left(\alpha^6 k_{\perp}^2 + e^{-2 H_{2d} \eta} k^2 \right)~. \end{equation} We have not been able to solve these equations analytically so we will integrate them numerically for each value of $k$ as well as $k_{\perp}$. This will allow us to compute the power spectrum of the perturbations outside of the horizon. In order to do that we need to set up a vacuum state or an initial form of the mode functions $f_{k_\perp,k}(\eta)$ in the limit of $\eta \rightarrow -\infty$. \subsection{Choice of a parent vacuum} Several groups have tackled the quantization of a scalar field in this geometry using numerical \cite{Gumrukcuoglu:2007bx} as well as analytic techniques \cite{Kim:2012bv,Minamitsuji:2012ap,Kim:2011pt,Kim:2010wra,Dey:2013tfa,Dey:2012qp,Dey:2011mj}. The important difference with our present work is the choice of the vacuum state which is now dictated by the parent vacuum before decompactification. Previous computations followed the conventional approach of most inflationary models and assume that one could set the initial vacuum state by looking at the form of the metric at $\eta \rightarrow -\infty$. Taking the $\eta \rightarrow -\infty$ limit in Eq. (\ref{conformal-Kasner-deSitter}) one arrives at, \begin{equation} ds^2 = {4\over {e^{- 2 H_{2d}\eta }}}\left(- d\eta^2+ dr^2\right) +dx_\perp^2 \end{equation} which is nothing more that our metric near the horizon given by Eq. (\ref{Milne2}) but written in a conformal gauge. In other words this is the conformal form of the spacetime given by $\text{Milne}_2 \times T_2$. This is just a confirmation that indeed our metric becomes very anisotropic as one goes far into the past as it is supposed to. The use of $H_{2d}$ in this metric is arbitrary in this limit and can be reabsorbed in the definition of the coordinates. We use the $2d$ subscript to make the connection to the other possible parent vacua, namely the $dS_2 \times T_2$ case whose open slicing metric would take exactly the same form as the Milne case near the horizon, namely, \begin{equation} ds^2 = {{1}\over {\sinh^2 (-H_{2d} \eta )}} \left(- d\eta^2+ dr^2\right) +dx_\perp^2 \rightarrow {4\over {e^{-2 H_{2d}\eta }}}\left(- d\eta^2+ dr^2\right) +dx_\perp^2. \end{equation} This is again nothing surprising, we are just saying that an open universe slicing of $dS_2$ should not know about the cosmological constant at early times, so it should behave as a spatially-flat universe dominated by curvature, a Milne universe in 2 dimensions in this case. Let us discuss the two different vacua separately and identify the correct mode functions for each case. \subsubsection{$M_2 \times T_2$} One can write the equations of motion for the perturbations near the lightcone to obtain \begin{equation} \left[{{d^2}\over {d\eta^2}} + \left(4 e^{2H_{2d} \eta} k^2_{\perp} + k^2\right)\right] f_{k_\perp,k} (\eta) = 0~, \end{equation} which can be thought of as the equations for a massive scalar field in $1+1$ Milne spacetime where the mass scale is given by mode number along the internal dimensions, $k_{\perp} $. The general solution of this equation can be written in terms of a combination of the Bessel functions of the form, $J_{\pm i \tilde k} \left(2 \tilde k_{\perp} e^{H_{2d}\eta}\right)$, where we have introduced the definitions, $\tilde k := {{ k}\over H_{2d}}$ and $\tilde k_{\perp} := {{ k_{\perp}}\over H_{2d}}$. Imposing that the mode functions behave as, \begin{equation} \lim_{\eta \rightarrow - \infty} f_{k_\perp,k}(\eta) \propto {1\over {\sqrt{2k}}} e^{-ik \eta} \end{equation} as one approaches $\eta \rightarrow -\infty$ (in other words $t\rightarrow 0$) and normalizing them on any constant time slice inside of the lightcone \footnote{One can see by looking at Fig (\ref{m2t2ds4}) that these constant time slices are, in this case, Cauchy surfaces for the whole spacetime.}, one arrives at the following form for the mode functions, \begin{equation} f^{(c)}_{k_\perp,k}(\eta) = \sqrt{{{\pi}\over{2H_{2d} \sinh(\pi \tilde k)}} }J_{-i \tilde k} \left(2 \tilde k_{\perp} e^{H_{2d}\eta}\right)~, \end{equation} where the superscript $(c)$ refers to the fact that one can identify this choice of mode functions as the usual conformal vacua of a Milne spacetime \cite{Birrell:1982ix}. The authors in \cite{Kim:2012bv,Minamitsuji:2012ap,Kim:2011pt,Kim:2010wra} found that this vacuum leads to a divergent behavior in the limit of $k \ll k_{\perp}$, the so-called planar regime. Furthermore it has also been shown that this vacuum induces a severe backreaction problem in this limit as well \cite{Dey:2011mj}. All these constraints make it difficult to consider this vacuum state as the relevant one for our period of primordial anisotropic inflation. It is also clear that one cannot consider this vacuum as the one arising from a tunneling transition where the universe decompactifies from $M_2 \times T_2$ since things would blow up at the horizon \cite{Birrell:1982ix} preventing the existence of the instanton itself. In fact, our interpretation of the anisotropic geometry in Eq. (\ref{Kasner-deSitter-1}) as the interior of a bubble created within a previously existing spacetime forces us to take the vacuum state of the parent vacuum as the correct state for scalar perturbations. In our case, this is nothing more than the usual Minkowski two-dimensional vacuum written in this Milne coordinate system. This corresponds to the mode functions of the form, \begin{equation} \label{minkvacuum} f^{(M)}_{k_\perp,k}(\eta) = {1\over 2} \sqrt{{{\pi}\over {H_{2d}}}} e^{\pi \tilde {k}/2} ~H_{i\tilde {k}}^{(2)} \left(2 \tilde {k}_{\perp} e^{H_{2d} \eta}\right) \end{equation} where $H_{i\tilde {k}}^{(2)}$ denotes the Hankel functions of the second kind. One can show that these mode functions are related to the previous ones by a Bogoliubov transformation of the form, \begin{equation} f^{(M)}_{k_\perp,k} = \alpha _k f^{(c)}_{k_\perp,k} + \beta_k \left(f^{(c)}_{k_\perp,k} \right)^* \end{equation} where \begin{equation} \alpha_{\tilde k} = {{e^{\pi {\tilde k}/2}}\over {\sqrt{e^{\pi \tilde k} - e^{-\pi \tilde k}}}} ~~~~~ \beta_{\tilde k} =- {{e^{-\pi {\tilde k}/2}}\over {\sqrt{e^{\pi \tilde k} - e^{-\pi \tilde k}}}}~. \end{equation} We show in the Appendix D how one can obtain the explicit form of this vacuum state by studying the behavior of the mode functions on a Cauchy surface ($\Sigma$) on the previous vacuum and propagating them to the interior of the bubble. \subsubsection{$dS_2 \times T_2$} We will also consider the possibility that our parent vacuum was $dS_2 \times T_2$. Following techniques similar to the ones used in open inflation \cite{Garriga:1997wz,Garriga:1998he} one can show that the correct vacuum state inside of our bubble is given by the analytic continuation of the appropriate solutions in the spacelike region of the $dS_2 \times T_2$ geometry\footnote{This is $1+1$ dimensional analogue of the Bunch-Davies vacuum in the open chart of de Sitter found in \cite{Sasaki:1994yt}.}. We show the details of the calculation in the Appendix E. The resulting vacuum is given by, \begin{equation} \phi(\eta,r,x_{\perp}) = \int{dk \sum_{k_{\perp},i} \left[{1\over {(2 \pi)^{3/2} }} \tilde a_{k_{\perp},k,i} ~f^{(i)}_{k_{\perp},k}(\eta) e^{i k_{\perp} x_{\perp}} e^{-i k r} + \text{h.c}\right]}~, \end{equation} where \begin{eqnarray} f^{(1)} _{k_{\perp},k}(\eta)&=& {1\over {\sqrt{2k}}} {{e^{\pi k /2H_{2d}} }\over{\sqrt{2 \sinh (\pi k /H_{2d})}}} N(k,k_{\perp})~\tilde f^{(1)} _{k_{\perp},k}(\eta)\\ f^{(2)}_{k_{\perp},k}(\eta) &=& {1\over {\sqrt{2k}}} {{e^{\pi k /2H_{2d}} }\over{ \sqrt{2 \sinh (\pi k /H_{2d})}}} \left( L(k,k_{\perp}) ~\tilde f^{(1)} _{k_{\perp},k}(\eta)+ e^{-\pi k/H_{2d} } \tilde f^{(2)}_{k_{\perp},k}(\eta)\right) \end{eqnarray} and we have introduced the functions, \begin{equation} \tilde f^{(1)} _{k_{\perp},k}(\eta)= e^{-ik \eta} F\left[-\nu, \nu+1,1-\mu,{{1+\xi_i}\over 2}\right] \end{equation} \begin{equation} \tilde f^{(2)} _{k_{\perp},k}(\eta)= e^{ik \eta}F\left[-\nu, \nu+1,1+\mu,{{1+\xi_i}\over 2}\right] \end{equation} with \begin{equation} \xi_i = \coth (H_{2d} \eta)~~~;~~~ \mu = i\left( {k\over H_{2d}}\right)~~~;~~~ \nu (\nu +1) = - \left({{k_{\perp}}\over H_{2d}}\right)^2 \end{equation} and $F$ denotes the generalized hypergeometric function so that $F[a,b,c,x] = {}_2F_1[a,b,c,x]$. Finally the normalization factors are given by, \begin{eqnarray} N(k,k_\perp) &=& {{\Gamma(1+\nu-\mu) \Gamma(-\mu-\nu)}\over {\Gamma(1-\mu) \Gamma(-\mu)}} \\ L(k,k_\perp) &=& - {{\Gamma(1+\mu) \Gamma(1+\nu-\mu) \Gamma(-\mu-\nu)}\over {\Gamma(1-\mu) \Gamma(-\nu) \Gamma(1+\nu)}}. \end{eqnarray} \section{The Power Spectrum} The results of the previous section give us the initial state of the scalar field modes right inside of the lightcone at the beginning of the bubble. One can then take these mode functions and evolve them forward in time numerically using Eq. (\ref{evolution}). Here we present the results for the two cases we have studied, the $M_2 \times T_2$ and the $dS_2 \times T_2$ parent vacua. For each case we give the power spectrum \begin{eqnarray} {\cal P} = \frac{1}{2\pi^2}\big(\alpha^{-4}k^2 +\alpha^2 k_\perp^2\big)^{\frac{3}{2}} \times \begin{cases} \big|f^{(M)} _{k_{\perp},k}(\eta\to 0)\big|^2 \quad\quad (M_2\times T_2) \\ \sum_{i=1}^2\big|f^{(i)} _{k_{\perp},k}(\eta\to 0)\big|^2 \quad (dS_2\times T_2) \end{cases} \end{eqnarray} for several different values of the angle $\theta$ as the function of $\bar k$, which we define by the prescription, $ k = \bar k \cos \theta$ and $k_{\perp} =\bar k \sin \theta$ in the momentum space. \begin{figure}[tbph] \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{ll} \includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth,origin=tl]{PS-M2-T2.pdf} \end{tabular} \end{center} \caption{Power Spectrum for the $M_2 \times T_2$. We plot the ratio of the power spectrum to the power in the isotropic limit as the function of $\bar k$. We plot the following angles, $\theta={\pi/8,\pi/4,3\pi/8,\pi/2}$, which correspond to the solid, dashed, dotted and dot-dashed lines respectively.} \end{figure} We see that, as expected, the power spectrum becomes scale invariant and isotropic when $\bar k$ becomes a few times larger than the corresponding comoving wavenumber associated with the comoving Hubble radius at the onset of the inflationary regime. These roughly correspond to the comoving momentum of the modes that leave the horizon when the universe starts to become isotropic and inflationary. To simplify our notation, in the following, we normalize the comoving wavenumbers simply dividing them by $H$. This is basically due to the fact that the large $\bar k$ modes leave the horizon when the universe is already expanding isotropically so one should recover in this case the usual isotropic scale invariant spectrum of $dS_4$\footnote{In a realistic model one should include a potential energy instead of a pure cosmological constant. That would introduce to a small tilt in the scalar power spectrum.}. Furthermore, the power in this case is not divergent as one approaches the planar limit, $k \ll k_{\perp}$, as it is the case in the conformal vacuum. In case of $M_2\times T^2$ parent vacuum, it is interesting to note that the power spectrum is suppressed at large scales, low $\bar k$ and at the same time is slightly anisotropic in this regime, where the spectrum is more sensitive to the initial anisotropic state as well as the anisotropic evolution. \begin{figure}[tbph] \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{ll} \includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth,origin=tl]{PS-dS2-T2.pdf} \end{tabular} \end{center} \caption{Power Spectrum for the $dS_2 \times T_2$. We use the same set of angles as in the previous figure.} \end{figure} The situation for the $dS_2 \times T_2$ parent vacuum is different and one finds a diverging power in the planar regime for low $\bar k$. This does not signal the presence of any singularity behavior at the lightcone, since the power spectrum is exactly the one that we will get for a set of massive scalar fields in a pure $dS_2$ background. On the other hand, from the observational point of view this type of spectrum with a large enhancement of power at low $\bar k$ seems to be in contradiction with the CMB observations. This suggests that we should take the $\log\bar k\approx 0$ point in the figure to be associated with the largest observable scales pushing all the extra power outside of our horizon today. Unfortunately this also means that it would be very challenging to distinguish between this decompactification model from any other model of nearly scale invariant isotropic spectrum in $4d$. \section{Conclusions} We have investigated the power spectrum of a massless scalar field in a model of primordial anisotropic inflation given by the Kasner-de Sitter solution of Einstein's equations in the presence of a pure cosmological constant. At early times, this geometry approaches a state of high anisotropy where part of the metric is described by a $1+1$ dimensional Milne universe while the other two spatial directions remain static. Without any other sources present to preserve the anisotropy, the spacetime quickly becomes the isotropic $dS_4$ making this metric a good candidate for a primordial anisotropic stage in the early universe before inflation. Any observable effect that one can obtain from this initial period would therefore be encoded in the large scale today, the scales that leave the horizon during the anisotropic era. This means that these observables would be really sensitive to the initial vacuum state of the fluctuations. Previous attempts to study the fluctuations in this geometry rely on the idea of identifying a vacuum state as the positive frequency modes for the initial $\text{Milne}_2$ state. This led to several divergences on the power spectrum that make this choice of initial state questionable. Here we present an alternative view on this Kasner-de Sitter geometry that comes from the realization that the surface of the Big Bang for this spacetime is in fact a coordinate singularity and nothing more than the lightcone of the Milne slicing of Minkowski space. Extending the geometry beyond this $t=0$ surface one encounters a timelike singularity that would be visible for observers in our cosmological spacetime making necessary to regulate the spacetime somehow before we can identify a vacuum state for our perturbations. We propose to give a different interpretation to the Kasner-de Sitter metric as the outcome of a decompactification transition. We assume that our parent vacuum state was described by a cosmological $1+1$ dimensional spacetime compactified over a $2d$ internal space that we take to be a flat torus, $T_2$. For simplicity we take the parent vacua to be either $\text{{\it de Sitter}}_2 \times T_2$ or ${\text {\it Minkowski}}_2 \times T_2$ such that they can be matched to the Kasner-de Sitter metric along the lightcone. Taking into account the full geometry of the decay process, one can identify a global Cauchy surface for these spacetimes and obtain a suitable vacuum state for the scalar field perturbations. We calculated the power spectrum for a massless scalar field for different orientations of the wavevector of the perturbation. We find that, as expected, the power spectrum is isotropic and scale invariant at small scales, since by the time that these modes leave the horizon the universe is pretty much isotropic. On the other hand, the spectra vary substantially from these results for the large scales. We find that the spectrum for $dS_2 \times T_2$ presents an important enhancement of its power at large scales. This seems to be in contradiction with current CMB observations that do not see this increase in power at large scales but the opposite. One can of course assume that the number of e-folds inside of our bubble was larger than $60$, which will push the cosmological wavelengths associated with these modes outside of the current horizon making their effects almost irrelevant for us. We have also computed the power spectrum for a transition from $M_2 \times T_2$. The results in this case are much more encouraging. We find that a transition of this kind leads to a suppression in the power spectrum at large scales as well a small variation on the power with the angle, a small anisotropic effect. These features could be related to some of the low-$\ell$ anomalies recently reported by the CMB collaborations. In order to make a more precise comparison with the data, and test the presence of detectable anisotropy in the power spectrum one would have to compute the multiple correlators, the $C_{\ell\ell' mm'}$, looking in particular for signals that could set this model apart from other similar scenarios. Furthermore one should also include the proper treatment of metric perturbations in these backgrounds using the results in \cite{Gumrukcuoglu:2007bx,Pitrou:2008gk} and study the effect of considering new vacuum states coming from decompactification. We leave these considerations for future research.\\ \section{Acknowledgements} It is a pleasure to thank Jaume Garriga, Manuel Valle and Kepa Sousa for interesting discussions. We also want to give special thanks to Mike Salem for collaboration in the early stages of this work and his invaluable guidance with the details of the calculation. J.J. B.-P. would also like to acknowledge the hospitality of the Tufts Institute of Cosmology and the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics where part of this work was conducted. M. M. wishes to thank the University of the Basque Country for their hospitality. This work is supported in part by IKERBASQUE, the Basque Foundation for Science and the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology under Grant FPA2012-34456 (J.J. B.-P), the Yukawa Fellowship, the Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) of JSPS Research under Contract No. 24740162 and the FCT-Portugal through Grant No. SFRH/BPD/88299/2012 (M.M.).
\section{Introduction} Despite its almost 40 years-long life since the original idea was published \cite{AbramsonALOHA}, Aloha and its successive evolutions such as Slotted Aloha (SA) \cite{RobertsALOHA} and Diversity Slotted Aloha (DSA) \cite{DiversityALOHA} have been always used in many random access application scenarios (such as initial terminal login in satellite communications), especially in case of long propagation delay and directive transmissions that do not allow carrier sensing and collision avoidance as for example in 802.11 DCF. Basically all Aloha-based techniques have in common the capability to allow transmissions from a number of terminals in a multi-access channel without the need of coordination among them, even though this means that the possibility of collision between two or more different packets is present. Recently, these techniques and in particular synchronous access schemes (i.e. those in which the channel is divided into slots) have received new interest in light of a breakthrough idea that consists in introducing Interference Cancellation (IC) in DSA schemes. Differently from SA in which packets are sent just once (or once per communication feedback in case of a system using retransmissions), in DSA multiple burst copies are sent for the same packet. It has been demonstrated that the diversity created by multiple transmissions is beneficial in case of small channel load while achieves worse results from moderate channel loads on. The idea behind the use of IC in DSA is to further exploit the advantage of sending multiple copies by trying to restore also the content of colliding packets. This new access scheme is known as Contention Resolution Diversity Slotted Aloha (CRDSA) \cite{CRDSA1} and works as follows. In CRDSA, terminals transmit packets in a given frame (composed of a certain number of slots) by placing two packet's burst copies in two randomly chosen slot locations. Each burst copy contains a pointer identifying the slot position of its twin. At the receiver, if at least one burst copy of a given packet can be correctly decoded, its signal content is removed from all other involved slots thanks to IC. By iteratively repeating this procedure, it is possible to restore the content of those packets that had all their burst copies interfering, if at least one burst copy interfered with bursts belonging to correctly decoded packets that are thus eligible for IC. As a result, while original SA technique reaches a peak throughput $T\simeq 0.37 [pkt/slot]$, CRDSA boosts the performance up to $T\simeq 0.55 [pkt/slot]$. Further studies have regarded the optimization of the number of copies per packet (namely burst degree) to be sent. In particular \cite{CRDSA2} and \cite{CRDSA3} deal with the use of more than two copies per packet, demonstrating by means of simulation that the results can be beneficial in terms of maximum achievable throughput and/or in terms of Packet Loss Ratio depending on the chosen burst degree. For example, the use of 3 copies per packet yields to a throughput peak $T\simeq 0.68 [pkt/slot]$ while using 5 copies can lower the Packet Loss Ratio down to $PLR=1\cdot 10^{-6}$ for load values up to $G=0.6 [pkt/slot]$. Afterwards, the same idea has been extended to the case of Irregular Burst Degree, known as Irregular Repetition Slotted Aloha (IRSA)\cite{IRSA1} and renamed in the DVB-RCS2 Lower Layer Satellite Specification \cite{RCS2} as Variable Rate - Contention Resolution Diversity Slotted Aloha (VR-CRDSA). In this case the number of copies per each packet is chosen accordingly to a given burst degree probability distribution that is optimized via differential evolution, allowing to reach throughput values up to $T\simeq 0.8 [pkt/slot]$ in practical implementations. Last but not least, as with the birth of Slotted Aloha techniques a certain interest on the related stability in case of retransmissions came out \cite{STAB1} \cite{STAB2}, also the birth of CRDSA has given place to some works that analyze its stability in case of retransmissions and compare its performance with the one for SA \cite{CRDSA_stab1} \cite{CRDSA_stab3}. CRDSA has currently been introduced as option for Random Access communication in DVB-RCS2 \cite{RCS2} and its use has been discussed in a quasi-real-time satellite mobile messaging systems \cite{CRDSA2}. In a recent paper the same concept behind CRDSA has been applied to Pure Aloha giving birth to a technique called Contention Resolution Aloha (CRA) \cite{CRA}. For this reason, in this paper the analysis in terms of stability that has been carried out for CRDSA is extended to the case of asynchronous RA schemes. This analysis uses the same tools adopted for synchronous access schemes, with the necessary modifications needed in order to take into account the differences between the two techniques. The paper is organized as follows. In Section II an overview of the considered asynchronous access scheme is given. Section III presents the definition of stability as well as the model used for the measure of the stability when using retransmissions. Section IV deals with a model for the computation of the delay associated to received packets. Finally, in Section V a comparison both in terms of stability and in terms of delay is carried out between CRDSA, CRA and pure ALOHA. Section VI concludes the paper. \section{System Overview}\label{SO} The scenario considered in this paper is a multi-access channel for satellite communications, in which a certain number of terminals communicate to a gateway (e.g. a ground station) via satellite. Differently from synchronous access schemes, in this case the channel is divided into frames but each frame is not subdivided into slots. When a terminal has a packet to transmit, it waits for the beginning of the next available frame in order to place $d$ copies of that packet. Let us call $t_0$ the beginning of a frame, $T_F$ the frame duration and $\tau$ a generic burst duration. The $d$ copies of a packet are placed with starting time within the interval [$t_0$;$t_0+T_F-\tau$], with uniformly distributed probability and so that burst copies belonging to the same packet are not overlapping. \begin{figure}[h!] \centering \includegraphics [width=1 \columnwidth] {CRA} \caption{\small{Example of a generic frame at the receiver for CRA. In light color (green) portions of the burst not overlapping. In dark color (blue) portions of the burst overlapping with other bursts}} \label{CRA} \end{figure} At the receiver, each frame contains a certain number of bursts as depicted in Figure~\ref{CRA}. Any burst will have or not a certain degree of interference due to transmission time overlap with other bursts. Notice that differently from CRDSA, in which interference can only occur for the whole burst, in this case also partial interference can occur. In \cite{CRA} two cases are analyzed: the first case assumes that any overlap results in entire loss of the packet's burst; the second case considers the application of a strong FEC able to allow decoding if the amount of interference is limited. In any case, similarly to what happens in CRDSA, an iterative IC process is started at the receiver in order to remove bursts belonging to correctly decoded packets thanks to the knowledge of their location within the frame from the correctly decoded burst. Consider the assumption of ideal channel estimation and perfect Interference Cancellation. In the first case (i.e. where no FEC is used), at each iteration packet bursts are attempted to be decoded only if the burst is not overlapping with other bursts. In Figure~\ref{CRA}, $Packet\ 1$ has a copy that did not interfere during transmission, therefore it can be decoded and the interference of the other burst copy can be removed in order to recover the content of $Packet\ 2$. In the second case in which a strong FEC is applied, not only bursts without interference, but also those satisfying a certain threshold in terms of amount of interference power are decoded. Let us define as in the original CRA paper \cite{CRA} the rate $R=R_C\cdot log_2M$ where $R_C$ is the coding rate and $M$ the modulation index. Moreover the normalized MAC channel load is defined as $G=\frac{N_{tx}\cdot \tau}{T_F}$ with $N_{tx}$ indicating the number of transmitted packets, while $T(G)=G [1-PLR(G)]$ represents the throughput in terms of portion of load successfully decoded. Notice that PLR (i.e. the Packet Loss Ratio) depends on the frame size $T_F$, the burst degree distribution (defined from \cite{IRSA1} as the probability of having a certain number of copies per packet through the following polynomial $\Lambda(x) = \sum_d \Lambda_d x^d$, where $\Lambda_d$ is the probability that a given packet will have burst degree $d$), the rate $R$, the maximum number of iterations for the decoding process $I_{max}$ and the $SNIR$. In \cite{CRA} the decoding threshold has been approximated with the Shannon bound. As claimed by the authors, even though this threshold is quite optimistic, it can be considered valid for moderate to high SNIR with properly designed schemes and represent the ground base for the study of the performance with real codes. Setting $C=R=log_2(1+SNIR)$, the decoding threshold is $SNIR_{dec,dB}=10\cdot log_{10}(2^R-1)$. In order for a burst to be decoded, its $SNIR$ must be at least equal to $SNIR_{dec}$. The $SNIR$ of each burst can be computed as \begin{figure}[t!] \centering \includegraphics [width=0.95 \columnwidth] {THRP_OP} \caption{\small{Open loop throughput results}} \label{thrpop} \end{figure} \begin{equation} SNIR=\frac{P}{x\cdot P+N}=\frac{SNR}{x\cdot SNR+1} \end{equation} where $x$ represents the degree of interference for a certain burst as a sum over all interference contributions expressed with a value between $0$ and $1$. For example, in case of no interference $x=0$, in case of $50\%$ overlapping with another burst $x=0.5$ and in case of $50\%$ interference with $n$ other bursts, $x=0.5\cdot n$. In Figure~\ref{thrpop} results for an open loop scenario (i.e. without retransmission of lost contents) are illustrated for ALOHA and the representative case of CRA with $\Lambda(x)=x^2$. The parameter values chosen for simulations are the same that will be used throughout the paper: $T_F=100\ ms$, $\tau=1\ ms$ for every packet, $M=4$ (QPSK), $R_C=1/2$, $I_{max}=50$ and a number of simulation rounds per channel load point equal to $10^4$. \section{Stability} Assume the case in which CRA has been chosen as random access scheme and a certain number of users $N_u$ (either finite or infinite) participate in the described scenario. We assume each user to be in one of two possible states: Thinking (T) or Backlogged (B). \begin{figure}[th!] \centering \includegraphics [width=0.95 \columnwidth] {user_state} \caption{\small{Markov Chain for user state}} \label{user_state} \end{figure} Users in $T$ state send a packet at the beginning of the next frame with probability $p_0$. Assuming that users are acknowledged about the outcome of the transmission at the end of the frame in which they transmitted, if the packet is correctly decoded the user stays in $T$ state. Therefore the probability of staying in Thinking state is equal to the probability that a user does not send any packet plus the probability that a user sends a packet that is correctly received at the first attempt. On the other hand, if a user is unsuccessful in its first attempt, it switches to backlogged state. In B state, a user attempts retransmission with probability $p_r$. In case the retransmission ends up successfully the user comes back to Thinking state at the end of the frame in which it retransmitted its packet while in case of no retransmission or unsuccessful retransmission, it stays in $B$ state. Let us define $N_B^j$ as the number of backlogged packets at the end of frame $j$ and $N_{TOT}$ as the total number of users, so that \begin{equation} G_B^j=\frac{N_B^{(j-1)}\cdot \tau\cdot p_r}{T_F} \end{equation} is the expected channel load in frame $j$ due to retransmissions and \begin{equation}\label{CHL} G_T^j=\frac{(N_{TOT}-N_B^{(j-1)})\cdot \tau\cdot p_0}{T_F} \end{equation} is the expected channel load of frame $j$ due to new transmissions. Finally $G^j=G_T^j+G_B^j$ is the expected total channel load of frame $j$. The aim of the definitions above is to find the \textit{equilibrium contour} in a plane having as axis the number of backlogged users and the channel load due to new transmissions. As a matter of fact, \textit{equilibrium contour} is defined as the locus of points for which the expected channel load due to new transmissions is equal to the expected throughput, so that the communication can be considered as stable and the total expected channel load $G^j$ is equal frame after frame. The expected number of new transmissions at the equilibrium can be defined as \begin{equation}\label{gt} G_T=T(G)=G\ [1-PLR(G)] \end{equation} In stability conditions, also the number of backlogged users remains the same frame after frame. Therefore \begin{equation}\label{nb1} N_B=N_B (1-p_r) + \frac{G\cdot T_F}{\tau} PLR(G) \end{equation} from which \begin{equation}\label{nb2} N_B=\frac{G\cdot PLR(G)\cdot T_F}{\tau\cdot p_r} \end{equation} Equations \eqref{gt} and \eqref{nb2} describe the \textit{equilibrium contour}. This contour, together with the expected channel load due to new transmissions in Equation~\ref{CHL} (known as channel load line) gives a model for the computation of the stability. \begin{figure}[tbh!] \subfloat [Stable channel] {\label{stable} \includegraphics [ scale = 0.22 ]{st_CRA} \label{st} } \qquad \subfloat [Unstable channel (finite M)] {\label{unstableFin} \includegraphics [ scale = 0.22 ]{unstFin_CRA} \label{unstFin} } \qquad \subfloat [Unstable channel (infinite M)] {\label{unstableInf} \includegraphics [ scale = 0.22 ]{unstInf_CRA} \label{unstInf} } \qquad \subfloat [Overloaded channel] {\label{overL} \includegraphics [ scale = 0.22 ]{overL_CRA} \label{over} } \qquad \caption{\small{Examples of stable and unstable channels}} \label{All_channels} \end{figure} Consider the examples in Figure~\ref{All_channels}. Each channel load line can intersect the equilibrium contour in one or more points (i.e. for one or more $N_B$ values). These intersections are referred to as equilibrium points since $G_{OUT}=G_T$ holds. The rest of the points of the channel load line belong to one of two sets: those on the left part of the plane with regard to the equilibrium contour represent points for which $G_{OUT}>G_T$, thus situations that yield to decrease of the backlogged population; those on the right part of the plane with regard to the equilibrium contour represent points for which $G_{OUT}<G_T$, thus situations that yield to growth of the backlogged population. Therefore, an intersection point is defined as a \textit{stable equilibrium point} with coordinates ($G_T^S$,$N_B^S$) if it enters the left part of the plane for increasing $N_B$ since for $N_B<N_B^S$ the result is that $G_{OUT}<G_T$ and for $N_B>N_B^S$ we find that $G_{OUT}>G_T$ so that the equilibrium point acts as a sink. With the same reasoning, an intersection point is defined as an \textit{unstable equilibrium point} with coordinates ($G_T^U$,$N_B^U$) if it enters the right part of the plane for increasing $N_B$. In this case it can be proven that as soon as a statistical fluctuation from the equilibrium point occurs, the number of backlogged users $N_B$ diverges from ($G_T^U$,$N_B^U$). As a matter of fact, as explained in \cite{CRDSA_stab1}, the model is based on the expected behavior while in reality the obtained values oscillate around the expected value. In Figure~\ref{st} an example of stable equilibrium point is given. Being this point the only one of intersection it is also a \textit{globally stable equilibrium point} and we consider the related channel as stable since the communication will keep operating indefinitely around that point. On the other hand, if the point of equilibrium is not the only one as in Figure~\ref{unstFin} it takes the name of \textit{locally stable equilibrium point}. In particular the illustrated example shows two locally stable equilibrium points: one for a good throughput value, thus called channel operating point in the sense that is the point in which we want the communication to operate; one for throughput close to zero called channel saturation point since in that state too many users are in backlogged state and thus any packet transmission has hard times in being successful. Consider a scenario in which the communication starts from $N_B=0$. The communication will keep being around the operating point as long as statistical fluctuations are small enough to keep $N_B<N_B^U$. At a certain point however, the instability point will be crossed and in small time the saturation point will be reached. Depending on the communication settings, there is also a certain probability to exit from the state of saturation and come back around the channel operating point. However, this probability is generally small and considered negligible. Figure~\ref{unstInf} represents the same scenario as in Figure~\ref{unstFin} (i.e. the case of unstable channel) but for an infinite number of users. In this case the channel load due to new transmissions is independent on the actual number of backlogged users. Nevertheless the same discussion as for the case with finite number of users is valid and we can assume that the point of saturation is found for $N_B\rightarrow \infty$. Notice that in this case the formula for the channel load used so far is no longer valid. However, if Poisson arrivals with expected value $\lambda$ in terms of new packets to transmit are considered, the channel load line can be expressed as \begin{equation}\label{LL2} G_T=\frac{\lambda \cdot \tau}{T_F} \end{equation} As a matter of fact, for a finite number of users the number of new transmissions is binomially distributed, while for a number of users that goes to infinity we can consider the binomial distribution converging towards the poissonian one. Finally Figure~\ref{over} shows another example of globally stable equilibrium point. However, in this case the intersection point occurs for throughput close to zero. Therefore the point is defined as channel saturation point and the channel is considered overloaded. \section{Packet Delay in stable channels} Assuming a stable channel so that only a globally stable and operating point is present, it is of interest to know the delay associated to successfully transmitted packets. For a generic packet, it is possible to do so using the discrete-time Markov chain in Figure~\ref{user_state}. $T_F$ is assumed to be our discrete time unit. Therefore, the packet delay $D_{pkt}$ can be calculated as the number of frames that elapse from the beginning of the frame in which the packet was transmitted for the first time, till the end of the one in which the packet was correctly received. \begin{equation}\label{FSMeq} Pr\{D_{pkt}=f\} = \begin{cases} 1-PLR\text{\,,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ for } f=1 \\ \\ PLR\ [p_r\ (1-PLR)] \cdot \\ \cdot [1-p_r+PLR\ p_r]^{f-2} \text{\ ,\ for } f>1 \end{cases} \end{equation} Based on Equation~\ref{FSMeq} the expected packet delay can be written as \begin{equation}\label{FSMAvEq} Av[D_{pkt}]=\sum_{f=1}^{\infty} f \cdot Pr\{D_{pkt}=f\} \end{equation} Equation~\ref{FSMAvEq} can also be rewritten in a form that is more practical for our analysis, by means of Little's Theorem. As a matter of fact, in a stable system the average number of users in B state is equal to the average time spent in backlogged state multiplied by the arrival rate of new packets $G_T$ (that we know to be equal to $G_{OUT}$ at the operational point). Therefore \begin{equation}\label{LittleFor} Av[D_{pkt}]=\frac{N_B^O\cdot \tau}{G_{OUT}^O\cdot T_F} \end{equation} where the presence of $T_F / \tau$ in the formula has the aim of normalizing the delay to the frame unit. \section{Comparison of Random Access techniques} Before starting the analysis of the results, it is useful to have a more solid comprehension of the role of three key parameters for the communication: the probability of new transmission $p_0$, the probability of retransmission $p_r$ and the total population $N_{TOT}$. The first two parameters have influence on the channel load line while the retransmission probability influences the shape of the equilibrium contour. In particular, defining a generic line $y=m\cdot x+q$ with $x=G_T$ and $y=N_B$, $p_0$ is inversely proportional to $m$. Therefore, fixing $q$, a decrement of $p_0$ determines a change for the slope of the channel load line that becomes steeper while an increment of $p_0$ has the opposite effect on the slope. $N_{TOT}$ has the same graphical meaning of $q$. In other words, fixing $p_0$ (i.e. the line slope) changing $N_{TOT}$ corresponds to changing the point of intersection with the y-axis since for $G_T=0$, $N_B=N_{TOT}$. Finally, as shown in Figure~\ref{changingPr}, a decrement of the retransmission probability determines a shift upwards of the equilibrium contour. \begin{figure}[tbh!] \subfloat [Changing $p_0$] {\label{changingP0} \includegraphics [ scale = 0.23 ]{changingP0_bic} \label{changingP0} } \subfloat [Changing $M$] {\label{changingM} \includegraphics [ scale = 0.23 ]{changingM_bic} \label{changingM} } \subfloat [Changing $p_r$] {\label{changingPr} \includegraphics [ scale = 0.23 ]{changingPr_bic} \label{changingPr} } \\ \caption{\small{Graphical representation of the result for increments and decrements of $p_0$, $M$ and $p_r$}} \label{All_changes} \end{figure} Figures~\ref{NoFEC}-\ref{10dB} show results for the settings outlined in Section~\ref{SO}. In the same figures, also the results for Slotted Aloha and CRDSA are reported, assuming the same settings and a comparable frame size of $100$ slots, since $\frac{T_F}{\tau}=100$. Notice that the aim of this section is to give a qualitative analysis rather than precise numerical results. In fact, the obtained results are based on the Shannon Bound while in practical implementations a real code must be considered. Therefore a quantitative analysis would be of unnoticeable importance. On the other hand a qualitative analysis is still of big value since it can prove the general validity of the technique and highlight pros and cons with regard to the state of the art. \begin{figure}[th!] \centering \includegraphics [width=1 \columnwidth] {NoFEC_2} \caption{\small{Equilibrium contour for pure ALOHA and CRA when no FEC is used.}} \label{NoFEC} \end{figure} Figure~\ref{NoFEC} shows that even when no FEC is used, CRA can reach higher values of throughput than Pure Aloha, if the communication is designed properly so that the channel is stable. However, throughput results are far from those obtained for CRDSA. In addition, having a stable channel in CRA assumes that the total number of users participating is small enough so that only one point of intersection is present. For example, in the case of CRA with $\Lambda(x)=x^3$, if we want an expected throughput close to the peak (i.e. $T\simeq 0.3$) the total number of users must not be bigger than $N_{TOT}\simeq 60$; on the other hand we can see that for Pure Aloha, almost $400$ users can take part in the communication still ensuring a channel operating point around the throughput peak. If the design constraints require the use of CRA together with a bigger number of users, we know from Figure~\ref{changingPr} that it is possible to decrease the retransmission probability for backlogged users $p_r$. Nevertheless the stability comes at the cost of increased packet delay. This can be qualitatively understood considering that decreasing $p_r$, the peak throughput remains the same while the corresponding number of backlogged users $N_B$ increases. Therefore from Little's theorem an increase in the average packet delay is expected. Finally, it can be seen that without the use of FEC the results of Aloha and CRA are worse than those for SA and CRDSA. As a matter of fact the results for synchronous techniques give place to equilibrium contour with identical shapes but bigger in value of throughput as well as in width of the curve below the peak. \begin{figure}[th!] \centering \includegraphics [width=1 \columnwidth] {2dB_2} \caption{\small{Equilibrium contour for ALOHA and CRA with associated FEC with $R_C=1/2$ and $SNR=2\ dB$}} \label{2dB} \end{figure} Similar considerations can be done in Figure~\ref{2dB} for the case in which FEC is used and the $SNR$ is quite low ($2\ dB$). In fact, concerning asynchronous techniques the same reasoning as for the previous case applies. Moreover, concerning the comparison with synchronous techniques, we can see that SA and CRDSA still outperform asynchronous techniques even though the performance of the two gets closer. \begin{figure}[th!] \centering \includegraphics [width=1 \columnwidth] {10dB_2} \caption{\small{Equilibrium contour for ALOHA and CRA with associated FEC with $R_C=1/2$ and $SNR=10\ dB$.}} \label{10dB} \end{figure} Finally for high SNR ($10\ dB$) as in Figure~\ref{10dB}, asynchronous techniques outperform synchronous ones. In particular, it can be noticed that while for CRDSA the burst degree distribution $\Lambda(x)=x^3$ is always better than $\Lambda(x)=x^2$, in CRA when the SNR is high enough $\Lambda(x)=x^2$ appears to be the best solution. However also in this case Pure Aloha still allows the participation in a stable communication of a higher number of users $N_{TOT}$ with regard to CRA. \section{Conclusions} In this paper a qualitative analysis of the stability in asynchronous Random Access schemes has been presented. In particular, stability results for CRA have been shown using a model based on the equilibrium contour. The obtained results have also been compared to Pure Aloha and CRDSA, showing that under the constraint of channel stability, despite the obtained throughput boost CRA supports a smaller number of users than pure ALOHA and does not appear convenient in low SNR scenarios with respect to synchronous access schemes. As a matter of fact, designing CRA to support a bigger number of users requires a decrement of the retransmission probability that yields to an increase on the average packet delay. Therefore further studies could investigate if this increment of packet delay would still allow asynchronous access schemes to be more efficient than Pure Aloha or not from a packet delay perspective. We want to remark that obtained results for CRA represent an upper bound, since the Shannon Bound has been considered as decoding threshold for received bursts. This is the reason why in this paper the analysis has been accomplished in a qualitative and graphical manner rather than comparing the various techniques and burst degree distributions with numerical strictness. A very recent work proposed in \cite{ECRA} and called ECRA (Enhanced CRA) shows the possibility to outperform CRA in terms of throughput and Packet Error Rate and sets the more realistic Random Coding Bound as decoding threshold. While those results still do not constitute a practical case using a real code, they constitute an interesting step forward towards the case of a real scenario. The presented analysis can be as well extended to this recent evolution and future works should consider these latest findings rather than CRA.
\section{Introduction} \noindent Interacting stochastic agents are modeled by a collection of nonlinearly coupled Markovian stochastic processes. Inspired by the dynamics recently exposed in [Bal\'azs 2014], we focus on pure, right-oriented jump processes. For large and homogeneous swarms, the mean-field description offers a powerful method to characterize the resulting nonlinear global dynamics. Adopting the MF approach, the swarm behavior is summarized into a field density variable obeying a nonlinear master equation. Such partial differential integral equations are in general barely completely solvable. Nevertheless, several explicitly solvable models have been recently studied [Hongler 2014, Bal\'azs 2014]. Our present goal is to enrich this yet available collection by proposing an intrinsically nonlinear extension of the recent models introduced by [Bal\'azs 2014]. Models involving pure jumps complete the solvable models with dynamics driven either by Brownian Motion and or by alternating Markov renewal processes [Hongler 2014]. For strong enough mutual interactions, we explicitly observe the existence of a stationary probability measure propagating like a soliton. This soliton-like dynamics can be formed since the underlying nonlinear mechanism due to interactions exactly compensates the jump induced diffusion. This exhibits a close analogy with nonlinear wave dynamics where nonlinearity compensates the velocity dispersion. Since the model is uni-dimensional, long-range interactions between the agents are mandatory for the existence of cooperative behaviors here described by soliton-like probability measures. Decreasing the strength of the mutual interactions, via a barycentric modulation function similar to the one used in [Bal\'azs 2014], we reach a critical threshold below which no stable cooperative behavior can be sustained. The critical threshold where the behavioral phase transition occurs can here be exactly calculated. \section{Linear pure jump stochastic processes} \noindent Let us first describe the dynamics of a single, isolated jump process which later in section 2, will enter into the composition of our interacting swarm. On $\mathbb{R}$, we consider the right-oriented jump Markovian process $X(t)$ characterized by the (linear) master equation: \begin{equation} \label{BASE/LIN} \partial_{t}P(x,t) = - P(x,t) + \int_{-\infty}^{x} P(y,t) \varphi( x-y) dy, \end{equation} \noindent where $P(x,t)$ with $P(x,0) = f(x)$ stands for the transition probability density. The function $\varphi(x) : \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{+} $ defines the probability density for the (right oriented) lengths of the process jumps. \noindent Taking the $x$-Laplace transform of Eq.(\ref{BASE/LIN}) and taking into account of the convolution structure, we obtain directly: \begin{equation} \label{CONVOLIN} \partial_t \tilde{P}(s, t) = - \left[ 1 - \tilde{\varphi}(s) \right] \tilde{P}(s,t). \end{equation} \noindent which solution reads: \begin{equation} \label{EVOLIN} \tilde{P}(s, t) = e^{- t + \tilde{\varphi}(s) t }, \end{equation} \noindent where in writing Eq.(\ref{EVOLIN}), we already did assume the initial condition: \begin{equation} \label{INIT} P(x,t)\mid _{t=0}= \delta(x). \end{equation} \vspace{1cm} \noindent {\bf Example}. Consider the dynamics obtained when $\varphi(x) = \lambda e^{- \lambda x}$ yielding $\tilde{\varphi}(s) = {\lambda \over \lambda +s}$ and when the initial probability density is $f(x) = \delta(x)$. Accordingly Eq.(\ref{EVOLIN}) reads: \begin{equation} \label{EVOLINK} \tilde{P}(s,t) = e^{- t} \left[e^{ t \left( {\lambda \over \lambda +s }\right)} \right] = e^{- t} \left\{\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} {(\lambda \, t )^{n} \over n!} \left[ {1 \over \lambda +s }\right]^{n}\right\}. \end{equation} \noindent The Laplace inversion of Eq.(\ref{EVOLINK}) yields: \begin{equation} \label{EVOLM} P(x,t) = e^{- t} \left\{\delta(x) + e^{- \lambda x}\underbrace{ \sum_{n=1 }^{\infty} {(\lambda \, t )^{n} \over n!} \, { x^{n-1}\over (n-1)!}}_{:= J(x,t)} \right\}. \end{equation} \noindent For $J(x,t)$, we can write: \begin{equation} \label{SUMJ} J(x,t) = {d \over dx } \left\{ \underbrace{ \sum_{n=1 }^{\infty}{(\lambda t )^{n} \over n!} \, { x^{n} \over n !}}_{\mathbb{I}_{0} \left(2 \sqrt{\lambda \, x\, t} \right)-1}\right\} = {\sqrt{\lambda t} \over \sqrt{x} } \mathbb{I}_1\left(2 \sqrt{\lambda \, x\, t} \right)\end{equation} \noindent where $\mathbb{I}_{m}(z)$ stands for the $m$-modified Bessel's functions. \noindent Hence the final probability density $ P(x,t$) reads: \begin{equation} \label{QPRO} P(x,t) = e^{- t } \left\{ \delta(x) + e^{- \lambda x}{\sqrt{\lambda t} \over \sqrt{x} } \mathbb{I}_1\left(2 \sqrt{\lambda \,x\, t} \right) \right\}, \quad x \in \mathbb{R}^{+} \end{equation} \noindent and one may explicitly verify that one indeed has; $\int_{\mathbb{R}^{+}} P(x,t) dx=1$, (use the entry 6.643(2) in [Gradshteyn 80]). \noindent For time asymptotic regimes, Eq.(\ref{QPRO}) behaves as: \begin{equation} \label{QAS} \lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} P(x,t) \simeq {(\lambda\, t)^{{1 \over 4} }\over 2 \sqrt{\pi} x^{{3 \over 4}}} e^{ -\left[\sqrt{\lambda x} - \sqrt{ t }\right]^{2}}, \end{equation} \noindent exhibiting therefore a diffusive propagating wave with vanishing amplitude and velocity $V:= {1 \over \lambda}$. Due to translation invariance of the dynamics, we note that $P(x- y,t)$ fulfills a $\delta(x-y)$ initial condition. Hence, when $P(x,0) = f(x)$, the linearity of the dynamics Eq.(\ref{BASE/LIN}) enables to write: \begin{equation} \label{ARBOS} \left\{ \begin{array}{l} P_f(x,0) = f(x), \\ \\ P_f(x,t) = \int_{\mathbb{R}^{+}} P( (x-y) ,t) f(y) dy. \end{array} \right. \end{equation} \section{Non-linear Markovian jump processes} \noindent Keeping the jumps probability density as $\varphi(x) = \lambda e^{- \lambda x}$, let us now consider a large homogeneous collection of identical processes evolving like Eq.(\ref{BASE/LIN}) now subject of mutual long-range interactions. The class of interactions we consider yields, in the mean-field limit, the nonlinear master equation: \begin{equation} \label{KOMP1} \left\{ \begin{array}{l} \Omega(x,t) = \int_{x}^{\infty} g\left(z - \langle X(t) \rangle \right) \partial_{z}G(z,t) dz\\ \, \\ \partial_{xt}G(x,t) = -\Omega(x,t) \partial_{x}G(x,t) + \int_{-\infty}^{x} \Omega (y, t) \partial_{y}G(y,t) \lambda e^{-\lambda (x-y)} dy, \\ \, \\ \langle X(t) \rangle = \int_{\mathbb{R}^{+} }y \, \partial_{y}G(y,t) \, dy, \end{array} \right. \end{equation} \noindent where $G(x,t)$ stands for the cumulative distribution of the a nonlinear jump process, (i.e. $G(x,t)$ is monotonously increasing with boundary conditions $G(-\infty,t)=0$ and $G(\infty,t)=1$). Note that while in Eq.(\ref{BASE/LIN}) the jumping rate is unity, in Eq.(\ref{KOMP1}) it is replaced by $\Omega(x,t)>0$ which is explicitly state-dependent. This is precisely where the mutual interaction introduce a strong nonlinearity into the dynamics. In the sequel, we focus on cases where $g(x) = g(-x) >0$. \vspace{0.2cm} \noindent For asymptotic time, we now postulate that Eq.(\ref{KOMP1}) admits $\xi$-functional dependent solutions with $\xi = (x - Vt)$ and with the even symmetry: \begin{equation} \label{AVERAGE} \int_{\mathbb{R}} \xi \partial_{\xi} G(\xi) d\xi =0, \end{equation} \noindent where $V$ is a propagating velocity parameter. In terms of $\xi$, Eq.(\ref{KOMP1}) can be rewritten as: \begin{equation} \label{TRAVELO1} V \left[ \partial^{3}_{\xi\xi \xi} G(\xi) + \lambda \partial^{2}_{\xi\xi } G(\xi) \right] = \partial_{\xi} \left\{\Omega (\xi) \partial_{\xi} G(\xi) \right\}. \end{equation} \noindent Defining ${\cal L} (\xi) := \log \left[\partial_{\xi} G(\xi) \right]$, after one integration step where the integration constant is taken to be zero, Eq.(\ref{TRAVELO1}) can be rewritten as: \begin{equation} \label{TRAVELO2} V \partial^{2}_{\xi\xi} {\cal L} (\xi) = -\lambda V + \int_{\xi}^{\infty} \left[ g(\eta) \partial_{\eta} G(\eta )\right] d \eta. \end{equation} \noindent Assuming now a functional dependence $g(\xi) = \cosh^{-n}( \xi)$ with $n \in \mathbb{R}$, by direct substitution, it is immediate to see that Eq.(\ref{TRAVELO2}) is solved by the (normalized) probability density $\partial_{\xi} G(\xi) $: \begin{equation} \label{ANSATZOS} \left\{ \begin{array}{l} \partial_{\xi} G(\xi) = { \Gamma \left( {m+1 \over 2} \right) \over \sqrt{\pi} \Gamma \left( {m \over 2} \right) } \cosh ^{-m} ( \xi), \qquad m>0, \\ \, \\ m= \lambda = 2-n, \\ \, \\ V = {\Gamma\left( {m+1\over 2} \right) \over \sqrt{\pi} \Gamma \left( {m \over 2} \right) } . \end{array} \right. \end{equation} \noindent Due to the $\xi$-symmetry of the probability density $\partial_{\xi} G(\xi) $, Eq.(\ref{AVERAGE}) is trivially fulfilled. \noindent For $n \in ]2,-\infty]$, Eq.(\ref{ANSATZOS}) implies that a stationary propagating density $\partial_{x}G(x)$ is sustained by the nonlinear dynamics Eq.(\ref{KOMP1}). However, for short decaying $g(x)$-modulation, occurring when $n>2$, no stationary propagating probability density exists, (i.e. for this parameter range, $m<0$ in Eq.(\ref{ANSATZOS}) and the solution cannot be normalized to unity as required for a probability measure). For this exactly solvable dynamics, we also observe that the average jump length $\lambda^{-1}$ and the barycentric modulation strength controlled by the factor $n$ are intimately dependent control parameters. In addition, we note that for large $m$, the asymptotic expansion of the $\Gamma$-function implies that $\lim_{m \rightarrow \infty}V \simeq \sqrt{m}$. \vspace{0.4cm} \noindent {\bf Illustration}. Along the same lines as exposed in [Hongler 2014], the nonlinear dynamics given by Eq.(\ref{KOMP1}) can be viewed as representing the mean-field evolution associated with a large population of stochastic jumping agents subject to a mutual imitation process. The swarm dynamics is described via the probability density function $\partial_xG(x,t)$ obeying a nonlinear partial differential equations (PDE). Agents mutual interactions are responsible for the state-dependent jumping rate $\Omega(x,t)$ in Eq.(\ref{KOMP1}). The functional form of $\Omega(x,t)$ simultaneously englobes two distinct nonlinear features, namely: \begin{itemize} \item[] \item[] a) {\bf imitation process}. To isolate this process, we may consider the case $g(x) \equiv 1$, (i.e. $n=0$) implying that \begin{equation} \label{IMITATION} \Omega(x,t) = 1 - G(x,t). \end{equation} The resulting state-dependent jumping rate Eq.(\ref{IMITATION}) induces a traveling and compacting tendency. As the agents are subject to pure right-oriented jump, Eq.(\ref{IMITATION}) effectively describes situations where the laggard agents jump more frequently than the leaders, (i.e. laggards try to effectively imitate the leaders behavior). \item[] \item[] b) {\bf barycentric range modulation of the mutual interactions}. The modulation obtained when $g(x) \neq 1$ describes the relative importance attributed to interactions with agents remote from the barycenter $ \langle X(t) \rangle $ of the swarm. Here, we may separate two distinct tendencies: \begin{itemize} \item[] \item[] i) when $n \in [0, 2[$, far remote agents tend to not influence the dynamics. In this case, the resulting behavior can be referred as a {\bf weak cooperate identity} and the propagating probability density given by Eq.(\ref{ANSATZOS}) exhibits the shape of {\bf a table-top soliton} with a plateau increasing when the limiting value $2$ is approached. AOn observes a comparatively low propagating velocity $V$ of these table-top like aggregates. Again, we emphasize that for $n>2$, the cooperative interactions are not strong enough to sustain the propagation of a cooperative behavior in asymptotic time. This is well known in general for 1-D stochastic interacting system, (the Ising model being the paradigmatic example) where no cooperative phase can be formed when the interactions operate on too limited ranges. \item[] \item[] ii) for $n < 0$, the $g(x)$ modulation effectively gives rise to a {\bf strong cooperate identity}. Far remote agents increasingly influence the swarm. This gives rise to sharply peaked solitons-like probability densities propagating with high propagating velocities. \end{itemize} \item[] \end{itemize} \noindent \section*{References} \noindent [Bal\'azs 2014]. M. Bal\'azs, M. Z. Mikl\'os and B. T\'oth. {\it "Modeling flocks and prices: Jumping particles with an interactive interaction"}. Ann. Inst. H. Poincar\'e, {\bf50}(2), (2014), 425-454. \vspace{0.2cm} \noindent [Hongler 2014]. M.-O. Hongler, R. Filliger and O. Gallay. {\it "Locas versus nonlocal barycentric interactions in 1D agent dynamics"}. Mathematical Biosciences {\bf 11}(2), April 2014. \vspace{0.2cm} \noindent [Gradshteyn 80]. I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik. {\it Table of Integrals, Series and Products}. Academic press (1980). \end{document}
\section*{Introduction}Nanostructures attached to leads with specific properties display interesting and important quantum effects at low temperatures. Much attention, both from experimentalists \cite{DeFranceschi10} and theorists \cite{Yeyati11}, has been paid in recent years to a quantum dot with well separated energy levels attached to BCS superconductors. In particular, the behavior of the supercurrent (Josephson current) that can flow through the impurity in equilibrium without any external voltage bias between two superconducting leads was in the center of interest \cite{Jarillo06,Jorgensen06,Jorgensen09}. The Josephson current through quantum dots with tangible on-dot Coulomb repulsion can induce a transition signalled by the sign reversal of the supercurrent observed experimentally \cite{vanDam06,Cleuziou06,Jorgensen07,Eichler09,Maurand12}. This so called $0-\pi$ transition is induced by the underlying impurity quantum phase transition (QPT) related to the crossing of lowest many-body eigenstates of the system from a spin-singlet ground state with positive supercurrent ($0$-phase) to a spin-doublet state with negative supercurrent ($\pi$-phase) \cite{Matsuura77}. In single-particle spectral properties this transition is associated with crossing of the Andreev bound states (ABS) at the Fermi energy as has also been experimentally observed \cite{Pillet10,Pillet13}. Continuous vanishing of the ABS energies at the transition is a direct consequence of crossing of many-body eigenstates \cite{Pillet13} and may serve as an important consistency check of proposed theories. The latter cover by now a broad scope of techniques ranging from numerically exact (and computationally expensive) numerical renormalization group (NRG) \cite{Choi04,Oguri04} suitable for zero-temperature and finite-temperature quantum Monte Carlo \cite{Siano04,Luitz10} to (semi)analytical methods based on expansion around the atomic limit \cite{Glazman89,Novotny05,Meng09}, mean-field theory \cite{Rozhkov99,Yoshioka00,Vecino03,Rodero12}, or formalisms specialized on the strongly correlated systems such as slave-particles \cite{Clerk00,Sellier05} and functional renormalization group (fRG) \cite{Karrasch08}. However, despite of the versatility of these approaches, there still remain vast regions of the parameter space with direct experimental relevance ($\Delta\lesssim\Gamma\lesssim U$, see, e.g., Ref.~\cite{Jorgensen07}) where most of the above approaches cannot be applied and one has to resort either to overly heavy numerical methods (NRG or QMC) or to conceptually flawed spin-symmetry-broken mean-field approach. The latter approach is not excessively elaborate and often gives quantitatively acceptable results \cite{Rodero12}, although at the expense of breaking the spin symmetry of exact solution. In particular, spin-polarized mean-field solutions even after the symmetrization described in Ref.~\cite{Rodero12} still exhibit at the transition unphysical discontinuities in the ABS energies \cite{Rodero12} and in finite-temperature supercurrents \cite{Luitz12}. The aim of this paper is to provide a conceptually clean and computationally inexpensive generic formalism for addressing the $0-\pi$ transition in that widespread regime without strong-correlations (i.e., without the Kondo effect). We show that a resummed perturbation theory (PT) incorporating the second-order dynamical corrections to the spin-symmetric mean-field (Hartree-Fock) solution yields at zero temperature a nearly perfect description of the $0$-phase including the position of the phase boundary in a wide parameter range outside of strong correlations. The precision of this solution is unprecedented by any so far employed (semi)analytical methods including fRG. On the other hand, the solution developed from the non-interacting limit breaks down at the phase boundary and any perturbative description of the $\pi$-phase and, consequently, also finite temperatures which mix $0$ and $\pi$ solutions, remains elusive. Although the second-order PT has been applied to this problem previously in Ref.~\cite[Sec.~V]{Vecino03} and, especially, in a (otherwise unpublished) part of Meng's master thesis \cite[Ch.~4]{Meng-master09}, these studies were limited to the particle-hole symmetric case only (in Ref.~\cite{Vecino03} in just two limits $\Delta/\Gamma\ll1$ and $\Delta/\Gamma\gg1$) and did not use crossing of the ABS as the definition of the boundary of the $0$-phase. Instead, they defined the $0-\pi$ transition by equalling the approximated Kondo temperature with the superconducting gap, namely $\Delta = \Gamma/(1 - \partial \Sigma(0)/\partial \omega)$, which however holds only qualitatively. The generic character of the PT method and the proper definition of the $0-\pi$ boundary in the Green-function formalism have thus remained unnoticed. \section*{Results} A single impurity Anderson model is used to simulate the quantum dot with well-separated energy levels connected to the superconducting leads in the experimental setup \cite{Choi04,Siano04,Luitz12,Pillet13}. The Hamiltonian of the system consisting of a single impurity with the level energy $\varepsilon$ and local Coulomb repulsion $U$ attached to two superconductors reads \begin{equation} \mathcal{H}=\varepsilon\sum_{\sigma=\uparrow,\downarrow}d_{\sigma}^{\dagger}d_{\sigma}^{\phantom\dagger}+Ud_{\uparrow}^{\dag}d_{\uparrow}^{\phantom\dagger}d_{\downarrow}^{\dagger}d_{\downarrow}^{\phantom\dagger}+\sum_{s=R,L}(\mathcal{H}_{{\rm lead}}^{s}+\mathcal{H}_{T}^{s})\ , \end{equation} where the BCS Hamiltonian of the leads is \begin{equation} \mathcal{H}_{{\rm lead}}^{s}=\sum_{\mathbf{k}\sigma}\epsilon(\mathbf{k})c_{s\mathbf{k}\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{s \mathbf{k}\sigma}^{\phantom\dagger}-\Delta_{s}\sum_{\mathbf{k}}(e^{i\Phi_{s}}c_{s\mathbf{k}\uparrow}^{\dagger}c_{s\mathbf{-k}\downarrow}^{\dagger}+\textrm{H.c.})\ , \end{equation} with $s=L,R$ denoting the left/right lead, respectively. Finally, the hybridization term between the impurity and the contacts is given by \begin{equation} \mathcal{H}_{T}^{s}=-t_{s}\sum_{\mathbf{k}\sigma}(c_{s\mathbf{k}\sigma}^{\dagger}d_{\sigma}^{\phantom\dagger}+\textrm{H.c.})\ . \end{equation} The individual degrees of freedom of the leads are unimportant for the studied problem and are generally integrated out, leaving us with only the active variables and functions on the impurity. Due to the proximity effect there are locally induced superconducting correlations on the impurity and the most direct way to handle them is via the Nambu spinor representation of the local fermionic operators in which the one-electron impurity (imaginary time/Matsubara) Green function (GF) is a $2\times2$ matrix \begin{equation} \begin{split} \widehat{G}_{\sigma}(\tau-\tau')&\equiv\begin{pmatrix}G_{\sigma}(\tau-\tau')\ , & \mathcal{G}_{-\sigma}(\tau-\tau')\\ \bar{\mathcal{G}}_{\sigma}(\tau-\tau')\ , & \bar{G}_{-\sigma}(\tau-\tau') \end{pmatrix}\\ &=-\begin{pmatrix}\langle\mathbb{T}[d_{\sigma}^{\phantom\dagger}(\tau)d_{\sigma}^{\dag}(\tau')]\rangle\ , & \langle\mathbb{T}[d_{\sigma}^{\phantom\dagger}(\tau)d_{-\sigma}^{\phantom\dagger}(\tau')]\rangle\\[0.3em] \langle\mathbb{T}[d_{-\sigma}^{\dag}(\tau)d_{\sigma}^{\dag}(\tau')]\rangle\ , & \langle\mathbb{T}[d_{-\sigma}^{\dag}(\tau)d_{-\sigma}^{\phantom\dagger}(\tau')]\rangle \end{pmatrix}, \label{eq:GFdef} \end{split} \end{equation} where the bar denotes the hole function. The impurity GF can be exactly found for an impurity without onsite interaction ($U=0$) by method analogous to Appendix A of Ref.~\cite{Novotny05}. When assuming identical left and right superconducting gaps $\Delta_{L}=\Delta_{R}\equiv\Delta$ as well as tunnel couplings $t_{L}=t_{R}\equiv t$ it can be written in terms of Matsubara frequencies $\omega_{n}\equiv(2n+1)\pi/\beta$ as ($e=\hbar=1$ throughout the paper; we also skip the spin index as we only consider spin-symmetric solutions) \begin{equation} \widehat{G}_{0}(i\omega_{n})=\begin{pmatrix}i\omega_{n}[1+s(i\omega_{n})]-\varepsilon\ , & \Delta_{\Phi} s(i\omega_{n})\\[0.3em] \Delta_{\Phi} s(i\omega_{n})\ , & i\omega_{n}[1+ s(i\omega_{n})]+\varepsilon \end{pmatrix}^{-1},\label{eq:D0} \end{equation} where $s(i\omega_{n})=\frac{\Gamma}{\sqrt{\Delta^{2}+\omega_{n}^{2}}}$ is the hybridization self-energy due to the coupling of the impurity to the superconducting leads. We have denoted by $\Gamma=2\pi t^{2}\rho_{0}$ the normal-state tunnel coupling magnitude ($\rho_{0}$ being the normal-state density of states of lead electrons at the Fermi energy) and $\Delta_{\Phi}\equiv\Delta\cos(\Phi/2)$ with $\Phi=\Phi_{L}-\Phi_{R}$ being the difference between the phases of the left and right superconducting leads. The impact of the Coulomb repulsion $U>0$ on the Green function is included in the interaction self-energy matrix $\widehat{\Sigma}(i\omega_{n})\equiv\left(\begin{smallmatrix}\Sigma(i\omega_{n}), & \mathcal{S}(i\omega_{n}) \\ \mathcal{\bar{S}}(i\omega_{n}), & \bar{\Sigma}(i\omega_{n}) \end{smallmatrix}\right)$, so that the full propagator in the spin-symmetric situation is determined by the Dyson equation $\widehat{G}^{-1}(i\omega_{n})=\widehat{G}_{0}^{-1}(i\omega_{n})-\widehat{\Sigma}(i\omega_{n})$. The symmetry relations for the Green function equation~\eqref{eq:GFdef} reformulated in the Matsubara representation as $\bar{G}_{\sigma}(i\omega_{n})=-G_{\sigma}(-i\omega_{n})$ and $\mathcal{\bar{G}}_{\sigma}(i\omega_{n})=\mathcal{G}_{\sigma}(-i\omega_{n})$ imply the same for the self-energies, i.e.~$\bar{\Sigma}_{\sigma}(i\omega_{n})=-\Sigma_{\sigma}(- i\omega_{n})$ and $\bar{S}_{\sigma}(i\omega_{n})=S_{\sigma}(- i\omega_{n})$. Therefore, the Green function explicitly reads \begin{equation} \begin{split} &\widehat{G}(i\omega_{n})=-\frac{1}{D(i\omega_{n})}\times\\ &\begin{pmatrix}i\omega_{n}[1+s(i\omega_{n})]+\varepsilon+\Sigma(-i\omega_{n}), & -\Delta_{\Phi} s(i\omega_{n}) +\mathcal{S}(i\omega_{n})\\[0.3em] -\Delta_{\Phi} s(i\omega_{n})+\mathcal{S}(-i\omega_{n}), & i\omega_{n}[1+ s(i\omega_{n})]-\varepsilon-\Sigma(i\omega_{n}) \end{pmatrix}. \end{split}\label{eq:GF} \end{equation} The negative determinant of the inverse Green function $D(i\omega_{n})\equiv-\det[\widehat{G}^{-1}(i\omega_{n})]=\omega_{n}^{2}\left[1+s(i\omega_{n})\right]^{2}+\left[\varepsilon+\Sigma(i\omega_{n})\right] \left[\varepsilon+\Sigma(-i\omega_{n})\right]+\left[\Delta_{\Phi} s(i\omega_{n})-\mathcal{S}(i\omega_{n})\right] \left[\Delta_{\Phi}s(i\omega_{n})-\mathcal{S}(-i\omega_{n})\right]$ determines via its zeros the existence and positions of the ABS. This determinant is real within the gap and can go through zero $D(\omega_{0})=0$ determining the (real) in-gap energies $\pm\omega_{0}$ of the ABS symmetrically placed around the Fermi energy (center of the gap). The ABS are important for transport of the Cooper pairs through the quantum dot and usually provide the dominant contribution to the dissipation-less Josephson current $J$ through the impurity, which can be evaluated at zero temperature by an integral of the anomalous Green function (see the Methods section) \begin{equation} \begin{split}\frac{J}{4\Delta} & =-\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{d\omega_{n}}{2\pi}\ \Im\left[\mathcal{G}(i\omega_{n}) s(i\omega_{n})e^{-i\frac{\Phi}{2}}\right]\\ & =-\Gamma\sin\frac{\Phi}{2}\left[\frac{\mathrm{Res}(\mathcal{G};-\omega_{0})}{\sqrt{\Delta^{2}-\omega_{0}^{2}}}+\int_{-\infty}^{-\Delta}\frac{d\omega}{\pi}\frac{\Re\mathcal{G}(\omega)}{\sqrt{\omega^{2}-\Delta^{2}}}\right]. \end{split} \label{eq:JC} \end{equation} While the first line uses the thermal representation via Matsubara frequencies the second one is the analytic continuation to the real frequencies (spectral representation) which allows us to distinguish the direct supercurrent through the lower ABS (corresponding to the residue of the anomalous impurity Green function at the negative ABS frequency) from the tunneling current between the continuum band states below the SC gap. \subsection*{Spin-symmetric Hartee-Fock approximation} As the exact expression for this model's self-energy is unknown we resort to the standard Matsubara perturbation theory summing one-particle irreducible diagrams for the self-energy. \begin{figure} \includegraphics[width=0.88\columnwidth]{se_second_order.eps} \caption{Diagrammatic representation of the first two orders of the perturbation expansion in the Coulomb interaction for the normal (top) and anomalous (bottom) parts of the self-energy. The wavy line represents the Coulomb interaction and the lines with single (double) arrow represent the normal (anomalous) propagators according to equation~\eqref{eq:GFdef}. \label{Fig1sup}} \end{figure} The simplest diagrams are the first-order Hartree-Fock contributions represented by the first diagrams on the r.h.s. of equations in Fig.~\ref{Fig1sup}. Their mathematical equivalents read \begin{equation} \label{EQ:HFse} \Sigma^{HF}=\frac{U}{\beta}\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}G(i\omega_n)\quad\mathrm{and}\quad \mathcal{S}^{HF}=\frac{U}{\beta}\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\mathcal{G}(i\omega_n). \end{equation} \begin{figure} \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Fig_PhaseDiagrams.eps} \protect\caption{Phase diagrams in the $\Gamma-U$ (\textbf{a}), $U-\Phi$ (\textbf{b}), and $\Gamma-\epsilon$ (\textbf{c}) parameter planes. We compare the phase boundaries calculated by numerically exact NRG with various analytical approximations: fRG (only in panel \textbf{a}; data taken graphically from Fig.~2 of Ref.~\cite{Karrasch08}), spin-symmetric HF, the second-order PT/dynamical corrections (DC), and generalized atomic limit approximation (GAL) $U^{2}/(1+\Gamma/\Delta){}^{2}=(2\varepsilon+U)^{2}+4\Gamma^{2}\cos^{2}(\Phi/2)$. \label{fig:Phase-diagrams}} \end{figure} The HF approximation leads just to a static, frequency-independent mean-field self-energy neglecting any dynamical correlations caused by particle interaction. Despite of this simplicity and contrary to the common belief, this approximation yields \emph{without any symmetry breaking} the $0-\pi$ quantum phase transition and we thus use it as a convenient and sufficiently simple demonstration of the generic features of the perturbation expansion. The Hartree-Fock approximation consists of two self-consistent non-linear equations that can be reformulated in terms of auxiliary quantities $E_{d}=\varepsilon+U\left\langle d_{\sigma}^{\dagger}d_{\sigma}\right\rangle $ (mean-field energy of the level) and $\delta\equiv\Gamma\cos(\Phi/2)+\Delta_{d}$ (related to the locally induced gap $\Delta_{d}\equiv-U\left\langle d_{\downarrow}d_{\uparrow}\right\rangle $). They read \begin{equation*} E_{d} =\varepsilon+\frac{U}{2}-\frac{U}{\beta}\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}} \frac{E_{d}}{D^{\mathrm{HF}}(i\omega_{n})}\,, \end{equation*} \begin{equation} \delta =\Gamma\cos\frac{\Phi}{2}-\frac{U}{\beta}\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}} \frac{\delta-\Gamma\cos\frac{\Phi}{2}\left(1-\frac{\Delta}{\sqrt{\omega_{n}^{2} +\Delta^{2}}}\right)}{D^{\mathrm{HF}}(i\omega_{n})} \ . \label{eq:HF-self-consistent} \end{equation} Since we are primarily interested in the zero-temperature QPT where the energies of the ABS approach zero $\omega_{0}\to0$, we can approximate the denominators in the integrals by their low-frequency asymptotics $D^{\mathrm{HF}}(i\omega\to0) \approx E_{d}^{2}+\delta^{2}+(1+\Gamma/\Delta)^{2}\omega^{2}$, which implies $\omega_{0}\approx\sqrt{E_{d}^{2}+\delta^{2}}/(1+\Gamma/\Delta)$. Near the quantum critical point we then obtain \begin{equation} \begin{split}E_{d}\left[1+\frac{U}{2\omega_{0}\left(1 + \frac{\Gamma}{\Delta}\right){}^{2}}\right] & =\varepsilon+\frac{U}{2}\,,\\ \delta\left[1+\frac{U}{2\omega_{0}\left(1 +\frac{\Gamma}{\Delta}\right){}^{2}}\right] & =\Gamma\cos\frac{\Phi}{2} \left[1+\frac{U}{\Delta}\mathcal{I}\left(\frac{\Gamma}{\Delta},\Phi\right)\right]\,, \end{split} \end{equation} with the band contribution expressed via the function\\ $\mathcal{I}(x,\Phi)=\int_{0}^{\infty}\tfrac{dt}{2\pi}\tfrac{\cosh^{2}t}{\cosh^{2}(t/2)(x + \cosh t)^{2}+x^{2}\cos^{2}(\Phi/2)\sinh^{2}(t/2)}$. Re-parametrizing \newline $E_{d}=(1+\Gamma/\Delta)\omega_{0}\cos\psi$ and $\delta=(1+\Gamma/\Delta)\omega_{0}\sin\psi$ we arrive at \begin{equation} \begin{split}\left[\frac{U}{2\left(1+\frac{\Gamma}{\Delta}\right)^{2}} +\omega_{0}\right]\cos\psi & =\frac{\varepsilon+\frac{U}{2}}{1+\frac{\Gamma}{\Delta}}\,,\\ \left[\frac{U}{2\left(1+\frac{\Gamma}{\Delta}\right)^{2}}+\omega_{0}\right]\sin\psi & =\frac{\Gamma\cos\frac{\Phi}{2}}{1+\frac{\Gamma}{\Delta}} \left[1+ \frac{U}{\Delta}\mathcal{I}\left(\frac{\Gamma}{\Delta},\Phi\right)\right]\,. \end{split} \label{eq:around-QPT} \end{equation} \begin{figure} \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Fig_SupercurrentV} \protect\caption{Comparing various methods of calculation of one-particle quantities. Panels \textbf{a} and \textbf{b} show supercurrent at half-filling as a function of the phase difference $\Phi$ for $U=4\Delta$ (\textbf{a}) and $U=8\Delta$ (\textbf{b}) calculated by numerically exact NRG, and analytically approximative fRG, spin-symmetric HF and, finally, the second-order PT/dynamical corrections (DC) showing a nearly perfect agreement with NRG (unlike the other two methods). Inset in panel \textbf{a} depicts the ABS energies $\omega_{0}$ as functions of $\Phi$ for the two values of the Coulomb interaction $U$. The green dashed line in panel \textbf{b} represents the HF tunneling current component. In panel \textbf{c} the occupation number $n=\left\langle d_{\sigma}^{\dagger}d_{\sigma}\right\rangle $ and locally induced SC gap $\Delta_{d}\equiv-U\left\langle d_{\downarrow}d_{\uparrow}\right\rangle $ (inset) are plotted as functions of the level energy for two values of the phase difference $\Phi=0$ (with no phase transition) and $\Phi=\pi$ (exhibiting phase transition). fRG data in panels \textbf{a}, \textbf{b} were graphically taken from Fig.~4b of Ref.~\cite{Karrasch08}. \label{fig:one-particle-quantities}} \end{figure} At the QPT characterized by $\omega_{0}=0$ the solubility condition ($\cos^{2}\psi+\sin^{2}\psi=1$) gives us the equation for the HF phase boundary \begin{equation} \left[\frac{U}{2\left(1+\frac{\Gamma}{\Delta}\right)}\right]^{2}=\left[\varepsilon +\frac{U}{2}\right]^{2}+\Gamma^{2}\cos^{2}\frac{\Phi}{2} \left[1+\frac{U}{\Delta}\mathcal{I} \left(\frac{\Gamma}{\Delta},\Phi\right)\right]^{2} \label{eq:phase-boundary} \end{equation} that generalizes the corresponding well-known expression in the atomic limit $\Delta\to\infty$ \cite{Bauer07,Karrasch08}. This HF phase boundary plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:Phase-diagrams} is not particularly precise, however, it yields qualitatively reasonable results. Moreover, we have noticed that when the band contribution $\mathcal{I}$ in equation~\eqref{eq:phase-boundary} is omitted one gets a surprisingly good and extremely simple approximation for the boundary, that we call here the \emph{generalized atomic limit} (GAL), lying for half-filling ($\epsilon=-U/2$) typically very close to the numerically exact results by NRG, see Fig.~\ref{fig:Phase-diagrams}a-b. Obviously, the HF approximation heavily overestimates the contribution from the band continuum. Eqs.~\eqref{eq:around-QPT} may be used also around the QPT, when $\omega_{0}$ is small (and unknown). We can see that $\omega_{0}$ is positive on one side of the boundary while it is negative on the other side. Since $ \omega_{0}>0$ by construction, we must conclude that the solution with negative $\omega_{0}$, that we identify with the $\pi$-phase region, is unphysical. We cannot go beyond the phase boundary from the $0$-phase to the $\pi$-phase within this perturbative approach based on the assumption of a nondegenerate ground state. \subsection*{Dynamical corrections} The qualitative predictions of the HF approximation can be significantly improved by including dynamical corrections into the self-energy, which come from the second order of the perturbation expansion represented by the second and third diagrams on the r.h.s. of equations in Fig.~\ref{Fig1sup}. The two diagrams originate in two different types of intermediate propagation consisting of either normal or anomalous propagator. The mathematical equivalents for the second-order contributions read \begin{align} \Sigma^{(2)}(i\omega_n)&=-\frac{U^2}{\beta}\sum_{m\in\mathbb{Z}} G(i\omega_n+i\nu_m)\chi(i\nu_m) \label{EQ:2ndse1}\\ \intertext{and} \mathcal{S}^{(2)}(i\omega_n)&=-\frac{U^2}{\beta}\sum_{m\in\mathbb{Z}} \mathcal{G}(i\omega_n+i\nu_m)\chi(i\nu_m) \end{align} where \begin{gather} \chi(i\nu_m)= \frac{1}{\beta}\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}} \left[G(i\omega_n)G(i\omega_n+i\nu_m) +\mathcal{G}(i\omega_n)\mathcal{G}(i\omega_n+i\nu_m)\right]\label{EQ:2ndse3} \end{gather} is the two-particle bubble consisting of the normal and anomalous parts and $\nu_m=2\pi m/\beta$ is the $m$-th bosonic Matsubara frequency. These first two orders of the perturbation expansion are well controllable on the one-particle level. The higher contributions to the self-energy become more complex and their classification more complicated. For a general discussion of this problem see Ref.~\cite{Janis14}. The second order self-energy correction together with the first-order (in $U$) HF counterparts are inserted into the equation for the Green function, equation~\eqref{eq:GF}. We obtain a self-consistent nonlinear functional equation for the whole Green function as a function of frequency. This equation is solved numerically at zero temperature. We noticed, however, that nearly identical results are obtained by computationally less elaborate method which evaluates the dynamical self-energies by using just a fully converged HF solution as the input GF. The convolutions in the second-order self-energies are thus evaluated just once at the beginning of the procedure and consequently used as fixed inputs into the self-consistent procedure iterating the Green function through the HF self-energy. It should be stressed that while the second-order contribution may be simplified in this way, the full self-consistency loop between the GF and the HF self-energy is mandatory --- any compromises there lead to even qualitatively wrong results. \section*{Discussion} We have carried out the above mentioned procedure both in the Matsubara formalism as well as in the spectral representation (performing the analytic continuation described in Methods) with identical results. We have found that the $0$-phase smoothly develops from the noninteracting limit $U=0$ and terminates at the $0-\pi$ phase boundary beyond which there exists no regular self-consistent solution for the GF. In the spectral representation this is associated with the energy of ABS $\omega_{0}$ reaching zero. The results for the phase boundaries, shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Phase-diagrams}, and one-particle quantities in the $0$-phase in Fig.~\ref{fig:one-particle-quantities} exhibit unprecedented precision of the dynamical corrections approximation which gives numerical results nearly identical to the numerically exact NRG data produced by the ``NRG Ljubljana'' open source code \cite{NRGLjubljana,Zitko09} for all studied parameter sets as well as all physical quantities. Surprisingly, it outperforms in the regime of not-so-weak interaction even the fRG method designed for the strong correlations (see the $U$-axis scale in Fig.~\ref{fig:Phase-diagrams}a). This is likely due to the static-vertex implementation of the fRG in Ref.~\cite{Karrasch08}. The limitations of the static-vertex approximation have been discussed before (see Ref.~\cite{Karrasch-PhD10}, Sec.~9.4.6), nevertheless it is currently the only one technically viable for fRG. On the other hand our dynamical corrections properly include the frequency dependence of the correlation effects (even if just perturbatively) which probably explains their superiority over the fRG in the description of $0$-phase quantities as well as the phase boundary. In this context, we would also like to point out an interesting observation we have made. In Fig.~\ref{fig:one-particle-quantities}b we plot (by the green dashed line) the tunnelling part of the supercurrent (the second term in the lower equation~\eqref{eq:JC}) for the HF solution and see that it coincides in the overlapping range of parameters with the full supercurrent solution of the fRG in the $\pi$-phase. Although plotted for clarity just in Fig.~\ref{fig:one-particle-quantities}b this observation holds for all $J-\Phi$ characteristics taken graphically from Ref.~\cite{Karrasch08}. Since our HF solution breaks down at the phase boundary we cannot extrapolate beyond it, nevertheless there is obviously some subtle correspondence between the spin-symmetric HF solution and the $\pi$-phase solution of the fRG. To conclude, we have presented a systematic perturbative expansion for the $0-\pi$ transition in the superconducting Anderson model and found out that its second order yields at zero temperature excellent results for the phase boundary and quantities in the $0$-phase such as locally induced superconducting gap or supercurrent surpassing any (semi)analytical methods employed to this model so far. Although demonstrated here explicitly just for the symmetric case $\Gamma_{L}=\Gamma_{R}$ for simplicity, the method produces equally good results also in the general case. Moreover, we have also verified numerically that the formalism is gauge-invariant, i.e., physical quantities depend on the phase difference $\Phi_{L}-\Phi_{R}$ only and conserves current, i.e., supercurrents calculated at left/right junctions are identical. Furthermore, the full second-order PT is thermodynamically consistent (unlike, e.g., fRG \cite{Karrasch-PhD10}). The method cannot be, however, continued to the $\pi$-phase without modifications taking into account the degeneracy of the doublet ground state. Moreover, we have observed that the Matsubara formalism at finite temperatures does not detect any sharp phase boundary found at $T=0$. To our best knowledge there is presently no (semi)analytical method that would conceptually correctly and quantitatively reasonably describe the $\pi$-phase. The spin-polarized HF suffers from the discontinuity problems mentioned in the Introduction while the fRG solution returns $\varepsilon$- and $U$-independent quantities in the $\pi$-phase \cite{Karrasch08} apparently closely related with the simplest spin-symmetric Hartree-Fock approximation as discussed above, which is clearly not sufficient. The construction of an analytical theory of the $\pi$-phase thus remains an open challenge for future study. \section*{Methods} The necessary information for the study of the crossing of ABS as well as for obtaining the particular components of total current can not be obtained directly from the expressions in Matsubara frequencies. To access it we analytically continued the expressions to the real-frequency domain. The inverse Green function~\eqref{eq:GFdef} can be represented as \begin{equation} \hat{G}^{-1}(z)= \begin{pmatrix} z[1+s(z)]-\varepsilon-\Sigma(z) & \Delta_\Phi s(z)-\mathcal{S}(z) \\[0.3em] \Delta_\Phi s(z)-\mathcal{S}(-z) & z[1+s(z)]+\varepsilon+\Sigma(-z) \end{pmatrix} \end{equation} where \begin{equation} s(z)=-\frac{i\Gamma}{\zeta}\mathop{\rm sgn}\nolimits(\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits z) \end{equation} is a dynamical renormalization of the impurity energy level due to the hybridization to the superconducting leads. We introduced a renormalized complex energy $\zeta=\xi+i\eta$ related to $z=\omega+iy$ via $\zeta^2=z^2-\Delta^2$. The following convention for complex square root is used: \begin{equation} \xi\eta=\omega y, \qquad \mathop{\rm sgn}\nolimits\xi = \mathop{\rm sgn}\nolimits \omega, \qquad \mathop{\rm sgn}\nolimits\eta = \mathop{\rm sgn}\nolimits y, \end{equation} so that $\zeta=z$ for $\Delta=0$. The renormalized energy $\zeta$ along the real axis is then real outside the energy gap and imaginary within it. Accordingly to this definition the function $s(z)$ is imaginary outside the energy gap and real within it, \begin{equation} \begin{array}{ll} s(\omega\pm i0)=\pm\dfrac{i\Gamma\mathop{\rm sgn}\nolimits(\omega)}{\sqrt{\omega^2-\Delta^2}}\quad & \mathrm{for}\quad|\omega|>\Delta,\\ s(\omega\pm i0)=\dfrac{\Gamma}{\sqrt{\Delta^2-\omega^2}}\quad & \mathrm{for}\quad|\omega|<\Delta. \end{array} \end{equation} This definition allows for a straightforward analytic continuation of the Matsubara Green function to real frequencies. An illustrating example of the normal and anomalous spectral functions is plotted in Fig.~\ref{Fig2}. The Green function has a gap around the Fermi energy from $-\Delta$ to $\Delta$ and two poles at $\pm\omega_0$, $|\omega_0|<\Delta$. The positions of these poles are given by zeroes of the determinant, $\det[\hat{G}^{-1}(\omega_0)]=0$. Since the function $s(\omega)$ has a square-root singularity at gap edges, the gap is fixed and does not depend on interaction strength. \begin{figure}[ht] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{DOS} \caption{Normal ($-\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits G/\pi$, upper panel (a)) and anomalous ($-\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits \mathcal{G}/\pi$, lower panel (b)) spectral density for $U=4\Delta$, $\Gamma=2\Delta$, $\Phi=\pi/2$ and $\varepsilon=-U/2$ (half-filling) calculated using the dynamical corrections from the second-order of the perturbation expansion. The heights of the arrows marking the Andreev bound states represent their residues.\label{Fig2}} \end{center} \end{figure} Calculating the self-energy from diagrammatic expansion calls for the analytic continuation of sums over Matsubara frequencies. The sum of a one-particle function $F$ over fermionic Matsubara frequencies can be rewritten in the spectral representation as \cite{Mahan00} \begin{equation} \begin{split} \frac{1}{\beta}\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}} F(i\omega_n)\rightarrow &-\frac{1}{\pi}\left[\int_{-\infty}^{-\Delta}\!\!+\int_{\Delta}^{\infty}\right] d\omega f(\omega)\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits F(\omega+i0)\\&+\sum_if(\omega_i)\mathop{\rm Res}\nolimits(F,\omega_i), \end{split} \end{equation} where $\omega_i$ are the isolated poles within the gap and $f(\omega)$ is the Fermi-Dirac function. This formula can be used directly to calculate the static Hartree-Fock self-energies~\eqref{EQ:HFse} and the Josephson current~\eqref{eq:JC}. Similar approach can be utilized to calculate the two-particle bubbles and the second-order dynamic corrections,~Eqs.~\eqref{EQ:2ndse1}-\eqref{EQ:2ndse3}. For the sake of simplicity we resort to zero temperature. Choosing a correct contour in the upper complex half-plane we arrive at an expression for the normal part of the bubble, \begin{equation} \begin{split} \chi_n(\omega^+)=&-\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{-\Delta}\mkern-18mu dx\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits G(x^+)\left[G(x+\omega^+)+G(x-\omega^+)\right]\\ &+\mathop{\rm Res}\nolimits(G,-\omega_0)[G(-\omega_0+\omega)+G(-\omega_0-\omega)] \end{split} \end{equation} and analogously for the anomalous part $\chi_a$. We have abbreviated $\omega^+=\omega+i0$. The resulting bubble has an extended gap from $-\Delta-\omega_0$ to $\Delta+\omega_0$. The contributions from the isolated states at $\pm2\omega_0$ from the normal and anomalous parts exactly cancel out each other, so there are no gap states in the full bubble $\chi=\chi_n+\chi_a$. Taking this into consideration we arrive at a formula for the normal self-energy, \begin{equation} \begin{split} \Sigma^{(2)}(\omega^+) & =\frac{U^2}{\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{-\Delta}\mkern-18mu dx\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits G(x^+)\chi(x-\omega^+)\\ &+\frac{U^2}{\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{-\Delta-\omega_0}\mkern-44mu dx\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits \chi(x^+)G(x+\omega^+)\\ &-U^2\mathop{\rm Res}\nolimits(G,-\omega_0)\chi(-\omega_0-\omega) \end{split} \end{equation} and similarly for $\mathcal{S}^{(2)}$. Integrals of this kind can be evaluated numerically using fast Fourier transform algorithms which makes the calculation simple and efficient. \textbf{Acknowledgments} V.J. and V.P. thank D. Shapiro for many fruitful discussions during his stay at the Institute of Physics, AS CR. M.\v{Z}. thanks R.~\v{Z}itko for advice concerning the ``NRG Ljubljana'' code. Research on this problem was supported in part by Grant P204-11-J042 of the Czech Science Foundation.
\section{Introduction} Portraits make up a large percentage of the photos on the web nowadays. ``Selfies'' have become a phenomenon, and recent studies~\cite{facesinstagram} show that images with faces are more popular (+38\% ``likes" on Instagram) than other pictures in online social networks. Portraits are also used in web user profiles, in news articles, to represent celebrities and public figures, and they are an essential part of all kinds of IDs. Given the huge volume of digital portraits, their broad usage, and their importance for people identification, surfacing the best digital portraits in terms of photographic quality is of crucial importance. A system able to automatically score the aesthetic value of portraits could be used to select good images for a variety of applications such as journalism, photo sharing websites, web search, PhotoBoosts, and many others. Shooting photos of people is not a trivial task: human faces convey emotions, stories, lifestyles, and a good photographer needs to be able to capture their essence and personality. As a matter of fact, portrait photography is a stand-alone branch of photography literature, with its own rules and compositional techniques, and tons of dedicated books \cite{child2008studio, hurter2007portrait, weiser1999phototherapy}. Systems that automatically rate the quality of digital portraits should be therefore specifically designed for face photos, unlike traditional visual aesthetics works \cite{datta, ke2006design}, based on general photographic rules . In spite of its importance, there has been little work in the research community to specifically address computational aesthetics of portraits. Preliminary works ~\cite{khan2012evaluating, li2010aesthetic} leave out many of the aspects that are specific to portraits (e.g., illumination, landmark representation, affective properties, etc.), and have experimented only with small datasets (less than 500 images). \begin{figure}[t] \centering \includegraphics[width=\linewidth, natwidth=1362, natheight=921]{fig/Dataset.pdf} \caption{(a) Distribution of images per demographic category and aesthetic scores (b) Characteristics extracted from the portrayed subjects} \label{Facefeatures} \vspace{-0.5cm} \end{figure} In this paper, we try to fill this void and introduce a new framework to automatically evaluate portrait aesthetics\footnote{The aim of this work is to estimate the photographic quality of the \textit{representation} of the person, independent from the beauty of the subject represented. }. To do so, we design visual features to describe image quality and portrait-specific properties and present a large-scale analysis of a data set of over 10,000 portraits. In addition, we build predictive models that are able to determine the aesthetic score of digital portraits. Moreover, with such large scale study, we provide an analysis of what makes a portrait beautiful from a computational perspective. To our knowledge, this represents the first attempt in literature to understand the relevancy of features for portrait aesthetics. Our main contributions can be summarized as follows: \\\textbf{(1) Dataset:} we build a large dataset of portraits annotated with physical characteristics (determined using facial analysis) by sampling the AVA~\cite{murray2012ava} images. \\\textbf{(2) Features:} we introduce new features to describe portrait composition, quality, illumination, memorability, emotions, and originality. \\\textbf{(3) Feature analysis:} we perform analyses on a set of over 10,000 portraits and report observations. We find that race, gender, and age are largely uncorrelated with photographic beauty, but aesthetic score is related to sharpness of facial landmarks, image contrast, exposure, homogeneity, illumination pattern, uniqueness, and originality. \\\textbf{(4) Aesethetic Prediction:} we develop predictive models to classify portraits as aesthetically beautiful or not. In Sec. \ref{related}, we describe related work, and explain our portrait dataset in Sec. \ref{datasets}. Sec. \ref{visual_features} presents the visual features and analyze their relations with portrait beauty in Sec. \ref{analysis}, then present our classification experiments in Sec. \ref{results}. % \section{Related Work}\label{related} Our work relates to research that applies image analysis techniques to detect the visual presence of non-semantic, fuzzy concepts such as memorability~\cite{isola2011}, emotions~\cite{emotions,joshi2011aesthetics}, interestingness~\cite{redi2012interestingness, interesting, gygli2013interestingness}, privacy~\cite{zerr2012privacy}, and beauty~\cite{datta}. In particular, this paper follows previous work on computational aesthetics~\cite{datta,murray2012ava}, that explores the discriminative ability of visual features to automatically assess the beauty of images and videos. Pioneers in this field are~Datta et al. and Ke et al., \cite{datta, ke2006design}, who built an aesthetic classification framework for images based on features inspired by photographic theory. In subsequent years, such works were improved by designing more discriminative features~\cite{nishiyama2011aesthetic, interesting}, proving the effectiveness of generic features~\cite{marchesotti2011assessing, murray2012ava} and building more effective learning frameworks~\cite{wu2011learning}. Similar frameworks were applied to automatic image composition and enhancement by Bhattacharya et al.~\cite{bhattacharya2010framework} While these existing computational aesthetic works build general frameworks for photographs of any semantic category, we focus on a specific type of images, namely portraits, whose compositional and aesthetic criteria constitute a separate subject of study in the photographic literature~\cite{hurter2007portrait, weiser1999phototherapy, child2008studio}, and therefore need a separate computational framework for aesthetic assessment. This aspect is also proven by our experiments: we show that our portrait-specific aesthetic framework performs much better than a general classifier for portrait aesthetic assessment. A few works~\cite{murray2012ava, luo2011content, interesting} perform topic-based aesthetic classification. They build category-specific subsets of images by sampling aesthetic databases according to given image tags (``city", ``nature", but also ``humans" or ``portraits"), and then use general compositional features to build topic-specific models. The framework in this paper differs from those works for two reasons. (1) \textit{We build a rich large-scale portrait aesthetic database}. A dataset based on tag-based sampling as in \cite{murray2012ava, luo2011content, interesting}, could ignore many face images without tags while including images with noisy tags (as shown in Section \ref{datasets}). In this paper, we adopt a \textit{content-aware sampling strategy} based on detailed face analysis. We reduce a large scale aesthetic dataset \cite{murray2012ava} to a subset of more than $10000$ face images annotated with information about the portrayed subject, useful for both analysis and feature extraction. (2) \textit{We build portrait-specific aesthetic visual features}. The works in~\cite{murray2012ava, luo2011content, interesting} use traditional aesthetic features designed for a general case, and apply them to the topic-specific contexts. In our work, we design face-specific aesthetic features inspired by photographic literature, together with non-face features that describe crucial aspects of photographic portraiture, such as illumination, sharpness, manipulation detection, image quality, emotion and memorability. Moreover, we show their combined effectiveness for aesthetic assessment of face photographs compared to traditional aesthetic features. There are a few recent works that attempt to design portrait specific datasets and features. For example, Li et al.\cite{li2010aesthetic} use face expression, face pose and face position features to estimate the aesthetic value of the images in a dataset of $500$ face images annotated by micro-workers. This work was improved by the work in~\cite{xuefeature}, that uses hand-crafted features together with low-level generic features, and by Khan et al.~\cite{khan2012evaluating} using spatial composition rules specifically tailored for portrait photography, together with specific background contrast features and face brightness and size features. These works represent a first attempt towards portrait aesthetic classification. However, one major weak point of such works is that they rely on small datasets (<500 images), thus making the results less generalizable for large datasets like the one we consider. Moreover, despite their focus on face analysis, the features proposed by those works miss many important aspects of portrait photography such as illumination, demographics, face landmark properties, affective dimension, semantics and post-processing. In our work, we use features that are able to capture these aspects, and prove their effectiveness by showing that they outperform the features in \cite{khan2012evaluating} when used in an aesthetic classification framework on the dataset used by Khan et al.~\cite{khan2012evaluating}. Moreover, in this paper, we perform for the first time a deep analysis of the importance of each feature and each group of features for face photo aesthetics, giving interesting and probably unexpected insights about what makes a portrait beautiful. \section{Large Scale Portrait Dataset}\label{datasets} In order to create a large scale corpus of face images annotated with beauty scores, we resort to the largest aesthetic database available in the literature, i.e. the AVA dataset \cite{murray2012ava}, created from the photo challenge website dpchallenge.com, that contains more than $250,000$ images annotated with an aesthetic score, a challenge title, and semantic textual tags. AVA is a unique, rich dataset for visual aesthetics, and therefore a reliable source of data for our purposes. However, AVA images contain very diverse subjects other than faces. Moreover, for analysis and classification purposes, we want to collect not only a reliable subset of portrait images, but also some rich information about the portrayed subject and its representation. With this in mind, we design a \textit{content-aware sampling strategy} on the AVA dataset, based on both metadata-based filtering and face analysis: \\(1) \textbf{Enhanched metadata-based filtering.} First, we select from the AVA database not only the images tagged as ``Portrait'' but also all the images whose challenge title contains the words 'Portrait', 'Portraiture' or 'Portraits'. (e.g. \textit{Portrait Of The Elderly}). A total of 21,719 images are collected at this stage. \\(2) \textbf{Face detection-based filtering.} We use Face+ ~\cite{face++} to filter the images collected after metadata-based filtering. We obtain a subset of 10,141 images for which Face++ detected the presence of one or more faces (in case of multiple faces, we retain the information about the largest one only). \\(3) \textbf{Subject properties.} We compute though Face++ basic information about the subject, such as position, orientation, demographics (race, gender, age), coordinates of facial landmarks (eyes, nose and mouth in relative coordinates), presence of smile, presence of glasses, etc. (for a complete list of features see Table \ref{tab:features}). For each of the resulting images, we assign the average aesthetic score (in a 1-10 range) according to the votes provided by the AVA dataset. Figure \ref{Facefeatures} shows the composition of our dataset, highlighting the distribution, based on gender and other properties estimated by the Face++ detector. About 53\% of the subjects are classified as female, and 1/3 of the image corpus shows subjects between 14 and 26 years of age (Fig. \ref{Facefeatures} (a)). Similar to the AVA dataset, the vast majority of the aesthetic scores lies between 4 and 6, with a peak around the mean, which stands at 5.5. \section{Features for Portrait Aesthetic Assessment}\label{visual_features} \input{tables/features} Visually stunning portrait photographs are often the result of an artistic process that might not strictly follow general rules of composition, or fulfill basic quality requirements. However, photographic portraiture literature \cite{child2008studio, hurter2007portrait, weiser1999phototherapy} suggests that following some specific photographic principles can help making digital portraits more attractive, ensuring visual appeal and expressiveness. Among the various tips for good portraiture available in literature, we identified 5 main photographic dimensions, namely: \\\textbf{Compositional Rules:} arrangement of lines, objects, lights and color, widely used in visual aesthetic literature \cite{datta, luo2011content}. \\\textbf{Scene Semantics:} where has the photo been shot? and which objects co-exist with the subject in the scene? \\\textbf{Portrait-Specific Features:} information about the subject (aspect, soft biometrics, demographics) and its representation (sharpness, illumination, etc.) \\\textbf{Basic Quality Metrics:} principles that ensure the correct perception of the signal, without distorting the scene represented. Rarely used in computational aesthetics, they can be fundamental for high-quality portraiture \cite{hurter2007portrait}. \\\textbf{Fuzzy Properties:} portrait photographic beauty is related to non-objective properties such as emotions or uniqueness, which are unquantifiable with low level features. In this work, we design 5 groups of features that aim at describing various aspects of each of these dimensions using computer vision techniques. \subsection{Compositional Rules} \label{sec:comp} As highlighted in many previous works \cite{datta, pere, bhattacharya2010framework}, the visual attractiveness of a picture is strongly influenced by the arrangement of objects in the image, their lighting, their colors, their perceptibility. Similar compositional rules apply to portraits photography. However, since portraits generally focus on a single subject whose essence needs to be captured in the shot, two compositional aspects need particular consideration: lighting and sharpness. The correct illumination of the scene and the detailed representation of the subject ensures both perceptibility and expressiveness. Given these observations, we design a set of new features that capture essential properties of image lighting and sharpness, and collect a set of existing features for image composition analysis. \vspace{0.5cm} \\\emph{Lighting Features} \\ The lighting setup is crucial to determine the essence of the portrait. In previous works \cite{datta,khan2012evaluating, luo2011content}, scene lighting is described using features based on overall image brightness. However, as proved by our results, the raw brightness channel information might not be enough to capture portrait lighting patterns. We therefore design a new lighting feature to expose \textbf{Lighting Patterns} based on an illumination compensation algorithm originally created for face recognition \cite{gross2003image}. Such method considers an image $I$ as a product $I=R(I)\cdot L(I)$, where $R(I)$ is the 'reflectance' of the image and $L(I)$ is its ``illuminance'" i.e. the perceived lighting distribution. In order to infer the lighting pattern of an image, we proceed as follows. For each image, we calculate $L(I)$ and create an illuminance vector $V(I)$ by averaging its illuminance $L(I)$ over local windows (25x25 subdivision). Applying k-means clustering on the illuminance vectors of a set of training images, we group the illuminance vectors into 5 Lighting Patterns representing the most common lighting setups in our dataset (See Fig.\ref{fig:otherfea}). For a new image $J$, we assign its corresponding lighting pattern by looking at the closest cluster to its illuminance vector $V(J)$, and retain the cluster number as the \textit{Lighting Pattern Feature}. \vspace{0.2cm} \\\emph{ Sharpness Features} \\ The recognizability and sharpness of the subject is a basic requirement for good portraiture. To analyze the amount of sharpness in the image, we design two new features: \\\textbf{Overall Sharpness}: Subject movements or camera defocus can affect the overall image sharpness, introducing disturbing blur in particular image regions. We compute the sharpness of a picture by calculating the strength of the edges after applying horizontal and vertical Sobel masks on the image, according to the Tenengrad method (as explained in \cite{ng2001practical}). \\\textbf{Camera Shake}: sometimes camera movements can create an overall blurriness in the image. In order to estimate this particular type of blur, we compute the ratio between the number of pixels detected to be affected by camera shake and the total number of pixels, according to the camera motion estimation algorithm of Chakrabarti et al. \cite{chakrabarti2010analyzing}. \vspace{0.2cm} \\\emph{Traditional Compoisitional Features}\\ We collect here a set of features from state-of-the art works that model compositional photographic rules using a computational approach. \\\textbf{Color Features.} In order to capture color patterns and their relation with portrait aesthetics, we compute the following features extracted from literature: \textit{Color names} \cite{emotions}, \textit{Hue, Saturation, Brightness (HSV)} \cite{emotions, datta} , the \textit{Pleasure, Arousal, Dominance} metrics \cite{emotions}, the \textit{Itten Color Histograms} \cite{emotions}, and the corresponding \textit{Itten Color Contrasts}: \cite{emotions} Moreover, we compute 2 contrast metrics: \textit{Contrast (Michelson)} \cite{Michel}, and a traditional \textit{Contrast} measure computed as the ratio between the difference of max-min values of the Y channel and the Y average. \\\textbf{Spatial Arrangement Features.} The distribution of textures, lines and object in the image space is an important cue for aesthetic and affective image analysis, as proved in \cite{datta, emotions, pere, interesting}. To analyze spatial layout of objects and shapes in the scene, we compute first two symmetry descriptors, namely \textit{ Symmetry (Edges)}\cite{interesting}, and \textit{Symmetry (HOG)}, for which we retain the difference between the HOG \cite{dalal2005histograms} descriptors from left half of the image, and from the flipped right half. Moreover, we compute 2 new features that describe shapes and their distribution, namely the \textit{Number of Circles}, and the \textit{Rule of Thirds}, that, unlike previous works \cite{datta, bhattacharya2010framework}, determines the rule of thirds by computing the amount of spectral saliency \cite{hou2007saliency} in the 9 quadrants resulting from a 3x3 division of the image. \\\textbf{Texture Features.} Textural features can help analyzing the overall smoothness, order and entropy of the image. We analyze image homogeneity by computing the \textit{GLCM properties} \cite{emotions}, the \textit{Image Order} \cite{redi2012interestingness}, and the \textit{Level of Detail} \cite{emotions}. \subsection{ Semantics and Scene Content} As proved by various works in visual aesthetics \cite{redi2012interestingness, luo2011content, pere}, the content of the scene and the types of objects placed in the picture substantially influence the aesthetic assessment of pictures. In particular, in the portraiture context, it is important to analyze the setting where the photo has been shot, i.e. objects, scenery and overall harmony of subject with the scene. In order to estimate these properties, we compute an adapted version of the \textbf{Object bank features} \cite{li2010object} that retains the maximum probability of a pixel in the image to be part of one of the 208 objects in the Object Bank. \subsection{Basic Quality Metrics} In general, visually appealing portraits are also high-qiuality photographs, i.e. images where the degradation due to image registration or post-processing is not highly perceivable. In order to deeply analyze this dimension, we design some rules to determine the perceived image degradation by looking at simple image metrics, independent of the composition, the content, or its artistic value, namely: \\\textbf{Noise}: we compute the amount of camera noise by applying an image denoising algorithm \cite{buades2005non}, and then computing the distance between the denoised image and the original one. \\\textbf{Contrast Quality}: well-contrasted images, i.e. images where the contrast level allows to distinguish the picture shapes without introducing disturbing over-saturated regions, can be recognized by the uniform distribution of the intensities on the image histogram. We therefore compute the quality of the contrast by negating \footnote{We take the negative of the distance in order to have higher values of this features for higher contrast quality} of the distance between the original image and its contrast-equalized version. \\\textbf{Exposure Quality}: the luminance histogram of an overexposed image is skewed towards the right part, while for an underexposed image it is skewed towards the left side. In order to capture this behavior, we convert the image to the YCbCr space, we compute the skewness of the Y channel histogram over 255 bins. When the skewness is close to zero, the exposure is correct, when below or above zero, the image is under or over exposed. We negate the absolute value of the skewness as exposure balance metric. \\\textbf{JPEG Quality}: when too strong, JPEG compression can cause disturbing effects such as blockiness or block smoothness. We implement the objective quality measure for JPEG images proposed by \cite{wang2002no} and retain the JPEG quality score output by the algorithm. \\\textbf{Image Manipulations}: more and more, digital pictures are post-processed after the shooting using editing tools. In order to understand the amount of post-processing applied on the image, we design 2 new quality metrics, inspired by blind image forensics techniques. First, we design a feature to compute the amount of \textit{Splicing Manipulation}: we retain the output of an SVM classifier trained with Markov Features \cite{pevny2010steganalysis} computed on a training set of images annotated as spliced/not spliced from the CASIA dataset \cite{casia} (85\% accuracy on this set). Next, we build a feature to compute the amount of \textit{Median Filtering Manipulation}, using the algorithm of Yuan et al. \cite{yuan2011blind}. \begin{figure}[t] \centering \includegraphics[width=\linewidth,natwidth=1745,natheight=336]{fig/patterns.pdf} \caption{Illuminance Distribution of the 5 Lightning Patterns} \label{fig:otherfea} \vspace{-0.5cm} \end{figure} \subsection{Portrait-Specific Features}\label{facefeatures} In photographic portraiture, lot of effort should be spent on understanding the subject and its correct representation. Photographic portrait theory \cite{hurter2007portrait} particularly stresses the importance of the focus, sharpness, lighting and position of the face landmarks (eyes,nose,mouth). In order to describe the properties of the subject and its representation, we retain as candidate features all the values extracted automatically by the Face++ api, and we build on top of such values a set of features to deeply describe the face and landmark properties. Overall, the set of Face/Subject features is as follows: \\\textbf{Face++ description:} \textit{Face Position}, namely x, y relative coordinates, plus relative width and height , \textit{Face Orientation}, i.e., yaw, pitch and roll angle of the head, \textit{Demographics } like Race (white, black, asian), Age (in years) and Gender, \textit{Landmark Coordinates}, namely Right/Left Eye, Nose and Mouth position in relative coordinates, \textit{Subject Expression }, that estimates wether the subject is smiling or not, and \textit{Other Face Properties } such as presence of glasses (none, sunglasses, normal glasses). \\ \textbf{Landmark Sharpness} for each landmark, we simply compute its sharpness by averaging the gradient magnitude over the landmark region. \\ \textbf{Landmark Staitstics:} for each landmark, we extract its average Hue and Brightness \\ \textbf{Face/Background Contrasts:} similar to the background contrast feature in \cite{khan2012evaluating}, we analyze here the compositional differences between face region and background region. However, while Khan et al. \cite{khan2012evaluating} simply retain the ratio between face region brightness and image brightness, we perform here a deeper analysis. We consider face ($F$) and background ($B$) as two separate sub-images. We then compute the \textit{Lighting Contrast} as the ratio between the average Lightning (see Sec. \ref{sec:comp}) of F and the average Lightning of B, the F/B \textit{Sharpness Contrast} (Sharpness is computed computed as for the Landmark Properties), and, similarly, the \textit{Brightness Contrast}. \subsection{ Fuzzy Properties} Some artistic traits of photographs cannot be directly captured by low-level features: many times, photographic beauty is related to feelings vehiculated by the image, which not even words can describe. In our work, we try to model some of those 'fuzzy' properties using a computational approach, by re-using existing work on image memorability, originality and affective analysis. \\\textbf{Emotion}, is the emotion aroused by the image positive or negative? We address this question by training an emotion classifier (SVM, 75\% accuracy) with traditional Compositional Features, using as a groundtruth a mixture of 3 affective dataset \cite{dan2011geneva, borth2013large, emotions}. We binarize the annotation in order to reflect the positive/negative trait of the emotion shown. For each image , we retain the emotion score predicted by such classifier as the image emotion feature. \\\textbf{Originality} of the image composition is computed by retaining the output of an originality classifier trained with Compositional Features and the Photo.net database from \cite{datta} (Support Vector Regression (SVR), 4,7\% MSE ). \\\textbf{Memorability} of the image content. We compute this by retaining the output of a memorability classifier trained with the Saliency Moments Features\cite{sm}, and the memorability database of Isola et al. \cite{isola2011} (SVR, 2\% MSE). \\\textbf{Uniqueness}: as in \cite{redi2012interestingness}, we estimate the photo uniqueness as the euclidean distance between the average spectrum of the images in a database and the spectrum of each image. \section{What Makes a Portrait Beautiful?}\label{analysis} Among all the features in Section \ref{visual_features}, which of them is more discriminative to identify beautiful portraits in a computational framework? In this Section we explore the relations between the visual features extracted and portrait aesthetic scores, by first analyzing the importance of each feature group described in Sec \ref{visual_features}, and by then looking at the relevance of each single feature within dimensions defined. \subsection{Feature Groups for Portrait Aesthetics}\label{multicorr} To measure the significance of the five feature sets, we perform regression analysis using LASSO~\cite{tibshirani1996regression} for the different groups of features (i.e. \textit{Compositional Features}). Once the regression parameter vector is learned, we use compute the Spearman correlation between the predicted scores and the original aesthetic scores. This gives us a multidimensional correlation metric that indicates the relevance of feature group for portrait aesthetic assessment. We split the data into 5 random partitions, using one of the partitions as the test set and the rest as training, and learn regression coefficients to predict the aesthetic scores on the test set using the different groups of features. As shown in Fig. \ref{fig:analysis}(b) all the groups of features correlate positively with aesthetic scores. As expected, given the importance face of representation for portraiture, the \textit{Portrait-Specific Features} correlate the most among all the groups of features proposed, with a correlation of $0.330 \pm 0.029$. Despite its rich semantic analysis, and the proved effectiveness for scene analysis \cite{li2010object}, the ObjectBank \textit{Semantic Features}, with its $~190$ feature detectors, are not as predictive, achieving a correlation score of $0.211 \pm 0.022$ in contrast to compositional features which achieve a correlation score of $0.290 \pm 0.029$. In comparison to these large feature sets, smaller sets of features such as \textit{Basic Quality} and \textit{Fuzzy Properties} with $6$ and $4$ dimensions respectively achieve a much lower correlation score for portrait aesthetics assessment as a whole, despite the importance of single features within the groups. In order to calculate the combined predictive power of the whole set of features proposed, we perform similar regression analysis on all features together , i.e. without logical grouping, and look at the behavior of the algorithm as more and more features are taken into account. Figure \ref{fig:analysis}(d) shows a plot of the Spearman correlation of the feature set as a function of the number of features used and chosen by LASSO. Using one single feature (\textit{Right\_Eye\_Sharpness}), the Spearman correlation between predicted aesthetic scores and original aesthetic scores is $0.252 \pm 0.018$. The best correlation score of $0.398 \pm 0.027$ is obtained taking into account all $~300$ features. However, adding more than $60$ features shows diminishing returns. The correlation with $60$ features stand at $0.37$. The smallest mean square error achieved on the test set stands at $0.430 \pm 0.008$. Table~\ref{tab:featuresrank} reports the weight of the features ranked by when they are first picked by LASSO. Also reported are the feature category and weights. Notice how all the feature groups appear in the top-10 features, thus confirming the importance of each dimension we consider for portrait aesthetic evaluation, with a predominance of face features. We can also spot some first insights about the importance of single features: crucial for aesthetic prediction are landmark sharpness (\textit{Right\_Eye} and \textit{Left\_Eye}), the Exposure Quality, and the high discriminative ability of the Fuzzy Properties \textit{Uniqueness}. \begin{table} \scriptsize \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline \textbf{Rank} & \textbf{Feature Name} & \textbf{Feature Group} &\textbf{Weight} \\\hline 1 & Left\_Eye\_Sharpness & Portrait Features & \bf{0.061894} \\ 2 & Right Eye\_Sharpness & Portrait Features & \bf{0.074302} \\ 3 & Exposure\_Balance & Basic Quality & -0.031212 \\ 4 & Uniqueness & Fuzzy Properties & \bf{0.14232} \\ 5 & Smiling & Portrait Features & -0.045702 \\ 6 & Cluster4\_Lighnting & Compositional & 0.017803 \\ 7 & Fence & Semantics & -0.022525 \\ 8 & Hue\_Inner\_Quadrant & Compositional & -0.045009 \\ 9 & Nose\_Hue & Portrait Features & -0.03898 \\ 10 & Flower & Semantics & 0.026438 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Feature ranks based on Lasso regression} \label{tab:featuresrank} \vspace{-1cm} \end{table} \subsection{Single Features for Portrait Aesthetics}\label{singlecorr} To analyze in a more detailed manner which features correlate most with beautiful portraits, we partition the dataset into 5 subsets, as in Sec. \ref{multicorr} and average the Spearman correlation coefficient $\rho$ between the individual features values and the aesthetic scores of each partition. In Figure \ref{fig:analysis} (a), we report the $\rho$ coefficients of the features that show higher correlation with portrait aesthetics. We can notice how face sharpness and lighting are of crucial importance for portrait beauty, as suggested by the Lasso analysis of discriminative features, and by portrait aesthetic literature. 4 out of the top 5 positively-correlated features correspond to the landmark sharpness features. Also, the contrast in sharpness between face and background strongly correlates with portrait beauty ($\rho=0.12$), as well as the \textit{Overall\_Sharpness} metric. As hypothesized, lighting patterns are also fundamental for a good portrait. This is shown by the positive $\rho$ of the face/background lighting contrast feature. Moreover, our analysis shows that there is a relation between image beauty and illumination patterns ( e.g. Clusters 3 has positive $\rho$, while Cluster 4 has negative $\rho$). Overall, our new lighting features show higher relation with beauty than basic brightness features ($\rho=0.054$ for the \textit{Average\_V} features), confirming the need of more complex lighting features for portrait aesthetic evaluation. Similarly, contrast in colors and in gray levels (\textit{GLCM\_Contrast} and \textit{Contrast\_Michelson}) also show positive correlation with aesthetic scores. Moreover, negative $\rho$ values for \textit{Noise} and positive correlation with \textit{GLCM\_Energy} make us conclude that visually appealing portraits should have a homogeneous, smooth composition without disturbing distortions. We can also see that the amount of \textit{Median\_Filtering} is negatively correlated with beauty, showing that too intensive post-processing results in a decrease of the portrait appeal. Surprisingly, \textit{Exposure\_Quality} is negatively correlated with beauty, suggesting that playing with over/under exposure results in more appealing pictures. Moreover, negative $\rho$ for some Color Names indicates that beautiful portraits tend to have little regions colored with non-skin colors such as green, purple, magenta. We can also notice the good outcome of our attempt of modeling fuzzy properties, given that properties such as \textit{Originality} and \textit{Uniqueness} positively correlate with beauty. It was very interesting to notice how physical/demographic properties such as gender, eye color, glasses, age, and race show very low correlation with image beauty, suggesting that any subject, no matter his/her traits, can be part of a stunning picture, if the photographer is able to grasp the subject's essence. By correlating gender properties with other visual features, we could find some side curious insights about portraiture. For example, female pictures tend to be more memorable, as well as brighter and post-processed, while male tend to be represented with darker colors, and smile less than females. \begin{figure*}[t] \centering \includegraphics[width=\linewidth,natwidth=1008,natheight=288 ]{fig/Analysis.pdf} \caption{Analysis of the most relevant features and components for portrait aesthetic prediction (a,b,d). Classification Performances (c).} \label{fig:analysis} \vspace{-0.5cm} \end{figure*} \section{Predicting Portrait Beauty}\label{results} In order to test the effectiveness of our proposed features, and verify the findings of our analysis (see Sec. \ref{analysis}), we perform 2 different classification experiments. First, we perform a small-scale experiment on the dataset provided in \cite{khan2012evaluating}, showing the performances of our method and comparing them with the face-specific framework proposed by \cite{khan2012evaluating}. Then, we design a large-scale classification framework, by looking at the ability of our features to discriminate between beautiful/non-beautiful pictures, using the large-scale dataset we built in Sec. \ref{datasets}. We compare the classification performances of a framework based on our different groups of features with the one of a generic aesthetic classifier, i.e. based on traditional compositional features and trained on images with diverse subjects. \subsection{Small-Scale Experiment} The work that more closely relates to ours is the portrait aesthetic framework from Khan et al. \cite{khan2012evaluating}: they design face-specific features and computes their effectiveness on a publicly available small-scale dataset of 150 pictures. \input{tables/result_small} In order to test the performances of our approach, we compute the visual features in Sec. \ref{visual_features} on the dataset from Khan et al. \cite{khan2012evaluating} and we prove their effectiveness by using the same experimental setup, i.e. binarization of scores based on median, 10-folds cross validation on an SVM classifier in Weka, and average accuracy as evaluation metric. For fair comparison, we first evaluate the classification performances on our portrait-specific features only (see Sec. \ref{facefeatures}), reporting results with and without feature selection in Table \ref{tab:small_experiments}. Our group of portrait features alone outperforms the system in \cite{khan2012evaluating}. Moreover, when we use all the features proposed in this work for the same classification task, we reach even higher classification accuracy, observing a substantial improvement of the performances compared to our baseline (and similar works such as the one from Li et al. \cite{li2010aesthetic}). \subsection{Large-Scale Aesthetic Categorization} We now test the proposed approach for aesthetic classification on a large-scale, using the dataset of Sec. \ref{datasets}. To classify the images as ``Beautiful" and ``Non-beautiful", we use the binaries the average AVA scores it by labeling as positive any image with a score greater than the mean user score ($5.55$). Similar to \cite{murray2012ava}, we learn a SVM classifier using the publicly available libSVM package. For this, the dataset is randomly divided into 5 partitions, as in Sec. \ref{analysis}, and a SVM classifier is learned per partitions. We use RBF kernel where the $\gamma$ parameter is set to $1/n$ where $n$ is the number of features. The cost parameter $C$ is obtained using 10-fold cross-validation. All features are standardized to be zero mean and unit variance. Fig \ref{fig:analysis} (c) shows the average classification accuracy on the test set for each group of features. As we can see, our framework benefits from the combination of diverse features, since the best performance is given by all features combined with early fusion, ($64.24\% \pm 1.76$) . Moreover, as expected by our analysis, we confirm that the classifier based on our rich portrait features outperforms the classifiers based on the other groups of features, suggesting that detailed information of face properties and landmarks is more discriminative for portrait classification than traditional compositional features. Results reported in \cite{murray2012ava, interesting} proved that a classifier trained on non-specific images performs better than a portrait-specific framework. To prove the importance of building a portrait-specific framework, we compare our results with a baseline classifier built with traditional compositional features only (as in Sec. \ref{sec:comp}), and trained on the dataset used in \cite{pere}, namely a database of images belonging to 7 different categories, including ``Portraiture",``Flower", etc. and annotated with the corresponding aesthetic scores from DPchallenge.com (same source as our dataset, same score range). Unlike the findings in \cite{murray2012ava, interesting}, we confirm the hypothesis that portraits need a separate computational framework for aesthetic assessment, showing that all the classifiers based on our proposed features perform better than this baseline (with all features, the improvement is more than 16\%). As in ~\cite{murray2012ava}, we also performed SVM classification by introducing a $\delta$ parameter to discard ambiguous images from the training set (keeping all the images in the test set). The $\delta$ parameter was ranged from $0.1$ to $1.0$, but unlike~\cite{murray2012ava} we did not experience any increase in the classification accuracy. However, the performance with the $\delta = 0.5$ is similar to when $\delta = 0.0$, implying that the ambiguous images do not help for the task of classification and can be discarded to speed up the learning time. \section{Conclusions}\label{conclusions} In this paper, we presented a complete framework for large-scale portrait aesthetic assessment based on visual features. We procured a dataset of digital portraits annotated with aesthetic scores and other information regarding traits/demographics of the subjects in the portraits. We designed a set of discriminative visual features based on portrait photography literature. We analyzed the importance of each feature for portrait beauty, showing that rich facial features play a significant role in guiding the portrait aesthetics, and that the perceived portrait beauty is largely independent of the demographic characteristics of the subject. Finally, we built a classifier that is able to successfully distinguish between beautiful and non-beautiful portraits. In our future work, we plan to broaden our framework by extending our database to include portrait images 'in the wild', exploring portrait aesthetics with a more challenging context.
\section{Introduction} A Higgs-like boson around $126\,$GeV was discovered at the LHC. Although its properties are being measured yet, it complies with the expected behaviour and therefore it is a very compelling candidate to be the Standard Model (SM) Higgs. An obvious question to address is to which extent alternative scenarios of Electroweak Symmetry Breaking (EWSB) can be already discarded or strongly constrained. In particular, what are the implications for strongly-coupled models where the electroweak symmetry is broken dynamically? The existing phenomenological tests have confirmed the $SU(2)_L\otimes SU(2)_R\rightarrow SU(2)_{L+R}$ pattern of symmetry breaking, giving rise to three Goldstone bosons $\pi$ which, in the unitary gauge, become the longitudinal polarizations of the gauge bosons. When the $U(1)_Y$ coupling $g'$ is neglected, the electroweak Goldstone dynamics is described at low energies by the same Lagrangian as the QCD pions, replacing the pion decay constant by the EWSB scale $v=(\sqrt{2}G_F)^{-1/2} = 246\,$GeV~\cite{AB:80,longhitano}. In most strongly-coupled scenarios the symmetry is nonlinearly realized and one expects the appearance of massive resonances generated by the non-perturbative interaction. The dynamics of Goldstones and massive resonance states can be analyzed in a generic way by using an effective Lagrangian, based on symmetry considerations. The theoretical framework is completely analogous to the Resonance Chiral Theory description of QCD at GeV energies~\cite{RChT}. Using these techniques, we have investigated in Ref.~\cite{paper2}, and as an update of Ref.~\cite{paper}, the oblique $S$ and $T$ parameters~\cite{Peskin:92}, characterizing the new physics contributions in the electroweak boson self-energies, within strongly-coupled models that incorporate a light Higgs-like boson. Adopting a dispersive approach and imposing a proper high-energy behaviour, it has been shown there that it is possible to calculate $S$ and $T$ at the next-to-leading order, {\it i.e.} at one-loop. Note that these results do not depend on unnecessary ultraviolet cut-offs. We concluded that there is room for these models, but they are stringently constrained. The vector and axial-vector states should be heavy enough (with masses above the TeV scale), the mass splitting between them is highly preferred to be small and the Higgs-like scalar should have a $WW$ coupling close to the Standard Model one. Previous one-loop analyses can be found in Ref.~\cite{other}. As a continuation~\cite{paper3}, and as a first approach to the determination of the low energy constants of the electroweak effective theory at low energies (without resonances), we do this estimation in the case of the purely Higgsless bosonic Lagrangian (withouth resonances), {\it i.e.} the Longhitano's Lagrangian~\cite{longhitano}. \section{Constraining the Resonance Theory from Phenomenology} We have considered a low-energy effective theory containing the SM gauge bosons coupled to the electroweak Goldstones, one light scalar state $h$ with mass $m_{h} = 126$~GeV and the lightest vector and axial-vector resonance multiplets $V_{\mu\nu}$ and $A_{\mu\nu}$. We have only assumed the SM pattern of EWSB, {\it i.e.} the theory is symmetric under $SU(2)_L\otimes SU(2)_R$ and becomes spontaneously broken to the diagonal subgroup $SU(2)_{L+R}$. $h$ is taken to be singlet under $SU(2)_{L+R}$, while $V_{\mu\nu}$ and $A_{\mu\nu}$ are triplets. The underlying theory is also assumed to preserve parity in this analysis. To build the Lagrangian we have only considered operators with the lowest number of derivatives, as higher-derivative terms are either proportional to the equations of motion or tend to violate the expected short-distance behaviour~\cite{paper2}. In order to determine the oblique $S$ and $T$ parameters one only needs the interactions~\cite{paper2} \begin{equation}\label{eq:Lagrangian} \mathcal{L} \,=\, \frac{v^2}{4}\langle \, u_\mu u^\mu \,\rangle \left( 1 + \frac{2\kappa_W}{v} h\right) + \frac{F_V}{2\sqrt{2}} \langle \, V_{\mu\nu} f^{\mu\nu}_+ \,\rangle + \frac{i G_V}{2\sqrt{2}} \langle \, V_{\mu\nu} [u^\mu , u^\nu] \,\rangle \nonumber + \frac{F_A}{2\sqrt{2}} \langle \, A_{\mu\nu} f^{\mu\nu}_- \,\rangle + \sqrt{2} \lambda_1^{hA} \partial_\mu h \langle \, A^{\mu \nu} u_\nu \,\rangle \,, \phantom{\frac{1}{2}} \end{equation} plus the standard gauge boson and resonance kinetic terms. We have followed the notation of Ref.~\cite{paper2}. The first term in (\ref{eq:Lagrangian}) gives the Goldstone Lagrangian, present in the SM, plus the scalar-Goldstone interactions. For $\kappa_W=1$ one recovers the $h\to\pi\pi$ vertex of the SM. The oblique parameter $S$ receives tree-level contributions from vector and axial-vector exchanges \cite{Peskin:92}, while $T$ is identically zero at lowest-order (LO): \begin{equation} S_{\mathrm{LO}} = 4\pi \left( \frac{F_V^2}{M_V^2}\! -\! \frac{F_A^2}{M_A^2} \right) \,, \qquad\quad T_{\mathrm{LO}}=0 \,. \label{eq:LO} \end{equation} To compute next-to-leading order (NLO) contributions we have used the dispersive representation of $S$ introduced by Peskin and Takeuchi~\cite{Peskin:92}, whose convergence requires a vanishing spectral function at short distances: \begin{equation} S\, =\, \Frac{16 \pi}{g^2\tan\theta_W}\, \displaystyle{\int}_0^\infty \, \Frac{{\rm dt}}{t} \, [\, \rho_S(t)\, - \, \rho_S(t)^{\rm SM} \, ]\, , \label{Sintegral} \end{equation} with $\rho_S(t)\,\,$ the spectral function of the $W^3B$ correlator~\cite{paper2,paper,Peskin:92}. The calculation of $T$ is simplified by noticing that, up to corrections of $\mathcal{O}(m_W^2/M_R^2)$, $T=Z^{(+)}/Z^{(0)}-1$, being $Z^{(+)}$ and $Z^{(0)}$ the wave-function renormalization constants of the charged and neutral Goldstone bosons computed in the Landau gauge~\cite{Barbieri:1992dq}. A further simplification occurs by setting $g$ to zero, which does not break the custodial symmetry, so only the $B$-boson exchange produces an effect in $T$. This approximation captures the lowest order contribution to $T$ in its expansion in powers of $g$ and $g'$. Requiring the $W^3 B$ spectral function $\rho_S(t)$ to vanish at high energies channel by channel leads to a good convergence of the Goldstone self-energies, at least for the cuts we have considered. Then, their difference obeys an unsubtracted dispersion relation, which enables us to compute $T$ through the dispersive integral~\cite{paper2}, \begin{eqnarray} T &=& \Frac{4 \pi}{g'^2 \cos^2\theta_W}\, \displaystyle{\int}_0^\infty \,\Frac{{\rm dt}}{t^2} \, [\, \rho_T(t) \, -\, \rho_T(t)^{\rm SM} \,] \, , \label{Tintegral} \end{eqnarray} with $\rho_T(t)\,\,$ the spectral function of the difference of the neutral and charged Goldstone self-energies. It is quite interesting to remark the main assumptions we have done in our approach: \begin{enumerate} \item Only operators with {\bf at most two derivatives} have been kept in the action. Considering the equations of motion, field redefinitions and the high-energy behavior of form factors, it is possible to justify the absence of higher derivative operators~\cite{paper2}. This procedure works very well in the QCD case~\cite{RChT}. \item Only the {\bf lightest vector and axial-vector resonance} multiplets have been considered. QCD phenomenology supports this ``single-resonance'' approximation, owing to the kinematical suppression of heavier resonance contributions~\cite{RChT}. \item Only contributions to the dispersive relations of (\ref{Sintegral}) and (\ref{Tintegral}) coming from the {\bf lightest two-particle channels without heavy resonances} have been considered, {\it i.e.} two Goldstones or one Goldstone plus one Higgs-like scalar resonance for $S$ and the $B$ boson plus one Goldstone or one Higgs-like scalar resonance for $T$. Note that contributions from higher cuts are kinematically suppressed: the $1/t$ or $1/t^2$ weights in the sum rules (\ref{Sintegral}) and (\ref{Tintegral}) enhance the contribution from the lightest thresholds and suppress channels with heavy states~\cite{L10}. $V\pi$ and $A\pi$ contributions were shown to be suppressed in a previous Higgsless analysis~\cite{paper}. Again, it is known that this procedure gives a very good approximation to the corresponding integrals in the QCD case~\cite{L10}. \item Unlike what happens in QCD, the underlying theory is not known. Therefore, although we have worked at lowest order in $g$ and $g'$, the perturbative {\bf chiral counting} in powers of momenta is not well defined. We only know that loops are suppressed ($\hbar$ counting in the loop expansion) and that it works in QCD in the framework of the $1/N_C$ expansion, with $N_C$ the number of colours. \end{enumerate} Figure~\ref{fig-1} shows the computed one-loop absorptive contributions to $S$ and $T$. \subsection{High-energy constraints} \begin{figure} \includegraphics[scale=0.28]{NLO_graphs2} \includegraphics[scale=0.28]{Tpi_NLO_graphs} \centering \caption{NLO contributions to $S$ (left) and $T$ (right). A dashed (double) line stands for a Goldstone (heavy resonance or Higgs-like scalar) boson and a curved line represents a gauge boson.} \label{fig-1} \end{figure} Fixing $m_{h}=126$~GeV, one has seven undetermined parameters: $M_V$, $M_A$, $F_V$, $F_A$, $\sigma_V\equiv F_VG_V/v^2$, $\sigma_A\equiv F_A \lambda^{hA}_1/(\kappa_W v)$ and $\kappa_W$. This number can be reduced using short-distance information~\cite{paper2}: \begin{enumerate} \item {\bf Vector form factor}. The two-Goldstone matrix element of the vector current defines the vector form factor. Imposing that it vanishes at $s\rightarrow \infty$, one finds~\cite{RChT}: \begin{equation} \sigma_V \,\equiv\, \frac{F_V G_V}{v^2}\,=\,1\,. \label{VFF} \end{equation} \item {\bf Axial form factor}. The scalar-Goldstone matrix element of the axial-vector current defines the axial form factor. Imposing that it vanishes at $s\rightarrow \infty$, one finds~\cite{paper2,L10}: \begin{equation} \sigma_A \equiv \frac{F_A \lambda_1^{hA}}{\kappa_W\, v} \,=\,1\,. \label{AFF} \end{equation} \item {\bf Weinberg Sum Rules (WSRs)}. At leading-order the first and the second Weinberg sum rules~\cite{WSR} imply, respectively, \begin{equation} F_{V}^{2} \, -\, F_{A}^{2}\,= \, v^2 \, , \qquad \qquad F_{V}^{2}\, M_{V}^{2} \, -\, F_{A}^{2}\, M_{A}^{2} \,= \, 0 \, . \label{WSR} \end{equation} Finally, and once (\ref{VFF}) and (\ref{AFF}) have been considered, the second WSR implies at next-to-leading order \begin{equation} \kappa_W \,=\, M_V^2/M_A^2 \,. \label{2WSRIm} \end{equation} Note that a small splitting between the vector and axial-vector resonances would imply $\kappa_W\sim 1$, that is, close to the SM value. \end{enumerate} As a conclusion, we have seven resonance parameters and up to five constraints. Taking into account that the second WSR is questionable in some scenarios, we have also studied the consequence of discarding the second WSR. \subsection{Phenomenology} \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{ST-2WSR} \quad \includegraphics[scale=0.60]{ST-1WSR} \caption{{\bf NLO determinations of $S$ and $T$, imposing the two WSRs (left)}. The approximately vertical curves correspond to constant values of $M_V$, from $1.5$ to $6.0$~TeV at intervals of $0.5$~TeV. The approximately horizontal curves have constant values of $\kappa_W$: $0.00, \, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.00$. The ellipses give the experimentally allowed regions at 68\%, 95\% and 99\% CL. {\bf Scatter plot for the 68\% CL region, in the case when only the first WSR is assumed (right)}. The dark blue and light gray regions correspond, respectively, to $0.2<M_V/M_A<1$ and $0.02<M_V/M_A<0.2$. } \label{fig-2} \end{figure} We have taken the SM reference point at $m_h = 126$ GeV, so the global fit gives the results $S = 0.03\pm 0.10$ and $T=0.05\pm0.12$, with a correlation coefficient of $0.891$~\cite{phenomenology}. \begin{enumerate} \item {\bf LO}. Considering the first and the second WSRs, $S_{\mathrm{LO}}$ becomes~\cite{Peskin:92} \begin{equation} S_{\mathrm{LO}} = \frac{4\pi v^2}{ M_V^{2}} \, \left( 1 + \frac{M_V^2}{M_A^2} \right) \,. \end{equation} Since the WSRs imply $M_A>M_V$, the prediction turns out to be bounded by $4\pi v^2/M_V^{2} < S_{\rm LO} < 8 \pi v^2/M_V^2$~\cite{paper}. If only the first WSR is considered, and assuming $M_A>M_V$, one obtains for $S$ the lower bound~\cite{paper} \begin{equation} S_{\mathrm{LO}} = 4\pi \left\{ \frac{v^2}{M_V^2}+ F_A^2 \left( \frac{1}{M_V^2} - \frac{1}{M_A^2} \right) \right\} > \frac{4\pi v^2}{M_V^2}. \end{equation} The resonance masses need to be heavy enough to comply with the experimental bound, this is, much higher than the Higgs mass. From this point of view it is interesting to note that the Higss mass $m_{h} = 126\,$GeV is light in comparison with those resonances and the EW scale $\Lambda_{EW}= 4\pi v \sim 3\,$TeV. One finds a big gap between the lightest two particle cuts and the next ones (including vector and axial-vector resonances)~\cite{paper2}. As it has been explained previously, one expects therefore the NLO corrections to S to be widely dominated by the $\pi\pi$ and $h\pi$ cuts. \item {\bf NLO with the 1st and the 2nd WSRs.} With (\ref{VFF})-(\ref{2WSRIm}) five of the seven resonance parameters are fixed and $S$ and $T$ are given in terms of $M_V$ and $M_A$ (or $M_V$ and $\kappa_W$)~\cite{paper2}: \begin{eqnarray} S & = & 4 \pi v^2 \left(\frac{1}{M_{V}^2}+\frac{1}{M_{A}^2}\right) + \frac{1}{12\pi} \bigg[ \log\frac{M_V^2}{m_{h}^2} -\frac{11}{6} +\frac{M_V^2}{M_A^2}\log\frac{M_A^2}{M_V^2} - \frac{M_V^4}{M_A^4}\, \bigg(\log\frac{M_A^2}{m_{h}^2}-\frac{11}{6}\bigg) \bigg] \,,\quad \nonumber \\ T&= & \frac{3}{16\pi \cos^2 \theta_W} \bigg[ 1 \!+\! \log \frac{m_{h}^2}{M_V^2} \!-\! \frac{M_V^2}{M_A^2} \!\left( 1 \!+\! \log \frac{m_{h}^2}{M_A^2} \right)\! \bigg] , \label{eq:T} \end{eqnarray} where terms of $\mathcal{O}(m_{h}^2/M_{V,A}^2)$ have been neglected. In Figure~\ref{fig-2} (left) we show the compatibility between the ``experimental'' values and these determinations~\cite{paper2}. The Higgs-like scalar should have a $WW$ coupling very close to the SM one. At 68\% (95\%) CL, one gets $\kappa_W\in [0.97,1]$ ($[0.94,1]$), in nice agreement with LHC evidence, but more restrictive. Moreover, the vector and axial-vector states should be very heavy (and quite degenerate); one finds $M_V> 5$~TeV ($4$~TeV) at 68\% (95\%) CL. \item {\bf NLO with the 1st WSR.} With (\ref{VFF}), (\ref{AFF}) and the first equation of (\ref{WSR}) one can still determine $T$ and obtain a lower bound of $S$ in terms of $M_V$, $M_A$ and $\kappa_W$~\cite{paper2}: \begin{eqnarray} S & \geq & \frac{4 \pi v^2}{M_{V}^2} + \frac{1}{12\pi} \bigg[ \log\frac{M_V^2}{m_{h}^2} -\frac{11}{6} - \kappa_W^2 \bigg(\log\frac{M_A^2}{m_{h}^2}-\frac{17}{6} + \frac{M_A^2}{M_V^2}\!\bigg) \bigg] , \nonumber \\ T&=& \frac{3}{16\pi \cos^2 \theta_W} \bigg[ 1 \!+\! \log \frac{m_{h}^2}{M_V^2} \!-\! \kappa_W^2 \! \left( 1 \!+\! \log \frac{m_{h}^2}{M_A^2} \right)\! \bigg] , \label{eq:Tbis} \end{eqnarray} where $M_V<M_A$ has been assumed and again terms of $\mathcal{O}(m_{h}^2/M_{V,A}^2)$ have been neglected. Figure~\ref{fig-2} (right) gives the allowed 68\% CL region in the space of parameters $M_V$ and $\kappa_W$, varying $M_V/M_A$ between $0.02$ and $1$~\cite{paper2}. Note, however, that values of $\kappa_W$ very different from the SM can only be obtained with a large splitting of the vector and axial-vector masses. In general, there is no solution for $\kappa_W >1.3$. Requiring $0.5<M_V/M_A<1$, leads to $\kappa_W > 0.84$ at 68\% CL, while the allowed vector mass stays above $1.5$~TeV. \end{enumerate} To sum up, the principal conclusions of this analysis have been the following ones~\cite{paper2}: \begin{enumerate} \item Strongly-coupled electroweak models with massive resonance states are still allowed by the current experimental data. In any case, these models are stringently constrained. \item The Higgs-like boson with mass $m_{h}=126$~GeV must have a $WW$ coupling close to the SM one ($\kappa_W=1$). In those scenarios, such as asymptotically-free theories, where the second WSR is satisfied, the $S$ and $T$ constraints force $\kappa_W$ to be in the range $\left [ 0.94, 1\right]$ at 95\% CL, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig-2} (left). From Figure~\ref{fig-2} (right) it follows that larger departures from the SM value can be accommodated when the second WSR does not apply, but one needs to introduce a correspondingly large mass splitting between the vector and axial-vector states. \item The vector and axial-vector states should be heavy enough (above the TeV scale), see Figure~\ref{fig-2}. \item The mass splitting between the vector and axial-vector resonance fields is very small when the second WSR is valid (consider (\ref{2WSRIm}) and the restrictions on $\kappa_W$). \end{enumerate} \section{Constraining the Electroweak Effective Theory from the Resonance Theory} Once we have constrained the Resonance Theory by using short-distance constraints and the phenomenology, we want to use the Resonance Theory to determine the Low Energy Constants (LECs) of the electroweak effective theory at low energies (without resonances)~\cite{paper3}. As we have pointed out above, and as a first approach to this issue, we do this estimation in the case of the purely Higgsless bosonic case (without fermions). This exercise is similar to the estimation of the LECs of Chiral Perturbation Theory by using Resonance Chiral Theory~\cite{RChT}. At {\bf high energies} we consider the Lagrangian (\ref{eq:Lagrangian}), whereas at {\bf low energies} we need to consider ${\cal O}(p^4)$ operators without resonances or fermions~\cite{longhitano}: \begin{eqnarray} \Delta \mathcal{L}_4 & = & \Frac{1}{4} a_1 \langle \, {f}_+^{\mu\nu} {f}_{+\, \mu\nu} - {f}_-^{\mu\nu} {f}_{-\, \mu\nu}\,\rangle +\Frac{i}{2} (a_2-a_3) \langle \, {f}_+^{\mu\nu} [u_\mu, u_\nu] \,\rangle + a_4 \langle \, u_\mu u_\nu\,\rangle \, \langle \, u^\mu u^\nu\,\rangle \nonumber\\ &&\qquad + a_5 \langle \, u_\mu u^\mu\,\rangle^2 + \Frac{1}{2} H_1\langle \, {f}_+^{\mu\nu} {f}_{+\, \mu\nu} + {f}_-^{\mu\nu} {f}_{-\, \mu\nu}\,\rangle \, , \label{eq.L4-Longhitano} \end{eqnarray} where we use the same notation as before and assume that parity is a good symmetry of the bosonic sector. Integrating out the heavy resonances in a similar way as Ref.~\cite{RChT} does in the QCD case, we get the result~\cite{paper3}: \begin{eqnarray} a_1\,=\, - \frac{F_V^2}{4M_V^2} + \frac{F_A^2}{4M_A^2} \,, \qquad (a_2-a_3)\, =\, - \frac{F_VG_V}{2M_V^2} \,, \qquad a_4 \,=\, -a_5 \, =\, \frac{G_V^2}{4M_V^2} \,, \qquad H_1\, =\, - \frac{F_V^2}{8M_V^2} - \frac{F_A^2}{8M_A^2}\, , \label{matching} \end{eqnarray} The use of short-distance constraints is again very important in order to reduce the number of resonance parameters. In this way, (\ref{VFF}) and (\ref{WSR}) allow to determine $F_V$, $F_A$ and $G_V$ in terms of $v$, $M_V$ and $M_A$, so (\ref{matching}) becomes: \begin{eqnarray} a_1\,=\, -\frac{v^2}{4} \left(\frac{1}{M_V^2} + \frac{1}{M_A^2} \right) \,, \qquad (a_2-a_3)\, =\, - \frac{v^2}{2M_V^2} \,, \qquad \nonumber \\ a_4\,=\, -a_5\, =\, \frac{v^2}{4} \left( \frac{1}{M_V^2} - \frac{1}{M_A^2} \right) \,, \qquad H_1\, =\, - \frac{v^2}{8 }\left( \frac{1}{M_V^2} - \frac{1}{M_A^2} + \frac{2}{M_A^2-M_V^2} \right) \, . \label{matching2} \end{eqnarray} The next step is the consideration of operators with fermions and Higgs fields (in progress~\cite{paper3}). In~\cite{paper3} we also study a more general effective Lagrangian invariant under CP (and not under C and P separately), allowing the presence of P-odd operators, not considered in (\ref{eq:Lagrangian}). \begin{theacknowledgments} We wish to thank the organizers of the conference for the pleasant conference. This work has been supported in part by the Spanish Government and the European Commission [FPA2010-17747, FPA2011-23778, FPA2013-44773-P, SEV-2012-0249 (Severo Ochoa Program), CSD2007-00042 (Consolider Project CPAN)], the Generalitat Valenciana [PrometeoII/2013/007] and the Comunidad de Madrid [HEPHACOS S2009/ESP-1473]. \end{theacknowledgments}
\subsection{Model problem and geometric multigrid}\label{sec:ModelProblem} This paper considers, for simiplicity of notation, the Laplace equation with Dirichlet boundary conditions \begin{equation}\label{eq:Poisson} -\Delta u = 0 ~~\mbox{in } \Omega, \qquad u = g ~~ \mbox{on } \partial \Omega \end{equation} as model problem for the design and analysis of a fault recovery algorithm. Here, $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^3$ is a bounded polyhedral domain. \begin{figure}[ht] \centering \includegraphics[width=0.425\textwidth]{hhgRefinement.pdf} \caption{Structured tetrahedral refinement.} \label{fig:refinement} \end{figure} $\Omega$ is triangulated with an unstructured tetrahedral mesh that we denote by $\mathcal{T}_{-2}$. From this initial coarse mesh, a hierarchy of meshes $\mathcal{T} := \{ \mathcal{T}_{l},~l=0, \ldots, L\}$ is constructed by successive uniform refinement as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:refinement}. The discretization of \eqref{eq:Poisson} uses conforming linear finite elements (FE) on $\mathcal{T}_{l}$ that leads canonically to a nested sequence of finite element spaces $V_0 \subset V_1 \subset \ldots \subset V_L \subset H^1(\Omega)$ and a corresponding family of linear systems \begin{equation}\label{eq:PoissonLin} A_l \underline{u}_l = \underline{f}_l; ~ l=0, \ldots ,L. \end{equation} The Dirichlet boundary conditions are included in the linear systems \eqref{eq:PoissonLin}. \commentH{Oder sollen wir $A_l u_l = 0$ schreiben und die BC sind punktweise erfuellt?} This hierarchy will be used to set up an iterative multigrid solver and to define the error recovery strategy. Multigrid methods can achieve level-inde\-pendent convergence rates with optimal complexity $\mathcal{O}(N)$, where $N$ is the number of unknowns, cf. \cite{brandt2011multigrid,hackbusch1985multi}. We apply multigrid correction schemes in V-, \mbox{W-,} or F-cycles with standard components to \eqref{eq:PoissonLin}. Explicitly, we use linear transfer operators and a hybrid variant of a Gauss-Seidel updating scheme as smoother. \subsection{Hierarchical Hybrid Grids} \label{sec:HHG} The Hierarchical Hybrid Grids (HHG) framework \cite{BergenHuelsemann04,GRSWW13,GKSR14} is designed to combine the flexibility of unstructured FE meshes with the performance advantage of structured grids in a block-structured approach. The implementation is based on domain partitioning that splits the mesh into primitives: vertices, edges, faces, and volumes. In the HHG data structure each primitive is then refined regularly resulting in a % global block-structured grid. For our later error recovery strategies, the domain partitioning approach is crucial, but the block-structured mesh structure could be generalized to fully unstructured meshes. The multigrid operations such as smoothing, prolongation, restriction, and residual calculation, are exploited such that they typically operate on the primitive itself and its neighboring primitives via ghost layers. These operations are inherently local and suited for parallel computations on a distributed memory system using message passing with MPI. Here, the primitives are mapped to processors that execute the local operations. The data dependencies require a systematic exchange of the ghost layers. This functionality is provided in a transparent and highly optimized form in the HHG framework. \subsection{Fault Model}\label{sec:FaultModel} We assume that a failure in the solution process for \eqref{eq:PoissonLin} can occur at any time. For our study, we concentrate on a specific fault model under assumptions similar to \cite{cui_error-resilient_2013,Harding14}. We restrict the analysis, for simplicity, to the case that only one process crashes. All strategies can be extended easily to a defect of more processors, since they only rely on the locality of the fault. Furthermore, we concentrate on the case of using V-cycles for the solution of \eqref{eq:PoissonLin}. The input tetrahedral mesh $\mathcal{T}_{-2}$ defines the partitioning used for parallelization in HHG. Each tetrahedron in $\mathcal{T}_{-2}$ is mapped to a processor, including all the refined subdomain meshes contained in the coarsest level element. Consequently, the number of subdomains and the number of processes is equal to the number of tetrahedra in $\mathcal{T}_{-2}$. If a process experiences a fault, the information of the subdomain is lost. In the context of this article, the {\em faulty} subdomain $\Omega_F \subset \Omega$ is just a single tetrahedron in $\mathcal{T}_{-2}$. The other tetrahedra constitute the {\em healthy} subdomain $\Omega_H$, i.e. those tetrahedra that are not affected by the fault. Healthy and faulty regions are separated by an interface $\Gamma_I := \partial \Omega_H \cap \partial \Omega_F$. In the finite element mesh, as implemented in HHG, the interface region $\Gamma_I$ contains the nodes living on faces, edges, and vertices of the input mesh. These data structures are responsible for handling communication in HHG and are thus stored redundantly in the form of ghost instances on several processors. Thus, even if one of the instances is lost due to the fault, a complete recovery is always possible for them, and thus we assume implicitly that the data associated with them are unaffected by the fault. In Fig. \ref{fig:FaultTet}, the setup is illustrated for a computational domain with 16 million unknowns. The domain consists of 48 tetrahedral subdomains that are distributed to 48 processors. Then each subdomain includes 300 000 unknowns and, thus, the failure of a process causes the loss of information for 300 000 unknowns. \begin{figure}[ht] \vspace{-0.3cm} \centering \includegraphics[width=.45\linewidth]{FaultTet.png}\hspace{-1cm} \includegraphics[width=.35\linewidth]{Tet.png} \caption{Fault of one process. Left: Computational domain (here: 16 mil. unknowns) with a faulty (red) subdomain, one input grid tetrahedron (here: 300 000 unknowns). Right: Faulty subdomain.} \label{fig:FaultTet} \end{figure} For our strategy, it is necessary that we can detect erroneous processes quickly and then adapt the solution procedure dynamically. Unfortunately, the current supercomputer systems and the fault tolerant MPI-extensions such as Harness FT-MPI \footnote{http://icl.cs.utk.edu/ftmpi/} or ULFM \footnote{http://fault-tolerance.org/} do not yet support this functionality as ideally needed. \commentH{Lassen wir das jetzt so mit dem FT-MPI?} \commentU{Habs noch mal leicht umformuliert} For the purposes of this study, we suppose a failure is reported as soon as it occurs during a multigrid cycle. When a process crashes, we assign a new - until then not used - substitute process to take over its job. This assumes that a large scale parallel computation is started with a certain number of substitute processors initially being idle -- very much like substitute players in a team sport match. The solution values in the faulty subdomain are set to zero as initial guess. Other initial guesses could also be used, such as data from previous check-pointing or values obtained by interpolation, but this will not be considered here in detail. After the local re-initialization of the problem, we continue with multigrid cycles in the solution process. \begin{figure}[ht] \includegraphics[width = 0.4\textwidth]{Fault6Pic.png}\hspace{1cm} \includegraphics[width = 0.4\textwidth]{Fault6PicPlus1.png} \caption{Cross section through the domain $\Omega$ and the surface of the faulty tetrahedron. Left figure: residual error directly after the failure. Right figure: residual error after one additional global V-cycle. $\alpha := \log_{10}(|Residual|)$.} \label{fig:ResPlot} \end{figure} In a first experiment, we consider the performance of our multigrid iteration when it is continued after a fault has occurred. All numerical experiments are performed within the HHG framework introduced in Subsec. \ref{sec:HHG}. We choose the computational domain $\Omega = (0,1)^3$, and $ g = \sin(\pi (x+\sqrt{2}y)) \sinh(\sqrt{3} \pi z)$ in \eqref{eq:Poisson} with the described setup in Fig. \ref{fig:FaultTet}. In the solution process, we apply V-cycles with three pre- and post-smoothing steps of the Gauss-Seidel smoother of Sec. \ref{sec:ModelProblem}. In Fig. \ref{fig:ResPlot}, the residual is visualized on a cross section through the domain together with the surface of the tetrahedron where the fault had occurred after 5 global iterations. Right after the failure and after re-initialization, the largest residual error is clearly located in this tetrahedron. These large local error components are transported over the whole domain in the course of the following multigrid iterations. Though each application of the smoother transports information only across a few neighboring mesh cells, multigrid employs coarser grids recursively. The smoothing on these grids leads to the global data exchange that is essential for the level-independent convergence of multigrid iterations. Therefore, though the residual is reduced efficiently (in the $L_2$-norm) by such iterations, we observe a pollution of the residual error across the whole domain. This can be seen in Fig.\ \ref{fig:ResPlot} at the right, where the overall residual error has been reduced after the additional V-cycle (note the scaling), but the error now pollutes the whole domain. The numerical behavior is analysed quantitatively in Fig. \ref{fig:ResConv}. After the fault the residual norm jumps from $6.24\cdot10^{-7}$ up to $1.55\cdot10^{-1}$. If a \textit{complete checkpointing-recovery} (CCR) of the lost values could be performed, it would fully restore the residual from before the fault. Note, that this recovery, as marked in the diagram with {\em no fault}, introduces no additional computational effort in comparison to the situation without failure, but writing and reading checkpoint data would be too expensive for large scale computations. However, the failure introduces error components that can be reduced efficiently by the multigrid method as can be seen in the residuals marked with {\em fault}. In the first cycles after the fault, we observe a pre-asymptotic convergence rate that is better than the asymptotic rate for roughly three cycles. This helps significantly to compensate for the fault. The roundoff error limit of approximately $10^{-15}$ is reached after a total of 20 V-cycles, as compared to 16 V-cycles that were necessary in the unperturbed computation. \begin{figure}[ht] \vspace{-0.9cm} \centering \includegraphics[width = 0.6\textwidth]{Fault5.pdf} \vspace{-0.5cm} \caption{Convergence of the residual error scaled by the initial residual with fault after 5 iterations.} \label{fig:ResConv} \end{figure} As expected these effects can be seen more drastically, when the fault occurs at a later step during the iteration process. The situation of a fault after 7 iterations is displayed in Fig. \ref{fig:ResConv7_11} (left) and after 11 iterations in Fig. \ref{fig:ResConv7_11} (right). In those cases, the global residual is already quite small when the fault occurs, and we need 7 and 10 more iterations, respectively, to obtain the rounding error limit of $10^{-15}$. \begin{figure}[ht] \centering \includegraphics[width = 0.98\textwidth]{Fault7_11.pdf} \caption{Convergence of the residual error scaled by the initial residual with fault after 7 iterations (left) and 11 iterations (right).} \label{fig:ResConv7_11} \end{figure} \section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro} \input{introduction} \section{Faulty Solution Process}\label{sec:faultsolprocess} \input{faultsituation} \section{Local Recovery Strategy}\label{sec:localrecovery} \input{localrecoverystrat} \section{Conclusion and Outlook}\label{sec:conclusion} \input{conclusion} \clearpage \bibliographystyle{abbrv}
\section{Introduction} Let $\mathbb F$ denote the field of real or complex numbers and $\mathcal T\in\mathbb F^{I\times J\times K}$ denote a third-order tensor with entries $t_{ijk}$. By definition, $\mathcal T$ is {\em rank-$1$} if it equals the outer product of three nonzero vectors $\mathbf a\in\mathbb F^I$, $\mathbf b\in\mathbb F^J$, and $\mathbf c\in\mathbb F^K$: $\mathcal T=\mathbf a\outerprod\mathbf b\outerprod\mathbf c$, which means that $t_{ijk}=a_ib_jc_k$ for all values of indices. A {\em Polyadic Decomposition} of $\mathcal T$ expresses $\mathcal T$ as a sum of rank-$1$ terms: \begin{equation} \mathcal T=\sum\limits_{r=1}^R\mathbf a_r\outerprod \mathbf b_r\outerprod \mathbf c_r,\qquad \left(\text{or}\ t_{ijk} = \sum\limits_{r=1}^Ra_{ir}b_{jr}c_{kr}\right) \label{eqintro2} \end{equation} where $$ \mathbf a_r = [a_{1r}\,\dots\,a_{Ir}]^T \in \mathbb F^{I},\ \mathbf b_r = [b_{1r}\,\dots\,b_{Jr}]^T \in \mathbb F^{J},\ \mathbf c_r = [c_{1r}\,\dots\,c_{Kr}]^T \in \mathbb F^{K}. $$ If the number $R$ of rank-1 terms in \eqref{eqintro2} is minimal, then \eqref{eqintro2} is called the {\em Canonical Polyadic Decomposition} (CPD) of $\mathcal T$ and $R$ is called the {\em rank }of $\mathcal T$ (denoted by $r_{\mathcal T}$). It is clear that in (\ref{eqintro2}) the rank-1 terms can be arbitrarily permuted and that vectors within the same rank-1 term can be arbitrarily scaled provided the overall rank-1 term remains the same. The CPD of a tensor {\em is unique } when it is only subject to these trivial indeterminacies. We write \eqref{eqintro2} as $\mathcal T=[\mathbf A,\mathbf B,\mathbf C]_R$, where the matrices $\mathbf A :=\left[\begin{matrix}\mathbf a_1&\dots&\mathbf a_R\end{matrix}\right] \in\mathbb F^{I\times R}$, $\mathbf B :=\left[\begin{matrix}\mathbf b_1&\dots&\mathbf b_R\end{matrix}\right]\in\mathbb F^{J\times R}$ and $\mathbf C :=\left[\begin{matrix}\mathbf c_1&\dots&\mathbf c_R\end{matrix}\right]\in\mathbb F^{K\times R}$ are called the {\em first}, {\em second} and {\em third factor matrix} of $\mathcal T$, respectively. It may happen that the CPD of a tensor $\mathcal T$ is not unique but that nevertheless, for any two CPDs $\mathcal T=[\mathbf A,\mathbf B,\mathbf C]_R$ and $\mathcal T=[\bar{\mathbf A},\bar{\mathbf B},\bar{\mathbf C}]_R$, the factor matrices in a certain mode, say the matrices $\mathbf C$ and $\bar{\mathbf C}$, coincide up to column permutation and scaling. We say that {\em the third factor matrix of $\mathcal T$ is unique}. For instance, it is well known that if two or more columns of the third factor matrix of $\mathcal T$ have collinear vectors, then the CPD is not unique. Nevertheless, the third factor matrix can still be unique \cite[Example 4.11]{PartI}. The literature shows some variation in terminology. The CPD was introduced by F.L. Hitchcock in \cite{Hitchcock} and was later referred to as Canonical Decomposition (CANDECOMP) \cite{1970_Carroll_Chang}, Parallel Factor Model (PARAFAC) \cite{Harshman1970,1994HarshmanLundy}, and Topographic Components Model \cite{1988Topographic}. Uniqueness of one factor matrix is called {\em uni-mode uniqueness} in \cite{GuoMironBrieStegeman, Zhang20131918}. Uniqueness of the CPD is often called {\em essential uniqueness} in engineering papers and {\em specific identifiability} in algebraic geometry papers. It is its uniqueness properties that make CPD a basic tool for signal separation and data analysis, with many concrete applications in telecommunication, array processing, machine learning, etc. \cite{LievenCichocki2013, ComoJ10,KoldaReview,Lieven-Nikos_overview}. The contribution of this paper is twofold. First, we find very mild conditions for uniqueness of CPD and, second, we provide an {\em algebraic } algorithm for its computation, i.e. an algorithm that recovers the CPD from $\mathcal T$ by means of conventional linear algebra (basically by taking the orthogonal complement of a subspace and computing generalized eigenvalue decomposition (GEVD)). Algebraic algorithms are important from a computational point view in the following sense. In practice, the factor matrices of $\mathcal T$ are most often obtained as the solution of the optimization problem \begin{equation*} \min \|\widehat{\mathcal T}-[\mathbf A,\mathbf B,\mathbf C]_R\|,\qquad \text{ s.t. }\quad \mathbf A\in\mathbb F^{I\times R},\ \mathbf B\in\mathbb F^{J\times R},\ \mathbf C\in\mathbb F^{K\times R}, \end{equation*} where $\|\cdot\|$ denotes a suitable norm \cite{Sorber}. The limitations of this approach are not very well-known. Algebraic algorithms may provide a good initial guess. In Example \ref{example:manyinits} we illustrate that even in a small-scale problem such as the CPD of a rank-$12$ tensor of dimensions $3\times 7\times 12$, the optimization approach may require many initializations and iterations, although the solution can be computed algebraically without a problem. {\em Basic notation and conventions.} Throughout the paper $C_n^k$ denotes the binomial coefficient, $$ C_n^k=\begin{cases} \frac{n!}{k!(n-k)!},&\text{if } k\leq n,\\ 0,& \text{if } k>n; \end{cases} $$ $r_{\mathbf A}$, $\textup{range}(\mathbf A)$, and $\textup{ker}(\mathbf A)$ denote the rank, the range, and the null space of a matrix $\mathbf A$, respectively; $k_{\mathbf A}$ (the $k$-rank of $\mathbf A$ \cite[p. 162]{HarshmanLundy1984}) is the largest number such that every subset of $k_{\mathbf A}$ columns of the matrix $\mathbf A$ is linearly independent; ``$\odot$'' and ``$\otimes$'' denote the Khatri-Rao and Kronecker product, respectively: \begin{align*} \mathbf A\odot\mathbf B &= [\mathbf a_1\otimes\mathbf b_1\ \dots\ \mathbf a_R\otimes\mathbf b_R ],\\ \mathbf a\otimes\mathbf b &= [a_1b_1\dots a_1b_j\ \dots\ a_Ib_1\dots a_Ib_J]^T. \end{align*} It is well known that PD \eqref{eqintro2} can be rewritten in a matrix form as \begin{equation}\label{eq:(1.7)} \mathbf R_{1,0}(\mathcal T):= \left[ \begin{matrix} \mathbf T_1\\ \vdots\\ \mathbf T_I \end{matrix} \right] = \left[ \begin{matrix} \mathbf B\Diag{\mathbf a^1}\mathbf C^T\\ \vdots\\ \mathbf B\Diag{\mathbf a^I}\mathbf C^T \end{matrix} \right]= (\mathbf A\odot\mathbf B)\mathbf C^T\in\mathbb F^{IJ\times K}, \end{equation} where $\mathbf T_i:=(t_{ijk})_{j,k=1}^{J,K}$ denotes the $i$th horizontal slice of $\mathcal T=(t_{ijk})_{i,j,k=1}^{I,J,K}$, $\mathbf a^i:= [a_{i1}\ \dots\ a_{i_R}]$ denotes the $i$th row of $\mathbf A\in\mathbb F^{I\times R}$, and $\Diag{\mathbf a^i}$ denotes a square diagonal matrix with the elements of the vector $\mathbf a^i$ on the main diagonal. To simplify the presentation and w.l.o.g. we will assume throughout that the third dimension $K$ coincides with $r_{\mathbf C}$, yielding $r_{\mathbf C}=K\leq R$. This can always be achieved in a ``dimensionality reduction'' step (see, for instance, \cite[Subsection 1.4]{LinkGEVD}). \section{Previous results, new contribution, and organization of the paper} \label{subsubsection:mainconstruction} To explain our contribution, we first briefly recall previous results on uniqueness conditions and algebraic algorithms. (We refer the readers to \cite{PartI,PartII,LinkGEVD} and references therein for recent results and a detailed overview of early results.) \subsection{At least two factor matrices have full column rank} We say that a matrix has full column rank if its columns are linearly independent, implying that it cannot have more columns than rows. The following result is well-known and goes back to Kronecker and Weierstrass. \begin{theorem}\cite{Harshman1972,Leurgans1993}\label{theorem:Harshman} Let $\mathcal T=[\mathbf A,\mathbf B,\mathbf C]_R$ and suppose that the matrices $\mathbf B$ and $\mathbf C$ have full column rank and that any two columns of $\mathbf A$ are linearly independent: \begin{equation}\label{eq:Harshman_condition} r_{\mathbf B}=r_{\mathbf C}=R, \qquad \ k_{\mathbf A}\geq 2. \end{equation} Then $r_{\mathcal T}=R$, the CPD of $\mathcal T$ is unique and can be found algebraically. \end{theorem} Theorem \ref{theorem:Harshman} is the heart of the algebraic algorithms presented in \cite{LinkGEVD} and also in this paper. To give an idea of how the CPD in Theorem \ref{theorem:Harshman} is computed, let us consider the particular case of $2\times R\times R$ tensors. Then, by \eqref{eq:Harshman_condition}, $\mathbf B$ and $\mathbf C$ are $R\times R$ nonsingular matrices. For simplicity we also assume that the second row of $\mathbf A$ does not contain zero entries. By \eqref{eq:(1.7)}, PD \eqref{eqintro2} can be rewritten as \begin{equation}\label{eq:har1} \mathbf T_1 = \mathbf B\Diag{\mathbf a^1}\mathbf C^T\ \text{ and }\ \mathbf T_2 = \mathbf B\Diag{\mathbf a^2}\mathbf C^T, \end{equation} which easily implies that $$ \mathbf T_1\mathbf T_2^{-1} = \mathbf B\mathbf D\mathbf B^{-1},\quad \mathbf T_1^T\mathbf T_2^{-T} = \mathbf C\mathbf D\mathbf C^{-1}, $$ where $\mathbf D = \Diag{\mathbf a^1}\Diag{\mathbf a^2}^{-1}$. By the assumption $k_{\mathbf A}\geq 2$, the diagonal entries of $\mathbf D$ are distinct. Hence, the matrices $\mathbf B$ and $\mathbf C$ can be uniquely identified up to permutation and column scaling from the eigenvalue decomposition of $\mathbf T_1\mathbf T_2^{-1}$ and $\mathbf T_1^T\mathbf T_2^{-T}$, respectively. One can then easily recover $\mathbf A$ from \eqref{eq:har1}. Note that, in general, the matrices $\mathbf B$ and $\mathbf C$ in Theorem \ref{theorem:Harshman} can be obtained from the GEVD of the matrix pencil $(\mathbf T_1,\mathbf T_2)$. \subsection{At least one factor matrix has full column rank}\label{subsection2.2} In this subsection we assume that only the third factor matrix of $\mathcal T$ has full column rank. It was shown in \cite{JiangSid2004} that PD \eqref{eqintro2} is unique if and only if \begin{equation}\label{eq:U2} r_{\mathbf A\Diag{\bm{\lambda}}\mathbf B^T}\geq 1 \ \text{for all }\bm{\lambda}=(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_R)\ \text{with at least two nonzero entries}. \end{equation} Condition \eqref{eq:U2} is not easy to check for a specific tensor. The following condition is more restrictive but easy to check \cite{DeLathauwer2006,LinkGEVD}. We denote by $\mathcal C_m(\mathbf A)\in\mathbb R^{C^m_I\times C^m_R}$ the $m$th compound matrix of $\mathbf A\in\mathbb F^{I\times R}$, i.e. the matrix containing the determinants of all $m\times m$ submatrices of $\mathbf A$ arranged with the submatrix index sets in lexicographic order. \begin{theorem}\cite{DeLathauwer2006,LinkGEVD}\label{th:C2} Let $\mathcal T=[\mathbf A,\mathbf B,\mathbf C]_R$ and suppose that \begin{equation}\label{eq:Lievenfcr} \text{the matrices }\mathcal C_2(\mathbf A)\odot\mathcal C_2(\mathbf B)\ \text{ and } \mathbf C\ \text{ have full column rank.} \end{equation} Then $r_{\mathcal T}=R$ and the CPD of $\mathcal T$ is unique. \end{theorem} It was shown in \cite{DeLathauwer2006,LinkGEVD} that the assumptions in Theorem \ref{th:C2} also imply an algebraic algorithm. The algorithm is based on the following relation between $\mathcal T$ and its factor matrices: \begin{equation}\label{eq:identityLieven} \widetilde{\mathbf R}_{2,0}(\mathcal T)=(\mathcal C_2(\mathbf A)\odot\mathcal C_2(\mathbf B))\mathbf S_{2,0}(\mathbf C)^T, \end{equation} in which $\widetilde{\mathbf R}_{2,0}(\mathcal T)$ denotes an $C^2_IC^2_J\times R^2$ matrix whose \begin{gather*} \left((j_1(2j_2-j_1-1)-2)I(I-1)/4+i_1(2i_2-i_1-1)/2, (r_2-1)R+r_1\right)\text{-th}\\ (1\leq i_1<i_2\leq I,\ 1\leq j_1<j_2\leq J,\ 1\leq r_1,r_2\leq R) \end{gather*} entry is equal to $ t_{i_1j_1r_1}t_{i_2j_2r_2}+t_{i_1j_1r_2}t_{i_2j_2r_1}-t_{i_1j_2r_1}t_{i_2j_1r_2}-t_{i_1j_2r_2}t_{i_2j_1r_1} $ and $\mathbf S_{2,0}(\mathbf C)$ denotes an $R^2\times C^2_R$ matrix that has columns $ \frac{1}{2}(\mathbf c_{r_1}\otimes\mathbf c_{r_2}+\mathbf c_{r_2}\otimes\mathbf c_{r_1})$, $1\leq r_1<r_2\leq R$. Computationally, the identity \eqref{eq:identityLieven} is used as follows. First, the subspace $\ker(\widetilde{\mathbf R}_{2,0}(\mathcal T))$ is used to construct an auxiliary $R\times R\times R$ tensor $\mathcal W$ that has CPD $\mathcal W =[\mathbf C^{-T},\mathbf C^{-T},\mathbf M]_R$ in which both $\mathbf C^{-T}$ and $\mathbf M$ have full column rank. The CPD of $\mathcal W$ is computed as in Theorem \ref{theorem:Harshman}, which gives the matrix $\mathbf C^{-T}$. The third factor matrix of $\mathcal T$, $\mathbf C$, is obtained from $\mathbf C^{-T}$ and the first two factor matrices $\mathbf A$ and $\mathbf B$ can be easily found from $\mathbf R_{1,0}(\mathcal T)\mathbf C^{-T}=\mathbf A\odot\mathbf B$ (see \eqref{eq:(1.7)}) using the fact that the columns of $\mathbf A\odot\mathbf B$ are vectorized rank-$1$ matrices. \subsection{None of the factor matrices is required to have full column rank}\label{subsection2.3} The following result is known as Kruskal's theorem. It is the most well-known result on uniqueness of the CPD. \begin{theorem}\label{th:Kruskal}\cite{Kruskal1977} Let $\mathcal T=[\mathbf A,\mathbf B,\mathbf C]_R$ and suppose that \begin{equation} 2R+2\leq k_{\mathbf A}+k_{\mathbf B}+k_{\mathbf C}. \label{eq:Kruskal} \end{equation} Then $r_{\mathcal T}=R$ and the CPD of $\mathcal T$ is unique. \end{theorem} In \cite{PartI,PartII} we presented several generalizations of uniqueness Theorems \ref{th:C2} and \ref{th:Kruskal}. In \cite{LinkGEVD} we showed that the CPD can be computed algebraically under a much weaker assumption than \eqref{eq:Kruskal}. \begin{theorem}\label{th:LinkGEVD}\cite[Theorem 1.7]{LinkGEVD} Let $\mathcal T=[\mathbf A,\mathbf B,\mathbf C]_R$ and suppose that \begin{equation} \mathcal C_m(\mathbf A)\odot\mathcal C_m(\mathbf B)\ \text{has full column rank for}\ m=R-k_{\mathbf C}+2. \label{eq:Cncondition} \end{equation} Then $r_{\mathcal T}=R$, the CPD of $\mathcal T$ is unique and can be computed algebraically. \end{theorem} The algorithm in \cite{LinkGEVD} is based on the following extension of \eqref{eq:identityLieven}: \begin{equation}\label{eq:LinkGEVDidentity} \widetilde{\mathbf R}_{m,0}(\mathcal T)=(\mathcal C_m(\mathbf A)\odot\mathcal C_m(\mathbf B))\mathbf S_{m,0}(\mathbf C)^T, \end{equation} where the $C^m_IC^m_J\times K^m$ matrix $\widetilde{\mathbf R}_{m,0}(\mathcal T)$ is constructed from the given tensor $\mathcal T$ and the $C^m_R\times K^m$ matrix $\mathbf S_{m,0}(\mathbf C)$ depends in a certain way on $\mathbf C$. We refer the reader to \cite{LinkGEVD} for details on the algorithm. Here we just mention that assumption \eqref{eq:Cncondition} guarantees that the matrix $\mathbf C$ can be recovered from the subspace $\ker(\widetilde{\mathbf R}_{m,0}(\mathcal T))$. \subsection{Generic uniqueness results from algebraic geometry}\label{subsection:2.4} So far we have discussed deterministic conditions, which are expressed in terms of particular $\mathbf A,\mathbf B, \mathbf C$. On the other hand, generic conditions are expressed in terms of dimensions and rank and hold ``with probability one''. Formally, we say that the CPD of a generic $I\times J\times K$ tensor of rank $R$ is unique if $$ \mu\{(\mathbf A,\mathbf B,\mathbf C): \text{the CPD of the tensor}\ \mathcal T=[\mathbf A,\mathbf B,\mathbf C]_R\ \text{is not unique}\}=0, $$ where $\mu$ denotes the Lebesgue measure on $\mathbb F^{(I+J+K)R}$. It is known from algebraic geometry that if $2\leq I\leq J\leq K\leq R$, then each of the following conditions implies that the CPD of a generic $I\times J\times K$ tensor of rank $R$ is unique: \begin{align} R&\leq\frac{I+J+2K-2-\sqrt{(I-J)^2+4K}}{2} & &(\text{see \cite[Proposition 1.6]{AlgGeom1}}), \label{eq:genericbound1}\\ R&\leq \frac{IJK}{I+J+K-2}-K,\ 3\leq I,\ \mathbb F=\mathbb C & & (\text{see \cite[Corollary 6.2]{Bocci2013}}), \label{eq:genericbound2}\\ R&\leq 2^{\alpha+\beta-2} \leq \frac{IJ}{4}& &(\text{see \cite[Theorem 1.1]{ChiantiniandOttaviani}}), \label{eq:genericbound3} \end{align} where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are maximal integers such that $2^\alpha\leq I$ and $2^\beta\leq J$. Bounds \eqref{eq:genericbound1}--\eqref{eq:genericbound3} complement each other. If $R=K$, then bound \eqref{eq:genericbound1} is equivalent to \begin{equation} R\leq(I-1)(J-1).\label{eq:U2generic} \end{equation} If $\mathbb F=\mathbb C$, then \eqref{eq:U2generic} is not only sufficient but also necessary, i.e., the decomposition is generically not unique for $R >(I-1)(J-1)$ \cite[Proposition 2.2]{ChiantiniandOttaviani}. \subsection{Generic versions of deterministic uniqueness conditions} Theorems \ref{th:C2}--\ref{th:LinkGEVD}, taken from \cite{DeLathauwer2006,LinkGEVD}, give deterministic conditions under which the CPD is unique and can be computed algebraically. Generic counterparts of condition \eqref{eq:Lievenfcr} and Kruskal's bound \eqref{eq:Kruskal}, for the case where\\ $\max(I,J,K)\leq R$, are given by \begin{align} C^2_R &\leq C^2_I C^2_J\ \text{ and } R\leq K\qquad & &(\text{see \cite{DeLathauwer2006}})\text{ and}\label{eq:gen_counter1}\\ 2R+2 &\leq I + J +K\qquad\qquad\qquad \qquad & &(\text{trivial}),\label{eq:gen_counter2} \end{align} respectively. We are not aware of a generic counterpart of condition \eqref{eq:Cncondition}, but, obviously, \eqref{eq:Cncondition} may hold only if the number of columns of the matrix $\mathcal C_m(\mathbf A)\odot\mathcal C_m(\mathbf B)$ does not exceed the number of rows, i.e., if \begin{equation}\label{eq:15} C^m_R \leq C^m_I C^m_J, \text{ where } m=R-K+2. \end{equation} It can be verified that the algebraic geometry based bound \eqref{eq:genericbound1} significantly improves bounds \eqref{eq:gen_counter1}--\eqref{eq:15} if $\min(I,J)\geq 3$. For instance, if $R=K$, then bound \eqref{eq:genericbound1} is equivalent to \eqref{eq:U2generic}, as has been mentioned earlier, while \eqref{eq:gen_counter1} and \eqref{eq:gen_counter2} reduce to $R\leq(J-\frac{1}{2})(I-\frac{1}{2})/\sqrt{2}+1$ and $R\leq I+J-1$, respectively. \subsection{Our contribution and organization of the paper} In this paper we further extend results from \cite{DeLathauwer2006,PartI,PartII, LinkGEVD}, narrowing the gap with what is known from algebraic geometry. Namely, we present new deterministic conditions that guarantee that the CPD is unique and can be computed algebraically. Although we do not formally prove that generically the condition coincides with \eqref{eq:genericbound1}, in our simulations we have been able to find the factor matrices by algebraic means up to the latter bound (Examples \ref{Example2.5} and \ref{Example2.12}). Moreover, the algebraic scheme is shown to outperform numerical optimization (Example \ref{example:manyinits}). Key to our derivation is the following generalization of \eqref{eq:(1.7)}, \eqref{eq:identityLieven}, and \eqref{eq:LinkGEVDidentity}: \begin{equation} \mathbf R_{m,l}(\mathcal T) := {\mathbf\Phi}_{m,l}(\mathbf A,\mathbf B)\mathbf S_{m+l}(\mathbf C)^T,\ \ m\geq 1,\ \ l\geq 0, \label{eq:mainidentity} \end{equation} in which the matrices $\mathbf R_{m,l}(\mathcal T)$, $\mathbf{\Phi}_{m,l}(\mathbf A,\mathbf B)$, and $\mathbf S_{m+l}(\mathbf C)$ are constructed from the tensor $\mathcal T$, the matrices $\mathbf A$ and $\mathbf B$, and the matrix $\mathbf C$, respectively. The precise definitions of these matrices are deferred to Section \ref{sec:constructions}, as they require additional technical notations. In order to maintain the easy flow of the text presentation, the proof of \eqref{eq:mainidentity} is given in \ref{subsection:construction}. The following scheme illustrates the links and shows that, to obtain our new results, we use \eqref{eq:mainidentity} for $m\geq 2$ and $l\geq 1$: \begin{center} \includegraphics[]{diagr.png} \end{center} (To clarify the link between $\eqref{eq:mainidentity}$ and $\eqref{eq:LinkGEVDidentity}$, we need to mention that the matrices $\widetilde{\mathbf R}_{m,0}(\mathcal T)$ and $\mathcal C_m(\mathbf A)\odot\mathcal C_m(\mathbf B)$ in \eqref{eq:LinkGEVDidentity} are obtained by removing the zero and redundant rows of the matrices $\mathbf R_{m,0}(\mathcal T)$ and ${\mathbf\Phi}_{m,0}(\mathbf A,\mathbf B)$, respectively). Our main results on uniqueness and algebraic algorithms for CPD are formulated, explained, and illustrated in Sections \ref{subsection:fcr} (Theorem \ref{th:maintheoremfcr}) and \ref{subsectio:notfcr} (Theorems \ref{th:uniquenessonefm1}--\ref{th:uniquenessandalgorithmrefol}). Namely, in Sections \ref{subsection:fcr} and \ref{subsectio:notfcr} we generalize results mentioned in Subsections \ref{subsection2.2} and \ref{subsection2.3}, respectively. In particular, Theorem \ref{th:maintheoremfcr} in Section \ref{subsection:fcr} is the special case of Theorem \ref{th:uniquenessandalgorithmrefol} in Section \ref{subsectio:notfcr}, where the third factor matrix has full column rank, i.e. $r_{\mathbf C}=K=R$. For reasons of readability, in our presentation we proceed from the easy Section \ref{subsection:fcr} ($r_{\mathbf C}=R$) to the more difficult Section \ref{subsectio:notfcr} ($r_{\mathbf C}\leq R$). The proofs related to Sections \ref{subsection:fcr} and \ref{subsectio:notfcr} are given in Section \ref{proofsnfcr} and \ref{section:Appendix}. In Section \ref{proofsnfcr} we go from complicated to easy, i.e., in Subsections \ref{subsection6.1}--\ref{Subsection:last} we first prove the results related to Section \ref{subsectio:notfcr} and then we derive Theorem \ref{th:maintheoremfcr} from Theorem \ref{th:uniquenessandalgorithmrefol} in Subsection \ref{subsection6.6}. The paper is concluded in Section \ref{sec:discussion}. Our presentation is in terms of real-valued tensors and real-valued factor matrices for notational convenience. Complex variants are easily obtained by taking into account complex conjugations. \section{Construction of the matrices $\mathbf R_{m,l}(\mathcal T)$, $\mathbf{\Phi}_{m,l}(\mathbf A,\mathbf B)$, and $\mathbf S_{m+l}(\mathbf C)$ }\label{sec:constructions} Let us first introduce some additional notation. Throughout the paper $P_{\{l_1,\dots,l_k\}}$ denotes the set of all permutations of the set $\{l_1,\dots,l_k\}$. We follow the convention that if some of the values $l_1,\dots,l_k$ coincide, then the cardinality of $P_{\{l_1,\dots,l_k\}}$ is counted taken into account multiplicities, so that always $\textup{card}\ P_{\{l_1,\dots,l_k\}}=k!$. For instance, $P_{\{1,1,1\}}$ consists of six identical entries $(1,1,1)$. One can easily check that any integer from $\{1, \dots,I^{m+l}J^{m+l}\}$ can be uniquely represented as $(\tilde i -1)J^{m+l}+\tilde j$ and that any integer from $\{1,\dots,K^{m+l}\}$ can be uniquely represented as $\tilde k$, where \begin{align} \tilde i &:= 1+\sum\limits_{p=1}^{m+l}(i_p-1)I^{m+l-p}, & & i_1,\dots,i_{m+l}\in\{1,\dots,I\},&\label{eq:tildei}\\ \tilde j &:= 1+\sum\limits_{p=1}^{m+l}(j_p-1)J^{m+l-p}, & & j_1,\dots,j_{m+l}\in\{1,\dots,J\},&\label{eq:tildej}\\ \tilde k &:= 1+\sum\limits_{p=1}^{m+l}(k_p-1)K^{m+l-p}, & & k_1,\dots,k_{m+l}\in\{1,\dots,K\}.&\label{eq:tildek} \end{align} These expressions are useful for switching between tensor, matrix and vector representations. We can now define $\mathbf R_{m,l}(\mathcal T)$ as follows. \begin{definition}\label{def:matrixtensor} Let $\mathcal T\in\mathbb R^{I\times J\times K}$. The $I^{m+l}J^{m+l}$-by-$K^{m+l}$ matrix whose $((\tilde i -1)J^{m+l}+\tilde j,\tilde k )$th entry is \begin{equation} \frac{1}{m!(m+l)!} \sum\limits_{\substack{(s_1,\dots,s_{m+l})\in\\ P_{\{k_1,\dots,k_{m+l}\}}}} \det\left[\begin{matrix} t_{i_1j_1s_1}&\dots & t_{i_1j_ms_m}\\ \vdots &\vdots& \vdots\\ t_{i_mj_1s_1}&\dots & t_{i_mj_ms_m} \end{matrix}\right]\prod\limits_{p=1}^l t_{i_{m+p}j_{m+p}s_{m+p}} \label{eq:29} \end{equation} is denoted by $\mathbf R_{m,l}(\mathcal T)$. \end{definition} The matrices ${\mathbf\Phi}_{m,l}(\mathbf A,\mathbf B)$ and $\mathbf S_{m+l}(\mathbf C)$ will have $M(m,l,R)$ columns, where \begin{equation*} M(m,l,R) := C^m_RC^{m-1}_{m+l-1}+C^{m+1}_RC^{m}_{m+l-1}+\dots+C^{m+l}_RC^{m+l-1}_{m+l-1}. \end{equation*} The columns of these matrices are indexed by $(m+l)$-tuples $(r_1,\dots,r_{m+l})$ such that \begin{equation} \begin{split} &\qquad 1\leq r_1\leq r_2\leq\dots\leq r_{m+l}\leq R \text{ and }\\ \text{the set }&\{r_1,\dots,r_{m+l}\} \text{ contains at least } m \text{ distinct elements.} \end{split} \label{eq:mplusltuples} \end{equation} It is easy to show that there indeed exist $M(m,l,R)$ $(m+l)$-tuples which satisfy condition \eqref{eq:mplusltuples}. We follow the convention that the $(m+l)$-tuples in \eqref{eq:mplusltuples} are ordered lexicographically: the $(m+l)$-tuple $(r_1',\dots,r_{m+l}')$ is preceding the $(m+l)$-tuple $(r_1'',\dots,r_{m+l}'')$ if and only if either $r_1' < r_1''$ or there exists $k\in \{1,\dots,m+l-1\}$ such that $r_1' = r_1'',\dots r_k' = r_k''$ and $r_{k+1}' < r_{k+1}''$. We can now define ${\mathbf\Phi}_{m,l}(\mathbf A,\mathbf B)$ and $\mathbf S_{m+l}(\mathbf C)$ as follows. \begin{definition}\label{def:matrixPhi} Let $\mathbf A\in\mathbb R^{I\times R}$, $\mathbf B\in\mathbb R^{J\times R}$. The $I^{m+l}J^{m+l}$-by-$M(m,l,R)$ matrix whose $((\tilde i -1)J^{m+l}+\tilde j, (r_1,\dots,r_{m+l}))$th entry is \begin{equation*} \begin{split} \frac{1}{(m!)^2} \sum\limits_{\substack{(s_1,\dots,s_{m+l})\in\\ P_{\{r_1,\dots,r_{m+l}\}}}} \det&\left[\begin{matrix} a_{i_1s_1}&\dots & a_{i_1s_m}\\ \vdots &\vdots& \vdots\\ a_{i_ms_1}&\dots & a_{i_ms_m} \end{matrix}\right]\cdot \det\left[\begin{matrix} b_{j_1s_1}&\dots & b_{j_1s_m}\\ \vdots &\vdots& \vdots\\ b_{j_ms_1}&\dots & b_{j_ms_m} \end{matrix}\right]\cdot\\ &\qquad a_{i_{m+1}s_{m+1}}\cdots a_{i_{m+l}s_{m+l}}\cdot b_{j_{m+1}s_{m+1}}\cdots b_{j_{m+l}s_{m+l}} \end{split} \end{equation*} is denoted by $\mathbf \Phi_{m,l}(\mathbf A,\mathbf B)$. \end{definition} \begin{definition}\label{def:matrixS} Let $\mathbf C\in\mathbb R^{K\times R}$. The $K^{m+l}$-by-$M(m,l,R)$ matrix whose\\ $(r_1,\dots,r_{m+l})$th column is \begin{equation} \frac{1}{(m+l)!} \sum\limits_{(s_1,\dots,s_{m+l})\in\ P_{\{r_1,\dots,r_{m+l}\}}}\mathbf c_{s_1}\otimes\dots\otimes\mathbf c_{s_{m+l}} \label{eq:def2.3star} \end{equation} is denoted by $\mathbf S_{m+l}(\mathbf C)$. \end{definition} \section{At least one factor matrix of $\mathcal T$ has full column rank}\label{subsection:fcr} In this section we generalize results from Subsection \ref{subsection2.2}, i.e. we assume that the matrix $\mathbf C$ has full column rank and without loss of generality $r_{\mathbf C}=K=R$. The more general case $r_{\mathbf C}=K\leq R$ is handled in Theorem \ref{th:uniquenessandalgorithmrefol} in Section \ref{subsectio:notfcr}. The goal of this section is to explain why and how the algebraic algorithm works in the relatively easy but important case $r_{\mathbf C}=K=R$, so that in turn Section \ref{subsectio:notfcr} will be more accessible. It can be shown that for $l=0$, condition \eqref{eq:maincondfcr} in Theorem \ref{th:maintheoremfcr} below reduces to condition \eqref{eq:Lievenfcr}. Thus, Theorem \ref{th:C2} is the special case of Theorem \ref{th:maintheoremfcr} corresponding to $l=0$. The simulations in Example \ref{Example2.5} below indicate that it is always possible to find some $l\geq 0$ so that \eqref{eq:maincondfcr} also covers \eqref{eq:U2}. Although there is no general proof, this suggests that \eqref{eq:U2} can always be verified by checking \eqref{eq:maincondfcr} for some $l\geq 0$. This would imply that Algorithm \ref{alg:fcr} can compute the CPD of a generic tensor up to the necessary condition $R\leq(I-1)(J-1)$. Example \ref{Example2.5} confirms this up to $R\leq 24$. Let $S^{m+l}(\mathbb R^{K^{m+l}})\subset \mathbb R^{K^{m+l}}$ denote the subspace spanned by all vectors of the form $\mathbf x\otimes\dots\otimes\mathbf x$, where $\mathbf x\in\mathbb R^K$ is repeated $m+l$ times. In other words, $S^{m+l}(\mathbb R^{K^{m+l}})$ contains vectorized versions of all $K\times\dots\times K$ symmetric tensors of order $m+l$, yielding $\dim S^{m+l}(\mathbb R^{K^{m+l}}) =C^{m+l}_{K+m+l-1}$. We have the following result. \begin{theorem}\label{th:maintheoremfcr} Let $\mathcal T=(t_{ijk})_{i,j,k=1}^{I,J,K}=[\mathbf A,\mathbf B,\mathbf C]_R$, $r_{\mathbf C}=K=R$, $l\geq 0$, and let the matrix $\mathbf R_{2,l}(\mathcal T)$ be defined as in Definition \ref{def:matrixtensor}. Assume that \begin{align} \dim \left(\ker (\mathbf R_{2,l}(\mathcal T))\bigcap S^{2+l}(\mathbb R^{K^{2+l}})\right)=R.\label{eq:maincondfcr} \end{align} Then \begin{itemize} \item[(1)] $r_{\mathcal T} = R$ and the CPD of $\mathcal T$ is unique; and \item[(2)] the CPD of $\mathcal T$ can be found algebraically. \end{itemize} \end{theorem} Condition \eqref{eq:maincondfcr} in Theorem \ref{th:maintheoremfcr} means that the intersection of $\ker (\mathbf R_{2,l}(\mathcal T))$ and $S^{2+l}(\mathbb R^{K^{2+l}})$ has the minimal possible dimension. Indeed, by \eqref{eq:mainidentity}, Definition \ref{def:matrixS}, and the assumption $r_{\mathbf C}=K=R$, we have that the intersection contains at least $R$ linearly independent vectors: \begin{equation*} \begin{split} &\ker (\mathbf R_{2,l}(\mathcal T))\bigcap S^{2+l}(\mathbb R^{K^{2+l}})= \ker ({\mathbf\Phi}_{2,l}(\mathbf A,\mathbf B)\mathbf S_{2+l}(\mathbf C)^T)\bigcap S^{2+l}(\mathbb R^{K^{2+l}})\supseteq \\ &\ker (\mathbf S_{2+l}(\mathbf C)^T)\bigcap S^{2+l}(\mathbb R^{K^{2+l}})\ni \mathbf x\otimes\dots\otimes\mathbf x,\quad \mathbf x\ \text{ is a column of }\ \mathbf C^{-T}. \end{split} \end{equation*} The procedure that constitutes the proof of Theorem \ref{th:maintheoremfcr}(2) is summarized as Algorithm \ref{alg:fcr}. Let us comment on the different steps. From Definition \ref{def:matrixtensor} it follows that the rows of the matrix $\mathbf R_{2,l}(\mathcal T)$ are vectorized versions of $K\times\dots\times K$ symmetric tensors of order $2+l$. Consistently, in step 2, we find the vectors $\mathbf w_1,\dots,\mathbf w_R$ that form a basis of the orthogonal complement to $\textup{range}( \mathbf R_{2,l}(\mathcal T)^T)$ in the space $S^{2+l}(\mathbb R^{R^{2+l}})$. In other words, $\operatorname{span}\{\mathbf w_1,\dots,\mathbf w_R\} = \ker (\mathbf R_{2,l}(\mathcal T))\bigcap S^{2+l}(\mathbb R^{K^{2+l}})$. If this subspace has minimal dimension, then its structure provides a key to the estimation of $\mathbf C$. Indeed, we have already explained that the minimal subspace is given by \begin{equation} \label{eq:CCC} \ker( \mathbf R_{2,l}(\mathcal T))\bigcap S^{2+l}(\mathbb R^{R^{2+l}}) = \textup{range}\left(\underbrace{\mathbf C^{-T}\odot\dots\odot\mathbf C^{-T}}_{2+l}\right). \end{equation} In steps 4--5 we recover $\mathbf C^{-T}$ from $\mathbf W$ using \eqref{eq:CCC} as follows. By \eqref{eq:CCC}, there exists a unique nonsingular $R\times R$ matrix $\mathbf M$ such that \begin{equation} \label{eq:WeqCCCM} \mathbf W = \left(\mathbf C^{-T}\odot\dots\odot\mathbf C^{-T}\right)\mathbf M^T. \end{equation} In step 4, we construct the tensor $\mathcal W$ whose vectorized frontal slices are the vectors $\mathbf w_1,\dots,\mathbf w_R$. Reshaping both sides of \eqref{eq:WeqCCCM} we obtain the CPD $\mathcal W=[\mathbf C^{-T}, \mathbf C^{-T}\odot\dots\odot\mathbf C^{-T},\mathbf M]_R$. In step 5, we find the CPD by means of a GEVD using the fact that all factor matrices of $\mathcal W$ have full column rank, i.e., we have reduced the problem to a situation that is covered by the basic Theorem \ref{theorem:Harshman}. Finally, in step 6 we recover $\mathbf A$ and $\mathbf B$ from $\mathbf R_{1,0}(\mathcal T)\mathbf C^{-T}=\mathbf A\odot\mathbf B$ using the fact that the columns of $\mathbf A\odot\mathbf B$ are vectorized rank-$1$ matrices. \begin{algorithm} \caption{(Computation of CPD, $K=R$ (see Theorem \ref{th:maintheoremfcr}(ii)))} \label{alg:fcr} \begin{algorithmic}[1] \Require $\mathcal T\in\mathbb R^{I\times J\times R}$ and $l\geq 0$ with the property that there exist $\mathbf A\in\mathbb R^{I\times R}$, $\mathbf B\in\mathbb R^{J\times R}$, and $\mathbf C\in\mathbb R^{R\times R}$ such that $R\geq 2$, $\mathcal T=[\mathbf A,\mathbf B,\mathbf C]_R$, $r_{\mathbf C}=R$, and \eqref{eq:maincondfcr} holds. \Ensure Matrices $\mathbf A\in\mathbb R^{I\times R}$, $\mathbf B\in\mathbb R^{J\times R}$ and $\mathbf C\in\mathbb R^{R\times R}$ such that $\mathcal T=[\mathbf A,\mathbf B,\mathbf C]_R$ \State Construct the $I^{2+l}J^{2+l}\times R^{2+l}$ matrix $\mathbf R_{2,l}(\mathcal T)$ by Definition \ref{def:matrixtensor}. \State Find $\mathbf w_1,\dots,\mathbf w_R$ that form a basis of $\ker( \mathbf R_{2,l}(\mathcal T))\bigcap S^{2+l}(\mathbb R^{R^{2+l}})$ \State $\mathbf W\leftarrow [\mathbf w_1\ \dots\ \mathbf w_R]$ \State Reshape the $R^{2+l}\times R$ matrix $\mathbf W$ into an $R\times R^{1+l}\times R$ tensor $\mathcal W$ \State Compute the CPD \Statex $\mathcal W=[\mathbf C^{-T}, \mathbf C^{-T}\odot\dots\odot\mathbf C^{-T},\mathbf M]_R$\quad ({\em $\mathbf M$ is a by-product})\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (GEVD) \State Find the columns of $\mathbf A$ and $\mathbf B$ from the equation $\mathbf A\odot\mathbf B=\mathbf R_{1,0}(\mathcal T)\mathbf C^{-T}$ \end{algorithmic} \end{algorithm} The following example demonstrates that the CPD can effectively be computed by Algorithm \ref{alg:fcr} for $R\leq \min((I-1)(J-1),24)$. \begin{example}\label{Example2.5} We consider $I\times J\times (I-1)(J-1)$ tensors generated as a sum of $R=(I-1)(J-1)$ random rank-$1$ tensors. More precisely, the tensors are generated by a PD $[\mathbf A,\mathbf B,\mathbf C]_R$ in which the entries of $\mathbf A$, $\mathbf B$, and $\mathbf C$ are independently drawn from the standard normal distribution $N(0,1)$. We try different values $l=0,1,\dots,$ until condition \eqref{eq:maincondfcr} is met (assuming that this will be the case for some $l\geq 0$). We test all cases $I\times J\times (I-1)(J-1)$ such that $I\geq 3$, $J\geq 3$, and $(I-1)(J-1)\leq 24$. The results are shown in Table \ref{table2}. In all cases \eqref{eq:maincondfcr} indeed holds for some $l\leq 2$; the actual value of $l$ does not depend on the random trial, i.e., it is constant for tensors of the same dimensions and rank. By comparison, the algebraic algorithm from \cite{DeLathauwer2006,LinkGEVD} is limited to the cases where $l=0$, which is not always sufficient to reach the bound $R\leq(I-1)(J-1)$. In our implementation, we retrieved the vectors $\mathbf w_1,\dots,\mathbf w_R$ from the $R$-dimensional null space of a $C_{R+l+1}^{2+l}\times C_{R+l+1}^{2+l}$ positive semi-definite matrix $\mathbf Q$. The storage of $\mathbf Q$ is the main bottleneck in our implementation. To give some insight in the complexity of the algorithm we included the computational time (averaged over 100 random tensors) and the size of $\mathbf Q$ in the table. We implemented Algorithm \ref{alg:fcr} in MATLAB 2014a (the implementation was not optimized), and we did experiments on a computer with Intel Core 2 Quad CPUQ9650\@ 3.00 GHz$\times$4 and 8GB memory running Ubuntu 12.04.5 LTS. \end{example} \begin{table}[!h] \begin{center} \caption{ Values of parameter $l$ in Theorem \ref{th:maintheoremfcr} and computational cost of Algorithm \ref{alg:fcr} for $I\times J\times (I-1)(J-1)$ tensors of rank $R=(I-1)(J-1)\leq 24$ (see Example \ref{Example2.5} for details). Note that the CPD is not generically unique if $R>(I-1)(J-1)$ (see Subsection \ref{subsection:2.4}). In all cases a value of $l$ is found such that Algorithm \ref{alg:fcr} can be used. The rows with $l\geq 1$ are new results. } \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline dimensions of $\mathcal T$& $l$& $C_{R+l+1}^{2+l}$ & computational time (sec)\\ \hline $3\times 3\times 4$ &0& 10 & 0.02\\ $3\times 4\times 6$ &0& 21 & 0.035\\ $3\times 5\times 8$ &0& 36 & 0.051\\ $3\times 6\times 10$ &0& 55 & 0.074\\ $3 \times 7 \times 12$ &1& 364 & 0.403\\ $3 \times 8 \times 14$ &1& 560 & 0.796\\ $3 \times 9 \times 16$ &1& 816 & 1.498\\ $3 \times 10 \times 18$ &1& 1140 & 2.617\\ $3 \times 11 \times 20$ &1& 1540 & 5.032\\ $3 \times 12 \times 22$ &1& 2024 & 7.089\\ $3 \times 13 \times 24$ &1& 2600 & 11.084\\ $4\times 4\times 9$ &0& 45 & 0.06\\ $4 \times 5 \times 12$ &1& 364 & 0.401\\ $4 \times 6 \times 15$ &1& 680 & 1.096\\ $4 \times 7 \times 18$ &2& 5985 & 30.941\\ $4 \times 8 \times 21$ &2& 10626 & 93.03\\ $4 \times 9 \times 24$ &2& 17550 & 360.279 \\ $5 \times 5 \times 16$ &1& 816 & 1.473 \\ $5 \times 6 \times 20$ &2& 8855 & 64.116 \\ $5 \times 7 \times 24$ &2& 17550 & 351.968 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{table2} \end{center} \end{table} The next example illustrates that Algorithm \ref{alg:fcr} may outperform optimization algorithms. \begin{example}\label{example:manyinits} Let $\mathcal T=[\mathbf A,\mathbf B, \mathbf C]_{12}\in\mathbb R^{3\times 7\times 12}$, with \begin{equation*} \begin{split} \mathbf A &= hankel((1,2,3),(3, 5, 7, 0, 6, 6, 7, 9, 0, 8, 2, 1)^T),\\ \mathbf B &= [\mathbf I_7\ hankel((1,2,3,4,5,6,7), (7,0,1,2,3)^T)],\qquad \mathbf C = \mathbf I_{12}, \end{split} \end{equation*} where $hankel(\mathbf c,\mathbf r^T)$ denotes a Hankel matrix whose first column is $\mathbf c$ and whose last row is $\mathbf r^T$. It turns out that \eqref{eq:maincondfcr} holds for $l=1$. It takes less than $1$ second to compute the CPD of $\mathcal T$ by Algorithm \ref{alg:fcr}. On the other hand, it proves to be very difficult to find the CPD by means of numerical optimization. Among other optimization-based algorithms we tested the Gauss-Newton dogleg trust region method \cite{Sorber}. The algorithm was restarted $500$ times from various random initial positions. % In only 4 cases the residual\\ $\|\mathcal T-[\mathbf A_{est},\mathbf B_{est},\mathbf C_{est}]_{12}\|/\|\mathcal T\|$ after $10000$ iterations was of the order of $0.0001$ and in all cases the estimated factor matrices were far from the true matrices. Other optimization-based algorithms did not yield better results. \end{example} \section{None of the factor matrices is required to have full column rank}\label{subsectio:notfcr} In this subsection we consider the PD $\mathcal T=(t_{ijk})_{i,j,k=1}^{I,J,K}=[\mathbf A,\mathbf B,\mathbf C]_R$ and extend results of the previous subsection to the case $r_{\mathbf C}=K\leq R$. \subsection{Results on uniqueness of one factor matrix and overall CPD} We have two results on uniqueness of the third factor matrix. \begin{theorem}\label{th:uniquenessonefm1} Let $\mathcal T=(t_{ijk})_{i,j,k=1}^{I,J,K}=[\mathbf A,\mathbf B,\mathbf C]_R$, $r_{\mathbf C}=K\leq R$, $m=R-K+2$, and $l_1,\dots,l_m$ be nonnegative integers. Let also the matrices $\mathbf \Phi_{1,l_1}(\mathbf A,\mathbf B),\dots,\mathbf \Phi_{m,l_m}(\mathbf A,\mathbf B)$ and $\mathbf S_{1+l_1}(\mathbf C),\ \dots,\ \mathbf S_{m+l_m}(\mathbf C)$ be defined as in Definition \ref{def:matrixPhi} and Definition \ref{def:matrixS}, respectively. Let $\mathbf U_1,\dots,\mathbf U_m$ be matrices such that their columns form bases for $\textup{range}(\mathbf S_{1+l_1}(\mathbf C)^T), \dots, \textup{range}(\mathbf S_{m+l_m}(\mathbf C)^T)$, respectively. Assume that \begin{itemize} \item[\textup{(i)}] $k_{\mathbf C}\geq 1$; and \item[\textup{(ii)}] $\mathbf A\odot\mathbf B$ has full column rank; and \item[\textup{(iii)}] $\mathbf \Phi_{1,l_1}(\mathbf A,\mathbf B)\mathbf U_1$, \dots, $\mathbf \Phi_{m,l_m}(\mathbf A,\mathbf B)\mathbf U_m$ have full column rank. \end{itemize} Then $r_{\mathcal T} = R$ and the third factor matrix of $\mathcal T$ is unique. \end{theorem} According to the following theorem the set of matrices in \textup{(iii)} in Theorem \ref{th:uniquenessonefm1} can be reduced to a single matrix if $R\leq \min(k_{\mathbf A}, k_{\mathbf B})+K-1$. \begin{theorem}\label{th:uniquenessonefm2} Let $\mathcal T=(t_{ijk})_{i,j,k=1}^{I,J,K}=[\mathbf A,\mathbf B,\mathbf C]_R$, $r_{\mathbf C}=K\leq R$, $m=R-K+2$, and $l\geq 0$. Let also the matrices $\mathbf \Phi_{m,l}(\mathbf A,\mathbf B)$ and $\mathbf S_{m+l}(\mathbf C)$ be defined as in Definition \ref{def:matrixPhi} and Definition \ref{def:matrixS}, respectively. Let $\mathbf U_m$ be a matrix such that its columns form a basis for $\textup{range}(\mathbf S_{m+l}(\mathbf C)^T)$. Assume that \begin{itemize} \item[\textup{(i)}] $k_{\mathbf C}\geq 1$; and \item[\textup{(ii)}] $\mathbf A\odot\mathbf B$ has full column rank; and \item[\textup{(iii)}] $\min(k_{\mathbf A}, k_{\mathbf B})\geq m-1$; and \item[\textup{(iv)}] the matrix $\mathbf \Phi_{m,l}(\mathbf A,\mathbf B)\mathbf U_m$ has full column rank. \end{itemize} Then $r_{\mathcal T} = R$ and the third factor matrix of $\mathcal T$ is unique. \end{theorem} The assumptions in Theorems \ref{th:uniquenessonefm1} and \ref{th:uniquenessonefm2} complement each other as follows: in Theorem \ref{th:uniquenessonefm1} we do not require that the condition $\min(k_{\mathbf A}, k_{\mathbf B})\geq m-1$ holds while in Theorem \ref{th:uniquenessonefm2} we do not require that the matrices $\mathbf \Phi_{k,l_k}(\mathbf A,\mathbf B)\mathbf U_k$, $1\leq k\leq m-1$ have full column rank. It was shown in \cite[Proposition 1.20]{PartII} that if $\mathcal T $ has two PDs $\mathcal T=$$[\mathbf A,\mathbf B,\mathbf C]_R$ and $\mathcal T=[\bar{\mathbf A},\bar{\mathbf B},\mathbf C]_R$ that share the factor matrix $\mathbf C$ and if the condition \begin{equation} \max(\min(k_{\mathbf A},k_{\mathbf B}-1),\ \min(k_{\mathbf A}-1,k_{\mathbf B}))+k_{\mathbf C}\geq R+1\label{eq:uniqviaonefm} \end{equation} holds, then both PDs consist of the same rank-one terms. Thus, combining Theorems \ref{th:uniquenessonefm1}--\ref{th:uniquenessonefm2} with \cite[Proposition 1.20]{PartII} we directly obtain the following result on uniqueness of the overall CPD. \begin{theorem}\label{theorem2.9} Let the assumptions in Theorem \ref{th:uniquenessonefm1} or Theorem \ref{th:uniquenessonefm2} hold and let condition \eqref{eq:uniqviaonefm} be satisfied. Then $r_{\mathcal T} = R$ and the CPD of tensor $\mathcal T$ is unique. \end{theorem} \subsection{Algebraic algorithm for CPD}\label{subsection2.4.2} We have the following result on algebraic computation. \begin{theorem}\label{th:uniquenessandalgorithm} Let $\mathcal T=(t_{ijk})_{i,j,k=1}^{I,J,K}=[\mathbf A,\mathbf B,\mathbf C]_R$, $r_{\mathbf C}=K\leq R$, $m=R-K+2$, and $l\geq 0$. Let also the matrices $\mathbf \Phi_{m,l}(\mathbf A,\mathbf B)$ and $\mathbf S_{m+l}(\mathbf C)$ be defined as in Definition \ref{def:matrixPhi} and Definition \ref{def:matrixS}, respectively. Let $\mathbf U_m$ be a matrix such that its columns form a basis for $\textup{range}(\mathbf S_{m+l}(\mathbf C)^T)$. Assume that \begin{itemize} \item[\textup{(i)}] $k_{\mathbf C}=K$; and \item[\textup{(ii)}] $\mathbf A\odot\mathbf B$ has full column rank; and \item[\textup{(iii)}] the matrix $\mathbf \Phi_{m,l}(\mathbf A,\mathbf B)\mathbf U_m$ has full column rank. \end{itemize} Then $r_{\mathcal T} = R$, the CPD of $\mathcal T$ is unique and can be found algebraically. \end{theorem} The assumptions in Theorem \ref{th:uniquenessandalgorithm} are more restrictive than the assumptions in Theorem \ref{theorem2.9} as will be clear from Section \ref{proofsnfcr}. Hence, the statement on rank and uniqueness in Theorem \ref{th:uniquenessandalgorithm} follows from Theorem \ref{theorem2.9}. To prove the statement on algebraic computation we will explain in Section \ref{proofsnfcr} that Theorem \ref{th:uniquenessandalgorithm} can be reformulated as follows (see Section \ref{subsection:fcr} for the definition of $S^{m+l}(\mathbb R^{K^{m+l}})$). \begin{theorem}\label{th:uniquenessandalgorithmrefol} Let $\mathcal T=(t_{ijk})_{i,j,k=1}^{I,J,K}=[\mathbf A,\mathbf B,\mathbf C]_R$, $r_{\mathbf C}=K\leq R$, $m=R-K+2$, and $l\geq 0$. Let also the matrix $\mathbf R_{m,l}(\mathcal T)$ be defined as in Definition \ref{def:matrixtensor}. Assume that \begin{itemize} \item[\textup{(i)}] $k_{\mathbf C}=K$; and \item[\textup{(ii)}] $\mathbf A\odot\mathbf B$ has full column rank; and \item[\textup{(iii)}] $\dim \left(\ker (\mathbf R_{m,l}(\mathcal T))\bigcap S^{m+l}(\mathbb R^{K^{m+l}})\right)=C^{K-1}_R$. \end{itemize} Then $r_{\mathcal T} = R$, the CPD of $\mathcal T$ is unique and can be found algebraically. \end{theorem} Note that if $k_{\mathbf C}=K$, then by \eqref{eq:mainidentity} and Lemma \ref{lemma:suppl} \textup{(i)} below, \begin{equation}\label{equation:2.19} \begin{split} &\dim \left(\ker (\mathbf R_{m,l}(\mathcal T))\bigcap S^{m+l}(\mathbb R^{K^{m+l}})\right)=\\ &\dim \left(\ker ({\mathbf\Phi}_{m,l}(\mathbf A,\mathbf B)\mathbf S_{m+l}(\mathbf C)^T)\bigcap S^{m+l}(\mathbb R^{K^{m+l}})\right)\geq \\ &\dim \left(\ker (\mathbf S_{m+l}(\mathbf C)^T)\bigcap S^{m+l}(\mathbb R^{K^{m+l}})\right)=C^{K-1}_R. \end{split} \end{equation} Thus, assumption \textup{(iii)} of Theorem \ref{th:uniquenessandalgorithmrefol} means that we require the subspace to have the minimal possible dimension. That is, we suppose that the factor matrices $\mathbf A$, $\mathbf B$, and $\mathbf C$ are such that the multiplication by ${\mathbf\Phi}_{m,l}(\mathbf A,\mathbf B)$ in \eqref{eq:mainidentity} does not increase the overlap between $\ker (\mathbf S_{m+l}(\mathbf C)^T)$ and $S^{m+l}(\mathbb R^{K^{m+l}})$. In other words, we suppose that the multiplication by ${\mathbf\Phi}_{m,l}(\mathbf A,\mathbf B)$ does not cause additional vectorized $K\times\dots\times K$ symmetric tensors of order $m+l$ to be part of the null space of $\mathbf R_{m,l}(\mathcal T)$. This is key to the derivation. By the assumption, as we will explain further in this section, the only vectorized symmetric tensors in the null space of $\mathbf R_{m,l}(\mathcal T)$ admit a direct connection with the factor matrix $\mathbf C$, from which $\mathbf C$ may be retrieved. On the other hand, the null space of $\mathbf R_{m,l}(\mathcal T)$ can obviously be computed from the given tensor $\mathcal T$. The algebraic procedure based on Theorem \ref{th:uniquenessandalgorithmrefol} consists of three phases and is summarized in Algorithm \ref{alg:onefactormatrix}. In the first phase we find the $K\times C^{K-1}_R$ matrix $\mathbf F$ such that \begin{gather} \textup{every column of}\ \mathbf F \ \text{is orthogonal to exactly} \ K-1\ \text{columns of }\ \mathbf C\ \text{and} \label{P1}\\ \begin{split} \text{any vector that is orthogonal to exactly } K-1 \text{ columns of } \mathbf C \\ \qquad\qquad\qquad\text{ is proportional to a column of } \mathbf F. \end{split}\label{P2} \end{gather} \begin{algorithm}[!h] \caption{(Computation of CPD, $K\leq R$ (see Theorem \ref{th:uniquenessandalgorithmrefol}))} \label{alg:onefactormatrix} \begin{algorithmic}[1] \Require $\mathcal T\in\mathbb R^{I\times J\times K}$ and $l\geq 0$ with the property that there exist $\mathbf A\in\mathbb R^{I\times R}$, $\mathbf B\in\mathbb R^{J\times R}$, and $\mathbf C\in\mathbb R^{K\times R}$ such that $\mathcal T=[\mathbf A,\mathbf B,\mathbf C]_R$ and assumptions \textup{(i)}--\textup{(iii)} in Theorem \ref{th:uniquenessandalgorithmrefol} hold. \Ensure Matrices $\mathbf A\in\mathbb R^{I\times R}$, $\mathbf B\in\mathbb R^{J\times R}$ and $\mathbf C\in\mathbb R^{R\times R}$ such that $\mathcal T=[\mathbf A,\mathbf B,\mathbf C]_R$ \Algphase{{\bf Phase 1:} Find the matrix $\mathbf F\in\mathbb R^{K\times C^{K-1}_R}$ such that $\mathbf F$ coincides with $\mathcal B(\mathbf C)$ up to (unknown) column permutation and scaling} \State Construct the $I^{m+l}J^{m+l}\times K^{m+l}$ matrix $\mathbf R_{m,l}(\mathcal T)$ by Definition \ref{def:matrixtensor}. \State Find $\mathbf w_1,\dots,\mathbf w_{C^{K-1}_R}$ that form a basis of $\ker (\mathbf R_{m,l}(\mathcal T))\bigcap S^{m+l}(\mathbb R^{K^{m+l}})$ \State $\mathbf W\leftarrow [\mathbf w_1\ \dots\ \mathbf w_{C^{K-1}_R}]$ \State Reshape the $K^{m+l}\times C^{K-1}_R$ matrix $\mathbf W$ into an $K\times K^{m+l-1}\times C^{K-1}_R$ tensor $\mathcal W$ \State Compute the CPD \Statex \qquad $\mathcal W=[\mathbf F, \mathbf F\odot\dots\odot\mathbf F,\mathbf M]_{C^{K-1}_R}$\quad ({\em $\mathbf M$ is a by-product})\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \qquad (GEVD) \Algphase{{\bf Phase 2 and Phase 3 (can be taken verbatim from \cite[Algorithms 1,2]{LinkGEVD})}} \end{algorithmic} \end{algorithm} Since $k_{\mathbf C}=K$ any $K-1$ columns of $\mathbf C$ define a unique column of $\mathbf F$ (up to scaling). Thus, \eqref{P1}--\eqref{P2} define the matrix $\mathbf F$ up to column permutation and scaling. A special representation of $\mathbf F$ (called $\mathcal B(\mathbf C)$) was studied in \cite{LinkGEVD}. It was shown in \cite{LinkGEVD} that the matrix $\mathbf F$ can be considered as an unconventional variant of the inverse of $\mathbf C$: \begin{align} &\text{ every column of } \mathbf C \text{ is orthogonal to exactly } C^{K-2}_{R-1} \text{ columns of } \mathbf F,\label{P3}\\ &\begin{multlined} \text{any vector that is orthogonal to exactly } C^{K-2}_{R-1} \text{ columns of } \mathbf F\\ \text{ is proportional to a column of } \mathbf C. \end{multlined}\label{P4} \end{align} (Note that, since $k_{\mathbf C}=K$, multiplication by the Moore--Penrose pseudo-inverse $\mathbf C^{\dagger}$ yields $\mathbf C\mathbf C^{\dagger}=\mathbf I_K$. In contrast, for $\mathbf F$ we consider the product $\mathbf F\mathbf C$.) It can be shown (see Lemma \ref{lemma4.5}) that under the assumptions in Theorems \ref{th:uniquenessandalgorithm}--\ref{th:uniquenessandalgorithmrefol}: \begin{gather} k_{\mathbf F}\geq 2,\qquad \text{the matrix }\mathbf F^{(m+l-1)}\ \text{has full column rank and}\ \label{eq:beforeFFF} \\ \label{eq:FFF} \ker( \mathbf R_{m,l}(\mathcal T))\bigcap S^{m+l}(\mathbb R^{K^{m+l}}) = \textup{range}\left(\mathbf F^{(m+l)}\right), \end{gather} where \begin{equation} \label{eq:Fm} \mathbf F^{(m+l-1)}:=\underbrace{\mathbf F\odot\dots\odot\mathbf F}_{m+l-1},\qquad \mathbf F^{(m+l)}:=\underbrace{\mathbf F\odot\dots\odot\mathbf F}_{m+l}. \end{equation} If $K=R$ (as in Subsection \ref{subsection:fcr}), then $m=R-K+2=2$, \eqref{eq:FFF} coincides with \eqref{eq:CCC} ($\mathbf F$ coincides with $\mathbf C^{-T}$ up to column permutation and scaling), and the first phase of Algorithm \ref{alg:onefactormatrix} coincides with steps 1--5 of Algorithm \ref{alg:fcr}. For $K<R$ (implying $m>2$) we work as follows. From Definition \ref{def:matrixtensor} it follows that the rows of the matrix $\mathbf R_{m,l}(\mathcal T)$ are vectorized versions of $K\times\dots\times K$ symmetric tensors of order $m+l$. Thus, in step 2, we find the vectors $\mathbf w_1,\dots,\mathbf w_{C^{K-1}_R}$ that form a basis of the orthogonal complement to $\textup{range}( \mathbf R_{m,l}(\mathcal T)^T)$ in the space $S^{m+l}(\mathbb R^{K^{m+l}})$ (the existence of such a basis follows from assumption \textup{(iii)} of Theorem \ref{th:uniquenessandalgorithmrefol}). By \eqref{eq:FFF}, there exists a unique nonsingular $C^{K-1}_R\times C^{K-1}_R$ matrix $\mathbf M$ such that \begin{equation} \label{eq:WeqFFFM} \mathbf W = \mathbf F^{(m+l)}\mathbf M^T. \end{equation} In step 4, we construct the tensor $\mathcal W$ whose vectorized frontal slices are the vectors $\mathbf w_1,\dots,\mathbf w_{C^{K-1}_R}$. Reshaping both sides of \eqref{eq:WeqFFFM} we obtain the CPD $\mathcal W=[\mathbf F, \mathbf F^{(m+l-1)},\mathbf M]_R$ in which the matrices $\mathbf F^{(m+l-1)}$ and $\mathbf M$ have full column rank and $k_{\mathbf F}\geq 2$. By Theorem \ref{theorem:Harshman}, the CPD of $\mathcal W$ can be computed by means of GEVD. In the second and third phase we use $\mathbf F$ to find $\mathbf A$, $\mathbf B$, $\mathbf C$. There are two ways to do this. The first way is to find $\mathbf C$ from $\mathbf F$ by \eqref{P3}--\eqref{P4} and then to recover $\mathbf A$ and $\mathbf B$ from $\mathcal T$ and $\mathbf C$. The second way is to find $\mathbf A$ and $\mathbf B$ from $\mathcal T$ and $\mathbf F$ and then to recover $\mathbf C$. The second and third phase were thoroughly discussed in \cite{LinkGEVD} and can be taken verbatim from \cite[Algorithms 1 and 2]{LinkGEVD}. \begin{example}\label{Example2.12} Table \ref{table3} contains some examples of CPDs which can be computed by Algorithm \ref{alg:onefactormatrix} and cannot be computed by algorithms from \cite{LinkGEVD}. The tensors were generated by a PD $[\mathbf A,\mathbf B,\mathbf C]_R$ in which the entries of $\mathbf A$, $\mathbf B$, and $\mathbf C$ are independently drawn from the standard normal distribution $N(0,1)$. We try different values $l=0,1,\dots,$ until condition \textup{(iii)} in Theorem \ref{th:uniquenessandalgorithmrefol} is met (assuming that this will be the case for some $l\geq 0$). In our implementation, we retrieved the vectors $\mathbf w_1,\dots,\mathbf w_{C^{K-1}_R}$ from the $C^{K-1}_R$-dimensional null space of a $C_{R+l+1}^{m+l}\times C_{R+l+1}^{m+l}$ positive semi-definite matrix $\mathbf Q$. The storage of $\mathbf Q$ is the main bottleneck in our implementation. To give some insight in the complexity of the algorithm we included the computational time (averaged over 100 random tensors) and the size of $\mathbf Q$ in the table. Uniqueness of the CPDs follows from Theorem \ref{th:uniquenessandalgorithmrefol}. By comparison, the results of \cite{PartII} guarantee uniqueness only for rows 1--4 (see \cite[Table 3.1]{PartII}). \begin{table}[!h] \begin{center} \caption{ Upper bounds on $R$ under which the CPD of a generic $I\times J\times K$ tensor can be computed by Algorithm \ref{alg:onefactormatrix} (see Example \ref{Example2.12} details).} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline dimensions of $\mathcal T$& $R$& $m$& $l$& $C_{R+l+1}^{m+l}$ & computational time (sec) \\ \hline $4\times 5\times 6$ & 7 & 3 & 1 & 126& 0.182 \\ $5\times 7\times 7$ & 9 & 4 & 1 & 462& 1.598 \\ $6 \times 9 \times 8$ & 11 & 5 & 1 & 1716& 28.616 \\ $7 \times 7 \times 7$ & 10 & 5 & 1 & 924& 8.192\\ $4 \times 6 \times 8$ & 9 & 3 & 1 & 330& 0.63 \\ $4 \times 7 \times 10$ & 11 & 3 & 1 & 715& 2.352 \\ $5 \times 6 \times 6$ & 8 & 4 & 2 & 462 & 1.256 \\ $5 \times 7 \times 8$ & 10 & 4 & 2 & 1716& 14.552 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{table3} \end{center} \end{table} \end{example} \section{Proofs related to Sections \ref{subsection:fcr} and \ref{subsectio:notfcr}}\label{proofsnfcr} In this section we 1) prove Theorems \ref{th:uniquenessonefm1} and \ref{th:uniquenessonefm2}; 2) show that the assumptions in Theorem \ref{th:uniquenessandalgorithm} are more restrictive than the assumptions in Theorem \ref{theorem2.9}, which implies the statement on uniqueness in Theorem \ref{th:uniquenessandalgorithm}; 3) prove that assumption \textup{(iii)} in Theorem \ref{th:uniquenessandalgorithm} is equivalent to assumption \textup{(iii)} in Theorem \ref{th:uniquenessandalgorithmrefol}; 4) prove statements \eqref{eq:beforeFFF}--\eqref{eq:FFF}; 5) prove Theorem \ref{th:maintheoremfcr}. \subsection{Proofs of Theorems \ref{th:uniquenessonefm1} and \ref{th:uniquenessonefm2}}\label{subsection6.1} In the sequel, $\omega(\lambda_1, \dots,\lambda_R)$ denotes the number of nonzero entries of $[\lambda_1\ \dots\ \lambda_R]^T$. The following condition $\text{\textup{(W{\scriptsize m}}}$$\text{\textup{)}}$\ was introduced in \cite{PartI, PartII} in terms of $m$-th compound matrices. In this paper we will use the following (equivalent) definition of $\text{\textup{(W{\scriptsize m}}}$$\text{\textup{)}}$\ . \begin{definition}\label{Def:Wm} We say that condition $\text{\textup{(W{\scriptsize m}}}$$\text{\textup{)}}$\ holds for the triplet of matrices $(\mathbf A,\mathbf B,\mathbf C)\in \mathbb R^{I\times R}\times \mathbb R^{J\times R} \times \mathbb R^{K\times R}$ if $\omega(\lambda_1, \dots,\lambda_R)\leq m-1$ whenever \begin{gather} r_{\mathbf A\Diag{\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_R}\mathbf B^T}\leq m-1\quad \text{ and }\quad [\lambda_1\ \dots\ \lambda_R]^T\in\textup{range}(\mathbf C^T)\label{eqWm2new}. \end{gather} \end{definition} Since the rank of the product $\mathbf A\Diag{\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_R}\mathbf B^T$ does not exceed the rank of the factors and $r_{\Diag{\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_R}}=\omega(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_R)$, we always have the implication \begin{equation}\label{eqdirectimplication} \omega(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_R)\leq m-1\quad\Rightarrow\quad r_{\mathbf A\Diag{\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_R}\mathbf B^T}\leq m-1. \end{equation} By Definition \ref{Def:Wm}, condition $\text{\textup{(W{\scriptsize m}}}$$\text{\textup{)}}$\ holds for the triplet $(\mathbf A,\mathbf B,\mathbf C)$ if and only if the opposite implication in \eqref{eqdirectimplication} holds for all $[\lambda_1\ \dots\ \lambda_R]\in\textup{range}(\mathbf C^T)\subset\mathbb R^R$. The following results on rank and uniqueness of one factor matrix have been obtained in \cite{PartI}. \begin{proposition}\label{prmostgeneraldis} (see \cite[Proposition 4.9]{PartI}) Let $\mathcal T=(t_{ijk})_{i,j,k=1}^{I,J,K}=[\mathbf A,\mathbf B,\mathbf C]_R$, $r_{\mathbf C}=K\leq R$. Assume that \begin{itemize} \item[(i)] $k_{\mathbf C}\geq 1$; \item[(ii)] $\mathbf A\odot\mathbf B$ has full column rank; \item[(iii)] conditions $\text{\textup{(W{\scriptsize m})}},\dots,\text{\textup{(W{\scriptsize 1})}}$ hold for the triplet of matrices $(\mathbf A,\mathbf B,\mathbf C)$. \end{itemize} Then $r_{\mathcal T}=R$ and the third factor matrix of $\mathcal T$ is unique. \end{proposition} \begin{proposition}\label{prmostgeneraldis2}(see \cite[Corollary 4.10]{PartI}) Let $\mathcal T=(t_{ijk})_{i,j,k=1}^{I,J,K}=[\mathbf A,\mathbf B,\mathbf C]_R$, $r_{\mathbf C}=K\leq R$. Assume that \begin{itemize} \item[(i)] $k_{\mathbf C}\geq 1$; \item[(ii)] $\mathbf A\odot\mathbf B$ has full column rank; \item[(iii)] $\min (k_{\mathbf A},k_{\mathbf B})\geq m-1$; \item[(iv)] condition $\text{\textup{(W{\scriptsize m})}}$ holds for the triplet of matrices $(\mathbf A,\mathbf B,\mathbf C)$. \end{itemize} Then $r_{\mathcal T}=R$ and the third factor matrix of $\mathcal T$ is unique. \end{proposition} One can easily notice the similarity between the assumptions in Theorems \ref{th:uniquenessonefm1}--\ref{th:uniquenessonefm2} and the assumptions in Propositions \ref{prmostgeneraldis}--\ref{prmostgeneraldis2}. The proofs of Theorems \ref{th:uniquenessonefm1}--\ref{th:uniquenessonefm2} follow from Propositions \ref{prmostgeneraldis}--\ref{prmostgeneraldis2} and the following lemma. \begin{lemma}\label{some:lemma} Let $\mathbf A\in\mathbb R^{I\times R}$, $\mathbf B\in\mathbb R^{J\times R}$, and $\mathbf C\in\mathbb R^{K\times R}$, $r_{\mathbf C}=K\leq R$, $k\leq m=R-K+2$, and let $l$ be a nonnegative integer. Let also the matrix $\mathbf \Phi_{k,l}(\mathbf A,\mathbf B)$ be defined as in Definition \ref{def:matrixPhi}, the matrix $\mathbf S_{k+l}(\mathbf C)$ be defined as in Definition \ref{def:matrixS}, and $\mathbf U$ be a matrix such that its columns form a basis for $\textup{range}(\mathbf S_{k+l}(\mathbf C)^T)$. Assume that \begin{equation} \text{the matrix } \mathbf \Phi_{k,l}(\mathbf A,\mathbf B)\mathbf U \text{ has full column rank.} \label{eq:newWk} \end{equation} Then condition $\text{\textup{(W{\scriptsize k})}}$ holds for the triplet of matrices $(\mathbf A,\mathbf B,\mathbf C)$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Let \eqref{eqWm2new} hold for $m=k$. We need to show that $\omega(\lambda_1, \dots,\lambda_R)\leq k-1$. Since $[\lambda_1\ \dots\ \lambda_R]^T\in\textup{range}(\mathbf C^T)$ and $r_{\mathbf C}=K$, there exists a unique vector $\mathbf x\in\mathbb R^K$ such that $[\lambda_1\ \dots\ \lambda_R]=\mathbf x^T\mathbf C$. Hence, we need to show that $\mathbf x$ is orthogonal to at least $R-k+1$ columns of $\mathbf C$. By \eqref{eqWm2new}, there exist $\tilde{\mathbf A}\in\mathbb R^{I\times R}$ and $\tilde{\mathbf B}\in\mathbb R^{J\times R}$ such that \begin{equation} \mathbf A\Diag{\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_R}\mathbf B^T = \tilde{\mathbf A}\tilde{\mathbf B}^T\ \label{eq:Wwwmatr} \end{equation} and $\max(r_{\tilde{\mathbf A}},r_{\tilde{\mathbf B}})\leq k-1$. Since $\mathbf a\mathbf b^T\lambda = \mathbf a\outerprod\mathbf b\outerprod\lambda$, we can consider \eqref{eq:Wwwmatr} as an equality of two PDs of an $I\times J\times 1$ tensor \begin{equation*} \sum\limits_{r=1}^R\mathbf a_r\outerprod\mathbf b_r\outerprod\lambda_r=\sum\limits_{r=1}^R\tilde{\mathbf a}_r\outerprod\tilde{\mathbf b}_r\outerprod 1. \end{equation*} Hence, by \eqref{eq:mainidentity}, \begin{equation} \begin{split} {\mathbf\Phi}_{k,l}(\mathbf A,\mathbf B)\mathbf S_{k+l}(\mathbf x^T\mathbf C)^T =&\ {\mathbf\Phi}_{k,l}(\mathbf A,\mathbf B)\mathbf S_{k+l}([\lambda_1\ \dots\ \lambda_R])^T =\\ &{\mathbf\Phi}_{k,l}(\tilde{\mathbf A},\tilde{\mathbf B})\mathbf S_{k+l}([1\ \dots\ 1])^T. \end{split} \label{eq:Phikkkll} \end{equation} Since $\max(r_{\tilde{\mathbf A}},r_{\tilde{\mathbf B}})\leq k-1$, it follows from Definition \ref{def:matrixPhi} that ${\mathbf\Phi}_{k,l}(\tilde{\mathbf A},\tilde{\mathbf B})$ is the zero matrix (cf. explanation at the end of Section \ref{subsection:construction}). Besides, it easily follows from Definition \ref{def:matrixS} that $$ \mathbf S_{k+l}(\mathbf C)^T(\underbrace{\mathbf x\otimes\dots\otimes\mathbf x}_{k+l})=\mathbf S_{k+l}(\mathbf x^T\mathbf C)^T. $$ Thus, \eqref{eq:Phikkkll} takes the form $$ {\mathbf\Phi}_{k,l}(\mathbf A,\mathbf B)\mathbf S_{k+l}(\mathbf C)^T(\mathbf x\otimes\dots\otimes\mathbf x)= {\mathbf\Phi}_{k,l}(\mathbf A,\mathbf B)\mathbf S_{k+l}(\mathbf x^T\mathbf C)^T=\mathbf 0. $$ Hence, by \eqref{eq:newWk}, the vector $\mathbf x\otimes\dots\otimes\mathbf x$ is orthogonal to the range of $S_{k+l}(\mathbf C)$. In particular, \begin{equation*} \begin{split} (\mathbf x\otimes\dots\otimes\mathbf x)^T \sum\limits_{\substack{(s_1,\dots,s_{k+l})\in\\ P_{\{r_1,\dots,r_k,\dots,r_k\}}}}\mathbf c_{s_1}\otimes\dots\otimes\mathbf c_{s_{m+l}}&=\\ (\mathbf x^T\mathbf c_{r_1})\cdots (\mathbf x^T\mathbf c_{r_{k-1}})(\mathbf x^T\mathbf c_{r_k})^{l+1}&=0 \end{split} \end{equation*} for all $(k+l)$-tuples $(r_1,\dots,r_k,\dots,r_k)$ such that $1\leq r_1<\dots<r_k\leq R$, yielding that $\mathbf x$ is orthogonal to at least $R-k+1$ columns of $\mathbf C$. \end{proof} \subsection{Proof of statement on rank and uniqueness in Theorem \ref{th:uniquenessandalgorithm}} In Lemma \ref{lemma:onemorelemma} below we prove that $\min(k_{\mathbf A},k_{\mathbf B})\geq m$. It is clear that condition $\min(k_{\mathbf A},k_{\mathbf B})\geq m$ and assumption \textup{(i)} in Theorem \ref{th:uniquenessandalgorithm} imply assumption \textup{(iii)} in Theorem \ref{th:uniquenessonefm2} and condition \eqref{eq:uniqviaonefm}. Hence, by Theorem \ref{theorem2.9}, $r_{\mathcal T} = R$ and the CPD of tensor $\mathcal T$ is unique. \begin{lemma}\label{lemma:onemorelemma} Let assumptions \textup{(i)} and \textup{(iii)} in Theorem \ref{th:uniquenessandalgorithm} hold. Then\\ $\min(k_{\mathbf A},k_{\mathbf B})\geq m$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Assume to the contrary that $k_{\mathbf A}< m$ or $k_{\mathbf B}< m$. W.l.o.g. we assume that the first $m$ columns of $\mathbf A$ are linearly dependent. We will get a contradiction with assumption \textup{(iii)} by constructing a nonzero vector $\mathbf f\in \textup{range}(\mathbf S_{m+l}(\mathbf C)^T)$ such that ${\mathbf\Phi}_{m,l}(\mathbf A,\mathbf B)\mathbf f=\mathbf 0$. Since $k_{\mathbf C}=K$, there exists $\mathbf x\in\mathbb R^K$ such that \begin{equation} \label{eq:constructionofx} \mathbf x^T\mathbf c_1\ne 0,\dots, \mathbf x^T\mathbf c_m\ne 0,\ \ \mathbf x^T\mathbf c_{m+1} =\dots=\mathbf x^T\mathbf c_R=0. \end{equation} We set $\mathbf f=\mathbf S_{m+l}(\mathbf C)^T(\underbrace{\mathbf x\otimes\dots\otimes\mathbf x}_{m+l})$ and we index the entries of $\mathbf f$ by $(m+l)$-tuples as in \eqref{eq:mplusltuples}. One can easily show that $\mathbf f$ has entries $(\mathbf x^T\mathbf c_{r_1})\dots (\mathbf x^T\mathbf c_{r_{m+l}})$. Hence, by \eqref{eq:constructionofx}, \begin{align*} (\mathbf x^T\mathbf c_{r_1})\dots (\mathbf x^T\mathbf c_{r_{m+l}})=0,\ &\text{ if }\ \{r_1,\dots,r_{m+l}\}\setminus\{1,\dots,m\}\ne \emptyset,\\ (\mathbf x^T\mathbf c_{r_1})\dots (\mathbf x^T\mathbf c_{r_{m+l}})\ne0,\ &\text{ if }\ \{r_1,\dots,r_{m+l}\}\setminus\{1,\dots,m\}= \emptyset. \end{align*} On the other hand, by Definition \ref{def:matrixPhi} and the assumption of linear dependence of the vectors $\mathbf a_1,\dots,\mathbf a_m$, the columns of ${\mathbf\Phi}_{m,l}(\mathbf A,\mathbf B)$ indexed by the $(m+l)$-tuples \eqref{eq:mplusltuples} such that $ \{r_1,\dots,r_{m+l}\}\setminus\{1,\dots,m\}=\emptyset $ are zero. Hence, ${\mathbf\Phi}_{m,l}(\mathbf A,\mathbf B)\mathbf f=\mathbf 0$. \end{proof} \subsection{Properties of the matrix $\mathbf S_{m+l}(\mathbf C)^T$} The following auxiliary Lemma will be used in Subsections \ref{Subsectionequiv} and \ref{Subsection:last}. Since the proof is rather long and technical, it is included in \ref{section:Appendix}. \begin{lemma}\label{lemma:suppl} Let $\mathbf C\in\mathbb R^{K\times R}$, $k_{\mathbf C}=K$, $m=R-K+2$, $l\geq 0$, let $\mathbf F$ satisfy \eqref{P1}--\eqref{P2}, and let $\mathbf F^{(m+l)}$ be defined by \eqref{eq:Fm}. Then \begin{itemize} \item[\textup{(i)}] $\dim \left(\ker (\mathbf S_{m+l}(\mathbf C)^T)\bigcap S^{m+l}(\mathbb R^{K^{m+l}})\right)=C^{K-1}_R$; \item[\textup{(ii)}] $\ker (\mathbf S_{m+l}(\mathbf C)^T)\bigcap S^{m+l}(\mathbb R^{K^{m+l}})=\textup{range}\left(\mathbf F^{(m+l)}\right)$; \item[\textup{(iii)}]$\textup{range} (\mathbf S_{m+l}(\mathbf C)^T)=\mathbf S_{m+l}(\mathbf C)^T(S^{m+l}(\mathbb R^{K^{m+l}}))$; \item[\textup{(iv)}] $\dim\ (\textup{range} (\mathbf S_{m+l}(\mathbf C)^T))= C^{m+l}_{K+m+l-1}-C^{K-1}_R$. \end{itemize} \end{lemma} \subsection{Proof of equivalence of Theorems \ref{th:uniquenessandalgorithm} and \ref{th:uniquenessandalgorithmrefol}} \label{Subsectionequiv} We prove that assumption \textup{(iii)} in Theorem \ref{th:uniquenessandalgorithm} is equivalent to assumption \textup{(iii)} in Theorem \ref{th:uniquenessandalgorithmrefol}. By \eqref{equation:2.19}, it is sufficient to prove that \begin{equation} \begin{split} \label{eq4.8} \dim \left(\ker (\mathbf R_{m,l}(\mathcal T))\bigcap S^{m+l}(\mathbb R^{K^{m+l}})\right)\geq C^{K-1}_R+1\Leftrightarrow\\ \text{the matrix }\ \mathbf \Phi_{m,l}(\mathbf A,\mathbf B)\mathbf U_m\ \text{does not have full column rank}. \end{split} \end{equation} To prove \eqref{eq4.8} we will use the following result for $\mathbf X:=\mathbf \Phi_{m,l}(\mathbf A,\mathbf B)$, $\mathbf Y:=\mathbf S_{m+l}(\mathbf C)^T$, and $E:=S^{m+l}(\mathbb R^{K^{m+l}})$: if $E$ is a subspace and $\mathbf X$ and $\mathbf Y$ are matrices such that $\mathbf X\mathbf Y$ is defined, then \begin{equation} \label{eq:4.9} \begin{split} &\dim\left(\textup{ker}(\mathbf X\mathbf Y)\cap E \right)\geq \dim\left(\textup{ker}(\mathbf Y)\cap E \right)+1\quad \Leftrightarrow\\ &\text{there exists a nonzero vector}\ \mathbf f\in E\setminus \textup{ker}(\mathbf Y)\ \text{such that }\ \mathbf X\mathbf Y\mathbf f=0. \end{split} \end{equation} We have \begin{flalign*} \dim \left(\ker (\mathbf R_{m,l}(\mathcal T))\bigcap S^{m+l}(\mathbb R^{K^{m+l}})\right)\geq C^{K-1}_R+1 \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\xLeftrightarrow{\eqref{eq:mainidentity}}\\ \left\{\begin{aligned} \dim\left(\text{ker} ({\mathbf\Phi}_{m,l}(\mathbf A,\mathbf B)\mathbf S_{m+l}(\mathbf C)^T)\bigcap S^{m+l}(\mathbb R^{K^{m+l}}) \right) \geq C^{K-1}_R+1=\\ \dim\left(\text{ker} (\mathbf S_{m+l}(\mathbf C)^T)\bigcap S^{m+l}(\mathbb R^{K^{m+l}}) \right)+1 \end{aligned}\right\} \xLeftrightarrow{\eqref{eq:4.9}}\\ \left\{\begin{aligned} \text{there exists a nonzero vector}\ \mathbf f\in S^{m+l}(\mathbb R^{K^{m+l}})\setminus \textup{ker}(\mathbf S_{m+l}(\mathbf C)^T) \\ \text{ such that } \ \mathbf \Phi_{m,l}(\mathbf A,\mathbf B)\mathbf S_{m+l}(\mathbf C)^T\mathbf f=0 \end{aligned}\right\}\ \xLeftrightarrow{\ \ \ \ }\\ \text{the matrix }\ \mathbf \Phi_{m,l}(\mathbf A,\mathbf B)\mathbf U_m\ \text{does not have full column rank}, \end{flalign*} where the equality in the second statement holds by Lemma \ref{lemma:suppl} \textup{(i)} and the last equivalence follows from $\textup{range}(\mathbf U_m)=\textup{range}(\mathbf S_{m+l}(\mathbf C)^T)$. \subsection{Proof of the statement on algebraic computation in Theorem \ref{th:uniquenessandalgorithm}}\label{Subsection:last} The overall procedure that constitutes the proof of the statement on algebraic computation is summarized in Algorithm \ref{alg:onefactormatrix} and explained in Subsection \ref{subsection2.4.2}. In this subsection we prove statements \eqref{eq:beforeFFF}--\eqref{eq:FFF}. \begin{lemma}\label{lemma4.5} Let assumptions \textup{(i)} and \textup{(iii)} in Theorem \ref{th:uniquenessandalgorithmrefol} hold and let $\mathbf F$ satisfy \eqref{P1}--\eqref{P2}. Then \eqref{eq:beforeFFF}--\eqref{eq:FFF} hold. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} The implication $k_{\mathbf C}=K\ \Rightarrow\ $ \eqref{eq:beforeFFF} was proved in \cite[Proposition 1.10]{LinkGEVD}. In Subsection \ref{Subsectionequiv} we proved that assumption \textup{(iii)} in Theorem \ref {th:uniquenessandalgorithm} holds. By \eqref{eq:mainidentity}, Theorem \ref {th:uniquenessandalgorithm} \textup{(iii)}, and Lemma \ref{lemma:suppl} we have \begin{equation*} \begin{split} &\ker (\mathbf R_{m,l}(\mathcal T))\bigcap S^{m+l}(\mathbb R^{K^{m+l}})=\\ &\text{ker} ({\mathbf\Phi}_{m,l}(\mathbf A,\mathbf B)\mathbf S_{m+l}(\mathbf C)^T)\bigcap S^{m+l}(\mathbb R^{K^{m+l}})=\\ &\text{ker} (\mathbf S_{m+l}(\mathbf C)^T)\bigcap S^{m+l}(\mathbb R^{K^{m+l}}) = \textup{range}\left(\mathbf F^{(m+l)}\right), \end{split} \end{equation*} which completes the proof of \eqref{eq:FFF}. \end{proof} \subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{th:maintheoremfcr}}\label{subsection6.6}We check the assumptions in Theorem \ref{th:uniquenessandalgorithmrefol} for $m=2$. Assumption \textup{(i)} holds since $r_{\mathbf C}=K=R$ implies $k_{\mathbf C}=K$ and assumption \textup{(iii)} coincides with \eqref{eq:maincondfcr}. To prove assumption \textup{(ii)} we assume to the contrary that $(\mathbf A\odot\mathbf B)[\lambda_1\ \dots\ \lambda_R]^T=\mathbf 0$. Then $r_{\mathbf A\Diag{\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_R} \mathbf B^T)}=0$. In Subsection \ref{Subsectionequiv} we explained that assumption \textup{(iii)} in Theorem \ref {th:uniquenessandalgorithm} also holds. Hence, by Lemma \ref{some:lemma}, condition $\text{\textup{(W{\scriptsize 2})}}$ holds for the triplet $(\mathbf A,\mathbf B,\mathbf C)$. Hence, at most one of the values $\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_R$ is not zero. If such a $\lambda_r$ exists, then $\mathbf a_r=\mathbf 0$ or $\mathbf b_r=\mathbf 0$ yielding that $\min(k_{\mathbf A}, k_{\mathbf B})=0$. On the other hand, by Lemma \ref{lemma:onemorelemma}, $\min(k_{\mathbf A}, k_{\mathbf B})\geq 2$, which is a contradiction. Hence, $\lambda_1=\dots=\lambda_R=0$. \section{Discussion}\label{sec:discussion} A number of conditions (called $\text{\textup{(K{\scriptsize m})}}$, $\text{\textup{(C{\scriptsize m})}}$, $\text{\textup{(U{\scriptsize m})}}$, and $\text{\textup{(W{\scriptsize m})}}$) for uniqueness of CPD of a specific tensor have been proposed in \cite{PartI,PartII}. It was shown that each subsequent condition in $\text{\textup{(K{\scriptsize m})}},\dots, \text{\textup{(W{\scriptsize m})}}$ is more general than the preceding one, but harder to use. Verification of conditions $\text{\textup{(K{\scriptsize m})}}$ and $\text{\textup{(C{\scriptsize m})}}$ reduces to the computation of matrix rank. In contrast, conditions $\text{\textup{(U{\scriptsize m})}}$ and $\text{\textup{(W{\scriptsize m})}}$ are not easy to check for a specific tensor but hold automatically for generic tensors of certain dimensions and rank \cite{AlgGeom1}. In this paper we have proposed new sufficient conditions for uniqueness that can be verified by the computation of matrix rank, are more relaxed than $\text{\textup{(K{\scriptsize m})}}$ and $\text{\textup{(C{\scriptsize m})}}$, but that cannot be more relaxed than $\text{\textup{(W{\scriptsize m})}}$. Nevertheless, examples illustrate that in many cases the new conditions may be considered as an ``easy to check analogue'' of $\text{\textup{(U{\scriptsize 2})}}$ ($\Leftrightarrow\text{\textup{(W{\scriptsize 2})}}$) and $\text{\textup{(W{\scriptsize m})}}$. We have also proposed an algorithm to compute the factor matrices. The algorithm relies only on standard linear algebra, and has as input the tensor $\mathcal T$, the tensor rank $R$, and a nonnegative integer parameter $l$. The algorithm basically reduces the problem to the construction of a $C^{m+l}_{K+m+l-1}\times C^{m+l}_{K+m+l-1}$ matrix $\mathbf Q$, the computation of its $C^{K-1}_R$-dimensional null space, and the GEVD of a $C^{K-1}_R\times C^{K-1}_R$ matrix pencil, where $m=R-K+2$. For $l=0$, Algorithms \ref{alg:fcr} and \ref{alg:onefactormatrix} coincide with algorithms from \cite{DeLathauwer2006} and \cite{LinkGEVD}, respectively. Our derivation is different from the derivations in \cite{DeLathauwer2006} and \cite{LinkGEVD} but has the same structure: from the CPD $\mathcal T=[\mathbf A,\mathbf B,\mathbf C]_R$ we derive a set of equations that depend only on $\mathbf C$; we find $\mathbf C$ from the new system by means of GEVD, and then recover $\mathbf A$ and $\mathbf B$ from $\mathcal T$ and $\mathbf C$. It is interesting to note that the new algorithm (with $l=1$) computes the CPD of a generic $3\times 7\times 12$ tensor of rank $12$ in less than $1$ second while optimization-based algorithms (we checked a Gauss-Newton dogleg trust region method) fail to find the solution in a reasonable amount of time. We have demonstrated that our algorithm (with $l\leq 2$) can find the CPD of a generic $I\times J\times K$ tensor of rank $R$ if $R\leq K\leq (I-1)(J-1)$ and $R\leq 24$. We conjecture that the algorithm (possibly with $l\geq 3$) can also find the CPD for $R\geq 25$. (It is known that the CPD of a generic tensor is not unique if $R> (I-1)(J-1)$). In that case the $C^{m+l}_{K+m+l-1}\times C^{m+l}_{K+m+l-1}$ matrix $\mathbf Q$ becomes large and the computation, as it is proposed in the paper, becomes infeasible. Since the null space of $\mathbf Q$ is just $R$-dimensional the approach may possibly be scaled by using iterative methods to compute the null space.
\section{Introduction} A partition of $n$ is a non-increasing sequence of natural numbers whose sum is $n$. An overpartition of $n$ is a partition of $n$ in which the first occurrence of a number may be overlined. For example, there are $14$ overpartitions of $4$: $4$, $\overline{4}$, $3+1$, $\overline{3}+1$, $3+\overline{1}$, $\overline{3}+\overline{1}$, $2+2$, $\overline{2}+2$, $2+1+1$, $\overline{2}+1+1$, $2+\overline{1}+1$, $\overline{2}+\overline{1}+1$, $1+1+1+1$ and $\overline{1}+1+1+1$. In 1926, Schur~\cite{Schur} proved the following partition identity. \begin{theorem}[Schur] \label{schur} Let $n$ be a positive integer. Let $D_1(n)$ denote the number of partitions of $n$ into distinct parts congruent to $1$ or $2$ modulo $3$. Let $E_1(n)$ denote the number of partitions of $n$ of the form $n= \lambda_1 + \cdots + \lambda_s$ where $\lambda_i - \lambda_{i+1} \geq 3$ with strict inequality if $\lambda_{i+1} \equiv 0 \mod 3$. Then $D_1(n)=E_1(n)$. \end{theorem} For example, for $n=9$, the partitions counted by $D_1(9)$ are $8+1$, $7+2$ and $5+4$ and the partitions counted by $E_1(9)$ are $9$, $8+1$ and $7+2$. Thus $D_1(9)=E_1(9)=3.$ Several proofs of Schur's theorem have been given using a variety of different techniques such as bijective mappings~\cite{Bessenrodt,Bressoud}, the method of weighted words~\cite{Alladi}, and recurrences~\cite{Andrews2,Andrews1,Andrews3}. Schur's theorem was subsequently generalised to overpartitions by Lovejoy~\cite{Lovejoy} using the method of weighted words. The case $k=0$ corresponds to Schur's theorem. \begin{theorem}[Lovejoy] \label{schur_over} Let $D_1(k,n)$ denote the number of overpartitions of $n$ into parts congruent to $1$ or $2$ modulo $3$ with $k$ non-overlined parts. Let $E_1(k,n)$ denote the number of overpartitions of $n$ with $k$ non-overlined parts, where parts differ by at least $3$ if the smaller is overlined or both parts are divisible by $3$, and parts differ by at least $6$ if the smaller is overlined and both parts are divisible by $3$. Then $D_1(k,n)=E_1(k,n)$. \end{theorem} Theorem~\ref{schur_over} was then proved bijectively by Raghavendra and Padmavathamma \cite{Pad}, and using $q$-difference equations and recurrences by the author~\cite{Dousse}. Andrews extended the ideas of his proofs of Schur's theorem to prove two much more general theorems on partitions with difference conditions~\cite{Generalisation2,Generalisation1}. But before stating these results in their full generality we need to introduce some notation. Let $A=\lbrace a(1), ..., a(r) \rbrace$ be a set of $r$ distinct integers such that $\sum_{i=1}^{k-1} a(i) < a(k)$ for all $1 \leq k \leq r$ and the $2^r -1$ possible sums of distinct elements of $A$ are all distinct. We denote this set of sums by $A'=\lbrace \alpha(1), ..., \alpha(2^r -1) \rbrace$, where $\alpha(1) < \cdots < \alpha(2^r-1)$. Let us notice that $\alpha(2^k)=a(k+1)$ for all $0 \leq k \leq r-1$ and that any $\alpha$ between $a(k)$ and $a(k+1)$ has largest summand $a(k)$. Let $N$ be a positive integer with $N \geq \alpha(2^r-1) = a(1) +\cdots+a(r).$ We further define $\alpha(2^r)=a(r+1)=N+a(1).$ Let $A_N$ denote the set of positive integers congruent to some $a(i) \mod N$, $-A_N$ the set of positive integers congruent to some $-a(i) \mod N$, $A'_N$ the set of positive integers congruent to some $\alpha(i) \mod N$ and $-A'_N$ the set of positive integers congruent to some $-\alpha(i) \mod N.$ Let $\beta_N(m)$ be the least positive residue of $m \mod N$. If $\alpha \in A'$, let $w(\alpha)$ be the number of terms appearing in the defining sum of $\alpha$ and $v(\alpha)$ the smallest $a(i)$ appearing in this sum. To illustrate these notations in the remainder of this paper, it might be useful to consider the example where $a(k)=2^{k-1}$ for $1 \leq k \leq r$ and $\alpha(k)=k$ for $1 \leq k \leq 2^r-1$. We are now able to state Andrews' generalisations of Schur's theorem. \begin{theorem}[Andrews] \label{andrews} Let $D(A_N;n)$ denote the number of partitions of $n$ into distinct parts taken from $A_N$. Let $E(A'_N;n)$ denote the number of partitions of $n$ into parts taken from $A'_N$ of the form $n=\lambda_1+\cdots+ \lambda_s$, such that \[\lambda_i - \lambda_{i+1} \geq N w(\beta_N(\lambda_{i+1}))+v(\beta_N(\lambda_{i+1}))-\beta_N(\lambda_{i+1}).\] Then $D(A_N;n)= E(A'_N;n)$. \end{theorem} \begin{theorem}[Andrews] \label{andrews2} Let $F(-A_N;n)$ denote the number of partitions of $n$ into distinct parts taken from $-A_N$. Let $G(-A'_N;n)$ denote the number of partitions of $n$ into parts taken from $-A'_N$ of the form $n=\lambda_1+\cdots+ \lambda_s$, such that \begin{displaymath} \lambda_i - \lambda_{i+1} \geq N w(\beta_N(-\lambda_{i+1}))+v(\beta_N(-\lambda_{i+1}))-\beta_N(-\lambda_{i+1}), \end{displaymath} and \begin{math} \lambda_s \geq N (w(\beta_N(-\lambda_s)-1). \end{math} Then $F(-A_N;n)= G(-A'_N;n)$. \end{theorem} Not only have Andrews' identities led to a number of important developments in combinatorics~\cite{Alladi1,Corteel,Yee} but they also play a natural role in group representation theory~\cite{AndrewsOlsson} and quantum algebra~\cite{Oh}. The author generalised Theorem~\ref{andrews} to overpartitions in~\cite{Doussegene} by proving the following. \begin{theorem} \label{dousse} Let $D(A_N;k,n)$ denote the number of overpartitions of $n$ into parts taken from $A_N$, having $k$ non-overlined parts. Let $E(A'_N;k,n)$ denote the number of overpartitions of $n$ into parts taken from $A'_N$ of the form $n=\lambda_1+\cdots+ \lambda_s$, having $k$ non-overlined parts, such that \[\lambda_i - \lambda_{i+1} \geq N w\left(\beta_N(\lambda_{i+1}) -1 +\chi(\overline{\lambda_{i+1}}) \right)+v(\beta_N(\lambda_{i+1}))-\beta_N(\lambda_{i+1}),\] where $\chi(\overline{\lambda_{i+1}})=1$ if $\lambda_{i+1}$ is overlined and $0$ otherwise. Then $D(A_N;k,n)= E(A'_N;k,n)$. \end{theorem} Here we generalise Theorem~\ref{andrews2} by showing the following. \begin{theorem} \label{dousse2} Let $F(-A_N;k,n)$ denote the number of overpartitions of $n$ into parts taken from $-A_N$, having $k$ non-overlined parts. Let $G(-A'_N;k,n)$ denote the number of overpartitions of $n$ into parts taken from $-A'_N$ of the form $n=\lambda_1+\cdots+ \lambda_s$, having $k$ non-overlined parts, such that \begin{displaymath} \lambda_i - \lambda_{i+1} \geq N w\left(\beta_N(\lambda_{i+1}) -1 +\chi(\overline{\lambda_{i+1}}) \right)+v(\beta_N(\lambda_{i+1}))-\beta_N(\lambda_{i+1}), \end{displaymath} \begin{displaymath} \lambda_s \geq N (w(\beta_N(-\lambda_s))-1). \end{displaymath} Then $F(-A_N;k,n)= G(-A'_N;k,n)$. \end{theorem} Theorem~\ref{schur} (resp. Theorem~\ref{schur_over}) corresponds to $N=3$, $a(1)= 1$, $a(2)=2$ in Theorems~\ref{andrews} and~\ref{andrews2} (resp. Theorems~\ref{dousse} and~\ref{dousse2}). Again, the case $k=0$ of Theorem~\ref{dousse} (resp. Theorem~\ref{dousse2}) gives Theorem~\ref{andrews} (resp. Theorem~\ref{andrews2}). Let us illustrate Theorems \ref{dousse2} with an example. Let $N=7$, $r=3$, $a(1)=1,$ $a(2)=2,$ $a(3)=4$. The overpartitions of $8$ counted by $G(-A'_7;k,8)$ are $8$, $\overline{8}$, $5+3$ and $\overline{5}+3$. The overpartitions of $8$ into parts congruent to $3$, $5$ or $6$ modulo $7$ (counted by $F(-A_7;k,8)$) are $5+3$, $\overline{5}+3$, $5 + \overline{3}$ and $\overline{5}+ \overline{3}$. In both cases, we have $1$ overpartition with $0$ non-overlined parts, $2$ overpartitions with $1$ non-overlined part, and $1$ overpartition with $2$ non-overlined parts. While the statements of Theorems~\ref{dousse} and~\ref{dousse2} resemble those of Andrews' theorems, the proofs are considerably more intricate and involve a number of new ideas. The proof of Theorem~\ref{dousse2} uses ideas similar to the proof of Theorem~\ref{dousse} presented in~\cite{Doussegene}, in the sense that it relies in going back and forth from $q$-difference equations to recurrence equations. The remainder of this paper is devoted to the proof of Theorem~\ref{dousse2}. First, we give the recurrence equation satisfied by the generating function for overpartitions enumerated by $G(-A'_N;k,n)$ having their largest part $\leq m$, using some combinatorial reasoning on the largest part. Then we prove by induction on $r$ that the limit when $m$ goes to infinity of a function satisfying this recurrence equation is equal to \begin{math} \prod_{j=1}^r \frac{(-q^{N-a(j)};q^N)_{\infty}}{(dq^{N-a(j)};q^N)_{\infty}}, \end{math} which is the generating function for overpartitions counted by $F(-A_N;k,n)$. Here we use the classical notation $(a;q)_{n} := \prod_{j=0}^{n-1} (1-aq^j).$ \section{The recurrence equation} In this section, we establish the recurrence equation satisfied by the generating function for overpartitions enumerated by $G(-A'_N;k,n)$ having their largest part $\leq m$. Let $n, m \in \field{N}^*$, $k \in \field{N}$. Let $\pi_m(k,n)$ denote the number of overpartitions counted by $G(-A'_N;k,n)$ such that the largest part is $ \leq m$ and overlined. Let $\phi_m(k,n)$ denote the number of overpartitions counted by $G(-A'_N;k,n)$ such that the largest part is $ \leq m$ and non-overlined. Then $\psi_{m} (k,n) := \pi_{m}(k,n) + \phi_{m}(k,n)$ is the number of overpartitions counted by $G(-A'_N;k,n)$ with largest part $\leq m$. Then the following holds. \begin{lemma} \label{lemma1} We have \begin{equation} \label{eq1} \begin{aligned} \psi_{jN-\alpha(m)} (k,n) &- \psi_{jN-\alpha(m+1)} (k,n) \\ =& ~\psi_{jN-w(\alpha(m))N-v(\alpha(m))} (k,n-jN+\alpha(m))\\ +& \psi_{jN-(w(\alpha(m))-1)N-v(\alpha(m))} (k,n-jN+\alpha(m)). \end{aligned} \end{equation} \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Let us first prove the following equation: \begin{equation} \label{aux1} \begin{aligned} \pi_{jN-\alpha(m)} (k,n) &= \pi_{jN-\alpha(m+1)} (k,n) \\ &+ \pi_{jN-w(\alpha(m))N-v(\alpha(m))} (k,n-jN+\alpha(m))\\ &+ \phi_{jN-(w(\alpha(m))-1)N-v(\alpha(m))} (k,n-jN+\alpha(m)). \end{aligned} \end{equation} We break the overpartitions counted by $\pi_{jN-\alpha(m)} (k,n)$ into two sets : those with largest part \begin{math} < jN-\alpha(m) \end{math} and those with largest part equal to $jN-\alpha(m)$. The first set is counted by $\pi_{jN-\alpha(m+1)} (k,n)$, and the second by \begin{align*} &\pi_{jN-w(\alpha(m))N-v(\alpha(m))} (k,n-jN+a(m)) \\&+ \phi_{jN-(w(\alpha(m))-1)N-v(\alpha(m))}(k,n-jN+a(m)). \end{align*} To see this, let us consider an overparition $n=\lambda_1 + \lambda_2 + \dots + \lambda_s$ counted by \begin{math}\pi_{jN-\alpha(m)} (k,n)\end{math} with largest part equal to \begin{math}jN-\alpha(m)\end{math}. Now remove its largest part $\lambda_1 = jN-\alpha(m)$. The number partitioned becomes $n-jN+\alpha(m)$. The largest part was overlined so the number of non-overlined parts is still $k$. If $\lambda_2$ was overlined, then we have \begin{align*} \lambda_2 &\leq \lambda_1 - w(\alpha(m))N -v(\alpha(m)) +\alpha(m)\\ &\leq jN - w(\alpha(m))N -v(\alpha(m)), \end{align*} and we obtain an overpartition counted by $\pi_{jN-w(\alpha(m))N-v(\alpha(m))} (k,n-jN+a(m))$. If $\lambda_2$ was not overlined, then we have \begin{align*} \lambda_2 &\leq \lambda_1 - (w(\alpha(m))-1)N -v(\alpha(m)) +\alpha(m)\\ &\leq jN - (w(\alpha(m))-1)N -v(\alpha(m)), \end{align*} and we obtain an overpartition counted by $\phi_{jN-(w(\alpha(m))-1)N-v(\alpha(m))} (k,n-jN+a(m))$. In the same way we can prove the following \begin{equation} \label{aux2} \begin{aligned} \phi_{jN-\alpha(m)} (k,n) &= \phi_{jN-\alpha(m+1)} (k,n) \\ &+ \pi_{jN-w(\alpha(m))N-v(\alpha(m))} (k-1,n-jN+\alpha(m))\\ &+ \phi_{jN-(w(\alpha(m))-1)N-v(\alpha(m))} (k-1,n-jN+\alpha(m)). \end{aligned} \end{equation} Adding equations~\eqref{aux1} and~\eqref{aux2} and noting that for all $m,n,k,$ $\pi_m(k-1,n) = \phi_m(k,n)$ (we can either overline the largest part or not), we obtain equation~\eqref{eq1}. \end{proof} We define, for $m \geq 1$, $|q|<1$, $|d|<1$, \begin{equation*} g_m=g_m (q,d) := 1+ \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \psi_{m}(k,n) q^n d^k, \end{equation*} and for all $0 \leq k \leq r-1$, we set $g_{-m} (q,d)=(-d)^k$ for all $kN \leq m \leq (k+1)N$. This definition is consistent with~\eqref{eq1} and the condition that \begin{math} \lambda_s \geq N (w(\beta_N(-\lambda_s))-1) \end{math}. We want to find $\lim\limits_{m \rightarrow \infty} g_m$, which is the generating function for all overpartitions counted by $G(-A'_N;k,n)$. To do so, we establish a recurrence equation relating $g_{(m-j)N-a(1)}$, for $0 \leq j \leq r$. Let us start by giving some relations between generating functions. Lemma~\ref{lemma1} directly implies \begin{lemma} \label{lemma2} We have \begin{equation} \label{eqf1} \begin{aligned} g_{jN-\alpha(m)}= g_{jN-\alpha(m+1)} +& q^{jN-\alpha(m)} g_{jN-w(\alpha(m))N-v(\alpha(m))}\\ +& dq^{jN-\alpha(m)} g_{jN-(w(\alpha(m))-1)N-v(\alpha(m))}. \end{aligned} \end{equation} \end{lemma} \noindent Let $ 1 \leq k \leq r+1.$ Adding equations~\eqref{eqf1} together for $1 \leq m \leq 2^{k-1}-1$, using the fact that $\alpha\left(2^{k-1}\right)=a(k)$, we obtain \begin{equation} \label{eq3.5} \begin{aligned} g_{jN- a(1)} &= g_{jN -a(k)} \\&+ \sum_{\alpha < a(k)} \left( q^{jN-\alpha} g_{(j-w(\alpha))N-v(\alpha)} + dq^{jN-\alpha}g_{(j-w(\alpha)+1)N-v(\alpha)}\right). \end{aligned} \end{equation} Let us now add equations~\eqref{eqf1} together for $2^{k-2} \leq m \leq 2^{k-1}-1$. This gives \begin{equation} \label{eq3.6} \begin{aligned} g_{jN- a(k)} &= g_{jN -a(k+1)} \\&+ \sum_{a(k) \leq \alpha < a(k+1)} \left( q^{jN-\alpha} g_{(j-w(\alpha))N-v(\alpha)} + dq^{jN-\alpha}g_{(j-w(\alpha)+1)N-v(\alpha)}\right). \end{aligned} \end{equation} Every $a(k) < \alpha < a(k+1)$ is of the form $\alpha = a(k) + \alpha',$ with $\alpha' < a(k).$ Hence we can rewrite~\eqref{eq3.6} as \begin{align*} &g_{jN- a(k)} - g_{jN -a(k+1)} \\&= q^{jN-a(k)} g_{(j-1)N-a(k)} + dq^{jN-a(k)} g_{jN-a(k)} \\&+ \sum_{\alpha' < a(k)} \left( q^{jN-a(k)-\alpha'} g_{(j-w(\alpha')-1)N-v(\alpha')} + dq^{jN-a(k)-\alpha'} g_{(j-w(\alpha'))N-v(\alpha')}\right) \\&= q^{jN-a(k)} g_{(j-1)N-a(k)} + dq^{jN-a(k)} g_{jN-a(k)} \\&+ q^{N-a(k)} \left(g_{(j-1)N- a(1)} - g_{(j-1)N -a(k)}\right), \end{align*} where the last equality follows from~\eqref{eq3.5}. Thus \begin{equation} \label{eq3.7} \begin{aligned} \left(1-q^{jN-a(k)}\right) g_{jN-a(k)} &= g_{jN-a(k+1)}+q^{N-a(k)}g_{(j-1)N-a(1)} \\&-q^{N-a(k)}\left(1-q^{(j-1)N}\right)g_{(j-1)N-a(k)}. \end{aligned} \end{equation} We want to find the recurrence equation satisfied by $(g_{\ell N-a(1)})_{\ell \in \field{N}}$. Before doing so, we must recall some facts about $q$-binomial coefficients defined by $${m \brack r}_q := \begin{cases} \frac{\left(1-q^m\right)\left(1-q^{m-1}\right) \dots \left(1-q^{m-r+1}\right)}{\left(1-q\right) \left(1-q^2\right) \dots \left(1-q^r\right)}\ \text{if}\ 0 \leq r \leq m,\\ 0 \ \text{otherwise}. \end{cases}$$ They are $q$-analogues of the binomial coefficients and satisfy $q$-analogues of the Pascal triangle identity~\cite{Gasper}. \begin{proposition} \label{pascal} For all integers $0 \leq r \leq m$, \begin{equation} \label{pascal1} {m \brack r}_q = q^r {m-1 \brack r}_q + {m-1 \brack r-1}_q, \end{equation} \begin{equation} \label{pascal2} {m \brack r}_q ={m-1 \brack r}_q + q^{m-r} {m-1 \brack r-1}_q. \end{equation} \end{proposition} As $q \rightarrow 1$ these equations become Pascal's identity. We are now ready to state the key lemma which will lead to the desired recurrence equation. \begin{lemma} \label{conj} For $1 \leq k \leq r+1$, we have \begin{equation} \label{eq} \begin{aligned} \prod_{j=1}^{k-1} &\left(1-dq^{\ell N-a(j)}\right) g_{\ell N-a(1)} = g_{\ell N-a(k)} \\ + \sum_{j=1}^{k-1} &\left( \sum_{m=0}^{k-j-1} d^m \sum_{\substack{\alpha < a(k) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m}} q^{\ell N-\alpha} \left( (-1)^{m-1} q^{\ell (m-1)N} {j+m-1 \brack m-1}_{q^{-N}} \right. \right. \\ &\left. \vphantom{\sum_{\substack{\alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-1}}} \left. + (-1)^{m} q^{\ell mN} {j+m \brack m}_{q^{-N}} \right) \right) \prod_{h=1}^{j-1} \left(1-q^{(\ell-h)N}\right) g_{(\ell-j) N-a(1)}. \end{aligned} \end{equation} \end{lemma} \begin{proof} To prove this lemma, it is sufficient to replace $q$ by $q^{-1}$, then $x$ by $q^\ell N$ and finally $f_{a(i)}\left(q^{mN}\right)$ by $g_{mN-a(i)}$ in the proof of Lemma 2.4 of~\cite{Doussegene}. \end{proof} Writing $u_{\ell}:= g_{\ell N -a(1)}$ and setting $k=r+1$ in Lemma~\ref{conj}, we obtain the desired recurrence equation \begin{equation} \label{rec} \tag{$\mathrm{rec}_{N,r}$} \begin{aligned} \prod_{j=1}^{r} &\left(1-dq^{\ell N-a(j)}\right) u_{\ell} = u_{\ell-1} \\ + \sum_{j=1}^{r} &\left( \sum_{m=0}^{r-j} d^m \sum_{\substack{\alpha < a(r+1) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m}} q^{\ell N-\alpha} \left( (-1)^{m-1} q^{\ell (m-1)N} {j+m-1 \brack m-1}_{q^{-N}} \right. \right. \\& \left. \vphantom{\sum_{\substack{\alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-1}}} \left. + (-1)^{m} q^{\ell mN} {j+m \brack m}_{q^{-N}} \right) \right) \prod_{h=1}^{j-1} \left(1-q^{(\ell-h)N}\right) u_{\ell-j}, \end{aligned} \end{equation} with the initial conditions $u_{-k}=(-d)^k$ for all $0 \leq k \leq r-1$. \section{Evaluating $\lim\limits_{\ell \rightarrow \infty} u_{\ell}$ by induction} In this section, we evaluate $\lim\limits_{\ell \rightarrow \infty} u_{\ell}$, which is the generating function for partitions counted by $G(-A'_N;k,n)$. To do so, we prove the following theorem by induction on $r$. \begin{theorem} \label{main} Let $r$ be a positive integer. Then for every $N \geq \alpha(2^r-1)$, for every sequence $(u_m)_{m \in \field{N}}$ satisfying $(\mathrm{rec}_{N,r})$ and the initial condition $u_0=1$, we have \begin{displaymath} \lim\limits_{\ell \rightarrow \infty} u_{\ell}= \prod_{k=1}^r \frac{(-q^{N-a(k)};q^N)_{\infty}}{(dq^{N-a(k)};q^N)_{\infty}}. \end{displaymath} \end{theorem} The idea of the proof is to start from a function satisfying $(\mathrm{rec}_{N,r})$ and to do some transformations to obtain a function satisfying $(\mathrm{rec}_{N,r-1})$ in order to use the induction hypothesis. In order to simplify the proof, we split it into several lemmas. \begin{lemma} \label{lemmau} Let $(u_m)$ and $(\beta_m)$ be two sequences such that for all $m \in \field{N}$, $$\beta_m:= u_m \prod_{j=1}^{m} \frac{1-dq^{jN-a(r)}}{1-q^{jN}}$$ Then $u_0=1$ and $(u_m)$ satisfies~\eqref{rec} if and only if $\beta_0=1$ and $(\beta_m)$ satisfies the following recurrence equation \begin{equation} \label{recbeta} \tag{$\mathrm{rec}'_{N,r}$} \begin{aligned} &\left(1 + \sum_{j=1}^{r} \left( d^{j-1} \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j-1}} q^{-\alpha} +d^j \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j}} q^{-\alpha} \right) (-1)^j q^{j\ell N} \right) \beta_{\ell} \\&= \beta_{\ell-1} + \sum_{j=1}^r \sum_{h=1}^r \sum_{k=0}^{\min(j-1,h-1)}c_{k,j}b_{h-k,j} (-1)^{h+1} q^{h \ell N} \beta_{\ell-j}, \end{aligned} \end{equation} where $$c_{k,j}:= q^{-N \frac{k(k+1)}{2} - k a(r)} {j-1 \brack k}_{q^{-N}} d^k,$$ and $$b_{m,j}:= \left( d^{m-1} \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r+1) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-1}} q^{-\alpha} +d^m \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r+1) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m}} q^{-\alpha} \right) {j+m-1 \brack m-1}_{q^{-N}}.$$ \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Directly plugging the definition of $(\beta_m)$ into $(\mathrm{rec}_{N,r})$, we get \begin{align*} (1-q^{\ell N}) &\prod_{j=1}^{r-1} \left(1-dq^{\ell N-a(j)}\right) \beta_{\ell} = \beta_{\ell-1} \\ + \sum_{j=1}^{r} &\left( \sum_{m=0}^{r-j} d^m \sum_{\substack{\alpha < a(r+1) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m}} q^{\ell N -\alpha} \left( (-1)^{m-1} q^{\ell (m-1) N} {j+m-1 \brack m-1}_{q^{-N}} \right.\right. \\&\left. \vphantom{\sum_{\substack{\alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-1}}} \left. + (-1)^m q^{\ell m N} {j+m \brack m}_{q^{-N}} \right) \right) \prod_{h=1}^{j-1} \left(1-dq^{(\ell-h)N-a(r)}\right) \beta_{\ell-j}. \end{align*} With the conventions that $$ \sum_{\substack{\alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=n}} q^{-\alpha} = 0 \ \text{for}\ n \geq r,$$ and $$ \sum_{\substack{\alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=0}} q^{-\alpha} = 1,$$ this can be reformulated as \begin{align*} &\left(1 + \sum_{j=1}^{r} \left( d^{j-1} \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j-1}} q^{-\alpha} +d^j \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j}} q^{-\alpha} \right) (-1)^j q^{j\ell N} \right) \beta_{\ell} = \beta_{\ell -1} \\ &+ \sum_{j=1}^{r} \left( \sum_{m=1}^{r-j+1} \left(d^{m-1} \sum_{\substack{\alpha < a(r+1) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-1}} q^{-\alpha} + d^m \sum_{\substack{\alpha < a(r+1) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m}} q^{-\alpha}\right) {j+m-1 \brack m-1}_{q^{-N}} \right. \\ &\qquad \qquad \left. \vphantom{\sum_{\substack{\alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-1}}} (-1)^{m-1} q^{m \ell N} \right) \left(\sum_{k=0}^{j-1} q^{-N \frac{k(k-1)}{2}-k a(r)} {j-1 \brack k}_{q^{-N}} d^k (-1)^k q^{k \ell N}\right) \beta_{\ell-j}, \end{align*} because of the $q$-binomial theorem~\cite{Gasper} \begin{equation} \label{identity} \prod_{k=0}^{n-1}(1+q^kt) = \sum_{k=0}^n q^{\frac{k(k-1)}{2}} {n \brack k}_q t^k, \end{equation} in which we replace $q$ by $q^{-N}$, $n$ by $j-1$ and $t$ by $-dq^{(\ell-1)N-a(r)}$. Finally, noting that $b_{l-k,j} = 0$ if $j+l-k-1 \geq r$, we can rewrite this as~\eqref{recbeta}. Moreover, $\beta_0=u_0=1$ and the lemma is proved. \end{proof} We can directly transform ~\eqref{recbeta} into a $q$-difference equation on the generating function for $(\beta_m)$. \begin{lemma} \label{lemmaf} Let $(\beta_m)$ be a sequence and $f$ a function such that $$f(x) := \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \beta_n x^n.$$ Then $(\beta_m)$ satisfies \eqref{recbeta} and the initial condition $\beta_0=1$ if and only if $f(0)=1$ and $f$ satisfies the following recurrence equation \begin{equation} \label{eqf} \tag{$\mathrm{eq}_{N,r}$} \begin{aligned} (1-x) f(x) = \sum_{m=1}^{r} \Bigg( &d^{m-1} \sum_{\substack{\alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=m-1}} q^{-\alpha} + d^{m} \sum_{\substack{\alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=m}} q^{\alpha} \\&+ \sum_{j=1}^r \sum_{k=0}^{\min(j-1,m-1)} c_{k,j} b_{m-k,j} x^j q^{mjN} \Bigg) (-1)^{m+1} f(xq^{mN}). \end{aligned} \end{equation} \end{lemma} \begin{proof} By the definition of $f$ and~\eqref{recbeta}, we have \begin{align*} (1-x) f(x) =& \sum_{j=1}^{r} \left( d^{j-1} \sum_{\substack{\alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j-1}} q^{-\alpha} + d^{j} \sum_{\substack{\alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j}} q^{-\alpha} \right) (-1)^{j+1} f\left(xq^{jN}\right) \\ &+ \sum_{j=1}^r \sum_{h=1}^r \sum_{k=0}^{\min(j-1,h-1)} c_{k,j} b_{h-k,j} (-1)^{h+1} x^j q^{hjN} f\left(xq^{hN}\right). \end{align*} Relabelling the summation indices and factorising leads to~\eqref{eqf}. Moreover, $f(0)=\beta_0=1$. This completes the proof. \end{proof} Let us now do some transformations starting from $(\mathrm{rec}_{N,r-1})$. \begin{lemma} \label{lemmasn} Let $(\mu_n)$ and $(s_n)$ be two sequences such that for all $n$, $$s_n:= \mu_n \prod_{k=1}^{n} \frac{1}{1-q^{Nk}}.$$ Then $(\mu_n)$ satisfies $(\mathrm{rec}_{N,r-1})$ and the initial condition $\mu_0=1$ if and only if $s_0=1$ and $(s_n)$ satisfies the following recurrence equation \begin{equation} \label{recsn} \tag{$\mathrm{rec}''_{N,r-1}$} \begin{aligned} &\left(1 + \sum_{j=1}^{r} \left( d^{j-1} \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j-1}} q^{-\alpha} +d^j \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j}} q^{-\alpha} \right) (-1)^j q^{j\ell N} \right) s_{\ell} = s_{\ell-1} \\&+ \sum_{j=1}^r \sum_{m=1}^{r-j} \left(d^{m-1} \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-1}} q^{-\alpha} +d^m \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m}} q^{-\alpha} \right) \\& \qquad \qquad \quad \times {j+m-1 \brack m-1}_{q^{-N}} (-1)^{m+1} q^{m\ell N} s_{\ell-j}. \end{aligned} \end{equation} \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Using the definition of $(s_n)$ and $(\mathrm{rec}_{N,r-1})$, we get \begin{align*} &(1-q^{\ell N}) \prod_{j=1}^{r-1} \left(1-dq^{\ell N-a(j)}\right) s_{\ell} = s_{\ell-1} \\ + \sum_{j=1}^{r-1} &\left( \sum_{m=0}^{r-j-1} d^m \sum_{\substack{\alpha < a(r+1) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m}} q^{\ell N -\alpha} \left( (-1)^{m-1} q^{\ell (m-1) N} {j+m-1 \brack m-1}_{q^{-N}} \right. \right. \\& \left. \vphantom{\sum_{\substack{\alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-1}}} \left. + (-1)^m q^{\ell m N} {j+m \brack m}_{q^{-N}} \right) \right) \prod_{h=1}^{j-1} \left(1-dq^{(\ell-h)N-a(r)}\right) s_{\ell-j}. \end{align*} Then, as in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lemmau}, this can be reformulated as~\eqref{recsn}, and $s_0= \mu_0=1.$ \end{proof} Again, let us translate this into a recurrence equation on the generating function for $(s_n)$. \begin{lemma} \label{lemmaG} Let $(s_n)$ be a sequence and $G$ be a function such that $$G(x) := \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} s_n x^n.$$ Then $(s_n)$ satisfies $(\mathrm{rec}''_{N,r-1})$ and the initial condition $s_0=1$ if and only if $G(0)=1$ and $G$ satisfies the following $q$-difference equation \begin{equation} \label{eqG} \tag{$\mathrm{eq''}_{N,r-1}$} \begin{aligned} \left(1-x\right)G(x) = \sum_{m=1}^{r} \sum_{j=0}^{r-1}& \left(d^{m-1} \sum_{\substack{\alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-1}} q^{-\alpha} + d^{m} \sum_{\substack{\alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m}} q^{-\alpha} \right) \\& \times {j+m-1 \brack m-1}_{q^{-N}} (-1)^{m+1} x^j q^{jmN} G\left(xq^{mN}\right). \end{aligned} \end{equation} \end{lemma} \begin{proof} By the definition of $G$ and~\eqref{recsn}, we have \begin{align*} \left(1-x\right) G(x) &= \sum_{m=1}^{r} \left( d^{m-1} \sum_{\substack{\alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=m-1}} q^{-\alpha} + d^{m} \sum_{\substack{\alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=m}} q^{-\alpha} \right) (-1)^{m+1} G\left(xq^{mN}\right) \\ &+ \sum_{m=1}^{r-1} \sum_{j=1}^{r-1} \left(d^{m-1} \sum_{\substack{\alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-1}} q^{-\alpha} + d^{m} \sum_{\substack{\alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m}} q^{-\alpha} \right) \\& \qquad \qquad \quad \times {j+m-1 \brack m-1}_{q^{-N}} (-1)^{m+1} x^j q^{jmN} G\left(xq^{mN}\right). \end{align*} As the summand of the second term equals $0$ when $m=r$, we can equivalently write that the second sum is taken on $m$ going from $1$ to $r$. Then we observe that the first term corresponds to $j=0$ in the second term, and factorising gives exactly~\eqref{eqG}. Moreover, $G(0)=s_0=1$. This completes the proof. \end{proof} Let us do a final transformation and obtain yet another $q$-difference equation. \begin{lemma} \label{lemmag} Let $G$ and $g$ be two sequences such that $$ g(x) := G(x) \prod_{k=1}^{\infty} \left( 1 +xq^{kN-a(r)} \right).$$ Then $G$ satisfies $(\mathrm{eq}''_{N,r-1})$ and the initial condition $G(0)=1$ if and only if $g(0)=1$ and $g$ satisfies the following $q$-difference equation \begin{equation} \label{eqg} \tag{$\mathrm{eq'}_{N,r-1}$} \begin{aligned} \left(1-x\right) g(x) &= \sum_{m=1}^{r} \left( \sum_{\nu=0}^{r-1} \sum_{\mu=0}^{\min(m-1, \nu)} f_{m,\mu} e_{m,\nu - \mu} x^{\nu} q^{\nu m N} \right. \\&+ \left. q^{-a(r)} \sum_{\nu=1}^{r} \sum_{\mu=0}^{\min(m-1, \nu-1)} f_{m,\mu} e_{m,\nu - \mu -1} x^{\nu} q^{\nu m N}\right) (-1)^{m+1} g\left(xq^{mN}\right), \end{aligned} \end{equation} where $$e_{m,j} := \left(d^{m-1} \sum_{\substack{\alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-1}} q^{-\alpha} + d^{m} \sum_{\substack{\alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m}} q^{-\alpha} \right) {j+m-1 \brack m-1}_{q^{-N}},$$ and $$f_{m,k} := q^{-N \frac{k(k+1)}{2} -ka(r)} {m-1 \brack k}_{q^{-N}}.$$ \end{lemma} \begin{proof} By definition of $g$, we have \begin{align*} \left(1-x\right) g(x) =& \sum_{m=1}^{r} \sum_{j=0}^{r-1} \left(d^{m-1} \sum_{\substack{\alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-1}} q^{-\alpha} + d^{m} \sum_{\substack{\alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m}} q^{-\alpha} \right) \\& \times {j+m-1 \brack m-1}_{q^{-N}} (-1)^{m+1} \prod_{k=1}^m \left(1 + xq^{kN-a(r)}\right) x^j q^{jmN} g\left(xq^{mN}\right). \end{align*} Furthermore \begin{align*} \prod_{k=1}^m \left(1 + xq^{kN-a(r)}\right) &= \prod_{k=0}^{m-1} \left(1 + xq^{(m-k)N-a(r)}\right) \\&= \left(1 + xq^{mN-a(r)}\right) \prod_{k=1}^{m-1} \left(1 + xq^{(m-k)N-a(r)}\right) \\&= \left(1 + xq^{mN-a(r)}\right) \sum_{k=0}^{m-1} x^k q^{kmN -N \frac{k(k+1)}{2} -ka(r)} {m-1 \brack k}_{q^{-N}}, \end{align*} where the last equality follows from~\eqref{identity}. Therefore \begin{align*} & \left(1-x\right) g(x) = \\ & \sum_{m=1}^{r} \left(\sum_{j=0}^{r-1} \left(d^{m-1} \sum_{\substack{\alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-1}} q^{-\alpha} + d^{m} \sum_{\substack{\alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m}} q^{-\alpha} \right) {j+m-1 \brack m-1}_{q^{-N}} x^j q^{jmN} \right. \\& \left. \vphantom{\sum_{\substack{\alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-1}}} \times \left(1 + xq^{mN-a(r)}\right) \sum_{k=0}^{m-1} x^k q^{kmN -N \frac{k(k+1)}{2} -ka(r)} {m-1 \brack k}_{q^{-N}} \right) (-1)^{m+1} g\left(xq^{mN}\right) \end{align*} \begin{align*} = \sum_{m=1}^{r} &\left[ \sum_{j=0}^{r-1} \left(d^{m-1} \sum_{\substack{\alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-1}} q^{-\alpha} + d^{m} \sum_{\substack{\alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m}} q^{-\alpha} \right) {j+m-1 \brack m-1}_{q^{-N}} x^j q^{jmN} \right. \\& \qquad \times \sum_{k=0}^{m-1} x^k q^{kmN -N \frac{k(k+1)}{2} -ka(r)} {m-1 \brack k}_{q^{-N}} \\&+ \sum_{j=0}^{r-1} \left(d^{m-1} \sum_{\substack{\alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-1}} q^{-\alpha} + d^{m} \sum_{\substack{\alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m}} q^{-\alpha} \right) \\& \qquad \qquad \times q^{-a(r)} {j+m-1 \brack m-1}_{q^{-N}} x^{j+1} q^{(j+1)mN} \\& \qquad \times \left. \vphantom{\sum_{\substack{\alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-1}}} \sum_{k=0}^{m-1} x^k q^{kmN -N \frac{k(k+1)}{2}-ka(r)} {m-1 \brack k}_{q^{-N}} \right] (-1)^{m+1} g\left(xq^{mN}\right). \end{align*} Thus \begin{align*} \left(1-x\right) g(x) =& \sum_{m=1}^{r} \left(\sum_{j=0}^{r-1} e_{m,j} x^j q^{jmN} \sum_{k=0}^{m-1} f_{m,k} x^k q^{kmN} \right. \\&+ \left. q^{-a(r)} \sum_{j=1}^{r} e_{m,j-1} x^j q^{jmN} \sum_{k=0}^{m-1} f_{m,k} x^k q^{kmN} \right) (-1)^{m+1} g\left(xq^{mN}\right). \end{align*} Rearranging leads to~\eqref{eqg}. As always, $g(0)=G(0)=1$. The lemma is proved. \end{proof} We now want to show that $f$ and $g$ are in fact equal. \begin{lemma} \label{equalfg} Let $f$ and $g$ be defined as in Lemmas~\ref{lemmaf} and~\ref{lemmag}. Then $f=g$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} To prove the equality, it is sufficient to show that for every $1 \leq m \leq r,$ the coefficient of $(-1)^{m+1} f\left(xq^{mN}\right)$ in~\eqref{eqf} is the same as the coefficient of $(-1)^{m+1}g\left(xq^{mN}\right)$ in~\eqref{eqg}. Let $m \in \lbrace 1,...,r \rbrace$ and \begin{align*} S_{m} &: = \left[ (-1)^{m+1} f\left(xq^{mN}\right)\right] (\mathrm{eq}_{N,r}) \\&= d^{m-1} \sum_{\substack{\alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=m-1}} q^{-\alpha} + d^{m} \sum_{\substack{\alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=m}} q^{-\alpha} + \sum_{j=1}^r \sum_{k=0}^{\min(j-1,m-1)} c_{k,j} b_{m-k,j} x^j q^{jmN} \end{align*} and \begin{align*} S'_{m} &: = \left[ (-1)^{m+1} g\left(xq^{mN}\right)\right] (\mathrm{eq'}_{N,r-1}) \\&= \sum_{\nu=0}^{r-1} \sum_{\mu=0}^{\min(m-1, \nu)} f_{m,\mu} e_{m,\nu - \mu} x^{\nu} q^{\nu m N} \\&\quad + q^{-a(r)} \sum_{\nu=1}^{r} \sum_{\mu=0}^{\min(m-1, \nu-1)} f_{m,\mu} e_{m,\nu - \mu -1} x^{\nu}q^{\nu m N} \\&= f_{m,0} e_{m,0} \\& \quad + \sum_{\nu=1}^{r} \left( \sum_{\mu=0}^{\min(m-1, \nu)} f_{m,\mu} e_{m,\nu - \mu} + q^{-a(r)} \sum_{\mu=0}^{\min(m-1, \nu-1)} f_{m,\mu} e_{m,\nu - \mu -1} \right) x^{\nu} q^{\nu mN}, \end{align*} because $e_{m, r-\mu}=0$ for all $\mu$, as $\mu \leq m-1$ so the sums are over $\alpha$ such that $\alpha < a(r)$ and $w(\alpha) \geq r$, which is impossible. Let us first notice that $$f_{m,0} e_{m,0} = d^{m-1} \sum_{\substack{\alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=m-1}} q^{-\alpha} + d^{m} \sum_{\substack{\alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=m}} q^{-\alpha}.$$ Now define $$T_{m,j}:= \sum_{k=0}^{\min(j-1,m-1)} c_{k,j} b_{m-k,j},$$ and $$T'_{m,j}:= \sum_{k=0}^{\min(m-1, j)} f_{m,k} e_{m,j-k} + q^{-a(r)} \sum_{k=0}^{\min(m-1,j-1)} f_{m,k} e_{m,j-k-1}.$$ The only thing left to do is to show that for every $1 \leq j \leq r$, $$T_{m,j}= T'_{m,j}.$$ We have \begin{equation} \label{eqcb} \begin{aligned} &c_{k,j} b_{m-k,j} \\&= q^{-N \frac{k(k+1)}{2}-k a(r)} {j-1 \brack k}_{q^{-N}} {j+m-k-1 \brack m-k-1}_{q^{-N}} \\&\quad \times \left( d^{m-1} \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r+1) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-k-1}} q^{-\alpha} +d^m \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r+1) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-k}} q^{-\alpha} \right) \\&= \left( d^{m-1} \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-k-1}} q^{-\alpha} +d^m \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-k}} q^{-\alpha} \right) q^{-N \frac{k(k+1)}{2}-k a(r)} \\& \quad \times {j-1 \brack k}_{q^{-N}} {j+m-k-1 \brack m-k-1}_{q^{-N}} \\& +q^{-a(r)} \left( d^{m-1} \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-k-2}} q^{-\alpha} +d^m \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-k-1}} q^{-\alpha} \right) q^{-N \frac{k(k+1)}{2}-k a(r)} \\& \quad \times {j-1 \brack k}_{q^{-N}} {j+m-k-1 \brack m-k-1}_{q^{-N}}, \end{aligned} \end{equation} in which the last equality follows from separating the sums over $\alpha$ according to whether $\alpha$ contains $a(r)$ as a summand or not. We also have \begin{equation} \label{eqfe} \begin{aligned} f_{m,k} e_{m,j-k} &= q^{-N \frac{k(k+1)}{2}-k a(r)} {m-1 \brack k}_{q^{-N}} \\&\times \left( d^{m-1} \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-k-1}} q^{-\alpha} +d^m \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-k}} q^{-\alpha} \right) {j+m-k-1 \brack m-1}_{q^{-N}}, \end{aligned} \end{equation} and \begin{equation} \label{eqfe'} \begin{aligned} q^{-a(r)} &f_{m,k} e_{m,j-k-1} = q^{-N \frac{k(k+1)}{2}-(k+1) a(r)} {m-1 \brack k}_{q^{-N}} \\& \times \left( d^{m-1} \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-k-2}} q^{-\alpha} +d^m \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-k-1}} q^{-\alpha} \right) {j+m-k-2 \brack m-1}_{q^{-N}}. \end{aligned} \end{equation} By a simple calculation using the definition of $q$-binomial coefficients, we get the following result For all $j,k,m \in \field{N}$, \begin{equation} \label{equalityqbin} {m-1 \brack k}_{q^{-N}} {j+m-k-1 \brack m-1}_{q^{-N}} = {j \brack k}_{q^{-N}} {j+m-k-1 \brack m-k-1}_{q^{-N}}. \end{equation} Using~\eqref{equalityqbin}, we obtain \begin{align*} T'_{m,j}&= \chi( j \leq m-1) \ q^{-N \frac{j(j+1)}{2}-j a(r)} d^{m-1} {m-1 \brack m-j-1}_{q^{-N}} \\& \qquad \times \left(\sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=m-1}} q^{-\alpha} +d^m \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=m}} q^{-\alpha} \right) \\&+ \sum_{k=0}^{\min(m-1,j-1)} q^{-N \frac{k(k+1)}{2}-k a(r)} {j \brack k}_{q^{-N}} {j+m-k-1 \brack m-k-1}_{q^{-N}} \\& \qquad \times \left( d^{m-1} \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-k-1}} q^{-\alpha} +d^m \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-k}} q^{-\alpha} \right) \\&+ \sum_{k=0}^{\min(m-1,j-1)} q^{-N \frac{k(k+1)}{2}-(k+1) a(r)} {j-1 \brack k}_{q^{-N}} {j+m-k-2 \brack m-k-1}_{q^{-N}} \\& \qquad \times \left( d^{m-1} \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-k-2}} q^{-\alpha} +d^m \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-k-1}} q^{-\alpha} \right) . \end{align*} By~\eqref{pascal2} of Lemma~\ref{pascal}, we have $${j \brack k}_{q^{-N}} = {j-1 \brack k}_{q^{-N}} + q^{N(k-j)} {j-1 \brack k-1}_{q^{-N}},$$ $${j+m-k-2 \brack m-k-1}_{q^{-N}} = {j+m-k-1 \brack m-k-1}_{q^{-N}} - q^{-Nj} {j+m-k-2 \brack m-k-2}_{q^{-N}}.$$ This allows us to rewrite $T'_{m,j}$ as \begin{align*} T'_{m,j}&= \chi( j \leq m-1) \ q^{-N \frac{j(j+1)}{2}-j a(r)} {m-1 \brack m-j-1}_{q^{-N}} \\& \qquad \times \left( d^{m-1} \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=m-1}} q^{-\alpha} +d^m \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=m}} q^{-\alpha} \right) \\&+ \sum_{k=0}^{\min(m-1,j-1)} q^{-N \frac{k(k+1)}{2}-k a(r)} {j-1 \brack k}_{q^{-N}} {j+m-k-1 \brack m-k-1}_{q^{-N}} \\& \qquad \times \left( d^{m-1} \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-k-1}} q^{-\alpha} +d^m \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-k}} q^{-\alpha} \right) \\&+ \sum_{k=0}^{\min(m-1,j-1)} q^{-N \frac{k(k+1)}{2}-k a(r)+ N(k-j)} {j-1 \brack k-1}_{q^{-N}} {j+m-k-1 \brack m-k-1}_{q^{-N}} \\& \qquad \times \left( d^{m-1} \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-k-1}} q^{-\alpha} +d^m \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-k}} q^{-\alpha} \right) \\&+ \sum_{k=0}^{\min(m-1,j-1)} q^{-N \frac{k(k+1)}{2}-(k+1) a(r)} {j-1 \brack k}_{q^{-N}} {j+m-k-1 \brack m-k-1}_{q^{-N}} \\& \qquad \times \left( d^{m-1} \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-k-2}} q^{-\alpha} +d^m \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-k-1}} q^{-\alpha} \right) \\&- \sum_{k=0}^{\min(m-2,j-1)} q^{-N \frac{k(k+1)}{2}-(k+1) a(r)-Nj} {j-1 \brack k}_{q^{-N}} {j+m-k-2 \brack m-k-2}_{q^{-N}} \\& \qquad \times \left( d^{m-1} \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-k-2}} q^{-\alpha} +d^m \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-k-1}} q^{-\alpha} \right) . \end{align*} By~\eqref{eqcb}, the sum of the second and fourth term in the sum above is exactly equal to $T{m,j}$. Let $X$ denote the sum of the third and fifth term. We now want to show that \begin{align*} X +& \chi( j \leq m-1) \ q^{-N \frac{j(j+1)}{2}-j a(r)} {m-1 \brack m-j-1}_{q^{-N}} \\&\times \left( d^{m-1} \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=m-1}} q^{-\alpha} +d^m \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=m}} q^{-\alpha} \right) =0. \end{align*} By the change of variable $k'=k+1$ in the fourth sum, we get \begin{align*} X &= \sum_{k=0}^{\min(m-1,j-1)} q^{-N \frac{k(k-1)}{2}-k a(r)- Nj} {j-1 \brack k-1}_{q^{-N}} {j+m-k-1 \brack m-k-1}_{q^{-N}} \\& \qquad \times \left( d^{m-1} \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-k-1}} q^{-\alpha} +d^m \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-k}} q^{-\alpha} \right) \\&- \sum_{k=1}^{\min(m-1,j)} q^{-N \frac{k(k-1)}{2}-k a(r)-Nj} {j-1 \brack k-1}_{q^{-N}} {j+m-k-1 \brack m-k-1}_{q^{-N}} \\& \qquad \times \left( d^{m-1} \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-k-1}} q^{-\alpha} +d^m \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=j+m-k}} q^{-\alpha} \right) \\&= \begin{cases} \ 0,\ &\text{if}\ j \geq m,\\ \begin{aligned} &-q^{-N \frac{j(j+1)}{2}-j a(r)} {m-1 \brack m-j-1}_{q^{-N}} \\ &\quad \times \left( d^{m-1} \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=m-1}} q^{-\alpha} +d^m \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=m}} q^{-\alpha} \right) ,\end{aligned}\ &\text{otherwise} \end{cases} \\&= -\chi( j \leq m-1) \ q^{-N \frac{j(j+1)}{2}-j a(r)} {m-1 \brack m-j-1}_{q^{-N}} \\& \qquad \times \left( d^{m-1} \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=m-1}} q^{-\alpha} +d^m \sum_{\substack{ \alpha < a(r) \\ w(\alpha)=m}} q^{-\alpha} \right) . \end{align*} This completes the proof. \end{proof} We can finally turn to the proof of Theorem~\ref{main}. \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{main}] Let us start by the initial case $r=1$. Let $N \geq a(1)$ and $(u_m)$ such that $u_0=1$ and \begin{equation} \tag{$\mathrm{rec}_{N,1}$} \left(1-dq^{\ell N-a(1)}\right) u_{\ell} = \left(1 +q^{\ell N-a(1)}\right) u_{\ell-1}. \end{equation} Then \begin{displaymath} u_{\ell}= \frac{(-q^{N-a(1)};q^N)_{\ell}}{(dq^{N-a(1)};q^N)_{\ell}}. \end{displaymath} Taking the limit as $\ell$ goes to infinity gives the desired result. Now assume that Theorem~\ref{main} is true for some $r-1 \geq 1$. We want to show that it is true for $r$ too. Let $N \geq \alpha(2^r-1)$, and $(u_m)_{m \in \field{N}}$ satisfying $(\mathrm{rec}_{N,r})$ and the initial condition $u_0=1$. For all $m$, let \begin{displaymath} \beta_m:= u_m \prod_{j=1}^{m} \frac{1-dq^{jN-a(r)}}{1-q^{jN}}. \end{displaymath} Then $\beta_0=1$ and by Lemma~\ref{lemmau}, $(\beta_m)$ satisfies~\eqref{recbeta}. Now let $$f(x):= \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \beta_n x^n.$$ Then by Lemma~\ref{lemmaf}, $f(0)=1$ and $f$ satisfies~\eqref{eqf}. But by Lemma~\ref{equalfg}, $f$ also satisfies~\eqref{eqg}. Now let $$ G(x):= \frac{f(x)}{\prod_{k=1}^{\infty} \left(1 + xq^{kN-a(r)}\right)}.$$ By Lemma~\ref{lemmag}, $G(0)=1$ and $G$ satisfies~\eqref{eqG}. Let $$G(x) =: \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} s_n x^n.$$ By Lemma~\ref{lemmaG}, $s_0=1$ and $(s_n)$ satisfies~\eqref{recsn}. Finally let $$\mu_n:= s_n \prod_{k=1}^{n} \left(1-q^{Nk}\right).$$ By Lemma~\ref{lemmasn}, $\mu_0=1$ and $(\mu_n)$ satisfies $(\mathrm{rec}_{N,r-1})$. Now $N$ is still larger than $\alpha \left( 2^{r-1}-1 \right)$ and we can use the induction hypothesis which gives \begin{equation} \label{g1} \lim\limits_{\ell \rightarrow \infty}\mu_{\ell} = \prod_{k=1}^{r-1} \frac{(-q^{N-a(k)};q^N)_{\infty}}{(dq^{N-a(k)};q^N)_{\infty}}.. \end{equation} Therefore by definition of $(s_{\ell})$, \begin{displaymath} \lim\limits_{\ell \rightarrow \infty}s_{\ell} = \frac{1}{(q^N;q^N)_{\infty}} \prod_{k=1}^{r-1} \frac{(-q^{N-a(k)};q^N)_{\infty}}{(dq^{N-a(k)};q^N)_{\infty}}. \end{displaymath} We have \begin{equation} \label{truc} \sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \beta_m x^m = f(x) = \prod_{k=1}^{\infty} \left(1 + xq^{kN-a(r)}\right) G(x) = \prod_{k=1}^{\infty} \left(1 + xq^{kN-a(r)}\right) \sum_{m=0}^{\infty} s_m x^m. \end{equation} We multiply both sides of \eqref{truc} by $(1-x)$ and we apply Appell's Comparison Theorem~\cite[p. 101]{Appell}. We obtain \begin{displaymath} \lim\limits_{\ell \rightarrow \infty} \beta_{\ell}= \prod_{k=1}^{\infty} \left(1 + q^{kN-a(r)}\right) \lim\limits_{\ell \rightarrow \infty}s_{\ell} = \frac{(-q^{N-a(r)};q^N)_{\infty}}{(q^N;q^N)_{\infty}} \prod_{k=1}^{r-1}\frac{(-q^{N-a(k)};q^N)_{\infty}}{(dq^{N-a(k)};q^N)_{\infty}}. \end{displaymath} Thus by definition of $(\beta_{\ell})$, we have \begin{displaymath} \lim\limits_{\ell \rightarrow \infty} u_{\ell}=\prod_{j=1}^{\infty} \frac{1-q^{jN}}{1-dq^{jN-a(r)}} \lim\limits_{\ell \rightarrow \infty}\beta_{\ell} = \frac{(-q^{N-a(r)};q^N)_{\infty}}{(dq^{N-a(r)};q^N)_{\infty}} \prod_{k=1}^{r-1}\frac{(-q^{N-a(k)};q^N)_{\infty}}{(dq^{N-a(k)};q^N)_{\infty}}. \end{displaymath} Theorem~\ref{main} is proved. \end{proof} Now Theorem~\ref{dousse2} is a simple corollary of Theorem~\ref{main}. \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{dousse2}] We have that $\lim\limits_{\ell \rightarrow \infty} u_{\ell}$, which is the generating function for partitions counted by $G(-A'_N;k,n)$, is equal to $\prod_{k=1}^r \frac{(-q^{N-a(k)};q^N)_{\infty}}{(dq^{N-a(k)};q^N)_{\infty}},$ which is the generating function for partitions counted by $F(-A_N;k,n)$. Thus $$F(-A_N;n,k)= G(-A'_N;n,k),$$ and Theorem~\ref{dousse2} is proved. \end{proof} \section{Conclusion} In~\cite{Corteel}, Corteel and Lovejoy proved an even more general theorem of which both of Andrews' theorems are particular cases. It would be interesting to generalise it to overpartitions too, but new techniques might be necessary. It would also be interesting to see if Theorems~\ref{dousse2} and~\ref{dousse} have connections with representation theory and quantum algebra like Theorems~\ref{andrews2} and~\ref{andrews}. \section*{Acknowledgements} The author would like to thank Jeremy Lovejoy for carefully reading a preliminary version of this article and giving her helpful advice to improve it. \bibliographystyle{alpha}
\section{INTRODUCTION} Multi-agent planning (MAP) refers to any planning or plan execution activity that involves several agents. In general terms, MAP is about the collective effort of multiple planning agents to combine their knowledge, information, and capabilities so as to develop solutions to problems that each could not have solved as well (if at all) alone \cite{Durfee01a}. There exists a great variety of tools and techniques for MAP. Agent-oriented MAP approaches put the emphasis on distributed execution, plan synchronization and collaborative activity at run-time planning to ensure that the agent's local objectives will be met \cite{Desjardins99a,Tambe97}. Another research line in MAP focuses on coordination of already completed plans that agents have constructed to achieve their individual goals, as for example plan merging \cite{ToninoBWW02,CoxDB05,CoxD05}. In contrast, the cooperative distributed planning (CDP) approach puts the emphasis on planning and how it can be extended into a distributed environment, on building a competent plan carried out by multiple agents \cite{Desjardins99a}. In CDP, agents typically exchange information about their plans, which they iteratively refine and revise until they fit together well. Following the cooperative approach, differences among MAP models lie in the integration of the planning and coordination stages \cite{Durfee01a,deWeerdt09}. Some recent works on fully cooperative MAP have emerged lately. The work in \cite{Kvarnstrom11} considers agents as having sequential threads of execution and interaction only occurs when distributing sub-plans to individual agents for plan execution. This approach follows a single-agent planning and distributed coordination. A centralized algorithm for MAP can be found in \cite{Brafman08}, where multiple agents do planning over a centralized plan interleaving planning and coordination. In a distributed version of this latter work, authors use a distributed CSP solver to handle coordination \cite{Nissim10}. The aforementioned approaches are conceived for loosely-coupled problems (LCP), where agents have little interaction between each other, as these processes are likely to be inefficient in tightly-coupled problems (TCP) \cite{Nissim10}. This way, the coupling level of a cooperative multi-agent system is formally defined as a set of parameters to limit the combinatorial blow-up of planning complexity \cite{Brafman08}. On the other hand, these MAP models do not consider systems composed of multiple entities distributed functionally or spatially but rather agents endowed with the same capabilities and acting under complete information. When capabilities are distributed across the agents' domains, agents have \emph{necessarily} to interact to solve the MAP problem while being unaware of the other agents' abilities or information about the world, i.e. working under incomplete information. In this paper, we present a general-purpose MAP model able to work with inherently distributed entities and suitable for both LCP and TCP domains. Similarly to \cite{JonssonR11}, we use an iterative planning refinement procedure that uses single-agent planning technology. Particularly, our model builds upon a partial-order planning (POP) paradigm, which also allow us to represent a collection of acting entities as a single agent. POP is a very suitable approach for centralized MAP with a small number of coordination points between agents \cite{Kvarnstrom11}, and the application of a multi-agent POP refinement framework also reveals as a very appropriate mechanism to address tightly-coupled problems. This paper is organized as follows. The next section presents the specification of a MAP task. Following, we explain the POP refinement approach and the extensions we have introduced to deal with a multi-agent representation and incomplete information. The next sections describe our MAP task theoretical model and the refinement planning algorithm carried out by the agents. Following, we show the results of the tests we have performed, and finally, we conclude and outline the future lines of research. \section{MULTI-AGENT PLANNING TASK} In our approach, the planning formalism of an agent is based on a STRIPS-like model of classical planning under partial observability. The model allows agents to represent their partial view of the world through the adoption of the open world assumption. States are represented in terms of state variables. ${\mathcal{O}}$ is a finite set of objects that model the elements of the planning domain; ${\mathcal V}$ is a finite set of \emph{state variables} each with an associated finite domain, ${\mathcal D}_v$, of mutually exclusive values. Values in ${\mathcal D}_v$ denote objects of the planning domain, i.e., $\forall v \in {\mathcal V}$, ${\mathcal D}_v \subseteq {\mathcal{O}}$. A state is a set of \emph{positive fluents} of the form $\langle v, d \rangle$, and \emph{negative fluents} of the form $\langle v, \neg d \rangle$, meaning that the variable takes on the value $d$ or $\neg d$, respectively. A \emph{formula} $(v, d)$ evaluates to true if the fluent $\langle v, d \rangle$ is present in the state and it evaluates to false otherwise. More specifically, $(v, d)$ evaluates to false if the fluent $\langle v, \neg d \rangle$ is in the state, or if no fluent relating the variable, $v$, and the value, $d$, is present in the state, in which case we say the current value of $v$ is unknown. We will generally refer to as \emph{fluents} both positive and negative fluents. \emph{Actions} are given as tuples $a= \langle {\sf pre}(a), {\sf eff}(a) \rangle$, where ${\sf pre}(a)$ denotes the formulas that must hold in a state $S$ for $a$ to be applicable, and ${\sf eff}(a)$ represents the new fluents in the resulting state $S'$. Effects of the form $(v = d)$ add a fluent $\langle v, d\rangle$ in the resulting state as well as a set of fluents $\{\langle v, \neg d_j\rangle\}, \forall d_j \neq d, d_j \in {\mathcal D}_v$, reflecting that $(v, d_j)$ evaluates to false in the resulting state. Effects of the form $(v \neq d)$ add a fluent $\langle v, \neg d\rangle$ to the resulting state, which implies the current value of $v$ is unknown unless there is a fluent $\langle v, d'\rangle$ in $S'$, $d \neq d'$. \vspace{0,2cm} We define a MAP task as a tuple ${\mathcal T} = \langle{\mathcal{AG}}, {\mathcal V}, {\mathcal A}, {\mathcal I}, {\mathcal G}\rangle$ where: \vspace{-0.2cm} \begin{itemize} \item ${\mathcal{AG}}=\{1, \ldots, n\}$ is a finite non-empty set of planning agents. \item ${\mathcal V}=\{{\mathcal V}_i\}_{i=1}^n$, where ${\mathcal V}_i$ is the set of state variables managed by agent $i$. Variables can be shared by two or more different agents. \item ${\mathcal A}=\{{\mathcal A}_i\}_{i=1}^n$, where ${\mathcal A}_i$ is the set of actions that agent $i$ can perform. Given two different agents $i$, $j$, ${\mathcal A}_i$ and $A_j$ can share some common actions or be two disjoint sets. \item ${\mathcal I}=\{{\mathcal I}_i\}_{i=1}^n$, where ${\mathcal I}_i$ is the set of fluents known by agent $i$ that represents the \emph{initial state} of the agent. If two agents share a variable $v$ then they also share all of the fluents regarding $v$. \item ${\mathcal G}=\{{\mathcal G}_i\}_{i=1}^n$, where ${\mathcal G}_i$ is a set of formulas known to agent $i$ that must hold in the final state and denote the top-level goals of ${\mathcal T}$. \end{itemize} \vspace{-0.1cm} As defined above, state variables may not be known to all agents. Given a state variable $v \in {\mathcal V}_i$ and $v \not \in {\mathcal V}_j$, $\forall j \neq i$, $v$ is said to be \emph{private} to agent $i$. Additionally, agents can have different visions of the domain of a state variable; that is, not every value in a variable domain has to be visible to all agents. Given an agent $i$, we denote its view of the domain of a variable $v$ as ${\mathcal D}_{v_i} \subseteq {\mathcal D}_v$. Thus, the domain of a state variable $v$ can be defined as ${\mathcal D}_v=\{{{\mathcal D}_{v_i}\}}_{i=1}^n$. Agents' incomplete views on the state variables and their domains directly affect the visibility of the fluents. \vspace{-0.2cm} \begin{itemize} \item An agent $i$ has \emph{full visibility} of a fluent $\langle v, d \rangle$ or $\langle v, \neg d \rangle$ if $v \in {\mathcal V}_i$ and $d \in {\mathcal D}_{v_i}$. \item An agent $i$ has \emph{partial visibility} of a fluent $\langle v, d \rangle$ or $\langle v, \neg d \rangle$ if $v \in {\mathcal V}_i$ but $d \not \in {\mathcal D}_{v_i}$. Given a state $S$, where $\langle v, d \rangle \in S$, agent $i$ will see instead a fluent $\langle v, \perp \rangle$, where $\perp$ is the undefined value. \item An agent $i$ has \emph{no visibility} of a fluent $\langle v, d \rangle$ or $\langle v, \neg d \rangle$ if $v \not \in {\mathcal V}_i$. \end{itemize} \vspace{-0.1cm} Our MAP model can be viewed as a POP-based, multi-agent refinement planning framework, a general method based on the refinement of the set of all possible partial-order plans \cite{Kambhampati97}. An agent proposes a plan $\Pi$ that typically enforces some top-level goals of the planning task; then, the rest of agents collaborate on the refinement of this base plan $\Pi$ by proposing refinement steps that solve some \emph{open goals} in ${\sfopenGoals}(\Pi)$. This way, agents cooperatively solve the MAP task by consecutively refining an initially empty plan $\Pi$. A \emph{refinement step} $\Pi_i$ devised by an agent $i$ over a base plan $\Pi^{g}$, where $g \in {\sfopenGoals}(\Pi^{g})$, is a triple $\Pi_i = \langle \Delta, OR, CL \rangle$, where $\Delta \in {\mathcal A}_i$ is a set of actions and $OR$ and $CL$ are sets of \emph{orderings} and \emph{causal links} over $\Delta$, respectively. $\Pi_i$ is a plan free of \emph{threats} \cite{Younes03} that solves $g$ as well as all the new open goals that arise from this resolution and can only be achieved by agent $i$, $\langle v, d\rangle$ or $\langle v, \neg d\rangle$, where $(v \in {\mathcal V}_i) \wedge (v \not\in {\mathcal V}_j, \forall j \neq i)$. That is, when solving an open goal of a base plan, an agent $i$ will also achieve the new arising open goals concerning fluents that are only visible to $i$, so are not visible to the rest of agents, leaving the rest of goals unsolved. Let $g \in {\sfopenGoals}(\Pi^{g})$ be a formula of the form $(v, d)$ or $(v, \neg d)$; an agent $i$ computes a refinement step over $\Pi^{g}$ iff $v \in {\mathcal V}_i$. Plans that agents build are concurrent multi-agent (MA) plans as two different actions in $\Pi$ can now be executed concurrently by two different agents. Some MAP models adopt a simple form of concurrency: two actions can happen simultaneously if none of them changes the value of a state variable that the other relies on or affects, too \cite{Brenner09}. We impose the additional concurrency constraint that the preconditions of two actions have to be mutually consistent \cite{BoutilierB01}. This definition of concurrency is straightforwardly extended to a joint action $a=\langle a_1, \ldots, a_n\rangle$. Agents address concurrency inconsistencies through the detection of threats over the causal links of their actions. This way, concurrency issues between two different actions may not arise until their preconditions are supported through causal links. A \emph{refinement plan} $\Pi$ devised by an agent $i$ over a base plan $\Pi^{g}$ is a concurrent MA plan that results from the composition of $\Pi^{g}$ and a refinement step $\Pi_i$ proposed by agent $i$. This refinement plan, which could eventually become a base plan, is defined as $\Pi=\Pi^{g} \circ \Pi_i$, where $\circ$ represents the composition operation. A composite plan $\Pi$ is a concurrent MA plan if for every pair of unequal actions $a_i$ and $a_j$, $i \not= j$, $\forall p_i \in {\sf pre}(a_i), p_i \not \in {\sfopenGoals}(\Pi)$, $\forall p_j \in {\sf pre}(a_j), p_j \not \in {\sfopenGoals}(\Pi)$, $a_i$ and $a_j$ are concurrently consistent. In our model, each agent implements a POP planner to compute refinement plans over a base plan $\Pi$. If an agent is not capable to come up with a concurrent MA plan, then the agent refrains from suggesting such a refinement. If no agent elicits a consistent refinement plan for a base plan, the plan node is pruned. \vspace{-0.1cm} \begin{algorithm} \caption{Dis-RPG construction for an agent $i$} \label{RPG_algorithm} \begin{algorithmic} \STATE Build initial $RPG_i$ \REPEAT \STATE $\forall j \neq i$, $i$ sends $j$ shareable fluents $SF_{i\rightarrow j} \in RPG_i$ of the form $\langle v, d\rangle$ or $\langle v, \neg d\rangle$, where $v \in {\mathcal V}_i \cap {\mathcal V}_j$ and $d \in {\mathcal D}_{v_i} \cap {\mathcal D}_{v_j}$ \STATE $\forall j \neq i$, $i$ receives from $j$ shareable fluents $SF_{j\rightarrow i} \in RPG_j$ of the form $\langle v, d\rangle$ or $\langle v, \neg d\rangle$, where $v \in {\mathcal V}_i \cap {\mathcal V}_j$ and $d \in {\mathcal D}_{v_i} \cap {\mathcal D}_{v_j}$ \STATE $RF \gets \emptyset$ \STATE $\forall j \neq i, RF_i \gets RF_i \cup SF_{j\rightarrow i}$ \FORALL{received fluents $f \in RF_i$} \IF {$f \not\in RPG_i$} \STATE Insert f in $RPG_i$ \STATE $cost_{RPG_i}(f) \gets cost(f)$ \ENDIF \IF {$(f \in RPG_i)$ $\wedge$ $(cost_{RPG_i}(f) > cost(f))$} \STATE $cost_{RPG_i}(f) \gets cost(f)$ \ENDIF \ENDFOR \STATE Expand $RPG_i$ \UNTIL $RF_i = \emptyset$ \end{algorithmic} \end{algorithm} \vspace{-0.2cm} \section{REFINEMENT PLANNING} \label{Refinement} The cooperative refinement planning algorithm starts with a preliminary information exchange by which agents communicate shareable information. After this initial stage, agents execute the multi-agent refinement planning algorithm, which comprises two interleaved stages. First, agents individually elicit refinement plans over a centralized base plan through their embedded POP. Later, agents jointly select the most promising refinement as the next base plan. \subsection{Information exchange} Agents receive the information on the MAP task through a set of definition files. These files are encoded in a MAP language that extends \emph{PDDL3.1} \cite{Kovacs11}, including a {\ttfamily :shared-data} section to configure the agent's vision of the planning task and which fluents it shares and with whom. Prior to executing the refinement procedure, agents share information by building a distributed Relaxed Planning Graph (dis-RPG), based on the approach of \cite{Feng07}. Agents exchange the fluents defined as shareable in the {\ttfamily :shared-data} section of the MAP definition files. Fluents are labeled with the list of agents that can achieve them, giving each agent a view of the possible interactions that can arise at planning time with other agents. Additionally, the dis-RPG provides an estimate of the best cost to achieve each fluent, a helpful information to design heuristics to guide the problem-solving process. Algorithm \ref{RPG_algorithm} summarizes the construction of the dis-RPG. Agents compute an initial RPG and expand it by following the procedure in \cite{Hoffmann01}. The RPG contains a set of fluent and action levels that are interleaved. The first fluent level contains the fluents that are part of the initial state, and the first action level includes all the actions whose preconditions appear in the first fluent level. The effects of these actions are placed in the second fluent level, and this way the graph is expanded until no new fluents are found. Once all the agents have computed their initial RPGs, the iterative dis-RPG composition begins. As depicted in Algorithm \ref{RPG_algorithm}, agents start each iteration by exchanging the the fluents shareable with other agents. An agent $i$ will send agent $j$ the set of fluents $SF_{i\rightarrow j}$ that are visible to agent $j$, i.e., the new fluents of the form $\langle v, d\rangle$ or $\langle v, \neg d\rangle$, where $v \in {\mathcal V}_i \cap {\mathcal V}_j$ and $d \in {\mathcal D}_{v_i} \cap {\mathcal D}_{v_j}$. Likewise, agent $i$ will receive from all agents $j \neq i$ the shareable fluents they have generated. Agent $i$ updates then its $RPG_i$ with the set of new fluents it has received, $RF_i$. If a fluent $f$ is not yet in $RPG_i$, it is stored according to $cost(f)$. If $f$ is already in $RPG_i$, its cost is updated if $cost_{RPG_i}(f) > cost(f)$. Hence, agents only store the best estimated cost to reach each fluent. After updating $RPG_i$, agent $i$ expands it by checking whether the new inserted fluents trigger new actions in $RPG_i$ or not. The fluents produced as effects of these new actions will be shared in the next iteration. The process finishes when there are no new fluents in the system. Following, agents start the refinement planning process to build a solution plan jointly. \subsection{Multi-agent refinement planning} The refinement planning process is based on a democratic leadership by which a baton is scheduled among the agents following a round-robin strategy. Agents carry out two interleaved stages: the individual construction of refinement plans through a POP, and a coordination process by which agents jointly search the refinement space. Algorithm \ref{Problem_solving_algorithm} describes the refinement planning process. Each agent $i$ computes a finite set of refinement plans for $\Pi^g$, $Refinements_i (\Pi^g)$, through its embedded POP planner. The internal POP system follows an A$^*$ search algorithm guided by a state-of-the-art POP heuristic function \cite{Younes03}. The resulting refinement plans are exchanged by the agents in the system for their evaluation (send and receive operations in Algorithm \ref{Problem_solving_algorithm}). Agent $i$ has a local, partial vision of each refinement plan, $view_i(\Pi)$, according to its visibility over the planning task ${\mathcal T}$. Thus, when receiving a refinement plan $\Pi$, agent $i$ will only view the open goals $(v, d)\in {\sfopenGoals}(\Pi)\;|\;v \in {\mathcal V}_i$. With respect to the fluents, agent $i$ will only view those fluents for which it has \emph{full visibility}. If $i$ has \emph{partial visibility} of a fluent $\langle v, d \rangle$ or $\langle v, \neg d \rangle$, it will see instead a fluent $\langle v, \perp \rangle$, where $\perp$ stands for the undefined value. This notion of partial view directly affects the evaluation of the refinements. The evaluation of refinement plans is carried out through a utility function ${\mathcal F}$ (currently, we use the same heuristic function that guides the agents' internal POP for this purpose) that allows agents to estimate the quality of the plans. Since agents do not have complete information on the MAP task or the refinement plans, they evaluate plans according to its own view of each refinement plan $\Pi$, i.e., agent $i$ evaluates a refinement plan $\Pi$ according to ${\mathcal F}(view_i(\Pi))$ (see Algorithm \ref{Problem_solving_algorithm}). \vspace{-0.2cm} \begin{algorithm} \caption{Refinement planning process for an agent $i$} \label{Problem_solving_algorithm} \begin{algorithmic} \STATE $\Pi \gets \Pi_0$ \STATE $R = \emptyset$ \REPEAT \STATE Select open goal $g \in {\sfopenGoals} (\Pi)$ \STATE Refine base plan $\Pi^{g}$ individually \STATE $\forall j \not= i$, send $Refinements_i(\Pi^{g})$ to agent $j$ \STATE $\forall j \not= i$, receive $Refinements_j(\Pi^{g})$ \STATE $Refinements(\Pi^{g}) \gets Refinements_i(\Pi^{g})$ \STATE $\forall j \not= i$, $Refinements(\Pi^{g}) \gets Refinements(\Pi^{g}) \cup$ \STATE $Refinements_j(\Pi^{g})$ \FORALL{plans $\Pi \in Refinements(\Pi^{g})$} \STATE Evaluate $\Pi$ according to ${\mathcal F}(view_i(\Pi))$ \ENDFOR \STATE $R \gets R \cup Refinements(\Pi^{g})$ \STATE Select best-valued plan $\Pi_{best} \in R$ \STATE $\Pi \gets \Pi_{best}$ \IF {${\sf openGoals}(\Pi) = \emptyset$} \RETURN $\Pi$ \ENDIF \UNTIL $R = \emptyset$ \end{algorithmic} \end{algorithm} \vspace{-0.2cm} Once evaluated, the new refinement plans are stored in the set of refinements $R$. Next, each agent votes for the best-valued candidate $\Pi_{best} \in R$. In case of a draw, the baton agent will choose the next base plan among the most voted alternatives. Once a refinement plan is selected, agents adopt it as the new base plan $\Pi$. If ${\sfopenGoals}(\Pi) = \emptyset$, a solution plan is returned. As some open goals might not be visible to some agents, every agent $i$ must confirm that $\Pi$ is a solution plan according to $view_i(\Pi)$, i.e., $\Pi$ is a solution iff $\forall i \in {\mathcal{AG}}, {\sfopenGoals}(view_i(\Pi)) = \emptyset$. If the plan has still pending goals, the baton agent selects the next open goal $g \in {\sfopenGoals}(\Pi)$ to be solved, and a new iteration of the refinement planning process starts. The planning algorithm carried out by the agents can be regarded as a joint exploration of the refinement space. Nodes in the search tree represent refinement plans and each iteration of the algorithm expands a different node. \subsection{Soundness and completeness} The algorithm we have presented can be regarded as a multi-agent extension of the POP algorithm. A partial-order plan is sound if it is a threat-free plan. In our algorithm, we address inconsistencies among the concurrent MA plans by detecting and solving threats. Thus, in order to prove that our algorithm is sound, we should ensure that all the threats among the causal links of a concurrent MA plan are correctly detected and solved. Under complete information, threats on a MA concurrent plan will be correctly detected by any agent, as all the fluents in the plan are fully visible. In our incomplete information model, we should study how visibility over fluents affects the detection of threats. Let $\Pi$ be a MA concurrent plan and let $\langle v, d_1 \rangle$ be a fluent in a causal link $cl \in CL(\Pi)$. Suppose that an agent $i$ builds a refinement $\Pi'$ over $\Pi$ that adds a new action $a_t$ to the plan which is not ordered with respect to $cl$ and has an effect $(v = d_2)$. This effect causes a threat over $cl$ as it conflicts with $\langle v, d_1 \rangle$. For $\Pi'$ to be sound, agent $i$ should be able to detect such a threat whatever visibility it has over the fluent $\langle v, d_1 \rangle$: \vspace{-0.2cm} \begin{itemize} \item If $i$ has \emph{full visibility} over $\langle v, d_1 \rangle$, the inconsistency between $cl$ and $a_t$ will be correctly detected. \item If $i$ has \emph{no visibility} over $\langle v, d_1 \rangle$, then $v \not \in {\mathcal V}_i$. In this case, agent $i$ does not have an action $a_t$ with an effect involving variable $v$, i.e., such a threat can never occur. \item If $i$ has \emph{partial visibility} over $\langle v, d_1 \rangle$, agent $i$ will see instead a fluent $\langle v, \perp \rangle$. Since $\perp \neq d_2$, the threat will be detected and solved. \end{itemize} \vspace{-0.1cm} Therefore, all the threats over MA concurrent plans are always detected and resolved, which proves that our MAP algorithm is sound. As for completeness, we cannot ensure that our MAP algorithm is complete. According to the notion of refinement plan we have used in this work, the number of refinement plans that an agent can produce over a base plan may not be finite. Hence, we are implicitly pruning the refinement search space. Nevertheless, agents rely on an A$^*$ POP search process to build the refinement plans, which in most cases returns good refinement plans that guide the MAP algorithm towards a solution plan. The empirical results shown in the next section confirm our claim. \vspace{-0.4cm} \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[width=8.1cm]{GraphSatellite.pdf} \vspace{-0.4cm} \caption{Scalability results for the Satellite domain} \label{GraphSatellite} \end{figure} \vspace{-0.4cm} \section{EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS} We designed and executed a set of tests to compare the performance and scalability of our MAP-POP approach with another state-of-the-art MAP system. Comparing the performance of multi-agent planning systems is not an easy task due to two main reasons. First, most MAP approaches are not general-purpose but domain-dependent systems specifically designed to address a particular problem, most typically traffic control or real-time planning applications. Second, unlike single-agent planners that have been promoted and populated through the celebration of the International Planning Competitions\footnote{http://ipc.icaps-conference.org/} (IPC) and, therefore, have been made publicly available, it is difficult to find a multi-agent planner able to run the benchmark domains and planning problem suites created for the IPCs. Despite these drawbacks, we could assess the performance of MAP-POP and compare the results with those obtained in the Planning First approach presented in \cite{Nissim10}\footnote{We want to especially thank Raz Nissim for providing us with the source code of his Planning First system for testing and comparison purposes.}. Planning First is a MAP system that also makes use of single-agent planning technology. More precisely, it builds upon a single-agent state-based planner \cite{Coles08}, and handles agent coordination by solving a distributed CSP Planning First defines public actions as the actions of an agent whose descriptions contain atoms affected by and/or affecting the actions of another agent. Based on this concept, it defines the notion of coupling level as the average rate of public actions of an agent. A high value of coupling level results in many agent coordination points, thus giving rise to tightly-coupled problems. The approach followed by Planning First is especially effective when dealing with loosely-coupled problems (LCP) \cite{Nissim10}, but its performance decreases when tackling tightly-coupled problems (TCP). \vspace{-0.3cm} \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[width=8.1cm]{GraphRovers.pdf} \vspace{-0.4cm} \caption{Scalability results for the Rovers domain} \label{GraphRovers} \end{figure} \vspace{-0.4cm} The tests presented here involve three of the benchmark domains used on the IPCs: \emph{satellite}, \emph{rovers} and \emph{logistics}, which are the domains used in the results presented in \cite{Nissim10} as well. These domains give rise to problems of different coupling levels. The \emph{satellite} problems are LCP as the different agents (the satellites) are not likely to interact with each other; they move, calibrate their instruments and take images by themselves. \emph{Rovers} problems tend to present a medium coupling level: rover agents are independent but they have access to certain shared resources in their environment, namely the rock and soil samples they collect and analyze. The \emph{logistics} problems fall into the TCP category since agents (trucks and planes) have to cooperate to transport the different packages to the target locations and problems present several coordination points (locations) at which agents can interact. We adapted the STRIPS problem files used in the IPCs to both our MAP language and Nissim's \emph{MA-STRIPS} language. Problems from the IPCs turned out to be complex instances for Planning First because agents have necessarily to interact to each other and cooperate to find a solution plan for these problems and Planning First works better when plans for each agent can be computed (mostly) independently. For this reason, we encoded an additional set of problems limiting cooperation and interactions among agents as much as possible. Particularly, in these additional problems, agents can solve goals independently, i.e., an agent is able to solve a goal or set of goals by itself without need of interacting with the rest of agents (we will refer to these problems as independent problems in the remainder). \begin{center} \begin{table*} \centering {\footnotesize \begin{tabular}{ | c | c | c | c || r | r | r | r || r | r | r | r |} \hhline{------------} \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\multirow{2}{*}{Problem}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\multirow{2}{*}{$\#$Agents}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\%Coupling} & \multicolumn{1}{c||}{$\#$Domain} & \multicolumn{4}{c||}{MAP-POP} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Planning First}\\ \cline{5-12} \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{level} & \multicolumn{1}{c||}{actions} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\#$Acts} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\#$TS} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\#$Partics} & \multicolumn{1}{c||}{Time} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\#$Acts} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\#$TS}& \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\#$Partics} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Time} \\ \hhline{============} \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{IPCSat1} & 1 & 1,2 & 54 & 9 & 8 & 1 & 0,23 & 10 & 9 & 1 & 0,14 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{IPCSat4} & 2 & 29,3 & 2082 & 21 & 11 & 2 & 18,80 & & & & $\dagger$ \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{IPCSat10} & 5 & 23,7 & 1786 & 29 & 20 & 3 & 90,3 & & & & $\dagger$ \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{IPCSat16} & 10 & 18,3 & 7196 & 51 & 24 & 5 & 73,7 & & & & $\dagger$ \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{IPCSat17} & 12 & 14,3 & 8324 & 46 & 16 & 4 & 53,9 & & & & $\dagger$\\ \hhline{============} \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{IndSat1} & 2 & 5,2 & 40 & 9 & 4 & 2 & 0,83 & 9 & 4 & 2 & 0,16 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{IndSat2} & 4 & 1,4 & 274 & 14 & 3 & 4 & 2,20 & 14 & 4 & 4 & 0,31 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{IndSat3} & 7 & 0,3 & 1820 & 32 & 4 & 7 & 6,5 & 32 & 4 & 7 & 4,1 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{IndSat4} & 8 & 0,3 & 2082 & 28 & 3 & 8 & 8,7 & 28 & 4 & 8 & 11,1 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{IndSat5} & 14 & 0,1 & 11020 & 63 & 4 & 14 & 32,5 & & & & $\dagger$ \\ \hhline{============} \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{IPCRov1} & 1 & 1,2 & 81 & 10 & 7 & 1 & 0,344 & 11 & 7 & 1 & 0,359 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{IPCRov2} & 1 & 2,3 & 45 & 8 & 4 & 1 & 0,390 & 9 & 5 & 1 & 0,312 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{IPCRov7} & 3 & 77,4 & 157 & 18 & 6 & 3 & 8,578 & & & & $\dagger$\\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{IPCRov14} & 4 & 58,7 & 797 & 35 & 21 & 2 & 81,874 & & & & $\dagger$\\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{IPCRov15} & 4 & 85 & 536 & 42 & 16 & 4 & 42,014 & & & & $\dagger$\\ \hhline{============} \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{IndRov1} & 2 & 45,5 & 160 & 24 & 11 & 2 & 3,609 & 22 & 7 & 2 & 2,75\\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{IndRov2} & 3 & 45,5 & 239 & 36 & 11 & 3 & 5,500 & 33 & 7 & 3 & 12,141\\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{IndRov3} & 4 & 45,5 & 318 & 48 & 11 & 4 & 9,188 & 44 & 7 & 4 & 120,719\\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{IndRov4} & 5 & 45,5 & 397 & 70 & 11 & 5 & 14,141 & 55 & 7 & 5 & 674\\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{IndRov5} & 6 & 45,5 & 476 & 72 & 11 & 6 & 20,688 & 66 & 7 & 6 & 2594,515\\ \hhline{============} \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{IPCLog2} & 3 & 20 & 52 & 27 & 9 & 3 & 18,187 & & & & $\dagger$\\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{IPCLog4} & 4 & 12,3 & 116 & 37 & 13 & 4 & 33,765 & & & & $\dagger$\\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{IPCLog5} & 4 & 14 & 116 & 31 & 11 & 4 & 40,188 & & & & $\dagger$\\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{IPCLog7} & 5 & 9,8 & 206 & 46 & 15 & 5 & 96,484 & & & & $\dagger$\\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{IPCLog9} & 5 & 11,7 & 206 & 45 & 17 & 5 & 239,578 & & & & $\dagger$\\ \hhline{============} \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{IndLog1} & 3 & 44,4 & 20 & 6 & 6 & 2 & 1,579 & 9 & 8 & 3 & 0,578\\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{IndLog2} & 3 & 55,5 & 20 & 10 & 9 & 3 & 2,250 & 10 & 9 & 3 & 0,609\\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{IndLog3} & 4 & 65 & 42 & 13 & 10 & 4 & 3,225 & 9 & 8 & 4 & 66,187 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{IndLog4} & 4 & 70 & 42 & 14 & 6 & 4 & 3,766 & 14 & 6 & 4 & 284,094 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{IndLog5} & 6 & 54,1 & 98 & 21 & 6 & 6 & 13,578 & & & & $\dagger$\\ \hline \end{tabular}} \caption{Performance comparison between MAP-POP and Planning First} \label{Res_MAPSAP} \end{table*} \end{center} \vspace{-0.32cm} Table \ref{Res_MAPSAP} shows the results when comparing the quality of the solution plans obtained with MAP-POP and Planning First and the execution times\footnote{All the tests were performed on a single machine with a 2.83 GHz Intel Core 2 Quad CPU and 8 GB RAM.}. The quality of the solution plans is assessed through three parameters: a) the number of actions of the plan; b) the duration of the plan, i.e. the number of time units or \emph{time steps} required to execute the plan; and c) the number of agents that take part in the solution plan. This latter parameter gives an idea of how the effort on solving the problem has been distributed among the agents. Problems labeled with \emph{IPC} are directly taken from the IPC benchmarks, while problems labeled with \emph{Ind} are the extra set of \emph{independent} problems we created to assess Planning First performance (for each domain, we show the results of 5 out of the 20 IPC problems we tested as well as 5 independent problems). The next three columns in the table show the difficulty of the planning problems: \emph{$\#$Agents} indicates the number of agents involved in the problem; \emph{$\%$Coupling level} estimates the coupling level of the problem as the average rate of instantiated public actions of agents (taking into consideration the notion of public and private action defined in \cite{Nissim10}), and \emph{$\#$Domain actions} refers to the total number of instanced actions. The results for each planner include the number of actions(\emph{$\#$Acts}) and time steps (\emph{$\#$TS}) of the solution plan, respectively. \emph{$\#$Partics} indicates the number of agents that take part in the solution plan, and \emph{Time} shows the total execution time. A dagger ($\dagger$) indicates that Planning First was not able to solve the problem. For the most loosely-coupled problems, the \emph{satellite} domain, MAP-POP exhibited an excellent performance as our results confirmed that it was able to solve 18 out of 20 IPC problems. For the five IPC problems for the \emph{satellite} domain shown in Table \ref{Res_MAPSAP}, we can see that our approach deals very efficiently with complex problems up to 12 agents. It is also noticeable that at least one third of the participating agents take part in the solution plans, which has a positive impact on the plan duration, as actions are carried out in parallel by different agents. Although the IPC \emph{satellite} problems do not present a high coupling level (less than 30$\%$ of public actions in the worst case), Planning First only solves the first IPC problem, as these problems require cooperation among agents and it is more necessary for larger instances. As for the additional problems we encoded (IndSat1, ..., IndSat5), we can see that Planning First is not able to solve the largest one, IndSat5. Planning First is faster than MAP-POP when dealing with small problems, but its performance decreases when the size of the problem increases. For instance, while the first three problems are solved faster by Planning First, it is slower than MAP-POP when solving IndSat4, and it does not find a solution to the most complex instance, IndSat5. MAP-POP proves also to be more effective at parallelizing actions in this domain as it obtains plans of equal or shorter duration than Planning First. With respect to the \emph{rovers} domain, our results confirmed that MAP-POP solves 15 out of the 20 IPC problems for this domain. For the five IPC \emph{rovers} problems shown in Table \ref{Res_MAPSAP}, we can see the workload in this domain is better distributed than in the \emph{satellite} domain as most of the agents participate in the solution plan, which considerably reduces the duration of the plan. For instance, the solution plan for problem IPCRov7 contains 18 actions and is solved in just 6 time steps. Planning First solves only the two smallest IPC problems. For the \emph{independent} problems we modeled, Planning First obtains better-quality but more costly solutions than MAP-POP. The differences in execution time are far more noticeable than in the \emph{satellite} domain. This is due to to the more tightly-coupled nature of the problems of this domain (45.5$\%$ coupling level for the \emph{independent} problems), which affects negatively the performance of Planning First. Finally, the \emph{logistics} domain has proven to be the most complex one for both multi-agent approaches. Agents in this domain are trucks and airplanes that must cooperate in most of the cases to transport packages. Hence, solutions for these problems are more costly than in the \emph{rovers} and \emph{satellite} domains, as they require agent coordination, an important feature to determine the efficiency of a MAP approach. Our results confirmed that MAP-POP loses performance in this domain, being able to solve only 9 out of 20 IPC problems. However, it distributes the workload effectively since all of the agents participate in all the solution plans obtained. Planning First shows also a poorer performance in this domain as it is not able to solve any of the IPC problems. These results are in line with the conclusions exposed in \cite{Nissim10}, which reveals the difficulty of a CSP-based approach to deal efficiently with problems that exhibit a high level of inter-agent interaction. As for the \emph{independent} problems, some of the solutions obtained by MAP-POP have better quality in terms of actions and duration than the solutions of Planning First. In addition, Planning First is still remarkably slower than MAP-POP, being unable to solve the IndLog5 problem, even though we defined rather small instances (notice the differences in execution time for the instance IndLog4). Again, Planning First only performs better than MAP-POP in the smaller problems. The second test compares the scalability of both MAP frameworks, i.e. to which extent their efficiency is affected by the number of agents. In order to do so, we have run fourteen different tests for both the \textit{satellite} and the \textit{rovers} domains. Each test increases the number of agents in the task by one, from one agent to fourteen. The problems are modeled so that each of the participant agents has to achieve one of the problem's goals by itself. Figure \ref{GraphSatellite} shows the scalability results for the \emph{satellite} domain. As it can be observed, Planning First show a better performance when solving small problems (up to seven agents). However, its performance decreases quickly as we execute larger problems. MAP-POP is faster at solving the 8-agent \emph{satellite} problem, and Planning First is unable to find a solution for the 9-agent problem upwards. MAP-POP, however, finds a solution for the 14 problem instances, and execution times suffer only a slight increase between problems The differences in performance of both systems are more noticeable in the more tightly-coupled \emph{rovers} domain. The results of this test are depicted in figure \ref{GraphRovers}. In this case, Planning First requires more than 40 minutes to solve the 6-agent \emph{rovers} problem, while MAP-POP takes only 20 seconds. Again, MAP-POP solves all the problems without losing performance in the larger instances. In conclusion, MAP-POP proves to be a more robust approach than Planning First as it can tackle larger and more complex planning problems. Moreover, while Planning First is designed for solving LCP, MAP-POP is a general-purpose method that tackles problems of different coupling levels. Although MAP-POP behaves better in LCP problems, it can also solve complex TCP problems. Scalability results show that Planning First performs better when dealing with simple problems that involve few agents. However, MAP-POP scales up far better, being able to solve much larger planning problems. \section{CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK} This paper presents a general-purpose MAP model suitable to cope with a wide variety of MA planning domains under incomplete information. The ability to define incomplete views of the world for the agents allows us to deal with more real problems, from inherently distributed domains -functionally or spatially- to problems that handle global and centralized sources of information. Currently, we are testing our planner on large-size logistics applications in which agents are geographically distributed and are completely unaware of the other agent's information except for the coordination points within their working areas. The MAP resolution process is a POP-based refinement planning approach that iteratively combines planning and coordination while maintaining for each agent only the information that is visible to the planning entity. This POP approach centered around the gradual construction of a joint solution plan for the MAP task highly benefits the resolution of cooperative distributed planning problems. We have compared our MAP approach against Planning First, a system that handles agent coordination through a distributed CSP. Results show that MAP-POP efficiently solves loosely-coupled problems but it also shows competitive when solving problems that have a higher coupling level and when computing plans that require the cooperation among agents. Hence, we can conclude that MAP-POP is an efficient, domain-independent and general-purpose framework to solve MAP problems. \section*{ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS} This work has been partly supported by the Spanish MICINN under projects Consolider Ingenio 2010 CSD2007-00022 and TIN2011-27652-C03-01, and the Valencian Prometeo project 2008/051. \vspace{0.2cm}
\section*{Abstract} Thomson, D. J. \& Devenish, B. J. [{\em J.~Fluid Mech.} 526, 277 (2005)] and others have suggested that sweeping effects make Lagrangian properties in Kinematic Simulations (KS), Fung et al [Fung J. C. H., Hunt J. C. R., Malik N. A. \& Perkins R. J. {\em J.~Fluid Mech.} 236, 281 (1992)], unreliable. Here it is shown through a novel analysis based upon analysing pairs of particle trajectories in a frame of reference moving with the large energy containing scales of motion that the normalized integrated error $e^I_K$ in the turbulent pair diffusivity ($K$) due to the sweeping effect decreases with increasing pair separation ($\sigma_l$), such that $e^I_K\to 0$ as $\sigma_l/\eta\to \infty$; and $e^I_K\to \infty$ as $\sigma_l/\eta\to 0$. $\eta$ is the Kolmogorov turbulence microscale. There is an intermediate range of separations $1<\sigma_l/\eta< \infty$ in which the error $e^I_K$ remains negligible. Simulations using KS shows that in the swept frame of reference, this intermediate range is large covering almost the entire inertial subrange simulated, $1<\sigma_l/\eta< 10^5$, implying that the deviation from locality observed in KS therefore cannot be atributed to sweeping errors and could be real. This is important for pair diffusion theory and modeling. \bigskip \noindent PACS numbers: 47.27.E?, 47.27.Gs, 47.27.jv, 47.27.Ak, 47.27.tb, 47.27.eb, 47.11.-j \noindent Keywords: Turbulence, diffusion, particle pair, pair diffusivity, Kinematics Simulations, numerical analysis, Lagrangian, sweeping effect \section*{Introduction} Turbulent particle pair diffusion has attained somewhat of an iconic status in the turbulence community, many researchers having addressed this topic over the decades. Nevertheless, most if not all theories of turbulent particle pair diffusion in homogeneous turbulence with extended inertial ranges have been based upon the hypothesis of locality since Richardson in 1926 \cite{Richardson1926}, and Obukov in 1941 \cite{Obukhov1941}. Richardson pioneered this field and introduced the idea of a scale dependent pair diffusivity as the fundamental quantity of interest in turbulent pair diffusion studies. The turbulent pair diffusivity is defined as, \begin{eqnarray} K(l) = {1\over 2}{d\langle l^2\rangle\over dt} = \langle {\bf l}\cdot {\bf v}(l)\rangle, \end{eqnarray} where ${\bf l}(t)$ is the pair displacement vector at time $t$, $l=|{\bf l}|$, ${\bf v}(l)$ is the pair relative velocity, and $\langle\cdot\rangle$ is the ensemble average over all particle pairs. The locality hypothesis can readily be applied to generalized power law spectra of the type, $E(k)\sim k^{-p}$, for $1<p\le 3$; the pair diffusivity then scales like $K(l,p)\sim \sigma_l^{\gamma^l_p}$ with $\gamma^l_p =(1+p)/2$, \cite{Morel1974}, where $\sigma^2_l=\langle l^2\rangle$. For Kolmogorov turbulence $p=5/3$, this gives the well known Richardson scaling $K\sim \sigma_l^{4/3}$, which is equivalent to $\langle l^2\rangle\sim t^3$ \cite{Obukhov1941}. Kinematic Simulations (KS) \cite{Kraichnan1970,Fung1992} has often been used to investigate turbulent pair diffusion, even though it does not yield the assumed locality scaling; for $p=5/3$, KS gives $\gamma_{Kol}\approx 1.53 >4/3$. For this reason, it has been widely assumed that KS must be in error. Thomson \& Devenish \cite{TD2005} argue that the turbulent pair diffusivity must scale like, \begin{eqnarray} K(l(t))\sim S(l) \tau_s(l(t)), \end{eqnarray} where $S(l)$ is the structure function {of the turbulence velocity field} and $\tau_s(l)$ is an effective time scale of velocity increments. In real turbulence, assuming locality scaling for $S(l)\sim l^{2/3}$ and for $\tau_s(l)\sim l^{2/3}$ leads to Richardson's classical scaling $K(l)\sim \sigma_l^{4/3}$, where we evaluate $K$ at typical values of $l$, namely $\sigma_l=\langle l^2\rangle^{1/2}$ which is commonly assumed in these studies. Thomson \& Devenish argue that in KS because of the lack of true dynamical sweeping, the time scale must be a sweeping time scale, namely $\tau_s\sim l/U_s$ which is a time scale for the large scales flow to cut through smaller local eddies, $U_s$ being the sweeping velocity scale. This leads to, $K\sim \sigma_l^{5/3}$. Even when the rms turbulence velocity $u'$ is taken instead of $U_s$, they obtained $K\sim \sigma_l^{14/9}$. They concluded that whereas locality is true in real turbulence, it is not true in KS. In turbulence the large energy containing eddies carry the smaller eddies, but in KS as there is an absence of true dynamics the large scales force the fluid particles to cut through the smaller eddies in an unphysical manner, a view supported by Nicolleau \& Nowakowski \cite{Nicolleau2011}, and Eyink \& Benveniste \cite{Eyink2013}. However, Thomson \& Devenish's scaling argument leading to equation (2) adresses only the scaling laws for $K$, but does not quantified the actual errors in the diffusivity $K$ in KS -- is it large or small ? It is prudent, therefore, to seek an alternative, a more analytic, approach to address this question, which is the main concern of this work. Here we re-examine the sweeping effect in KS with a view of quantitfying the error in the KS pair diffusivity $K^s$ compared to the physical pair diffusivity $K$. For this purpose, we focus upon the {\em differences} in the relative velocities along pairs of particle paths in the {\em sweeping frame of reference}. This frame of reference accounts for the physical sweeping effect of the largest energy containing scales; but a residual sweeping effect still remains due to the largest inertial range eddies sweeping the smaller inertial range eddies. Consider Fig. 1 which shows a particle pair with separation ${\bf l}$ in the inertial subrange being swept by a large scale flow. {A real fluid particle pair will be swept by the physical velocity field ${\bf u}$} and will follow certain particle paths; but a KS flow will transport the pair along neighbouring particle paths due to an additional KS sweeping motion, {${\bf u}^s$}, and thereby force the particles to cut through local flow structures. The large scale physical sweeping velocity are assumed not to affect the relative motion of particles in a pair in the inertial subrange. The critical question is, are the deviations from the physical trajectories induced by KS in the pair diffusion process large or small? In the ensuing analysis, it is the error between the KS and the physical pair diffusivities, $|K^s-K|$, that will be calculated. We will consider generalised power law energy spectra, $E(k)\sim k^{-p}$, because the analysis must be valid for all such power spectra and this will add weight to the results and conclusions that can be drawn from this work if validated over the wholw range of $p$ considered. The main questions of interest are, is the KS sweeping error large or small, and in what range of separations? These questions are addressed first through a novel mathematical analysis focussing upon pairs of neighbouring particle trajectories. This is then verified against simulations using KS with very large inertial subranges. {In Section 1, we derive an expression for the error in the pair diffusivity in KS flows by analysing neighbouring trajectories in the swept frame of reference. In Section 2, the KS method is discussed and simulation results presented. In the final Section 3, we discuss the results and its implications for theory and modeling.} \section{The normalized error in the pair diffusivity} \subsection{The numerical timestep error} In the swept frame of reference, the relative motion of a particle pair in the inertial subrange is unaffected by the sweeping action itself. This can be mimicked in KS by setting $E(k)=0$ for $k<k_1$. However, there still remains a residual sweeping caused by the largest of the inertial scales sweeping the scales local to the pair separation. Consider an ensemble of particle pairs released in a field of homogeneous turbulence at time $t=0$ with some small initial separation $l_0$. At some time $t$ later, the ensemble average of the separation is assumed to be well inside the inertial subrange and the relative motions are independent of $l_0$ \cite{Batchelor1952}. Consider the particles in one of these pairs, labeled $1$ and $2$, as shown in Fig. 1. The particle locations are ${\bf x}_1(t)$ and ${\bf x}_2(t)$ respectively at time $t$; and the pair displacement is ${\bf l}(t)={\bf x}_2-{\bf x}_1$, and $l(t)=|{\bf x}_2-{\bf x}_1|$. The physical flow is ${\bf u}({\bf x},t)$. All quantities are assumed at time $t$ unless otherwise stated. At time $t$ the {\em additional} (or {\em residual}) KS sweeping flow ${\bf u}^s({\bf x},t)$ is 'swiched on' -- this is not to be confused with the total KS velocity field which is $({\bf u}+{\bf u}^s)({\bf x},t)$, see Fig. 1. The physical flow ${\bf u}({\bf x},t)$ transports the particles to ${\bf x}_1(t^*)$ and ${\bf x}_2(t^*)$ respectively at the next time step $t^*=t+dt$; while the KS flow $({\bf u}+{\bf u}^s)({\bf x},t)$ transports the particles to ${\bf x}^s_1(t^*)$ and ${\bf x}^s_2(t^*)$ respectively. Note that ${\bf l}^s={\bf x}^s_2-{\bf x}^s_1$, and $l^s = |{\bf x}^s_2-{\bf x}^s_1|$. The superscript ${}^*$ will refer to quantities at time $t^*$, e.g. $l^*=l(t+dt)$. The superscript ${}^s$ will refer to quantities related to the KS residual sweeping, e.g. $l^s(t^*)=l^s(t+dt)$. The following quantities are defined: ${\bf u}={\bf u}({\bf x},t)$ \hbox{is the physical fluid velocity field}\\ ${\bf u}^s={\bf u}^s({\bf x},t)$ \hbox{is the additional (residual) sweeping velocity field}\\ ${\bf v}({\bf l})={\bf u}({\bf x}_2)-{\bf u}({\bf x}_1)$ \hbox{\rm is the physical relative velocity}\\ ${\bf v}^s({\bf l})={\bf u}^s({\bf x}_2)-{\bf u}^s({\bf x}_1)$ \hbox{is the additional (residual) relative velocity}\\ ${\bf \tilde u}=({\bf u}+{\bf u}^s)({\bf x},t) $ \hbox{is the total KS velocity}\\ ${\bf \tilde v}({\bf l}^s)={\bf v}({\bf l}^s)+{\bf v}^s({\bf l}^s) $ \hbox{is the total KS relative velocity} Simplifying the notation as much as possible, e.g. ${\bf u}_2={\bf u}({\bf x}_2,t)$, and ${\bf u}^*_2={\bf u}({\bf x}_2,t+dt)$, yields \begin{eqnarray} {\bf x}^s_1(t^*)&=&{\bf x}_1(t^*)+ {\bf u}^s_1(t) dt\\ {\bf x}^s_2(t^*)&=&{\bf x}_2(t^*)+ {\bf u}^s_2(t) dt\\ {\bf l}^{s*}&=&{\bf x}^s_2(t^*)-{\bf x}^s_1(t^*) \nonumber\\ &=&{\bf l}(t^*)+ ({\bf u}^s_2- {\bf u}^s_1)dt \nonumber\\ &=&{\bf l}^* + {\bf v}^s({\bf l})dt \end{eqnarray} ${\bf \tilde v}(l^{s*})$ is calculated at the new KS swept particle locations. Using Taylor expansions wherever necessary, assuming that the velocity fields are at least twice differentiable in space and at least once in time, \begin{eqnarray} {\bf \tilde v}(l^{s*})&=&({\bf u + u^s})({\bf x}^s_2(t^*))-({\bf u+u^s})({\bf x}^s_1(t^*)) \nonumber\\ &=& {\bf u}({\bf x}^s_2(t^*))-{\bf u}({\bf x}^s_1(t^*)) + {\bf u}^s({\bf x}^s_2(t^*))-{\bf u}^s({\bf x}^s_1(t^*)) \nonumber\\ &=& {\bf v}({\bf l}^{*}) + {\bf v}^s({\bf l}^{*}) + \nonumber\\ &&\left({{\bf u}^s_2\cdot\nabla}{\bf u}_2(t^*)-{{\bf u}^s_1\cdot\nabla}{\bf u}_1(t^*)\right)dt +\nonumber\\ &&\left({{\bf u}^s_2\cdot\nabla}{\bf u}^s_2(t^*)-{{\bf u}^s_1\cdot\nabla}{\bf u}^s_1(t^*)\right)dt \nonumber\\ &&+O(dt^2) \end{eqnarray} \begin{figure*} \begin{center} \mbox{\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=14cm]{Fig_PLOS_1Sweeping.jpg}}} \caption{\label{fig1} {Schematic diagram illustrating the system discussed in the text. The locations of two nearby particles, labelled 1 and 2, are located at ${\bf x}_1(t)$ and ${\bf x}_2(t)$ respectively, with turbulence velocities ${\bf u}_1(t)$ and ${\bf u}_2(t)$, at time $t$; their separation is $l(t)=|{\bf x}_2-{\bf x}_1|$. They are transported with velocities ${(\bf u_1 + u_1^s)}(t)$ and ${(\bf u_2 + u_2^s)}(t)$ respectively to the new locations ${\bf x}^s_1(t)$ and ${\bf x}^s_2(t)$ at the next time step $t+dt$, as shown.}} \end{center} \end{figure*} The pair diffusivity at time $t^*$ is, $K^*=\langle{\bf l}^*\cdot {\bf v}(l^*) \rangle$ {-- we ignore constants of proportionality, like $2$, because we are interested only in the power scalings in this work.} The KS equivalent is $K^{s*}=\langle{\bf l}^{s*}\cdot {\bf \tilde v}(l^{s*}) \rangle$. Using equations (5) and (6) and ignoring terms of order $dt^2$ and higher, \begin{eqnarray} K^{s*}&\approx& \langle{\bf l}^*\cdot{\bf v}({\bf l}^*)\rangle + \langle{\bf l}^*\cdot{\bf v}^s({\bf l}^*)\rangle + \nonumber\\ &&\langle{\bf l}^*\cdot\left({{\bf u}^s_2(t)\cdot\nabla}{\bf u}_2(t^*)-{{\bf u}^s_1(t)\cdot\nabla}{\bf u}_1(t^*)\right)\rangle dt +\nonumber\\ &&\langle{\bf l}^*\cdot\left({{\bf u}^s_2(t)\cdot\nabla}{\bf u}^s_2(t^*)-{{\bf u}^s_1(t)\cdot\nabla}{\bf u}^s_1(t^*)\right)\rangle dt + \nonumber\\ && \langle {\bf v}^s({\bf l})\cdot{\bf v}({\bf l}^*)\rangle dt + \langle {\bf v}^s({\bf l})\cdot{\bf v}^s({\bf l}^*)\rangle dt \end{eqnarray} The timestep error between the KS and physical diffusivities for a given timestep $dt$ is, $E_K=|K^{s*}-K^*|$. Using the expansion ${\bf u}^s({\bf x}_2(t))\approx {\bf u}^s_1+ {\bf l}\cdot \nabla {\bf u}^s_1$ in equation (7), yields \begin{eqnarray} E_K &\approx& \langle{\bf l}^*\cdot{\bf v}^s({\bf l}^*)\rangle + \nonumber\\ && \langle {\bf l}^* \cdot ({\bf u}^s_1\cdot \nabla) {\bf v}({\bf l}^*)\rangle dt + \nonumber\\ && \langle {\bf l}^* \cdot ({\bf u}^s_1\cdot \nabla) {\bf v}^s({\bf l}^*)\rangle dt + \nonumber \\ &&\langle {\bf l}^* \cdot ({\bf l}\cdot \nabla){\bf u}^s_1\cdot \nabla {\bf u}_2(t^*)\rangle dt + \nonumber\\ &&\langle {\bf l}^* \cdot ({\bf l}\cdot \nabla){\bf u}^s_1\cdot \nabla {\bf u}^s_2(t^*)\rangle dt +\nonumber\\ && \langle {\bf v}^s({\bf l})\cdot{\bf v}({\bf l}^*)\rangle dt + \nonumber\\ && \langle {\bf v}^s({\bf l})\cdot{\bf v}^s({\bf l}^*)\rangle dt \end{eqnarray} The time scale of the sweeping $T_s$ is much larger than the local time scale of the pair separation. Hence, in the last four terms ${\bf l}(t)$ is replaced by ${\bf l}(t^*)$ without affecting their magnitudes or scalings (the associated errors are $\sim O(dt^2)$ which is neglected). All the terms in equation (8) are now evaluated at the same time $t^*$, so without loss of generality $t^*$ is replaced by $t$ and the superscritp '$^*$' is dropped. The subscript '$_1$' is also dropped because of homogeneity. Equation (8) now simplifies to, \begin{eqnarray} E_K &\approx& \langle{\bf l}\cdot{\bf v}^s\rangle + \nonumber\\ &&\langle {\bf l} \cdot ({\bf u}^s\cdot \nabla) {\bf v}\rangle dt + \nonumber\\ &&\langle {\bf l} \cdot ({\bf u}^s\cdot \nabla) {\bf v}^s\rangle dt +\nonumber\\ &&\langle {\bf l} \cdot ({\bf l}\cdot \nabla){\bf u}^s\cdot \nabla {\bf u}_2\rangle dt + \nonumber\\ &&\langle {\bf l} \cdot ({\bf l}\cdot \nabla){\bf u}^s\cdot \nabla {\bf u}^s_2\rangle dt +\nonumber\\ && \langle {\bf v}^s\cdot{\bf v}\rangle dt + \nonumber\\ &&\langle ({\bf v}^s)^2\rangle dt \end{eqnarray} It is reasonable to assume that the (residual) sweeping flow field ${\bf u}^s$, which is caused by the largest of the inertial range eddies, is close to uniform across small distances, and therefore the relative velocities across local scales $l$ that it induces is small. However, gradients of the relative velocity ${\bf v}(l)$ itself can be large. The magnitude $u^s=|{\bf u}^s|$ is assumed large compared to $v(l)=|{\bf v}(l)|$, and also as compared to $v^s(l)=|{\bf v}^s(l)|$. $u^s$ scales differently to $v(l)$. $v(l)$ also scales differently to $v^s(l)$, the former being governed by inertial range turbulence scaling, and the latter by {\em differences} in the residual sweeping velocity across a small distance $l$. This can be seen clearly in the limit of uniform (parallel) sweeping flow, where the ${\bf v}(l)$ is unaffected, but ${\bf v}^s(l)={\bf 0}$ and all the terms on the right hand side in equation (9) are zero except for the second term. This indicates that the second term in equation (9) makes the dominant contribution to the error. Consider generalized energy spectra of the form $E(k)=\varepsilon^{2/3}L^{5/3-p}k^{-p}$, for $k_1\le k\le k_\eta$ and for $1<p\le 3$, and with $k_\eta/k_1 \gg 1$. In the swept frame of reference, $E(k)=0$ for $k<k_1$. The rate of energy dissipation is $\varepsilon\sim U^3/L$, where $U$ is the velocity scale in the energy containing scales. The previous discussion implies that $|{\bf \nabla v}^s| \ll \left({U\over L}\right)$ and therefore, \begin{eqnarray} v^s (l) \ll \left({l\over L}\right)U. \end{eqnarray} The energy in turbulent inertial scales local to $l$ is, $v^2(l)\sim E(1/l)/l$, and therefore, \begin{eqnarray} v(l) &\sim& \left({l\over L}\right)^{{p-1\over 2}} U\\ {\rm and,}\ \ |{\bf\nabla} v({l})| &\sim& \left({l\over L}\right)^{{p-3\over 2}} {U\over L} \end{eqnarray} It is usual to assume the scaling $l\sim \sigma_l$ as previously mentioned. Then, the second term in equation (9) is given by, \begin{eqnarray} E_2 &=& \langle {\bf l} \cdot ({\bf u}^s\cdot \nabla) {\bf v}\rangle dt \sim\left({\sigma_l\over L}\right)^{{p-1\over 2}} Uu^s(l) dt, \end{eqnarray} All the other terms in equation (9), labeled respectively $E_1, E_3, ... , E_7$, scale proportional to $u^s$ or are much smaller, and this leads to the following estimates, \begin{eqnarray} {E_1\over E_2 } &\ll& \left({\sigma_l\over L}\right)^{5-p\over 2}{L\over Udt }, \quad \nonumber\\ {E_3\over E_2 } &\ll& \left({\sigma_l\over L}\right)^{3-p\over 2} \quad \nonumber\\ {E_4\over E_2 } &\ll& \left({\sigma_l\over L}\right)^{5-p\over 2} \quad \nonumber\\ {E_5\over E_2 } &\ll& \left({\sigma_l\over L}\right)^{5-p\over 2} \quad \nonumber\\ {E_6\over E_2 } &\ll& \left({\sigma_l\over L}\right)^{1} \quad \nonumber\\ {E_7\over E_2 } &\ll& \left({\sigma_l\over L}\right)^{5-p\over 2}. \end{eqnarray} All of these ratios are small for $\sigma_l/L < 1$ and $1<p\le 3$. This is true even in the expression for $E_1/E_2$ because the factor $L/Udt$ is subdued by the very small factor in the brackets. It is reasonable to conclude that the 2nd term in equation (9) is dominant and therefore $E_K\approx E_2$. To estimate $E_2$ itself, an estimate for $u^s(l)$ is needed. The inertial subrange contains only about $1\%$ of the the total energy in the turbulence across the entire wavenumber range, $0<k<\infty$, such as in a von Karman spectrum $E_{vk}$, i.e. $E_{ks}\approx E_{vk}/100$. This means that the root mean square turbulent velocity in the inertial range is approximately, $u_{ks}\approx U/10$, where $E_{vk}\sim U^2$. The wavenumbers that contribute to the sweeping of particle pairs at separation $\sigma_l$ are in the range $k_1\le k< k_l$, where $k_l\sim 1/\sigma_l$. In the KS sweeping frame of reference, the larger inertial scales are the sweeping scales, and the energy in these scales is approximately, \begin{figure} \begin{center} \mbox{\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{Fig_PLOS_2.jpg}}} \caption{ \label{fig2} The function $f(x)=\displaystyle{\sqrt{1-x^{p-1}} x^{(p-1)/2}}$, $0< x\le 1$, for selected powers $1<p\le 3$.} \end{center} \end{figure} \begin{eqnarray} (u^s)^2 &\sim& \int_{k_l}^{k_1} E(k)dk = \int_{k_l}^{k_1} \alpha_k \varepsilon^{2/3} L^{5/3-p}k^{-p} dk \end{eqnarray} and using $\varepsilon \sim (u_{ks})^3/L \sim (U/10)^3/L$, this gives \begin{eqnarray} u^s &\approx& {U\over 10} \sqrt{1-\left( {\sigma_l\over L}\right)^{p-1}} \end{eqnarray} Using this in equation (), the residual error between the physical and the KS pair diffusivities in the inertial subrange of pair separations in the swept frame of reference, per unit timestep (retaining $E_K$ to represent this quantity), is \begin{eqnarray} E_K(p)\approx E_2 &=& C_k \sqrt{1-\left( {\sigma_l\over L}\right)^{p-1}} \left({\sigma_l\over L}\right)^{{p-1\over 2}} {U^2\over 10}. \end{eqnarray} $C_k$ is the constant of proportionality, which can depend upon $p$. For $p=5/3$, the residual error per unit timestep is, \begin{eqnarray} E_K(5/3)&\approx& C_k \sqrt{1-\left( {\sigma_l\over L}\right)^{2/3}} \left({\sigma_l\over L}\right)^{1/3} {U^2\over 10}. \end{eqnarray} As $p\to 1$, $E_K\to E_K(1) \approx C_kU^2/L\approx Constant$ for $\sigma_l/L<1$, but is nearly zero close to $\sigma_l/L = 1$. In this limit, $p\to 1$, the pair diffusion is strongly local and is not affected by long range sweeping. For $p=3$, the residual error per unit timestep is negligibly small for $\sigma_l/L<1$, \begin{eqnarray} E_K(3)&\approx& C_k \sqrt{1-\left( {\sigma_l\over L}\right)^{2}} \left({\sigma_l\over L}\right) {U^2\over 10} \ll E_k(5/3). \end{eqnarray} In this limit, nearly all the energy is contained in the largest scales and inertial subrange scaling is no longer applicable. \subsection{The integrated error} Equations (17) provides a way of estimating an upper bound for the integrated residual error. Fig. 2 shows the log-log plots of the factor $f(x) =\sqrt{1-x^{p-1}}x^{(p-1)/2}$ for selected powers in the range $0<p\le 3$. The range over which $\sqrt{1-x^{p-1}}\approx 0$ is very short and close to $x=1$; but over the rest of the range $\sqrt{1-x^{p-1}}\approx 1$. Hence, to a good approximation, $f(x)<x^{(p-1)/2}$ for all $x\le 1$, and using this in equation (17) with $x=\sigma_l/L$ yields, \begin{eqnarray} E_K(p)&<& C_k{U^2\over 10} \left({\sigma_l\over L}\right)^{p-1\over 2}. \end{eqnarray} The integrated residual error, $E^I_K$, over a period of time is, \begin{eqnarray} E_K^{I}< C_k{U^2\over 10} \int^t_0 \left({\sigma_l\over L}\right)^{{p-1\over 2}}dt. \end{eqnarray} Assuming the pair separation scaling $\sigma^2_l\sim t^{\chi_p}$, where $t$ is the time and for some $\chi_p>0$, yields, \begin{eqnarray} E_K^{I}\lesssim C_k{UL\over 10} \left({\sigma_l\over L}\right)^{{{p-1}\over 2}+{{2\over \chi_p}}}. \end{eqnarray} If the pair diffusivity scales like, $K\sim \sigma_l^{\gamma_p}$, for some $\gamma_p>0$ then $\chi_p=2/(2-\gamma_p)$ is an exact relation. The most important quantity is the normalised integrated residual error with respect to the pair diffusivity, $e^I_K$. Using the above expression for $\chi_p$, and replacing the scalig with $L$ by scaling with $\eta$, and absorping all ensuing constants in to a new constant $A_k$, leads to \begin{eqnarray} e_K^{I}= {E^I_K\over K} \lesssim {A_k\over \displaystyle 10\left({{\sigma_l\over \eta}}\right)^{2\gamma_p-{{p+3}\over 2}}}. \end{eqnarray} For strict locality scaling $\gamma_p=(1+p)/2$, and this becomes \begin{eqnarray} e_K^{I}\lesssim {A_k\over \displaystyle 10\left({\sigma_l\over \eta}\right)^{\gamma_p-1}}. \end{eqnarray} Since $\gamma_p-1>0$, $e_K^I$ decreases with increasing pair separation for all $p> 1$. For $p=5/3$, we have $\gamma_p=4/3$ and we obtain, \begin{eqnarray} e_K^{I}\lesssim {A_k\over 10\displaystyle\left({\sigma_l\over \eta}\right)^{1/3}}. \end{eqnarray} Thus, as $\sigma_l/\eta\to \infty$ then $e^I_K$ decreases; and as $\sigma_l/\eta\to 0$ then $e^I_K$ increases. Even for non-local scaling, assuming that $\gamma_p$ does not deviate too far from the local scaling, the above order of magnitude for $e^I_K$ is still approximately true. In fact, in KS we know, Section 2.3, that $\gamma_p$ is slightly greater than locality so the errors will be slightly smaller than in eqution (25). {The magnitude of these errors will also depend upon $A_k$; but $A_k$ cannot be determined from theoretical considerations alone, although it is reasonable to assume that $A_k$ is small enough for the $e^I_K$ to be negligible towards larger separations as $\sigma_l/\eta\to \infty$ { -- this assumption will be justified by numerical simulations}. Even so this does not guarantee that the error will remain small at smaller separations, since $e^I_K\to \infty$ as $\sigma_l/\eta\to 0$. However, {between these two asymptotic limits} there must exist an intermediate range of separations, between $1< \sigma_l/\eta< \infty$, where the errors remain negligible. The crucial question is, how wide is this range of scales? } If this intermediate range is short then the KS errors will be significant at almost all separations. However, if it is long then the KS errors will be negligble inside this intermediate range where true inertial subrange scaling can be expected to be manifested. To determine the extent of this intermediate range of scales, if it exists at all, simulations with KS must be performed with very large inertial subranges. \section{Simulations and Results} The normalised integrated error, $e^I_K$, is scale dependent and reduces with increasing separation. The KS diffusivity is given by, $K^s\approx K(1 + e_K^I)\to K$ as $\sigma_l/\eta\to \infty$. It is expected that if there is an appreciable intermediate range where the errors are negligible, then the power scaling in $K^s$ must be constant and asymptotic to the limiting case where $\sigma_l/\eta\to \infty$. The extent of this intermediate range is determined by the range over which the power scaling in $K^s$ is constant. Furthermore, significant levels of the sweeping error means that the fluid particles cut through KS eddies, and therefore must be accompied by high levels of noise -- the larger the relative sweeping error the larger the noise level. Thus, where the errors are negligible it is expected that the correct power law scaling, $K^s\approx K$, will be observed in that part of the of the inertial subrange. On the other hand, where the errors are significant it is expected that $K^s$ will deviate from the true power law scaling for $K$ and also be accompanied with significant statistical noise due to fluid particles being swept through local eddies in that part of the inertial subrange. Even in this case, however, it is expected that the errors and the associated noise diminish as the pair separation increases. \subsection{Frames of reference} Comparison will be made between two cases: first, where $K^s$ is obtained from KS in the physically correct sweeping frame of reference; and second, the case where large scale random sweeping velocities are explicitly added to the flow. The analysis for the latter case is similar to that which leads to equation (24), except that the factor of $10$ in the denominator is now $1$. Both of these cases can therefore be written collectively as, \begin{eqnarray} e_K^{I}\lesssim {A_k\over C\displaystyle\left({\sigma_l\over \eta}\right)^{\gamma_p-1}}; \end{eqnarray} where $C=10$ in the swept frame of reference, and $C=1$ when large random scales are included in the simulations -- the residual errors are an order of magnitude smaller in the swept frame of reference. {\bf Case 1: Swept frame.} Set the spectrum to be $E(k)\sim k^{-p}$ in the inertial subrange, and set $E(k)=0$ for $k<k_1$. {\bf Case 2: Non-swept frame.} Set the spectrum to be $E(k)\sim k^{-p}$ in the inertial subrange as in Case 1, and add $E(k)=E_0\delta(k-k_0)$ at some low wavenumber $k_0<k_1$, and such that $E_0$ is the energy in the von Karman spectrum in the range $0<k<k_1$. A very small fixed timestep, smaller than any timescale in the system $dt\ll \tau_{\eta}$, is used in all the simulations reported here. $\tau_\eta$ is the Kolmogorov time scale. \begin{figure} \begin{center} \mbox{\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=6cm]{Fig_PLOS_3.jpg}}} \caption{ \label{fig3} The turbulent diffusivity as $\log(K/(\eta v_\eta))$ against $\log(\sigma_l/\eta)$ obtained from KS. From top to bottom, $p=$ $1.01$, $5/3$, $3$. Case 1 (red lines), Case 2 (green lines).} \end{center} \end{figure} \subsection{Kinematic Simulations} Kinematic Simulation [4,5] is a Lagrangian method for particle diffusion in which the velocity fileld is prescribed as a sum of energy-weighted Fourier modes. It is akin to the widely used random flight type of statistical models in which the dynamical interactions between turbulent length scales is not explcitly modeled, rather the overall effect on the statistical moments of particle diffusion is mimicked. In KS this is accomplished by specifying the energy spectrum $E(k)$. KS continues to be used in turbulent diffusion studies for both passive and inertial particle motion, including cases with generalized power-law energy spectra of the form $E(k)\sim k^{-p}$ for $p>1$, Maxey \cite{Maxey1987}, Turfus \cite{Turfus1987}, Fung \& Vassilicos \cite{Fung1998}, Malik \& Vassilicos \cite{Malik1999}. {Meneguz \& Reeks \cite{Meneguz2011} carried out a DNS of inertial particle motion, and compared it to results from KS which they found to agree well with the DNS.} KS generates turbulent-like non-Markovian particle trajectories by releasing particles in flow fields that are incompressible by construction and which satisfy Eulerian statistics up to second order. A turbulent flow field realization is produced as a truncated Fourier series, \begin{eqnarray} {\bf W}({\bf x},t) = \sum_{n=1}^{N} \left[{({\bf A_n\times \hat k_n})\cos{({\bf k_n\cdot x} +\omega_n t)} + ({\bf B_n\times \hat k_n})\sin{({\bf k_n\cdot x} +\omega_n t)} }\right] \ \ \ \ \end{eqnarray} where $N$ is a suitable number of representative wavemodes, typically hundreds for very long spectral ranges, $k_\eta/k_1\gg 1$. $\hat {\bf k}_n$ is a random unit vector (${\bf k}_n = \hat {\bf k}_n k_n$ and $k_n = |{\bf k}_n|$). The coefficients ${\bf A}_n$ and ${\bf B}_n$ are chosen such that their orientations are randomly distributed and uncorrelated with any other Fourier coefficient or wavenumber, and their amplitudes are determined by $\langle {\bf A}^2_n \rangle = \langle {\bf B}^2_n \rangle \propto k_nE(k_n)$, where $E(k), \ \ k_1\le k\le k_\eta$, is the turbulent energy specturm. The angled brackets $\langle \cdot \rangle$ denotes the ensemble average over many flow fields. This construction ensures incompressibility in each flow realization, ${\bf \nabla} \cdot {\bf u} = 0$. The flow field ensemble generated in this manner is statistically homogeneous, isotropic, and stationary. {An important feature of KS is that unlike some other Lagrangian methods, by generating entire kinematic flow fields in which particles are tracked it does not suffer from the crossing-trajectories error which is caused when two fluid particles occupy the same location at the same time in violation of incompressibility; but because KS flow fields are incompressible by construction this error is completely eliminated.} The energy spectrum $E(k)$ can be chosen freely within a finite range of scales. In turbulent particle pair studies the interest is in Kolmogorov-like power law spectra, \begin{eqnarray} E(k) &=& C_E \varepsilon^{2/3}L^{5/3-p}k^{-p}, \ \ k_1\le k\le k_\eta (=2\pi/\eta), \ \ 1<p\le 3 \end{eqnarray} $C_E$ is a constant. The largest represented scale of turbulence is $2\pi/k_1$, and the smallest is the Kolmogorov scale $\eta=2\pi/k_\eta$. The constant is normalized such that the total energy contained in the range $k_1\le k \le k_\eta$ is $3(u')^2/2$, where $u'$ is the rms turbulent velocity fluctuations in each direction. $\varepsilon(p)$ is determined by integrating the spectrum, $\int_{k_1}^{k_\eta} E(k)dk=3(u')^2/2$. ($p=1$ is a singular limit which is not consider here.) $v_\eta = (\varepsilon\eta)^{1/3}$ is the velocity micrcoscale, and $\tau_\eta = \varepsilon^{-1/3} \eta^{2/3}$ is the Kolmogorov time micrcoscale. The frequencies are chosen according to usual practice to be proportional to the eddy-turnover frequencies, i.e. $\omega_n= \lambda\sqrt{k_n^3E(k_n)}$. The choice of $\lambda$ is somewhat arbitrary, but provided $\lambda<1$ it does not affect the diffusion scaling itself -- even frozen field with $\lambda=0$ yields the same scaling \cite{Malik1996}. $\lambda=0.5$ is a common practice in KS which is also chosen here. The distrbution of the wavemodes is geometric, $k_n=k_1 r^{n-1}$, with $r=(k_\eta/k_1)^{1/(N-1)}$. The grid size in wavemode-space of the $n^{th}$ wavemode is $\delta k_n = k_n(\sqrt{r}- 1/\sqrt{r})$. A particle trajectory is obtained by integrating the Lagrangian velocity ${\bf W}_L(t)$, \begin{eqnarray} {d{\bf x} \over dt} = {\bf W}_L(t) = {\bf W}({\bf x},t). \end{eqnarray} Pairs of trajectories are harvested over a large ensemble of flow realizations and pair statistics are then obtained from it for analysis. {The turbulent difusivity itself can be computed in two ways. Directly from the forumla $K(l) \sim \langle {\bf l}\cdot {\bf v}(l) \rangle$, i.e. the ensemble average of the scalar producted of ${\bf v}$ and ${\bf l}$. But it has been found that using the equivalent formula, $K(l) \sim d\langle l^2\rangle /dt$, i.e. the derivative of the $\langle l^2 \rangle$, converges faster statistically needing a much smaller ensemble of trajectories, although the two methods give identical results for large enesmbles of particle trajectories. The latter method has been adopted here.} {Lagrangian statistics are the physically meaningful output from KS. It is {\em not} correct to compare the kinematically generated flow fields directly with DNS flow fields. As such, KS is like Lagrangian methods such as Random Walk models where an individual particle trajectory has no physical meaning, but the ensemble average over many such random trajectories produces physically meaningful Lagrangian statistics.} \subsection{Results} KS simulations were performed with $L=1$, $k_1=1/L=1$, and $k_\eta=10^6$, $C_E=1.5$ (Kolmogorov constant) and $u'=1$. There were $200$ wavemodes per realization. In Case 1 (swept frame of reference), $E(k)=0$ for $k< 1$. In Case 2, large scale random sweeping were added at the low wavenumber $k_0=1/10$, with $E(k)=E_0\delta(k-k_0)$. The energy in these sweeping scales, $E_0$, was equal to the energy contained in the von Karman turbulence spectrum for $k<1$. $k_0$ corresponds approximately to the location of the peak in the von Karman spectrum. In both cases, three different power spectra were considered with, respectively, $p=1.01, 5/3$, and $3$. With 8 pairs released in 5000 flow realizations, the Lagrangian statistics were obtained from 40,000 particle pair trajectories. Fig. 3 shows log-log plots of the pair diffusivity $K/(\eta v_\eta)$ against $\sigma_l/\eta$, for Case 1 (red lines) and Case 2 (green lines). The energies in the two cases are different, so Case 2 plots have been shifted vertically in order to compare the two cases directly. This does not affect the scalings (the slopes) which is the main interest here. Hence the ordinate is shown without scale. For $p=1.01$, the two cases align with a constant power-law scaling, $\gamma_{1.01} \approx 1.07$, over most of the inertial subrange of scales and there is very little statistical noise, indicating that $e^I_K(\sigma_l) \ll 1$ at all separations in this part of the inertial subrange in both cases. In this limit, locality is very strong, and the relative motion is unaffected by the long range sweeping. The obtained slope is indeed very close to the exact locality scaling of $1.005$. For $p=5/3$ (Kolmogorov turbulence), in Case 1 (red) a clear power-law scaling is observed, $\gamma_{Kol} \approx 1.53>4/3$, and very little statistical noise in the range $1<\sigma_l/\eta <10^5$, indicating that $e^I_K(\sigma_l)\ll 1$ in this range of scales. Case 2 (green) deviates increasingly from Case 1 at small inertial separations where it is also accompanied with increasing levels of noise. Nevertheless, the agreement between the two cases for $\sigma_l/\eta>10^2$ is good. For $p=3$, the two cases overlap with a power-law scaling, $\gamma_{3} = 2$, with almost no statistical noise. In this limit nearly all the energy is in the large scales and inertial range scaling is no longer applicable; rather uniform strained motion with the characteristic slope of $2$ is obtained. \section{Discussion and Conclusions} All the results in Fig. 3 are consistent with the numerical analysis and the theoretical predictions in section 2. The constant power law scaling over most of the inertial subrange of separations, $1<\sigma_l/\eta<10^5$, and the very low level of statistical noise in the swept frame of reference are especially important. (The departure from this for $\sigma_l/\eta<1$ observed in Fig. 3 is outside of the inertial subrange.) The KS sweeping errrors in this frame of reference is thererfore negligible for most practical purposes. It is possible that KS could produce negligible sweeping errors in even bigger intermediate ranges than reported here, but the current simulations are the maximum size of inertial subrange possible, $k_\eta/k_1=10^6$, with double-precision accuracy. It is remarkable that even when large scale sweeping is included, the KS sweeping errors remain small in the range $\sigma_l/\eta>10^2$. {It is also noted that some Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS) show pair diffusion which appear to display locality scaling, see \cite{Biferale2014} for example. However, the maximum inertial range obtained in DNS to date is around $k_\eta/k_1\approx 10^2$, which is much shorter than required to test pair diffusion scaling reliably -- that requires $k_\eta/k_1> 10^4$. Thus the current KS results cannot be compared directly with DNS at the present time. However, for low Reynolds KS has been validated against DNS for turbulent pair diffusion by Malik \& Vassilicos \cite{Malik1999}; here not only did the pair diffusion from KS closely match the DNS results with the same energy specturm, but the fourth order statistic, the kurtosis in the pair separation, also matched remarkably well.} {The main contribution of this work is that it has been demonstrated that in a reference frame moving with the large energy containing scales the sweeping errors in the turbulent pair diffusion process in KS is negligible in the inertial subrange where, $1<\sigma_l/\eta<10^5$. This is significant not only because it {amends the previous theory of \cite{TD2005,Nicolleau2011,Eyink2013} , but it is important for turbulent diffusion modeling and applications in general, and especially for pair diffusion studies.}} If the sweeping errors are negligible, why is locality scaling not oberved for $p=5/3$ where KS yields $\gamma_{Kol}\approx 1.53 >4/3$? There are two possible explanations. First, other errors could be present in KS, not due to the sweeping, but to as yet unknown sources; but no one has proposed any such source of error in, and so this remains very speculative. The second possibility is that the locality hypothesis itself may be error. This goes against the widely accepted theory of Richardson [1], and no one has proposed alternative theory. On the other hand, it should be noted that the locality scaling for the pair diffusion has never been confirmed unequivocally as noted by Salazar \& Collins \cite{Salazar2009} -- so there is room for new thinking in this field. These are currently the subjects of active research by the author. What can be said for certain at the present time is that the departure from locality scaling observed in KS cannot be attributed to the sweeping effect. \section*{Acknowledgments} The author would like to thank SABIC for funding this work through project number SB101011, and the ITC Department at KFUPM for making available the High Performance Computing facility for this project. \nolinenumbers
\section{Introduction} Map labeling is a well-known cartographic problem in computational geometry~\cite[Chapter 58.3.1]{overview},\cite{bibliography}. Depending on the type of map features, one can distinguish labeling of \emph{points}, \emph{lines}, and \emph{areas}. Common cartographic quality criteria are that labels must be disjoint and clearly identify their respective map features~\cite{criteria}. Most of the previous work concerns point labeling, while labeling line and area features received considerably less attention. In this paper we address labeling linear features, namely roads in a road map. Geometrically, a \emph{road map} is the representation of a \emph{road graph} $G$ as an arrangement of fat curves in the plane $\mathbb R^2$. Each \emph{road} is a connected subgraph of $G$ (typically a simple path) and each edge belongs to exactly one road. Roads may intersect each other in \emph{junctions}, the vertices of $G$, and we denote an edge connecting two junctions as a \emph{road section}. In road labeling the task is to place the road names inside the fat curves so that the road sections are identified unambiguously, see Fig.~\ref{fig:goodbad}. Chiri{\'e}~\cite{street-name-placement} presented a set of rules and quality criteria for label placement in road maps based on interviews with cartographers. This includes that (C1) labels are placed inside and parallel to the road shapes, (C2) every road section between two junctions should be clearly identified, and (C3) no two road labels may intersect. Further, he gave a mathematical description for labeling a single road and introduced a heuristic for sequentially labeling all roads in the map. Imhof's foundational cartographic work on label positioning in maps lists very similar quality criteria~\cite{imhof}. Edmondson et al.~\cite{Edmondson96} took an algorithmic perspective on labeling a single linear feature (such as a river). While Edmondson et al.\ considered \emph{non-bent} labels, Wolff et al.~\cite{wkksa-seahq-00} introduced an algorithm for single linear feature that places labels following the curvature of the linear feature. Strijk \cite{strijk2001} considered static road labeling with embedded labels and presented a heuristic for selecting non-overlapping labels out of a set of label candidates. Seibert and Unger~\cite{labelingManhattan} considered grid-shaped road networks. They showed that in those networks it is NP-complete and \APX-hard to decide whether for every road at least one label can be placed. Yet, Neyer and Wagner~\cite{downtownLabeling} introduced a practically efficient algorithm that finds such a grid labeling if possible. Maass and Döllner~\cite{Maass07} presented a heuristic for labeling the roads of an interactive 3D map with objects (such as buildings). Apart from label-label overlaps, they also resolve label-object occlusions. Vaaraniem et al.~\cite{Vaaraniemi12} used a force-based labeling algorithm for 2D and 3D scenes including road label placement. \paragraph{Contribution.} While in grid-shaped road networks it is sufficient to place a single label per road to clearly identify all its road sections, this is not the case in general road networks. Consider the example in Fig.~\ref{fig:goodbad}. In Fig.~\ref{fig:goodbad}a), it is not obvious whether the orange road section in the center belongs to \emph{Knuth St.}\ or to~\emph{Turing St}. Simply maximizing the number of placed labels, as often done for labeling point features, can cause undesired effects like unnamed roads or clumsy label placements (e.g., around \emph{Dijkstra St.}\ and \emph{Hamming St.} in Fig.~\ref{fig:goodbad}a)). Therefore, in contrast to Seibert and Unger~\cite{labelingManhattan}, we aim for maximizing the number of~\emph{identified} road sections, i.e., road sections that can be clearly assigned to labels; see Fig.~\ref{fig:goodbad}b). Based on criteria (C1)--(C3) we introduce a new and versatile model for road labeling in Section~\ref{sec:model}. In Section~\ref{sec:np-hardness} we show that the problem of maximizing the number of identified road sections is~NP-hard for general road graphs, even if each road is a path. For the special case that the road graph is a tree, we present a polynomial-time algorithm in Section~\ref{sec:tree-algorithm}. This special case is not only of theoretical interest, but our algorithm in fact provides a very useful subroutine in exact or heuristic algorithms for labeling general road graphs. Our initial experiments, sketched in Section~\ref{sec:appendix:experiments}, show that real-world road networks decompose into small subgraphs, a large fraction of which (more than 85.1\%) are actually trees, and thus can be labeled optimally by our algorithm. \begin{figure}[t] \centering \includegraphics[page=3,scale=0.95]{./fig/tree.pdf} \caption{\small a--b): Two ways to label the same road network. Each road section has its own color. Junctions are marked gray. Fig.~b) identifies all road sections. c)~Illustration of the road graph and relevant terms.} \label{fig:goodbad} \end{figure} \section{Preliminaries}\label{sec:model} As argued above, a road map is a collection of fat curves in the plane, each representing a particular piece of a named road. If two (or more) such curves intersect, they form junctions. A \emph{road label} is again a fat curve (the bounding shape of the road name) that is contained in and parallel to the fat curve representing its road. We observe that labels of different roads can intersect only within junctions and that the actual width of the curves is irrelevant, except for defining the shape and size of the junctions. These observations allow us to define the following more abstract but equivalent road map model. A \emph{road map}~$\mathcal M$ is a planar \emph{road graph} $G=(V,E)$ together with a planar embedding $\E(G)$, which can be thought of as the geometric representation of the road axes as thin curves; see Fig~\ref{fig:goodbad}c). We denote the number of vertices of $G$ by $n$, and the number of edges by $m$. Observe that since $G$ is planar $m = O(n)$. Each edge $e \in E$ is either a \emph{road section}, which is not part of a junction, or a \emph{junction edge}, which is part of a junction. Each vertex $v \in V$ is either a \emph{junction vertex} incident only to junction edges, or a \emph{regular vertex} incident to one road section and at most one junction edge, which implies that each regular vertex has degree at most two. A junction vertex $v$ and its incident edges are denoted as a \emph{junction}. The edge set $E$ decomposes into a set $\mathcal R$ of edge-disjoint \emph{roads}, where each road $R \in \mathcal R$ induces a connected subgraph of $G$. Without loss of generality we assume no two road sections~$G$ are incident to the same vertex. Thus, a road decomposes into road sections, separated by junction vertices and their incident junction edges. In realistic road networks the number of roads connected passing through a junction is small and does not depend on the size of the road network. We therefore assume that each vertex in~$G$ has constant degree. We assume that each road~$R\in \mathcal R$ has a name whose length we denote by~$\lw(R)$. For simplicity, we identify the embedding $\E(G)$ with the points in the plane covered by $\E(G)$, i.e.~$\E(G)\subseteq \mathbb{R}^2$. We also use $\E(v)$, $\E(e)$, and $\E(R)$ to denote the embeddings of a vertex $v$, an edge $e$, and a road $R$. We model a label as a simple open curve $\ell\colon [0,1]\to \E(G)$ in~$\E(G)$. Unless mentioned otherwise, we consider a curve~$\ell$ always to be simple and open, i.e., $\ell$ has no self-intersections and its end points do not coincide. In order to ease the description, we identify a curve $\ell$ in $\E(G)$ with its image, i.e.,~$\ell$ denotes the set~$\{\ell(t)\in \E(G)\mid t\in[0,1]\}$. The start point of $\ell$ is denoted as the \emph{head} $h(\ell)$ and the endpoint as the \emph{tail} $t(\ell)$. The length of~$\ell$ is denoted by $\length(\ell)$. The curve $\ell$ \emph{identifies} a road section $r$ if $\ell \cap \E(r) \ne \emptyset$. For a set $\mathcal L$ of curves $\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\mathcal L)$ is the number of road sections that are identified by the curves in~$\mathcal L$. For a single curve~$\ell$ we use~$\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ell)$ instead of~$\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\{\ell\})$. For two curves~$\ell_1$ and $\ell_2$ it is not necessarily true that $\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\{\ell_1,\ell_2\})=\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ell_1)+\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ell_2)$, because they may identify the same road section twice. A \emph{label} $\ell$ for a road $R$ is a curve $\ell \subseteq \E(R)$ of length $\lw(R)$ whose endpoints must lie on road sections and not on junction edges or junction vertices. Requiring that labels end on road sections avoids ambiguous placement of labels in junctions where it is unclear how the road passes through it. A \emph{labeling} $\mathcal L$ for a road map with road set $\mathcal R$ is a set of mutually non-overlapping labels, where we say that two labels $\ell$ and $\ell'$ \emph{overlap} if they intersect in a point that is not their respective head or tail. Following the cartographic quality criteria~(C1)--(C3), our goal is to find a labeling $\mathcal L$ that maximizes the number of identified road sections, i.e., for any labeling $\mathcal L'$ we have $\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\mathcal L')\leq \ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\mathcal L)$. We call this problem~\MaxTotalCovering. Note that assuming the road graph~$G$ to be planar is not a restriction in practice. Consider for example a road section~$r$ that overpasses another road section~$r'$, i.e., $r$ is a bridge over~$r'$, or $r'$ is a tunnel underneath~$r$. In order to avoid overlaps between labels placed on $r$ and $r'$, we either can model the intersection of~$r$ and $r'$ as a regular crossing of two roads or we split~$r'$ in smaller road sections that do not cross~$r$. In both cases the corresponding road graph becomes planar. In the latter case we may obtain more independent roads created by chopping~$r'$ into smaller pieces. \section{Computational Complexity}\label{sec:np-hardness} We first study the computational complexity of road labeling and prove NP-hardness of \MaxTotalCovering in the following sense. \begin{theorem}\label{thm:npc} For a given road map $\mathcal M$ and an integer $K$ it is NP-hard to decide if in total at least $K$ road sections can be identified. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} We perform a reduction from the NP-complete \textsc{planar monotone 3-Sat} problem~\cite{l-pftu-82}. An instance of \textsc{planar monotone 3-Sat} is a Boolean formula $\varphi$ with $n$ variables and $m$ clauses (disjunctions of at most three literals) that satisfies the following additional requirements: (i) $\varphi$ is \emph{monotone}, i.e., every clause contains either only positive literals or only negative literals and (ii) the induced variable-clause graph $H_\varphi$ of $\varphi$ is planar and can be embedded in the plane with all variable vertices on a horizontal line, all positive clause vertices on one side of the line, all negative clauses on the other side of the line, and the edges drawn as rectilinear curves connecting clauses and contained variables on their respective side of the line. \begin{figure}[t] \begin{center} \includegraphics[page=5,scale=0.9]{./fig/np-gadgets.pdf} \end{center} \caption{\small Illustration of NP-hardness proof. (a)~3-Sat formula $\varphi =( x_4 \vee x_1 \vee x_5) \wedge (x_2 \vee x_4 \vee x_3) \wedge (\bar x_2 \vee \bar x_1 \vee \bar x_3) \wedge ( \bar x_3 \vee \bar x_5 \vee \bar x_4)$ represented as road graph $\mathcal M_\varphi$. Truth assignment is $x_1=\mathit{true}$, $x_2=\mathit{true}$, $x_3=\mathit{false}$, $x_4=\mathit{false}$ and $x_5=\mathit{false}$. (b)~Clause gadget in two states. (c)~The chain is the basic building block for the proof. (d)~Schematized fork gadget.} \label{fig:gadgets} \end{figure} % We construct a road map $\mathcal M_\varphi$ that mimics the shape of the above embedding of $H_\varphi$ by defining variable and clause gadgets, which simulate the assignment of truth values to variables and the evaluation of the clauses. We refer to Fig.~\ref{fig:gadgets} for a sketch of the construction. \textit{Chain Gadget.} The basic building block is the \emph{chain gadget}, which consists of an alternating sequence of equally long horizontal and vertical roads with identical label lengths that intersect their respective neighbors in the sequence and form junctions with them as indicated in Fig.~\ref{fig:gadgets}c). Assume that the chain consists of $k\ge 3$ roads. Then each road except the first and last one decomposes into three road sections split by two junctions, a longer central section and two short end sections; the first and last road consist of only two road sections, a short one and a long one, separated by one junction. (These two roads will later be connected to other gadgets; indicated by dotted squares in Fig.~\ref{fig:gadgets}c).) The label length and distance between junctions is chosen so that for each road either the central and one end section is identified, or no section at all is identified. For the first and last road, both sections are identified if the junction is covered and otherwise only the long section can be identified. We have $k$ roads and $k-1$ junctions. Each label must block a junction, if it identifies two sections. So the best possible configuration blocks all junctions and identifies $2(k-1) + 1 = 2k - 1$ road sections. The chain gadget has exactly two states, in which $2k-1$ road sections are identified. Either the label of the first road does not block a junction and identifies a single section and all subsequent roads have their label cover the junction with the preceding road in the sequence, or the label of the last road does not block a junction and all other roads have their label cover the junction with the successive road in the sequence. In any other configuration there is at least one road without any identified section and thus at most $2k-2$ sections are identified. We use the two optimal states of the gadget to represent and transmit the values \emph{true} and \emph{false} from one end to the other. \textit{Fork Gadget.} The \emph{fork gadget} allows to split the value represented in one chain into two chains, which is needed to transmit the truth value of a variable into multiple clauses. To that end it connects to an end road of three chain gadgets by sharing junctions. \begin{figure}[t] \centering \subfigure[]{ \includegraphics[page=11]{./fig/np-gadgets.pdf} \label{fig:fork:structure}} \subfigure[]{ \includegraphics[page=12]{./fig/np-gadgets.pdf} \label{fig:fork:false}} \subfigure[]{ \includegraphics[page=13]{./fig/np-gadgets.pdf} \label{fig:fork:true}} \caption{Illustration of the fork gadget. \protect\subref{fig:fork:structure} Structure of the fork gadget. \protect\subref{fig:fork:true} Configuration transmitting the value \emph{false}. \protect\subref{fig:fork:false} Configuration transmitting the value \emph{true}.} \label{fig:np:fork} \end{figure} The core of the fork consists of six roads~$r_1,\dots,r_6$, whereas $r_1$, $r_2$, and $r_3$ are vertical line segments and $r_4$, $r_5$ and $r_6$ are horizontal line segments; see Fig.~\ref{fig:np:fork}. We arrange those roads such that $r_1$ and $r_2$ have each one junction with~$r_4$ and one junction with~$r_5$. Further, $r_3$ has one junction with $r_4$, one with~$r_5$ and one with $r_6$. The label length of those roads is chosen so that it is exactly the length of the roads. Hence, a placed label idenfies all road sections of the roads. Further, there are three roads $g_1$, $g_2$, $g_3$ such that $g_1$ has one junction with~$r_1$, $g_2$ has one junction with $r_2$ and $g_3$ has one junction with $r_6$. In all three cases we place the junction so that it splits the road in a short road section that is shorter than the road's label length and a long road section that has exactly the road's label length. We call $g_1$, $g_2$ and $g_3$ \emph{gates}, because later these roads will be connected to the end roads of chains by junctions. To that end those \emph{connecting} junctions will be placed on the long road sections of the gates; see violet dotted areas in Fig.~\ref{fig:np:fork}. The fork gadget has exactly two states, in which 16 road sections are identified. In the first state the labels of $r_1$, $r_2$ and $r_3$ are placed; see Fig~\ref{fig:fork:false}. Hence, the labels of $g_1$ and $g_2$ identify only the long road sections of $g_1$ and $g_2$, but not the short ones. The label of $g_3$ idenfies both the long and short road section of~$g_3$. In the second state the labels of $r_4$, $r_5$, $r_6$ are placed; see Fig~\ref{fig:fork:true}. Hence, the labels of $g_1$ and $g_2$ identify the long and short road sections of~$g_1$ and $g_2$, while only the long road section of~$g_3$ is identified by a label. In any other configuration fewer road sections are identified by labels. We use the two optimal states of the gadget to represent and transmit the values \emph{true} and \emph{false} from one gate to the other two gates. More specifically the gates $g_1$ and $g_2$ are connected with chains that lead to the same literal, while $g_3$ is connected with a chain that leads to the complementary literal. \textit{Variable Gadget.} We define the \emph{variable gadgets} simply by connecting chain and fork gadgets into a connected component of intersecting roads. This construction already has the functionality of a variable gadget: it represents (in a labeling identifying the maximum number of road sections) the same truth value in all of its branches, synchronized by the fork gadgets, see the blue chains and yellow forks in Fig.~\ref{fig:gadgets}a). More precisely, we place a sequence of chains linked by fork gadgets along the horizontal line on which the variable vertices are placed in the drawing $H_\varphi$. Each fork creates a branch of the variable gadget either above or below the line. We create as many branches above (below) the line as the variable has occurrences in positive (negative) clauses in $\varphi$. The first and last chain on the line also serve as branches. The synchronization of the different branches via the forks is such that either all top branches have their road labels pushed away from the line and all bottom branches pulled towards the line or vice versa. In the first case, we say that the variable is in the state \emph{false} and in the latter case that it is in the state \emph{true}. The example in Fig.~\ref{fig:gadgets} has two variables set to \emph{true} and three variables set to \emph{false}. \textit{Clause Gadget.} Finally, we need to create the clause gadget, which links three branches of different variables. The core of the gadget is a single road that consists of three sub-paths meeting in one junction. Each sub-path of that road shares another junction with one of the three incoming variable branches. Beyond each of these three junctions the final road sections are just long enough so that a label can be placed on the section. However, the section between the central junction of the clause road and the junctions with the literal roads is shorter than the label length. The road of the clause gadget has six sections in total and we argue that the six sections can only be identified if at least one incoming literal evaluates to \emph{true}. Otherwise at most five sections can be identified. By construction, each road in the chain of a false literal has its label pushed towards the clause, i.e., it blocks the junction with the clause road. As long as at least one of these three junctions is not blocked, all sections can be identified; see Fig.~\ref{fig:gadgets}b). But if all three junctions are blocked, then only two of the three inner sections of the clause road can be identified and the third one remains unlabeled; see Fig.~\ref{fig:gadgets}b). \textit{Reduction.} Obviously, the size of the instance $\mathcal M_\varphi$ is polynomial in $n$ and $m$. If we have a satisfying variable assignment for $\varphi$, we can construct the corresponding road labeling and the number of identified road sections is six per clause and a fixed constant number $K'$ of sections in the variable gadgets, i.e., at least $K=K'+6m$. On the other hand, if we have a road labeling with at least $K$ identified sections, each variable gadget is in one of its two maximum configurations and each clause road has at least one label that covers a junction with a literal road, meaning that the corresponding truth value assignment of the variables is indeed a satisfying one. This concludes the reduction. \end{proof} Since~\MaxTotalCovering is an optimization problem, we only present the~NP-hardness proof. Still, one can argue that the corresponding decision problem is NP-complete by guessing which junctions are covered by which label and then using linear programming for computing the label positions. We omit the technical details. Further, most roads in the reduction are paths, except for the central road in each clause gadget, which is a degree-3 star. In fact, we can strengthen Theorem~\ref{thm:npc} by using a more complex clause gadget instead that uses only paths; see Appendix~\ref{apx:alt-clause}. \section{An Efficient Algorithm for Tree-Shaped Road Maps} \label{sec:tree-algorithm} In this section we assume that the underlying road graph of the road map is a tree $T=(V,E)$. In Section~\ref{sec:tree:basic-approach} we present a polynomial-time algorithm to optimally solve \begin{wrapfigure}[16]{l}{4.5cm} \centering \includegraphics[trim=0pt 0pt 0pt .6cm]{./fig/tree1.pdf} \caption{\small Basic definitions.} \label{fig:tree:basic-definitions} \end{wrapfigure} \MaxTotalCovering for trees; Section~\ref{sec:trees-faster} shows how to improve its running time and space consumption. Our approach uses the basic idea that removing the vertices, whose embeddings lie in a curve $c\subseteq \E(T)$, splits the tree into independent parts. In particular this is true for labels. We assume that~$T$ is rooted at an arbitrary leaf~$\rho$ and that its edges are directed away from~$\rho$;~see Fig.~\ref{fig:tree:basic-definitions}. For two points $p, q \in \E(T)$ we define $\dist(p, q)$ as the length of the shortest curve in~$\E(T)$ that connects~$p$ and~$q$. For two vertices $u$ and $v$ of~$T$ we also write $\dist(u,v)$ instead of $\dist(\E(u),\E(v))$. For a point~$p\in E(T)$ we abbreviate the distance~$\dist(p,\rho)$ to the root~$\rho$ by~$\dist_p$. For a curve~$\ell$ in $\E(T)$, we call~$p \in \ell$ the \emph{lowest point} of~$\ell$ if $\dist_p\leq \dist_q,$ for any~$q\in \ell$. As~$T$ is a tree,~$p$ is unique. We distinguish two types of curves in~$\E(T)$. A curve~$\ell$ is~\emph{vertical} if~$h(\ell)$ or~$t(\ell)$ is the lowest point of~$\ell$; otherwise we call $\ell$ \emph{horizontal} (see \figurename~\ref{fig:tree:basic-definitions}). Without loss of generality we assume that the lowest point of each vertical curve $\ell$ is its tail $t(\ell)$. Since labels are modeled as curves, they are also either vertical or horizontal. For a vertex $u\in V$ let $T_u$ denote the subtree rooted at $u$. \subsection{Basic Approach}\label{sec:tree:basic-approach} We first determine a finite set of candidate positions for the heads and tails of labels, and transform $T$ into a tree $T' = (V', E')$ by subdividing some of $T$'s edges so that it contains a vertex for every candidate position. To that end we construct for each regular vertex $v \in V$ a chain of tightly packed vertical labels that starts at $\E(v)$, is directed towards $\rho$, and ends when either the road ends, or adding the next label does not increase the number of identified road sections. More specifically, we place a first vertical label~$\ell_1$ such that $h(\ell_1) = \E(v)$. For $i=2, 3, \dots$ we add a new vertical label $\ell_i$ with $h(\ell_i)$ = $t(\ell_{i-1})$, as long as $h(\ell_i)$ and $t(\ell_i)$ do not lie on the same road section and none of $\ell_i$'s endpoints lie on a junction edge. We use the tails of all those labels to subdivide the tree $T$. Doing this for all regular vertices of~$T$ we obtain the tree~$T'$, which we call the \emph{subdivision tree} of~$T$. The vertices in $V'\setminus V$ are neither junction vertices nor regular vertices. Since each chain consists of $O(n)$ labels the cardinality of~$V'$ is~$O(n^2)$. We call an optimal labeling $\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}$ of $T$ an \emph{canonical labeling} if for each label $\ell \in \mathcal L'$ there exists a vertex $v$ in~ $T'$ with $\E(v) = h(\ell)$ or $\E(v) = t(\ell)$. The next lemma proves that is sufficient to consider canonical labelings. \newcommand{\thmCanonicalLabeling}{ For any road graph $T$ that is a tree, there exists a canonical labeling~$\mathcal L$. } \begin{lemma}\label{lem:tree:canonical-labeling} \thmCanonicalLabeling \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Let~$\mathcal L$ be an optimal labeling of~$T$. We \emph{push} the labels of $\mathcal L$ as far as possible towards the leaves of~$T$ without changing the identified road sections; see Fig.~\ref{fig:tree:packed-labels}. More specifically, starting with the labels closest to the leaves, we move each label away from the root as far as possible while its head and tail must remain on their respective road sections. For a vertical label this direction is unique, while for horizontal labels we can choose any of the two. Then, for each label its head or tail either coincides with a leaf of $T$, with some internal regular vertex, or with the head of another label. Consequently, each vertical label belongs to a chain of tightly packed vertical labels starting at a regular vertex~$v\in V$. Further, the head or tail of each horizontal label coincides with the end of a chain of tightly packed vertical labels or a regular vertex of~$T$, which proves the claim. \qed \end{proof} We now explain how to construct such a canonical labeling. To that end we first introduce some notations. For a vertex~$u\in V'$ let~$\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(u)$ denote a labeling that identifies \begin{wrapfigure}[19]{l}{2.8cm} \includegraphics[page=2, trim=0pt 0pt 0pt 0.6cm]{./fig/tree1.pdf} \caption{\small Canonical labeling.} \label{fig:tree:packed-labels} \end{wrapfigure} a maximum number of road sections in $T$ only using valid labels in $\E(T'_u)$, where $T'_u$ denotes the subtree of $T'$ rooted at~$u$. Note that those labels also may identify the incoming road section of $u$, e.g., label~$\ell$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:tree:packed-labels}b) identifies the edge~$e'$. Further, the children of a vertex $u\in V'$ are denoted by the set~$N(u)$; we explicitly exclude the parent of~$u$ from $N(u)$. Further, consider an arbitrary curve~$\ell$ in $\E(T)$ and let~$\ell'=\ell\setminus\{t(\ell),h(\ell)\}$. We observe that removing all vertices of $T'$ contained in $\ell'$ together with their incident outgoing edges creates several independent subtrees. We call the roots of these subtrees (except the one containing $\rho$) \emph{children} of $\ell$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:tree:basic-definitions}). If no vertex of~$T'$ lies in~$\ell'$, the curve is contained in a single edge~$(u,v)\in E'$. In that case~$v$ is the only child of~$\ell$. We denote the set of all children of $\ell$ as $N(\ell)$. For each vertex $u$ in $T'$ we introduce a set $C(u)$ of \emph{candidates}, which model potential labels with lowest point~$\E(u)$. If~$u$ is a regular vertex of~$T$ or~$u\in V'\setminus V$, the set~$C(u)$ contains all vertical labels~$\ell$ with lowest point~$\E(u)$. If~$u$ is a junction vertex, $C(u)$ contains all horizontal labels that start or end at a vertex of $T'$ and whose lowest point is~$\E(u)$. In both cases we assume that~$C(u)$ also contains the degenerated curve~$\bot_u=\E(u)$, which is the \emph{dummy label} of~$u$. We set $N(\bot_u)=N(u)$ and~$\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\bot_u)=0$. For a curve~$\ell$ we define $ \ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(\ell) = \bigcup_{v\in N(\ell)}\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(v) \cup \{\ell\}$. Thus, $\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(\ell)$ is a labeling comprising $\ell$ and the labels of its children's optimal labelings. We call a label $\overline \ell\in C(u)$ with $\overline \ell=\argmax\{\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(\ell)) \mid \ell \in C(u)\}$ an \emph{optimal candidate} of~$u$. Next, we prove that it is sufficient to consider optimal candidates to construct a canonical labeling. \newcommand{\lemOptCandidate}{ Given a vertex $u$ of $T'$ and an optimal labeling~$\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(u)$ and let~$\overline \ell$ be an optimal candidate of $u$, then it is true that $ \ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(u)) = \ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(\overline \ell)) $. } \begin{lemma}\label{lem:tree:basic-approach} \lemOptCandidate \end{lemma} \begin{proof} First note that $\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(u))\geq \ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(\overline \ell))$ because both labelings $\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(u)$ and $\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(\overline{\ell})$ only contain labels that are embedded in $\E(T'_u)$. % By Lemma~\ref{lem:tree:canonical-labeling} we can assume without loss of generality that~$\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(u)$ is a canonical labeling. Let~$\ell$ be the label of $\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(u)$ with $\E(u)$ as the lowest point of~$\ell$ (if it exists). If $\ell$ exists, then the vertices in~$N(\ell)$ are roots of independent subtrees, which directly yields $\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(u))=\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(\ell))$. By construction of $C(u)$ we further know that~$\ell$ is contained in~$C(u)$. Hence, $\ell$ is an optimal candidate of~$u$, which implies~$\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ell)=\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\overline \ell)$. If ~$\ell$ does not exist, then we have \[\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(u))= \ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\bigcup_{v\in N(u)}\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(v)) \stackrel{(1)}{=} \ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\bigcup_{v\in N(\bot_u)}\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(v) \cup \{\bot_u\}) = \ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(\bot_u)).\] Equality $(1)$ follows from $N(\bot_u)=N(u)$ and the definition that $\bot_u$ does not identify any road section. Since~$\bot_u$ is contained in $C(u)$, the dummy label $\bot_u$ is the optimal candidate~$\overline \ell$. \qed \end{proof} Algorithm~\ref{algo:basic-approach} first constructs the subdivision tree $T'=(V',E')$ from $T$. Then starting with the leaves of~$T'$ and going to the root~$\rho$ of~$T'$, it computes an optimal candidate~$\overline \ell=$\texttt{Opt\-Can\-di\-da\-te}\xspace$(u)$ for each vertex~$u\in V'$ in a bottom-up fashion. By Lemma~\ref{lem:tree:basic-approach} the labeling~$\mathcal L(\overline \ell)$ is an optimal labeling of~$T'_u$. In particular~$\mathcal L(\rho)$ is the optimal labeling of~$T$. \begin{algorithm}[b] \KwIn{Road graph~$T$, where $T$ is a tree with root $\rho$.} \KwOut{Optimal labeling~$\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(\rho)$ of~$T$.} $T' \gets $ compute subdivision tree of~$T$\; \lFor{each leaf~$v$ of $T'$}{$\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(v)\gets \emptyset$} \For{each vertex~$u$ of $T'$ considered in a bottom-up traversal of~$T'$}{ $\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(u) \gets \ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(\texttt{Opt\-Can\-di\-da\-te}\xspace(u))$\;\label{line:opt-candidate} } \Return $\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(\rho)$ \caption{Computing an optimal labeling of~$T$. } \label{algo:basic-approach} \end{algorithm} Due to the size of the subdivision tree $T'$ we consider $O(n^2)$ vertices. Implementing $\texttt{Opt\-Can\-di\-da\-te}\xspace(u)$, which computes an optimal candidate~$\overline \ell$ for $u$, naively, creates~$C(u)$ explicitly. We observe that if $u$ is a junction vertex, $C(u)$ may contain $O(n^2)$ labels; $O(n^2)$ pairs of road sections of different subtrees of $u$ can be connected by horizontal labels. Each label can be constructed in~$O(n)$ time using a breadth-first search. Thus, for each vertex~$u$ the procedure \texttt{OptCandidate} needs in a naive implementation $O(n^3)$ time, which yields $O(n^5)$ running time in total. Further, we need $O(n^2)$ storage to store $T'$. Note that we do not need to store $\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(u)$ for each vertex~$u$ of $T'$, but by Lemma~\ref{lem:tree:basic-approach} we can reconstruct it using $\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(\overline \ell)$, where~$\overline \ell$ is the optimal candidate of~$u$. To that end we store for each vertex of $T'$ its optimal candidate~$\overline \ell$ and $w(\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(\overline \ell))$. \begin{theorem} For a road map with a tree as underlying road graph, \MaxTotalCovering can be solved in~$O(n^5)$ time using $O(n^2)$ space. \end{theorem} In case that all roads are paths, Algorithm~\ref{algo:basic-approach} runs in~$O(n^4)$ time, because for each $u\in V'$ the set~$C(u)$ contains~$O(n)$ labels. Further, besides the \emph{primary objective} to identify a maximum number of road sections, Chiri{\'e}~\cite{street-name-placement} also suggested several additional \emph{secondary objectives}, e.g., labels should overlap as few junctions as possible. Our approach allows us to easily incorporate secondary objectives by changing the weight function $\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace$ appropriately. \subsection{Improvements on Running Time}\label{sec:trees-faster} In this part we describe how the running time of Algorithm~\ref{algo:basic-approach} can be improved to $O(n^3)$ time by speeding up \texttt{OptCandidate}$(u)$ to~$O(n)$ time. For an edge~$e=(u,v)\in E\cup E'$ we call a vertical curve $\ell\subseteq \E(T)$ an \emph{$e$-rooted} curve, if~$t(\ell)=\E(u)$, $h(\ell)$ lies on a road section, and $\length(\E(e)\cap\ell)=\min\{\length(\ell),\length(\E(e))\}$, i.e., $\ell$ emanates from~$\E(u)$ passing through~$e$; for example the red label in Fig.~\ref{fig:tree:packed-labels}b) is an $e$-rooted curve. An $e$-rooted curve~$\ell$ is \emph{maximal} if there is no other $e$-rooted curve~$\ell'$ with $\length(\ell)=\length(\ell')$ and $\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(\ell'))>\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(\ell))$. We observe that in any canonical labeling each vertical label~$\ell$ is a~$(u,v)$-rooted curve with~$(u,v)\in E'$, and each horizontal label~$\ell$ can be composed of a $(u,v_1)$-rooted curve~$\ell_1$ and a $(u,v_2)$-rooted curve~$\ell_2$ with~$(u,v_1),(u,v_2)\in E'$ and~$\E(u)$ is the lowest point of~$\ell$; see Fig.~\ref{fig:tree:regular-vertex} and Fig.~\ref{fig:tree:junction-vertex}, respectively. Further, for a vertical curve~$c$ in $\E(T)$ its \emph{distance interval $I(c)$} is $[\dist_{t(c)},\dist_{h(c)}]$. Since~$T$ is a tree, for every point $p$ of $c$ we have $\dist_p\in I(c)$. \begin{wrapfigure}[10]{r}{6cm} \centering \includegraphics[page=3,trim=0pt 0pt 0pt 0.9cm]{fig/tree1.pdf} \caption{\small Superposing curves, e.g., $c_1$ and $c_2$ superpose each other, while $c_1$ and $c_5$ do not. The tree is annotated with distance marks.} \label{fig:tree:superposition} \end{wrapfigure} Two vertical curves $c$ and $c'$ \emph{superpose} each other if~$I(c)\cap I(c')\neq \emptyset$; see Fig~\ref{fig:tree:superposition}. Next, we introduce a data structure that encodes for each edge~$(u,v)$ of~$T$ all maximal $(u,v)$-rooted curves as~$O(n)$ superposition-free curves in $\E(T_u)$. In particular, each of those curves lies on a single road section such that all $(u,v)$-rooted curves ending on that curve are maximal and identify the same number of road sections. We define this data structure as follows. \begin{definition}[Linearization] Let $e=(u,v)$ be an edge of~$T$. A tuple $(L,\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace)$ is called a \emph{linearization} of~$e$, if $L$ is a set of superposition-free curves and $\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace\colon L\to\mathbb{R}$ such that \begin{compactenum}[(1)] \item for each curve $c\in L$ there is a road section~$e'$ in $T_u$ with $c\subseteq \E(e')$\label{lin:cond1}, \item for each~$e$-rooted curve~$\ell$ there is a curve~$c\in L$ with $\length(\ell)+\dist_u \in I(c)$\label{lin:cond2}, \item for each point $p$ of each curve~$c\in L$ there is a maximal $e$-rooted curve~$\ell$ with $h(\ell)=p$ and $\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace(c)=\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(\ell))$.\label{lin:cond3} \end{compactenum} \end{definition} Assume that we apply Algorithm~\ref{algo:basic-approach} on $T'$ and that we currently consider the vertex $u$ of $T'$. Hence, we can assume that for each vertex $v\neq u$ of $T'_u$ its optimal candidate and $\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(v))$ is given. We first explain how to speed up~\texttt{OptCandidate} using linearizations. Afterwards, we present the construction of linearizations. \subsubsection{Application of linearizations.} Here we assume that the linearizations are given for the edges of~$T$. Concerning the type of $u$ we describe how to compute its optimal candidate. \textit{Case 1, $u$ is regular.} If~$u$ is a leaf, the set $C(u)$ contains only~$\bot_u$. Hence, assume that~$u$ has one outgoing edge~$e=(u,v)\in E'$, which belongs to a road~$R$. Let $P$ be the longest path of vertices in~$T'_u$ that starts at~$u$ and does not contain any junction vertex. Note that the path must be unique. Further, by construction of~$T'$ the last vertex~$w$ of $P$ must be a regular vertex in~$V$, but not in $V'\setminus V$. We consider two cases; see Fig~\ref{fig:tree:regular-vertex}. \begin{wrapfigure}[12]{l}{3.0cm} \centering \includegraphics[page=4,trim=0 0 0 0.4cm]{fig/tree1.pdf} \caption{\small Case 1} \label{fig:tree:regular-vertex} \end{wrapfigure} \indent If $\dist(u,w)\geq \lw(R)$, the optimal candidate is either $\bot_u$ or the $e$-rooted curve~$\ell$ of length~$\lw(R)$ that ends on $\E(P)$. By assumption and due to $\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(\bot_u))=\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(v))$, we decide in $O(1)$ time whether $\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(\bot_u))\geq \ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(\ell))$, obtaining the optimal candidate. If $\dist(u,w) < \lw(R)$, the optimal candidate is either~$\bot_u$ or goes through a junction. Since~$w$ is regular, it has only one outgoing edge~$e'=(w,x)$. Further, by the choice of~$P$ the edge~$e'$ is a junction edge in $T$; therefore the linearization $(L,\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace)$ of $e'$ is given. In linear time we search for the curve $c \in L$ such that there is an $e$-rooted curve~$\ell$ of length~$\lw(R)$ with its head on $c$. To that end we consider for each curve~$c \in L$ its distance interval $I(c)$ and check whether there is $t\in I(c)$ with $t-\dist_u=\lw(R)$. Note that using a binary search tree for finding~$c$ speeds this procedure up to $O(\log n)$ time, however, this does not asymptotically improve the total running time. The $e$-rooted curve~$\ell$ then can be easily constructed in $O(n)$ time by walking from~$c$ to~$u$ in~$\E(T)$. If such a curve~$c$ exist, by definition of a linearization the optimal candidate is either $\bot_u$ or $\ell$, which we can decide in $O(1)$ time by checking $\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(\bot_u))\geq \ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(\ell))$. \begin{wrapfigure}[8]{l}{3.0cm} \centering \includegraphics[page=5,trim=0 0 0 0.6cm]{fig/tree1.pdf} \caption{\small Case 2} \label{fig:tree:junction-vertex} \end{wrapfigure} Note that we have $\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(\bot_u))=\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(v))$ and $\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(\ell))=\overline \ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(c)$. If $c$ does not exist, again by definition of a linearization there is no vertical label~$\ell \in C(u)$ and $\bot_u$ is the optimal candidate. \textit{Case 2, $u$ is a junction vertex.} The set $C(u)$ contains horizontal labels. Let~$\ell$ be such a label and let $e_1=(u,v_1)$ and $e_2=(u,v_2)$ be two junction edges in $E$ covered by~$\ell$; see Fig.~\ref{fig:tree:junction-vertex}. Then there is an $e_1$-rooted curve $\ell_1$ and an $e_2$-rooted curve $\ell_2$ whose composition is~$\ell$. Further, we have $\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(\ell))=\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(\ell_1)\cup \ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(\ell_2))+\sum_{v\in N(u)\setminus\{v_1,v_2\}}\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(v)) $. We use this as follows. Let $e_1$ and $e_2$ be two outgoing edges of~$u$ that belong to the same road~$R$, and let $(L_1,\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace_1)$ and $(L_2,\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace_2)$ be the linearizations of $e_1$ and $e_2$, respectively. We define for $e_1$ and $e_2$ and their linearizations the operation $\ensuremath{\maxlabel}\xspace(L_1,L_2)$ that finds an optimal candidate of $u$ restricted to labels identifying $e_1$ and $e_2$. For~$i=1,2$ let~ $d_i=\max\{\dist_u\mid u \text{ is vertex of }T_{v_i}\}$ and let~$f_u(t)=\dist_u-(t-\dist_u)=2\dist_u-t$ be the function that ``mirrors'' the point~$t\in \mathbb{R}^2$ at~$\dist_u$. \begin{wrapfigure}[17]{l}{6.2cm} \centering \includegraphics[page=6,trim=0 0 0 0.5cm]{fig/tree1.pdf} \caption{\small Constructing the optimal candidate of $u$ based on the linearizations $(L_1,\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace_1)$ and~$(L_2,\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace_2)$. The tree is annotated with distance marks.} \label{fig:tree:merge-linearizations} \end{wrapfigure} Applying~$f_u(t)$ on the boundaries of the distance intervals of the curves in $L_1$, we first mirror these intervals such that they are contained in the interval~$[2\dist_u-d_1,\dist_u]$; see Fig.~\ref{fig:tree:merge-linearizations}. Thus, the curves in~$L_1 \cup L_{2}$ are mutually superposition-free such that their distance intervals lie in~$J=[2\dist_u-d_{1},d_{2 }]$. \noindent We call an interval $[x,y] \subseteq J$ a \emph{window}, if it has length $\lw(R)$, $\dist_u\in [x,y]$ and there are curves $c_1\in L_1$ and $c_2\in L_2$ with $x\in I(c_1)$ and $y\in I(c_2)$; see Fig.~\ref{fig:tree:merge-linearizations}. By the definition of a linearization there is a maximal $e_1$-rooted curve $\ell_1$ ending on $c_1$ and a maximal $e_2$-rooted curve $\ell_2$ ending on $c_2$ such that $\length(\ell_1)+\length(\ell_2)=\lw(R)$. Consequently, the composition of $\ell_1$ and $\ell_2$ forms a horizontal label~$\ell$ with $\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(\ell))=\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(\ell_1)\cup \ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(\ell_2))+\sum_{v\in N(u)\setminus\{v_1,v_2\}}\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(v)$; we call $\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(\ell))$ the \emph{value} of the window. Using a simple sweep from left to right we compute for the distance interval~$I(c)$ of each curve $c \in L_1\cup L_2$ a window~$[x,y]$ that starts or ends in $I(c)$ (if such a window exists). The result of $\ensuremath{\maxlabel}\xspace(L_1,L_2)$ is then the label $\ell$ of the window with maximum value. For each pair $e_1$ and $e_2$ of outgoing edges we apply $\ensuremath{\maxlabel}\xspace(L_1,L_2)$ computing a label $\ell$. By construction either the label~$\ell$ with maximum $\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ell)$ or $\bot_u$ is the optimal candidate for~$u$, which we can check in $O(1)$ time. Later on we prove that we consider only linearizations of linear size. Since each vertex of~$T'$ has constant degree, we obtain the next lemma. \begin{lemma}\label{lem:tree:apply-lin} For each $u\in V'$ the optimal candidate can be found in $O(n)$ time. \end{lemma} \subsubsection{Construction of linearizations.} \begin{figure} \centering \begin{minipage}[t]{0.35\textwidth} \centering \includegraphics[page=7]{fig/tree1.pdf} \caption{\small 1st Step: For each edge~$e_i$ extend its linearization~$(L,\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace)$ to a linearization~$(L_i,\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace_i)$ of~$T_i$.} \label{fig:tree:construction-step1} \end{minipage} \hfill \begin{minipage}[t]{0.6\textwidth} \centering \includegraphics[page=9]{fig/tree1.pdf} \caption{\small 2nd Step: Merging the linearizations of the trees $T_i$ and $T_j$.} \label{fig:tree:construction-step2} \end{minipage} \end{figure} We now show how to recursively construct a linearization for an edge $e=(u,v)$ of~$T$. To that end we assume that we are given the subdivision tree $T'$ of $T$ and the linearizations for the outgoing edges~$e_1=(v,w_1),\dots,e_k=(v,w_k)$ of~$v$ that belong to the same road~$R$ as~$e$. Further, we can assume that we have computed the weight $\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(w))$ for all vertices~$w$ in $T'_u$ excluding $u$. In case that two vertices of those vertices share the same position in $\E(T'_u)$ we remove that one with less weight. Let $T_i$ be the tree induced by the edges $e$, $e_i$ and the edges of the subtree rooted at~$w_i$. As a first step we compute for each linearization $(L,\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace)$ of each edge~$e_i$ a linearization $(L_i,\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace_i)$ for $e$ restricted to tree~$T_i$, i.e., conceptually, we assume that $T_u$ only consists of $T_i$'s edges. \noindent If $e$ is a junction edge we set $L_i\gets L$ and weight each curve~$c\in L_i$ as follows. \[ \ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace_i(c)\gets \ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace(c)+\sum\limits_{\mathclap{w\in N(v)\setminus\{w_i\}}}\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(w)) \] Otherwise, if $e$ is a road section, let $v_1,\dots,v_l$ be the vertices of the subdivision tree~$T'$ that lie on~$e$, i.e., $\E(v_j)\in \E(e)$ for all $1\leq j\leq l$; see Fig.~\ref{fig:tree:construction-step1}. We assume that $\dist(v_1)< \ldots< \dist(v_l)$, which in particular yields $v_1=u$ and $v_l=v$. Let $c_1$ be the curve~$\E((v_1,v_2))$ and for $2\leq j<l$ let~$c_j$ be the curve $\E((v_j,v_{j+1}))\setminus \E(v_j)$. Hence, we have $\bigcup_{j=1}^l c_j=\E(e)$ and $c_j\cap c_{j'}=\emptyset$ for $1\leq j < j' < l$. We set \[ L_i\gets L\cup \bigcup_{j=1}^{l-1}\{c_j\} \] We weight each curve $c\in L_i$ as follows. If $c$ is contained in $L$, we set \[ \ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace_i(c)\gets \ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace(c)+1 \] Otherwise, $c$ is a sub-curve of $\E(e)$ and there exists a $j$ with $c=c_j$. We set \[ \ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace_i(c)\gets\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\mathcal L(v_{j+1})\cup \{\ell_c\}), \] where $\ell_c\subseteq \E(e)$ is an $e$-rooted curve that starts at $\E(u)$ and ends on $c$. The next lemma shows that this transformation yields a linearization as desired. \begin{lemma}\label{lem:tree:construct1} For each outgoing edge $e_i$ with linearization $(L,\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace)$ the tuple $(L_i,\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace_i)$ is a linearization of $e$ restricted to the tree $T_i$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} We use the same notation as used above. First of all, the set $L_i$ contains only curves that do not superpose each other: Since $L_i$ contains only curves that do not superpose each other, the only curves that could superpose another curve in $L$ are contained in $L_i\setminus L$. Since $L_i\setminus L$ is empty for a junction edge, we can assume that~$e$ is a road section. By construction those curves in $L_i\setminus L$ partition~$\E(e)$ without intersecting each other. Further, by assumption no two road sections share a common vertex and since all curves of~$L$ are contained in $\E(T_v)$, the curves in $L_i\setminus L$ cannot superpose any curve in~$L$. We now prove that $L_i$ satisfies the three conditions of a linearization. First assume that $e$ is a road section. \emph{Condition~(\ref{lin:cond1})}. Since $L$ is a linearization, each curve of $L$ must be a sub-curve of a road section. Further, the curves $L_i\setminus L$ are sub-curves of the road section~$e$. \emph{Condition~(\ref{lin:cond2})}. First consider an $e$-rooted curve~$\ell$ that either ends on $e_i$ or on an edge of~$T_{w_i}$. Recall that $h(\ell)$ must lie on a road section. Then there is an~$e_i$-rooted curve~$\ell'$ with~$\ell' \subseteq \ell$ and~$h(\ell)=h(\ell')$. Hence, there is a curve~$c\in L$ with $\length(\ell')+\dist_v\in I(c)$. Since~$\ell'$ is a sub-curve of~$\ell$, we also have $\length(\ell)+\dist_u\in I(c)$. Now, consider an $e$-rooted curve~$\ell$ that ends on $e$, then~obviously by construction there is a curve~$c\in L_i\setminus L$ with $\length(\ell)+\dist_u\in I(c)$. \emph{Condition~(\ref{lin:cond3})}. First consider an arbitrary curve~$c\in L_i\setminus L$ and let~$\ell$ be any $e$-rooted curve that ends on $c$. Further, let $v_1,\dots,v_l$ be the vertices of the subdivision tree~$T'$ that lie on~$e$ as defined above. By construction there is an edge~$(v_j,v_{j+1})$ with $1\leq j < l$ and $c\subseteq \E(v_j,v_{j+1})$. It holds \[ \ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(\ell))=\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(v_{j+1})\cup\{\ell\})=\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace_i(c) \] Obviously, $\ell$ must be maximal, because there is no other point in $\E(T_i)$ having the same distance to~$\rho$ as $h(\ell)$ has. Finally, consider a curve~$c\in L$ and let~$\ell$ be any $e$-rooted curve that ends on~$c$. As~$L$ is a linearization of~$e_i$, for each point~$p$ on $c$ there must be an $e_i$-rooted curve~$\ell'$ with~$h(\ell')\in c$. We choose~$\ell'$ such that~$h(\ell')=h(\ell)$. Since~$\ell'$ is a maximal $e_i$-rooted curve, the curve $\ell$ must be a maximal $e$-rooted curve. Further, $\ell$ identifies one road section more than~$\ell'$. Hence, we obtain \[\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(\ell))=\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(\ell'))+1= \ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace(c)+1 =\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace_i(c)\] Now consider the case that~$e$ is a junction edge. \emph{Condition~(\ref{lin:cond1})} and \emph{Condition~(\ref{lin:cond2})} follow by the same arguments as stated above with the simplification that $L_i=L$. \emph{Condition~(\ref{lin:cond3})}. Let~$c$ be a curve in $L_i$ and let $\ell$ be any $e$-rooted curve that ends on~$c$. Further, let~$\ell'$ be the $e_i$-rooted sub-curve of~$\ell$ that starts at $\E(v)$ and ends at $h(\ell)$; by definition of $L$ such a curve exists. It holds \[ \ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(\ell))=\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(\ell'))+\sum\limits_{\mathclap{w\in N(v)\setminus\{w_i\}}}\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(w))=\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace(c)+\sum\limits_{\mathclap{w\in N(v)\setminus\{w_i\}}}\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(w))=\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace_i(c) \] Since~$\ell'$ is a maximal~$e_i$-rooted curve, it directly follows that $\ell$ is a maximal $e$-rooted curve with respect to~$T_i$. \qed \end{proof} In the next step we define an operation $\oplus$ by means of which two linearizations $(L_i,\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace_i)$ and $(L_j,\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace_j)$ can be combined to one linearization $(L_i,\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace_i) \oplus (L_j,\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace_j)$ of $e$ that is restricted to the subtree~$T_{i,j}$ induced by the edges of $T_i$ and $T_j$. Consequently, $\bigoplus_{i=1}^k (L_i,\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace_i)$ is the linearization of $e$ without any restrictions. \begin{figure}[h] \centering \includegraphics[page=8]{./fig/tree1} \caption{Illustration of merging two linearizations~$(L_i,\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace_i)$ and $(L_j,\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace_j)$ into one linearization $(L_1,\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace_i)$. The trees are annotated with distance marks.} \label{fig:tree:merge} \end{figure} We define $(L,\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace)=(L_i,\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace_i) \oplus (L_j,\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace_j)$ as follows; for illustration see also Fig.~\ref{fig:tree:merge}. Let $c_1,\dots,c_\ell$ be the curves of $L_{i}\cup L_{j}$ such that for any two curves $c_s$, $c_t$ with $s<t$ the left endpoint of~$I(c_s)$ lies to the left of the left endpoint of $I(c_t)$; ties are broken arbitrarily. We successively add the curves to~$L$ in the given order enforcing that the curves in $L$ remain superposition-free. Let $c$ be the next curve to be added to $L$. Without loss of generality, let~$c\in L_{i}$. The opposite case can be handled analogously. In case that there is no curve superposing $c$, we add $c$ to $L$ and set $\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace(c)=\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace_{i}(c)$. If $c$ superposes a curve in $L$, due the order of insertion, there can only be one curve $c'$ in $L$ that superposes $c$. First we remove $c'$ from $L$. Let $I_M$ be the interval describing the set $I(c)\cap I(c')$, and let $I_L$ and $I_R$ be the intervals describing the set~$I(c)\cup I(c') \setminus (I(c) \cap I(c'))$ such that $I_L$ lies to the left of~$I_M$ and~$I_R$ lies to the right of $I_M$; see Fig.~\ref{fig:tree:construction-step2}. We now define three curves $c_L$, $c_M$ and $c_{R}$ with $I(c_L)=I_L$, $I(c_M)=I_M$ and $I(c_R)=I_R$ such that each of these three curves is a sub-curve of either~$c$ or~$c'$. To that end let $c[I]$ denote the sub-curve of $c$ whose distance interval is $I$. We define the curve $c_R$ with weight $\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace(c_R)$ as \[ (c_R,\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace(c_R)) = \begin{cases} (c[I_R],\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace_i(c)), & \text{if }I_R\subseteq I(c)\\ (c'[I_R],\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace(c')), & \text{if } I_R\subseteq I(c')\\ \end{cases} \] The curve $c_L$ and its weight $\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace(c_L)$ is defined analogously. The curve~$c_M$ and its weight $\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace(c_M)$ is \[ (c_M,\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace(c_M)) = \begin{cases} (c[I_M],\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace_i(c)), & \text{if }\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace_{i}(c)\geq \ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace(c')\\ (c'[I_M],\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace(c')), & \text{if }\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace_{i}(c) < \ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace(c')\\ \end{cases} \] The next lemma proves that $(L_i,\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace_i) \oplus (L_j,\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace_j)$ is a restricted linearization. \begin{lemma}\label{lem:tree:construct2} Let $(L_i,\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace_i)$ and $(L_j,\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace_j)$ be two linearizations of $e=(u,v)$ that are restricted to the trees $T_i$ and $T_j$, respectively. Then $(L,\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace)=(L_i,\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace_i) \oplus (L_j,\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace_j)$ is a linearization of $e$ restricted to~$T_{i,j}$. The operation needs $O(|L_i|+|L_j|)$ time. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} First of all, the set $L$ contains only curves that are pairwise free from any superpositions. This directly follows from the construction that curves~$c$ and $c'$ superposing each other are replaced by three superposition-free curves $c_L$, $c_M$ and $c_R$. Due to $I(c_L)\cup I(c_M) \cup I(c_R)=I(c)\cup I(c')$ the first and second condition of a linearization is satisfied. We finally prove that Condition~(\ref{lin:cond3}) of a linearization is satisfied by doing an induction over the curves inserted to~$L$. Let~$L^k$ be~$L$ after the $k$-th insertion step. Since $L^0$ is empty, the condition obviously holds for $L^0$. So assume that we insert $c$ to $L^k$ obtaining the set $L^{k+1}$. Without loss of generality assume that~$c\in L_i$. If $c$ does not superpose any curve in $L^k$, the condition directly follows from the definition of~$c$. So assume that~$c'\in L^k$ superposes $c$. Since~$c\in L_i$, the curve~$c'$ is contained in~$\E(T_j)$. We remove $c'$ from~$L^k$ and insert the curves $c_R$, $c_M$ and $c_L$ as defined above. We prove that all three curves satisfy Condition~(\ref{lin:cond3}). Consider in the following the subtree~$T_{i,j}$ of $T_u$ restricted to the edges of~$T_i$ and~$T_j$. We set $c_R= c[I_R]$ and set $\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace(c_R)=\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace_{i}(c)$, if $I_R\subseteq I(c)$. In that case there is no $e$-rooted curve~$\ell\subseteq \E(T_j)$ with~$\length(\ell)+\dist_u \in I_R$, i.e., either there is no curve~$\ell$ in $\E(T_j)$ with $t(\ell)=\E(u)$ and $\length(\ell)+\dist_u \in I_R$, or any curve in $\E(T_j)$ with $t(\ell)=\E(u)$ and $\length(\ell)+\dist_u \in I_R$ ends on a junction edge. Consequently, any $e$-rooted curve $\ell$ with~$\length(\ell)+\dist_u \in I_R$ and in particular any maximal $e$-rooted curve~$\ell$ with~$\length(\ell)+\dist_u \in I_R$ lies in $\E(T_i)$. Thus, the curve~$c_R$ satisfies Condition~(\ref{lin:cond3}). For the case $I_R\subseteq I(c')$ and the curve $c_L$ we can argue analogously. So consider the curve~$c_M$. Without loss of generality we assume that~$\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace_i(c)\geq \ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace(c')$. The opposite case can be handled analogously. For any maximal $e$-rooted curve~$\ell$ in $\E(T_j)$ with $\length(\ell)+\dist_u \in I_M$ it must be true that $\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(\ell))\leq \ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace(c_M)$. Further, since~$c_M\subseteq c$ and $c$ satisfies condition~(\ref{lin:cond3}) with respect to~$T_i$, $c_M$ satisfies the condition~(\ref{lin:cond3}) with respect to~$T_{i,j}$. \qed \end{proof} Lemma~\ref{lem:tree:construct1} and Lemma~\ref{lem:tree:construct2} yield that $\bigoplus_{i=1}^k (L_i,\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace_i)$ is the linearization of $e$ without any restrictions. Computing it needs $O(\sum_{i=1}^k|L_i|)$ time. Note that when computing optimal candidates (see \emph{Application of linearizations}) we are only interested in $e$-rooted curves~$\ell$ that have length at most $\lw(R)$, where $R$ is the road of~$e$. Hence, when constructing $(L_i,\ensuremath{\overline \omega}\xspace_i)$ for an edge~$e_i$ in the first step, we discard any curve~$c$ of~$L_i$ that does not allow an $e$-rooted curve that both ends on~$c$ and has length at most~$\lw(R)$; the curve $c$ is not necessary for our purposes. Hence, we conceptually restrict $T_i$ to the edges that are reachable from~$u$ by one label length. It is not hard to see that~$T'$ restricted to $\E(T_i)$ contains only $O(n)$ vertices, because each vertex of~$V'\setminus V$ is induced by a chain of tightly packed vertical labels, whereas each label has length $\lw(R)$. Hence, $T'$ restricted to $\E(T_i)$ contains for each such chain at most one vertex of $V'\setminus V$. Further, the endpoints of the curves in~$L_i$ are induced by the vertices of $T'$. Hence, by discarding the unnecessary curves of~$L_i$ the set $L_i$ has size $O(n)$. Altogether, by Lemma~\ref{lem:tree:construct2} and due to the constant degree of each vertex we can construct $\bigoplus_{i=1}^k (L_i,\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace_i)$ in $O(\sum_{i=1}^k n)=O(n)$ time. When constructing $\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(u)$ for $u$ as described in Algorithm~\ref{algo:basic-approach}, we first build the linearization~$L_{e}$ of each of $u$'s outgoing edges. By Lemma~\ref{lem:tree:apply-lin} we can find in $O(n)$ time the optimal candidate of $u$. Then, due to the previous reasoning, the linearization of an edge of $T$ and the optimal candidate of a vertex~$u$ can be constructed in~$O(n)$ time. Altogether we obtain the following result. \begin{proposition} \label{prop:tree} For a road map~$\mathcal M$ with a tree~$T$ as underlying road graph, \MaxTotalCovering can be solved in~$O(n^3)$ time. \end{proposition} \subsection{Improvements on Storage Consumption} Since~$T'$ contains $O(n^2)$ vertices, the algorithm needs~$O(n^2)$ space. This can be improved to~$O(n)$ space. To that end~$T'$ is constructed \emph{on the fly} while executing Algorithm~\ref{algo:basic-approach}. Parts of~$T'$ that become unnecessary are discarded. We prove that it is sufficient to store $O(n)$ vertices of~$T'$ at any time such that the optimal labeling can still be constructed. When constructing the optimal labeling of~$T$, we build for each edge~$(u,v)$ of $T$ its linearization based on the linearization of the outgoing edges of $v$. \begin{wrapfigure}[13]{l}{3.7cm} \centering \includegraphics[page=10]{fig/tree1.pdf} \caption{\small Vertices not reachable from $u$ are marked gray.} \label{fig:tree:reachable} \end{wrapfigure} Afterwards we discard the linearizations of those outgoing edges. Since each vertex has constant degree, considering the vertices of $T'$ in an appropriate order, it is sufficient to maintain a constant number of linearizations at any time. Hence, because each linearization has size $O(n)$, we need $O(n)$ space for storing the required linearizations in total. However, we store for each vertex~$u$ of~$T'$ the weight~$\ensuremath{\omega}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal L}\xspace}%{\texttt{OPT}(u))$ and its optimal candidate. As~$T'$ has size $O(n^2)$ the space consumption is $O(n^2)$. In the following we improve that bound to~$O(n)$ space. \noindent We call a vertex~$v\in V'$ \emph{reachable} from a vertex~$u\in V'$, if there is a curve~$\ell\subseteq \E(T'_u)$ that starts at~$\E(u)$ and that is contained in the embedding of a road~$R$ with $\lw(R)\geq \length(\ell)$ such that~$\E(v)\in \ell$ or $v\in N(\ell)$, where~$\length(\ell)$ denotes the length of~$\ell$; see Fig.~\ref{fig:tree:reachable}. The set~$\R_u$ contains all vertices of~$T'_u$ that are reachable from~$u$. The next lemma shows that~$\R_u$ has linear size. \newpage \begin{lemma}\label{lem:tree:reachable} For any vertex~$u$ of $T'$ the set $\R_u$ has size~$O(n)$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Recall how $T'$ is constructed: For each vertex $v \in V$ we construct a chain~$C$ of tightly packed vertical valid labels, which starts at $\E(v)$, is directed towards $\rho$, and ends when either the road ends, or adding the next label does not increase the number of identified road sections. % Each label of such a chain $C$ induces one vertex of $T'$. Hence,~$C$ induces a set~$V_C$ of vertices in $T'$. We show that for each chain $C$ the set $V_C\cap \R_u$ contains at most two vertices. As we construct $n$ chains in order to build $T'$ the claim follows. For the sake of contradiction assume that there is a chain $C$ and a vertex~$u$ in $T'$ such that~$V_C\cap \R_u$ contains more than two vertices. Without loss of generality we assume that $V_C\cap \R_u$ contains three vertices, which we denote by $v_1$, $v_2$ and $v_3$. We further assume that $\dist_{v_1} < \dist_{v_2} < \dist_{v_3}$. By construction all labels in~$C$ lie in the embedding of the same road~$R_C$, and $\dist(v_1,v_2)\geq \lw(R_C)$ and $\dist(v_2,v_3)\geq \lw(R_C)$. By definition of $C$ there is a vertical curve~$\ell\in \E(T'_u)$ that starts at $\E(u)$ and contains $v_1$, $v_2$ and $v_3$. Let~$e$ be the outgoing edge of~$u$ in $T'$ whose embedding is covered by $\ell$ and consider the sub-curve~$\ell' \subseteq \ell$ with length~$\lw(R_C)$ that starts at~$u$. By definition of~$\R_u$, we know for each~$v_i$ with $1\leq i \leq 3$ that either its embbeding is contained in~$\ell'$ or $v_i\in N(\ell')$. From the definition of~$N(\ell')$ and the fact that all three vertices lie on~$\ell$, it directly follows that only~$v_3$ may be contained in~$N(\ell')$. Hence, $\E(v_1),\E(v_2)\in \ell'$. Further, because~$v_2\not \in N(\ell')$, we have $\E(v_2)\neq h(\ell')$, which implies $\dist(v_1,v_2)<\lw(R)$ and contradicts $\dist(v_1,v_2)\geq\lw(R)$.\qed \end{proof} Assume that we apply Algorithm~\ref{algo:basic-approach} considering the vertex~$u$. When constructing $u$'s optimal candidate, by Lemma~\ref{lem:tree:reachable} it is sufficient to consider the vertices of~$T'_u$ that lie in~$\R_u$. On that account we discard all vertices of $T'_u$ that lie in $V'\setminus V$, but not in~$\R_u$. \begin{wrapfigure}{l}{3cm} \centering \vspace{-0.6cm} \includegraphics[page=11]{fig/tree1.pdf} \caption{\small Chains of label~$\ell$.} \label{fig:tree:reconstructing} \vspace{-0.4cm} \end{wrapfigure} Further, we compute the vertices of $V'\setminus V$ that subdivide the incoming edge~$(t,u)\in E$ \emph{on demand}, i.e., we compute them, when constructing the optimal candidate of~$t$. Hence, we have linear space consumption. \noindent However, when discarding vertices of $T'$, we lose the possibility of reconstructing the labeling. We therefore annotate each vertex~$u\in V$ of the original tree~$T$ with further information. To that end consider a canonical labeling~$\mathcal L$ of~$T$. Let~$\ell$ be a horizontal label of~$\mathcal L$ and let~$e$ be the edge of~$T$ on which~$\ell$'s head is located. Either, no other label of~$\mathcal L$ ends on $e$, or another label~$\ell'$ ends on $e$ that belongs to a chain~$\sigma_\ell$ of tightly packed vertical labels. Analogously, we can define the chain~$\tau_\ell$ with respect to edge~$e'$ on which $\ell's$ tail is located. On that account we store for a junction vertex~$u\in V$ not only its optimal candidate~$\ell \in C(u)$, but also the two chains~$\sigma_\ell$ and $\tau_\ell$, if they exist. Note that such a chain of tightly packed vertical labels is uniquely defined by its start and endpoint, which implies that $O(1)$ space is sufficient to store both chains. Using a breadth-first search we can easily reconstruct those chains in linear time. For a regular vertex~$u\in V$ we analogously store $\sigma_\ell$ of its optimal candidate~$\ell\in C(u)$, if it exists. Since~$\ell$ is vertical, we do not need to consider its tail. For the special case that~$\ell=\bot_u$, we define that~$\sigma_\ell$ is the chain of tightly packed vertical labels that ends on the only outgoing edge~$e$ of~$u$. Summarizing, the additional information together with the optimal candidates stored at the vertices~$u\in V$ of the original tree are sufficient to reconstruct the labeling of~$T$. Together with Proposition~\ref{prop:tree} we obtain the following result. \begin{theorem} \label{thm:tree} For a road map~$\mathcal M$ with a tree~$T$ as underlying road graph, \MaxTotalCovering can be solved in~$O(n^3)$ time using~$O(n)$ space. \end{theorem} \section{On the Usefulness of Labeling Tree-Shaped Road Networks}\label{sec:appendix:experiments} Although the underlying road graphs of real-world road maps are rarely trees, our algorithm for labeling trees is still of practical interest as we show in first initial experiments. The obtained data shall give the reader evidence of the practicability and relevance of our algorithm, but they are not yet a complete experimental study. For a companion paper we are working on a detailed evaluation of our approach and are investigating several practical heuristics that are based on the tree labeling algorithm. To evaluate the usefulness of our algorithm we considered the road networks of several large cities. We extracted the road graphs from the data provided by OpenStreetMap\footnote{\url{openstreetmap.org}} and drew them mimicking the style used on \url{openstreetmap.org} as standard. In particular, we adapted the zoom level $17$, which maps $50m$ to $65$ pixels. On each road graph we first applied a simple preprocessing strategy removing and cutting road sections that can be labeled trivially without violating any optimal solution. In particular we applied the following rules. \begin{compactenum} \item Remove any road that contains exactly one road section. \item Remove any road section that is sufficiently long to completely contain a label and whose adjacent road sections are also sufficiently long to completely contain a label. Here two road sections are called \emph{adjacent}, if they are connected by a path containing only junction edges. \item Cut any road section into two halves that is sufficiently long to contain a label twice in a row. \end{compactenum} \newcommand*\pct{\scalebox{.9}{\%}} \begin{table}[htb] \caption{Number of connected subgraphs and road sections for road networks of five cities. The column \emph{subgraphs} contains the number of connected subgraphs into which the graph is decomposed after preprocessing: 1.\ the total number of subgraphs, 2.\ the number of trees, 3.\ the number of subgraphs with one cycle, and 4.\ the number of subgraphs with more than one cycle. The column \emph{road sections} contains the number of road sections 1.\ in total, 2.\ matched by the preprocessing strategy, 3.\ contained in trees, 4.\ contained in subgraphs with one cycle and 5.\ contained in subgraphs with more than one cycle. } \label{table:properties} \centering \begin{tabular}{ccccccccccc} \toprule \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Number of}} && \multicolumn{4}{c}{subgraphs (after preprocessing)} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{road sections}\\ \cmidrule(lr){2-6} \cmidrule(lr){7-11} && total & trees & 1 cycle & $\geq 2$ cycles & total& matched & trees &1 cycle & $\geq 2$ cycles\\ \midrule \multirow{2}{*}{Berlin} && $5702$ &$4853$ &$549$ &$300$ &$49773$ &$36021$ &$8220$ &$2170$ &$3362$\\ && $100$\pct &$85.1$\pct &$9.6$\pct &$5.3$\pct &$100$\pct &$72.4$\pct &$16.5$\pct &$4.4$\pct &$6.8$\pct\\ \midrule \multirow{2}{*}{Paris} && $22929$ &$20604$ &$1742$ &$583$ &$145971$ &$81305$ &$48009$ &$8329$ &$8328$\\ && $100$\pct &$89.9$\pct &$7.6$\pct &$2.5$\pct &$100$\pct &$55.7$\pct &$32.9$\pct &$5.7$\pct &$5.7$\pct\\ \midrule \multirow{2}{*}{London} && $21825$ &$20538$ &$1012$ &$275$ &$143856$ &$91405$ &$44845$ &$4485$ &$3121$\\ && $100$\pct &$94.1$\pct &$4.6$\pct &$1.3$\pct &$100$\pct &$63.5$\pct &$31.2$\pct &$3.1$\pct &$2.2$\pct\\ \midrule \multirow{2}{*}{Los Angeles} && $48248$ &$47131$ &$767$ &$350$ &$397505$ &$268334$ &$113842$ &$5149$ &$10180$\\ && $100$\pct &$97.7$\pct &$1.6$\pct &$0.7$\pct &$100$\pct &$67.5$\pct &$28.6$\pct &$1.3$\pct &$2.6$\pct\\ \midrule \multirow{2}{*}{New York City} && $10318$ &$9817$ &$306$ &$195$ &$108417$ &$72057$ &$25549$ &$3011$ &$7800$\\ && $100$\pct &$95.1$\pct &$3$\pct &$1.9$\pct &$100$\pct &$66.5$\pct &$23.6$\pct &$2.8$\pct &$7.2$\pct\\ \bottomrule \end{tabular} \end{table} That preprocessing strategy decomposed the road graphs into a large number of subgraphs; see Table~\ref{table:properties}. For example, for the road network of London, which consists of $143856$ road sections, the rules of the preprocessing strategy matched $91405$ road sections, so that the road graph decomposed into $21825$ subgraphs. Note that if we are able to label those subgraphs optimally, we obtain an optimal labeling for the whole road network by the choice of the preprocessing rules. Table~\ref{table:properties} further shows that most of those subgraphs are trees ($85.1\pct$ for Berlin as a minimum and $97.7\pct$ for Los Angeles as a maximum). Hence, using our tree labeling algorithm we can label a large number of the remaining subgraphs optimally. We conjecture that using the preprocessing strategy in combination with the tree labeling algorithm and some heuristics or exact methods for the non-tree subgraphs we can label real-world instances near-optimally. This hypothesis is also supported by the observation that most of the road sections are either matched by the preprocessing strategy or are contained in trees ($55.7\pct+32.9\pct=88.6\pct$ for Paris as a minimum and $67.5\pct+28.6\pct=96.1\pct$ for Los Angeles as a maximum). For our planned companion paper we are currently working on corresponding experiments investigating that conjecture. Further, we are developing heuristics and exact algorithms for labeling the remaining non-tree subgraphs. For example we can improve our results by adapting our tree labeling algorithm to subgraphs containing exactly one cycle $C$. We observe that there are three cases for such a subgraph: \begin{inparaenum}[(1)] \item no label identifies any road section of $C$, \item there is a label~$\ell$ that identifies only road sections of $C$, or \item there is a label~$\ell$ that identifies both road sections of $C$ and road sections of the remaining component. \end{inparaenum} In the first case we can remove $C$ completely from the subgraph, such that it decomposes into a set of trees. In the second and third case the label~$\ell$ splits the cycle $C$ so that the remaining road sections form trees. We explore all choices of $\ell$ taking the best choice. Hence, we can label subgraphs containing exactly one cycle optimally, which further increases the number of optimally labeled subgraphs ($92.8\pct$ for New York City as a minimum and $97.8\pct$ for London as a maximum). \section{Conclusions and Outlook}\label{sec:conclusion} In this paper we investigated the problem of maximizing the number of identified road sections in a labeling of a road map; we showed that it is NP-hard in general, but can be solved in $O(n^3)$ time and linear space for the special case of trees. The underlying road graphs of real-world road maps are rarely trees. Initial experimental evidence indicates, however, that road maps can be decomposed into a large number of subgraphs by placing trivially optimal road labels and removing the corresponding edges from the graph. It turns out that between 85.1\% and 97.7\% of the resulting subgraphs are actually trees, which we can label optimally by our proposed algorithm. As a consequence, this means that a large fraction (between 88.6\% and 96.1\%) of all road sections in our real-world road graphs can be labeled optimally by combining this simple preprocessing strategy with the tree labeling algorithm. We are investigating further heuristic and exact approaches for labeling the remaining non-tree subgraphs (e.g., by finding suitable spanning trees and forests) for a separate companion paper. \newpage
\section{Introduction} The decay behavior of the entries of functions of banded and sparse matrices has attracted considerable interest over the years. It has been known for some time that if $A$ is a banded Hermitian matrix and $f$ is a smooth function with no singularities in a neighborhood of the spectrum of $A$, then the entries in $f(A)$ usually exhibit rapid decay in magnitude away from the main diagonal. The decay rates are typically exponential, with even faster decay in the case of entire functions. The interest for the decay behavior of matrix functions stems largely from its importance for a number of applications including numerical analysis \cite{Benzi.Golub.99,CanutoSimonciniVeraniJOMP.14,DelLopPel05,Demko,EP88,Meurant,ye13}, harmonic analysis \cite{Bask1,Gro10,Jaffard}, quantum chemistry \cite{BBR13,BM12,Lin14,Shao}, signal processing \cite{KSW,Strohmer}, quantum information theory \cite{CE06,CEPD06,ECP10}, multivariate statistics \cite{Aune}, queueing models \cite{Bini05}, control of large-scale dynamical systems \cite{Haber14}, quantum dynamics \cite{Giscard14}, random matrix theory \cite{Molinari}, and others. The first case to be analyzed in detail was that of $f(A) = A^{-1}$, see \cite{Demko,DMS,EP88,Kershaw}. In these papers one can find exponential decay bounds for the entries of the inverse of banded matrices. A related, but quite distinct line of research concerned the study of inverse-closed matrix algebras, where the decay behavior in the entries of a (usually infinite) matrix $A$ is ``inherited" by the entries of $A^{-1}$. Here we mention \cite{Jaffard}, where it was observed that a similar decay behavior occurs for the entries of $f(A) = A^{-1/2}$, as well as \cite{Bask1,Bask2,Gro10,GroLei06,KSW}, among others. The study of the decay behavior for general analytic functions of banded matrices, including the important case of the matrix exponential, was initiated in \cite{Benzi.Golub.99,iserles} and continued for possibly non-normal matrices and general sparsity patterns in \cite{Benzi2007}; further contributions in these directions include \cite{BB14,DelLopPel05,mastronardi,Shao}. Collectively, these papers have largely elucidated the question of when one can expect exponential decay in the entries of $f(A)$, in terms of conditions that the function $f$ and the matrix $A$ must satisfy. Some of these papers also address the important problem of when the rate of decay is asymptotically independent of the dimension $n$ of the problem, a condition that allows, at least in principle, for the approximation of $f(A)$ with a computational cost scaling linearly in $n$ (see, e.g., \cite{BBR13,Benzi2007,BM12}). A limitation of these papers is that they provide decay bounds for the entries of $f(A)$ that are often pessimistic and may not capture the correct, non-monotonic decay behavior actually observed in many situations of practical interest. A first step to address this issue was taken in \cite{CanutoSimonciniVeraniLAA.14}, where new bounds for the inverses of matrices that are Kronecker sums of banded matrices (a kind of structure of considerable importance in the numerical solution of PDE problems) were obtained; see also \cite{Meurant} for an early such analysis for a special class of matrices, and \cite{mastronardi} for functions of multiband matrices. In this paper we build on the work in \cite{CanutoSimonciniVeraniLAA.14} to investigate the decay behavior in (Hermitian) matrix functions where the matrix is a Kronecker sum of banded matrices. We also present new bounds for functions of banded (more generally, sparse) Hermitian matrices. For certain broad classes of analytic functions that frequently arise in applications (including as special cases the resolvent, the inverse square root, and the exponential) we obtain improved decay bounds that capture much more closely the actual decay behavior of the matrix entries than previously published bounds. A significant difference with previous work in this area is that our bounds are expressed in integral form, and in order to apply the bounds to specific matrix functions it may be necessary to evaluate these integrals numerically. The paper is organized as follows. In section~\ref{sec:pre} we provide basic definitions and material from linear algebra and analysis utilized in the rest of the paper. In section~\ref{sec:prev} we briefly recall earlier work on decay bounds for matrix functions. New decay results for functions of banded matrices are given in section~\ref{sec:banded}. Generalizations to more general sparse matrices are briefly discussed in section~\ref{sec:ext}. Functions of matrices with Kronecker sum structure are treated in section~\ref{sec:Kron}. Conclusive remarks are given in section~\ref{sec:Conc}. \section{Preliminaries}\label{sec:pre} In this section we give some basic definitions and background information on the types of matrices and functions considered in the paper. \subsection{Banded matrices and Kronecker sums} We begin by recalling two standard definitions. \begin{definition} We say that a matrix $M\in \CC^{n\times n}$ is $\beta$-banded if its entries $M_{ij}$ satisfy $M_{ij} = 0$ for $|i-j|>\beta$. \end{definition} \begin{definition} Let $M_1, M_2\in \CC^{n\times n}$. We say that a matrix ${\cal A}\in \CC^{n^2\times n^2}$ is the {\em Kronecker sum} of $M_1$ and $M_2$ if \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn:kron} {\cal A} = M_1\oplus M_2 := M_1\otimes I + I\otimes M_2\,, \end{eqnarray} where $I$ denotes the $n\times n$ identity matrix. \end{definition} In this paper we will be especially concerned with the case $M_1=M_2=M$, where $M$ is $\beta$-banded and Hermitian positive definite (HPD). In this case $\cal A$ is also HPD. The definition of Kronecker sum can easily be extended to three or more matrices. For instance, we can define $$ {\cal A} = M_1\oplus M_2 \oplus M_3 := M_1\otimes I\otimes I + I\otimes M_2\otimes I + I\otimes I\otimes M_3 . $$ The Kronecker sum of two matrices is well-behaved under matrix exponentiation. Indeed, the following relation holds (see, e.g., \cite[Theorem 10.9]{Higham2008}): \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn:exp_kron} \exp(M_1\oplus M_2) = \exp(M_1)\otimes \exp(M_2) . \end{eqnarray} Similarly, the following matrix trigonometric identities hold for the matrix sine and cosine \cite[Theorem 12.2]{Higham2008}: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn:sin_kron} \sin(M_1\oplus M_2) = \sin(M_1)\otimes \cos(M_2) + \cos(M_1)\otimes \sin(M_2) \end{eqnarray} and \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn:cos_kron} \cos(M_1\oplus M_2) = \cos(M_1)\otimes \cos(M_2) - \sin(M_1)\otimes \sin(M_2). \end{eqnarray} As we will see, identity (\ref{eqn:exp_kron}) will be useful in extending decay results for functions of banded matrices to functions of matrices with Kronecker sum structure. \subsection{Classes of functions defined by integral transforms}\label{sec:classes} We will be concerned with analytic functions of matrices. It is well known that if $f$ is a function analytic in a domain $\Omega \subseteq \CC$ containing the spectrum of a matrix $A\in \CC^{n\times n}$, then \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn:contour} f(A) = \frac {1}{2\pi i}\int_{\Gamma} f(z)(zI - A)^{-1} {\rm d}z\,, \end{eqnarray} where $i= \sqrt{-1}$ is the imaginary unit and $\Gamma$ is any simple closed curve surrounding the eigenvalues of $A$ and entirely contained in $\Omega$, oriented counterclockwise. Our main results concern certain analytic functions that can be represented as integral transforms of measures, in particular, {\em strictly completely monotonic functions} (associated with the Laplace--Stieltjes transform) and {\em Markov functions} (associated with the Cauchy--Stieltjes transform). Here we briefly review some basic properties of these functions and the relationship between the two classes. We begin with the following definition (see \cite{Widder.46}). \vskip 0.01in \begin{definition} Let $f$ be defined in the interval $(a,b)$ where $-\infty \le a < b \le +\infty$. Then, $f$ is said to be {\em completely monotonic} in $(a,b)$ if $$(-1)^{k}f^{(k)} (x) \ge 0 \quad {\rm for\ all} \quad a < x < b \quad {\rm and\ all} \quad k=0,1,2,\ldots $$ Moreover, $f$ is said to be {\em strictly completely monotonic} in $(a,b)$ if $$(-1)^{k}f^{(k)} (x) > 0 \quad {\rm for\ all} \quad a < x < b \quad {\rm and\ all} \quad k=0,1,2,\ldots $$ \end{definition} Here $f^{(k)}$ denotes the $k$th derivative of $f$, with $f^{(0)}\equiv f$. It is shown in \cite{Widder.46} that if $f$ is completely monotonic in $(a,b)$, it can be extended to an analytic function in the open disk $|z - b| < b - a$ when $b$ is finite. When $b=+\infty$, $f$ is analytic in $\Re(z) > a$. Therefore, for each $y\in (a,b)$ we have that $f$ is analytic in the open disk $|z - y| < R(y)$, where $R(y)$ denotes the radius of convergence of the power series expansion of $f$ about the point $z=y$. Clearly, $R(y) \ge y-a$ for $y\in (a,b)$. In \cite{Bernstein.29} Bernstein proved that a function $f$ is completely monotonic in $(0,\infty)$ if and only if $f$ is the Laplace--Stieltjes transform of $\alpha (\tau)$; \begin{equation}\label{bern} f(x) = \int_0^\infty {\rm e}^{-\tau x} {\rm d}\alpha(\tau), \end{equation} where $\alpha (\tau)$ is nondecreasing and the integral in (\ref{bern}) converges for all $x>0$. Moreover, under the same assumptions $f$ can be extended to an analytic function on the positive half-plane $\Re(z) > 0$. A refinement of this result (see \cite{Dub40}) states that $f$ is strictly completely monotonic in $(0,\infty)$ if it is completely monotonic there and moreover the function $\alpha (\tau)$ has at least one positive point of increase, that is, there exists a $\tau_0 > 0$ such that $\alpha(\tau_0+\delta) > \alpha(\tau_0)$ for any $\delta >0$. Prominent examples of strictly completely monotonic functions include (see \cite{Varga.68}): \begin{enumerate} \item $f_1(x) = 1/x = \int_0^\infty {\rm e}^{-x\tau} d\alpha_1(\tau)$ for $x>0$, where $\alpha_1(\tau) = \tau$ for $\tau\ge 0$. \item $f_2(x) = {\rm e}^{-x} = \int_0^\infty {\rm e}^{-x\tau} d\alpha_2(\tau)$ for $x>0$, where $\alpha_2(\tau) = 0$ for $0\le \tau < 1$ and $\alpha_2(\tau) = 1$ for $\tau\ge 1$. \item $f_3(x) = (1 - {\rm e}^{-x})/x = \int_0^\infty {\rm e}^{-x\tau} d\alpha_3(\tau)$ for $x>0$, where $\alpha_3 (\tau) = \tau$ for $0\le \tau \le 1$, and $\alpha_3(\tau) = 1$ for $\tau\ge 1$. \end{enumerate} \vspace{0.1in} Other examples include the functions $x^{-\sigma}$ (for any $\sigma > 0$), $\log(1+1/x)$ and $\exp(1/x)$, all strictly completely monotonic on $(0,\infty)$. Also, products and positive linear combinations of strictly completely monotonic functions are strictly completely monotonic, as one can readily check. A closely related class of functions is given by the Cauchy--Stieltjes (or Markov-type) functions, which can be written as \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn:markov} f(z) = \int_\Gamma \frac {{\rm d}\gamma(\omega)} {z-\omega}, \quad z\in \CC \setminus \Gamma\,, \end{eqnarray} where $\gamma$ is a (complex) measure supported on a closed set $\Gamma \subset \CC$ and the integral is absolutely convergent. In this paper we are especially interested in the special case $\Gamma = (-\infty, 0]$ so that $$f(x) = \int_{-\infty}^0 \frac {{\rm d}\gamma(\omega)} {x - \omega}, \quad x\in \CC \setminus (-\infty, 0]\,, $$ where $\gamma$ is now a (possibly signed) real measure. The following functions, which occur in various applications (see, e.g., \cite{Guettel.13} and references therein), fall into this class: \begin{eqnarray*} && z^{-\frac 1 2} = \int_{-\infty}^0 \frac 1 {z-\omega} \frac 1 {\pi \sqrt{-\omega}} {\rm d}\omega, \\ && \frac{{\rm e}^{-t\sqrt{z}}-1}{z} = \int_{-\infty}^0 \frac 1 {z-\omega} \frac {\sin(t\sqrt{-\omega})}{-\pi \omega} {\rm d}\omega, \\ && \frac{\log(1+z)}{z} = \int_{-\infty}^{-1} \frac 1 {z-\omega} \frac 1 {(-\omega)} {\rm d}\omega. \end{eqnarray*} The two classes of functions just introduced overlap. Indeed, it is easy to see (e.g., \cite{Merkle}) that functions of the form $$f(x) = \int_0^{\infty} \frac {{\rm d}\mu(s)}{ x + \omega },$$ with $\mu$ a positive measure, are strictly completely monotonic on $(0,\infty)$; but every such function can also be written in the form $$f(x) = \int_{-\infty}^0 \frac {{\rm d}\gamma(\omega)}{ x - \omega}, \quad \gamma(\omega) = - \mu(-\omega),$$ and therefore it is a Cauchy--Stieltjes function. We note that $f(x) = \exp(-x)$ is an example of a function that is strictly completely monotonic but not a Cauchy--Stieltjes function. In the rest of the paper, the term {\em Laplace--Stieltjes function} will be used to denote a function that is strictly completely monotonic on $(0,\infty)$. \section{Previous work} \label{sec:prev} In this section we briefly review some previous decay results from the literature. Given a $n\times n$ Hermitian positive definite $\beta$-banded matrix $M$, it was shown in \cite{DMS} that \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn:demko} |(M^{-1})_{ij} | \le C q^{\frac{|i-j|}{\beta}} \end{eqnarray} for all $i,j=1,\ldots ,n$, where $q =(\sqrt{\kappa}-1)/(\sqrt{\kappa}+1)$, $\kappa$ is the spectral condition number of $M$, $C = \max\{1/\lambda_{\rm min}(M), \hat C\}$, and $\hat C= (1+\sqrt{\kappa})^2/(2\lambda_{\max}(M))$. In this bound the diagonal elements of $M$ are assumed not to be greater than one, which can always be satisfied by dividing $M$ by its largest diagonal entry, after which the bound (\ref{eqn:demko}) will have to be multiplied by its reciprocal. The bound is known to be sharp, in the sense that it is attained for a certain tridiagonal Toeplitz matrix. We mention that (\ref{eqn:demko}) is also valid for infinite and bi-infinite matrices as long as they have finite condition number, i.e., both $M$ and $M^{-1}$ are bounded. Using the identity $M^{-1} = (M^*M)^{-1}M^*$, simple decay bounds were also obtained in \cite{DMS} for non-Hermitian matrices. Similarly, if $M$ is $\beta$-banded and Hermitian and $f$ is analytic on a region of the complex plane containing the spectrum $\sigma (M)$ of $M$, then there exist positive constants $C$ and $q<1$ such that \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn:BG} |(f(M))_{ij} | \le C q^{\frac{|i-j|}{\beta}}, \end{eqnarray} where $C$ and $q$ can be expressed in terms of the parameter of a certain ellipse surrounding $\sigma (M)$ and of the maximum modulus of $f$ on this ellipse; see \cite{Benzi.Golub.99}. The bound (\ref{eqn:BG}), in general, is not sharp; in fact, since there are infinitely many ellipses containing $\sigma(M)$ in their interior and such that $f$ is analytic inside the ellipse and continuous on it, one should think of (\ref{eqn:BG}) as a parametric family of bounds rather than a single bound. By tuning the parameter of the ellipse one can obtain different bounds, usually involving a trade-off between the values of $C$ and $q$. This result was extended in \cite{Benzi2007} to the case where $M$ is a sparse matrix with a general sparsity pattern, using the graph distance instead of the distance from the main diagonal; see also \cite{CE06,Jaffard} and section \ref{sec:ext} below. Similar bounds for analytic functions of non-Hermitian matrices can be found in \cite{BB14,Benzi2007}. Practically all of the above results consist of exponential decay bounds on the magnitude of the entries of $f(M)$. However, for entire functions the actual decay is typically superexponential, rather than exponential. Such bounds have been obtained by Iserles for the exponential of a tridiagonal matrix in \cite{iserles}. This paper also presents superexponential decay bounds for the exponential of banded matrices, but the bounds only apply at sufficiently large distances from the main diagonal. None of these bounds require $M$ to be Hermitian. Superexponential decay bounds for the exponential of certain infinite tridiagonal skew-Hermitian matrices arising in quantum mechanical computations have been recently obtained in \cite{Shao}. \section{Decay estimates for functions of a banded matrix} \label{sec:banded} In this section we present new decay bounds for functions of matrices $f(M)$ where $M$ is a banded, Hermitian and positive definite. First, we make use of an important result from \cite{HocLub97} to obtain decay bounds for the entries of the exponential of a banded, Hermitian, positive semidefinite matrix $M$. This result will then be used to obtain bounds or estimates on the entries of $f(M)$, where $f$ is strictly completely monotonic. In a similar manner, we will obtain bounds or estimates on the entries of $f(M)$ where $f$ is a Markov function by making use of the classical bounds of Demko et al.~\cite{DMS} for the entries of the inverses of banded positive definite matrices. In section \ref{sec:Kron} we will use these results to obtain bounds for matrix functions $f({\cal A})$, where $\cal A$ is a Kronecker sum of banded matrices and $f$ belongs to one of the two above-mentioned classes of functions. \subsection{The exponential of a banded Hermitian matrix} We first recall (with a slightly different notation) an important result due to Hochbruck and Lubich \cite{HocLub97}. Here the $m$ columns of $V_m\in \CC^{n\times n}$ form an orthonormal basis for the Krylov subspace $K_m(M,v)={\rm span}\{v, Mv, \ldots, M^{m-1}v\}$ with $\|v\|=1$, and $H_m = V_m^* M V_m$. \begin{theorem}\label{th:HL} Let $M$ be a Hermitian positive semidefinite matrix with eigenvalues in the interval $[0,4\rho]$. Then the error in the Arnoldi approximation of $\exp(\tau M) v$ with $\|v\|=1$, namely $\varepsilon_m:= \|\exp(-\tau M) v - V_m \exp(-\tau H_m) e_1 \|$, is bounded in the following ways: \begin{enumerate} \item[i)] $\varepsilon_m \le 10 \exp(-m^2/(5\rho\tau))$, for $\rho\tau\ge 1$ and $\sqrt{4\rho\tau}\le m \le 2\rho\tau$ \item[ii)] $\varepsilon_m \le 10 (\rho\tau)^{-1} \exp(-\rho\tau) \left ( \frac{{\rm e}\rho\tau}{m}\right)^m$ for $m\ge 2\rho\tau$. \end{enumerate} \end{theorem} \vskip 0.01in With this result we can establish bounds for the entries of the exponential of a banded Hermitian matrix. \vskip 0.01in \begin{theorem}\label{th:boundexp} Let $M$ be as in Theorem \ref{th:HL}. Assume in addition that $M$ is $\beta$-banded. Then, with the notation of Theorem \ref{th:HL} and for $k\ne t$: \begin{enumerate} \item[i)] For $\rho\tau\ge 1$ and $\sqrt{4\rho\tau}\le |k-t|/\beta\le 2\rho\tau$, $$ | (\exp(-\tau M) )_{kt}| \le 10 \exp\left(-\frac{(|k-t|/\beta)^2}{5 \rho\tau}\right) ; $$ \item[ii)] For $|k-t|/\beta \ge 2\rho\tau$, $$ | (\exp(-\tau M) )_{kt}| \le 10 \frac{\exp(-\rho\tau)}{\rho\tau} \left ( \frac{{\rm e}\rho\tau}{\frac{|k-t|}{\beta}}\right)^{\frac{|k-t|}{\beta}} . $$ \end{enumerate} \end{theorem} \begin{proof} We first note that an element of the Krylov subspace $K_m(M,v)$ is a polynomial in $M$ times a vector, so that $V_m \exp(-\tau H_m) e_1 = p_{m-1}(\tau M) v$ for some polynomial $p_{m-1}$ of degree at most $m-1$. Because $M$ is Hermitian and $\beta$-banded, the matrix $p_{m-1}(\tau M)$ is at most $(m-1)\beta$-banded. Let now $k,t$ with $k\ne t$ be fixed, and write $|k-t| = (m-1)\beta + s$ for some $m\ge 1$ and $s=1, \ldots, \beta$; in particular, we see that $(p_{m-1}(\tau M))_{kt}=0$, moreover $|k-t|/\beta \le m$. Consider first case ii). If $m \ge 2\rho\tau$, for $v=e_t$ we obtain \begin{eqnarray*} | (\exp(-\tau M) )_{kt}| & = & | (\exp(-\tau M) )_{kt} - (p_{m-1}(\tau M))_{kt}| \\ &= & | e_k^T ( \exp(-\tau M) e_t - p_{m-1}(\tau M) e_t)| \\ &\le & \|\exp(-\tau M) e_t - p_{m-1}(\tau M) e_t \| \\ &\le& 10 (\rho\tau)^{-1} \exp(-\rho\tau) \left ( \frac{e\rho\tau\beta}{|k-t|}\right)^{\frac{|k-t|}{\beta}} , \end{eqnarray*} where in the last inequality Theorem~\ref{th:HL} was used for $m |k-t|/\beta\ge 2\rho\tau$. An analogous result is obtained for $m$ in the finite interval, so as to verify i). \end{proof} As remarked in \cite{HocLub97}, the restriction to positive semidefinite $M$ leads to no loss of generality, since a shift from $M$ to $M+\delta I$ entails a change by a factor ${\rm e}^{\tau \delta}$ in the quantities of interest. We also notice that in addition to Theorem \ref{th:HL} other asymptotic bounds exist for estimating the error in the exponential function with Krylov subspace approximation; see, e.g., \cite{DK1, DK2}. An advantage of Theorem \ref{th:HL} is that it provides explicit upper bounds, which can then be easily used for our purposes. \begin{example}\label{ex:exp} {\rm Figure \ref{fig:expM} shows the behavior of the bound in Theorem \ref{th:boundexp} for two typical matrices. The plot on the left refers to the tridiagonal matrix $M={\rm tridiag}(-1,4,-1)$ ($\beta=1$) of size $n=200$, with $\tau=4$, so that $\tau\rho \approx 3.9995$. The $t$th column with $t=127$ is reported, and only the values above $10^{-60}$ are shown. The plot on the right refers to the pentadiagonal matrix $M={\rm pentadiag}(-0.5,-1,4,-1,-0.5)$ ($\beta=2$) of size $n=200$, with $\tau=4$, so that $\tau\rho \approx 4.4989$. The same column $t=127$ is shown. Note the superexponential decay behavior. In both cases, the estimate seems to be rather sharp. } \end{example} \begin{figure}[t] \centering \includegraphics[width=2.5in,height=2.5in]{tridiag_tau4_n200.eps} \includegraphics[width=2.5in,height=2.5in]{penta_tau4_n200.eps} \caption{Example \ref{ex:exp}. Bounds for $|\exp(-\tau(M-\lambda_{\min}I))|_{:,t}$, $t=127$, using Theorem \ref{th:boundexp}. $M$ of size $n=200$ and $\tau=4$. Left: $M={\rm tridiag}(-1,4,-1)$. Right: $M={\rm pentadiag}(-0.5,-1,4,-1,-0.5)$. Logarithmic scale. \label{fig:expM}} \end{figure} \subsection{Bounds for Laplace--Stieltjes functions} By exploiting the connection between the exponential function and Laplace--Stieltjes functions, we can apply Theorem \ref{th:boundexp} to obtain bounds or estimates for the entries of Laplace--Stieltjes matrix functions. \begin{theorem}\label{th:LS} Let $M=M^*$ be $\beta$-banded and positive definite, and let $\widehat M = M-\lambda_{\min} I$, with the spectrum of $\widehat M$ contained in $[0,4\rho]$. Assume $f$ is a Laplace--Stieltjes function, so that it can be written in the form $f(x) = \int_0^\infty {\rm e}^{-x\tau} {\rm d}\alpha(\tau)$. Then, with the notation and assumptions of Theorem \ref{th:boundexp} and for $|k-t|/\beta\ge 2$: \begin{eqnarray} |f(M)|_{k,t} &\le& \int_0^\infty \exp(-\lambda_{\min}\tau) |(\exp(-\tau\widehat M))_{k,t}| {\rm d}\alpha(\tau) \nonumber \\ &\le & 10 \int_0^{\frac{|k-t|}{2\rho\beta}} \exp(-\lambda_{\min}\tau) \frac{\exp(-\rho\tau)}{\rho\tau} \left ( \frac{{\rm e}\rho\tau}{\frac{|k-t|}{\beta}}\right)^{\frac{|k-t|}{\beta}} {\rm d}\alpha(\tau) \label{eqn:LSbound} \\ && \quad +10 \int_{\frac{|k-t|}{2\rho\beta}}^{\frac{|k-t|^2}{4\rho\beta^2}} \exp(-\lambda_{\min}\tau) \exp\left(-\frac{(|k-t|/\beta)^2}{5 \rho\tau}\right) {\rm d}\alpha(\tau) \nonumber \\ && + \int_{\frac{|k-t|^2}{4\rho\beta^2}}^\infty \exp(-\lambda_{\min}\tau) (\exp(-\tau\widehat M))_{k,t} {\rm d}\alpha(\tau) = I + II + III. \nonumber \end{eqnarray} \end{theorem} \vskip 0.01in In general, these integrals may have to be evaluated numerically. We observe that in the above bound, the last term (III) does not significantly contribute provided that $|k - t|$ is sufficiently large while $\rho$ and $\beta$ are not too large. As an illustration, consider the function $f(x) = 1/\sqrt{x}$. For this function we have $\alpha(\tau) = \frac 1{\sqrt{\tau}} \Gamma(-\frac 1 2+1) = \sqrt{\pi/\tau}$ with $\tau \in (0,\infty)$. We have \begin{eqnarray*} I + II &= & 10 \sqrt{\pi} \int_0^{\frac{|k-t|}{2\rho\beta}} \frac{\exp(-\lambda_{\min}\tau)}{\tau\sqrt{\tau}} \frac{\exp(-\rho\tau)}{\rho\tau} \left ( \frac{{\rm e}\rho\tau}{\frac{|k-t|}{\beta}}\right)^{\frac{|k-t|}{\beta}} {\rm d}\tau \\ && + 10\sqrt{\pi} \int_{\frac{|k-t|}{2\rho\beta}}^{\frac{|k-t|^2}{4\rho\beta^2}} \frac{\exp(-\lambda_{\min}\tau)}{\tau\sqrt{\tau}} \exp\left(-\frac{(|k-t|/\beta)^2}{5 \rho\tau}\right) {\rm d}\tau , \end{eqnarray*} while $$ III \le \sqrt{\pi} \int_{\frac{|k-t|^2}{4\rho\beta^2}}^\infty \frac{\exp(-\lambda_{\min}\tau) }{\tau\sqrt{\tau}} {\rm d}\tau . $$ Figure \ref{fig:LS-1/2} shows two typical bounds for the entries of $M^{-\frac 1 2}$ for the same matrices $M$ considered in Example \ref{ex:exp}. The integrals $I$ and $II$ and the one appearing in the upper bound for $III$ have been evaluated accurately using the built-in Matlab function {\tt quad}. Note that the decay is now exponential. In both cases, the decay is satisfactorily captured. \begin{figure}[thb] \centering \includegraphics[width=2.5in,height=2.5in]{tridiag_n200_minusonehalf_new.eps} \includegraphics[width=2.5in,height=2.5in]{pentadiag_n200_minusonehalf_new.eps} \caption{Estimates for $|M^{-1/2}|_{:,t}$, $t=127$, using I+II and the upper bound for III. Size $n=200$, Log-scale. Left: $M={\rm tridiag}(-1,4,-1)$. Right: $M={\rm pentadiag}(-0.5,-1,4,-1,-0.5)$. \label{fig:LS-1/2}} \end{figure} As yet another example, consider the entire function $f(x)=(1-\exp(-x))/x$ for $x\in [0,1]$, which is a Laplace--Stieltjes function with ${\rm d}\alpha(\tau)={\rm d}\tau $ (see section \ref{sec:classes}). Starting from (\ref{eqn:LSbound}) we can determine new terms $I, II$, and estimate $III$ as it was done for the inverse square root. Due to the small interval size, the first term $I$ accounts for the whole bound for most choices of $k,t$. For the same two matrices used above, the actual (superexponential) decay and its approximation are reported in Figure~\ref{fig:f3}. \begin{figure}[thb] \centering \includegraphics[width=2.5in,height=2.5in]{f3_exp_minus_x_over_x_tridiag_new.eps} \includegraphics[width=2.5in,height=2.5in]{f3_exp_minus_x_over_x_penta_new.eps} \caption{Estimates for $|M^{-1}(I-\exp(-M))|_{:,t}$, $t=127$, using I+II and the upper bound for III. size $n=200$, Log-scale. Left: $M={\rm tridiag}(-1,4,-1)$. Right: $M={\rm pentadiag}(-0.5,-1,4,-1,-0.5)$. \label{fig:f3}} \end{figure} We remark that for the validity of Theorem \ref{th:LS}, we cannot relax the assumption that $M$ be positive definite. This makes sense since we are considering functions of $M$ that are defined on $(0,\infty)$. If $M$ is not positive definite but $f$ happens to be defined on a larger interval containing the spectrum of $M$, for instance on all of $\RR$, it may still be possible, in some cases, to obtain bounds for $f(M)$ from the corresponding bounds on $f(M + \delta I)$ where the shifted matrix $M + \delta I$ is positive definite. \vskip 0.05in \begin{remark}\label{rem:shiftedM} We observe that if $f(M+i \zeta I)$ is well defined for $\zeta\in\RR$, then the estimate (\ref{eqn:LSbound}) also holds for $|f(M+i \zeta I)|_{k,t}$, since $|\exp(i\zeta)|=1$. \end{remark} \subsection{Bounds for Cauchy--Stieltjes functions} Bounds for the entries of $f(M)$, where $f$ is a Cauchy--Stieltjes function and $M=M^*$ is positive definite, can be obtained in a similar manner, with the bound (\ref{eqn:demko}) of Demko et al.~\cite{DMS} replacing the bounds on $\exp(-\tau M)$ from Theorem \ref{th:boundexp}. For a given $\omega \in \Gamma = (\infty, 0)$, let $\kappa=\kappa(\omega)=(\lambda_{\max}-\omega)/(\lambda_{\min}-\omega)$, $q = q(\omega) = (\sqrt{\kappa}-1)/(\sqrt{\kappa}+1)$, $C=C(-\omega)=\max\{1/(\lambda_{\min}-\omega), C_0\}$, with $C_0 = C_0(-\omega) = (1+\sqrt{\kappa})^{1/2}/(2(\lambda_{\max}-\omega))$. We immediately obtain the following result. \begin{theorem}\label{th:CS} Let $M=M^*$ be positive definite and let $f$ be a Cauchy--Stieltjes function. Then for all $k$ and $t$ we have \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn:Markov_general} |f(M)_{kt}|\le \int_{-\infty}^0 C(\omega) q(\omega)^{\frac{|k-t|}{\beta}} {\rm d}\omega. \end{eqnarray} \end{theorem} For specific functions we can be more explicit, and provide more insightful upper bounds by evaluating or bounding the integral on the right-hand side of (\ref{eqn:Markov_general}). As an example, let us consider again $f(x) = x^{-\frac12}$, which happens to be both a Laplace--Stieltjes and a Cauchy--Stieltjes function. In this case we find the bound \begin{equation}\label{bound_sqrt} |M_{kt}^{-\frac12}| \le \frac 2 {\pi} (C(0)+C_2) \left( \frac{ \sqrt{\lambda_{\max}} - \sqrt{\lambda_{\min}}}{ \sqrt{\lambda_{\max}} + \sqrt{\lambda_{\min}}} \right )^{ \frac{|k-t|}{\beta}}, \end{equation} where $C_2= \max\left\{ 1, (1+\frac 1 2 \sqrt{\kappa(0)})^{\frac 1 2}\right\}$. Indeed, for the given function and upon substituting $\tau=-\omega$, (\ref{eqn:Markov_general}) becomes \begin{eqnarray} |M_{kt}^{-\frac12}| &\le& \frac{1}{\pi} \int_0^\infty C(\tau) \left( \frac{ \sqrt{\lambda_{\max}+\tau} - \sqrt{\lambda_{\min}+\tau}} \sqrt{\lambda_{\max}+\tau} + \sqrt{\lambda_{\min}+\tau}} \right )^{ \frac{|k-t|}{\beta}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{\tau}} {\rm d}\tau\\ &\le& \frac{1}{\pi} \left( \frac{ \sqrt{\lambda_{\max}} - \sqrt{\lambda_{\min}}}{ \sqrt{\lambda_{\max}} + \sqrt{\lambda_{\min}}} \right )^{ \frac{|k-t|}{\beta}} \int_0^\infty C(\tau) \frac{1}{\sqrt{\tau}} {\rm d}\tau. \end{eqnarray} Let $\phi(\tau)$ be the integrand function. We split the integral as $\int_0^\infty \phi(\tau) {\rm d}\tau = \int_0^1 \phi(\tau) {\rm d}\tau + \int_1^\infty \phi(\tau) {\rm d}\tau$. For the first integral, we observe that $C(\tau) \le C(0)$, so that \begin{eqnarray*} \int_0^1 C(\tau) \frac{1}{\sqrt{\tau}} {\rm d}\tau \le C(0) \int_0^1 \frac{1}{\sqrt{\tau}} {\rm d}\tau = 2 C(0). \end{eqnarray*} For the second integral, we observe that $C(\tau) \le C_2 \frac 1 {\tau}$ where $C_2= \max\{ 1, (1+\sqrt{\kappa(0)})^{1/2}/2\}$, so that \begin{eqnarray*} \int_1^\infty C(\tau) \frac{1}{\sqrt{\tau}} {\rm d}\tau \le C_2 \int_1^\infty \frac{1}{\tau\sqrt{\tau}} {\rm d}\tau = 2 C_2. \end{eqnarray*} Collecting all results the final upper bound (\ref{bound_sqrt}) follows. We note that for this particular matrix function, using the approach just presented results in much more explicit bounds than those obtained earlier using the Laplace--Stieltjes representation, which required the numerical evaluation of three integrals. Also, since the bound (\ref{eqn:demko}) is known to be sharp (see \cite{DMS}), it is to be expected that the bounds (\ref{bound_sqrt}) will be generally better than those obtained in the previous section. Figure~\ref{fig:CS-1/2} shows the accuracy of the bounds in (\ref{bound_sqrt}) for the same matrices as in Figure~\ref{fig:LS-1/2}, where the Laplace--Stieltjes bounds were used. For both matrices, the quality of the Cauchy--Stieltjes bound is clearly superior. \begin{figure}[thb] \centering \includegraphics[width=2.5in,height=2.5in]{tridiag_n200_minusonehalf_CS.eps} \includegraphics[width=2.5in,height=2.5in]{pentadiag_n200_minusonehalf_CS.eps} \caption{Estimates for $|M^{-1/2}|_{:,t}$, $t=127$, using (\ref{bound_sqrt}), size $n=200$, Log-scale. Left: $M={\rm tridiag}(-1,4,-1)$. Right: $M={\rm pentadiag}(-0.5,-1,4,-1,-0.5)$. \label{fig:CS-1/2}} \end{figure} We conclude this section with a discussion on decay bounds for functions of $M- i \zeta I$, where $\zeta\in\RR$. These estimates may be useful when the integral is over a complex curve. We first recall a result of Freund for $(M-i \zeta I)^{-1}$. To this end, we let again $\lambda_{\min}, \lambda_{\max}$ be the extreme eigenvalues of $M$ (assumed to be HPD), and we let $\lambda_1 = \lambda_{\min} - i\zeta$, $\lambda_2 = \lambda_{\max} - i \zeta$. \begin{proposition}\label{prop:Freund} Assume $M$ is Hermitian positive definite and $\beta$-banded. Let $R>1$ be defined as $R=\alpha + \sqrt{\alpha^2-1}$, with $\alpha=(|\lambda_1|+|\lambda_2|)/|\lambda_2-\lambda_1|$. Then for $k\ne t$, $$ |( M - i\zeta I )^{-1}|_{tk} \le C(\zeta) \left (\frac{1}{R}\right )^{\frac{|t -k|}{\beta}} \,\, {\rm with}\,\, C(\zeta) = \frac{2R}{|\lambda_1-\lambda_2|} \frac{4R^2}{(R^2-1)^2} . $$ \end{proposition} With this bound, we can modify (\ref{eqn:Markov_general}) so as to handle more general matrices as follows. Once again, we let $\lambda_{\min}, \lambda_{\max}$ be the extreme eigenvalues of $M$, and now we let $\lambda_1 = \lambda_{\min} - i\zeta - \omega$, $\lambda_2 = \lambda_{\max} - i \zeta - \omega$; $\alpha$ and $R$ are defined accordingly. \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn:shiftedM_CS} |f(M-i\zeta I)|_{kt} \le \int_{-\infty}^0 C \left (\frac{1}{R}\right )^{\frac{|k -t|}{\beta}} {\rm d}\gamma(\omega), \quad k\ne t . \quad \end{eqnarray} Since $R=R(\zeta,\omega)$ is defined in terms of spectral information of the shifted matrix $M-i\zeta I - \omega I$, we also obtain $C=C(\zeta,\omega) = \frac{2R(\zeta,\omega)}{|\lambda_{\max}-\lambda_{\min}|} \frac{4R(\zeta,\omega)^2}{(R(\zeta,\omega)^2-1)^2}$. \section{Extensions to more general sparse matrices} \label{sec:ext} Although all our main results so far have been stated for matrices that are banded, it is possible to extend the previous bounds to functions of matrices with general sparsity patterns. Following the approach in \cite{CEPD06} and \cite{Benzi2007}, let $G=(V,E)$ be the undirected graph describing the nonzero pattern of $M$. Here $V$ is a set of $n$ vertices (one for each row/column of $M$) and $E$ is a set of edges. The set $E\subseteq V\times V$ is defined as follows: there is an edge $(i,j)\in E$ if and only if $M_{ij}\ne 0$ (equivalently, $M_{ji}\ne 0$ since $M=M^*$). Given any two nodes $i$ and $j$ in $V$, a {\em path of length $k$} between $i$ and $j$ is a sequence of nodes $i_0=i,i_1,i_2,\ldots ,i_{k-1},i_k=j$ such that $(i_{\ell},i_{\ell +1})\in E$ for all $\ell = 0,1,\ldots ,k-1$ and $i_{\ell}\ne i_m$ for $\ell \ne m$. If $G$ is connected (equivalently, if $M$ is irreducible, which we will assume to be the case), then there exists a path between any two nodes $i,j\in V$. The {\em geodesic distance} $d(i,j)$ between two nodes $i,j\in G$ is then the length of the shortest path joining $i$ and $j$. With this distance, $(G,d)$ is a metric space. We can then extend every one of the bounds seen so far for banded $M$ to a general sparse matrix $M=M^*$ simply by systematically replacing the quantity $\frac{|k-t|}{\beta}$ by the geodesic distance $d(k,t)$. Hence, the decay in the entries of $f(M)$ is to be understood in terms of distance from the nonzero pattern of $M$, rather than away from the main diagonal. We refer again to \cite{Benzi2007} for details. We note that this extension easily carries over to the bounds presented in the following section. Finally, we observe that all the results in this paper apply to the case where $M$ is an infinite matrix with bounded spectrum, provided that $f$ has no singularities on an open neighborhood of the spectral interval $[\lambda_{\min}, \lambda_{\max}]$. This implies that our bounds apply to all the $n\times n$ principal submatrices (``finite sections") of such matrices, and that the bounds are uniform in $n$ as $n\to \infty$. \section{Estimates for functions of Kronecker sums of matrices}\label{sec:Kron} The decay pattern for matrices with Kronecker structure has a rich structure. In addition to a decay away from the diagonal, which depends on the matrix bandwidth, a ``local'' decay can be observed within the bandwidth; see Figure \ref{fig:DecKron}. This particular pattern was described for $f(x)=x^{-1}$ in \cite{CanutoSimonciniVeraniLAA.14}; here we largely expand on the class of functions for which the phenomenon can be described. \begin{figure}[thb] \centering \includegraphics[width=2.5in,height=2.5in]{exp_new.eps} \includegraphics[width=2.5in,height=2.5in]{isqrt_new.eps} \caption Three-dimensional decay plots for $[f({\cal A})]_{ij}$ where $\cal A$ is the 5-point finite difference discretization of the negative Laplacian on the unit square on a $10\times 10$ uniform grid with zero Dirichlet boundary conditions. Left: $f({\cal A}) = \exp(-5 {\cal A})$. Right: $f({\cal A}) = {\cal A}^{-1/2}$. \label{fig:DecKron}} \end{figure} \vskip 0.03in Some matrix functions enjoy properties that make their application to Kronecker sums of matrices particularly simple. This is the case for instance of the exponential and certain trigonometric functions like $\sin(x)$ and $\cos(x)$. For these, bounds for their entries can be directly obtained from the estimates of the previous sections. \subsection{The exponential function} Recall the relation (\ref{eqn:exp_kron}), which implies that \begin{equation} \label{eqn:kron_tau} \exp(-\tau {\cal A}) = \exp(-\tau M)\otimes \exp(-\tau M), \quad \tau\in \RR \end{equation} when ${\cal A} = M\otimes I + I \otimes M$. Here and in the following, a lexicographic ordering of the entries will be used, so that each row or column index $k$ of ${\cal A}$ corresponds to the pair $k=(k_1,k_2)$ in the two-dimensional Cartesian grid. Furthermore, for any fixed values of $\tau, \rho, \beta >0$, define \begin{equation}\label{eqn:Phi} \Phi (i,j) := \left\{\begin{array}{ll} 10\exp \left (-\frac{(|i-j|/\beta)^2}{5\rho \tau}\right ), & \textnormal{for}\quad \sqrt{4\rho\tau} \le \frac{|i-j|}{\beta} \le 2\rho \tau,\\ 10\frac{\exp(-\rho\tau)}{\rho \tau} \left ( \frac{{\rm e}\rho\tau}{\frac{|i-j|}{\beta}} \right )^{\frac{|i-j|}{\beta}} , & \textnormal{for}\quad \frac{|i-j|}{\beta} \ge 2\rho\tau . \end{array}\right . \end{equation} Note that $\Phi(i,j)$ is only defined for $|i-j| > \sqrt{4\rho \tau} \beta$. With these notations, the following bounds can be obtained. \begin{theorem}\label{th:exp} Let $M$ be Hermitian and positive semidefinite with bandwidth $\beta$ and spectrum contained in $[0,4\rho]$, and let ${\cal A}=I\otimes M + M \otimes I$. Then $$ (\exp(-\tau {\cal A}))_{kt} = (\exp(-\tau M))_{k_1 t_1} (\exp(-\tau M))_{k_2 t_2} . $$ Therefore, for $\tau > 0$ $$|(\exp(-\tau {\cal A}))_{kt}| \le \Phi(k_1,t_1) \Phi (k_2,t_2)$$ for all $t=(t_1,t_2)$ and $k=(k_1,k_2)$ with $\min \{|t_1-k_1|, |t_2-k_2|\}\ge \sqrt{4\rho\tau} \beta$. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} Using (\ref{eqn:exp_kron}) we obtain $$ e_k^T \exp(-{\tau \cal A}) e_t = e_k^T \exp(-\tau M)\otimes \exp(-\tau M) e_t. $$ Let $E_{t_1 t_2}$ be the $n\times n$ matrix such that $e_t={\rm vec}(E_{t_1 t_2}) \in\RR^{n^2}$, and in particular $E_{t_1 t_2} = e_{t_1} e_{t_2}^T$, with $e_{t_1}, e_{t_2} \in\RR^n$. Then \begin{eqnarray*} e_k^T \exp(-\tau M)\otimes \exp(-\tau M) e_t &=& e_k^T {\rm vec}( \exp(-\tau M) E_{t_1 t_2} \exp(-\tau M)^*) \\ &=&e_k^T {\rm vec}( \exp(-\tau M) e_{t_1} e_{t_2}^T \exp(-\tau M)^*) \\ &=& e_k^T \begin{bmatrix} \exp(-\tau M) e_{t_1} (e_{t_2}^T \exp(-\tau M)^*)e_1 \\ \exp(-\tau M) e_{t_1} (e_{t_2}^T \exp(-\tau M)^*)e_2 \\ \vdots \\ \exp(-\tau M) e_{t_1} (e_{t_2}^T \exp(-\tau M)^*)e_n \end{bmatrix} \\ &=& e_{k_1}^T \exp(-\tau M) e_{t_1} (e_{t_2}^T \exp(-\tau M)^*)e_{k_2}) , \end{eqnarray*} which proves the first relation for $M$ Hermitian. For the bound, it is sufficient to use (\ref{eqn:Phi}) to obtain the desired conclusion. \end{proof} The result can be easily generalized to a broader class of matrices. \begin{corollary} Let ${\cal A}=I\otimes M_1 + M_2 \otimes I$ with $M_1$ and $M_2$ having bandwidth $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$, respectively. Also, let the spectrum of $M_1$ be contained in the interval $[0,4\rho_1]$ and that of $M_2$ in the interval $[0,4\rho_2]$, with $\rho_1,\rho_2 > 0$. Then for $t=(t_1,t_2)$ and $k=(k_1,k_2)$, with $|t_\ell-k_\ell|\ge \sqrt{4\rho_\ell\tau} \beta_\ell$, $\ell=1,2$, $$ (\exp(-\tau {\cal A}))_{kt} = (\exp(-\tau M_1))_{k_1 t_1} (\exp(-\tau M_2))_{t_2 k_2} . $$ Therefore, $$ |(\exp(-\tau {\cal A}))_{kt}| \le \Phi_1 (k_1,t_1) \Phi_2(k_2,t_2) $$ where $\Phi_k (i,j)$ is defined as $\Phi (i,j)$ in (\ref{eqn:Phi}) with $\rho_\ell$, $\beta_\ell$ replacing $\rho$, $\beta$. \end{corollary} Generalization to the case of Kronecker sums of more than two matrices is relatively straightforward. Consider for example the case of three summands. A lexicographic order of the entries is again used, so that each row or column index $k$ of ${\cal A} = M\otimes I\otimes I + I\otimes M\otimes I + I\otimes I\otimes M$ corresponds to a triplet $k=(k_1,k_2,k_3)$ in the three-dimensional Cartesian grid. \begin{corollary} Let $M$ be $\beta$-banded, Hermitian and with spectrum contained in $[0,4\rho]$, and let ${\cal A} = M\otimes I\otimes I + I\otimes M\otimes I + I\otimes I\otimes M$ and $k = (k_1, k_2, k_3)$ and $t=(t_1,t_2,t_3)$. Then $$ (\exp(-\tau {\cal A}))_{kt} = (\exp(-\tau M))_{k_1,t_1} (\exp(-\tau M))_{t_2,k_2} (\exp(-\tau M))_{t_3,k_3} , $$ from which it follows $$ |(\exp(-\tau {\cal A}) )_{kt}| \le \Phi(k_1,t_1)\Phi(k_2,t_2)\Phi(k_3,t_3), $$ for all $(k_1,t_1), (k_2,t_2), (k_3,t_3)$ with $\min \{|k_1-t_1|,|k_2-t_2|,|k_3-t_3|\} > \sqrt{4\tau \rho}\beta$. \end{corollary} \begin{proof} We write ${\cal A} = M\otimes (I\otimes I) + I\otimes (M\otimes I + I\otimes M )$, so that \begin{eqnarray*} \exp(-\tau {\cal A}) &=& \exp(-\tau M) \otimes \exp(-\tau M\otimes I + I\otimes (-\tau M) ) \\ &=& \exp(-\tau M) \otimes \exp(-\tau M) \otimes \exp(-\tau M). \end{eqnarray*} Therefore, using $i=(t_1,t_2)$, \begin{eqnarray*} (\exp(-\tau {\cal A}))_{kt} &=& e_k^T {\rm vec} \left ( (\exp(-\tau M)\otimes \exp(-\tau M))e_{i} e_{t_3}^T \exp(-\tau M) \right ) \\ &=& e_k^T {\rm vec}\left( {\rm vec}(\exp(-\tau M) e_{t_1} e_{t_2}^T \exp(-\tau M) ) e_{t_3}^T \exp(-\tau M) \right ) \\ &=& e_k^T {\rm vec} \left ( \begin{bmatrix} \exp(-\tau M) e_{t_1} (e_{t_2}^T \exp(-\tau M)e_1) \\ \exp(-\tau M) e_{t_1} (e_{t_2}^T \exp(-\tau M)e_2) \\ \vdots \\ \exp(-\tau M) e_{t_1} (e_{t_2}^T \exp(-\tau M)e_n) \end{bmatrix} \right ) e_{t_3}^T \exp(-\tau M) \\ &=& (e_{k_1}^T \exp(-\tau M) e_{t_1}) \,(e_{t_2}^T \exp(-\tau M)e_{k_2})\, (e_{t_3}^T \exp(-\tau M)e_{k_3}) . \end{eqnarray*} The rest follows as in the proof of Theorem \ref{th:exp}. \end{proof} \begin{remark} Using (\ref{eqn:sin_kron}), one can obtain similar bounds for $\cos({\cal A})$ and $\sin({\cal A})$, where ${\cal A} = M_1\otimes I + I \otimes M_2$ with $M_1$, $M_2$ banded. \end{remark} \subsection{Laplace--Stieltjes functions} If $f$ is a Laplace--Stieltjes function, then $f({\cal A})$ is well-defined and exploiting the relation (\ref{eqn:exp_kron}) we can write $$ f({\cal A}) = \int_{0}^\infty \exp (-\tau{\cal A}) {\rm d}\alpha(\tau) = \int_{0}^\infty \exp (-\tau M)\otimes \exp (-\tau M) {\rm d}\alpha(\tau). $$ Thus, using $k=(k_1,k_2)$ and $t=(t_1,t_2)$, \begin{eqnarray (f({\cal A}))_{kt} & = & \int_{0}^\infty e_k^T\exp (-\tau M)\otimes \exp (-\tau M)e_t {\rm d}\alpha(\tau)\nonumber\\ &=& \int_{0}^\infty (\exp (-\tau M))_{k_1 t_1}(\exp (-\tau M))_{t_2 k_2}{\rm d}\alpha(\tau) . \nonumber \end{eqnarray} With the notation of Theorem \ref{th:LS}, we have \begin{equation}\label{eqn:LS_kron} |f({\cal A})|_{kt}\le \int_0^{\infty} \exp(-2\lambda_{\min} \tau) |\exp(-\tau \widehat M)|_{k_1 t_1} |\exp(-\tau \widehat M)|_{k_2 t_2} {\rm d}\alpha(\tau) . \end{equation} In this form, the bound (\ref{eqn:LS_kron}), of course, is not particularly useful. Explicit bounds can be obtained, for specific examples of Laplace--Stieltjes functions, by evaluating or bounding the integral on the right-hand side of (\ref{eqn:LS_kron}). For instance, using once again the inverse square root, so that $\alpha(\tau) = \sqrt{\pi/\tau}$, we obtain \begin{eqnarray} |{\cal A}^{-\frac 1 2}|_{kt}&\le& \sqrt{\pi} \int_0^{\infty} \frac {1}{\sqrt{\tau^3}} \exp(-2\lambda_{\min} \tau) |\exp(-\tau \widehat M)|_{k_1 t_1} |\exp(-\tau \widehat M)|_{k_2 t_2} {\rm d}\tau \label{eqn:LS-1/2kron}\\ &\le & \sqrt{\pi} \left(\int_0^{\infty} \left (\frac 1 {\tau^{3/4}} \exp(-\lambda_{\min} \tau) |\exp(-\tau \widehat M)|_{k_1 t_1}\right)^2 {\rm d}\tau\right)^{\frac 1 2} \cdot \nonumber\\ & & \qquad \left(\int_0^{\infty} \left (\frac 1 {\tau^{3/4}} \exp(-\lambda_{\min} \tau) |\exp(-\tau \widehat M)|_{k_2 t_2}\right)^2 {\rm d}\tau\right)^{\frac 1 2} \nonumber . \end{eqnarray} The two integrals can then be bounded as done in Theorem~\ref{th:LS}. For the other example we have considered earlier, namely the function $f(x)=(1-\exp(-x))/x$, the bound is the same except that $\sqrt{\pi}/\sqrt{\tau^3}$ is replaced by one, and the integration interval reduces to $[0,1]$; see also Example~\ref{ex:kron_f3} next. \vskip 0.03in \begin{example}\label{ex:kron_f3} {\rm We consider again the function $f(x) = (1-\exp(-x))/x$, and the two choices of matrix $M$ in Example~\ref{ex:exp}; for each of them we build $\cal A$ as the Kronecker sum ${\cal A}=M\otimes I + I\otimes M$. The entries of the $t$th column with $t=94$, that is $(t_1,t_2)=(14,5)$ are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:kronLS_f3}, together with the bound obtained above. The oscillating pattern is well captured in both cases, with a particularly good accuracy also in terms of magnitude in the tridiagonal case. The lack of approximation near the diagonal reflects the condition $|k_i - t_i|/\beta\ge 2$, $i=1,2$. } \end{example} \begin{figure}[thb] \centering \includegraphics[width=2.5in,height=2.5in]{f3_exp_minus_x_over_x_tridiag_A.eps} \includegraphics[width=2.5in,height=2.5in]{f3_exp_minus_x_over_x_pentadiag_A.eps} \caption{Example \ref{ex:kron_f3}. True decay and estimates for $|f(A)|_{:,t}$, $t=94$, $A=M\otimes I +I \otimes M$ of size $n=400$. Left: $M={\rm tridiag}(-1,4,-1)$. Right: $M={\rm pentadiag}(-0.5,-1,4,-1,-0.5)$. \label{fig:kronLS_f3}} \end{figure} \vskip 0.03in \begin{remark} These results can be easily extended to the case where ${\cal A} = M_1\otimes I + I \otimes M_2$ with $M_1$, $M_2$ both Hermitian positive definite and having bandwidths $\beta_1$, $\beta_2$. It can also be generalized to the case where ${\cal A}$ is the Kronecker sum of three or more banded matrices. \end{remark} \subsection{Cauchy--Stieltjes functions} If $f$ is a Cauchy--Stieltjes function and $\cal A$ has no eigenvalues on the closed set $\Gamma \subset \CC$, then $$ f({\cal A}) = \int_\Gamma ({\cal A} -\omega I)^{-1} {\rm d}\gamma (\omega) , $$ so that $$ e_k^Tf({\cal A}) e_t = \int_\Gamma e_k^T({\cal A} - \omega I)^{-1}e_t {\rm d}\gamma (\omega) . $$ We can write ${\cal A} - \omega I = M\otimes I + I \otimes ( M - \omega I)$. Each column $t$ of the matrix inverse, $x_t := (\omega I - {\cal A})^{-1}e_t$, may be viewed as the matrix solution $X_t=X_t(\omega)\in\CC^{n\times n}$ to the following Sylvester matrix equation: $$ M X_t + X_t(M - \omega I) = E_t, \qquad x_t = {\rm vec}(X_t), \quad e_t = {\rm vec}(E_t) , $$ where the only nonzero element of $E_t$ is in position $(t_1,t_2)$; here the same lexicographic order of the previous sections is used to identify $t$ with $(t_1,t_2)$. From now on, we assume that $\Gamma = (-\infty, 0]$. We observe that the Sylvester equation has a unique solution, since no eigenvalue of $M$ can be an eigenvalue of $\omega I - M$ for $\omega \le 0$ (recall that $M$ is Hermitian positive definite). Following Lancaster (\cite[p.556]{Lancaster1970}), the solution matrix $X_t$ can be written as $$ X_t = -\int_{0}^{\infty} \exp(-\tau M)E_t \exp(-\tau(M - \omega I)) {\rm d}\tau . $$ For $k=(k_1,k_2)$ and $t=(t_1,t_2)$ this gives \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn:boundA} e_k^T(\omega I - {\cal A})^{-1}e_t & = & e_{k_1}^T X_t e_{k_2} \nonumber\\ &=& -\int_{0}^{\infty} e_{k_1}^T \exp(-\tau M)e_{t_1} e_{t_2}^T \exp(-\tau(M - \omega I)) e_{k_2} {\rm d}\tau . \end{eqnarray} } Therefore, in terms of the original matrix function component, \begin{eqnarray* e_k^Tf({\cal A}) e_t = -\int_{-\infty}^0 \int_{0}^{\infty} e_{k_1}^T \exp(-\tau M)e_{t_1} e_{t_2}^T \exp(-\tau(M - \omega I)) e_{k_2} {\rm d}\tau {\rm d}\gamma (\omega) . \end{eqnarray*} We can thus bound each entry as \begin{eqnarray*} |e_k^Tf({\cal A}) e_t| \le \int_{0}^{\infty} \left( |\exp(-\tau M)|_{k_1 t_1} |\exp(-\tau M )|_{k_2 t_2} \int_{-\infty}^0 \exp(\tau \omega ) {\rm d}\gamma (\omega) \right) {\rm d}\tau . \end{eqnarray*} It is thus apparent that $|e_k^Tf({\cal A}) e_t|$ can be bounded in a way analogous to the case of Laplace--Stieltjes functions, once the term $\int_{-\infty}^0 \exp(\tau \omega ) {\rm d}\gamma (\omega)$ is completely determined. In particular, for $f(x) = x^{-1/2}$, we obtain \begin{eqnarray*} \int_{-\infty}^0 \exp(\tau \omega ) {\rm d}\gamma (\omega) &=& \frac{1}{\pi} \int_{-\infty}^0 \exp(\tau \omega )\frac{1}{\sqrt{-\omega}} {\rm d}\omega \\ &=& \frac{2}{\pi} \int_{0}^{\infty} \exp(-\tau \eta^2 )\frac{1}{\eta} {\rm d}\eta \\ &=& \frac{2}{\pi} \frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{2\sqrt{\tau}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}} f(\tau). \end{eqnarray*} Therefore, \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn:A-1/2_CS} \!\! |{\cal A}^{-\frac 1 2}|_{kt} \le \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}} \!\! \left ( \int_0^\infty \!\!\! |\exp(-\tau M)|_{k_1 t_1}^2 f(\tau) d\tau)\!\right )^{\frac 1 2} \!\! \left ( \int_0^\infty \!\!\! |\exp(-\tau M)|_{k_2 t_2}^2 f(\tau) d\tau)\!\right )^{\frac 1 2}. \end{eqnarray} Using once again the bounds in Theorem~\ref{th:boundexp} a final integral upper bound can be obtained, in the same spirit as for Laplace--Stieltjes functions. We explicitly mention that the solution matrix $X_t$ could be alternatively written in terms of the resolvent $(M - \zeta i I)^{-1}$, with $\zeta\in\RR$ \cite{Lancaster1970}. This would allow us to obtain an integral upper bound for $|e_k^Tf({\cal A}) e_t|$ by means of Proposition~\ref{prop:Freund} and of (\ref{eqn:shiftedM_CS}). We omit the quite technical computations, however the final results are qualitatively similar to those obtained above. \begin{example}\label{ex:A-1/2_CS} {\rm In Figure~\ref{fig:A-1/2_CS} we report the actual decay and our estimate following (\ref{eqn:A-1/2_CS}) for the inverse square root, again using the two matrices of our previous examples. We observe that having used estimates for the exponential to handle the Kronecker form, the approximations are slightly less sharp than previously seen for Cauchy--Stieltjes functions. Nonetheless, the qualitative behavior is captured in both instances. } \end{example} \begin{figure}[thb] \centering \includegraphics[width=2.5in,height=2.5in]{tridiag_A_minusonehalf_CS.eps} \includegraphics[width=2.5in,height=2.5in]{pentadiag_A_minusonehalf_CS.eps} \caption{Example \ref{ex:A-1/2_CS}. True decay and estimates for $|A^{-\frac 1 2}|_{:,t}$, $t=94$, $A=M\otimes I +I \otimes M$ of size $n=400$. Left: $M={\rm tridiag}(-1,4,-1)$. Right: $M={\rm pentadiag}(-0.5,-1,4,-1,-0.5)$. \label{fig:A-1/2_CS}} \end{figure} \begin{remark} {\rm As before, the estimate for $(f({\cal A}))_{k,t}$ can be generalized to the sum ${\cal A} = M_1 \otimes I + I \otimes M_2$, with both $M_1, M_2$ Hermitian and positive definite matrices. } \end{remark} \begin{remark} {\rm Using the previous remark, the estimate for the matrix function entries can be generalized to matrices that are sums of several Kronecker products. For instance, if $$ {\cal A} = M\otimes I\otimes I + I\otimes M\otimes I + I\otimes I\otimes M , $$ then we can write $$ {\cal A} = M\otimes (I\otimes I) + I\otimes (M\otimes I + I\otimes M ) =: M \otimes I + I \otimes M_2 , $$ so that, following the same lines as in (\ref{eqn:boundA}) we get \begin{eqnarray*} e_k^Tf({\cal A})e_t &=& \int_{\Gamma} e_k^T ({\cal A} - \omega I)^{-1}e_t {\rm d}\gamma (\omega) \\ & = & - \int_\Gamma \int_0^{\infty} e_{k_1}^T\exp(-\tau M)^{-1} e_{t_1} e_{t_2}^T \exp(-\tau(M_2-\omega I)) e_{k_2} {\rm d}\tau {\rm d}\gamma(\omega) . \end{eqnarray*} Since $M_2= M\otimes I + I\otimes M$, we then obtain $e_{t_2}^T \exp(-\tau M_2) e_{k_2} = e_{t_2}^T \exp(-\tau M)\otimes \exp(-\tau M) e_{k_2}$. Splitting $t_2, k_2$ in their one-dimensional indices, the available bounds can be employed to obtain a final integral estimate. } \end{remark} \section{Conclusions} \label{sec:Conc} In this paper we have obtained new decay bounds for the entries of certain analytic functions of banded and sparse matrices, and used these results to obtain bounds for functions of matrices that are Kronecker sums of banded (or sparse) matrices. The results apply to strictly completely monotonic functions and to Markov functions, which include a wide variety of functions arising in mathematical physics, numerical analysis, network science, and so forth. The new bounds are in many cases considerably sharper than previously published bounds and they are able to capture the oscillatory, non-monotonic decay behavior observed in the entries of $f({\cal A})$ when $\cal A$ is a Kronecker sum. Also, the bounds capture the superexponential decay behavior observed in the case of entire functions. A major difference with previous decay results is that the new bounds are given in integral form, therefore their use requires some work on the part of the user. If desired, these quantities can be further bounded for specific function choices. In practice, the integrals can be evaluated numerically to obtain explicit bounds on the quantities of interest. Although in this paper we have focused mostly on the Hermitian case, extensions to functions of more general matrices may be possible, as long as good estimates on the entries of the matrix exponential and resolvent are available. We leave the development of this idea for possible future work.
\section{Introduction} We classify elliptic fibrations on the singular K3 surface $X$ associated to the Laurent polynomial \[ x+\frac{1}{x}+y+\frac{1}{y}+z+\frac{1}{z}+\frac{x}{y}+\frac{y}{x}+\frac{y}% {z}+\frac{z}{y}+\frac{z}{x}+\frac{x}{z}.% \] In order to compute the N\'{e}ron-Severi lattice, the Picard number, and other basic properties of an algebraic surface, it is useful to identify an elliptic fibration on the surface. Moreover, in view of different applications, one may be interested in finding all the elliptic fibrations of a certain type. The fibrations of rank $0$ and maximal torsion lead more easily to the determination of the $L-$series of the variety \cite{Ber}. Those of positive rank lead to symplectic automorphisms of infinite order of the variety. Lenstra's Elliptic Curve Method (ECM) for finding small factors of large numbers originally used elliptic curves on $\mathbb{Q}$ with a torsion-group of order 12 or 16 and rank $\geq 1$ on $\mathbb{Q}$ \cite{M}, \cite{AM} . One way to obtain infinite families of such curves is to use fibrations of modular surfaces, as explained by Elkies \cite{El1}. If the Picard number of a K3 surface is large, there may be an infinite number of elliptic fibrations, but there is only a finite number of fibrations up to automorphisms, as proved by Sterk \cite{St}. Oguiso used a geometric method to classify elliptic fibrations in \cite{O}. Some years later, Nishiyama \cite{Nis} proposed a lattice-theoretic technique to produce such classifications, recovering Oguiso's results and classifying other Kummer and K3 surfaces. Since then, results of the same type have been obtained by various authors \cite{Ku}, \cite{ES}, \cite{BL}. Recently, the work of \cite{BKW} described three possible classifications of elliptic fibrations on a K3 surface, shining a new light on the meaning of what is a class of equivalence of elliptic fibrations. In particular, they proposed a $\mathcal{J}_{1}$-classification of elliptic fibrations up to automorphisms of the surface and a $\mathcal{J}_{2}$-classification of the frame lattices of the fibrations. For our K3 surface, the two classifications coincide. Thus, it is particularly interesting to exhibit here an $\mathcal{J}_{2}$-classification by the Kneser-Nishiyama method, since in general it is not easy to obtain the $\mathcal{J}_{1}$-classification. This topic will be explained in detail in Section~\ref{S:classtype}. Section~\ref{S:presentations} is devoted to a toric presentation of the surface $X$, following ideas of \cite{KLMSW}, based on the classification of reflexive polytopes in dimension 3. More precisely, the Newton polytope of $X$ is in the same class as the reflexive polytope of index 1529. Since, according to \cite{KLMSW}, there is an $S_{4}$ action on the vertices of polytope 1529 and its polar dual, there is a symplectic action of $S_{4}$ on $X.$ This action will be described on specific fibrations. One of them gives the transcendental lattice $T_{X}=\langle 6 \rangle \oplus\langle 2\rangle.$ We may use these fibrations to relate $X$ to a modular elliptic surface analyzed by Beauville in \cite{B}. We also describe a presentation of $X$ found in \cite{GS}, which represents $X$ as a K3 surface with a prescribed abelian symplectic automorphism group. The main results of the paper are obtained by Nishiyama's method and are summarized in Section~\ref{S:main}, Theorem $4.1.$ \begin{theorem*} The classification up to automorphisms of the elliptic fibrations on $X$ is given in Table \ref{table: main result}. Each elliptic fibration is given with the Dynkin diagrams characterizing its reducible fibers and the rank and torsion of its Mordell-Weil group. More precisely, we obtained $52$ elliptic fibrations on $X$, including 17 fibrations of rank $2$ and one of rank $3$. \end{theorem*} Due to the high number of different elliptic fibrations, we give only a few cases of computing the torsion. These cases have been selected to give an idea of the various methods involved. Notice the case of fibrations \#22 and \#22b exhibiting two elliptic fibrations with the same singular fibers and torsion but not isomorphic. Corresponding to these different fibrations we give some particularly interesting Weierstrass models; it is possible to make an exhaustive list. \textbf {Acknowledgements} We thank the organizers and all those who supported our project for their efficiency, their tenacity and expertise. The authors of the paper have enjoyed the hospitality of CIRM at Luminy, which helped to initiate a very fruitful collaboration, gathering from all over the world junior and senior women, bringing their skill, experience and knowledge from geometry and number theory. Our gratitude goes also to the referee for pertinent remarks and helpful comments. A.G is supported by FIRB 2012 ``Moduli Spaces and Their Applications'' and by PRIN 2010--2011 ``Geometria delle variet\`{a} algebriche''. C.S is supported by FAPERJ (grant E26/112.422/2012). U.W. thanks the NSF-AWM Travel Grant Program for supporting her visit to CIRM. \section{Classification of elliptic fibrations on K3 surfaces}\label{S:classtype} Let $S$ be a smooth complex compact projective surface. \begin{definition} A surface $S$ is a K3 surface if its canonical bundle and its irregularity are trivial, that is, if $\mathcal{K}_S\simeq \mathcal{O}_S$ and $h^{1,0}(S)=0$.\end{definition} \begin{definition}\label{def: elliptic fibration} A flat surjective map $\mathcal{E}:S\rightarrow \mathbb{P}^1$ is called an \emph{elliptic fibration} if:\\ 1) the generic fiber of $\mathcal{E}$ is a smooth curve of genus 1;\\ 2) there exists at least one section $s:\mathbb{P}^1\rightarrow S$ for $\mathcal{E}$. In particular, we choose one section of $\mathcal{E}$, which we refer to as the zero section. We always denote by $F$ the class of the fiber of an elliptic fibration and by $O$ the curve (and the class of this curve) which is the image of $s$ in $S$. The group of the sections of an elliptic fibration $\mathcal{E}$ is called the Mordell--Weil group and is denoted by $MW(\mathcal{E})$.\end{definition} A generic K3 surface does not admit elliptic fibrations, but if the Picard number of the K3 is sufficiently large, it is known that the surface must admit at least one elliptic fibration (see Proposition \ref{prop: e.F. on X with big rho}). On the other hand, it is known that a K3 surface admits a finite number of elliptic fibrations up to automorphisms (see Proposition \ref{prop: finite number of e.f.}). Thus, a very natural problem is to classify the elliptic fibrations on a given K3 surface. This problem has been discussed in several papers, starting in the Eighties. There are essentially two different ways to classify elliptic fibrations on K3 surfaces described in \cite{O} and \cite{Nis}. In some particular cases, a third method can be applied; see \cite{Ku}. First, however, we must introduce a different problem: ``What does it mean to `classify' elliptic fibrations?" A deep and interesting discussion of this problem is given in \cite{BKW}, where the authors introduce three different types of classifications of elliptic fibrations and prove that under certain (strong) conditions these three different classifications collapse to a unique one. We observe that it was already known by \cite{O} that in general these three different classifications do not collapse to a unique one. We now summarize the results by \cite{BKW} and the types of classifications. \subsection{Types of classifications of elliptic fibrations on K3 surfaces}\label{sec: basic on elliptic fibrations} In this section we recall some of the main results on elliptic fibrations on K3 surfaces (for example, compare \cite{ScSh}), and we introduce the different classifications of elliptic fibrations discussed in \cite{BKW}. \subsubsection{The sublattice $U$ and the $\mathcal{J}_0$-classification}\label{sec: U and I0} Let $S$ be a K3 surface and $\mathcal{E}:S\rightarrow \mathbb{P}^1$ be an elliptic fibration on $S$. Let $F\in NS(S)$ be the class of the fiber of $\mathcal{E}$. Then $F$ is a nef divisor which defines the map $\phi_{|F|}:S\rightarrow \mathbb{P}(H^0(S,F)^*)$ which sends every point $p\in S$ to $(s_0(p):s_1(p):\ldots :s_r(p))$, where $\{s_i\}_{i=1,\ldots r}$ is a basis of $H^0(S,F)$, i.e. a basis of sections of the line bundle associated to the divisor $F$. The map $\phi_{|F|}$ is the elliptic fibration $\mathcal{E}$. Hence, every elliptic fibration on a K3 surface is uniquely associated to an irreducible nef divisor (with trivial self intersection). Since $\mathcal{E}:S\rightarrow\mathbb{P}^1$ admits a section, there exists a rational curve which intersects every fiber in one point. Its class in $NS(S)$ is denoted by $O$ and has the following intersection properties $O^2=-2$ (since $O$ is a rational curve) and $FO=1$ (since $O$ is a section). Thus, the elliptic fibration $\mathcal{E}:S\rightarrow \mathbb{P}^1$ (with a chosen section, as in Definition \ref{def: elliptic fibration}) is uniquely associated to a pair of divisors $(F,O)$. This pair of divisors spans a lattice which is isometric to $U$, represented by the matrix $\left[\begin{array}{rr}0&1\\1&0\end{array}\right]$, (considering the basis $F$, $F+O$). Hence each elliptic fibration is associated to a chosen embedding of $U$ in $NS(S)$. On the other hand the following result holds: \begin{proposition}{\rm (\cite[Lemma 2.1]{Ko1} and \cite[Corollary 1.13.15]{Nib})}\label{prop: e.F. on X with big rho} Let $S$ be a K3 surface, such that there exists a primitive embedding $\varphi:U\hookrightarrow NS(S)$. Then $S$ admits an elliptic fibration. Let $S$ be a K3 surface with Picard number $\rho(S)\geq 13$. Then, there is a primitive embedding of $U$ in $NS(S)$ and hence $S$ admits at least one elliptic fibration. \end{proposition} A canonical embedding of $U $ in $NS(S)$ is defined as follows: let us denote by $b_1$ and $b_2$ the unique two primitive vectors of $U$ with trivial self intersection. An embedding of $U$ in $NS(S)$ is called \emph{canonical} if the image of $b_1$ in $NS(S)$ is a nef divisor and the image of $b_2-b_1$ in $NS(S)$ is an effective irreducible divisor. The first naive classification of the elliptic fibrations that one can consider is the classification described above, roughly speaking: two fibrations are different if they correspond to different irreducible nef divisors with trivial self intersections. This essentially coincides with the classification of the canonical embeddings of $U$ in $NS(S)$. Following \cite{BKW} we call this classification the $\mathcal{J}_0$-classification of the elliptic fibrations on $S$. Clearly, it is possible (and indeed likely, if the Picard number is sufficiently large) that there is an infinite number of irreducible nef divisors with trivial self intersection and also infinitely many copies of $U$ canonically embedded in $NS(S)$. Thus, it is possible that there is an infinite number of fibrations in curves of genus 1 on $S$ and moreover an infinite number of elliptic fibrations on $S$. \subsubsection{Automorphisms and the $\mathcal{J}_1$-classification}\label{subsec: automorphism and J1} The automorphism group of a variety transforms the variety to itself preserving its structure, but moves points and subvarieties on the variety. Thus, if one is considering a variety with a nontrivial automorphism group, one usually classifies objects on the variety up to automorphisms. Let $S$ be a K3 surface with a sufficiently large Picard number (at least 2). Then the automorphism group of $S$ is in general nontrivial, and it is often of infinite order. More precisely, if $\rho(S)=2$, then the automorphism group of $S$ is finite if and only if there is a vector with self intersection either 0 or $-2$ in the N\'eron--Severi group. If $\rho(S)\geq 3$, then the automorphism group of $S$ is finite if and only if the N\'eron--Severi group is isometric to a lattice contained in a known finite list of lattices, cf.\ \cite{Ko2}. Let us assume that $S$ admits more than one elliptic fibration (up to the $\mathcal{J}_0$-classification defined above). This means that there exist at least two elliptic fibrations $\mathcal{E}:S\rightarrow \mathbb{P}^1$ and $\mathcal{E}':S\rightarrow \mathbb{P}^1$ such that $F\neq F'\in NS(S)$, where $F$ (resp. $F'$) is the class of the fiber of the fibration $\mathcal{E}$ (resp. $\mathcal{E}'$). By the previous observation, it seems very natural to consider $\mathcal{E}$ and $\mathcal{E}'$ equivalent if there exists an automorphism of $S$ which sends $\mathcal{E}$ to $\mathcal{E'}$. This is the idea behind the $\mathcal{J}_1$-classification of the elliptic fibrations introduced in \cite{BKW}. \begin{definition} The $\mathcal{J}_1$-classification of the elliptic fibrations on a K3 surface is the classification of elliptic fibrations up to automorphisms of the surface. To be more precise: $\mathcal{E}$ is $\mathcal{J}_1$-equivalent to $\mathcal{E}'$ if and only if there exists $g\in \rm{Aut}(S)$ such that $\mathcal{E}=\mathcal{E}'\circ g$. \end{definition} We observe that if two elliptic fibrations on a K3 surface are equivalent up to automorphism, then all their geometric properties (the type and the number of singular fibers, the properties of the Mordell--Weil group and the intersection properties of the sections) coincide. This is true essentially by definition, since an automorphism preserves all the ``geometric'' properties of subvarieties on $S$. The advantages of the $\mathcal{J}_1$-classification with respect to the $\mathcal{J}_0$-classification are essentially two. The first is more philosophical: in several contexts, to classify an object on varieties means to classify the object up to automorphisms of the variety. The second is more practical and is based on an important result by Sterk: the $\mathcal{J}_1$-classification must have a finite number of classes: \begin{proposition}{\rm \cite{St}}\label{prop: finite number of e.f.} Up to automorphisms, there exists a finite number of elliptic fibrations on a K3 surface.\end{proposition} \subsubsection{The frame lattice and the $\mathcal{J}_2$-classification}\label{subsec: frame and J2} The main problem of the $\mathcal{J}_1$-classification is that it is difficult to obtain a $\mathcal{J}_1$-classification of elliptic fibrations on K3 surfaces, since it is in general difficult to give a complete description of the automorphism group of a K3 surface and the orbit of divisors under this group. An intermediate classification can be introduced, the $\mathcal{J}_2$-classification. The $\mathcal{J}_2$-classification is not as fine as the $\mathcal{J}_1$-classification, and its geometric meaning is not as clear as the meanings of the classifications introduced above. However, the $\mathcal{J}_2$-classification can be described in a very natural way in the context of lattice theory, and there is a standard method to produce it. Since the $\mathcal{J}_2$-classification is essentially the classification of certain lattices strictly related to the elliptic fibrations, we recall here some definitions and properties of lattices related to an elliptic fibration. We have already observed that every elliptic fibration on $S$ is associated to an embedding $\eta:U\hookrightarrow NS(S)$. \begin{definition} The orthogonal complement of $\eta(U)$ in $NS(S)$, $\eta(U)^{\perp_{NS(S)}}$, is denoted by $W_{\mathcal{E}}$ and called the frame lattice of $\mathcal{E}$.\end{definition} The frame lattice of $\mathcal{E}$ encodes essentially all the geometric properties of $\mathcal{E}$, as we explain now. We recall that the irreducible components of the reducible fibers which do not meet the zero section generate a root lattice, which is the direct sum of certain Dynkin diagrams. Let us consider the root lattice $(W_{\mathcal{E}})_{\rm{root}}$ of $W_{\mathcal{E}}$. Then the lattice $(W_{\mathcal{E}})_{\rm{root}}$ is exactly the direct sum of the Dynkin diagram corresponding to the reducible fibers. To be more precise if the lattice $E_8$ (resp. $E_7$, $E_6$, $D_n$, $n\geq 4$, $A_{m}$, $m\geq 3$) is a summand of the lattice $(W_{\mathcal{E}})_{\rm{root}}$, then the fibration $\mathcal{E}$ admits a fiber of type $II^*$ (resp. $IV^*$, $III^*$, $I_{n-4}^*$, $I_{m+1}$). However, the lattices $A_1$ and $A_2$ can be associated to two different types of reducible fibers, i.e. to $I_2$ and $III$ and to $I_3$ and $IV$ respectively. We cannot distinguish between these two different cases using lattice theory. Moreover, the singular non-reducible fibers of an elliptic fibration can be either of type $I_1$ or of type $II$. Given an elliptic fibration $\mathcal{E}$ on a K3 surface $S$, the lattice $Tr(\mathcal{E}):=U\oplus (W_{\mathcal{E}})_{\rm{root}}$ is often called the \emph{trivial lattice} (see \cite[Lemma 8.3]{ScSh} for a more detailed discussion). Let us now consider the Mordell--Weil group of an elliptic fibration $\mathcal{E}$ on a K3 surface $S$: its properties are also encoded in the frame $W_{\mathcal{E}}$, indeed $MW(\mathcal{E})=W_{\mathcal{E}}/(W_{\mathcal{E}})_{\rm{root}}$. In particular, $$\mbox{rank}(MW(\mathcal{E}))=\mbox{rank}(W_{\mathcal{E}})-\mbox{rank}((W_{\mathcal{E}})_{\rm{root}})\mbox{ and }$$ $$(MW(\mathcal{E}))_{\rm{tors}}=\overline{(W_{\mathcal{E}})_{\rm{root}}}/(W_{\mathcal{E}})_{\rm{root}},$$ where, for every sublattice $L\subset NS(S)$, $\overline{L}$ denotes the primitive closure of $L$ in $NS(S)$, i.e.\ $\overline{L}:=(L\otimes \mathbb{Q})\cap NS(S)$. \begin{definition} The $\mathcal{J}_2$-classification of elliptic fibrations on a K3 surface is the classification of their frame lattices.\end{definition} It appears now clear that if two elliptic fibrations are identified by the $\mathcal{J}_2$-classification, they have the same trivial lattice and the same Mordell--Weil group (since these objects are uniquely determined by the frame of the elliptic fibration). We observe that if $\mathcal{E}$ and $\mathcal{E}'$ are identified by the $\mathcal{J}_1$-classification, then there exists an automorphism $g\in Aut(S)$, such that $\mathcal{E}=\mathcal{E}'\circ g$. The automorphism $g$ induces an isometry $g^*$ on $NS(S)$ and it is clear that $g^*:W_{\mathcal{E}}\rightarrow W_{\mathcal{E}'}$ is an isometry. Thus the elliptic fibrations $\mathcal{E}$ and $\mathcal{E}'$ have isometric frame lattices and so are $\mathcal{J}_2$-equivalent. The $\mathcal{J}_2$-classification is not as fine as the $\mathcal{J}_1$-classification; indeed, if $h:W_{\mathcal{E}}\rightarrow W_{\mathcal{E}'}$ is an isometry, a priori there is no reason to conclude that there exists an automorphism $g\in Aut(S)$ such that $g^*_{|W_{\mathcal{E}}}=h$; indeed comparing the $\mathcal{J}_1$-classification given in \cite{O} and the $\mathcal{J}_2$-classification given in \cite{Nis} for the Kummer surface of the product of two non-isogenous elliptic curves, one can check that the first one is more fine than the second one. The advantage of the $\mathcal{J}_2$-classification sits in its strong relation with the lattice theory; indeed, there is a method which allows one to obtain the $\mathcal{J}_2$-classification of elliptic fibration on several K3 surfaces. This method is presented in \cite{Nis} and will be described in this paper in Section \ref{sec: details}. \subsubsection{Results on the different classification types} One of the main results of \cite{BKW} is about the relations among the various types of classifications of elliptic fibrations on K3 surfaces. First we observe that there exists two surjective maps $\mathcal{J}_0\rightarrow \mathcal{J}_1$ and $\mathcal{J}_0\rightarrow \mathcal{J}_2$, which are in fact quotient maps (cf. \cite[Formulae (54) and (57)]{BKW}). This induces a map $\mathcal{J}_1\rightarrow \mathcal{J}_2$ which is not necessarily a quotient map. The \cite[Proposition C']{BKW} gives a bound for the number of different elliptic fibrations up to the $\mathcal{J}_1$-classification, which are identified by the $\mathcal{J}_2$-classification. As a Corollary the following is proved: \begin{corollary}\label{cor: J2=J1}{\rm (\cite[Corollary D]{BKW})} Let $S_{(a,b,c)}$ be a K3 surface such that the transcendental lattice of $S$ is isometric to $\left[\begin{array}{ll}2a&b\\b&2c\end{array}\right]$. If $(a,b,c)$ is one of the following $(1,0,1)$, $(1,1,1)$, $(2,0,1)$, $(2,1,1)$, $(3,0,1)$, $(3,1,1)$, $(4,0,1)$, $(5,1,1)$, $(6,1,1)$, $(3,2,1)$, then $\mathcal{J}_1\simeq\mathcal{J}_2$.\end{corollary} \subsection{A classification method for elliptic fibrations on K3 surfaces}\label{Nishiyama method in general} The first paper about the classification of elliptic fibrations on K3 surfaces is due to Oguiso, \cite{O}. He gives a $\mathcal{J}_1$-classification of the elliptic fibrations on the Kummer surface of the product of two non-isogenous elliptic curves. The method proposed in \cite{O} is very geometric: it is strictly related to the presence of a certain automorphism (a non--symplectic involution) on the K3 surface. Since one has to require that the K3 surface admits this special automorphism, the method suggested in \cite{O} can be generalized only to certain special K3 surfaces (see \cite{Kl} and \cite{CG}). Seven years after the paper \cite{O}, a different method was proposed by Nishiyama in \cite{Nis}. This method is less geometric and more related to the lattice structure of the K3 surfaces and of the elliptic fibrations. Nishiyama applied this method in order to obtain a $\mathcal{J}_2$-classification of the elliptic fibrations, both on the K3 surface already considered in \cite{O} and on other K3 surfaces (cyclic quotients of the product of two special elliptic curves) to which the method by Oguiso cannot be applied. Later, in \cite{BL}, the method is used to give a $\mathcal{J}_2$-classification of elliptic fibrations on a K3 surface whose transcendental lattice is $\langle 4\rangle\oplus \langle 2\rangle$. The main idea of Nishiyama's method is the following: we consider a K3 surface $S$ and its transcendental lattice $T_S$. Then we consider a lattice $T$ such that: $T$ is negative definite; $\mbox{rank}(T)=\mbox{rank}(T_S)+4$; the discriminant group and form of $T$ are the same as the ones of $T_S$. We consider primitive embeddings of $\phi:T\hookrightarrow L$, where $L$ is a Niemeier lattice. The orthogonal complement of $\phi(T)$ in $L$ is in fact the frame of an elliptic fibration on $S$. The classification of the primitive embeddings of $T$ in $L$ for every Niemeier lattice $L$ coincides with the $\mathcal{J}_2$-classification of the elliptic fibrations on $S$. We will give more details on Nishiyama's method in Section \ref{sec: details}. Since this method is related only to the lattice properties of the surface, a priori one can not expect to find a $\mathcal{J}_1$-classification by using only this method. Thanks to Corollary \ref{cor: J2=J1}, (see \cite{BKW}) the results obtained by Nishiyama's method are sometimes stronger than expected. In particular, we will see that in our case (as in the case described in \cite{BL}) the classification that we obtain for the elliptic fibrations on a certain K3 surface using the Nishiyama's method, is in fact a $\mathcal{J}_1$-classification (and not only a $\mathcal{J}_2$-classification). \subsection{Torsion part of the Mordell--Weil group of an elliptic fibration}\label{subset: torsion MW theory} In Section \ref{sec: explicit computations}, we will classify elliptic fibrations on a certain K3 surface, determining both the trivial lattice and the Mordell--Weil group. A priori, steps (8) and (9) of the algorithm presented in \ref{sec: details} completely determine the Mordell--Weil group. In any case, we can deduce some information on the torsion part of the Mordell--Weil group by considering only the properties of the reducible fibers of the elliptic fibration. This makes the computation easier, so here we collect some results on the relations between the reducible fibers of a fibration and the torsion part of the Mordell--Weil group. First, we recall that a section meets every fiber in exactly one smooth point, so a section meets every reducible fiber in one point of a component with multiplicity 1 (we recall that the fibers of type $I_n^*$, $II^*$, $III^*$, $IV^*$ have reducible components with multiplicity greater than 1). We will call the component of a reducible fiber which meets the zero section the \emph{zero component} or \emph{trivial component}. Every section (being a rational point of an elliptic curve defined over $k(\mathbb{P}^1)$) induces an automorphism of every fiber, in particular of every reducible fiber. Thus, the presence of an $n$-torsion section implies that all the reducible fibers of the fibration admits $\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$ as subgroup of the automorphism group. In particular, this implies the following (well known) result: \begin{proposition}{\rm (cf. \cite[Section 7.2]{ScSh})}\label{prop: torsion and reducible fibers} Let $\mathcal{E}:S\rightarrow \mathbb{P}^1$ be an elliptic fibration and let $MW(\mathcal{E})_{\rm{tors}}$ the torsion part of the Mordell--Weil group. If there is a fiber of type $II^*$, then $MW(\mathcal{E})_{\rm{tors}}=0$. If there is a fiber of type $III^*$, then $MW(\mathcal{E})_{\rm{tors}}\leq (\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})$. If there is a fiber of type $IV^*$, then $MW(\mathcal{E})_{\rm{tors}}\leq (\mathbb{Z}/3\mathbb{Z})$. If there is a fiber of type $I_n^*$ and $n$ is an even number, then $MW(\mathcal{E})_{\rm{tors}}\leq (\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})^2$. If there is a fiber of type $I_n^*$ and $n$ is an odd number, then $MW(\mathcal{E})_{\rm{tors}}\leq (\mathbb{Z}/4\mathbb{Z})$. \end{proposition} \subsubsection{Covers of universal modular elliptic surfaces}\label{subsec: torsion and modular surfaces} The theory of universal elliptic surfaces parametrizing elliptic curves with prescribed torsion can also be useful when finding the torsion subgroup of a few elliptic fibrations on the list. It relies on the following definition/proposition. \begin{proposition}[{see \cite[2.1.4]{CE} or \cite{ShioModular}}] Let $\pi: X \rightarrow B$ be an elliptic fibration on a surface $X$. Assume $\pi$ has a section of order $N$, for some $N \in \mathbb{N}$, with $N\geq 4$. Then $X$ is a cover of the universal modular elliptic surface, $\mathcal{E}_N,$ of level $N$. \end{proposition} After studying the possible singular fibers of the universal surfaces above, one gets the following. \begin{proposition} Let $\mathcal{E}_N$ be the universal modular elliptic surface of level $N $. The following hold:\\ i) If $N\geq 5$ then $\mathcal{E}_N$ admits only semi-stable singular fibers. They are all of type $I_m$ with $m|N$.\\ ii) The surface $\mathcal{E}_4$ is a rational elliptic surface with singular fibers $I_1^*, I_4, I_1$.\\ \end{proposition} \subsubsection{Height formula for elliptic fibrations}\label{subset: height} The group structure of the Mordell--Weil group is the group structure of the rational points of the elliptic curve defined over the function field of the basis of the fibration. It is also possible to equip the Mordell--Weil group of a pairing taking values in $\mathbb{Q}$, which transforms the Mordell--Weil group to a $\mathbb{Q}$-lattice. Here we recall the definitions and the main properties of this pairing. For a more detailed description we refer to \cite{ScSh} and to the original paper \cite{Shio}. \begin{definition} Let $\mathcal{E}:S\rightarrow C$ be an elliptic fibration and let $O$ be the zero section. The height pairing is the $\mathbb{Q}$-valued pairing, $<-,->:MW(\mathcal{E})\times MW(\mathcal{E})\rightarrow \mathbb{Q}$ defined on the sections of an elliptic fibration as follows: $$<P,Q>=\chi(S)+P\cdot O+Q\cdot O-\sum_{c\in \mathcal{C}} contr_c(P,Q),$$ where $\chi(S)$ is the holomorphic characteristic of the surface $S$, $\cdot$ is the intersection form on $NS(S)$, $\mathcal{C}=\{c\in C\mbox{ such that the fiber }\mathcal{E}^{-1}(c)\mbox{ is reducible} \}$ and $contr_c(P,Q)$ is a contribution which depends on the type of the reducible fiber and on the intersection of $P$ and $Q$ with such a fiber as described in \cite[Table 4]{ScSh}. The value $h(P):=<P,P>=2\chi(S)+2P\cdot O-\sum_{c\in \mathcal{C}} contr_c(P,P),$ is called the \emph{height} of the section $P$. \end{definition} We observe that the height formula is induced by the projection of the intersection form on $NS(S)\otimes \mathbb{Q}$ to the orthogonal complement of the trivial lattice $Tr(\mathcal{E})$ (cf. \cite[Section 11]{ScSh}). \begin{proposition}{\rm (\cite[Section 11.6]{ScSh})}\label{prop: height and torsion} Let $P\in MW(\mathcal{E})$ be a section of the elliptic fibration $\mathcal{E}:S\rightarrow C$. The section $P$ is a torsion section if and only if $h(P)=0$. \end{proposition} \section{The K3 surface $X$}\label{S:presentations} The goal of this paper is the classification of the elliptic fibrations on the unique K3 surface $X$ such that $T_X\simeq \langle 6\rangle\oplus \langle 2\rangle$. This surface is interesting for several reasons, and we will present it from different points of view. \subsection{A toric hypersurface and the symmetric group $\mathcal{S}_4$}\label{SS:torichypersurface} Let $N$ be a lattice isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}^n$. The dual lattice $M$ of $N$ is given by $\mathrm{Hom}(N, \mathbb{Z})$; it is also isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}^n$. We write the pairing of $v \in N$ and $w \in M$ as $\langle v , w \rangle$. Given a lattice polytope $\diamond$ in $N$, we define its \textit{polar polytope} $\diamond^\circ$ to be $\diamond^\circ = \{w \in $M$ \, | \, \langle v , w \rangle \geq -1 \, \forall \, v \in K\}$. If $\diamond^\circ$ is also a lattice polytope, we say that $\diamond$ is a reflexive polytope and that $\diamond$ and $\diamond^\circ$ are a mirror pair. A reflexive polytope must contain $\vec{0}$; furthermore, $\vec{0}$ is the only interior lattice point of the polytope. Reflexive polytopes have been classified in 1,2,3, and 4 dimensions. In 3 dimensions, there are 4,319 reflexive polytopes, up to an overall isomorphism preserving lattice structure \cite{KS, KS2}. The database of reflexive polytopes is incorporated in the open-source computer algebra software \cite{Sage}. Now, consider the one-parameter family of K3 surfaces given by \begin{equation}\label{E:affineverrillpencil} x + \frac{1}{x}+ y +\frac{1}{y}+ z +\frac{1}{z}+\frac{x}{y}+\frac{y}{x}+\frac{y}{z}+\frac{z}{y}+\frac{x}{z}+\frac{z}{x}+\lambda.\end{equation} This family of K3 surfaces was first studied in \cite{Verrill}, where its Picard-Fuchs equation was computed. A general member of the family has Picard lattice given by $U \oplus \langle 6 \rangle$. The Newton polytope $\diamond^\circ$ determined by the family of polynomials in Equation~\ref{E:affineverrillpencil} is a reflexive polytope with 12 vertices and 14 facets. This polytope has the greatest number of facets of any three-dimensional reflexive polytope; furthermore, there is a unique three-dimensional reflexive polytope with this property, up to isomorphism. In the database of reflexive polytopes found in \cite{Sage}, this polytope has index 1529. We illustrate $\diamond^\circ$ and its polar polytope $\diamond$ in Figures~\ref{F:2355} and ~\ref{F:1529}. \begin{multicols}{2} \begin{figurehere} \begin{center} \scalebox{.3}{\includegraphics{1529polar_verrill.jpg}} \end{center} \caption{Reflexive polytope 2355} \label{F:2355} \end{figurehere} \begin{figurehere} \begin{center} \scalebox{.3}{\includegraphics{1529_verrilldual.jpg}} \end{center} \caption{Reflexive polytope 1529} \label{F:1529} \end{figurehere} \end{multicols} Let us recall some standard constructions and notations involving toric varieties. A \emph{cone} in $N$ is a subset of the real vector space $N_\mathbb{R} = N \otimes \mathbb{R}$ generated by nonnegative $\mathbb{R}$-linear combinations of a set of vectors $\{v_1, \dots , v_m\} \subset N$. We assume that cones are strongly convex, that is, they contain no line through the origin. Note that each face of a cone is a cone. A \emph{fan} $\Sigma$ consists of a finite collection of cones such that each face of a cone in the fan is also in the fan, and any pair of cones in the fan intersects in a common face. We say $\Sigma$ is \emph{simplicial} if the generators of each cone in $\Sigma$ are linearly independent over $\mathbb{R}$. If every element of $N_ \mathbb{R}$ belongs to some cone in $\Sigma$, we say $\Sigma$ is \emph{complete}. A fan $\Sigma$ defines a toric variety $V_\Sigma$. If the fan is complete, we may describe $V_\Sigma$ using homogeneous coordinates, in a process analogous to the construction of $\mathbb{P}^n$ as a quotient space of $(\mathbb{C}^*)^n$. The homogeneous coordinates have one coordinate $z_j$ for each generator of a one-dimensional cone of $\Sigma$. We may obtain a fan $R$ from a mirror pair of reflexive polytopes in two equivalent ways. We may take cones over the faces of $\diamond \subset N_\mathbb{R}$, or we may take the \emph{normal fan} to the polytope $\diamond^\circ \subset M_\mathbb{R}$. Let $\Sigma$ be a simplicial refinement of $R$ such that the one-dimensional cones of $\Sigma$ are generated by the nonzero lattice points $v_k$, $k = 1 \dots q$, of $\diamond$; we call such a refinement a \emph{maximal projective subdivision}. Then the variety $V_\Sigma$ is an orbifold. Then in homogeneous coordinates, we have one coordinate $z_k$ for each nonzero lattice point in $\diamond$. We may describe the anticanonical hypersurfaces in homogeneous coordinates using polynomials of the form: \begin{equation} p = \sum_{x \in \diamond^\circ \cap M} c_x \prod_{k=1}^q z_k^{\langle v_k, x \rangle + 1}.\end{equation} \noindent Here the $c_x$ are arbitrary coefficients. Note that $p$ has one monomial for each lattice point of $\diamond^\circ$. If the reflexive polytope $\diamond$ is three-dimensional, $V_\Sigma$ is smooth and smooth anticanonical hypersurfaces in $V_\Sigma$ are K3 surfaces (see \cite{CoxKatz} for details). The orientation-preserving symmetry group of $\diamond$ and $\diamond^\circ$ is the symmetric group $\mathcal{S}_4$. This group acts transitively on the vertices of $\diamond^\circ$. As the authors of \cite{KLMSW} observe, by setting the coefficients $c_x$ corresponding to the vertices of $\diamond^\circ$ to 1 and the coefficient corresponding to the origin to a parameter $\lambda$, we obtain a naturally one-parameter family of K3 hypersurfaces with generic Picard rank 19: \begin{equation}\label{E:verrillpencil} p = \left( \sum_{x \in \mathrm{vertices}(\diamond^\circ)} \prod_{k=1}^q z_k^{\langle v_k, x \rangle + 1} \right)+\lambda z_1 \dots z_q.\end{equation} \noindent Equation~\ref{E:verrillpencil} is simply Equation~\ref{E:affineverrillpencil} in homogeneous coordinates. If we view $\mathcal{S}_4$ as acting on the vertices of $\diamond$ rather than the vertices of $\diamond^\circ$, we obtain a permutation of the homogeneous coordinates $z_k$. The authors of \cite{KLMSW} show that this action of $\mathcal{S}_4$ restricts to a symplectic action on each K3 surface in the pencil given by Equation~\ref{E:verrillpencil}; in particular, we have a symplectic action of $\mathcal{S}_4$ on $X$. In the affine coordinates of Equation~\ref{E:affineverrillpencil}, the group action is generated by an element $s_2$ of order 2 which acts by $(x,y,z) \mapsto (1/x, 1/z, 1/y)$ and an element $s_4$ of order 4 which acts by $(x,y,z) \mapsto (x/y, x/z, x)$. \subsection{The K3 surface $X$} \begin{definition} Let $X$ be the K3 surface defined by $F=0$, where $F$ is the numerator of $$x + \frac{1}{x}+ y +\frac{1}{y}+ z +\frac{1}{z}+\frac{x}{y}+\frac{y}{x}+\frac{y}{z}+\frac{z}{y}+\frac{x}{z}+\frac{z}{x}.$$ \end{definition} The K3 surface $X$ is the special member of the family of K3 surfaces described in \eqref{E:affineverrillpencil} which is obtained by setting $\lambda=0$.\\ We will use three elements of the symplectic group $\mathcal{S}_4$: the three-cycle $s_{3}$ given by $(x,y,z)\mapsto(y,z,x),$ the four-cycle $s_{4}$ and the two-cycle $s_{2}.$ We describe explicitly a first elliptic fibration, which gives the main properties of $X.$ \subsection{A fibration invariant by $s_{3}$}\label{subsec: first explicit fibration} We use the following factorizations \begin{align} F & =\left( x+y+z+1\right) \left( xy+yz+zx\right) +\left( x+y+z-3\right) xyz\\ F\left( x+y+z\right) & =(x+y+z-1)^{2}xyz+(x+y+z+1)(x+y)(y+z)(z+x). \label{FF1} \end{align}% If $w=x+y+z,$ we see that $w$ is invariant under the action of $s_{3}.$ If we substitute $w-x-y$ for $z$ we obtain the equation of an elliptic curve, so the morphism \begin{align} \mathcal{E}: X & \rightarrow\mathbb{P}_{w}^{1}\label{u}\\ \left( x,y,z\right) & \mapsto w=x+y+z\nonumber \end{align} is an elliptic fibration of $X$. We use the birational transformation% \[ x=-\frac{v+(w+1)u}{u(w-3)},\quad y=-\frac{v(w+1)-u^{2}}{v(w-3)}% \] with inverse% \begin{align*} u&=-((w-3)x+(w+1))((w-3)y+(w+1)), \\ v&=((w-3)x+(w+1))^{2}((w-3)y+(w+1)) \end{align*} to obtain the Weierstrass equation \begin{equation} v^{2}+\left( w^{2}+3\right) uv+\left( w^{2}-1\right) ^{2}v=u^{3}. \label{E3}% \end{equation} Notice the torsion points $\left( u=0,v=0\right)$ and $\left( u=0,v=-(w^{2}% -1)^{2}\right) $ of order $3$ and the $3$ points of order $2$ with $u-$coordinate $\frac{-1}{4}\left( w^{2}-1\right) ^{2}$,$-\left( w-1\right) ^{2}$, and $-\left( w+1\right) ^{2}.$ We use also the Weierstrass form% \begin{equation} \xi^{2}=\eta\left( \eta-\left( w-3\right) \left( w+1\right) ^{3}\right) \left( \eta-\left( w+3\right) \left( w-1\right) ^{3}\right) \label{We2}% \end{equation} with% \[ u=\frac{1}{4}\left( \eta-\left( w^{2}-1\right) ^{2}\right) ,\quad v=\frac{1}{8}\left( \xi-\left( w^{2}+3\right) \eta+\left( w^{2}-1\right) ^{3}\right). \] The singular fibers are of type $I_{6}$ for $w=-1,1,\infty$ and $I_{2}$ for $w=3,-3,0.$ So the trivial lattice of this fibration is $\mbox{Tr}(\mathcal{E})=U\oplus A_5^{\oplus 3}\oplus A_1^{\oplus 3}$. Hence the Picard number of $X$ is $20$ and $\mbox{rank}(MW(\mathcal{E}))=0$. So $X$ is a singular K3 surface. This elliptic fibration is contained in the \cite[Table 2 line 4]{SZ} and thus its transcendental lattice is $\langle 6\rangle\oplus \langle 2\rangle$. Moreover, all the fibers have split mulitiplicative reduction and thus the N\'{e}ron Severi group is generated by curves defined on $\mathbb{Q}$. \begin{rem}{\rm We have already observed that $X$ is a special member of the 1-dimensional family of K3 surfaces defined by Equation \ref{E:affineverrillpencil}. Indeed, the transcendental lattice of $X$ is primitively embedded in $U\oplus \langle 6\rangle$ by the vectors $(1,1,0), (0,0,1)$.}\end{rem} This gives the following proposition \begin{proposition}\label{prop: the surface X} The N\'eron-Severi group of the K3 surface $X$ has rank 20 and is generated by divisors which are defined over $\mathbb{Q}$. The transcendental lattice of $X$ is $T_X\simeq \left( \begin{array} [c]{cc}% 2 & 0\\ 0 & 6 \end{array} \right).$ \end{proposition} \begin{rem} {\rm The equation \eqref{We2} is the universal elliptic curve with torsion group $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}\times\mathbb{Z}/6\mathbb{Z}$ and is in fact equivalent to the equation given in \cite{Kub} Thus this fibration can be called modular: we can view the base curve $(\mathbb{P}_{w}^{1})$ as the modular curve $X_{\Gamma}$ with $\Gamma=\{$ $\left( \begin{array} [c]{cc}% a & b\\ c & d \end{array} \right) \in Sl_{2}\left( \mathbb{Z}\right) ,a\equiv1\operatorname{mod}% 6,c\equiv0\operatorname{mod}6,b\equiv0\operatorname{mod}2\}$. By \eqref{FF1} we can easily obtain the equation \[ \left( w-1\right) ^{2}xyz+\left( w+1\right) \left( x+y\right) \left( y+z\right) \left( z+x\right) =0 \] and realize $X$ by a base change of the modular rational elliptic surface $\mathcal{E}_6$ described by Beauville in \cite{B}. We can prove that on the fiber, the automorphism $s_{3}$ corresponds to adding a $3$-torsion point.} \end{rem} \subsection{A fibration invariant by $s_{4}$}\label{subsec: second explicit fibration} If $t=\frac{y}{zx},$ we see that $t$ is invariant under the action of $s_{4}.$ Substituting $tzx$ for $y$ in $F$, we obtain the equation of an elliptic curve. Using standard transformations (as in \cite{Ku}(39.2), \cite{AM} or \cite{C}) we obtain the Weierstrass model \[ v^{2}=u\left( u^{2}-2t\left( t^{2}+1\right) u+t^{2}(t+1)^{4}\right). \] The point $Q_{t}=\left( u=t(t+1)^{2},v=2t^{2}(t+1)^{2}\right) $ is of order $4.$ The point $P_{t}=\left( u=(t+1\right) ^{2},v=(t^{2}+1)\left( t+1\right) ^{2})$ is of infinite order. The singular fibers are $2I_{1}^{\ast}\left( t=0,\infty\right)+I_{8}\left( t=-1\right)+2 I_{1}\left( t^{2}+t+1=0\right).$ One can prove that on the fiber, $s_{4}$ corresponds to the translation by a $4-$torsion point. Moreover, the translation by the point $P_{t}$ defines an automorphism of infinite order on $X$. \begin{rem}{\rm If we compute the height of $P_{t}$ we can show, using Shioda formula, \cite{Shio} that $P_{t}$ and $Q_{t}$ generate the Mordell-Weil group. } \end{rem} \subsection{A fibration invariant by $s_{2}$}\label{subsec: third explicit fibration} If $r=\frac{y}{z}$ , we see that $r$ is invariant under the action of $s_{2}.$ Substituting $rz$ for $y$ we obtain the equation of an elliptic curve and the following Weierstrass model \[ v^{2}-\left( r^{2}-1\right) vu=u\left( u-2r\left( r+1\right) \right) \left( u-2r^{2}\left( r+1\right) \right). \] \noindent The point $\left( 0,0\right) $ is a two-torsion point. The point $\left( 2r\left( r+1\right) ,0\right) $ is of infinite order. The singular fibers are $2I_{6}\left( r=0,\infty\right)+I_{0}^{\ast}\left( r=-1\right)+ I_{4}\left( r=1\right)+2I_{1}\left( r^{2}-14r+1=0\right)$. \begin{rem}\label{rem: elliptic fibration Elkies}{\rm From Elkies results \cite{El} \cite{Schu} there is a unique K3 surface $X/\mathbb{Q}$ with N\'{e}ron-Severi group of rank $20$ and discriminant $-12$ that consists entirely of classes of divisors defined over $\mathbb{Q}$. Indeed it is $X$. Moreover, in \cite{El} a Weierstrass equation for an elliptic fibration on $X$ defined over $\mathbb{Q}$, is given: \[ y^{2}=x^{3}-75x+(4t-242+\frac{4}{t}). \]} \end{rem} \begin{rem}{\rm The surface $X$ is considered also in a slightly different context in \cite{GS} because of its relation with the study of the moduli space of K3 surfaces with a symplectic action of a finite abelian group. Indeed, the aim of the paper \cite{GS} is to study elliptic fibrations $\mathcal{E}_G:S_G\rightarrow \mathbb{P}^1$ on K3 surfaces $S_G$ such that $MW(\mathcal{E}_G)=G$ is a torsion group. Since the translation by a section is a symplectic automorphism of $S_G$, if $MW(\mathcal{E}_G)=G$, then $G$ is a group which acts symplectically on $S_G$. In \cite{GS} it is shown how one can describe both a basis for the N\'eron--Severi group of $S_G$ and the action induced by the symplectic action of $G$ on this basis. In particular, one can directly compute the lattices $NS(S_G)^G$ and $\Omega_G:=NS(S_G)^{\perp}$. The latter does not depend on $S_G$ but only on $G$ and its computation plays a central role in the description of the moduli space of the K3 surfaces admitting a symplectic action of $G$ (see \cite{Nisym} and \cite{GS}). In particular, the case $G=\mathbb{Z}/6\mathbb{Z}\times Z/2\mathbb{Z}$ is considered: in this case the K3 surface $S_G$ is $X$, and the elliptic fibration $\mathcal{E}_G$ is \eqref{u}. Comparing the symplectic action of $\mathbb{Z}/6\mathbb{Z}\times\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$ on $X$ given in \cite{GS} with the symplectic group action of $\mathcal{S}_4$ described in \S~\ref{SS:torichypersurface}, we find that the two groups intersect in the subgroup of order 3 generated by the map $s_3$ given by $(x,y,z) \mapsto (z,y,x)$. }\end{rem} \section{Main result}\label{S:main} This section is devoted to the proof of our main result: \begin{theorem} The classification up to automorphisms of the elliptic fibrations on $X$ is given in Table \ref{table: main result}. Each elliptic fibration is given with the Dynkin diagrams characterizing its reducible fibers and the rank and torsion of its Mordell-Weil group. More precisely, we obtained $52$ elliptic fibrations on $X$, including 17 fibrations of rank $2$ and one of rank $3$. \end{theorem} We denote by $r$ the $\mbox{rank}(MW(\mathcal{E}))$, and we use Bourbaki notations for $A_n,D_n,E_k$ as in \cite{BL}. \begin{longtable}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\caption{The elliptic fibrations of $X$}\label{table: main result} \\ \hline $ L_{\text{root}}$ & No. & & &$N_{\text{root}}$ & $r$ & $MW(\mathcal{E})_{\rm{tors}}$ \\ \hline $E_8^3$ \\ \hline &$1$ & $A_5\oplus A_1 \subset E_8$ & & $A_1 E_8 E_8$ & $1$ & $(0)$\\ \hline &$2$ & $A_1\subset E_8$ & $A_5 \subset E_8$ & $A_1 A_2 E_7 E_8$ & $0$ & $(0)$\\ \hline $E_8 D_{16}$ \\ \hline & $3$ & $A_5\oplus A_1 \subset E_8$ & & $A_1 D_{16}$ & $1$ & $\mathbb Z /{2 \mathbb Z}$\\ \hline & $4$ & $A_5\oplus A_1 \subset D_{16}$ & & $ A_1 D_{8}E_8$ & $1$ & $(0)$\\ \hline & $5$ & $A_5\subset E_8$ & $A_1 \subset D_{16}$ & $ A_1A_1 A_2 D_{14}$ & $0$ & $\mathbb Z /{2 \mathbb Z}$\\ \hline &$6$ & $A_1\subset E_8$ & $A_5 \subset D_{16}$ & $E_7 D_{10}$ & $1$ & $(0)$\\ \hline $E_7^2 D_{10}$ \\ \hline &$7$ & $A_5\oplus A_1 \subset E_7$ & & $E_7 D_{10}$ & $1$ & $\mathbb Z /{2 \mathbb Z}$\\ \hline &$8$ & $A_5\oplus A_1 \subset D_{10}$ & & $A_1A_1A_1E_7 E_7$ & $1$ & $\mathbb Z /{2 \mathbb Z}$\\ \hline &$9$ & $A_1\subset E_7$ & $A_5 \subset E_7$ & $ D_6 A_1 D_{10}$ &$1$ & $\mathbb Z/{2 \mathbb Z}$\\ \hline &$10$& $A_1\subset E_7$ & $A_5 \subset E_7$ & $ D_6 A_2 D_{10}$ &$0$ & $\mathbb Z /{2 \mathbb Z}$\\ \hline &$11$ & $A_5\subset E_7$ & $A_1 \subset D_{10}$ & $A_1 A_1 D_8 E_7$ & $1$ & $\mathbb Z /{2 \mathbb Z}$\\ \hline &$12$ & $A_5\subset E_7$ & $A_1 \subset D_{10}$ & $A_1 A_2 D_8 E_7$ & $0$ & $\mathbb Z /{2 \mathbb Z}$\\ \hline &$13$ & $A_1\subset E_7$ & $A_5 \subset D_{10}$ & $E_7 D_6 D_4$ & $1$ & $\mathbb Z /{2 \mathbb Z}$\\ \hline $E_7 A_{17}$ \\ \hline &$14$ & $A_5\oplus A_1 \subset E_7$ & & $A_{17}$ & $1$ & $\mathbb Z /{3 \mathbb Z}$\\ \hline &$15$ & $A_5\oplus A_1 \subset A_{17}$ & & $A_9E_7$ & $2$ & $(0)$\\ \hline &$16$ & $A_5\subset E_7$ & $A_1 \subset A_{17}$ & $A_1 A_{15}$ & $2$ & $(0)$\\ \hline &$17$ & $A_5\subset E_7$ & $A_1 \subset A_{17}$ & $A_2 A_{15}$ & $1$ & $(0)$\\ \hline &$18$ & $A_1\subset E_7$ & $A_5 \subset A_{17}$ & $D_6 A_{11}$ & $1$ & $(0)$\\ \hline $D_{24}$ \\ \hline &$19$ & $A_5\oplus A_1 \subset D_{24}$ & & $A_1 D_{16}$ & $1$ & $(0)$\\ \hline $D_{12}^2$ \\ \hline & $20$ & $A_5\oplus A_1 \subset D_{12}$ & & $A_1 D_4 D_{12}$ & $1$ & $\mathbb Z /{2 \mathbb Z}$\\ \hline &$21$ & $A_1 \subset D_{12}$ & $A_5 \subset D_{12}$ & $A_1 D_{10} D_{6}$ & $1$ & $\mathbb Z /{2 \mathbb Z}$\\ \hline $D_8^3$ \\ \hline &$22$ & $A_5\oplus A_1 \subset D_{8}$ & & $A_1 D_8 D_{8}$ & $1$ & $\mathbb Z /{2 \mathbb Z}$\\ \hline &$22(b)$ & $A_5\oplus A_1 \subset D_{8}$ & & $A_1 D_8 D_{8}$ & $1$ & $\mathbb Z /{2 \mathbb Z}$\\ \hline & $23$ & $A_1 \subset D_{8}$ & $A_5 \subset D_{8}$ & $A_1^3 D_{6} D_{8}$ & $1$ & $(\mathbb Z /{2\mathbb{Z}})^2 $\\ \hline $D_9 A_{15}$ \\ \hline & $24$ & $A_5\oplus A_1 \subset D_{9}$ & & $ A_1 A_{15}$ & $2$ & $\mathbb Z /{2 \mathbb Z}$\\ \hline & $25$ & $A_5\oplus A_1 \subset A_{15}$ & & $ D_9 A_{7}$ & $2$ & $(0)$\\ \hline & $26$ & $A_5 \subset D_{9}$ & $A_1 \subset A_{15}$ & $A_3 A_{13}$ & $2$ & $(0)$\\ \hline & $27$ & $A_1 \subset D_{9}$ & $A_5 \subset A_{15}$ & $A_1A_9 D_7$ & $1$ & $(0)$\\ \hline $E_6^4$ \\ \hline &$28$ & $A_1 \subset E_6$ & $A_5 \subset E_6$ & $A_1A_5 E_6^2$ & $0$ & $\mathbb Z/3\mathbb Z$\\ \hline $ A_{11} E_6 D_7$ \\ \hline &$29$ & $A_5\oplus A_1 \subset A_{11}$ & & $A_3D_7E_6$ & $2$ & $(0)$\\ \hline & $30$ & $A_5 \subset E_6$ & $A_1 \subset D_7$ & $A_1^2A_{11}D_5$ & $0$ & $\mathbb Z/4\mathbb Z$\\ \hline &$31$ & $A_5 \subset E_6$ & $A_1 \subset A_{11}$ & $A_1A_9D_7 $ & $1$ & $(0)$\\ \hline &$32$ & $A_1 \subset E_6$ & $A_5 \subset D_7$ & $ A_5A_{11}$ & $2$ & $\mathbb Z/3\mathbb Z$\\ \hline &$33$ & $A_5 \subset D_7$ & $A_1 \subset A_{11}$ & $ A_9E_6$ & $3$ & $(0)$\\ \hline &$34$ & $A_1 \subset D_7$ & $A_5 \subset A_{11}$ & $A_1 A_5D_5E_6$ & $1$ & $(0)$\\ \hline &$35$ & $A_1 \subset E_6$ & $A_5 \subset A_{11}$ & $ A_5^2D_7$ & $1$ & $(0)$\\ \hline $D_6^4$ \\ \hline &$36$ & $A_1 \subset D_6$ & $A_5 \subset D_6$ & $ A_1 D_4 D_6^2$ & $1$ & $(\mathbb Z /{2\mathbb{Z}})^2$\\ \hline $D_6 A_9^2$ &\\ \hline &$37$ & $A_5\oplus A_1 \subset A_9$& & $ A_1 A_9D_6$ & $2$ & $\mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z$\\ \hline &$38$ & $A_5 \subset A_9$ & $A_1 \subset A_9$ & $A_3A_7D_6$ & $2$ & $(0)$\\\hline &$39$ & $A_5 \subset A_9$ & $A_1 \subset D_6$ & $A_1A_3A_9D_4$ & $1$ & $\mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z$\\\hline &$40$ & $A_1 \subset A_9$ & $A_5 \subset D_6$ & $A_7A_9$ & $2$ & $(0)$\\\hline $D_5^2 A_7^2$ \\ \hline &$41$ & $A_5\oplus A_1\subset A_7$ && $A_7D_5^2$ & $1$ & $\mathbb Z/4\mathbb Z$\\ \hline &$42$ & $A_5 \subset A_7$ & $A_1 \subset A_7$ & $A_1A_5D_5^2$ & $2$ & $(0)$ \\ \hline &$43$ & $A_5 \subset A_7$ & $A_1 \subset D_5$ & $A_1^2A_3A_7D_5$ & $1$ & $\mathbb Z/4\mathbb Z$ \\ \hline $A_8^3$ \\ \hline &$44$ & $A_5 \oplus A_1 \subset A_8$ & & $A_8^2$ & $2$ & $\mathbb Z /3 \mathbb Z$\\ \hline &$45$ & $A_1 \subset A_8$ & $A_5 \subset A_8$ & $A_2A_6A_8$ & $2$ & $(0)$\\ \hline $A_{24}$ \\ \hline &$46$ & $A_5 \oplus A_1 \subset A_{24}$ & & $A_{16}$ & $2$ & $(0)$\\ \hline $A_{12}^2$ \\ \hline &$47$ & $A_5 \oplus A_1 \subset A_{12}$ & & $A_4A_{12}$ & $2$ & $(0)$\\ \hline &$48$ & $A_5 \subset A_{12}$ & $A_1 \subset A_{12}$ & $ A_6A_{10}$ & $2$ & $(0)$\\ \hline $D_4A_5^4$ \\ \hline &$49$ & $A_5=A_5$ & $A_1 \subset A_5$ & $A_3A_5^2D_4$ & $1$ & $\mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z$\\ \hline &$50$ & $A_5=A_5$ & $A_1 \subset D_4$ & $A_1^3A_5^3$ & $0$ & $\mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z\times \mathbb Z/6 \mathbb Z$\\ \hline $A_6^4$ \\ \hline &$51$ & $A_5 \subset A_6$ & $A_1 \subset A_6$ & $A_4A_6^2$ & $2$ & $(0)$\\ \hline \end{longtable} {\it Outline of the proof.\ } The proof consists of an application of Nishiyama's method: the details of this method will be described in Section \ref{sec: details}. Its application to our case is given in Section \ref{sec: explicit computations}. The application of Nishiyama's method gives us a $\mathcal{J}_2$-classification, which coincides in our cases with a classification up to automorphisms of the surface by Corollary \ref{cor: J2=J1}. \begin{rem}{\rm The fibration given in Section \ref{subsec: first explicit fibration} is \# 50 in Table~\ref{table: main result}, the one given in Section \ref{subsec: second explicit fibration} is \# 41, the one given in Section \ref{subsec: third explicit fibration} is \# 49, the one given in Remark \ref{rem: elliptic fibration Elkies} is \#1. The fibrations of rank 0 may be found also in \cite{SZ}.}\end{rem} \begin{rem}{\rm We observe that there exists a primitive embedding of $T_X\simeq \langle 6\rangle \oplus\langle 2\rangle$ in $U(2)\oplus\langle 2\rangle$ given by the vectors $\langle(1,1,1),(0,-1,1)\rangle$. Thus, $X$ is a special member of the 1-dimensional family of K3 surfaces whose transcendental lattice is isometric to $U(2)\oplus\langle 2\rangle$. The elliptic fibrations on the generic member $Y$ of this family have already been classified (cf. \cite{CG}), and indeed the elliptic fibrations in Table \ref{table: main result} specialize the ones in \cite[Table 4.5 and Section 8.1 case $r=19$]{CG}, either because the rank of the Mordell--Weil group increases by 1 or because two singular fibers glue together producing a different type of reducible fiber.}\end{rem} \subsection{Nishiyama's method in detail: an algorithm}\label{sec: details} This section is devoted to a precise description of Nishiyama's method. Since the method is very well described both in the original paper \cite{Nis} and in some other papers where it is applied, e.g. \cite{BL} and \cite{BKW}, we summarize it in an algorithm which allows us to compute all the results given in Table \ref{table: main result}. In the next section we will describe in detail some peculiar cases, in order to show how this algorithm can be applied. \begin{definition} A Niemeier lattice is an even unimodular negative definite lattice of rank 24. \end{definition} There are 24 Niemeier lattices. We will denote by $L$ an arbitrary Niemeier lattice. Each of them corresponds uniquely to its root lattice $L_{\rm{root}}$. In Table \ref{table: generators of Niemeier lattice} we list the Niemeier lattices, giving both the root lattices of each one and a set of generators for $L/L_{\rm{root}}$. To do this we recall the following notation, introduced in \cite{BL}: \begin{eqnarray*} \begin{array}{|ll||ll|}\hline \alpha_n&=\frac {1}{n+1} \sum_{j=1}^{n}(n-j+1)a_j& \delta_{l} & = \frac {1}{2}\left( \sum_{i=1}^{l-2}id_i+\frac {1}{2}(l-2)d_{l-1}+\frac {1}{2}ld_l \right)\\ \overline{\delta}_l & =\sum_{i=1}^{l-2} d_i+\frac {1}{2}(d_{l-1}+d_l)& \tilde{\delta}_{l} & =\frac {1}{2}\left( \sum_{i=1}^{l-2}id_i+\frac {1}{2}ld_{l-1}+\frac {1}{2}(l-2)d_l \right)\\ \eta_6 &=-\frac {2e_1+3e_2+4e_3+6e_4+5e_5+4e_6}{3}& \eta_7 &=-\frac {(2e_1+3e_2+4e_3+6e_4+5e_5+4e_6+3e_7)}{2}\\ \hline \end{array}\end{eqnarray*} \begin{longtable}{|c|l|} \caption{The Niemeier lattices $L$: $L_{\rm{root}}$ and $L/L_{\rm{root}}$}\label{table: generators of Niemeier lattice}\\ \hline $L_{\rm{root}}$&$L/L{\rm{root}}$\\ \hline $E_8^{ 3}$ & $\langle(0) \rangle$\\ \hline $E_8 D_{16}$ & $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}=\langle \delta_{16} \rangle $\\ \hline $E_7^{ 2} D_{10}$ & $(\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})^2=\langle \eta_7^{(1)}+\delta_{10}, \eta_7^{(1)}+\eta_7^{(2)}+\overline{\delta_{10}} \rangle $ \\ \hline $E_7 A_{17}$ & $\mathbb{Z}/6\mathbb{Z}=\langle \eta_7+3\alpha_{17} \rangle$\\ \hline $D_{24}$ & $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}=\langle \delta_{24} \rangle $ \\ \hline $D_{12}^{ 2}$ & $(\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})^2=\langle \delta_{12}^{(1)}+\overline{\delta_{12}^{(2)}},\overline{\delta_{12}^{(1)}}+\delta_{12}^{(2)} \rangle$ \\ \hline $D_8^{ 3}$ & $(\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})^3=\langle \delta_8^{(1)}+\overline{\delta}_8^{(2)}+\overline{\delta}_8^{(3)}, \overline{\delta}_8^{(1)}+\delta_8^{(2)}+\overline{\delta}_8^{(3)},\overline{\delta}_8^{(1)}+\overline{\delta}_8^{(2)}+\delta_8^{(3)}\rangle $ \\ \hline $D_9 A_{15}$ & $\mathbb{Z}/8\mathbb{Z}=\langle \delta_9+2\alpha_{15} \rangle$ \\ \hline $E_6^{ 4}$ & $(\mathbb{Z}/3\mathbb{Z})^2=\langle \eta_6^{(1)}+\eta_6^{(2)}+\eta_6^{(3)}, -\eta_6^{(1)}+\eta_6^{(3)}+\eta_6^{(4)} \rangle$\\ \hline $ A_{11} E_6 D_7$ & $ \mathbb{Z}/12\mathbb{Z}=\langle \alpha_{11}+\eta_6+\delta_7 \rangle$ \\ \hline $D_6^{ 4}$ & $\begin{array}{ll}(\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})^4=&\langle {\delta}_6^{(2)}+\overline{\delta}_6^{(3)}+\tilde{\delta}_6^{(4)},\overline{\delta_6^{(1)}}+\tilde{\delta}_6^{(2)}+{\delta}_6^{(4)},\\&\delta_6^{(1)}+\overline{\delta}_6^{(2)}+\tilde{\delta}_6^{(4)},\delta_6^{(1)}+\tilde{\delta}_6^{(3)}+\overline{\delta}_6^{(4)}\rangle\end{array}$\\ \hline $D_6 A_9^{ 2}$ & $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}\times \mathbb{Z}/10\mathbb{Z}=\langle \widetilde{\delta_6}+5\alpha_9^{(2)}, \delta_6+\alpha_9^{(1)}+2\alpha_9^{(2)} \rangle$ \\ \hline $D_5^{ 2} A_7^{ 2}$ & $\mathbb{Z}/4\mathbb{Z}\times\mathbb{Z}/8\mathbb{Z}=\langle \delta_5^{(1)}+\delta_5^{(2)}+2\alpha_7^{(1)},\delta_5^{(1)}+2\delta_5^{(2)}+\alpha_7^{(1)}+\alpha_7^{(2)} \rangle$ \\ \hline $ A_8^{ 3}$ & $\mathbb{Z}/3\mathbb{Z}\times \mathbb{Z}/9\mathbb{Z}=\langle 3\alpha_8^{(1)}+3\alpha_8^{(2)},\alpha_8^{(1)}+2\alpha_8^{(2)}+2\alpha_8^{(3)} \rangle$ \\ \hline $ A_5^{ 4}D_4$ & $\begin{array}{ll}(\mathbb{Z}/6\mathbb{Z})^2\times \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}=&\langle 5\alpha_5^{(1)}+2\alpha_5^{(2)}+\alpha_5^{(3)}+\overline{\delta}_4,\\& 5\alpha_5^{(1)}+3\alpha_5^{(2)}+2\alpha_5^{(3)}+4\alpha_5^{(4)}+\delta_4,\\&3\alpha_5^{(1)}+3\alpha_5^{(4)}+\tilde{\delta}_4 \rangle\end{array}$\\ \hline $ A_6^{ 4}$ & $(\mathbb{Z}/7\mathbb{Z})^2=\langle \alpha_6^{(1)}+2\alpha_6^{(2)}+\alpha_6^{(3)}+6\alpha_6^{(4)},\alpha_6^{(1)}+6\alpha_6^{(2)}+2\alpha_6^{(3)}+\alpha_6^{(4)} \rangle$ \\ \hline $ D_{4}^{ 6}$ & $(\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})^6=\langle \delta_4^{(1)}+\delta_4^{(i)},\ i=1,\ldots 5,\ \sum_{i=1}^6\widetilde{\delta_4^{(i)}} \rangle$ \\ \hline $ A_{24}$ & $\mathbb{Z}/5\mathbb{Z}=\langle5\alpha_{24}\rangle$ \\ \hline $ A_{12}^{ 2}$ & $\mathbb{Z}/13\mathbb{Z}=\langle 2\alpha_{13}^{(1)}+3\alpha_{13}^{(2)}\rangle$ \\ \hline $ A_4^{ 6}$ & $\begin{array}{ll}(\mathbb{Z}/5\mathbb{Z})^3=&\langle \alpha_4^{(1)}+\alpha_4^{(2)}+\alpha_4^{(3)}+4\alpha_4^{(4)}+4\alpha_4^{(5)},\\& \alpha_4^{(1)}+\alpha_4^{(2)}+4\alpha_4^{(3)}+\alpha_4^{(5)}+4\alpha_4^{(6)},\\ &\alpha_4^{(1)}+4\alpha_4^{(3)}+\alpha_4^{(4)}+4\alpha_4^{(5)}+\alpha_4^{(6)}\rangle\end{array}$ \\ \hline $ A_3^{ 8}$ & $\begin{array}{ll}(\mathbb{Z}/4\mathbb{Z})^4=&\langle 3\alpha_3^{(1)}+\sum_{i=2}^8c_i\alpha_3^{(i)}\mbox{ such that }(c_2,\ldots c_8)\\&\mbox{ is a cyclic permutation of }(2001011)\rangle\end{array}$ \\ \hline $ A_2^{ 12}$ & $\begin{array}{ll}(\mathbb{Z}/3\mathbb{Z})^6=&\langle 2\alpha_2^{(1)}+\sum_{i=2}^{12}c_i\alpha_2^{(i)}\mbox{ such that } (c_2,\ldots c_{12})\\&\mbox{ is a cyclic permutation of }(11211122212)\rangle\end{array}$ \\ \hline $ A_1^{ 24}$ & $\begin{array}{ll}(\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})^{12}=&\langle \alpha_1^{(1)}+\sum_{i=2}^{24}c_i\alpha_2^{(i)}\mbox{ such that } (c_2,\ldots c_{24})\\&\mbox{ is a cyclic permutation of }(00000101001100110101111)\rangle\end{array}$ \\ \hline $ -$ & $\Lambda_{24}\simeq L$ \\ \hline \end{longtable} Now let us consider a K3 surface $S$ such that $\rho(S)\geq 12$. Let us denote by $T_S$ its transcendental lattice. We describe an algorithm which gives a $\mathcal{J}_2$-classification of the elliptic fibration on $S$. \begin{enumerate} \item {\bf The lattice $T$:} We define the lattice $T$ to be a negative definite lattice such that $\mbox{rank}(T)=\mbox{rank}(T_S)+4$ and the discriminant group and form of $T$ are the same as the ones of $T_S$. The lattice $T$ is not necessarily unique. If it is not, we choose one lattice with this property (the results obtained do not depend on this choice). \item {\bf Assumption:} We assume that one can choose $T$ to be a root lattice. \item {\bf The embeddings $\phi$:} Given a Niemeier lattice $L$ we choose a set of primitive embeddings $\phi:T\hookrightarrow L_{\rm{root}}$ not isomorphic by an element of the Weyl group. \item {\bf The lattices $N$ and $N_{\rm{root}}$: }Given a primitive embedding $\phi$ we compute the orthogonal complement $N$ of $\phi(T)$ in $L_{\rm{root}}$, i.e. $N:=\phi(T)^{\perp_{L_{\rm{root}}}}$ and $N_{\rm{root}}$ its root lattice. \item {\bf The lattices $W$ and $W_{\rm{root}}$:} We denote by $W$ the orthogonal complement of $\phi(T)$ in $L$, i.e. $W:=\phi(T)^{\perp_{L}}$ and by $W_{\rm{root}}$ its root lattice. We observe that $N_{\rm{root}}=W_{\rm{root}}$ and $N\hookrightarrow W$ with finite index. \item {\bf The elliptic fibration $\mathcal{E}_{\phi}$:} The frame of any elliptic fibration on $S$ is a lattice $W$ obtained as in step 5. Moreover, the trivial lattice of any elliptic fibration on $S$ is of the form $U\oplus N_{\rm{root}}=U\oplus W_{\rm{root}}$ where $W_{\rm{root}}$ and $N_{\rm{root}}$ are obtained as above. Hence, we find a $\mathcal{J}_2$-classification of the elliptic fibration on $S$. In particular every elliptic fibration on $S$ is uniquely associated to a primitive embedding $\phi:T\hookrightarrow L$. Let us denote by $\mathcal{E}_{\phi}$ the elliptic fibration associated to $\phi$. \item{\bf The singular fibers:} We already observed (cf. Section \ref{sec: basic on elliptic fibrations}) that almost all the properties of the singular fibers are encoded in the trivial lattice, so it is clear that every $N_{\rm{root}}(:=(\phi(T)^{\perp_{L_{\rm{root}}}})_{\rm{root}})$ determines almost all the properties of the reducible fibers of $\mathcal{E}_{\phi}$. \item {\bf The rank of the Mordell--Weil group:} Let $\phi$ be a given embedding. Let $r:=\mbox{rank}(MW(\mathcal{E}_{\phi}))$. Then $r=\mbox{rank} (NS(S))-2-\mbox{rank}(N_{\rm{root}})=20-\mbox{rank}(T_S)-\mbox{rank}(N_{\rm{root}})$. \item {\bf The torsion of the Mordell--Weil group:} The torsion part of the Mordell--Weil group is $\overline{W_{\rm{root}}}/W_{\rm{root}}(\subset W/N$) and can be computed in the following way: let $l+L_{\rm{root}}$ be a non trivial element of $L/L_{\rm{root}}$. If there exist $k\neq 0$ and $u \in L_{\rm{root}}$ such that $k(l+u) \in N_{\rm{root}}$ then $l+u \in W$ and the class of $l$ is a torsion element \end{enumerate} \begin{rem}{\rm It is not always true that the lattice $T$ can be chosen to be a root lattice, and the method can be applied with some modifications without this assumption, see \cite{BKW}. Since everything is easier under this assumption and in our case we can require that $T$ is a root lattice, we described the method with the assumption (2). In particular, if $T$ is not a root lattice, then one has to consider the primitive embeddings of $T$ in $L$, but one cannot use the results in \cite[Sections 4 and 5]{Nis}, so the points (3), (4) and (5) are significantly more complicated.} \end{rem} \subsection{Explicit computations}\label{sec: explicit computations} Here we apply the algorithm described in Section \ref{sec: details} to the K3 surface $X$. \subsubsection{Step 1} From Proposition \ref{prop: the surface X}, we find that the transcendental lattice of $X$ is $$ T_X=\left( \begin{matrix} 6 & 0 \\ 0 & 2 \end{matrix} \right ). $$ According to Nishiyama \cite{Nis}, \cite{ScSh}, \cite{BL}, $T_X(-1)$ admits a primitive embedding in $E_8$ and we can take $T$ as its orthogonal complement in $E_8$, that is $$T=A_5 \oplus A_1.$$ \subsubsection{Step 2} We observe that $T$ is a root lattice. \subsubsection{Step 3} We must find all the primitive embeddings $\phi:T\hookrightarrow L_{\rm{root}}$ not Weyl isomorphic. This has been done by Nishiyama \cite{Nis} for the primitive embeddings of $A_k$ in $A_m$, $D_n$, $E_l$ and for the primitive embeddings of $A_5\oplus A_1$ into $E_7$ and $E_8$. So we have to determine the primitive embeddings not isomorphic of $A_5\oplus A_1$ in $A_m$ and $D_n$. This will be achieved using Corollary \ref{cor: unique primitive embedding in Dn, An} and Lemma \ref{lemma: not unique in D8}. First we recall some notions used in order to prove these results. Let $B$ be a negative-definite even lattice, let $a\in B_{\rm{root}}$ a root of $B$. The reflection $R_{a}$ is the isometry $R_{a}\left( x\right) =x+\left( a\cdot x\right) a$ and the Weyl group of $B$, $W\left( B\right)$, is the group generated by $R_{a}$ for $a\in B_{\rm{root}}$. \begin{proposition} Let $A$ be a sublattice of $B$. Suppose there exists a sequence of roots $x_{1},x_{2},\ldots ,x_{n}$ of $A^{\perp_B}$ with $x_{i}\cdot x_{i+1}=\varepsilon_{i}$ and $\varepsilon_{i}^{2}=1$ then the two lattices $A\oplus x_{1}$ and $A\oplus x_{n}$ are isometric by an element of the Weyl group of $B.$ \end{proposition} \proof First we prove the statement for $n=2$. Since the two sublattices $A\oplus\langle x_1\rangle$ and $A\oplus\langle-x_1\rangle$ are isometric by $R_{x_1}$ we can suppose that $x_1\cdot x_2=1$ (i.e. $\varepsilon_1=1$). Then $x_1+x_2$ is also a root and is in $A^{\perp_B}.$ So the reflection $R_{x_1+x_2}$ is equal to $I_{d}$ on $A.$ Let $g:=R_{x_1}\circ R_{x_1+x_2}$ then $g\in W(B)$ is equal to $I_{d}$ on $A.$ Moreover $g\left( x_2\right) =R_{x_1}\left( x_2+\left( \left( x_1+x_2\right) \cdot x_2\right) \left( x_1+x_2\right) \right) =x_1,$ and so $g$ fits. The case $n>2$ follows by induction.\hfill $\square$ \begin{corollary}\label{cor: unique primitive embedding in Dn, An} Suppose $n\geq9,$ $p\geq6,$ up to an element of the Weyl group $W\left( D_{n}\right)$ or $W\left( A_{p}\right)$ there is a unique primitive embedding of $A_{5}\oplus A_{1}$ in $D_{n}$ or $A_{p}.$ \end{corollary} \proof From Nishiyama, \cite{Nis} up to an element of the Weyl group there exists one primitive embedding of $A_{5}$ in $D_{n}$ or $A_{p}.$ Fix this embedding. If $M$ is the orthogonal of this embedding then $M_{\rm{root}}$ is $D_{n-6}$ or $A_{p-6}.$ So for two primitive embeddings of $A_{1}$ in $M_{\rm{root}}$ we can apply the previous proposition. \hfill $\square$ We study now the primitive embeddings of $A_{5}\oplus A_{1}$ in $D_{8},$ (which are not considered in the previous corollary, since the orthogonal complement of the unique primitive embedding of $A_5$ in $D_8$ is $\langle -6\rangle\oplus \langle -2\rangle^2$). We denote by $\{\varepsilon_{i},1\leq i\leq n\}$ the canonical basis of $\mathbb{R}^{n}.$ We can identify $D_{n}\left( -1\right) $ with $\mathbb{D}_{n},$ the set of vectors of $\mathbb{Z}^{n}$ whose coordinates have an even sum. First we recall the two following propositions, see for example \cite{Ma}. \begin{proposition} The group $Aut(\mathbb{Z}^{n})$ is isomorphic to the semi-direct product $\{\pm1\}^{n}\rtimes S_{n}$, where the group $S_{n}$ acts on $\{\pm1\}^{n}$ by permuting the n components. \end{proposition} \begin{proposition} If $n\neq4$ $\ $\ the restriction to $\mathbb{D}_{n}$ of the automorphisms of $\mathbb{Z}^{n}$ induces an isomorphism of $Aut\left( \mathbb{Z}^{n}\right) $ onto the group $Aut\left( \mathbb{D}_{n}\right)$. The Weyl group $W\left( \mathbb{D}_{n}\right) $ of index two in $Aut\left( \mathbb{D}_{n}\right) $ corresponds to those elements which induce an even number of changes of signs of the $\varepsilon_{i}$. \end{proposition} \begin{lemma}\label{lemma: not unique in D8} There are two embeddings of $A_{5}\oplus A_{1}$ in $D_{8}$ non isomorphic up to $W\left( D_{8}\right).$ \end{lemma} \proof Let $d_{8}=\varepsilon_{1} +\varepsilon_{2}$ and $d_{8-i+1}=-\varepsilon_{i-1}+\varepsilon_{i}$ with $2\leq i\leq8$ a basis of $\mathbb{D}_{8}.$ We consider the embedding \[ A_{5}\hookrightarrow\langle d_{7},d_{6},d_{5},d_{4,}d_{3}\rangle. \] By Nishiyama's results \cite{Nis}, this embedding is unique up to an element of $W(D_{8})$ and we have $\left( A_{5}\right)^{\perp _{D_{8}}}=\langle\sum_{i=1}^{6}\varepsilon _{i}\rangle\oplus\langle x_{7}\rangle\oplus\langle d_{1}\rangle $ with $x_{7}=\varepsilon_{7}+\varepsilon_{8}.$ We see that $\pm x_{7}$ and $\pm d_{1}$ are the only roots of $\left( A_{5}\right) ^{\perp_{D_{8}}}$. We consider the two embeddings \begin{align*} A_{5}\oplus A_{1} & \hookrightarrow\langle d_{7},d_{6},d_{5},d_{4,}d_{3}\rangle\oplus\langle x_{7}\rangle\\ A_{5}\oplus A_{1} & \hookrightarrow\langle d_{7},d_{6},d_{5},d_{4,}d_{3}\rangle\oplus\langle d_{1}\rangle. \end{align*} Suppose there exists an element $R^{\prime}$ of $W(D_{8})$ such that $R^{\prime}(x_{7})=d_{1}$ and $R^{\prime}\left( A_{5}\right) =A_{5},$ we shall show that $R^{\prime}\left( d_{1}\right) =\pm x_{7}.$ If $z:=R^{\prime }\left( d_{1}\right) $ then as $R^{\prime}$ is an isometry $z\cdot d_{1} =R'(d_1)\cdot R'(x_7)=d_{1}\cdot x_{7}=0.$ Moreover, $z\in\left( A_{5}\right)^{\perp _{D_{8}}}$ and so $z$ $=\pm x_{7}.$ Since $R^{\prime}\left( A_{5}\right) =A_{5}$, we see that $R^{\prime}|_{A_{5}}$ is an element of $O\left( A_{5}\right) $, the group of isometries of $A_{5}.$ We know that $O\left( A_{5}\right) /W\left( A_{5}\right) \sim\mathbb{Z}% /2\mathbb{Z,}$ generated by the class of $\mu:d_{7}\leftrightarrow d_{3},$ $d_{6}\leftrightarrow d_{4},$ $d_{5}\leftrightarrow d_{5}.$ Thus, we have $R^{\prime}|_{A_{5}}=\rho\in W\left( A_{5}\right) $ or $R^{\prime}|_{A_{5}}=\rho\mu$ with $\rho\in W\left( A_{5}\right) .$ We can also consider $\rho$ as an element of the group generated by reflections $R_{u}$ of $D_{8}$ with $u\in A_{5}.$ So, for $v$ in $\left( A_{5}\right)^{\perp_{D_{8}}}$ we have $R_{u}(v)=v$ if $u\in A_{5}$ and then $\rho\left( v\right) =v.$ Let $R=\rho^{-1}R^{\prime}$ then $R$ $=R^{\prime}$ on $\left( A_{5}\right)^{\perp_{D_{8}}}.$ Since $R^{\prime}\left( d_{1}\right) =\pm x_{7}$ and $R^{\prime}\left( x_{7}\right) =d_{1}$ we have $R^{\prime}|_{\langle\varepsilon _{7},\varepsilon_{8}\rangle}=\left( \varepsilon_{7}\rightarrow\varepsilon _{8},\varepsilon_{8}\rightarrow-\varepsilon_{7}\right) $ or $\left( \varepsilon_{7}\rightarrow\varepsilon_{7},\varepsilon_{8}\rightarrow -\varepsilon_{8}\right) .$ Also we have $R|_{\langle\varepsilon_{1},\varepsilon _{2},\ldots ,\varepsilon_{6}\rangle}=I_d$ or $\varepsilon_{i}\leftrightarrow\varepsilon _{7-i}.$ In the second case $R$ corresponds to a permutation of $\varepsilon_{i}$ with only one sign minus; thus, $R$ is not an element of $W\left( D_{8}\right) .$ \subsubsection{Step 4} For each primitive embedding of $A_5\oplus A_1$ in $L_{\rm{root}}$, the computations of $N$ and $N_{\rm{root}}$ are obtained in almost all the cases by \cite[Section 5]{Nis}. In the few cases not considered by Nishiyama, one can make the computation directly. The results are collected in Table \ref{table: orthogonal}, where we use the following notation. The vectors $x_3,\, x_7,\, z_6$ in $D_n$ are defined by \begin{eqnarray*} x_3 & := & d_{n-3}+ 2d_{n-2} + d_{n-1} + d_n, \\ x_7 & := & d_{n-7}+ 2(d_{n-6} + d_{n-5} + d_{n-4} +d_{n-3} + d_{n-2})+ d_{n-1} + d_n, \\ x_7' & := & 2(d_{n-6} + d_{n-5} + d_{n-4} +d_{n-3} + d_{n-2})+ d_{n-1} + d_n, \\ z_6 & := & d_{n-5}+2d_{n-4}+ 3d_{n-3}+ 4d_{n-2}+ 3d_{n-1} + 2d_n,\\ \widetilde{z_6} & := & d_{n-5}+2d_{n-4}+ 3d_{n-3}+ 4d_{n-2}+ 2d_{n-1} + 3d_n, \end{eqnarray*} and the vectors $x,\, y$ in $E_p$ are \begin{eqnarray*} x := & e_1 + e_2 + 2e_3 + 2e_4 + e_5, \ y := & e_1 + 2e_2 + 2e_3 + 3e_4 + 2e_5 + e_6. \end{eqnarray*} \begin{longtable}{|c|l|l|}\caption{The orthogonal complement of the primitive embeddings $A_5\oplus A_1$ in $L_{\rm{root}}$}\label{table: orthogonal}\\ \hline No. & Primitive Embedding& Orthogonal Complement\\ \hline \hline 1 & $\begin{array}{r} \left\langle e_1^{(1)},\, e_3^{(1)},\ldots,\, e_6^{(1)}\right\rangle \\ \oplus\left\langle e_8^{(1)}\right\rangle\end{array}$ & $\begin{array}{l}\left\langle \begin{array}{l} 4e_1^{(1)}+6e_2^{(1)}+8e_3^{(1)}+12e_4^{(1)}+ \\ 10e_5^{(1)}+ 8e_6^{(1)}+ 6e_7^{(1)}+3e_8^{(1)}\end{array} \right\rangle \oplus \\ \left\langle y^{(1)}\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle e_1^{(2)},\ldots ,e_8^{(2)}\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle e_1^{(3)},\ldots ,e_8^{(3)}\right\rangle\end{array}$ \\ \cline{2-3} 2 & $\begin{array}{r} \left\langle e_1^{(1)},\, e_3^{(1)},\ldots,\, e_6^{(1)}\right\rangle \\ \oplus\left\langle e_1^{(2)}\right\rangle \end{array} $ & $\begin{array}{l}\left\langle e_8^{(1)}, \begin{array}{l} 2e_1^{(1)}+3e_2^{(1)}+4e_3^{(1)}+ 6e_4^{(1)}+ \\ 5e_5^{(1)}+ 4e_6^{(1)}+ 3e_7^{(1)}+2e_8^{(1)} \end{array} \right\rangle \oplus \\ \left\langle y^{(1)}\right\rangle\oplus \left\langle x^{(2)},\, e_2^{(2)},\, e_4^{(2)},\ldots,\, e_8^{(2)}\right\rangle \oplus \\ \left\langle e_1^{(3)},\ldots ,e_8^{(3)}\right\rangle \end{array}$\\ \hline 3 & $\left\langle e_1,\, e_3,\ldots,\, e_6\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle e_8\right\rangle$ & $\begin{array}{l}\left\langle y\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle \begin{array}{l}4e_1+6e_2+8e_3+12e_4+ \\ 10e_5+8e_6+6e_7+3e_8 \end{array}\right\rangle \oplus \\ \left\langle d_1,\ldots ,d_{16}\right\rangle \end{array}$ \\ \cline{2-3} 4 & $\left\langle d_{16},\, d_{14},\ldots ,d_{11}\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle d_1\right\rangle$ & $\left\langle z_6\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle \begin{array}{r} x_7,\, d_9,\ldots ,d_3,\\ 2d_2+d_1 \end{array}\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle e_1,\ldots, e_8\right\rangle$ \\ \cline{2-3} 5 & $\left\langle e_1,\, e_3,\ldots,\, e_6\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle d_{16}\right\rangle$ & $\begin{array}{l}\left\langle y\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle e_8, \, \begin{array}{r}2e_1+3e_2+4e_3+6e_4+ \\ 5e_5+4e_6+3e_7+2e_8 \end{array}\right\rangle \oplus \\ \left\langle d_{15}\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle x_3,\, d_{13},\ldots ,d_1 \right\rangle \end{array}$\\ \cline{2-3} 6 & $\left\langle d_{16},\,d_{14},\ldots ,d_{11}\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle e_1\right\rangle$ & $\begin{array}{l}\left\langle z_6\right\rangle\oplus \left\langle x_7,\,d_9,\ldots ,d_1\right\rangle\oplus \left\langle x,\, e_2,\, e_4,\ldots,\,e_8 \right\rangle\end{array}$\\ \hline 7 & $\begin{array}{r} \left\langle e_2^{(1)},\, e_4^{(1)},\ldots ,e_7^{(1)}\right\rangle \\ \oplus\langle e_1^{(1)}\rangle \end{array}$& $\begin{array}{l}\left\langle \begin{array}{l}3e_1^{(1)}+4e_2^{(1)}+6e_3^{(1)}+ \\ 8e_4^{(1)}+6e_5^{(1)}+4e_6^{(1)}+2e_7^{(1)}\end{array}\right\rangle \oplus \\ \left\langle d_1,\ldots ,d_{10}\right\rangle\oplus \left\langle e_1^{(2)},\ldots ,e_7^{(2)}\right\rangle \end{array}$ \\ \cline{2-3} 8 & $\left\langle d_{10},\,d_8,\ldots ,d_5\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle d_1\right\rangle$ & $\begin{array}{l} \left\langle z_6\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle x_7\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle d_3\right\rangle\oplus \left\langle d_3+x_7+2d_2+d_1\right\rangle \oplus \\ \left\langle e_1^{(1)},\ldots ,e_7^{(1)}\right\rangle\oplus \left\langle e_1^{(2)},\ldots ,e_7^{(2)}\right\rangle \end{array}$\\ \cline{2-3} 9 & $\begin{array}{r}\left\langle e_1^{(1)},\, e_3^{(1)},\ldots , e_6^{(1)}\right\rangle \\ \oplus \left\langle e_1^{(2)}\right\rangle \end{array}$ & $\begin{array}{l}\left\langle \begin{array}{l} 2e_1^{(1)}+3e_2^{(1)}+4e_3^{(1)}+ \\ 6e_4^{(1)}+5e_5^{(1)}+4e_6^{(1)}+3e_7^{(1)} \end{array} \right\rangle\oplus \\\left\langle y^{(1)}\right\rangle\oplus \left\langle x^{(2)},\, e_2^{(2)},\, e_4^{(2)},\ldots , e_7^{(2)}\right\rangle\oplus \\ \left\langle d_1,\ldots ,d_{10}\right\rangle \end{array}$\\ \cline{2-3} 10 & $\begin{array}{r} \left\langle e_2^{(1)},\, e_4^{(1)},\ldots , e_7^{(1)}\right\rangle \\ \oplus \left\langle e_1^{(2)}\right\rangle \end{array}$ & $\begin{array}{l}\left\langle e_1^{(1)},\, \begin{array}{l} 2e_1^{(1)}+2e_2^{(1)}+3e_3^{(1)}+ \\ 4e_4^{(1)}+3e_5^{(1)}+2e_6^{(1)}+e_7^{(1)} \end{array} \right\rangle \oplus \\ \left\langle x^{(2)},\, e_2^{(2)},\, e_4^{(2)},\ldots, e_7^{(2)}\right\rangle\oplus \left\langle d_1,\ldots ,d_{10}\right\rangle \end{array}$\\ \cline{2-3} $11$ & $\begin{array}{r} \left\langle e_1^{(1)},\, e_3^{(1)},\ldots, e_6^{(1)}\right\rangle \\ \oplus\left\langle d_{10}\right\rangle \end{array}$ & $\begin{array}{l}\left\langle \begin{array}{l} 2e_1^{(1)}+3e_2^{(1)}+4e_3^{(1)}+ \\ 6e_4^{(1)}+5e_5^{(1)}+4e_6^{(1)}+3e_7^{(1)} \end{array}\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle d_9\right\rangle \oplus \\ \left\langle e_1^{(2)},\ldots ,e_7^{(2)}\right\rangle\oplus \left\langle x_3,\,d_7,\ldots ,d_1\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle y^{(1)}\right\rangle\end{array}$\\ \cline{2-3} 12 & $\begin{array}{r} \left\langle e_2^{(1)},\, e_4^{(1)},\ldots , e_7^{(1)}\right\rangle\\ \oplus\left\langle d_{10}\right\rangle \end{array}$ & $\begin{array}{l}\left\langle e_1^{(1)},\, \begin{array}{l} 2e_1^{(1)}+2e_2^{(1)}+3e_3^{(1)}+ \\ 4e_4^{(1)}+3e_5^{(1)}+2e_6^{(1)}+e_7^{(1)} \end{array} \right\rangle \oplus \\ \left\langle e_1^{(2)},\ldots ,e_7^{(2)}\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle d_9\right\rangle\oplus \left\langle x_3,\,d_7,\ldots ,d_1\right\rangle \end{array}$\\ \cline{2-3} 13 & $\left\langle d_{10},\,d_8,\ldots ,d_5\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle e_1^{(1)}\right\rangle $ & $\begin{array}{l}\left\langle x_7,\,d_3,\,d_2,\,d_1\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle \begin{array}{r} x^{(1)},\,e_2^{(1)},\\ e_4^{(1)},\ldots ,e_7^{(1)} \end{array}\right\rangle \oplus \\ \left\langle e_1^{(2)},\ldots ,e_7^{(2)}\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle z_6\right\rangle\end{array}$\\ \hline 14 & $ \left\langle e_2,\,e_4,\ldots,e_6\right\rangle\oplus\langle e_1\rangle $ & $\begin{array}{l} \left\langle \begin{array}{l} 2e_1+3e_2+4e_3+ \\ 6e_4 +5e_5+4e_6+3e_7 \end{array}\right\rangle\oplus \left\langle a_1,\ldots ,a_{17}\right\rangle \end{array}$ \\ \cline{2-3} 15 & $\left\langle a_1,\ldots ,a_5\right\rangle\oplus \left\langle a_7\right\rangle $ & $\langle e_1, \ldots ,e_7\rangle \oplus \left\langle \begin{array}{r} a_9,\ldots ,a_{17}, \\ \sum_{j=1}^6ja_j-6a_8, \\ a_7+2a_8 \end{array}\right\rangle $ \\ \cline{2-3} 16 & $\left\langle e_1,\, e_3,\ldots, e_6\right\rangle \oplus\left\langle a_1 \right\rangle$ & $\begin{array}{l}\left\langle y\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle \begin{array}{l} 2e_1+3e_2+4e_3+ \\ 6e_4+5e_5+4e_6+3e_7\end{array} \right\rangle\oplus \\ \left\langle a_1+2a_2,\, a_3,\ldots ,a_{17}\right\rangle \end{array}$\\ \cline{2-3} 17 & $\left\langle e_2,\, e_4,\ldots, e_7\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle a_1 \right\rangle$& $\begin{array}{l}\left\langle \begin{array}{l} 2e_1+2e_2+3e_3+ \\ 4e_4+3e_5+2e_6+e_7 \end{array},\, e_1\right\rangle\oplus \\ \left\langle a_1+2a_2,\, a_3,\ldots ,a_{17}\right\rangle \end{array}$\\ \cline{2-3} 18 & $\left\langle a_1,\ldots,\,a_5\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle e_1\right\rangle$ & $\left\langle x,\,e_2,\,e_4,\ldots,\,e_7\right\rangle\oplus \left\langle \begin{array}{r} \sum_{j=1}^6ja_j,\\ a_7,\ldots a_{17} \end{array}\right\rangle$ \\ \hline 19 & $\left\langle d_{24},\, d_{22},\ldots ,d_{19}\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle d_1\right\rangle$ & $\left\langle z_6\right\rangle\oplus \left\langle x_7\right\rangle\oplus \left\langle x_7+d_1+2d_2,d_3,\ldots d_{17}\right\rangle$\\ \hline $20$ & $\begin{array}{r} \left\langle d_{12}^{(1)},\,d_{10}^{(1)},\ldots ,d_7^{(1)}\right\rangle \\ \oplus\left\langle d_1^{(1)}\right\rangle \end{array}$ & $\begin{array}{l} \left\langle \begin{array}{l} d_1^{(1)}+2d_2^{(1)}+ d_3^{(1)}+x_7^{(1)}, \\ d_3^{(1)},\, d_4^{(1)},\, d_5^{(1)} \end{array}\right\rangle \oplus \\ \left\langle d_1^{(2)},\ldots ,d_{12}^{(2)}\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle z_6^{(1)}\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle x_7^{(1)}\right\rangle \end{array}$\\ \cline{2-3} 21 & $\begin{array}{r} \left\langle d_{12}^{(1)},\, d_{10}^{(1)},\ldots ,d_7^{(1)}\right\rangle \\ \oplus\left\langle d_{12}^{(2)}\right\rangle \end{array}$ & $\begin{array}{r}\left\langle z_6^{(1)}\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle x_7^{(1)},\,d_5^{(1)},\ldots ,d_1^{(1)}\right\rangle\oplus \\ \left\langle d_{11}^{(2)}\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle x_3^{(2)},\, d_9^{(2)},\ldots ,d_1^{(2)}\right\rangle \end{array}$\\ \hline 22 & $\begin{array}{r} \left\langle d_7^{(1)},\,d_6^{(1)},\ldots ,d_3^{(1)}\right\rangle \\ \oplus \left\langle d_1^{(1)}\right\rangle \end{array}$ & $\begin{array}{l} \left\langle \widetilde{z_6}^{(1)}\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle x_7^{(1)}\right\rangle \oplus \\ \left\langle d_1^{(2)},\ldots ,d_8^{(2)}\right\rangle\oplus \left\langle d_1^{(3)},\ldots ,d_8^{(3)}\right\rangle \end{array}$\\ \cline{2-3} $\begin{array}{c} 22 \\ (b) \end{array}$ & $\begin{array}{r} \left\langle d_7^{(1)},\,d_6^{(1)},\ldots ,d_3^{(1)}\right\rangle \\ \oplus \left\langle x_7^{(1)}\right\rangle \end{array}$ & $\begin{array}{l} \left\langle \widetilde{z_6}^{(1)}\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle d_1^{(1)}\right\rangle \oplus \\ \left\langle d_1^{(2)},\ldots ,d_8^{(2)}\right\rangle\oplus \left\langle d_1^{(3)},\ldots ,d_8^{(3)}\right\rangle \end{array}$\\ \cline{2-3} 23 & $\begin{array}{r} \left\langle d_8^{(1)},\,d_6^{(1)},\ldots ,d_3^{(1)}\right\rangle \\ \oplus \left\langle d_8^{(2)}\right\rangle \end{array}$ & $\begin{array}{l}\left\langle z_6^{(1)}\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle x_7^{(1)}\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle d_1^{(1)}\right\rangle\oplus \left\langle d_7^{(2)}\right\rangle\oplus\\ \left\langle x_3^{(2)},\, d_5^{(2)},\ldots ,d_1^{(2)}\right\rangle \oplus\left\langle d_1^{(3)},\ldots ,d_8^{(3)}\right\rangle \end{array}$\\ \hline 24 & $\left\langle d_9,\, d_7,\ldots ,d_4\right\rangle\oplus \left\langle d_1\right\rangle$ & $\begin{array}{l} \left\langle z_6\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle x_7,\, d_1+2d_2\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle a_1,\ldots ,a_{15} \right\rangle \end{array}$\\ \cline{2-3} 25 & $\left\langle a_1,\ldots,a_5\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle a_7\right\rangle$ & $\begin{array}{l}\left\langle d_1,\ldots ,d_9\right\rangle\oplus \left\langle \begin{array}{r} \sum_{j=1}^6ja_j-6a_8, \\ a_7+2a_8,\\ a_9,\, \ldots ,\,a_{15}\end{array}\right\rangle \end{array}$\\ \cline{2-3} 26 & $\left\langle d_9,\, d_7,\ldots ,d_4\right\rangle \oplus\left\langle a_1\right\rangle$ & $\left\langle z_6\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle d_1,d_2, x_7\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle \begin{array}{r} a_1+2a_2,\\ a_3,\ldots ,a_{15} \end{array}\right\rangle$\\ \cline{2-3} 27 & $\left\langle a_1,\ldots ,a_5\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle d_9\right\rangle$ & $\begin{array}{l} \left\langle d_8\right\rangle\oplus \left\langle x_3,\, d_6,\ldots ,d_1\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle \begin{array}{r} \sum_{j=1}^6ja_j,\\ a_7,\ldots ,a_{15} \end{array}\right\rangle \end{array}$\\ \hline 28 & $\begin{array}{r} \left\langle e_1^{(1)},\,e_3^{(1)},\ldots,e_6^{(1)}\right\rangle \\ \oplus\left\langle e_2^{(2)}\right\rangle \end{array}$ & $\begin{array}{l}\left\langle \begin{array}{r} e_2^{(2)}+e_3^{(2)}+2e_4^{(2)}+e_5^{(2)}, \\ e_1^{(2)},\,e_3^{(2)},\,e_5^{(2)},\, e_6^{(2)}\end{array}\right\rangle\oplus \\ \left\langle e_1^{(3)},\ldots ,e_6^{(3)}\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle e_1^{(4)},\ldots ,e_6^{(4)}\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle y^{(1)}\right\rangle \end{array}$\\ \hline 29 & $\left\langle a_1,\ldots,a_5 \right\rangle\oplus \left\langle a_7\right\rangle $ & $\begin{array}{l}\left\langle \begin{array}{l} \sum_{j=1}^6ja_j-6a_8,\\ a_7+2a_8,\, a_9,\, a_{10},\, a_{11} \end{array} \right\rangle\oplus\\ \left\langle d_1,\ldots ,d_7\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle e_1,\ldots ,e_6\right\rangle\end{array}$ \\ \cline{2-3} 30 & $\left\langle e_1,\, e_3,\ldots, e_6\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle d_7\right\rangle$ & $\begin{array}{l} \left\langle y\right\rangle\oplus \left\langle d_6\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle x_3,\, d_4,\ldots ,d_1\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle a_1,\ldots ,a_{11}\right\rangle \end{array}$\\ \cline{2-3} 31 & $\left\langle e_1,e_3\ldots, e_6\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle a_1\right\rangle$ & $\begin{array}{l} \left\langle y\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle d_1,\ldots ,d_7\right\rangle\oplus \left\langle a_1+2a_2,\, a_3,\ldots ,a_{11}\right\rangle \end{array}$\\ \cline{2-3} 32 & $\left\langle d_7,\,d_5,\ldots ,d_2\right\rangle\oplus \left\langle e_1\right\rangle$ & $\begin{array}{l} \left\langle z_6\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle x_7'\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle x,\, e_2,\, e_4,\,e_5,\,e_6\right\rangle \\ \oplus \left\langle a_1,\ldots ,a_{11} \right\rangle \end{array}$\\ \cline{2-3} 33 & $\left\langle d_7,\,d_5,\ldots ,d_2\right\rangle\oplus \left\langle a_1\right\rangle$ & $\begin{array}{l} \left\langle z_6\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle x_7'\right\rangle\oplus \left\langle e_1,\ldots ,e_6\right\rangle \oplus \\ \left\langle \begin{array}{r} a_1+2a_2,\\ a_3,\ldots ,a_{11} \end{array}\right\rangle \end{array}$\\ \cline{2-3} 34 & $\left\langle a_1,\ldots,a_5\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle d_7\right\rangle$ & $\begin{array}{l}\left\langle d_6\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle x_3,\, d_4,\ldots,d_1\right\rangle \\ \oplus \left\langle e_1,\ldots ,e_6\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle \begin{array}{r} \sum_{j=1}^6ja_j,\\ a_7,\ldots ,a_{11}\end{array}\right\rangle \end{array}$\\ \cline{2-3} 35 & $\left\langle a_1,\ldots,a_5\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle e_1\right\rangle$ & $\begin{array}{l} \left\langle x,\, e_2,\, e_4,\, e_5,\, e_6\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle d_1,\ldots ,d_7\right\rangle\oplus \\ \left\langle \sum_{j=1}^6ja_j, a_7,\ldots ,a_{11}\right\rangle \end{array}$\\ \hline 36 & $\begin{array}{r} \left\langle d_6^{(1)},\, d_4^{(1)},\ldots,d_1^{(1)}\right\rangle \\ \oplus\left\langle d_6^{(2)}\right\rangle \end{array}$ & $\begin{array}{l}\left\langle z_6^{(1)}\right\rangle\oplus \left\langle d_5^{(2)}\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle d_1^{(3)},\ldots ,d_6^{(3)}\right\rangle \oplus \\ \left\langle x_3^{(2)},\, d_3^{(2)},\,d_2^{(2)},\,d_1^{(2)}\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle d_1^{(4)},\ldots ,d_6^{(4)}\right\rangle \end{array}$ \\ \hline 37 & $\left\langle a_1^{(1)},\ldots,a_5^{(1)} \right\rangle \oplus \left\langle a_7^{(1)}\right\rangle$ & $\begin{array}{l} \left\langle \begin{array}{r} \sum_{j=1}^6ja_j^{(1)}-6a_8^{(1)}, \\ a_7^{(1)}+2a_8^{(1)},\, a_9^{(1)} \end{array} \right\rangle\oplus \\ \left\langle a_1^{(2)},\ldots ,a_9^{(2)}\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle d_1,\ldots ,d_6\right\rangle\end{array}$\\ \cline{2-3} 38 & $\left\langle a_1^{(1)},\ldots, a_5^{(1)}\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle a_1^{(2)}\right\rangle $ & $\begin{array}{l}\left\langle d_1,\ldots ,d_6\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle \begin{array}{l} \sum_{j=1}^6ja_j^{(1)},\\ a_7^{(1)},\, a_8^{(1)},\, a_9^{(1)} \end{array}\right\rangle \oplus \\ \left\langle a_1^{(2)}+2a_2^{(2)},\, a_3^{(2)},\ldots ,a_9^{(2)}\right\rangle\end{array}$ \\ \cline{2-3} 39 & $\left\langle a_1^{(1)},\ldots, a_5^{(1)}\right\rangle\oplus \left\langle d_6\right\rangle$ & $\begin{array}{l}\left\langle \sum_{j=1}^6ja_j^{(1)},\, a_7^{(1)},\,a_8^{(1)},\,a_9^{(1)}\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle d_5\right\rangle \\ \oplus \left\langle x_3,\, d_3,\,d_2,\,d_1\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle a_1^{(2)},\ldots ,a_9^{(2)}\right\rangle\end{array}$ \\ \cline{2-3} 40 & $\left\langle d_5,\ldots ,d_1\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle a_1^{(1)}\right\rangle$ & $\left\langle z_6\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle \begin{array}{l} a_1^{(1)}+2a_2^{(1)},\\ a_3^{(1)},\ldots ,a_9^{(1)}\end{array}\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle a_1^{(2)},\ldots ,a_9^{(2)}\right\rangle$ \\ \hline 41 & $\left\langle a_1^{(1)},\ldots,a_5^{(1)}\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle a_7^{(1)}\right\rangle $ & $\begin{array}{l}\left\langle \sum_{j=1}^6ja_j^{(1)}+3a_7^{(1)}\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle a_1^{(2)},\ldots ,a_7^{(2)}\right\rangle \\ \oplus \left\langle d_1^{(1)},\ldots ,d_7^{(1)}\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle d_1^{(2)},\ldots ,d_7^{(2)}\right\rangle \end{array}$ \\ \cline{2-3} 42 & $\left\langle a_1^{(1)},\ldots,a_5^{(1)}\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle a_1^{(2)}\right\rangle$ & $\begin{array}{l}\left\langle \sum_{j=1}^6ja_j^{(1)},\,a_7^{(1)}\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle \begin{array}{l} a_1^{(2)}+2a_2^{(2)},\\ a_3^{(2)},\ldots ,a_7^{(2)}\end{array}\right\rangle \\ \oplus \left\langle d_1^{(1)},\ldots ,d_5^{(1)}\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle d_1^{(2)},\ldots ,d_5^{(2)}\right\rangle\end{array}$\\ \cline{2-3} 43 & $\left\langle a_1^{(1)},\ldots, a_5^{(1)}\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle d_5^{(1)}\right\rangle$ & $\begin{array}{l}\left\langle \sum_{j=1}^6ja_j^{(1)},\, a_7^{(1)}\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle d_4^{(1)}\right\rangle\oplus \\ \left\langle x_3^{(1)},\, d_2^{(1)},\,d_1^{(1)}\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle a_1^{(2)},\ldots ,a_7^{(2)}\right\rangle\end{array}$ \\ \hline 44 & $\left\langle a_1^{(1)},\ldots,a_5^{(1)}\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle a_7^{(1)}\right\rangle$ & $\begin{array}{l}\left\langle \sum_{j=1}^6ja_j^{(1)},\, a_7^{(1)}+2a_8^{(1)} \right\rangle\oplus \\ \left\langle a_1^{(2)},\ldots ,a_8^{(2)}\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle a_1^{(3)},\ldots ,a_8^{(3)}\right\rangle \end{array}$\\ \cline{2-3} 45 & $\left\langle a_1^{(1)},\ldots,a_5^{(1)}\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle a_1^{(2)}\right\rangle$ & $\begin{array}{l}\left\langle \begin{array}{l} \sum_{j=1}^6ja_j^{(1)},\\ a_7^{(1)},\, a_8^{(1)} \end{array}\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle \begin{array}{l} a_1^{(2)}+2a_2^{(2)},\\ a_3^{(2)},\ldots ,a_8^{(2)}\end{array}\right\rangle \\ \oplus \left\langle a_1^{(3)},\ldots ,a_8^{(3)}\right\rangle\end{array}$\\ \hline 46 & $\left\langle a_1,\ldots,a_5\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle a_7\right\rangle$ & $\left\langle \sum_{j=1}^6ja_j-6a_8, a_7+2a_8,\, a_9,\ldots \,a_{24}\right\rangle $ \\ \hline 47 & $\left\langle a_1^{(1)},\ldots,a_5^{(1)}\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle a_7^{(1)}\right\rangle$ & $\begin{array}{l} \left\langle \begin{array}{r} \sum_{j=1}^6ja_j^{(1)}-6a_8^{(1)}, \\ a_7^{(1)}+2a_8^{(1)}, \\ a_9^{(1)},\ldots,a_{12}^{(1)}\end{array}\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle a_1^{(2)},\ldots, a_{12}^{(2)}\right\rangle \end{array}$\\ \cline{2-3} 48 & $\left\langle a_1^{(1)},\ldots,a_5^{(1)}\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle a_1^{(2)}\right\rangle$ & $\left\langle \begin{array}{l} \sum_{j=1}^6ja_j^{(1)},\\ a_7^{(1)},\ldots ,a_{12}^{(1)} \end{array}\right\rangle\oplus \left\langle \begin{array}{l} a_1^{(2)}+2a_2^{(2)},\\ a_3^{(2)},\ldots ,a_{12}^{(2)}\end{array}\right\rangle$\\ \hline 49 & $\left\langle a_1^{(1)},\ldots, a_5^{(1)}\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle a_1^{(2)}\right\rangle$ & $\begin{array}{l}\left\langle \begin{array}{l} a_1^{(2)}+2a_2^{(2)},\\ a_3^{(2)},\, a_4^{(2)},\, a_5^{(2)}\end{array}\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle a_1^{(3)},\ldots ,a_5^{(3)}\right\rangle \\ \oplus \left\langle a_1^{(4)},\ldots ,a_5^{(4)}\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle d_1,\ldots ,d_4\right\rangle\end{array}$ \\ \cline{2-3} 50 & $\left\langle a_1^{(1)},\ldots, a_5^{(1)}\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle d_4\right\rangle$ & $\begin{array}{l}\left\langle d_3\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle x_3\right\rangle \oplus\left\langle d_1\right\rangle\oplus \left\langle a_1^{(2)},\ldots ,a_5^{(2)}\right\rangle \\ \oplus \left\langle a_1^{(3)},\ldots ,a_5^{(3)}\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle a_1^{(4)},\ldots ,a_5^{(4)}\right\rangle\end{array}$ \\ \hline 51 & $\left\langle a_1^{(1)},\ldots, a_5^{(1)}\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle a_1^{(2)}\right\rangle$ & $\begin{array}{l}\left\langle \sum_{j=1}^6ja_j^{(1)}\right\rangle\oplus\left\langle \begin{array}{l} a_1^{(2)}+2a_2^{(2)},\\ a_3^{(2)},\ldots ,a_6^{(2)}\end{array}\right\rangle\oplus \\ \left\langle a_1^{(3)},\ldots ,a_6^{(3)}\right\rangle \oplus \left\langle a_1^{(4)},\ldots ,a_6^{(4)}\right\rangle\end{array}$ \\ \hline \end{longtable} \subsubsection{Step 5 (an example: fibrations 22 and 22(b))}\label{sub sub: step 5} In order to compute $W$ we recall that $W$ is an overlattice of finite index of $N$; in fact, it contains the non trivial elements of $L/L_{\rm{root}}$ which are orthogonal to $\phi(A_5\oplus A_1)$. Moreover, the index of the inclusion $N\hookrightarrow W$ depends on the discriminant of $N$. Indeed $|d(W)|=|d(NS(X))|=12$, so the index of the inclusion $N\hookrightarrow W$ is $\sqrt{|d(N)|/12}$. As example we compute here the lattices $W$ for the two different embeddings of $A_5\oplus A_1$ in $D_8$ (i.e. for the fibrations 22 and 22(b)). Thus, we consider the Niemeier lattice $L$ such that $L_{\rm{root}}\simeq D_8^3$ and we denote the generators of $L/L_{\rm{root}}$ as follows: $v_1:=\delta_8^{(1)}+\overline{\delta_8}^{(2)}+\overline{\delta_8}^{(3)}$, $v_2:=\overline{\delta_8}^{(1)}+\delta_8^{(2)}+\overline{\delta_8}^{(3)}$, $v_3:=\overline{\delta_8}^{(1)}+\overline{\delta_8}^{(2)}+\delta_8^{(3)}.$ \textbf{Fibration $\# 22:$} we consider the embedding $\varphi_1:A_5\oplus A_1\hookrightarrow L$ such that $\varphi_1(A_5\oplus A_1)=\langle d_7^{(1)},d_6^{(1)},d_5^{(1)},d_4^{(1)},d_3^{(1)}\rangle\oplus \langle d_1^{(1)}\rangle$. The generators of the lattice $N$ are described in Table \ref{table: orthogonal} and one can directly check that $N\simeq \langle -6\rangle\oplus A_1\oplus D_8\oplus D_8$. So, $|d(N)|=6\cdot 2^5$ and the index of the inclusion $N\hookrightarrow W$ is $2^2=\sqrt{6\cdot 2^5/12}$. This implies that there is a copy of $(\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})^2\subset (\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})^3$ which is also contained in $W$ and so in particular is orthogonal to $\varphi_1(A_5\oplus A_1)$. We observe that $v_1$ is orthogonal to the embedded copy of $A_5\oplus A_1$, $v_2$ and $v_3$ are not. Moreover $v_2-v_3$ is orthogonal to the embedded copy of $A_5\oplus A_1$. Hence $v_1$ and $v_2-v_3$ generates $W/N\simeq (\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})^2$. We just observe that $v_2-v_3\in W$ is equivalent mod $W_{\rm{root}}$ to the vector $w_2:=\widetilde{\delta_8^{(2)}}+\widetilde{\delta_8^{(3)}}\in W$, so $W/N\simeq (\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})^2\simeq \langle v_1, w_2\rangle$. We will reconsider this fibration in Section \ref{sec: again on 22 and 22b} comparing it with the fibration $\# 22b$. \\ \textbf{Fibration $\# 22(b):$} we consider the other embedding of $A_5\oplus A_1$ in $L_{\rm{root}}$, i.e. $\varphi_2:A_5\oplus A_1\hookrightarrow L$ such that $\varphi_2(A_5\oplus A_1)=\langle d_7^{(1)},d_6^{(1)},d_5^{(1)},d_4^{(1)},d_3^{(1)}\rangle\oplus \langle x_7^{(1)}\rangle.$ The generators of the lattice $N$ is described in Table \ref{table: orthogonal} and one can directly check that $N\simeq \langle -6\rangle\oplus A_1\oplus D_8\oplus D_8$. As above this implies that $W/N\simeq (\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})^2$ which is generated by elements in $L/L_{\rm{root}}$ which are orthogonal to $\varphi_2(A_5\oplus A_1)$. In particular, $v_1-v_2$ and $v_2-v_3$ are orthogonal to $\varphi_2(A_5\oplus A_1)$ so $v_1-v_2\in W$ and $v_2-v_3\in W$. Moreover, $v_2-v_3=\widetilde{\delta_8^{(2)}}+\widetilde{\delta_8^{(3)}}\mod W_{\rm{root}}$. So, denoted by $w_2:=\widetilde{\delta_8^{(2)}}+\widetilde{\delta_8^{(3)}}$, we have that $W/N\simeq \langle v_1-v_2,w_2\rangle$. We will reconsider this fibration in Section \ref{sec: again on 22 and 22b} comparing it with the fibration $\# 22$. \subsubsection{Step 6} We recalled in Section \ref{sec: basic on elliptic fibrations} that each elliptic fibration is associated to a certain decomposition of the N\'eron--Severi group as a direct sum of $U$ and a lattice, called $W$. In step 5 we computed all the admissible lattices $W$, so we classify the elliptic fibrations on $X$. We denote all the elliptic fibrations according to their associated embeddings; this gives the first five columns of the Table \ref{table: main result}. \subsubsection{Step 7} Moreover, again in Section \ref{sec: basic on elliptic fibrations}, we recalled that each reducible fiber of an elliptic fibration is uniquely associated to a Dynkin diagram and that a Dynkin diagram is associated to at most two reducible fibers of the fibration. This completes step 7. \subsubsection{Step 8} In order to compute the rank of the Mordell--Weil group it suffices to perform the suggested computation, so $r=18-\mbox{rank}(N_{\rm{root}})$. This gives the sixth column of Table \ref{table: main result}. For example, in cases 22 and 22(b), the lattice $N_{\rm{root}}$ coincides and has rank 17, thus $r=1$ in both the cases. \subsubsection{Step 9} In order to compute the torsion part of the Mordell--Weil group one has to identify the vectors $v\in W/N$ such that $kv\in N_{\rm{root}}$ for a certain nontrivial integer number $k\in\mathbb{Z}$; this gives the last column of Table \ref{table: main result}. We will demonstrate this procedure in some examples below (on fibrations $\# 22$ and $\# 22(b)$), but first we remark that in several cases it is possible to use an alternative method either in order to completely determine $MW(\mathcal{E})_{\rm{tors}}$ or at least to bound it. We already presented the theoretical aspect of these techniques in Section \ref{subset: torsion MW theory}. Probably the easiest case is the one where $r=0$. In this case $MW(\mathcal{E})=MW(\mathcal{E})_{tors}$. Since $r=0$, this implies that $\mbox{rank}(N_{\rm{root}})=18=\mbox{rank} N$, so $N=N_{\rm{root}}$. Hence $W/N=W/N_{\rm{root}}$, thus every element $w\in W/N$ is such that a multiple is contained in $N_{\rm{root}}$, i.e. every element of $W/N$ contributes to the torsion. Thus, $MW(\mathcal{E})=W/N=W/N_{\rm{root}}$. This immediately allows to compute the torsion for the 7 extremal fibrations $\#2,5,10,12,28, 30, 50.$ \textbf{Fibration $\# 50\ N_{\rm{root}}\simeq A_1^{\oplus 3}\oplus A_5^{\oplus 3}$ ($r=0$).} The lattice $N=N_{\rm{root}}$ is $A_1^{\oplus 3}\oplus A_5^{\oplus 3}$, then $|d(N)|=2^36^3$ and $|W/N|=2\times 6$. Moreover $W/N\subset L/L_{\rm{root}}\simeq (\mathbb{Z}/6\mathbb{Z})^2\times \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$. This immediately implies that $W/N=\mathbb{Z}/6\mathbb{Z}\times\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$. \textbf{Fibration $\# 1\ N_{\rm{root}}\simeq A_1\oplus E_8^{\oplus 2}$ (fibers of special type, Proposition \ref{prop: torsion and reducible fibers}).} The presence of the lattice $E_8$ as summand of $N_{\rm{root}}$ implies that the fibration has a fiber of type $II^*$ (two in this specific case). Hence $MW(\mathcal{E})_{\rm{tors}}$ is trivial. \textbf{Fibration $\# 29\ N_{\rm{root}}\simeq A_3\oplus D_7\oplus E_6$ (fibers of special type, Proposition \ref{prop: torsion and reducible fibers}).} By Proposition \ref{prop: torsion and reducible fibers} if a fibration has a fiber of type $IV^*$, then the Mordell--Weil group is a subgroup of $\mathbb{Z}/3\mathbb{Z}$. On the other hand, a fiber of type $D_7$, i.e., $I_3^*$ can only occur in fibrations with 4 or 2-torsion or trivial torsion group. Therefore $MW(\mathcal{E})_{\rm{tors}}$ is trivial. \textbf{Fibration $\# 25\ N_{\rm{root}}\simeq A_7\oplus D_9$ (the height formula, Section \ref{subset: height}).} Suppose there is a non-trivial torsion section $P$. Then, taking into account the possible contributions of the reducible fibers to the height pairing, there is $0\leq i \leq 7$ such that one of the following holds: \[ 4= \frac{i(8-i)}{8} +1\mbox{ or }4= \frac{i(8-i)}{8} +1 + 5/4.\] After a simple calculation, one sees that neither of the above can happen and therefore the torsion group $MW(\mathcal{E})_{\rm{tors}}$ is trivial. \textbf{Fibration $\# 22\ N_{\rm{root}}\simeq A_1\oplus D_8\oplus D_8$.} We already computed the generators of $W/N$ in Section \ref{sub sub: step 5}, $W/N\simeq (\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})^2\simeq \langle v_1, w_2\rangle$. A basis of $N_{\rm{root}}$ is $\langle x_7^{(1)}\rangle\oplus \langle d_{i}^{(j)}\rangle_{i=1,\ldots 8, j=2,3}$. So \begin{align*} 2v_1 & =d_1^{(1)}+2d_2^{(1)}+3d_3^{(1)}+4d_4^{(1)}+5d_5^{(1)}+6d_6^{(1)}+2d_7^{(1)}+3d_8^{(1)}\\ &+\sum_{i=2}^3\left(d_7^{(i)}+d_8^{(i)}+2\left(\sum_{j=1}^7 d_j^{(i)}\right)\right) \end{align*} and $2v_1\not\in N_{\rm{root}}$ since $d_1^{(1)}+2d_2^{(1)}+3d_3^{(1)}+4d_4^{(1)}+5d_5^{(1)}+6d_6^{(1)}+2d_7^{(1)}+3d_8^{(1)}$ is not a multiple of $x_7^{(1)}$. Viceversa $$2w_2\subset D_8^{(2)}\oplus D_8^{(3)}\in N_{\rm{root}}.$$ Thus $MW(\mathcal{E})=\mathbb{Z}\times \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$. \textbf{Fibration $\# 22(b)\ N_{\rm{root}}\simeq A_1\oplus D_8\oplus D_8$.} Similarly, we consider the generators of $W/N\simeq (\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})^2\simeq \langle v_1-v_2, w_2\rangle$ computed in in Section \ref{sub sub: step 5}. A basis of $N_{\rm{root}}$ is $\langle d_1^{(1)}\rangle\oplus \langle d_{i}^{(j)}\rangle_{i=1,\ldots 8, j=2,3}$. So $$2w_1\not\in N_{\rm{root}} \mbox{ and } 2w_2\in N_{\rm{root}}.$$ Thus also in this case $MW(\mathcal{E})=\mathbb{Z}\times \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$. \subsection{Again on fibrations $\# 22$ and $\#22(b)$}\label{sec: again on 22 and 22b} As we can check in Table \ref{table: main result} and we proved in the previous sections, the fibrations $\# 22$ and $\#22(b)$ are associated to the same lattice $N$ and to the same Mordell--Weil group. However, we proved in Lemma \ref{lemma: not unique in D8} that they are associated to different (up to Weyl group) embeddings in the Niemeier lattices, so they correspond to fibrations which are not identified by the $\mathcal{J}_2$-fibration and in particular they can not have the same frame. The following question is now natural: what is the difference between these two fibrations? The answer is that the section of infinite order, which generates the free part of the Mordell--Weil group of these two fibrations, has different intersection properties, as we show now in two different ways and contexts. \textbf{Fibration $\# 22$:} we use the notation of Section \ref{sub sub: step 5}. Moreover we fix the following notation: $\Theta_1^1:=x_7^{(1)}$ and $\Theta_i^{(j)}:=d_i^{(j)}$, $i=1,\ldots 8$, $j=2,3$ are respectively the non trivial components of the fibers of type $I_2$, $I_4^*$ and $I_4^*$ respectively. The class $P:=2F+O-v_1$ is the class of a section of infinite order of the fibration, generating the free part of $MW(\mathcal{E})$ and the class $Q:=2F+O-w_2$ is the class of the 2-torsion section of the fibration. The section $P$ meets the components $\Theta_1^1$, $\Theta_1^2$, $\Theta_1^3$ and $Q$ meets the components $\Theta_0^1$, $\Theta_7^2$, $\Theta_7^3$. We observe that $h(P)=3/2$ and $h(Q)=0$ which agree with \cite[Formula 22]{ScSh} and the fact that $Q$ is a torsion section respectively. We also give an explicit equation of this fibration and of its sections, see \eqref{eq:22}. \textbf{Fibration $\# 22(b)$:} we use the notation of Section \ref{sub sub: step 5}. Moreover we fix the following notation: $\Theta_1^1:=d_1^{(1)}$ and $\Theta_i^{(j)}:=d_i^{(j)}$, $i=1,\ldots 8$, $j=2,3$ are respectively the non trivial components of the fibers of type $I_2$, $I_4^*$ and $I_4^*$ respectively. The class $Q:=2F+O-w_2$ is the class of the 2-torsion section of the fibration. Observe that $Q$ meets the components $\Theta_0^1$, $\Theta_7^2$, $\Theta_7^3$. The class $$P=2F+O+v_1-v_2-\Theta_1^2-\Theta_2^2-\Theta_3^2-\Theta_4^2-\Theta_5^2-\Theta_6^2-\Theta_7^2$$ is the class of a section of infinite order, which intersects the following components of the reducible fibers: $\Theta_1^1$, $\Theta_7^2$, $\Theta_0^3$. This agrees with the height formula. We also give an explicit equation of this fibration and of its sections, see \eqref{eq:22b}. \begin{rem}{\rm The generators of the free part of the Mordell--Weil group is clearly defined up to the sum by a torsion section. The section $P\oplus Q$ intersects the reducible fibers in the following components $\Theta_1^1$, $\Theta_0^2$, $\Theta_7^3$ (this follows by the group law on the fibers of type $I_2$ (or $III$) and $I_4^*$).}\end{rem} \begin{rem}{\rm Comparing the sections of infinite order of the fibration 22 and the one of the fibration 22(b), one immediately checks that their intersection properties are not the same, so the frames of the elliptic fibration 22 and of elliptic fibration 22(b) are not the same and hence these two elliptic fibrations are in fact different under the $\mathcal{J}_2$-classification. We observe that both the fibrations $\#22$ and $\#22(b)$ specialize the same fibration, which is given in \cite[Section 8.1, Table $r=19$, case 11)]{CG}. Indeed the torsion part of the Mordell--Weil group, which is already present in the more general fibrations analyzed in \cite{CG}, are the same and the difference between the fibration 22 and the fibration 22(b) is in the free part of the Mordell Weil group, so the difference between these two fibrations involve exactly the classes that correspond to our specialization.}\end{rem} Here we also give an equation for each of the two different fibrations \#22 and \#22(b). Both these equations are obtained from the equation of the elliptic fibration \#8 \eqref{fib 8}. So first we deduce an equation for \#8: Let $c:=\frac{v}{\left(w-1\right) ^{2}}$. Substituting $v$ by $c\left( w-1\right)^{2}$ in \eqref{E3}, we obtain the equation of an elliptic curve depending on $c$, which corresponds to the fibration \#8 and with the following Weierstrass equation \begin{equation}\label{fib 8} E_{c}:\beta^{2}=\alpha\left( \alpha^{2}+6c^{2}\alpha-c^{3}\left( c-4\right) \left( 4c-1\right) \right). \end{equation} {\bf Fibration \#22} Putting $n^{\prime}=\frac{\alpha}{c^{2}\left( 4c-1\right) },$ $\beta=\frac{yc^{2}\left( 4c-1\right) }{4n^{\prime3}},\quad c=\frac{x}{4n^{\prime3}},$ in \eqref{fib 8} we obtain \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:22} E_{n^{\prime}}:y^{2}=x\left( x^{2}-n^{\prime}\left( n^{\prime2}-6n^(\prime)+1\right) x+16n^{\prime4}\right) \end{eqnarray} with singular fibers of type $2I_{4}^{\ast}(n=0,\infty)+I_{2}+2I_{1}.$ We notice the point $P=\left( \left( (n^{\prime}-1)^{2}n^{\prime},-2n^{\prime 2}(n^{\prime2}-1)\right) \right) $ of height $\frac{3}{2}$, therefore $P$ and $Q=\left( 0,0\right) $ generate the Mordell-Weil group of $E_{n^{\prime}}$. \ To study the singular fiber at $n^{\prime}=\infty$ we do the transformation $N^{\prime}=\frac{1}{n},y=\frac{\beta_{1}}{N^{\prime6}},x=\frac{\alpha_{1}}{N^{\prime 4}}$ and $P=(\alpha_1,\beta_1)$ with $ \alpha_{1}=\left( N^{\prime}-1\right) ^{2}N^{\prime}$ and $\beta_{1}=-2N^{\prime2}\left( N^{\prime2}-1\right) .$ We deduce that the section $P$ intersects the component of singular fibers at $0$ and $\infty$ with the same subscript, so this fibration corresponds to fibration \#22. {\bf Fibration \#22(b)} Putting $n=\frac{2\alpha}{c\left( 4c-1\right) },\beta=\frac{yc\left( 4c-1\right) }% {4n},c=\frac{-x}{2n}$ in \eqref{fib 8} we obtain \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:22b} E_{n}:y^{2}=x\left( x^{2}+2n\left( n^{2}+3n+4\right) +n^{4}\right) \end{eqnarray} with singular fibers of type $2I_{4}^{\ast}(n=0,\infty)+I_{2}+2I_{1}.$ We notice the point $P=\left( 4,2(n+2)^{2}\right) $ of height $\frac{3}{2}$, therefore $P$ and $Q=\left( 0,0\right) $ generate the Mordell-Weil group of $E_{n}$. Since $P$ does not meet the node of the Weierstrass model at $n=0$, the section $P$ intersects the component $\Theta_{0}$ of the singular fiber for $n=0,$ so this fibration corresponds to \#22(b). \begin{rem}{\rm Let us denote by $\mathcal{E}_9$ and $\mathcal{E}_{21}$ the elliptic fibrations \#9 and \#21 respectively. They satisfy $Tr(\mathcal{E}_9)\simeq Tr(\mathcal{E}_{21})$ and $MW(\mathcal{E}_9)\simeq MW(\mathcal{E}_{21})$, but $\mathcal{E}_9$ is not $\mathcal{J}_2$-equivalent to $\mathcal{E}_{21}$ since, as above, the infinite order sections of these two fibrations have different intersection properties with the singular fibers. Indeed these two fibrations correspond to different fibrations \cite[Case 10a) and case 10b), Section 8.1, Table $r=19$]{CG} on the more general family of K3 surfaces considered in \cite{CG}.} \end{rem} \bibliographystyle{amsplain}
\section{Introduction} A subalgebra $\mathcal{A}$ of the algebra $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$ of all bounded operators on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ is said to be \textit{inverse-closed} if every $a\in\mathcal{A}$ which is invertible in $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$ is also invertible in $\mathcal{A}$. The question whether an algebra of convolution operators on a Lie group, or simply ${\RR^n}$ is \textit{inverse-closed} is not new. In 1953, Calder{\'o}n and Zygmund \cite{cz2} showed that the class of convolution operators on $L^{2}({\RR^n})$ whose kernels are homogeneous of degree $-n$ and are locally in $L^{q}({\RR^n})$ away from the origin, has the property. Here $1<q<\infty$. Much later the result was generalized by Christ \cite{christ} who proved that similar algebras on a homogeneous group are \textit{inverse-closed}. A homogeneous group $\mathbb{G}$ is a nilpotent Lie group with dilations, a very natural generalization of the homogeneous structure on ${\RR^n}$. Another direction has been taken by Christ and Geller \cite{christ-geller} who dealt with the algebra of operators with kernels which are homogeneous of degree $-n$ and smooth away from the identity on a homogeneous group with gradation. This algebra is \textit{inverse-closed} too. A step further has been made by G{\l}owacki \cite{87} who showed that this is so for any homogeneous group. The kernels which are smooth away from the identity allow an interesting generalization. One can relax the homogeneity condition demanding only that the kernel satisfies the estimates $$|\d_{x}^{\alpha}K(x)|\lesssim |x|^{-Q-|\alpha|},$$ where $Q$ is the homogeneous dimension of the group. The cancellation condition takes the form $$|\langle K,\phi\rangle|=|\int_{\mathbb{G}}\phi(x)K(x)dx|\lesssim \Vert\phi\Vert,$$ for $\phi\in\ss (\mathbb{G})$, where $\Vert\cdot\Vert$ is a fixed seminorm in the Schwartz space $\ss (\mathbb{G})$. Such kernels $K$ are often called the \textit{Calder{\'o}n-Zygmund} kernels and the corresponding operators $\mathop{\rm Op}\nolimits (K)$ the \textit{Calder{\'o}n-Zygmund} operators. The class is closed under the composition of operators (Cor{\'e}-Geller \cite{core}) so they form an algebra. It has been proved recently (G{\l}owacki \cite{cz3}) that this algebra is \textit{inverse-closed} as well. Let us specify the notion to the Heisenberg group which is the group under study in this paper. For the sake of simplicity, let us consider here only the one-dimensional case. The underlying manifold of $\mathbb{H}$ is $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ which we write down as $$\mathbb{H}=\mathbb{H}_{1}\oplus\mathbb{H}_{2}=\mathbb{R}^{2}\oplus\mathbb{R}.$$ In these coordinates the group law is $$(w,t)\circ (v,s)=(w+v,t+s+w_{1}v_{2}),$$ where $w=(w_{1},w_{2})$, $v=(v_{1},v_{2})\in\mathbb{R}^{2}$, $t,s\in\mathbb{R}$. There are many choices of compatible dilations, but the most natural is \[ \delta_{r}(w,t)=(rw,r^{2}t),\qquad r>0. \] In this setting the size condition for a \textit{Calder{\'o}n-Zygmund} kernel reads $$|\partial_{w}^{\alpha}\d_{t}^{\beta}K(w,t)|\lesssim (|w|+|t|)^{-4-\alpha-2\beta}.$$ The cancellation condition doesn't get any simpler, so we do not repeat it here. We are going to compare these conditions with the estimates that define \textit{flag kernels} which are the main object of study in this paper. Flag kernels were introduced by M{\"u}ller-Ricci-Stein \cite{muller} and Nagel-Ricci-Stein \cite{nagel} in their study of Marcinkiewicz multipliers (the first paper) and CR manifolds (the other one). These kernels are much more singular than the \textit{Calder{\'o}n-Zygmund} kernels. Accordingly, the definition is more complex. We consider a tempered distribution $K$ on $\mathbb{H}$ which is smooth for $w\neq 0$ and satisfies the estimates $$|\d_{w}^{\alpha}\d_{t}^{\beta}K(w,t)|\lesssim |w|^{-2-\alpha}(|w|+|t|)^{-2-2\beta},\qquad w\neq 0,$$ as well as the following three cancellation conditions: 1) For every $\phi\in\ss (\mathbb{H}_{1})$, the distribution $$f\mapsto\int_{\mathbb{H}}\phi(w)f(t)dwdt$$ is a \textit{Calder{\'o}n-Zygmund} kernel on $\mathbb{H}_{2}$, 2) For every $\phi\in\ss (\mathbb{H}_{2})$, the distribution $$f\mapsto\int_{\mathbb{H}}f(w)\phi(t)dwdt$$ is a \textit{Calder{\'o}n-Zygmund} kernel on $\mathbb{H}_{1}$, 3) For every $\phi\in\ss (\mathbb{H})$, $$|\int_{\mathbb{H}}\phi(w,t)dwdt|\lesssim 1.$$ Finally, for given $\alpha,\beta$, the estimates are uniform with respect to $\phi$ if $\phi$ stays in a bounded set in the respective Schwartz space. The operators with flag kernels share some properties with the \textit{Calder{\'o}n-Zygmund} operators. They are bounded on $L^{p}(\mathbb{G})$-spaces and form an algebra (see M{\"u}ller-Ricci-Stein \cite{muller}, Nagel-Ricci-Stein \cite{nagel}, Nagel-Ricci-Stein-Wainger \cite{nagel-ricci}, G{\l}owacki \cite{colloquium2010}, G{\l}owacki \cite{lp}). We are, however, interested in the inversion problem for this class. Before going any further, let us pause for a moment and consider the simplest case, namely that of an Abelian group ${\RR^n}$. Then, the Fourier transform $\widehat{K}$ is a function on ${\RR^n}$ which is smooth away from the origin and satisfies the estimates \begin{align*} |\d^{\alpha}_{\xi}\widehat{K}(\xi)|\lesssim |\xi|^{-|\alpha|},\qquad\xi\neq 0. \end{align*} These estimates are, equivalent to the ones defining the \textit{Calder{\'o}n-Zygmund} kernel. If the operator $\mathop{\rm Op}\nolimits (K)$ is invertible, then $$|\widehat{K}(\xi)|\geqslant c>0,\ \ \ 0\neq\xi\in{\RR^n},$$ and it is directly checked that $\widehat{L}=1/\widehat{K}$ satisfies analogous estimates, so that $L$ is a flag kernel such that $L\star K=K\star L=\delta_{0}$. A similar idea works for the Heisenberg group $\mathbb{H}$. Let $\pi^{\lambda}$ denote the Schr{\"o}dinger representation of $\mathbb{H}$ with the Planck constant $\lambda\neq 0$, If $K$ is a flag kernel on $\mathbb{H}$ such that the operator $\mathop{\rm Op}\nolimits (K)$ is invertible, then, for every $\lambda\neq 0$, the operator $\pi_{K}^{\lambda}$ is invertible and can be regarded as a pseudodifferential operator in a suitable class. By the Beals theorem, the inverse belongs to the same class. Now, the estimates are uniform in $\lambda$, so one can recover the kernel of the inverse operator from the kernels of $(\pi_{K}^{\lambda})^{-1}$ and show that it is a flag kernel. Thus the algebra of the operators with flag kernels on the Heisenberg group turns out to be \textit{inverse-closed}. We believe that similar method could be used in the case of a general 2-step nilpotent Lie group. There is a technicality in the proof we want to comment on. There exists no universal definition of the extension of the unitary representation to a space of distributions. One has to rely on specific properties of the distribution space in question. Everything works fine for distributions with compact support. A \textit{Calder{\'o}n-Zygmund} kernel can be split into a compactly supported part and a part which is square integrable, so there is no problem with the definition of $\pi_{K}^{\lambda}$. No such splitting is available for flag kernels. Instead we modify the domain of the distribution. Originally, a distribution is a functional on the Schwartz space. We introduce two other spaces on which flag kernels can be regarded as continuous functionals. The cancellation conditions are important here. We also take adventage of a functional calculus of G{\l}owacki \cite{arkiv2007}. Once $\pi_{K}^{\lambda}$ is defined for our flag kernel, we can follow the path outlined above. \section{Preliminaries} The main structure of this work is the Heisenberg group. As a set it is \[\mathbb{H}^{n}={\RR^n}\times{\RR^n}\times\mathbb{R}. \] Elements of the group will usually be denoted by \[ \mathbb{H}^{n}\ni h=(x,y,t)=(v,t). \] The group multiplication is \[ (x,y,t)\cdot(x',y',t')=(x+x',y+y',t+t'+xy'). \] We define a homogeneous norm on ${\HH^n}$ as \[ |h|=\Vert v\Vert+|t|^{\frac{1}{2}}=\sum_{i=1}^{2n}|v_{i}|+|t|^{\frac{1}{2}} \] with the corresponding family of dilations \[ \delta_{j}(h)=\delta_{j}(v,t)=(jv,j^{2}t),\qquad j>0, \] in the sense that $|\delta_{j}(h)|=j|h|$. The set $\{\delta_{j}\}_{j>0}$ actually forms a group of automorphisms. The homogeneous dimension is the number $Q=2n+2$. We will use the designations \[ \d^{\gamma}_{h}=\d_{v}^{\alpha}\d_{t}^{\beta}=\d_{v_{1}}^{\alpha_{1}}\d_{v_{2}}^{\alpha_{2}}...\d_{v_{2n}}^{\alpha_{2n}}\d_{t}^{\beta} \] and \[ |\gamma|=|\alpha|+2\beta=\sum_{i=1}^{2n}\alpha_{i}+2\beta, \] where $\alpha=(\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\dots,\alpha_{2n}),\ \alpha_{k},\beta\in\mathbb{N}$. One of the main tools is the abelian Fourier transform defined by the formula $$\widehat{f}(\zeta):=\int_{{\HH^n}}f(h)e^{-2\pi ih\zeta}dh,$$ where \[ \mathbb{H}_{n}\ni \zeta=(\xi,\eta,\lambda)=(w,\lambda), \hspace{2cm} \mathbb{H}_{n}=\mathbb{R}_{n}\times\mathbb{R}_{n}\times\mathbb{R}. \] It can be first defined for Schwartz functions \[ \mathcal{S}(\mathbb{H}^{n})=\{f\in\mathcal{C}^{\infty}(\mathbb{H}^{n}):\forall N\in\mathbb{N}\sup_{h\in{\HH^n}}\max_{|\gamma|\leqslant N}|\partial_{h}^{\gamma}f(h)|(1+|h|)^{N}<\infty\} \] and then lifted to the Lebesque space of the square-integrable functions \[ L^{2}({\HH^n})=\{f:\int_{{\HH^n}}|f(h)|^{2}dh<\infty\} \] or to the space of tempered distributions $\ss'({\HH^n})$ wchich is the space of all continuous linear functionals on $\ss({\HH^n})$ in the sense of the usual seminorm topology. For $S\in\ss '({\HH^n}),\ f\in\ss ({\HH^n})$ one can put $$\langle\widehat{S},f\rangle:=\langle S,\widehat{f}\rangle.$$ Let also \[ f^{\star}(x)=\overline{f(x^{-1})},\quad\langle S^{\star},f\rangle:=\langle S,f^{\star}\rangle,\quad S\in\ss'({\HH^n}),\ f\in\ss ({\HH^n}). \] By $\delta_{0}$ we will denote the Dirac distribution. \section{Flag kernels and their convolution operators} Automorphisms $\{\delta_{j}\}_{j>0}$ decompose our group ${\HH^n}$ into their eigenspaces $$\mathbb{G}_{1}\oplus\mathbb{G}_{2}\ni (v,t).$$ Theorem 2.3.9 of Nagel-Ricci-Stein \cite{nagel} says that there is a one-to-one correspodence between flag kernels and their multipliers. It allows us to define flag kernels as follows. \begin{definition} Let ${\HH^n}$ be the Heisenberg group and $$\mathbb{H}_{n}=\mathbb{G}_{1}^{\star}\oplus\mathbb{G}_{2}^{\star}\ni (w,\lambda)$$ the dual vector space to ${\HH^n}$. We say that a tempered distribution $K$ is a flag kernel iff its Fourier transform $\widehat{K}$ agrees with a smooth function outside of hyperspace $\{(w,\lambda):\lambda=0\}$ and satisfies the estimates \begin{center} $|\partial_{w}^{\alpha}\partial_{\lambda}^{\beta}\widehat{K}(w,\lambda)|\leqslant c_{\alpha,\beta}(\Vert w\Vert+|\lambda|^{1/2})^{-|\alpha|}|\lambda|^{-\beta}$,\ \ \ all $\alpha,\beta$. \end{center} \end{definition} Observe that in particular $\widehat{K}$ belongs to $L^{\infty}(\mathbb{H}_{n})$. For $f\in\mathcal{S}({\HH^n})$, $K\in\mathcal{S}'({\HH^n})$ we define their convolution as $$K\star f(h):=\langle K,\, _{h^{-1}}\!\widetilde{f}\rangle=\int_{{\HH^n}}K(h')f(h'^{-1}h)dh',$$ where $\widetilde{f}(h)=f(h^{-1})$. Our point of departure are the following two theorems: \begin{theorem} Let $K$ be a flag kernel on the Heisenberg group. Then \[ \Vert K\star f\Vert_{2}\lesssim \Vert f\Vert_{2},\qquad f\in\ss({\HH^n}). \] Hence we have an $L^{2}$-bounded operator $\mathop{\rm Op}\nolimits(K)f:=K\star f$. \end{theorem} \begin{theorem}\label{splot} Let $K,S$ be flag kernels on the Heisenberg group ${\HH^n}$ and $$T:=\mathop{\rm Op}\nolimits(K)\mathop{\rm Op}\nolimits(S).$$ Then, there exists a flag kernel $L$ such that $T=\mathop{\rm Op}\nolimits(L)$. \end{theorem} Thus the flag kernels give rise to convolution operators, bounded on $L^{2}({\HH^n})$, which form a subalgebra of $\mathcal{B}(L^{2}({\HH^n}))$. For convenience we will write $L=K\star S$. These are theorems of Nagel-Ricci-Stein \cite{nagel} who proved them for a class of homogeneous groups which includes all two-step homogeneous groups (Theorems 2.6.B and 2.7.2). Partial results can be found in an earlier paper of M{\"u}ller-Ricci-Stein \cite{muller} (Theorem 3.1). They were subsequently generalized for all homogeneous group independently and virtually simultanously by Nagel-Ricci-Stein-Wainger \cite{nagel-ricci} and G{\l}owacki \cite{colloquium2010}. The aim of this paper is to prove the following theorem. \begin{theorem}\label{nasze} Let ${\HH^n}$ be the Heisenberg group. Let $K$ be a flag kernel on ${\HH^n}$. Suppose that the operator $\mathop{\rm Op}\nolimits(K)$ is invertible on $L^{2}({\HH^n})$. Then there exists a flag kernel $L$, such that for all $f\in L^{2}({\HH^n})$ $$\mathop{\rm Op}\nolimits(K)^{-1}f=L\star f=\mathop{\rm Op}\nolimits(L)f.$$ \end{theorem} Observe that $\mathop{\rm Op}\nolimits(K)$ is translation invariant. Further the same holds for its inversion. By general theory it follows that there exists a tempered distribution $L$ such that $\mathop{\rm Op}\nolimits(K)^{-1}f=L\star f$. Now it suffices to show that $L$ is a flag kernel. In the following considerations we can assume that the flag kernel $K$ is symmetric, i.e. $K=K^{\star}$. In fact if Theorem \ref{nasze} is true for such kernels, let us pick an arbitrary flag kernel $K$. Then, we can consider kernels $K^{\star}\star K$ and $K\star K^{\star}$ which are symmetric. By Theorem \ref{splot} they are both flag kernels. Therefore, by Theorem \ref{nasze}, there exist flag kernels $S,T$ such that \[ S\star(K^{\star}\star K)=\delta_{0} \hspace{1cm} \& \hspace{1cm} (K\star K^{\star})\star T=\delta_{0}. \] Again, by Theorem \ref{splot} and associativity, it follows that there exist flag kernels $L_{1},L_{2}$ such that \[ L_{1}\star K=\delta_{0} \hspace{1cm} \& \hspace{1cm} K\star L_{2}=\delta_{0}. \] The identity $$L_{1}=L_{1}\star (K\star L_{2})=(L_{1}\star K)\star L_{2}=L_{2}$$ ends the proof of our theorem for an arbitrary flag kernel $K$. \section{Schr{\"o}dinger representation} \begin{definition} For $\lambda\neq 0$ and $h\in{\HH^n}$ we define the family of operators $$\{\pi_{h}^{\lambda}:h\in{\HH^n},\lambda\neq 0\},$$ all acting on the same $L^{2}({\RR^n})$ by the following formula \[ \pi_{h}^{\lambda}f(s):=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} e^{2\pi i\lambda t}e^{2\pi i\sqrt{\lambda}ys}f(s+\sqrt{\lambda}x);\ \lambda>0, \cr e^{2\pi i\lambda t}e^{2\pi i\sqrt{|\lambda|}ys}f(s-\sqrt{|\lambda|}x);\ \lambda<0. \end{array} \right. \] \end{definition} For a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$, denote by $\mathcal{U}(\mathcal{H})$, $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$ the spaces of all unitary and bounded operators, respectively. It is well-known (see, e.g. Folland \cite{folland}, sec. 1.3) that, for every $\lambda\neq 0$, $${\HH^n}\ni h\longmapsto\pi_{h}^{\lambda}\in\mathcal{U}(L^{2}({\RR^n}))$$ is a unitary representation on the Hilbert space $L^{2}({\RR^n})$. $$L^{1}({\HH^n})\ni f\longmapsto\pi_{f}^{\lambda}\in\mathcal{B}(L^{2}({\RR^n}))$$ is a representation of $\star$-algebra $L^{1}({\HH^n})$ on the Hilbert space $L^{2}({\RR^n})$. \section{Useful notation} For $f,g\in\ss({\RR^n})$ we define the function \[ c_{f,g}(x,y):=\int_{{\RR^n}}e^{2\pi iyu}f(u+x)g(u)du. \] In particular \[ \widehat{c_{f,g}}(\xi,\eta)=\widehat{f}(\xi)g(\eta)e^{2\pi i\xi\eta} .\] Let also \[ C_{f,g}^{\lambda}(x,y,t):=\langle\pi_{h}^{\lambda}f,g\rangle \] Let $\lambda>0$. One can calculate that \begin{align*} C_{f,g}^{\lambda}(x,y,t)=\int_{{\RR^n}}\pi_{(x,y,t)}^{\lambda}f(u)g(u)du=e^{2\pi it\lambda}c_{f,g}(\sqrt{\lambda}x,\sqrt{\lambda}y). \end{align*} We also have \begin{align*} \widehat{c_{f,g}\circ\delta_{\sqrt{\lambda}}}(\xi,\eta)&=\int\int\int e^{-2\pi ix\xi}e^{-2\pi iy\eta}e^{2\pi i\sqrt{\lambda}yu}f(u+\sqrt{\lambda}x)g(u)dudxdy \\ &=\int\int\int\lambda^{-n/2}e^{-2\pi ix\frac{\xi}{\sqrt{\lambda}}}e^{2\pi iu\frac{\xi}{\sqrt{\lambda}}}e^{-2\pi iy\eta}e^{2\pi i\sqrt{\lambda}yu}f(x)g(u)dudxdy\\ &=\int\int\lambda^{-n/2}\widehat{f}(\frac{\xi}{\sqrt{\lambda}})e^{2\pi iu(\frac{\xi}{\sqrt{\lambda}}+\sqrt{\lambda}y)}e^{-2\pi iy\eta}g(u)dudy\\ &=\int\lambda^{-n/2}\widehat{f}(\frac{\xi}{\sqrt{\lambda}})g^{\vee}(\frac{\xi}{\sqrt{\lambda}}+\sqrt{\lambda}y)e^{-2\pi iy\eta}dy\\ &=\int|\lambda|^{-n}\widehat{f}(\frac{\xi}{\sqrt{\lambda}})g^{\vee}(y)e^{-2\pi iy\frac{\eta}{\sqrt{\lambda}}}e^{2\pi i\frac{\xi}{\sqrt{\lambda}}\frac{\eta}{\sqrt{\lambda}}}dy\\ &=|\lambda|^{-n}\widehat{f}(\frac{\xi}{\sqrt{\lambda}})g(\frac{\eta}{\sqrt{\lambda}})e^{2\pi i\frac{\xi}{\sqrt{\lambda}}\frac{\eta}{\sqrt{\lambda}}}=|\lambda|^{-n}\widehat{c_{f,g}}(\frac{\xi}{\sqrt{\lambda}},\frac{\eta}{\sqrt{\lambda}}). \end{align*} Moreover \[ \widehat{C_{f,g}^{\lambda}}(\xi,\eta,r)=\widehat{c_{f,g}\circ\delta_{\sqrt{\lambda}}}\otimes\widehat{e^{2\pi i(\cdot)\lambda}}(\xi,\eta,r)=|\lambda|^{-n}\widehat{c_{f,g}}\otimes\delta_{\lambda}(\frac{\xi}{\sqrt{\lambda}},\frac{\eta}{\sqrt{\lambda}},r), \] where $\delta_{\lambda}$ is a Dirac distribution supported at $\lambda$. For $\lambda<0$ the above formula should be slightly modified. For such $\lambda$ one can get analogously \[ \widehat{C_{f,g}^{\lambda}}(\xi,\eta,r)=-|\lambda|^{-n}\widehat{c_{f,g}}\otimes\delta_{\lambda}(-\frac{\xi}{|\lambda|^{1/2}},\frac{\eta}{|\lambda|^{1/2}},r). \] Suppose that $a$ is a function on ${\RR^n}\times{\RR^n}$ which is bounded or square-integrable. Then, the weakly defined operator \begin{align*} \langle Af,g\rangle &=\int\int e^{2\pi i\xi\eta}a(\xi,\eta)\widehat{f}(\xi)g(\eta)d\eta d\xi \\ &=\int\int a(\xi,\eta)\widehat{c_{f,g}}(\xi,\eta)d\xi d\eta=\langle a,\widehat{c_{f,g}}\rangle \end{align*} is a continuous mapping from $\ss ({\RR^n})$ to $\ss' ({\RR^n})$. It is often denoted by $A=a(x,D)$ and called a pseudodifferential operator with the KN (Kohn-Nirenberg) symbol $a$. \section{The class $\ss_{0}$ and the operator $\pi_{K}^{\lambda}$} Let $g$ be a function on $\mathbb{H}_{n}$ such that $g(w,\lambda)=\phi(\lambda)$, where $\phi\in\mathcal{C}_{c}^{\infty}(\mathbb{G}_{2}^{\star})$. Then $g^{\vee}(u,t)=\delta_{0}\otimes\phi^{\vee}(u,t)$. Observe that if for example $f\in\ss({\HH^n})$, then \begin{align*} f\star g^{\vee}(h)&=\int f(hr^{-1})dg^{\vee} (r)=\int f(h-r)dg^{\vee} (r) \\ &=\int f(r^{-1}h)dg^{\vee} (r)=g^{\vee}\star f(h), \end{align*} so $g^{\vee}$ is a central measure. We will need a notion of the $\lambda$-support of a function $f$. By definition a real number $\lambda_{0}$ is not in the $\lambda$-$\mathrm{supp\,}(f)$ iff there exists $\varepsilon$ such that no point $(w,\lambda)$, where $\lambda\in (\lambda_{0}-\varepsilon,\lambda_{0}+\varepsilon)$, is in the support of $f$. \begin{definition}\label{lambda} We say that a Schwartz function $f$ is in $\ss_{0} ({\HH^n})$ iff \[ (\exists\varepsilon>0)\forall\phi\in\mathcal{C}_{c}^{\infty}((-\varepsilon,\varepsilon)\cup(-1/\varepsilon,-\infty)\cup(1/\varepsilon,\infty))\,\widehat{f}\phi=0, \] that is, iff $\lambda$-$\mathrm{supp\,} (f)$ is bounded and does not contain $0$. \end{definition} \begin{lemma} Suppose $f\in\ss_{0} ({\HH^n})$ and $K$ is a flag kernel. Then $K\star f$ is in $\ss_{0} ({\HH^n})$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Let us define first $a\# b:=(a^{\vee}\star b^{\vee})^{\wedge}$. As $f$ is in $\ss_{0}({\HH^n})$ take $\varepsilon,\phi$ which satisfy the condition of the definition \ref{lambda}. We have \begin{align*} \widehat{K\star f}\phi=(K\star f\star\phi^{\vee})^{\wedge}=\widehat{K}\#\widehat{f}\phi=0, \end{align*} so the same $\varepsilon$ works also for $K\star f$. It remains to explain why $K\star f$ is an element of $\ss({\HH^n})$. Let $\psi\in\mathcal{C}_{c}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}\setminus\{0\})$ be equal to 1 on $\lambda$-$\mathrm{supp\,}$ of $f$. Observe that $\psi^{\vee}$ can be thought of as a central measure. Thus \begin{align*} K\star f=K\star f\star\psi^{\vee}=K\star\psi^{\vee}\star f=K_{1}\star f, \end{align*} where $\widehat{K_{1}}$ is smooth and \begin{align*} |\d_{w}^{\alpha}\d_{\lambda}^{\beta}\widehat{K_{1}}(w,\lambda)|\leqslant c_{\alpha,\beta}(1+\Vert w\Vert+|\lambda|^{1/2})^{-|\alpha|}(1+|\lambda|)^{-\beta}. \end{align*} Now if we write that $a\in Sym^{N,M}({\HH^n})$ iff \begin{align*} |\d_{w}^{\alpha}\d_{\lambda}^{\beta}\widehat{a}(w,\lambda)|\leqslant c_{\alpha,\beta}(1+\Vert w\Vert+|\lambda|^{1/2})^{-|\alpha|-N}(1+|\lambda|)^{-\beta-M}, \end{align*} then $K_{1}\in Sym^{0,0}({\HH^n})$, $f\in Sym^{N,M}({\HH^n})$ for all $N,M$ because it is a Schwartz function. By G{\l}owacki's symbolic calculus \cite{arkiv2007} (Theorem 6.4) governed by the metric \[ g_{(w,\lambda)}(u,r)=\frac{\Vert u\Vert}{1+\Vert w\Vert+|\lambda|^{1/2}}+\frac{|r|}{(1+|\lambda|^{1/2})^{2}};\qquad (w,\lambda)\in\mathbb{H}_{n},\ (u,r)\in\mathbb{H}_{n} \] we have \begin{align*} K\star f&=K_{1}\star f\in Sym^{0,0}({\HH^n})\star \bigcap_{N,M}Sym^{N,M}({\HH^n})\\ &\subseteq\bigcap_{N,M}Sym^{0,0}({\HH^n})\star Sym^{N,M}({\HH^n}) \\ &\subseteq\bigcap_{N,M}Sym^{N,M}({\HH^n})\cong \ss ({\HH^n}). \end{align*} \end{proof} \begin{lemma} The class $S_{0} ({\HH^n})$ is dense in $L^{2}({\HH^n}).$ \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Let $g\in L^{2}({\HH^n})$ be such that $\forall f\in S_{0}({\HH^n})\ \langle g,f\rangle=0.$ Then $\langle\hat{g},\hat{f}\rangle=0$. Hence $\mathrm{supp\,}\hat{g}\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{2n}\times\{0\}.$ But it implies that $g=0$ almost everywhere. \end{proof} \begin{lemma} The G{\"a}rding space $$\mathcal{G}^{\lambda}:=\{\pi_{\phi}^{\lambda}f: \phi\in S_{0}({\HH^n}), f\in L^{2}({\RR^n})\}$$ is dense in $L^{2}({\RR^n}).$ \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Take any $g\in L^{2}({\RR^n})$ such that for all $\phi\in S_{0},\ f\in L^{2}({\RR^n})$ we have $\langle g,\pi_{\phi}^{\lambda}f\rangle =0.$ We will show that $g=0$ a.e. Consider only those functions $\phi$ which can be decomposed as $\phi(x,y,t)=\phi_{1}(x,y)\phi_{2}(t).$ Then \begin{align*} 0&=\langle g,\pi_{\phi}^{\lambda}f\rangle =\langle g,\int_{{\HH^n}}\phi(h)\pi_{h}^{\lambda}fdh\rangle=\int_{{\HH^n}}\phi(h)\langle g,\pi_{h}^{\lambda}f\rangle dh\\ &=\int_{\mathbb{R}}\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2n}}\phi_{1}(x,y)\langle g,\pi_{h}^{\lambda}f\rangle dxdy\right)\phi_{2}(t)dt=\int_{\mathbb{R}}F(t)\phi_{2}(t)dt. \end{align*} It follows that $\langle\hat{F},\hat{\phi_{2}}\rangle=0$, which, by the structure of $\ss_{0} ({\HH^n})$, implies that $$\mathrm{supp\,}\hat{F}\subseteq\{0\}.$$ Hence $\hat{F}=\sum_{n=0}^{N}c_{n}\delta_{0}^{(n)}.$ By the Schwarz inequality $||F||_{\infty}\leq ||f||_{2}||g||_{2}||\phi_{1}||_{1}$. So $F\in L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})$ and at the same time $F(t)=\sum_{n=0}^{N}c_{n}t^{n}.$ Consequently, there is no other option than $F=const$, which means that $$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2n}}\phi_{1}(x,y)\langle g,\pi_{h}^{\lambda}f\rangle dxdy=c_{\phi_{2}}.$$ By the density of $S(\mathbb{R}^{2n})$ in $L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{2n})$, we have that the expression $\langle g,\pi_{h}^{\lambda}f\rangle$ does not depend on the variable $t$. So $(\pi_{(0,0,t)}^{\lambda}-I)g=0$ for all $t$, which leads to a contradiction unless $g=0$ a.e. \end{proof} \begin{lemma} Let $K,L$ be flag kernels such that $K\upharpoonright_{\ss_{0}({\HH^n})}=L\upharpoonright_{\ss_{0}({\HH^n})}$. Then, $K=L$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} If $\langle K,f\rangle =\langle L,f\rangle$ for $f\in\ss_{0}({\HH^n})$, then $\langle K-L,f\rangle=0$ and so $\langle\widehat{K-L},\widehat{f}\rangle =0$. Therefore from the definition of the class $\ss_{0}({\HH^n})$ for every $\lambda$ nonzero element of the center of $\mathbb{H}_{n}$, we have $\widehat{K-L}=0.$ Thus $\widehat{K}=\widehat{L}$ as elements of $L^{\infty}(\mathbb{H}_{n})$, so $K=L$ in $\ss'({\HH^n})$. \end{proof} \begin{definition} We denote by $\mathcal{B}_{0}({\HH^n})$ the class of all smooth functions such that their Fourier transforms are bounded measures whose $\lambda$-support does not contain $0$. One can norm this space with $\Vert f\Vert_{\mathcal{B}_{0}}=\Vert\widehat{f}\Vert_{\mathcal{M}}$, where $\Vert\cdot\Vert_{\mathcal{M}}$ denotes the total variation of a measure. \end{definition} Observe that $\ss_{0}({\HH^n})\subset\mathcal{B}_{0}({\HH^n})$. Moreover it also contains objects of type $C_{f,g}^{\lambda}$, as $\Vert C_{f,g}^{\lambda}\Vert_{\mathcal{B}_{0}}\leqslant\Vert\widehat{c_{f,g}}\Vert_{1}$. Now as $\ss_{0}({\HH^n})$ is total for flag kernels we can extend such a kernel from $\ss_{0}({\HH^n})$ to $\mathcal{B}_{0}({\HH^n})$ by the formula \[ \langle K,f\rangle=\int_{\mathbb{H}_{n}}\widehat{K}(w,\lambda)d\widehat{f}(w,\lambda). \] Continuity is gained for free as $|\langle K,f\rangle|\leqslant\Vert \widehat{K}\Vert_{\infty}\Vert\widehat{f}\Vert_{\mathcal{M}}$. Now we can define the representation of a flag kernel. Suppose first that $K\in\ss_{0}({\HH^n})$. Then, \begin{align*} \langle\pi_{K}^{\lambda}f,g\rangle =\langle\int_{{\HH^n}} K(h)\pi_{h}^{\lambda}fdh,g\rangle=\int_{{\HH^n}} K(h)\langle\pi_{h}^{\lambda}f,g\rangle dh=\langle K,C^{\lambda}_{f,g}\rangle, \end{align*} for $f,g\in\ss ({\RR^n})$. Hence, for every flag kernel we put $\langle\pi_{K}^{\lambda}f,g\rangle:=\langle K,C^{\lambda}_{f,g}\rangle$ as a weak definition of its representation. Observe next that if $\lambda>0$ \begin{align*} \langle\pi_{K}^{\lambda}f,g\rangle &=\int\int K(u,t)c_{f,g}(|\lambda|^{1/2}u)e^{2\pi it\lambda}dudt\\ &=\int\int\int\widetilde{\widehat{K}}(\xi,\eta,r)|\lambda|^{-n}\widehat{c_{f,g}}(\frac{\xi}{|\lambda|^{1/2}},\frac{\eta}{|\lambda|^{1/2}})d\xi d\eta d\delta_{\lambda}(r)\\ &=\int\int\widetilde{\widehat{K}}(|\lambda|^{1/2}\xi,|\lambda|^{1/2}\eta,\lambda)\widehat{c_{f,g}}(\xi,\eta)d\xi d\eta. \end{align*} Similar calculation for $\lambda<0$ leads to a conclusion that $\pi_{K}^{\lambda}$ is a pseudodifferential operator with the KN symbol $$\widetilde{\widehat{K}}(\mathrm{sgn\,}(\lambda)|\lambda|^{1/2}\xi,|\lambda|^{1/2}\eta,\lambda).$$ \begin{lemma} Let $K$ be a flag kernel and $\phi$ in $\ss_{0} ({\HH^n})$. Then, the operators $\pi_{K\star\phi}^{\lambda}$ and $\pi_{K}^{\lambda}\pi_{\phi}^{\lambda}$ are equal. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} First one can calculate that \begin{align*} C_{\pi_{\phi}^{\lambda}f,g}^{\lambda}(h)&=\int\pi_{h}^{\lambda}\pi_{\phi}^{\lambda}f(s)g(s)ds=\int\pi_{h}^{\lambda}\int\phi(h')\pi_{h'}^{\lambda}f(s)dh'g(s)ds\\ &=\int\phi(h')\int\pi_{hh'}^{\lambda}f(s)g(s)dsdh'=\int\widetilde{\phi}(h')C_{f,g}^{\lambda}(hh'^{-1})dh'\\ &=C_{f,g}^{\lambda}\star\widetilde{\phi}(h). \end{align*} Now using fact that $K\star\phi$ is in $\ss_{0} ({\HH^n})$ \begin{align*} \langle\pi_{K\star\phi}^{\lambda}f,g\rangle& =\int K\star\phi(h)\langle\pi_{h}^{\lambda}f,g\rangle dh=\int K\star\phi(h)C_{f,g}^{\lambda}(h)dh\\ &=\int K(h)C_{f,g}^{\lambda}\star\widetilde{\phi}(h)dh=\int K(h)C_{\pi_{\phi}^{\lambda}f,g}^{\lambda}(h)dh=\langle\pi_{K}^{\lambda}\pi_{\phi}^{\lambda}f,g\rangle. \end{align*} \end{proof} \begin{corollary} Let $K_{1},K_{2}$ be flag kernels. The operators $\pi_{K_{1}\star K_{2}}^{\lambda}$ and $\pi_{K_{1}}^{\lambda}\pi_{K_{2}}^{\lambda}$ are equal. \end{corollary} \begin{proof} As flag kernels form an algebra, the above lemma implies \begin{align}\label{splatanie} \pi_{K_{1}\star K_{2}}^{\lambda}\pi_{\phi}^{\lambda}f=\pi_{K_{1}\star K_{2}\star\phi}^{\lambda}f=\pi_{K_{1}}^{\lambda}\pi_{K_{2}\star\phi}^{\lambda}f=\pi_{K_{1}}^{\lambda}\pi_{K_{2}}^{\lambda}\pi_{\phi}^{\lambda}f, \end{align} where the second equality follows by the fact that $K_{2}\star\phi\in\ss_{0} ({\HH^n})$. \ref{splatanie} proves that the operators agree on vectors of type $\pi_{\phi}^{\lambda}f$ which are dense in $L^{2}({\RR^n})$ when $\phi\in\ss_{0} ({\HH^n})$, $f\in L^{2}({\RR^n})$. \end{proof} \section{Representations of $L^{2}$} We start from a simple calculation of the Kohn-Nirenberg symbol of $\pi_{f}^{\lambda}$, where $f$ is a Schwartz function. Let $\lambda$ be positive. We have \begin{align*} \pi_{f}^{\lambda}u(s)&=\int f(x,y,t)e^{2\pi it\lambda}e^{2\pi i\sqrt{\lambda}ys}u(s+\sqrt{\lambda}x)dxdydt\\ &=\int f(x,\sqrt{\lambda}s^{\vee},\lambda^{\vee})u(s+\sqrt{\lambda}x)dx =|\lambda|^{-n/2}\int f(\frac{x-s}{\sqrt{\lambda}},\sqrt{\lambda}s^{\vee},\lambda^{\vee})u(x)dx\\ &=|\lambda|^{-n/2}\int\int f(\frac{x-s}{\sqrt{\lambda}},\sqrt{\lambda}s^{\vee},\lambda^{\vee})e^{2\pi ix\xi}\widehat{u}(\xi)d\xi dx\\ &=\int\int f(x,\sqrt{\lambda}s^{\vee},\lambda^{\vee})e^{2\pi i\sqrt{\lambda}x\xi}e^{2\pi is\xi}\widehat{u}(\xi)d\xi dx\\ &=\int f^{\vee}(\sqrt{\lambda}\xi,\sqrt{\lambda}s,\lambda)e^{2\pi is\xi}\widehat{u}(\xi)d\xi. \end{align*} As we can see in this case the symbol of $\pi_{f}^{\lambda}$ is also $$a(\xi,\eta)=\widetilde{\widehat{f}}(\mathrm{sgn\,}(\lambda)|\lambda|^{1/2}\xi,|\lambda|^{1/2}\eta,\lambda).$$ Let for a moment $x,y\in{\HH^n}$ and $A$ be a Hilbert-Schmidt operator on $\ss({\HH^n})$ with a kernel $\Omega$. One can calculate that \begin{align*} Au(x)=\int \Omega(x,y)u(y)dy=\int\Omega(x,y)\int e^{2\pi iy\xi}\widehat{u}(\xi)d\xi dy=\int\Omega(x,\xi^{\vee})\widehat{u}(\xi)d\xi. \end{align*} It is easy to see that if $a$ is the KN symbol of $A$, then $$a(\xi,\eta)=e^{-2\pi i\xi\eta}\Omega(\xi,\eta^{\vee}),$$ and by the Plancharel formula, \begin{align*} \Vert A\Vert_{HS}=\Vert\Omega\Vert_{2}=\int\int|\Omega(\xi,y)|^{2}d\xi dy=\int\int|e^{-2\pi i\xi\eta}\Omega(\xi,\eta^{\vee})|^{2}d\xi d\eta=\Vert a\Vert_{2}. \end{align*} The sign change on the first coordinate, in a situation where $\lambda$ is negative, have no impact on the obstacles with which we struggle. Thus from now on in all calculations we will disregard this difference. \begin{lemma}\label{l2} Let $f\in L^{2}({\HH^n})$ and $\{f_{n}\}_{n}\subset\ss_{0} ({\HH^n})$ be such that $f_{n}\rightarrow f$ in $L^{2}$. For almost every $\lambda$, there exists a subsequence $\{f_{n_{k}(\lambda)}\}_{k}$ such that $\pi^{\lambda}_{f_{n_{k}(\lambda)}}$ tend to an operator $A^{\lambda}$ in the Hilbert-Schmidt norm. $A^{\lambda}$ depends neither on the chosen sequence $f_{n}$ nor on its subsequence $f_{n_{k}(\lambda)}$. Moreover the KN symbol of $A^{\lambda}$ is $a_{\lambda}(w)=\widetilde{\widehat{f}}(|\lambda|^{1/2}w,\lambda)$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} By Plancherel's formula \begin{align*} \Vert f_{n}-f\Vert_{2}^{2}&=\int |\widehat{f_{n}}(w,\lambda)-\widehat{f}(w,\lambda)|^{2}dwd\lambda\\ &=\int|\lambda|^{n}\int|\widetilde{\widehat{f_{n}}}(|\lambda|^{1/2}w,\lambda)-\widetilde{\widehat{f}}(|\lambda|^{1/2}w,\lambda)|^{2}dwd\lambda\\ &=\int|\lambda|^{n}\Vert\pi_{f_{n}}^{\lambda}-A^{\lambda}\Vert_{HS}^{2}d\lambda, \end{align*} where $A^{\lambda}$ is the Hilbert-Schmidt operator with the symbol $(w,\lambda)\mapsto\widetilde{\widehat{f}}(|\lambda|^{1/2}w,\lambda)$. By Fatou's lemma $\liminf\Vert\pi_{f_{n}}^{\lambda}-A^{\lambda}\Vert_{HS}=0$ for almost every $\lambda$. Therefore, for almost every $\lambda$, there exists a subsequence $f_{n_{k}(\lambda)}$ such that $$\Vert\pi_{f_{n_{k}(\lambda)}}^{\lambda}-A^{\lambda}\Vert_{HS}\rightarrow 0.$$ \end{proof} Let $\widehat{f}^{\lambda}(w):=\widehat{f}(|\lambda|^{1/2}w,\lambda)$. Lemma \ref{l2} says that for every $u,v\in\ss({\HH^n})$, $\langle\widehat{f}^{\lambda}_{n},\widehat{c_{u,v}}\rangle$ tends to $\langle\widehat{f}^{\lambda},\widehat{c_{u,v}}\rangle$ a.e. which implies that $\langle\pi_{f_{n}}^{\lambda}u,v\rangle$ must have a limit. This limit is $A^{\lambda}$ an it will be denoted by $\pi_{f}^{\lambda}$. Nevertheless, for a given $L^{2}$ function, the operator exists only for a.e. $\lambda$. \begin{lemma} Let $K$ be a flag kernel on ${\HH^n}$. Then, for every $f\in L^{2}({\HH^n})$, $$\pi_{K}^{\lambda}\pi_{f}^{\lambda}=\pi_{K\star f}^{\lambda}.$$ \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Let $\{f_{n}\}_{n}\subset\ss_{0} ({\HH^n})$ tend to $f$ in $L^{2}({\HH^n})$. By definition $$\pi_{K\star f}^{\lambda}=\lim\pi_{K\star f_{n_{k}(\lambda)}}^{\lambda},$$ for a.e. $\lambda$. As $f_{n_{k}(\lambda)}$ converges to $f$ in $L^{2}({\HH^n})$, by Lemma \ref{l2}, $K\star f_{n_{k}(\lambda)}$ converges to $K\star f$ a.e. Hence \begin{align*} \pi_{K}^{\lambda}\pi_{f}^{\lambda}=\lim\pi_{K}^{\lambda}\pi_{f_{n_{k_{s}}(\lambda)}}^{\lambda}=\lim\pi_{K\star f_{n_{k_{s}}(\lambda)}}^{\lambda}=\pi_{K\star f}^{\lambda}. \end{align*} \end{proof} Assume that $f\in L^{2}({\HH^n})$. Let us continue with the calculation of kernel $\Omega_{f}^{\lambda}$ of the operator $\pi_{f}^{\lambda}$. As it has been said before, we have $$\Omega_{f}^{\lambda}(\xi,\eta^{\vee})=e^{2\pi i\xi\eta}f^{\vee}(|\lambda|^{1/2}\xi,|\lambda|^{1/2}\eta,\lambda).$$ Therefore, \begin{align*} \Omega_{f}^{\lambda}(\xi,y)=\int e^{-2\pi i\eta(y-\xi)}f^{\vee}(|\lambda|^{1/2}\xi,|\lambda|^{1/2}\eta,\lambda)d\eta=|\lambda|^{-n/2}f(|\lambda|^{1/2}\xi^{\vee},\frac{y-\xi}{|\lambda|^{1/2}},\lambda^{\vee}). \end{align*} Furthermore, by Plancherel's formula \begin{align*} \mathfrak{G}_{f}(\lambda):&=|\lambda|^{n}\Vert\pi_{f}^{\lambda}\Vert_{HS}^{2}=|\lambda|^{n}\Vert\Omega_{f}^{\lambda}\Vert_{2}^{2}=\int\int|f(|\lambda|^{1/2}\xi^{\vee},\frac{y-\xi}{|\lambda|^{1/2}},\lambda^{\vee})|^{2}d\xi dy\\ &=\int\int|f(x,y,\lambda^{\vee})|^{2}dxdy. \end{align*} The function $\mathfrak{G}_{f}$ is continuous when $f\in\ss ({\HH^n})$. Let $A$ be linear, bounded operator on $L^{2}({\HH^n})$ (in particular a convolver), $\chi_{E}$ a characteristic function of a set $E\subset\mathbb{R}$. Then, from the above calculation we can conclude that $$\chi_{E}(\lambda)\mathfrak{G}_{Af}(\lambda)=\mathfrak{G}_{A(\chi_{E}(\lambda)f)}(\lambda).$$ Let as recall here that $\Vert f\Vert_{2}^{2}=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{\star}}\mathfrak{G}_{f}(\lambda)d\lambda$. \begin{lemma}\label{calki} Let A be a linear, bounded operator on $L^{2}({\HH^n})$. Suppose that, for every $f\in L^{2}({\HH^n})$ $$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{\star}}\mathfrak{G}_{Af}(\lambda)d\lambda\geqslant c^{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{\star}}\mathfrak{G}_{f}(\lambda)d\lambda,$$ then, for almost every $\lambda$, $\mathfrak{G}_{Af}(\lambda)\geqslant c^{2}\mathfrak{G}_{f}(\lambda).$ \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Assume a contrario that for a function $g$ and $\lambda$ in a set $E$ of positive Lebesque measure we have that $\mathfrak{G}_{Ag}(\lambda)<c^{2}\mathfrak{G}_{g}(\lambda)$. Then, there exists $\varepsilon$>0 and a subset $F$ of $E$ of positive Lebesque measure such that $\mathfrak{G}_{Ag}(\lambda)\leqslant (1-\varepsilon)c^{2}\mathfrak{G}_{g}(\lambda)$ on $F$. Therefore, \begin{align*} c^{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{\star}}\mathfrak{G}_{\chi_{F}(\lambda)g}(\lambda)d\lambda&\leqslant\int_{\mathbb{R}^{\star}}\mathfrak{G}_{A(\chi_{F}(\lambda)g)}(\lambda)d\lambda=\int_{F}\mathfrak{G}_{Ag}(\lambda)d\lambda\\ &\leqslant c^{2}(1-\varepsilon)\int_{F}\mathfrak{G}_{g}(\lambda)d\lambda =c^{2}(1-\varepsilon)\int_{\mathbb{R}^{\star}}\mathfrak{G}_{\chi_{F}(\lambda)g}(\lambda)d\lambda, \end{align*} which is obviously a contradiction. \end{proof} The same holds true for the opposite inequality and the proof is analogous. \begin{theorem} Let $K$ be a symmetric flag kernel, such that $\mathop{\rm Op}\nolimits(K)$ is invertible. The family $\{\pi_{K}^{\lambda}\}_{\lambda}$ is uniformly invertible, that is all $\pi_{K}^{\lambda}$ are invertible and the family of operators $\{(\pi_{K}^{\lambda})^{-1}\}_{\lambda}$ is uniformly bounded on $L^{2}({\RR^n})$. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} As $\mathop{\rm Op}\nolimits(K)$ is invertible there exists a constant $C_{K}$, such that for $f\in L^{2}({\HH^n})$ $\Vert K\star f\Vert_{2}\geqslant C_{K}\Vert f\Vert_{2}$. Using Plancherel formula we have \begin{align*} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{\star}}|\lambda|^{n}\Vert\pi_{K\star f}^{\lambda}\Vert_{HS}^{2}d\lambda=\Vert K\star f\Vert_{2}^{2}\geqslant C_{K}^{2}\Vert f\Vert_{2}^{2}=C_{K}^{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{\star}}|\lambda|^{n}\Vert\pi_{f}^{\lambda}\Vert_{HS}^{2}d\lambda. \end{align*} Now by Lemma \eqref{calki} \begin{align*} C_{K}\Vert\pi_{f}^{\lambda}\Vert_{HS}\leqslant\Vert\pi_{K\star f}^{\lambda}\Vert_{HS}=\Vert\pi_{K}^{\lambda}\pi_{f}^{\lambda}\Vert_{HS}\leqslant\Vert\pi_{K}^{\lambda}\Vert_{2\rightarrow 2}\Vert\pi_{f}^{\lambda}\Vert_{HS}. \end{align*} Consider the operator $\mathcal{P}_{g,h}$; $g,h\in L^{2}({\RR^n})$, where $\Vert h\Vert_{2}\neq 0$, which acts on vectors $u\in L^{2}({\RR^n})$ by $\mathcal{P}_{g,h}(u):=\langle u,g\rangle h$. It is easy to see that the kernel of $\mathcal{P}_{g,h}$ is $\Omega_{\mathcal{P}}(x,y)=g(x)h(y)$, so $\Vert\mathcal{P}_{g,h}\Vert_{HS}=\Vert g\Vert_{2}\Vert h\Vert_{2}$. Now \begin{align*} \pi_{K}^{\lambda}\mathcal{P}_{g,h}u=\langle \pi_{K}^{\lambda}u,g\rangle h=\langle u,(\pi_{K}^{\lambda})^{\star}g\rangle h=\langle u,\pi_{K^{\star}}^{\lambda}g\rangle h=\langle u,\pi_{K}^{\lambda}g\rangle h=\mathcal{P}_{\pi_{K}^{\lambda}g,h}u. \end{align*} Hence \begin{align*} \Vert\pi_{K}^{\lambda}g\Vert_{2}\Vert h\Vert_{2}=\Vert\pi_{K}^{\lambda}\mathcal{P}_{g,h}\Vert_{HS}\geqslant C_{K}\Vert\mathcal{P}_{g,h}\Vert_{HS}=C_{K}\Vert g\Vert_{2}\Vert h\Vert_{2}. \end{align*} Dividing both sides by $\Vert h\Vert_{2}$ we obtain that $\Vert \pi_{K}^{\lambda}g\Vert_{2}\geqslant C_{K}\Vert g\Vert_{2}$ holds for every $g\in\ L^{2}({\RR^n})$ which, together with the fact that $\pi_{K}^{\lambda}$ is self-adjoint, implies our claim. \end{proof} \section{The Beals theorem and the main result} Summing up our previous results we conclude that, for every $\lambda$, a flag kernel $K$, gives rise to an operator $\pi_{K}^{\lambda}$ which acts on $L^{2}({\RR^n})$ as a pseudodifferential operator with the Kohn-Nirenberg symbol $a_{\lambda}(w)=\widetilde{\widehat{K}}(|\lambda|^{1/2}w,\lambda)$. Moreover, \begin{align*} |\d_{w}^{\alpha}a_{\lambda}(w)|&=|\partial_{w}^{\alpha}\{\widetilde{\widehat{K}}(|\lambda|^{1/2}w,\lambda)\}|\leqslant c_{\alpha}(\Vert|\lambda|^{1/2}w\Vert+|\lambda|^{1/2})^{-|\alpha|}|\lambda|^{|\alpha|/2}\\ &=c_{\alpha}(1+\Vert w\Vert)^{-|\alpha|}. \end{align*} Observe that these estimates do not depend on $\lambda$. In particular, by the Calder{\'o}n-Vaillancourt theorem, the family $\{\pi_{K}^{\lambda}\}_{\lambda}$ is uniformly bounded on $L^{2}({\RR^n})$. Let us define $$Sym^{0}(\mathbb{R}^{2n}):=\{a\in\mathcal{C}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{2n}):|\partial_{w}^{\alpha}a(w)|\leqslant c_{\alpha}(1+\Vert w\Vert)^{-|\alpha|}\}.$$ In this language the family of symbols $\{a_{\lambda}\}_{\lambda}$ is bounded in $Sym^{0}(\mathbb{R}^{2n})$ with the natural seminorm topology. The key point in our argument is the following application of a much more general theorem of Beals. \begin{theorem}[Beals \cite{beals}, Thm. 4.7] Let $A=a(x,D)$, where $a\in Sym^{0}(\mathbb{R}^{2n})$, be invertible on $L^{2}({\RR^n})$. Then, $A^{-1}=b(x,D)$ with $b\in Sym^{0}(\mathbb{R}^{2n})$. Each seminorm of $b$ depends only on a finite number of seminorms of $a$ and the operator norm of $A^{-1}$. \end{theorem} Let us denote the symbol of $(\pi_{K}^{\lambda})^{-1}$ by $b_{\lambda}$. One can conclude that the seminorms of $b_{\lambda}$ once again do not depend on $\lambda$. So the family $\{b_{\lambda}\}_{\lambda}$ also corresponds to a bounded family in $Sym^{0}(\mathbb{R}^{2n})$. Following G{\l}owacki \cite{arkiv2007}, we say that $a$ is a weak limit of a bounded sequence $\{a_{n}\}_{n}$ in $Sym^{0}(\mathbb{R}^{2n})$ iff for every $\alpha$ the sequence $\{\d^{\alpha}a_{n}\}_{n}$ converges almost uniformly to $\d^{\alpha}a$. The twisted multiplication $\#$ is continuous in the weak sense. In the language of symbols the equation $\pi_{K}^{\lambda}(\pi_{K}^{\lambda})^{-1}=Id$ corresponds to $a_{\lambda}\#b_{\lambda}=1$. \begin{lemma} The family $\{b_{\lambda}\}_{\lambda}$ is weakly smooth in the parameter $\lambda$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} We proceed by induction. Let $\{\lambda_{n}\}_{n}$ converge to a nonzero $\lambda$. As $\{b_{\lambda_{n}}\}_{n}$ is bounded in $Sym^{0}(\mathbb{R}^{2n})$, we can use Arzeli-Ascoli theorem to find a weakly convergent subsequence. Let $\{b_{\lambda_{n_{k}}}\}_{k}$ tend to $b_{\lambda}(\{n_{k}\})$. We have $$1=b_{\lambda_{n_{k}}}\#a_{\lambda_{n_{k}}}\rightarrow b_{\lambda(\{n_{k}\})}\#a_{\lambda}.$$ Hence for every convergent subsequence $\{b_{\lambda_{n_{k}}}\}_{k}$, the limit must be the same and equal to $b_{\lambda}$. Therefore, it also must be the limit of $\{b_{\lambda_{n}}\}_{n}$. Assume now that $\d_{\lambda}^{N}b_{\lambda}$ is continuous for $N<M$. Observe that using continuity of $b_{\lambda}$ which we have just obtained, formally we have \begin{align}\label{rozklad} \lim_{h\rightarrow 0}\frac{b_{\lambda+h}-b_{\lambda}}{h}=\lim_{h\rightarrow 0}b_{\lambda}\#\frac{a_{\lambda}-a_{\lambda+h}}{h}\#b_{\lambda+h}=-b_{\lambda}\#\d_{\lambda}a_{\lambda}\#b_{\lambda}, \end{align} where the right hand side is weakly continuous. Consider the set $$\Xi:=\{M=(M_{1},M_{2},M_{3}):M_{2}>0,M_{1}+M_{2}+M_{3}=M\}.$$ Iterating the decomposition (\ref{rozklad}) we obtain \begin{align}\label{pelny} \d_{\lambda}^{M}b_{\lambda}=\sum_{M\in\Xi}c_{M}\d_{\lambda}^{M_{1}}b_{\lambda}\#\d_{\lambda}^{M_{2}}a_{\lambda}\#\d_{\lambda}^{M_{3}}b_{\lambda}. \end{align} By induction hypothesis the right hand side is again weakly continuous. Hence the proof is complete. \end{proof} The decomposition (\ref{pelny}) actually gives more. It turns out that $b(w,\lambda):=b_{\lambda}(w)$ is also smooth if only $\lambda\neq 0$. It is a consequence of the fact that every derivative of $b(w,\lambda)$ has bounded partial derivatives outside of every set of type $\mathbb{R}^{2n}\times [-\varepsilon,\varepsilon]$. Note that $\widetilde{\widehat{B}}(w,\lambda)=\widehat{B}(-w,-\lambda)$, so $\widetilde{\widehat{B}}$ is the Fourier transform of a flag kernel if and only if $\widehat{B}$ is. \begin{theorem} Let $B$ be a distribution such that $\widehat{B}(w,\lambda)=b_{\lambda}(|\lambda|^{-1/2}w)$. Then, $B$ is a flag kernel. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} It is obvious from the definition that $\widehat{B}$ is smooth away from the hyperspace $\{(w,\lambda):\lambda=0\}$. We have \begin{align*} |(\d_{1,2,...,2n}^{\alpha}\widehat{B})(|\lambda|^{1/2}w,\lambda)||\lambda|^{|\alpha|/2}&=|\d_{1,2,...,2n}^{\alpha}\{\widehat{B}(|\lambda|^{1/2}w,\lambda)\}|=|\d_{w}^{\alpha}b_{\lambda}(w)|\\ \leqslant c_{\alpha}(1+\Vert w\Vert)^{-|\alpha|}. \end{align*} Therefore, \begin{align*} |(\d_{1,2,...,2n}^{\alpha}\widehat{B})(|\lambda|^{1/2}w,\lambda)|\leqslant c_{\alpha}(1+\Vert w\Vert)^{-|\alpha|}|\lambda|^{-|\alpha|/2}=c_{\alpha}(|\lambda|^{1/2}+\Vert|\lambda|^{1/2}w\Vert)^{-|\alpha|}. \end{align*} Now putting $w$ instead of $|\lambda|^{1/2}w$ we obtain \begin{align}\label{indukcja} |(\d_{w}^{\alpha}\widehat{B})(w,\lambda)|\leqslant c_{\alpha}(|\lambda|^{1/2}+\Vert w\Vert)^{-|\alpha|}. \end{align} It sufficies now to get the estimates of the derivatives with respect to $\lambda$. We can treat inequality (\ref{indukcja}) as an initial step of an induction. First of all using the fact that $K$ is a flag kernel one can calculate that \begin{align*} |\d_{\lambda}^{M}a_{\lambda}(w)|&=|\d_{\lambda}^{M}\{\widetilde{\widehat{K}}(|\lambda|^{1/2}w,\lambda)\}|\\ &=\mid\sum_{1\leqslant |\beta|+j\leqslant M}\frac{c_{\beta,j}w^{\beta}}{|\lambda|^{M-j-|\beta|/2}}(\d_{1,2,...,2n}^{\beta}\d^{j}_{2n+1}\widetilde{\widehat{K})}(|\lambda|^{1/2}w,\lambda)\mid\\ &\leqslant\sum_{1\leqslant |\beta|+j\leqslant M}\frac{|c_{\beta,j}|\Vert w\Vert^{|\beta|}}{|\lambda|^{M-j-|\beta|/2}}(\Vert |\lambda|^{1/2}w\Vert+|\lambda|^{1/2})^{-|\beta|}|\lambda|^{-j}\\ &\lesssim\frac{\Vert w\Vert^{|\beta|}}{|\lambda|^{M}(1+\Vert w\Vert)^{|\beta|}}\leqslant|\lambda|^{-M}. \end{align*} As $\{b_{\lambda}\}_{\lambda}$ is a bounded family in $Sym^{0}(\mathbb{R}^{2n})$ let us assume that it is so for the families $\{|\lambda|^{N}\d_{\lambda}^{N}b_{\lambda}\}_{\lambda}$, where $N<M$. Now using (\ref{pelny}) we can write $$|\lambda|^{M}\d_{\lambda}^{M}b_{\lambda}=\sum_{M\in\Xi}c_{M}|\lambda|^{M_{1}}\d_{\lambda}^{M_{1}}b_{\lambda}\#|\lambda|^{M_{2}}\d_{\lambda}^{M_{2}}a_{\lambda}\#|\lambda|^{M_{3}}\d_{\lambda}^{M_{3}}b_{\lambda}.$$ As $M_{2}>0$ one can use an induction argument and the standard symbolic calculus to deduce that the right hand side is bounded in $Sym^{0}(\mathbb{R}^{2n})$. Therefore, the families $\{|\lambda|^{M}\d_{\lambda}^{M}b_{\lambda}\}_{\lambda}$ are bounded, for all $M\in\mathbb{N}$. Thus, $$|\d_{w}^{\alpha}(|\lambda|^{M}\d_{\lambda}^{\beta}b_{\lambda}(w))|\leqslant c_{\alpha, M}(1+\Vert w\Vert)^{-|\alpha|},$$ so $$|\d_{w}^{\alpha}\d_{\lambda}^{\beta}b_{\lambda}(w)|\leqslant c_{\alpha, M}(1+\Vert w\Vert)^{-|\alpha|}|\lambda|^{-M}.$$ One can calculate that $$\d_{w}^{\alpha}\d_{\lambda}^{M}b_{\lambda}(w)=\sum_{\gamma+\delta=\alpha}\sum_{1\leqslant |\beta|+j\leqslant M}\frac{c_{\gamma,\beta,j}w^{\beta-\gamma}}{|\lambda|^{M-j-(|\beta|+|\delta|)/2}}(\d_{1,2,...,2n}^{\beta+\delta}\d^{j}_{2n+1}\widehat{B})(|\lambda|^{1/2}w,\lambda).$$ The only component of the sum on the right hand side that includes $j=M$ is the one with $\beta=\gamma=0,\ \delta=\alpha$. So, by induction hypothesis, we have \begin{align*} &|(\d_{1,2,...,2n}^{\alpha}\d^{M}_{2n+1}\widehat{B})(|\lambda|^{1/2}w,\lambda)||\lambda|^{|\alpha|/2}\\ &\lesssim\sum_{\gamma+\delta=\alpha}\sum_{1\leqslant |\beta|+j\leqslant M,\ \beta\neq 0}\frac{\Vert w\Vert^{|\beta|-|\gamma|}}{|\lambda|^{M-j-(|\beta|+|\delta|)/2}(\Vert |\lambda|^{1/2}w\Vert+|\lambda|^{1/2})^{|\beta|+|\delta|}|\lambda|^{j}}\\ &+|\d_{w}^{\alpha}\d_{\lambda}^{M}b_{\lambda}(w)|\\ &\lesssim\sum_{\gamma+\delta=\alpha}\sum_{1\leqslant |\beta|+j\leqslant M,\ \beta\neq 0}\frac{\Vert w\Vert^{|\beta|-|\gamma|}}{(1+\Vert w\Vert)^{|\beta|-|\gamma|}(1+\Vert w\Vert)^{|\alpha|}|\lambda|^{M}}+(1+\Vert w\Vert)^{-|\alpha|}|\lambda|^{-M}\\ &\lesssim (1+\Vert w\Vert)^{-|\alpha|}|\lambda|^{-M}. \end{align*} Thus, \begin{align*} |(\d_{1,2,...,2n}^{\alpha}\d^{M}_{2n+1}\widehat{B})(|\lambda|^{1/2}w,\lambda)|&\leqslant c_{\alpha,M}(1+\Vert w\Vert)^{-|\alpha|}|\lambda|^{-M}|\lambda|^{-|\alpha|/2}\\ &= c_{\alpha,M}(\Vert |\lambda|^{1/2}w\Vert+|\lambda|^{1/2})^{-|\alpha|}|\lambda|^{-M}. \end{align*} Again putting $w$ instead of $|\lambda|^{1/2}w$ we obtain $$|(\d_{w}^{\alpha}\d^{M}_{\lambda}\widehat{B})(w,\lambda)|\leqslant c_{\alpha,M}(\Vert w\Vert+|\lambda|^{1/2})^{-|\alpha|}|\lambda|^{-M}.$$ \end{proof} \begin{proof}[proof of Theorem \ref{nasze}] The KN symbol of $(\pi_{K}^{\lambda})^{-1}$ is $b_{\lambda}(w)=\widehat{B}(|\lambda|^{1/2}w,\lambda)$ which is the symbol of $\pi_{\widetilde{B}}^{\lambda}$ and $\widetilde{B}$ is a flag kernel. So $(\pi_{K}^{\lambda})^{-1}=\pi_{\widetilde{B}}^{\lambda}$. Now $$\pi_{\delta_{0}}^{\lambda}=Id=(\pi_{K}^{\lambda})^{-1}\pi_{K}^{\lambda}=\pi_{K}^{\lambda}(\pi_{K}^{\lambda})^{-1}=\pi_{\widetilde{B}}^{\lambda}\pi_{K}^{\lambda}=\pi_{K}^{\lambda}\pi_{\widetilde{B}}^{\lambda}=\pi_{\widetilde{B}\star K}^{\lambda}=\pi_{K\star \widetilde{B}}^{\lambda}.$$ So $K\star \widetilde{B}=\delta_{0}=\widetilde{B}\star K$. Now putting $L=\widetilde{B}$ for $f\in L^{2}({\HH^n})$ we achieve $K\star L\star f=L\star K\star f=f$, which is equivalent to $\mathop{\rm Op}\nolimits(K)\mathop{\rm Op}\nolimits(L)f=\mathop{\rm Op}\nolimits(L)\mathop{\rm Op}\nolimits(K)f=f$ and finally $\mathop{\rm Op}\nolimits(K)^{-1}=\mathop{\rm Op}\nolimits(L)$. \end{proof} \section*{Acknowledgements} The author wishes to express his deep gratitude to P.G{\l}owacki and M.Preisner for their helpful advices in preparing the manuscript.
\section{Introduction}\label{se:introduction} In this work we consider the following problem concerning the drawing of evolving networks. We are given a stream of edges $e_1,e_2\dots,e_m$ with their endpoints in a vertex set $V$ and an integer {\em window size} $\omega > 0$. Intuitively, edges of the stream are assigned a fixed ``lifetime'' of $\omega$ time intervals. Namely, for $1\leq i < |V|-\omega$, edge $e_i$ will \emph{appear} at the $i$-th time instant and \emph{disappear} at the $(i+\omega)$-th time instant. We aim at finding a sequence of drawings $\Gamma_i$ of the graphs $G_i=(V,\{e_j \mid i\leq j < i+\omega\})$, for $1\leq i < |V|-\omega$, showing the vertex set and the subset of the edges of the stream that are ``alive'' at each time instant $i$, with the following two properties: (i) each drawing $\Gamma_i$ is planar and (ii) the drawing of the common graphs $G^{i}_\cap=G_i\cap G_{i+1}$ is the same in $\Gamma_i$ and in $\Gamma_{i+1}$. We call such a sequence of drawings an {\em {$\omega$-streamed drawing}\xspace} ({$\omega$-SD}\xspace). The introduced problem, which we call {\sc Streamed Planarity}\xspace ({\sc SP}\xspace, for short), captures the practical need of displaying evolving relationships on the same set of entities. As large changes in consecutive drawings might negatively affect the ability of the user to effectively cope with the evolution of the dataset to maintain his/her mental map, in this model only one edge is allowed to enter the visualization and only one edge is allowed to exit the visualization at each time instant, visible edges are represented by the same curve during their lifetime, and each vertex is represented by the same distinct point. Thus, the amount of relational information displayed at any time stays constant. However, the magnitude of information to be simultaneously presented to the user may significantly depend on the specific application as well as on the nature of the input data. Hence, an interactive visualization system would benefit from the possibility of selecting different time windows. On the other hand, it seems generally reasonable to consider time windows whose size is fixed during the whole animation. To widen the application scenarios, we consider the possibility of specifying portions of a streamed graph that are alive during the whole animation. These could be, e.g., context-related substructures of the input graph, like the backbone network of the Internet (where edges not in the backbone disappear due to faults or congestion and are later replaced by new ones), or sets of edges directly specified by the user. We call this variant of the problem {{\sc Streamed Planarity with Backbone}\xspace} ({\sc SPB}\xspace, for short) and the sought sequence of drawings an {$\omega$-streamed drawing with backbone}\xspace ({$\omega$-SDB}\xspace). \smallskip \noindent\textbf{Related Work.} The problem is similar to on-line planarity testing~\cite{dt-opt-96}, where one is presented a stream of edge insertions and deletions and has to answer queries whether the current graph is planar. Brandes {\em et al.}~\cite{cbdanddgppsz-dtsm-12} study the closely related problem of computing planar straight-line grid drawings of trees whose edges have a fixed lifetime under the assumption that the edges are presented one at a time and according to an Eulerian tour of the tree. The main difference, besides using topological rather than straight-line drawings, is that in our model the sequence of edges determining the streamed graph is known in advance and no assumption is made on the nature of the stream. It is worth noting that the {\sc SP}\xspace Problem can be conveniently interpreted as a variant of the much studied {\sc Simultaneous Embedding with Fixed Edges (SEFE)} Problem (see~\cite{bkr-sepg-12} for a recent survey). In short, an instance of SEFE consists of a sequence of graphs $G_1,\dots,G_k$, sharing some vertices and edges, and the task is to find a sequence of planar drawings $\Gamma_i$ of $G_i$ such that $\Gamma_i$ and $\Gamma_j$ coincide on $G_i \cap G_j$. It is not hard to see that deciding whether a streamed graph is $\omega$-stream planar is equivalent to deciding whether the graphs induced by the edges of the stream that are simultaneously present at each time instant admit a SEFE. Unfortunately, positive results on SEFE mostly concentrate on the variant with $k=2$, whose complexity is still open, and the problem is NP-hard for $k \ge 3$~\cite{gjpss-sgefe-06}. However, while the SEFE problem allows the edge sets of the input graphs to significantly differ from each other, in our model only small changes in the subsets of the edges of the stream displayed at consecutive time instants are permitted. In this sense, the problems we study can be seen as an attempt to overcome the hardness of SEFE for $k \ge 3$ to enable visualization of graph sequences consisting of several steps, when any two consecutive graphs exhibit a strong similarity. We note that the $\omega$-stream planarity of the stream $e_1,\dots,e_m$ on vertex set $V$ and backbone edges $S$ is equivalent to the existence of a drawing of the (multi)graph $p = (V, \{e_1,\dots,e_m\} \cup S)$ such that (i) two edges cross only if neither of them is in $S$ and (ii) if $e_i$ and $e_j$ cross, then $|i-j| \ge \omega$. As such the problem is easily seen to be a special case of the {\sc Weak Realizability} Problem, which given a graph $G=(V,E)$ and a symmetric relation $R \subseteq E \times E$ asks whether there exists a topological drawing of $G$ such that no pair of edges in $R$ crosses. It follows that {\sc SP}\xspace and {\sc SPB}\xspace are contained in $\mathcal NP$~\cite{sss-rsgnp-03}. For $\omega=1$, the problem amounts to finding a drawing of $un$, where a subset of the edges, namely the edges of $S$, are not crossed. This problem has recently been studied under the name {\sc Partial Planarity}~\cite{abddgmpt-dnpgc-13,s-ppedgps-tr-13}. Angelini et al.~\cite{abddgmpt-dnpgc-13} mostly focus on straight-line drawings, but they also note that the topological variant can be solved efficiently if the non-crossing edges form a 2-connected graph. Recently Schaefer~\cite{s-ppedgps-tr-13} gave an $O((nm)^3)$-time testing algorithm for the general case of {\sc Partial Planarity} via a Hanani-Tutte style approach. He further suggests to view the relation $R$ of an instance of {\sc Weak Realizability} as a conflict graph on the edges of the input graph and to study the complexity subject to structural constraints on this conflict graph. \smallskip \noindent\textbf{Our Contributions.} In this work, we study the complexity of the {\sc SP}\xspace and {\sc SPB}\xspace Problems. In particular, we show the following results. \begin{compactenum} \item {\sc SPB}\xspace is \mbox{\NP-complete}\xspace for all $\omega \geq 2$ when the backbone graph is a spanning tree. \item There is a constant $\omega_0$ such that {\sc SP}\xspace with window size~$\omega_0$ is \mbox{\NP-complete}\xspace. \item We give an efficient algorithm with running time $O(n+\omega m)$ for {\sc SPB}\xspace when the backbone graph consists of one 2-connected component plus, possibly, isolated vertices and no stream edge connects two isolated vertices. \item We give an efficient algorithm for {\sc SPB}\xspace with running time $O(n+m)$ for $\omega=1$. \end{compactenum} It is worth pointing out that the second hardness result shows that {\sc Weak Realizability} is \mbox{\NP-complete}\xspace even if the conflict graph describing the non-crossing pairs of edges has bounded degree, i.e., every edge may not be crossed only by a constant number of other edges. In particular, this rules out the existence of FPT algorithms with respect to the maximum degree of the conflict graph unless $\mathcal P = \mathcal NP$. For the positive results, note that the structural restrictions on the variant for arbitrary values of $\omega$ are necessary to overcome the two hardness results and are hence, in a sense, best possible. Moreover, the algorithm for $\omega=1$ improves the previously best algorithm for {\sc Partial Planarity} by Schaefer~\cite{s-ppedgps-tr-13} (with running time $O((nm)^3)$-time) to linear. Again, since the problem is hard for all $\omega \ge 2$, this result is tight \section{Preliminaries}\label{se:preliminaries} For standard terminology about graphs, drawings, and embeddings refer to~\cite{dett-gd-99}. \remove{ A \emph{drawing} of a graph is a mapping of each vertex to a distinct point of the plane and of each edge to a simple Jordan curve connecting its endpoints. A drawing is \emph{planar} if the curves representing its edges do not cross except, possibly, at common endpoints. A graph is \emph{planar} if it admits a planar drawing. Two drawings of the same graph are \emph{equivalent} if they determine the same circular ordering of edges around each vertex. A \emph{planar embedding} is an equivalence class of planar drawings. A planar drawing partitions the plane into topologically connected regions, called \emph{faces}. } Given a $(k- 1)$-connected graph $G$ with $k\geq 1$, we denote by $k(G)$ the number of its maximal $k$-connected subgraphs. The maximal $2$-connected subgraphs are called {\em blocks}. Also, a $k$-connected component is {\em trivial} if it consists of a single vertex. Further, given a simply connected graph $G$, that is $1(G)=1$, the {\em block-cutvertex tree} $T$ of $G$ is the tree whose nodes are the cutvertices and the blocks of $G$, and whose edges connect nodes representing cutvertices with nodes representing the blocks they belong to. Contracting an edge $(u,v)$ in a graph $G$ is the operation of first removing $(u,v)$ from $G$, then identifying $u$ and $v$ to a new vertex $w$, and finally removing multi-edges. Let $G$ be a planar graph and let $\mathcal{E}$ be a planar embedding of $G$. Further, let $H$ be a subgraph of $G$. We denote by $\mathcal{E}{|_H}$ the embedding of $H$ determined by $\mathcal{E}$. Let \sefekinstance{k} be $k$ planar graphs on the same set $V$ of vertices. A {\em simultaneous embedding with fixed edges} ({\em SEFE}) of graphs $\langle G(V,E_i)\rangle^k_{i=1}$ consists of $k$ planar embeddings $\langle \mathcal{E}_i\rangle^k_{i=1}$ such that $\mathcal{E}_i|_{G_{ij}}=\mathcal{E}_j|_{G_{ij}}$, with $G_{ij}= (V, E_i \cap E_j)$ for $i \ne j$. The {\sc SEFE} Problem corresponds to the problem of deciding whether the $k$ input graphs admit a {\em SEFE}. Further, if all graphs share the same set of edges ({\em sunflower intersection}), that is, the graph $G_\cap = (V, E_i \cap E_j)$ is the same for every $i$ and $j$, with $1 \leq i < j \leq k$, the problem is called {\sc Sunflower SEFE} and graph $G_\cap$ is the {\em common graph}. In the following, we denote a streamed graph by a triple \instance{} such that $G(V,S)$ is a planar graph, called {\em backbone graph}, $E \subseteq V^2 \setminus S$ is the set of edges of a stream $e_1,e_2,\dots,e_m$, and $\Psi: E \leftrightarrow \{1,\dots,m\}$ is a bijective function that encodes the ordering of the edges of the stream. Given an instance $I=$~\instance{}, we call graph $G_\cup=(V, S \cup E)$ the {\em union graph} of $I$. Observe that, if $G_\cup$ has $k$ connected components, then $I$ can be efficiently decomposed into $k$ independent smaller instances, whose Streamed Planarity can be tested independently. Hence, in the following we will only consider streamed graphs with connected union graph. Also, we denote by $\mathcal{Q}$ the set of isolated vertices of $G$. Note that, an obvious necessary condition for a streamed graph \instance{} to admit an {$\omega$-SDB}\xspace is the existence of a planar combinatorial embedding $\mathcal{E}$ of the backbone graph $G$ such that the endpoints of each edge of the stream lie on the boundary of the same face of $\mathcal{E}$, as otherwise a crossing between an edge of the stream and an edge of $G$ would occur. However, since each edge of the stream must be represented by the same curve at each time, this condition is generally not sufficient, unless $\omega=1$; see Fig.~\ref{fig:ConsistentEdgeDrawing}. \begin{figure}[tb] \centering \begin{subfigure}{.3\textwidth} \centering \includegraphics[page=1]{img/NEG-PAR} \caption{} \end{subfigure} \hspace{1cm} \begin{subfigure}{.3\textwidth} \centering \includegraphics[page=2]{img/NEG-PAR} \caption{} \end{subfigure} \caption{Illustration of an instance \instance{} of {\sc SPB}\xspace with $\omega=2$, where $G$ is a $2$-connected graph, $E=\{e_i: 1\leq i \leq 5\}$, and $\Psi(e_i)=i$. Solid edges belong to $G$. (a) and (b) show different embeddings of $G$ and assignments of the edges in $E$ to the faces of such embeddings. (a) determines a \SDBp{2} of \instance{}, while (b) does not. }\label{fig:ConsistentEdgeDrawing} \end{figure} \section{Complexity}\label{se:npc} In the following we study the computational complexity of testing planarity of streamed graphs with and without a backbone graph. First, we show that {\sc SPB}\xspace is \mbox{\NP-complete}\xspace, even when the backbone graph is a spanning tree and $\omega = 2$. This implies that {\scshape Sunflower SEFE}\xspace is \mbox{\NP-complete}\xspace for an arbitrary number of input graphs, even if every graph contains at most $\xi = 2$ exclusive edges. Second, we show that {\sc SP}\xspace is \mbox{\NP-complete}\xspace even for a constant window size $\omega$. This also has connections to the fundamental {\sc Weak Realizability} Problem. Namely, Theorem~\ref{th:np-omega0} implies the \mbox{\NP-completeness}\xspace of {\sc Weak Realizability} even for instances $\langle G(V,E), R \rangle$ such that the maximum number of occurrences $\theta$ of each edge of $E$ in the pairs of edges in $R$ is bounded by a constant, i.e., for each edge there is only a constant number~$\theta$ of other edges it may not cross. These results imply that, unless P=NP, no FPT algorithm with respect to $\omega$, to $\xi$, or to $\theta$ exists for {\sc Streamed Planarity (with Backbone)}, SEFE\xspace, and {\sc Weak Realizability} Problems, respectively. \begin{theorem}\label{th:nptree} {\sc SPB}\xspace is \mbox{\NP-complete}\xspace for $\omega \geq 2$, even when the backbone graph is a tree and the edges of the stream form a matching. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} The membership in $\mathcal{NP}$\xspace follows from~\cite{sss-rsgnp-03}. % The \mbox{\NP-hardness}\xspace is proved by means of a polynomial-time reduction from problem {\scshape Sunflower SEFE}\xspace, which has been proved \mbox{\NP-complete}\xspace for $k=3$ graphs, even when the common graph is a tree $T$ and the exclusive edges of each graph only connect leaves of the tree~\cite{adn-osnsp-14}. Given an instance \sefekinstance{3} of {\scshape Sunflower SEFE}\xspace, we construct a streamed graph \instance{} that admits an {$\omega$-SDB}\xspace for $\omega=2$ if and only if \sefekinstance{3} is a positive instance of {\scshape Sunflower SEFE}\xspace, as follows. To simplify the construction, we first replace instance \sefekinstance{3} of {\scshape Sunflower SEFE}\xspace with an equivalent instance in which the exclusive edges in $E_1 \cup E_2 \cup E_3$ form a matching, by applying the technique described in~\cite{adfpr-bicosefe-14}. Then, we perform the reduction starting from such a new instance. Refer to Fig.~\ref{fig:3Page}. \begin{figure}[tb] \centering \centering \begin{subfigure}{.39\textwidth} \includegraphics[page=1, width=\textwidth]{img/3pageTEMPLATE} \caption{} \end{subfigure} \hspace{1cm} \begin{subfigure}{.51\textwidth} \includegraphics[page=2, width=\textwidth]{img/3pageTEMPLATE} \caption{} \end{subfigure} \caption{Illustration for the proof of Theorem~\ref{th:nptree}. (a) Instance \sefekinstance{3}. (b) Partial representation of instance \instance{} containing the edges of $G$ and the edges of the stream constructed starting from pairs of edges of \Eg{}. Edges of $T$ and $G$ are black, edges of \textcolor{red}{$G_1$}\xspace{}, \textcolor{blue}{$G_2$}\xspace{}, and \textcolor{OliveGreen}{$G_3$}\xspace are solid red, dashed blue, and dotted green, respectively. }\label{fig:3Page} \end{figure} First, set $G=T$. Then, for $i=1,2,3$ and for each edge $e = (u,v) \in E_i$, add to $G$ a star graph\footnote{A star graph is a tree with one internal node, called the {\em central vertex} of the star, and $k$ leaves.} $S(u_e)$ with leaves $u^1_e,\dots,u^q_e$ and a star graph $S(v_e)$ with leaves $v^1_e,\dots,v^q_e$ with $q=|E_i|-1$, and identify the center of $S(u_e)$ with $u$ and the center of $S(v_e)$ with $v$, respectively. Also, consider the vertex $\rho$ of $G$ corresponding to any internal node of $T$, add to $G$ vertices $s_{i}$, for $i=1,\dots,6$ (\emph{sentinel leaves}), and connect each of such vertices to $\rho$. Observe that, by construction, $G$ is a tree and $T\subset G$. The sentinel edges will serve as endpoints of edges of the stream, called \emph{sentinel edges}, used to split the stream in three substreams in such a way that no edge of one substream is alive together with an edge of a different substream. Further, set $E$ can be constructed as follows. For $i=1,2,3$ and for each pair $\langle l, m\rangle$ of edges in $E_i$, add to $E$ an edge $lm=(u^a_l,v^a_l)$ between a leaf of $S(u_l)$ and a leaf of $S(v_l)$ and an edge $ml=(u^b_m,v^b_m)$ between a leaf of $S(u_m)$ and a leaf of $S(v_m)$, respectively, for some $a,b \in {1,2,\dots,|E_i|-1}$, in such a way that no two edges in $E$ are incident to the same leaf of $G$. Observe that, by construction, $E$ is a matching. Also, add to $E$ edges $(s_1,s_2)$, $(s_3,s_4)$, and $(s_5,s_6)$ (\emph{sentinel edges}). Function $\Psi$ can be defined as follows. First, we construct an auxiliary ordering $\sigma=e_h,\dots,e_g$ of the edges in $E$, then we just set $\Psi(e)=\sigma(e)$, for any edge $e \in E$, where $\sigma(e)$ denotes the position of $e$ in $\sigma$. To obtain $\sigma$, we consider sets $E_1$, $E_2$, and $E_3$ in this order and perform the following two steps. {\sc STEP 1:} for each pair $\langle l,m\rangle$ of edges in $E_i$, add to $\sigma$ edge $lm$ and edge $ml$. {\sc STEP 2:} add to $\sigma$ the sentinel edge $(v_{2(i-1)+1},u_{2(i-1)+2})$. Observe that, by construction, each common graph $G^i_\cap$ contains the edges of $G$ plus at most two edges $lm$ and $ml$ of the stream with $l,m \in E_i$, for some $i \in \{1,2,3\}$. Observe that, the reduction can be easily performed in polynomial time. We now shot that \sefekinstance{3} admits a SEFE if and only if instance \instance{} admits an {$\omega$-SDB}\xspace for $\omega=2$. Suppose that \sefekinstance{3} admits a SEFE \simplesefeksolution{3}. Let $\mathcal{H}$ be the embedding of the common graph $T$ in \simplesefeksolution{3}, that is, ${\mathcal{H}}=\mathcal{E}_1|_T=\mathcal{E}_2|_T=\mathcal{E}_3|_T$. We construct a planar embedding $\mathcal{E}$ of $G$ by defining the rotation scheme of each non-leaf vertex of $G$, as follows. If $v$ is not a leaf of $T$, then the rotation scheme of $v$ in $\mathcal{E}$ is equal to the rotation scheme of $v$ in $\mathcal{H}$. If $v=u_l$ ($v=v_l$) is the unique neighbor of of any leaf vertex of $G$, then the rotation scheme of $u_l$ ($v_l$) can be chosen in such a way that the ordering of the leaves of $G$ that are adjacent to $u_l$ ($v_l$) is the reverse of the ordering of the leaves of $G$ that are adjacent to $v_l$ ($u_l$), where the the leaves of $G$ that are adjacent to $u_l$ ($v_l$) and to $v_l$ ($u_l$) are identified by the corresponding apex. % We claim that the constructed embedding $\mathcal{E}$ of $G$ yields an {$\omega$-SDB}\xspace of \instance{} for $\omega=2$. Let $\mathcal{O}$ be the circular ordering of the leaves of $T$ determined by an Eulerian tour of $T$ in $\mathcal{H}$. Also, let $\mathcal{O}'$ be the circular ordering of the leaves of $G$ determined by an Eulerian tour of $G$ in $\mathcal{E}$. Suppose that there exist two edges $xy$ and $yx$ with $|\Psi(xy)-\Psi(yx)|<\omega=2$ such that the endpoints $u^i_x$ and $v^i_x$ of edge $xy$ and the endpoints $u^j_y$ and $v^j_y$ of edge $yx$ alternate in $\mathcal{O}'$. This implies that the unique neighbors $u_x$ of $u^i_x$, $v_x$ of $v^i_x$, $u_y$ of $u^j_y$, and $v_y$ of $v^j_y$ in $T$ alternate in $\mathcal{O}$. This, in turn, implies a crossing between the two edges $x$ and $y$ of some set $E_i$. Hence, contradicting the fact that \simplesefeksolution{3} is a SEFE. Suppose that \instance{} admits an {$\omega$-SDB}\xspace for $\omega=2$. Let $\mathcal{E}$ be the planar embedding of $G$ in any {$\omega$-SDB}\xspace of \instance{}. Let $\mathcal{O}$ be the ordering of the leaves of $G$ in an Eulerian tour of $G$ in $\mathcal{E}$. Also, let $\mathcal{O}'$ of the ordering of the leaves of $T$ in an Eulerian tour of $T$ in the embedding $H=\mathcal{E}|_{T}$. We claim that $H$ yields a SEFE of \sefekinstance{3}. Suppose that there exist two edges $x=(u_x,v_x)$ and $y=(u_y,v_y)$ of some set $E_i$ whose endpoints alternate in $\mathcal{O}'$. Consider the two edges $xy=(u^p_x,v^p_x)$ and $yx=(u^q_y,v^q_y)$ of $E$, with $1\leq p \leq |E^*_i|-1$ and $1 \leq q \leq |E^*_i|-1$. Since the sets of leaves of $S(u_x)$, $S(v_x)$, $S(u_y)$, and $S(v_y)$ appear in $\mathcal{O}$ in the same order as the vertices $u_x$, $v_x$, $u_y$, and $v_y$ appear in $\mathcal{O}'$, the endpoints of $xy$ and $yx$ alternate in $\mathcal{O}'$. Further, by construction, it holds that either $\Psi(xy)=\Psi(yx)+1$ or $\Psi(yx)=\Psi(xy)+1$, that is, either edge $xy$ immediately precedes edge $yx$ in the stream or edge $yx$ immediately precedes edge $xy$ in the stream. The above facts then imply a crossing between edge $xy$ and $yx$ of the stream. Hence, contradicting the hypothesis that \instance{} admits an {$\omega$-SDB}\xspace for $\omega=2$. The above discussion proves the statement for $\omega = 2$. To extend the theorem to any value of $\omega \geq 2$ it suffices to augment \instance{} with additional sentinel leaves and sentinel edges. This concludes the proof of the theorem. \end{proof} \begin{theorem}\label{th:np-omega0} \label{th:np-omega0} There is a constant $\omega_0$ such that deciding whether a given streamed graph is $\omega_0$-stream planar is \mbox{\NP-complete}\xspace. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} The membership in $\mathcal{NP}$\xspace follows from~\cite{sss-rsgnp-03}. In the following we describe a reduction that, given a 3-SAT formula $\varphi$, produces a streamed graph that is $\omega_0$-stream planar if and only if $\varphi$ is satisfiable. To make things simple, we do not describe the stream, but rather important keyframes. Our construction has the property that edges have a FIFO behavior, i.e., if edge $e$ appears before edge $f$, then also $e$ disappears before $f$. This, together with the fact that in each key frame only $O(1)$ edges are visible ensures that the construction can indeed be encoded as a stream with window size $O(1)$. The value $\omega_0$ we use is simply the maximum number of visible edges in any of the key frames. We do not take steps to further minimize $\omega_0$, but even without this, the value produced by the reduction is certainly less than 120, as we estimate at the end of the proof. Sometimes, we wish to wait until a certain set of edges has disappeared. In this case we insert sufficiently many isolated edges into the stream, which does not change the $\omega_0$-planarity of the stream. We now sketch the construction. It consists of two main pieces. The first is a cage providing two faces called \emph{cells}, one for vertices representing satisfied literals and one for vertices representing unsatisfied literals. We then present a clause stream for each clause of $\varphi$. It contains one literal vertex for each literal occurring in the clause and it ensures that these literal vertices are distributed to the two cells of the cage such that at least one goes in the cell for satisfied literals. Throughout we ensure that none of the previously distributed vertices leaves the respective cell. Second, we present a sequence of edges that is $\omega_0$-stream planar if and only if the previously chosen distribution of the literal vertices forms a truth assignment. This is the case if and only if any two vertices representing the same literal are in the same cell and any two vertices representing complementary literals of one variable are in distinct cells. It is clear that, if the constructions work as described, then the resulting streamed graph is $\omega_0$-stream planar if and only if $\varphi$ is satisfiable. The first part of the stream ensure that from each clause one of the literals must be assigned to the cell containing satisfied literals (i.e. the literal receives the value true). The second part ensures that these choices are consistent over all literals, i.e., these choices actually correspond to a truth assignment of the variables. \begin{figure}[tb] \centering \includegraphics{fig/edge-traversal} \caption{Cycle $C$ (solid and dashed edges) contains vertex $x$ in its interior. The dashed edges leave the sliding window soon. Presenting a new path (dotted) parallel to the old path does not ensure that $x$ ends up in the interior of the resulting cycle $C'$ (solid and dotted edges).} \label{fig:edge-traversal} \end{figure} Our first step will be the construction of the cage containing the two cells. Since the cage needs to persist throughout the whole sequence, it must be constructed in such a way that it can be ``kept alive'' over time by presenting new edges. Note that it does not suffice to repeatedly present edges that are parallel to existing ones, as they may be embedded differently, and hence over time allow isolated vertices to move through obstacles; see Fig.~\ref{fig:edge-traversal}. We first present a construction that behaves like an edge that can be ``renewed'' without changing its drawing too much. We call it \emph{persistent edge}. \begin{figure}[tb] \centering \begin{subfigure}{.32\textwidth} \centering \includegraphics[page=1]{fig/persistent-edge} \caption{} \label{fig:persistent-edge-1} \end{subfigure} \hfill \begin{subfigure}{.32\textwidth} \centering \includegraphics[page=3]{fig/persistent-edge} \caption{} \label{fig:persistent-edge-2} \end{subfigure} \hfill \begin{subfigure}{.32\textwidth} \centering \includegraphics[page=4]{fig/persistent-edge} \caption{} \label{fig:persistent-edge-3} \end{subfigure} \caption{A persistent edge. The thickness of the edges indicates how long the edge stays in the sliding window. The thinner the edge the earlier it leaves the window. (a) The initial configuration; the dashed edge $bc$ dissolves first. It is used only once to initially enforce a unique planar embedding. (b) New vertices $b'$ and $c'$ with neighbors $u,b,v$ and $u,c,v$, respectively, are introduced. Starting from the embedding in (a) the embedding is uniquely defined. (c) After the edges incident to $a$ and $d$ disappear, the drawing has again the same structure as in (a). Repeating this cycle hence preserves the edge. Since edges are embedded only in the interior of the gadget vertices that are embedded outside the persistent edge cannot traverse it.} \label{fig:persistent-edge} \end{figure} Let $u$ and $v$ be two vertices. A persistent edge between $u$ and $v$ consists of the four vertices $a,b,c,d$, each lying on a path of length~2 from $u$ to $v$. Additionally, $a$ is connected to $b$ and $b$ is connected to $c$. Initially, we also have insert the edge $b,c$ to enforce a unique planar embedding. However, once it leaves the sliding window it does not get replaced. Figure~\ref{fig:persistent-edge-1} shows a persistent edge where the thickness of the edge visualizes the time until an edge leaves the sliding window. The thicker the edge the longer it stays. Once the edge $bc$ has been removed, but before any of the other edges disappear, we present in the stream the edges $ub'$, $vb'$ and $bb'$ as well as $uc'$, $vc'$ and $cc'$, where $b'$ and $c'$ are new vertices; see Fig.~\ref{fig:persistent-edge-2}. Note that there is a unique way to embed them into the given drawing. After the edges $ua$, $av$ leave the sliding window, $b$ takes over the role of $a$ and $b'$ takes over the role of $b$. Similarly, after the edges $ud$ and $dv$ leave the sliding window, $c$ takes over the role of $d$ and $c'$ takes over the role of $c$; see Fig.~\ref{fig:persistent-edge-3}. By presenting six new edges in regular intervals, the persistent edge essentially keeps its structure. In particular, we know at any point in time which vertices are incident to the inner and outer face. For simplicity we will not describe in detail when to perform this book keeping. Rather, we just assume that the sliding window is sufficiently large to allow regular book keeping. For example, before each of the steps described later, we might first update all persistent edges, then present the gadget performing one of the steps, then update the persistent edges gain, and finally wait for the gadget edges to be removed from the sliding window again. \begin{figure}[tb] \centering \begin{subfigure}[b]{.3\textwidth} \centering \includegraphics[page=1]{fig/cage} \caption{} \label{fig:cage} \end{subfigure} \begin{subfigure}[b]{.3\textwidth} \centering \includegraphics[page=3]{fig/cage} \caption{} \label{fig:cage-check-same} \end{subfigure} \begin{subfigure}[b]{.3\textwidth} \centering \includegraphics[page=2]{fig/cage} \caption{} \label{fig:cage-check-different} \end{subfigure} \caption{(a) The cage, the thick gray edges are persistent edges and are refreshed at regular intervals. After presenting all clause sequences, the faces $f^+$ and $f^-$ will contain the literal vertices corresponding to satisfied and unsatisfied literal vertices, respectively. (b) Edges used to check whether two literal vertices $x_i$ and $x_j$ are in the same face. (c) Edges used to check whether literal vertices $\overline{x_i}$ and $x_j$ are in distinct faces.} \label{fig:cage-and-check} \end{figure} Next, we describe the cage. Conceptually, it consists of two cycles of length~4, on vertices $a,b,c,v^+$ and $a,b,c,v^-$, respectively. However, the edges are actually persistent edges; see Fig.~\ref{fig:cage}. The interior faces $f^+$ and $f^-$ of the two cycles are the positive and negative literal faces, respectively. Note that at any point in time only a constant number of edges are necessary for the cage. Before we describe the clause gadget, which is the most involved part of the construction, we briefly show how to perform the test for the end of sequence. Namely, assume that we have a set $V' \subseteq V$ of literal vertices, and each of them is contained in one of the two literal faces. More formally, for each clause $c_i \in \varphi$ and for each Boolean variable $x$, set $V'$ contains a literal vertex $x_i$, if $x \in c_i$, or a literal vertex $\overline{x_i}$, if $\overline{x} \in c_i$. To check whether two literal vertices $x_i$ and $x_j$ corresponding to a variable $x$ are in the same face, it suffices to present an edge between them in the stream, then wait until that edge leaves the sliding window, and continue with the next pair; see Fig~\ref{fig:cage-check-same}. Of course, in the meantime we may have to refresh the persistent edges. Similarly, if we wish to check that literal vertices $\overline{x_i}$ and $x_j$ are in distinct faces, we make use of the fact that the two cycles forming the cage share two edges, and hence three vertices $a,b$ and $c$. We present in the stream the complete bipartite graph on the vertices $\{\overline{x_i},x_j\}$ and $\{a,b,c\}$. Clearly, this can be drawn in a planar way if and only if $\overline{x_i}$ and $x_j$ are in distinct faces; see Fig.~\ref{fig:cage-check-different}. Again, it may be necessary to wait until these edges leave the sliding window before the next test can be performed. \begin{figure}[tb] \centering \begin{subfigure}[b]{.3\textwidth} \centering \includegraphics[page=2, scale=.85]{fig/clause} \caption{} \label{fig:clause-1} \end{subfigure}\hfill \begin{subfigure}[b]{.3\textwidth} \centering \includegraphics[page=4, scale=.85]{fig/clause} \caption{} \label{fig:clause-2} \end{subfigure}\hfill \begin{subfigure}[b]{.3\textwidth} \centering \includegraphics[page=6, scale=.85]{fig/clause} \caption{} \label{fig:clause-3} \end{subfigure} \begin{subfigure}[b]{.6\textwidth} \centering \includegraphics[page=7, scale=.85]{fig/clause} \caption{} \label{fig:clause-4} \end{subfigure} \begin{subfigure}[b]{.3\textwidth} \centering \includegraphics[page=8, scale=.85]{fig/clause} \caption{} \label{fig:clause-5} \end{subfigure} \caption{Illustration of the clause sequence. (a) Initial embedding of the clause. (b), (c) faces indicator vertices can reach if they are embedded in the face close to the center and close to the boundary, respectively. (d), separating the vertices corresponding to satisfied and unsatisfied literals into two distinct faces. (e) Integrating the now separated literal vertices into the corresponding faces of the cage.} \label{fig:clause} \end{figure} Finally, we describe our clause gadget; see Fig.~\ref{fig:clause} for an illustration. First, we present the clause gadget as it is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:clause-1}. The literal vertices are large and solid, their corresponding indicator vertices are represented by large empty disks. The edges are ordered in the stream such that the three edges connecting a literal vertex to its indicator are presented first, i.e., they also leave the sliding window first. The remaining three edges incident to the literals are drawn last so that they remain present longest. Observe that the embedding of the clause without the literal and indicator vertices is unique; we call this part of the clause the \emph{frame}. Each literal vertex may choose among two possible faces of the frame where it can be embedded. Either close to the center or close to the boundary. The faces in the center are shaded light gray, the faces on the boundary are shaded or tiled in a darker gray in Fig.~\ref{fig:clause-1}. We now first wait until the edges between literal vertices and their indicators leave the sliding window. Now the following things happen. First, the thin dotted and dashed edges leave the sliding window. Immediately afterwards, we present in the stream paths of length~2 that replace these edges, so the frame essentially remains as it is shown. However, after this step, the indicator vertex of any literal that was embedded in the face close to the center may be in any of the faces shaded in light gray in Fig.~\ref{fig:clause-2}. Now, first the thick dotted edges leave the sliding window and are immediately replaced by parallel paths. Afterwards, the thick dashed edges leave the sliding window and are immediately replaced by parallel paths. Again, the frame remains essentially present. This allows the indicator vertices of literals that were embedded on the outer face to traverse into the faces indicated in Fig.~\ref{fig:clause-3}. Note that, if all literal vertices were embedded in the face close the boundary, then there is no face of the frame that can simultaneously contain them at this point. If however, at least one of them was embedded in the face close to the center, then there is at least one face of the frame that can contain all the vertices simultaneously. We now include in the stream a triangle on the three indicator vertices. This triangle can be drawn without crossing edges of the frame if and only if the three vertices can meet in one face, which is the case if and only if at least one indicator vertex, and hence also its corresponding literal vertex, was embedded close to the center. Now we wait until the edges of the clause, except for those incident to the literal vertices and the paths that were renewed have vanished; see Fig.~\ref{fig:clause-4}. Let now $p$ be a new vertex, and denote the neighbors of the literal vertex $x$ by $\alpha_x,\beta_x$ and $\gamma_x$, and similarly for $y$ and $z$. We now connect $v$ to the cage by present the edges $v^-v$ and $v^+v$ as well as edges forming a path from $c$ to $p$ that, starting from $p$, first visits $\alpha_x,\beta_x,\gamma_x$, then $\alpha_y,\beta_y,\gamma_y$, and finally $\alpha_z,\beta_z,\gamma_z$. Observe that the fact that $p$ has disjoint paths to $v^-,v+$ and $v$ containing the $\alpha_h,\beta_h$ and $\gamma_h$, with $h \in \{x,y,z\}$, ensures that, what remains of the clause gadget must be (and hence must have been all the time) embedded in the outer face of the cage. We assume without loss of generality that the path containing the $\alpha_h,\beta_h$ and $\gamma_h$, with $h \in \{x,y,z\}$, is not incident to the outer face. Again, we consider the edges incident to the literal vertices not as part of the construction. Then the path is incident to precisely two faces, which are adjacent to the literal faces of the cage. Denote the one incident to $f_+$ by $f_+'$ and the one incident to $f_-$ by $f_-'$; see Fig.~\ref{fig:clause-4}. Due to the traversal, we have that a literal vertex $v$ is contained in $f_+'$ if and only if it was embedded in the face close to the center in the clause, which means that the corresponding literal was satisfied. Otherwise, it is embedded in $f_-'$. It now remains to enclose the literal vertices into the corresponding face of the cage without letting escape any of the literal vertices already embedded there. First, we wait until all edges incident to the literal vertices have left the sliding window, i.e., they become isolated. Then, we present two new persistent edges parallel to the existing persistent edges $v^+c$ and $v^-c$, respectively; see Fig.~\ref{fig:clause-5}, where the new persistent edges are shaded dark gray. To ensure that the embedded is indeed as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:clause-5}, we one boundary vertex of each new persistent edge to a vertex on the outer boundary of the persistent edge it is parallel to (dashed lines in Fig.~\ref{fig:clause-5}). The new parallel edges replace the old persistent edges of the cage, and we wait until they have dissolved. Clearly, no vertex from an internal face of the cage can escape as the new persistent edges are embedded in the outer face of the cage. To ensure that the literal vertices must indeed be embedded in the literal faces, we present the edges $bx$, $by$ and $bz$. Finally, we wait until these edges vanish again. Then we are ready for the next clause sequence or for the final checking sequence. The above description produces for a given 3SAT formula $\varphi$ produces, for a sufficiently large (but constant!) $\omega_0$ a stream $S_\varphi$ one some vertex set $V_\varphi$ such that $\varphi$ is satisfiable if and only if $S_\varphi$ is $\omega_0$-stream planar. In the first part of the stream, in any sequence of corresponding planar embedding, the literals of each clause, represented by vertices, are transferred to two interior faces of the cage such that for each clause at least one literal vertex is transferred to the face representing satisfied literals. This models the fact that each clause must contain at least one satisfied literal. In the second part, a sequence of edges is presented that is $\omega_0$-planar if and only if the previously produced distribution of literals to the positive and negative faces of the cage corresponds to a truth assignment of the underlying variables. The construction can clearly be performed in polynomial time. We now briefly estimate the window size~$\omega_0$. The largest number of edges that are simultaneously important in our construction occurs when presenting a clause gadget. A clause gadget has 48 edges, and it is simultaneously visible with four persistent edges, each of which may use up to 16 edges immediately after they have refreshed. Hence a window size of $\omega_0 = 112$ suffices for the construction. \end{proof} \section{Algorithms for $\omega$-Stream Drawings with Backbone}\label{se:polynomiality} In this section, we describe a polynomial-time decision algorithm for the case that the backbone graph consists of a $2$-connected component plus, possibly, isolated vertices with no edge of the stream connecting two isolated vertices. We call instances satisfying these properties {\em star instances}, as the isolated vertices are the centers of edge disjoint star subgraphs of the union graph (see Section~\ref{se:star}). Observe that, the requirement of the absence of edges of the stream between the isolated vertices of a star instance seems to be quite a natural restriction. In fact, as proved in Theorem~\ref{th:np-omega0}, dropping this restriction makes the {\sc Streamed Planarity}\xspace Problem computationally tough. This algorithm will also serve as a subprocedure to solve the {{\sc SPB}\xspace Problem} for $\omega=1$ with no restrictions on the backbone graph (see Section~\ref{se:unit}). \subsection{Star Instances}\label{se:star} In this section we describe an efficient algorithm to test the existence of an {$\omega$-SDB}\xspace for star instances (see Fig.~\ref{fig:star}(a)). \begin{figure}[tb] \centering \begin{subfigure}{0.48\textwidth} \centering \includegraphics[height=0.5\textwidth]{img/star} \end{subfigure} \begin{subfigure}{0.48\textwidth} \centering \includegraphics[height=0.5\textwidth]{img/sefe} \end{subfigure} \caption{(a) A star instance with stream edges $E=\{e_i: 1\leq i \leq 4\}$, $\Psi(e_i)=i$, and $\omega=3$. (b) A SEFE of the instance of {\scshape Sunflower SEFE}\xspace obtained as described in Lemma~\ref{le:starreduction} where $G_\cup$ is drawn with thick solid black edges, exclusive edges of $G_i$ are drawn with the same style as edge $e_i$ and exclusive edges of $G_{m+1}=G_{5}$ are drawn as yellow solid curves. Vertices in $D(e_2)=\{v_2(e_2),v_3(e_2),v_4(e_2)\}$ are also shown.}\label{fig:star} \end{figure} The problem is equivalent to finding an embedding $\mathcal{E}$ of the unique non-trivial $2$-connected component $\beta$ of $G$ and an assignment of the edges of the stream and of the isolated vertices of $G$ to the faces of~$\mathcal{E}$ that yield a {$\omega$-SDB}\xspace. \begin{lemma}\label{le:starreduction} Let \instance{} be a star instance of {\sc SPB}\xspace and let $\omega$ be a positive integer window size. There exists an equivalent instance \sefekinstance{m+1} of {\sc Sunflower SEFE} such that the common graph $G_\cap$ consists of disjoint $2$-connected components. Further, instance \sefekinstance{m+1} can be constructed in $O(n+\omega{}m)$ time. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Given a star instance \instance{} of {\sc SPB}\xspace we construct an instance \sefekinstance{m+1} of {\scshape Sunflower SEFE}\xspace that admits a SEFE if and only if \instance{} admits an {$\omega$-SDB}\xspace, as follows. Refer to~Figs~\ref{fig:star}(a) and ~\ref{fig:star}(b) for an example of the construction. Initialize graph $G_\cap$ to the backbone graph $G$. Also, for every edge $e \in E$, add to $G_\cap$ a set of vertices $D(e) = \{v_i(e) \mid \Psi(e)\leq i < \min(\Psi(e)+\omega,m+1) \}$. Observe that, since \instance{} is a star instance, graph $G_\cap$ contains a single non-trivial $2$-connected component $\beta$, plus a set of trivial $2$-connected components consisting of the isolated vertices in $\mathcal{Q} \cup \bigcup_{e \in E} D(e)$. For $i=1,\dots,m$, graph $G_i$ contains all the edges and the vertices of $G_\cap$ plus a set of edges defines as follows. For each edge $e=(u,v) \in E$ such that $0 \leq i-\Psi(e)< \omega$, add to $E(G_i)$ edges $(u,v_i(e))$ and $(v_i(e),v)$. From a high-level view, graphs $G_i$, with $i=1,\dots,m$, are defined in such a way to enforce the same constraints on the possible embeddings of the common graph as the constraints enforced by the edges of the stream on the possible embeddings of the backbone graph. Finally, graph $G_{m+1}$ contains all the edges and the vertices of $G_\cap$ plus a set of edges defined as follows. For each edge $e \in E$, add to $E_{m+1}$ edges $(v_{\Psi(e)}(e),v_{k}(e))$, with $\Psi(e) < k < min(\Psi(e)+\omega, m+1)$. Observe that, in any planar drawing $\Gamma_{m+1}$ of $G_{m+1}$, vertices $v_k(e)$ lie inside the same face of $\Gamma_{m+1}$, for any edge $e \in E$. The aim of graph $G_{m+1}$ is to combine the constrains imposed on the embedding of the backbone graph by each graph $G_i$, with $i=1,\dots,m$, in such a way that, for each edge $e \in E$, the edges of set $D(e)$ are embedded in the same face of the backbone graph. Hereinafter, given a positive instance \sefekinstance{m+1} of SEFE with the above properties, we denote the corresponding SEFE $\langle \Gamma_i \rangle^{m+1}_{i=1}$ by \sefeksolution{m+1}, where $\mathcal{E}_i$ represents the embedding of $\beta$ in $\Gamma_i$ and $A_{\mathcal{E}_i}$ represents the assignment of the isolated vertices and of the exclusive edges of graph $G_i$ in $\Gamma_i$ to the faces of $\mathcal{E}_i$, for $i=1,\dots,m+1$. % Similarly, given a positive star instance \instance{} of {\sc SPB}\xspace we denote the corresponding {$\omega$-SDB}\xspace $\Gamma$ by $\langle \mathcal{E}, A_{\mathcal{E}}\rangle$, where $\mathcal{E}$ represents the embedding of the unique non-trivial $2$-connected component $\beta$ of $G$ in $\Gamma$ and $A_\mathcal{E}$ represents the assignment of the isolated vertices of $G$ and of the edges of the stream to the faces of~$\mathcal{E}$ in $\Gamma$. More formally, $A_{\mathcal{E}} \colon E \cup \mathcal{Q} \rightarrow F(\mathcal{E})$, where $F(\mathcal{E})$ denotes the set of facial cycles of $\mathcal{E}$. Suppose that \sefekinstance{m+1} is a positive instance of SEFE, that is, \sefekinstance{m+1} admits a SEFE \sefeksolution{m+1}. We show how to construct a solution $\langle \mathcal{E}, A_{\mathcal{E}}\rangle$ of \instance{}. Since \sefeksolution{m+1} is a SEFE and $\beta \in G_\cap$, we have that $\mathcal{E}_i= \mathcal{E}_j$, with $1\leq i<j \leq m+1$. We set the embedding $\mathcal{E}$ of $\beta$ to $\mathcal{E}_1$. % Further, for every edge $e \in E$, we set $A_\mathcal{E}(e)$ to the face of $\mathcal{E}_1$ vertex $v_{\Psi(e)}(e)$ is placed inside in $\Gamma_1$, that is, $A_\mathcal{E}(e)=A_{\mathcal{E}_1}(v_{\Psi(e)}(e))$. Similarly, for every isolated vertex $v \in \mathcal{Q}$, we set $A_\mathcal{E}(v)$ to the face of $\mathcal{E}_1$ vertex $v$ is placed inside in $\Gamma_1$, that is, $A_\mathcal{E}(v)=A_{\mathcal{E}_1}(v)$. We need to prove that $\mathcal{E}$ is a planar embedding of $\beta$ and that no crossing occurs neither between an edge in $E$ and an edge in $\beta$ nor between two edges $e_i \in E$ and $e_j \in E$, with $i<j$ and $\Psi(e_j)-\Psi(e_i)<\omega$. Observe that, since \sefeksolution{m+1} is a SEFE, the embedding $\mathcal{E}_i$ of $\beta$ in $\Gamma_i$ is planar. As $\mathcal{E}$ coincides with $\mathcal{E}_1$, it follows that $\mathcal{E}$ is also planar. Assume that there exists a crossing between an edge $e \in E$ and an edge of $\beta$. This implies that there exists in $\Gamma_{\Psi(e)}$ a path $p^*=(u,v_{\Psi(e)}(e),v)$ connecting two vertices of $u$ and $v$ of $\beta$ that are incident to different faces of $\mathcal{E}_{\Psi(e)}$. Further, assume that there exists a crossing between an edge $e_i \in E$ and an edge $e_j \in E$ with $\Psi(e_i)<\Psi(e_j)$ such that $\Psi(e_j) - \Psi(e_i)< \omega$ inside the same face $f$ of $\mathcal{E}$. This implies that there exists in $G_{\Psi(e_i)}$ a crossing between a path $p'=(a,\dots,v_{\Psi(e_i)}(e_i),\dots,b)$ and $p''=(c,\dots,v_{\Psi(e_i)}(e_j),\dots,d)$ only containing exclusive edges of $G_{\Psi(e_i)}$ such that $a,c,b$, and $d$ apper in this order in the face of $\mathcal{E}_{\Psi(e_i)}$ corresponding to $f$. Thus, both assumptions contradict the fact that \instance{} admits an {$\omega$-SDB}\xspace. Suppose that \instance{} admits an {$\omega$-SDB}\xspace, that is, there exist a planar embedding $\mathcal{E}$ of $\beta$ and an assignment function $A_\mathcal{E}: E \cup \mathcal{Q} \rightarrow F(\mathcal{E})$ such that, for any two paths $p'=(a,\dots,b)$ and $p''=(c,\dots,d)$ with $\{a,b,c,d\} \in \beta$ and $\Psi(e_j)-\Psi(e_i)< \omega$, for every edge $e_i \in p'$ and $e_j \in p''$ with $i<j$, it holds that $A_\mathcal{E}(e_i)\neq A_\mathcal{E}(e_j)$. We show how to construct a SEFE \sefeksolution{m+1} of \sefekinstance{m+1}. For $i=1,\dots,m+1$, we set the embedding $\mathcal{E}_i$ of $\beta$ to $\mathcal{E}$. For $i=1,\dots,m+1$ and for each edge $e \in E$, we assign each vertex $v_k(e) \in D(e)$ to the face of $\mathcal{E}_i$ that corresponds to the face of $\mathcal{E}$ edge $e$ is assigned to, that is, $A_{\mathcal{E}_i}(v_k(e))=A_{\mathcal{E}}(e)$. Also, for each edge $e=(u,v) \in E$, we assign edges $(u,v_k(e))$ and $(v_k(e),v)$ to face $A_{\mathcal{E}_k}(v_k(e))$, with $\Psi(e)\leq k < min(\Psi(e)+\omega,m+1) $. Further, for each edge $e=(u,v) \in E$, we assign edges $(v_{\Psi(e)},v_k(e))$ to face $A_{\mathcal{E}_{m+1}}(v_k(e))$, with $\Psi(e)< k < min(\Psi(e)+\omega,m+1)$. Finally, for $i=1,\dots,m+1$ and for each vertex $v \in \mathcal{Q}$, we set $A_{\mathcal{E}_i}(v)=A_{\mathcal{E}}(v)$. In order to prove that \sefeksolution{m+1} is a SEFE of \sefekinstance{m+1} we show that (i) $\mathcal{E}_i$ is a planar embedding of $\beta \in G_i$ (ii) all embeddings $\mathcal{E}_i$ coincide, (ii) there exists no crossing in $\Gamma_i$ involving the exclusive edges of any graph $G_i$, and (iv) each isolated vertex $v$ of $G_\cap$ is such that $A_{\mathcal{E}_i}(v)=A_{\mathcal{E}_j}(v)$, with $i \neq j$. Since $\mathcal{E}$ is planar by hypothesis and since $\mathcal{E}_i=\mathcal{E}$, condition (i) is trivially verified. Further, by construction, conditions (ii) and (iv), are also satisfied. % Assume that condition (iii) does not hold. In this case, either an exclusive edge $(v_i(e),w)$ of $G_i$ crosses an edge of $\beta$ or there exists a crossing between two exclusive edges $(v_i(e_1),p)$ and $(v_i(e_2),q)$ of $G_i$ inside the same face of $\mathcal{E}_i$. % In the former case, there must exists in $G_i$ a path $p_0=(a,v_{i}(e),b)$ composed of exclusive edges of $G_i$ connecting two vertices ${a,b} \in \beta$ (not necessarily different from $w$) that lie on the boundary of different faces of $\mathcal{E}_i$. However, this would imply that $G_\cup$ contains a path $p^*_0=(a,\dots,b)$ containing edge $e$ and only consisting of edges $e_k$ with $0 \leq i - \Psi(e_k) < \omega$, whose endpoints $a$ and $b$ lie on different faces of $\mathcal{E}$. % In the latter case, there must exist two vertex-disjoint paths $p_1=(a,\dots,v_i(e_1),\dots,b)$ and $p_2=(c,\dots,v_i(e_2),\dots,d)$ of exclusive edges of $G_i$ contained in a face $f$ of $\mathcal{E}_i$ connecting vertices ${a,b} \in f$ and ${c,d} \in f$, respectively, such that $a,c,b$, and $d$ appear in this order along $f$. However, this would imply that $G_\cup$ contains two paths $p^*_1=(a,\dots,b)$ and $p^*_2=(c,\dots,d)$ with endpoints in $\beta$ containing edges $e_1$ and $e_2$, respectively, and only containing edges $e_k$ in $E$ with $0 \leq i - \Psi(e_k) < \omega$ that lie inside the face $f^*$ of $\mathcal{E}$ corresponding to face $f$ of $\mathcal{E}_i$ and whose endpoints alternate along the boundary of $f^*$. Thus, both assumptions contradict the fact that \instance{} admits an {$\omega$-SDB}\xspace. It is easy to see that instance \sefekinstance{m+1} can be constructed in time $O(n + \omega{}m)$. In fact, the construction of the common graph $G_\cap$ takes $O(n)$-time, since the backbone graph $G$ is planar. Also, each graph $G_i$ can be encoded as the union of a pointer to the encoding of $G_\cap$ and of the encoding of its exclusive edges. Further, each graph $G_i$, with $i = 1,\dots, m $, has at most $\omega$ exclusive edges, and graph $G_{m+1}$ has at most $\omega{}m$ exclusive edges. This concludes the proof of the lemma. \end{proof} Lemma~\ref{le:starreduction} provides a straight-forward technique to decide whether a star istance \instance{} of {\sc SPB}\xspace admits a {$\omega$-SDB}\xspace. First, transform instance \instance{} into an equivalent instance \sefekinstance{m+1} of SEFE of $m+1$ graphs with sunflower intersection and such that the common graph consists of disjoint $2$-connected components, by applying the reduction described in the proof of Lemma~\ref{le:starreduction}. Then, apply to instance \sefekinstance{m+1} the algorithm by Bl{\"a}sius {\em et al.}~\cite{bkr-seeorpc-13} that tests instances of SEFE with the above properties in linear time. Thus, we obtain the following theorem. \begin{theorem}\label{th:algo-star} Let \instance{} be an star instance of {\sc SPB}\xspace. There exists an $O(n+ \omega{}m)$-time algorithm to decide whether \instance{} admits an {$\omega$-SDB}\xspace. \end{theorem} \subsection{Unit window size}\label{se:unit} In this section we describe a polynomial-time algorithm to test whether an instance \instance{} of {\sc SPB}\xspace admits an {$\omega$-SDB}\xspace for $\omega=1$. Observe that, in the case in which $\omega=1$, the {\sc SPB}\xspace Problem equals to the problem of deciding whether an embedding of the backbone graph exists such that the endpoints of each edge of the stream lie on the boundary of the same face of such an embedding. Let $\mathcal{G}_1,\dots,\mathcal{G}_{1(G)}$ be the connected components of the backbone graph $G$. Given an embedding $\mathcal{E}$ of $G$, we define the set $F(\mathcal{E})$ of facial cycles of $\mathcal{E}$ as the union of the facial cycles of the embeddings $\mathcal{E}_i=\mathcal{E}|_{\mathcal{G}_i}$ of each connected component $\mathcal{G}_i$ of $G$ in $\mathcal{E}$. We first prove an auxiliary lemma which allows us to focus our attention only on instances whose backbone graph contains at most one non-trivial connected component. \newcommand{\lemmaCONNECTED}{ Let \instance{} be an instance of {\sc SPB}\xspace. There exists a set of instances \instance{i} whose backbone graph $G(V_i,S_i)$ contains at most one non-trivial connected component $\mathcal{G}_i$ such that \instance{} admits a {$\omega$-SDB}\xspace with $\omega=1$ if and only if all instances \instance{i} admit a {$\omega$-SDB}\xspace with $\omega=1$. Further, such instances can be constructed in $O(n+m)$ time.} \begin{lemma}\label{le:connected} \lemmaCONNECTED \end{lemma} \begin{proof} We construct instances \instance{i} starting from $G_\cup$ in two steps. To ease the description, we assume that each vertex $v \in V$ is initially associated with an index $l(v)$ corresponding to the connected component of $G$ vertex $v$ belongs to, that is, $l(v)=i$ if $v \in V(\mathcal{G}_i)$. % First, we recursively contract each edge $(u,v)$ of $G_\cup$ with $\{u,v\} \subseteq V(\mathcal{G}_i)$ to a single vertex $w$ and set $l(w)=i$, for $i=1,\dots,1(G)$. Thus, obtaining an auxiliary graph $H$ on $1(G)$ vertices. Then, we obtain instances \instance{i} from $H$ by recursively uncontracting each vertex $w$ with $l(w)=i$, for $i=1,\dots,1(G)$. Note that, by construction, $\mathcal{G}_i \subseteq G(V_i,S_i)$. Observe that, the construction of $H$ requires $O(n+m)$ time. Further, the construction of each instance \instance{i} can be performed in $O(n_i+m_i)$ time, where $n_i=|V(\mathcal{G}_i)|$ and $m_i$ is the number of edges in $E$ that are incident to a vertex of $G_i$, which sums up to $O(n+m)$ time in total for all $1 \leq i \leq 1(G)$. Thus, proving the $O(n+m)$ running time of the construction. The necessity is trivial. In order to prove the sufficiency, assume that all instances \instance{i} admit a {$\omega$-SDB}\xspace for $\omega=1$. % Intuitively, a \SDBp{1} $\Gamma$ of the original instance can be obtained, starting from a \SDBp{1} $\Gamma_i$ of any \instance{i}, by recursively replacing the drawing of each isolated vertex $v_j \in \mathcal{Q}_i$ with the \SDBp{1} $\Gamma_j$ of \instance{j} (after, possibly, promoting a different face to be the outer face of $\Gamma_j$) . For a complete example, see Fig.~\ref{fig:connected-composition}. The fact that $\Gamma$ is a \SDBp{1} of \instance{} derives from the fact that each $\Gamma_i$ is a \SDBp{1} of \instance{i}, that in a \SDBp{1} crossings among edges in $E$ do not matter, and that, by the connectivity of the union graph, the assignment of the isolated vertices in $\mathcal{Q}_i$ to the faces of the embedding $\mathcal{E}_i$ of $\mathcal{G}_i$ in $\Gamma_i$ must be such that any two isolated vertices connected by a path of edges of the stream $E_i$ lie inside the same face of $\mathcal{E}_i$. In the following, we prove this direction more formally. We denote by $(\mathcal{E}_i, C_{\mathcal{E}_i})$ the solution of instance \instance{i}, where $\mathcal{E}_i$ is a planar embedding of $\mathcal{G}_i$ and $C_{\mathcal{E}_i}: F(\mathcal{E}_i) \rightarrow 2^{\mathcal{Q}_i}$ is an assignment of the set of isolated vertices $\mathcal{Q}_i$ of $G(V_i,S_i)$ to the set of faces of $\mathcal{E}_i$, denoted by $F({\mathcal{E}_i})$. % We now show how to extend the solutions $(\mathcal{E}_i, C_{\mathcal{E}_i})$ of instances \instance{i}, with $i=1,\dots,1(G)$, to a solution $\langle\mathcal{E}, C_\mathcal{E}\rangle$ of instance \instance{}, where $\mathcal{E}$ is a planar embedding of $G$ defining the set of facial cycles and $C_{\mathcal{E}}: F(\mathcal{E}) \rightarrow 2^{\{1,\dots,1(G)\}}$ is an assignment of the connected components of $G$ to the faces of $\mathcal{E}$. To obtain $\mathcal{E}$, we set the rotation scheme of each vertex $v$ of $G$ in $\mathcal{E}$ to the rotation scheme of $v$ in the embedding $\mathcal{E}_i$ of the component $\mathcal{G}_i$ of the backbone graph $G$ containing $v$. % Clearly, the set of facial cycles $F(\mathcal{E})$ of $\mathcal{E}$ is equal to the union of the set of facial cycles of each $\mathcal{E}_i$, that is, for each face $f \in \mathcal{E}$, we have that $f$ belongs to $\mathcal{E}_i$ for some $1\leq i\leq 1(\mathcal{G})$. The assignment function $C_\mathcal{E}$ can be defined as follows. Initialize $C_\mathcal{E}(f)=\emptyset$, for each facial cycle $f$ in $F(\mathcal{E})$. Then, consider each pair of connected components $\mathcal{G}_i$ and $\mathcal{G}_j$ of the backbone graph and, for each facial cycle $f$ in $F(\mathcal{E}) \cap F(\mathcal{E}_j)$, set $C_\mathcal{E}(f)=C_\mathcal{E}(f)\cup i$ if $i \in C_{\mathcal{E}_j}(f)$. We now prove that $(\mathcal{E},C_{\mathcal{E}})$ is a solution for \instance{}. Since each $\mathcal{E}_i$ is a planar embedding, then $\mathcal{E}$ is also planar. We just need to prove that for every two faces $f'$ and $f''$ of $\mathcal{E}$ either (i) $C_\mathcal{E}(f')\subseteq C_\mathcal{E}(f'')$, or (ii) $C_\mathcal{E}(f'')\subseteq C_\mathcal{E}(f')$, or (iii) $C_\mathcal{E}(f')\cap C_\mathcal{E}(f'')= \emptyset$. Clearly, if $f',f'' \in \mathcal{E}_i$ for some $i$, exactly one of (i), (ii), and (iii) must hold, as otherwise $(\mathcal{E}_i, C_{\mathcal{E}_i})$ would not be a solution of \instance{i}. We prove that there exist no $f' \in \mathcal{E}_i$ and $f'' \in \mathcal{E}_j$ with $i\neq j$ such that neither (i), (ii), or (iii) holds. We distinguish three cases according to whether $j \in C_{\mathcal{E}_i}(f')$, or $i \in C_{\mathcal{E}_j}(f'')$, or $j \notin C_{\mathcal{E}_i}(f') \wedge i \notin C_{\mathcal{E}_j}(f'')$. By the connectivity of the union graphs of each instance and by the fact that $(\mathcal{E}_i, C_{\mathcal{E}_i})$ and $(\mathcal{E}_j, C_{\mathcal{E}_j})$ are {$\omega$-SDB}\xspace of \instance{i} and \instance{j}, respectively, we have that: (i) must hold, if $i \in C_{\mathcal{E}_j}(f'')$; (ii) must hold, if $j \in C_{\mathcal{E}_i}(f')$; and (iii) must hold, if $j \notin C_{\mathcal{E}_i}(f') \wedge i \notin C_{\mathcal{E}_j}(f'')$. This concludes the proof of the lemma. \end{proof} By Lemma~\ref{le:connected}, in the following we only consider the case in which the backbone graph consists of a single non-trivial connected component plus, possibly, isolated vertices. We now present a simple recursive algorithm to test instances with this property. \noindent{\\\underline{Algorithm {\sc \bf ALGOCON}\xspace.}} \begin{itemize} \item[$\circ$ {\em INPUT:}] an instace $I=$~\instance{} of the {\sc {\sc SPB}\xspace} Problem with $\omega=1$ with union graph $G_\cup$ such that $G$ contains at most one non-trivial connected component. \item[$\circ$ {\em OUTPUT:}] \texttt{YES}, if \instance{} is positive, or \texttt{NO}, otherwise. \end{itemize} {\bf BASE CASE~1:} instance $I$ is such that $2(G)=0$, that is, every connected component of $G$ is an isolated vertex. Return \texttt{YES}, as instances of this kind are trivially positive. {\bf BASE CASE~2:} instance $I$ is such that (i) $2(G)=1$, that is, the backbone graph $G$ consists of a single $2$-connected component plus, possibly, isolated vertices and (ii) no edge of the stream connects any two isolated vertices. In this case, apply the algorithm of Theorem~\ref{th:algo-star} to decide $I$ and return \texttt{YES}, if the test succeeds, or \texttt{NO}, otherwise. {\bf RECURSIVE STEP:} instance $I$ is such that either (\texttt{CASE~R1}) $2(G)=1$ and there exists edges of the stream between pairs of isolated vertices or (\texttt{CASE~R2}) \mbox{$2(G)>1$}. First, replace instance $I$ with two smaller instances $I^\diamond=$~\instance{\diamond} and $I^\circ=$~\instance{\circ}, as described below. Then, return \texttt{YES}, if ${\sc ALGOCON}\xspace(I^\diamond)=$ \noindent ${\sc ALGOCON}\xspace(I^\circ)$ $=$ \texttt{YES}, or \texttt{NO}, otherwise. \begin{itemize} \item[{ \em CASE~R1}.] Instance $I^\diamond$ is obtained from $I$ by recursively contracting every edge $(u,v)$ of $G_\cup$ with $\{u,v\} \nsubseteq V(\mathcal{G})$. % Instance $I^\circ$ is obtained from $I$ by recursively contracting every edge $(u,v)$ of $G_\cup$ with $\{u,v\} \subseteq V(\mathcal{G})$. \item[{ \em CASE~R2}.] Let $\mathcal{G}$ be the unique non-trivial connected component of $G$, let $T$ be the block-cutvertex tree of $\mathcal{G}$ rooted at any block, and let $\beta$ be any leaf block in $T$. Also, let $v$ be the parent cutvertex of $\beta$ in $T$. We first construct an auxiliary equivalent instance $I^*=$~\instance{*} starting from $I$ and then obtain instances $I^\diamond$ and $I^\circ$ from $I^*$, as follows. See Fig.~\ref{fig:leafBlockSplit} for an illustration of the construction of instance $I^*$. \begin{figure}[tb] \centering \begin{subfigure}{0.48\textwidth} \centering \includegraphics[height=0.5\textwidth]{img/leafBlockSplitA} \end{subfigure} \begin{subfigure}{0.48\textwidth} \centering \includegraphics[height=0.5\textwidth]{img/leafBlockSplitB} \end{subfigure} \caption{(a) Instance $I$ and (b) instance $I^*$ obtained in {\em CASE~R2} of Algorithm {\sc ALGOCON}\xspace. Edges of the backbone graph are black thick curves; edge of the stream are green thin curves; and edges of the stream incident to $v'$ and $v''$ in $I^*$ are blue dashed curves.}\label{fig:leafBlockSplit} \end{figure} Initialize $I^*$ to $I$. Replace vertex $v$ in $V_*$ with two vertices $v'$ and $v''$ and make (i) $v'$ adjacent to all the vertices of $\beta$ vertex $v$ used to be adjacent to and (ii) $v''$ adjacent to all the vertices in $V(\mathcal{G})\setminus V(\beta)$ vertex $v$ used to be adjacent to. Then, replace each edge $(v,x)$ of $E^*$ with edge $(v',x)$, if $x \in V(\beta)$ or if $x \in \mathcal{Q}^*$ and there exists a path composed of edges of the stream connecting $x$ to a vertex $y\neq v \in V(\beta)$, and edge $(v'',x)$, if $x \in V(\mathcal{G}) \setminus V(\beta)$ or if $x \in \mathcal{Q}^*$ and there exists a path composed of edges of the stream connecting $x$ to a vertex $y \neq v \in V(\mathcal{G}) \setminus V(\beta)$. % Finally, add edge $(v',v'')$ to $E^*$. It is easy to see that instances $I$ and $I^*$ are equivalent. Instance $I^\diamond$ is obtained from $I^*$ by recursively contracting every edge $(u,v)$ of $G^*_\cup$ with $u,v \nsubseteq V(\beta)$, where $G^*_\cup$ is the union graph of $I^*$. Instance $I^\circ$ is obtained from $I^*$ by recursively contracting every edge $(u,v)$ of $G^*_\cup$ with $\{u,v\} \subseteq V(\beta)$. \end{itemize} \begin{theorem} Let \instance{} be an instance of {\sc SPB}\xspace. There exists an $O(n+m)$-time algorithm to decide whether \instance{} admits an {$\omega$-SDB}\xspace for $\omega=1$. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} The algorithm runs in two steps, as follows. \begin{itemize} \item {\bf STEP~1} applies the reduction illustrated in the proof of Lemma~\ref{le:connected} to \instance{} to construct $1(G)$ instances \instance{i} such that the backbone graphs $G(V_i,S_i)$ contain at most one non-trivial connected component. \item {\bf STEP~2} applies Algorithm {\sc ALGOCON}\xspace to every instance \instance{i} and return \texttt{YES}, if all such instances are positive, or \texttt{NO}, otherwise. \end{itemize} Observe that, the correctness of the presented algorithm follows from the correctness of Lemma~\ref{le:connected}, of Theorem~\ref{th:algo-star}, and of Algorithm {\sc ALGOCON}\xspace. We now prove the correctness for Algorithm {\sc ALGOCON}\xspace. Obviously, the fact that instances $I^\diamond$ and $I^\circ$ constructed in \texttt{CASE~R1} and \texttt{CASE~R2} are both positive is a necessary and sufficient condition for instance $I$ to be positive. We prove termination by induction on the number $2(G)$ of blocks of the backbone graph $G$ of instance $I$, primarily, and on the number of edges of the stream connecting isolated vertices of the backbone graph, secondarily. \begin{inparaenum}[(i)] \item If $2(G)=0$, then \texttt{BASE~CASE~1} applies and the algorithm stops; \item if $2(G)=1$ and no two isolated vertices of the backbone graph are connected by an edge of the stream, then \texttt{BASE~CASE~2} applies and the algorithm stops; \item if $2(G)=1$ and there exist edges of the stream between any two isolated vertices of the backbone graph $G$, then, by \texttt{CASE~R1}, instance $I$ is split into (a) an instance $I^\diamond$ with $2(G(V_{\diamond},E_{\diamond}))=1$ and no edges of the stream connecting any two isolated vertices of the backbone graph $G(V_{\diamond},E_{\diamond})$, and (b) an instance $I^\circ$ with $2(G(V_{\circ},E_{\circ}))=0$; \item finally, if $2(G)>1$, then, by \texttt{CASE~R2}, instance $I$ is split into (a) an instance $I^\circ$ with $2(G(V_{\diamond},E_{\diamond}))=1$ and (b) an instance $I^\circ$ with $2(G(V_{\circ},E_{\circ}))=2(G)-1$. \end{inparaenum} The running time easily derives from the fact that all instances \instance{i} can be constructed in $O(n+m)$-time and that the algorithm for star instances described in the proof of Theorem~\ref{th:algo-star} runs in $O(n+\omega{}m)$-time. This concludes the proof. \end{proof} \paragraph{Acknowledgments.} Giordano {Da Lozzo} was supported by the MIUR project AMANDA ``Algorithmics for MAssive and Networked DAta'', prot. 2012C4E3KT\_001. Ignaz \mbox{Rutter} was supported by a fellowship within the Postdoc-Program of the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD). This work was done while the authors where visiting the Department of Applied Mathematics at Charles University in Prague. \begin{figure}[tb] \begin{subfigure}{.32\textwidth} \centering \includegraphics[page=1, width=\textwidth]{img/connected-composition} \caption{} \end{subfigure} \begin{subfigure}{.32\textwidth} \centering \includegraphics[page=2, width=\textwidth]{img/connected-composition} \caption{} \end{subfigure} \begin{subfigure}{.32\textwidth} \centering \includegraphics[page=3, width=\textwidth]{img/connected-composition} \caption{} \end{subfigure} \\ \begin{subfigure}{.32\textwidth} \centering \includegraphics[page=4, width=\textwidth]{img/connected-composition} \caption{} \end{subfigure} \begin{subfigure}{.32\textwidth} \centering \includegraphics[page=5, width=\textwidth]{img/connected-composition} \caption{} \end{subfigure} \begin{subfigure}{.32\textwidth} \centering \includegraphics[page=6, width=\textwidth]{img/connected-composition} \caption{} \end{subfigure} \\ \begin{subfigure}{.32\textwidth} \centering \includegraphics[page=7, width=\textwidth]{img/connected-composition} \caption{} \end{subfigure} \begin{subfigure}{.32\textwidth} \centering \includegraphics[page=8, width=\textwidth]{img/connected-composition} \caption{} \end{subfigure} \begin{subfigure}{.32\textwidth} \centering \includegraphics[page=9, width=\textwidth]{img/connected-composition} \caption{} \end{subfigure} \\ \begin{subfigure}{.32\textwidth} \centering \includegraphics[page=10, width=\textwidth]{img/connected-composition} \caption{} \end{subfigure} \begin{subfigure}{.32\textwidth} \centering \includegraphics[page=11, width=\textwidth]{img/connected-composition} \caption{} \end{subfigure} \begin{subfigure}{.32\textwidth} \centering \includegraphics[page=12, width=\textwidth]{img/connected-composition} \caption{} \end{subfigure} \caption{(a) Instance $I=$~\instance{} of {\sc SPB}\xspace with $\omega=1$, where $G$ consists of $4$ connected components $\mathcal{G}_1$, $\mathcal{G}_2$, $\mathcal{G}_3$, and $\mathcal{G}_4$. Edges of the backbone graph are black thick curves. Edges of the stream are green thin curves. Instances $I_1$ (b), $I_2$ (d), $I_3$ (f), and $I_4$ (h) obtained by applying the procedure described in the proof of Lemma~\ref{le:connected} to instance $I$. \SDBp{1} $\Gamma_1$ (c), $\Gamma_2$ (e), $I_3$ (g), and $I_4$ (i) of instances $I_1$, $I_2$, $I_3$, and $I_4$, respectively. (j) \SDBp{1} $\Gamma^{12}$ obtained by replacing the drawing of $\mathcal{G}_2$ in $\Gamma_1$ with $\Gamma_2$. (k) \SDBp{1} $\Gamma^{123}$ obtained by replacing the drawing of $\mathcal{G}_3$ in $\Gamma^{12}$ with $\Gamma^{3}$. (l) \SDBp{1} $\Gamma^{1234}$ obtained by replacing the drawing of $\mathcal{G}_4$ in $\Gamma^{123}$ with $\Gamma_4$.}\label{fig:connected-composition} \end{figure} \clearpage {\bibliographystyle{splncs03}
\section{Introduction and main results}\label{s:intro} Given a metric space $(M,d)$, a function $\map{f}{M}{\R}$ is {\em Lipschitz} if \[ \Lip(f) := \sup\set{\frac{|f(x)-f(y)|}{d(x,y)}}{x \neq y}, \] is finite. Evidently, the {\em Lipschitz constant} $\Lip(f)$ of $f$ depends on $d$. A {\em pointed} metric space is simply a metric space with a distinguished point $x_0$. Given such a metric space $(M,d)$, we denote by $\Lipz{M}$ the set of all Lipschitz functions as above which also vanish at $x_0$. This set becomes a Banach space when endowed with the norm defined by $\n{f}=\Lip(f)$. Let $\delta(x)$, $x \in M$, denote the evaluation functional on $\Lipz{M}$ given by $\langle f,\delta(x)\rangle=f(x)$ for $f\in\Lipz{M}$. The {\em Lipschitz-free space} (or simply {\em free space}) $\mathcal{F}(M)$ is defined to be the norm-closed linear span of $\set{\delta(x)}{x \in M} \subseteq \Lipz{M}^*$. The Dirac map $\delta$ is an isometric embedding of $M$ into $\free{M}$. If $M$ is a Banach space, then $\delta$ is non-linear with a linear left inverse given by a barycentre map (see \cite[Proposition 2.1 and Lemma 2.4]{gk:03}). It turns out that the dual space $\mathcal{F}(M)^*$ of $\free{M}$ is linearly isometric to $\Lipz{M}$. Moreover, on bounded subsets of $\Lipz{M}$, the weak$^*$-topology induced by $\free{M}$ agrees with the topology of pointwise convergence. The precise location of the distinguished point $x_0$ within $M$ is not particularly important for us:\ given two distinguished points $x_0$ and $x_1$, the map $f\mapsto f-f(x_1)\ind{M}$ is a dual linear isometry between the corresponding spaces of Lipschitz functions. Spaces of Lipschitz functions and their preduals (referred to as Arens-Eells spaces) are studied in the book \cite{w:99} by Weaver. An introduction to the theory of Lipschitz-free spaces as defined here can be found in the seminal work of Godefroy and Kalton \cite{gk:03}. Lipschitz-free spaces are related to the study of Lipschitz isomorphism classes of spaces. Indeed, they constitute a tool for abstract linearization of Lipschitz maps in the following sense. If we use the above Dirac map $\delta$ to identify metric spaces $M$ and $N$ with subsets of the corresponding Lipschitz-free spaces $\free{M}$ and $\free{N}$, respectively, then any Lipschitz map $L$ from the metric space $M$ into the metric space $N$ has an extension to a continuous linear map $\hat L$ from $\free{M}$ into $\free{N}$ which preserves the Lipschitz constant (see \cite{w:99} or \cite[Lemma 2.2]{gk:03}). Moreover, if $N$ is a Banach space, then by composing $\hat L$ with the barycentre map we obtain an extension of $L$ to a continuous linear map from $\free{M}$ into $N$. So Lipschitz-free spaces can be employed to transfer non-linear problems to a linear setting. Moreover, in \cite[Theorem 3.1]{gk:03}, Godefroy and Kalton establish the so-called isometric lifting property for separable Banach spaces. As stated in \cite[Corollary 3.3]{gk:03}, this implies that if a separable Banach space $X$ is isometric to a subset of a Banach space $Y$, then $X$ is already linearly isometric to a subspace of $Y$. This assertion fails in the non-separable case:\ if $X$ is non-separable and weakly compactly generated, then $X$ does not embed linearly into $\free{X}$ (see \cite[Section 4]{gk:03}). Despite their straightforward definition, the linear structure of Lipschitz-free spaces is relatively difficult to analyse and has not been thoroughly described yet. Elucidating the properties of the class of Lipschitz-free spaces has been the topic of recent research and several interesting results have been obtained. The linear isometry between $\Lipz{\R}$ and $L_{\infty}$, furnished by differentiability almost everywhere, yields a predual linear isometry between $\free{\R}$ and $L_1$. On the other hand, $\free{\R^2}$ is not linearly isomorphic to any subspace of $L_1$, as Naor and Schechtman showed in \cite{ns:07} by the discretization of an argument due to Kislyakov \cite{ki:75}. Finally, the metric spaces whose Lipschitz-free space is linearly isometric to a subspace of $L_1$ were characterized by Godard in \cite[Theorem 4.2]{g:10} as metric spaces isometrically embeddable into an $\R$-tree. In \cite[Theorem 3.4]{d:14-proper}, Dalet proved that the Lipschitz-free space over a proper ultrametric space is linearly isometric to the dual of a space which is linearly isomorphic to $c_0$. Recently, C\'uth and Doucha managed to relax the assumption and show that the Lipschitz-free space over a separable ultrametric space is linearly isomorphic to $\ell_1$ \cite[Theorem 2]{cd:14}. One of the main results of the recent work of Kaufmann states that the Lipschitz-free space $\free{X}$ over a Banach space $X$ is linearly isomorphic to $\left(\sum_{n=1}^\infty\free{X}\right)_{\ell_1}$ \cite[Theorem 3.1]{kauf:14}. This yields an analogue of Pe\l czy\'nski's decomposition method \cite[Corollary 3.2]{kauf:14} and enables us to find a class of separable metric spaces whose Lipschitz-free spaces are linearly isomorphic to $\free{c_0}$ \cite[Corollary 3.4]{kauf:14}. This class contains in particular all $C(K)$ spaces where $K$ is an infinite compact metric space, thus this result provides another way of obtaining examples, first exhibited by Dutrieux and Ferenczi, of non-Lipschitz isomorphic Banach spaces having linearly isomorphic Lipschitz-free spaces \cite[Theorem 5]{df:05}. In this note we concentrate on approximation properties enjoyed by certain Lipschitz-free spaces. Recall that a Banach space $X$ has the {\em approximation property} (AP), or the {\em $\lambda$-bounded approximation property} ($\lambda$-BAP), if the identity operator on $X$ lies in the closure of the set of bounded, or uniformly $\lambda$-bounded, finite-rank operators on $X$, respectively, where closure is taken with respect to the topology of uniform convergence on norm-compact subsets of $X$. If $\lambda$ can be taken to be unity then $X$ is said to have the {\em metric approximation property} (MAP). A Banach space has the {\em bounded approximation property} (BAP) if it has the $\lambda$-BAP for some $\lambda$. In the case of the BAP the closure above can be taken with respect to the strong operator topology. Godefroy and Kalton in \cite[Theorem 5.3]{gk:03} proved that a Banach space $X$ has the $\lambda$-BAP if and only if $\free{X}$ has the $\lambda$-BAP. In view of the aforementioned linearization of Lipschitz maps via Lipschitz-free spaces \cite[Lemma 2.2]{gk:03}, it follows that the BAP is stable under Lipschitz isomorphisms between Banach spaces. By Godefroy and Ozawa \cite[Theorem 4]{go:14}, every separable Banach space $X$ is linearly isometric to a $1$-complemented subspace of $\free{K}$, where $K\subseteq X$ is closed, convex and generates $X$. Applying this result to a separable Banach space failing the AP constructed by Enflo \cite[Theorem 1]{e:73} yields a convex norm-compact metric space $K$ such that $\free{K}$ also fails the AP \cite[Corollary 5]{go:14}. However, if $M$ is a countable proper metric space, or a proper ultrametric space, then $\free{M}$ has the MAP \cite{d:14-proper}. The Lipschitz-free space over the Urysohn space has the MAP too, according to Fonf and Wojtaszczyk \cite[Theorem 2.1]{fw:08}. Lately in \cite[Theorem 1]{cd:14}, C\'uth and Doucha even built monotone Schauder bases in Lipschitz-free spaces over separable ultrametric spaces. Let us focus now on the spaces $\R^N$ and their subsets. To prove the aforementioned equivalence between $X$ having the $\lambda$-BAP and $\free{X}$ having the $\lambda$-BAP, Godefroy and Kalton first show that $\free{\R^N}$ has the MAP with respect to any norm on $\R^N$ \cite[Proposition 5.1]{gk:03}. In fact, $\free{\R^N}$ has a finite-dimensional Schauder decomposition \cite{bm:12}, which is monotone when considered with respect to the $\ell_1$-norm \cite[Theorem 3.1]{lp:13}. This result was extended in \cite[Theorem 3.1]{hp:14}, where Schauder bases of $\free{\ell_1^N}$ and $\free{\ell_1}$ were found. In \cite[Proposition 2.3]{lp:13} it is shown that there is a universal constant $C$, such that $\free{M}$, where $M\subseteq\R^N$ is arbitrary, has the $C\sqrt{N}$-BAP with respect to the Euclidean norm on $\R^N$. One of the applications of Kaufmann's main result asserts that if $M\subseteq \R^N$ has non-empty interior, then $\free{M}$ is linearly isomorphic to $\free{\R^N}$ \cite[Corollary 3.5]{kauf:14}. Consequently, when combined with \cite[Theorem 3.1]{hp:14}, such a $\free{M}$ admits a Schauder basis (having a basis constant which depends on the dimension $N$, as far as the present authors are aware). Our aim is to show that for certain subsets $M \subseteq \R^N$, the space $\mathcal{F}(M)$ has the MAP with respect to any norm on $\R^N$. The following theorem is our main result. \begin{thm}\label{thm:MAP} Let $N \geqslant 1$ and consider $\R^N$ equipped with some norm $\ndot$. Let a compact set $M \subseteq \R^N$ have the property that given $\xi>0$, there exists a set $\hat{M}\subseteq \R^N$ and a Lipschitz map $\map{\Psi}{\hat{M}}{M}$, such that $M \subseteq \intr(\hat{M})$, $\Lip(\Psi)\leqslant 1 + \xi$ and $\n{x-\Psi(x)} \leqslant \xi$ for all $x \in \hat{M}$. Then the Lipschitz-free space $\free{M}$ has the MAP. \end{thm} The proof of this theorem can be found in Section \ref{s:MAP} and relies on statements from Section \ref{s:preparatory}. The methods we use depend on the geometry of $M$ and, in particular, that of its boundary $\bdy M$. In Section \ref{s:ldc-sets} we establish a sufficient condition on $\bdy M$ for $M$ to satisfy the hypotheses of Theorem \ref{thm:MAP} and thus for $\free{M}$ to admit the MAP with respect to any norm on $\R^N$. Theorem \ref{thm:MAP} yields the following corollary, which we prove after Corollary \ref{cor:MAP} below. \begin{cor}\label{cor:finite-dim-convex} Let $N \geqslant 1$ and let $M\subseteq \R^N$ be compact and convex. Then $\free{M}$ has the MAP with respect to any norm on $\R^N$. \end{cor} The reader should compare this result to \cite[Corollary 5]{go:14} mentioned above, which asserts the existence of a compact convex subset $M$ of an infinite-dimensional separable Banach space, whose Lipschitz-free space $\free{M}$ fails the approximation property. We do not know if $\free{M}$ has the MAP for all subsets $M \subseteq \R^N$. \section{Locally downwards closed sets}\label{s:ldc-sets} In this section we introduce a class of subsets of $\R^N$ satisfying the assumptions of Theorem \ref{thm:MAP}. Given $M \subseteq \R^N$, let $\intr(M)$ denote the interior of $M$. \begin{defn}\label{def:downwards-closed} Let $N\geqslant 1$ and $M \subseteq \R^N$. Given open $U \subseteq \R^N$ and $u \in \R^N$, we shall say that $M$ is {\em downwards closed relative to $U$ and $u$} if it is closed and $y-tu \in \intr(M)$ whenever $y\in U\cap M$, $t>0$ and $y-tu \in U$. In addition, we will say that $M$ is {\em locally downwards closed} if, for every $x\in \R^N$, there is an open set $U \ni x$ and a vector $u\neq 0$, such that $M$ is downwards closed relative to $U$ and $u$. \end{defn} It is clear that this notion does not depend on the choice of norm on $\R^N$. To test a set to see if it is locally downwards closed, it is only necessary to check the condition at points of the boundary $\bdy M$:\ if $x \in \intr(M)$ or $x \in \R^N\setminus M$, then $M$ is downwards closed with respect to $\intr(M)$ and $\R^N\setminus M$, respectively, and any non-zero $u$. Thus, local downwards closure is a regularity condition on $\bdy M$. It is designed to mimic the notion that, locally, the boundary is the graph of a continuous function (subject to a suitable change of coordinates), without having to mention any functions in the definition. Certainly, any closed convex subset of $\R^N$ having non-empty interior is locally downwards closed, as the next proposition shows. Given $x,y \in \R^N$ and $s>0$, let $[x,y]$ denote the straight line segment between $x$ and $y$ and let $B(x,s)$ and $U(x,s)$ be the closed and open balls in $\R^N$ having centre $x$ and radius $s$ with respect to the Euclidean norm $\pndot{2}$, respectively. \begin{prop}\label{fat-star-shaped} Let $M \subseteq \R^N$, $N\geqslant 1$, be closed and imagine that the set \[ M_0 \;=\; \set{x \in M}{\text{$[x,y] \subseteq M$ for all $y \in M$}}, \] contains an interior point $w$. Then $M$ is locally downwards closed. \end{prop} \begin{proof}\phantom\qedhere Fix $w$ and $r>0$ such that $U(w,r)\subseteq M_0$. Given $x \in M\setminus \{w\}$, set $u=x-w$ and $r'=\min\{r,\frac{1}{2}\pn{u}{2}\}$. Given $y\in U(x,r')\cap M$, set $s=r'-\pn{y-x}{2}>0$. Evidently, $U(y+w-x,s)\subseteq U(w,r)\subseteq M_0$, and thus $\conv(U(y+w-x,s) \cup \{y\}) \subseteq M$. In particular, if $0< t \leqslant 1$, then $y-tu = y+t(w-x) \in \intr(M)$. If $t> 1$ then $y-tu \not\in U(x,r')$, because \[ \pn{x-(y-tu)}{2} \;\geqslant\; t\pn{u}{2}-\pn{y-x}{2} \;>\; 2r'-r' \;=\; r'. \tag*{\qedsymbol} \] \end{proof} In Proposition \ref{p:enlarging} below we show that a compact locally downwards closed set $M\subseteq\R^N$ satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem \ref{thm:MAP}. \begin{prop}\label{p:enlarging} Let $M\subseteq\R^N$, $N\geqslant 1$, be a compact and locally downwards closed set and let $\xi>0$. Then for any norm $\ndot$ on $\R^N$ there exists a set $\hat{M}\subseteq \R^N$ and a Lipschitz map $\map{\Psi}{\hat{M}}{M}$, such that $M \subseteq \intr(\hat{M})$, $\Lip(\Psi)\leqslant 1 + \xi$ and $\n{x-\Psi(x)} \leqslant \xi$ for all $x \in \hat{M}$. \end{prop} Most of Section \ref{s:ldc-sets} is concerned with proving Proposition \ref{p:enlarging}. The next corollary is obtained as an easy consequence. \begin{cor}\label{cor:MAP} Let $M\subseteq \R^N$ be a compact and locally downwards closed set. Then $\free{M}$ has the MAP with respect to any norm on $\R^N$. \end{cor} \begin{proof} The result follows directly from Theorem \ref{thm:MAP} and Proposition \ref{p:enlarging}. \end{proof} Corollary \ref{cor:MAP} allows us to prove Corollary \ref{cor:finite-dim-convex}. \begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary \ref{cor:finite-dim-convex}] Without loss of generality we can assume that $0 \in M$. If $X=\lspan{M}$, then $M$ has non-empty interior relative to $X$. Working now in $X$, the result follows from Proposition \ref{fat-star-shaped} and Corollary \ref{cor:MAP}. \end{proof} To prove Proposition \ref{p:enlarging} we first state and prove a few lemmas. Hereafter, we shall fix $N \geqslant 1$ and some norm $\ndot$ on $\R^N$. Unless otherwise stated, all Lipschitz constants are taken with respect to $\ndot$. The symbol $\pndot{p}$, $p \in [1,\infty]$, stands for the $\ell_p$-norm on $\R^N$. We will have need of a constant $K>0$ satisfying $\frac{1}{K}\ndot\leqslant\pndot{1},\pndot{2} \leqslant K\ndot$. \begin{lem}\label{no-conv} Let $U \subseteq \R^N$ be a convex open set, $k\geqslant 1$ and let $M\subseteq \R^N$ be downwards closed relative to $U$ and $u_1,\dots,u_k \in \R^N$. Fix $x \in U\setminus \intr(M)$ and $t_i > 0$, $1\leqslant i\leqslant k$, such that $x_i = x + t_i u_i \in U\setminus M$. Then $M \cap \conv(x_1,\dots,x_k)$ is empty. \end{lem} \begin{proof} We proceed by induction on $k$. Let $y=\sum_{i=1}^k \lambda_i x_i = x + \sum_{i=1}^k \lambda_i t_i u_i \in \conv(x_1,\dots,x_k)\subseteq U$, where $\lambda_i \geqslant 0$ and $\sum_{i=1}^k \lambda_i=1$. If $k=1$ then $y=x_1\not\in M$. Now suppose that $k>1$ and that the statement holds for $k-1$. We may assume that $\lambda_{k-1},\lambda_k>0$. Consider \[ z \;=\; y - \lambda_k t_k u_k \;=\; \bigg(\sum_{i=1}^{k-2} \lambda_i x_i\bigg) + \left(\lambda_{k-1}+\lambda_k\right)\tilde x \in \conv(x_1,\dots,x_{k-2},\tilde x), \] where $\tilde x =x+\lambda_{k-1}\left(\lambda_{k-1}+\lambda_k\right)^{-1}t_{k-1}u_{k-1}$. From the convexity of $U$ and downwards closure it follows that $\tilde x\in U\setminus M$. So, by inductive hypothesis, $z\notin M$. Hence $y\not\in M$, again by downwards closure. \end{proof} In the construction of $\hat M$ and $\Psi$ we will make use of a few auxiliary functions that are perturbations of the identity, both in a Lipschitz and uniform sense. Fix $\theta>1$, $x \in \R^N$, $r>0$ and $u \in \R^N$, $\pn{u}{2}=1$. We define the map $\map{T_{\theta,x,r,u}}{\R^N}{\R^N}$ by \begin{equation}\label{eq:T} T_{\theta,x,r,u}(y) \;=\; y + (\theta-1)((y-x)\cdot u+r)u, \end{equation} where $\cdot$ denotes the scalar product. For a map $\map{T}{E}{\R^N}$, where $E\subseteq\R^N$, we set \[ \pn{T}{\infty} \;=\; \sup\set{\n{T(y)}}{y \in E}. \] \begin{lem}\label{estimate} Let $\theta$, $x$, $r$, $u$ and $\;T_{\theta,x,r,u}$ be as above. Imagine that $E\subseteq \R^N$ is bounded, and set $P=\sup\set{\n{y-x}}{y \in E}<\infty$. Then $\Lip(T_{\theta,x,r,u}-I) \leqslant K^2(\theta-1)$ and $\pn{\left(T_{\theta,x,r,u}-I\right)\res{E}}{\infty}\leqslant K(KP+r)(\theta-1)$. \end{lem} \begin{proof}\phantom\qedhere Let $y,z \in \R^N$. Then \begin{align*} \n{(T_{\theta,x,r,u}-I)z-(T_{\theta,x,r,u}-I)y} &\;=\; (\theta-1)|((z-x)\cdot u+r)-((y-x)\cdot u+r)|\n{u}\\ &\;\leqslant\; K(\theta-1)|(z-y)\cdot u|\\ &\;\leqslant\; K(\theta-1)\pn{z-y}{2}\pn{u}{2}\\ &\;\leqslant\; K^2(\theta-1)\n{z-y}. \end{align*} If $y \in E$ then \begin{align*} \n{(T_{\theta,x,r,u}-I)y} &\;=\; (\theta-1)|(y-x)\cdot u+r|\n{u}\\ &\;\leqslant\; K(\theta-1)(\pn{y-x}{2}\pn{u}{2} + r)\\ &\;\leqslant\; K(KP+r)(\theta-1). \tag*{\qedsymbol} \end{align*} \end{proof} Next, we require a lemma about using partitions of unity to glue together Lipschitz functions. If these functions are sufficiently close to the identity map, both in a Lipschitz and uniform sense, then the resulting map is close in both senses as well. \begin{lem}\label{partition-of-unity} Let $\xi>0$, $U$ an open subset of a normed space $X$, $(U_j)_{j=1}^k$ an open cover of $U$, a partition of unity $\map{f_j}{U}{[0,1]}$, $1\leqslant j \leqslant k$, subordinated to the cover and consisting of $H$-Lipschitz functions, and functions $\map{\psi_j}{U}{X}$ such that \[ \Lip(\psi_j-I),\, \pn{\psi_j-I}{\infty} \;\leqslant\; \xi, \] $1\leqslant j \leqslant k$. Then the function $\map{\psi}{U}{X}$, defined by \begin{equation}\label{eq:glued-function} \psi(x) \;=\; \sum_{j=1}^k f_j(x)\psi_j(x), \end{equation} satisfies $\Lip(\psi-I)\leqslant (1+Hk)\xi$ and $\pn{\psi-I}{\infty}\leqslant\xi$. \end{lem} \begin{proof} Let $x,y \in U$. Then \begin{align*} \n{(\psi-I)y-(\psi-I)x} \;=\;& \n{\sum_{j=1}^k f_j(y)((\psi_j(y) - y)-(\psi_j(x)-x)) +(f_j(y)-f_j(x))\psi_j(x)}\\ \;\leqslant\;& \sum_{j=1}^k f_j(y)\n{(\psi_j(y) - y)-(\psi_j(x)-x)}\\ & + \n{\sum_{j=1}^k (f_j(y)-f_j(x))(\psi_j(x)-x)}\\ \;\leqslant\;& \xi\n{y-x} + \sum_{j=1}^k H\n{y-x}\xi \;=\; (1+Hk)\xi\n{y-x}. \end{align*} The other inequality follows easily. \end{proof} Of course, if $\Lip(\psi-I)\leqslant\xi<1$, then $\Lip(\psi)\leqslant 1+\xi$, and $\psi^{-1}$ exists and satisfies $\Lip(\psi^{-1})\leqslant 1/(1-\xi)$, because \begin{align*} \n{\psi(y)-\psi(x)} &\;=\; \n{y-x-((\psi(x)-x)-(\psi(y)-y))}\\ &\;\geqslant\; \n{y-x}-\n{(\psi(x)-x)-(\psi(y)-y)}\\ &\;\geqslant\; (1-\xi)\n{y-x}. \end{align*} Now we are in a position to prove Proposition \ref{p:enlarging}. \begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{p:enlarging}]\phantom\qedhere Initially, we make the assumption that $M$ is connected, in addition to being compact and locally downwards closed. Once we have dealt with the connected case, we show how this assumption can be removed. For each $x \in \bdy M$, let $r_x\in(0,1)$ and $u_x \in \R^N$, $\pn{u_x}{2}=1$, such that $M$ is downwards closed with respect to $U(x,2r_x)$ and $u_x$. Let $x_1,\dots,x_k \in \bdy M$ such that $(U(x_i,r_i))_{i=1}^k$ is a cover of $\bdy M$, where $r_i=r_{x_i}$. Set $U_i=U(x_i,r_i)$, $1\leqslant i \leqslant k$, and $U_{k+1}=\intr(M)$. Define $U=\bigcup_{i=1}^{k+1} U_i \supseteq M$, and let $\map{f_i}{U}{\R^N}$, $1\leqslant i \leqslant k+1$, be a partition of unity subordinated to $(U_i)_{i=1}^{k+1}$, such that each $f_i$ is $H$-Lipschitz, for some large enough $H$. Select $w\in\intr(M)$ and $\ep\in(0,\min\{1,\xi\})$ such that $B(w,\ep)\subseteq M$. Let \[ s=\min\set{r_j/2r_i}{1\leqslant i,j \leqslant k}, \] fix \begin{equation}\label{eq:small-perturb-1} {\ts \theta \;=\; \min\{1 + \frac{1}{2}K^{-2}(1+(k+1)H)^{-1}\ep, 1+K^{-1}(K\diam(U)+1)^{-1}\ep, 1+s \}}, \end{equation} let $\psi_i=T_{\theta,x_i,r_i,u_i}$, $1\leqslant i\leqslant k$, where $u_i=u_{x_i}$ and $T_{\theta,x_i,r_i,u_i}$ is as in (\ref{eq:T}), and set $\psi_{k+1}=I$. From Lemma \ref{estimate} and the fact that $r_i \leqslant 1$ for all $i$, we know that \begin{equation}\label{eq:small-perturb-2} \Lip(\psi_i-I) \;\leqslant\; K^2(\theta-1) \quad\text{and}\quad \pn{(\psi_i-I)\res{U}}{\infty} \;\leqslant\; K(K\diam(U)+1)(\theta-1). \end{equation} If $\map{\psi}{U}{\R^N}$ is the map defined in (\ref{eq:glued-function}) (in Lemma \ref{partition-of-unity}), then (\ref{eq:small-perturb-1}) and (\ref{eq:small-perturb-2}) yield \[ \Lip(\psi-I) \;\leqslant\; K^2(1+(k+1)H)(\theta-1) \;\leqslant\; {\ts \frac{1}{2}}\ep \;<\; 1, \] and \[ \pn{\psi-I}{\infty} \;\leqslant\; K(K\diam(U)+1)(\theta-1) \;\leqslant\; \ep. \] From above, we know therefore that $\psi^{-1}$ exists on $\psi(U)$, \begin{equation}\label{eq:small-perturb-3} \Lip(\psi^{-1}) \;\leqslant\; \frac{1}{1-{\ts \frac{1}{2}\ep}} \;\leqslant\; 1+\ep \;\leqslant\; 1+\xi \quad\text{and}\quad \pn{\psi^{-1}-I}{\infty} \;\leqslant\; \ep \;\leqslant\; \xi. \end{equation} According to Brouwer's Theorem of Invariance of Domain, $\psi(U)$ is open in $\R^N$. This implies that $\intr(\psi(M))$ is the same, relative to both $\psi(U)$ and $\R^N$, and likewise for $\bdy\psi(M)$, so we can use the terms without fear of ambiguity (of course, the same applies to $\intr(M)$ and $\bdy M$, relative to $U$ and $\R^N$). We would like to show that $M \subseteq \intr(\psi(M))$. First, we show that $M \cap \bdy\psi(M)$ is empty. Since $\psi$ is a homeomorphism of $U$ onto $\psi(U)$, we know that $\bdy\psi(M)=\psi(\bdy M)$. Let $x \in \bdy M$ and set $I=\set{i\leqslant k+1}{x\in U_i}$. Of course, $I\subseteq\{1,\dots,k\}$ because $U_{k+1}=\intr(M)$. It follows that \[ \psi(x) \;=\; \sum_{i=1}^{k+1}f_i(x)\psi_i(x) \;=\; \sum_{i \in I} f_i(x)\psi_i(x), \] where $\sum_{i\in I} f_i(x)=1$ and \[ \psi_i(x)\;=\; x+ (\theta-1)((x-x_i)\cdot u_i+r_i)u_i. \] Given $i\in I$, we have $0<(x-x_i)\cdot u_i+r_i < 2r_i$, because $\pn{x-x_i}{2}<r_i$. Consequently, \begin{equation}\label{eq:small-perturb-4} 0\;<\;\pn{\psi_i(x)-x}{2} \;\leqslant\; 2r_i(\theta-1) \;\leqslant\; 2r_i s \;\leqslant\; r_j, \end{equation} whenever $i\in I$ and $1\leqslant j \leqslant k$, by (\ref{eq:small-perturb-1}). Set $V=\bigcap_{i\in I} U(x_i,2r_i)$. Of course, $x \in \bigcap_{i\in I} U(x_i,r_i)\subseteq V$, and by (\ref{eq:small-perturb-4}), $\psi_i(x) \in V$ whenever $i \in I$ as well. Since $M$ is downwards closed relative to $U(x_i,2r_i)$ and $u_i$, we must have $\psi_i(x) \notin M$, because $x\not\in \intr(M)$. Thus, from Lemma \ref{no-conv}, we see that \[ \psi(x) \;=\; \sum_{i \in I} f_i(x)\psi_i(x) \;\notin\; M. \] In particular, $M \cap \bdy\psi(M)=M \cap \psi(\bdy M)$ is empty. Since $M \cap \bdy\psi(M)$ is empty, we can write $M$ as the union of two disjoint sets $M \cap \intr(\psi(M))$ and $M\setminus\psi(M)$, which are both open in $M$. Since $\psi(w)\in B(w,\ep)\subseteq M$, we have $\psi(w) \in \psi(\intr(M)) \cap M= \intr(\psi(M)) \cap M$. Therefore, by the connectedness of $M$, we know that $M=M \cap \intr\psi(M)\subseteq \intr\psi(M)$, as claimed. We complete the proof in the connected case by setting $\hat{M}=\psi(M)$ and $\Psi=\psi^{-1}$, and considering (\ref{eq:small-perturb-3}). We approach the general case by showing that a compact and locally downwards closed set decomposes into finitely many connected components, each one locally downwards closed. Then we apply what we have done above to each component and glue the results together. To prove that $M$ has just finitely many connected components, we begin by showing that if $x\in M$, then there exists an open set $V\ni x$ such that $M\cap V$ is connected. Indeed, pick an open Euclidean ball $U$ having centre $x$ and $u\neq 0$ such that $M$ is downwards closed relative to $U$ and $u$, fix any $t>0$ such that $x-tu \in U$, and then fix $r>0$ such that $U(x-tu,r)\subseteq M\cap U$, which exists by virtue of downwards closure. We claim that $M\cap V$ is path-connected, where $V$ is the open set \[ V \;=\; \set{y\in \R^N}{\pn{y-(x-su)}{2} < r \text{ for some }s \in [0,t]} \;\subseteq \; U. \] Indeed, if $y \in M$ and $\pn{y-(x-su)}{2} < r$ for some $s \in [0,t]$, then local downwards closure guarantees that $[y,y-(t-s)u]\subseteq M\cap V$, and as $y-(t-s)u \in U(x-tu,r) \subseteq M\cap V$, path-connectivity is evident. Now imagine, for a contradiction, that $M$ possesses infinitely many connected components. Extract a sequence $(x_n)\subseteq M$ such that each $x_n$ belongs to a different component, and let $x\in M$ be a limit point of this sequence. From above, there exists an open set $V\ni x$ such that $M\cap V$ is connected, however, this contradicts that fact that $M\cap V$ must contain infinitely many of the $x_n$, each belonging to different components of $M$. Thus $M=\bigcup_{i=1}^p M_i$, where the $M_i$ denote the connected components of $M$. Of course, each $M_i$ is compact and open in $M$, so each one is itself locally downwards closed. Select $\alpha \in (0,1)$ with the property that $\n{x-y}\geqslant\alpha$ whenever $x$ and $y$ lie in distinct components. Given $\xi>0$, set $\xi' = \min\{\frac{1}{2}\xi\alpha,\frac{1}{4}\alpha\}$. Using the result above for connected sets, take $\hat{M}_i \subseteq \R^N$ and maps $\map{\Psi_i}{\hat{M}_i}{M_i}$, such that $M_i \subseteq \intr(\hat{M}_i)$, $\Lip(\Psi_i)\leqslant 1 + \xi'$ and $\n{x-\Psi_i(x)} \leqslant \xi'$ whenever $x \in \hat{M}_i$ and $1\leqslant i\leqslant p$. The $\hat{M}_i$ are pairwise disjoint, because the existence of $x \in \hat{M}_i \cap\hat{M}_j$, $i\neq j$, would imply that \[ \alpha \;\leqslant\; \n{\Psi_i(x)-\Psi_j(x)} \;\leqslant\; \n{\Psi_i(x)-x}+\n{x-\Psi_j(x)} \;\leqslant\; {\ts \frac{1}{2}}\alpha. \] Define $\hat{M}=\bigcup_{i=1}^p \hat M_i$ and $\map{\Psi}{\hat{M}}{M}$ by $\Psi(x)=\Psi_i(x)$ whenever $x\in\hat{M}_i$. Certainly, $\n{x-\Psi(x)}\leqslant \xi$. Moreover, given $x,y \in M$, either they are in the same $\hat{M}_i$, giving $\n{\Psi(x)-\Psi(y)}=\n{\Psi_i(x)-\Psi_i(y)} \leqslant (1+\xi)\n{x-y}$, or they are in distinct $\hat{M}_i$ and $\hat{M}_j$, respectively, whence \[ \n{\Psi(x)-\Psi(y)} \;\leqslant\; \n{\Psi_i(x)-x} + \n{\Psi_j(y)-y} + \n{x-y} \;\leqslant\; (1+\xi)\n{x-y}. \tag*{\qedsymbol} \] \end{proof} \section{Preparatory lemmas}\label{s:preparatory} In order to prove Theorem \ref{thm:MAP}, we will need to demonstrate the existence of certain operators on $\free{M}$. However, we shall work mostly with dual operators on the dual space $\Lipz{M}$, because in our opinion $\Lipz{M}$ is a more `concrete' space than $\free{M}$ and, as a consequence, the dual operators can be defined and described more easily. In this section, we prove three lemmas that will be used in the proof of the main result. Lemma \ref{Lip-perturb} makes use of small Lipschitz perturbations of the identity to map Lipschitz functions on $M$ to Lipschitz functions on a slightly enlarged set, without changing the Lipschitz constants very much. Lemma \ref{l:smoothing} concerns the convolution of Lipschitz functions to make them smooth, and Lemma \ref{interpolate} addresses the problem of approximating certain smooth Lipschitz functions by `coordinatewise affine interpolation', again without increasing the Lipschitz constants by very much. Given $M \subseteq \R^N$ and $r>0$, we define the open set \begin{equation}\label{eq:M(r)} M(r) \;=\; \set{x \in \R^N}{d_2(x,\R^N\setminus M) > r}, \end{equation} where $d_2(\cdot,E)$ denotes distance to the set $E$ with respect to the Euclidean norm $\pndot{2}$. \begin{lem}\label{Lip-perturb} Let a compact set $M \subseteq \R^N$ have the property that given $\xi>0$, there exists a set $\hat{M}\subseteq \R^N$ and a Lipschitz map $\map{\Psi}{\hat{M}}{M}$, such that $M \subseteq \intr(\hat{M})$, $\Lip(\Psi)\leqslant 1 + \xi$ and $\n{x-\Psi(x)} \leqslant \xi$ for all $x \in \hat{M}$. Then, given $\ep>0$, there is $\hat{M}\subseteq \R^N$ such that $M \subseteq \hat{M}(r)$ for some $r>0$, and there is a dual operator $\map{Q}{\Lipz{M}}{\Lipz{\hat{M}}}$ (where $M$ and $\hat{M}$ share the same distinguished point $x_0$), such that $\n{Q}\leqslant 1 + \ep$ and \[ |f(x)-Qf(x)| \leqslant \ep\Lip(f), \] whenever $x \in M$. \end{lem} \begin{proof}\phantom\qedhere Let $\ep>0$. Let $\xi \in (0,\frac{1}{2}\ep)$, take $\hat{M}$ and $\Psi$ from the hypotheses, and define $Qf = f \circ \Psi - f(\Psi(x_0))\ind{\hat M}$. Evidently, $\map{Q}{\Lipz{M}}{\Lipz{\hat{M}}}$, $\n{Q} \leqslant 1 + \ep$, and $Q$ has predual $Q_*$ given by $Q_*\delta_x = \delta_{\Psi(x)}-\delta_{\Psi(x_0)}$, $x \in \hat M$. By compactness and the fact that $M \subseteq \intr(\hat{M})$, there exists $r >0$ such that $M \subseteq \hat{M}(r)$. If $x \in M$ then we estimate \begin{align*} |f(x)-Qf(x)| &\;=\; |f(x)-f(\Psi(x)) + f(\Psi(x_0))- f(x_0)|\\ &\;\leqslant\; |f(x)-f(\Psi(x))| + |f(\Psi(x_0))- f(x_0)|\\ &\;\leqslant\; (\n{x-\Psi(x)} + \n{\Psi(x_0)-x_0})\Lip(f)\\ &\;\leqslant\; \ep\Lip(f). \tag*{\qedsymbol} \end{align*} \end{proof} We move on to Lemma \ref{l:smoothing}. Following \cite[pp. 629]{E}, we define $\eta:\R^N\to[0,\infty)$ by \[ \eta(x)=\begin{cases} A\exp\left(\frac{1}{\pn{x}{2}^2-1}\right)&\textup{ if }\pn{x}{2}<1,\\ 0&\textup{ if }\pn{x}{2}\geqslant 1, \end{cases} \] where the constant $A>0$ is chosen so that $\lint{\R^N}{}{\eta(x)}{x}=1$. Next, for each $s>0$, we put \[ \eta_s(x)=\frac{1}{s^N}\;\eta\left(\frac{x}{s}\right). \] Then the function $\eta_s$ lies in $C^\infty(\R^N)$ and satisfies $\lint{\R^N}{}{\eta_s(x)}{x}=1$ and $\supp(\eta_s)\subseteq B(0,s)$. Consider a bounded set $M\subseteq \R^N$ having non-empty interior, and distinguished point $x_0\in \intr(M)$. Fix $r>0$ small enough so that $x_0\in M(r)$, where $M(r)$ is as in (\ref{eq:M(r)}). For a locally integrable map $\map{f}{M}{\R}$ and $x\in M(r)$, define \[ f_r(x)=(\eta_r\star f)(x)=\lint{M}{}{\eta_r(x-y)f(y)}{y}=\lint{B(0,r)}{}{\eta_r(y)f(x-y)}{y}. \] Finally, set \begin{equation} \label{eq:S_r} S_r(f)=f_r-f_r(x_0)\ind{M(r)}, \end{equation} on $M(r)$. Given a function $\map{g}{\R^N}{\R}$, we denote by $Dg(x)$ its total derivative at $x$, should it exist. We shall regard $Dg(x)$ both as a functional on $\R^N$ and as an $n$-tuple in $\R^N$, via the usual identification. \begin{lem} \label{l:smoothing} In the above setting, the mapping $S_r$ is a dual operator from $\Lipz{M}$ to $\Lipz{M(r)}$ (where $M$ and $M(r)$ have the same distinguished point $x_0$) and satisfies $\n{S_r}\leqslant 1$ and $S_r(\Lipz{M})\subseteq C^\infty(M(r))$. Moreover, for every $\ep>0$, there exists $\delta>0$ having the property that for every $f\in\Lipz{M}$, $x\in M(r)$ and $h\in\R^N$, $\n{h}\leqslant\delta$, such that $x+h \in M(r)$, we have \begin{equation} \label{uniform differentiability} \left|S_r(f)(x+h)-S_r(f)(x)-DS_r(f)(x)[h]\right|\leqslant \ep\Lip(f)\n{h}. \end{equation} Finally, for every $f\in\Lipz{M}$ and $x\in M(r)$, \begin{equation} \label{pw convergence} |S_r(f)(x)-f(x)|\leqslant 2\Lip(f)Kr, \end{equation} where $K$ is as in Section \ref{s:ldc-sets}. \end{lem} \begin{proof} Let $f\in\Lipz{M}$. Obviously, $S_r(f)(x_0)=0$. For $x,y\in M(r)$, we have \begin{align} \label{norm of S_r} \nonumber |S_r(f)(x)-S_r(f)(y)|&=|f_r(x)-f_r(y)|\\\nonumber &=\left|\lint{B(0,r)}{}{\eta_r(z)(f(x-z)-f(y-z))}{z}\right|\\\nonumber &\leqslant\lint{B(0,r)}{}{\eta_r(z)\Lip(f)\n{x-y}}{z}\\ &=\Lip(f)\n{x-y}. \end{align} So $S_r$ is a well-defined mapping from $\Lipz{M}$ to $\Lipz{M(r)}$. Furthermore, it is clearly linear and, by (\ref{norm of S_r}), bounded with $\n{S_r}\leqslant 1$. Since we can identify compactly supported Borel measures on $M$ with elements of $\free{M}$, we can see that the predual operator $(S_r)_*$ can be defined by writing $\mathrm{d}((S_r)_*\delta_x) = (\eta_r(x-y) - \eta_r(x_0-y))\mathrm{d}y$, $x \in M(r)$. The fact that $S_r(f)\in C^\infty(M(r))$ follows from \cite[Appendix C.4, Theorem 6$\,$(i)]{E}. For $x\in M(r)$ and $h\in\R^N$, let \[ L(x)[h]=\lint{M}{}{D\eta_r(x-y)[h]f(y)}{y}=\lint{B(0,r)}{}{D\eta_r(y)[h]f(x-y)}{y}. \] Clearly $L(x)$ is a bounded linear functional on $\R^N$. We will show that $L(x)$ is the derivative of $S_r(f)$ at $x$ and that the differentiability is uniform in the sense of (\ref{uniform differentiability}). Indeed, let $h\in\R^N$ be such that $x+h\in M(r)$. Then, by \cite[Corollary 4.99]{HJ}, \begin{align*} &\; |S_r(f)(x+h)-S_r(f)(x)-L(x)[h]|\\ =&\; |f_r(x+h)-f_r(x)-L(x)[h]|\\ =&\; \left|\lint{M}{}{\left(\eta_r(x+h-y)-\eta_r(x-y)-D\eta_r(x-y)[h]\right)f(y)}{y}\right|\\ \leqslant &\; \lint{M}{}{\left|\left(\eta_r(x+h-y)-\eta_r(x-y)-D\eta_r(x-y)[h]\right)f(y)\right|}{y}\\ \leqslant &\; A(M)\Lip(f)\omega_{D\eta_r}(\n{h})\n{h}, \end{align*} where $A(M)>0$ is a constant depending only on $M$, and $\omega_{D\eta_r}$ is the modulus of continuity of $D\eta_r$. Hence $DS_r(f)(x)=L(x)$ and (\ref{uniform differentiability}) holds whenever $\delta>0$ is chosen to satisfy $\omega_{D\eta_r}(\delta)\leqslant\frac{\ep}{A(M)}$. To conclude, for any $x\in M(r)$, \begin{align*} |f_r(x)-f(x)|&=\left|\lint{B(0,r)}{}{\eta_r(y)(f(x-y)-f(x))}{y}\right|\\ &\leqslant \lint{B(0,r)}{}{\eta_r(y)|f(x-y)-f(x)|}{y}\\ &\leqslant \Lip(f)Kr. \end{align*} Thus, for every $x\in M(r)$, we obtain \[ |S_r(f)(x)-f(x)|=|f_r(x)-f_r(x_0)-f(x)+f(x_0)| \leqslant 2\Lip(f)Kr, \] which yields (\ref{pw convergence}). \end{proof} Finally we address Lemma \ref{interpolate} and the approximation of smooth Lipschitz functions by coordinatewise affine functions. Fix $w \in \R^N$. We define a closed hypercube $C\subseteq\R^N$ having edge length $\delta>0$ and vertices $v_\gamma \in \R^N$, $\gamma \in \{0,1\}^N$, given by $v_\gamma = w + \delta \gamma$. We will write $V_C$ for the set of all vertices of $C$. Imagine that $f$ is a real-valued function whose domain of definition includes the set $V_C$. We define the {\em interpolation function} $\Lambda(f,C)$ on $\R^N$ by \begin{equation}\label{def:lambda} \Lambda(f,C)(x)=\sum_{\gamma\in\{0,1\}^N}\left(\prod_{i=1}^N\left(1-\gamma_i+(-1)^{\gamma_i+1}\frac{x_i-w_i}{\delta}\right)\right)f(v_\gamma). \end{equation} This is the same $\Lambda(f,C)$ as defined in \cite[Section 3.1]{lp:13} and \cite[Section 2.1]{hp:14}, except that in those cases the function is defined inductively, rather than by means of an explicit formula. This function is coordinatewise affine, i.e., $t \mapsto \Lambda(f,C)(x_1,\dots,x_{i-1},t,x_{i+1},\dots,x_N)$ is affine whenever $1 \leqslant i \leqslant N$. Of course, $\Lambda(f,C)$ agrees with $f$ on the vertices of $C$ and, moreover, it is the only coordinatewise affine function to do so. In the following lemma, we estimate the Lipschitz constant of $\Lambda(f,C)$ on $C$, given a certain uniform differentiability assumption on $f$. Below, the sequence $(e_i)_{i=1}^N$ denotes the standard unit vector basis of $\R^N$. \begin{lem}\label{interpolate} Let $\ep>0$, $U\subseteq \R^N$ be open and let $\map{f}{U\subseteq \R^N}{\R}$ be a differentiable Lipschitz function. Moreover, suppose there exists $\delta>0$ such that for each $x\in U$ and each $h\in\R^N$ with $\n{h}\leqslant K\delta$ and $x+h\in U$, we have \begin{equation}\label{unif2} |f(x+h)-f(x)-Df(x)[h]| \;\leqslant\; \ep\n{h}. \end{equation} Then, given a hypercube $C\subseteq U$ as above, having edge length $\delta$, and $\Lambda(f,C)$ as in $(\ref{def:lambda})$, we have \begin{equation} \label{eq:lipschitz constant on a cube} \Lip(\Lambda(f,C)\res{C})\;\leqslant\; K^2\ep+\Lip(f). \end{equation} In addition, for every $x\in C$, \begin{equation} \label{eq:uniform approximation on cubes} |\Lambda(f,C)(x)-f(x)|\leqslant \sqrt NK\Lip(f)\delta. \end{equation} \end{lem} \begin{proof}\phantom\qedhere Fix a hypercube $C\subseteq U$ having edge length $\delta$ and let $z\in \intr(C)$. We take $j\in\{1,\dots,N\}$ and compute the $j$-th partial derivative of the function $\Lambda(f,C)$ at $z$. By (\ref{def:lambda}), we have \begin{align*} \frac{\partial\Lambda(f,C)}{\partial x_j}(z)&=\sum_{\gamma\in\{0,1\}^N}\left(\prod_{\substack{i=1\\i\neq j}}^N\left(1-\gamma_i+(-1)^{\gamma_i+1}\frac{z_i-w_i}{\delta}\right)\right)\frac{(-1)^{\gamma_j+1}}{\delta}f(v_\gamma)\\ &=\sum_{\substack{\gamma\in\{0,1\}^N\\\gamma_j=0}}\left(\prod_{\substack{i=1\\i\neq j}}^N\left(1-\gamma_i+(-1)^{\gamma_i+1}\frac{z_i-w_i}{\delta}\right)\right)\frac{f(v_\gamma+\delta e_j)-f(v_\gamma)}{\delta}. \end{align*} Now, for any $\gamma\in\{0,1\}^N$ such that $\gamma_j=0$, we can write \begin{align*} \frac{f(v_\gamma+\delta e_j)-f(v_\gamma)}{\delta}&=\left(1-\frac{z_j-w_j}{\delta}\right)\frac{f(v_\gamma+\delta e_j)-f(v_\gamma)}{\delta}\\ &\phantom{=}+\frac{z_j-w_j}{\delta}\frac{f(v_\gamma)-f(v_\gamma+\delta e_j)}{-\delta}\\ &=\left(1-\gamma_j+(-1)^{\gamma_j+1}\frac{z_j-w_j}{\delta}\right)\frac{f(v_\gamma+(-1)^{\gamma_j}\delta e_j)-f(v_\gamma)}{(-1)^{\gamma_j}\delta}\\ &\phantom{=}+\left(1-\tilde\gamma_j+(-1)^{\tilde\gamma_j+1}\frac{z_j-w_j}{\delta}\right)\frac{f(v_{\tilde\gamma}+(-1)^{\tilde\gamma_j}\delta e_j)-f(v_{\tilde\gamma})}{(-1)^{\tilde\gamma_j}\delta}, \end{align*} where $\tilde\gamma\in\{0,1\}^N$ satisfies $\tilde\gamma_j=1$ and $\tilde\gamma_i=\gamma_i$ for $i\neq j$. Hence \[ \frac{\partial\Lambda(f,C)}{\partial x_j}(z)=\sum_{\gamma\in\{0,1\}^N}\left(\prod_{i=1}^N\left(1-\gamma_i+(-1)^{\gamma_i+1}\frac{z_i-w_i}{\delta}\right)\right)\frac{f(v_\gamma+(-1)^{\gamma_j}\delta e_j)-f(v_\gamma)}{(-1)^{\gamma_j}\delta}. \] So, for the total derivative of the function $\Lambda(f,C)$ at $z$ we obtain \begin{align*} D\Lambda(f,C)(z)&=\sum_{\gamma\in\{0,1\}^N}\Bigg(\left(\prod_{i=1}^N\left(1-\gamma_i+(-1)^{\gamma_i+1}\frac{z_i-w_i}{\delta}\right)\right)\\ &\phantom{=}\times\left(\frac{f(v_\gamma+(-1)^{\gamma_j}\delta e_j)-f(v_\gamma)}{(-1)^{\gamma_j}\delta}\right)_{j=1}^N\Bigg). \end{align*} Let $\tndot$ denote the dual of $\ndot$. For every $\gamma\in\{0,1\}^N$, we have \begin{align*} \bigg|\kern-.9pt\bigg|\kern-.9pt\bigg|\bigg(&\frac{f(v_\gamma+(-1)^{\gamma_j}\delta e_j)-f(v_\gamma)}{(-1)^{\gamma_j}\delta}\bigg)_{j=1}^N\bigg|\kern-.9pt\bigg|\kern-.9pt\bigg|\\ &\leqslant\bigg|\kern-.9pt\bigg|\kern-.9pt\bigg|\left(\frac{f(v_\gamma+(-1)^{\gamma_j}\delta e_j)-f(v_\gamma)-Df(v_\gamma)[(-1)^{\gamma_j}\delta e_j]}{(-1)^{\gamma_j}\delta}\right)_{j=1}^N \bigg|\kern-.9pt\bigg|\kern-.9pt\bigg|+\tn{Df(v_\gamma)}\\ &\leqslant \frac{K}{\delta}\pn{\big(f(v_\gamma+(-1)^{\gamma_j}\delta e_j)-f(v_\gamma)-Df(v_\gamma)[(-1)^{\gamma_j}\delta e_j]\big)_{j=1}^N}{\infty}+\Lip(f). \end{align*} Thus, by (\ref{unif2}), \begin{align*} \bigg|\kern-.9pt\bigg|\kern-.9pt\bigg|\left(\frac{f(v_\gamma+(-1)^{\gamma_j}\delta e_j)-f(v_\gamma)}{(-1)^{\gamma_j}\delta}\right)_{j=1}^N\bigg|\kern-.9pt\bigg|\kern-.9pt\bigg| &\leqslant \frac{K}{\delta}\cdot\ep\n{(-1)^{\gamma_j}\delta e_j} + \Lip(f)\\ &\leqslant K^2\ep+\Lip(f). \end{align*} To conclude, since $D\Lambda(f,C)(z)$ lies in the convex hull of the set \[ \set{\left(\frac{f(v_\gamma+(-1)^{\gamma_j}\delta e_j)-f(v_\gamma)}{(-1)^{\gamma_j}\delta}\right)_{j=1}^N} {\gamma\in\{0,1\}^N},\] we have \[ \tn{D\Lambda(f,C)(z)}\leqslant K^2\ep+\Lip(f). \] Therefore $\Lip(\Lambda(f,C)\res{C})\leqslant K^2\ep+\Lip(f)$. Finally, if $x\in C$, then \begin{align*} |\Lambda(f,C)(x)-f(x)|&= \left|\sum_{\gamma\in\{0,1\}^N}\left(\prod_{i=1}^N\left(1-\gamma_i+(-1)^{\gamma_i+1}\frac{x_i-w_i}{\delta}\right)\right)f(v_\gamma)-f(x)\right|\\ &\leqslant \sum_{\gamma\in\{0,1\}^N}\left(\prod_{i=1}^N\left(1-\gamma_i+(-1)^{\gamma_i+1}\frac{x_i-w_i}{\delta}\right)\right)\left|f(v_\gamma)-f(x)\right|\\ &\leqslant \sum_{\gamma\in\{0,1\}^N}\left(\prod_{i=1}^N\left(1-\gamma_i+(-1)^{\gamma_i+1}\frac{x_i-w_i}{\delta}\right)\right)\n{v_\gamma-x}\Lip(f). \end{align*} As $\n{v_\gamma-x}\leqslant K\pn{v_\gamma-x}{2} \leqslant \sqrt NK\delta$, we have \[ |\Lambda(f,C)(x)-f(x)|\leqslant \sqrt NK\Lip(f)\delta. \tag*{\qedsymbol} \] \end{proof} \begin{rem} The interpolation result \cite[Lemma 3.2]{lp:13} follows quickly from the proof above. In \cite{lp:13}, $\R^N$ is considered only with respect to $\pndot{1}$. If $\ndot=\pndot{1}$, then for each $\gamma \in \{0,1\}^N$ we get \begin{align*} \bigg|\kern-.9pt\bigg|\kern-.9pt\bigg|\bigg(\frac{f(v_\gamma+(-1)^{\gamma_j}\delta e_j)-f(v_\gamma)}{(-1)^{\gamma_j}\delta}\bigg)_{j=1}^N\bigg|\kern-.9pt\bigg|\kern-.9pt\bigg| &\;=\; \bigg\|\bigg(\frac{f(v_\gamma+(-1)^{\gamma_j}\delta e_j)-f(v_\gamma)}{(-1)^{\gamma_j}\delta}\bigg)_{j=1}^N\bigg\|_\infty\\ &\;\leqslant\; \Lip(f). \end{align*} Consequently, $\tn{D\Lambda(f,C)(z)}\leqslant \Lip(f)$ and $\Lip(\Lambda(f,C)\res{C})\leqslant\Lip(f)$. \end{rem} \section{The proof of Theorem \ref{thm:MAP}}\label{s:MAP} The proof of Theorem \ref{thm:MAP} combines the processes spelled out in Lemmas \ref{Lip-perturb} -- \ref{interpolate}: first, we approximate a given Lipschitz function by another Lipschitz function on a slightly larger domain, then we apply a convolution to produce a smooth Lipschitz function, and finally we approximate this smooth function by a number of locally coordinatewise affine functions. \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:MAP}] We will build a sequence $(T_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ of finite-rank dual operators on $\Lipz{M}$ such that $\n{T_n}\leqslant 1+n^{-1}$ for all $n\in\N$ and $T_n(f)(x) \to f(x)$ uniformly, simultaneously in $x \in M$ and $f\in B_{\Lipz{M}}$. Once we have done this, we indicate why this yields the MAP at the end of the proof. Let $n\in\N$. By Lemma \ref{Lip-perturb}, there is $\hat M_n\subseteq\R^N$ and \begin{equation} \label{eq:r} r_n \in \left(0,\frac{1}{n+1}\right), \end{equation} such that $M\subseteq \hat M_n((\frac{1}{2}K+2)r_n)$ (where $K$ is as in Section \ref{s:ldc-sets} and $\hat M_n((\frac{1}{2}K+2)r_n)$ is as in (\ref{eq:M(r)})), and there exists a bounded linear operator $Q_n:\Lipz{M}\to\Lipz{\hat M_n}$ satisfying $\n{Q_n}\leqslant 1+(3n)^{-1}$ and \begin{equation}\label{eq:Q} |f(x)-Q_n(f)(x)| \leqslant n^{-1}\Lip(f), \end{equation} whenever $f\in\Lipz{M}$ and $x \in M$. Next, we press the smoothing operator $\map{S_{r_n}}{\Lipz{\hat M_n}}{\Lipz{\hat M_n(r_n)}}$ defined in (\ref{eq:S_r}) into service. By Lemma \ref{l:smoothing}, $S_{r_n}(\Lipz{\hat M_n})\subseteq C^\infty(\hat M_n(r_n))$, and there exists \begin{equation} \label{eq:delta} \delta_n\in\left(0,\frac{r_n}{2\sqrt NK(3n+1)}\right), \end{equation} such that for every $g\in\Lipz{\hat M_n}$, every $x\in \hat M_n(r_n)$ and every $h\in\R^N$, $\n{h}\leqslant\delta_n$, satisfying $x+h\in \hat M_n(r_n)$, we have \begin{equation}\label{eq:unif-main} \left|S_{r_n}(g)(x+h)-S_{r_n}(g)(x)-DS_{r_n}(g)(x)[h]\right|\leqslant \frac{1}{3nK^2}\Lip(g)\n{h}. \end{equation} Consider the cover $\mathcal C_n$ of $\hat M_n(2r_n)$ by hypercubes of edge length $\delta_n$, determined by the mesh $\mathcal Z_n=\{x_0+\delta_n\zeta, \zeta\in \Z^N\}$. In other words, \[ \mathcal C_n=\set{C\subseteq \R^N}{C \text{ is a hypercube}, V_C=C\cap \mathcal Z_n \text{ and } C\cap \hat M_n(2r_n)\neq\varnothing} \] (here we recall that $V_C$ is the set of all vertices of $C$). According to (\ref{eq:delta}), we have $\bigcup \mathcal C_n\subseteq \hat M_n(r_n)$. Define $V_n=\bigcup_{C\in\mathcal C_n}V_C$. Given $f\in \Lipz{M}$ and $x\in M$, set \[ T_n(f)(x)=\Lambda\left(S_{r_n}\left(Q_n(f)\right),C\right)(x), \] whenever $x\in C \in \mathcal{C}_n$. Observe that the definition of the $\Lambda$ functions ensures that if $x \in C \cap C'$ and $C,C' \in \mathcal C_n$, then \[ \Lambda(S_{r_n}(Q_n(f)),C)(x)=\Lambda(S_{r_n}(Q_n(f)),C')(x). \] Therefore $T_n$ is well-defined. We will show that $T_n$ has the required properties. Fix $f\in B_{\Lipz{M}}$. To begin with, \[ T_n(f)(x_0)=S_{r_n}\left(Q_n(f)\right)(x_0), \] because $x_0\in V_n$. Therefore $T_n(f)(x_0)=0$. Let $x,y\in M$. Recall that $\n{S_{r_n}}\leqslant 1$ and $\n{Q_n}\leqslant 1+(3n)^{-1}$. If $\n{x-y}\geqslant r_n$, then \begin{align*} &\;|T_n(f)(x)-T_n(f)(y)|\\ \leqslant&\; |S_{r_n}\left(Q_n(f)\right)(x)-S_{r_n}\left(Q_n(f)\right)(y)| +2\sqrt NK(1+(3n)^{-1})\delta_n \tag*{by (\ref{eq:uniform approximation on cubes})}\\ \leqslant&\; |S_{r_n}\left(Q_n(f)\right)(x)-S_{r_n}\left(Q_n(f)\right)(y)|+(3n)^{-1}r_n \tag*{by (\ref{eq:delta})}\\ \leqslant&\; (1+(3n)^{-1})\n{x-y}+ (3n)^{-1}\n{x-y}\\ \leqslant&\; (1+n^{-1})\n{x-y}. \end{align*} On the other hand, if $\n{x-y}\leqslant r_n$, then $z \in [x,y]$ implies $d_2(z,M)\leqslant d_2(z,\{x,y\})\leqslant \frac{1}{2}\pn{x-y}{2} \leqslant \frac{1}{2}Kr_n$, so as $M\subseteq \hat{M}_n((\frac{1}{2}K+2)r_n)$, the line segment $[x,y]$ lies entirely inside $\hat M_n(2r_n)\subseteq \bigcup \mathcal C_n \subseteq \hat M_n(r_n)$. Thus, by partitioning $[x,y]$ with respect to the hypercubes through which it passes, the estimate of the Lipschitz constants of the interpolation functions on hypercubes (\ref{eq:lipschitz constant on a cube}), which follows from (\ref{eq:unif-main}) by Lemma \ref{interpolate}, yields \begin{align*} |T_n(f)(x)-T_n(f)(y)|&\leqslant ((3n)^{-1}\Lip(Q_n(f))+\Lip(S_{r_n}(Q_n(f))))\n{x-y}\\ &\leqslant (1+(3n)^{-1})^2\n{x-y} \leqslant (1+n^{-1})\n{x-y}. \end{align*} Thus we conclude that $T_n$ is a well-defined mapping on $\Lipz{M}$. Moreover, it is obviously a linear operator and $\n{T_n}\leqslant 1+n^{-1}$. Given $x\in V_n$, denote by $\map{\phi_x}{\bigcup \mathcal{C}_n}{\R}$ the unique Lipschitz function that is coordinatewise affine on each $C\in\mathcal C_n$ and satisfies $\phi_x\res{V_n}=\ind{\{x\}}\res{V_n}$. Since $T_n(\Lipz{M})\subseteq \aspan\set{\phi_x\res{M}}{x\in V_n}$, the operator $T_n$ is of finite rank. As stated in Lemmas \ref{Lip-perturb} and \ref{l:smoothing}, the operators $Q_n$ and $S_{r_n}$ are both dual operators. From the definition of the interpolation formula (\ref{def:lambda}), it is easy to see that $T_n$ is also a dual operator. Finally, by combining (\ref{eq:uniform approximation on cubes}), (\ref{pw convergence}) and (\ref{eq:Q}), we get \begin{align*} |T_n(f)(x)-f(x)| \leqslant &\; |T_n(f)(x)-S_{r_n}(Q_n(f))(x)| + |S_{r_n}(Q_n(f))(x)-Q_n(f)(x)|\\ & + |Q_n(f)(x)-f(x)| \\ \leqslant&\; \sqrt NK(1+(3n)^{-1})\delta_n + 2K(1+(3n)^{-1})r_n + n^{-1}, \end{align*} for $f\in B_{\Lipz{M}}$ and $x\in M$. Then the choice of $\delta_n$ and $r_n$ (see (\ref{eq:delta}) and (\ref{eq:r}), respectively) gives \begin{equation}\label{unif} |T_n(f)(x)-f(x)| \leqslant \frac{1}{6n(n+1)} + (2K + 1)n^{-1}. \end{equation} Thus $T_n(f)(x)\to f(x)$ uniformly, both in $x \in M$ and $f \in B_{\Lipz{M}}$. Now we explain why this means that $\free{M}$ has the MAP. Since $T_n$ is a dual operator, by (\ref{unif}), the finite-rank predual operator $(T_n)_*$ on $\free{M}$ satisfies \[ \n{(T_n)_*\delta_x - \delta_x} \to 0 \] for all $x \in M$. Consequently, $(T_n)_*$ converges to the identity operator in the strong operator topology. Since $\n{(T_n)_*} \to 1$, we deduce that $\free{M}$ has the MAP. \end{proof}
\section{Introduction} The spectrum of the outermost bound electron of an alkali atom like $^{87}$Rb is hydrogen like, but lacks the $n^{2}$-degeneracy of the eigenstates labeled by the principal quantum number $n$ of the pure Coulomb potential \cite{Gallagher.1994},\cite{scaled_units} \begin{equation} E_{n,l} = -\frac{1}{\left(n-\delta_{l}\right)^{2}}. \end{equation} This effect is the well-known quantum defect $\delta_{l}$, resulting from the interaction of the outermost electron with the ionic core of the atom and the nucleus. In a refined version of the statistical Thomas-Fermi theory \cite{GoeppertMayer.1941}, an effective potential determining the interaction between the outermost electron and the nucleus can accurately be modeled by a spherically symmetric potential $V_{\mathrm{eff}}\left(r;l\right)$ depending on the distance $r$ from the center and depending on the orbital angular momentum $l\in\left\{ 0,1,2,\ldots,n-1\right\} $ \cite{Greene.1991,Marinescu.1994},\cite{scaled_units}: \begin{equation} V_{\mathrm{eff}}\left(r;l\right) = -2\left[\frac{Z_{\mathrm{eff}}\left(r;l\right)}{r}+V_{\mathrm{pol}}\left(r;l\right)\right]\label{effective potential Ia} \end{equation} Here the function $Z_{\mathrm{eff}}\left(r;l\right)$ represents a position-dependent weight function that interpolates the value of the charge between unity for large $r$ and charge number $Z$ near to the nucleus for $r\rightarrow0$, and $V_{\mathrm{pol}}\left(r;l\right)$ represents a short-ranged interaction taking into account the static electric polarizability of the ionic core \cite{Born.1925,Gallagher.1994}. Overall good agreement with spectroscopic data of alkali atoms (but discarding the fine splitting) has been reported in \cite{Marinescu.1994} choosing \begin{equation} Z_{\mathrm{eff}}\left(r;l\right) = 1+(Z-1)e^{-ra_{1}\left(l\right)}-re^{-ra_{2}\left(l\right)}\left[a_{3}\left(l\right)+ra_{4}\left(l\right)\right]\label{effective potential Ib} \end{equation} and \begin{equation} V_{\mathrm{pol}}\left(r;l\right) = \frac{\alpha_{c}}{2}\frac{1-\exp\left[-\left(\frac{r}{r_{c}\left(l\right)}\right)^{6}\right]}{r^{4}}. \end{equation} A table of the parameters $a_{1}(l)$, $a_{2}(l)$, $a_{3}(l)$, $a_{4}(l)$, $\alpha_{c}$, and $r_{c}\left(l\right)$ can be found in \cite{Marinescu.1994}. In an attempt to also describe the fine splitting of the excitation spectrum of the outermost electron of $^{87}$Rb, it has been suggested \cite{Greene.1991} to superimpose \emph{a posteriori} a spin-orbit term \begin{equation} \widetilde{V}_{\mathrm{SO}}\left(r;j,l\right)=\frac{V_{\mathrm{SO}}\left(r;j,l\right)}{\left[1-\alpha^{2}V_{\mathrm{eff}}\left(r;l\right)\right]^{2}},\label{spin-orbit potential Ia} \end{equation} on the potential $V_{\mathrm{eff}}\left(r;l\right)$, which then influences the spectrum $E_{n,j,l}$ on the scale of fine splitting and the orbitals $\psi_{n,j,l}(r)$ accessible to the outermost electron. Here \begin{equation} V_{\mathrm{SO}}\left(r;j,l\right)=\alpha^{2}\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial V_{\mathrm{eff}}\left(r;l\right)}{\partial r}g\left(j,l\right),\label{spin-orbit potential Ib} \end{equation} and $\alpha=\frac{\lambda_{C}}{a_{B}}\simeq\frac{1}{137.036}$ denotes the fine-structure constant, and \begin{equation} g\left(j,l\right) = \begin{cases} 0 & \text{ if }l=0,\\ \\ \frac{j\left(j+1\right)-l\left(l+1\right)-\frac{3}{4}}{2} & \text{ if }l\geq1, \end{cases} \end{equation} where $j\in\left\{ l-\frac{1}{2},l+\frac{1}{2}\right\}$. To determine those orbitals (with principal quantum number $n=n_{r}+l+1$ and radial quantum number $n_{r}\in\mathbb{N}_{0}$), a normalizable solution to the Schr\"odinger eigenvalue problem for the radial wavefunction $U_{n,j,l}(r)=rR_{n,j,l}\left(r\right)$ and associated eigenvalues $E_{n,j,l}<0$ is required: \begin{equation} \left[-\frac{d^{2}}{dr^{2}}+\frac{l(l+1)}{r^{2}}+\widetilde{V}\left(r;j,l\right)-E_{n,j,l}\right]U_{n,j,l}(r) = 0,\label{radial Schroedinger eigenvalue problem} \end{equation} where \begin{equation} \widetilde{V}\left(r;j,l\right)=V_{\mathrm{eff}}\left(r;l\right)+\widetilde{V}_{\mathrm{SO}}\left(r;j,l\right)\label{effective potential IIa} \end{equation} denotes the effective single-electron potential. A highly accurate variational calculation of the excitation spectrum of the outermost electron of $^{87}$Rb has been carried out recently \cite{Pawlak.2014}, in which the authors expand the radial wavefunction of the Schr\"odinger eigenvalue problem (\ref{radial Schroedinger eigenvalue problem}) in a basis spanned by $500$ Slater-type orbitals (STOs). On the other hand, modern high precision spectroscopy of Rydberg levels of $^{87}$Rb has been conducted recently. Millimeter-wave spectroscopy employing selective field ionization allows for precise measurements of the energy differences between Rydberg levels \cite{Li.2003}. An independent approach is to perform purely optical measurements on absolute Rydberg level energies by observing electromagnetically induced transparency (EIT) \cite{Mohapatra.2007,Mack.2011}. However, there is a systematic discrepancy between variational calculations and the spectroscopic measurements of the fine splitting \begin{equation} \Delta E_{n,l}=E_{n,l-\frac{1}{2},l}-E_{n,l+\frac{1}{2},l}\label{fine splitting} \end{equation} as shown in Tables \ref{Table I} and \ref{Table II}. Given the fact that the error bars of the independent experiments \cite{Li.2003,Mack.2011} are below \SI{1.1}{\mega\hertz} down to \SI{20}{\kilo\hertz}, and on the other hand considering the high accuracy of the numerical calculations presented in \cite{Pawlak.2014}, such a discrepancy between experiment and theory is indeed significant. \begin{table*} \caption{\label{Table I}Fine splitting $\Delta E_{n,l=1}$ for P states in [\si{\mega\hertz}].} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline \textbf{State }$\left\vert n,l=1\right\rangle $ & \textbf{Exp.} \textbf{\cite{Sansonetti.2006}} & \textbf{\ Exp. \cite{Li.2003}} & \textbf{Theory \cite{Pawlak.2014}} & \textbf{Theory (this work)} \\ \hline 8P & $565.1(4)\times10^{3}$ & N/A & $602.00\times10^{3}$ & $567.75\times10^{3}$ \\ \hline 10P & $219.1(4)\times10^{3}$ & N/A & $231.87\times10^{3}$ & $218.77\times10^{3}$ \\ \hline 30P & N/A & $4246.30(5)$ & $4500.50$ & $4246.46$ \\ \hline 35P & N/A & $2566.41(32)$ & $2717.41$ & $2566.28$ \\ \hline 45P & N/A & $1144.09(13)$ & $1217.24$ & $1143.95$ \\ \hline 55P & N/A & $605.77(7)$ & $644.81$ & $605.68$ \\ \hline 60P & N/A & $460.76(5)$ & $480.32$ & $460.68$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table*} \begin{table*} \caption{\label{Table II}Fine splitting $\Delta E_{n,l=2}$ for D states in [\si{\mega\hertz}].} \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline \textbf{State }$\left\vert n,l=2\right\rangle $ & \textbf{Exp.} \textbf{\cite{Sansonetti.2006}} & \textbf{Exp.} \textbf{\cite{Li.2003}} & \textbf{Exp.} \textbf{\cite{Mack.2011}} & \textbf{Theory \cite{Pawlak.2014}} & \textbf{Theory (this work)} \\ \hline 8D & $30.4(4)\times10^{3}$ & N/A & N/A & $113.17\times10^{3}$ & $36.42\times10^{3}$ \\ \hline 10D & $14.9(2)\times10^{3}$ & N/A & N/A & $52.05\times10^{3}$ & $16.56\times10^{3}$ \\ \hline 30D & N/A & $452.42(18)$ & $452.5(11)$ & $1447.53$ & $456.13$ \\ \hline 35D & N/A & $279.65(10)$ & $280.4(11)$ & $894.84$ & $281.52$ \\ \hline 45D & N/A & $128.33(4)$ & $127.8(11)$ & $407.64$ & $128.98$ \\ \hline 55D & N/A & $69.17(2)$ & $69.4(11)$ & $223.71$ & $69.47$ \\ \hline 57D & N/A & $61.98(2)$ & $62.2(11)$ & $197.39$ & $62.24$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table*} So, what could be the reason for the reported discrepancies? First, it should be pointed out that in the variational calculations \cite{Pawlak.2014} a slightly different potential was used, that is, \begin{equation} V\left(r;j,l\right)=V_{\mathrm{eff}}\left(r;l\right)+V_{\mathrm{SO}}\left(r;j,l\right).\label{effective potential IIb} \end{equation} Certainly, within the first-order perturbation theory there exists no noticeable discrepancy in the spectrum of the outermost electron on the fine-splitting scale, when taking into account the spin-orbit forces with $V_{\mathrm{SO}}\left(r;j,l\right)$ instead of working with $\widetilde{V}_{\mathrm{SO}}\left(r;j,l\right)$. This is due to the differences being negligible for $r>Z\alpha^{2}$. However, since $V_{\mathrm{SO}}\left(r;j,l\right)$ eventually dominates even the contribution of the centrifugal barrier term $\frac{l\left(l+1\right)}{r^{2}}$ within the tiny region $0<r\lesssim\alpha^{2}Z$, a subtle problem with a non-normalizable radial wavefunction $U_{n,j,l}(r)$ emerges when attempting to solve the Schr\"odinger eigenvalue problem for any $l>0$ with the potential $V_{\mathrm{SO}}\left(r;j,l\right)$. Such a problem is absent when one works with $\widetilde{V}_{\mathrm{SO}}\left(r;j,l\right)$ \cite{Greene.1991}. A variational calculation with the potential (\ref{effective potential IIb}) employing $N=500$ normalizable STOs as basis functions thus engenders a systematic (small) error of the matrix elements calculated in \cite{Pawlak.2014} on the fine-splitting scale. When employing substantially more STOs this error would certainly become larger. With $N=500$ STOs the discrepancy of these theoretical results with the high precision spectroscopic data, as shown in Tables \ref{Table I} and \ref{Table II}, is far too large to be corrected by simply replacing $V_{\mathrm{SO}}\left(r;j,l\right)$ with $\widetilde{V}_{\mathrm{SO}}\left(r;j,l\right)$. Hence another explanation is required. \section{Quasiclassical approach and fine splitting of the highly excited $^{87}$Rb} In 1941 alkali atoms have already been studied in the context of modern quantum mechanics in the seminal work by Goeppert Mayer \cite{GoeppertMayer.1941}, who emphasized the exceptional role of the $l=1$ and $l=2$ orbitals. According to Goeppert Mayer, the outermost electron of an alkali atom is governed by an effective $r$-dependent charge term \begin{equation} Z_{\mathrm{eff}}\left(r\right)=1+(Z-1)F(r), \end{equation} where the function $F(r)$ has been determined by employing the semi-classical statistical Thomas-Fermi approach to the many-electron-atom problem, posing the boundary conditions as $\lim_{r\rightarrow0}F(r)=1$ and $\lim_{r\rightarrow\infty}F\left(r\right)=0$. As discussed by Schwinger \cite{Schwinger.2001}, this approach ceases to be valid in the inner shell region $Z^{-1}<r<Z^{-\frac{1}{3}}$ of the atom. Therefore, taking into account the fine splitting in the spectrum of the outermost electron of alkali atoms \emph{a posteriori} by simply adding the phenomenological spin-orbit term (\ref{spin-orbit potential Ia}) to (\ref{effective potential Ia}), resulting in the effective single-electron potential (\ref{effective potential IIa}), seems to be questionable on general grounds in that inner shell region. On a more fundamental level, the treatment of relativistic effects in multi-electron-atom spectra requires an \emph{a priori} microscopic description based on the well-known Breit-Pauli Hamiltonian \cite{Bethe.Salpeter.1957,FroeseFischer.1997} \begin{equation} \mathscr{H}=\mathscr{H}_{\mathrm{nr}}+\mathscr{H}_{\mathrm{rs}}+\mathscr{H}_{\mathrm{fs}}. \end{equation} Here $\mathscr{H}_{\mathrm{nr}}$ is the ordinary \emph{nonrelativistic} many-electron Hamiltonian, while the \emph{relativistic corrections} are represented by the perturbation operators $\mathscr{H}_{\mathrm{rs}}$ and $\mathscr{H}_{\mathrm{fs}}$. The perturbation term $\mathscr{H}_{\mathrm{rs}}$ contains all the relativistic perturbations like \emph{mass correction}, one- and two-body \emph{Darwin} \emph{terms}, and further the \emph{spin-spin contact} and \emph{orbit-orbit} terms, which all commute with the total angular momentum $\mathbf{L}$ and total spin $\mathbf{S}$, thus effectuating only small \emph{shifts} of the spectrum of the nonrelativistic Hamiltonian $\mathscr{H}_{\mathrm{nr}}$. The perturbation operator $\mathscr{H}_{\mathrm{fs}}$ on the other hand breaks the rotational symmetry. It consists of the standard \emph{nuclear spin-orbit}, the \emph{spin-other-orbit}, and the \emph{spin-spin dipole} interaction terms, which all commute with $\mathbf{J}=\mathbf{L}+\mathbf{S}$, but not with $\mathbf{L}$ or with $\mathbf{S}$ separately, thus inducing the fine splitting of the nonrelativistic spectrum. Although the proposed functional form of the potential (\ref{effective potential IIb}) is highly plausible on physical grounds outside the inner core region $r>Z^{-\frac{1}{3}}$, \emph{prima facie} it appears to be inconsistent to lump the aforementioned relativistic many-body forces into an effective single-electron potential of the functional form (\ref{effective potential IIb}), so that it provides an accurate description also for small distances $Z^{-1}<r<Z^{-\frac{1}{3}}$. In the absence of a better microscopic theory for an effective single-electron potential $V_{\mathrm{eff}}\left(r;j,l\right)$ describing the fine splitting of the spectrum of the outermost electron in the alkali atoms, we introduce a \emph{cutoff} at a distance $r_{\mathrm{so}}(l)$ with $Z^{-1}<r_{\mathrm{so}}(l)<Z^{-\frac{1}{3}}$ so that the effective single-electron potential is now described by the following modified potential: \begin{widetext} \begin{equation} \widetilde{V}_{\mathrm{mod}}\left(r;j,l\right) = \begin{cases} V_{\mathrm{eff}}\left(r;l\right) & \text{if }0\leq r\leq r_{\mathrm{so}}\left(l\right),\\\\ V_{\mathrm{eff}}\left(r;l\right)+V_{\mathrm{SO}}\left(r;j,l\right) & \text{if }r>r_{\mathrm{so}}\left(l\right). \end{cases} \label{effective potential IIc} \end{equation} \end{widetext} The choice \cite{scaled_units} \begin{align} \label{cut off r_so} r_{\mathrm{so}}\left(l=1\right) = 0.029483\times r_{c}\left(l=1\right) = 0.0442825,\nonumber \\\\ r_{\mathrm{so}}\left(l=2\right) = 0.051262\times r_{c}\left(l=2\right) = 0.2495720,\nonumber \end{align} gives a surprisingly accurate description of the fine splitting in the spectroscopic data for all principal quantum numbers $n$, see Tables \ref{Table I} and \ref{Table II}. The calculation of the spectrum of the outermost bound electron is then reduced to solving the radial Schr\"odinger equation (\ref{radial Schroedinger eigenvalue problem}) with the modified potential $\widetilde{V}_{\mathrm{mod}}\left(r;j,l\right)$. The resulting spectrum is actually hydrogen like, that is, \begin{equation} E_{n,j,l} = -\frac{1}{\left(n-\Delta_{j,l}\right)^{2}},\label{quantum defect I} \end{equation} where $\Delta_{j,l}$ denotes a quantum defect comprising also the fine splitting. In actual fact the quantum defect describes a reduction of the number of nodes $n_{r}$ of the radial wavefunction for $l=0,1,2$ as a result of the short-range interaction of the outermost electron with the ionic core of the atom. Because the higher the orbital angular momentum quantum number $l$, the lower the probability of the electron being located near to the center, it is clear that the quantum defect decreases rapidly with increasing orbital angular momentum $l$. Therefore, $\Delta_{j,l}$ is only notably different from zero for $l=0,1,2$. Writing $\Delta_{j,l}=\delta_{l}+\eta_{j,l}$ with $\eta_{j,l}\ll\delta_{l}$, the fine splitting to leading order in $\alpha^{2}$ is: \begin{equation} \Delta E_{n,l} = 2\frac{\eta_{l-\frac{1}{2},l}-\eta_{l+\frac{1}{2},l}}{\left(n-\delta_{l}\right)^{3}}\label{quantum defect I-1} \end{equation} The quasiclassical momentum $p\equiv\sqrt{-Q}$ of the bound electron with orbital angular momentum $l>0$, total angular momentum $j=l\pm\frac{1}{2}$, and taking into account the Langer shift $l(l+1)\rightarrow\left(l+\frac{1}{2}\right)^{2}$ in the centrifugal barrier \cite{Langer.1937,Berry.1972}, is then given by \begin{equation} Q\left(r;j,l,E\right) = \frac{\left(l+\frac{1}{2}\right)^{2}}{r^{2}}+\widetilde{V}_{\mathrm{mod}}\left(r;j,l\right)-E. \end{equation} For $l=0$ the centrifugal barrier term and the spin-orbit potential are absent. Considering high excitation energies $E<0$ of the bound outermost electron, i.e. a principal quantum number $n\gg1$, the respective positions of the turning points $r^{\left(\pm\right)}$ are given approximately by \begin{align} \label{turning point l>0} r^{\left(-\right)} &= \frac{\left(l+\frac{1}{2}\right)^{2}}{1+\sqrt{1+\left(l+\frac{1}{2}\right)^{2}E}} & & \text{if }l\geq3,\nonumber \\\\ r^{\left(+\right)} &\simeq \frac{1}{-E}\left[1+\sqrt{1+\left(l+\frac{1}{2}\right)^{2}E}\right] & & \text{if }l\geq1,\nonumber \end{align} where $0<l\ll\frac{1}{\sqrt{-E}}$. Of course for $l=0$ only a single (large) turning point $r^{\left(+\right)}=\frac{2}{-E}$ exists due to the absence of the centrifugal barrier. However, the lower turning points $r^{\left(-\right)}$ are strongly modified for $l=1,2$ compared to the pure Coulomb potential case taking into account the core polarization. For $l=1,2$ the relation $r^{\left(-\right)}\left(l\right)\simeq0.02\times r_{c}\left(l\right)$ holds; that is, $r^{\left(-\right)}\left(l=1\right)\simeq0.03472$ and $r^{\left(-\right)}\left(l=2\right)\simeq0.12827$ \cite{scaled_units}. Since the cutoff $r_{\mathrm{so}}\left(l\right)$ in (\ref{cut off r_so}) is substantially above those values of the lower turning points $r^{\left(-\right)}\left(l\right)$, a quasiclassical calculation of the fine-split spectrum of the bound outermost electron is reliable. \begin{figure} \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figure1} \caption{\label{fig:action_integral}(Color online) The action integral $\nu\left(j,l,E\right)$ associated with the effective single-electron potential $\widetilde{V}_{\mathrm{mod}}\left(r;j,l\right)$ vs. scaled energy $\frac{1}{\sqrt{-E}}$ for $l=0$ (blue line), $l=1$ (red line), $l=2$ (green line), all for $j=l+\frac{1}{2}$. The curves for $j=l-\frac{1}{2}$ only differ by a tiny shift proportional to $\alpha^{2}$.} \end{figure} For a chosen radial quantum number $n_{r}$, the associated eigenvalues $E=E_{n,j,l}<0$ of the outermost electron now follow from the WKB patching condition \cite{Migdal.1977,Karnakov.2013}: \begin{equation} \nu\left(j,l,E\right) \overset{!}{=} \begin{cases} n_{r}+1&\text{if }l=0,\\ \\ n_{r}+\frac{1}{2}&\text{if }l>0, \end{cases} \label{WKB patching condition} \end{equation} where $\nu\left(j,l,E\right)$ denotes the action integral \begin{align} \nu\left(j,l,E\right) &= \frac{1}{\pi}\int_{r^{\left(-\right)}}^{r^{\left(+\right)}}\mathrm{d}r\sqrt{-Q\left(r;j,l,E\right)}\nonumber\\ &= \frac{1}{2\pi}\oint \mathrm{d}r\,p\left(r;j,l,E\right). \end{align} Plotting the function $\nu\left(j,l,E\right)$ versus $\frac{1}{\sqrt{-E}}$ for $l=0,1,2$ clearly reveals a linear dependence of the form $\nu\left(j,l,E\right)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{-E}}+c\left(j,l\right)$, see Fig. \ref{fig:action_integral}. \begin{figure} \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figure2} \caption{\label{fig:quasiclassical_momentum}(Color online) The quasiclassical momentum $\sqrt{-Q\left(r;j,l,E\right)}$ vs. scaled distance $\frac{r}{r_{c}\left(l\right)}$ for $l=0$ (dashed black), $l=1$ (green), $l=2$ (red), for $E=E_{n,j,l}$ corresponding to principal quantum number $n=57$ and $j=l+\frac{1}{2}$. The main contribution to the quantum defect values in (\ref{quantum defect}) originates from the inner core region $r<r_{c}\left(l\right)$.} \end{figure} \begin{table*} \caption{\label{Table III}The values of quantum defect $\Delta_{j,l}$ associated with the Rydberg level $n=57$ for $l=0,1,2$. } \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline \textbf{Quantum defect $\Delta_{j,l}$} & \textbf{Exp.} \textbf{\cite{Li.2003}} & \textbf{Exp.} \textbf{\cite{Mack.2011}} & \textbf{Theory \cite{Pawlak.2014}} & \textbf{Theory (this work)}\\ \hline $\Delta_{\nicefrac{1}{2},0}$ & $3.1312419(10)$ & $3.13125(2)$ & $3.12791$ & $3.13095$\\ \hline $\Delta_{\nicefrac{1}{2},1}$ & $2.6549831(10)$ & N/A & $2.65795$ & $2.65197$\\ \hline \emph{$\Delta_{\nicefrac{3}{2},1}$} & $2.6417735(10)$ & N/A & $2.64399$ & $2.63876$\\ \hline \emph{$\Delta_{\nicefrac{1}{2},1}-\Delta_{\nicefrac{3}{2},1}$} & $0.0132096(14)$ & N/A & $0.01396$ & $0.01321$\\ \hline \emph{$\Delta_{\nicefrac{3}{2},2}$} & $1.3478971(4)$ & $1.34789(2)$ & $1.35145$ & $1.34851$\\ \hline \emph{$\Delta_{\nicefrac{5}{2},2}$} & $1.3462733(3)$ & $1.34626(2)$ & $1.34628$ & $1.34688$\\ \hline $\Delta_{\nicefrac{3}{2},2}-\Delta_{\nicefrac{5}{2},2}$ & $0.0016238(5)$ & $0.00163(3)$ & $0.00517$ & $0.00163$\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table*} According to \cite{Born.1925}, for $A,B,C,D\in\mathbb{R}$, with $A>0$, $B>0$, $C>0$, and $\left|D\right|\ll C$ the following equality holds: \begin{equation} \frac{1}{2\pi}\oint \mathrm{d}r\sqrt{-A+\frac{2B}{r}-\frac{C}{r^{2}}+\frac{D}{r^{3}}} = \frac{B}{\sqrt{A}}-\sqrt{C}+\frac{BD}{2C\sqrt{C}} \end{equation} For a pure Coulomb potential $A\equiv-E$, $B\equiv1$, $C\equiv\left(l+\frac{1}{2}\right)^{2}$ and $D\equiv\alpha^{2}g\left(j,l\right)$. The corresponding action integral then reads \begin{align} \nu^{\left(\mathrm{C}\right)}\left(j,l,E\right) = \begin{cases} \frac{1}{\sqrt{-E}} & \text{if }l=0,\\ \\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{-E}}-\left(l+\frac{1}{2}\right)+\frac{\alpha^{2}g\left(j,l\right)}{2\left(l+\frac{1}{2}\right)^{3}} & \text{if }l>0. \end{cases} \end{align} It is thus found from WKB theory that the quantum defect associated with the single-electron potential $\widetilde{V}_{\mathrm{mod}}\left(r;j,l\right)$ is: \begin{equation} \Delta_{j,l} = \lim_{E\rightarrow0^{-}}\left[\nu\left(j,l,E\right)-\nu^{\left(\mathrm{C}\right)}\left(j,l,E\right)\right]\label{quantum defect} \end{equation} Ignoring spin-orbit coupling, i.e. for $\alpha=0$ , one has $\Delta_{j,l}\equiv\delta_{l}$, the standard quantum defect. For $l=0$ the centrifugal barrier and the spin-orbit coupling term (\ref{spin-orbit potential Ib}) are zero, so $\Delta_{j,l}\rightarrow\Delta_{\frac{1}{2},0}\equiv\delta_{0}$. The dependence of the quasiclassical momentum $\sqrt{-Q\left(r;j,l,E\right)}$ on the scaled distance $\frac{r}{r_{c}(l)}$ is shown for $l=0,1,2$ in Fig. \ref{fig:quasiclassical_momentum}. Clearly, it is the inner core region $r^{\left(-\right)}\left(l\right)<r<r_{c}(l)$ that provides the main contribution to the quantum defect values. We find, for $l=0,2$, that changing the fitting parameter $a_{3}\left(l\right)$ in (\ref{effective potential Ib}) from its tabulated value in \cite{Marinescu.1994} according to the scaling prescription $a_{3}\left(l=0\right)\rightarrow0.814\times a_{3}\left(l=0\right)$ and $a_{3}\left(l=2\right)\rightarrow0.914\times a_{3}\left(l=2\right)$, leads to a slight downward \emph{constant} shift of the WKB-quantum defect. As a result of this change, the calculated WKB-quantum defect $\Delta_{l\pm\frac{1}{2},l}$ then agrees well with the spectroscopic data, see Table \ref{Table III}. Such a change of $a_{3}\left(l\right)$ does \emph{not} affect the fine splitting values $\Delta E_{n,l}$ though. We also find that the dependence of the fine splitting $\Delta E_{n,l}$ on the principal quantum number $n$ is well described by (\ref{quantum defect I-1}) for all $n\geq8$, see Tables \ref{Table I} and \ref{Table II}. In actual fact, for $r^{\left(+\right)}\gg r^{\left(-\right)}$, which is a criterion that is always met for high excitation energies $\sqrt{-E}\simeq0$ of the outermost electron, the uniform Langer-WKB wavefunction $U_{n,j,l}^{\left(\mathrm{WKB}\right)}\left(r\right)$ \cite{Langer.1934,Bender.Orszag.1978}, with $r^{\left(+\right)}$ considered as the only turning point, describes the numerical solution $U_{n,j,l}\left(r\right)$ to the radial differential equation (\ref{radial Schroedinger eigenvalue problem}) under the influence of the effective modified single-electron potential (\ref{effective potential IIc}) rather accurately \cite{Sanayei.2015}. Only very near to the second turning point $r^{\left(-\right)}$, at a distance smaller than $r_{\mathrm{so}}\left(l\right)$, the Langer-WKB wavefunction $U_{n,j,l}^{\left(\mathrm{WKB}\right)}\left(r\right)$ ceases to be a good approximation to the numerical solution $U_{n,j,l}\left(r\right)$ of the radial Schr\"odinger equation (\ref{radial Schroedinger eigenvalue problem}) \cite{Sanayei.2015}. \section{Conclusions} In this work we reported a significant discrepancy between experiment \cite{Li.2003,Mack.2011} and highly accurate variational calculations \cite{Pawlak.2014} of the spectrum of Rydberg states of $^{87}$Rb on the energy scale of the fine splitting. We discussed that the usual \emph{a posteriori} adding of the relativistic spin-orbit potential to the effective single electron potential governing the outermost electron of alkali atoms is indeed inconsistent inside the inner atomic core region. In the absence of a full microscopic theory that lumps all many-body interactions together with the relativistic corrections into an effective single-electron potential in a consistent manner, we suggested a modified effective single-electron potential, see (\ref{effective potential IIc}), that enables a correct description of the spectrum of Rydberg states on the fine splitting scale in terms of a simple WKB-action integral for all principal quantum numbers $n\geq8$. Modern precision spectroscopy of highly excited Rydberg states thus enables the probing of the multi-electron correlation problem of the ionic core of alkali atoms. This is certainly a fascinating perspective for further experiments and theoretical studies.
\section{Introduction} The discovery of dissipative quantum state engineering \cite{Diehl2008,Verstraete2009,Weimer2010}, i.e., the use of controlled sources of dissipation for the preparation of many-particle quantum states, has led to a surge of interest in open quantum many-body systems. The unrivaled tunability of interaction and dissipation properties of driven Rydberg gases makes them particularly useful for this purpose and has resulted in a large amount of theoretical and experimental works investigating the interplay between coherent and dissipative dynamics in these systems \cite{Raitzsch2009,Lee2011,Honer2011,Weimer2011,Glatzle2012,Ates2012a,Lemeshko2013a,Carr2013,Rao2013,Carr2013a,Hu2013,Honing2013,Otterbach2014,Sanders2014,Schonleber2014,Malossi2014,Hoening2014,Marcuzzi2014,Qian2014,Urvoy2014,Weber2015}. Here, we provide a detailed discussion of the application of a recently introduced variational principle for the steady state of dissipative quantum many-body systems \cite{Weimer2015} to driven-dissipative Rydberg gases. Rydberg atoms are routinely excited from ground state atoms by coherent laser driving, with their atomic properties and interaction strength scaling dramatically with the principal quantum number \cite{Low2012}. The radiative decay of the metastable Rydberg state provides a natural dissipative element whose decay rate can be widely tuned by laser coupling to other excited non-Rydberg states \cite{Zhao2012}. As such, Rydberg atoms provide an ideal environment for studying dissipative many-body dynamics in a strongly interacting regime. In this article, we perform an analysis of the non-equilibrium steady state of a driven-dissipative Rydberg gas. We investigate the properties of this steady state using a variational method recently introduced by the author \cite{Weimer2015}. We provide a detailed evaluation of the approximations carried out within this novel method. We complement our analysis of the variational method by describing an alternative approach to the investigation of dissipative quantum many-body systems based on a hierarchy of equation that also allows for a systematic incorporation of correlations. We perform an explicit comparison of the two methods, finding substantial advantages in favor of the variational approach. Finally, we demonstrate that the variational method provides remarkable quantitative agreement with the experimental results on the steady state phase transition observed in an ultracold Rydberg gas. \section{Driven-dissipative Rydberg gases} We first give a microscopic description of driven-dissipative Rydberg gases. We express the dynamics in terms of a spin $1/2$ representation, where the down spin state corresponds to an electronic ground state, and the up spin state refers to a highly excited Rydberg state \cite{Low2012}. As the frequency difference between all electronic states is much larger than the decay rate of the Rydberg state, it is well justified to describe the radiative decay of the Rydberg excitations in terms of a Markovian quantum master equation in Lindblad form, \begin{equation} \frac{d}{dt}\rho = -\frac{i}{\hbar}[H,\rho] + \sum\limits_{i} \left(c_i\rho c_i^\dagger - \frac{1}{2}\left\{c_i^\dagger c_i, \rho\right\}\right), \end{equation} where $\rho$ is the density operator describing the state of the system, $H$ is the Hamiltonian accounting for the coherent part of the dynamics, and the set of $c_i$ are quantum jump operators responsible for the dissipation \cite{Breuer2002}. If the external laser fields are close to a resonance between the atomic ground state and a single Rydberg state, such a system in its rotating frame is governed by the spin $1/2$ Hamiltonian \begin{equation} H = -\frac{\hbar\Delta}{2} \sum\limits_i \sigma_i^z + \frac{\hbar\Omega}{2}\sum\limits_i\sigma_i^x + \sum_{i<j} \frac{C_6}{|{\bf r}_i - {\bf r}_j|^6} P^{r}_i P^{r}_j, \end{equation} where the Rabi frequency $\Omega$ and the detuning $\Delta$ represent the laser parameters, the $C_6$ coefficient denotes the strength of the van der Waals repulsion between Rydberg states, and $P^r_i = (1+\sigma^z_i)/2$ is the projection onto the Rydberg state. The jump operators describing the decay of the Rydberg excitations is represented by quantum jump operators describing up spins flipping into down spins according to $c_i = \sqrt{\gamma}\sigma_-^{(i)}$, with $\gamma$ being the decay rate of the Rydberg state. Initially, we will assume that the system is well described by a model involving only nearest-neighbor interactions, i.e., the blockade radius is smaller than the lattice spacing $a$. Then, we can introduce an interaction constant given by $V = C_6/a^6$. Of special interest is the regime where the Hamiltonian is equivalent to a transverse field Ising model, which is realized for $\Delta = V/2$. In contrast to closed quantum systems, an open quantum systems such as the dissipative Rydberg gas will generically relax towards a stationary state characterized by the condition $\frac{d}{dt} \rho = 0$. Crucially, the interplay between coherent and incoherent part of the dynamics generically leads to a stationary state that is different from any state in thermal equilibrium, i.e., a non-equilibrium steady state. \section{Variational principle} In the following, we review the basic concepts behind the variational principle introduced in Ref.~\cite{Weimer2015}. The basic idea is to take a variational trial state $\rho$ and compute the residual dynamics it will generate by computing its time-derivative $\dot{\rho}=\mathcal{L}\rho$ according to the underlying quantum master equation with the Liouvillian superoperator $\mathcal{L}$. The operator $\dot{\rho}$ can be expressed as a traceless Hermitian matrix. To find the variational approximation to the true steady state having $\dot{\rho}=0$, we choose the variational state that minimizes the trace norm of $\dot{\rho}$, i.e., \begin{equation} \rho_{var} = \operatorname*{\arg\,\min}_\rho \trtxt{|\mathcal{L}\rho|}. \label{eq:principle} \end{equation} Choosing the trace norm as the correct matrix norm can be motivated on two different grounds. First, the trace norm is unbiased in the sense that it does not favor certain classes of variational states over others without a physical reason. This is related to the linearity condition $||\dot{\rho}||=||\lambda \dot{\rho}||/\lambda$ satisfied by the trace norm. In particular, any other Schatten norm $||\dot{\rho}|| = \trtxt{|\dot{\rho}|^p}$ with $p>1$ is biased towards the maximally mixed state \cite{Weimer2015}. The second way to motivate the choice of the trace norm follows follows from quantum information theory. Here, the trace norm can be interpreted as being equivalent to the trace distance of $\dot{\rho}$ to the zero matrix, while the latter is obtained for $\dot{\rho}$ if and only if the variational state $\rho$ is an exact stationary state of the master equation. Importantly, the ability to physically distinguish the operator $\dot{\rho}$ from the zero matrix is given by their trace distance \cite{Gilchrist2005}, and hence the trace norm of $\dot{\rho}$. In this sense, the trace norm is the natural norm to decide which variational state is the best approximation to the true steady state. We would also like to point out that the trace norm for the steady state is equivalent to applying a time-dependent variational principle for the dynamical evolution \cite{Kraus2012}. Following these initial statements, we can now proceed with the variational analysis. Calculating the trace norm is in general still a computational problem scaling exponentially with the system size, so additional steps are needed first. This situation is very similar to that of correlated fermions, where energy expectation values for variational Gutzwiller wave functions can only be evaluated within further approximations \cite{Edegger2007}. In our case, we exploit the fact that we are not so much interested in the actual value of the trace norm, but rather in the properties of the stationary state. The additional approximations we will carry out retain the variational character of our calculation, i.e., they provide a rigorous upper bound to the trace norm. \subsection{Product states} To be explicit, we first consider the case of the variational set of states being restricted to product states, i.e., \begin{equation} \rho = \mathcal{R} 1 = \prod\limits_i \rho_i. \end{equation} Here, we have introduced the superoperator $\mathcal{R}$, which replaces every occurrence of the identity operator for site $i$, $1_i$, by the single-site density matrix $\rho_i$. Additionally, we focus on quantum master equations including nearest-neighbor interactions or jump operators involving at most two adjacent sites. Then, the trace norm of the resulting dynamics can be written in the form \begin{equation} || \dot{\rho}|| = ||\sum\limits_i \mathcal{R}\dot{\rho}_i +\sum\limits_{\langle ij \rangle} \mathcal{R} \dot{C}_{ij}||, \end{equation} where $\dot{\rho}_i = \trtxt[\not i]{\dot{\rho}}$ describes the single-site dynamics and $C_{ij}$ accounts for correlations between the sites. Here, the correlations between the sites stem from the nearest-neighbor interactions and two-site jump operators and thus are restricted to nearest-neighbor correlations only. As a first approximation, we apply the triangle inequality to pull the summation over $i$ out of the norm, \begin{equation} || \dot{\rho}|| \leq \sum\limits_i ||\mathcal{R}\dot{\rho}_i + \sum\limits_j \mathcal{R}\dot{C}_{ij}||. \end{equation} As the next step, we make use of the fact that $\dot{\rho}_i$ and $\dot{\rho}_j$ act on different parts of the Hilbert space, which allows us to write \begin{equation} || \dot{\rho}|| \leq \sum\limits_i ||\mathcal{R}\dot{\rho}_i + \sum\limits_j \mathcal{R}\left(\rho_i\dot{\rho}_j + \dot{C}_{ij}\right)||. \end{equation} Note that this inequality does not change the variational approximation to the steady state, but it allows us to write the final result in a more compact form. Finally, we employ the triangle inequality a second time, yielding \begin{equation} \label{eq:ineq} || \dot{\rho}|| \leq \sum\limits_{\langle ij\rangle} ||\mathcal{R}\left(\dot{\rho}_i\rho_j + \rho_i\dot{\rho}_j + \dot{C}_{ij}\right)|| = \sum\limits_{\langle ij\rangle} \trtxt{|\dot{\rho}_{ij}|} \end{equation} Consequently, we have succeeded in mapping the full quantum many-body problem into a sum of efficiently solvable problems involving only neighboring sites. For translationally invariant systems it is in general even sufficient to solve a single two-site problem. At this point, it becomes a natural question to ask how well justified our approximations are. Besides the obvious approximation in restricting to the variational manifold, we have to assess the deviations introduced by the inequalities leading to Eq.~(\ref{eq:ineq}). For small system sizes, we can answer this question exactly because the Hilbert space is still small enough so that we can minimize the trace norm of Eq.~(\ref{eq:principle}) without any additional approximations. As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ineq}, the deviation introduced by the inequalities is quite small for the Ising model describing the dissipative Rydberg gas and in the case of four particles. \begin{figure}[t] \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{ineq2} \caption{Difference in the variational states introduced by the inequalities leading to Eq. (\ref{eq:ineq}) as indicated by the trace distance between the states $\rho$ and $\rho'$. Here the full space density matrix $\rho$ was taken as a product state of four sites. The inset shows the difference in the single particle reduced density matrices at $\Omega=4\gamma$ ($\Delta = V/2$, $V=5\,\gamma$).} \label{fig:ineq} \end{figure} Of course, we are not really interested in problems involving four sites, but rather see how the situation behaves in the thermodynamic limit. For this, we can check how the exact variational norm behaves as a function of system size. As a single evaluation of the norm is computationally less costly than performing a full minimization, we can go to somewhat larger system sizes. Remarkably, we find that the scaling with system size is completely independent of the model being investigated or the trial state for which the norm is evaluated, see Fig.~\ref{fig:scaling}. For a simple non-interacting toy model, this surprising fact can be understood as a consequence of the central limit theorem. This model consists of $N$ purely dissipative two-level systems, whose jump operators are given by a dissipative spin-flip of the form $c_i = \sqrt{\gamma}\sigma_i^-$, as in the case of the dissipative Rydberg gas. As a trial state, we choose the maximally mixed state, $\rho = 1/2^N$. Since the model is purely classical and non-interacting, we can give an analytical expression for the trace norm of the master equation, \begin{equation} ||\dot{\rho}|| = 4\,\sum\limits_{m=0}^{N/2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}N\\\frac{N}{2}-m\end{array}\right)\frac{m}{2^N}\,\gamma. \end{equation} This expression can be evaluated efficiently even for large values of $N$ and corresponds to the crosses in Fig.~\ref{fig:scaling}. To obtain the asymptotic behavior in the limit of large $N$, we replace the sum by an integral and use the central limit theorem to approximate the binomial coefficients by a Gaussian function, obtaining \begin{align} ||\dot{\rho}|| &\approx \int\limits_0^{N/2} \frac{4}{\sqrt{\pi N/2}}\exp\left[-\frac{\left(x-\frac{N}{2}\right)^2}{\frac{N}{2}}\right]\,\left(\frac{N}{2}-x\right)\,\gamma\,dx\nonumber\\ &= \sqrt{\frac{2N}{\pi}}\gamma + O(\sqrt{N\exp[-N]}). \end{align} As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:scaling}, this asymptotic behavior is already reached for quite small values of $N$, indicating that the central limit theorem can also be applied to the fully quantum case, which appears to be a natural consequence of the correlations in $\dot{\rho}$ being restricted to nearest neighbors. Therefore, we conclude that the approximations needed for an efficient calculation of the variational norm are well justified and enable to use the variational principle as a powerful tool to compute steady state properties. \begin{figure}[t] \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{D2} \caption{Trace norm of the master equation depending on the system size $N$ for different models and different product states normalized to the value at $N=4$. The asymptotic behavior for the noninteracting decay model is shown as a solid line.} \label{fig:scaling} \end{figure} \subsection{Correlations} The considerations made for product states can also be extended towards more generic classes of variational states including correlations. Here, we study the case where nearest-neighbor correlations are fully included, resulting in a variational state according to \begin{equation} \rho = \prod_i \rho_i + \sum\limits_{\langle ij \rangle} \mathcal{R} C_{ij} + \sum\limits_{\langle ij\rangle \ne \langle kl\rangle}\mathcal{R}C_{ij}C_{kl}+\ldots. \end{equation} Additionally, we impose the constraint that all reduced density matrices $\rho_{ij} = \rho_i\rho_j + C_{ij}$ are positive definite. Using the same steps as for product states and observing that partial traces of correlations vanish, $\trtxt[i]{C_{ij}}=0$, we can again find an upper bound to the variational norm as \begin{equation} ||\dot{\rho}|| \leq \sum\limits_{\langle ijk \rangle} || \dot{\rho}_{ijk}||. \end{equation} Here, the many-body problem reduces to a sum of three-site problems. It should not be surprising that the inclusion of all two-site correlations leads to the minimization of a three-site problem as the interaction generically generates one higher order of correlations. Consequently, treating $n$-body correlations exactly requires to solve an $n+1$-body minimization problem. \section{Hierarchy equation methods} An alternative way to analyze dissipative many-body dynamics is through a hierarchy of equations in terms of their correlations, in close analogy to the Bogoliubov-Born-Green-Kirkwood-Yvon hierarchy of classical physics \cite{Liboff2003}. For this, we express the density operator $\rho$ in terms of their reduced density matrices, according to the generating functional \begin{equation} \mathcal{F}(\alpha) = \log \tr{\rho \prod\limits_i (1_i + \alpha_i)}, \end{equation} where the operators $\alpha_i$ form an arbitrary operator basis acting on lattice site $i$ \cite{Navez2010}. The first terms of the hierarchy are then given by \begin{align} \rho_{i} &= \tr[\not i]{\rho} = \left.\frac{\partial\mathcal{F}}{\partial \alpha_i}\right|_{\alpha=0}\\ \rho_{ij} &= \tr[\not i\not j]{\rho} = \rho_i\rho_j + \underbrace{\left.\frac{\partial^2\mathcal{F}}{\partial \alpha_i\partial \alpha_j}\right|_{\alpha=0}}_{C_{ij}}\\ \rho_{ijk} & = \tr[\not i\not j\not k]{\rho} = \rho_i\rho_j\rho_k + C_{ij}\rho_k + C_{ik}\rho_j + C_{jk}\rho_i\nonumber\\& + \left.\frac{\partial^3\mathcal{F}}{\partial \alpha_i\partial \alpha_j\partial\alpha_k}\right|_{\alpha=0}. \end{align} The same analysis can also be performed on the level of the quantum master equation to obtain effective equations of motion for the reduced density matrices. Generically, each equation of motion is coupled to the next higher equation of motion in the hierarchy. The usual strategy is then to truncate the hierarchy at some point by setting the contributions from all higher order derivatives of $\mathcal{F}$ to zero and solve the resulting closed set of equations \cite{Navez2010}. This approximation is attributed to a $1/z$ suppression of the higher order derivatives. In lowest order, the resulting equations of motion are identical to the mean-field decoupling of Ref.~\cite{Diehl2010}. In principle, it is possible to systematically incorporate correlations similar as in the variational approach by going up to higher terms in the hierarchy. However, the main drawback of the method remains, that it cannot be formulated in terms of a variational principle, i.e., the neglected higher order terms are uncontrolled. In the case of the hierarchy equations having multiple solutions, it is actually possible to combine it with the variational method. First, all solutions to the hierarchy equations are computed, which are then used as a variational class of states to find the solution that leads to a minimization of the variational norm. \section{Results} \subsection{Lattice model} \label{sec:lat} We will first put our attention to the case where the atoms are distributed on a two-dimensional square lattice. We will make a direct comparison between the variational method and the results from solving the hierarchy equations. We complement this comparison with results from a numerical solution of the quantum master equation using a quantum trajectories method \cite{Johansson2013}. To ensure a comparison on an equal footing, we will compare the variational results for product states to the first order hierarchy equations, and the variational method for correlated states to the second order hierarchy equations. In the latter case, we include only nearest-neighbor correlations within both methods. The results are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:comp}. Except for intermediate values of $\Omega$, the two methods agree very well, and for correlated states, the level of agreement is further improved and also matches well with the results from the quantum trajectories simulation. \begin{figure*}[ht] \includegraphics{dryda} \includegraphics{drydb} \caption{Comparison of the Rydberg density $n_r$ for the variational solution (solid) and the solutions of the hierarchy equations (dashed) for product states (left) and correlated states (right). For reference, the quantum trajectories solution of the quantum master equation for a $4\times 4$ system is shown as a dotted line. The data for both the variational and quantum trajectories solutions is taken from Ref.~\cite{Weimer2015} ($\Delta = V/2$, $V=5\,\gamma$).} \label{fig:comp} \end{figure*} However, some important qualitative differences remain even when correlations are included. The bistability of the first order hierarchy solution is still present, although over a smaller range of parameters. Consequently, this bistability is not just an artifact of the first order result and the approximation of neglecting the $1/z$ corrections to it. Rather, it appears to be a generic element of the hierarchy equation method. In contrast, the variational solution always produces a unique stationary state, as even in the case of multiple local minima of the variational norm, there is always a unique global minimum. Within the variational approach, we find a first-order phase transition between a low-density gas of Rydberg excitations and a high-density liquid \cite{Weimer2015}. Finally, we turn to the parameter regime for nonzero detuning $\Delta$ where the mean-field solution (i.e, the first-order hierarchy equation) predicts the existence of an antiferromagnetic phase \cite{Lee2011}. Within the variational method, we also find such an antiferromagnetic phase, see Fig.~\ref{fig:af}, but its extension is reduced significantly. \begin{figure}[b] \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{af} \caption{Extension of the antiferromagnetic phase. The shaded area depicts the presence of antiferromagnetic order according to the variational approach (left) and the first-order hierarchy equations (right). ($V=5\,\gamma$) } \label{fig:af} \end{figure} \subsection{Infinite dimension limit} The qualitative differences between the variational approach and the hierarchy equation method warrants further discussion, especially regarding the appearance of the bistable region. Some previous works have interpreted this region as a genuine thermodynamic phase \cite{Lee2011,Marcuzzi2014}. In this context, the concept of the \emph{lower critical dimension} is particularly important. It refers to the spatial dimension of a system above which a phase transition can be observed \cite{Goldenfeld1992}. For example, the equilibrium liquid-gas transition belongs to the Ising universality class and has a lower critical dimension of one. In the following, we will investigate the dissipative Rydberg gas in the limit where the coordination number $z$ goes to infinity. In this case both the variational method and the first-order hierarchy equations become exact, as the true steady state of the master equation will be given by a product state. In particular, it is instructive to look at this limit to investigate the role of the bistability found in the solution of the hierarchy equations. For this, we analyze the residual dissipation between the two local minima found by the variational method. As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:z}, the variational method always yields a unique steady state. Here we find that the larger the coordination number becomes, the smaller the difference in residual dissipation. However, the regime of true bistability indicated by a vanishing of the slope of the variational norm is only reached asymptotically as $1/z$, and for any finite value of $z$ (i.e., for finite spatial dimensionality), there is no bistability. Consequently, it is incorrect to interpret the bistable behavior predicted by the hierarchy equations as a signature of a genuine thermodynamic phase, as it does not have a finite lower critical dimension. \begin{figure*}[t] \includegraphics{z} \includegraphics{z2} \caption{Analysis of the dissipative Rydberg gas in the limit of large coordination number $z$. The left panel shows the position of the first-order transition indicated by the crossing of the two local minima in the variational norm. The right panel displays the slope of the variational norm right below the transition point. The solid line is an algebraic fit to the data with an exponent of $-0.99\pm 0.01$, perfectly consistent with a $1/z$ behavior.} \label{fig:z} \end{figure*} Rather, these findings suggest that the variational method is the correct starting point from which arguments in favor of the existence of thermodynamic phases in sufficiently high dimensions can be based. This is of course in contrast with equilibrium systems, where such arguments can be made based on a mean-field decoupling, which is the equivalent of the first-order hierarchy equations. It is worth mentioning that the situation is very different when the hierarchy equations predict an antiferromagnetic phase. There, we also find an antiferromagnetic phase within the variational method, albeit with a smaller extension. While these results puts the existence of such an ordered phase on firmer grounds, the role of quantum fluctuation could still preclude its observation in actual experiments, if the lower critical dimension of the transition is three or larger. \subsection{Superatom model} We now extend the previous discussion of the lattice model of Sec.~\ref{sec:lat} to the case of a continuum, as it has been the case in the experimental situation in Ref.~\cite{Malossi2014}. In such a case, the Rydberg blockade will ensure that Rydberg excitations spontaneously form ordered structures \cite{Weimer2008a,Schauss2012}. Although these correlations are short-ranged, we may still well replace the underlying continuum by a lattice structure with a lattice spacing corresponding to the typical spacing between Rydberg excitations. We can then determine the lattice spacing in a self-consistent manner \cite{Heidemann2008}, finding \begin{equation} z\frac{C_6}{a^6} = \sqrt{\Omega_{\text{eff}}^2+(2\Delta)^2}. \end{equation} The factor of two in front of the detuning $\Delta$ can be understood as realizing the antiblockade condition $C_6/a^6 = 2\Delta$ in the limit of vanishing Rabi frequency. The effective Rabi frequency $\Omega_\text{eff}$ is derived from a renormalization of the atomic Rabi frequency $\Omega$ due to a (limited) collective enhancement. Far away from resonance, the transition to the first Rydberg excitation is still collectively enhanced, but the second Rydberg excitation can then only appear at specific positions that satisfy the antiblockade condition. Assuming there is always exactly one distance where the antiblockade condition is fulfilled, we find that we can describe the dynamics of such a superatom in terms of the number of atoms inside the superatom, $N_s$, by renormalizing the Rabi frequency as $\Omega_\text{eff} = N_s^{1/4}\Omega$, i.e., the geometric mean of the Rabi frequency for the first and the second Rydberg excitation. In the following, we assume the underlying lattice to be a cubic lattice (i.e, $z=6$), however, we would like to stress that our results are basically independent of $z$, as long as it chosen consistently with the assumed lattice structure. Then, we can compute the number of atoms per superatom to be \begin{equation} N_s = n \sqrt{\frac{C_6}{2\sqrt{\Delta^2+\Omega^2}}}, \end{equation} with $n$ being the density of ground state atoms. In the experimental situation of Ref.~\cite{Malossi2014}, the system was either on resonance or far away from it, i.e., either the condition $\Omega \gg \Delta$ or $\Omega \ll \Delta$ has been fulfilled. Additionally, we capture the experimental situation by including a dephasing term associated with the laser linewidth $\kappa$, according to the jump operators $c_i' = \sqrt{2\kappa} P_r^{(i)}$ \cite{Zoller1978}. \begin{figure}[b] \begin{tabular}{cc} \includegraphics[width=4.15cm]{exp} & \includegraphics[width=4.15cm]{pisa} \end{tabular} \caption{Comparison of the stationary state of a dissipative Rydberg gas obtained by the Pisa experiment (left, taken with permission from \cite{Malossi2014}) and by the variational method (right). For the experimental data, the color coding refers to the total number of Rydberg excitations in the sample, while for the numerical simulations, it represents the fraction of excited superatoms ($\gamma = 5\,\mathrm{kHz}$, $\kappa = 500\,\mathrm{kHz}$, $n= 1.8\times 10^{17}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$, $C_6 = 7.54\times 10^{-58} \mathrm{Jm}^{-6}$).} \label{fig:pisa} \end{figure} We are now in the position to compute the steady state of the system using the variational approach for correlated states. Remarkably, our results are in good quantitative agreement with the experimental observations in Ref.~\cite{Malossi2014}, see Fig.~\ref{fig:pisa}. The jump in the density of Rydberg excitations corresponds to the first-order phase transition between a low-density gas and a high-density liquid, see Sec.~\ref{sec:lat}. In close analogy to the classical liquid-gas transitions, the first-order transition ends in a critical point. However, due to experimental limitations on the dephasing rate and on the Rabi frequency, it appears that the observation of the critical region of the dissipative Rydberg gas remains a significant challenge. \section{Summary} In summary, we have given are detailed discussion of the recently introduced variational principle for steady states of dissipative quantum many-body systems \cite{Weimer2015}. We have exemplified its usefulness by focusing on the driven-dissipative Rydberg gas, and we have made a comparison of the variational approach to hierarchy equation methods, finding severe conceptual advantages in favor of the variational approach. Finally, we have found remarkable quantitative agreement with experimental data for the phase transition between a low-density gas of Rydberg excitations and a high-density liquid. Our results strengthen the position of the variational method as a key tool to analyze dissipative quantum many-body systems. \begin{acknowledgments} We acknowledge fruitful discussions with O.~Morsch, T.~Osborne, and M.~Piani. This work was funded by the Volkswagen Foundation. \end{acknowledgments}
\section{Introduction} Shocks play a significant role in our understanding of galaxy evolution. Widespread shocks in galaxy mergers trace galaxy-scale gas outflows and inflows that can alter the star formation history of a galaxy and their emission can confuse measurements of other physical properties in host galaxies. Gas can be shocked at the interface between two kinematically distinct gas clouds, wherever supersonic motions occur. For example, cloud-cloud collisions \citep*[e.g.][]{Savedoff67}, tidally-induced gas streams \citep{McDowell03,Colina04,MonrealIbero06,MonrealIbero10,Farage10,Zakamska10}, and outflows and galactic winds from AGN or star formation \citep[e.g.][]{Heckman90, Lehnert96, VeilleuxRupke02,Lipari04, Sharp10} can all produce radiative shocks to dissipate their kinetic energy \citep{Allen08}. Indeed, the simulations of \citet{Cox04,Cox06} indicate that a significant fraction of the orbital energy in a galaxy merger will go into shock-heating the gas, potentially driving additional galactic winds. With such a wide variety of causes for shocks, naturally their effects can be seen in a number of different types of host galaxies, such as galaxy mergers \citep{vanderwerf93}, AGN, and/or starbursts \citep[e.g.][]{Veilleux03}. Shocks can enhance a galaxy's [N \textsc{ii}]/H$\alpha$, [S \textsc{ii}]/H$\alpha$, and [O \textsc{i}]/H$\alpha$~emission line ratios by more than 0.5 dex \citep{Allen08}, which can have a number of confounding effects. Comparisons of these line ratios and [O \textsc{iii}]/H$\beta$, used as diagnostics of the energy source \citep*[as in the BPT/VO87 diagrams;][]{BPT, Veilleux87}, would misidentify a starburst galaxy with shocks as a LINER or composite galaxy \citep[e.g.][]{Armus89,Veilleux95,Martin97,Dopita97,Kim98,Allen99,Veilleux99,Sharp10,Rich10,Rich11,Rich14}. Measurements that rely on emission line fluxes or ratios, such as star formation rate and metallicity, can also be affected unless shocks are identified and removed from the calculation. Shock-excited molecular gas can also be observed at near-infrared wavelengths, with a series of ro-vibrational emission lines of H$_2$~in the range $\sim$1.9--2.4 $\mu$m \citep{Mouri94}. These have been observed both in nearby supernova remnants \citep*[e.g.][]{Oliva89} and in extragalactic shocks \citep{Veilleux97,Sugai97,Sugai99,Sugai03,Davies00,Veilleux09,Zakamska10,Hill14,Davies14_H2}. Additional ro-vibrational transitions in the mid-infrared have also been used to trace such shocks \citep{Appleton06,Peterson12,Mazzarella12,Cluver13}. Locally, Luminous and Ultra-Luminous InfraRed Galaxies (U/LIRGs, with log($L_{IR}/L_{\sun}) \geq 11$ for LIRGs and $\geq 12$ for ULIRGs) are excellent laboratories to study shocks, as $L_{IR}$ correlates with star formation rate, AGN fraction, and merger fraction \citep{Sanders88,Veilleux95,Sanders96,Veilleux02,IshidaPhD}, each of which can produce shocks. Outflows are commonly observed in local U/LIRGs \citep{Rupke02,RupkeVeilleux05,Rupke05c,Rupke05a,Rupke05b,Martin06,Sturm11,RupkeVeilleux13,Veilleux13,Teng13,Spoon13,RodriguezZaurin13,Arribas14,Cicone14}, and are likely a common cause of shocks. Several studies of shocks in nearby galaxies have linked them to superwinds produced by stellar feedback \citep{Heckman90,Grimes05,Rich11,Soto12a,Soto12b,Hopkins12,Hong13} and AGN-driven outflows \citep{Mazzarella12}. Although these systems are relatively rare in the local universe, \cite{LeFloch05} have shown that high infrared luminosities may have been the norm at redshifts beyond 0.7. To understand these cosmically important objects and the physical processes that occur in them, the Great Observatory All-Sky LIRG Survey \citep[GOALS;][]{Armus09} team has compiled data across a number of different wavelength regimes, including Hubble Space Telescope imaging in the optical \citep{Kim13} and near-infrared \citep{Haan11}, Chandra X-ray observations, \citep{Iwasawa11}, Spitzer spectra in the mid-infrared \citep{Stierwalt13}, GALEX observations in the near and far ultraviolet \citep{Howell10}, and Herschel Space Telescope spectra in the far-infrared \citep{DiazSantos13}. Recently, subsamples of the GOALS galaxies have been studied with integral field spectroscopy, allowing an unprecedented look at the physical mechanisms present in U/LIRGs. In \citet{Rich14}, a sample of 27 U/LIRGs was observed with the the Wide Field Spectrograph WiFeS to obtain resolved optical spectroscopy (R$\sim$3000 and 7000 in the blue and red sides, respectively). The high spectral resolution afforded by the WiFeS instrument enabled the decomposition of emission line ratios and revealed the prevalence of shocks, particularly in late merger stages, \citep{Rich10,Rich11,Rich14} which cause star-forming galaxies to appear as LINERs or composite galaxies in a single-aperture analysis. Though IFU data are capable of identifying the presence of shocks and their relative contribution to the total emission line flux, WiFeS lacks the spatial resolution and the long wavelengths necessary to trace shocks in the dusty cores of U/LIRGs. We present the first results of our new study that combines two sets of integral field spectroscopy: optical observations with a wide field-of-view and moderately high spectral resolution to identify the presence of the shocks, and near-infrared high spatial resolution observations to investigate the origin of shocks in the cores of nearby U/LIRGs. This paper focuses on IRAS F17207-0014, the first target for which we have obtained both datasets. IRAS F17207-0014 (log($L_{IR}/L_{\sun}$) = 12.46, 17h23m22.01s -00d17m00.2s, z=0.043, 0.848 kpc arcsec$^{-1}$) is a late-stage major merger \citep[merger stage classification 5 out of 6, `single or obscured nucleus with long tidal tails';][]{Haan11, Kim13}, and the most infrared luminous system in the southern sky. Although dust obscuration in the optical and limited spatial resolution in the near-infrared ($\frac{\lambda}{D}\sim$0\farcs15) have prevented Hubble observations from separating the two nuclei, new adaptive optics observations with the OH-Suppressing InfraRed Imaging Spectrograph (OSIRIS) have shown that the two nuclei are still distinct \citep{nucleardisks}, though they overlap with a small central separation in projection (0\farcs24 $\sim200$ parsecs). We note that \citet{Martin06}, \citet{Soto12a}, and \citet{Soto12b} classified this galaxy as a double nucleus separated by 2--3\arcsec based on kinematics measured from their longslit data. Our OSIRIS data reveal that the two nuclei are considerably closer, and it is thus possible that the second nucleus seen by previous authors was in fact merely a second kinematic component (e.g. tidal stream). This galaxy is classified as a star forming system based on observations in the optical \citep{Veilleux95,Yuan10}, mid-infrared \citep{Lutz99,Risaliti06,Stierwalt13,Inami13}, and X-ray \citep{Franceschini03,Iwasawa11}. This galaxy has been studied by several other authors to date, most finding evidence for outflows on a variety of scales. \citet{Martin06}, using long-slit optical spectroscopy, found Na I D absorption blueshifted by $\sim$400 km s$^{-1}$ relative to the H$\alpha$~emission. In a similar analysis, \citet{Rupke05a,Rupke05b} found Na I D absorption blueshifted from systemic by $\sim$300 km s$^{-1}$, also interpreting this as outflowing neutral gas. \citet{Sturm11} looked at Herschel/PACS spectra of the OH 79 $\mu$m line and found evidence of blueshifted/outflowing molecular gas with a velocity offset of -100 km s$^{-1}$ (v$_{85}$ = -170 km s$^{-1}$, v$_{max}$ = -370 km s$^{-1}$). A number of authors have examined optical emission lines for signs of outflows as well. \citet{Arribas03} found no evidence of outflows in their INTEGRAL observations (although they do suggest an inflowing component to the southwest); \citet{Westmoquette12} also find no evidence for outflows in their VIMOS data. However, \citet{Soto12a} fit multiple components to the emission lines in their optical long-slit spectra and produce measurements of velocity offset ($\sim$-100 km s$^{-1}$ from systemic) and velocity dispersion ($\sim$100 km s$^{-1}$) for the shocked components, which they sum together to produce an estimated outflow velocity of 200 km s$^{-1}$; they also use emission line ratios and shock models to infer shock velocities ranging from 50--600 km s$^{-1}$. \citet{Arribas14} looked again at INTEGRAL data for this object and found, integrated over the galaxy, an outflowing component to the emission lines, with v$_{offset} = -151\pm82$ km s$^{-1}$ and v$_{max} = -306\pm87$ km s$^{-1}$. In this paper, we present an updated interpretation of shocks in IRAS F17207-0014 from the combination of wide-field optical and AO-assisted near-infrared integral field spectroscopy. In Section~\ref{obs} we describe the observations and line-fitting techniques. In Section~\ref{models} we include the details of our shock models used for optical emission line analysis. In Section~\ref{results} we present the analysis from both our optical and near-infrared data. In Section~\ref{discussion} we discuss the implications of the combined data and in Section~\ref{summary} we summarize the results. Throughout the paper we adopt $H_0 = 70$\,km\,s$^{-1}$\,Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_{\rm m}$ = 0.28, and $\Omega_\Lambda$ = 0.72 \citep{Hinshaw09}. Physical scales were calculated using Ned Wright's Cosmology Calculator\footnote{Available at \url{http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html}.} \citep{Wright06}. \section{Observations and Line Fitting } \label{obs} As a pilot study for our larger survey, we compare here two sets of integral-field observations of IRAS F17207-0014. Our optical integral field spectroscopy was taken with the Wide Field Spectrograph (WiFeS) as part of a larger survey of shocks in galaxy mergers. A more detailed analysis of its shocks and kinematics, along with a comparison to the population of mergers, will be presented in Rich et al. (in prep). The near-infrared integral field spectroscopy was first presented in \citet{nucleardisks} as part of a survey studying nuclear kinematics in gas-rich mergers. \subsection{WiFeS Data} The first set of data was taken with the Wide Field Spectrograph \citep[WiFeS;][]{Dopita07,Dopita10} on the 2.3-meter telescope at Siding Spring Observatory. WiFeS is an image slicer with dual beams, enabling red and blue spectra to be obtained simultaneously, with different spectral resolutions and wavelength coverage. The angular resolution is seeing-limited and is $\sim$1.5\arcsec~for our observations, corresponding to $\sim$1.3 kpc for IRAS F17207-0014. The observations were taken on 3 June 2010 UT with the B3000 and R7000 gratings, giving a spectral resolution of R$\sim$3000 in the range 3700--5700\AA~and a resolution of R$\sim$7000 in the range 5700--7000\AA. These data will be presented in full as part of the WIGS survey (Rich et al. in prep). The data were sampled with square spatial pixels of 0\farcs5 on a side which were then binned $2\times2$ to produce 1\arcsec~spaxels. The total field of view is 25\arcsec $\times$ 38\arcsec, shown in Figure~\ref{FOV}. The data were taken in 3 exposures of 1500 seconds each, yielding a total on-source time of 75 minutes. The data were reduced using the WiFeS data reduction pipeline \citep{Dopita10}. For more details on the observations and reduction process, see \cite{Rich11}. \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{fig1.eps} \caption{Three-colour image of IRAS F17207-0014 from Hubble ACS $F435W$ (blue), ACS $F814W$ (green), and NICMOS $F160W$ (red) from \citet{Kim13} and \citet{Haan11} showing the field of view for the WiFeS data (large white box, 25\arcsec $\times$ 38\arcsec) and the OSIRIS $Kcb$ data (small white box, 1\farcs8 $\times$ 2\farcs7). Images are shown with a square-root flux scale in order to emphasize outer structure.} \label{FOV} \end{figure} We obtain emission line fits for this study using \textsc{LZIFU} (Ho et al. in prep), which uses the penalized pixel fitting routine \textsc{pPXF} \citep{ppxf} to fit stellar template models \citep[here we used the library of templates at solar metallicity from][]{gonzalezdelgado05} to the continuum and then fits one, two, or three Gaussian profiles to each emission line. \textsc{LZIFU} fits both the red and the blue spectra simultaneously, allowing for consistent continuum subtraction across the whole spectrum. By fitting both sides simultaneously, \textsc{LZIFU} is also able to fit the same velocity and velocity dispersion for all emission lines, varying only the flux. This fitting method has the beneficial effect of using the high spectral resolution of the red side to inform the line profiles of the blue side, allowing for high fidelity flux ratios for multiple components. Due to signal-to-noise ratio limitations, this dataset was fit with the one-component mode only. \subsection{OSIRIS Data} \label{OSIRISobs} The near-infrared set of data was taken on 23 and 24 May 2011 UT with the OH-Suppressing InfraRed Integral-field Spectrograph \citep[OSIRIS;][]{Larkin06} on the Keck II telescope using laser guide star adaptive optics (LGS AO). OSIRIS uses a lenslet array to obtain up to 3000 spectra at once, at a spectral resolution of approximately R$\sim$3000. The observations of IRAS F17207-0014 were taken in two modes: a) using the $Kcb$ filter (1.965--2.381 $\mu$m) at the 0\farcs1 spaxel$^{-1}$ plate scale, and b) using the $Hn4$ filter (1.652--1.737 $\mu$m) at the 0\farcs035 spaxel$^{-1}$ plate scale. The field of view of the $Kcb$ filter is shown in Figure~\ref{FOV} for comparison; the field of view of the $Hn4$ data is about half that size (see Section~\ref{osiris} for relative position). Data were taken in ten-minute exposures set in an object-sky-object pattern, for total on-source exposure times of 60 and 40 minutes for the $Kcb$ and $Hn4$ filters, respectively. OSIRIS resolves below the seeing limit by utilizing Keck's laser guide star adaptive optics system \citep{Wiz00,vanDam04,Wiz06,vanDam06}. This LGS AO system uses a pulsed laser tuned to the Sodium D$_{2}$ transition at 589 nm to excite atoms in the sodium layer of the atmosphere, around 95 km. The distortions of this laser spot are then measured and a deformable mirror is used to flatten the wavefront, correcting for atmospheric turbulence in both the laser spot and the science data in real time. An on-sky source must be available to correct for image motion; this tip-tilt star must be brighter than $\sim$18th magnitude in $R$ and within 1' of the science target for the Keck AO system. For these observations, we used a nearby star of $R$-band magnitude 14.1 and separation of 25\farcs6. The Keck AO system enables diffraction-limited imaging in the near-infrared ($\sim$0\farcs065 in $K$-band). These OSIRIS data were reduced using the OSIRIS pipeline v2.3\footnote{Available at \url{http://irlab.astro.ucla.edu/osiris/pipeline.html}.}, using the updated OSIRIS wavelength solution for data taken after October 2009 which is now available in version 3 of the pipeline. For more details on the reduction process, see \citet{nucleardisks}. We flux-calibrated our $Kcb$ datacube using the NICMOS $K$-band image presented in \citet{Scoville00}. Unfortunately, no equivalent calibration data were available to flux-calibrate our $Hn4$ datacube. Emission lines in the OSIRIS datacubes were fit as in \citet{mrk273} and \citet{nucleardisks}, with single-Gaussian components. Rather than fit all lines simultaneously, lines were fit according to species, allowing for different kinematic structure in ionized vs. molecular gas tracers. Here we present morphological results from the H$_2$~emission, which has a series of 5 emission lines in the $K$-band. For more details on the kinematics and other tracers, see \citet{nucleardisks} and U et al. (in prep). \section{Shock Models} \label{models} In the following sections, we compare our optical emission line ratios to shock models, which we describe here. The grid of slow shock models used here was computed by \citet{Rich10} from the \textsc{MAPPINGS III} code \citep[updated from][]{Sutherland93}. Briefly, these models are analogous to the fast-shock models presented in \citet{Allen08}. Following \citet{Rich11}, we restrict our models to fully-preionized shocks with shock velocities ranging from 100 to 200 km s$^{-1}$, which match our data most consistently. The abundance set used in these models is that of \citet{Grevesse10} with standard solar dust depletion factors from \citet*{Kimura03}. We note that using these dust depletion factors is valid only for shocks slow enough not to sputter the dust grains which may be advected into the shocked region. The models were then calculated for a range of metallicities, ranging from log(O/H)+12 = 7.39 to 9.39; only models with log(O/H)+12 = 8.69 or higher were considered for IRAS F17207-0014. These models also include a transverse magnetic field consistent with equipartition of the thermal and magnetic fields ($B \propto n_{c}^{-1/2}$; $B = 5 \mu$G for $n_{c} = 10$ cm$^{-3}$). We note that this choice of magnetic field is consistent with the findings of \citet{Thompson06}, who found that starbursts likely have magnetic fields considerably higher than the minimum magnetic field required to produce radio emission. The flux ratio of the doublet \sii6716/\sii6731 is sensitive to magnetic field strength, and thus can be used as a check of assumptions. We find that our equipartition choice of model predicts a ratio \sii6716/\sii6731 of 1.0-1.2, whereas shock models using a much smaller magnetic field predict a ratio of 0.5-0.75. Our observations have \sii6716/\sii6731 $\sim$1.3, more consistent with a magnetic field in equipartition. For shocks of each metallicity and velocity, the emission line ratios [O \textsc{iii}]/H$\beta$, [N \textsc{ii}]/H$\alpha$, [S \textsc{ii}]/H$\alpha$, and [O \textsc{i}]/H$\alpha$~were calculated for comparison with the observed emission line ratios (see Section~\ref{wifes}). \section{Results: Line Ratios and Maps} \label{results} \subsection{WiFeS Analysis} \label{wifes} The emission line ratios [N \textsc{ii}]/H$\alpha$, [O \textsc{iii}]/H$\beta$, [S \textsc{ii}]/H$\alpha$, and [O \textsc{i}]/H$\alpha$~are used as diagnostic tests of the ionization mechanisms present in the gas. Different physical processes, e.g. HII regions vs. AGN, will cause different flux ratios of these \textbf{transitions}, and therefore objects fall in different locations in the standard diagnostic diagrams depending upon their primary source of excitation. The hard radiation field from an AGN produces more excitations of [OIII], [NII], [SII] and [OI] compared with the thermal radiation field from the young hot O and B stars in HII regions \citep{BPT, Veilleux87, Kewley01, Kauffmann03, Kewley06}. Though the diagnostic diagrams are commonly used to distinguish between star-forming galaxies and AGN hosts, shocks can elevate emission line ratios, causing a spectrum to move from the HII region of these line diagnostics towards the composite or LINER regions \citep{Armus89,Veilleux95,Martin97,Dopita97,Kim98,Allen99,Veilleux99,Soto12b,Hong13,Rich14,Newman14}. Mixing between AGN and star formation can also exist \citep{Davies14}, but such mixing increases the [O \textsc{iii}]/H$\beta$~ratio more strongly, shifting points towards the Seyfert region of the diagnostic diagrams. By comparing these ionization line ratios in spatially-resolved spectroscopy to photoionization and shock models, it is thus possible to map out the shocked regions and identify the relative contribution to the luminosity from shocks, star formation, and AGN \citep{MonrealIbero06,MonrealIbero10,Sharp10,Rich10,Rich11,Westmoquette11,Freeland11,Soto12a,Davis12,Fogarty12,Yuan12,Vogt13,Ho14}. In Figure~\ref{BPTdiagramgrid}, we show the standard emission line diagnostic diagrams for IRAS F17207-0014 for spaxels where emission lines in all relevant species have a signal-to-noise ratio of 3 or higher (small black points) and 8 or higher (large black points). We include two signal-to-noise ratio cuts to avoid sensitivity to uncertainties in noise levels in our spectra. All spaxels fall above the pure starburst classification line in the [N \textsc{ii}]/H$\alpha$~diagnostic, indicating that HII regions alone cannot produce the observed line ratios. We note that our line ratios are similar to those measured in the corresponding apertures of the longslit data of \citet[][their Figure 2.28]{Soto12a}. We have overlaid the shock models (coloured grid lines) described in Section~\ref{models}. Our points form a mixing sequence of starburst-dominated (toward the bottom left of the plots and below the Kauffmann pure star formation line) and shock-dominated (towards the right of the plots) spaxels. These mixing sequences indicate a varying fraction of the emission due to starbursts vs. shocks \citep{Rich10,Rich11}. By combining photoionization models from Starburst99 \citep{Leitherer99} and \textsc{MAPPINGS III} with the shock models discussed previously, we plot four possible mixing sequences in Figure~\ref{mixing}, varying the metallicities of the models in each case. That is, for each metallicity, we plot the range of ionization line ratios possible from photoionization models with a range of ionization parameters (log(Q(H)) = 6.5--4e8) combined with shocks of a range of velocities (100--200 km s$^{-1}$). The lowest and highest metallicity models (log(O/H)+12 = 8.69 in the top row and 9.39 in the bottom row, respectively) do not produce mixing sequences able to account for all high signal-to-noise ($>$8) points, and are ruled out. We note that no models are able to reproduce all points with moderate signal-to-noise ratios ($>$3), particularly those in the log([O \textsc{i}]/H$\alpha$) plot. This could be due to increased noise in the [O \textsc{i}]~measurements or to difficulties in the shock models themselves. We are in the process of producing new shock models (MAPPINGS IV; Sutherland et al. in prep) with updated atomic data that may improve [O \textsc{i}]/H$\alpha$~ratio predictions. In the meantime, we caution the reader against using solely [O \textsc{i}]/H$\alpha$~measurements as shock diagnostics. As shown in the second row of panels, our mixing models with log(O/H)+12 = 8.99 indicate that the least-shocked spaxels contain 10\% $\pm$ 10\% shocks, because the lowest spaxels fall between the purple and blue lines on each of the diagnostic diagrams. The third scenario, with log(O/H)+12 = 9.17, has the lowest spaxels never reaching the purple line, and sometimes above even the blue line: this suggests that 30\% $\pm$ 10\% of the ionization in these regions comes from shocks. It is encouraging that these mixing sequences are not highly sensitive to the gas-phase metallicity in this regime. \begin{figure*} \centering \includegraphics[scale=1]{fig2.eps} \caption{Emission line ratio diagnostic diagrams for IRAS F17207-0014. Likely ionization mechanisms for each region of the plot are suggested based on the extreme starburst line \citep[solid red line,][]{Kewley01}, the pure star formation line \citep[dashed black line,][]{Kauffmann03}, and the Seyfert-LINER line \citep[teal dashed line,][]{Kewley06}, though these classifications do not take into account the effects of shocks. Line ratios from single-component fits to each spaxel with highest signal-to-noise ($>$8) are plotted as large black dots and those of signal-to-noise 3--8 as small dots. Pure shock models from an updated version of \textsc{MAPPINGS III} \citep{Sutherland93,Farage10,Rich10} are overlaid, demonstrating that shocks likely contribute to the line ratios of $>$80\% of these spaxels, causing them to fall above the photoionization line in one or more diagnostic plots. The grid includes shock-induced line ratios from shocks with velocities of 100 (yellow, top horizontal grid line), 120, 140, 160, 180, and 200 km s$^{-1}$ (red, bottom horizontal grid line) and for gas with metallicities log(O/H)+12 of 8.69 (blue, vertical grid line on left in first panel and right in others), 8.69, 8.99, 9.17, and 9.39 (green, opposite vertical grid line). } \label{BPTdiagramgrid} \end{figure*} \begin{figure*} \centering \includegraphics[scale=1]{fig3.eps} \caption{Emission line ratio diagnostic diagrams for IRAS F17207-0014. The extreme starburst line \citep[solid red line,][]{Kewley01}, the pure star formation line \citep[dashed black line,][]{Kauffmann03}, and the Seyfert-LINER line \citep[teal dashed line,][]{Kewley06} are the same as in Figure~\ref{BPTdiagramgrid}. Line ratios from single-component fits to each spaxel with highest signal-to-noise ($>$8) are plotted as large black dots and those of signal-to-noise 3--8 as small dots. In each plot, we show line segments indicating models of 0\% shocks (violet) to 100\% shocks (brown) in 20\% increments, with metallicity log(O/H)+12 = 8.69 (top row), 8.99, 9.17, or 9.39 (bottom row). Models with log(O/H)+12 = 8.99 and 9.17 account for all high and most moderate signal-to-noise spaxels. Between these two models, the lowest line ratios can be produced by $<$20\% shocks (second row) or 20--40\% shocks (third row).} \label{mixing} \end{figure*} We also look at the spatial locations of the spaxels with the lowest contribution from shocks in Figure~\ref{reverseBPT}. Here we have colour-coded the spaxels in the BPT diagrams and then included an image of the galaxy to the left, with each spaxel printed in its matching colour and with H$\alpha$~flux contours to show perspective. (H$\alpha$~emission is morphologically similar to the continuum emission, with the brightest point indicating the galaxy core.) The colour-coding corresponds to shock fraction, with orange spaxels indicating highest shock fraction. These diagnostics show that the central regions of the galaxy have the highest relative contribution of star formation (60--100\%), and suggest that shocks are dominant at radii beyond a few kiloparsecs, where they contribute 80--100\% of the line emission. Though the relative contribution of shocks (0--40\%) is lower in the centre, this could be due to an increase in star formation rather than a decrease in shocks. To test the idea that shocks are present in the nucleus, we look to higher spatial resolution data in the central regions. \begin{figure*} \centering \begin{minipage}{4.8in} \includegraphics[trim = .5cm 0cm 0cm 0cm, scale=0.8]{fig4a.eps} \end{minipage} \begin{minipage}{1.6in} \vspace{1cm} \includegraphics[trim = 4cm 0cm 0cm 0cm, scale=0.8, angle=-45]{fig4b.eps} \end{minipage} \caption{Emission line ratio diagnostic diagrams for IRAS F17207-0014. The extreme starburst line \citep[solid red line,][]{Kewley01}, the pure star formation line \citep[dashed black line,][]{Kauffmann03}, and the Seyfert-LINER line \citep[teal dashed line,][]{Kewley06} are the same as in Figure~\ref{BPTdiagramgrid}. Line ratios from single-component fits to each spaxel with high signal-to-noise ($>$3 for small points, $>$8 for large points) are plotted in the left three panels, colour-coded according to position in the third plot, with colour divisions evenly spaced in log([O \textsc{iii}]/H$\beta$) + log([O \textsc{i}]/H$\alpha$). On the right, we include a zoomed-in image of the galaxy with spaxels colour-coded in the same fashion, and with red contours in H$\alpha$~flux overlaid to give scale. White pixels indicate regions with signal-to-noise $<3$ for one or more key diagnostic emission lines. We see that the central spaxels have the strongest contribution from star formation (60--100\%), with outer spaxels having a higher relative contribution from shocks (80--100\%).} \label{reverseBPT} \end{figure*} \subsection{OSIRIS Analysis} \label{osiris} To investigate the central spaxels of the WiFeS data in more detail, we turn to the OSIRIS data, with a field-of-view that covers only approximately the central 2x2 WiFeS spaxels. The GALFIT modeling and kinematics presented in \citet{nucleardisks} reveal that the core of IRAS F17207-0014 contains the nuclei of the two progenitor galaxies separated by $\sim200$ parsecs in projection. Both nuclei appear to host small nuclear disks ($R_{eff}$ of 200 and 410 parsecs, respectively). Though the $K$-band observations are at a lower spatial sampling (0\farcs1 spaxel$^{-1}$) than the $H$-band observations, they are particularly interesting because of the H$_2$~emission present, which traces warm molecular gas. There are five H$_2$~transitions falling within our observed wavelength coverage: 1--0 S(3) at 1.7586 $\mu$m, 1--0 S(2) at 2.0338 $\mu$m, 1--0 S(1) at 2.1218 $\mu$m, 1--0 S(0) at 2.2235 $\mu$m, and 2--1 S(1) at 2.2477 $\mu$m. (All five of these transitions are seen in our integrated spectrum, although no individual spaxel detects all five transitions. Throughout the rest of the discussion, when we refer to H$_2$~flux, we are referring to the strongest transition, 1--0 S(1) at 2.1218 $\mu$m, unless otherwise specified.) These vibrational transitions of H$_2$~can be excited by shock heating, UV fluorescence or thermal excitation from O and B stars, and/or X-ray heating from a nearby AGN \citep{Mouri94}. Because we do not see a broad Br$\gamma$~line, and because no AGN is evident from optical \citep{Yuan10}, mid-infrared \citep{Stierwalt13}, or X-ray \citep{Iwasawa11} observations, the first two scenarios are more likely for this galaxy. If H$_2$~gas is excited by UV light from massive stars, the light from those stars should also produce Br$\gamma$~emission. Therefore a high H$_2$/Br$\gamma$~ratio in this case would indicate shocks rather than star formation \citep[see e.g.][]{Goldader97, Tecza00}. Star-forming regions have H$_2$/Br$\gamma$~ratios $\lesssim$0.6 \citep{Joseph84, Moorwood88,RodriguezArdila04,RodriguezArdila05,Riffel10}; shock-excited Galactic and extragalactic sources have H$_2$/Br$\gamma$~ratios greater (or much greater) than unity \citep{Puxley90}. The scenario of shock-excited H$_2$~emission is also supported by key ratios of H$_2$~transitions: 1--0 S(3) / 1--0 S(1) = 0.92, 1--0 S(2) / 1--0 S(0) = 1.6, and 2--1 S(1) / 1--0 S(1) = 0.12 all fall within the regime predicted by the shock models of \citet{ShullHollenbach78} and \citet{Chernoff82} and are similar to those predicted by \citet{Mouri94} using the model of \citet{Brand89}. We see no difference in our measured ratios between the high H$_2$/Br$\gamma$~ratio region and the rest of the nuclear regions. In Figure~\ref{OSmaps} we show the emission map of the 2.12 $\mu$m H$_2$~line (bottom left panel) and Br$\gamma$~line (bottom right panel), with contours at higher spatial sampling overlaid. We see that the H$_2$~emission does not trace the Br$\gamma$~or continuum emission (top left panel and white contours everywhere), and indeed that the H$_2$/Br$\gamma$~ratio (top right panel) confirms that the bulk of the H$_2$~emission is likely due to shocks. The H$_2$/Br$\gamma$~ratio ranges from $\sim$4--8 below the intersection of the two disks; we additionally find that most of the field-of-view has an H$_2$/Br$\gamma$~ratio above 0.6, suggesting lower-level shocks could be widespread. The H$_2$~velocity dispersion is slightly but not significantly elevated in the shocked region; across the field, most spaxels show velocity dispersion $>$100 km s$^{-1}$. \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[scale=.6]{fig5.eps} \caption{Top Left: Continuum flux map of the central region of IRAS F17207-0014 at high spatial sampling (0\farcs035 spaxel$^{-1}$) in the $Hn4$ band \textbf{(1.652--1.737 $\mu$m)}. The major axes of the two nuclear disks identified in \citet{nucleardisks} are overlaid in black for context. Top Right: H$_2$/Br$\gamma$~flux ratio calculated from two bottom panels, with continuum contours overlaid; ratios indicate strong shocks ($>4$) to the south surrounded by a diffuse background of moderate shocks ($>0.6$). Bottom Left: H$_2$~2.12 $\mu$m flux map (spatial sampling 0\farcs1 spaxel$^{-1}$) with contours from continuum overlaid. Bottom Left: Bottom Right: Br$\gamma$~flux map (spatial sampling 0\farcs1 spaxel$^{-1}$) with continuum contours overlaid.} \label{OSmaps} \end{figure} \subsubsection{Characteristics of the Shocked Region} The region of highest H$_2$/Br$\gamma$~ratio ($\sim$4--8) extends at least 0\farcs4 (340 pc) from North to South and 170--340 pc from East to West. The total H$_2$~and Br$\gamma$~fluxes from this region are $9.75 \times 10^{-16}$ and $2.28 \times 10^{-16}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ respectively, producing an average H$_2$/Br$\gamma$~ratio of 4.3. These fluxes are not corrected for extinction. The 1--0 S(1) H$_2$~line flux we measure is approximately two orders of magnitude larger than the largest flux predicted by the shock models of \citet{ShullHollenbach78}. \citet{Chernoff82} found increased H$_2$~emission produced by shock models including a magnetic field; our measured line intensity is about one order of magnitude larger than their prediction and covers approximately half of their simulated beam. These models were tuned to match the shocked molecular hydrogen emission surrounding the Orion Molecular Cloud; to our knowledge, a comprehensive grid of shock models does not exist. Therefore, the discrepancy in line intensity between our observations and these shock models may be due to differing shock conditions. The limited number (and, perhaps, limited applicability to this case) of shock models in the literature prevents us from drawing conclusions about the shock properties from this measurement at this time. The velocity dispersion of the H$_2$~emission, integrated over the shocked region, is 200 km s$^{-1}$; individual spaxels within the shocked region range from 145--200 km s$^{-1}$. When integrating over the shocked region, the signal-to-noise ratio is sufficient to decompose the H$_2$~profile into two Gaussian components (see Figure~\ref{h2vel}). This produces a central Gaussian of $v_{offset} = -11\pm25$ km s${-1}$ and $\sigma = 159\pm56$ km s$^{-1}$ containing 36\% of the flux and a blueshifted Gaussian of $v_{offset} = -113\pm31$ km s${-1}$ and $\sigma = 268\pm24$ km s$^{-1}$ containing the remaining 64\% of the flux. \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[trim= 1cm 0cm 0cm 0cm, scale=1.]{fig6.eps} \caption{H$_2$~(black) and Br$\gamma$~emission (red) as a function of velocity relative to systemic ($cz$=12,900 km s$^{-1}$). The H$_2$~emission is decomposed into two Gaussian fits (dotted purple lines: individual components, dashed purple line: total fit). Reference velocities are shown for the two disks (from our kinematic modeling paper, Medling et al. submitted) along the top and for a selection of outflow velocities from the literature along the bottom: traced by Na ID absorption \citep{Martin06}, optical emission lines \citep{Arribas14}, and OH 79$\mu$m absorption \citep{Sturm11}.} \label{h2vel} \end{figure} \section{Discussion} \label{discussion} Optical seeing-limited integral field spectroscopy from WiFeS (Section~\ref{wifes}), covering the central $\sim$20 $\times$ 30 kpc, reveals line ratios indicative of a mixing sequence of shocks. The data are consistent with mixing sequences of metallicities log(O/H)+12=8.99--9.17. In both sequences, the central spaxels show the lowest relative contribution to shocks; the fraction of emission line luminosity contributed by shocks in these cases is 10\% $\pm$ 10\% to 30\% $\pm$ 10\%, depending on metallicity. We also see evidence of two levels of shocks in the near-infrared AO-assisted integral field spectroscopy from OSIRIS (Section~\ref{osiris}), indicated by moderate and high H$_2$/Br$\gamma$~ratios (0.6--4 and 4--8, respectively). It is encouraging that both sets of data show evidence of shocks in the central region, though direct comparison of shock properties is not currently possible due to the lack of near-infrared shock models. Nonetheless, it is clear that shocks penetrate both ionized and warm molecular gas in this system. Although both datasets show conclusive evidence of shocks, it is challenging to derive the shock energetics. The WiFeS data presented here lack sufficient signal-to-noise to decompose into a shocked and non-shocked components, and we defer the reader to \citet{Soto12b} for estimates of the energy associated with the outflow traced by optical emission lines. In the most extreme shocks modeled, \citet{Draine83} estimates that up to 10\% of mechanical energy in a shock can be converted to H$_2$~2.12$\mu$m emission. Using our H$_2$~luminosity, this puts a lower limit on the mechanical energy input rate in the shock of $\sim$3$\times10^{39}$ erg s$^{-1}$. We note, however, that the efficiency of converting mechanical energy to H$_2$~luminosity varies by more than five orders of magnitude in their models, based on shock velocity, magnetic fields, and pre-shock gas density and ionization fraction. Without a comprehensive grid of shock models predicting H$_2$~luminosities and line ratios, we cannot constrain this further. The complex nuclear dynamics of the central region, resolved by our OSIRIS spectra, makes it difficult to determine how the H$_2$~emission relates kinematically to the nuclei. In Figure~\ref{h2vel} we show the H$_2$~and Br$\gamma$~emission lines summed over the shocked region as a function of velocity. We then overplot the nuclear velocities for the East and West disks, from our paper on kinematic modeling (Medling et al. submitted), as well as a selection of outflow velocities found in previous studies for reference. The range of outflow velocities found in the literature spans the H$_2$~velocities. However, it is important to remember that the outflow velocities from the literature were found in very different spatial regions of the galaxy and/or at poorer spatial resolution; thus, matching velocity profiles is not sufficient for identifying a multiphase outflow. We also note that it is not precisely clear what velocity would be expected from shocked gas resulting from a nuclear collision: it could be shocked in place, maintaining a radial velocity between that of the two nuclei, or the collisional heating may drive the gas outwards, appearing blueshifted \citep[as in the models of][]{Cox04,Cox06}. In the following sections we discuss three possible causes for the shocks seen in IRAS F17207-0014: AGN-driven outflows or heating, starburst-driven winds, and cloud-cloud collisions from the merging of the two progenitor galaxies. We evaluate the evidence for each cause for each set of shocks below. \subsection{Shocks Caused by AGN-Driven Outflows or X-Ray Heating} \label{AGN} AGN are capable of driving atomic and molecular gas out from the nuclear regions at moderate \citep[e.g. $\sim$350 km s$^{-1}$ in NGC~1266;][]{Alatalo11} to high velocities \citep[$\sim$2000 km s$^{-1}$;][]{Spoon13}. Such outflows are thought to be driven by radiation pressure from the AGN itself \citep{SilkRees98} and may be responsible for the existence of black hole scaling relations \citep*[e.g.][]{Springel05, DiMatteo05}. It is therefore plausible that shocks in the core of (and, perhaps, throughout) a ULIRG be caused by an AGN-driven wind. If an AGN were present, it's also possible that the resulting X-rays could heat the H$_2$~gas, producing the high H$_2$/Br$\gamma$~ratios that we see. In the case of IRAS F17207-0014 we find no evidence for an AGN from our data or from optical \citep{Yuan10}, mid-infrared \citep{Stierwalt13}, or X-ray \citep{Iwasawa11} observations. We cannot, however, rule out a Compton-thick AGN obscured to our line-of-sight but affecting gas visible along the plane of the sky. If such an AGN were driving an outflow causing these shocks we might expect to see high velocity gas as a result -- which is not present in either our data or in the literature \citep{Martin06,Soto12a, Soto12b, Rupke05a, Rupke05b}. Due to the lack of evidence supporting an AGN in this galaxy, we regard this scenario as unlikely. \subsection{Shocks Caused by Outflows Driven by Star Formation} \label{winds} Perhaps a more common driver of galactic winds is intense star formation activity \citep[see][for a review]{Heckman03}. The spaxels that are dominated by shocks in our WiFeS data appear to be in the outer regions of the galaxy (2--5 kpc), which is consistent with previous observations of galactic winds \citep{Rich10,Rich11,Rich14,Soto12a,Soto12b}. The line ratios in the central regions are plausibly low not because shocks are not present but because star formation dominates there \citep[e.g.][]{Armus89}. The signal-to-noise ratios of our spectra are generally too low to decompose the emission lines into a shocked and non-shocked component so it is not possible to say from these data whether the shocks we see in the WiFeS data are redshifted or blueshifted relative to the galaxy, or to measure a shock velocity. However, our results are consistent with those of \citet{Soto12a}, \citet{Soto12b}, and \citet{Arribas14} who also find line ratios increasing with galactic radius in a sample of ULIRGs and attribute them to outflows. The additional evidence for outflows in both Na I D absorption \citep{Martin06,Rupke05a,Rupke05b} and OH absorption \citep{Sturm11} makes it extremely likely that outflows are present on large scales. The strong shocked region of elevated H$_2$/Br$\gamma$~flux seen below the two disks could be the origin of such an outflow. As this region points south, it is aligned with one of the WiFeS regions of increased shock fraction and consistent with the spectra of \citet{Soto12a}, which show the strongest shocks to the south; this could imply that we are seeing the base of an outflow that extends to $\sim5$ kiloparsecs. Indeed, the broader H$_2$~component in Figure~\ref{h2vel} is blueshifted relative to the East disk with velocity offsets similar to the outflow velocities in the literature. Observations of other outflows beginning as such collimated structures show that they can remain mostly collimated over kiloparsec scales \citep[as in][]{Shopbell98}. Other regions of high shock fraction in the WiFeS data could be caused by a second outflow unseen in the OSIRIS data, perhaps due to geometry. We calculate the mechanical energy rate available in such an outflow as E$_{outflow}$ = $\dot{M} v_{out}^2 = 5.1\times 10^{40}$ erg s$^{-1}$, using $\dot{M}$ = 4 $M_{\sun}$ and $v_{out}$ = 200 km s$^{-1}$ from \citet{Soto12b}. This available mechanical energy rate exceeds the minimum mechanical energy rate ($3\times10^{39}$ erg s$^{-1}$, see Section \ref{discussion}) required to produce our H$_2$~emission in shocks, depending on the shock parameters. Most of the OSIRIS field of view shows H$_2$/Br$\gamma$~ratios of $\sim$2, still indicative of shocks, though less strong. In the outflow scenario, one might imagine that uncollimated winds contribute to this moderate H$_2$/Br$\gamma$~level. Some galaxies with outflowing winds show a correlation between optical emission line ratios and velocity dispersion \citep[e.g.][]{Rich10, Rich11,Ho14}, but we see no such trend here. It is possible that the lack of a correlation simply means that the shock velocity is not related to the turbulent velocity of the gas. It is worth noting that the velocity dispersions that we measure do not extend down to the few tens of km/s consistent with HII-region emission, possibly due to a combination of geometry and/or beam-smearing, which may affect our ability to detect such a correlation. \subsection{Shocks Caused by the Merger of Two Galaxies} \label{merger} The discovery of two nuclear disks in the core of IRAS F17207-0014 so close in projection \citep{nucleardisks} leads us to consider a third possibility, that some of the shocks seen are due to collisions of gas associated with the two disks as they are undergoing a close passage \citep[as in][]{Harwit87,Cox04}. The morphology of the strong ($>$4) H$_2$/Br$\gamma$~region in the OSIRIS data is consistent with the interface between the two disks. \citet{Rich11} found that the enhanced optical line ratios from shocks are easily washed out by star formation, and are thus easier to see on the outskirts where star formation rates are lower. It is important to note, however, that this does not mean that shocks are only present on the outskirts. The situation here is analogous: if the disk collision has caused the shocks, we still may not expect to see high H$_2$/Br$\gamma$~ratios directly on top of the two disks, where star formation is high and could wash out their signature. Seeing a stronger signal of shocks along the interface but below the increased star formation in the disks is consistent with this. Given that IRAS F17207-0014 is in a late stage of merger \citep[merger class 5 out of 6;][]{Kim13}, it is plausible to imagine that cloud-cloud collisions are not uncommon, and may be widely distributed. These may also be responsible for the moderate levels of H$_2$/Br$\gamma$~($\sim$0.6--4) seen in the regions surrounding the nuclei in the OSIRIS data, independent of the cause of the highest H$_2$/Br$\gamma$~ratio. As the OSIRIS field-of-view is completely filled by the overlap region of the two progenitor galaxies, such collisions in the interstellar medium would appear as the diffuse background of shocks observed. The collision of two disks of this size would produce a substantial amount of mechanical energy. We approximate the energy of the system as $T = \frac{1}{2} W = \frac{G M_{disk1} M_{disk2}}{r} = 4.5\times10^{58}$ erg, where G is the gravitational constant, $M_{disk1} = 9.8 \times 10^{9} M_{\sun}$, $M_{disk2} = 4.56 \times 10^{9} M_{\sun}$ from our dynamical modeling in Medling et al. (submitted), and the distance between the two disks r=200 pc from \citet{nucleardisks}; we divide this energy by 100 Myr as a typical timescale for nuclei to merge, in order to produce the average energy input from this source: $1.4 \times 10^{43}$ erg s$^{-1}$. This far exceeds the required amount of energy ($3\times10^{39}$ erg s$^{-1}$, see Section \ref{discussion}) to produce the measured H$_2$~emission in shocks, depending on the shock parameters. \subsection{Two Mechanisms Contributing to Shocks} \label{twomech} Both the starburst-driven wind scenario (Section~\ref{winds}) and the merger-driven collisional shock scenario (Section~\ref{merger}) can plausibly describe the data presented in this paper. We propose a hybrid scenario, in which the diffuse shocks (H$_2$/Br$\gamma$~ratio $\sim$0.6--4) filling most of our OSIRIS field-of-view are caused by the collision of the interstellar media associated with the two nuclei, and the strong shocks (H$_2$/Br$\gamma$~ratio $\sim$4--8) to the south of the nuclei trace the base of the outflow extending several kiloparsecs, visible in the wide-field optical spectroscopy. If the strong shocks do indeed show the base of a starburst-driven wind, then deeper optical integral field spectroscopy should find the strongest outflow signatures to the south. This paper gives a first look at the unique perspective offered by combining a high-resolution view of a galaxy's core with the large-scale information of the system at large. This combination is an efficient way to look at the fueling and feedback of star formation and AGN activity. We are in the early stages of a WiFeS+OSIRIS survey of nearby U/LIRGs, enabling us to trace spatially-resolved excitation mechanisms from small scales to large and study the physical processes involved in star-forming and active galaxies and their effects on galaxy evolution. \section{Summary} \label{summary} We have presented additional analysis of integral-field spectroscopic observations of the ULIRG IRAS F17207-0014, a nearby late-stage major merger, making use of wide-field optical emission line ratios and complementary high spatial resolution AO-assisted near-infrared IFU data. We find: \begin{itemize} \item{The optical emission line ratios [N \textsc{ii}]/H$\alpha$, [O \textsc{iii}]/H$\beta$, [S \textsc{ii}]/H$\alpha$, and [O \textsc{i}]/H$\alpha$~are elevated relative to pure star formation, and show a mixing sequence of star formation and shocks. These shocks are wide-spread and have their strongest relative contributions in the outskirts of the galaxy, which is suggestive of galactic-scale winds.} \item{High spatial resolution near-IR imaging and kinematics reveal that the core of this system is a collision of two nuclear disks. High H$_2$/Br$\gamma$~ratios (4--8) extend from the interface between the disks to the south. More moderate H$_2$/Br$\gamma$~ratios (0.6--4) are present across most of the core, indicating the presence of shocks are widespread.} \item{We find plausible evidence for two potential causes of the shocks seen in IRAS F17207-0014. We propose that the diffuse low-level shocks are caused by cloud-cloud collisions driven by the merger, while the strong shocks towards the south trace the base of the starburst-driven wind seen in both our optical spectroscopy and that of other authors.} \item{Pairing wide-field IFU data with high spatial resolution IFU observations of the central regions is a unique way to characterize the physical mechanisms present in the galaxy. We intend to collect this combination of data for a large sample of nearby (U)LIRGs in order to determine where and how galactic winds are launched, and how often they contribute to shocks across the galaxy.} \end{itemize} \section*{Acknowledgements} We enthusiastically thank the staff of Siding Spring Observatory and the W. M. Keck Observatory and its AO team, for their dedication and hard work. The authors wish to pay their respects to the Elders - past, present and future - of the traditional lands on which Siding Spring Observatory stands, and to those of Hawai'ian ancestry on whose sacred mountain we are privileged to be guests. Without their generous hospitality, these observations would not have been possible. AMM, LJK, and MAD acknowledge the support of the Australian Research Council (ARC) through Discovery project DP130103925. This work was also partially funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research (DSR), King Abdulaziz University, under grant No. (5-130/1433 HiCi). The authors acknowledge this financial support from KAU. AMM and CEM also acknowledge support by the National Science Foundation under award number AST-0908796. \bibliographystyle{mn2e}
\section{Introduction} In the study of quantum groups, one wishes to understand algebras (or their representation theory) which arise through various constructions, be it from the Yang-Baxter equation, Hopf actions, or quantum enveloping algebras. Our goal is contribute to the understanding of algebras that lie slightly outside of the study of quantum groups. That is, to study those algebras which are similar to quantum groups in some sense. The classic example here is the Weyl algebra, or any of its quantum analogs. One could approach this problem by looking at PBW deformations of quantum groups, or by introducing parameters into one of the constructions listed above. In this work, we will be primarily interested in the $2 \times 2$ quantum matrix algebras, with particular interest in the matrix algebra corresponding to the Jordan plane, denoted $M_J(2)$. We review relevant definitions in Section \ref{sec.matalg}. Our goal is to put $M_J(2)$ inside a larger class of algebras which we call \textit{Generalized Jordanian Matrix Algebras} (GJMAs). These are algebras birationally equivalent to $M_J(2)$ in the sense that they have the same quotient ring of fractions. They also maintain a specific involution which can be thought of as the transposition operator on $2 \times 2$ matrices. We construct a family of GJMAs as iterated skew polynomial rings. Much like the universal enveloping algebra of $sl_2$ and its generalizations \cite{Smith}, GJMAs are distinguished by a degree two central element, which can also be thought of as a generalization of the determinant in $M_J(2)$. In Section \ref{sec.skewpolys}, we review the definition of skew polynomial rings, with an emphasis on those of differential operator type. We introduce in Section \ref{sec.ispe} a class of algebras which we call \textit{involutive skew polynomial extensions} (ISPE), which generalizes the base rings of GJMAs. These are two-step skew polynomial extensions with an automorphism fixing the base ring and interchanging the two new generators. It is shown that under certain conditions an ISPE over a ring $R$ is birationally equivalent to the first Weyl algebra over $R$. The notion of an ISPE is specialized in Section \ref{sec.pmas} to those with base a polynomial ring in one variable. Such algebras form the base ring of $M_J(2)$ as well as the quantum matrix algebras $M_q(2)$. We classify these ISPEs in Propositions \ref{pma.wa}, \ref{pma.qp}, and \ref{prop.pmapres}. Section \ref{sec.pmadiff} specializes further to differential operator rings of the form $\Bbbk[c][a;\delta_1]$. This class includes the base ring of the Jordanian matrix algebra, and in general certain elements of this class serve as the base ring of GJMAs. These algebras are interesting in their own right from a representation theory point of view. In particular, they merge the limited class of $1$-dimensional representations coming from differential operator rings over $\Bbbk[c]$ with the large class of $n$-dimensional representations corresponding to a polynomial ring in two variables. Finally, in Section \ref{sec.gjma}, we introduce and study GJMAs. If $P$ is an ISPE over $\Bbbk[c]$ of differential operator type discussed above and $M=P[b;\sigma_3,\delta_3]$ such that, under some localization of $M$, $\delta_3$ is an inner $\sigma_3$-derivation and $\sigma_3$ an inner automorphism, then $M$ is a birationally equivalent to $M_J(2)$ (Proposition \ref{prop.gjmain}). We construct a specific class of such algebras and prove that they are GJMAs (Proposition \ref{gjma.constr}) containing a central element which can be thought of as an analog of the determinant. Like $M_J(2)$, these algebras are noetherian domains of GK and global dimension four (Proposition \ref{ma.dim}). The remainder of the work is devoted to a study of the prime ideals of such GJMAs. \section{Quantum Matrix Algebras} \label{sec.matalg} Throughout, $\Bbbk$ is an algebraically closed, characteristic zero field and all algebras are $\Bbbk$-algebras. Isomorphisms should be read as `isomorphisms as $\Bbbk$-algebras'. All unadorned tensor products should be regarded as over $\Bbbk$. For $q \in \Bbbk^\times$, the quantum plane is the $\Bbbk$-algebra $\mathcal{O}_q(\kk^2)=\Bbbk\langle x_1,x_2 \mid x_1x_2-qx_2x_1\rangle$. Classically, the \textit{$2 \times 2$ quantum matrix algebra} relative to $q$, sometimes denoted $\mathcal{O}_q(M_2(\kk))$, is the unique $\Bbbk$-algebra on generators $x_{11}$, $x_{12}$, $x_{21}$, $x_{22}$ such that there exist homomorphisms \begin{align*} \mathcal{O}_q(\kk^2) &\rightarrow M_q(2) \tensor \mathcal{O}_q(\kk^2) &\text{ and }& &\mathcal{O}_q(\kk^2) &\rightarrow \mathcal{O}_q(\kk^2) \tensor M_q(2) \\ x_i &\mapsto x_{i1} \tensor x_1 + x_{i2} \tensor x_2 & & &x_j &\mapsto x_1 \tensor x_{1j} + x_2 \tensor x_{2j}. \end{align*} Making the identifications $b=x_{11}$, $c=x_{22}$, $a=x_{12}$, $d=x_{21}$, we get the relations \begin{align*} ac &= q ca & & dc = q cd & & da = ad \\ ba &= q ab & & bd = q db & & bc = cb + (q-q^{-1})ad. \end{align*} In this way, $M_q(2)$ may be regarded as a deformation of the coordinate ring of functions on $2 \times 2$ matrices. For more details on this construction, the reader is encouraged to see \cite{BG}, \cite{GW}, and \cite{Manin}. There are two candidates for deforming the Jordan plane, $\mathcal{J} = k\langle x_1,x_2 \mid x_2x_1-x_1x_2+x_2^2 \rangle$. The one presented in \cite{Manin} is not a domain. We prefer the one presented in \cite{DMMZ} which may be constructed as above by replacing $\mathcal{O}_q(\kk^2)$ with $\mathcal{J}$. This Jordanian matrix algebra, denoted $M_J(2)$ or $\mathcal{O}_J(M_2(\kk))$, is the $\Bbbk$-algebra on generators $a,b,c,d$ subject to the following relations. \begin{align*} ac &= ca + c^2 & & bc = cb + ca + cd + c^2 \\ dc &= cd + c^2 & & bd = db + cb + cd - ad + d^2 \\ da &= ad - cd + ca & & ba = ab + cb + cd - ad + a^2. \end{align*} The algebra $M_J(2)$ is a domain and can be constructed as a skew polynomial ring. Dumas and Rigal studied the prime spectrum and automorphisms of this algebra in \cite{DumasRigal}, though the presentation they give is slightly different (but equivalent) to the one given here. \begin{rmk} \label{MJ Alternative} Letting $u=d-a$, we have the alternate presentation of $M_J(2)$. \begin{align*} ac &= ca+c^2 & & bc = cb+c(2a+u+c) \\ uc &= cu & & bu = ub+u(2a+u+c) \\ ua &= au-cu & & ba = (a+c)b+(c-u)a. \end{align*} \end{rmk} \begin{rmk} The formulas $\tau(a)=d$, $\tau(d)=a$, $\tau(c)=c$, and $\tau(b)=b$ determine either an automorphism $\tau:M_J(2) \rightarrow M_J(2)$ or $\tau:M_q(2) \rightarrow M_q(2)$. One should think of this operation as the transposition operator on $2 \times 2$ matrices. For either $M_q(2)$ or $M_J(2)$ the automorphism group $G$ is the semidirect product $H\rtimes \{\tau \}$ for some subgroup $H$ of $G$. In the case of $M_q(2)$, we have $H\cong (\Bbbk^{\times})^{3}$ \cite[Theorem 2.3]{AlevChamarie}. In the case of $M_J(2)$, $H$ is considerably more complex and the interested reader is referred to \cite[Proposition 3.1]{DumasRigal}. \end{rmk} In Section \ref{sec.gjma} we construct a family of $\Bbbk$-algebras on generators $a,b,c,u$ with relations \begin{align*} & ac=ca+cg, cu=uc, au=ua+ug \\ & bc=cb+c\gamma, bu=ub+u\gamma, ba = (a+h)b + (h-u)a, \end{align*} where $g \in \Bbbk[c]$, $h=cg'$, and $\gamma=h+u+2a$. We denote such an algebra by $\mathcal M_f$, where $f=cg$. Note that $\mathcal M_{c^2}$ gives the alternate presentation for $M_J(2)$ in Remark \ref{MJ Alternative}. The centers of $M_q(2)$ and $M_J(2)$ are each generated by a single degree two element, known as the \textit{quantum determinant}. In the case of $M_q(2)$, the quantum determinant is $bc-qad$, and for $M_J(2)$ the quantum determinant is $ad-cb-cd$. The element $z=gb+(g-u)a-a^2$ is central in $\mathcal M_f$. If $M=M_q(2)$ or if $M=M_J(2)$ and $z$ is the quantum determinant of $M$, then $M/(z-1)$ is a deformation of the coordinate ring of functions on $\SL_2$. In particular, $M/(z-1)$ is a \textit{noncommutative quadric} \cite{SmithVDB}. We can similarly construct such factor rings when $M$ is a GJMA as constructed above. In this way, we view $\mathcal M_f/(z-1)$ as a sort of nonhomogeneous noncommutative quadric. \section{Skew polynomial rings and Weyl algebras} \label{sec.skewpolys} Let $R$ be a ring. The first Weyl algebra over $R$, denoted $A_1(R)$, is the overring of $R$ with additional generators $x$ and $y$ which commute with $R$ and satisfy $xy=yx+1$. Let $\sigma$ be an automorphism of $R$ and let $\delta$ be a $\sigma$-derivation, that is, $\delta:R \rightarrow R$ is a $\Bbbk$-linear map such that $\delta(rs) = \sigma(r)\delta(s) + \delta(r)s$ for all $r,s \in R$. The \textit{skew polynomial ring} (or Ore extension) $R[x;\sigma,\delta]$ is defined via the commutation rule $x r = \sigma(r)x + \delta(r)$ for all $r \in R$. If $\delta=0$, then we omit it and write $R[x;\sigma]$. If $\sigma$ is the identity, then we omit it and write $R[x;\delta]$. A skew polynomial ring of this last form is called a \textit{differential operator ring} over $R$. A $\sigma$-derivation $\delta$ of $R$ is said to be $\sigma$-\textit{inner} if there exists $\theta \in R$ such that $\delta(r)=\theta r-\sigma(r)\theta$ for all $r \in R$. In this case, the skew polynomial ring $R[x;\sigma,\delta]$ is equivalent to $R[x-\theta;\sigma]$. An automorphism $\sigma$ of $R$ is said to be \textit{inner} if there exists a unit $\varphi \in R$ such that $\varphi^{-1} r\varphi = \sigma(r)$ for all $r \in R$. In this case, the skew polynomial ring $R[x;\sigma,\delta]$ is equivalent to $R[\varphi x;\varphi\delta]$. Let $\sigma_1$ be an automorphism of $\Bbbk[c]$ and $\delta_1$ a $\sigma_1$-derivation. Write $A=\Bbbk[c][a;\sigma_1,\delta_1]$. By \cite[Remark 2.1]{AVDVO}, $A$ is one of the following: \begin{itemize} \item Quantum plane: $\mathcal{O}_q(\kk^2) = \Bbbk\langle a,c \mid ac-qca \rangle$, $q \in \Bbbk^\times$; \item Quantum Weyl algebra: $A_1^q(\kk) = \Bbbk\langle a,c \mid ac-qca-1 \rangle$, $q \in \Bbbk^\times$; \item Differential operator ring: $R_f = \Bbbk\langle a,c \mid ca-ac+f \rangle$, $f \in \Bbbk[c]$. \end{itemize} There is no overlap between the different classes except that the first Weyl algebra $A_1(\Bbbk)$ over $\Bbbk$ is both a quantum Weyl algebra with $q=1$, and a differential operator ring with $f=1$. See \cite{GadIso} and \cite{Gad2gen} for further study on isomorphisms within each class. Our work will focus heavily on the class of differential operator rings above. These algebras have been studied extensively by various authors. For a good overview, see \cite{GW}. We review some basic facts about these algebras here. By \cite[Theorem 1.1]{Gad2gen}, $R_f$ is isomorphic to either $A_1(\Bbbk$), the universal enveloping algebra of the $2$-dimensional solvable Lie algebra ($R_c$), the Jordan plane ($R_{c^2}$), or the deformed Jordan plane ($R_{c^2-1}$). For all $f \in \Bbbk[c]$, the differential operator ring $R_f$ is a noetherian domain of global and GK dimension two. In characteristic zero, the center of $R_f$ is $\mathcal Z(R_f)=\Bbbk$. Denote by $\Frac(R)$ the clasical quotient ring of $R$. Two rings $R$ and $S$ are said to be \textit{birationally equivalent} if $\Frac(R) \cong \Frac(S)$. We will make use of additional properties for differential operator rings from \cite[Proposition 1.8]{DumasRigal} and \cite[Proposition 2.6]{ADinvariants}. We state these results below using our notation. \begin{prop}[Alev and Dumas] \label{prop.diff} Choose $f,g \in \Bbbk[c]$, $f,g \neq 0$. \begin{enumerate} \item The differential operator ring $R_f$ is birationally equivalent to $R_1=A_1(\kk)$. \item $R_f \cong R_g$ if and only if there exists $\lambda, \alpha \in \Bbbk^\times$ and $\beta \in \Bbbk$ such that $f(c) = \lambda g(\alpha c + \beta)$. \item For any $\alpha, \lambda \in \Bbbk^\times$ and $\beta \in \Bbbk$ there is an automorphism of $R_f$ such that $f(\alpha c + \beta)=\alpha\lambda f(c)$ determined by the assignments $a \mapsto \lambda a - g$ and $c \mapsto \alpha c + \beta$. Moreover, when $f \notin \Bbbk$ (i.e., $R_f \ncong A_1(\kk)$) any automorphism of $R_f$ has the above form. \end{enumerate} \end{prop} We conclude this section with automorphisms of the first Weyl algebra, $A_1(\kk) = \Bbbk\langle a,c \mid ac=ca+1 \rangle$. Diximier \cite{dix} gave generators for $\Aut(A_1(\kk))$, but we only need the limited subgroup of automorphisms detailed in the following proposition. \begin{prop} \label{prop.fwa} If $\sigma \in \Aut(A_1(\kk))$ satisfies $\sigma(c)=c$, then $\sigma(a) = a-g$ for some $g \in \Bbbk[c]$. \end{prop} \begin{proof} Write $\sigma(a)= \sum_{i=0}^n a^i g_i$ for $g_i \in \Bbbk[c]$. Then \begin{align*} 1 &= \sigma\left([a,c]\right) = \left[ \sigma(a), c \right] = \left[ \sum_{i=0}^n a^i g_i, c \right] = \sum_{i=0}^n [a^i,c] g_i = \sum_{i=0}^n i a^{i-1} g_i. \end{align*} Consequently, $g_i=0$ for $i>1$, $g_1=1$, and $g_0$ is arbitrary. Set $g=-g_0$. \end{proof} \section{Involutive skew polynomial extensions} \label{sec.ispe} \begin{defn} Let $R$ be a ring. We say $S=R[a;\sigma_1,\delta_1][d;\sigma_2;\delta_2]$ is an \textbf{involutive skew polynomial extension} (ISPE) of $R$ if there exists an involution $\tau \in \Aut(S)$ such that $\tau(a)=d$, $\tau(d)=a$, and $\tau(r)=r$ for all $r \in R$. \end{defn} \begin{rmk} One possible generalization of this definition is to requires $S$ to be a {\bf double extension} of $R$ as defined by Zhang and Zhang \cite{zz1,zz2}. Because our primary interest is in (ordinary) skew polynomial rings, we do not make that definition here. \end{rmk} It is well known that such an $S$ is a noetherian domain if $R$ is. We give several examples of ISPEs below. \begin{ex} When $R=\Bbbk$, $R[a;\sigma_1,\delta_1]$ is a polynomial extension and so $\sigma_1=\id_R$ and $\delta_1=0$. Then $S$ is generated by $a$ and $d$ subject to the single relation $0=qad-da+f(a)$ for some $q \in \Bbbk^\times$ and $f(a) \in \Bbbk[a]$. Applying the involution $\tau$ gives \[ 0 = qda - ad + f(d) = q(qad+f(a))-ad+f(d) = (q^2-1)ad + (qf(a)+f(d)).\] Hence $q^2=1$ and $f$ is a constant polynomial. This implies that either $S=\mathcal{O}_q(\kk^2)$ with $q=\pm 1$ or $S=A_1^q(\kk)$ with $q=-1$. \end{ex} Let $S$ be an ISPE of a ring $R$. The element $u=d-a$ of $S$ appears in \cite{DumasRigal} and is critical to the study of birational equivalence in ISPEs. Using the involution $\tau$, one can show $\sigma_1(r)=\sigma_2(r)$, $\delta_1(r)=\delta_2(r)$, and hence $ur=\sigma_1(r)u$ for all $r \in R$. \begin{prop} Let $S$ be an ISPE of a ring $R$. The element $u=d-a$ is normal in $S$ if and only if $\delta_2(a)=a^2-\sigma_2(a)a$. \end{prop} \begin{proof} We have already seen that $ur=\sigma_1(r)u$ for all $r \in R$. Moreover, the $d$-degree of $\delta_2(a)-a^2$ is zero in \[ (d-a)a = \sigma_2(a)d + \delta_2(a) - a^2.\] Thus, $(d-a)$ is normal if and only if $(d-a)a=\sigma_2(a)(d-a)$ if and only if $\delta_2(a)-a^2=-\sigma_2(a)a$. \end{proof} In this case, we have an alternate presentation of $S$ with relations \begin{align*} ar &= \sigma_1(r)a + \delta_1(r) \text{ and } ur = \sigma_1(r)u \text{ for all } r \in R, \\ ua &= \sigma_2(a)u. \end{align*} \begin{prop} \label{ispe.birat} Let $S$ be an ISPE of $R$ and suppose the following conditions hold: \begin{itemize} \item $R$ is affine and commutative with generators $r_1,\hdots,r_n$ and $\sigma_1 = \id_R$. \item $u$ is normal in $S$. \item $r_i^{-1} \delta_1(r_i) = r_j^{-1} \delta_1(r_j)$ for all $i,j \in \{1,\hdots,n\}$. \item $a \left(r_i^{-1} u\right) = \left(r_i^{-1} u\right) a$. \end{itemize} Then $S$ is birationally equivalent to $A_1(R)$. \end{prop} \begin{proof} Let $Q=\Frac(S)$ and let $x,y,t_i$ be the standard generators of $A_1(R)$. Let $f=r_1^{-1} \delta_1(r_1)$. Because $u$ commutes with $R$, the elements $r_i^{-1} u$ in $Q$ generate an isomorphic copy of $R$. We associate these elements with the standard generators $t_i$ of $R$ in $A_1(R)$. Hence, by abuse of notation, $f$ may simultaneously be thought of as an element of $R$ in the generators $r_i$ and in the $t_i$. It now follows by the hypotheses that there are inverse homomorphisms $\Phi :Q \rightarrow \Frac(A_1(R))$ and $\Psi :\Frac(A_1(R))\rightarrow Q$ given by \begin{align*} & \Phi (a)=xf, \Phi(u)=yt_1, \Phi(r_i)=t_i^{-1} yt_1, \\ & \Psi (x)=af^{-1}, \Psi(y)=r_1, \Psi(t_i)=r_i^{-1} u. \end{align*} \end{proof} \begin{ex} Let $R$ be any affine commutative ring with generators $r_1,\hdots,r_n$. Let $S$ be the extension of $R$ with relations $a r_i = r_i a + r_i$, $d r_i = r_i d + r_i$, and $da = (a-1)d + a$. Then $S$ is an ISPE of $R$. By Proposition \ref{ispe.birat}, $S$ is birationally equivalent to $A_1(R)$. \end{ex} \begin{ex} Let $R=\Bbbk[c]$, $\sigma_1(c)=\sigma_2(c)=c$, $\delta_1(c)=\delta_2(c)=c^2$, $\sigma_2(a)=(a-c)$, and $\delta_2(a)=ca$. Then $S$ is an ISPE. In particular, $S$ is the base ring in the skew polynomial construction of $M_J(2)$. By Proposition \ref{prop.pma-birat}, $S$ is birationally equivalent to $A_1(\Bbbk[t])$. \end{ex} \section{Classification of ISPEs over $\Bbbk[c]$} \label{sec.pmas} Throughout this section, let $A=\Bbbk[c][a;\sigma_1;\delta_1]$ and $P=A[d;\sigma_2;\delta_2]$. \begin{prop} \label{pma.wa} If $P$ is an ISPE with $A=A_1^q(\kk)$ and $q \neq 1$, then $q=-1$ and $P$ has relations $ac+ca=1$, $dc+cd=1$, $da+ad=h$ with $h \in \Bbbk[c]$. \end{prop} \begin{proof} We have $A=\Bbbk\langle a,c \mid ac-qca-1 \rangle$. Let $\sigma=\sigma_2$ and $\delta=\delta_2$. The existence of the involution $\tau$ implies $dc=qcd+1$. In particular, $\sigma(c)=qc$ and $\delta(c)=1$. Because $\sigma$ is an automorphism of $A_1^q(\kk)$, then $\sigma(a)=q^{-1} a$ \cite[Proposition 1.5]{ADrigid} giving the final relation \begin{align} \label{wa.rel1} da=q^{-1} ad + \delta(a). \end{align} Applying $\tau$ to \eqref{wa.rel1} gives $ad = q^{-1} da + \tau(\delta(a))$, or equivalently, \begin{align} \label{wa.rel2} da=q ad - q\tau(\delta(a)). \end{align} Combining \eqref{wa.rel1} and \eqref{wa.rel2} yields $(q-q^{-1})ad = \delta(a) + q\tau(\delta(a))$. Since the $d$-degree (resp. $a$-degree) of $\delta(a)$ (resp. $\tau(\delta(a))$) is zero, then $(q-q^{-1})ad=0$, implying $q=\pm 1$. If $q=-1$, then we are left only to determine $\delta(a)$. The above computation shows that $\delta(a)$ is $\tau$-invariant. Thus, $\delta(a) \in \Bbbk[c]$. We need only show that any choice of polynomial in $\Bbbk[c]$ produces a valid $\sigma$-derivation. \begin{align*} \delta(ac+ca - 1) &= \left( \sigma(a)\delta(c) + \delta(a)c \right) + \left( \sigma(c)\delta(a) + \delta(c)a\right) \\ &= \left( -a + \delta(a)c \right) + \left( -c\delta(a) + a \right) = \delta(a)c - c\delta(a). \end{align*} Thus, $\delta$ is a $\sigma$-derivation if $\delta(a)$ commutes with $c$. \end{proof} \begin{rmk} Set $h=-2$ in Proposition \ref{pma.wa} and let $I$ denote the ideal generated by $c^2$, $a^2$, and $d^2$, which are all central elements of $P$ in this case. The elements $x_1=a+c+I$, $x_2=c+d+I$, and $x_3=\sqrt{-1/2}(a+d)+I$ of the factor ring $P/I$ satisfy the following: \[ x_ix_j = \begin{cases} -x_jx_i & \text{if } i\neq j \\ 1 & \text{if } i=j. \end{cases} \] It is easy to see that $P/I$ is isomorphic to the Clifford algebra of a $3$-dimensional regular quadratic space over $\Bbbk$. (A good reference for Clifford algebras is \cite{Lam}.) \end{rmk} We now proceed to the quantum plane case. \begin{prop} \label{pma.qp} Choose $q \in \Bbbk^\times$ such that $q \neq 1$ and let $A=\mathcal{O}_q(\kk^2)$. There are two possible ISPEs $P=A[d;\sigma_2,\delta_2]$ with common relations $ac=qca$, $dc=qcd$, and either $da=ad$ or $da+ad=h$ for some $h \in \Bbbk[c]$. \end{prop} \begin{proof} We have $A=\Bbbk\langle a,c \mid ac-qca \rangle$. Let $\sigma=\sigma_2$ and $\delta=\delta_2$. The existence of the involution $\tau$ implies $dc=qcd$ so that $\sigma(c)=qc$ and $\delta(c)=0$. Moreover, since $\sigma$ is an automorphism of $A$, $\sigma(a)=pa$ for some $p\in \Bbbk^\times$ \cite[Proposition 1.4.4]{AlevChamarie}. We have \[ \delta(a)=\sum_{j=0}^{m}h_{j}a^{j}\] for some $h_{0},\ldots,h_m \in k[c]$. Applying $\tau$ to the commutation relation $da=pad+\delta(a)$ gives \[ ad=pda+\sum_{j=0}^{m}h_{j}d^{j}\] since $\tau(h_j) = h_j \in k[c]$ for all $j$. Combining this with $da=pad+\delta(a)$ gives \[ ad=p^2ad+p\sum_{j=0}^{m}h_ja^j+\sum_{j=0}^{m}h_jd^j\] and equating coefficients of $d$ on both sides of the equation gives $p^2=1$. If $p=1$, then $h_j=0$ for all $j$, and $\delta(a)=0$. On the other hand, if $p=-1$, then $h_{j}=0$ for all $j\geq 1$. \end{proof} \begin{rmk} The above arguments yield the same result if we replace $\tau$ with a sign-changing automorphism $\sigma$ such that $\sigma(a)=-d$ and $\sigma(d)=-a$. This is reminiscent of the distinction between Lie algebra and Lie superalgebra. \end{rmk} Recall the algebra $R_f = \Bbbk\langle a,c \mid ac=ca+f \rangle$ is defined for any $f \in \Bbbk[c]$. To construct ISPEs in this case, we describe $R_f$ as an Ore extension, $R_f = \Bbbk[c][a;\delta_1]$ with $\delta_1(c)=f$. An easy induction argument shows $ac^n=c^na+nfc^{n-1}$ for all $n \geq 0$. This implies $ah = ha+fh'$ and $\delta_1(h)=f \partial_c(h) = fh'$, where $\partial_c(h) = h'$ is the usual derivative of $h$. \begin{prop} \label{prop.pmapres} Suppose $f\in k[c]$ and $R_f[d;\sigma_2;\delta_2]$ is an ISPE. There exists $g \in k[c]$ such that $\sigma_2(c)=c$, $\delta_2(c)=f$, $\sigma_2(a)=a-g$, and $\delta_2(a)=ga$. Thus we may denote $R_f[d;\sigma_2,\delta_2]$ by $P(f,g)$ since it depends only on $f$ and $g$. \end{prop} \begin{proof} Applying $\tau$ to $ac=ca+f$ gives $dc=cd+f$ so $\sigma_2(c)=c$ and $\delta_2(c)=f$. We find $\sigma_2(a) = a-g$ by Proposition \ref{prop.diff} ($\deg f > 1$), Proposition \ref{prop.fwa} ($f \in \Bbbk$) and \cite[Theorem 2]{dicks} if $f=0$. We check the formula for $\delta_2(a)$. Recall $\delta_1(h)=fh'$ for all $h \in \Bbbk[c]$. A similar argument applies to $\delta_2$ since $\delta_2(c)=\delta_1(c)=f$. This shows $\delta_2(h)=\delta_1(h)=fh'$ for all $h \in \Bbbk[c]$. Applying $\delta_2$ to both sides of $ac=ca+f$ and reducing leads to the formula $\delta_2(a)c=c\delta_2(a)+gf$. We have $\delta_2(a) \in R_f$ so $\delta_2(a)=\sum_{j=0}^m h_ja^j$ for some $h_0,\hdots,h_m \in \Bbbk[c]$. We substitute this formula into $\delta_2(a)c=c\delta_2(a)+gf$. \begin{align*} gf &= \delta_2(a)c-c\delta_2(a) = \sum_{j=0}^{m} h_{j} \left(a^jc - ca^j \right) = \sum_{j=0}^m h_{j} \left(\left(ca^j + \sum_{i=1}^j \binom{j}{i} \left(\delta_1(c)\right)^i a^{j-i}\right)-ca^j \right) \\ &= \sum_{j=1}^{m}\sum_{i=1}^{j}h_{j} \binom{j}{i} \left(\delta_1(c)\right)^i a^{j-i} = \sum_{x=0}^{m-1} \left(\sum_{y=1}^{m-x}\binom{x+y}{y}h_{x+y}(\delta_1(c))^y \right) a^{x}. \end{align*} We have $gf\in \Bbbk[c]$ so $gf=\sum_{y=1}^m h_y \left(\delta_1(c)\right)^y$ and $\sum_{y=1}^{m-x}\binom{x+y}{y} h_{x+y}\left(\delta_1(c)\right)^y=0$ for all $x$, $1\leq x\leq m-1$. Setting $x=m-1$ gives $mh_m \delta_1(c) a^{m-1}=0$ so $h_m=0$. Setting $x=m-2$ gives $(m-1)h_{m-1}\delta_1(c)=0$ so $h_{m-1}=0$. Continuing in this fashion, we find $h_{\ell}=0$ for all $\ell=2,\ldots,m$. This gives $gf=h_1 \delta_1(c)=h_1f$ so $g=h_1$. Moreover, $\delta_2(a)=h_0+h_1a$ so $\delta_2(a)=h_0+ga$. Our arguments have lead us to the relation $da=(a-g)d+h_{0}+ga$. Applying $\tau$ and reducing gives $h_0=0$. We are left with $da=(a-g)d+ga$ and $\delta_2(a)=ga$, as desired. \end{proof} \begin{ex} The base ring of the Jordanian matrix algebra $M_J(2)$ is the ISPE $P(c^2,c)$. \end{ex} \section{The algebras $P(f,g)$} \label{sec.pmadiff} In this section we consider the properties of the ISPEs over $\Bbbk[c]$ relative to the differential operator rings $R_f$, including presentations, prime spectrum, and birational equivalence. \begin{rmk} \label{rem.pres} An easy check shows $\delta_2(c)=ac-\sigma_2(c)a$ and $\delta_2(a)=a(a)-\sigma_2(a)a$ in $P(f,g)$. Thus, $\delta_2$ is the inner $\sigma_2$-derivation induced by $a$. \end{rmk} \begin{rmk} \label{Presenting P} The presentation of $M_J(2)$ determined by setting $u=d-a$ extends to alternative presentations of $P(f,g)$ (see Remark \ref{MJ Alternative}). We have $du=u(d+g)$, $ac=ca+f$, $uc=cu$, and $au=ua+gu$. \begin{description} \item[Presentation 1] $P(f,g)=\Bbbk[c][a;\delta_1][u;\sigma_2]$. \item[Presentation 2] $P(f,g)=\Bbbk[c,u][a;D]$ where $D$ is the derivation $f\partial_c + gu\partial_u$. \end{description} \end{rmk} A (two-sided) ideal $I$ of $R_f$ is prime if and only if $I \cap \Bbbk[c]$ is $\delta$-invariant. That is, if $J=I \cap \Bbbk[c]$, then $\delta_1(J) \subseteq J$. Thus, if $I$ is a prime ideal of $R_f$, then $I$ is generated by an irreducible factor of $f$. Hence, since $\Bbbk$ is algebraically closed, $I=(c-\alpha)$ for some $\alpha \in \Bbbk$ such that $f(\alpha)=0$. \begin{prop} \label{pma.props} Choose $f,g \in \Bbbk[c]$ and set $P=P(f,g)$. The following elements of $P$ are normal: $f$, $u=d-a$, and $c-\alpha$ for any $\alpha \in \Bbbk$ such that $f(\alpha)=0$. Moreover, the ideals generated by (i) $u$, (ii) $c-\alpha$, and (iii) both $u$ and $c-\alpha$ are prime in $P$. \end{prop} \begin{proof} Denote the ideals described in $(i)$, $(ii)$, and $(iii)$ of (1) by $I_1$, $I_2$, and $I_3$, respectively. We showed $u$ is normal in Remark \ref{Presenting P}. Suppose $f \notin \Bbbk$ and note that $f$ is a product of its linear factors since $\Bbbk$ is algebraically closed. If $\alpha \in \Bbbk$ such that $f(\alpha)=0$, then there exists $f_0 \in \Bbbk[c]$ such that $f=(c-\alpha)f_0$ and $c(c-\alpha)=(c-\alpha)c$, $a(c-\alpha)=(c-\alpha)(a+f_0)$, and $d(c-\alpha)=(c-\alpha)(d+f_0)$ so $c-\alpha$ is normal. Then $P/I_1 \cong R_f$ and $P/I_3 \cong \Bbbk[a]$, so $I_1$ and $I_3$ are prime. Moreover, \[ P/I_2 \cong \begin{cases} k[a,d] & \text{if } g(\alpha)=0 \\ U(L) & \text{if } g(\alpha)\neq 0, \end{cases} \] where $U(L)$ is the universal enveloping algebra of the two-dimensional solvable Lie algebra $L$. Hence $I_2$ is also prime. \end{proof} \begin{defn} \label{def.simp} Let $f,g\in \Bbbk[c]$, $p_1,\ldots,p_k$ the irreducible factors of $f$ and $f_i=p_i^{-1} f$. We say \textbf{$g$ is a local reduction of $f$} if there exists integers $n,m_1,\hdots,m_k$ ($n \neq 0$) such that \[ g = \begin{cases} 0 & \text{ if } f \in \Bbbk \\ -\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{k}m_{i}f_{i} & \text{otherwise}. \end{cases}\] \end{defn} \begin{prop} \label{pma.simp} Let $P=P(f,g)$ and let $\mathcal C$ be the Ore set generated by powers of the irreducible factors $p_1,\hdots,p_k$ of $f$. Let $\mathcal R=R_f\mathcal C^{-1}$. Then $Q=\mathcal R[u^{\pm 1};\sigma_2]$ is simple if and only if $f \in \Bbbk$ or $g$ is not a local reduction of $f$. \end{prop} \begin{proof} It follows from Proposition \ref{prop.diff} that $\mathcal R$ is a simple ring. Thus by \cite[Theorem 1.8.5]{McRob}, $Q$ is simple if and only if no power of $\sigma_2$ is inner. Set $\sigma =\sigma_2$ and set $f_i=p_i^{-1} f$ for $i=1,\hdots,k$. Set $f_i=0$ if $f \in \Bbbk$. Suppose $\sigma^n$ is an inner automorphism of $\mathcal R$ for some integer $n$. Then there exists a unit $\eta \in \mathcal R$ such that $\eta^{-1} r \eta = \sigma^n(r)$ for all $r \in \mathcal R$. Since $\eta$ is a unit, then (up to a scalar) $\eta = p_1^{m_1}\cdots p_k^{m_k}$ for some $m_i \in \mathbb Z$. Recall, \[ p_i^{-1} a p_i = p_i^{-1} (p_i a + f) = a + f_i.\] By Proposition \ref{prop.pmapres}, $\sigma(a)=a-g$ and \[ a-ng = \sigma^n(a) = \eta^{-1}a\eta = a + \sum_{i=1}^k m_i f_i. \] Thus, $g = -\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^k m_i f_i$. The converse is similar. \end{proof} \begin{cor} \label{pma.primes1} If $f,g \in \Bbbk[c]$ are such that $g$ is not a local reduction of $f$, then the height one primes of $P$ are of the form $(u)$ and $(c-\alpha)$ for $\alpha \in \Bbbk$ with $f(\alpha)=0$. Moreover, $P/(c-\alpha) \cong \Bbbk[a,u]$ and $P/(u) \cong R_f$. \end{cor} In case $g$ is not a local reduction of $f$, the finite-dimensional representation theory of $P=P(f,g)$ is easy to describe in light of Corollary \ref{pma.primes1}. In particular, for every $\alpha,\beta \in \Bbbk$ with $f(\alpha)=0$, there exists a $1$-dimensional (irreducible) $P$-module $M=\{m\}$ such that $u.m=0$, $c.m=\alpha m$ and $a.m=\beta m$. On the other hand, for every irreducible polynomial $\Omega \in \Bbbk[a,u]$ of degree $n$, there exists an irreducible $n$-dimensional representation. \begin{prop} \label{pma.props2} Choose $f,g \in \Bbbk[c]$ and set $P=P(f,g)$. The algebra $P$ is a noetherian domain with $\GKdim P = 3$ and \[ \gldim P = \begin{cases} 2 & \text{if } f \in \Bbbk \\ 3 & \text{otherwise}. \end{cases} \] \end{prop} \begin{proof} It follows easily that $P$ is a noetherian domain from the skew polynomial ring construction. The ring $\Bbbk[c,u]$ has GK and global dimension two. Using Presentation 2, the result on GK dimension for $P$ now follows by \cite[Corollary 8.2.11]{McRob}. By \cite[Theorem 7.10.3]{McRob}, $\gldim P = 3$ if $P$ has a $D$-stable prime of height two and otherwise $\gldim P = 2$. Suppose $f \in \Bbbk$. If $g \neq 0$, then by Proposition \ref{pma.simp}, $(u)$ is the unique maximal ideal of $P$ and it has height one. If $g=0$, then $P \cong A_1(\kk)[u]$ and by the simplicity of $A_1(\kk)$, the maximal ideals are of the form $(u-\beta)$, $\beta \in \Bbbk$, and they each have height one. Now suppose $f \notin \Bbbk$. As in Proposition \ref{pma.simp}, let $\alpha \in \Bbbk$ such that $f(\alpha)=0$ and set $f_0=(c-\alpha)^{-1} f$. Since $f\in I_3$, the calculation below shows $D(ur+(c-\alpha)s)\in I_3$ for $r,s\in P$. \begin{align*} D(ur+(c-\alpha)s) &= uD(r) + D(u)r + (c-\alpha)D(s) + D(c-\alpha)s \\ &= u\left(D(r) + gr\right) + (c-\alpha)\left(D(s)+f_0s\right). \end{align*} Therefore, $I_3$ is a $D$-stable prime of height two in $P$ and we may conclude $P$ has global dimension three. \end{proof} The base ring of the Jordanian matrix ring $M_J(2)$ is $P(c^2,c)$ and, in this case, $g$ is a local reduction of $f$. More generally, if $f=cg$, then $g$ is a local reduction of $f$ since $c$ is an irreducible factor of $f$ and $g = c^{-1} f$. In this case the prime ideal spectrum must be more complicated since $Q$ (as defined in Proposition \ref{pma.simp}) is not simple. In the ISPE $P(cg,g)$, the element $u-\beta c$ is normal for any $\beta \in \Bbbk$. We wish to show that the remaining ideals are those of the form $(u-\beta c)$. \begin{prop} \label{prop.cntP} Let $P=P(f,g)$ for some $f,g\in \Bbbk[c]$ such that $f$ is monic. Set $\mathcal P=P(f,g)\mathcal C^{-1}$, where $\mathcal C$ is the Ore set generated by powers of the monic irreducible factors $p_1,\hdots,p_k$ of $f$. If $g$ is a local reduction of $f$, then set $g=-\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{k}m_{i}f_{i}$ with $m_1,\hdots,m_k\in \mathbb Z$, $n \in \mathbb N$, and $f_i = p_i{^{-1}}f$. \begin{enumerate} \item If $\mathcal Z(\mathcal P) \neq \Bbbk$, then $g$ is not a local reduction of $f$. \item If $g$ is a local reduction of $f$, then $\mathcal Z(\mathcal P) = \Bbbk[v]$ with $v=-\left( p_{1}^{-m_{1}}\cdots p_{k}^{-m_{k}}\right) u^{n}$. \item The center of $P(f,g)$ is $\Bbbk$. \end{enumerate} \end{prop} \begin{proof} We only need to prove (2) since (1) follows from Proposition \ref{pma.simp} and (3) follows from (1) and (2). A direct calculation shows $ap_{i}=p_{i}\left( a+f_{i}\right) $ for all $i\leq k$. Moreover, \[ a\left( p_1^{-m_1}\cdots p_k^{-m_k}\right) = \left( p_1^{-m_1}\cdots p_k^{-m_k}\right) \left(a+\sum_{i=1}^{k}-m_{i}f_{i}\right)\] and \[ au^n = u^n \left( a+ng\right) = u^n\left(a+\sum_{i=1}^{k}-m_{i}f_i\right).\] Putting these two equations together gives \[a\left( p_1^{-m_1}\cdots p_k^{-m_k}\right) u^n = \left( p_1^{-m_1}\cdots p_k^{-m_k}\right) u^{n}a,\] hence $\left( p_1^{-m_1}\cdots p_k^{-m_k}\right) u^n$ is central. This proves $v$ is central. To finish the proof of (2), we must show any central element of $\mathcal P$ is a linear combination of powers of $v$. Given $\omega \in \mathcal Z(\mathcal P)$ we may write $\omega = \sum r_{i}a^{i}$ with $r_{i}\in \Bbbk[c,u]\mathcal C^{-1}$. Since $\omega$ is central, then \[ 0=[\omega ,c]=\sum r_{i}[a^{i},c]=\sum r_{i}\left( (a+g)^{i}-a^{i})\right).\] Hence, the $a$-degree of $\omega$ is zero. We assume $\omega \notin \Bbbk$ and write \[ \omega =\sum_{i=0}^{m}\omega_{i}u^{i}. \] with $\omega_0,\hdots,\omega_m\in \Bbbk[c]\mathcal C^{-1}$ such that $\omega_m \neq 0$, $m\geq 1$. Since $a\omega =\omega a$, then $D\omega=0$. Thus, \begin{align*} 0 &= D\omega = \sum_{i=0}^m \left( \left( D\omega_i\right) u^i + \omega_i\left(Du^i\right) \right) = \sum_{i=0}^m \left( f\left( \partial_{c}\omega_i \right) u^i + ig\omega_i u^i\right) = \sum_{i=0}^m \left( f\left( \partial_{c}\omega_i \right) +ig\omega_i \right) u^i. \end{align*} According to the above calculation, $f\left( \partial_{c}\omega_{i}\right)+ig\omega_{i}=0$ for $i=0,\hdots,m$. We may use separation of variables to solve this differential equation. This gives $\omega_{i} = \lambda_{i}\left( p_1^{-m_1}\cdots p_k^{-m_k}\right)^{i/n}$ for some $\lambda_i\in \Bbbk $. If $\lambda_i\neq 0$, then the power $i/n$ must be a nonnegative integer since $\omega_i\in \Bbbk[c]\mathcal C^{-1}$. This finishes the proof of (2) since \[ \omega = \sum_{i=0}^{m}\lambda_{i}\left( p_1^{-m_1}\cdots p_k^{-m_k}\right)^{i/n}u^{i} \ = \sum_{i=0}^{m}(-1)^{i/n}\lambda_{i}v^{i/n}\in \Bbbk[v].\] \end{proof} \begin{rmk} In the special case $f=cg$, we have $v=c^{-1}u$. \end{rmk} Fix $f \in \Bbbk[c]$. If $f \notin \Bbbk$, then up to isomorphism of $P(f,g)$, we may choose $f$ such that $f(0)=0$. \emph{For the remainder of this section, we set $g=c^{-1} f$ and let $P=P(cg,g)$ when $f \notin \Bbbk$.} This hypothesis implies that $g$ is a local reduction of $f$. Hence, $\mathcal Z(\mathcal P)=\Bbbk[c^{-1} u]$. Set $v=c^{-1} u$. If $f \in \Bbbk$, we set $f=1$ and $g=0$. \begin{prop} \label{pma.primes2} If $f \notin \Bbbk$, then the height one primes of $P$ are of the form $(c-\alpha)$ and $(u-\beta c)$ for $\alpha, \beta \in \Bbbk$ with $f(\alpha)=0$ and $\beta$ arbitrary. Moreover, $P/(c-\alpha)P \cong \Bbbk[a,u]$ and $P/(u-\beta c)P \cong R_f$. \end{prop} \begin{proof} Since $\mathcal R$ is simple, then by \cite[Corollary 2.3]{LM} the prime ideals of $P$ are in 1-1 correspondence with $\mathcal Z(\mathcal P)=\Bbbk[v]$. Hence, the remaining prime ideals are generated in $\mathcal P$ by $v-\beta$ and $(v-\beta) \cap P = (u-\beta c)$. \end{proof} There is another way to view the above proposition. Note that $P[g^{-1}]$ is isomorphic to the universal enveloping algebra of the $3$-dimensional Lie algebra $L$ on generators $x,y,z$ subject to the relations $[x,y]=y$, $[x,z]=z$, and $[y,z]=0$. Hence, the prime ideals of $P$ disjoint from irreducible factors of $g$ are in $1-1$ correspondence with the prime ideals of $U(L)$. \begin{prop} \label{prop.pmauto} Suppose $f \notin \Bbbk$. For any $\alpha,\lambda,\mu \in \Bbbk^\times$, $\eta \in \Bbbk$, and $h \in \Bbbk[u,c]$ there is an automorphism $\pi$ of $P$ such that $\pi(g)=\lambda g$ determined by the assignments \begin{align*} a \mapsto \lambda a + h, \;\; c \mapsto \varepsilon c, \;\; \text{and } u \mapsto \mu u + \eta c. \end{align*} Moreover, any automorphism of $P$ has the above form. \end{prop} \begin{proof} Let $\pi \in \Aut(P)$. By Proposition \ref{pma.primes2}, $\pi$ fixes the ideals $(c-\alpha)$ and $(u-\beta c)$. Hence $\pi(c)=\varepsilon c + \kappa$ for some $\varepsilon \in \Bbbk^\times$ and $\kappa \in \Bbbk$ with $f(-\varepsilon^{-1}\kappa)=0$. Similarly, $\pi(u)=\mu u+\eta c$ for some $\mu \in \Bbbk^\times$ and $\eta \in \Bbbk$. A degree counting argument now shows that $\pi(a)=\lambda a + h$ for some $\lambda \in \Bbbk^\times$ and $h \in \Bbbk[c,u]$. To complete the proof we must show $\kappa = 0$, $\pi(g)=\lambda g$, and $\pi(f)=\varepsilon\lambda f$. Applying $\pi$ to $au=ua+ug$ gives $\lambda\mu gu + \lambda\eta f = \mu\pi(g)u+\eta\pi(g)c$. Equating coefficients of $u$ gives $\lambda \mu gu=\mu \pi(g)u$ and $\lambda \eta f=\eta \pi(g)c$. Thus $\pi(g)=\lambda g$. Applying $\pi$ to $ac=ca+f$ and reducing gives $\pi(f)=\varepsilon \lambda f$. Combining this with $f=cg$ and $\pi(g)=\lambda g$ gives $\kappa =0$. \end{proof} The following proposition is now a consequence of Proposition \ref{ispe.birat}. \begin{prop} \label{prop.pma-birat} The ISPE $P$ is birationally equivalent to $A_1(\Bbbk[t])$. \end{prop} \section{Generalized Jordanian Matrix Algebras} \label{sec.gjma} \begin{defn} \label{defn.matalg} We say $M=P(f,g)[b;\sigma_3,\delta_3]$ is a \textit{Generalized Jordanian Matrix Algebra} (GJMA) if it is birationally equivalent to $M_J(2)$ and the involution $\tau$ extends to $M$ with $\tau(b)=b$. \end{defn} \begin{rmk} By \cite[Proposition 1.8]{DumasRigal}, $M_J(2)$ is birationally equivalent to $A_1(\Bbbk[s,t])$. Thus, $P(f,g)[b;\sigma_3,\delta_3]$ is a GJMA if and only if it is birationally equivalent to $A_1(\Bbbk[s,t])$ and $\tau$ extends appropriately. \end{rmk} \begin{ex} Since the ISPE $P(1,0) \cong A_1(\Bbbk[t])$, then it follows that $A_1(\Bbbk[s,t]) \cong P(1,0)[b]$ is itself a GJMA. \end{ex} In this section, we construct a family of GJMAs and study their properties. We fix some notation throughout this section. Let $f, g \in \Bbbk[c]$, $f \notin \Bbbk$, such that $g$ is a local reduction of $f$ and set $P=P(f,g)$. Let $v$ be the central element defined in Proposition \ref{prop.cntP}. Let $\mathcal C$ be the Ore set generated by powers of irreducible factors of $f$ and $\mathcal U$ the Ore set generated by $\mathcal C$ along with powers of $u-\beta c$ for $\beta \in \Bbbk$. Let $\mathcal P=P\mathcal C^{-1}$ and $\mathscr P=P\mathcal U^{-1}$. To simplify notation, we write $\sigma=\sigma_3$ and $\delta=\delta_3$. In order to construct GJMAs $M=P[b;\sigma,\delta]$ we consider restrictions on $\sigma$ and $\delta$. Let $\mathcal M=M\mathcal C^{-1}$ and $\mathscr M=M\mathcal U^{-1}$. We rely on comparisons with $M_J(2)$ and key characteristics of $P$ outlined in Section \ref{sec.pmadiff} to identify additional restrictions. \begin{prop} \label{prop.gjmain} If $\sigma$ is an inner automorphism of $\mathscr P$ and $\delta$ is an inner $\sigma$-derivation, then $M= P[b;\sigma,\delta]$ is birationally equivalent to $M_J(2)$. \end{prop} \begin{proof} By the hypothesis, there exist $\varphi \in \mathcal C$ and $\theta \in \mathscr P$ such that $\sigma(r) = \varphi^{-1} r \varphi$ and $\delta(r) = \theta r-\sigma(r)\theta$ for all $r \in \mathscr P$. In particular, the element $z=\varphi(b-\theta)$ is central in $\mathscr M$. Moreover, $v=c^{-1} u$ is central in $\mathcal P$ by Proposition \ref{prop.cntP}. Thus, it is clear $\{a,c,v,z\}$ is a $\Bbbk$-algebra generating set of $\mathscr M$. Moreover, there are inverse homomorphisms $\Phi:\mathscr M \rightarrow \Frac(A_1(\Bbbk[s,t]))$ and $\Psi:\Frac(A_1(\Bbbk[s,t])) \rightarrow \mathscr M$ given by \begin{align*} &\Phi(a) = xf(y), \Phi(c)=y, \Phi(v)=yt, \Phi(z)=s, \\ &\Psi(x) = af^{-1}(c), \Psi(y) = c, \Phi(t)=v, \Phi(s)=z. \end{align*} Thus, $M$ is birationally equivalent to $M_J(2)$. \end{proof} \begin{ex} Let $P=P(c,1)$ and consider the algebra $G=P[b;\sigma,\delta]$ given by \begin{align*} \sigma(a) &= c^{-1} ac = a+1, \;\; \sigma(u) = u, \;\; \sigma(c)=c, \\ \delta(a) &= -(u/2+a)a-(a+1)(-(u/2+a)) = (-ua/2 - a^2) + (au/2 + a^2 + u/2 + a) = u+a, \\ \delta(u) &= \tau \left( \delta(a) \right) - \delta(a) = -u+u+a-(u+a) =-u, \\ \delta(c) &= \theta c-\sigma(c)\theta = -(u/2+a)c-c(-(u/2+a)) = -ac+ca=-c. \end{align*} Thus, the relations for $G$ may be given as those for $P(c,1)$ along with \begin{align*} bc=cb-c, \;\; bu=ub-u, \;\; ba=(a+1)b + (u+a). \end{align*} The element $z=2(cb+ca)+uc$ is central in $G$. It is not difficult to show that $G$ satisfies Proposition \ref{prop.gjmain} and that $\tau(b)=b$ extends to an involution of $G$. Hence, $G$ is a GJMA. \end{ex} We now restrict to the case $f=cg$ so that $v=c^{-1} u$. \begin{prop} \label{gjma.constr} Choose $f \in \Bbbk[c]$, $f=cg$, and let $P=P(f,g)$. Choose $p$ an irreducible factor of $f$ and $\theta \in P$. Define $G(f,p,\theta):=P[b;\sigma,\delta]$ by $\sigma(x) = p^{-1} x p$ and $\delta(x) = \theta x - \sigma(x) \theta$ for $x=a,u,c$. Then $G(f,p,\theta)$ is a GJMA if and only if $\delta(u) = \tau \left( \delta(a) \right) - \delta(a)$ and $\delta(c) = \tau(\delta(c))$. \end{prop} \begin{proof} By construction, $\sigma$ is an inner automorphism of $P$. Note that $p^{-1} c p = c$, $p^{-1} u p = u$, and $p^{-1} a p = p^{-1} p'f\in P$ since $p$ is a factor of $f$. Moreover, $\delta$ is the inner $\sigma$-derivation of $P$ determined by $\theta$. By Proposition \ref{prop.gjmain}, $G(f,p,\theta)$ is a GJMA if $\tau$ extends to an involution with $\tau(b)=b$. We must show $\tau$ is a homomorphism of $G$. It will then follow that $\tau$ is an involution of $G$. Applying $\tau$ to the identity $0=\sigma(a)b-ba+\delta(a)$ gives \begin{align*} 0 &= \left( p^{-1} (u+a) p \right) b - b(u+a) + \tau(\delta(a)) \\ &= \left( \sigma(a)b - ba \right) + \left( \sigma(u)b-bu \right) + \tau(\delta(a)) \\ &= \sigma(u)b - bu + \left( \tau(\delta(a)) - \delta(a) \right). \end{align*} This identity is fixed by $\tau$ and hence holds if and only if $\delta(u)$ satisfies the hypothesis. Repeating with $bc=cb+\delta(c)$ gives $\tau(\delta(c)) = \delta(c)$. \end{proof} \begin{prop} Suppose $G=G(f,p,\theta)$ is a GJMA. We localize $G$ by localizing the base ring $P$ and extending $\sigma$ and $\delta$ appropriately. We write $\mathcal G = \mathcal P[b;\sigma,\delta]$. Then $v=c^{-1} u$ is central in $\mathcal G$ if and only if $\delta(c) = cu^{-1}\delta(u)$. \end{prop} \begin{proof} By Proposition \ref{prop.cntP}, $v=c^{-1} u$ is central in $\mathcal P$. We have \begin{align*} bv &= \left( c{^{-1}}b-c{^{-1}}\delta(c)c{^{-1}}\right) u = c{^{-1}}\left( ub+\delta(u) \right) - c^{-1}\delta(c) c{^{-1}}u = vb + c^{-1} \left( \delta(u) -\delta(c)v\right). \end{align*} Hence, $v$ is central in $\mathcal G$ if and only if $\delta(u) =\delta(c)v$ or, equivalently, $c\delta(u) = u\delta(c)$. Because $c$ and $u$ commute, then $\delta(c)=cu^{-1}\delta(u)$. This formula must agree with $\theta c - c\theta$. Recall $\delta(u) = \tau\left(\delta(a)\right) - \delta(a)$ and $\delta(u)=u\gamma$, hence $\gamma = u^{-1}\left(\tau\left(\delta(a)\right)-\delta(a)\right)$ so $\delta(c) = cu^{-1}\delta(u) = cu^{-1}\left( \tau \left( \delta(a)\right) -\delta(a) \right)$. \end{proof} Suppose $\deg g \geq 1$. Set $h=g'c$ and $\theta=g^{-1}\left(a^2+(u-g)a\right)$. Then we have \begin{align*} \theta(a)-(a+h)\theta &= g^{-1} \left[ \left(a^2+(u-g)a\right)a - a\left(a^2+(u-g)a\right) \right] \\ &= g^{-1} \left[ (ua-ga)a-(ua+ug-ga-g'f)a \right] \\ &= g^{-1} \left[ -(ug-g'f)a \right] = (h-u)a, \\ \theta(c)-(c)\theta &= g^{-1} \left[ \left(a^2+(u-g)a\right)c - c\left(a^2+(u-g)a\right) \right] \\ &= g^{-1} \left[ \left(a+(u-g)\right)c(a+g) - c\left(a^2+(u-g)a\right) \right] \\ &= cg^{-1} \left[ \left((a+g)+(u-g)\right)(a+g) - \left(a^2+(u-g)a\right) \right] \\ &= cg^{-1} \left[ \left(a^2+ag+ua+ug\right) - \left(a^2+(u-g)a\right) \right] \\ &= cg^{-1} \left[ ga+g'f+ug + ga \right] = c \left( h+u+2a \right). \end{align*} The computation for $u$ is similar. \begin{prop} The ring $G\left(f,g,g^{-1}\left(a^2+(u-g)a\right)\right)$ is a GJMA which we denote by $\mathcal G_f$. Moreover, $\mathcal G_{c^2} = M_J(2)$. \end{prop} \begin{proof} We have $g^{-1} a g = a+h$. Set $\gamma = (h+u+2a)$. By Proposition \ref{gjma.constr}, it suffices to show the following, \begin{align*} \tau \left( \delta(a) \right) - \delta(a) &= \tau\left((h-u)a)\right) - (h-u)a = (h+u)(u+a)-(h-u)a \\ &= (hu+ha+u^2+ua)-(ha-ua) = hu+u^2+2ua = u\gamma = \delta(u). \end{align*} and $cu^{-1}\delta(u) = c\gamma = \delta(c)$. \end{proof} The relations for $\mathcal G_f$ can be shown to be \begin{align*} & ac=ca+f, au=ua+ug, cu=uc, \\ & bc=cb+c\gamma, bu=ub+u\gamma, ba = (a+h)b + (h-u)a. \end{align*} Explicitly, $\sigma$ and $\delta$ are given by \begin{align*} & \sigma(c)=c, \sigma(u)=u, \sigma(a)=a+h, \\ & \delta(c)=c\gamma, \delta(u)=u\gamma, \delta(a)=(h-u)a. \end{align*} By construction, the element $p(b-\theta)$ lies in the center of any $G(f,p,\theta)$. The analog of the determinant in the GJMA $G_f$ is the central element $z=gb+(g-u)a-a^2$. We may also write the presentation in terms of the standard generators $a,b,c,d$. In this case, $\gamma=h+a+d$ and we have relations \begin{align*} & ac=ca+f, dc=cd+f, da=(a-g)d+g(a-h), \\ & bc=cb+c\gamma, ba = (a+h)b + (h-u)a, bd = (d+h)b + (h-u)d. \end{align*} \begin{prop} \label{ma.dim} The algebra $\mathcal G_f$ is a noetherian domain with $\gldim \mathcal G_f = \GKdim \mathcal G_f = 4$. Moreover, the center of $\mathcal G_f$ is $\Bbbk[z]$. \end{prop} \begin{proof} That $\mathcal G_f$ is a noetherian domain follows from the skew polynomial construction. The statement on the center follows in similar fashion to \cite[Proposition 1.8]{DumasRigal}. In $\mathcal G_f\mathcal C^{-1}$ we have $b=g^{-1}\left(z-(g-u)a+a^2\right)$. Let $R=\Bbbk[z,v]\mathcal C^{-1}$, then $\mathcal G_f\mathcal C^{-1}$ is isomorphic to $S=R[a,D]$ where $D$ is extended from Presentation 2 of Remark \ref{Presenting P}. In particular, $D(z)=D(v)=0$. In $S$, $[c^{-1},a]=gc^{-1}$ and an induction argument shows that $[c^{-1},a^n]=nga^{n-1} + \text{(lower $a$-degree terms)}$. If $s=\sum_{i=0}^n r_i a^i \in S$ with $r_i \in R$ for all $i$, then $[c^{-1},s]=\sum_{i=0}^n r_i [c^{-1},a^i]=r_n nga^{n-1} + \text{(lower $a$-degree terms)}$. Hence, if $s \in \mathcal Z(S)$, then $s \in R$. Since $D(s)=[a,s]=0$, then $s \in \Bbbk[z,v]$. Thus, $\mathcal Z(S)=\Bbbk[z,v]$ and $\mathcal Z(\mathcal G_f)=\mathcal Z(S) \cap \mathcal Z(\mathcal G_f) = \Bbbk[z]$. By \cite[Theorem 7.5.3 (i)]{McRob} and Proposition \ref{pma.props}, $\gldim \mathcal G_f \leq 1+ \gldim P = 4$. On the other hand, $P[z]$ is faithfully flat as an $\mathcal G_f$-module. Thus, by \cite[Theorem 7.2.6]{McRob} $\gldim \mathcal G_f \geq \gldim P[z] = 4$. Since $V=\{a,c,u\}$ is a finite-dimensional generating subspace of $P$ and $\sigma(V) \subseteq V$, then by \cite[Lemma 2.2]{HuhKim} and Proposition \ref{pma.props}, $\GKdim \mathcal G_f = 1+\GKdim P = 4$. \end{proof} \begin{prop} \label{jma.primes} The height one prime ideals of $\mathcal G_f$ are $(c)$, $(u)$, and $(z-\xi)$ for $\xi \in \Bbbk^\times$. \end{prop} \begin{proof} The height one prime ideals of $P$ are principally generated by $c-\alpha$ and $u-\beta c$ where $\alpha, \beta \in \Bbbk$ with $f(\alpha)=0$ and $\beta$ arbitrary (Proposition \ref{pma.primes2}). Then $\mathscr P$ is simple by Lemma \ref{pma.primes2}. In $\mathcal G_f$, $c-\alpha$ (resp. $u-\beta c$) is a normal element if and only $\alpha=0$ (resp. $\beta=0$). Hence, the height one prime ideals of $\mathcal G_f$ that have nonzero intersection with $P$ are $(u)$ and $(c)$. By Proposition \ref{ma.dim}, the center of $\mathcal G_f$ is $\Bbbk[z]$. Hence, the ideals of $\mathscr P$ which lie over $0$ in $P$ are of the form $(z-\xi)$ for $\xi \in \Bbbk^\times$ \cite[Corollary 2.3]{LM}. \end{proof} \begin{rmk} We think of $S=\mathcal G_f/(z-1)$ as an analog of $\SL_J(2)$, the Jordanian deformation of $\SL(2)$. Because $(z-1)$ is irreducible in $\mathcal G_f$, $(z-1)$ is a completely prime ideal. That is, $S$ is an integral domain. \end{rmk} \bibliographystyle{plain}
\section{Introduction} \subsection{Background} The broadcast channel is a fundamental communication model that involves transmission of independent messages to different users. However, the broadcast nature makes the communication very susceptible to eavesdropping. Therefore, it is desirable to offer a reliable communication with a certain level of security guarantee, especially for ensuring sensitive information to be protected from unauthorized parties. The problem of secure communication from an information theoretic point of view was first studied by Shannon \cite{src:Shannon1949}. In this work, a cipher system was introduced under the assumption that the transmitter and the intended receiver share a secret random key which is out of the eavesdropper's knowledge. For the purpose of a secure communication, the message is first encrypted into a ciphertext before being transmitted, and it is assumed that the eavesdropper has full access to the ciphertext as the intended receiver. A cipher system with {\it perfect secrecy} demands that knowing the ciphertext, however, gives no clue about the message. Such a perfect cipher system is shown to be possible via the so-called {\it one-time pad} scheme \cite{src:Shannon1949} (previously porposed by Vernam \cite{src:Vernam1926}), provided that the secret key is sufficient to randomize the message. Wyner, in his seminal paper \cite{src:Wyner1975}, introduced the wiretap channel, where he addressed the problem of secret message transmission from a transmitter to a legitimate receiver (without sharing keys beforehand) over a degraded broadcast channel in the presence of an eavesdropper. It is shown that the secure communication is still possible when the eavesdropper observes a degraded version of the legitimate receiver's observation. The fundamental limit of secure communication, i.e., {\it secrecy capacity}, is defined to be the maximum rate under a weak secrecy constraint, where the rate of information leaked to the eavesdropper is made vanishing. Later on, Csisz\'{a}r and K\"{o}rner \cite{Csisz'ar:Broadcast78} extended Wyner's work by considering a setup of transmitting secret and common message over a general broadcast channel, and provided a single-letter characterization of the secrecy capacity. Notably, the secrecy capacity results hold also under a strong secrecy constraint, where the total amount of information leaked to the eavesdropper is made vanishing, as demonstrated in \cite{src:Maurer2000}. For those wiretap channels where the legitimate receiver does not have any advantage over the eavesdropper, interestingly, Maurer \cite{src:Maurer1993} demonstrated that it is still possible to achieve a positive secret rate if a public feedback channel is made available. In parallel, Csisz\'{a}r and Ahlswede \cite{src:Ahlswede1993} recognized that correlated source observations could be explored for generating secret key that could be used further for secret message transmission via one-time pad. These offer alternative solutions to achieve information theoretic secrecy, which are especially interesting in cases that the legitimate users have no advantage against the eavesdropper on the communication channels. Inspired by these pioneering works, there has been a body of growing literature studying the problem of secret message transmission and/or secret key generation by exploring the resources available in different settings. Extensive types of resources have been taken into account in order to establish secret communications without much sacrifice, or turn the disadvantages into advantages so as to make the impossible possible or even improve the overall performance. Such resources include channel state information \cite{src:Mitrpant2006, src:Chen2004, src:Liuwei2007, src:Chia2012, src:mustafa2012}, side information \cite{src:Boche2013}, feedback \cite{src:Ahlswede2006, src:Gunduz2008, src:Lai2008, src:Ardestanizadeh2009, src:Rezki2014}, correlated sources \cite{src:Khisti2012, src:Prabhakaran2012, src:Chen2014Cai} or shared keys \cite{Yamamoto:Rate97, src:Merhav2008, Kang:Wiretap10}, and so on. In the meantime, the channel, still serves as one of the most significant resource for secure communication. Several communication channels of particular practical interest have received intense research attention. Instances include but not limited to the broadcast channels \cite{src:Ruoheng2013, Bagherikaram:Secrecy09, src:Ekrem2012MIMO, src:Wyrembelski2013}, multiple access channels \cite{src:Liang2008MAC}, two-way channel \cite{src:Pierrot2011, src:ElGamal2013}, the interference channels\cite{src:Ruoheng2008, Koyluoglu:Cooperative11}, and compound channels\cite{src:Ekrem2012Compound}. \subsection{Contributions} In this paper, we consider the problem of secure communication over the broadcast channel with receiver side information (BC-RSI). The model is different from the wiretap channel with side information due to the broadcast nature of the communication channel. That is, in this model, the transmitter wants to send two independent messages to two receivers which have, respectively, the desired message of the other receiver (already available in their possession, e.g., due to previous communications) as side information. (See Fig. \ref{fig: wiretap channel with receiver side info}.) This is a simple setup of a general scenario, which consists of more than two legitimate receivers, each having a piece of partial information about the transmitted message. In the following, we summarize the main contributions of the paper: \begin{itemize} \item The linear deterministic model is studied and corresponding individual secrecy capacity region is characterized. Due to its relevance to the corresponding Gaussian case, study of this specific model provides insight into the individual secrecy capacity region of Gaussian case especially in the high SNR regime. \item To investigate the fundamental limits of communication under individual secrecy constraints, constructions building upon one-time pad, wiretap coding, superposition coding, and Marton's coding are proposed. \begin{itemize} \item First construction, referred to as secret key approach, utilizes side information at receivers as secret keys of one-time pad signals, which further is encoded as \emph{cloud centers} in broadcast coding schemes. This approach is shown to be capacity achieving for a {\em strong} eavesdropper (compared to both legitimate receivers). \item Secret key approach is extended with secrecy coding, where the one-time pad signal is utilized as a \emph{part of the randomization} to confuse the eavesdropper (i.e., to limit her ability to obtain information regarding each message). This approach is shown to be capacity achieving for a {\em weak} eavesdropper (compared to both legitimate receivers). \item The proposed superposition coding can be considered as an extension of secret key approach and combined secret key and secrecy coding approach. It takes advantage of the rate splitting of one-time pad signals such that they serve for two distinct purposes: 1) as a cloud center; and 2) as a part of randomization within the satellite codewords to confuse the eavesdropper. Also, it is shown that the suggested rate splitting is sufficient within superpostion coding since further rate splitting does not improve the established region. Remarkably, superposition coding is shown to be optimal for special cases of either a {\em strong} or {\em weak} eavesdropper (compared to both legitimate receivers), and in case that the eavesdropper has a {\em deterministic} channel. \item The proposed Marton's coding approach is built on the superposition coding but with one additional coding layer that employs Marton's coding. The idea is to further explore the advantage of rate splitting at the encoding phase (with introduction of joint distributed satellite codewords which carry independent message pieces intended for each legitimate receiver); and at the decoding phase only the individual satellite codewords will be decoded. As a result, a general achievable individual secrecy rate region is established, which not only includes but further improves the region obtained by superposition coding approach. The improvement is demonstrated for the {\em mixed} case where the eavesdropper's channel is weaker than one of the legitimate receivers channels but stronger than the other. \item As a by-product, two achievable {\em joint secrecy} rate regions are also obtained by the proposed superposition coding approach and Marton's coding approach, respectively; in which the former is included and potentially improved by the latter, i.e., Marton's coding approach. \end{itemize} \item Gaussian model is studied. And, in addition to strong and weak eavesdropper scenarios, the capacity region for low and high SNR regimes are characterized for the {\em mixed} case when the eavesdropper is stronger than one legitimate receiver but weaker than the other. \end{itemize} \subsection{Related Work} Our model can be thought of as a broadcast phase of a relay network after a multiple access phase where the nodes transmit their messages to the relay in the first phase. Remarkably, this two-way relay setting simply illustrates how the information are shared in today's networked world. To maximize the broadcasting throughput, the technique employed at the relay node is very relevant to network coding. As demonstrated in \cite{Kramer:Capacity07}, the relay node (i.e., the transmitter in our model) can broadcast the XORed messages. Then, the legitimate receivers, utilizing the side information they have, can decode their intended message. The broadcasting capacity region (Fig. \ref{fig: wiretap channel with receiver side info} without an eavesdropper) is characterized in \cite{Kramer:Capacity07}. In addition to the broadcasting to share information in the most efficient way, the secrecy aspect of the communication has been a growing concern. Considering the existence of an external eavesdropper in the model of the broadcast channel with receiver side information (BC-RSI), the authors in~\cite{Wyrembelski:Secrecy11} proposed achievable rate regions and outer bounds subject to a \emph{joint} secrecy constraint, whereby the information leakage from \emph{both} messages to the eavesdropper is made vanishing. Differently from \cite{Wyrembelski:Secrecy11}, we focus on the problem under \emph{individual} secrecy constraints that aims to minimize the information leakage from \emph{each} message to the eavesdropper. Other relevant works include \cite{Wyrembelski:Physical12, Wyrembelski:Privacy12, Mansour:Secrecy14, Mansour:Capacity15}. The work \cite{Wyrembelski:Physical12} considered transmitting common and private messages to each user for the BC with side information model in addition to transmitting a confidential message to one of the users while treating the other as an eavesdropper. The same setting without common messages was considered in~\cite{Wyrembelski:Privacy12} and the secrecy capacity was characterized. Recently, in a parallel work \cite{Mansour:Secrecy14, Mansour:Capacity15}, Mansour et al. considered discrete memoryless broadcast channels with degraded message sets and message cognition. The model in \cite{Mansour:Capacity15}, when the common messages are removed and individual secrecy constraint is imposed, reduces to the model considered in this paper. In particular, the scenarios of weak and stronger eavesdroppers (as characterized in Theorem~\ref{thm: secret key CS} and Theorem~\ref{thm: Ind SC by secrecy coding} here) overlaps with the corresponding propositions in \cite{Mansour:Capacity15}, in which the authors consider more capable/less noisy scenarios as well. Our initial results on this topic are presented in \cite{Koyluoglu:Broadcast14, src:Chen2014-IndS}, and, in addition to stronger/weaker eavesdropper cases, we focus on other DMC models, deterministic channels, and Gaussian scenarios for BC-RSI with individual secrecy constraints in this paper. Although the individual secrecy constraint is by definition weaker than the joint one, this notion nevertheless provides a security level that keeps each legitimate receiver away from non-negligible information leakage on its intended message, therefore acceptable to the end user. In addition, a joint secrecy constraint can be difficult or even impossible to fulfill in certain cases. For instance, when the eavesdropper has the same or a better channel observation than at least one of the legitimate receivers, imposing joint secrecy constraints result in a vanishing communication rate to the respective receiver. In this paper, we devote a particular attention to these \emph{mixed} scenarios, where the eavesdropper can be stronger than one receiver but weaker than the other. In such cases, individual secrecy serves as a practical security solution that is attainable. In fact, such a weaker security constraint is shown to be preferable in large-scale networks. For instance, this notion has the same spirit as the concept of {\em weak security} as defined in \cite{src:Bhattad2005} to guarantee that the eavesdropper is unable to get any {\em meaningful} information about the source in a multicast network scenario. In addition, a similar security criterion is considered to be sufficient for distributed storage systems. For instance, one can find its application in the design of secure cloud storage systems as proposed in \cite{Dau:Block13, src:JianLiu2013}. \section{System model}\label{sec:SystemModel} Consider a discrete memoryless broadcast channel given by $p(y_1,y_2,z|x)$ with two legitimate receivers and one passive eavesdropper, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig: wiretap channel with receiver side info}. The transmitter aims to send messages $m_1,m_2$ to the legitimate receiver $1,2,$ respectively. Suppose $x^n$ is the channel input to convey $m_1, m_2$ in $n$ channel uses, whilst $y_1^n$ (at receiver 1), $y_2^n$ (at receiver 2) and $z^n$ (at eavesdropper), are the channel outputs. Besides, $m_2$ (available at receiver 1) and $m_1$ (available at receiver 2) serve as side information that help to decode the desired message. (Unless otherwise specified, we use capital letters for random variables, the corresponding calligraphic letters for their alphabets and small cases for their realizations.) \begin{figure}[!h] \centering \begin{tikzpicture}[semithick, >=latex',scale=0.8, every node/.style={transform shape}] \begin{scope}[local bounding box=tx] \node (enc) at (1.5,0) [transmitter_block] {Transmitter}; \end{scope} % \node (enc) at (1.5,0) {Transmitter}; \begin{scope}[local bounding box=Receiver 1] \node (dec1) at (8.5,0.7) [receiver_block] {Receiver 1}; \end{scope} \begin{scope}[local bounding box=Receiver 2] \node (dec2) at (8.5,-0.7) [receiver_block] {Receiver 2}; \end{scope} \begin{scope}[local bounding box=Eavesdropper] \node (eve) at (8.5,-3.5) [receiver_block] {Eavesdropper}; \end{scope} \begin{scope}[local bounding box=channel] \node (dmc) at (5,0) [dmc_block] {$p(y_1,y_2,z|x)$}; \end{scope} \node (dmc1) at ([yshift=0.7cm, xshift=+1cm]dmc) {}; \node (dmc2) at ([yshift=-0.7cm, xshift=+1cm]dmc){}; \begin{scope}[local bounding box=sideinfo1] \node (sidedec1) at (8.5,2.2) {$m_2$}; \end{scope} \begin{scope}[local bounding box=sideinfo2] \node (sidedec2) at (8.5,-2.2) {$m_1$}; \end{scope} \draw[->,thick] (enc) to node[above] {$x^n$} (dmc); \draw[->,thick] (dmc1) to node[above] {$y_1^n$} (dec1); \draw[->,thick] (dmc2) to node[above] {$y_2^n$} (dec2); \draw[->,thick] (sidedec1) to (dec1); \draw[->,thick] (sidedec2) to (dec2); \draw[->,thick] (dmc) |- node[above, pos=0.75] {$z^n$} (eve); \begin{scope}[local bounding box=message1] \node (mes1) at ([yshift=3ex, xshift=-2.5cm]enc) {$m_1$}; \end{scope} \begin{scope}[local bounding box=message2] \node (mes2) at ([yshift=-3ex, xshift=-2.5cm]enc) {$m_2$}; \end{scope} \path[->,thick] (mes1) edge ([yshift=3ex]enc.west); \path[->,thick] (mes2) edge ([yshift=-3ex]enc.west); \begin{scope}[local bounding box=decmessage1] \node (mess1out) at ([xshift=2.5cm]dec1) {$\hat{m}_1$}; \end{scope} \begin{scope}[local bounding box=decmessage2] \node (mess2out) at ([xshift=2.5cm]dec2) {$\hat{m}_2$}; \end{scope} \path[->,thick] (dec1.east) edge (mess1out); \path[->,thick] (dec2.east) edge (mess2out); \begin{scope}[local bounding box=evemessage] \node (eveOut) at ([xshift=2.5cm]eve) {?}; \end{scope} \draw[->,thick] (eve) to (eveOut); \begin{pgfonlayer}{background} \node [fill=yellow!25,fit=(channel),rounded corners] {}; \node [fill=blue!25,fit=(message1),rounded corners, scale=0.85] {}; \node [shape=diamond, fill=teal!25,fit=(message2),rounded corners, scale=0.6] {}; \node [fill=blue!25,fit=(decmessage1),rounded corners, scale=0.85] {}; \node [shape=diamond, fill=teal!25,fit=(decmessage2),rounded corners, scale=0.6] {}; \node [shape=diamond, fill=teal!25,fit=(sideinfo1),rounded corners, scale=0.6] {}; \node [fill=blue!25,fit=(sideinfo2),rounded corners, scale=0.85] {}; \node [shape=circle, fill=red!25,fit=(evemessage),rounded corners, scale=0.75] {}; \end{pgfonlayer} \end{tikzpicture} \caption{BC-RSI with an external eavesdropper.} \label{fig: wiretap channel with receiver side info} \end{figure} Encoder employed by the transmitter is a mapping $f:{\cal M}_1\times{\cal M}_2 \to {\cal X}^n$, where $m_1\in{\cal M}_1$, $m_2\in{\cal M}_2$, and $x^n\in{\cal X}^n$. (Here, the channel input alphabet is ${\cal X}$). Decoder employed at receiver $i$ is a mapping $g_i:{\cal Y}_i^n\times {\cal M}_j \to {\cal M}_i$, where $j\neq i$, and $y_i^n\in{\cal Y}_i^n$ for $i=1,2$. (Here, the channel output alphabet at receiver $i$ is ${\cal Y}_i$.) Denote the average probability of decoding error at receiver $i$ as $P_{e,i}=\textrm{Pr}\{m_i\neq g_i(y_i^n,m_j)\}$ with $j\neq i$. The rate pair $(R_1,R_2)$ is said to be \emph{achievable}, if for any $\epsilon>0,$ there exists an encoder-decoder tuple $(f,g_1,g_2)$ such that \begin{align} \frac{1}{n}H (M_i) \geq & R_i-\epsilon \label{eq:R_i}\\ P_{e,i} \leq & \epsilon \label{eq:P_e,i}\\ \frac{1}{n}I(M_i;Z^n) \leq & \epsilon, \label{eq:IndSec} \end{align} for $i=1,2$ (and, for sufficiently large $n$). Note that \eqref{eq:R_i} corresponds to the targeted transmission \emph{rate}; \eqref{eq:P_e,i} corresponds to the \emph{reliability} constraint at the legitimate receivers; while \eqref{eq:IndSec} corresponds to the \emph{individual} secrecy constraints against the eavesdropper. If the coding scheme fulfils a stronger condition that \begin{equation}\label{eq:JointSec} \frac{1}{n}I(M_1,M_2;Z^n) \leq \epsilon, \end{equation} then it is said to satisfy the \emph{joint} secrecy constraint. Clearly, the joint secrecy constraint implies the individual secrecy constraints. \section{An illustrative example}\label{sec: example} \begin{figure}[!h] \centering \begin{tikzpicture}[semithick, >=latex',scale=0.8, every node/.style={transform shape}] \begin{scope}[local bounding box=tx] \node (enc) at (1.5,0) [transmitter_block] {Transmitter}; \end{scope} \begin{scope}[local bounding box=message1] \node (mes1) at ([xshift=-2.5cm]enc) {$u^k$}; \end{scope} \begin{scope}[local bounding box=Receiver 1] \node (dec1) at (6,3.5) [receiver_block] {Receiver 1}; \end{scope} \begin{scope}[local bounding box=Receiver 2] \node (dec2) at (6,1.5) [receiver_block] {Receiver 2}; \end{scope} \begin{scope}[local bounding box=Receiver k] \node (dec3) at (6,-2) [receiver_block] {Receiver $k$}; \end{scope} \begin{scope}[local bounding box=sideinfo1] \node (sidedec1) at (6,4.5) {$u_1$}; \end{scope} \begin{scope}[local bounding box=sideinfo2] \node (sidedec2) at (6,2.5) {$u_2$}; \end{scope} \begin{scope}[local bounding box=sideinfo3] \node (sidedec3) at (6,-1) {$u_k$}; \end{scope} \draw[->,thick] (sidedec1) to (dec1); \draw[->,thick] (sidedec2) to (dec2); \draw[->,thick] (sidedec3) to (dec3); \begin{scope}[local bounding box=decmessage1] \node (mess1out) at ([xshift=2.5cm]dec1) {$u^k\backslash\{u_1\}$}; \end{scope} \begin{scope}[local bounding box=decmessage2] \node (mess2out) at ([xshift=2.5cm]dec2) {$u^k\backslash\{u_2\}$}; \end{scope} \begin{scope}[local bounding box=decmessage3] \node (mess3out) at ([xshift=2.5cm]dec3) {$u^k\backslash\{u_k\}$}; \end{scope} \begin{scope}[local bounding box=Eavesdropper] \node (eve) at (6,-3.5) [receiver_block] {Eavesdropper}; \end{scope} \begin{scope}[local bounding box=evemessage] \node (eveOut) at ([xshift=2.5cm]eve) {?}; \end{scope} \node (dots) at (6,0.2) {$\vdots$}; \node (dots) at (8,0.2) {$\vdots$}; \node (dot1) at (4,0) [dot] {}; \draw[->,thick] (enc) to node[above] {$x^n$} (dot1); \draw[->,thick] (dot1) |- (dec1); \draw[->,thick] (dot1) |- (dec2); \draw[->,thick] (dot1) |- (dec3); \draw[->,thick] (dot1) |- (eve); \path[->,thick] (mes1) edge (enc.west); \path[->,thick] (dec1.east) edge (mess1out); \path[->,thick] (dec2.east) edge (mess2out); \path[->,thick] (dec3.east) edge (mess3out); \draw[->,thick] (eve) to (eveOut); \begin{pgfonlayer}{background} \node [fill=blue!25,fit=(message1),rounded corners, scale=0.85] {}; \node [fill=blue!25,fit=(decmessage1),rounded corners, scale=0.85] {}; \node [fill=blue!25,fit=(decmessage2),rounded corners, scale=0.85] {}; \node [fill=blue!25,fit=(decmessage3),rounded corners, scale=0.85] {}; \node [shape=diamond, fill=teal!25,fit=(sideinfo1),rounded corners, scale=0.6] {}; \node [shape=diamond, fill=teal!25,fit=(sideinfo2),rounded corners, scale=0.6] {}; \node [shape=diamond, fill=teal!25,fit=(sideinfo3),rounded corners, scale=0.6] {}; \node [shape=circle, fill=red!25,fit=(evemessage),rounded corners, scale=0.75] {}; \end{pgfonlayer} \end{tikzpicture} \caption{Secure communication over $1$-to-$k$ broadcast channel with receiver side information.} \label{fig: an example 1 to k broadcast channel with an external eavesdropper} \end{figure} In this section, we motivate the {\em individual secrecy} constraint by using the scenario of $1$-to-$k$ broadcasting as shown in Fig. \ref{fig: an example 1 to k broadcast channel with an external eavesdropper}. The model consists of one transmitter, $k$ legitimate receivers, and one passive eavesdropper. The transmitter aims to broadcast $k$ information bits $U^k=(U_1, U_2, \cdots, U_k)$ to $k$ legitimate receivers with $U_i\sim \mathrm{Bern}(1/2)$; whilst each receiver $i$ holds already one piece of information $U_i$ as side information. Suppose that $U^k$ is encoded into $X^n=(X_1, X_2, \cdots, X_n)$ and consider that this channel input is transmitted over noiseless channels. Then, for the purpose of broadcasting, each legitimate receiver $i$ (which holds $U_i$ and receives $X^n$) shall be able to recover the $k-1$ information bits $U^k\backslash\{U_i\}$, i.e., \begin{equation}\label{eg: reliability} H(U^k|X^n, U_i)=0. \end{equation} Thus, we have \begin{align} H(U^k|X^n)&=H(U^k, U_i|X^n)=H(U_i|X^n)+H(U^k|X^n, U_i)\nonumber\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eg: reliability}}{=}H(U_i|X^n). \label{eg: joint vs individual} \end{align} Let us now consider the secrecy aspect of broadcasting by imposing the \emph{joint} and \emph{individual} secrecy constraints, respectively. We note that the eavesdropper also receives a perfect copy of $X^n.$ 1) For the \emph{joint} secrecy constraint, we have that \begin{equation}\label{eg: joint} H(U^k|X^n)=H(U^k). \end{equation} Recall (\ref{eg: joint vs individual}). We obtain \begin{equation*} H(U^k|X^n)=H(U_i|X^n)\leq H(U_i)<H(U^k), \end{equation*} where the last strict inequality follows since $U_i \sim \mathrm{Bern}(1/2).$ Thus, equality in (\ref{eg: joint}) is not possible. That is, for this example, no broadcasting scheme could fulfill the \emph{joint} secrecy constraint. 2) For the \emph{individual} secrecy constraint, we have that \begin{equation}\label{eg: individual} H(U_i|X^n)=H(U_i), \quad \mbox{for}\ 1\leq i\leq k. \end{equation} Suppose there is a coding scheme that fulfills both purposes of broadcasting, i.e., (\ref{eg: reliability}), and the individual secrecy, i.e., (\ref{eg: individual}). Then, we have \begin{align} H(U^k, X^n)&= H(U_i, X^n)+H(U_1^{i-1}, U_{i+1}^n|U_i, X^n)\nonumber\\ &\stackrel{(a)}{=} H(X^n)+H(U_i|X^n)\nonumber\\ &\stackrel{(b)}{=} H(X^n)+H(U_i),\label{eg: indproof} \end{align} where $(a)$ is due to (\ref{eg: reliability}); and $(b)$ is due to (\ref{eg: individual}). Using $H(U^k, X^n)\geq H(U^k)$ in \eqref{eg: indproof}, we obtain that \begin{equation*} H(X^n)\geq H(U^k)-H(U_i)=k-1. \end{equation*} So to say, the optimal encoding scheme (with respect to the overall transmission rate $k/n$) from $U^k$ to $X^n$ is such that $H(X^n)=k-1.$ Thus, to obtain the optimal rate, one shall take $n=k-1$. This is feasible. In fact, there are many coding schemes that could achieve this. One of the options is to take \begin{equation*} x_i=u_1\oplus u_{i+1}, \quad \mbox{for}\quad 1\leq i\leq k-1. \end{equation*} The decoding at each receiver $i$ is straightforward. Since $u_i$ is available at receiver $i$ as side information, it could first help to recover $u_1$ by $u_1\triangleq x_{i-1}\oplus u_i$ if $i>1;$ and then sequentially recover $u_j$ by $u_j\triangleq x_{j-1}\oplus u_1$ for $j\neq 1, i.$ And, the transmission rate $R_i$ to each receiver $i$, for $1\leq i\leq k,$ is equal to 1, since $k-1$ bits are received in $n=k-1$ channel uses. Noting that the capacity for a binary noiseless channel is one, we conclude that the above scheme actually achieves the individual secrecy capacity for all receivers. The following insights immediately follow from this example: \begin{itemize} \item Joint secrecy might be impossible to achieve. \item Individual secrecy could be the highest secrecy level to offer (as shown in \eqref{eg: joint vs individual} on the equivocation at the eavesdropper). \item Individual secrecy could be achieved without any rate degradation (as compared to the capacity region without security constraints)! \end{itemize} In fact, joint secrecy could be impossible for a more general set-up as demonstrated in the following proposition. \begin{proposition}\label{thm:joint secrecy with strong Eve} For the communication model as shown in Fig. \ref{fig: wiretap channel with receiver side info} under the joint secrecy constraint, any rate pair $(R_1,R_2)\in\mbox{\bb R}^+$ is infeasible if the channel to at least one of the receivers is more noisy than the channel to the eavesdropper. \end{proposition} \begin{IEEEproof} Assume that receiver 2 receives $Y_2^n$ as a more noisy version of $Z^n,$ the channel output at the eavesdropper. From the following analysis, we show that $R_2>0$ is not possible. \begin{align*} nR_2 &= H(M_2)=I(M_2;M_1,Y_2^n)+H(M_2|M_1,Y_2^n)\\ &\stackrel{(a)}{\leq} I(M_2;Y_2^n|M_1)+n\epsilon' \leq I(M_1,M_2;Y_2^n)+n\epsilon'\\ &\stackrel{(b)}{\leq} I(M_1,M_2; Z^n)+n\epsilon'\\ &\stackrel{(c)}{\leq} n(\epsilon+\epsilon'), \end{align*} where $(a)$ is due to Fano's inequality (implying that $H(M_2|M_1,Y_2^n)\leq n\epsilon'$ for some $\epsilon'\to0$ as $n\to\infty$) and the fact that $I(M_2;M_1,Y_2^n)=I(M_2;M_1)+I(M_2;Y_2^n|M_1)=I(M_2;Y_2^n|M_1)$ as $M_1$ and $M_2$ are independent; $(b)$ is due to $I(M_1,M_2;Y_2^n)\leq I(M_1,M_2;Z^n)$ which follows from the fact that receiver 2 has a more noisy observation $Y_2^n$ than the eavesdropper's observation $Z^n;$ and $(c)$ is due to the joint secrecy constraint \eqref{eq:JointSec}. This implies that $R_2\leq \epsilon+\epsilon'$, which is arbitrarily small for an arbitrarily small $P_{e,2}$ (i.e., $\epsilon'$) and an arbitrarily small information leakage rate $\epsilon$ to the eavesdropper. \end{IEEEproof} Nevertheless, an achievable rate region was established in \cite{Wyrembelski:Secrecy11} for the BC-RSI under joint secrecy constraint. In the following sections, we will focus on deriving the individual secrecy capacity or achievable rate regions for different BC-RSI models. In particular, we will start with a specific linear deterministic case, where we establish the individual secrecy capacity region. Then, we will address the general discrete memoryless model, where we obtain achievable rate regions with characterization of the capacity region in special cases. Finally, we look into the Gaussian case and obtain inner and upper bounds for the individual secrecy capacity region. \section{Linear Deterministic BC-RSI}\label{sec:deterministic} Motivated by the success of the linear deterministic approach \cite{src:avestimehr2011wireless, src:mustafa2012} in approximating the (secrecy) capacity region within constant bits regardless of the received signal-to-noise ratio and its relevance particularly in the high SNR regime, we first take a look at the linear deterministic broadcast channel \cite{src:avestimehr2011wireless} with receiver side information. In this specific model, the received signals at the legitimate receivers and the eavesdropper are given by \begin{align}\label{deter: system function} \begin{split} {Y}_1&=D^{q-n_1} {X},\\ {Y}_2&=D^{q-n_2} {X},\\ Z&=D^{q-n_e} {X}, \end{split} \end{align} where ${X}$ is the binary input vector of length $q=\max\{n_1,n_2,n_e\}$; $D$ is the $q\times q$ down-shift matrix; $n_1, n_2$ and $n_e$ are the integer channel gains of the channels from the transmitter to receiver 1, receiver 2, and the eavesdropper, respectively. Note that \begin{enumerate} \item as $q=n_1\geq n_2\geq n_e,$ the channel is degraded in the manner that $X\to Y_1\to Y_2\to Z$ forms a Markov chain; \item as $q=n_1\geq n_e \geq n_2,$ the channel is degraded in the manner that $X\to Y_1\to Z \to Y_2$ forms a Markov chain; \item as $q=n_e\geq n_1 \geq n_2,$ the channel is degraded in the manner that $X\to Z\to Y_1 \to Y_2$ forms a Markov chain. \end{enumerate} In all cases, we have the following theorem: \begin{theorem}\label{thm: IndS linear deterministic} The individual secrecy capacity region of the linear deterministic broadcast channel with receiver side information is the set of the rate pairs $(R_1, R_2)$ defined by \begin{align*} R_1&\leq \min\{n_1, [n_1-n_e]^+ +R_2\};\\ R_2&\leq \min\{n_2, [n_2-n_e]^+ +R_1\}, \end{align*} where $[a]^{+}=\max\{0, a\}.$ \end{theorem} \begin{IEEEproof} The converse follows directly from \cite[Theorem 1]{Kramer:Capacity07} and Proposition \ref{lemma: upper bound} in Appendix~\ref{sec:UpperBoundAppendix}, where the former is the capacity region of the BC-RSI without any secrecy constraints; and the latter is an upper bound of the secrecy capacity region of BC-RSI. The achievability follows by considering different scenarios, each is classified according to the relation between the channel gains $n_1, n_2, n_e$, and the relation between the rates $R_1, R_2$. For a given scenario, we consider the construction of the codeword $X$ as a function of $m_1, m_2$. Note that, at the receiver side, according to the system input-output relation as defined in \eqref{deter: system function}, receiver 1 receives the first $n_1$ bits of $X$, receiver 2 gets the first $n_2$ bits of $X$, and the eavesdropper gets the first $n_e$ bits of $X$. This holds for all scenarios. In order to achieve a {\em reliable} and {\em secure} communication under the individual secrecy constraint, $X$ should be designed in such a way that both legitimate receivers could decode the desired message with the help of the side information (i.e., the other message); while the eavesdropper can only observe bits either in the form of $m_1\oplus m_2$, or mixture of part of the messages, and/or random bits. This gives no information on $m_1$ and $m_2$ individually. In Appendix~\ref{sec:AppDeterministic}, we provide a specific coding scheme for each scenario, achieving the corresponding individual secrecy capacity region. Putting all pieces together establishes the achievability of the stated region. \end{IEEEproof} \begin{figure}[!ht] \centering \subfloat[$n_1\geq n_2\geq n_e$\label{Determinstic: SC1}]{ \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.38] \begin{axis}[ xlabel={\Large{$\mathbf{R_{1}}$}}, ylabel={\Large{$\mathbf{R_{2}}$}}, xtick=\empty,ytick=\empty, xmin=0,xmax=5, ymin=0,ymax=4, x=2cm,y=1.5cm, grid=major, extra y ticks={1,3,4},extra x ticks={0,1,4,5}, extra y tick labels={\LARGE{$n_e$}, \LARGE{$n_2-n_e$}, \LARGE{$n_2$}},extra x tick labels={\Large{0}, \LARGE{$n_e$}, \LARGE{$n_1-n_e$}, \LARGE{$n_1$}}] \addplot[blue, fill=yellow!20, very thick] plot coordinates { (0.05, 0.05) (0.05, 3) (1, 3.95) (4.95, 3.95) (4.95, 1) (4, 0.05) (0.05, 0.05)}; \end{axis} \draw[->,color=black, semithick] (0,0) -- (11,0); \draw[->,color=black, semithick] (0,0) -- (0,7); \end{tikzpicture} } \hfill \subfloat[$n_1\geq n_e\geq n_2$\label{Determinstic: SC2}]{ \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.45] \begin{axis}[ xlabel={\Large{$\mathbf{R_{1}}$}}, ylabel={\Large{$\mathbf{R_{2}}$}}, xtick=\empty,ytick=\empty, xmin=0,xmax=4.5, ymin=0,ymax=3, x=2cm,y=1.5cm, grid=major, extra y ticks={3},extra x ticks={0,1.5,4.5}, extra y tick labels={\LARGE{$n_2$}},extra x tick labels={\Large{0}, \LARGE{$n_1-n_e$}, \LARGE{$n_1-n_e+n_2$}}] \addplot[blue, fill=yellow!20, very thick] plot coordinates { (0.05, 0.05) (3, 3) (4.5, 3) (1.5, 0.05) (0.05, 0.05)}; \end{axis} \draw[->,color=black, semithick] (0,0) -- (10,0); \draw[->,color=black, semithick] (0,0) -- (0,5.5); \end{tikzpicture} } \hfill \subfloat[$n_e\geq n_1\geq n_2$\label{Determinstic: SC3}]{ \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.45] \begin{axis}[ xlabel={\Large{$\mathbf{R_{1}}$}}, ylabel={\Large{$\mathbf{R_{2}}$}}, xtick=\empty,ytick=\empty, xmin=0,xmax=4, ymin=0,ymax=3, x=2cm,y=1.5cm, grid=major, extra y ticks={3},extra x ticks={0,3,4}, extra y tick labels={\LARGE{$n_2$}}, extra x tick labels={\Large{0},\LARGE{$n_2$},\LARGE{$n_1$}}, legend style={at={(0.05, 0.9)}, anchor=north west }, ] \addplot[blue, very thick] plot coordinates { (0.05, 0.05) (3, 3)}; \legend{ $R_1=R_2$ } \end{axis} \node (h) at (7, 4.8) {{\scriptsize $\min\{n_1, n_2\}$}}; \draw[red, semithick] (6,4.5) circle (0.05cm); \draw[->,color=black, semithick] (0,0) -- (9,0); \draw[->,color=black, semithick] (0,0) -- (0,5.5); \end{tikzpicture} } \caption{Individual secrecy capacity region of the linear deterministic BC-RSI} \label{fig:deterministic SC} \end{figure} The individual secrecy capacity region of the linear deterministic BC-RSI is depicted in Fig. \ref{fig:deterministic SC}. We remark that the capacity region is \begin{itemize} \item a {\em rectangle} with two missing corners in case of $n_1\geq n_2\geq n_e;$ \item a {\em parallelogram} in case of $n_1\geq n_e\geq n_2;$ and \item a {\em line} in case of $n_e\geq n_1\geq n_2.$ \end{itemize} Compared to the capacity region of the BC-RSI (following from \cite[Theorem 1]{Kramer:Capacity07}, this region is given by $R_1\leq n_1$ and $R_2\leq n_2$ as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:deterministic SC}), the missing parts reflect the loss in the transmission rates due to the individual secrecy constraints. And, as the eavesdropper gets stronger, the loss increases. Nevertheless, in the worst case, positive secrecy rate pairs are still possible under the individual secrecy constraint (as shown in Fig. \ref{Determinstic: SC3}), unlike the case under the joint secrecy constraint (as demonstrated in Propostion \ref{thm:joint secrecy with strong Eve}). \section{Discrete Memoryless BC-RSI} In this section, we consider the discrete memoryless BC-RSI with an external eavesdropper (Fig. \ref{fig: wiretap channel with receiver side info}). When none of the secrecy constraints are taken into account, this model reduces to discrete memoryless BC-RSI, for which the capacity region is given by the union of rate pairs $(R_1, R_2)$ satisfying $R_i\leq I(X;Y_i)$ for $i=1,2$, where the union is taken among all possible input probability distributions $p(x)$ \cite[Theorem 1]{Kramer:Capacity07}. Here, we focus on coding schemes that can achieve not only reliability but also (individual) secrecy for this model. In particular, we investigate to what extend this capacity region has to be modified in order to accommodate (individual) secrecy. In order to investigate the fundamental limits of communication under individual secrecy constraints, we utilize coding approaches including one-time pad, wiretap coding, superposition coding, and Marton's coding, which have been proposed for communication scenarios such as Shannon's cipher system, wiretap channel, and broadcast channel \cite{ElGamal:2012}. The key ingredient of our proposed schemes is the utilization of side information at receivers as secret keys of one-time pad signals, which further is encoded as \emph{cloud centers} in broadcast coding schemes. That is, one-time pad signals are constructed such that they can be decoded at both receivers, which can then extract their desired information utilizing the side information, whereas the eavesdropper will be left with full ambiguity regarding the information content for each message individually. We refer this signaling technique as the \emph{secret key} approach. As detailed in this section, we observe, for the case of a strong eavesdropper, that the secret key approach (i.e., coding via one-time pad by mixing the messages) is the best one can do; while, in case of a weak eavesdropper, the combined secret key and secrecy coding approach is required in order to achieve higher rates. (Here, we use the phrase \emph{secrecy coding} in order to refer to the extension of wiretap coding technique to our broadcast model, where both users randomize their signals in order to confuse the eavesdropper.) After a characterization of achievable rates and special case capacity results with these strategies, we detail a universal approach by employing superposition coding and Marton's coding to establish (general) achievable individual secrecy rate regions. \subsection{Secret key approach and the capacity region for BC-RSI with a stronger eavesdropper}\label{subsec: key approach} Consider the symmetric secret rate region where $R_1=R_2=R,$ i.e., $M_1$ and $M_2$ are of the same entropy. Under these conditions, communicating the message $M_1\oplus M_2$ readily provides individual secrecy, i.e., the following rate region is achievable. \begin{proposition}\label{thm:Ach0} Any $(R_1,R_2)\in\mbox{\bb R}^+$ satisfying \begin{equation} R_1=R_2 \leq \min\{I(X;Y_1),I(X;Y_2)\}, \end{equation} for any $p(x)$ is achievable. \end{proposition} \begin{IEEEproof} Randomly generate $2^{nR}$ codewords $x^n$ according to $p(x).$ Given $(m_1, m_2),$ send $x^n(m_k)$ with $m_k=m_1\oplus m_2$ to the channel. See Fig. \ref{fig: SK coding} for the construction of $X^n$. Both receivers can decode reliably by utilizing their side information to extract intended messages if $R_1=R_2\leq\min\{I(X;Y_1),I(X;Y_2)\}$. For the secrecy of $M_i$, $i=1,2$ we have \begin{eqnarray} I(M_i;Z^n)\stackrel{(a)}{\leq} I(M_i;Z^n,M_k)\stackrel{(b)}{=}I(M_i;M_k)\stackrel{(c)}{=}0, \end{eqnarray} where (a) is due to the non-negativity of the conditional mutual information, i.e., $I(M_i;M_k|Z^n)\geq 0$; (b) is due to Markov chain $M_i\to M_k\to Z^n$, i.e., $I(M_i;Z_n|M_k)=0$; and (c) follows as $M_i$ is secured with a one-time pad $M_{j}$ ($j\neq i$) in $M_k$. \begin{figure}[h] \centering \begin{tabular}{rcl} $m_1:$ & & $\begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, minimum width=5.5em, anchor=base, fill=blue!25] {$m_{1}$}; \end{tikzpicture}$\\ $m_2:$ & & $\begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em,minimum width=5.5em, anchor=base, fill=teal!25] {$m_{2}$}; \end{tikzpicture}$\\ $x^n:$ & & $\underbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, minimum width=5.5em, anchor=base, fill=red!25] {$m_{1}\oplus m_{2}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }_{nR}$ \end{tabular} \caption{Secret key approach: Encoding.} \label{fig: SK coding} \end{figure} \end{IEEEproof} Note that the above achievable region is limited by the capacity of the worse channel of the legitimate receivers. Nevertheless, it serves as the individual secrecy capacity region when the eavesdropper has an advantage on the channel over both legitimate receivers. \begin{theorem}\label{thm: secret key CS} If the channels to the legitimate receivers are degraded with respect to the channel to the eavesdropper, then the individual secrecy capacity region is given by the union of non-negative rate pairs $(R_1,R_2)$ satisfying \begin{equation} R_1=R_2\leq \min \{I(X;Y_1),I(X;Y_2)\}, \end{equation} where the union is taken over $p(x)$. \end{theorem} \begin{IEEEproof} The achievablity follows from the proof of Proposition \ref{thm:Ach0}. Here, we detail the converse. \begin{align*} nR_1 &= H(M_1)=I(M_1;M_2,Y_1^n)+H(M_1|M_2,Y_1^n)\\ &\stackrel{(a)}{\leq} I(M_1;Y_1^n|M_2)+n\epsilon' \leq I(M_1,M_2;Y_1^n)+n\epsilon';\\ &\stackrel{(b)}{\leq} I(X^n;Y_1^n)+n\epsilon' \stackrel{(c)}{=}\sum_{i=1}^n I(X_i;Y_{1,i})+n\epsilon'\\ &\stackrel{(d)}{=}n I(X_Q;Y_{1,Q}|Q)+n\epsilon' \stackrel{(e)}{\leq} nI(X;Y_1)+n\epsilon'; \end{align*} and, continuing from (a), we have \begin{align*} nR_1 &\leq I(M_1;Y_1^n|M_2)+n\epsilon' \leq I(M_1,M_2;Y_1^n)+n\epsilon'\\ &\stackrel{(f)}{\leq} I(M_1,M_2; Z^n)+n\epsilon' \stackrel{(g)}{\leq} I(M_2;Z^n|M_1)+n(\epsilon'+\epsilon)\\ &\leq H(M_2)+n(\epsilon'+\epsilon) \stackrel{(h)}{=} nR_2+n(\epsilon'+\epsilon)\\ &\stackrel{(i)}{\leq} nI(X;Y_2)+n(\epsilon'+\epsilon) \end{align*} where $(a)$ is due to Fano's inequality and the fact that $I(M_1;M_2)=0$; $(b)$ is due to Markov chain $(M_1,M_2)\to X^n\to Y_1^n;$ $(c)$ follows as the channel is memoryless; $(d)$ is by introducing a time-sharing random variable $Q$ which is uniform over $1,2,\dots, n;$ $(e)$ is by taking $X=X_Q, Y_1=Y_{1, Q};$ $(f)$ is due to the channel degradedness, i.e., Markov chain $(M_1, M_2) \to Z^n \to Y_1^n;$ $(g)$ is by the individual secrecy constraint \eqref{eq:IndSec}; $(h)$ is due to $H(M_2)=nR_2;$ and $(i)$ is derived by applying a proof similar to $nR_1\leq nI(X;Y_1)+n\epsilon'$ and by taking $Y_2=Y_{2,Q}.$ At this point, from $(h)$, we have $R_1\leq R_2;$ and $R_1\leq \min\{I(X;Y_1), I(X;Y_2)\}$. By symmetry, we have $R_2\leq R_1$ and $R_2\leq \min\{I(X;Y_1), I(X;Y_2)\}$. Thus, we establish that $R_1=R_2\leq \min\{I(X;Y_1), I(X;Y_2)\}$. \end{IEEEproof} \begin{figure} \centering \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1] \begin{axis}[ xlabel={$\mathbf{R_{1}}$}, ylabel={$\mathbf{R_{2}}$}, xtick=\empty,ytick=\empty, xmin=0,xmax=4, ymin=0,ymax=3, x=2cm,y=1.5cm, grid=major, extra y ticks={3},extra x ticks={0,3,4}, extra y tick labels={$I(X;Y_2)$}, extra x tick labels={0,$I(X;Y_2)$,$I(X;Y_1)$}, legend style={at={(0.05, 0.9)}, anchor=north west} ] \addplot[blue, very thick] plot coordinates { (0.05, 0.05) (3, 3)}; \legend{% $R_1=R_2$ } \end{axis} \node (h) at (7, 4.8) {{\scriptsize $\min\{I(X;Y_1), I(X;Y_2)\}$}}; \draw[->,color=black, semithick] (0,0) -- (9,0); \draw[->,color=black, semithick] (0,0) -- (0,5.5); \end{tikzpicture} \caption{Individual secrecy capacity region in case of a strong eavesdropper.} \label{fig:IndSec_strong eavesdropper} \end{figure} The individual secrecy capacity described in Theorem \ref{thm: secret key CS} is depicted in Fig. \ref{fig:IndSec_strong eavesdropper}. That is, in case of a strong eavesdropper, the best transmission strategy is to send the one-time pad of the messages to both receivers, where both of them could recover its desired message with the help of side information; while the eavesdropper gets only the mixed copy, which gives no clue for each message individually. \subsection{Combined secret key and secrecy coding approach and the capacity region for BC-RSI with a weaker eavesdropper}\label{sec: secrecy coding} Although the secret key approach is optimal in case of a strong eavesdropper, this scheme can be strictly suboptimal for other scenarios. In fact, a counter-example follows from the linear deterministic model, for the case where the eavesdropper is weak. In general, consider channel inputs $p(x)$ such that $I(X;Z)\leq \min\{I(X;Y_1), I(X;Y_2)\}$. We show in this section that, asymmetric rate pairs beyond the secret key approach can be achieved if we combine secret key with a secrecy coding approach. That is, besides using the receiver side information as secret key, one can further take the advantage over the channel against the eavesdropper by employing secrecy coding approach \cite{src:Wyner1975, Csisz'ar:Broadcast78}. First, we have the following proposition. \begin{proposition}\label{thm:Ach1} Any $(R_1,R_2)\in\mbox{\bb R}^+$ satisfying \begin{align*} I(X;Z)&\leq R_1 \leq I(X;Y_1)\\ I(X;Z)&\leq R_2 \leq I(X;Y_2) \end{align*} for $p(x)$ such that $I(X;Z)\leq \min\{I(X;Y_1),I(X;Y_2)\}$ is achievable. \end{proposition} \begin{IEEEproof} {\em Rate splitting:} Assume that $R_2\leq R_1.$ As illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig: csksc rate splitting}, we split $M_1$ into two parts, i.e., $M_1=(M_{1k}, M_{1s})$ with $M_{1k}$ of entropy $nR_2,$ the same as $M_2;$ whilst $M_{1s}$ of entropy $nR_{1s}.$ Note that $R_1=R_{1k}+R_{1s}.$ \begin{figure}[h] \centering \begin{tabular}{rcl} $m_1:$ & & $\overbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, minimum width=6em, anchor=base, fill=blue!25] {$m_{1k}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }^{nR_{1k}} \overbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, minimum width=2.5em, anchor=base, fill=blue!25] {$m_{1s}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }^{nR_{1s}}$\\ $m_2:$ & & $\underbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em,minimum width=6em, anchor=base, fill=teal!25] {$m_{2}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }_{nR_2}$ \end{tabular} \caption{Combined secret key and secrecy coding approach: Rate splitting.} \label{fig: csksc rate splitting} \end{figure} {\em Codebook generation:} Randomly generate $2^{nR_1}$ codewords $x^n$ according to $p(x).$ Throw them into $2^{nR_{1s}}$ bins \cite{ElGamal:2012} and index them by $x^n(i_k, i_{1s})$ with $(i_k,i_{1s})\in [1:2^{nR_2}]\times [1:2^{nR_{1s}}].$ {\em Encoding:} To send messages $(m_1, m_2),$ choose $x^n(m_k, m_{1s})$ with $m_k=m_{1k}\oplus m_2$ and transmit it to the channel. The choice of the codeword $x^n$ for given $(m_1, m_2)$ is illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig: SC coding}. \begin{figure}[h] \centering \begin{tabular}{rcl} $x^n:$ & & $\underbrace{ \overbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, minimum width=6em, anchor=base, fill=red!25] {$m_{1k}\oplus m_{2}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }^{nR_2} \underbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, minimum width=2.5em, anchor=base, fill=blue!25] {$m_{1s}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }_{nR_{1s}} }_{nR_1}$ \end{tabular} \caption{Combined secret key and secrecy coding approach: Encoding} \label{fig: SC coding} \end{figure} {\em Decoding:} Receiver 2 can decode $m_k$ reliably using typical set decoding if \begin{equation}\label{eqn: SC coding cond1} R_2<I(X; Y_2) \end{equation} with the knowledge of $m_1$, and thus extract $m_2$. Receiver 1 can decode both $m_k$ and $m_{1s}$ if \begin{equation}\label{eqn: SC coding cond2} R_1<I(X;Y_1) \end{equation} and extract $m_{1k}$ from the former with the knowledge of $m_2$. {\em Individual secrecy:} At the eavesdropper, we see that $M_{1k}$ is secured by capsuling with $M_2$ as a one-time pad (thus $M_2$ is also secured as in Section \ref{subsec: key approach}), while $M_{1s}$ is secured by using secrecy coding for classical wiretap channels under the condition that \begin{equation}\label{eqn: SC coding cond3} R_2\geq I(X;Z). \end{equation} More specifically, the secrecy of $M_2$ follows from \begin{equation*} I(M_2;Z^n)\leq I(M_2;Z^n,M_k, M_{1s})=I(M_2;M_k, M_{1s})=0. \end{equation*} And, the secrecy of $M_{1}$ is shown as follows. Since $R_2\geq I(X;Z),$ for a fixed $i_{1s},$ one can further bin the codewords $x^n$ and index them as $x^n(i_{kr}, i_{ks}, i_{1s})$ with $i_k=(i_{kr}, i_{ks})\in [1: 2^{n(I(X;Z)-\epsilon)}]\times[1: 2^{n(R_2-I(X;Z)+\epsilon)}],$ as illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig: SC secrecy proof}. \begin{figure}[h] \centering \begin{tabular}{rcl} $x^n:$ & & $ \underbrace{ \overbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, minimum width=4em, anchor=base, fill=red!25] {$i_{kr}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }^{\approx nI(X;Z)} \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, minimum width=2em, anchor=base, fill=red!25] {$i_{ks}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }_{nR_2} \underbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, minimum width=2.5em, anchor=base, fill=blue!25] {$i_{1s}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }_{nR_{1s} $ \end{tabular} \caption{secret key and secrecy coding approach: Secrecy analysis.} \label{fig: SC secrecy proof} \end{figure} Correspondingly, split $M_k=(M_{kr},M_{ks}).$ We have \begin{align*} H(M_{1s}, M_{ks}|Z^n) =& H(M_{1s}, M_{ks}, X^n|Z^n)-H(X^n|M_{1s}, M_{ks}, Z^n)\\ \stackrel{(a)}{\geq}& H(M_{1s}, M_{ks}, X^n, Z^n) - H(Z^n)-n\epsilon_1 \\ =& H(X^n) +H(Z^n|X^n)- H(Z^n)-n\epsilon_1 \\ \stackrel{(b)}{\geq}& nR_1 + nH(Z|X) - nH(Z)-n\epsilon_1 \\ \stackrel{(c)}{\geq}& H(M_{1s}, M_{ks}) -n\delta(\epsilon), \end{align*} where $(a)$ follows as $H(X^n|M_{1s}, M_{ks}, Z^n)\leq n\epsilon_1$ due to Fano's inequality and that the eavesdropper can decode $X^n$ reliably by using typical set decoder, given $(M_{ks}, M_{1s}, Z^n);$ $(b)$ is due to the fact that $H(X^n)=nR_1$; $H(Z^n|X^n)=nH(Z|X)$ since the channel is memoryless; and $H(Z^n)=\sum_{i=1}^n H(Z_i|Z_1^{i-1})\leq \sum_{i=1}^n H(Z_i)=nH(Z);$ $(c)$ follows that $H(M_{1s}, M_{ks})=nR_{1s}+n(R_2-I(X;Z)+\epsilon)=nR_{1}-nI(X;Z)+n\epsilon$ and $\delta(\epsilon)=\epsilon_1+\epsilon.$ Above inequality implies $I(M_{1s};Z^n)\leq n\delta(\epsilon)$. Besides, due to Markov chain $M_{1k}\to (M_k, M_{1s}) \to Z^n,$ we can bound $I(M_{1k};Z^n|M_{1s})\leq I(M_{1k};Z^n,M_{1s},M_k) = I(M_{1k};M_k, M_{1s})=0.$ Therefore, we obtain \begin{equation*} I(M_1;Z^n)=I(M_{1s};Z^n)+I(M_{1k};Z^n|M_{1s})\leq n\delta(\epsilon). \end{equation*} This concludes the proof of the individual secrecy. {\em Achievable rate region:} Combining the sufficient conditions for reliable transmission to both receivers, i.e., \eqref{eqn: SC coding cond1} and \eqref{eqn: SC coding cond2}, and the condition for individual secrecy, i.e., \eqref{eqn: SC coding cond3}, we obtain \begin{align*} I(X;Z)\leq & R_2 \leq I(X;Y_2)\\ R_2\leq & R_1\leq I(X;Y_1), \end{align*} as the achievable rate region for the case $R_2\leq R_1.$ Furthermore, one can apply a similar proof to establish the rate region for the case $R_2>R_1.$ Putting them together completes the proof of the proposition. \end{IEEEproof} \begin{figure} \centering \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1] \begin{axis}[ xlabel={$\mathbf{R_{1}}$}, ylabel={$\mathbf{R_{2}}$}, xtick=\empty,ytick=\empty, xmin=0,xmax=5, ymin=0,ymax=4, x=2cm,y=1.5cm, grid=major, extra y ticks={1,3,4},extra x ticks={0,1,4,5}, extra y tick labels={$I(X;Z)$, $I(X;Y_2)-I(X;Z)$, $I(X;Y_2)$},extra x tick labels={0, $I(X;Z)$, $I(X;Y_1)-I(X;Z)\quad\quad\quad\quad$, $I(X;Y_1)$}] \addplot[blue, fill=yellow!20, very thick, dotted] plot coordinates {(0.05, 0.05)(1, 1)(1, 3.95) (4.95, 3.95) (4.95, 1) (1,1)}; \addplot[blue, pattern=dots, pattern color=red!50, very thick, dotted] plot coordinates {(0.05, 0.05)(1, 1)(1, 3.95) (0.05, 3) (0.05, 0.05)}; \addplot[blue, pattern=soft crosshatch, pattern color=gray, very thick, dotted] plot coordinates {(0.05, 0.05)(1, 1)(4.95, 1) (4, 0.05) (0.05, 0.05)}; \addplot[blue, very thick] plot coordinates { (0.05, 0.05) (0.05, 3) (1, 3.95) (4.95, 3.95) (4.95, 1) (4, 0.05) (0.05, 0.05)}; \node (h) at (axis cs:3, 2.5) {Region \rom{1}}; \node (i) at (axis cs:2.5,0.5){Region \rom{3}}; \node (j) at (axis cs:0.5,2){Region \rom{2}}; \end{axis} \draw[->,color=black, semithick] (0,0) -- (11,0); \draw[->,color=black, semithick] (0,0) -- (0,7); \end{tikzpicture} \caption{Individual secrecy capacity region in case of a weak eavesdropper.} \label{fig:IndSec_more capable} \end{figure} \begin{theorem}\label{thm: Ind SC by secrecy coding} If the channel to the eavesdropper is degraded with respect to the channels to both legitimate receivers, then the individual secrecy capacity region is given by the union of the non-negative rate pairs $(R_1,R_2)$ satisfying \begin{align*} R_1& \leq \min\{I(X;Y_1)-I(X;Z)+R_2,\ I(X;Y_1)\};\\ R_2& \leq \min\{I(X;Y_2)-I(X;Z)+R_1,\ I(X;Y_2)\}, \end{align*} where the union is taken over $p(x).$ \end{theorem} \begin{IEEEproof} Under the degradedness condition, we have that $I(X;Z)\leq \min\{I(X;Y_1), I(X;Y_2)\}$ holds for any $p(x)$. Utilizing the scheme in Proposition~\ref{thm:Ach1}, Region \rom{1} in Fig.~\ref{fig:IndSec_more capable} is achievable. To show Region \rom{2} is achievable, one can employ secrecy coding \cite[Theorem 3]{Csisz'ar:Broadcast78} to achieve rate pairs $(R_1, R_2)$ such that $R_1=0$ and $R_2\leq I(X;Y_2)-I(X;Z).$ Then, applying time sharing with the left boundary rate pairs of Region \rom{1}, one obtains the remaining rate pairs of Region \rom{2}. A similar proof applies to establish the achievability of Region \rom{3}. The converse follows from the fact that the achievable region is equal to the intersection of upper bounds given in \cite[Theorem 1]{Kramer:Capacity07}, which is the capacity region of the BC-RSI without an external eavesdropper, and the upper bound given in Proposition \ref{lemma: upper bound}, which is a partial upper bound by applying the results for wiretap channel with shared key for one receiver (while ignoring the requirement of reliable and secure communication for the other). \end{IEEEproof} As shown in Fig. \ref{fig:IndSec_more capable}, the individual secrecy capacity region for a weak eavesdropper is a rectangle with missing corners. Due to the symmetric roles of receiver 1 and receiver 2, the rate region is bounded in a symmetric manner as well. But, unlike the case of a strong eavesdropper, for which the individual secrecy capacity region is given in Fig. \ref{fig:IndSec_strong eavesdropper}, asymmetric rate pairs are possible. Note that both receivers could benefit from each other due to the possession of the message of the other as side information. On one hand, higher rate for one receiver indicates more side information for the other. As a result, there is no loss in the high rate pair region (i.e., $R_1, R_2\geq I(X;Z)$), compared to \cite[Theorem 1]{Kramer:Capacity07} which gives the capacity region of the BC-RSI without any secrecy constraints. That is, individual secrecy to each legitimate receiver is offered for free in high rate region. On the other hand, lower rate for one receiver implies less side information for the other. In this case, the side information might be insufficient to facilitate the secure communication of the other message at a high transmission rate and additional randomness might be necessary. This results in a loss in the rate region, i.e., the missing corners. Another interesting observation is that, for communication under individual secrecy constraint, one may not claim that if $(R_1,R_2)$ is achievable, then $(R_1-c_1,R_2-c_2)$ is achievable for any $c_1\leq R_1,c_2\leq R_2$. This follows as the individual secrecy rates are \emph{coupled} in the BC-RSI setting. \subsection{Superposition coding}\label{subsec: superposition} It is well-known that superposition coding is optimal for a degraded broadcast channel where $X\to Y_1\to Y_2$ forms a Markov chain, wherein one can transmit a cloud center to the weak receiver and both the cloud center and satellite codewords to the strong receiver~\cite{ElGamal:2012}. For the BC-RSI model, we consider utilizing the one-time pad signal as the cloud center and additional information on both messages being carried in the satellite codeword. This approach generalizes the aforementioned secret key approach and the combined secret key and secrecy coding approach, and thus achieves the optimality for stronger and weaker eavesdropper scenarios. In the following, we first provide the corresponding achievability region and then discuss the details of the proposed scheme together with the special cases. \begin{theorem}\label{pro: superposition} The individual secrecy rate region for the BC-RSI with an external eavesdropper is achievable for the set of the non-negative rate pairs $(R_1, R_2)$ such that \begin{align}\label{eqn: superp SR} \begin{split} R_1 &\leq \min\{I(V;Y_1), \ \ I(V;Y_1|U)-I(V;Z|U)+R_2\};\\ R_2 &\leq \min\{I(V;Y_2), \ \ I(V;Y_2|U)-I(V;Z|U)+R_1\}. \end{split} \end{align} over all $p(u)p(v|u)p(x|v)$ subject to $I(V;Y_i|U)\geq I(V;Z|U)$ for $i=1,2.$ \end{theorem} \begin{IEEEproof} The proof is given in Appendix~\ref{sec:AppSuperposition}. \end{IEEEproof} The coding approach we develop here utilizes \emph{cloud centers}, i.e., the $U^n$ codewords, to carry a one-time pad signal constructed from parts of the messages. In particular, the message intended for receiver $i$ is splitted into $M_i=(M_{ik},M_{isk},M_{is})$, and the one-time pad signal carried by $u^n(m_k)$ is constructed as $M_k=M_{1k}\oplus M_{2k}$. This cloud center is designed to be decodable at both receivers, which then extract their desired messages utilizing the corresponding side information available. In addition, the code design utilizes \emph{satellite codewords}, i.e., the $V^n$ codewords, that are not only superimposed on the cloud centers but also carry additional information represented as $(M_{sk},M_{1s},M_{2s},M_{r})$. Here, $M_{sk}$ is an additional one-time pad signal injected into $V^n$, and given by $M_{sk}=M_{1sk}\oplus M_{2sk}$, and $M_{r}$ is additional randomness. We remark that both $M_{sk}$ and $M_{r}$ serve as randomness to confuse the eavesdropper in this scheme, in order to achieve secrecy of $(M_{1s},M_{2s})$. An interesting aspect of our superposition coding approach lies in the role of one-time pad signals. On one hand, one-time pad signal is utilized as the message of the cloud centers (i.e., $M_k$). On the other hand, it is also utilized as a part of randomization within the satellite codewords (i.e., $M_{sk}$). In other words, the coding scheme takes advantage of the rate splitting of one-time pad signals, in order to serve for these two distinct purposes. One may wonder, whether further rate splitting helps to improve the current region or not. For instance, split $M_i$ into $M_i=(M_{ik},M_{isk},M_{is},M_{im}),$ with an additional layer in the coding scheme, say $T^n$ which carries information on $M_{im}$ that is secured by employing secrecy coding. Interestingly, the answer is no if still using superposition coding. For a detailed proof of this, one can refer to Appendix \ref{sec:App_Superposition_Rate Splitting}. However, if combining with Marton's coding, further rate splitting may improve the achievable rate region as we demonstrate in Section \ref{sec: Marton's coding}. Furthermore, we have the following observations: \begin{itemize} \item Setting $Y_2=\emptyset,$ the region coincides with the secrecy capacity region of the wiretap channel \cite{Csisz'ar:Broadcast78}; \item Letting $U=\emptyset$ and $R_k=R_{sk}=0$ in the proof as given in Appendix~\ref{sec:AppSuperposition} and applying Fourier-Motzkin procedure, an achievable region under the joint secrecy constraint (follows from the secrecy proof in Appendix~\ref{sec:AppSuperposition}) can be obtained. And this region (i.e., \eqref{eqn: JoS Superposition}) coincides with the one established in \cite{Wyrembelski:Secrecy11}. \item Superposition coding remains optimal in the following cases. \begin{enumerate} \item A {\em strong} eavesdropper, where the eavesdropper's channel is {\em less noisy} than both of the legitimate receivers. In this case, the individual secrecy capacity as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:IndSec_strong eavesdropper}, can be achieved by taking $U=V=X,$ whereby the superposition coding reduces to the secret key approach. (See Theorem~\ref{thm: secret key CS}.) \item A {\em weak} eavesdropper, where both of the legitimate receivers channels are {\em less noisy} than the one to the eavesdropper. In this case, the individual secrecy capacity is as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:IndSec_more capable}. Here, the left boundary rate pairs of Region \rom{2} in Fig. \ref{fig:IndSec_more capable} can be achieved by taking $R_2=0,$ whereby the superposition coding reduces to the secrecy coding approach as proposed in \cite{src:Wyner1975, Csisz'ar:Broadcast78}. Similarly, the bottom boundary rate pairs of Region \rom{3} in Fig. \ref{fig:IndSec_more capable} can be achieved by taking $R_1=0.$ Region \rom{1} in Fig. \ref{fig:IndSec_more capable} can be achieved by taking $U=\emptyset$ and $V=X$, whereby the superposition coding reduces to the combined secret key and secrecy coding as given in Section \ref{sec: secrecy coding}. These achievable points together with their time sharing provide the individual secrecy capacity region as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:IndSec_more capable}. \item If the eavesdropper's channel is {\em deterministic} in the manner that $Z$ is a function of $X,$ superposition coding is optimal for achieving individual secrecy capacity as we demonstrate in the Theorem \ref{thm: deterministic Z IndS}. \end{enumerate} \end{itemize} \begin{theorem}\label{thm: deterministic Z IndS} For the BC-RSI channel with an external eavesdropper, if the eavesdropper's channel is {\em deterministic} in the manner that $Z$ is a function of $X$, then the individual secrecy capacity region is given by the convex hull of the non-negative rate pairs $(R_1, R_2)$ satisfying \begin{align}\label{eqn: deter Z IndS region} \begin{split} R_1 &\leq \min\{I(X; Y_1), \ \ I(X; Y_1|Z)+R_2\},\\ R_2 &\leq \min\{I(X; Y_2), \ \ I(X; Y_2|Z)+R_1\}. \end{split} \end{align} \end{theorem} \begin{IEEEproof} The achievability is obtained by taking $U=Z$ and $V=X$ in \eqref{eqn: superp SR}. The proof of the converse is given in Appendix \ref{app: Proof of Converse for deterministic BC-RSI with an eavesdropper}. \end{IEEEproof} In particular, if $Y_1, Y_2$ and $Z$ are all functions of $X,$ the above corollary simplifies to the following: \begin{corollary}\label{cor: deterministic IndS} If the BC-RSI channel with an external eavesdropper is {\em deterministic} in the manner that $Z$, $Y_1$, and $Y_2$ are deterministic functions of $X$, then the individual secrecy capacity region is given by the convex hull of the non-negative rate pairs $(R_1, R_2)$ satisfying \begin{align}\label{eqn: deter-IndS region} \begin{split} R_1 &\leq \min\{H(Y_1), \ \ H(Y_1|Z)+R_2\},\\ R_2 &\leq \min\{H(Y_2), \ \ H(Y_2|Z)+R_1\}. \end{split} \end{align} \end{corollary} \begin{remark} Note that the {\em deterministic} BC is a more general model than the {\em linear deterministic} BC model discussed in Section \ref{sec:deterministic}. As a direct consequence, Theorem \ref{thm: IndS linear deterministic} can be regarded as a special case of Corollary \ref{cor: deterministic IndS}. \end{remark} The region given in Theorem~\ref{pro: superposition} fails to achieve any positive rates if the condition $I(V;Y_i|U)\geq I(V;Z|U)$ is not satisfied for either $i=1$ or $i=2$. For instance, when $I(V;Y_1|U)>I(V;Z|U)>I(V;Y_2|U)$ for a given input probability distribution, the requirement of decoding randomness (in $V^n$ codewords) at the second receiver becomes excessive. To resolve this problem, we develop a Marton's coding approach in the following section, where we further introduce two individual satellite codewords $(V_1^n, V_2^n)$, and require $V_i^n$ to be decoded only at receiver $i$. This allows us to get a larger rate region for the \emph{mixed} scenarios where the eavesdropper is stronger than one legitimate receiver but weaker than the other one. \subsection{Marton's coding} \label{sec: Marton's coding} Although superposition coding demonstrates its optimality for some broadcast channels wherein one receiver is stronger than the other, it is not optimal in general. In fact, for broadcast channels, Marton's coding can outperform superposition coding by not requiring either receiver to recover both messages (for broadcast channels without any secrecy constraints) \cite{ElGamal:2012}. In the following, we consider achieving the indivudual secrey of the BC-RSI model, by utilizing the one-time pad signal as the cloud center, further information on both messages being carried in the satellite codewords, and additional information on each messages being conveyed in individual satellite codewords. This coding scheme is built on the previous superposition coding scheme but with one more layer that employs Marton's coding. As a direct result, it generalizes the rate region established by superpostion coding. Moreover, we provide a special case under which this Marton's coding approach outperforms the aforementioned superposition approach (the region given in Theorem~\ref{pro: superposition}). \begin{theorem}\label{thm: Oma Marton} The individual secrecy rate region for the BC-RSI with an external eavesdropper is achievable for the set of the non-negative rate pairs $(R_1, R_2)$ such that \begin{align}\label{eqn: Oma Marton IndS region} \begin{split} R_1 \leq & I(V_0, V_1; Y_1|U)-I(V_0,V_1;Z|U)+\min\{R_2, \ I(U;Y_1)+I(V_0;Z|U)\};\\ R_2 \leq & I(V_0, V_2; Y_2|U)-I(V_0,V_2;Z|U)+\min\{R_1, \ I(U;Y_2)+I(V_0;Z|U)\}, \end{split} \end{align} over any $p(u,v_0,v_1,v_2,x)=p(u)p(v_0|u)p(v_1,v_2|v_0)p(x|v_1,v_2)$ subject to $I(V_1;V_2|V_0) \leq I(V_1;Z|V_0)+I(V_2;Z|V_0)-I(V_1,V_2;Z|V_0),$ $I(V_i;Y_i|V_0) \geq I(V_i;Z|V_0)$ and $I(V_0, V_i;Y_i|U) \geq I(V_0, V_i;Z|U)$ for $i=1,2.$ \end{theorem} \begin{IEEEproof} The proof is given in Appendix~\ref{sec:App_Oma Marton}. \end{IEEEproof} The coding approach we develop here is built on the superposition coding which is discussed in Section \ref{subsec: superposition}, but with one additional coding layer that employs Marton's coding. That is, we split $M_i$ into $M_i=(M_{ik},M_{isk},M_{iss},M_{ism}),$ for $i=1,2,$ where $M_{ik}, M_{isk}, M_{iss}$ are encoded into $U^n, V_0^n$ codewords in the same way as by the superposition coding; while information on $M_{1sm}, M_{2sm}$ are carried by individual satellite codewords $V_1^n, V_2^n,$ respectively, via Marton's coding. Note that the secrecy of $M_{1sm}, M_{2sm}$ is ensured by additional randomness with the spirit of secrecy coding approach \cite{src:Wyner1975, Csisz'ar:Broadcast78}. As reflected in the obtained region in \eqref{eqn: Oma Marton IndS region}, for legitimate receiver $i$, part of the message, i.e., $(M_{ik},M_{isk}),$ is secured via one-time pad; while the other part, i.e., $(M_{iss},M_{ism}),$ is secured via secrecy coding. More specifically, for receiver 1, on one hand, $(M_{1k},M_{1sk})$ is secured via one-time pad (with key rate $R_2$) in the underneath superposition coding structure (at most $I(U;Y_i)$ bits in the cloud center $U^n$ and at most $I(V_0;Z|U)$ bits as randomness in the satellite codeword $V_0^n$). Thus, in total at most $\min \{R_2, \ I(U;Y_1)+I(V_0;Z|U)\}$ bits can be secured via one-time pad. On the other hand, $M_{1ss},M_{1sm}$ are secured via secrecy coding in $V_0^n$ and $V_1^n,$ respectively, which in total contribute $I(V_0, V_1; Y_1|U)-I(V_0,V_1;Z|U)$ secret bits. Furthermore, we have the following observations: \begin{itemize} \item Letting $U=\emptyset$ and $R_k=R_{sk}=0$ in the proof as given in Appendix~\ref{sec:App_Oma Marton} and applying Fourier-Motzkin procedure, an achievable region under the joint secrecy constraint (follows from the secrecy proof in Appendix~\ref{sec:App_Oma Marton}) can be obtained. And this region (i.e., \eqref{eqn: JoS Marton}) improves the one given in \eqref{eqn: JoS Superposition} which coincides with the one established in \cite{Wyrembelski:Secrecy11}. \item If we set $V_1=V_2=V_0$, it reduces to the superposition coding approach and achieves the rate region in \eqref{eqn: superp SR} as given in Theorem~\ref{pro: superposition}. \item For the case where the eavesdropper's channel is less noisy than one legitimate receiver, but more noisy than the other, (e.g.: $Z$ is less noisy than $Y_2$, if $I(U;Z)\geq I(U;Y_2)$ for all $p(u)$ such that $U\to X \to (Y_2, Z)$ \cite{ElGamal:2012}), Marton's coding approach gives an achievable rate region by setting $U=V_0=V_2$ in \eqref{eqn: Oma Marton IndS region} as provided below. \end{itemize} \begin{corollary} For the BC-RSI with an external eavesdropper, if $Z$ is less noisy than $Y_2$, then an achievable individual secrecy rate region is given by the union of non-negative rate pairs $(R_1,R_2)$ satisfying \begin{align}\label{eqn: region Y1Z2 R_{sk}=0} \begin{split} R_1& \leq I(V_1;Y_1|U)-I(V_1;Z|U)+R_2;\\ R_2& \leq \min\{I(U;Y_2), R_1\}, \end{split} \end{align} where the union is taken over $p(u)p(v_1|u)p(x|v_1,u).$ \end{corollary} We recall that superposition coding is optimal in cases of either a {\em strong} or {\em weak} eavesdropper (compared to both legitimate receivers). However, in the {\em mixed} case, where the eavesdropper's channel is less noisy than one legitimate receiver, but more noisy than the other, superposition coding is no longer optimal. For instance, consider the case where $Z$ is strictly less noisy than $Y_2$, i.e., $I(V;Z)>I(V;Y_2)$ for any $p(v)$ s.t. $V\to X \to (Y_2,Z).$ In order to apply superposition coding, one has to set $V=U$ to satisfy the condition that $I(V;Y_2|U)\geq I(V;Z|U)$ given in \eqref{eqn: superp SR} in Theorem~\ref{pro: superposition}. Therefore, the region in \eqref{eqn: superp SR} reduces to the set of the non-negative rate pairs $(R_1, R_2)$ such that \begin{align} \begin{split}\label{eqn: SS region Y1Z2 R_{sk}=0} R_1 &\leq R_2;\\ R_2 &\leq \min\{I(U;Y_2), R_1\}. \end{split} \end{align} Compare the obtained region in \eqref{eqn: SS region Y1Z2 R_{sk}=0} by superposition coding with the one in \eqref{eqn: region Y1Z2 R_{sk}=0} by Marton's coding. It is easy to see that the Marton's coding outperforms in this case by not requiring the decoding of the corresponding individual satellite codeword at the weak receiver. \subsection{Joint secrecy rate region for BC-RSI with an external eavesdropper} As a by-product, achievable joint secrecy rate regions can be obtained by letting $U=\emptyset$ and $R_k=R_{sk}=0$ in the superposition coding approach and Marton's coding approach proposed in previous subsections, which validity follows from the secrecy proof in Appendix~\ref{sec:AppSuperposition} for superposition coding; and the secrecy proof in Appendix~\ref{sec:App_Oma Marton} for Marton's coding, respectively. Note that the achievable joint secrecy rate region by Marton's coding, i.e., \eqref{eqn: JoS Marton}, is derived with the addition of a time-sharing random variable $Q.$ \begin{corollary} \label{Col: JoS Superposition} (Achievable joint secrecy rate region by superposition coding) For BC-RSI with an external eavesdropper, an achievable region under the joint secrecy constraint can be obtained by superposition coding as the set of the non-negative rate pairs $(R_1, R_2)$ such that \begin{align}\label{eqn: JoS Superposition} \begin{split} R_1& \leq I(V;Y_1)-I(V;Z)\\ R_2& \leq I(V;Y_2)-I(V;Z) \end{split} \end{align} where $V\to X\to (Y_1, Y_2, Z)$ forms a Markov chain such that $I(V;Y_i)\geq I(V;Z)$ holds for $i=1,2.$ \end{corollary} \begin{corollary} \label{Col: JoS Marton} (Achievable joint secrecy rate region by Marton's coding) For BC-RSI with an external eavesdropper, an achievable region under the joint secrecy constraint can be obtained by Marton's coding as the set of the non-negative rate pairs $(R_1, R_2)$ such that \begin{align}\label{eqn: JoS Marton} \begin{split} R_1& \leq I(V_0, V_1;Y_1|Q)-I(V_0, V_1;Z|Q)\\ R_2& \leq I(V_0, V_2;Y_2|Q)-I(V_0, V_2;Z|Q)\\ R_1+R_2& \leq I(V_0, V_1;Y_1|Q)+I(V_0, V_2;Y_2|Q)-2I(V_0;Z|Q)-I(V_1;V_2|V_0, Q) \end{split} \end{align} over any $p(q, v_0,v_1,v_2,x)=p(q)p(v_0|q)p(v_1,v_2|v_0)p(x|v_1,v_2)$ subject to $I(V_1, V_2;Z|V_0)\leq I(V_1;Z|V_0)+I(V_2;Z|V_0)-I(V_1;V_2|V_0)$ and $I(V_i;Z|V_0)\leq I(V_i;Y_i|V_0)$ for $i=1,2.$ \end{corollary} \begin{remark} The region by superposition coding given in \eqref{eqn: JoS Superposition} coincides with the one established in \cite{Wyrembelski:Secrecy11}. Note that \eqref{eqn: JoS Superposition} is included in \eqref{eqn: JoS Marton}, i.e., the region by Marton's coding, as a special case of \eqref{eqn: JoS Marton} by taking $V_1=V_2=V_0.$ \end{remark} \section{Gaussian BC-RSI} \label{sec:gaussian} In this section, we consider Gaussian broadcast channel with receiver side information (Gaussian BC-RSI) as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:gaussian}. It is known that one can apply the discretization procedure \cite{ElGamal:2012} to extend the coding schemes for finite alphabet channels to their Gaussian counterpart. Using this technique, we obtain an achievable individual secrecy rate region for the Gaussian BC-RSI. Furthermore, we derive an outer bound to the secrecy capacity region, and, show that, in the high SNR regime, one can approach the individual secrecy capacity region for the Gaussian BC-RSI by employing the superposition coding. This observation is consistent with the results suggested by the linear deterministic approach analyzed in Section \ref{sec:deterministic}. \begin{figure} \centering \begin{tikzpicture}[semithick, >=latex',scale=0.8, every node/.style={transform shape}] \begin{scope}[local bounding box=tx] \node (enc) at (1.5,0) [transmitter_block] {Transmitter}; \end{scope} \begin{scope}[local bounding box=Receiver 1] \node (dec1) at (8.5,0.7) [receiver_block] {Receiver 1}; \end{scope} \begin{scope}[local bounding box=Receiver 2] \node (dec2) at (8.5,-0.7) [receiver_block] {Receiver 2}; \end{scope} \begin{scope}[local bounding box=Eavesdropper] \node (eve) at (8.5,-3.5) [receiver_block] {Eavesdropper}; \end{scope} \begin{scope}[local bounding box=channel] \node (dot1) at (4,0) [dot] {}; \node (add1) at (5.5, 0.7) [mul] {$+$}; \node (noise1) at (5.5, 1.7) {$N_1^n$}; \node (add2) at (5.5,-0.7) [mul] {$+$}; \node (noise2) at (5.5,-1.7) {$N_2^n$}; \node (add3) at (5.5,-3.5) [mul] {$+$}; \node (noise3) at (5.5,-2.5) {$N_e^n$}; \end{scope} \draw[->,thick] (enc) to node[above] {$X^n$} (dot1); \draw[->,thick] (noise1) to (add1); \draw[->,thick] (noise2) to (add2); \draw[->,thick] (noise3) to (add3); \draw[->,thick] (dot1) |- (add1); \draw[->,thick] (dot1) |- (add2); \draw[->,thick] (dot1) |- (add3); \begin{scope}[local bounding box=sideinfo1] \node (sidedec1) at (8.5,2.2) {$M_2$}; \end{scope} \begin{scope}[local bounding box=sideinfo2] \node (sidedec2) at (8.5,-2.2) {$M_1$}; \end{scope} \draw[->,thick] (add1) to node[above] {$Y_1^n$} (dec1); \draw[->,thick] (add2) to node[above] {$Y_2^n$} (dec2); \draw[->,thick] (sidedec1) to (dec1); \draw[->,thick] (sidedec2) to (dec2); \draw[->,thick] (add3) to node[above] {$Z^n$} (eve); \begin{scope}[local bounding box=message1] \node (mes1) at ([yshift=3ex, xshift=-2.5cm]enc) {$M_1$}; \end{scope} \begin{scope}[local bounding box=message2] \node (mes2) at ([yshift=-3ex, xshift=-2.5cm]enc) {$M_2$}; \end{scope} \path[->,thick] (mes1) edge ([yshift=3ex]enc.west); \path[->,thick] (mes2) edge ([yshift=-3ex]enc.west); \begin{scope}[local bounding box=decmessage1] \node (mess1out) at ([xshift=2.5cm]dec1) {$\hat{M}_1$}; \end{scope} \begin{scope}[local bounding box=decmessage2] \node (mess2out) at ([xshift=2.5cm]dec2) {$\hat{M}_2$}; \end{scope} \path[->,thick] (dec1.east) edge (mess1out); \path[->,thick] (dec2.east) edge (mess2out); \begin{scope}[local bounding box=evemessage] \node (eveOut) at ([xshift=2.5cm]eve) {?}; \end{scope} \draw[->,thick] (eve) to (eveOut); \begin{pgfonlayer}{background} \node [fill=yellow!25,fit=(channel),rounded corners] {}; \node [fill=blue!25,fit=(message1),rounded corners, scale=0.85] {}; \node [shape=diamond, fill=teal!25,fit=(message2),rounded corners, scale=0.6] {}; \node [fill=blue!25,fit=(decmessage1),rounded corners, scale=0.85] {}; \node [shape=diamond, fill=teal!25,fit=(decmessage2),rounded corners, scale=0.6] {}; \node [shape=diamond, fill=teal!25,fit=(sideinfo1),rounded corners, scale=0.6] {}; \node [fill=blue!25,fit=(sideinfo2),rounded corners, scale=0.85] {}; \node [shape=circle, fill=red!25,fit=(evemessage),rounded corners, scale=0.75] {}; \end{pgfonlayer} \end{tikzpicture} \caption{Gaussian BC-RSI with an external eavesdropper.} \label{fig:gaussian} \end{figure} Suppose ${X}$ is the channel input with a power constraint $P$ on it and the signals received by both receivers and the eavesdropper are \begin{align*} {Y}_1&={X}+{N}_{1};\\ {Y}_2&={X}+{N}_{2};\\ {Z}&={X}+{N}_{e}, \end{align*} where ${N}_{1}\sim \mathcal{N}(0, \sigma_1^2)$, ${N}_{2}\sim \mathcal{N}(0, \sigma_2^2)$ and ${N}_{e}\sim \mathcal{N}(0, \sigma_e^2)$ are additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) independent of ${X}$. According to the noise level in the channels to both receives and the eavesdropper, the overall channel can be regarded to be {\it stochastically} degraded in different orders. For simplicity, we only consider their corresponding {\it physically} degraded instances. The reason is that the same analysis can be easily extended to the stochastically degraded cases. So the following scenarios are of our interest (without loss of generality we assume $\sigma_1<\sigma_2$): \begin{enumerate} \item $\sigma_e^2\geq \sigma_2^2 \geq \sigma_1^2$, i.e., $X\to Y_1\to Y_2 \to Z$ forms a Markov chain, \item $\sigma_2^2\geq \sigma_1^2 \geq \sigma_e^2$, i.e., $X\to Z \to Y_1 \to Y_2$ forms a Markov chain, and \item $\sigma_2^2\geq \sigma_e^2 \geq \sigma_1^2$, i.e., $X\to Y_1 \to Z \to Y_2$ forms a Markov chain. \end{enumerate} The individual secrecy capacity of the first two cases can be easily derived by extending the results for discrete memoryless channel model to the Gaussian scenario. For the third case, we show in the following that we can approach the individual secrecy capacity region as $P\gg \sigma_e^2$ or $P\ll \sigma_1^2$. \subsection{An outer bound} \begin{proposition}\label{prop: Gaussian upper bound} An outer bound of the individual secrecy capacity region for the Gaussian BC-RSI when $X\to Y_1 \to Z \to Y_2$ forms a Markov chain is given by the set of the rate pairs $(R_{1}, R_{2})$ satisfying \begin{align*} R_{2}\leq & C\left(\frac{(1-\gamma\alpha)P}{\gamma\alpha P+\sigma_2^2}\right);\\ R_{2}\leq R_{1}\leq & C\left(\frac{\alpha P}{\sigma_1^2}\right)-C\left(\frac{\alpha P}{\sigma_e^2}\right)+R_2, \end{align*} for some $\alpha, \gamma\in [0,1],$ and $C(x)=\frac{1}{2}\log (1+x)$ is the Gaussian capacity function. \end{proposition} \begin{IEEEproof} We observe that \begin{align*} \frac{n}{2}\log 2\pi e \sigma_e^2 & =h(Z^n|X^n)=h(Z^n|M_1, M_2, X^n)\\ & \leq h(Z^n|M_1,M_2)\leq h(Z^n|M_2)\leq h(Z^n)\\%\stackrel{(a)}{=}h(Z^n|M_2)\stackrel{(a)}{=}h(Z^n)\\ & \stackrel{(a)}{\leq} \frac{n}{2}\log 2\pi e (P+\sigma_e^2), \end{align*} where $(a)$ is due to the fact that for a random variable with a fixed variance, Gaussian distribution maximizes the entropy. This shows that there exist $\alpha, \gamma\in [0,1],$ such that \begin{align} h(Z^n|M_2)&=\frac{n}{2}\log 2\pi e (\alpha P+\sigma_e^2); \label{eqn: alpha}\\ h(Z^n|M_1, M_2)&= \frac{n}{2}\log 2\pi e (\gamma\alpha P+\sigma_e^2). \label{eqn: gamma} \end{align} In particular, we have \begin{equation}\label{eqn: h(Z^n|M_1)} h(Z^n|M_1)= h(Z^n)-I(M_1;Z^n)\stackrel{(b)}{\geq}h(Z^n)-n\epsilon \geq h(Z^n|M_2)-n\epsilon=\frac{n}{2}\log 2\pi e (\alpha P+\sigma_e^2)-n\epsilon, \end{equation} where $(b)$ is due to the individual secrecy constraint. Similarly, we have \begin{align*} \frac{n}{2}\log 2\pi e \sigma_2^2 & =h(Y_2^n|X^n)=h(Y_2^n|M_1, M_2, X^n)\\ & \leq h(Y_2^n|M_1, M_2) \leq h(Y_2^n|M_1)\leq H(Y_2^n)\\ & \stackrel{(a)}{\leq} \frac{n}{2}\log 2\pi e (P+\sigma_2^2). \end{align*} There must exist a $\beta$ such that \begin{equation}\label{eqn: beta} h(Y_2^n|M_1, M_2)= \frac{n}{2}\log 2\pi e (\beta P+\sigma_2^2). \end{equation} Therefore, \begin{align} nR_2&= H(M_2)=H(M_2|M_1)\stackrel{(c)}{=}I(M_2;Y_2^n|M_1)+nO(\epsilon)\nonumber\\ &= h(Y_2^n|M_1)-h(Y_2^n|M_1, M_2)+nO(\epsilon)\nonumber\\ &\stackrel{(d)}{\leq} \frac{n}{2} \log \frac{P+\sigma_2^2}{\beta P+\sigma_2^2}+nO(\epsilon), \label{eqn: R_2 upper bound beta} \end{align} where $(c)$ is due to the Fano's inequality and $(d)$ is due to \eqref{eqn: beta}. Recall the Markov chain $(M_1, M_2)\to X^n\to Y_1^n\to Z^n \to Y_2^n.$ Applying the entropy power inequality (EPI) \cite{ElGamal:2012}, we obtain \begin{equation*} h(Y_2^n|M_1, M_2)\geq \frac{n}{2} \log \left[ 2^{\frac{2}{n} h(Z^n|M_1, M_2)} + 2\pi e (\sigma_2^2-\sigma_e^2)\right]. \end{equation*} Using \eqref{eqn: beta} here, we obtain \begin{equation*} h(Z^n|M_1, M_2)\leq \frac{n}{2} \log 2\pi e (\beta P+\sigma_e^2). \end{equation*} Comparing to \eqref{eqn: gamma} which gives that $h(Z^n|M_1, M_2)= \frac{n}{2}\log 2\pi e (\gamma\alpha P+\sigma_e^2),$ we have \begin{equation} \label{eqn: gamma alpha <= beta} \gamma\alpha\leq \beta. \end{equation} Recall \eqref{eqn: R_2 upper bound beta}, we have \begin{equation*} nR_2\leq \frac{n}{2} \log \frac{P+\sigma_2^2}{\beta P+\sigma_2^2}+nO(\epsilon) \leq \frac{n}{2} \log \frac{P+\sigma_2^2}{\gamma\alpha P+\sigma_2^2}+nO(\epsilon)=nC\left(\frac{(1-\gamma\alpha)P}{\gamma\alpha P+\sigma_2^2}\right)+nO(\epsilon). \end{equation*} Letting $\epsilon\to 0,$ we obtain \begin{equation}\label{eqn: Upper R_2} R_2\leq C\left(\frac{(1-\gamma\alpha)P}{\gamma\alpha P+\sigma_2^2}\right). \end{equation} Now we proceed to bound $R_1.$ First we show $R_1\geq R_2$ as follows. \allowdisplaybreaks \begin{align*} nR_1&= H(M_1)=H(M_1|M_2)\\ &\geq I(M_1;Y_1^n|M_2)\\ &= I(M_1;Y_1^n, Z^n|M_2)-I(M_1; Z^n|M_2, Y_1^n)\\ &\stackrel{(e)}{=} I(M_1; Z^n|M_2)+I(M_1; Y_1^n|M_2, Z^n)\\ &= h(Z^n|M_2)-h(Z^n|M_1, M_2)+I(M_1; Y_1^n|M_2, Z^n)\\ &\geq h(Z^n|M_2)-h(Z^n|M_1, M_2)\\ &\stackrel{(f)}{\geq} h(Z^n)-h(Z^n|M_1, M_2)-nO(\epsilon)\\ &\geq h(Z^n|M_1)-h(Z^n|M_1, M_2)-nO(\epsilon)\\ &= I(M_2;Z^n|M_1)-nO(\epsilon)\\ &\stackrel{(g)}{\geq}I(M_2;Y_2^n|M_1)-nO(\epsilon)\\ &= H(M_2|M_1)-H(M_2|M_1,Y_2^n)-nO(\epsilon)\\ &\stackrel{(h)}{\geq} nR_2-nO(\epsilon), \end{align*} where $(e)$ follows by the fact that $I(M_1; Z^n|M_2, Y_1^n)=0,$ which is implied by $I(M_1, M_2; Z^n|Y_1^n)=0$ due to the channel degradedness, i.e., the Markov chain $(M_1, M_2)\to X^n\to Y_1^n\to Z^n\to Y_2^n;$ $(f)$ is due to the individual secrecy constraint; and $(g)$ is due to the channel degradedness, i.e., $(M_1, M_2)\to X^n\to Y_1^n\to Z^n\to Y_2^n;$ $(h)$ is due to the Fano's inequality. Finally, letting $\epsilon\to 0,$ we obtain \begin{equation}\label{eqn: Upper R_1 low} R_1\geq R_2. \end{equation} On the other hand, we have \begin{align} nR_1&= H(M_1)=H(M_1|M_2)\nonumber\\ &\stackrel{(i)}{\leq}I(M_1;Y_1^n|M_2)+nO(\epsilon)\nonumber\\ &= I(M_1;Y_1^n, Z^n|M_2)-I(M_1; Z^n|M_2, Y_1^n)+nO(\epsilon)\nonumber\\ &\stackrel{(j)}{=} I(M_1; Z^n|M_2)+I(M_1; Y_1^n|M_2, Z^n)+nO(\epsilon)\nonumber\\ &= h(Z^n|M_2)-h(Z^n|M_1, M_2)+I(M_1; Y_1^n|M_2, Z^n)+nO(\epsilon),\label{eqn: R_1 step 1} \end{align} where $(i)$ is due to the Fano's inequality and $(j)$ is due to the channel degradedness. Note that \begin{align} I(M_1; Y_1^n|M_2, Z^n) &=h(Y_1^n|M_2, Z^n)-h(Y_1^n|M_1, M_2, Z^n)\nonumber\\ &\leq h(Y_1^n|M_2, Z^n)-h(Y_1^n|M_1, M_2, X^n, Z^n)\nonumber\\ &= h(Y_1^n|M_2, Z^n)-h(Y_1^n|X^n, Z^n)\nonumber\\ &= h(Y_1^n, Z^n|M_2)-h(Z^n|M_2)-h(Y_1^n|X^n, Z^n)\nonumber\\ &\stackrel{(k)}{=} h(Y_1^n|M_2)+h(Z^n|Y_1^n)-h(Z^n|M_2)-h(Y_1^n, Z^n|X^n)+h(Z^n|X^n)\nonumber\\ &\stackrel{(k)}{=} h(Y_1^n|M_2)+h(Z^n|Y_1^n)-h(Z^n|M_2)-h(Y_1^n|X^n)-h(Z^n|Y_1^n)+h(Z^n|X^n)\nonumber\\ &= h(Y_1^n|M_2)-h(Z^n|M_2)-h(Y_1^n|X^n)+h(Z^n|X^n), \label{eqn: R_1 step 2} \end{align} where $(k)$ follows by the fact that $h(Z^n|M_2, Y_1^n)=h(Z^n|Y_1^n)$ and $h(Z^n|X^n, Y_1^n)=h(Z^n|Y_1^n)$ due to the Markov chain $(M_1, M_2)\to X^n\to Y_1^n\to Z^n.$ Recall the Markov chain $(M_1, M_2)\to X^n\to Y_1^n\to Z^n \to Y_2^n.$ We apply the EPI and obtain \begin{equation*} h(Z^n|M_2)\geq \frac{n}{2} \log \left[ 2^{\frac{n}{2} h(Y_1^n|M_2)} + 2\pi e (\sigma_e^2-\sigma_1^2)\right]. \end{equation*} In addition to \eqref{eqn: alpha} which gives that $h(Z^n|M_2)=\frac{n}{2}\log 2\pi e (\alpha P+\sigma_e^2),$ we have \begin{equation} h(Y_1^n|M_2)\leq \frac{n}{2} \log 2\pi e (\alpha P+\sigma_1^2). \label{eqn: h(Y_1^n|M_2)} \end{equation} Combining \eqref{eqn: R_1 step 1} and \eqref{eqn: R_1 step 2}, we have \begin{align*} nR_1 &\leq h(Z^n|M_2)-h(Z^n|M_1, M_2)+I(M_1; Y_1^n|M_2, Z^n)\\ &\leq h(Y_1^n|M_2)-h(Z^n|M_1, M_2)-h(Y_1^n|X^n)+h(Z^n|X^n)\\ & = h(Z^n|M_1)-h(Z^n|M_1, M_2)+h(Y_1^n|M_2)-h(Z^n|M_1)-h(Y_1^n|X^n)+h(Z^n|X^n)\\ &= I(M_2;Z^n|M_1)+h(Y_1^n|M_2)-h(Z^n|M_1)-h(Y_1^n|X^n)+h(Z^n|X^n)\\ &\stackrel{(l)}{\leq} nR_2+h(Y_1^n|M_2)-h(Z^n|M_1)-h(Y_1^n|X^n)+h(Z^n|X^n)\\ &= nR_2+h(Y_1^n|M_2)-h(Z^n|M_1)-h(N_1^n)+h(N_e^n)\\ &\stackrel{(m)}{\leq} nR_2+\frac{n}{2} \log \frac{(\alpha P+\sigma_1^2)\sigma_e^2}{(\alpha P+\sigma_e^2)\sigma_1^2}+nO(\epsilon)\\ &=nR_2+nC\left(\frac{\alpha P}{\sigma_1^2}\right)-nC\left(\frac{\alpha P}{\sigma_e^2}\right)+nO(\epsilon), \end{align*} where $(l)$ is due to the fact that $I(M_2;Z^n|M_1)\leq H(M_2)=nR_2;$ and $(m)$ is due to \eqref{eqn: h(Z^n|M_1)} and \eqref{eqn: h(Y_1^n|M_2)}. Finally, letting $\epsilon\to 0$, we have \begin{equation}\label{eqn: Upper R_1 up} R_1\leq C\left(\frac{\alpha P}{\sigma_1^2}\right)-\left(\frac{\alpha P}{\sigma_e^2}\right)+R_2. \end{equation} Combining \eqref{eqn: Upper R_2}, \eqref{eqn: Upper R_1 low}, and \eqref{eqn: Upper R_1 up} establishes the outer bound. \end{IEEEproof} \begin{remark} Interestingly, $\gamma=1$ corresponds to the joint secrecy constraint, since $\gamma=1$ implies that $h(Z^n|M_1, M_2)=h(Z^n)$ according to \eqref{eqn: gamma}. However, in case of $(M_1, M_2)\to Y_1^n\to Z^n\to Y_2^n,$ we have $$nR_2=H(M_2)=I(M_2;Y_2^n|M_1)\leq I(M_1, M_2; Y_2^n)\leq I(M_1, M_2; Y_2^n, Z^n)=I(M_1, M_2; Z^n)=0$$ under joint secrecy constraint. That is, only positive $R_1$ is possible. And, $R_1\leq C\left({P}/{\sigma_1^2}\right)-C\left({P}/{\sigma_e^2}\right)$ is obtained by taking $\alpha=1$ via Wyner's secrecy coding. \end{remark} \subsection{An inner bound} \begin{proposition} \label{prop: Gaussian lower bound} An inner bound of the individual secrecy capacity region for the Gaussian BC-RSI when $X\to Y_1 \to Z \to Y_2$ forms a Markov chain is given by the set of the rate pairs $(R_{1}, R_{2})$ satisfying \begin{align*} R_{2}\leq & C\left(\frac{(1-\gamma\alpha)P}{\gamma\alpha P+\sigma_2^2}\right);\\ R_{2}\leq R_{1}\leq & C\left(\frac{\gamma\alpha P}{\sigma_1^2}\right)-C\left(\frac{\gamma\alpha P}{\sigma_e^2}\right)+R_2, \end{align*} where $\alpha, \gamma\in[0,1].$ \end{proposition} \begin{IEEEproof} For a fixed pair $\alpha, \gamma\in[0,1],$ one can derive an inner bound of $(R_{1}, R_{2})$ by applying superposition coding as described in the following. {\em Codebook generation}: Randomly and independently generate $2^{nR_2}$ sequences $u^n(k),$ $k\in [1: 2^{nR_2}],$ each i.i.d. $\mathcal{N}(0, (1-\gamma\alpha)P);$ and $2^{n(R_1-R_2+R_r)}$ sequences $v^n(s, r),$ $(s,r)\in [1:2^{n(R_1-R_2)}]\times [1: 2^{nR_r}],$ each i.i.d. $\mathcal{N}(0, \gamma\alpha P).$ {\em Encoding}: To send the message pair $(m_1, m_2)$ with $m_1=(m_{1k}, m_{1s}),$ where $m_{1k}$ is of the same length as $m_2,$ the encoder encapsulates $m_{1k}$ and $m_2$ in $m_k$ with $m_k\triangleq m_{1k}\oplus m_2,$ randomly chooses $r\in [1: 2^{nR_r}],$ and transmits $x^n(m_1, m_2)=u^n(m_{k})+v^n(m_{1s}, r).$ {\em Decoding}: Receiver 2 decodes $m_k$ from $y_2^n=u^n(m_{k})+(v^n(m_{1s}, r)+n_2^n)$ while treating $v^n(m_{1s}, r)$ as noise, and further recovers $m_2$ with his knowledge of $m_{1}$. The probability of decoding error tends to zero as $n\to \infty$ if $R_2\leq C\left(\frac{(1-\gamma\alpha)P}{\gamma\alpha P+\sigma_2^2}\right).$ Receiver 1 uses successive cancellation. It first decodes $m_k$ from $y_1^n=u^n(m_{k})+(v^n(m_{1s}, r)+n_1^n)$ while treating $v^n(m_{1s}, r)$ as noise, and recovers part of $m_1,$ i.e., $m_{1k},$ with the knowledge of $m_2.$ The probability of this decoding error tends to zero as $n\to \infty$ if $R_2\leq C\left(\frac{(1-\gamma\alpha)P}{\gamma\alpha P+\sigma_2^2}\right),$ since it implies that $R_2\leq C\left(\frac{(1-\gamma\alpha)P}{\gamma\alpha P+\sigma_1^2}\right)$ due to the fact that $\sigma_1^2\leq \sigma_2^2.$ (This implies that $R_2\leq R_1.$) Then, it subtracts off $u^n(m_{k})$ and decodes $v^n(m_{1s}, r)+n_1^n$ to recover $(m_{1s}, r)$ and thus $m_{1s},$ i.e., the rest of $m_1.$ The probability of this decoding error tends to zero as $n\to \infty$ if $R_1-R_2+R_r\leq C\left(\frac{\gamma\alpha P}{\sigma_1^2}\right).$ {\em Secrecy}: The eavesdropper could decode $m_k$ from $z^n=u^n(m_{k})+(v^n(m_{1s}, r)+n_e^n).$ However, $m_k$ does not disclose any information about $m_{1s}$ and $m_2,$ individually. Subtracting off $u^n(m_{k})$ from $z^n,$ the eavesdropper gets a better observation $v^n(m_{1s}, r)+n_e^n,$ which actually does not help to recover $m_{1s}$ if $R_r\approx C\left(\frac{\gamma\alpha P}{\sigma_e^2}\right)$. In other words, the secrecy of $m_{1s}$ is guaranteed by the embedded secrecy coding in the choice of $v^n.$ The individual secrecy for $m_1$ then follows from an analysis similar to the previous sections. As a conclusion, $(R_1, R_2)$ is achievable under the individual secrecy constraints, once $R_1, R_2, R_r$ satisfy \begin{align*} R_2 & \leq C\left(\frac{(1-\gamma\alpha)P}{\gamma\alpha P+\sigma_2^2}\right);\\ R_1-R_2+R_r& \leq C\left(\frac{\gamma\alpha P}{\sigma_1^2}\right);\\ R_r& \approx C\left(\frac{\gamma\alpha P}{\sigma_e^2}\right). \end{align*} Eliminating $R_{r}$, we get the desired region of $(R_1, R_2),$ which concludes our proof of achievability. \end{IEEEproof} \subsection{Individual secrecy capacity region} \begin{proposition} When $\sigma_2^2\geq \sigma_e^2\geq \sigma_1^2,$ and $P\gg \sigma_2^2$ or $P\ll \sigma_1^2,$ the individual secrecy capacity region for the Gaussian BC-RSI is given as the set of $(R_1, R_2)$ satisfying \begin{align*} R_{2}\leq & C\left(\frac{(1-\gamma\alpha)P}{\gamma\alpha P+\sigma_2^2}\right);\\ R_{1}\leq & C\left(\frac{\gamma\alpha P}{\sigma_1^2}\right)-C\left(\frac{\gamma\alpha P}{\sigma_e^2}\right)+R_2, \end{align*} where $\gamma, \alpha\in[0,1].$ \end{proposition} \begin{IEEEproof} Consider the gap between the inner and outer bounds derived in previous subsections. If we take the same choice of $\alpha, \gamma$ in both bounds, the gap occurs only in $R_1$, which is given by \begin{align*} C\left(\frac{\alpha P}{\sigma_1^2}\right)-C\left(\frac{\alpha P}{\sigma_e^2}\right)-C\left(\frac{\gamma\alpha P}{\sigma_1^2}\right)+C\left(\frac{\gamma\alpha P}{\sigma_e^2}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\log \frac{(\alpha P+\sigma_1^2)(\gamma\alpha P+\sigma_e^2)}{(\alpha P+\sigma_e^2)(\gamma\alpha P+\sigma_1^2)} \to 0, \end{align*} as $P\gg \sigma_e^2$ or $P\ll \sigma_1^2$, regardless of the values of $\alpha, \gamma$. \end{IEEEproof} As a conclusion, we characterize the individual secrecy capacity region for the Gaussian BC-RSI as follows. \begin{proposition} The individual secrecy capacity region for the Gaussian BC-RSI is given by the following set of $(R_1, R_2)$: \begin{itemize} \item If $\sigma_e^2\geq \sigma_2^2\geq \sigma_1^2:$ \begin{align*} R_1&\leq \min\left\{C\left(\frac{P}{\sigma_1^2}\right)-C\left(\frac{P}{\sigma_e^2}\right)+R_2, C\left(\frac{P}{\sigma_1^2}\right)\right\};\\ R_2&\leq \min\left\{C\left(\frac{P}{\sigma_2^2}\right)-C\left(\frac{P}{\sigma_e^2}\right)+R_1, C\left(\frac{P}{\sigma_2^2}\right)\right\}, \end{align*} \item If $\sigma_2^2\geq \sigma_1^2\geq \sigma_e^2:$ \begin{equation*} R_1=R_2\leq C\left(\frac{P}{\sigma_2^2}\right), \end{equation*} \item If $\sigma_2^2\geq \sigma_e^2\geq \sigma_1^2,$ and, $P\gg \sigma_2^2$ or $P\ll \sigma_1^2:$ \begin{align*} R_{1}\leq & C\left(\frac{\gamma P}{\sigma_1^2}\right)-C\left(\frac{\gamma P}{\sigma_e^2}\right)+R_2;\\ R_{2}\leq & C\left(\frac{(1-\gamma)P}{\gamma P+\sigma_2^2}\right),\quad \mbox{where}\ \gamma \in[0,1]. \end{align*} \end{itemize} \end{proposition} \section{Conclusion} In this paper, we studied the problem of secure communication over BC-RSI under the individual secrecy constraints. We first characterized the individual secrecy capacity region for the linear deterministic channel model. Then, utilizing secret key, secrecy coding, superposition coding, and Marton's coding approaches, we derived achievable rate regions for the discrete memoryless model. Together with converse arguments, these techniques allow us to characterize the individual secrecy capacity region for some specific scenarios which include 1) the case of a {\it strong} eavesdropper (as a line on $(R_1, R_2)$ plane); 2) the case of a {\it weak} eavesdropper (as a rectangle with missing corners); and 3) the case that the eavesdropper's channel is deterministic. Our results exhibit the coupling between the communication rates. In particular, we observe that one can not arbitrarily decrease one user's rate without sacrificing the rate of the other. Moreover, we studied the corresponding Gaussian scenario, where, in addition to the capacity regions for strong and weak eavesdropper cases, we established the individual secrecy capacity region for the low and high SNR regimes when the eavesdropper channel is weaker than one of the legitimate receivers but stronger than the other. We here point out some avenues for further research. First, the characterization of the individual secrecy capacity region for the general case remains as an open problem. In particular, the characterization of the capacity region for the \emph{mixed} case (where the eavesdropper channel is less noisy than one legitmate receiver but more noisy than the other) has resisted our best efforts thus far. (For the Gaussian case, we were able to establish low and high SNR individual secrecy capacity results in this scenario.) Remarkably, this mixed case is distinctive for the study on secure communication via broadcast channels (with RSI or without RSI) since in this case, positive rate pairs are attainable under the {\em individual secrecy} constraint but impossible under the {\em joint secrecy} constraint. We believe that our results will initiate the study of \emph{individual secrecy} for other multi-terminal models. During the preparation of this manuscript, we have noticed that the parallel work \cite{Mansour:Capacity15} has considered the extension of BC-RSI model to include common messages. Studying other channel models under the lens of individual secrecy and comparing this notion to other secrecy constraints will be of interest. \appendices \section{Upper bound on the individual secrecy rate} \label{sec:UpperBoundAppendix} An upper bound on the individual secrecy rate follows from the results for wiretap channel with shared key \cite{Kang:Wiretap10} as provided below. \begin{lemma}\label{lemma: upper bound} For any $R_2$ in the achievable region, $R_1$ is upper bounded as \begin{equation*} R_1\leq \max\limits_{U\to V\to X\to (Y_1,Z)} \min\{I(V;Y_1|U)-I(V;Z|U)+R_2,I(V;Y_1)\}. \end{equation*} If the channel to the legitimate receiver 1 is degraded with respect to the channel to the eavesdropper, then for any $R_2$ in the achievable region, $R_1$ is upper bounded by \begin{equation*} R_1\leq \max\limits_{X\to Y_1\to Z} \min\{I(X;Y_1)-I(X;Z)+R_2,I(X;Y_1)\}. \end{equation*} Similar results hold for interchanging $1$ and $2$ above. \end{lemma} \begin{IEEEproof} The proof follows by the result given for the wiretap channel with shared key \cite[Theorem 1]{Kang:Wiretap10}. As the rate for $M_2$ is $R_2$, then the secrecy rate for receiver $1$ can be upper bounded by the wiretap channel with shared key of rate $R_2$. \end{IEEEproof} \section{Achievability Proof for Theorem~\ref{thm: IndS linear deterministic}} \label{sec:AppDeterministic} For each scenario, a specific coding scheme is provided, where for a given $m_1=[m_1(1), \cdots, m_1(R_1)]$ and $m_2=[m_2(1), \cdots, m_2(R_2)]$, we construct the codeword $X=[x(1), x(2), \cdots, x(n_1)]^T$. \subsection{$q=n_1\geq n_2\geq n_e$} \subsubsection{$R_1<R_2$ and $R_1<n_e$} We have \begin{equation}\label{eqn: Cs 111} R_1 < n_e; \quad R_1< R_2 \leq n_2-n_e +R_1. \end{equation} We set \begin{equation*} x(k)=\left\{ \begin{array}{lll} m_1(k)\oplus m_2(k) & & 1\leq k\leq R_1\\ r(k) & & R_1< k\leq n_e \\ m_2(k-n_e+R_1) & & n_e< k\leq n_e+R_2-R_1\\ r(k) & & n_e+R_2-R_1< k\leq n_1 \\ \end{array} \right. \end{equation*} where $r(k)$ is randomly chosen from $\{0, 1\}.$ The construction of $X$ is illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig: X^n 1<a}. In this scenario, receiver 2 could recover $m_2$ completely only if $R_2-R_1+n_e\leq n_2$. Combining this with the aforementioned conditions, $R_1<R_2$ and $R_1<n_e,$ we obtain the desired region of $(R_1, R_2)$ as specified in \eqref{eqn: Cs 111}. \begin{figure}[H] \centering \begin{tabular}{rcl} $m_1:$ & & $\begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=blue!25] {$m_{1}(1), \cdots, m_1(R_1)$}; \end{tikzpicture}$\\ $m_2:$ & & $\begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=teal!25] {$m_{2}(1), \cdots, m_2(R_1), \cdots, m_2(R_2)$}; \end{tikzpicture}$ \\ $X^T:$ & & $ \underbrace{ \underbrace{ \underbrace{ \overbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=red!25] {$\quad m_{1}(k)\oplus m_{2}(k)\quad $}; \end{tikzpicture} }^{R_{1}} \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=yellow!25] {$r(k)$}; \end{tikzpicture} }_{n_e} \overbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=teal!25] {$m_{2}(k-n_e+R_1)$}; \end{tikzpicture} }^{R_{2}-R_{1}} }_{\leq n_2} \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=yellow!25] {$r(k)$}; \end{tikzpicture} }_{n_1}$ \end{tabular} \caption{Codeword $X$ for $n_1\geq n_2\geq n_e$ and $R_1<R_2, R_1<n_e.$} \label{fig: X^n 1<a} \end{figure} \subsubsection{$R_1<R_2$ and $n_e\leq R_1$} We have \begin{equation}\label{eqn: Cs 112} n_e\leq R_1 < R_2 \leq n_2. \end{equation} We set \begin{equation*} x(k)=\left\{ \begin{array}{lll} m_1(k)\oplus m_2(k) & & 1\leq k\leq R_1\\ m_2(k) & & R_1< k\leq R_2\\ r(k) & & R_2< k\leq n_1, \end{array} \right. \end{equation*} where $r(k)$ is randomly chosen from $\{0, 1\}.$ The construction of $X$ is illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig: X^n 1<b}. In this scenario, receiver 2 could recover $m_2$ completely only if $R_2\leq n_2.$ Combining this with the aforementioned conditions, $n_e\leq R_1<R_2,$ we obtain the desired region of $(R_1, R_2)$ as specified in \eqref{eqn: Cs 112}. \begin{figure}[H] \centering \begin{tabular}{rcl} $m_1:$ & & $\begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=blue!25] {$m_{1}(1), \cdots, m_1(R_1)$}; \end{tikzpicture}$ \\ $m_2:$ & & $\begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=teal!25] {$m_{2}(1), \cdots, m_2(R_1), \cdots, m_2(R_2)$}; \end{tikzpicture}$ \\ $X^T:$ & & $ \underbrace{ \underbrace{ \overbrace{ \underbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.65em, anchor=base, fill=red!25] {$\ $}; \end{tikzpicture} \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=red!25] {$m_{1}(k)\oplus m_{2}(k)$}; \end{tikzpicture} }_{n_e} \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.65em, anchor=base, fill=red!25] {$\ $}; \end{tikzpicture} }^{R_1} \overbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=teal!25] {$\quad m_{2}(k)\quad$}; \end{tikzpicture} }^{R_{2}-R_{1}} }_{\leq n_2} \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=yellow!25] {$r(k)$}; \end{tikzpicture} }_{n_1} $ \end{tabular} \caption{Codeword $X$ for $n_1\geq n_2\geq n_e$ and $n_e\leq R_1<R_2.$} \label{fig: X^n 1<b} \end{figure} \subsubsection{$R_1\geq R_2$ and $R_2<n_e$} We have \begin{equation}\label{eqn: Cs 121} R_2<n_e; \quad R_2\leq R_1\leq n_1-n_e+R_2. \end{equation} We set \begin{equation*} x(k)=\left\{ \begin{array}{lll} m_1(k)\oplus m_2(k) & & 1\leq k\leq R_2\\ r(k) & & R_2< k\leq n_e \\ m_1(k-n_e+R_2) & & n_e+1\leq k\leq n_e+R_1-R_2\\ r(k) & & n_e+R_1-R_2< k\leq n_1 \\ \end{array} \right. \end{equation*} where $r(k)$ is randomly chosen from $\{0, 1\}.$ The construction of $X$ is illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig: X^n 1>a}. In this scenario, receiver 1 could recover $m_1$ completely only if $R_1-R_2+n_e\leq n_1$. Combining this with the aforementioned conditions, i.e., $R_1\geq R_2$ and $R_2<n_2$, we obtain the desired region of $(R_1, R_2)$ as specified in \eqref{eqn: Cs 121}. \begin{figure}[H] \centering \begin{tabular}{rcl} $m_1:$ & & $\begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=blue!25] {$m_{1}(1), \cdots, m_1(R_2), \cdots, m_1(R_1)$}; \end{tikzpicture}$\\ $m_2:$ & & $\begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=teal!25] {$m_{2}(1), \cdots, m_2(R_2)$}; \end{tikzpicture}$\\ $X^T:$ & & $ \underbrace{ \underbrace{ \overbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=red!25] {$\quad m_{1}(k)\oplus m_{2}(k)\quad $}; \end{tikzpicture} }^{R_{2}} \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=yellow!25] {$r(k)$}; \end{tikzpicture} }_{n_e\leq n_2} \overbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=blue!25] {$m_{1}(k-n_e+R_2)$}; \end{tikzpicture} }^{R_{1}-R_{2}} \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=yellow!25] {$r(k)$}; \end{tikzpicture} }_{n_1} $ \end{tabular} \caption{Codeword $X$ for $n_1\geq n_2\geq n_e$ and $R_1\geq R_2, R_2<n_e.$} \label{fig: X^n 1>a} \end{figure} \subsubsection{$R_1\geq R_2$ and $n_e\leq R_2$} We have \begin{equation}\label{eqn: Cs 122} R_2\leq n_2; \quad n_e\leq R_2\leq R_1\leq n_1. \end{equation} We set \begin{equation*} x(k)=\left\{ \begin{array}{lll} m_1(k)\oplus m_2(k) & & 1\leq k\leq R_2\\ m_1(k) & & R_2< k\leq R_1\\ r(k) & & R_1< k\leq n_1, \end{array} \right. \end{equation*} where $r(k)$ is randomly chosen from $\{0, 1\}.$ The construction of $X$ is illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig: X^n 1>b}. In this scenario, receiver 2 could recover $m_2$ completely only if $R_2\leq n_2;$ and receiver 1 could recover $m_1$ completely only if $R_1\leq n_1.$ Combining this with the aforementioned assumptions, $n_e\leq R_2\leq R_1$, we obtain the desired region of $(R_1, R_2)$ as specified in \eqref{eqn: Cs 122}. \begin{figure}[H] \centering \begin{tabular}{rcl} $m_1:$ & & $\begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=blue!25] {$m_{1}(1), \cdots, m_1(R_2), \cdots, m_1(R_1)$}; \end{tikzpicture}$\\ $m_2:$ & & $\begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=teal!25] {$m_{2}(1), \cdots, m_2(R_2)$}; \end{tikzpicture}$\\ $X^T:$ & & $ \underbrace{ \underbrace{ \overbrace{ \underbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.65em, anchor=base, fill=red!25] {$\ $}; \end{tikzpicture} \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=red!25] {$m_{1}(k)\oplus m_{2}(k)$}; \end{tikzpicture} }_{n_e} \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.65em, anchor=base, fill=red!25] {$\ $}; \end{tikzpicture} }^{R_2} }_{\leq n_2} \overbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=blue!25] {$\quad m_{1}(k)\quad$}; \end{tikzpicture} }^{R_{1}-R_{2}} \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=yellow!25] {$r(k)$}; \end{tikzpicture} }_{n_1} $ \end{tabular} \caption{Codeword $X$ for $n_1\geq n_2\geq n_e$ and $n_e\leq R_2\leq R_1.$} \label{fig: X^n 1>b} \end{figure} \subsection{$q=n_1\geq n_e\geq n_2$} Since $R_2\leq n_2\leq n_e,$ we have \begin{equation}\label{eqn: Cs 12} R_2\leq n_2; \quad R_2\leq R_1\leq n_1-n_e+R_2. \end{equation} We set \begin{equation*} x(k)=\left\{ \begin{array}{lll} m_1(k)\oplus m_2(k) & & 1\leq k\leq R_2\\ r(k) & & R_2< k\leq n_e\\ m_1(k-n_e+R_2) & & n_e < k\leq n_e+R_1-R_2\\ r(k) & & n_e+R_1-R_2< k\leq n_1 \\ \end{array} \right. \end{equation*} where $r(k)$ is randomly chosen from $\{0, 1\}.$ The construction of $X$ is illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig: X^n 2}. In this case, receiver 2 could recover $m_2$ completely only if $R_2\leq n_2;$ and receiver 1 could recover $m_1$ completely only if $R_1-R_2+n_e\leq n_1.$ Combining these with the fact $R_1-R_2\geq 0$, which is implied by the code construction, we obtain the desired region of $(R_1, R_2)$ as specified in \eqref{eqn: Cs 12}. \begin{figure}[H] \centering \begin{tabular}{rcl} $m_1:$ & & $\begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=blue!25] {$m_{1}(1), \cdots, m_1(R_2), \cdots, m_1(R_1)$}; \end{tikzpicture}$\\ $m_2:$ & & $\begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=teal!25] {$m_{2}(1), \cdots, m_2(R_2)$}; \end{tikzpicture}$\\ $X^T:$ & & $ \underbrace{ \underbrace{ \underbrace{ \overbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=red!25] {$\quad m_{1}(k)\oplus m_{2}(k)\quad$}; \end{tikzpicture} }^{R_{2}} }_{\leq n_2} \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=yellow!25] {$r(k)$}; \end{tikzpicture} }_{n_e\geq n_2} \overbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=blue!25] {$m_{1}(k-n_e+R_2)$}; \end{tikzpicture} }^{R_{1}-R_{2}} \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=yellow!25] {$r(k)$}; \end{tikzpicture} }_{n_1} $ \end{tabular} \caption{Codeword $X$ for $n_1\geq n_e\geq n_2.$} \label{fig: X^n 2} \end{figure} \subsection{$q=n_e\geq n_1\geq n_2$} In this case, we have $R_1\leq R_2$ and $R_2\leq R_1$ both holds. This gives that \begin{equation}\label{eqn: Cs 13} R_1=R_2=R\leq \min\{n_1, n_2\}. \end{equation} We set \begin{equation*} x(k)=\left\{ \begin{array}{lll} m_1(k)\oplus m_2(k) & & 1\leq k\leq R\\ r(k) & & R < k\leq n_e, \end{array} \right. \end{equation*} where $r(k)$ is randomly chosen from $\{0, 1\}.$ The construction of $X$ is illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig: X^n 3}. In this scenario, both receivers could recover $m_1, m_2,$ respectively, only if $R\leq \min\{n_1, n_2\}.$ Combining this with the fact $R_1=R_2=R$, which is implied by the code construction, we obtain the desired region of $(R_1, R_2)$ as specified in \eqref{eqn: Cs 13}. \begin{figure}[H] \centering \begin{tabular}{rcl} $m_1:$ & & $\begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=blue!25] {$m_{1}(1), \cdots, m_1(R)$}; \end{tikzpicture}$\\ $m_2:$ & & $\begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=teal!25] {$m_{2}(1), \cdots, m_2(R)$}; \end{tikzpicture}$\\ $X^T:$ & & $ \underbrace{ \underbrace{ \overbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=red!25] {$\ m_{1}(k)\oplus m_{2}(k)\ \ $}; \end{tikzpicture} }^{R} }_{\leq \min\{n_1, n_2\}} \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=yellow!25] {$r(k)$}; \end{tikzpicture} }_{n_e} $ \end{tabular} \caption{Codeword $X$ for $n_e\geq n_1\geq n_2.$} \label{fig: X^n 3} \end{figure} \begin{remark} Note that in our achievability schemes, the elements of the input vector $X$ are i.i.d. $\mbox{Bern}(\frac{1}{2})$ in all scenarios. That is, $\mbox{Bern}(\frac{1}{2})$ serves as an optimal input distribution to achieve the individual secrecy capacity. Nevertheless, this choice is not the only optimal one. As an alternative, instead of choosing as uniformly random, one can simply use zeros for the bits represented by $r(k)$ in our achievability schemes. \end{remark} \section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{pro: superposition}} \label{sec:AppSuperposition} {\em Rate splitting:} As illustrated in Fig. \ref{eqn: superC RS}, we split $M_1=(M_{1k}, M_{1sk}, M_{1s})$ and $M_2=(M_{2k}, M_{2sk}, M_{2s}),$ with both $M_{1k}$ and $M_{2k}$ of entropy $nR_k$, both $M_{1sk}$ and $M_{2sk}$ of entropy $nR_{sk}$, $M_{1s}$ of entropy $nR_{1s}$ and $M_{2s}$ of entropy $nR_{2s}.$ Thus, we have $R_1=R_k+R_{sk}+R_{1s}$ and $R_2=R_k+R_{sk}+R_{2s}.$ \begin{figure}[H] \centering \begin{tabular}{rcl} $m_1:$ & & $ \overbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=blue!25] {$m_{1k}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }^{nR_k} \overbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=blue!25] {$m_{1sk}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }^{nR_{sk}} \overbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=blue!25] {\ $m_{1s}$\ \ }; \end{tikzpicture} }^{nR_{1s}} $\\ $m_2:$ & & $ \underbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=teal!25] {$m_{2k}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }_{nR_k} \underbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=teal!25] {$m_{2sk}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }_{nR_{sk}} \underbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=teal!25] {\ $m_{2s}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }_{nR_{2s}} $ \end{tabular} \caption{Superposition coding: Rate splitting.} \label{eqn: superC RS} \end{figure} {\em Codebook generation:} Fix $p(u), p(v|u).$ First, randomly generate $2^{nR_k}$ i.i.d. sequences $u^{n}(k),$ $k\in[1:2^{nR_k}],$ according to $p(u).$ Secondly, for each $u^n(k),$ according to $p(v|u),$ randomly generate i.i.d. sequences $v^n(k, m_{sk}, m_{1s}, m_{2s}, r)$ with $(m_{sk}, m_{1s}, m_{2s}, r)\in [1: 2^{nR_{sk}}]\times [1: 2^{nR_{1s}}]\times [1: 2^{nR_{2s}}]\times [1: 2^{nR_r}].$ {\em Encoding:} To send messages $(m_1, m_2),$ choose $u^n(k),$ where $k=m_k\triangleq m_{1k}\oplus m_{2k}.$ Given $u^n(k),$ randomly choose $r\in [1: 2^{nR_r}]$ and find $v^n(k, m_{sk}, m_{1s}, m_{2s}, r),$ where $m_{sk}\triangleq m_{1sk}\oplus m_{2sk}.$ The choice of $u^n, v^n$ for given $(m_1, m_2)$ is illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig: superC encoding}. Generate $x^n$ according to $p(x|v),$ and transmit it to the channel. \begin{figure}[H] \centering \begin{tabular}{rcl} $u^n(k):$ & & $\overbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=red!25] {$m_{1k}\oplus m_{2k}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }^{nR_k} $\\ $v^n(k,m_{sk}, m_{1s}, m_{2s}, r):$ & & $ \underbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=blue!25] {$m_{1s}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }_{nR_{1s}} \overbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=red!25] {$m_{1sk}\oplus m_{2sk}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }^{nR_{sk}} \overbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=red!25] {$\ r\ $}; \end{tikzpicture} }^{nR_r} \underbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=teal!25] {$m_{2s}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }_{nR_{2s}} $ \end{tabular} \caption{Superposition coding: Encoding.} \label{fig: superC encoding} \end{figure} {\em Decoding:} Receiver 1, upon receiving $y_1^n$ and with knowledge of $m_2,$ decodes $\hat{m}_1=(m_{2k}\oplus \hat{k}, m_{2sk}\oplus \hat{m}_{sk}, \hat{m}_{1s})$ if $(\hat{k}, \hat{m}_{sk}, \hat{m}_{1s}, m_{2s})$ is the unique quadruple such that $(u^n(\hat{k}), v^n(\hat{k}, \hat{m}_{sk}, \hat{m}_{1s}, m_{2s}, \hat{r}), y_1^n)$ is jointly typical. Receiver 2, upon receiving $y_2^n$ and with knowledge of $m_1,$ decodes $\tilde{m}_2=(m_{1k} \oplus \tilde{k}, m_{1sk}\oplus \tilde{m}_{sk}, \tilde{m}_{2s}),$ if $(\tilde{k}, \tilde{m}_{sk}, m_{1s}, \tilde{m}_{2s})$ is the unique quadruple such that $(u^n(\tilde{k}), v^n(\tilde{k}, \tilde{m}_{sk}, m_{1s}, \tilde{m}_{2s}, \tilde{r}), y_2^n)$ is jointly typical. {\em Analysis of the error probability of decoding:} Assume that $(M_1,M_2)=(m_1,m_2)$ with $m_1=(m_{1k}, m_{1sk}, m_{1s}),$ $m_2=(m_{2k}, m_{2sk}, m_{2s})$ is sent. Or, more specifically, $k, m_{sk},$ $m_{1s}$ and $m_{2s}$ are sent, where $k\triangleq m_{1k}\oplus m_{2k}$ and $m_{sk}=m_{1sk}\oplus m_{2sk}.$ At receiver 1, i.e., for $P_{e,1}$, a decoding error happens if receiver 1's estimate is $u^n(\hat{k}),$ $v^n(\hat{k}, \hat{m}_{sk}, \hat{m}_{1s}, m_{2s}, \hat{r})$ with $(\hat{k}, \hat{m}_{sk}, \hat{m}_{1s})\neq (k, m_{sk}, m_{1s}).$ In more details, the error event can be partitioned into the followings: \begin{enumerate} \item Error event corresponds to $\hat{k} \neq k.$ Note that this event occurs with arbitrarily small probability if \begin{equation}\label{eqn: SS cond pe11} R_1+R_r\leq I(U, V;Y_1)=I(V;Y_1). \end{equation} \item Error event corresponds to $\hat{k} = k,$ but $(\hat{m}_{1s}, \hat{m}_{sk}) \neq (m_{1s}, m_{sk})$ Note that this event occurs with arbitrarily small probability if \begin{equation}\label{eqn: SS cond pe12} R_{sk}+R_{1s}+R_r\leq I(V;Y_1|U). \end{equation} \end{enumerate} Similar analysis can be done at the receiver 2, from which the decoding error probability $P_{e,2}$ can be made arbitrarily small if \begin{align} R_2+R_r& \leq I(V;Y_2) \label{eqn: SS cond pe21}\\ R_{sk}+R_{2s}+R_r&\leq I(V;Y_2|U) \label{eqn: SS cond pe22} \end{align} {\em Analysis of individual secrecy:} Due to the symmetric roles of receiver 1 and receiver 2, we only need to prove the secrecy of one message (e.g., $M_1$). The proof for the other case (e.g., the secrecy of $M_2$) follows similarly. For the secrecy of $M_1,$ we have \begin{align*} I(M_1; Z^n) = & I(M_{1k}, M_{1sk}, M_{1s}; Z^n)\\ = & I(M_{1k}; Z^n)+I(M_{1sk}, M_{1s};Z^n|M_{1k})\\ \stackrel{(a)}{=} & I(M_{1sk}, M_{1s}; Z^n|M_{1k})\\ = & I(M_{1sk}; Z^n|M_{1k})+I(M_{1s};Z^n|M_{1k}, M_{1sk})\\ \stackrel{(b)}{=}& I(M_{1s};Z^n|M_{1k}, M_{1sk})\\ = & H(M_{1s})-H(M_{1s}|M_{1k}, M_{1sk}, Z^n)\\ \stackrel{(c)}{\leq} & nR_{1s}-H(M_{1s}|M_k, Z^n), \end{align*} where $(a)$ is due to the fact that $I(M_{1k}; Z^n)=0$ by $I(M_{1k}; Z^n)\leq I(M_{1k}; Z^n, M_k)= I(M_{1k}; M_k)=0,$ which follows by the Markov chain $M_{1k}\rightarrow M_k\rightarrow Z^n;$ $(b)$ follows the fact that $I(M_{1sk}; Z^n|M_{1k})=0$ as $H(M_{1sk}|Z^n, M_{1k}) \geq H(M_{1sk}|Z^n, M_{1k}, M_{sk}) = H(M_{1sk}|M_{sk}) = H(M_{1sk})= H(M_{1sk}|M_{1k})$; $(c)$ is due to the fact that $H(M_{1s}|M_{1k}, M_{1sk}, Z^n)\geq H(M_{1s}|M_{1k}, M_{k}, M_{1sk}, Z^n)=H(M_{1s}|M_{k}, Z^n),$ where the last equality follows as $M_{1k}, M_{1sk}$ are independent of $M_{1s}$ given $M_k,Z^n,$ which is due to the Markov chain $M_{1s}\to (Z^n,M_{k})\to (M_{1k},M_{1sk})$. To complete the proof that $I(M_1;Z^n)\leq n\delta'(\epsilon)$, we show in the following that $H(M_{1s}, M_{2s}|M_k, Z^n)\geq n(R_{1s}+R_{2s})-n\delta'(\epsilon),$ which implies that $H(M_{1s}|M_k, Z^n)\geq nR_{1s}-n\delta'(\epsilon).$ \begin{align*} H(M_{1s}, M_{2s}|M_k, Z^n) \stackrel{(d)}{=}& H(M_{1s}, M_{2s}|U^n, Z^n)\\ =& H(M_{1s}, M_{2s}, Z^n|U^n) - H(Z^n|U^n) \\ =& H(M_{1s}, M_{2s}, Z^n, V^n|U^n)- H(V^n|U^n, M_{1s}, M_{2s}, Z^n) - H(Z^n|U^n) \\ =& H(V^n|U^n) + H(Z^n|U^n,V^n) - H(V^n|U^n, M_{1s}, M_{2s}, Z^n)- H(Z^n|U^n)\\ \stackrel{(e)}{\geq}& n(R_{sk}+R_{1s}+R_{2s}+R_{r})+nH(Z|U,V) -nH(Z|U)- n \epsilon\\ \stackrel{(f)}{=} & n(R_{1s}+R_{2s})-n\delta'(\epsilon) \end{align*} where $(d)$ is due to the fact that $U^n$ is uniquely determined by $M_k;$ $(e)$ follows by $H(V^n|U^n)=n(R_{sk}+R_{1s}+R_{2s}+R_{r})$ by the codebook construction and the choice of $V^n$ is randomly chosen based on $M_K, M_{sk}, M_{1s}, M_{2s}$ which are presumed to be uniformly distributed; Moreover, since the channel is discrete memoryless, we have $H(Z^n|U^n,V^n)=\sum_{i=1}^n H(Z_i|U_i,V_i)=nH(Z|U,V)$; and, $H(V^n|U^n, M_{1s}, M_{2s}, Z^n)\leq n\epsilon$ due to Fano's inequality by taking \begin{equation}\label{eqn: SuperC Eve cond1} R_{sk}+R_r\leq I(V;Z|U)-\epsilon', \end{equation} since the eavesdropper can decode $V^n$ reliably by using typical set decoding given $(U^n, M_{1s}, M_{2s}, Z^n)$; and $H(Z^n|U^n)=\sum_{i=1}^n H(Z_i|Z^{i-1},U^n) \leq \sum_{i=1}^n H(Z_i|U_i)=nH(Z|U);$ $(f)$ holds by taking \begin{equation}\label{eqn: SuperC Eve cond2} R_{sk}+R_r\geq I(V;Z|U)-2\epsilon' \end{equation} and $\delta'(\epsilon)=\epsilon+2\epsilon'.$ {\em Achievable rate region:} Combining the followings: \begin{itemize} \item the non-negativity for rates, i.e., \begin{equation*} R_{k}, R_{sk}, R_{1s}, R_{2s}, R_r \geq 0; \end{equation*} \item the rate relations imposed by rate splitting, i.e., \begin{align*} R_{1}&=R_k+R_{sk}+R_{1s},\\ R_{2}&=R_k+R_{sk}+R_{2s}; \end{align*} \item the constraints for a reliable communication to both legitimate receivers, i.e., \eqref{eqn: SS cond pe11}-\eqref{eqn: SS cond pe22}: \begin{align*} R_1+R_{r} &\leq I(V;Y_1),\\ R_2+R_{r} &\leq I(V;Y_2),\\ R_{sk}+R_{1s}+R_{r} &\leq I(V;Y_1|U),\\ R_{sk}+R_{2s}+R_{r} &\leq I(V;Y_2|U); \end{align*} \item the constraints for individual secrecy of the messages at the eavesdropper, i.e., \eqref{eqn: SuperC Eve cond1}-\eqref{eqn: SuperC Eve cond2}: \begin{align*} R_{sk}+R_r &\approx I(V;Z|U). \end{align*} \end{itemize} Eliminating $R_{r}, R_{k}, R_{sk}, R_{1s}, R_{2s}$ by applying Fourier-Motzkin procedure \cite{ElGamal:2012}, we obtain a region as the union of the set of non-negative $(R_1, R_2)$ pairs satisfying \begin{align}\label{eqn: Super SiM IndSR} \begin{split} R_1 &\leq \min\{I(V;Y_1), \ \ I(V;Y_1|U)-I(V;Z|U)+R_2\};\\ R_2 &\leq \min\{I(V;Y_2), \ \ I(V;Y_2|U)-I(V;Z|U)+R_1\}. \end{split} \end{align} where the union is taken over all $p(u)p(v|u)p(x|v)$ subject to $I(V;Y_i|U)\geq I(V;Z|U)$ for $i=1,2.$ \section{Discussion on Rate splitting in Superposition Coding} \label{sec:App_Superposition_Rate Splitting} {\em Rate splitting:} As illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig: Oma SS RS}, we represent $M_1, M_2$ by $M_1=(M_{1k}, M_{1sk}, M_{1s}, M_{1m})$ and $M_2=(M_{2k}, M_{2sk}, M_{2s}, M_{2m})$ with $M_{1k}, M_{2k}$ of entropy $nR_k;$ $M_{1sk}, M_{2sk}$ of entropy $nR_{sk};$ while $M_{1s}, M_{1m}$ of entropy $nR_{1s}, nR_{1m};$ and $M_{2s}, M_{2m}$ of entropy $nR_{2s}, nR_{2m},$ respectively. For simplicity, we denote $M_k=M_{1k}\oplus M_{2k},$ $M_{sk}=M_{1sk}\oplus M_{2sk},$ $M_{ss}=(M_{1s}, M_{2s})$ and $M_{sm}=(M_{1m}, M_{2m}).$ \begin{figure}[H] \centering \begin{tabular}{rcl} $m_1:$ & & $ \overbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=blue!25] {$m_{1k}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }^{nR_k} \overbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=blue!25] {$m_{1sk}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }^{nR_{sk}} \overbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=blue!25] {\ $m_{1s}$\ \ }; \end{tikzpicture} }^{nR_{1s}} \overbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=blue!25] {\ $m_{1m}$\ \ }; \end{tikzpicture} }^{nR_{1m}} $\\ $m_2:$ & & $ \underbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=teal!25] {$m_{2k}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }_{nR_k} \underbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=teal!25] {$m_{2sk}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }_{nR_{sk}} \underbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=teal!25] {\ $m_{2s}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }_{nR_{2s}} \underbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=teal!25] {\ $m_{2m}$\ \ }; \end{tikzpicture} }_{nR_{2m}} $ \end{tabular} \caption{Superposition coding: Rate splitting.} \label{fig: Oma SS RS} \end{figure} {\em Codebook generation:} Fix $p(u), p(v|u)$ and $p(t|v).$ First, randomly generate $2^{nR_k}$ i.i.d. sequences $u^{n}(k),$ $k\in[1:2^{nR_k}],$ according to $p(u).$ For each $u^n(k),$ according to $p(v|u),$ randomly generate $2^{n(R_{1s}+R_{2s}+R_{sk}+R_{r})}$ i.i.d. sequences $v^n(k, ss_1, ss_2, sk, r)$ with $(ss_1, ss_2, sk, r)\in [1: 2^{nR_{1s}}]\times[1: 2^{nR_{2s}}]\times [1: 2^{nR_{sk}}]\times [1: 2^{nR_{r}}].$ For each fixed $u^{n}(k)$ and $v^n(k, ss_1, ss_2, sk, r), $ randomly generate $2^{n(R_{1m}+R_{2m}+R_{r_1})}$ i.i.d. sequences $t^n$ with indices $(k, ss_1, ss_2, sk, r, sm_1, sm_2, r_1),$ where $(sm_1, sm_2, r_1)\in [1: 2^{nR_{1m}}]\times [1: 2^{nR_{2m}}]\times [1: 2^{nR_{r_1}}]$, according to $p(t|v)$. {\em Encoding:} To send messages $(m_1, m_2),$ choose $u^n(k),$ where $k=m_k\triangleq m_{1k}\oplus m_{2k}.$ Given $u^n(k),$ randomly choose $r\in [1: 2^{nR_r}]$ and find the corresponding $v^n(k, m_{1s}, m_{2s}, m_{sk}, r),$ where $m_{sk}\triangleq m_{1sk}\oplus m_{2sk}.$ Given $u^n(k)$ and $v^n(k, m_{1s}, m_{2s}, m_{sk}, r),$ randomly choose $r_1\in [1: 2^{nR_{r_1}}],$ and send the corresponding codeword $t^n$ with index $(k, m_{1s}, m_{2s}, m_{sk}, r, m_{1m}, m_{2m}, r_1).$ The choice of $u^n, v^n$ and $t^n$ for given $(m_1, m_2)$ is illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig: Oma Superposition encoding}. \begin{figure}[H] \centering \begin{tabular}{rcl} $u^n(k):$ & & $ \overbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, minimum width=6em, anchor=base, fill=red!25] {$m_{1k}\oplus m_{2k}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }^{nR_k} $\\ $v^n( m_{sk}, m_{1s}, m_{2s},r)|u^n:$ & & $ \underbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=blue!25] {$m_{1s}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }_{nR_{1s}} \overbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=red!25] {$m_{1sk}\oplus m_{2sk}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }^{nR_{sk}} \overbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=red!25] {$\ r\ $}; \end{tikzpicture} }^{nR_r} \underbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=teal!25] {$m_{2s}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }_{nR_{2s}}$ \\ $t^n(m_{1m}, m_{2m}, r_1)|u^n, v^n:$ & & $ \underbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, minimum width=3em, anchor=base, fill=blue!25] {$m_{1m}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }_{nR_{1m}} \overbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, minimum width=4em, anchor=base, fill=red!25] {$r_1$}; \end{tikzpicture} }^{nR_{r_1}} \underbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, minimum width=2em, anchor=base, fill=teal!25] {$m_{2m}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }_{nR_{2m}} $ \end{tabular} \caption{Superposition coding: Encoding.} \label{fig: Oma Superposition encoding} \end{figure} {\em Decoding:} Receiver 1, upon receiving $y_1^n$ and with the side information $m_2,$ decodes $\hat{m}_1=(m_{2k}\oplus \hat{k}, m_{2sk}\oplus \hat{m}_{sk}, \hat{m}_{1s}, \hat{m}_{1m}),$ if $(\hat{k}, \hat{m}_{sk}, \hat{m}_{1s}, m_{2s}, \hat{r}, \hat{m}_{1m}, m_{2m})$ is the unique tuple such that $(\hat{u}^n, \hat{v}^n, \hat{t}^n, y_1^n)$ is jointly typical, where $\hat{u}^n, \hat{v}^n, \hat{t}^n$ are with indices $(\hat{k},\hat{m}_{sk}, \hat{m}_{1s}, m_{2s}, \hat{r}, \hat{m}_{1m}, m_{2m}, \hat{r}_1)$. And, receiver 2, upon receiving $y_2^n$ and with the side information $m_1,$ decodes $\tilde{m}_2=(m_{1k}\oplus \tilde{k}, m_{1sk}\oplus \tilde{m}_{sk}, \tilde{m}_{2s}, \tilde{m}_{2m}),$ if $(\tilde{k}, \tilde{m}_{sk}, m_{1s}, \tilde{m}_{2s}, \tilde{r}, m_{1m}, \tilde{m}_{2m})$ is the unique tuple such that $(\tilde{u}^n, \tilde{v}^n, \tilde{t}^n, y_1^n)$ is jointly typical, where $\hat{u}^n, \hat{v}^n, \hat{t}^n$ are with indices $(\tilde{k}, \tilde{m}_{sk}, m_{1s}, \tilde{m}_{2s}, \tilde{r}, m_{1m}, \tilde{m}_{2m}, \tilde{r}_1)$. {\em Analysis of decoding error:} Assume that $m_1=(m_{1k}, m_{1sk}, m_{1s}, m_{1m}),$ $m_2=(m_{2k}, m_{2sk}, m_{2s}, m_{2m})$ is sent, i.e., more specifically, $k, m_{sk}, m_{1s}, m_{1m}$ and $m_{2s}, m_{2m}$ are sent, where $k\triangleq m_{1k}\oplus m_{2k}$ and $m_{sk}=m_{1sk}\oplus m_{2sk}.$ For $P_{e,1}$, a decoding error happens if receiver 1's estimate is $(\hat{u}^n, \hat{v}^n, \hat{t}^n)$ with indices $(\hat{k}, \hat{m}_{1s}, m_{2s}, \hat{m}_{sk}, \hat{r}, \allowbreak \hat{m}_{1m}, m_{2m}, \hat{r}_1)$ such that $(\hat{k}, \hat{m}_{1s}, \hat{m}_{sk}, \hat{r}, \hat{m}_{1m})\neq (k, m_{1s}, m_{sk}, r, m_{1m}).$ In more details, the error event can be partitioned into the followings: \begin{enumerate} \item Error event corresponds to $\hat{k} \neq k.$ Note that this event occurs with arbitrarily small probability if \begin{equation}\label{eqn: Oma SS cond pe11} R_1+R_r+R_{r_1}\leq I(U, V, T;Y_1)=I(T;Y_1). \end{equation} \item Error event corresponds to $\hat{k} = k,$ but $(\hat{m}_{1s}, \hat{m}_{sk}, \hat{r}) \neq (m_{1s}, m_{sk}, r)$ Note that this event occurs with arbitrarily small probability if \begin{equation}\label{eqn: Oma SS cond pe12} R_1-R_k+R_r+R_{r_1}\leq I(V, T;Y_1|U)=I(T;Y_1|U). \end{equation} \item Error event corresponds to $(\hat{k}, \hat{m}_{1s}, \hat{m}_{sk}, \hat{r}) = (k, m_{1s}, m_{sk}, r)$ but $\hat{m}_{1m}\neq m_{1m}.$ Note that this event occurs with arbitrarily small probability if \begin{equation}\label{eqn: Oma SS cond pe13} R_{1m}+R_{r_1}\leq I(T;Y_1|U, V)=I(T;Y_1|V). \end{equation} \end{enumerate} Similar analysis can be done at the receiver 2, from which the decoding error probability $P_{e,2}$ can be made arbitrarily small if \begin{align} R_2+R_r+R_{r_1}& \leq I(T;Y_2) \label{eqn: Oma SS cond pe21}\\ R_2-R_k+R_r+R_{r_1}&\leq I(T;Y_2|U) \label{eqn: Oma SS cond pe22}\\ R_{2m}+R_{r_1}&\leq I(T;Y_2|V).\label{eqn: Oma SS cond pe23} \end{align} {\em Analysis of individual secrecy:} For the secrecy of $M_1$, we have \begin{align*} I(M_1; Z^n) =& I(M_{1k}, M_{1sk}, M_{1s}, M_{1m}; Z^n)\\ =& I(M_{1k}, M_{1sk}; Z^n)+I(M_{1s}, M_{1m};Z^n|M_{1k}, M_{1sk})\\ \stackrel{(a)}{=}& I(M_{1s}, M_{1m};Z^n|M_{1k}, M_{1sk})\\ =& H(M_{1s}, M_{1m})-H(M_{1s}, M_{1m}|M_{1k}, M_{1sk}, Z^n)\\ \leq & H(M_{1s}, M_{1m})-H(M_{1s}, M_{1m}|M_k, M_{1k}, M_{1sk}, Z^n)\\ \stackrel{(b)}{=} & nR_{1s}+ nR_{1m}-H(M_{1s}, M_{1m}|M_{k}, Z^n) \end{align*} where $(a)$ is due to the fact that $I(M_{1k}, M_{1sk}; Z^n) = 0$ since \begin{align*} I(M_{1k}, M_{1sk}; Z^n) &\leq I(M_{1k}, M_{1sk}; Z^n, M_{k}, M_{sk}, M_{1s}, M_{1m}, M_{2s}, M_{2m})\\ &=I(M_{1k}, M_{1sk}; M_{k}, M_{sk}, M_{1s}, M_{1m}, M_{2s}, M_{2m})\\ &=0, \end{align*} where the first equality is by the Markov chain $(M_{1k}, M_{2k}, M_{1sk}, M_{2sk})\to (M_k, M_{sk}, M_{ss}, M_{sm})\to Z^n$; $(b)$ is due to the fact that $I(M_{1s}, M_{1m}; M_{1k}, M_{1sk}|Z^n, M_{k})=0,$ where the equality follows by: \begin{enumerate} \item $I(M_{1s}, M_{1m}; M_{1k}, M_{1sk}|Z^n, M_{k})\geq 0;$ and \item $I(M_{1s}, M_{1m}; M_{1k}, M_{1sk}|Z^n, M_{k})\leq 0$ since \begin{align*} H( M_{1k}, M_{1sk}|Z^n, M_{k}, M_{1s}, M_{1m}) & \geq H( M_{1k}, M_{1sk}|Z^n, M_{k}, M_{sk}, M_{1s}, M_{1m})\\ & =H(M_{1k}, M_{1sk}|M_k, M_{sk})\\ & =H( M_{1k}, M_{1sk})\\ & \geq H( M_{1k}, M_{1sk}|Z^n, M_{k}). \end{align*} \end{enumerate} So far, we obtain \begin{equation}\label{eqn: Oma SS secrecy step 1} I(M_1; Z^n) \leq nR_{1s}+ nR_{1m}-H(M_{1s}, M_{1m}|M_{k}, Z^n). \end{equation} Similarly, for the secrecy of $M_2,$ we have \begin{equation}\label{eqn: Oma SS secrecy step 1 for M2} I(M_2; Z^n) \leq nR_{2s}+ nR_{2m}-H(M_{2s}, M_{2m}|M_{k}, Z^n). \end{equation} In the following, we show that $H(M_{1s}, M_{1m}, M_{2s}, M_{2m}|M_k, Z^n)\geq n(R_{1s}+R_{1m}+R_{2s}+R_{2m})-n\delta'(\epsilon)$ holds if the rates satisfy \eqref{eqn: Oma SS IndS condiA} and \eqref{eqn: Oma SS IndS condiB}. This implies that $H(M_{1s}, M_{1m}|M_{k}, Z^n)\geq R_{1s}+R_{1m}-n\delta'(\epsilon)$ and $H(M_{2s}, M_{2m}|M_{k}, Z^n)\geq R_{2s}+R_{2m}-n\delta'(\epsilon).$ Further by (\ref{eqn: Oma SS secrecy step 1}) and \eqref{eqn: Oma SS secrecy step 1 for M2}, we obtain $I(M_1;Z^n)\leq n\delta'(\epsilon)$ and $I(M_2;Z^n)\leq n\delta'(\epsilon),$ thus completing the desired individual secrecy proof. Note that \begin{align} & H(M_{1s}, M_{1m}, M_{2s}, M_{2m}|M_k, Z^n)\nonumber\\ \stackrel{(a)}{=} & H(M_{ss}, M_{sm}|U^n, Z^n)\nonumber\\ =& H(M_{ss}, M_{sm}, V^n|U^n, Z^n)-H(V^n|U^n, M_{ss}, M_{sm}, Z^n)\nonumber\\ \geq & H(M_{ss}, M_{sm}, V^n|U^n,Z^n)-H(V^n|U^n, M_{ss}, Z^n)\nonumber\\ \stackrel{(b)}{\geq} & H(V^n|U^n, Z^n)+H(M_{sm}|U^n, V^n, Z^n)-n(R_{sk}+R_{r}-I(V;Z|U))-n\epsilon_1, \label{eqn: Oma SS terms for inds} \end{align} where $(a)$ is due to the one-to-one correspondence between $M_k$ and $U^n;$ and the simplification by denoting $M_{ss}=(M_{1s}, M_{2s})$ and $M_{sm}=(M_{1m}, M_{2m});$ $(b)$ follows from \cite[Lemma 1]{src:Chia2012_BC} that $H(V^n|U^n, M_{ss}, Z^n)\leq n(R_{sk}+R_{r}-I(V;Z|U))+n\epsilon_1$ if \begin{equation}\label{eqn: Oma SS IndS condiA} R_{sk}+R_r\geq I(V;Z|U)+\epsilon. \end{equation} For the first term in \eqref{eqn: Oma SS terms for inds}, i.e., $H(V^n|U^n, Z^n),$ we have \begin{align} H(V^n|U^n, Z^n) & =H(V^n, Z^n |U^n)-H(Z^n|U^n)\nonumber\\ & =H(V^n|U^n)+H(Z^n|U^n, V^n)-H(Z^n|U^n)\nonumber\\ & =n(R_{1s}+R_{2s}+R_{sk}+R_r)+H(Z^n|U^n, V^n)-H(Z^n|U^n); \label{eqn: Oma SS term 1 for inds} \end{align} And, for the second term in \eqref{eqn: Oma SS terms for inds}, i.e., $H(M_{1m}, M_{2m}|U^n, V^n, Z^n),$ we have \begin{align} & H(M_{1m}, M_{2m}|U^n, V^n, Z^n)=H(M_{sm}|U^n, V^n, Z^n)\nonumber\\ = & H(M_{sm}, Z^n|U^n, V^n) - H(Z^n|U^n, V^n)\nonumber\\ = & H(M_{sm}, Z^n, T^n|U^n, V^n) - H(Z^n|U^n, V^n)-H(T^n|U^n, V^n, M_{sm}, Z^n) \nonumber\\ \geq & H(T^n|U^n, V^n)+H(Z^n|U^n, V^n,T^n)- H(Z^n|U^n, V^n)-H(T^n|U^n, V^n, M_{sm}, Z^n)\nonumber\\ =& n(R_{1m}+R_{2m}+R_{r_1})+ H(Z^n|U^n, V^n, T^n)- H(Z^n|U^n, V^n)-H(T^n|U^n, V^n, M_{sm}, Z^n)\nonumber\\ \stackrel{(a)}{\geq}& n(R_{1m}+R_{2m}+R_{r_1})+ H(Z^n|U^n, V^n, T^n)- H(Z^n|U^n, V^n)-n(R_{r_1}-I(T;Z|U, V))-n\epsilon_2 \label{eqn: Oma SS term 2 for inds} \end{align} where $(a)$ follows from \cite[Lemma 1]{src:Chia2012_BC} that $H(T^n|U^n, V^n, M_{sm}, Z^n)\leq n(R_{r_1}-I(T;Z|U, V))+n\epsilon_2$ if \begin{equation}\label{eqn: Oma SS IndS condiB} R_{r_1}\geq I(T;Z|V)+\epsilon. \end{equation} Combining \eqref{eqn: Oma SS term 1 for inds} and \eqref{eqn: Oma SS term 2 for inds} in \eqref{eqn: Oma SS terms for inds}, we have \begin{align*} & H(M_{1s}, M_{1m}, M_{2s}, M_{2m}|M_k, Z^n)\\ \geq & H(V^n|U^n, Z^n)+H(M_{1m}, M_{2m}|U^n, V^n, Z^n)-n(R_{sk}+R_{r}-I(V;Z|U))-n\epsilon_1\\ \geq & n(R_{1s}+R_{2s}+R_{sk}+R_r)+H(Z^n|U^n, V^n)-H(Z^n|U^n)\\ & +n(R_{1m}+R_{2m}+R_{r_1})+ H(Z^n|U^n, V^n, T^n)- H(Z^n|U^n, V^n)-n(R_{r_1}-I(T;Z|U, V))-n\epsilon_2\\ & -n(R_{sk}+R_{r}-I(V;Z|U))-n\epsilon_1\\ \stackrel{(a)}{\geq} & n(R_{1s}+R_{1m}+R_{2s}+R_{2m}) -nH(Z|U)+ nH(Z|U, V, T)+nI(V,T;Z|U)+ n\delta'(\epsilon)\\ {=} & n(R_{1s}+R_{1m}+R_{2s}+R_{2m}) - n\delta'(\epsilon) \end{align*} where $(a)$ follows from $H(Z^n|U^n)\leq$ $\sum_{i=1}^{n} H(Z_i|U_i)$ $=nH(Z|U);$ $H(Z^n|U^n, V^n, T^n)=nH(Z|U, V, T)$; and $\delta'(\epsilon)=\epsilon_1+\epsilon_2.$ {\em Achievable rate region:} Combining the followings: \begin{itemize} \item the non-negativity for rates, i.e., \begin{equation*} R_{k}, R_{sk}, R_{1s}, R_{2s}, R_r \geq 0; \end{equation*} \item the rate relations imposed by rate splitting, i.e., \begin{align*} R_{1}&=R_k+R_{sk}+R_{1s}+R_{1m},\\ R_{2}&=R_k+R_{sk}+R_{2s}+R_{2m}; \end{align*} \item the constraints for a reliable communication to both legitimate receivers, i.e., \eqref{eqn: Oma SS cond pe11}-\eqref{eqn: Oma SS cond pe23}: \allowdisplaybreaks \begin{align*} R_1+R_r+R_{r_1}& \leq I(T;Y_1) \\ R_2+R_r+R_{r_1}& \leq I(T;Y_2) \\ R_1-R_k+R_r+R_{r_1}&\leq I(T;Y_1|U) \\ R_2-R_k+R_r+R_{r_1}&\leq I(T;Y_2|U) \\ R_{1m}+R_{r_1}&\leq I(T;Y_1|V)\\ R_{2m}+R_{r_1}&\leq I(T;Y_2|V). \end{align*} \item the constraints for individual secrecy of the messages at the eavesdropper, i.e., \eqref{eqn: Oma SS IndS condiA} and \eqref{eqn: Oma SS IndS condiB}: \begin{align*} R_{sk}+R_r& \geq I(V;Z|U)\\ R_{r_1}&\geq I(T;Z|V). \end{align*} \end{itemize} Applying Fourier-Motzkin procedure \cite{ElGamal:2012} to eliminate $R_{k}, R_{sk}, R_{1m}, R_{2m}, R_r, R_{r_1}$, we get an achievable region, which is the union of non-negative $(R_{1}, R_{2})$ pairs satisfying \begin{align} R_1 &\leq \min\{I(T;Y_1)-I(T;Z|V), \ \ I(T;Y_1|U)-I(T;Z|U)+R_2\};\\ R_2 &\leq \min\{I(T;Y_2)-I(T;Z|V), \ \ I(T;Y_2|U)-I(T;Z|U)+R_1\}, \end{align} where the union is taken over probability distributions satisfying $U\to V\to T\to (Y_1, Y_2, Z)$ forming a Markov chain and for $i=1,2,$ both $I(T;Y_i|V) \geq I(T;Z|V)$ and $I(T;Y_i|U) \geq I(T;Z|U)$ hold. Note that for fixed $p(t), p(t|u),$ the above region is outer bounded by the choice of $V=T,$ i.e., the outer bounding region is given by the union of non-negative $(R_{1}, R_{2})$ pairs satisfying \begin{align} R_1 &\leq \min\{I(V;Y_1), \ \ I(V;Y_1|U)-I(V;Z|U)+R_2\};\\ R_2 &\leq \min\{I(V;Y_2), \ \ I(V;Y_2|U)-I(V;Z|U)+R_1\}, \end{align} where the union is taken over probability distributions satisfying $U\to V\to (Y_1, Y_2, Z)$ forming a Markov chain and $I(V;Y_i|U) \geq I(V;Z|U)$ holds for $i=1,2$. This reduces to the region provided in Theorem \ref{pro: superposition}. \section{Proof of Converse for Theorem~\ref{thm: deterministic Z IndS}} \label{app: Proof of Converse for deterministic BC-RSI with an eavesdropper} Consider a BC-RSI with an external eavesdropper. In addition, the eavesdropper's channel is {\em deterministic} in the sense that $Z$ is a function of $X.$ For a reliable communication under individual secrecy constraint, we have \begin{align*} nR_1= & H(M_1)=H(M_1|M_2)\\ = & I(M_1;Y_1^n|M_2)+H(M_1|M_2, Y_1^n)\\ \stackrel{(a)}{\leq}& I(M_1;Y_1^n|M_2)+n\epsilon \end{align*} where $(a)$ is due to the reliability constraint, i.e., $H(M_1|M_2, Y_1^n)\leq n\epsilon_1$ by Fano's inequality. On one hand, we have \allowdisplaybreaks \begin{align*} nR_1 \leq & I(M_1;Y_1^n|M_2)+n\epsilon\\ = & \sum_{i=1}^{n}I(M_1;Y_{1i}|M_2, {Y_{1}}_{1}^{i-1})+n\epsilon\\ \leq & \sum_{i=1}^{n}I(M_1, M_2, {Y_{1}}_{1}^{i-1};Y_{1i})+n\epsilon\\ \stackrel{(b)}{\leq} & \sum_{i=1}^{n}I(X_i;Y_{1i})+n\epsilon\\ \stackrel{(c)}{\leq} & n I(X; Y_1)+n\epsilon \end{align*} where $(b)$ is due to the Markov chain $(M_1, M_2, {Y_{1}}_{1}^{i-1})\to X_i\to Y_{1i};$ $(c)$ is by introducing a time-sharing random variable $Q$ which is uniform over $1, 2\cdots, n$ and by taking $X=X_{Q}, Y_1=Y_{1, Q}.$ On the other hand, we have \begin{align*} nR_1 \leq & I(M_1;Y_1^n|M_2)+n\epsilon\\ = & \underbrace{I(M_1;Y_1^n|M_2)-I(M_1;Z^n|M_2)}_{nR_1^s}+\underbrace{I(M_1;Z^n|M_2)}_{nR_1^k}+n\epsilon. \end{align*} The first term $R_1^s$ can be bounded as follows: \begin{align*} nR_1^s =& I(M_1;Y_1^n|M_2)-I(M_1;Z^n|M_2)\\ \leq & I(M_1; Y_1^n, Z^n|M_2)-I(M_1;Z^n|M_2)\\ =& I(M_1; Y_1^n|M_2, Z^n)\\ = & \sum_{i=1}^n I(M_1; Y_{1i}|M_2, Z^n, Y_{1,1}^{i-1})\\ \leq & \sum_{i=1}^n I(M_1, M_2, {Y_{1}}_{1}^{i-1}, Z_{1}^{i-1}, Z_{i+1}^{n}; Y_{1i}|Z_i)\\ \stackrel{(d)}{\leq} &\sum_{i=1}^n I(X_i; Y_{1i}|Z_i)\\ \stackrel{(e)}{\leq}& n I(X; Y_{1}|Z), \end{align*} where $(d)$ is due to the Markov chain $(M_1, M_2, {Y_{1}}_{1}^{i-1}, Z_{1}^{i-1}, Z_{i+1}^{n})\to X_i\to (Y_{1i}, Z_i);$ $(e)$ is by applying the time-sharing random variable $Q$ which is uniform over $1, 2\cdots, n$ and by taking $X=X_Q, Y_1=Y_{1, Q}, Z=Z_{Q}.$ And the second term $R_1^k$ can be bounded by \begin{align*} nR_1^k= & I(M_1;Z^n|M_2)\\ \leq& I(M_1, M_2;Z^n)\\ \stackrel{(d)}{\leq}& I(M_2;Z^n|M_1)+n\epsilon\\ \leq & H(M_2|M_1)+n\epsilon\\ =& nR_2+n\epsilon, \end{align*} where $(d)$ is due to the individual secrecy constraint, i.e., $I(M_1;Z^n)\leq n\epsilon.$ As a conclusion of above discussions, we have as $\epsilon\to 0$ \begin{equation*} R_1\leq \min\{I(X; Y_1), \ I(X; Y_1|Z)+R_2\}. \end{equation*} A similar proof can be applied to $R_2$ and thus completes the proof of the converse. \section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm: Oma Marton}} \label{sec:App_Oma Marton} {\em Rate splitting:} As illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig: Oma Marton RS}, we represent $M_1, M_2$ by $M_1=(M_{1k}, M_{1sk}, M_{1ss}, M_{1sm})$ and $M_2=(M_{2k}, M_{2sk}, M_{2ss}, M_{2sm})$ with $M_{1k}, M_{2k}$ of entropy $nR_k;$ $M_{1sk}, M_{2sk}$ of entropy $nR_{sk};$ while $M_{1ss}, M_{1sm}$ of entropy $nR_{1ss}, nR_{1sm};$ and $M_{2ss}, M_{2sm}$ of entropy $nR_{2ss}, nR_{2sm},$ respectively. For simplicity, we denote $M_k=M_{1k}\oplus M_{2k},$ $M_{sk}=M_{1sk}\oplus M_{2sk},$ $M_{ss}=(M_{1ss}, M_{2ss})$ and $M_{sm}=(M_{1sm}, M_{2sm}).$ \begin{figure}[H] \centering \begin{tabular}{rcl} $m_1:$ & & $ \overbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=blue!25] {$m_{1k}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }^{nR_k} \overbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=blue!25] {$m_{1sk}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }^{nR_{sk}} \overbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=blue!25] {\ $m_{1ss}$\ \ }; \end{tikzpicture} }^{nR_{1ss}} \overbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=blue!25] {\ $m_{1sm}$\ \ }; \end{tikzpicture} }^{nR_{1sm}} $\\ $m_2:$ & & $ \underbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=teal!25] {$m_{2k}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }_{nR_k} \underbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=teal!25] {$m_{2sk}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }_{nR_{sk}} \underbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=teal!25] {\ $m_{2ss}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }_{nR_{2ss}} \underbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=teal!25] {\ $m_{2sm}$\ \ }; \end{tikzpicture} }_{nR_{2sm}} $ \end{tabular} \caption{Martion's coding: Rate splitting.} \label{fig: Oma Marton RS} \end{figure} {\em Codebook generation:} Fix $p(u), p(v_0|u), p(v_1,v_2|v_0)$ and $p(x|v_1, v_2).$ First, randomly generate $2^{nR_k}$ i.i.d. sequences $u^{n}(k),$ $k\in[1:2^{nR_k}],$ according to $p(u).$ For each $u^n(k),$ randomly generate $2^{n(R_{1ss}+R_{2ss}+R_{sk}+R_{r})}$ i.i.d. sequences $v_0^n(k, m_{1ss}, m_{2ss}, m_{sk}, r)$ with $(m_{1ss}, m_{2ss}, m_{sk}, r)\in [1: 2^{nR_{1ss}}]\times[1: 2^{nR_{2ss}}]\times [1: 2^{nR_{sk}}]\times [1: 2^{nR_{r}}]$, according to $p(v_0|u)$; For each fixed $v_0^n(k, m_{1ss}, m_{2ss}, m_{sk}, r),$ randomly generate $2^{n(R_{1sm}+R_{1r}+R_{1c})}$ i.i.d. sequences $v_1^n(k, m_{1ss}, \allowbreak m_{2ss}, m_{sk}, r, sm_1, r_1, c_1)$ with $(sm_1, r_1, c_1)\in [1: 2^{nR_{1sm}}]\times [1: 2^{nR_{1r}}]\times [1: 2^{nR_{1c}}]$, according to $p(v_1|v_0)$; and similarly generate $2^{n(R_{2sm}+R_{2r}+R_{2c})}$ i.i.d. sequences $v_2^n(k, m_{1ss}, m_{2ss}, m_{sk}, r, sm_2, r_2, c_2)$ with $(sm_2, r_2, c_2)\in [1: 2^{nR_{2sm}}]\times [1: 2^{nR_{2r}}]\times [1: 2^{nR_{2c}}],$ according to $p(v_2|v_0)$. {\em Encoding:} To send messages $(m_1, m_2),$ choose $u^n(k),$ where $k=m_k\triangleq m_{1k}\oplus m_{2k}.$ Given $u^n(k),$ randomly choose $r\in [1: 2^{nR_r}]$ and find $v_0^n(u^n, m_{1ss}, m_{2ss}, m_{sk}, r),$ where $m_{sk}\triangleq m_{1sk}\oplus m_{2sk}.$ Given $v_0^n(k, m_{1ss}, m_{2ss}, m_{sk}, r),$ randomly choose $(r_1, r_2)\in [1: 2^{nR_{1r}}] \times [1: 2^{nR_{2r}}],$ and pick $(c_1,c_2)$ such that $v_1^n(k, m_{1ss}, m_{2ss}, sk, r, sm_1, r_1, c_1)$ and $v_2^n(k, m_{1ss}, m_{2ss}, sk, r, sm_2, r_2, c_2)$ are jointly typical. (If there is more than one such jointly typical pair, choose one of them uniformly at random. This is possible with high probability, if \begin{equation}\label{eqn: Marton cond on cover index} R_{1c}+R_{2c}>I(V_1;V_2|V_0) \end{equation} (refer to \cite{src:ElGamal1981} for the proof). Finally, for the chosen jointly typical pair $(v_1^n,v_2^n)$, generate a codeword $x^n$ at random according to $p(x|v_1, v_2)$ and transmit it. The choice of $u^n, v_0^n, v_1^n, v_2^n$ for given $(m_1, m_2)$ is illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig: Oma Marton encoding}. \begin{figure}[H] \centering \begin{tabular}{rcl} $u^n(k):$ & & $ \overbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, minimum width=6em, anchor=base, fill=red!25] {$m_{1k}\oplus m_{2k}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }^{nR_k} $\\ $v_0^n(k, m_{1ss}, m_{2ss}, m_{sk}, r):$ & & $ \underbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=blue!25] {$m_{1ss}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }_{nR_{1ss}} \overbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=red!25] {$m_{1sk}\oplus m_{2sk}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }^{nR_{sk}} \overbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=red!25] {$\ r\ $}; \end{tikzpicture} }^{nR_r} \underbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, anchor=base, fill=teal!25] {$m_{2ss}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }_{nR_{2ss}}$ \\ $v_1^n(k, m_{1ss}, m_{2ss}, sk, r, m_{1sm}, r_1, c_1):$ & & $ \underbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, minimum width=3em, anchor=base, fill=blue!25] {$m_{1sm}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }_{nR_{1sm}} \overbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, minimum width=2em, anchor=base, fill=red!25] {$r_{1}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }^{nR_{1r}} \overbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, minimum width=2em, anchor=base, fill=orange!25] {$c_{1}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }^{nR_{1c}} $\\ $v_2^n(k, m_{1ss}, m_{2ss}, sk, r, m_{2sm}, r_2, c_2):$ & & $ \underbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, minimum width=3em, anchor=base, fill=teal!25] {$m_{2sm}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }_{nR_{2sm}} \overbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, minimum width=2em, anchor=base, fill=red!25] {$r_{2}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }^{nR_{2r}} \overbrace{ \begin{tikzpicture} \node[minimum height=1.6em, minimum width=2em, anchor=base, fill=orange!25] {$c_{2}$}; \end{tikzpicture} }^{nR_{2c}} $ \end{tabular} \caption{Marton's coding: Encoding.} \label{fig: Oma Marton encoding} \end{figure} {\em Decoding:} Receiver 1, upon receiving $y_1^n,$ finds a unique $v_1^n(\hat{k}, \hat{m}_{1ss}, m_{2ss}, \hat{m}_{sk}, \hat{r}, \hat{m}_{1sm}, \hat{r}_1, \hat{c}_1)$ such that $(v_1^n, y_1^n)$ is jointly typical. And, receiver 2, upon receiving $y_2^n,$ finds a unique $v_2^n(\tilde{k}, m_{1ss}, \tilde{m}_{2ss}, \tilde{m}_{sk}, \tilde{r}, m_{1sm}, \allowbreak \tilde{r}_2, \tilde{c}_2)$ such that $(v_2^n, y_2^n)$ is jointly typical. {\em Analysis of decoding error:} Assume that $m_1=(m_{1k}, m_{1sk}, m_{1ss}, m_{1sm}),$ $m_2=(m_{2k}, m_{2sk}, m_{2ss}, m_{2sm})$ is sent, i.e., more specifically, $k, m_{sk}, m_{1ss}, m_{1sm}$ and $m_{2ss}, m_{2sm}$ are sent, where $k\triangleq m_{1k}\oplus m_{2k}$ and $m_{sk}=m_{1sk}\oplus m_{2sk}.$ For $P_{e,1}$, a decoding error happens if receiver 1's estimate is $u^n(\hat{k}),$ $v_0^n(u^n, \hat{m}_{1ss}, m_{2ss}, \hat{m}_{sk}, \hat{r}),$ $v_1^n(v_0^n, \hat{m}_{1sm}, \hat{r}_1, \hat{c}_1)$ with $(\hat{k}, \hat{m}_{1ss}, \hat{m}_{sk}, \hat{r}, \hat{m}_{1sm}, \hat{r}_1, \hat{c}_1)\neq (k, m_{1ss}, m_{sk}, r, m_{1sm}, r_1, c_1).$ In more details, the error event can be partitioned into the followings: \begin{enumerate} \item Error event corresponds to $\hat{k} \neq k.$ Note that this event occurs with arbitrarily small probability if \begin{equation}\label{eqn: cond Marton pe11} R_1+R_r+R_{1r}+R_{1c}\leq I(U, V_0, V_1;Y_1)=I(V_0, V_1;Y_1). \end{equation} \item Error event corresponds to $\hat{k} = k,$ but $(\hat{m}_{1ss}, \hat{m}_{sk}, \hat{r}) \neq (m_{1ss}, m_{sk}, r)$ Note that this event occurs with arbitrarily small probability if \begin{equation}\label{eqn: cond Marton pe12} R_1-R_k+R_r+R_{1r}+R_{1c}\leq I(V_0, V_1;Y_1|U). \end{equation} \item Error event corresponds to $(\hat{k}, \hat{m}_{1ss}, \hat{m}_{sk}, \hat{r}) = (k, m_{1ss}, m_{sk}, r)$ but $(\hat{m}_{1sm}, \hat{r}_1, \hat{c}_1)\neq (m_{1sm}, r_1, c_1).$ Note that this event occurs with arbitrarily small probability if \begin{equation}\label{eqn: cond Marton pe13} R_{1sm}+R_{1r}+R_{1c}\leq I(V_1;Y_1|U, V_0)=I(V_1;Y_1|V_0). \end{equation} \end{enumerate} Similar analysis can be done at the receiver 2, from which the decoding error probability $P_{e,2}$ can be made arbitrarily small if \begin{align} R_2+R_r+R_{2r}+R_{2c}& \leq I(V_0, V_2;Y_2) \label{eqn: cond Marton pe21}\\ R_2-R_k+R_r+R_{2r}+R_{2c}&\leq I(V_0, V_2;Y_2|U) \label{eqn: cond Marton pe22}\\ R_{2sm}+R_{2r}+R_{2c}&\leq I(V_2;Y_2|U, V_0)=I(V_2;Y_2|V_0).\label{eqn: cond Marton pe23} \end{align} {\em Analysis of individual secrecy:} For the secrecy of $M_1$, we have \allowdisplaybreaks \begin{align*} I(M_1; Z^n) =& I(M_{1k}, M_{1sk}, M_{1ss}, M_{1sm}; Z^n)\\ =& I(M_{1k}, M_{1sk}; Z^n)+I(M_{1ss}, M_{1sm};Z^n|M_{1k}, M_{1sk})\\ \stackrel{(a)}{=}& I(M_{1ss}, M_{1sm};Z^n|M_{1k}, M_{1sk})\\ =& H(M_{1ss}, M_{1sm})-H(M_{1ss}, M_{1sm}|M_{1k}, M_{1sk}, Z^n)\\ \leq & H(M_{1ss}, M_{1sm})-H(M_{1ss}, M_{1sm}|M_k, M_{1k}, M_{1sk}, Z^n)\\ \stackrel{(b)}{=} & nR_{1ss}+ nR_{1sm}-H(M_{1ss}, M_{1sm}|M_{k}, Z^n) \end{align*} where $(a)$ is due to the fact that $I(M_{1k}, M_{1sk}; Z^n) = 0$ since \begin{align*} I(M_{1k}, M_{1sk}; Z^n) &\leq I(M_{1k}, M_{1sk}; Z^n, M_{k}, M_{sk}, M_{1ss}, M_{1sm}, M_{2ss}, M_{2sm})\\ &=I(M_{1k}, M_{1sk}; M_{k}, M_{sk}, M_{1ss}, M_{1sm}, M_{2ss}, M_{2sm})\\ &=0, \end{align*} where the first equality is by the Markov chain $(M_{1k}, M_{2k}, M_{1sk}, M_{2sk})\to (M_k, M_{sk}, M_{ss}, M_{sm})\to Z^n$; $(b)$ is due to the fact that $I(M_{1ss}, M_{1sm}; M_{1k}, M_{1sk}|Z^n, M_{k})=0,$ where the equality follows by: \begin{enumerate} \item $I(M_{1ss}, M_{1sm}; M_{1k}, M_{1sk}|Z^n, M_{k})\geq 0;$ and \item $I(M_{1ss}, M_{1sm}; M_{1k}, M_{1sk}|Z^n, M_{k})\leq 0$ since \begin{align*} H( M_{1k}, M_{1sk}|Z^n, M_{k}, M_{1ss}, M_{1sm}) & \geq H( M_{1k}, M_{1sk}|Z^n, M_{k}, M_{sk}, M_{1ss}, M_{1sm})\\ & =H(M_{1k}, M_{1sk}|M_k, M_{sk})\\ & =H( M_{1k}, M_{1sk})\\ & \geq H( M_{1k}, M_{1sk}|Z^n, M_{k}). \end{align*} \end{enumerate} So far, we obtain \begin{equation}\label{eqn: marton secrecy step 1} I(M_1; Z^n) \leq nR_{1ss}+ nR_{1sm}-H(M_{1ss}, M_{1sm}|M_{k}, Z^n). \end{equation} Similarly, for the secrecy of $M_2,$ we have \begin{equation}\label{eqn: marton secrecy step 1 for M2} I(M_2; Z^n) \leq nR_{2ss}+ nR_{2sm}-H(M_{2ss}, M_{2sm}|M_{k}, Z^n). \end{equation} In the following, we show that $H(M_{1ss}, M_{1sm}, M_{2ss}, M_{2sm}|M_k, Z^n)\geq n(R_{1ss}+R_{1sm}+R_{2ss}+R_{1sm})-n\delta'(\epsilon)$ holds if the rates satisfy \eqref{eqn: IndS condiA}, \eqref{eqn: IndS condiB}, \eqref{eqn: IndS condiC} and \eqref{eqn: IndS condiD}. This implies that $H(M_{1ss}, M_{1sm}|M_{k}, Z^n)\geq R_{1ss}+R_{1sm}-n\delta'(\epsilon)$ and $H(M_{2ss}, M_{2sm}|M_{k}, Z^n)\geq R_{2ss}+R_{2sm}-n\delta'(\epsilon).$ Further by (\ref{eqn: marton secrecy step 1}) and \eqref{eqn: marton secrecy step 1 for M2}, we obtain $I(M_1;Z^n)\leq n\delta'(\epsilon)$ and $I(M_2;Z^n)\leq n\delta'(\epsilon),$ thus completing the desired individual secrecy proof. Note that \begin{align} H(M_{1ss}, M_{1sm}, M_{2ss}, M_{2sm}|M_k, Z^n) \stackrel{(a)}{=}& H(M_{ss}, M_{sm}|U^n, Z^n)\nonumber\\ =& H(M_{ss}, M_{sm}, V_0^n|U^n, Z^n)-H(V_0^n|U^n, M_{ss}, M_{sm}, Z^n)\nonumber\\ \geq & H(M_{ss}, M_{sm}, V_0^n|U^n,Z^n)-H(V_0^n|U^n, M_{ss}, Z^n)\nonumber\\ \geq & H(V_0^n|U^n, Z^n)+H(M_{sm}|U^n, V_0^n, Z^n)-H(V_0^n|U^n, M_{ss}, Z^n). \label{eqn: terms for inds} \end{align} We now bound the terms above. For the first term in \eqref{eqn: terms for inds}, i.e., $H(V_0^n|U^n, Z^n),$ we have \begin{align} H(V_0^n|U^n, Z^n) & =H(V_0^n, Z^n |U^n)-H(Z^n|U^n)\nonumber\\ & =H(V_0^n|U^n)+H(Z^n|U^n, V_0^n)-H(Z^n|U^n)\nonumber\\ & =n(R_{1ss}+R_{2ss}+R_{sk}+R_r)+H(Z^n|U^n, V_0^n)-H(Z^n|U^n); \label{eqn: term 1 for inds} \end{align} And, for the second term in \eqref{eqn: terms for inds}, i.e., $H(M_{1sm}, M_{2sm}|U^n, V_0^n, Z^n),$ we have \begin{align}\label{eqn: term 2 for inds} H&(M_{1sm},M_{2sm}|U^n, V_0^n, Z^n)\nonumber\\ =& H(M_{1sm},M_{2sm},Z^n|U^n, V_0^n)-H(Z^n|U^n, V_0^n)\nonumber\\ =& H(M_{1sm},M_{2sm},Z^n,V_1^n,V_2^n|U^n, V_0^n)-H(Z^n|U^n, V_0^n)-H(V_1^n,V_2^n|U^n, V_0^n, M_{1sm},M_{2sm}, Z^n)\nonumber\\ =& H(Z^n,V_1^n,V_2^n|U^n, V_0^n)-H(Z^n|U^n, V_0^n)-H(V_1^n,V_2^n|U^n, V_0^n, M_{1sm},M_{2sm}, Z^n)\nonumber\\ =& H(Z^n|U^n,V_0^n,V_1^n,V_2^n)+H(V_1^n,V_2^n|U^n,V_0^n)-H(Z^n|U^n, V_0^n)-H(V_1^n,V_2^n|U^n, V_0^n, M_{1sm},M_{2sm}, Z^n)\nonumber\\ \stackrel{(a)}{\geq} & H(Z^n|U^n,V_0^n,V_1^n,V_2^n)+H(V_1^n,V_2^n|U^n,V_0^n)-H(Z^n|U^n, V_0^n)\nonumber\\ &\:{}-H(V_1^n|U^n, V_0^n, M_{1sm},M_{2sm}, Z^n)-H(V_2^n|U^n, V_0^n, M_{1sm},M_{2sm}, Z^n)\nonumber\\ \stackrel{(b)}{\geq} & H(Z^n|U^n,V_0^n,V_1^n,V_2^n)+n(R_{1sm}+R_{1r}+R_{2sm}+R_{2r})-H(Z^n|U^n, V_0^n)\nonumber\\ &\:{}-H(V_1^n|U^n, V_0^n, M_{1sm}, Z^n)-H(V_2^n|U^n, V_0^n, M_{2sm}, Z^n)\nonumber\\ \stackrel{(c)}{\geq} & H(Z^n|U^n,V_0^n,V_1^n,V_2^n)+n(R_{1sm}+R_{1r}+R_{2sm}+R_{2r})-H(Z^n|U^n, V_0^n)\nonumber\\ &\:{}-n(R_{1r}+R_{1c}-I(V_1;Z|V_0))-n\epsilon_1-n(R_{2r}+R_{2c}-I(V_2;Z|V_0))-n\epsilon_1 \end{align} where $(a)$ is due to the fact that $H(A,B|C)\leq H(A|C)+H(B|C)$, $(b)$ follows as \begin{align*} H(V_1^n,V_2^n|U^n,V_0^n)& =H(M_{1sm},M_{2sm},M_{1r},M_{2r}|U^n,V_0^n)+H(V_1^n,V_2^n|U^n,V_0^n,M_{1sm},M_{2sm},M_{1r},M_{2r})\\ & \geq H(M_{1sm},M_{2sm},M_{1r},M_{2r}|U^n,V_0^n)=H(M_{1sm},M_{2sm},M_{1r},M_{2r})\\ & =n(R_{1sm}+R_{1r}+R_{2sm}+R_{2r}) \end{align*} since the choice of $M_{1sm},M_{2sm},M_{1r},M_{2r}$ are independent of $U^n,V_0^n;$ $(c)$ is due to the followings: First, we have \begin{align} H(V_1^n|U^n, V_0^n, M_{1sm}, Z^n)=H(V_1^n|V_0^n, M_{1sm}, Z^n) \leq n(R_{1r}+R_{1c}-I(V_1;Z|V_0))+n\epsilon_1 \end{align} if, for an arbitrarily small $\epsilon>0$, \begin{equation}\label{eqn: IndS condiA} R_{1r}+R_{1c}\geq I(V_1;Z|V_0)+\epsilon. \end{equation} This follows from \cite[Lemma 1]{src:Chia2012_BC}. And, similarly, we have \begin{align} H(V_2^n|U^n, V_0^n, M_{2sm}, Z^n) = H(V_2^n|V_0^n, M_{2sm}, Z^n) \leq n(R_{2r}+R_{2c}-I(V_2;Z|V_0))+n\epsilon_1 \end{align} if, for an arbitrarily small $\epsilon>0$, \begin{equation}\label{eqn: IndS condiB} R_{2r}+R_{2c}\geq I(V_2;Z|V_0)+\epsilon. \end{equation} Finally, for the last term in \eqref{eqn: terms for inds}, i.e., $H(V_0^n|U^n, M_{ss}, Z^n),$ we have \begin{align} H(V_0^n|U^n, M_{ss}, Z^n)\leq n(R_{sk}+R_{r}-I(V_0;Z|U))+n\epsilon_1, \label{eqn: term 3 for inds} \end{align} if, for an arbitrarily small $\epsilon>0$, \begin{equation}\label{eqn: IndS condiC} R_{sk}+R_r\geq I(V_0;Z|U)+\epsilon. \end{equation} This follows from \cite[Lemma 1]{src:Chia2012_BC}. Combining \eqref{eqn: term 1 for inds}, \eqref{eqn: term 2 for inds} and \eqref{eqn: term 3 for inds} in \eqref{eqn: terms for inds}, we have \begin{align*} H&(M_{1ss}, M_{1sm}, M_{2ss}, M_{2sm}|M_k, Z^n)\nonumber\\ \geq & H(V_0^n|U^n, Z^n)+H(M_{sm}|U^n, V_0^n, Z^n)-H(V_0^n|U^n, M_{ss}, Z^n)\\ \geq & n(R_{1ss}+R_{2ss}+R_{sk}+R_r)+H(Z^n|U^n, V_0^n)-H(Z^n|U^n)\nonumber\\ &\:{}+H(Z^n|U^n,V_0^n,V_1^n,V_2^n)+n(R_{1sm}+R_{1r}+R_{2sm}+R_{2r})-H(Z^n|U^n, V_0^n)\nonumber\\ &\:{}-n(R_{1r}+R_{1c}-I(V_1;Z|V_0))-n\epsilon_1-n(R_{2r}+R_{2c}-I(V_2;Z|V_0))-n\epsilon_1\nonumber\\ &\:{}-n(R_{sk}+R_{r}-I(V_0;Z|U))-n\epsilon_1\\ \stackrel{(a)}{\geq} & n(R_{1ss}+R_{1sm}+R_{2ss}+R_{2sm}) \nonumber\\ &\:{} +n(-R_{1c}-R_{2c}-H(Z|U)+H(Z|U,V_0,V_1,V_2)+I(V_1;Z|V_0)+I(V_2;Z|V_0)+I(V_0;Z|U)-3\epsilon_1)\\ \stackrel{(b)}{\geq} & n(R_{1ss}+R_{1sm}+R_{2ss}+R_{2sm}) - n\delta(\epsilon) \end{align*} where $(a)$ follows from $H(Z^n|U^n)\leq$ $\sum_{i=1}^{n} H(Z_i|U_i)$ $=nH(Z|U)$ and the fact that $H(Z^n|U^n, V_0^n, V_1^n, V_2^n)=\allowbreak nH(Z|U, V_0, V_1, V_2)$; and $(b)$ follows by the rate choice \begin{equation}\label{eqn: IndS condiD} R_{1c}+R_{2c} \leq I(V_1;Z|V_0)+I(V_2;Z|V_0)-I(V_1,V_2;Z|V_0) \end{equation} with $\delta(\epsilon)=3\epsilon_1$. {\em Achievable rate region:} Combining the non-negativity for rates, the conditions for reliable communication at both legitimate receivers, i.e., \eqref{eqn: Marton cond on cover index}, \eqref{eqn: cond Marton pe11}-\eqref{eqn: cond Marton pe23}, and individual secrecy at the eavesdropper, i.e., \eqref{eqn: IndS condiA}, \eqref{eqn: IndS condiB}, \eqref{eqn: IndS condiC} and \eqref{eqn: IndS condiD}, we obtain the followings: \begin{equation}\label{eqn: FM 0} R_{k}, R_{sk}, R_{1ss},R_{1sm},R_{2ss},R_{2sm}, R_r, R_{1c}, R_{2c}, R_{1r}, R_{2r} \geq 0 \end{equation} \begin{eqnarray} R_1&=& R_{k}+R_{sk}+R_{1ss}+R_{1sm} \label{eqn: FM 1}\\ R_2&=& R_{k}+R_{sk}+R_{2ss}+R_{2sm} \label{eqn: FM 2}\\ R_{1c}+R_{2c} &> & I(V_1;V_2|V_0) \label{eqn: FM 3}\\ R_{1}+R_r+R_{1r}+R_{1c}&\leq& I(V_0, V_1;Y_1) \label{eqn: FM 4}\\ R_1-R_k+R_r+R_{1r}+R_{1c}&\leq& I(V_0,V_1;Y_1|U) \label{eqn: FM 5} \\ R_{1sm}+R_{1r}+R_{1c}&\leq& I(V_1;Y_1|V_0) \label{eqn: FM 6}\\ R_{2}+R_r+R_{2r}+R_{2c}&\leq& I(V_0, V_2;Y_2) \label{eqn: FM 7}\\ R_2-R_k+R_r+R_{2r}+R_{2c}&\leq& I(V_0,V_2;Y_2|U) \label{eqn: FM 8}\\ R_{2sm}+R_{2r}+R_{2c}&\leq& I(V_2;Y_2|V_0) \label{eqn: FM 9}\\ R_{sk}+R_r & \geq & I(V_0;Z|U) \label{eqn: FM 10}\\ R_{1r}+R_{1c} &\geq & I(V_1;Z|V_0) \label{eqn: FM 11}\\ R_{2r}+R_{2c} &\geq & I(V_2;Z|V_0) \label{eqn: FM 12}\\ R_{1c}+R_{2c} &\leq& I(V_1;Z|V_0)+I(V_2;Z|V_0)-I(V_1,V_2;Z|V_0), \label{eqn: FM 13} \end{eqnarray} where the union is taken over probability distributions satisfying $$p(q, u,v_0,v_1,v_2,x)=p(q)p(u|q)p(v_0|u)p(v_1,v_2|v_0)p(x|v_1,v_2).$$ Eliminating $R_{1c}, R_{2c}, R_{1r}, R_{2r}, R_r, R_{1sm}, R_{2sm}, R_{1ss},R_{2ss}, R_{k}, R_{sk},$ by applying Fourier-Motzkin procedure \cite{ElGamal:2012}, we obtain the region of $(R_1, R_2)$ as given in \eqref{eqn: Oma Marton IndS region} in Theorem \ref{thm: Oma Marton}. Note that a sketch of this Fourier-Motzkin procedure is provided in Appendix \ref{App: FM}. \section{Fourier-Motzkin Elimination for Theorem \ref{thm: Oma Marton}}\label{App: FM} Here we briefly outline the Fourier-Motzkin procedure in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm: Oma Marton}. \begin{itemize} \item To eliminate $R_{1ss},$ we consider the non-negativity of the rate and the equality \eqref{eqn: FM 1}. We end up with \begin{align} R_{1sm}+R_{k}+R_{sk} & \leq R_1 \label{eqn: FM 14} \end{align} \item To eliminate $R_{2ss},$ we consider the non-negativity of the rate and the equality \eqref{eqn: FM 2}. We end up with \begin{align} R_{2sm}+R_{k}+R_{sk} &\leq R_2 \label{eqn: FM 15} \end{align} \item To eliminate $R_{1sm},$ we consider the non-negativity of the rate and the inequalities \eqref{eqn: FM 6} and \eqref{eqn: FM 14} which involve $R_{1sm}.$ We end up with \begin{align} R_{1r}+R_{1c} & \leq I(V_1;Y_1|V_0) \label{eqn: FM 24}\\ R_{k}+R_{sk} & \leq R_1 \label{eqn: FM 25} \end{align} \item To eliminate $R_{2sm},$ we consider the non-negativity of the rate and the inequalities \eqref{eqn: FM 9} and \eqref{eqn: FM 15} which involve $R_{2sm}.$ We end up with \begin{align} R_{2r}+R_{2c} & \leq I(V_2;Y_2|V_0) \label{eqn: FM 26}\\ R_{k}+R_{sk} & \leq R_2 \label{eqn: FM 27} \end{align} \item To eliminate $R_{r},$ we consider the non-negativity of the rate and the inequalities \eqref{eqn: FM 4}, \eqref{eqn: FM 5}, \eqref{eqn: FM 7}, \eqref{eqn: FM 8}, \eqref{eqn: FM 10} which involve $R_{r}.$ We end up with \begin{align} R_{1}+R_{1r}+R_{1c} & \leq I(V_0, V_1;Y_1) \label{eqn: FM 16}\\ R_{1}-R_{k}+R_{1r}+R_{1c} & \leq I(V_0, V_1;Y_1|U) \label{eqn: FM 17}\\ R_{2}+R_{2r}+R_{2c} & \leq I(V_0, V_2;Y_2) \label{eqn: FM 18}\\ R_{2}-R_{k}+R_{2r}+R_{2c} & \leq I(V_0, V_2;Y_2|U) \label{eqn: FM 19}\\ R_{1}-R_{sk}+R_{1r}+R_{1c} & \leq I(V_0, V_1;Y_1)-I(V_0;Z|U) \label{eqn: FM 20}\\ R_{1}-R_{k}-R_{sk}+R_{1r}+R_{1c} & \leq I(V_0, V_1;Y_1|U)-I(V_0;Z|U) \label{eqn: FM 21}\\ R_{2}-R_{sk}+R_{2r}+R_{2c} & \leq I(V_0, V_2;Y_2)-I(V_0;Z|U) \label{eqn: FM 22}\\ R_{2}-R_{k}-R_{sk}+R_{2r}+R_{2c} & \leq I(V_0, V_2;Y_2|U)-I(V_0;Z|U) \label{eqn: FM 23} \end{align} \item To eliminate $R_{k},$ we consider the non-negativity of the rate and the inequalities \eqref{eqn: FM 17}, \eqref{eqn: FM 19}, \eqref{eqn: FM 21}, \eqref{eqn: FM 23}, \eqref{eqn: FM 25}, \eqref{eqn: FM 27} which involve $R_{k}.$ We end up with \allowdisplaybreaks \begin{align} R_{sk} &\leq R_1 \label{eqn: FM 28}\\ R_{sk} &\leq R_2 \label{eqn: FM 29}\\ R_{sk}+R_{1r}+R_{1c} &\leq I(V_0, V_1; Y_1|U) \label{eqn: FM 30}\\ R_1-R_2+R_{sk}+R_{1r}+R_{1c} &\leq I(V_0, V_1; Y_1|U) \label{eqn: FM 31}\\ R_2-R_1+R_{sk}+R_{2r}+R_{2c} &\leq I(V_0, V_2; Y_2|U) \label{eqn: FM 32}\\ R_{sk}+R_{2r}+R_{2c} &\leq I(V_0, V_2; Y_2|U) \label{eqn: FM 33}\\ R_{1r}+R_{1c} &\leq I(V_0, V_1; Y_1|U)-I(V_0;Z|U) \label{eqn: FM 34}\\ R_1-R_2+R_{1r}+R_{1c} &\leq I(V_0, V_1; Y_1|U)-I(V_0;Z|U) \label{eqn: FM 35}\\ R_2-R_1+R_{2r}+R_{2c} &\leq I(V_0, V_2; Y_2|U)-I(V_0;Z|U) \label{eqn: FM 36}\\ R_{2r}+R_{2c} &\leq I(V_0, V_2; Y_2|U)-I(V_0;Z|U) \label{eqn: FM 37} \end{align} \item To eliminate $R_{sk},$ we consider the non-negativity of the rate and the inequalities \eqref{eqn: FM 20}, \eqref{eqn: FM 22}, \eqref{eqn: FM 28}, \eqref{eqn: FM 29}, \eqref{eqn: FM 30}, \eqref{eqn: FM 31}, \eqref{eqn: FM 32}, \eqref{eqn: FM 33} which involve $R_{sk}.$ We end up with the following inequalities after cancelling the redundant ones. \begin{align} R_{1} & \geq 0 \label{eqn: FM 38}\\ R_{2} & \geq 0 \label{eqn: FM 39} \end{align} \item To eliminate $R_{1r},$ we consider the non-negativity of the rate and the inequalities \eqref{eqn: FM 11}, \eqref{eqn: FM 16}, \eqref{eqn: FM 24}, \eqref{eqn: FM 34}, \eqref{eqn: FM 35} which involve $R_{1r}$. We end up with the following inequalities after cancelling the redundant ones. \begin{align} R_{1}+R_{1c} & \leq I(V_0, V_1;Y_1) \label{eqn: FM 40}\\ R_{1c} & \leq I(V_1;Y_1|V_0) +[I(V_0;Y_1|U)-I(V_0;Z|U)]^{-}\label{eqn: FM 41}\\ R_{1}-R_{2}+R_{1c} & \leq I(V_0, V_1; Y_1|U)-I(V_0;Z|U) \label{eqn: FM 43}\\ R_{1} & \leq I(V_0, V_1;Y_1)-I(V_1;Z|V_0) \label{eqn: FM 44}\\ I(V_1;Z|V_0) & \leq I(V_1;Y_1|V_0) \label{eqn: FM C1}\\ I(V_0,V_1;Z|U) & \leq I(V_0, V_1;Y_1|U) \label{eqn: FM C2}\\ R_{1}-R_{2} & \leq I(V_0, V_1; Y_1|U)-I(V_0, V_1;Z|U) \label{eqn: FM 45} \end{align} where $[a]^{-}=\min\{0, a\}.$ \item To eliminate $R_{2r},$ we consider the non-negativity of the rate and the inequalities \eqref{eqn: FM 12}, \eqref{eqn: FM 18}, \eqref{eqn: FM 26}, \eqref{eqn: FM 36}, \eqref{eqn: FM 37} which involve $R_{2r}$. We end up with the following inequalities after canceling the redundant ones. \begin{align} R_{2}+R_{2c} & \leq I(V_0, V_2;Y_2) \label{eqn: FM 46}\\ R_{2c} & \leq I(V_2;Y_2|V_0)+|I(V_0;Y_2|U)-I(V_0;Z|U)|^{-} \label{eqn: FM 47}\\ R_{2}-R_{1}+R_{2c} & \leq I(V_0, V_2; Y_2|U)-I(V_0;Z|U) \label{eqn: FM 48}\\ R_{2} & \leq I(V_0, V_2;Y_2)-I(V_2;Z|V_0) \label{eqn: FM 50}\\ I(V_2;Z|V_0) & \leq I(V_2;Y_2|V_0) \label{eqn: FM C3}\\ I(V_0,V_2;Z|U) & \leq I(V_0, V_2;Y_2|U) \label{eqn: FM C4}\\ R_{2}-R_{1} & \leq I(V_0, V_2; Y_2|U)-I(V_0, V_2;Z|U) \label{eqn: FM 51} \end{align} \item To eliminate $R_{1c},$ we consider the non-negativity of the rate and the inequalities \eqref{eqn: FM 3}, \eqref{eqn: FM 13}, \eqref{eqn: FM 40}, \eqref{eqn: FM 41} and \eqref{eqn: FM 43} which involve $R_{1c}$. We end up with the following inequalities after canceling the redundant ones. \begin{align} R_{2c} & \leq I(V_1; Z|V_0)+I(V_2;Z|V_0)-I(V_1,V_2;Z|V_0) \label{eqn: FM 52}\\ I(V_1;V_2|V_0) & \leq I(V_1; Z|V_0)+I(V_2;Z|V_0)-I(V_1,V_2;Z|V_0) \label{eqn: FM C5}\\ R_1-R_{2c} & \leq I(V_0,V_1;Y_1)-I(V_1;V_2|V_0) \label{eqn: FM 53}\\ R_{2c} & \geq I(V_1;V_2|V_0)-I(V_1;Y_1|V_0)-[I(V_0;Y_1|U)-I(V_0;Z|U)]^{-} \label{eqn: FM 54}\\ R_1-R_2-R_{2c} & \leq I(V_0,V_1;Y_1|U)-I(V_0;Z|U)-I(V_1;V_2|V_0) \label{eqn: FM 55} \end{align} \item To eliminate $R_{2c},$ we consider the non-negativity of the rate and the inequalities \eqref{eqn: FM 46}, \eqref{eqn: FM 47}, \eqref{eqn: FM 48}, \eqref{eqn: FM 52}, \eqref{eqn: FM 53}, \eqref{eqn: FM 54}, \eqref{eqn: FM 55} which involve $R_{2c}$. We end up with the following inequalities after cancelling some redundant ones. \begin{align} R_{1}+R_{2} & \leq I(V_0,V_1;Y_1)+I(V_0,V_2;Y_2)-I(V_1;V_2|V_0) \label{eqn: FM 56}\\ R_{1} & \leq I(V_0, V_1;Y_1)-I(V_1;V_2|V_0)+I(V_2;Y_2|V_0)+[I(V_0;Y_2|U)-I(V_0;Z|U)]^{-} \label{eqn: FM 57}\\ R_{2} & \leq I(V_0,V_2;Y_2|U)-I(V_1;V_2|V_0)-I(V_0;Z|U)+I(V_0,V_1;Y_1) \label{eqn: FM 58}\\ R_{1} & \leq I(V_0, V_1;Y_1)-I(V_1;V_2|V_0)+I(V_1;Z|V_0)+I(V_2;Z|V_0)-I(V_1,V_2;Z|V_0) \label{eqn: FM 59}\\ R_{2} & \leq I(V_0,V_2;Y_2)-I(V_1;V_2|V_0)+I(V_1;Y_1|V_0)+[I(V_0;Y_1|U)-I(V_0;Z|U)]^{-} \label{eqn: FM 60}\\ R_{2}-R_{1} & \leq I(V_0,V_2;Y_2|U)-I(V_1;V_2|V_0)-I(V_0;Z|U)+I(V_1;Y_1|V_0)\nonumber\\ &\quad +[I(V_0;Y_1|U)-I(V_0;Z|U)]^{-} \label{eqn: FM 61}\\ R_{1} & \leq I(V_0,V_1;Y_1|U)-I(V_1;V_2|V_0)-I(V_0;Z|U)+I(V_0,V_2;Y_2) \label{eqn: FM 62}\\ R_{1}-R_{2} & \leq I(V_0,V_1;Y_1|U)+I(V_2;Y_2|V_0)-I(V_1;V_2|V_0)-I(V_0;Z|U)\nonumber\\ &\quad +[I(V_0;Y_2|U)-I(V_0;Z|U)]^{-} \label{eqn: FM 63}\\ R_{1}-R_{2} & \leq I(V_0,V_1;Y_1|U)-I(V_1;V_2|V_0)-I(V_0;Z|U) \nonumber\\ &\quad +I(V_1;Z|V_0)+I(V_2;Z|V_0)-I(V_1,V_2;Z|V_0) \label{eqn: FM 64} \end{align} Note that \eqref{eqn: FM 56} is redundant due to \eqref{eqn: FM 44}, \eqref{eqn: FM 50} and \eqref{eqn: FM C5}; \eqref{eqn: FM 58} is redundant due to \eqref{eqn: FM 51}, \eqref{eqn: FM 44} and \eqref{eqn: FM C5}; \eqref{eqn: FM 59} is redundant due to \eqref{eqn: FM 44} and \eqref{eqn: FM C5}; \eqref{eqn: FM 61} is redundant due to \eqref{eqn: FM 51}, \eqref{eqn: FM C1} or \eqref{eqn: FM C2}, and \eqref{eqn: FM C5}; \eqref{eqn: FM 62} is redundant due to \eqref{eqn: FM 45}, \eqref{eqn: FM 50} and \eqref{eqn: FM C5}; \eqref{eqn: FM 63} is redundant due to \eqref{eqn: FM 45}, \eqref{eqn: FM C3} or \eqref{eqn: FM C4}, and \eqref{eqn: FM C5}; \eqref{eqn: FM 64} is redundant due to \eqref{eqn: FM 45} and \eqref{eqn: FM C5}. \end{itemize} So far, we have for $R_1$ the inequalities \eqref{eqn: FM 38}, \eqref{eqn: FM 44}, \eqref{eqn: FM 45}, \eqref{eqn: FM 57} and for $R_2$ the inequalities \eqref{eqn: FM 39}, \eqref{eqn: FM 50}, \eqref{eqn: FM 51}, \eqref{eqn: FM 60}. An individual secrecy rate region is obtained as a set of the non-negative rate pairs $(R_1,R_2)$ such that \begin{align*} R_1 \leq & \min \{I(V_0, V_1; Y_1)-I_1,\ \ I(V_0, V_1; Y_1|U)-I(V_0,V_1;Z|U)+R_2\};\\ R_2 \leq & \min \{I(V_0, V_2; Y_2)-I_2,\ \ I(V_0, V_2; Y_2|U)-I(V_0,V_2;Z|U)+R_1\}, \end{align*} with \begin{align*} I_1&=\max \{I(V_1;Z|V_0), \ I(V_1;V_2|V_0)-I(V_2;Y_2|V_0), \ I(V_1;V_2|V_0)+I(V_0;Z|U)-I(V_0, V_2;Y_2|U)\};\\ I_2&=\max \{I(V_2;Z|V_0), \ I(V_1;V_2|V_0)-I(V_1;Y_1|V_0), \ I(V_1;V_2|V_0)+I(V_0;Z|U)-I(V_0, V_1;Y_1|U)\}, \end{align*} Note that $U\to V_0\to (V_1, V_2)\to (Y_1, Y_2, Z)$ forms a Markov chain such that \eqref{eqn: FM C1}, \eqref{eqn: FM C2}, \eqref{eqn: FM C3}, \eqref{eqn: FM C4}, \eqref{eqn: FM C5} hold. Further, we notice that $I_1=I(V_1;Z|V_0)$ since \begin{align*} I(V_1;V_2|V_0)-I(V_2;Y_2|V_0) &\stackrel{(a)}{\leq} I(V_1;V_2|V_0)-I(V_2;Z|V_0)\stackrel{(b)}{\leq} I(V_1;Z|V_0); \\ I(V_1;V_2|V_0)+I(V_0;Z|U)-I(V_0, V_2;Y_2|U) &\stackrel{(c)}{\leq} I(V_1;V_2|V_0)+I(V_0;Z|U)-I(V_0, V_2;Z|U)\stackrel{(b)}{\leq} I(V_1;Z|V_0), \end{align*} where $(a)$ is due to \eqref{eqn: FM C3}; $(b)$ is due to \eqref{eqn: FM C5}; and $(c)$ is due to \eqref{eqn: FM C4}. Similarly, we have $I_2=I(V_2;Z|V_0).$ Thus the region could be simplified into \begin{align*} R_1 \leq & \min \{I(V_0, V_1; Y_1)-I(V_1;Z|V_0),\ \ I(V_0, V_1; Y_1|U)-I(V_0,V_1;Z|U)+R_2\}\\ = & I(V_0, V_1; Y_1|U)-I(V_0,V_1;Z|U)+\min\{R_2, \ I(U;Y_1)+I(V_0;Z|U)\};\\ R_2 \leq & \min \{I(V_0, V_2; Y_2)-I(V_2;Z|V_0),\ \ I(V_0, V_2; Y_2|U)-I(V_0,V_2;Z|U)+R_1\}\\ = & I(V_0, V_2; Y_2|U)-I(V_0,V_2;Z|U)+\min\{R_1, \ I(U;Y_2)+I(V_0;Z|U)\}. \end{align*} This is the desired region in \eqref{eqn: Oma Marton IndS region} in Theorem \ref{thm: Oma Marton}. \bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
\section{Introduction} Computed tomographic (CT) images are formed by combining X-ray projection images from multiple angles, each of which record the amount of X-ray absorption as function of position, which is proportional to line-integrated X-ray absorption coefficient\cite{ct-principle}. However, the application of CT is limited by the large absorption coefficient of X-rays in certain materials such as heavy metals. For example, for $100$ keV X-rays the attenuation coefficient is $\approx 3.5$ cm$^{-1}$\cite{nist}. After $2$~cm of copper plate, the intensity is reduced to $0.1$\%. If the object is significantly thicker, then the required power of the X-ray generator increases exponentially\cite{ct-in-archaeology}.\\ The idea of using muons for imaging dense objects dates back to Luis Alvarez and collaborators, who used cosmic muons to search for hidden chambers in the ancient Egyptian pyramids\cite{alvarez-pyramid}. Cosmic muons continue to be used for diverse applications from geological information from imaging volcanos\cite{volcano-japan, mu-ray} to commercial and security use in the detection of dense radioactive materials in cargo containers\cite{multiple-scattering-high-z,material-id, industrial-structure}. Most cosmic muon imaging experiments are, however, counting experiments and the muon energy and direction are not well controlled. The cosmic muon flux is not suitable for imaging small objects with high resolution. Therefore, we would like to investigate the possibilities and limitations of using muon beams from an accelerator complex for the purpose of high resolution tomographic imaging.\\ Muons incident on matter with electron number density $n$, atomic number $z$, and mean ionization energy $I$ will lose energy according to Bethe-Bloch equation\cite{bethe-bloch}: \begin{equation} -\frac{dE}{dx}=\frac{4\pi n z^2 e^4}{m_ev^2}[\log(\frac{2m_ev^2\gamma^2}{I})-\beta^2].\label{bethe-block} \end{equation} Depending on the internal structure of the object, muons incident on different regions will traverse materials of different types and densities, and as a result come out with different mean energies. If the mean energy is measured as a function of the incident position, we get a projected map of the muon energy loss. If this projection is taken from different directions, tomographic reconstruction algorithms, such as filtered back-projection\cite{ct-principle}, can be used to reconstruct the internal structure of the object. Since the reconstruction algorithms are well-studied and beyond our scope, we will demonstrate the result without focusing on the reconstruction.\\ It is worth pointing out that similar approach exists for protons\cite{pct}, but nucleon-nucleon interaction will limit the range of protons for the energy and material of interest, whereas muons interact mainly electromagnetically and are free from such constraint. \section{Method} Following the conventions of CT, we use a modulation transfer function (MTF)\cite{spatial-resolution-in-ct} to characterize the performance of muon imaging. MTF measures how the details of different length scales are modulated. MTF is defined as the Fourier transform of the line-spread function\cite{mtf-intro}, which describes how an infinitely sharp line will be distorted by the imaging system. The line-spread function is the derivative of the edge-spread function, which describes how an infinitely sharp edge gets distorted. We will start with the edge-spread function.\\ \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{fig1_geometry_wtext.png} \caption{The test object consists of an inner layer sandwiched between two outer layers. Half of the inner layer is made of the same material as the outer layer. Muon beams are scanned through the test object and the energy loss is measured by muon spectrometers.} \label{geometry_wtext} \end{figure} The test object is two rectangular layers of heavy metal (copper or lead) sandwiching a third layer, half of which is made of the same heavy metal, and the other half-filled with air (see FIG.~\ref{geometry_wtext}). On average muons incident on the heavy metal side lose more energy than the less dense side, and an edge is formed. Normally a numerical derivative should be taken to obtain the line-spread function\cite{mtf-intro}, but we found that the derivative will introduce a large error. So instead we fit the shape of the edge with an error function and the line-spread function is obtained by taking the derivative of the fitted error function. This approach is less prone to numerical errors while retaining the main features. In addition, the Fourier transform of the Gaussian line-spread function is a Gaussian MTF. In the remaining step, the standard deviation of the Gaussian MTF is used as a figure of merit for the imaging resolution and will be referred to as the modulation transfer coefficient (MTC).\\ In the Geant4 simulation\cite{geant4}, $6\times 10^6$ muons are passed through the test object. Muons with the same source position (bin) are averaged and the average muon energy after transmission is plotted as function of source position (FIG.~\ref{example image}). \section{Result} An example edge-spread function and MTF are shown in FIG.~\ref{example mtf}. The corresponding projected images are shown in FIG.~\ref{example image}. From FIG.~\ref{example sub-esf} as the energy is increased, the edge becomes sharper. This is visible in FIG.~\ref{example image}.\\ \begin{figure} \centering \begin{subfigure}[b]{0.4\textwidth} \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig2a_esf_diff_energy_cu_air.pdf} \caption{Edge-spread functions.} \label{example sub-esf} \end{subfigure} \begin{subfigure}[b]{0.4\textwidth} \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig2b_mtf_diff_energy_cu_air.pdf} \caption{Modulation transfer functions.} \label{example sub-mtf} \end{subfigure} \caption{Edge-spread functions (\ref{example sub-esf}) and MTFs (\ref{example sub-mtf}) for muon energies of $600$~MeV, $1$~GeV and $3$~GeV. The test object material is copper with an air gap in the middle. The inner and outer layers are $10$~cm thick.} \label{example mtf} \end{figure} \begin{figure} \centering \begin{subfigure}{0.3\textwidth} \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig3a_mu_avg_Cu_AIR_600_10_10_.pdf} \caption{$600$~MeV muons.} \label{} \end{subfigure} \begin{subfigure}{0.3\textwidth} \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig3b_mu_avg_Cu_AIR_1000_10_10_.pdf} \caption{$1$~GeV muons.} \label{} \end{subfigure} \begin{subfigure}{0.3\textwidth} \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig3c_mu_avg_Cu_AIR_3000_10_10_.pdf} \caption{$3$~GeV muons.} \label{} \end{subfigure} \caption{Muon images with different energies incident on a test object with a $10$~cm inner layer of air on the right-half and copper on the left-half and sandwiched between two outer layers of $10$~cm copper plates. As the incident muon energy is increased, the boundary becomes sharper at the cost of reduced contrast.} \label{example image} \end{figure} \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{fig4_mtf.pdf} \caption{The modulation transfer coefficients(MTC) are plotted as a function of muon energy for several test object configurations. The test object has a $5$~cm inner layer made of copper (or lead) and air. The two outer layers are made of copper (or lead) and each layer is $10$~cm (or $20$~cm) thick. The MTC increases linearly with incident muon energy and larger statistics are needed at higher energies. At the same energy, thin layers are better than thick layers, and for the same thickness copper is better than lead.} \label{mtf} \end{figure} \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{fig5_amp_var.pdf} \caption{Relative amplitude (top) and relative variance (bottom) as function of incident muon energy. As the muon energy increases, the relative amplitude decreases while the relative variance first reaches a minimum and then increases. Low relative amplitude requires higher detector resolution, and large variance requires more statistics.} \label{relative amplitude} \end{figure} The MTC as a function of the incoming muon energy is shown in FIG.~\ref{mtf}. The resolution increases with muon energy, and thin layers are better than thick layers. For the same thickness and muon energy, copper is better than lead. These findings are consistent with the expected effects of multiple scattering. The broadening is inversely proportional to the momentum of the muon and increases with the square root of the thickness of the material in units of radiation length\cite{bethe-bloch}.\\ The relative amplitude, defined as the ratio of the amplitude of the fitted error function to the vertical offset, is shown as function of muon energy in FIG.~\ref{relative amplitude}. As the muon energy increases, the relative amplitude (contrast) decreases. The relative variance, defined as the variance with respect to the fitted error function divided by the amplitude increases after reaching a minimum. For high energy muons, image resolution is improved at the cost of requiring better detector resolution to resolve the reduced contrast. Larger statistics are required to reduce fluctuations in a high resolution image.\\ Sensitivity to density transition edges were tested for $1$ GeV muons, a $5$~cm inner layer, $10$~cm outer layers, and where the air gap is replaced with copper (lead) of different densities. The density is scaled with respect to the normal density of copper (lead). The MTC as a function of density shown in FIG.~\ref{mtf different density}. The MTCs are largely independent of the densities, except when the densities are the same to within 5\%. The relative amplitude as a function of density fraction is shown in FIG.~\ref{amplitude different density}. When the imaging materials are of the same type but have different densities, the closer the densities are, the higher the required detector resolution. For example, if we had a muon detector with a resolution of $2$\% at $1$~GeV, we can resolve $8.9$ g/cm$^3$ copper from copper scaled to a density of $7.12$ g/cm$^3$. \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{fig6_mtf_diff_mat.pdf} \caption{The top (bottom) curve shows MTC for $5$ cm copper (lead) of different densities with $10$ cm copper (lead) layers. The muons have energy $1$ GeV. The density fraction refers to the scale to the normal density of respective materials. At a density fraction close to $1$, the fluctuation grows since it becomes harder to distinguish the two different densities. While copper and lead have quite different MTCs, they stay constant for a large range of densities.} \label{mtf different density} \end{figure} \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{fig7_amp_var_diff_mat.pdf} \caption{Contrast and variance as function of density fraction. As density fraction gets close to 1, the contrast drops and the variance increases. Since the MTC stays approximately constant, the ability to distinguish materials of the same type but different density is limited by the detector resolution.} \label{amplitude different density} \end{figure} In FIG.~\ref{demo} we demonstrate a $3$D reconstruction of a test object made of concentric spheres of lead, iron and copper, together with its cross-section image and radial distribution of muon absorption coefficient. Between different layers there is $1$~cm of water. Reconstruction was done with filtered back-projection\cite{ct-principle} with $200$ angles. \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig8_reconstruction_3D_plus_crosssection_line.pdf} \caption{(left) 3D reconstruction of a test object using VisIt\cite{visit}, taken with $3$ GeV muons. The object consists of $5$ concentric spheres, with thickness $3$, $9$, $15$, $21$, and $30$~mm, respectively, and $10$~mm of water between different metallic layers. Each metallic layer consists of lead, copper and iron of equal thickness. (right) Cross-section view of the test object, and the muon absorption along a radial line. For the outer layers, we can identify three distinct materials indicated by the color in the cross-section, and the steps in the line plot.} \label{demo} \end{figure} \section{Discussion} The resolution is limited by the multiple scattering of muons inside the materials, so any measure that reduces muon scattering will improve the image resolution. Once the geometry is fixed, the only available option is to increase the muon energy\cite{bethe-bloch}. However, this has a cost of reduced contrast and increased noise, and requires detectors with higher resolutions and a larger statistics of muons. This trade-off can benefit from a spectrum of muon momenta. One can scan the material with lower energy muons to determine the approximate regions and then switch to higher energy to determine the boundaries with better resolution. In these studies, no selection is made. Resolution can be further improved by discarding muons with large amount of scattering.\\ Since muon tomography records the information of individual muons, one can use the amount of muon scattering to identify internal boundaries where variance come to local maximum, and to identify different materials. The latter has been demonstrated with cosmic muons\cite{material-id} and can be applied to accelerator muons. In addition, for muons that are monochromatic or have a well-measured incident momentum, from the measured energy loss one can use he Bethe-Bloch equation (Eq.~\ref{bethe-block}) to identify materials or test models of different material compositions. In this way, one can examine the radiography of an object.\\ Muon imaging systems can be co-located at neutrino beam facilities. In accelerator-based neutrino experiments, muon neutrinos are obtained from charged pion decays along with muons\cite{numi-design}. However, these muons are typically filtered from the beam without being used. Given the accelerator neutrino energy, the muon energy can be calculated. Let $\theta$ denote the angle between neutrino and the pion and assuming zero neutrino mass, neutrino energy is: \begin{eqnarray} E_\nu &=& \frac{m_\pi^2-m_\mu^2}{2E_\pi-2p_\pi \cos\theta} \label{v energy}\\ &\approx& \frac{(1-m_\mu^2/m_\pi^2)}{1+\gamma^2\theta^2}E_\pi. \text{ (small angle)} \label{v approx} \end{eqnarray} A similar calculation is done in \cite{pion_decay_kinematics}. In the center-of-mass frame, the neutrino angular distribution is isotropic, so in the lab frame the neutrino direction has angular distribution $P(\theta)=\sin\theta/[\gamma^2(1-\beta\cos\theta)^2] \label{angular distribution}$, with the most likely angle for neutrino $\theta^*=\cos^{-1}\beta$. The ratio of muon energy to the neutrino energy for the most probable angle is: \begin{eqnarray} E_\mu/E_\nu &=& \frac{2m_\pi^2}{m_\pi^2-m_\mu^2}-1\approx 3.7. \label{ratio} \end{eqnarray} Taking NuMI at Fermilab as an example, the neutrino beam energy is in the range $1-3$~GeV for the low energy option\cite{minos-flux,arxiv-muon-flux}. The corresponding muon energy is $4-10$~GeV, which lies in the energy range of a muon computed tomography system. The CNGS at CERN has about $3$ times larger energy\cite{cngs-cern,cngs-icarus}. The required muon energy is different for each object and material, but $10$ GeV is enough for imaging most objects of moderate size. If there is a need to reduce the muon energies coming out of the accelerator facility, then the muon beam can be cooled down with an absorber and selected to the desired energy with a spectrometer. \\ The muon flux produced in associated with the production of neutrino beams at the NuMI facility is roughly $10^7$/cm$^2$ per spill, over a roughly $1$~m$^2$ beam area\cite{numi-design,minos-flux}. The NuMI spill cycle is a spill duration of approximately $10$~$\mu$s every $1.87$ s\cite{minos-flux}. In between each spill, the orientation of the object with respect to the beam can be stepped in angular increments. For one degree steps in azimuthal and polar directions, the imaging data for a roughly $1$~m$^2$ cross-sectional area can be collected in roughly $12$ minutes. The test object reconstruction in FIG.~\ref{demo} assumes approximately $20$~min beam time. The limitation of such a device is largely instrumental. To simultaneously acquire such a large flux of muon data requires highly pixelated silicon tracking operating at hundreds of MHz. There are silicon pixel readout systems with these capabilities designed for high-rate environments\cite{chistiansen2013rd}. Spectrometer selection could aid in reducing the flux by selecting a narrow band of incident muon momenta. \section{Conclusion} In this paper, we have shown that computed tomography with accelerator muons can be used in place of X-rays to overcome the limitations of imaging inside of objects made of heavy metals such as copper and lead. The spatial resolution is shown to increase with increasing muon energy, due to the reduction in multiple scattering. However, this reduction is at the cost of image contrast and requires more statistics to suppress fluctuations. The resolution also depends on the geometry, material and material boundaries. In the case of copper and lead, lead scatters muon more, and therefore results in poorer resolution. For materials of the same type but different densities, the resolution remains somewhat constant as a function of the density fraction. The relative amplitude decreases as the densities get closer, and, therefore, places a more stringent requirement on the detector resolution to distinguish regions having different densities. Either by measuring the multiple scattering or energy loss of individual muons, it is possible to do material identification.\\ We have framed the capabilities of muon computed tomography through simulation. As with X-ray CT at the outset, it takes foresight and planning to envision the breakthroughs that dense object imaging may yield. Muon CT is a probe like no other into the unknown that hides deep within dense structures. The muons produced in association with high intensity neutrino beams fall into the energy range of interest for muon imaging. This provides a unique opportunity to incorporate muon imaging systems into existing or future neutrino beam facilities. \begin{acknowledgments} This project was supported under DOE Award No. ER-41850 and a Princeton University Dean of Research Innovation Fund for Research Collaborations between Artists and Scientists Award (2014). The authors are pleased to acknowledge that the work was substantially performed at the TIGRESS high performance computer center at Princeton University which is jointly supported by the Princeton Institute for Computational Science and Engineering and the Princeton University Office of Information Technology's Research Computing department. \end{acknowledgments} \bibliographystyle{apsrev}
\section{Hardness for approximating DTWD} \label{sec:approx} In this section we prove that approximating DTWD and Frechet in certain settings, is ruled out by SETH. The proofs involve simple modifications on the construction of Bringmann~\cite{Bring} for proving the hardness of Frechet, which are given in the following lemmas. \begin{lemma} \label{frechet_not_metric} Given two lists $\{\alpha_i\}_{i \in [n]}$ and $\{\beta_i\}_{i\in [n]}$ of vectors $\alpha_i,\beta_i \in \{0,1\}^d$, we can construct two sequences $P_1$ and $P_2$ in time $O(nd)$ such that $\text{Frechet}(P_1,P_2)=0$ if there are two vectors $\alpha_i$ and $\beta_j$ that are orthogonal and $\text{Frechet}(P_1,P_2)=1$ otherwise. The sequences of points come from a pointset with constant number of points with a distance function $f$ between points that does not satisfy the triangle inequality. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Let $Q_1=\{s_1,r_1,t_1,c_{1,0}^1,c_{1,1}^1,c_{1,0}^2,c_{1,1}^2\}$ be the poinset that we will use for the construction of the first sequence. Let $Q_2=\{s_2,s_2^*,r_2,t_2,t_2^*,c_{2,0}^1,c_{2,1}^1,c_{2,0}^2,c_{2,1}^2\}$ be the pointset that we will use for the construction of the second sequence. We set $f(v_1,v_2)=0$ for all $$(v_1,v_2) \in (\{s_2\}\times Q_1) \cup (\{s_1\}\times (Q_2 \setminus \{t_2^*\})) \cup \{(r_1,r_2)\} \cup(\{t_2\}\times Q_1) \cup(\{t_1\}\times Q_2\setminus\{s_2^*\})$$ $$\cup \{(c_{1,0}^0,c_{2,0}^0),(c_{1,0}^0,c_{2,1}^0),(c_{1,1}^0,c_{2,0}^0)\}\cup \{(c_{1,0}^1,c_{2,0}^1),(c_{1,0}^1,c_{2,1}^1),(c_{1,1}^1,c_{2,0}^1)\}.$$ We set $f(v_1,v_2)=1$ for all $v_1 \in Q_1$ and $v_2 \in Q_2$ that we did not set yet. $f$ is symmetric function, i.e., $f(v_1,v_2)=f(v_2,v_1)$ for all $v_1$ and $v_2$. We define \emph{coordinate gadget} for the first sequence as $$ \mbox{CG}_1(\alpha_i,j)=c_{1,(\alpha_i)_j}^{j\m{2}} $$ for $i \in [n]$ and $j \in [d]$. We define \emph{vector gadget} for the first sequence as $$ \mbox{VG}_1(\alpha_i)=r_1 \circ \bigcirc_{j \in [d]}\mbox{CG}_1(\alpha_i,j) $$ for $i \in [n]$. We define \emph{coordinate gadget} for the second sequence as $$ \mbox{CG}_2(\beta_i,j)=c_{2,(\beta_i)_j}^{j\m{2}} $$ for $i \in [n]$ and $j \in [d]$. We define \emph{vector gadget} for the second sequence as $$ \mbox{VG}_2(\beta_i)=r_2 \circ \bigcirc_{j \in [d]}\mbox{CG}_2(\beta_i,j) $$ for $i \in [n]$. We define the final sequences $$ P_1=\bigcirc_{i \in [n]}(s_1 \circ \mbox{VG}_1(\alpha_i) \circ t_1) $$ and $$ P_2=s_2 \circ s_2^* \circ (\bigcirc_{i \in [n]}\mbox{VG}_2(\beta_i)) \circ t_2^* \circ t_2. $$ The rest of the proof follows from Claims \ref{orthog} and \ref{not_orthog}. \begin{claim} \label{orthog} If there are vectors $\alpha_i$ and $\beta_j$ that are orthogonal, then $\text{Frechet}(P_1,P_2)=0$. \end{claim} \begin{proof} We show traversal of $P_1$ and $P_2$ that achieves $\text{Frechet}(P_1,P_2)=0$. We stay at $s_2$ on $P_2$ and traverse the first sequence until we are at $s_1$ just before $\mbox{VG}_1(\alpha_i)$. We stay at $s_1$ on $P_1$ and traverse $P_2$ until we are at $r_2$ in $\mbox{VG}_2(\beta_j)$. Now we perform simultaneous jumps in both sequences until we are at $\mbox{CG}_1(\alpha_i,n)$ on $P_1$ and $\mbox{CG}_2(\beta_j,n)$ on $P_2$. We perform jump to $t_1$ on $P_1$. Next we perform traversal of the rest of $P_2$ until we are at $t_2$ on $P_2$. Now we stay at $t_2$ on $P_2$ and traverse the rest of sequence $P_1$ and we are done traversing both sequences. We can check that we achieve $\text{Frechet}(P_1,P_2)=0$. \end{proof} \begin{claim} \label{not_orthog} If there are no vectors $\alpha_i$ and $\beta_j$ that are orthogonal, then $\text{Frechet}(P_1,P_2)=1$. \end{claim} \begin{proof} We show that we can't traverse $P_1$ and $P_2$ in a way that achieves $\text{Frechet}(P_1,P_2)=0$. By the construction of $f$, we get that $\text{Frechet}(P_1,P_2)=1$. Suppose that this is not the case. Consider a traversal of $P_1$ and $P_2$ that achieves $\text{Frechet}(P_1,P_2)=0$. There will be a moment during the traversal of $P_2$ when we are at $s_2^*$ on $P_2$. At this very moment, by the construction of the distance function $f$, we must be at $s_1$ on $P_1$. Next jump is performed simultaneously on both sequences or on the second sequence only. In both cases we end up at $r_2$ on $P_2$. Let's denote this moment by $t$. We want to claim that there will be a moment when we are at $r_2$ on $P_2$ and at $r_1$ on $P_1$. If at this moment $t$ we are at $r_1$ on $P_1$, we have found the desired moment. Otherwise, consider the next moment $t'$ after $t$ when we are at $r_1$ on $P_1$. We claim that at this moment $t'$ we are at $r_2$ on $P_2$. Indeed, by the construction of $f$, we must be at $r_2$ or $t_2$ on $P_2$. We can't be at $t_2$ because we can only get there by traversing $t_2^*$ from $P_2$ but this requires being at $t_1$ on $P_1$. So we have found a moment when we are at $r_1$ on $P_1$ and at $r_2$ on $P_2$. By the construction of $f$ and the requirement that we achieve Frechet cost $0$, we conclude that we need to traverse the corresponding vector gadgets by doing simultaneous jumps. Given that there are no two vectors $\alpha_i$ and $\beta_j$ that are parallel and by the construction of $f$, we get that we can't achieve Frechet cost $0$. \end{proof} \end{proof} An interesting corollary of Lemma~\ref{frechet_not_metric} is that any constant-factor approximation algorithm for the Frechet, cannot run in truly sub-quadratic time under SETH. However, in the above reduction, the distance function over the points of the sequences violates the triangle-inequality. Next, we show hardness for $(3-\varepsilon)$-approximation algorithms when the points come from a metric. \begin{lemma} \label{frechet_metric} Given two lists $\{\alpha_i\}_{i \in [n]}$ and $\{\beta_i\}_{i\in [n]}$ of vectors $\alpha_i,\beta_i \in \{0,1\}^d$, we can construct two sequences $P_1$ and $P_2$ in time $O(nd)$ such that $\text{Frechet}(P_1,P_2)=1/2$ if there are two vectors $\alpha_i$ and $\beta_j$ that are orthogonal and $\text{Frechet}(P_1,P_2)=3/2$ otherwise. Sequences of points come from a metric that has constant number of points. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Let us denote the distance function that satisfies the triangle inequality by $f'$. Let $f$ be the distance function from Lemma \ref{frechet_not_metric}. We set $f'(v_1,v_2):=f(v_1,v_2)+1/2$ for $v_1 \in Q_1$ and $v_2 \in Q_2$. We set $f'(v_1,v_2)=1$ if $v_1,v_2 \in Q_1$ or $v_1,v_2 \in Q_2$. We can check that $f'$ satisfies the triangle inequality. \end{proof} Finally, we observe that this construction implies that if the distance function is arbitrary, then DTWD cannot be approximated to within any constant factor in truly sub-quadratic time, under SETH, as well. \begin{lemma} \label{dtwd_not_metric} Given two lists $\{\alpha_i\}_{i \in [n]}$ and $\{\beta_i\}_{i\in [n]}$ of vectors $\alpha_i,\beta_i \in \{0,1\}^d$, we can construct two sequences $P_1$ and $P_2$ in time $O(nd)$ such that $\mbox{DTWD}(P_1,P_2)=0$ if there are two vectors $\alpha_i$ and $\beta_j$ that are orthogonal and $\mbox{DTWD}(P_1,P_2)=1$ otherwise. Sequences of points come from a pointset with constant number of points with a distance function $f$ between points that does not satisfy the triangle inequality. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} The sequences $P_1$ and $P_2$ are the same as in the proof of Lemma \ref{frechet_not_metric}. If there are two vectors $\alpha_i$ and $\beta_j$ that are orthogonal, we traverse the sequences in the same way as in Lemma \ref{orthog}. If there are no two vectors $\alpha_i$ and $\beta_j$ that are orthogonal, we show that $\mbox{DTWD}(P_1,P_2)\geq 1$ in the same way as we do in Lemma \ref{not_orthog}. The following traversal achieves $\mbox{DTWD}(P_1,P_2)=1$. We stay at $s_1$ on $P_1$ and traverse the entire $P_2$ (this costs $1$). We stand at $t_2$ and traverse the entire $P_1$ (this costs $0$). \end{proof} \section{Introduction} In many applications it is desirable to determine the similarity of two or more sequences of letters. The sequences could be English text, computer viruses, pointwise descriptions of points in the plane, or even proteins or DNA sequences. Because of the large variety of applications, there are many notions of sequence similarity. Some of the most important notions are the Longest Common Subsequence (LCS), the Edit-Distance, the Dynamic Time Warping Distance (DTWD) and the Frechet distance measures. Considerable algorithmic research has gone into developing techniques to compute these measures of similarity. Unfortunately, even when the input consists of two strings, the time complexity of the problems is not well understood. There are classical algorithms that compute each of these measures in time that is roughly quadratic in the length of the strings, and this quadratic runtime is essentially the best known. A common technique to explain this quadratic bottleneck is to reduce the so called $3$SUM problem to the problems at hand. This approach has enjoyed a tremendous amount of success~\cite{overmars}. Nevertheless, there are no known reductions from $3$SUM to the above four sequence similarity problems. Two recent papers~\cite{Bring,edit_hardness} explained the quadratic bottleneck for Frechet distance and Edit-Distance by a reduction from CNF-SAT, thus showing that any polynomial improvement over the quadratic running time for these two problems would imply a breakthrough in SAT algorithms (refuting the Strong Exponential Time Hypothesis (SETH) that we define below). A natural question is, can the same hypothesis explain the quadratic bottleneck for other sequence similarity measures such as DTWD and LCS? This paper answers this question in the affirmative, providing conditional lower bounds based on SETH for LCS and DTWD, along with other interesting results. \paragraph{LCS.} Given two strings of $n$ symbols over some alphabet $\Sigma$, the LCS problem asks to compute the length of the longest sequence that appears as a subsequence in both input strings. It is a very basic problem that we encounter in undergraduate-level computer science courses, with a classic $O(n^2)$ dynamic programming algorithm \cite{CLRS}. LCS attracted an extensive amount of research, both for its mathematical simplicity and for its large number of important applications, including data comparison programs and bioinformatics. In many of these applications, the size of $n$ makes the quadratic time algorithm impractical. Despite a long list of improved algorithms for LCS and its variants in many different settings, e.g. \cite{Hir75, HS77} (see \cite{edita_vs_lcs} for a survey), the best algorithms on arbitrary strings are only slightly subquadratic and have an $O(n^2/\log^2{n})$ running time~\cite{masek1980faster} if the alphabet size is constant, and $O(n^2(\log\log{n})/\log^2{n})$ otherwise \cite{BF08,Grabo14}. \paragraph{DTWD.} Given two sequences of $n$ points $P_1$ and $P_2$, the \emph{dynamic time warping} distance between them is defined as the minimum, over all monotone traversals of $P_1$ and $P_2$, of the sum over the stages of the traversal of the distance between the corresponding points at that stage (see the preliminaries for a formal definition). When defined over symbols, the distance between two symbols is simply $0$ if they are equal and $1$ otherwise. The DTWD problem asks to compute the score of the optimal traversal of two given sequences. Note that if instead of taking the sum over all the stages of the traversal, we only take the maximum distance, we get the discrete Frechet distance between the sequences, a well known measure from computational geometry. DTWD is an extremely useful similarity measure between temporal sequences which may vary in time or speed, and has long been used in speech recognition and more recently in countless data mining applications. A simple dynamic programming algorithm solves DTWD in $O(n^2)$ time and is the best known in terms of worst-case running time, while many heuristics were designed in order to obtain faster runtimes in practice (see Wang et al. for a survey \cite{WDT+10}). \paragraph{Hardness assumption.} The Strong Exponential Time Hypothesis (SETH)~\cite{IP01,IPZ01} asserts that for any $\varepsilon>0$ there is an integer $k>3$ such that $k$-SAT cannot be solved in $2^{(1-\varepsilon)n}$ time. Recently, SETH has been shown to imply many interesting lower bounds for polynomial time solvable problems~\cite{PW10, RV13,AV14,AVW14,Bring,edit_hardness}. We will base our results on the following conjecture, which is possibly more plausible than SETH: it is known to be implied by SETH, yet might still be true even if SETH turns out to be false. See Section~\ref{sec:sat} for a discussion. \begin{conjecture} \label{conj:MOV} Given two sets of $n$ vectors $A,B$ in $\{0,1\}^d$ and an integer $r\geq 0$, there is no $\varepsilon>0$ and an algorithm that can decide if there is a pair of vectors $a \in A, b \in B$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^{d} a_i b_i \leq r$, in $O(n^{2-\varepsilon} \cdot \mbox{poly}(d))$ time. \end{conjecture} \paragraph{Previous work.} Out of the many recent SETH-based hardness results, most relevant to our work are the following three results concerning sequence similarity measures. Abboud, Vassilevska Williams and Weimann \cite{AVW14} proved that a truly sub-quadratic algorithm\footnote{A truly (or strongly) sub-quadratic algorithm is an algorithm with $O(n^{2-\varepsilon})$ running time, for some $\varepsilon>0$.} for alignment problems like Local Alignment and Local-LCS refutes SETH. However, the ``locality" of those measures was heavily used in the reductions, and the results did not imply any barrier for ``global" measures like LCS. Bringmann~\cite{Bring} proved a similar lower bound for the computation of the Frechet distance problem. As mentioned earlier, DTWD is equivalent to Frechet if we replace the ``max" with a ``sum". Most recently, Backurs and Indyk~\cite{edit_hardness} proved a similar quadratic lower bound for Edit-Distance. LCS and Edit-Distance are closely related. A simple observation is that the computation of the LCS is equivalent to the computation of the Edit-Distance when only deletions and insertions are allowed, but no substitutions. Thus, intuitively, LCS seems like an easier version of Edit-Distance, since it a solution has fewer degrees of freedom, and the lower bound for Edit-Distance does not immediately imply any hardness for LCS. \subsection{Our results} Our main result is to show that a truly sub-quadratic algorithm for LCS or DTWD refutes Conjecture~\ref{conj:MOV} (and SETH), and should therefore be considered beyond the reach of current algorithmic techniques, if not impossible. Our results justify the use of sub-quadratic time heuristics and approximations in practice, and add two important problems to the list of SETH-hard problems! \begin{theorem} \label{thm:main} If there is an $\varepsilon>0$ such that either \begin{itemize} \item LCS over an alphabet of size $7$ can be computed in $O(n^{2-\varepsilon})$ time, or \item DTWD over symbols from an alphabet of size $5$ can be computed in $O(n^{2-\varepsilon})$ time, \end{itemize} then Conjecture~\ref{conj:MOV} is false. \end{theorem} We note that the non-existence of $O(n^{2-\epsilon})$ algorithm for $\mbox{DTWD}$ between two sequences of symbols over an alphabet of size $5$ implies that there is no $O(n^{2-\epsilon})$ time algorithm for $\mbox{DTWD}$ between two sequences of points from $\ell_2^4$ ($4$-dimensional Euclidean space). This follows because we can choose $5$ points in $4$-dimensional Euclidean space so that any two points are at distance $1$ from each other, i.e., choose the vertices of a regular $4$-simplex. Next, we consider the problem of computing the LCS of $k>2$ strings, which also is of great theoretical and practical interest. A simple dynamic programming algorithm solves $k$-LCS in $O(n^k)$ time, and the problem is known to be NP-hard in general, even when the strings are binary~\cite{Maier78}. When $k$ is a parameter, the problem is $W[1]$-hard, even over a fixed size alphabet, by a reduction from Clique~\cite{Piet03}. The parameters of the reduction imply that an $n^{o(k)}$ algorithm for $k$-LCS would refute ETH~\footnote{The exponential time hypothesis (ETH) is a weaker version of SETH: it asserts that there is some $\varepsilon>0$ such that $3$SAT on $n$ variables requires $\Omega(2^{\varepsilon n})$ time.}, and an algorithm with running time sufficiently faster than $O(n^{k/7})$ would imply a new algorithm for $k$-Clique. However, no results ruling out $O(n^{k-1})$ or even $O(n^{k/2})$ upper bounds were known. In this work, we prove that even a slight improvement over the dynamic programming algorithm is not possible under SETH when the alphabet is of size $O(k)$. \begin{theorem} \label{thm:klcs} If there is a constant $\varepsilon>0$, an integer $k \geq 2$, and an algorithm that can solve $k$-LCS on strings of length $n$ over an alphabet of size $O(k)$ in $O(n^{k-\varepsilon})$ time, then SETH is false. \end{theorem} A main question we leave open is whether the same lower bound holds when the alphabet size is a constant independent of $k$. In Section~\ref{sec:klcs} we prove Theorem~\ref{thm:klcs} and make a step towards resolving the latter question by proving that a problem we call Local-$k$-LCS has such a tight $n^{k-o(1)}$ lower bound under Conjecture~\ref{conj:MOV} even when the alphabet size is $O(1)$. Finally, we consider the possibility of truly sub-quadratic algorithms for approximating these similarity measures. The LCS and Edit-Distance reductions do not imply any non-trivial hardness of approximation. For Frechet in $2$-dimensional Euclidean space, Bringmann~\cite{Bring} was able to rule out truly sub-quadratic $1.0001$-approximation algorithms. Here, we show that Bringmann's construction implies approximation hardness for DTWD and Frechet when the distance function between points is arbitrary, and is not required to satisfy the triangle inequality. The details are presented in Section~\ref{sec:approx}. \subsection{Technical contribution} Our reductions build up on ideas from previous SETH-based hardness results for sequence alignment problems, and are most similar to the Edit-Distance reduction of \cite{edit_hardness}, with several new ideas in the constructions and the analysis. As in previous reductions, we will need two kinds of gadgets: the vector or assignment gadgets, and the selection gadgets. Two vector gadgets will be ``similar'' iff the two vectors satisfy the property we are interested in (we want to find a pair of vectors that together satisfy some certain property). The \emph{selection gadget} construction will make sure that the existence of a pair of ``similar'' vector-gadgets (i.e., the existence of a pair of vectors with the property), determines the overall similarity between the sequences. That is, if there is a pair of vectors satisfying the property, the sequences are more ``similar'' than if there is non. Typically, the vector-gadgets are easier to analyze, while the selection-gadgets might require very careful arguments. There are multiple challenges in constructing and analyzing a reduction to LCS. Our first main contribution was to prove a reduction from a weighted version of LCS (WLCS), in which different letters are more valuable than others in the optimal solution, to LCS. Reducing problems to WLCS is a significantly easier and cleaner task than reducing to LCS. Our second main contribution was in the analysis of the selection gadgets. The approach of \cite{edit_hardness} to analyze the selection gadgets involved a case-analysis which would have been extremely tedious if applied to LCS. Instead, we use an inductive argument which decreases the number of cases significantly. One way to show hardness of DTWD would be to show a reduction from Edit-Distance. However, we were not able to show such a reduction in general. Instead, we construct a mapping $f$ with the following property. Given the hard instance of Edit-Distance, that were constructed in \cite{edit_hardness}, consisting of two sequences $x$ and $y$, we have that $\mbox{EDIT}(x,y)=\mbox{DTWD}(f(x),f(y))$. This requires carefully checking that this equality holds for particularly structures sequences. \section{Hardness for $k$-LCS} \label{sec:klcs} In this section we prove Theorem~\ref{thm:klcs}, along with another interesting lower bound for a variant of $k$-LCS (Theorem~\ref{thm:Local-k-LCS}). As in the reduction to LCS, it will be much more convenient to reduce to the weighted version of the problem, defined below, as an intermediate step. \begin{definition}[$k$-LCS and $k$-WLCS] An algorithm for $k$-LCS problem outputs the answer to the following question. Given $k$ strings of length $n$ over alphabet $\Sigma$, what is the length of the longest sequence that appears in all $k$ strings as a subsequence? In $k$-WLCS we are also given a scoring function $w:\Sigma \to [K]$ and the goal is to find the common subsequence $X$ of all $k$ strings that maximizes the sum $\sum_{i=1}^{|X|} w(X[i])$. \end{definition} As before, we can think of the common subsequence as a matching of the strings. We can also adapt the previous proof to show a reduction from the weighted version to the unweighted version. \begin{lemma} \label{lem:kwlcs} Computing the $k$-WLCS of $k$ strings of length $n$ over $\Sigma$ with weights $w: \Sigma \to [K]$ can be reduced to computing the $k$-LCS of $k$ strings of length $O(Kn)$ over $\Sigma$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} The proof is similar to the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:wlcs} where we only had two strings, we will only outline the differences. As before, the reduction maps each symbol $\ell$ into an interval of $w(\ell)$ copies of the same symbol $\ell$. First, we can map a subsequence $X$ of the weighted instance of weight $w(X)$ into a subsequence of length $w(X)$ of the unweighted instance by mapping each symbol of $X$ into an interval. Second, we can modify a subsequence of length $|X|$ of the unweighted instance into a subsequence of length at least $|X|$ which has the property that complete intervals are matched in the corresponding matching. Once we have this property we can contract each interval back into the original weighted symbol that generated it and obtain a subsequence of weight at lest $|X|$. As before, these modifications can be done by scanning the strings from left to right and repeatedly converting each matching of parts of intervals into a matching of complete intervals while removing conflicting matches. Each such modification adds $w(\ell)$ $k$-tuples to the matching and removes up to $w(\ell)$ previously matched $k$-tuples. The argument here is similar to the one in Lemma~\ref{lem:wlcs}, and is based on the observation that all conflicting $k$-tuples must come from the same interval in at least one of the $k$ strings. \end{proof} \subsection{$k$-Orthogonal-Vectors} We will prove SETH-based lower bounds for problems on $k$ sequences via the orthogonal vectors problem on $k$ lists (see Lemma \ref{lem:kmaxsat} below). \begin{definition}[$$k$\text{-Orthogonal-Vectors}$] Given $k$ lists $\{\alpha_i^t\}_{i \in [n]}$ ($t \in [k]$) of vectors $\alpha_i^t \in \{0,1\}^d$, are there $k$ vectors $\alpha_{i_1}^1,\alpha_{i_2}^2,...,\alpha_{i_k}^k$ that satisfy, $\sum_{h=1}^d \prod_{t \in [k]} \alpha_{i_t}^t[h] = 0$? Any collection of vectors $(\alpha_{i_t}^t)_{t \in [k]}$ with this property will be called orthogonal. \end{definition} \begin{definition}[$$k$\text{-Most-Orthogonal-Vectors}$] \label{def:kmo} Given $k$ lists $\{\alpha_i^t\}_{i \in [n]}$ ($t \in [k]$) of vectors $\alpha_i^t \in \{0,1\}^d$ and an integer $r \in \{1,2,...,d\}$, are there $k$ vectors $\alpha_{i_1}^1,\alpha_{i_2}^2,...,\alpha_{i_k}^k$ that satisfy, $\sum_{h=1}^d \prod_{t \in [k]} \alpha_{i_t}^t[h] \leq r$? The LHS of the latter expression will be called the inner product of the $k$ vectors. A collection of vectors that satisfies the property will be called ($r$-)\emph{far}, and otherwise it will be called ($r$-)\emph{close}. \end{definition} \begin{lemma} \label{lem:kmaxsat} If $$k$\text{-Most-Orthogonal-Vectors}$ on can be solved in $T(n,k,d)$ time, then given a CNF formula on $n$ variables and $M$ clauses, we can compute the maximum number of satisfiable clauses (MAX-CNF-SAT), in $O(T(2^{n/k},k,M)\cdot \log{M})$ time \end{lemma} \begin{proof} The proof is generalization of the one for Lemma \ref{lem:maxsat}. Given a CNF formula on $n$ variables and $M$ clauses, split the variables into $k$ sets of size $n/k$ and list all $2^{n/k}$ partial assignments to each set. Define a vector $v(\alpha)$ for each partial assignment $\alpha$ which contains a $0$ at coordinate $j \in [M]$ if $\alpha$ sets any of the literals of the $j^{th}$ clause of the formula to true, and $1$ otherwise. In other words, it contains a $0$ if the partial assignment satisfies the clause and $1$ otherwise. Now, observe that if $\alpha_t$ (${t \in [k]}$) is assignment for variables of $t$-th set (every set if of size $n/k$), then the inner product of vectors $\{v(\alpha_t)\}_{t \in [k]}$ (as in definition \ref{def:kmo}) is equal to the number of clauses that the assignment $(\odot_{t \in k} \alpha_t)$ does not satisfy. Therefore, to find the assignment that maximizes the number of satisfied clauses, it is enough to find $k$ vectors $\alpha_t$ (${t \in [k]}$) such that the inner product of vectors $\{v(\alpha_t)\}_{t \in [k]}$ is minimized. The latter can be easily reduced to $O(\log{M})$ calls to an oracle for $$k$\text{-Most-Orthogonal-Vectors}$ on $k$ sets of $N=2^{n/k}$ vectors each in $\{0,1\}^M$ with a standard binary search. \end{proof} \subsection{Adapting the reduction} There are two challenges in adapting the hardness proof for problem of computing $\text{LCS}$ between two sequences to the problem of computing $\text{LCS}$ between $k>2$ sequences: constructing the vector gadgets, and combining the gadgets in a way that implements a selection-gadget. We will start with the vector gadgets. \paragraph{Vector gadgets.} We will need symbols $a,b,c,d$ with $w(a)=w(b)=w(c)=1$ and $w(d)=4^k$. For an integer $p\in \{0,1,2,...,2^k-1\}$ we define $v_p \in \{0,1\}^k$ to be a vector containing the binary expansion of $p$, i.e., $(v_p)_t$ is $t^{th}$ bit in the binary expansion of $p$, for $t \in [k]$. Let function $f$ satisfy $f(0)=a$ and $f(1)=b$. For $x \in \{0,1\}$, $\overline{x}:=1-x$. For $t$-th set of vectors $\{\alpha_i^t\}_{i \in [n]}$ ($t \in [k]$) and $i \in [n]$, and $j \in [d]$ we define \emph{coordinate gadget} $$ \mbox{CG}_t(\alpha_i^t,j)= \begin{cases} dcd \bigcirc_{p=0}^{2^k-2}(f((v_p)_t)\circ d) & \text{if } (\alpha_i^t)_j=0 \\ dd \bigcirc_{p=0}^{2^k-2}(f(\overline{(v_p)_t})\circ d) & \text{otherwise.} \end{cases} $$ \begin{claim} \label{coordinate_gadget} Let $E_o^c=2+2^k\cdot w(d)$ and $E_n^c=E_o^c-1$. For $j \in [d]$ and $i_1,i_2,...,i_k \in [n]$, $$ \mbox{WLCS}(\mbox{CG}_1(\alpha_{i_1}^1,j),\mbox{CG}_2(\alpha_{i_2}^2,j),...,\mbox{CG}_k(\alpha_{i_k}^k,j)) =\begin{cases} E_n^c & \text{if } (\alpha_{i_t}^t)_j=1 \text{ for all } t \in [k],\\ E_o^c & \text{ otherwise.} \end{cases} $$ \end{claim} \begin{proof} The main idea behind the construction of the coordinate gadgets is as follows. Fix $j \in [d]$ and consider a collection of $k$ vectors. Consider the $j^{th}$ coordinate of all the vectors. Let $c_1$, $c_2$, ..., $c_k$ be such that $c_t$ is equal to the $j^{th}$ coordinate of the $t^{th}$ vector. Suppose that for the $t^{th}$ sequence we set the coordinate gadget corresponding to $c_t$ to be equal to the following sequence. If $c_t=0$, we take binary expansion of the integers from $0$ to $2^k-1$ and take $t^{th}$ bit from the expansion and concatenate all $2^k$ bits. If $c_t=1$, we do the same except we flip all the bits. Now consider the $\mbox{WLCS}$ between all $k$ sequences defined this way. For now, assume that we do not align symbols that have different indices, i.e., for two sequences $\alpha'$ and $\alpha''$, we are allowed to align $\alpha'[h']$ and $\alpha''[h'']$ iff $h'=h''$. (We take care of this assumption below.) We can easily see that the $\mbox{WLCS}$ is \emph{always} equal to $2$ between the sequences (independently of the values of $c_t$). Now let us modify the coordinate gadgets as follows. Instead of concatenating the bits corresponding to the integers from $0$ to $2^k-1$, we concatenate the bits for the integers from $0$ to $2^k-2$. We can check now that the $\mbox{WLCS}$ is always equal to $2$ except when all the $c_t$ bits are equal (i.e., $c_t=0$ for all $t \in [k]$ or $c_t=1$ for all $t \in [k]$). If all the bits are equal, then the $\mbox{WLCS}$ is equal to $1$. We want the construction of clause gadgets to satisfy the following property. If there exists $t \in [k]$ with $c_t=0$, then the $\mbox{WLCS}$ is equal to some fixed large value. While, if $c_t=1$ for all $t \in [k]$, then the $\mbox{WLCS}$ should be equal to some fixed small value. Our current construction almost satisfies this property. We want to modify the construction so that the value of the $\mbox{WLCS}$ is equal to $2$ when $c_t=0$ for all $t \in [k]$. We can do that as follows. We take the previous construction and append a special symbol $c$ at the beginning of the binary sequence if $c_t=0$. We can check that the construction satisfies the needed property under the stated assumption. We proceed by showing that the actual definition of clause gadgets removes the necessity of the assumption. We want to match all the $d$ symbols from every sequence, since if we don't do that we end up with a $\mbox{WLCS}$ cost that is less than $E_o^c$. We proceed by assuming that we match all the $d$ symbols. We can now check that we have two matches if not all the vectors have a $1$ at the $j^{th}$ coordinate, while we have one match otherwise. \end{proof} Let $e$ be a symbol with $w(e)=100\cdot E_o^c$. For the $t$-th set of vectors $\{\alpha_i^t\}_{i \in [n]}$ ($t \in [k]$) and $i \in [n]$ we define the \emph{vector gadget} $$ \mbox{VG}_t'(\alpha_i^t)=e\circ \bigcirc_{j \in [d]}(\mbox{CG}_t(\alpha_i^t,j)\circ e). $$ Let $E_o=(d-r) \cdot E_o^c+r \cdot E_n^c$ and $E_n=E_o-1$. \begin{claim} \label{vector_gadget_prime} For $i_1,...,i_k \in [n]$, $$ \mbox{WLCS}(\mbox{VG}_1'(\alpha_{i_1}^1),\mbox{VG}_2'(\alpha_{i_2}^2),...,\mbox{VG}_k'(\alpha_{i_k}^k)) =\begin{cases} \geq E_o & \text{ if } \alpha_{i_1}^1,\alpha_{i_2}^2,...,\alpha_{i_k}^k \text{ are }r\text{-far,} \\ \leq E_n &\text{otherwise.} \end{cases} $$ \end{claim} \begin{proof} As in the proof of Claim \ref{coordinate_gadget}, we can conclude that in the optimal matching we use all the $e$ symbols from all the sequences. If this is not so, then the maximum $\mbox{WLCS}$ score is $\leq E_n$. Using Claim \ref{coordinate_gadget} we can check that the $\mbox{WLCS}$ cost is at least $E_o$, if the vectors $\alpha_{i_1}^1,\alpha_{i_2}^2,...,\alpha_{i_k}^k$ are $r$-far. Also, we can check that, if the vectors are $r$-close, then the $\mbox{WLCS}$ cost is at most $E_n$. \end{proof} Let $f$ be a symbol with $w(f)=E_n$. For a vector $\alpha$ we define $$ \mbox{VG}_1(\alpha)=f \circ \mbox{VG}_1'(\alpha), $$ $$ \mbox{VG}_t(\alpha)=\mbox{VG}_t'(\alpha) \circ f, $$ for $t \in \{2,3,...,k\}$. \begin{claim} \label{vector_gadget} For $i_1,...,i_k \in [n]$, $$ \mbox{WLCS}(\mbox{VG}_1(\alpha_{i_1}^1),\mbox{VG}_2(\alpha_{i_2}^2),...,\mbox{VG}_k(\alpha_{i_k}^k)) =\begin{cases} \geq E_o & \text{ if } \alpha_{i_1}^1,\alpha_{i_2}^2,...,\alpha_{i_k}^k \text{ are }r\text{-far,} \\ E_n &\text{otherwise.} \end{cases} $$ \end{claim} \begin{proof} If the vectors $\alpha_{i_1}^1,\alpha_{i_2}^2,...,\alpha_{i_k}^k$ are $r$-far, we have a $\mbox{WLCS}$ cost of at least $E_o$ as in Claim \ref{vector_gadget_prime} and we do not use any of the $f$ symbols. We cannot achieve a larger score than $E_0$ by using the $f$ symbols. If the vectors are $r$-close and we do not use any $f$ symbols, the maximum cost is at most $E_n$ by Lemma \ref{vector_gadget_prime}. If it is less than that, we can use the $f$ symbols and achieve a score of $E_n$. Notice that, if we use the $f$ symbols, we cannot use any other symbol in any matching. \end{proof} \paragraph{Combining the vector gadgets.} A very simple padding strategy implies the lower bound for a variant of $k$-LCS. \begin{definition}[Local-$k$-LCS] Given $k$ strings of length $n$ over an alphabet $\Sigma$ and an integer $L$, what is the length of longest sequence $X$ such that there are $k$ substrings of length $L$, one of each input string, such that $X$ is a common subsequence of each one of these substrings. \end{definition} In words, we are looking for substrings of length $L$ for which the LCS score is maximized. \begin{theorem} \label{thm:Local-k-LCS} If Local-$k$-LCS on strings of length $n$ over an alphabet of size $O(1)$ can be solved in $O(n^{k-\varepsilon})$ time, for some $\varepsilon>0$, then SETH is false. \end{theorem} Theorem~\ref{thm:Local-k-LCS} follows from the following reduction. We note that in the constructed instances, $L$ is always polylogarithmic in the lengths of the sequences, and therefore the problem can easily be solved in $\tilde{O}(n^k)$ time. This problem is closely related to the \emph{Normalized-LCS} problem which was studied in \cite{AP01,EL04} and for which an $n^{2-o(1)}$ lower bound based on SETH was shown in \cite{AVW14}. \begin{lemma} $k$-Most-Orthogonal Vectors on $k$ lists of $N$ vectors in $\{0,1\}^M$ can be reduced to Local-$k$-LCS on $k$ strings of length $2^k \cdot N \cdot M^{O(1)}$ over an alphabet of size $O(1)$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} We construct $k$ lists of vector gadgets from our $k$ lists of vectors as in the above discussion. By the reduction of Lemma~\ref{lem:kwlcs} from WLCS to LCS, we can convert each vector gadget $VG_t(\alpha^t)$ to a longer string $UVG_t(\alpha^t)$ such that what we proved for WLCS in Claim~\ref{vector_gadget} holds for LCS instead. Let $L$ be the length of the longest vector gadget $UVG_t(\alpha^t)$ that we create in this process. We also introduce two new symbols $x,y$. The first string will be defined as $P_1 = \bigcirc_{i=1}^N (UVG_1(\alpha^1_i) \circ x^L )$, while the other $k-1$ strings will be $P_t = \bigcirc_{i=1}^N (UVG_t(\alpha^t_i) \circ y^L )$, for $t = 2$ to $k$. To complete the reduction, we claim that if the input is a YES instance of $k$-Most-Orthogonal Vectors, there will be $k$ substrings of length $L$ with LCS $\geq E_o$, namely the $k$ vector gadgets corresponding to the $r$-far vectors, while otherwise the maximum score of any $k$ substrings is $E_n$. The latter part is implied by Claim~\ref{vector_gadget} and by noting that the $x,y$ parts can never be matched, and they are long enough to prevent any substring of length $L$ to contain symbols from more than one vector gadget. \end{proof} Next, we focus on the classic $k$-LCS problem and show how to implement the selection-gadget while making the existence of orthogonal vector influence the LCS in a manageable way. Unfortunately, we are not able to do this without introducing $O(k)$ new symbols to the alphabet. Our lower bound for $k$-LCS (Theorem~\ref{thm:klcs}) follows from the following reduction. \begin{lemma} For any $k \geq 2$, $k$-Most-Orthogonal Vectors on $k$ lists of $n$ vectors in $\{0,1\}^d$ can be reduced to $k$-LCS on $k$ strings of length $k^O(k) \cdot n \cdot d^{O(1)}$ over an alphabet of size $O(k)$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} We will show a reduction to $k$-WLCS and use Lemma~\ref{lem:kwlcs} to conclude the proof. We construct $k$ lists of vector gadgets from our $k$ lists of vectors as in the above discussion. Let $D$ be the maximum possible sum of weights of all symbols in any vector gadget, and note that $D=\mbox{poly}(2^k,d)$ and that $D>E_o$. For $i \in \{2,\ldots,k\}$ we will introduce a new symbol $3_i$ to the alphabet, and set $B_k=B=(10kD)^2$ and for $2\leq i\leq k$ set $w(3_i) = B_i = 2k \cdot B_{i+1}$. Finally, add two new symbols $0,2$ and set $w(0)=w(2)=C=10k^2 B_2$. The weights achieve $C >> B_2 >> \cdots >> B_k = B >> D >> E_o$. Our $k$ strings are defined as follows. For $i \in [k]$, \[ P_i = (3_{i+1} \cdots 3_{k})^Q \circ (3_2 \cdots 3_{i}) \circ \left( VG'_i(f) \right)^{(i-1)N} \circ \bigcirc_{t=1}^{N} VG'_i(\alpha^i_t) \circ \left( VG'_i(f) \right)^{(i-1)N} \circ (3_{i+1} \cdots 3_{k})^Q \] where $VG'_1(x) = 0 \circ VG_1(x) \circ 2$, $VG'_i(x) = 0 \circ VG_i(x) \circ 2 \circ (3_2 \cdots 3_{i})$ if $i \geq 2$, and $Q=|P_k|$. The intuition behind this padding is that we want to force any optimal matching to match all $n$ vector gadgets of the first string to precisely $n$ vector gadgets from each other string. This is achieved since: if at least one vector gadget from $P_i$ is not matched, we will lose some $0$ or $2$ symbols that we could have matched, while if more than $n$ vector gadgets are matched, we will lose at least one $3_i$ symbol. In addition, as long as we match consecutive $n$ intervals from each string, we will get the same score from the padding, and therefore the optimal matching will be determined by the existence of an $r$-far set of vectors. The WLCS will be $E$ if there are no $r$-far vectors, and $E+1$ if there are, for an appropriately defined $E$. To make this argument more formal, we can follow the steps in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:LCSmain} for LCS of two strings. First, we can prove an analog of Claim~\ref{cl:1}, stating that matching $n'$ intervals (vector gadgets) in some $P_t$ for some $n' > n$ can only contribute up to $(n'-n)(B-1)$ to the score. Then, we observe that by the padding construction, if $n' > n$ then we will not be able to match at least $(n'-n)$ of the $3_t$ symbols that we could have matched if $n'$ was equal to $n$, which incurs a loss much greater than $(n'-n)B$. Therefore, in an optimal matching, exactly $n$ intervals will be matched in each sequence, and it is easy to see that the score is then determined by the existence of an $r$-far set of vectors. Let $E_U=2C+E_n$ and $E_G= n\cdot E_U + B_2 + (2n+1)\cdot \sum_{i=2}^k B_i$. The following two lemmas prove that there is a gap in the $\mbox{WLCS}$ of our $k$ sequences when there is a collection of $k$ vectors that are $r$-far as opposed to when there is none. \begin{lemma} \label{lem:good} If there is a collection of $k$ vectors that are far, then $\mbox{WLCS}(P_1,\ldots,P_k) \geq E_G + 1$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Let $t_1,\ldots,t_k$ be such that the $k$ vectors $(\alpha^i_{t_i})_{i=1}^k$ are $r$-far. First, match the corresponding gadgets, $(VG_i(\alpha^i_{t_i}))_{i=1}^k$, along with the $0$ and $2$ symbols surrounding each of these gadgets, to get a weight of at least $2C+E_o=2C+E_n+1 = E_U+1$, by Claim~\ref{vector_gadget}. Then, Match the $i_1-1$ vector gadgets (and the surrounding $0,2$ symbols) to the left of $VG_1'(\alpha^1_{t_1})$ to the $i_1-1$ vector gadgets immediately to the left of $VG_i'(\alpha^i_{t_i})$, for every $i \in \{2,\ldots,k\}$, and similarly, match the $n-i_1$ gadgets to the right. The total additional weight we get is at least $(n-1)\cdot E_U$. Then, note that after the above matches, only $(n-1)$ out of the $(3n+1)$ $3_2$-symbols in $P_2$ are surrounded by matched symbols. The remaining $(2n+2)$ $3_2$-symbols can be matched, giving an additional weight of $(2n+2)\cdot B_2$, as follows: Consider the leftmost matched $0$ in $P_2$, call it $x$, and assume there are $m$ $3_2$-symbols to the left of it in $P_2$. Match these $3_2$-symbols to the $m$ such symbols in each other string $P_i$ that appear immediately to the left of the symbol that is matched our $x$. By construction, and the fact that $m$ can be at most $n$, we know that there are enough matchable $3_2$ symbols in the other strings. Then, similarly, note that at this point, only $3n$ out of the $(5n+1)$ $3_3$-symbols in $P_3$ are surrounded by matched symbols. The remaining $(2n+1)$ $3_3$-symbols can be matched, as above, for an additional weight of $(2n+1)\cdot B_3$. And in general, we perform this process for $i$ from $2$ to $k$, and at $i^{th}$ stage, only $(2(i-2)n+n+1-1)$ out of the $(2(i-1)n+n+1)$ $3_i$-symbols in $P_i$ are surrounded by matched symbols, and we can match the remaining ones to get an additional weight of $(2n+1)\cdot B_i$. Thus, the total contribution of the $3_i$ symbols is $B_2 + \sum_{i=2}^k (2n+1)B_i$. The total weight of our matching is at least $E_U +1 + (n-1)\cdot E_U + B_2+ (2n+1)\cdot \sum_{i=2}^k B_i = E_G +1$. \end{proof} The hard part is upper bounding the score when there is no collection of $r$-far vectors, and we will spend the rest of the proof towards this end. \begin{lemma} If there is no collection of $k$ vectors that are far, then $\mbox{WLCS}(P_1,\ldots,P_k) \leq E_G$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Consider any optimal matching of our $k$ strings. The goal is to bound its score by $E_G$. Our plan will be to divide the contribution to the score into two: (a) the contribution of the vector gadgets, and (b) the contribution from the padding, i.e. the $3_i$ symbols. In any matching, there is a tradeoff between the scores from (a) and (b): the more vector gadgets we align, the fewer $3_i$'s we can match, and vice versa. We will prove upper bounds for both contributions and show that they imply an upper bound of $E_{G}$ on the total score. We start by formally defining (a) and upper bounding it. For each string $P_i$, let $s_i$ and $t_i$ be the first $0$ symbol and the last $2$ symbol from $P_i$ that are matched in our optimal matching, if they exist, respectively. A simple observation is that if some $0$ symbol is matched in the optimal matching ($s_i$ exists for all $i \in [k]$), then there must exist some $2$ symbol that is also matched: otherwise, match the $2$ immediately following that $0$ and note that any conflicting matches must come from inside the vector gadgets and therefore removing all of them will decrease the score by much less than $w(2)$. Thus, we can define $N_i$ to be the number of vector gadgets that lie between $s_i$ and $t_i$, and if such $s_i,t_i$ do not exist, we set $N_i=0$. By construction, $N_i \leq 2(i-1)n+n$, for all $i \in[k]$. Note that $(s_1,\ldots,s_k)$ and $(t_1,\ldots,t_k)$ must be in our matching. We will assume that $N_i \geq 1$ for all $i$, since the only other case is that $\forall i\in[k]: N_i=0$, which can easily be seen to be sub-optimal: in this case, only $3_i$ symbols are matched, and there cannot be more than $(2(i-1)n+n+1)$ matched $3_i$ symbols for any $i \in \{2,\ldots,k\}$ which implies the following upper bound on the score: $\sum_{i=2}^k (2(i-1)n+n+1) B_i \leq 3kn\sum_{i=2}^k B_i \leq 3kn B_2 < n\cdot C < E_G$. By construction, there are no $3_i$ symbols between $s_1$ and $t_1$, which implies that the matching in between $(s_1,\ldots,s_k)$ and $(t_1,\ldots,t_k)$ does not contain any $3_i$ symbols. The total contribution of this part is what we call (a) above. On the other hand, the matching to the left of $(s_1,\ldots,s_k)$ and to the right of $(t_1,\ldots,t_k)$ cannot contain anything besides $3_i$ symbols: If some symbol $\sigma \notin \{ 0,3_2,\ldots,3_k \}$ appears in $P_i$ before $s_i$ and is matched, then the $0$'s that appear right before the matched $\sigma$'s could have been matched together without any conflicts, which contradicts the optimality of the matching. An analogous argument shows that $t_i$ is to the right of any matched $\sigma \notin \{2,3_2,\ldots,3_k\}$. Thus, the contribution of part (b) only comes from $3_i$ symbols. This motivates the following definitions. From now on, we will refer to the sequences composed of the vector gadgets that are surrounded by $0,2$ as ``intervals", i.e. sequences of the form $0 \circ VG_i(x) \circ 2$. Consider the substrings between $s_i$ and $t_i$ in each string $P_i$ and remove any $3_i$ symbols in them - since they are not matched anyway - and note that we obtain a concatenation of $N_i$ intervals. Moreover, by our assumption that there is no satisfying assignment, we know that for any choice of one interval from each string, the $k$-LCS is upper bounded by $E_U = 2C + E_n$, by Claim~\ref{vector_gadget}. The main quantity we will be interested in is $W(L_1,\ldots,L_k)$ which is defined to be the maximum score of a matching of any $k$ strings $T_1,\ldots,T_k$ such that $T_i$ is the concatenation of $L_i$ intervals, and for any choice of one interval from each $T_i$, the optimal score is $E_U$. By the symmetry of $k$-LCS, we can assume WLOG that $L_1\leq \cdots \leq L_k$, and otherwise we reorder. To get the desired upper bound on $W(L_1,\ldots,L_k)$ it will be convenient to first upper bound $W_0(L_1,\ldots,L_k)$, which is defined in a similar way, except that we require the matching to match all $0$ and $2$ symbols from $T_1$, i.e. the string string with fewest intervals. Define $E_B=2C + D$ which is an upper bound on the maximum possible total weight of all the symbols in an interval. A key inequality, which we will use multiple times in the proof, following from the fact that the $0$/$2$ symbols are much more important than the rest, is the following. \begin{fact} \label{klcs:ineq2} Our parameters satisfy $E_B < E_U + (B - 1)/(k-1)$. \end{fact} \begin{proof} Follows since $(k-1)(E_B-E_U) < (k-1)D < B$, by our choice of parameters. \end{proof} \begin{claim} \label{cl:k0} For any integers $1 \leq L_1\leq\ldots\leq L_k $, we can upper bound $W_0(L_1,\ldots,L_k) \leq L_1 \cdot E_U + (L_k-L_1)\cdot (B-1)$. \end{claim} \begin{proof} Let $T_1,\ldots,T_k$ be any $k$ sequences with $L_1,\ldots,L_k$ intervals, respectively, that satisfy the assumption in the definition of $W_0$. Consider an optimal matching of the $k$ sequences in which all the $0$ and $2$ symbols of $T_1$ are matched and we will upper bound its weight $E_F$ by $L_1 \cdot E_U + (L_k-L_1)\cdot (B-1)$, which will prove the claim. Note that in such a matching, for any $i \in \{2,\ldots,k\}$, each interval of $T_1$ must be matched completely within one or more intervals of $T_i$, and each interval of $T_i$ has matches to at most one interval from $T$ (otherwise, it must be the case that some $0$ or $2$ symbol in $T_1$ is not matched). We upper bound the weight of the matching by considering two kinds of intervals in $T_1$ and upper bounding their contributions. Let $x$ be the number of intervals of $T_1$ that contribute at most $E_U$ to the weight of our optimal matching, and call the other $(L_1-x)$ intervals ``full". Note that any full interval must be matched to a substring of $T_i$, for some $i \in \{ 2,\ldots,k\}$, that contains at least two intervals for the following reason. The $0$ and $2$ symbols of the interval of $T_1$ must be matched, and, if the matching stays within a single interval of $T_i$, for all $i \in \{ 2,\ldots,k\}$, and has more than $E_U$ weight, then we have a contradiction to the assumption that no $k$ intervals, one from each string, can have a $k$-LCS score greater than $E_U$. Thus, we have $x$ intervals consuming at least $1$ interval from every $T_i$, and we have $(L_1-x)$ full intervals consuming at least $1$ interval from every $T_i$ and at least $2$ intervals from some $T_i$. Using the fact that the total number of intervals in $T_2,\ldots,T_k$ is $L_2+\cdots+L_k \leq (k-1) L_k$, we get the condition, $$ (k-1) \cdot x+k \cdot(L_1-x) \leq (k-1) L_k . $$ We can now give an upper bound on the weight of our matching, by summing the contributions of each interval of $T_1$: There are $x$ intervals contributing $\leq E_U$ weight, and there are $(L_1-x)$ intervals with unbounded contribution, but we know that even if all the symbols of an interval are matched, it can contribute at most $E_B$. Therefore, the total weight of the matching can be upper bounded by \[ E_F \leq (L_1-x) \cdot E_B + x \cdot E_U \] We claim that no matter what $x$ is, as long as the above condition holds, this expression is less than $L_1 \cdot E_U + (L_k-L_1) \cdot (B-1)$. To maximize this expression, we choose the smallest possible $x$ that satisfies the above condition, since $E_B > E_U$, which implies that $x = \max\{ 0, k L_1 - (k-1) L_k \}$. First, consider the case where $L_k\geq L_1 \cdot \frac{k}{k-1}$, and therefore $x=0$, which means that all the intervals of $T_1$ might be fully matched. Using Fact~\ref{klcs:ineq2} and that $L_k-L_1 \geq L_1 / (k-1)$, we get the desired upper bound: $$ E_F \leq L_1 \cdot E_B \leq L_1 \cdot (E_U + (B-1)/(k-1)) \leq L_1 \cdot E_U + (L_k-L_1) \cdot (B-1). $$ Now, assume that $L_k < L_1 \cdot \frac{k}{k-1}$, and therefore $x = kL_1-(k-1)L_k$. In this case, when setting $x$ as small as possible, the upper bound becomes: \[ E_F \leq ( (k-1)L_k - (k-1)L_1 )\cdot E_B + (kL_1-(k-1)L_k) \cdot E_U = L_1 \cdot E_U + (k-1)(L_k-L_1) \cdot (E_B - E_U), \] which, by Fact~\ref{klcs:ineq2}, is less than $L_1 \cdot E_U + (L_k-L_1) \cdot (B-1)$. \end{proof} We are now ready to upper bound the more general $W(L_1,\ldots,L_k)$. \begin{claim} \label{cl:k1} For any integers $1 \leq L_1\leq\ldots\leq L_k $, we can upper bound $W(L_1,\ldots,L_k) \leq L_1 \cdot E_U + (L_k-L_1)\cdot (B-1)$. \end{claim} \begin{proof} We will prove by induction on $\ell \geq k$ that: for all $1 \leq L_1\leq\ldots\leq L_k$ such that $L_1+\cdots+L_k \leq \ell$, $W(L_1,\ldots,L_k) \leq L_1 \cdot E_U + (L_k-L_1) \cdot (B-1)$. The base case is when $\ell=k$ and $L_1=\cdots = L_k=1$. Then $W(1,\ldots,1) = E_U$, by the assumption on the strings in the definition of $W$, and we are done. For the inductive step, assume that the statement is true for all $\ell' \leq \ell-1$ and we will prove it for $\ell$. Let $L_1,\ldots,L_k$ be so that $1\leq L_1\leq \cdots \leq L_k $ and $L_1+\cdots+L_k=\ell$ and let $T_1,\ldots,T_k$ be sequences with a corresponding number of intervals. Consider the optimal (unrestricted) matching of $T_1,\ldots,T_k$, denote its weight by $E_F$. Our goal is to show that $E_F \leq L_1 \cdot E_U + (L_k-L_1) \cdot (B-1)$. If every $0$/$2$ symbol in $T_1$ is matched, then, by definition, the weight cannot be more than $W_0(L_1,\ldots,L_k)$, and by Claim~\ref{cl:k0} we are done. Otherwise, consider the first unmatched $0$/$2$ symbol in $T_1$, call it $x$, and there are two cases. \text{ \bf The $x= 0$ case:} If $x$ is the first $0$ in $T_1$, then for some $i \in \{2,\ldots,k\}$, the first $0$ in $T_i$ must be matched to some $0$ after $x$ (otherwise we can a $0$ to the matching without violating any other matches) which implies that none of the symbols in the interval starting at $x$ can be matched, since such matches would be in conflict with the match that contains this first $0$. Otherwise, consider the $2$ that appears right before $x$, call it $y$, and note that it must be matched, to some $2$-symbols $y_i$ in $T_i$ for every $i \in \{2,\ldots,k\}$, by our choice of $x$ as the first unmatched $0$/$2$ symbol in $T_1$. Now, there are two possibilities: either for some $i \in \{2,\ldots,k\}$, our $y_i$ is the very last $2$ in $T_i$, and there are no more intervals in $T_i$ after this match, or for some $i \in \{2,\ldots,k\}$, the $0$ right after $y_i$ is already matched to some $0$ in $T_1$ that is after $x$ (from a later interval in $T_1$). Note that in either case, the interval starting at $x$ (and ending at the $2$ after it) is completely unmatched in our matching. Let ${T_1'}$ be the sequence with $(L_1-1)$ intervals which is obtained from $T_1$ by removing the interval starting at $x$. The weight of our matching will not change if we look at it as a matching between $T_2,\ldots,T_k$ and ${T_1'}$ instead of $T_1$, which implies that $E_F \leq W(L-1_1,L_2,\ldots,L_k)$. Using our inductive hypothesis we conclude that $E_F \leq (L_1-1) \cdot E_U + (L_k-L_1+1) \cdot (B-1) \leq L_1 \cdot E_U + (L_k-L_1) \cdot (B-1)$, since $E_U > B$, and we are done. \text{ \bf The $x=2$ case:} The $0$ at the start of $x$'s interval must have been matched to some $0$-symbols $x_i$ from each string $T_i$. For each $i \in \{2,\ldots, k\}$, let $z_i$ be the $2$ at the end of $x_i$'s interval. Note that for at least one $i \in \{2,\ldots, k\}$, $z_i$ must be matched to some $w=2$ in $T_1$ after $x$, since otherwise, we can add $(x,z_2,\ldots,z_k)$ to the matching, gaining a cost of $C$, and the only possible conflicts we would create will be with matches containing symbols inside the $x_i \to z_i$ interval (that are not $0$ or $2$), for some $i \in \{2,\ldots, k\}$, or inside $x$'s interval, and if we remove all such matches, we would lose weight of at most $(E_B-2C)$ which is much smaller than the gain of $C$ from the new $2$ we matched - implying that our matching could not have been optimal. Let $j \in \{ 2,\ldots,k\}$ be the index of this string, so that in $T_j$, both $x_j$ and $z_j$ are matched. Therefore, there are $c \geq 2$ intervals in $T_1$ that are matched to a single interval in $T_j$: all the intervals starting at the $0$ right before $x$ and ending at $w$ are matched to the $x_j \to z_j$ interval. Let $T_1'$ be the sequence obtained from $T_1$ by removing all these $c$ intervals and let $T_j'$ be the sequence obtained from $T_j$ by removing the $x_j \to z_j$ interval. Similarly, define $T_i'$ for every $i \in [k]-\{1,j\}$ to be the sequence obtained from $T_i$ by removing all the $c_i \geq 1$ intervals starting at $x_i$ and ending at the $2$ that is matched with $z_j$. Our matching can be split into two parts: a matching of $T_1',\ldots,T_k'$, and the matching of the $x_j \to z_j$ interval to the removed intervals. The contribution of the latter part to the weight of the matching can be at most the weight of all the symbols in an interval, which is $E_B$. Consider the new sequences $T_1',\ldots,T_k'$ and note that: for each $i$, $T_i$ contains no more than $L_i-1$ intervals while the sequence with fewest intervals has no more than $L_1-c$ which is the number of intervals in $T_1'$. Thus, by definition, we know that any matching of $T_1',\ldots,T_k'$ can have weight at most $W(L_1-c,\ldots,L_k-1)$, and by the inductive hypothesis, we can upper bound $W(L_1-c,\ldots,L_k-1)\leq (L_1-c) \cdot E_U + (L_k-1-L_1+c) \cdot (B-1)$. Summing up the two bounds on the contributions, we get that the total weight of the matching is at most: \[ E_F \leq E_B + (L_1-c) \cdot E_U + (L_k-L_1+c-1) \cdot (B-1) \leq L_1 \cdot E_U + (L_k-L_1) \cdot (B-1) + (c-1) \cdot (B-1) + E_B - c \cdot E_U \] However, note that $E_B < 1.1 E_U$ and that $(c-1.1) E_U > 10(c-1.1) B > (c-1)B$, which implies that $E_F$ can be upper bounded by $L_1 \cdot E_U + (L_k-L_1) \cdot (B-1)$, and we are done. \end{proof} We now turn to bounding (b). Recall the definition of $N_i$ above, as the number of intervals from $P_i$ that are matched. Let us also define $x_{i-}$ as the number of $3_i$ symbols from $P_i$ that appear before $s_i$ and are matched in our optimal matching, and define $x_{i+}$ to be the number of such $3_i$ symbols that appear after $t_i$. Then, the contribution of (b) to the score can be bounded by $\sum_{i=2}^k (x_{i-}+x_{i+})B_i$. A simple but key observation is the following. \begin{claim} \label{cl:tricky} For every $i \in \{2,\ldots,k\}$, $$ x_{i-}+x_{i+} \leq 2(i-1)n+n+2 - \sum_{j=2}^{i-1} (x_{j-}+x_{j+}-1) - N_i $$ \end{claim} \begin{proof} Focus on $P_i$ and note that there are only $(2(i-1)n+n+1)$ $3_i$-symbols in it. To make the counting easier, let us define a set $U$ that is initially empty, and we will add unmatchable $3_i$ symbols, from $P_i$, to $U$. In the end, we will argue that $|U|+x_{i-}+x_{i+}$ must be at most $(2(i-1)n+n+1)$. First, we add the $(N_i-1)$ $3_i$ symbols that lie between $s_i$ and $t_i$ to $U$, since those are clearly unmatchable. Second, we will focus on the prefix of $P_i$ that ends at $s_i$, call it $Q_i$. For $2 \leq j<i$, note that there must be $x_{j-}$ $3_j$-symbols in $Q_i$ that are matched and let $q_j$ be the first such $3_j$ symbol. Since $q_j$ is matched to the first $3_j$ symbol in $P_j$ that is matched, and that in $P_j$ there are no $3_h$ symbols, for any $h>j$ between that $3_j$ symbol and $s_j$, we can conclude that: for any $j<h<i$, all the $x_{h-}$ $3_h$-symbols in $Q_i$ that are matched are in the subsequence of $Q_i$ starting at $q_h$ and ending at $q_j$. In fact, this implies that all the $x_{h-}$ $3_h$-symbols in $Q_i$ that are matched are in the subsequence of $Q_i$ starting at $q_h$ and ending right before $q_{h-1}$. Thus, for each $2 \leq h<i$, we can add $x_{h-}$ new $3_i$ symbols to our unmatchable $U$ - the ones in the latter subsequence. Finally, we focus on the suffix of $P_i$ that starts at $t_i$, and using a similar reasoning we conclude that for each $2 \leq h<i$, we can add $(x_{h+}-1)$ new $3_i$ symbols to our unmatchable $U$. Thus, we conclude that $(N_i-1)+\sum_{j=2}^{i-1} (x_{j-}+x_{j+}-1)+x_{i-}+x_{i+} \leq (2(i-1)n+n+1)$, which proves the claim. \end{proof} For any fixed values for $N_1,\ldots,N_k$ satisfying $1 \leq N_i \leq 2(i-1)n+n$, we can compute the largest possible contribution of part (b). Since if $i<j$ then $B_i$ is much larger than $B_j$, the optimal score is achieved when setting $(x_{i-}+x_{i+})$ to be as large as possible, regardless of the $3_j$ symbols we make unmatchable for $j>i$. That is, we claim that the optimal score is achieved when each of the inequalities in Claim~\ref{cl:tricky} are saturated, i.e. $x_{i-}+x_{i+} = 2(i-1)n+n+2 - \sum_{j=2}^{i-1} (x_{j-}+x_{j+}-1) - N_i$. This is true, since if any inequality is not saturated, say for $i$, then we can always add at least one $3_i$ symbol to the matching (gaining $B_i$ weight) and remove at most one $3_j$ symbol for each $j \in \{i+1,\ldots,k\}$ (losing less than $(k-1)B_{i+1} < B_i$ weight) and obtain a valid matching with larger cost, contradicting the optimality of our matching. Therefore, the number of matched $3_i$ symbols is precisely, $$ x_{i-}+x_{i+} = 2(i-1)n+n+2 - \sum_{j=2}^{i-1} (x_{j-}+x_{j+}-1) - N_i. $$ We can now formally analyze the tradeoff between (a) and (b), and prove that the optimal matching matches exactly $n$ intervals from each sequence. \begin{claim} In the optimal matching, $N_1=\cdots=N_k = n$. \end{claim} \begin{proof} Assume for contradiction that the claim does not hold, and we are in one of the two cases. Case 1: For some $i \in [k]$, $N_i>n$. In this case, we consider any matching in which $N_i'=n$ intervals are matched in $P_i$, and in which the $x_{i-},x_{i+}$ values are chosen optimally for all $i \in \{ 2,\ldots,k\}$. Let $N_{m}=\min_{j=1}^k N_j$. Clearly, the number of $3_m$ symbols in the new matching is at least $(x_{m-}+x_{m+}+(N_m-n))$, i.e. increased by $(N_m-n)$. Thus, in the contribution of part (b), we have gained a weight of at least $(N_m-n)B_m$. To bound the loss in part (a), let $N_{min} = \min_{j=1}^k N_j$ and note that $N_m \leq n$. The new contribution of part (a) is at least $n \cdot E_U$, while in the original matching, the contribution was at most $N_{min} \cdot E_U + (N_{m}-N_{min})\cdot (B-1)$. Since $E_U> B$, the latter expression is maximized when $N_{min}$ is as large as possible, i.e. $N_{min}=n$, and we can upper bound it by $n \cdot E_U + (N_{m}-n)\cdot (B-1)$. In total, the loss in part (a) is no more than $n \cdot E_U - n \cdot E_U + (N_{m}-n)\cdot (B-1) $ which is much less than $(N_m-n)B_m$, which is a contradiction to the optimality of our matching. Case 2: For all $i \in [k]$, $N_i\leq n$, but for some $i \in [k]$, $N_i<n$. In this case, we consider any matching in which $N_i'=n$ intervals are matched in $P_i$, and in which the $x_{i-},x_{i+}$ values are chosen optimally for all $i \in \{ 2,\ldots,k\}$. Clearly, for each $i \in \{ 2,\ldots,k\}$ the number of $3_i$ symbols in the new matching is at least $(x_{i-}+x_{i+}-i(n-N_i))$, i.e. decreased by no more than $i(n-N_i)$. Thus, in the contribution of part (b), we have lost a weight of at most $\sum_{i=2}^k i(n-N_i) B_i < k B_2\sum_{i=2}^k (n-N_i)$, but we have gained a larger weight, in part (a), as we show below. Let $N_m = \min_{j=1}^k N_j$ and note that $\max_{j=1}^k N_i \leq n$. By Claim~\ref{cl:k1}, the part (a) contribution for the original matching had weight at most $N_m \cdot E_U + (n-N_m)\cdot (B-1)$, where $N_m \leq N_i$. On the other hand, in the new matching, at least $n$ intervals are matched from each string, and therefore the contribution is at least $n\cdot E_U$. Thus, in part (a) we gain at least $n\cdot E_U - N_m \cdot E_U - (n-N_m)\cdot (B-1)= (n-N_m)(E_U-B+1)$, which is larger than $k B_2\sum_{i=2}^k (n-N_i) \leq k B_2 (k-1) (n-N_m)$ since $E_U > C > k^2 B_2$. \end{proof} Finally, after we proved that $N_1=\cdots=N_k=n$, we know the exact contribution of both parts: For part (b), by Claim~\ref{cl:tricky} and the optimality conditions on the $x_{i-},x_{i+}$ values, we get that $x_{2-}+x_{2+} = 2n+2$ and for $i \in \{2,\ldots,k\}$ we have $x_{i-}+x_{i+} = 2n+1$, and the total contribution is exactly $B_2 + (2n+1) \cdot \sum_{i=2}^k B_i$. For part (a), by Claim~\ref{cl:k1}, the total contribution is $n\cdot E_U$. Combined, the total score of our optimal matching is exactly $n\cdot E_U + B_2 + (2n+1) \cdot \sum_{i=2}^k B_i = E_G$. \end{proof} Note that the length of the sequences is $O(n \cdot d^{O(1)})$ while the largest weight used is $O(k^{O(k)} d^{O(1)})$ and thus Lemma~\ref{lem:kwlcs} implies the claimed bound. \end{proof} \section{Hardness for LCS} In this section we provide evidence for the hardness of the Longest Common Subsequence problem, and prove the first item in Theorem~\ref{thm:main}. As an intermediate step, we first show evidence that solving a more general version of the problem in strongly subquadratic time is impossible under Conjecture~\ref{conj:MOV}. \begin{definition}[Weighted Longest Common Subsequence ($\mbox{WLCS}$)] For two sequences $P_1$ and $P_2$ of length $n$ over an alphabet $\Sigma$ and a weight function $w:\Sigma \to [K]$, let $X$ be the sequence that appears in both $P_1,P_2$ as a subsequence and maximizes the expression $W(X)=\sum_{i=1}^{|X|} w(x[i])$. We say that $X$ is the $\mbox{WLCS}$ of $P_1,P_2$ and write $\mbox{WLCS}(P_1,P_2)=W(X)$. The Weighted Longest Common Subsequence problem asks to output $\mbox{WLCS}(P_1,P_2)$. \end{definition} Note that a common subsequence $X$ of two sequences $P_1,P_2$ can be thought of as an alignment or a matching $A = \{ (a_i,b_i) \}_{i=1}^{|X|}$ between the two sequences, so that for all $i \in [|X|]: P_1[a_i]=P_2[b_i]$, and $a_1<\cdots<a_{|X|}$ and $b_1 < \cdots < b_{|X|}$. Clearly, the weight $\sum_{i=1}^{|X|}P_1[a_i]=\sum_{i=1}^{|X|}P_2[b_i]$ of the matching $A$ correspond to the length $W(X)$ of the weighted length of the common subsequence $X$. In our proofs, we will find useful the following relation between pairs of indices. For a pair $(x,y)$ and a pair $(x',y')$ of indices we say that they are in \emph{conflict} or they \emph{cross} if $x<x'$ and $y>y'$ or $x>x'$ and $y<y'$. \subsection{Reducing $\mbox{WLCS}$ to $\text{LCS}$} The following simple reduction from $\mbox{WLCS}$ to $\text{LCS}$ gives a way to translate a lower bound for WLCS to a lower bound for LCS, and allows us to simplify our proofs. \begin{lemma} \label{lem:wlcs} Computing the $\mbox{WLCS}$ of two sequences of length $n$ over $\Sigma$ with weights $w: \Sigma \to [K]$ can be reduced to computing the $\text{LCS}$ of two sequences of length $O(Kn)$ over $\Sigma$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} The reduction simply copies each symbol $\ell \in \Sigma$ in each of the sequences $w(\ell)$ times. That is, we define a mapping $f$ from symbols in $\Sigma$ to sequences of length up to $K$ so that for any $\ell \in \Sigma$, $f(\ell) = [ \ell^{w(\ell)}] \in \Sigma^{w(\ell)}$. For a sequence $P$ of length $n$ over $\Sigma$, let $f(P) = \bigcirc_{i=1}^{n} f(P[i])$. That is, replace the $i^{th}$ symbol $P[i]$ with the sequence $f(P[i])$ defined above. Note that $|f(P)| \leq K |P|$ and the reduction follows from the next claim. \begin{claim} For any two sequences $P_1,P_2$ of length $n$ over $\Sigma$, the mapping $f$ satisfies: \[WLCS(P_1,P_2) = LCS(f(P_1),f(P_2)).\] \end{claim} \begin{proof} For brevity of notation, we let $P_1'=f(P_1)$ and $P_2'=f(P_2)$. First, observe that $WLCS(P_1,P_2) \leq LCS(P_1',P_2')$, since for any common subsequence $X$ of $P_1,P_2$, the sequence $f(X)$ is a common subsequence of $P_1',P_2'$ and has length $|f(X)|=\sum_{i=1}^{n} |f(X[i])| = \sum_{i=1}^n w(X[i]) = W(X)$. In the remainder of this proof, we show that $WLCS(P_1,P_2) \geq LCS(P_1',P_2')$. Let $X$ be the LCS of $P_1',P_2'$ and consider a corresponding matching $A$. Let $x \in \{1,2\}$. We say that a symbol $\ell$ in $P_x'$ at index $i \leq Kn$ belongs to interval $I_x(i) \in [n]$, iff this symbol was generated when mapping $P_x[I_x(i)]$ to the subsequence $f(\ell)$. Moreover, we say that it is at index $J_x(i) \in [w(\ell)]$ in interval $I_x(i)$, iff it is the $J_x(i)^{th}$ symbol in that interval. We will go over the symbols $\ell \in \Sigma$ of the alphabet in an arbitrary order, and perform the following modifications to $X$ and the matching $A$ for each such symbol in turn. Go over the indices $i$ of $P_1'$ that are matched in $A$ to some index $j$ of $P_2'$, and for which $P_1'[i]=\ell$, in increasing order. Consider the intervals $I_1(i)$ and $I_2(j)$, both of which contain the symbol $\ell$, $w(\ell)$ times. Throughout our scan, we maintain the invariant that: $i$ is the first index to be matched to the interval $I_2(j)$. If $J_1(i)=J_2(j)=1$, and the next $w(\ell)-1$ pairs in our matching $A$ are matching the rest of the interval $I_1(i)$ to the interval $I_2(j)$, we do not need to modify anything, and we move on to the next index $i'$ that is not a part of this interval $I_1(i)$ and is matched to some index $j'$ - note that at this point, $i'$ satisfies the invariant, since it cannot also be matched to the interval $I_2(j)$ by the pigeonhole principal, and therefore $I_2(j')>I_2(j)$ and $i'$ is the first index to be matched to this interval. Otherwise, we modify $A$ so that now the whole intervals $I_1(i)$ and $I_2(j)$ are matched to one another: for each $i',j'$ such that $I_1(i')=I_1(i), I_2(j')=I_2(j)$, and $J_1(i')=J_2(j')$, we add pair $(i',j')$ to the matching $A$, and remove any conflicting pairs from $A$. We claim that we obtain a matching of at least the original size, since we add $w(\ell)$ pairs and we remove only up to $w(\ell)$ pairs. To see this, note that for a pair $(x,y)$ to be in conflict with one of the pairs we added, it must be one of the following three types: (1) $I_1(x)=I_1(i)$ and $I_2(y)=I_2(j)$, or (2) $I_1(x)=I_1(i)$ but $I_2(y)> I_2(j)$, or (3) $I_2(y) = I_2(j)$ but $I_1(x)>I_1(i)$. Here, we use the invariant to rule out pairs for which $I_1(x) < I_1(i)$ or $I_2(y)<I_2(j)$. However, in any matching $A$, there cannot be both pairs of type (2) and pairs of type (3), since any such two pairs would cross. Therefore, we conclude that all conflicting pairs either come from the interval $I_1(i)$ or they all come from the interval $I_2(j)$, and in any case, there are only $w(\ell)$ of them. After this modification, we move on to the next index $i'$ that is not a part of this interval $I_1(i)$ and is matched (in the new matching $A$) to some index $j'$ - as before, this $i'$ satisfies the invariant. After we are done with all these modifications, we end up with a matching $A$ of size at least $|X|$ in which complete intervals are aligned to each other. Now, we can define a matching $A'$ between $P_1$ and $P_2$ that contains all pairs $(I_1(i),I_2(j))$ for which $(i,j) \in A$. In words, we contract the intervals of $P_1',P_2'$ to the original symbols of $P_1,P_2$. Finally, $A'$ corresponds to a common subsequence $X'$ of $P_1,P_2$, and $W(X')=|A|\geq |X|$ since each matched interval corresponds to some symbol $\ell$ and contributes $w(\ell)$ matches to $A$ and a single match of weight $w(\ell)$ to $A'$. \end{proof} \end{proof} \subsection{Reducing $\text{Most-Orthogonal Vectors}$ to $\text{LCS}$ } We are now ready to present our main reduction, proving our hardness result for LCS. \begin{theorem} $\text{Most-Orthogonal Vectors}$ on two lists $\{\alpha_i\}_{i\in [n]}$ and $\{\beta_i\}_{i\in [n]}$ of $n$ binary vectors in $d$ dimensions ($\alpha_i,\beta_i \in \{0,1\}^d$) can be reduced to $\text{LCS}$ problem on two sequences of length $n \cdot d^{O(1)}$ over an alphabet of size $7$. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} We will proceed in two steps. First, we will show that $\mbox{WLCS}$ is at least as hard as the $\text{Most-Orthogonal Vectors}$ problem. Second, given that the symbols in the constructed $\mbox{WLCS}$ instance will have small weights, an application of Lemma~\ref{lem:wlcs} will allow as to conclude that $\text{LCS}$ is at least as hard as the $\text{Most-Orthogonal Vectors}$ problem. Our alphabet will be $\Sigma=\{0,1,2,3,4,5,6\}$. We start with the reduction to $\mbox{WLCS}$. Let $\alpha, \beta$ denote two vectors from the $\text{Most-Orthogonal Vectors}$ instance, from the first and the second set, respectively. We construct our \emph{coordinate gadgets} as follows. For $i \in [d]$ we define, \[ CG_1(\alpha,i) = \begin{cases} 5465 & \text{if $\alpha[i]=0$}\\ 545 & \text{otherwise}\\ \end{cases} \] \[ CG_2(\beta,i) = \begin{cases} 5645 & \text{if $\beta[i]=0$}\\ 565 & \text{otherwise}\\ \end{cases} \] Setting the weight function so that $w(4)=w(6) =1, w(5) = X = 100 d$. These gadgets satisfy the following equalities: \[ WLCS(CG_1(\alpha,i), CG_2(\beta,i)) = \begin{cases} 2X+1 & \text{if $\alpha[i] \cdot \beta[i]=0$}\\ 2X & \text{otherwise}\\ \end{cases} \] Now, we define the \emph{vector gadgets} as a concatenation of the coordinate gadgets. Let $R_1(\alpha) = \bigcirc_{i=1}^d CG_1(\alpha,i)$ and $R_2(\beta) = \bigcirc_{i=1}^d CG_2(\beta,i)$. \[ VG_1(\alpha) = 1 \circ R_1(\alpha) \] \[ VG_2(\beta) = R_2(\beta) \circ 1 \] The weight of the symbol $1$ is $w(1) = A = (r+1)2X+(d-(r+1))(2X+1)$. It is now easy to prove the following claims. \begin{claim} If two vectors $\alpha,\beta$, are $r$-far, then: \[ WLCS(VG_1(\alpha), VG_2(\beta)) \geq A+1= r\cdot 2X+(d-r)(2X+1). \] \end{claim} \begin{proof} For each $i \in [d]$, match $CG_2(\beta,i)$ to $CG_1(\alpha,i)$ optimally to get a weight at least $A+1=r \cdot 2X+(d-r)(2X+1)$. \end{proof} \begin{claim} \label{rclose} If two vectors $\alpha,\beta$, are $r$-close, then: \[ \mbox{WLCS}(VG_1(\alpha), VG_2(\beta)) = A. \] \end{claim} \begin{proof} $\mbox{WLCS}(VG_1(\alpha), VG_2(\beta)) \geq A$ is true because we can match the $1$ symbols, which gives cost $A$. Now we prove that $\mbox{WLCS}(VG_1(\alpha), VG_2(\beta)) \leq A$. If we match the $1$ symbols, then we cannot match any other symbols and the inequality is true. Thus, we assume now that the $1$ symbols are not matched. Now we can check that, if there is a $5$ symbol in $\mbox{VG}_1(\alpha)$ or $\mbox{VG}_2(\beta)$ that is not matched to a $5$ symbol, then we cannot achieve weight $A$ even if we match all the other symbols (except for the $1$ symbols). Therefore, we assume that all the $5$ symbols are matched. The required inequality follows from the fact that there are at least $r+1$ coordinates where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ both have $1$ (the vectors are $r$-close), and the construction of the coordinate gadgets. \end{proof} Finally, we combine the vector gadgets into two sequences. Let $VG_1'(\alpha) = 0 \circ VG_1(\alpha) \circ 2$ and $VG_2' (\beta) = 0 \circ VG_2(\beta) \circ 2 \circ 3$. Let $f$ be a dummy vector of length $d$ that is all $1$. \[ P_1 = 3^{|P_2|} \circ \bigcirc_{i=1}^n VG_1'(\alpha_i) \circ 3^{|P_2|} \] \[ P_2 = 3 \circ \bigcirc_{i=1}^{n-1} VG_2'(f) \circ \bigcirc_{i=1}^{n} VG_2'(\beta_i) \circ \bigcirc_{i=1}^{n-1} VG_2'(f) \] And set the weights so that $w(3) = B = A^2$ and $w(0)=w(2)= C = B^2$. Let $E_U = 2C + A$, and $E_G = n \cdot E_U + 2n \cdot B$. The following two lemmas prove that there is a gap in the $\mbox{WLCS}$ of our two sequences when there is a pair of vectors that are $r$-far as opposed to when there is none. \begin{lemma} If there is a pair of vectors that are $r$-far, then $\mbox{WLCS}(P_1,P_2) \geq E_G + 1$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Let $i,j$ be such that $\alpha_i,\beta_j$ are $r$-far. Match $VG_1'(\alpha_i)$ and $VG_2'(\beta_j)$ to get a weight of at least $2C+r \cdot 2X+(d-r)(2X+1) \geq E_U +1$. Match the $i-1$ vector gadgets to the left of $VG_1'(\alpha_i)$ to the $i-1$ vector gadgets immediately to the left of $VG_2'(\beta_j)$, and similarly, match the $n-i$ gadgets to the right. The total additional weight we get is at least $(n-1)\cdot E_U$. Finally, note that after the above matches, only $(n-1)$ out of the $(3n-1)$ $3$-symbols in $P_2$ are surrounded by matched symbols. The remaining $2n$ $3$-symbols can be matched, giving an additional weight of $2n\cdot B$. The total weight is at least $E_U +1 + (n-1)\cdot E_U + 2n\cdot B = E_G +1$. \end{proof} \begin{lemma} \label{lem:LCSmain} If there is no pair of vectors that are $r$-far, then $\mbox{WLCS}(P_1,P_2) \leq E_G$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} The main part of the proof will be dedicated to showing that if the $n$ vector gadgets in $P_1$ are matched to a substring of $n'$ vector gadgets from $P_2$, then $n'$ must be equal to $n$. This will follow since: if $n'<n$, then at least one of the $0$/$2$ symbols in $P_1$ will remain unmatched, and, if $n'>n$, then less than $2n$ of the $3$ symbols in $P_2$ can be matched. The large weights we gave $0$/$2$ and $3$ make this impossible in an optimal matching. It will be easy to see that in any matching in which $n=n'$, the total weight is at most $E_G$. Now, we introduce some notation. Let $L \leq L'$ and define $W(L,L')$ to be the optimal score of matching two sequence $T,T'$ where $T$ is composed of $L$ vector gadgets $VG_1'(\alpha)$ and $T'$ is composed of $L'$ vector gadgets $VG_2'(\beta)$, where no pair $\alpha,\beta$ are $r$-far. Define $W_0(L,L')$ similarly, except that we restrict the matchings so that all $0$ or $2$ symbols in $T$ (the shorter sequence) must be matched. In the following two claims we prove an upper bound on $W(L,L')$, via an upper bound on $W_0(L,L')$. \begin{claim} \label{cl:0} For any integers $1\leq L \leq L'$, we can upper bound $W_0(L,L') \leq L \cdot E_U + (L'-L) \cdot (B-1)$. \end{claim} \begin{proof} Let $T,T'$ be two sequences with $L,L'$ vector gadgets, respectively. We will refer to these ``vector gadgets" as intervals. Consider an optimal matching of $T$ and $T'$ in which all the $0$ and $2$ symbols of $T$ are matched, i.e., a matching that achieves weight $W_0(L,L')$ - we will upper bound its weight $E_F$ by $L \cdot E_U + (L'-L) \cdot (B-1)$. Note that in such a matching, each interval of $T$ must be matched completely within one or more intervals of $T'$, and each interval of $T'$ has matches to at most one interval from $T$ (otherwise, it must be the case that some $0$ or $2$ symbol in $T$ is not matched). Let $x$ be the number of intervals of $T$ that contribute at most $E_U$ to the weight of our optimal matching. Note that any of the $L-x$ other intervals must be matched to a substring of $T'$ that contains at least two intervals for the following reason. The $0$ and $2$ symbols of the interval of $T'$ must be matched, and, if the matching stays within a single interval of $T'$ and has more than $E_U$ weight, then we have a pair which is $r$-far because of Claim \ref{rclose}. Thus, using the fact that there are only $L'$ intervals in $T'$, we get the condition, $$ x+2(L-x) \leq L'. $$ We now give an upper bound on the weight of our matching, by summing the contributions of each interval of $T$: there are $x$ intervals contributing $\leq E_U$ weight, and there are $(L-x)$ intervals matched to $T'$ with unbounded contribution, but we know that even if all the symbols of an interval are matched, it can contribute at most $E_B = 2C + A + d(2X+2)$. Therefore, the total weight of the matching can be upper bounded by \[ E_F \leq (L-x) \cdot E_B + x \cdot E_U \] We claim that no matter what $x$ is, as long as the above condition holds, this expression is less than $L \cdot E_U + (L'-L) \cdot (B-1)$. To maximize this expression, we choose the smallest possible $x$ that satisfies the above condition, since $E_B > E_U$, which implies that $x = \max\{ 0, 2L-L' \}$. A key inequality, which we will use multiple times in the proof, following from the fact that the $0$/$2$/$3$ symbols are much more important than the rest, is that $E_B < E_U + B - 1$, which follows since $E_B-E_U < A+d(2X+2) < 1000d^2 < B$. First, consider the case where $L\leq L'/2$, and therefore $x=0$, which means that all the intervals of $T$ might be fully matched. Using that $E_B < E_U+B-1$ and that $L'-L \geq L'/2 \geq L$, we get the desired upper bound: $$ E_F \leq L \cdot E_B \leq L \cdot (E_U + B-1) \leq L \cdot E_U + (L'-L) \cdot (B-1). $$ Now, assume that $L > L'/2$, and therefore $x = 2L-L'$. In this case, when setting $x$ as small as possible, the upper bound becomes: \[ E_F \leq (L'-L)\cdot E_B + (2L-L') \cdot E_U = L \cdot E_U + (L'-L) \cdot (E_B - E_U), \] which is less than $L \cdot E_U + (L'-L) \cdot (B-1)$, since $E_B < E_U + B-1$. \end{proof} Next, we prove by induction that leaving $0$/$2$ symbols in the shorter sequence unmatched will only worsen the weight of the optimal matching. \begin{claim} \label{cl:1} For any integers $1\leq L \leq L'$, we can upper bound $W(L,L') \leq L \cdot E_U + (L'-L) \cdot (B-1)$. \end{claim} \begin{proof} We will prove by induction on $i \geq 2$ that: for all $L'\geq L \geq 1$ such that $L+L' \leq i$, $W(L,L') \leq L \cdot E_U + (L'-L) \cdot (B-1)$. The base case is when $i=2$ and $L=L'=1$. Then $W(1,1) = E_U$ and we are done. For the inductive step, assume that the statement is true for all $i' \leq i-1$ and we will prove it for $i$. Let $L,L'$ be so that $1\leq L\leq L' $ and $L+L'=i$ and let $T,T'$ be sequences with $L,L'$ intervals (assignment gadgets), respectively. Consider the optimal (unrestricted) matching of $T$ and $T'$, denote its weight by $E_F$. Our goal is to show that $E_F \leq L \cdot E_U + (L'-L) \cdot (B-1)$. If every $0$/$2$ symbol in $T$ is matched then, by definition, the weight cannot be more than $W_0(L,L')$, and by Claim~\ref{cl:0} we are done. Otherwise, consider the first unmatched $0$/$2$ symbol, call it $x$, and there are two cases. \text{ \bf The $x= 0$ case:} If $x$ is the first $0$ in $T$, then the first $0$ in $T'$ must be matched to some $0$ after $x$ (otherwise we can add this pair to the matching without violating any other pairs) which implies that none of the symbols in the interval starting at $x$ can be matched, since such matches will be in conflict with the pair containing this first $0$. Otherwise, consider the $2$ that appears right before $x$ and note that it must be matched to some $y=$ 2 in $T'$, by our choice of $x$ as the first unmatched $0$/$2$. Now, there are two possibilities: either there are no more intervals in $T'$ after $y$, or there is a $0$ right after $y$ in $T'$ that is matched to a $0$ in $T$ that is after $x$ (from a later interval in $T$). Note that in either case, the interval starting at $x$ (and ending at the $2$ after it) is completely unmatched in our matching. Therefore, in this case, we let ${T_1}$ be the sequence with $(L-1)$ intervals which is obtained from $T$ by removing the interval starting at $x$. The weight of our matching will not change if we look at it as a matching between $T'$ and ${T_1}$ instead of $T$, which implies that $E_F \leq W(L-1,L')$. Using our inductive hypothesis we conclude that $E_F \leq (L-1) \cdot E_U + (L'-L+1) \cdot (B-1) \leq L \cdot E_U + (L'-L) \cdot (B-1)$, since $E_U > B$, and we are done. \text{ \bf The $x= 2$ case:} The $0$ at the start of $x$'s interval must have been matched to some $y = 0$. Let $z$ be the $2$ at the end of $y$'s interval. Note that $z$ must be matched to some $w= 2$ in $T$ after $x$, since otherwise, we can add the pair $(x,z)$ to the matching, gaining a cost of $C$, and the only possible conflicts we would create will be with pairs containing a symbol inside the $y \to z$ interval or inside $x$'s interval, and if we remove all such pairs, we would lose at most $(A+d(2X+2))$ which is much less than the gain of $C$ - implying that our matching could not have been optimal. Therefore, there are $c \geq 2$ intervals in $T$ that are matched to a single interval in $T'$: all the intervals starting at the $0$ right before $x$ and ending at $w$ are matched to the $y \to z$ interval. Let $T_1$ be the sequence obtained from $T$ by removing all these $c$ intervals and let $T_2$ be the sequence obtained from $T'$ by removing the $y \to z$ interval. Our matching can be split into two parts: a matching between $T_1$ and $T_2$, and the matching of the $y \to z$ interval to the removed interval. The contribution of the latter part to the weight of the matching can be at most the weight of all the symbols in an interval, which is $E_B$. By the inductive hypothesis, we know that any matching of $T_1$ and $T_2$ can have weight at most $W(L-c,L'-1)\leq (L-c) \cdot E_U + (L'-1-L+c) \cdot (B-1)$. Summing up the two bounds on the contributions, we get that the total weight of the matching is at most: \[ E_F \leq E_B + (L-c) \cdot E_U + (L'-L+c-1) \cdot (B-1) \leq L \cdot E_U + (L'-L) \cdot (B-1) + (c-1) \cdot (B-1) + E_B - c \cdot E_U \] However, note that $E_B < 1.1 E_U $ and that $(c-1.1) E_U > 10(c-1.1) B > (c-1)B$, which implies that $E_F$ can be upper bounded by $L \cdot E_U + (L'-L) \cdot (B-1)$, and we are done. \end{proof} We are now ready to complete the proof of the Lemma. Consider the optimal matching of $P_1$ and $P_2$. Let $x$ and $y$ be the first and last $3$ symbols in $P_2$ that are not matched, respectively. Note that there cannot be any matched $3$ symbols between $x$ and $y$, since otherwise we could match either $x$ or $y$ and gain extra weight without incurring any loss. Moreover, note that $x$ cannot be the first symbol in $P_2$ and $y$ cannot be the last one, since those must be matched in an optimal alignment. The substring between the 3 preceding $x$, and the 3 following $y$, contains $n'$ intervals (vector gadgets) for some $ 1 \leq n' \leq 3n-2$. If all the 3's are matched, we let $n'=1$, and focus on the only interval (vector gadget) of $P_2$ that has matched non-$3$-symbols. We can now bound the total weight of the matching by the sum of the maximum possible contribution of these $n'$ intervals, and the contribution of the rest of $P_2$. The substring before and including the $3$ symbol preceding $x$ and the substring after and including the $3$ symbol following $y$ can only contribute $3$'s to the matching, and they contain exactly $(3n-1 - (n'-1))$ such $3$ symbols, giving a contribution of $(3n-n')\cdot B$. To bound the contribution of the $n'$ intervals, we use Claim~\ref{cl:1}: since no $3$ symbols are matched in this part, we can ``remove" those symbols for the analysis, to obtain two sequences $T,T'$ composed of $n,n'$ vector gadgets, respectively, in which no pair is $r$-far. The contribution of the $T,T'$ part, depends on $n,n'$: If $n' \leq n$, then by Claim~\ref{cl:1}, when setting $L=n', L'=n$, the contribution is at most $(n' \cdot E_U + (n-n')\cdot (B-1))$ and the total weight of our matching can be upper bounded by \[ (3n-n')\cdot B + (n' \cdot E_U + (n-n')\cdot (B-1)), \] which is maximized when $n'$ is as large as possible, since $E_U > (2B-1)$. Thus, setting $n'=n$, we get the upper bound: $(3n-n)\cdot B + n \cdot E_U = E_G$. Otherwise, if $n' > n$, we apply Claim~\ref{cl:1} with $L=n, L'=n'$, and get that the contribution is at most $(n \cdot E_U + (n'-n)\cdot (B-1))$, and the total weight of our matching can be upper bounded by \[ (3n-n')\cdot B + (n \cdot E_U + (n'-n)\cdot (B-1)) = n \cdot E_U + 2n \cdot B - (n'-n) < E_G. \] \end{proof} To conclude our reduction, we note that the largest weight used in our weight function is polynomial in $d$, and therefore the reduction of Lemma~\ref{lem:wlcs} gives two unweighted sequences $f(P_1),f(P_2)$ of length $n\cdot d^{O(1)}$, for which the LCS equals the WLCS of our $P_1,P_2$. \end{proof} \section{Preliminaries} For an integer $n$, $[n]$ stands for $\{1,2,3,...,n\}$. \subsection{Formal definitions of the similarity measures} \begin{definition}[Longest Common Subsequence] \label{def:lcs} For two sequences $P_1$ and $P_2$ of length $n$ over an alphabet $\Sigma$, the longest sequence $X$ that appears in both $P_1,P_2$ as a subsequence is the \emph{longest common subsequence} (LCS) of $P_1,P_2$ and we say that $LCS(P_1,P_2)=|X|$. The Longest Common Subsequence problem asks to output $LCS(P_1,P_2)$. \end{definition} \begin{definition}[Dynamic time warping distance] For two sequences $x$ and $y$ of $n$ points from a set $\Sigma$ and a distance function $d:\Sigma \times \Sigma \to \mathbb{R}^{0+}$, the \emph{dynamic time warping distance}, denoted by $\mbox{DTWD}(x,y)$, is the minimum cost of a (monotone) \emph{traversal} of $x$ and $y$. A traversal of the two sequences $x,y$ has the following form: We have two markers. Initially, one is located at the beginning of $x$, and the other is located at the beginning of $y$. At every step, one or both of the markers simultaneously move one point forward in their corresponding sequences. At the end, both markers must be located at the last point of their corresponding sequence. To determine the \emph{cost} of a traversal, we consider all the $O(n)$ steps of the traversal, and add up the following quantities to the final cost. Let the configuration of a step be the pair of symbols $s$ and $t$ that the first and second markers are pointing at, respectively, then the contribution of this step to the final cost is $d(s,t)$. The DTWD problems asks to output $DTWD(x,y)$. \end{definition} In particular, we will be interested in the following special case of DTWD. \begin{definition}[$\mbox{DTWD}$ over symbols]The DTWD problem over sequences of symbols, is the special case of DTWD in which the points come from an alphabet $\Sigma$ and the distance function is such that for any two symbols $s,t \in \Sigma$, $d(s,t)=1$ if $s \neq t$ and $d(s,t)=0$ otherwise. \end{definition} Besides LCS and DTWD which are central to this work, the following two important measures will be referred to in multiple places in the paper. \begin{definition}[Edit-Distance] For any two sequences $x$ and $y$ over an alphabet $\Sigma$, the edit distance $\mbox{EDIT}(x,y)$ is equal to the minimum number of symbol insertions, symbol deletions or symbol substitutions needed to transform $x$ into $y$. The Edit-Distance problem asks to output $\mbox{EDIT}(x,y)$ for two given sequences $x,y$. \end{definition} \begin{definition}[The discrete Frechet distance] The definition of the Frechet distance between two sequences of points is equivalent to the definition of the DTWD with the following difference. Instead of defining the cost of a traversal to be the \emph{sum} of $d(s,t)$ for all the configurations of points $s$ and $t$ from the traversal, we define it to be the \emph{maximum} such distance $d(s,t)$. The Frechet problem asks to compute the minimum achievable cost of a traversal of two given sequences. \end{definition} \subsection{Satisfiability and Orthogonal Vectors} \label{sec:sat} To prove hardness based on Conjecture~\ref{conj:MOV} and therefore SETH, we will show reductions from the following vector-finding problems. \begin{definition}[Orthogonal Vectors] \label{Def:Ort} Given two lists $\{\alpha_i\}_{i\in [n]}$ and $\{\beta_i\}_{i\in [n]}$ of vectors $\alpha_i,\beta_i \in \{0,1\}^d$, is there a pair $\alpha_i,\beta_j$ that is orthogonal, $\sum_{h=1}^d \alpha_i[h]\cdot \beta_j[h] = 0$? \end{definition} This problem is known under many names and equivalent formulations, e.g. Batched Partial Match, Disjoint Pair, and Orthogonal Pair. Starting with the reduction of Williams~\cite{williams2005new}, this problem or variants of it have been used in every hardness result for a problem in P that is based on SETH, via the following theorem. \begin{theorem}[Williams~\cite{williams2005new}] If for some $\varepsilon>0$, Orthogonal Vectors on $n$ vectors in $\{0,1\}^d$ for $d=O(\log{n})$ can be solved in $O(n^{2-\varepsilon})$ time, then CNF-SAT on $n$ variables and $\mbox{poly}(n)$ clauses can be solved in $O(2^{(1-\varepsilon/2)n} poly(n))$ time, and SETH is false. \end{theorem} The proof of this theorem is via the split-and-list technique and will follow from the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:maxsat} below. The following is a more general version of the Orthogonal Vectors problem. \begin{definition}[Most-Orthogonal Vectors] Given two lists $\{\alpha_i\}_{i\in [n]}$ and $\{\beta_i\}_{i\in [n]}$ of vectors $\alpha_i,\beta_i \in \{0,1\}^d$ and an integer $r \in \{0,\ldots,d\}$, is there a pair $\alpha_i,\beta_j$ that has inner product at most $r$, $\sum_{h=1}^d \alpha_i[h]\cdot \beta_j[h] \leq r$? We call any two vectors that satisfy this condition ($r$-)\emph{far}, and ($r$-)\emph{close} vectors otherwise. \end{definition} Clearly, an $O(n^{2-\varepsilon})$ algorithm for Most-Orthogonal Vectors on $d$ dimensions implies a similar algorithm for Orthogonal Vectors, while the other direction might not be true. In fact, while faster, mildly sub-quadratic algorithms are known for $\text{Orthogonal Vectors}$ when $d$ is polylogarithmic, with $O(n^2/\text{superpolylog($n$)})$ running times \cite{CIP02,ILPS14,AWY15}, we are not aware of any such algorithms for Most-Orthogonal Vectors. Lemma~\ref{lem:maxsat} below shows that such algorithms would imply new $O(2^n/\text{superpoly($n$)})$ algorithms for MAX-CNF-SAT on a polynomial number of clauses. While such upper bounds are known for CNF-SAT~\cite{AWY15,DH09}, to our knowledge, $o(2^n)$ upper bounds are known for MAX-CNF-SAT only when the number of clauses is linear in the number of variables \cite{DW06,CK04}. Together with the fact that the reductions from $\text{Most-Orthogonal Vectors}$ to LCS, DTWD and Edit-Distance incur only a polylogarithmic overhead, this implies that shaving a superpolylogarithmic factor over the quadratic running times for these problems might be difficult. The possibility of such improvements for pattern matching problems like Edit-Distance was recently suggested by Williams \cite{ryan-apsp}, as another potential application of his breakthrough technique for All-Pairs-Shortest-Paths. More importantly, Lemma~\ref{lem:maxsat} shows that refuting Conjecture~\ref{conj:MOV} implies an $O(2^{(1-\varepsilon)n}\mbox{poly}(n))$ algorithm for MAX-CNF-SAT and therefore refutes SETH. \begin{lemma} \label{lem:maxsat} If Most-Orthogonal Vectors on $n$ vectors in $\{0,1\}^d$ can be solved in $T(n,d)$ time, then given a CNF formula on $n$ variables and $M$ clauses, we can compute the maximum number of satisfiable clauses (MAX-CNF-SAT), in $O(T(2^{n/2},M)\cdot \log{M})$ time. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Given a CNF formula on $n$ variables and $M$ clauses, split the variables into two sets of size $n/2$ and list all $2^{n/2}$ partial assignments to each set. Define a vector $v(\alpha)$ for each partial assignment $\alpha$ which contains a $0$ at coordinate $j \in [M]$ if $\alpha$ sets any of the literals of the $j^{th}$ clause of the formula to true, and $1$ otherwise. In other words, it contains a $0$ if the partial assignment satisfies the clause and $1$ otherwise. Now, observe that if $\alpha,\beta$ are a pair of partial assignments for the first and second set of variables, then the inner product of $v(\alpha)$ and $v(\beta)$ is equal to the number of clauses that the combined assignment $(\alpha , \beta)$ does not satisfy. Therefore, to find the assignment that maximizes the number of satisfied clauses, it is enough to find a pair of partial assignments $\alpha,\beta$ such that the inner product of $v(\alpha),v(\beta)$ is minimized. The latter can be easily reduced to $O(\log{M})$ calls to an oracle for Most-Orthogonal Vectors on $N=2^{n/2}$ vectors in $\{0,1\}^M$ with a standard binary search. \end{proof} By the above discussion, a lower bound that is based on Most-Orthogonal Vectors can be considered stronger than one that is only based on SETH. \iffalse \begin{definition}[$k$-Orthogonal-Vectors] Given $k$ lists $\{\alpha_i^t\}_{i \in [n]}$ ($t \in [k]$) of vectors $\alpha_i^t \in \{0,1\}^d$, are there $k$ vectors $\alpha_{i_1}^1,\alpha_{i_2}^2,...,\alpha_{i_k}^k$ that satisfy, $\sum_{h=1}^d \prod_{t \in [k]} \alpha_{i_t}^t[h] = 0$? Consider any collection of vectors $(\alpha_{i_t}^t)_{t \in [k]}$ with this property. We call $(\alpha_{i_t}^t)_{t \in [k]}$ - a collection of orthogonal vectors. \end{definition} \fi \section{Hardness for DTWD} In this section, we complete the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main} by showing that a truly sub-quadratic algorithm for DTWD implies a truly sub-quadratic algorithm for the $\text{Most-Orthogonal Vectors}$ problem. We first show that we can modify the reduction from $\text{CNF-SAT}$ to Edit-Distance from \cite{edit_hardness} so that we get a reduction from $\text{Most-Orthogonal Vectors}$ to Edit-Distance. We will later use properties of the two sequences produced in this reduction, call them $P_1',P_2'$. In particular, we will show that there is an easy transformation of $P_1'$ into a sequence $S_1$ and of $P_2'$ into a sequence $S_2$ so that $\mbox{EDIT}(P_1',P_2')=\mbox{DTWD}(S_1,S_2)$. This will give the desired reduction from $\text{Most-Orthogonal Vectors}$ to $\mbox{DTWD}$. \subsection{Reducing $\text{Most-Orthogonal Vectors}$ to Edit-Distance} Before showing the reduction from $\text{Most-Orthogonal Vectors}$ to Edit-Distance, let us recast the reduction of \cite{edit_hardness} as a reduction from $\text{Orthogonal Vectors}$ instead of CNF-SAT. \paragraph{Reducing $\text{Orthogonal Vectors}$ to Edit-Distance.} Instead of having $2^{N/2}$ partial assignments for the first half of the variables and $2^{N/2}$ partial assignments for the second half of the variables, we have $n$ vectors in the first and the second set of vectors (we replace $2^{N/2}$ by $n$ in the argument). Instead of having $M$ clauses, we have $d$ coordinates for every vector (we replace $M$ by $d$ in the argument). Instead of having \emph{clause gadgets}, we have \emph{coordinate gadgets}. For a vector $\alpha$ from the first set of vectors $\{\alpha_i\}_{i \in [n]}$ and $j \in [d]$, we define a coordinate gadget, $$ \mbox{CG}_1(\alpha,j)= \begin{cases} 0^{l_1}0^{l_0}1^{l_0}1^{l_0}1^{l_0}0^{l_1} & \text{ if }\alpha[j]=0,\\ 0^{l_1}0^{l_0}0^{l_0}0^{l_0}1^{l_0}0^{l_1} & \text{ otherwise.} \end{cases} $$ For a vector $\beta$ from the second set of vectors $\{\beta_i\}_{i \in [n]}$ and $j \in [d]$, $$ \mbox{CG}_2(\beta,j)= \begin{cases} 0^{l_1}0^{l_0}0^{l_0}1^{l_0}1^{l_0}0^{l_1} & \text{ if }\beta[j]=0,\\ 0^{l_1}1^{l_0}1^{l_0}1^{l_0}1^{l_0}0^{l_1} & \text{ otherwise.} \end{cases} $$ We leave $g$ the same: $g=0^{{l_1 \over 2}-1}10^{{l_1\over 2}}0^{l_0}1^{l_0}1^{l_0}1^{l_0}0^{l_1}$. Instead of \emph{assignment gadgets}, we have \emph{vector gadgets}. $$\mbox{VG}_1(\alpha_i)=Z_1 L V_0 R Z_2\text{ and }\mbox{VG}_2(\beta_i)=V_1 D V_2,$$ where $R=\bigcirc_{j \in [d]}\mbox{CG}_1(\alpha_i,j), D=\bigcirc_{j \in [d]}\mbox{CG}_2(\beta_i,j)$. Then, we replace the statement ``$\varphi$ is satisfied by $a_1 \vee a_2$'' with ``vectors $\alpha_{i_1}$ and $\beta_{i_2}$ are orthogonal'' and the statement ``$\varphi$ is satisfiable'' with ``there is a vector from the first set of variables and a vector from the second set of variables that are orthogonal''. For a vector $v$ and $k\in \{1,2\}$, we have $\mbox{VG}_k'(v)=2^{T}\mbox{VG}_k(v)2^{T}$, instead of $\mbox{AG}_k'$. We set $f \in \{0,1\}^d$ to have $f[i]=1$ for all $i \in [d]$. We define the sequences as $$ P_1=\bigcirc_{\alpha\in \{\alpha_i\}_{i \in [n]}}\mbox{VG}_1'(\alpha), $$ $$ P_2=\left(\bigcirc_{i=1}^{n-1}\mbox{VG}_2'(f)\right) \left(\bigcirc_{\beta\in \{\beta_i\}_{i \in [n]}}\mbox{VG}_2'(\beta)\right) \left(\bigcirc_{i=1}^{n-1}\mbox{VG}_2'(f)\right). $$ This completes the modification of the argument. We can check that we never use any property of $\text{CNF-SAT}$ that $\text{Orthogonal Vectors}$ does not have. \paragraph{Reducing $\text{Most-Orthogonal Vectors}$ to Edit-Distance.} Next, we modify the construction to show that Edit-Distance is a hard problem under a weaker assumption, i.e., that the $\text{Most-Orthogonal Vectors}$ problem does not have a truly sub-quadratic algorithm (Conjecture~\ref{conj:MOV}). \begin{theorem} \label{mostort_edit} Edit-Distance does not have strongly a subquadratic time algorithm unless $\text{Most-Orthogonal Vectors}$ problem has a strongly subquadratic algorithm. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} We describe how to change the arguments from \cite{edit_hardness} to get the necessary reduction. We make all the modifications from the discussion above, as well as the following. We change $g$ as follows, $$ g=0^{{l_1 \over 2}-\left(1+{r \over d}2l_0\right)}1^{1+{r \over d}2l_0} 0^{l_1 \over 2} 0^{l_0}1^{l_0}1^{l_0}1^{l_0}0^{l_1}. $$ We replace Lemma 1 from \cite{edit_hardness} with the following lemma. \begin{lemma} If $\alpha_{i_1}$ and $\beta_{i_2}$ are far vectors, then $$ \mbox{EDIT}(\mbox{VG}_1(\alpha_{i_1}),\mbox{VG}_2(\beta_{i_2}))\leq 2l_2+l+dl_0+k2l_0=:E_s. $$ \end{lemma} \begin{proof} We do the same transformations of sequences as in Lemma 1 from \cite{edit_hardness} except that we get upper bound $E_s$ on the cost. \end{proof} We replace Lemma 2 from \cite{edit_hardness} with the following lemma. \begin{lemma} If $\alpha_{i_1}$ and $\beta_{i_2}$ are close vectors, then $$ \mbox{EDIT}(\mbox{VG}_1(\alpha_{i_1}),\mbox{VG}_2(\beta_{i_2}))= 2l_2+l+dl_0+k2l_0+d=:E_u. $$ \end{lemma} \begin{proof} The proof proceeds along the same lines as the one for Lemma 2 from \cite{edit_hardness}. \end{proof} This finishes the description of the necessary changes. \end{proof} \subsection{Reducing $\text{Most-Orthogonal Vectors}$ to $\mbox{DTWD}$} We are now ready to present our main reduction to DTWD. \begin{theorem} \label{mostort_dtwd} If $\mbox{DTWD}$ over sequences of symbols from an alphabet of size $5$ can be solved in strongly sub-quadratic time, then $\text{Most-Orthogonal Vectors}$ can also be solved in truly sub-quadratic time. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} The main arguments in this proof are provided in Lemmas~\ref{edit_leq_dtwd} and~\ref{dtwd_eq_edit} below. Here we explain why these two lemmas complete the proof of our theorem. Consider arbitrary sequences of symbols, $Q_1$ and $Q_2$. On the one hand, in Lemma \ref{edit_leq_dtwd} we will show that for a simple transformation $f$, $$ \mbox{EDIT}(Q_1,Q_2)\leq \mbox{DTWD}(f(Q_1),f(Q_2)). $$ On the other hand, in Lemma~\ref{dtwd_eq_edit} below we will show that $$ \mbox{EDIT}(P_1',P_2')\geq \mbox{DTWD}(f(P_1'),f(P_2')), $$ if $P_1'$ and $P_2'$ are the sequences constructed in Theorem \ref{mostort_edit}. Together, the two inequalities imply that $\mbox{EDIT}(P_1',P_2')=\mbox{DTWD}(f(P_1'),f(P_2'))$. This implies that we have the same hardness result for $\mbox{DTWD}$ that we had for Edit-Distance, under the assumption that $f$ is a simple transformation. We will see that $f$ is indeed a very simple transformation, i.e., $f(P_1')$ and $f(P_2')$ can be computed in time $O(|P_1'|)$ and $O(|P_2'|)$. $P_1'$ and $P_2'$ are sequences of symbols over an alphabet of size $4$. Transformation $f$ introduce an extra symbol. Thus, the final sequences will be over an alphabet of size $5$. \end{proof} For an alphabet $\Sigma$, a symbol $a \not \in \Sigma$, a sequence $Q=q_1q_2...q_p \in \Sigma^p$ of length $p$, and a vector $r$ of $p+1$ positive integers, we define the operation $$ A_a^r(Q):=a^{r_1}q_1a^{r_2}q_2a^{r_3}...a^{r_p}q_pa^{r_{p+1}}. $$ \begin{lemma} \label{edit_leq_dtwd} For any two sequences $Q_1 \in \Sigma^m$ and $Q_2 \in \Sigma^n$ of length $m$ and $n$, respectively, $$ \mbox{EDIT}(Q_1,Q_2)\leq \mbox{DTWD}(A_a^{r_1}(Q_1),A_a^{r_2}(Q_2)) $$ holds for any two positive integer vectors $r_1$ and $r_2$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} In this proof, we will use use the following equivalent definition of Edit-Distance that will simplify the analysis. \begin{observation} \cite{edit_hardness}. \label{no_insertion} For any two sequences $x,y$, $\mbox{EDIT}(x,y)$ is equal to the minimum, over all sequences $z$, of the number of deletions and substitutions needed to transform $x$ into $z$, and $y$ into $z$. \end{observation} Below we will write $A$ instead of $A_a^r$. We will show how to convert a traversal of $A(Q_1)$ and $A(Q_2)$ achieving $\mbox{DTWD}$ cost $\mbox{DTWD}(A(Q_1),A(Q_2))$, into a transformation of $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ into the same sequence. Using Observation~\ref{no_insertion}, we will conclude that the edit cost of the resulting transformations will be at most $\mbox{DTWD}(A(Q_1),A(Q_2))$, which is what we need to complete the proof. Consider an optimal $\mbox{DTWD}$ traversal of $A(Q_1)$ and $A(Q_2)$. At any moment, we say that a marker in $A(Q_1)$ or in $A(Q_2)$ is of $\Sigma$ type iff the symbol it points to is in $\Sigma$, i.e., it is not equal to $a$. We say that a symbol is of $\Sigma$ type iff it is in $\Sigma$. From now on we consider only moments during the traversal of $A(Q_1)$ and $A(Q_2)$ when one or the other, or both markers change their type. We can assume that, whenever both markers change their type, it is not the case that before the change, the markers have different type. Indeed, if this happens, we can replace the simultaneous change of type by two consecutive changes of type, and this modification will not change the cost. Consider any maximal contiguous subsequence of the sequence of moments during which only one of the markers changes its type (the marker might change its type during the subsequence more than one time). We claim that any such contiguous subsequence of moments must have an even length. Assume that this in not the case and consider the earliest such subsequence that has an odd length. Consider the type of the markers immediately before the last moment in the subsequence. Because we considered the first subsequence with an odd length, and both sequences start with symbols that are not of $\Sigma$ type, we get that immediately before the last moment, both markers must have the same type. WLOG, assume that the last change of type happens to the first marker and note that immediately after the last change the markers have different type. At the next moment from the sequence, either both markers change type (which, by our observation that before a simultaneous change of type both markers must of the same type, is impossible) or only the second marker changes its type. Thus, we have found two consecutive moments from the sequence of moments in which the type changes, with the following three properties. \begin{enumerate} \item None of the two changes of type are simultaneous for both markers; \item Both changes of type are not made by the same marker; \item Before the first change of type, the markers have the same type. \end{enumerate} We count $\mbox{DTWD}$ cost of any traversal as follows. Every jump (performed by one of the markers or performed by both markers simultaneously), contributes $1$ to the final cost of the traversal iff the symbols that the markers point at immediately after the jump are different (contribution is $0$ if the symbols are the same). For two symbols $x$ and $y$, $1_{x \neq y}$ is equal to $1$ if $x \neq y$ and is equal to $0$ otherwise. We set $x$ to be equal to the symbol that the marker that participates in the first change of type points at \emph{after} the jump. We set $y$ to be equal to the symbol that the marker that participates in the second change of type points at \emph{after} the jump. The first change of the type contributes $1$ to the final cost of $\mbox{DTWD}(A(Q_1),A(Q_2))$ (we consider the corresponding jump to the change of the type and its contribution) and the second change of the type contributes $1_{x \neq y}$ to the final cost. We can check that the two changes can be replaced by a single simultaneous change in both sequences by changing the traversal of $A(Q_1)$ and $A(Q_2)$ (the fact that we can to this follows from the definition of $A$). The simultaneous change costs $1_{x \neq y}$ and, therefore, we decrease the cost of $\mbox{DTWD}$ by $1$. This contradicts the assumption that we consider an optimal traversal. Therefore, the assumption that there exists a maximal contiguous subsequence of moments during which only one of the markers changes type and the subsequence is of odd length, is wrong. Now we can partition the entire sequence of changes of type into two kinds of contiguous subsequences that do not overlap. \begin{enumerate} \item A simultaneous change of type by both markers; \item Two changes of type following one another made by the same marker. None of the two changes are simultaneous. \end{enumerate} We will now show the promised conversion of the $\mbox{DTWD}$ traversal of $A(Q_1)$ and $A(Q_2)$ into an Edit-Distance transformation of $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ into the same sequence (as in Observation \ref{no_insertion}) such that the cost only decreases. This will finish the proof that $\mbox{EDIT}(Q_1,Q_2)\leq \mbox{DTWD}(A(Q_1),A(Q_2))$. We analyze both types of subsequences. \begin{enumerate} \item From the properties of the partition and the fact that both $A(Q_1)$ and $A(Q_2)$ start with a symbol of $\Sigma$ type, we get that before and after the change of type both markers are of the same type. {\bf Case 1.} Both markers before the simultaneous change are of $\Sigma$ type. Suppose that the markers point to symbols $x \in \Sigma$ and $y \in \Sigma$. In this case we perform substitution of $x$ with $y$ when transforming $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ into the same sequence. {\bf Case 2.} Both markers before the simultaneous change are not of $\Sigma$ type. In this case we do not have a corresponding substitution or deletion when transforming $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ into the same sequence. We see that in both cases the performed actions before (contribution to $\mbox{DTWD}(A(Q_1),A(Q_2))$) and after (contribution to $\mbox{EDIT}(Q_1,Q_2)$) the conversion cost the same. \item Similarly as in the previous kind of subsequence, we conclude that before the first change of type, the markers are of the same type. We consider both possible cases. {\bf Case 1.} Both markers before the first change of type are of $\Sigma$ type. Suppose that the markers point to symbols $x \in \Sigma$ and $y \in \Sigma$. If $x \neq y$, we perform a substitution of $x$ with $y$ when transforming $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ into the same sequence. If $x=y$, we don't do anything. {\bf Case 2.} Both markers before the first change of type are not of $\Sigma$ type. WLOG, the first marker changes the type twice. Before the second change, the first marker points to $x \in \Sigma$. We delete $x$ when performing the transformation of $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ into the same sequence. We can check that in the first case the cost after the conversion can only be smaller than before the conversion. In the second case the costs before (contribution to $\mbox{DTWD}$) and after (contribution to Edit-Distance) the conversion are the same. \end{enumerate} \end{proof} From now on, $\Sigma=\{0,1,2,3\}$ and $a=4$. \begin{lemma} \label{dtwd_eq_edit} For some vectors $r_1$ and $r_2$ with positive, bounded integer coordinates, $$ \mbox{EDIT}(P_1',P_2')\geq \mbox{DTWD}(A^{r_1}(P_1'),A^{r_2}(P_2')), $$ where $P_1'$ and $P_2'$ are the sequences defined in Theorem \ref{mostort_edit}. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} We use notation from Theorem \ref{mostort_edit}. By $A'$ we will denote a transformation $A^r$ with $r_i=1$ for all $i$. Let $r_3$ be such that for all $k \in \{1,2\}$, $$ A^{r_3}(\mbox{VG}_k'(a))=A'(2^T)A'(\mbox{VG}_k(a))A'(2^T). $$ We set $$ A^{r_1}(P_1')=A'(3^{|P_2'|})A^{r_1'}(P_1)A'(3^{|P_2'|}), $$ where $r_1'$ is such that $$ A^{r_1'}(P_1)=\bigcirc_{a_1 \in A_1}A^{r_3}(\mbox{VG}_1'(a_1)). $$ We set $$ A^{r_2}(P_2')=A^{r_2}(P_2) $$ $$ =\left(\bigcirc_{i=1}^{2^{N/2}-1}A^{r_3}(\mbox{VG}_2'(f))\right) \left(\bigcirc_{a_2\in A_2}A^{r_3}(\mbox{VG}_2'(a_2))\right) \left(\bigcirc_{i=1}^{2^{N/2}-1}A^{r_3}(\mbox{VG}_2'(f))\right). $$ We will use the following lemma to prove the inequality. \begin{lemma} \label{ag_eq} For vectors $\alpha,\beta \in \{0,1\}^d$, $$ \mbox{EDIT}(\mbox{VG}_1(\alpha),\mbox{VG}_2(\beta)) \geq \mbox{DTWD}(A'(\mbox{VG}_1(\alpha)),A'(\mbox{VG}_2(\beta))). $$ \end{lemma} \begin{proof} We consider two cases. {\bf Case 1.} The vectors $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are far. In this case, we traverse the $A'(Z_1L)$ part of $A'(\mbox{VG}_1(\alpha))$ while the marker in $A'(\mbox{VG}_2(\beta))$ stays at the first symbol. Then, we traverse the remaining part $A'(V_0RZ_2)$ of $A'(\mbox{VG}_1(\alpha))$ in parallel with $A'(\mbox{VG}_2(\beta))$. We can check that we achieve $\mbox{DTWD}$ cost equal to $E_s=\mbox{EDIT}(\mbox{VG}_1(\alpha),\mbox{VG}_2(\beta))$. {\bf Case 2.} The vectors $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are close. In this case, we traverse $A'(Z_1LV_0)$ and $A'(\mbox{VG}_2(\beta))$ in parallel. Then, we traverse the $A'(RZ_2)$ part of $A'(\mbox{VG}_1(\alpha))$ while the marker at $A'(\mbox{VG}_2(\beta))$ stays at the last symbol. We can check that we achieve $\mbox{DTWD}$ cost equal to $E_u=\mbox{EDIT}(\mbox{VG}_1(\alpha),\mbox{VG}_2(\beta))$. \end{proof} We are now ready to prove that $$ \mbox{EDIT}(P_1',P_2')\geq\mbox{DTWD}(A^{r_1}(P_1'),A^{r_2}(P_2')). $$ We are going to show a $\mbox{DTWD}$ traversal of $A^{r_1}(P_1')$ and $A^{r_2}(P_2')$ that achieves $\mbox{DTWD}$ cost equal to $\mbox{EDIT}(P_1',P_2')$. This will imply the inequality and will finish the proof. We proceed by considering two cases. {\bf Case 1.} There are two vectors $\alpha_{i_1}$ and $\beta_{i_2}$ from their respective sets that are far. We traverse $A'(\mbox{VG}_1(\alpha_{i_1}))$ and $A'(\mbox{VG}_2(\beta_{i_2}))$ as in Lemma \ref{ag_eq} achieving cost $E_s$. We traverse the rest of vector gadgets of $A^{r_1'}(P_1)$ with their counterparts from $A^{r_2}(P_2')$ as in Lemma \ref{ag_eq}. When traversing the sequences $A'(2^T)$, we do that in parallel. When traversing $A'(2^T)$ in parallel, it contributes nothing to the $\mbox{DTWD}$ cost. We traverse the vector gadgets of $A^{r_2}(P_2')$ that are not traversed yet, as follows. We traverse the symbols that have $\Sigma$ type from $A^{r_2}(P_2')$ with the $3$ symbols from $A^{r_1}(P_1')$ in parallel. We notice that we can do that in a way so that the $4$ symbols never contribute towards the final $\mbox{DTWD}$ cost. Some of the $3$ symbols from $A^{r_1}(P_1')$ will still remain untraversed. We can traverse them while the second marker is on the last symbol of $A^{r_2}(P_2')$ (it does not have $\Sigma$ type). By computing the cost of the traversal we get that it is equal to $\mbox{EDIT}(P_1',P_2')$. {\bf Case 2.} There is no pair of far vectors. This case is analogous to Case 1. The only difference is that we do not have two vectors $\alpha_{i_1}$ and $\beta_{i_2}$ to match. We choose them arbitrarily and then proceed as in the previous case. This finishes the analysis of this case. \end{proof} \section{RNA lower bounds?} \section{Acknowledgments} The authors thank Piotr Indyk for many useful discussions. \bibliographystyle{alpha}
\section{Introduction} Reinsurance companies operate in many regions in the world and insure various insurance business lines. In this respect, it is well recognised that the ceding insurer(s) losses are dependent. This risk dependency can be seen between individual risks within each insurance portfolio and also across business lines. Furthermore, the phenomena of dependence also occurs from global risk factors which generate claims simultaneously to each business line, for instance an hurricane damages buildings or cars which affect property lines, at the same time, causes people injuries which influence accident lines. In the risk management framework, for instance the Swiss Solvency Test (SST), similarly to insurance companies, reinsurance companies are obliged to hold a certain level of risk capital in order to be protected from unexpected large losses. The determination of this capital requires the aggregation of the losses generated from each reinsurance portfolio whose distribution depends on the loss distribution of the ceding insurer(s). Meyers et al. \cite{meyers2003aggregation} is one of the first contribution which have addressed the aggregation of dependent reinsurance risks to evaluate risk capital. In this regard, in order to derive explicit formula for the measure of risk capital including Value-at-Risk (VaR), Tail Value-at-Risk (TVaR) for the aggregated risk, an important task is the appropriate choice of the marginals and the dependence structure between risks. For our framework, mixed Erlang distribution has been chosen as a claim size model for the individual risk of the ceding insurer(s). One of the reason of the tractability of this distribution is the fact that the convolution of such risks belongs again to class of Erlang mixtures, see \cite{Klugman_al08}. Thus stop loss and excess of loss premiums have a closed expression which are very usefull in reinsurance risk modelling, see Lee and Lin \cite {Lee_Lin10,Lee_al12}. In this contribution, we address the dependence structure between risks by the Sarmanov distribution. \\ The aim of this paper is to analyse the effects of the ceding insurer(s) risk dependencies on the reinsurer risk profile which has only stop loss reinsurance portfolios. Diversification effects from aggregating reinsurance risks are examined by deriving a closed expression for the risk capital needed for the whole portfolio and also the allocated risk capital for each business unit. The effects of the reinsurer default are also analysed. The paper is organised as follows: in Section 2 we describe the background of the Sarmanov distribution as a model for the dependence structure between insurance risk and the mixed Erlang distribution with a common scale parameter as a claim size model. The risk model of the ceding insurer is explored in Section 3, with numerical examples, by deriving the joint tail probability of the aggregated risk of two portfolios. In Section 4, the aggregation of stop loss mixed Erlang risks of a reinsurer is addressed by determining a closed form for the distribution function (df) of the aggregated risk. Capital allocation and diversification effects are also presented with numerical studies. We also analyse the default risk of the reinsurer by deriving an analytical form for the expected unpaid losses and the default probability with numerical illustrations. All the proofs are relegated to Section 5. Some properties of the mixed Erlang distribution are presented in the Appendix. \section{Preliminaries} \subsection{Sarmanov distribution} Due to its flexibility to model the dependence structure between random variables (rv), the Sarmanov distribution, introduced in Sarmanov \cite{Sarmanov66}, have been widely used in many fields. Concerning insurance applications, to calulate Bayes premiums in collective risk model Hernandez et al. \cite{hernandez_al12} have addressed the dependence between risk profiles using multivariate Sarmanov distribution. Sarabia and Gomez \cite{sarabia_Gomez_11} have used Sarmanov distribution to fit multivariate insurance count data with Poisson-Beta marginals. The contributions \cite{Yang_al12, Yang_al13} have explored tractable asymptotic formulas in the context of ruin probabilities where the dependence between insurance risks is governed by the Saramanov distribution. \COM{ The Sarmanov distribution introduced in Sarmanov \cite{Sarmanov66} has proved valuable in numerous insurance applications. For instance Hernandez et al. \cite{hernandez_al12} used the multivariate Sarmanov distribution to model the dependence structure between risk profiles for the calculation of Bayes premiums in the collective risk model. The contribution of Sarabia et Gomez \cite{sarabia_Gomez_11} fitted multivariate insurance count data using the Sarmanov distribution with Poisson-Beta marginals. As shown in \cite{Yang_al13,Yang_al12} the Sarmanov distribution allows for tractable asymptotic formulas in the context of ruin probabilities.} \def\vk{x}{\vk{x}} Refering to \cite{Lee96}, a random vector $(X_1,\ldots,X_n)$ has multivariate Sarmanov distribution with joint density given by \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:pdfCopulaN} h(\vk{x}) = \prod_{i=1}^n f_i(x_i) \biggl( 1+ \sum_{h=2}^{n} \sum_{1 \leqslant j_1 < j_2< \ldots < j_h \leqslant n } \alpha_{ j_1, \ldots ,j_h} \prod_{k=1}^h \phi_{j_k}(x_{j_k}) \biggr), \vk{x}:=(x_1,\ldots,x_n), \end{eqnarray} where $\phi_i$ are kernel functions, which are assumed to be bounded and non-constant such that \begin{eqnarray*} \label{eq:CondkernelLee} \E{\phi_i(X_i)}=0, \end{eqnarray*} \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:Condition_pdfCopulaN} 1+ \sum_{h=2}^{n} \sum_{1 \leqslant j_1 < j_2< \ldots < j_h \leqslant n } \alpha_{ j_1, \ldots ,j_h} \prod_{k=1}^h \phi_{j_k}(x_{j_k}) \geqslant 0, \quad \forall x_i \in \mathbb{R} \end{eqnarray} are fulfilled. Some general methods for finding the kernel function $\phi_i$ was specified by Lee \cite{Lee96} for different types of marginals. In particular, it is commonly used to choose $\phi_i(x_i)= g_i(x_i)- \E{g_i(X_i)}$ for marginal distributions with support in $\mathbb{R}_{+}$ (see e.g. \cite{Yang_al13}). The following three cases are the usual specifications of $g_i(x_i)$:\\ $(i)$ $g_i(x_i)= 2\overline{F}_i(x_i)$ which corresponds to the Farlie-Gumbel-Morgenstern (FGM) distribution, where $\overline{F}_i$ is the survival function of $X_i$,\\ $(ii)$ $g_i(x_i)= x_i^t- \E{X_i^t}$ such that the $t$-th moment $\E{X_i^t} $ of $X_i$ is finite,\\ $(iii)$ $g_i(x_i)= e^{ -t x_i}- \E{e^{ -t X_i}}$ where $\E{e^{ -t X_i}}< \infty$ is the Laplace transform of $X_i$ at $t$. \subsection{Mixed Erlang Marginals} These last decades, mixed Erlang distribution with a common scale parameter is one of the most usefull model for insurance losses. In risk theory, using the mixed Erlang distribution as a claim size model, an analytical form for the finite time ruin probability has been derived by Dickson and Willmot \cite{Dickson_al05} and Dickson \cite{Dickson08}. Recently, using the EM algorithm, mixed Erlang distribution has been fitted to catastrophic loss data in the United States by Lee and Lin \cite{Lee_Lin10} and also to censored and truncated data by Verbelen et al. \cite{verbelenfitting14} . Moreover, Lee and Lin \cite{Lee_al12}, Willmot and Woo \cite{Willmot_and_woo_14} have developed the multivariate mixed Erlang distribution to overcome some drawbacks of the copula approach while Badescu et al. \cite{Badescu14} have used multivariate mixed Poisson distribution with mixed Erlang claim sizes to model operational risks. Furthermore, Hashorva and Ratovomirija \cite{Hashorva_Rija14} have addressed risk aggregation and capital allocation with mixed Erlang marginals and Sarmanov distribution. In the sequel, we denote respectively \begin{eqnarray}\label{pdfErl} w_{k}(x,\beta)= \frac{\beta^{k} x^{k-1} e^{- \beta x}}{(k-1)!}, \quad W_{k}(x,\beta)= \sum_{j=k}^{\infty} \frac{(\beta x )^{j} e^{- \beta x}}{j!}, \quad \overline{W}_{k}(x,\beta)= \sum_{j=0}^{k-1} \frac{(\beta x )^{j} e^{- \beta x}}{j!}, x>0, \end{eqnarray} the pdf, the df and the survival function of an Erlang distribution where $k \in \mathbb{N}^{*}$ is the shape parameter and $\beta> 0$ is the scale parameter. As its name indicates, the mixed Erlang distribution is elaborated from the Erlang distribution, its pdf and df are respectively defined as \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:pdfME} f(x,\beta,\utilde{Q})=\sum_ {k=1}^{\infty} q_k w_{k}(x,\beta), \quad F(x,\beta,\utilde{Q})= \sum_ {k=1}^{\infty} q_k W_{k}(x,\beta), \end{eqnarray} where $\utilde{Q}=(q_1, q_2, \ldots)$ is a vector of non-negative weights satisfying $\sum_ {k=1}^{\infty} q_k =1$. Hereafter we write $X \sim ME(\beta,\utilde{Q})$ if $X$ has pdf and df given by \eqref{eq:pdfME}. One of the main advantages of the mixed Erlang distribution in insurance risk modeling is the fact that many useful risk related quantities, such as moments and mean excess function, have explicit expressions, see e.g., \cite{Lee_Lin10,Willmot_al10, Lee_al12,Willmot_and_woo_14}. \COM{ For instance, the quantile function (or VaR) of the mixed Erlang distribution can be easily obtained given the tractable form of the df. From the df in \eqref{eq:pdfME}, at a confidence level $p \in (0,1)$, the VaR of $X$, denoted by $x_p$, is the solution of \begin{eqnarray} e^{-\beta x_p} \sum_ {k=1}^{\infty} q_k \sum_ {j=k}^{\infty} \frac{(\beta x_p)^j}{j!} = p, \end{eqnarray} which can be solved numerically. Moreover the TVaR of $X$ at a confidence level $p \in (0,1)$ is given by the following explicit formula \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:TVaRME} TVaR_X(p)= \frac{1}{1-p} \sum_ {k=1}^{\infty} \frac{k q_k}{\beta} \overline{W}_{k+1}(x_p,\beta). \end{eqnarray} } Furthermore, the mixed Erlang distribution is a tractable marginal distribution for the Sarmanov distribution. Next we present a result for the correlated insurance portfolios. \section{ Ceding insurance risk model} In this section, we consider two insurance portfolios which both of them consists of $k$ risks and we denote $S_{1,k} = \sum_{i=1}^k X_i$ and $S_{2,k} = \sum_{i=k+1}^{2k} X_i$ the aggregated risk of each portfolio where $X_i,i=1,\ldots, 2k$ is a positive continuous random variable (rv) with finite mean. Hereafter, we assume $X_i\sim ME ( \utilde{Q}_i,\beta_i),i=1,\ldots,2k$ and the dependence structure between risks within and across the portfolio is governed by the Sarmanov distribution with kernel function $$\phi_i(x_i)= g_i(x_i)- \mathbb{E}(g_i(X_i)),$$ which shall be abbreviated as $$(X_1,\ldots, X_{2k})\sim SME(\vk{\beta}, \utilde{Q})$$ where $\vk{\beta}=(\beta_1,\ldots, \beta_{2k})$, $\utilde{Q}=(\utilde{Q}_1, \ldots, \utilde{Q}_{2k})$. In the rest of the paper we consider for \aH{$g_i$ one of} the three cases described in $(i),(ii)$ and $(iii)$.\\ Furthermore, we define two vectors of mixing weights $\utilde{\Theta}(\utilde{Q}_i)$ and $\utilde{\Psi}(\utilde{Q}_i)$ where their components depend on the kernel function $\phi_i$. In particular, the components of $\utilde{\Theta}(\utilde{Q}_i)= (\theta_{i,1}, \theta_{i,2}, \ldots)$ are given by: \begin{itemize} \item for $g_i(x_i)=2\overline{F}(x_i)$, $ \theta_{i,s} = \frac{1}{2^{s-1}} \sum_{j=1}^k \begin{pmatrix} s-1\\ j-1 \end{pmatrix} q_{i,j} \sum_{l=s-j+1}^\infty q_{i,l} , s=1,2,\ldots,$ \item for $g_i(x_i)=x_i^t$, \begin{eqnarray*} \theta_{i,s}= \left\{ \begin{array}{lcl} 0 & \mbox{for} & s \leqslant t , \notag \\ \frac{q_{i,s-t}\frac{\Gamma(s)}{\Gamma(s-t)}}{\sum_{j=1}^\infty q_j\frac{\Gamma(j+t)}{\Gamma(j)} } &\mbox{for} & s > t, \end{array} \right. \end{eqnarray*} \item for $ g_i(x_i)=e^{-tx_i}$, $ \theta_{i,s} = \frac{q_{i,s} \overline{\beta}^s}{\sum_{j=1}^\infty q_{i,j}\overline{\beta}^j } $ with $\overline{\beta} =\frac{\beta}{\beta + t},s=1,2,\ldots,$ \end{itemize} whilst the components of $\utilde{\Psi}(\utilde{Q}_i) =(\psi_{i,1}, \psi_{i,2}, \ldots)$ are given by \begin{eqnarray*} \psi_{i,s} =\sum_ {j=1}^{s} q_{i,j} \begin{pmatrix} k-1\\ j-1 \end{pmatrix} \left(\frac{\beta_i}{Z(\beta_{2k})}\right)^j \left(1-\frac{\beta_i}{Z(\beta_{2k})} \right)^{s-j}, \end{eqnarray*} where $Z(\beta_{2k})= 2 \beta_{2k}$ for $g_i(x_i)=2\overline{F}(x_i)$, $Z(\beta_{2k})= \beta_{2k}$ for $g_i(x_i)=x_i^t$ and $Z(\beta_{2k})= \beta_{2k}+t$ for $g_i(x_i)=e^{-tx_i}$. Moreover, for given mixing weights $\utilde{V}_i=(v_{i1}, v_{i2},\ldots),i=1,\ldots,n+1$ we define a vector of mixing probability $\Pi(\utilde{V}_1,\ldots, \utilde{V}_{n+1})$ as follows \begin{eqnarray*} \pi_l \{\utilde{V}_1,\ldots, \utilde{V}_{n+1}\}= \left\{ \begin{array}{rcl} 0 & \mbox{for} & l=1,\ldots,n, \\ \sum_ {j=n}^{l-1} \pi_j\{\utilde{V}_1,\ldots, \utilde{V}_{n}\} v_{n+1,l-j}& \mbox{for} & l=n+1,n+2,\ldots. \end{array} \right. \end{eqnarray*} We present next the main result of this section. \begin{sat}\label{proposition:survival} If $(X_1, \ldots, X_{2k})\sim SME(\vk{\beta}, \utilde{Q})$ with $\beta_{2k} \ge \beta_i,i=1,\ldots, 2k-1 $, then the joint tail probability of $S_{1,k}$ and $S_{2,k}$ is given by (set $\gamma_{j_m} := \E{ g_{j_m}(X_{j_m}) } $) \begin{eqnarray*} \pk{S_{1,k}>u_1,S_{2,k}>u_2} &=& \xi_1\overline{F}_{S_{1,k}}(u_1) \overline{F}_{S_{2,k}}(u_2) + \sum_{l=1}^{2k} \sum_{j_1,j_2,\ldots, j_l} \xi_{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{l}} \prod_{m=1}^l \gamma_{j_m} \gE{\overline{F}_{\tilde{S}_{1,k}} (u_1) \overline{F}_{\tilde{S}_{2,k}}(u_2),} \end{eqnarray*} where \begin{eqnarray*} &&\xi_1 = 1+ \sum_{j_1} \sum_{j_2 } \alpha_{j_1,j_2} \gamma_{j_1} \gamma_{j_2} - \sum_{j_1} \sum_{j_2 } \sum_{j_3 } \alpha_{j_1,j_2,j_3} \gamma_{j_1} \gamma_{j_2} \gamma_{j_3} + \ldots + (-1)^{2k} \alpha_{1,\ldots,2k} \prod_{i=1}^{2k} \gamma_{i}, \notag \\ &&\xi_{j_1} = \sum_{j_1} \biggl( - \sum_{j_2 } \alpha_{j_1,j_2}\gamma_{j_2} + \sum_{j_2 } \sum_{j_3 } \alpha_{j_1,j_2,j_3}\gamma_{j_2} \gamma_{j_3} + \ldots + (-1)^{2k+1} \alpha_{1,\ldots,2k}\prod_{i\in C\backslash \{j_1\}} \gamma_{i} \biggr), \notag \\ && \xi_{j_1,j_2} = \sum_{j_1} \sum_{j_2 } \biggl(\alpha_{j_1,j_2} - \sum_{j_3 } \alpha_{j_1,j_2,j_3} \gamma_{j_3}+ \sum_{j_3 } \sum_{j_4} \alpha_{j_1,j_2,j_3,j_4} \gamma_{j_3} \gamma_{j_4} + \ldots + (-1)^{2k} \alpha_{1,\ldots,2k}\prod_{i\in C\backslash \{j_1,j_2\}} \gamma_{i} \biggr), \notag \\ && \xi_{j_1,j_2,j_3} = \sum_{j_1} \sum_{j_2 }\sum_{j_3 } \biggl(\alpha_{j_1,j_2,j_3} - \sum_{j_4} \alpha_{j_1,j_2,j_3,j_4} \gamma_{j_4} + \sum_{j_4 } \sum_{j_5} \alpha_{j_1,j_2,j_3,j_4,j_5} \gamma_{j_4} \gamma_{j_5}+ \ldots + (-1)^{2k+1} \alpha_{1,\ldots,2k} \prod_{i\in C\backslash \{j_1,j_2,j_3\}} \gamma_{i} \biggr), \notag \\ && \xi_{j_1,\ldots,j_{2k-1}} = \sum_{j_1} \ldots \sum_{j_{2k-1} } \alpha_{j_1,\ldots, j_{2k-1}} - \alpha_{1,\ldots,2k} \gamma_{j_{2k}}, \notag \\ && \xi_{j_1,\ldots,j_{2,k}}= \alpha_{1,\ldots,2k}, \end{eqnarray*} with $C=\{1,\ldots,2k \}$, $j_1 \in C, j_2 \in C\backslash \{j_1\} , j_3 \in C\backslash \{j_1,j_2\}, \ldots, j_{2k} \in C\backslash \{j_1,\ldots,j_{2k-1}\}, $ \gE{\begin{eqnarray*} &&S_{1,k} \sim ME( \Pi \{ \undertilde{\Psi}(\undertilde{Q}_1), \ldots, \undertilde{\Psi}(\undertilde{Q}_k) ,Z(\beta_{2k}) \}),\\ && S_{2,k} \sim ME( \Pi \{ \undertilde{\Psi}(\undertilde{Q}_{k+1}), \ldots, \undertilde{\Psi}(\undertilde{Q}_{2k}) ,Z(\beta_{2k}) \}), \\ && \tilde{S}_{1,k} \sim ME( \Pi \{ \undertilde{\Psi}(\undertilde{Q}_1^{*}), \ldots, \undertilde{\Psi}( \undertilde{Q}_k ^{*}) ,Z(\beta_{2k})\}), \\ && \tilde{S}_{2,k} \sim ME( \Pi \{ \undertilde{\Psi}(\undertilde{Q}_{k+1}^{*}), \ldots, \undertilde{\Psi}( \undertilde{Q}_{2k}^{*}),Z(\beta_{2k}) \}), \end{eqnarray*}} and for $i=1,\ldots,2k $ $$\gE{\undertilde{Q}_i^*} = \left\{ \begin{array}{lcl} \undertilde{Q}_i & \mbox{if} & i \notin \{ j_1,j_2,\ldots, j_l \}, \\ \undertilde{\Theta}( \undertilde{Q}_i) & \mbox{if} & i \in \{ j_1,j_2,\ldots, j_l \}. \end{array} \right.$$ \end {sat} \begin{example} \label{ex:marginal param} Assume that the ceding insurer has two portfolios say Portfolio A and Portfolio B. Concerning the dependence structure betwen risks, two cases of kernel function are considered $\phi_i(x_i)=2\overline{F}_i(x_i)-1$ which defines the FGM distribution as explored in \cite{Cossette_al13} and $\phi_i(x_i)=e^{-x_i}- \E{e^{-X_i}}$ introduced by Hashorva and Ratovomirija \cite{Hashorva_Rija14} for mixed Erlang marginals. In the rest of the paper we refer to the latter as the Laplace case. Table \ref{table:statX1X2} presents the parameters of each individual risk $ X_i,i=1,\ldots,4$ and their central moments, whilst Table \ref{table:deparam} displays the dependence parameters between $X_1,X_2,X_3$ and $X_4$. We note that these dependence parameters have been chosen so that \eqref{eq:Condition_pdfCopulaN} holds. \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c| c| c|c|c|c|c|} \hline & $X_i$ & $\beta_i$ & $\utilde{Q}_i$ & Mean & Variance & Skewness & Kurtosis \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Portfolio A} & $X_1$& 0.12 & (0.4,0.6) & 13.33 & 127.78 & 1.55 & 6.50 \\ \cline{2-8} & $X_2$ & 0.14 & (0.3,0.7) & 12.14 & 97.45 & 1.49 & 4.33 \\ \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Portfolio B} & $X_3$& 0.15 & (0.5,0.5) & 10.00 & 77.78 & 1.62 & 6.80 \\ \cline{2-8} & $X_4$ & 0.16 & (0.8,0.2)& 7.50 & 53.13 & 1.88 & 8.16 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \captionof{table}{Parameters and central moments of $X_i,i=1,2,3,4$.} \label{table:statX1X2} \end{center} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c| c|c| c| } \hline &$\alpha_{1,2}$ & $\alpha_{1,3}$ & $\alpha_{1,4}$ & $\alpha_{2,3}$ & $\alpha_{2,4}$ & $\alpha_{3,4}$ & $\alpha_{1,2,3}$ & $\alpha_{1,2,4}$ & $\alpha_{1,3,4}$ & $\alpha_{2,3,4}$ & $\alpha_{1,2,3,4}$ \\ \hline FGM & 0.6 & 0.1 & 0.1 & 0.1 & 0.04 & 0.5 & 0.11 & 0.12 & 0.10 & 0.15 & 0.07 \\ \hline Laplace & 16 & 5 & 3 & 5 & 3 & 8 & 56 & 30 & 15 & 20 & 170 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \captionof{table}{ Dependence parameters of $(X_1,X_2,X_3,X_4)$.} \label{table:deparam} \end{center} It can be seen from Table \ref{table:eXcedenceProb} that the interdependence between the two insurance portfolios yields high probability for the aggregated risk of each portfolio to exceed simultaneously some threshold. \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline Thresholds & Independence case & Laplace case & FGM case\\ \hline $(u_1,u_2)$ & $ \pk{S_{1,2}>u_1,S_{2,2}>u_2}$ & $\pk{S_{1,2}>u_1,S_{2,2}>u_2}$ & $\pk{S_{1,2}>u_1,S_{2,2}>u_2}$ \\ \hline (20,15) & 0.1494 & 0.1569 &0.1573 \\ \hline (25,20) & 0.0697 &0.0751 &0.0795 \\ \hline (30,25) & 0.0304 & 0.0331 &0.0374 \\ \hline (35,30) & 0.0125 & 0.0138 &0.0165 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \captionof{table}{Joint tail probability of $S_{1,2}=X_1+X_2$ and $S_{2,2}=X_3+X_4$.} \label{table:eXcedenceProb} \end{center} \end{example} \section{Reinsurance risk model} In this section, we denote $R_2:= T_{1,k} + T_{2,k} $ the aggregate reinsurance stop loss risk where $T_{1,k}:=(S_{1,k}- d_1 )_+$ and $T_{2,k}:=(S_{2,k}- d_2)_+$ represent two stop loss reinsurance portfolios with $S_{1,k} = \sum_{i=1}^k X_i$ and $S_{2,k} = \sum_{i=k+1}^{2k} X_i$ the ceding insurer aggregated risk and $d_i ,i=1,2$ some positive deductible. Additionally, for a given risk $ X \sim ME(\beta, \undertilde{Q})$ with df $F$ and for a deductible $d>0$ we denote in the rest of the paper $$F_X(y+d) = \sum_{k=0}^\infty \Delta_{k}(d,\beta,\utilde{Q} ) W_{k+1}(y,\beta),$$ $$\overline{U} _X(c,d,\beta) = \sum_ {k=0}^{\infty} (k+1) \Delta_k(d,\beta,\utilde{Q}) \overline{W}_{k+2}(c,\beta),$$ with \begin{eqnarray*} \Delta_{k} (d,\beta,\utilde{Q}) = \frac{1}{\beta} \sum_{j=0}^\infty q_{j+k+1}w_{j+1}(d,\beta). \end{eqnarray*} Furthermore, for $X_i \sim ME(\utilde{Q}_i,\beta)$, with $d_i>0,i=1,2$ we define \begin{eqnarray*} &&F_{X_1+X_2}(d_1,d_2,s)= \sum_ {k=0}^{\infty} \sum_ {j=0}^{\infty} \Delta_k(d_1,\beta,\utilde{Q}_1) \Delta_j(d_2,\beta,\utilde{Q}_2) W_{k+j+2}(s,\beta),\\ &&\overline{U}_{X_1}(c,d_1,d_2,\beta)= \frac{1}{\beta} \sum_ {k=0}^{\infty} \sum_ {j=0}^{\infty} (k+1) \Delta_k(d_1,\beta,\utilde{Q}_1) \Delta_j(d_2,\beta,\utilde{Q}_2) \overline{W}_{k+j+3}(c,\beta),\\ &&\overline{U}_{X_2}(c,d_1,d_2,\beta)= \frac{1}{\beta} \sum_ {k=0}^{\infty} \sum_ {j=0}^{\infty} (j+1) \Delta_k(d_1,\beta,\utilde{Q}_1) \Delta_j(d_2,\beta,\utilde{Q}_2) \overline{W}_{k+j+3}(c,\beta),\\ &&\overline{U}_{X_1+X_2}(c,d_1,d_2,\beta)= \frac{1}{\beta} \sum_ {k=0}^{\infty} \sum_ {j=0}^{\infty} (k+j+2) \Delta_k(d_1,\beta,\utilde{Q}_1) \Delta_j(d_2,\beta,\utilde{Q}_2) \overline{W}_{k+j+3}(c,\beta). \end{eqnarray*} \subsection{Aggregation of reinsurance stop loss risks} In the following result we show that the df of the aggregated stop loss risk $R_2$ has a closed form which allows us to derive analytical formula \aH{of its} mean excess function. \begin{sat}\label{proposition:Aggregation} If $(X_1, \ldots, X_{2k})\sim SME(\vk{\beta}, \utilde{Q})$ with $\beta_{2k} \ge \beta_i,i=1,\ldots, 2k-1 $ and $d_j>0, j=1,2,$ then the df of the aggregated stop loss risk $R_2$ is given by \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:DF_Stop_Loss} F_{R_2}(s)= \left\{ \begin{array}{lcl} F_{S_{1,k}, S_{2,k}} (d_1,d_2) & \mbox{for} & s=0, \\ F_{S_{1,k}, S_{2,k}} (d_1+s,d_2 +s) &\mbox{for} & s>0, \end{array} \right. \end{eqnarray} where \begin{eqnarray*} F_{S_{1,k}, S_{2,k}} (d_1,d_2) = \xi_1 F_{S_{1,k}}(d_1) F_{S_{2,k}}(d_2) + \sum_{l=1}^{2k} \sum_{j_1,j_2,\ldots, j_l} \xi_{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{l}} \prod_{m=1}^l \gamma_{j_m} F_{\tilde{S}_{1,k}}(d_1) F_{\tilde{S}_{2,k}}(d_2), \end{eqnarray*} \gE{ \begin{eqnarray*} F_{S_{1,k}, S_{2,k}} (d_1+s,d_2 +s) &=& \xi_1 \biggl( F_{S_{1,k}}(d_1)F_{S_{2,k}}(d_2+s)+ F_{S_{1,k}}(d_1+s)F_{S_{2,k}}(d_2) + F_{S_{1,k}+S_{2,k}}(d_1,d_2,s) \biggr) \\ && + \sum_{l=1}^{2k} \sum_{j_1,j_2,\ldots, j_l} \xi_{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{l}} \prod_{m=1}^l \gamma_{j_m} \biggl( F_{\tilde{S}_{1,k}}(d_1) F_{\tilde{S}_{2,k}}(d_2+s) \\ && + F_{\tilde{S}_{1,k}}(d_1+s) F_{\tilde{S}_{2,k}}(d_2) + F_{\tilde{S}_{1,k}+\tilde{S}_{2,k}}(d_1,d_2,s) \biggr) , \end{eqnarray*}} with $S_{1,k},S_{2,k},\tilde{S}_{1,k},\tilde{S}_{2,k}$ are defined in Proposition \ref{proposition:survival}. \begin{remarks} \label{rem:risk measures Aggregate} Given the tractable form of the df in \eqref{eq:DF_Stop_Loss}, many risk related quantities for $R_2$ have an explicit form, for instance, for $c>0$ the mean excess function of $R_2$ is given by \gE{\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq: Meanexcess_R2} \E{R_2-c \vert R_2>c} &=& \frac{1}{ \overline{F}_{R_2}(c)} \biggl[ \xi_1 \biggl( F_{S_{1,k}}(d_1) \overline{U}_{S_{2,k}}(c,d_2,Z(\beta_{2k}))+ F_{S_{2,k}}(d_2) \overline{U}_{S_{1,k}}(c,d_1,Z(\beta_{2k})) \notag\\ && + \overline{U}_{S_{1,k}+S_{2,k} }(c,d_1,d_2,Z(\beta_{2k})) \biggr) + \sum_{l=1}^{2k} \sum_{j_1,j_2,\ldots, j_l} \xi_{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{l}} \prod_{m=1}^l \gamma_{j_m} \biggl( F_{\tilde{S}_{1,k}}(d_1) \overline{U}_{\tilde{S}_{2,k}}(c,d_2,Z(\beta_{2k})) \notag\\ && + F_{\tilde{S}_{2,k}}(d_2) \overline{U}_{\tilde{S}_{1,k}}(c,d_1,Z(\beta_{2k})) + \overline{U}_{\tilde{S}_{1,k}+\tilde{S}_{2,k}}(c,d_1,d_2,Z(\beta_{2k})) \biggr) \biggr] - c. \end{eqnarray}} \end{remarks} \end{sat} \begin{example} \label{ex:reinsurer} In this illustration, we consider the same parameters of each individual risk of the ceding insurer portfolios as in Table \ref{table:statX1X2}. Furthermore, we assume that the ceding insurer re-insures its two portfolios to a reinsurer with stop loss programs where the deductibles are $d_1=40$ and $d_2=30$ for Portfolio A and for Portfolio B, respectively. In practice, it is recognised that risk measures on the aggregated risk are sensitive to the strength of the dependence between individual risks. Actually, by taking into account the dependence within and accross the ceding insurer portfolios which is determined by the parameters in Table \ref{table:deparam}, the aggregated risk $R_2$ of the reinsurer is riskier than in the independence case. Therefore, based on VaR and TVaR as a risk measure, the reinsurer needs much more risk capital in the dependence case. Furthermore, for a different confidence level $p$, it can be seen that the deviation from the independence assumption is greater for VaR than for TVaR. \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{||c| | c|c||c|c||c|c||} \hline Confidence level &\multicolumn{2}{c||}{Independence case} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{Laplace case} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{FGM case} \\ \hline p & $VaR_{R_2}(p)$ & $TVaR_{R_2}(p)$ & $VaR_{R_2}(p)$ & $TVaR_{R_2}(p)$ & $VaR_{R_2}(p)$ & $TVaR_{R_2}(p)$ \\ \hline 90.00 \% & 11.73 & 22.64 & 11.98 & 22.93 & 13.92 & 25.35 \\ \hline 92.50 \% & 14.98 & 25.76 & 15.24 & 26.06 & 17.36 & 28.62 \\ \hline 95.00 \% & 19.47 & 30.10 & 19.75 & 30.41 & 22.10 & 33.14 \\ \hline 97.50 \% & 26.97 & 37.40 & 27.27 & 37.73 & 29.93 & 40.68 \\ \hline 99.00 \% & 36.64 & 46.85 & 36.97 & 47.21 & 39.93 & 50.40 \\ \hline 99.50 \% & 43.80 & 53.89 & 44.15 & 54.25 & 47.30 & 57.59 \\ \hline 99.90 \% & 60.08 & 69.92 & 60.45 & 70.31 & 63.91 & 73.89 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \captionof{table}{Deviation of VaR and TVaR from the independence case.} \label{table:risk measure} \end{center} It is well known that risk diversification across portfolios arises from aggregating their individual risks, see e.g., \cite{tasche2005measuring}, \cite{tang2006economic}. In this respect, by considering the TVaR as a measure for the risk capital, the diversification benefits $D_p(T_1,T_2)$ are quantified as the relative reduction of the risk capital required for the whole portfolio of the reinsurer from aggregating the stop loss risk $T_1$ and $T_2$ as follows $$ D_p(T_1,T_2) = 1- \frac{TVaR_{R_2}(p)}{TVaR_{T_1}(p) + TVaR_{T_2}(p)}.$$ As presented in Table \ref{table:diversification}, diversification benefits increase with the confidence level. Conversely, the deviation from the independence case yields a reduction of the diversification benefits which is obvious since the full diversification effects are attained when risks are independent. \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|c|c| c|c|c|c|} \hline & p & $TVaR_{R_2}(p)$& $TVaR_{T_1}(p)$ & $TVaR_{T_2}(p) $ & $D_p(T_1,T_2)$ (\%) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Independence case} & 95.00 \% & 30.10 & 24.87 & 18.26 & 30.19 \\ \cline{2- 6} & 97.50 \% & 37.40 & 32.34 & 24.26 & 33.92 \\ \cline{2- 6} & 99.00 \% & 46.85 & 41.89 & 31.97 & 36.56 \\ \cline{2- 6}& 99.90 \% & 69.92 & 64.84 & 50.55 & 39.40 \\ \hline \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Laplace case} & 95.00 \% & 30.41 & 25.11 & 18.41 & 30.13 \\ \cline{2- 6} & 97.50 \% & 37.73 & 32.58 & 24.42 & 33.82 \\ \cline{2- 6} & 99.00 \% & 47.21 & 42.14 & 32.13 & 36.44 \\ \cline{2- 6} & 99.90 \% & 70.31 & 65.07 & 50.72 & 39.28 \\ \hline \hline \multirow{4}{*}{FGM case} & 95.00 \% & 33.14 & 27.71 & 18.64 & 28.52 \\ \cline{2- 6} & 97.50 \% & 40.68 & 35.40 & 24.69 & 32.29 \\ \cline{2- 6} & 99.00 \% & 50.40 & 45.14 & 32.44 & 35.03 \\ \cline{2- 6} & 99.90 \% & 73.89 & 68.32 & 51.08 & 38.11 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \captionof{table}{ Diversification benefits based on TVaR of the aggregate risk $R_2$ and the individual risk $T_i, i=1,2$.} \label{table:diversification} \end{center} \end{example} \subsection{TVaR capital allocation} In this section, we derive analytical expressions for the amount of capital allocated to each individual risk of the reinsurer under the TVaR principle. In the enterprise risk management framework, to absorb large unexpected losses, reinsurer are required to hold a certain amount of economic capital for the entire portfolio. In this respect, the so-called capital allocation consists in attributing the required capital to each individual line. This allows the reinsurance company to identify and to monitor efficiently their risks. In the literature, many capital allocation techniques have been developed, see for instance\cite{cummins2000allocation, tasche2004allocating,tasche2005measuring, Dhaene_et_al12,Mcneil_al05} and references therein. In practice, it is well known that the TVaR principle takes into account the dependence structure between risks and satisfy the full allocation principle. More precisely, if $R_n=\sum_{i=1}^n T_i$ is the aggregate risk where $T_i$ is a rv with finite mean that represents the individual risk of the reinsurer, the amount of capital $TVaR_{p}(T_i,R_n)$ required for each risk $T_i$, for $i=1,\ldots,n,$ is defined as \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:TVaR_Alloc_Def} TVaR_{p}(T_i,R_n) = \frac{\mathbb{E}(T_i \mathbbm{1}_{\{R_n > VaR_{R_n}(p)\}})}{1-p}, \end{eqnarray} where $p \in (0,1) $ is the tolerence level. The full allocation principle implies $$TVaR_{R_n}(p)=\sum_{i=1}^n TVaR_{p}(T_i,R_n)$$ which means that, based on TVaR as a risk measure, the capital required for the entire portfolio is equal to the sum of the required capital of each risk within the portfolio. The following proposition develops an explicit form for $TVaR_{p}(T_i,R_2), i=1,2$, in the case of stop loss mixed Erlang type risks. In addition, we define below $S_{1,k},S_{2,k},\tilde{S}_{1,k},\tilde{S}_{2,k}$ as in Proposition \ref{proposition:Aggregation} and we denote $x_p:= VaR_{R_2}(p)$. \begin{sat}\label{proposition:TVaRCapital} Let $(X_1,\ldots, X_{2k})\sim SME(\vk{\beta}, \utilde{Q})$ with $\beta_{2k} \ge \beta_i,i=1,\ldots, 2k-1 $ and $d_j>0, j=1,2$. If further $T_j, j=1,2$ has finite mean then \gE{\begin{eqnarray*} TVaR_{p}(T_1,R_2)&=& \frac{1}{ 1-p} \biggl[ \xi_1 \biggl( F_{S_{2,k}}(d_2) \overline{U}_{S_{1,k}}(x_p,d_1,Z(\beta_{2k}))+ \overline{U}_{S_{1,k}}(x_p,d_1,d_2,Z(\beta_{2k})) \biggr) \notag\\ && + \sum_{l=1}^{2k} \sum_{j_1,j_2,\ldots, j_l} \xi_{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{l}} \prod_{m=1}^l \gamma_{j_m} \biggl( F_{\tilde{S}_{2,k}}(d_2) \overline{U}_{\tilde{S}_{1,k}}(x_p,d_1,Z(\beta_{2k})) \notag\\ && + \overline{U}_{\tilde{S}_{1,k}}(x_p,d_1,d_2,Z(\beta_{2k})) \biggr) \biggr]. \end{eqnarray*} } \end{sat} \begin{example} In this example, we consider the same individual risks and dependence parameters as in Example \ref{ex:marginal param} and the reinsurance programs as in Example \ref{ex:reinsurer}. Based on $TVaR$ as a risk measure for quantifying the risk capital required for the whole portfolio the required capital of each stop loss risk $T_i,i=1,2$ are evaluated for different confidence level $p$. Since $T_1$ is riskier than $T_2$, as displayed in Table \ref{table:Exactrisk_measures_Dependences}, more capital is required for $T_1$ compared to the amount needed for $T_2$. \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{||c||c| c|c||c|c| c||} \hline & \multicolumn{3}{c||}{Laplace case}& \multicolumn{3}{c||}{FGM case} \\ \hline p & $TVaR_{R_2}(p)$& $TVaR_{p}(T_1,R_2)$ & $TVaR_{p}(T_2,R_2) $ & $TVaR_{R_2}(p)$& $TVaR_{p}(T_1,R_2)$ & $TVaR_{p}(T_2,R_2) $ \\ \hline 90.00 \% & 22.93 & 14.56 & 8.37 & 25.35 & 16.19 & 9.16 \\ \hline 92.50 \% & 26.06 & 16.85 & 9.21 & 28.62 & 18.62 & 10.00 \\ \hline 95.00 \% & 30.41 & 20.15 & 10.26 & 33.14 & 22.12 & 11.02 \\ \hline 97.50 \% & 37.73 & 25.99 & 11.74 & 40.68 & 28.21 & 12.47 \\ \hline 99.00 \% & 47.21 & 33.94 & 13.27 & 50.40 & 36.39 & 14.01 \\ \hline 99.50 \% & 54.25 & 40.03 & 14.22 & 57.59 & 42.59 & 15.00 \\ \hline 99.90 \% & 70.31 & 54.20 & 16.11 & 73.89 & 56.79 & 17.10 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \captionof{table}{ TVaR and allocated capital to each stop loss risk $T_i, i=1,2,$ under the TVaR capital allocation principle.} \label{table:Exactrisk_measures_Dependences} \end{center} \end{example} \subsection{ Reinsurer default analysis} In the enterprise risk management framework, reinsurers are obliged to hold a certain amount of capital $K>0$ in order to be covered from unexpected large losses. The amount of this capital is determined so that the reinsurer will be able to honor its liabilities even in the worst case with high probability. For instance, in the SST, $K$ is quantified as the TVaR at a tolerance level $99\%$ of the aggregated risk $R_n= \sum_{i=1}^n T_i $ where $T_i$ represents the individual risk of the reinsurer. This means that for $99\%$ probability the reinsurer has enough buffer to pay its obligations. However, in case $R_n>K$ the reinsurer is in default and thus ceding insurers are not protected from losses exceeding $K$ i.e. $R_n-K$. By analogy to the case between the insurer and the policyholders, see \cite{myers2001capital}, the quantity $(R_n-K)_+$ is called the \textit{ default option of the reinsurer} or in other words the \textit{ceding insurers deficit} with $U(K):=\E{(R_n-K)_+}$ the value of the default option. In view of the full capital allocation principle, for a given risk capital $K$ required for the entire portfolio of the reinsurer, if $K_i, i=1, \ldots, n $ is the risk capital needed for each individual risk then $K=\sum_{i=1}^n K_i$. Furthermore, the value of the default option is also defined as the sum of the value of the unpaid losses $U(K_i,K):=\E{(T_i- K_i) \mathbbm{1}_{ \{ R_n> K\} } }$ of each ceding insurer(s) reinsured lines of business, specifically (see e.g. \cite{Dhaene_et_al12}) $$U(K) = \sum_{i=1}^n U(K_i,K)$$ Next, we determine $U(K)$ and also derive an explicit formula for the default probability of the reinsurer $\phi(K):=\mathbb{P}(R_2>K)$ where $R_2= T_1+T_2$. Furthermore, given that the reinsurer is in default, analytical expressions of the unpaid excess losses of each line of business of the ceding insurer(s) are derived. \begin{sat}\label{proposition:Value of the default option} If $(X_1, \ldots, X_{2k})\sim SME(\vk{\beta}, \utilde{Q})$ with $\beta_{2k} \ge \beta_i,i=1,\ldots, 2k-1 $ and $d_j>0, j=1,2$ then for a given risk capital $K>0$ \gE{ \begin{eqnarray*} U(K)&=& \xi_1 \biggl( F_{S_{1,k}}(d_1) \overline{U}_{S_{2,k}}(K,d_2,Z(\beta_{2k}))+ F_{S_{2,k}}(d_2) \overline{U}_{S_{1,k}}(K,d_1,Z(\beta_{2k})) \notag\\ && + \overline{U}_{S_{1,k}+S_{2,k} }(K,d_1,d_2,Z(\beta_{2k})) \biggr) + \sum_{l=1}^{2k} \sum_{j_1,j_2,\ldots, j_l} \xi_{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{l}} \prod_{m=1}^l \gamma_{j_m} \biggl( F_{\tilde{S}_{1,k}}(d_1) \overline{U}_{\tilde{S}_{2,k}}(K,d_2,Z(\beta_{2k})) \notag\\ && + F_{\tilde{S}_{2,k}}(d_2) \overline{U}_{\tilde{S}_{1,k}}(K,d_1,Z(\beta_{2k})) + \overline{U}_{\tilde{S}_{1,k}+\tilde{S}_{2,k}}(K,d_1,d_2,Z(\beta_{2k})) \biggr) - K \overline{F}_{R_2}(K), \end{eqnarray*}} where $ {\overline{F}_{R_2} (K)} = 1- F_{R_2} (K) $ with $F_{R_2} (.)$ is defined in Proposition \ref{proposition:Aggregation}. \begin{remarks} In view of Proposition \ref{proposition:Aggregation} analytical expression for the default probability of the reinsurer is given by \gE{ \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:defaultprob} \phi(K) &=& 1- \xi_1 \biggl( F_{S_{1,k}}(d_1)F_{S_{2,k}}(d_2+K)+ F_{S_{1,k}}(d_1+s)F_{S_{2,k}}(d_2) + F_{S_{1,k}+S_{2,k}}(d_1,d_2,K) \biggr) \notag \\ && + \sum_{l=1}^{2k} \sum_{j_1,j_2,\ldots, j_l} \xi_{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{l}} \prod_{m=1}^l \gamma_{j_m} \biggl( F_{\tilde{S}_{1,k}}(d_1) F_{\tilde{S}_{2,k}}(d_2+K) \notag \\ && + F_{\tilde{S}_{1,k}}(d_1+K) F_{\tilde{S}_{2,k}}(d_2) + F_{\tilde{S}_{1,k}+\tilde{S}_{2,k}}(d_1,d_2,K) \biggr). \end{eqnarray}} \end{remarks} \end{sat} \begin{sat}\label{proposition:unpaid excess losses} Let $K_i, i=1,2$ be the capital required for each stop loss reinsurance portfolio of the reinsurer such that $K=K_1+K_2$. Given that the reinsurer is in default, if $(X_1, \ldots, X_{2k})\sim SME(\vk{\beta}, \utilde{Q})$ with $\beta_{2k} \ge \beta_i,i=1,\ldots, 2k-1 $, $d_j>0, j=1,2$ and $T_j, j=1,2$ has finite mean, then \gE{ \begin{eqnarray*} U(K_1,K)&=& \xi_1 \biggl( F_{S_{2,k}}(d_2) \overline{U}_{S_{1,k}}(K,d_1,Z(\beta_{2k}))+ \overline{U}_{S_{1,k}}(K,d_1,d_2,Z(\beta_{2k})) \biggr) \notag\\ && + \sum_{l=1}^{2k} \sum_{j_1,j_2,\ldots, j_l} \xi_{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{l}} \prod_{m=1}^l \gamma_{j_m} \biggl( F_{\tilde{S}_{2,k}}(d_2) \overline{U}_{\tilde{S}_{1,k}}(K,d_1,Z(\beta_{2k})) \notag\\ && + \overline{U}_{\tilde{S}_{1,k}}(K,d_1,d_2,Z(\beta_{2k})) \biggr) - K_1 \overline{F}_{R_2}(K). \end{eqnarray*} } \end{sat} \begin{example} Consider the required capital for the entire portfolio $K$ as $TVaR_{R2}(p)$ and for the individual risk $K_i$ as $TVaR_{p}(T_i,R_2),i=1,2$ presented in Table \ref{table:Exactrisk_measures_Dependences}. From Table \ref{table:capital} we can see that an increase of the confidence level $p$ yields an uprise of the capital required for the entire portfolio of the reinsurer which in turn decreases the default probability and also the value of the unpaid losses of each portfolio of the ceding insurer. \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|| c|c|c||c|c||c|c|} \hline & p & K & $\phi(K)$ & $U(K)$ & $K_1$ & $U(K_1,K)$ & $K_2$ & $U(K_2,K)$ \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Independence case} & 95.00 \% & 30.10 & 0.01860 & 0.19288 & 19.69 & 0.15436 & 10.41 & 0.03852 \\ \cline{2- 9} & 97.50 \% & 37.40 & 0.00929 & 0.09483 & 25.47 & 0.07928 & 11.93 & 0.01555 \\ \cline{2- 9} & 99.00 \% & 46.85 & 0.00370 & 0.03725 & 33.35 & 0.03228 & 13.50 & 0.00497 \\ \cline{2- 9} & 99.90 \% & 69.92 & 0.00036 & 0.00360 & 53.59 & 0.00321 & 16.33 & 0.00039 \\ \hline \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Laplace case} & 95.00 \% & 30.41 & 0.01863 & 0.19338 & 20.15 & 0.15586 & 10.26 & 0.03752 \\ \cline{2- 9} & 97.50 \% & 37.73 & 0.00930 & 0.09750 & 25.99 & 0.07979 & 11.73 & 0.01525 \\ \cline{2- 9} & 99.00 \% & 47.21 & 0.00371 & 0.03731 & 33.94 & 0.03237 & 13.27 & 0.00494 \\ \cline{2- 9} & 99.90 \% & 70.31 & 0.00037 & 0.00360 & 54.20 & 0.00320 & 16.11 & 0.00040 \\ \hline \hline \multirow{4}{*}{FGM case} & 95.00 \% & 33.14 & 0.01870 & 0.19924 & 22.11 & 0.16237 & 11.02 & 0.03687\\ \cline{2- 9} & 97.50 \% & 40.68 & 0.00932 & 0.09740 & 28.21 & 0.08212 & 12.47 & 0.01528 \\ \cline{2- 9} & 99.00 \% & 50.40 & 0.00372 & 0.03805 & 36.39 & 0.03286 & 14.01 & 0.00519 \\ \cline{2- 9} & 99.90 \% & 73.89 & 0.00037 & 0.00364 & 56.80 & 0.00317 & 17.10 & 0.00047 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \captionof{table}{Default probability, default value option of the reinsurer and unpaid losses of the insurer.} \label{table:capital} \end{center} \end{example} \COM{ \section{Applications to insurance data} In this section, applications of the main results in real insurance data are given. In this regards, loss data from an insurance company has been used where the insurer has two business lines namely the vehicle liability line and the CASCO line which consists of the collision portfolio and the natural damage portfolio. Hereafter, we denote $X_1, X_2, X_3$ respectively the aggregate loss from the liability line, the collision and the natural damage portfolio. The aggregated loss generated by the CASCO lines is defined by $S_2=X_2+X_3$. \subsection{EM algorithm} For further details on EM algorithm, we refer to Lee and Lin (2010, 2012), Badescu et al.(2014) and Verbelen et al.(2014)..... \subsection{Dependence parameters estimation} } \section{Proofs} \proofprop{proposition:survival} The joint tail probability of $(S_{1,k} , S_{2,k})$ is determined in terms of the joint density of $(X_1,\ldots,X_{2k})$ as follows \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:defN1} \mathbb{P}(S_{1,k}>u_1,S_{2,k}>u_2)= \int \ldots \int_{s_{1,k}>u_1,s_{2,k}>u_2} h(\vk{x})dx_1\ldots dx_{2k}. \end{eqnarray} \\ Refering to \eqref{eq:pdfCopulaN}, the joint density of $(X_1,\ldots,X_{2k})$ is given by (set $\gamma_{j_h}:=\E{g_{j_h}(X_{j_h})}$) \begin{eqnarray*} h(\vk{x})&=& \prod_{i=1}^{2k} f_i(x_i) \biggl( 1+ \sum_{h=2}^{2k} \sum_{1 \leqslant j_1 < j_2<\ldots < j_h \leqslant 2k } \prod_{i=1}^h (g_{j_h}(x_{j_h})- \gamma_{j_h} ) \biggr)\\ &=& \xi_1 \prod_{i=1}^{2k} f_i(x_i) +\xi_{j_1} \tilde{f}_{j_1} (x_{j_1} ) \prod_{i \in C \backslash \{j_1\} } f_i(x_i) +\xi_{j_1,j_2} \tilde{f}_{j_1} (x_{j_1} ) \tilde{f}_{j_2} (x_{j_2} ) \prod_{i \in C \backslash \{j_1,j_2\} } f_i(x_i)\notag \\ &&+\ldots+ \xi_{j_1,\ldots,j_{2k-1}} \prod_{i=1}^{2k-1}\tilde{f}_{j_i} (x_{j_i} ) f_{j_{2k}} (x_{j_{2k}} ) +\xi_{j_1,\ldots,j_{2k}} \prod_{i=1}^{2k}\tilde{f}_{i} (x_{i} ), \end{eqnarray*} where $\tilde{f}_{i} (x_{i}) = g(x_i) f_{i} (x_i)$, \begin{eqnarray*} &&\xi_1 = 1+ \sum_{j_1} \sum_{j_2 } \alpha_{j_1,j_2} \gamma_{j_1} \gamma_{j_2} - \sum_{j_1} \sum_{j_2 } \sum_{j_3 } \alpha_{j_1,j_2,j_3} \gamma_{j_1} \gamma_{j_2} \gamma_{j_3} + \ldots + (-1)^{2k} \alpha_{1,\ldots, 2k} \prod_{i=1}^{2k} \gamma_{i}, \notag \\ &&\xi_{j_1} = \sum_{j_1} \biggl( - \sum_{j_2 } \alpha_{j_1,j_2}\gamma_{j_2} + \sum_{j_2 } \sum_{j_3 } \alpha_{j_1,j_2,j_3}\gamma_{j_2} \gamma_{j_3} + \ldots + (-1)^{2k+1} \alpha_{1,\ldots,2k}\prod_{i\in C\backslash \{j_1\}} \gamma_{i} \biggr), \notag \\ && \xi_{j_1,j_2} = \sum_{j_1} \sum_{j_2 } \biggl(\alpha_{j_1,j_2} - \sum_{j_3 } \alpha_{j_1,j_2,j_3} \gamma_{j_3}+ \sum_{j_3 } \sum_{j_4} \alpha_{j_1,j_2,j_3,j_4} \gamma_{j_3} \gamma_{j_4} + \ldots + (-1)^{2k} \alpha_{1,\ldots,2k}\prod_{i\in C\backslash \{j_1,j_2\}} \gamma_{i} \biggr), \notag \\ && \xi_{j_1,j_2,j_3} = \sum_{j_1} \sum_{j_2 }\sum_{j_3 } \biggl(\alpha_{j_1,j_2,j_3} - \sum_{j_4} \alpha_{j_1,j_2,j_3,j_4} \gamma_{j_4} + \sum_{j_4 } \sum_{j_5} \alpha_{j_1,j_2,j_3,j_4,j_5} \gamma_{j_4} \gamma_{j_5}+ \ldots + (-1)^{2k+1} \alpha_{1,\ldots,2k} \prod_{i\in C\backslash \{j_1,j_2,j_3\}} \gamma_{i} \biggr), \notag \\ && \xi_{j_1,\ldots,j_{2k-1}} = \sum_{j_1} \ldots \sum_{j_{2k-1} } \alpha_{j_1,\ldots, j_{2k-1}} - \alpha_{1,\ldots,2k} \gamma_{j_{2k}}, \notag \\ && \xi_{j_1,\ldots,j_{2k}}= \alpha_{1,\ldots,2k}, \end{eqnarray*} with $C=\{1,\ldots,2k \}$, $j_1 \in C, j_2 \in C\backslash \{j_1\} , j_3 \in C\backslash \{j_1,j_2\}, \ldots, j_{2k} \in C\backslash \{j_1,\ldots,j_{2k-1}\}. $\\ After some rearrangements, one can express $h(\vk{x})$ as follows \begin{eqnarray*} h(\vk{x}) &=& \xi_1 \prod_{i=1}^{2k} f_i(x_i) + \sum_{l=1}^{2k} \sum_{j_1,j_2,\ldots, j_l} \xi_{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{l}} \prod_{h=1}^l \tilde{f}_{j_h}(x_{j_h}) \prod_{i \notin \{j_1,j_2,\ldots, j_l\} }f_i(x_i) \notag \\ &=& \xi_1 \prod_{i=1}^{2k} f_i(x_i) + \sum_{l=2}^{2k} \sum_{j_1,j_2,\ldots, j_l} \xi_{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{l}} \prod_{i=1}^{2k} \gE{f_i^{*}(x_i)}, \end{eqnarray*} where for $i=1,\ldots,{2k}$ $$\gE{f_i^{*}(x_i)} = \left\{ \begin{array}{lcl} f_i(x_i) & \mbox{if} & i \notin \{ j_1,j_2,\ldots, j_l \}, \\ \tilde{f}_i(x_i) & \mbox{if} & i \in \{j_1,j_2,\ldots, j_l\}. \end{array} \right.$$ By Lemma \ref{lem:tranformation ME}, $\tilde{f}_i$ is a pdf of a mixed Erlang distribution, therefore one can write \eqref{eq:defN1} as a sum product of convolutions of mixed Erlang risks as follows \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:conv} &&\mathbb{P}(S_{1,k}>u_1,S_{2,k}>u_2) \notag \\ &&= \xi_1 \int_{u_1}^{\infty} \int_{u_1-x_{1}}^{\infty} \ldots\int_ {u_1-x_{1}- \ldots -x_{k-2}}^{\infty} \prod_{i=1} ^{k-1} f_i(x_i) \overline{F}_{k}(u_1-x_{1}-\ldots - x_{k-1}) dx_{k-1} \ldots dx_{1}\notag \\ && \times \int_ {u_2} ^{\infty} \int_ {u_2-x_{k+1}}^{\infty} \ldots \int_ {u_2-x_{k+1}- \ldots -x_{2k-2}}^{\infty} \prod_{i=k+1} ^{2k-1} f_i(x_i) \overline{F}_{k}(u_2-x_{k+1}-\ldots - x_{2k-1}) dx_{2k-1} \ldots dx_{k+1}\notag \\ &&+ \sum_{l=1}^{2k} \sum_{j_1,j_2,\ldots, j_l} \xi_{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{l}} \prod_{m=1}^l \gamma_{j_m} \notag \\ && \times \int_{u_1}^{\infty} \int_{u_1-x_{1}}^{\infty} \ldots\int_ {u_1-x_{1}- \ldots -x_{k-2}}^{\infty} \prod_{i=1} ^{k-1} f_i^{*}(x_i) \overline{F}_{k}^{*}(u_1-x_{1}-\ldots - x_{k-1}) dx_{k-1} \ldots dx_{1}\notag \\ && \times \int_{u_2} ^{\infty} \int_ {u_2-x_{k+1}}^{\infty} \ldots \int_ {u_2-x_{k+1}- \ldots -x_{2k-2}}^{\infty} \prod_{i=k+1} ^{2k-1} \gE{f_i^{*}(x_i) \overline{F}_{k}^{*}}(u_2-x_{k+1}-\ldots - x_{2k-1}) dx_{2k-1} \ldots dx_{k+1}. \end{eqnarray} \gE{Provided that $\beta_{2k} \ge \beta_i,i=1,\ldots, 2k-1 $, by Lemma \ref{lem:pdfMErlang} each $i-$th mixed Erlang component of \eqref{eq:conv} can be transformed into a new mixed Erlang distribution with a common scale parameter $Z(\beta_{2k})$. Therefore, with the help of Remark \ref{rem:AggregationN}, by convolution \eqref{eq:conv} can be expressed as a sum product of two mixed Erlang survival function as follows} \begin{eqnarray*} \mathbb{P}(S_{1,k}>u_1,S_{2,k}>u_2) &=& \xi_1\overline{F}_{S_{1,k}}(u_1) \overline{F}_{S_{2,k}}(u_2) + \sum_{l=1}^{2k} \sum_{j_1,j_2,\ldots, j_l} \xi_{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{l}} \prod_{m=1}^l \gamma_{j_m} \gE{\overline{F}_{\tilde{S}_{1,k}}(u_1) \overline{F}_{\tilde{S}_{2,k}}(u_2).} \end{eqnarray*} Thus the proof is complete. \hfill $\Box$ \\ \proofprop{proposition:Aggregation} Similarly to the independence case described in Lemma \ref{lem:Aggreg_Stop_Loss_Indep}, the df of $R_2$ is of mixed distribution and can be expressed in terms of the joint df of $(T_1,T_2)$ as follows \begin{eqnarray*} F_{R_2}(s)&=& \left\{ \begin{array}{lcl} \pk{T_1 =0 , T_2 =0 } & \mbox{for} & s=0 \notag \\ \pk{ T_1 = 0, 0 <T_2 \leqslant s} + \pk{ 0 < T_1 \leqslant s, T_2 = 0} + \pk{ T_1 + T_2 \leqslant s , 0< T_1 \leqslant s, 0< T_2 \leqslant s} &\mbox{for} & s>0 \end{array} \right. \\ &=:& \left\{ \begin{array}{lcl} F_{S_{1,k}, S_{2,k}} (d_1,d_2) & \mbox{for} & s=0 \\ F_{S_{1,k}, S_{2,k}} (d_1,d_2+s) + F_{S_{1,k}, S_{2,k}} (d_1+s,d_2) + F_{S_{1,k}, S_{2,k}}(s+d_1,s+d_2) &\mbox{for} & s>0. \end{array} \right. \end{eqnarray*} By Proposition \ref{proposition:survival} and Lemma \ref{lem:Aggreg_Stop_Loss_Indep}, $F_{R_2}(s)$ can be written in two terms as follows: \begin{itemize} \item the discrete term \begin{eqnarray*} F_{S_{1,k}, S_{2,k}} (d_1,d_2) = \xi_1 F_{S_{1,k}}(d_1) F_{S_{2,k}}(d_2) + \sum_{l=1}^{2k} \sum_{j_1,j_2,\ldots, j_l} \xi_{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{l}} \prod_{m=1}^l \gamma_{j_m} F_{\tilde{S}_{1,k}}(d_1) F_{\tilde{S}_{2,k}}(d_2), \end{eqnarray*} \item the continuous term \gE{\begin{eqnarray*} &&F_{S_{1,k}, S_{2,k}} (d_1+s,d_2 +s)\\ && = \xi_1 F_{S_{1,k}}(d_1)F_{S_{2,k}}(d_2+s) + \sum_{l=1}^{2k} \sum_{j_1,j_2,\ldots, j_l} \xi_{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{l}} \prod_{m=1}^l \gamma_{j_m} F_{\tilde{S}_{1,k}}(d_1) F_{\tilde{S}_{2,k}}(d_2+s) \\ && + \xi_1 F_{S_{1,k}}(d_1+s)F_{S_{2,k}}(d_2) + \sum_{l=1}^{2k} \sum_{j_1,j_2,\ldots, j_l} \xi_{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{l}} \prod_{m=1}^l \gamma_{j_m} F_{\tilde{S}_{1,k}}(d_1+s) F_{\tilde{S}_{2k}}(d_2) \\ && + \xi_1 F_{S_{1,k}+S_{2,k}}(d_1,d_2,s) + \sum_{l=1}^{2k} \sum_{j_1,j_2,\ldots, j_l} \xi_{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{l}} \prod_{m=1}^l \gamma_{j_m} F_{\tilde{S}_{1,k}+\tilde{S}_{2,k}}(d_1,d_2,s). \end{eqnarray*}} \end{itemize} This completes the proof. \hfill $\Box$ \\ \proofprop{proposition:TVaRCapital} In view of \eqref{eq:TVaR_Alloc_Def} \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:defTVaRAlloc1} TVaR_{p}(T_1,R_2) = \frac{\mathbb{E}(T_1 \mathbbm{1}_{\{R_2 > VaR_{R_2}(p)\}})}{1-p} =\frac{1}{1-p} \int_{VaR_{R_2}(p)} ^ \infty \mathbb{E} ( T_1\mathbbm{1}_{\{R_2=s\}}) ds. \end{eqnarray} First, we need to calculate $\mathbb{E} ( T_1\mathbbm{1}_{\{R_2 =s\}})$ as follows $$\mathbb{E} ( T_1\mathbbm{1}_{\{R_2 =s\}})= \int_{0}^\infty u f_{T_1,T_1+T_2=s}(u) du.$$ Let \gE{\begin{eqnarray*} &&f_{S_{1,k}+S_{2,k}}(d_1,d_2,u):= \frac{d}{du}F_{S_{1,k}+S_{2,k}}(d_1,d_2,u),\\ &&f_{\tilde{S}_{1,k}+\tilde{S}_{2,k}}(d_1,d_2,u):=\frac{d}{du}F_{\tilde{S}_{1,k}+\tilde{S}_{2,k}} (d_1,d_2,u). \end{eqnarray*}} As in Proposition \ref{proposition:Aggregation}, one can express $\mathbb{E} ( T_1\mathbbm{1}_{\{R_2 =s\}})$ as follows \gE{\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:CondExpT1T} \mathbb{E} ( T_1\mathbbm{1}_{\{R_2=s\}}) &=& \xi_1 \biggl( F_{S_{2,k}}(d_2) \int_0 ^{s} u f_{S_{1,k}}(d_1+u) du + \int_0 ^{s} u f_{S_{1,k}+S_{2,k}}(d_1,d_2,u) du \biggr) \notag \\ && + \sum_{l=1}^{2k} \sum_{j_1,j_2,\ldots, j_l} \xi_{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{l}} \prod_{m=1}^l \gamma_{j_m} \biggl( F_{\tilde{S}_{2,k}}(d_2) \int_0 ^{s} u f_{\tilde{S}_{1,k}}(d_1+u) du \notag \\ && + \int_0 ^{s} u f_{\tilde{S}_{1,k}+\tilde{S}_{2,k} }(d_1,d_2,u) du \biggr). \end{eqnarray}} By Lemma \ref{lem:pdfStop_Loss}, for $X_i \sim ME(\beta, \utilde{Q}_i)$ and $d_i >0,i=1,2$ \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:UX1} \int_0 ^{s} u f_{X}(d_i+u) du = \frac{1}{\beta} \sum_ {k=0}^{\infty} (k+1) \Delta_k(d_i,\beta,\utilde{Q}_i) \overline{W}_{k+2}(s,\beta) =: \overline{U} _{X_i}(s,d_i,\beta). \end{eqnarray} Similarly, by Lemma \ref{lem:Aggreg_Stop_Loss_Indep} \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:UX1X2} \int_0 ^{s} u f_{X_1+X_2}(d_1,d_2,u) du = \frac{1}{\beta} \sum_ {k=0}^{\infty} \sum_ {j=0}^{\infty} (k+1) \Delta_k(d_1,\beta,\utilde{Q}_1) \Delta_j(d_2,\beta,\utilde{Q}_2) W_{k+j+3}(s,\beta) =: \overline{U} _{X_1}(s,d_1,d_2,\beta). \end{eqnarray} Taking \eqref{eq:UX1} and \eqref{eq:UX1X2} into account, one may write \eqref{eq:CondExpT1T} as follows \gE{\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:CondExpT1TFinal} \mathbb{E} ( T_1\mathbbm{1}_{\{R_2=s\}}) &=& \xi_1 \biggl( F_{S_{2,k}}(d_2) \overline{U}_{S_{1,k}}(s,d_1,Z(\beta_{2k})) + \overline{U}_{S_{1,k}+S_{2,k} }(s,d_1,d_2,Z(\beta_{2k})) \biggr) \notag \\ && + \sum_{l=1}^{2k} \sum_{j_1,j_2,\ldots, j_l} \xi_{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{l}} \prod_{m=1}^l \gamma_{j_m} \biggl( F_{\tilde{S}_{2,k}}(d_2) \overline{U}_{\tilde{S}_{1,k}}(s,d_1,Z(\beta_{2k})) \notag \\ && + \overline{U}_{\tilde{S}_{1,k} }(s,d_1,d_2,Z(\beta_{2k})) \biggr). \end{eqnarray}} Therefore, refering to \eqref{eq:defTVaRAlloc1} (set $x_p:= VaR_p(R_2)$) \gE{\begin{eqnarray*} TVaR_{p}(T_1,R_2)&=& \frac{1}{ 1-p} \biggl[ \xi_1 \biggl( F_{S_{2,k}}(d_2) \int_{x_p}^{\infty} \overline{U}_{S_{1,k}}(s,d_1,Z(\beta_{2k})) ds + \int_{x_p}^{\infty} \overline{U}_{S_{1,k}}(s,d_1,d_2,Z(\beta_{2k})) ds \biggr) \notag\\ && + \sum_{l=1}^{2k} \sum_{j_1,j_2,\ldots, j_l} \xi_{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{l}} \prod_{m=1}^l \gamma_{j_m} \biggl( F_{\tilde{S}_{2,k}}(d_2) \int_{x_p}^{\infty} \overline{U}_{\tilde{S}_{1,k}}(s,d_1,Z(\beta_{2k})) ds \notag\\ && + \int_{x_p}^{\infty} \overline{U}_{\tilde{S}_{1,k} }(s,d_1,d_2,Z(\beta_{2k})) ds \biggr) \biggr]. \end{eqnarray*} } Hence, the result follows easily. \hfill $\Box$\\ \proofprop{proposition:Value of the default option} By definition \begin{eqnarray*} U(K)=\E{(R_2-K)_{+}} = \overline{F}_{R_2}(K) \E{R_2-K\vert R_2> K }. \end{eqnarray*} Hence in view of Remark \ref{eq: Meanexcess_R2}, \gE{\begin{eqnarray*} U(K)&=& \xi_1 \biggl( F_{S_{1,k}}(d_1) \overline{U}_{S_{2,k}}(K,d_2,Z(\beta_{2k}))+ F_{S_{2,k}}(d_2) \overline{U}_{S_{1,k}}(K,d_1,Z(\beta_{2k})) + \overline{U}_{S_{1,k}+S_{2,k} }(K,d_1,d_2,Z(\beta_{2k})) \biggr) \notag\\ && + \sum_{l=1}^{2k} \sum_{j_1,j_2,\ldots, j_l} \xi_{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{l}} \prod_{m=1}^l \gamma_{j_m} \biggl( F_{\tilde{S}_{1,k}}(d_1) \overline{U}_{\tilde{S}_{2,k}}(K,d_2,Z(\beta_{2k})) \notag\\ && + F_{\tilde{S}_{2,k}}(d_2) \overline{U}_{\tilde{S}_{1,k}}(K,d_1,Z(\beta_{2k})) + \overline{U}_{\tilde{S}_{1,k}+\tilde{S}_{2,k}}(K,d_1,d_2,Z(\beta_{2k})) \biggr) - K \overline{F}_{R_2}(K), \end{eqnarray*}} establishing the proof. \hfill $\Box$\\ \proofprop{proposition:unpaid excess losses} The unpaid losses of the ceding insurer line of business is defined as follows \begin{eqnarray*} U(K_1,K)=\E{(T_1-K_1) \mathbbm{1}_{ \{R_2 > K \} }}= \int_{K} ^ \infty \mathbb{E} ( T_1\mathbbm{1}_{\{R_2=s\}}) ds - K_1 \overline{F}_{R_2}(K) . \end{eqnarray*} In light of \eqref{eq:CondExpT1TFinal \gE{\begin{eqnarray*} U(K_1,K)&=& \xi_1 \biggl( F_{S_{2,k}}(d_2) \overline{U}_{S_{1,k}}(K,d_1,Z(\beta_{2k}))+ \overline{U}_{S_{1,k}}(K,d_1,d_2,Z(\beta_{2k})) \biggr) \notag\\ && + \sum_{l=1}^{2k} \sum_{j_1,j_2,\ldots, j_l} \xi_{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{l}} \prod_{m=1}^l \gamma_{j_m} \biggl( F_{\tilde{S}_{2,k}}(d_2) \overline{U}_{\tilde{S}_{1,k}}(K,d_1,Z(\beta_{2k})) \notag\\ && + \overline{U}_{\tilde{S}_{1,k}}(K,d_1,d_2,Z(\beta_{2k})) \biggr) - K_1 \overline{F}_{R_2}(K). \end{eqnarray*} } Hence the proof is complete. \hfill $\Box$
\section{Introduction} {\color{red}Attention!!! There was a mistake of one-class SVM for salient object detection in the previous vision since the kernel trik is used for the training phrase only.} Salient object detection, deriving from classical human fixation prediction~\cite{itti1998model}, \rebuttal{aims} to separate the entire salient object(s) that attract most of humans' attention in the scene from the background~\cite{liu2011learning}. Driven by applications of saliency detection in computer vision, such as content-aware image resizing~\cite{avidan2007seam} and photo collection visualization~\cite{wang2006picture}, many computational models have been proposed in the past decade. \begin{figure}[t] \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.8} \renewcommand{\tabcolsep}{.4mm} \begin{tabular}{cccc} \includegraphics[width=0.115\textwidth,keepaspectratio]{blotchy_0100.jpg}& \includegraphics[width=0.115\textwidth,keepaspectratio]{blotchy_0100_sf.png}& \includegraphics[width=0.115\textwidth,keepaspectratio]{blotchy_0100_DRFI.png}& \includegraphics[width=0.115\textwidth,keepaspectratio]{blotchy_0100_rbd.png}\\ \includegraphics[width=0.115\textwidth,keepaspectratio]{bubbly_0042.jpg}& \includegraphics[width=0.115\textwidth,keepaspectratio]{bubbly_0042_sf.png}& \includegraphics[width=0.115\textwidth,keepaspectratio]{bubbly_0042_DRFI.png}& \includegraphics[width=0.115\textwidth,keepaspectratio]{bubbly_0042_rbd.png}\\ \includegraphics[width=0.115\textwidth,keepaspectratio]{frilly_0107.jpg}& \includegraphics[width=0.115\textwidth,keepaspectratio]{frilly_0107_sf.png}& \includegraphics[width=0.115\textwidth,keepaspectratio]{frilly_0107_DRFI.png}& \includegraphics[width=0.115\textwidth,keepaspectratio]{frilly_0107_rbd.png}\\ {\footnotesize(a) input} & {\footnotesize(b) SF~\cite{perazzi2012saliency}} & {\footnotesize (c) DRFI~\cite{JiangWYWZL13}} & {\footnotesize(d) RBD~\cite{zhu2014saliency}} \\ \end{tabular} \caption{Saliency maps produced by three state-of-the-art models on the background images.} \label{fig:intro_bg_imgs} \end{figure} There are two main motivations behind this paper. On one hand, recent advances in supervised salient object detection has resulted in significant performance on benchmark datasets~\cite{JiangWYWZL13}. Yet it is time consuming and tedious to annotate salient objects in order to train a model. On the other hand, it is usually assumed that at least one salient object exists in the input image by most existing salient object detection algorithms (See~\cite{borjiTIP2014}). However, as shown in~\figref{fig:intro_bg_imgs}, there exist \textit{background images}~\cite{wang2012salient}, where there are no salient objects at all. Based on this impractical assumption, all of three state-of-the-art approaches \cite{perazzi2012saliency,JiangWYWZL13,zhu2014saliency} produce inferior saliency maps on background images. To this end, we study how to utilize weakly labeled data to train salient object detection models. Given a set of background images and salient object images, where we only have annotations of salient object existence labels, our goal is to train a salient object detection model. In this paper, we propose a weakly supervised learning approach to jointly deal with salient object existence and detection problems. The input image is first segmented into a set of superpixels\footnote{ In this paper, we use the terms superpixel and region interchangeably.}. Saliency labels of superpixels (\emph{i.e}\onedot} \def\Ie{\emph{I.e}\onedot, foreground or background) are then modeled as hidden variables in the latent structural SVM framework, where the inference can be efficiently solved using the graph cut algorithm~\cite{Boykov04an}. The training problem is built upon the large-margin learning framework to separate the salient object images and the background images. Our proposed weakly supervised approach is based on a set of unsupervised methods \cite{ChengPAMI,perazzi2012saliency,YangZLRY13Manifold,zhu2014saliency}. Compared with supervised approaches, we do not require strong pixel-wise salient object annotations. Furthermore, our approach is capable of recognizing the existence of salient objects. Our main contributions therefore are two folds: ($i$) we propose a weakly supervised learning approach based on the latent structuralSVM framework instead of expensive salient object annotations; ($ii$) compared with conventional approaches, our proposed approach is capable of jointly addressing salient object existence and detection problems. Our approach performs better than most of unsupervised salient object detection models and is comparable with the best supervised approach \section{Related Work}\ \label{sec:related_work} In this section, we briefly introduce related works in two areas: salient object detection and weakly supervised learning for vision tasks. \textbf{Salient object detection}. We refer readers to~\cite{borji2014salient,borji2012salient} for a comprehensive review of salient object detection models. Here, we briefly introduce some of the most related works. Visual saliency is usually related to the uniqueness, distinctiveness, and disparity of the scene. Consequently, most of existing works focus on designing models to capture the uniqueness of the scene in an \textit{unsupervised} setting. The uniqueness can be computed for each pixel in the frequency domain~\cite{achanta2009frequency}, by comparing a patch to its most similar ones~\cite{goferman2012context}, or by comparing a patch to the average patch of the input image in the principal components space~\cite{margolinmakes}. Benefiting from image segmentation algorithms, more and more approaches try to compute the regional uniqueness in a global manner~\cite{ChengPAMI,perazzi2012saliency,borji2012exploiting}, based on multi-scale~\cite{jiang2011automatic} and hierarchical segmentations of the image~\cite{yan2013hierarchical}. Moreover, several priors about a salient object have been developed in recent years. Since a salient object is more likely to be placed near the center of the image to attract more attention (i.e., photographer bias), it is natural to assume that the narrow border of the image belongs to the background. Such a background prior is widely studied \cite{wei2012geodesic,YangZLRY13Manifold,Jiang2013Saliency,li2013saliency}. It is recently extended to the background connectivity prior assuming that a salient object is less likely connected to the border area \cite{zhu2014saliency,zhang2013boolean}. In addition, generic objectness prior is also utilized for salient object detection \cite{chang2011fusing,JiangLYP13UFO,jia2013category}. Other priors include spatial distribution \cite{perazzi2012saliency,ChengWLZVC13Efficient} and focusness \cite{JiangLYP13UFO}. There also exist \textit{supervised} salient object detection models. The Conditional Random Field~\cite{liu2011learning,MaiNL13Aggregation} and Large-Margin framework~\cite{lu2014learning} are adopted to learn the fusion weights of saliency features. Integration of saliency features can also be discovered based on the training data using Random Forest~\cite{JiangWYWZL13}, Boosted Decision Trees (BDT)~\cite{mehrani2010saliency,kim2014salient}, and mixture of Support Vector Machines~\cite{khuwuthyakorn2010object}. Our proposed weakly supervised approach is built upon the basis of the feature engineering of several unsupervised approaches \cite{ChengPAMI,perazzi2012saliency,YangZLRY13Manifold,zhu2014saliency}. Compared with supervised approaches, however, our approach does not rely on strong saliency annotations, where we merely utilize the weak salient object existence labels of training images. Moreover, our proposed latent salient object detection approach (\secref{sec:lssvm}) is capable of jointly addressing the salient object existence and detection problems. \textbf{Salient object existence prediction}. In~\cite{wang2012salient}, the salient object existence prediction problem is studied as a standard binary classification problem based on global saliency features of thumbnail images. Zhang~\emph{et al}\onedot~\cite{zhang2015salient} investigate not only existence but also counting the number of salient objects based on holistic cues. In this paper, we focus on recognizing salient object existence. By incorporating latent superpixels' saliency label in our approach, better performance than~\cite{wang2012salient} can be achieved. Moreover, salient object existence labels are used to train a weakly supervised salient object detection model, predicting superpixels' saliency scores. \textbf{Weakly supervised learning}. Visual data that are ubiquitously available on the web are in nature weakly labeled, \emph{e.g}\onedot} \def\Eg{\emph{E.g}\onedot, images on Flickr and videos on YouTube with tags. To leverage these data, weakly supervised learning methods are extensively studied for vision tasks such as object detection~\cite{pandey11scene,deselaers12weakly}, concept learning~\cite{tang13discriminative}, scene classification~\cite{fergus07weakly,pandey11scene}, semantic image segmentation~\cite{vezhnevets12weakly}, etc. In essence, our proposed approach is closely related to the work of visual concept mining from weakly labeled data~\cite{Siva12in}, where we label the test data based on a strongly annotated negative training data. Compared with~\cite{Siva12in}, our approach is more suitable for salient object detection. In addition, our latent salient object detection based on the latent structural SVM is closely related to the hidden~\cite{quattoni07hidden} and max-margin~\cite{wang11hidden} conditional random fields. \newcommand{\mathbf{w}}{\mathbf{w}} \newcommand{\mathbb{R}}{\mathbb{R}} \newcommand{\mathcal{R}}{\mathcal{R}} \newcommand{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}} \newcommand{\mathcal{Y}}{\mathcal{Y}} \newcommand{\mathcal{H}}{\mathcal{H}} \newcommand{\mathcal{I}}{\mathcal{I}} \newcommand{\mathcal{V}}{\mathcal{V}} \newcommand{\mathcal{E}}{\mathcal{E}} \newcommand{\mathbf{s}}{\mathbf{s}} \newcommand{\mathbf{z}}{\mathbf{z}} \newcommand{\mathbf{I}}{\mathbf{I}} \newcommand{\mathbf{L}}{\mathbf{L}} \newcommand{\mathbf{D}}{\mathbf{D}} \newcommand{\mathbf{W}}{\mathbf{W}} \newcommand{\mathbf{V}}{\mathbf{V}} \newcommand{\mathbf{c}}{\mathbf{c}} \newcommand{\mathcal{G}}{\mathcal{G}} \section{Weakly Supervised Salient Object Detection} \label{sec:lssvm} In this section, we first present a weakly supervised approach for salient object detection based on the latent structural SVM framework (\secref{sub_sec:lssvm}). We then introduce saliency features used for salient object existence prediction and detection tasks (\secref{sub_sec:reg_sal_feat}). \newcommand{\mathbf{h}}{\mathbf{h}} \subsection{A Latent Structural SVM Formulation} \label{sub_sec:lssvm} In this paper, we are interested in learning a model that can not only predict whether there exist salient objects in the input image but also where the salient objects (regions) are (if \rebuttal{they} exist). Our weakly annotated training data is composed of a set of images and their ground-truth annotations of salient object existence labels (\emph{i.e}\onedot} \def\Ie{\emph{I.e}\onedot, salient object images vs. background images). Unlike supervised approaches~\cite{JiangWYWZL13,kim2014salient}, our approach does not need ground-truth annotations of regional saliency labels of the training samples. We call our approach \emph{weakly supervised} salient object detection since the supervision comes merely from the salient object existence annotations. It \rebuttal{is} worth exploring weakly supervised learning since it requires far less annotation effort than a supervised one. Denote the input image as $I$, which consists of $N$ superpixels $\{r_i\}_{i=1}^N$. Salient object existence label of the image is represented by a binary label $y\in\mathcal{Y}$, where $\mathcal{Y}=\{0, 1\}$ denotes if there exist salient objects (0 for no existence). Regional saliency labels of the image are denoted as $\mathbf{h}=[h_i]_{i=1}^N$, where $h_i\in\mathcal{H}=\{0, 1\}$ indicates the saliency label for the superpixel $r_i$ (0 is for background) Given a set of training samples $\{(I_m, y_m)\}_{m=1}^M$, our goal is to learn a model that can be used to predict the salient object existence label $y$ as well as regional saliency labels $\mathbf{h}$ of an unseen test image. To this end, we learn a discriminative function $f_{\mathbf{w}}:\mathcal{I}\times\mathcal{Y}\to\mathbb{R}$ over the image $I$ and its salient object existence label $y$, where $\mathbf{w}$ are the parameters. During testing, we can use $f_{\mathbf{w}}$ to predict the class label $y^*$ of the input image as $y^*=\arg\max_{y\in\mathcal{Y}}f_{\mathbf{w}}(I, y)$. Due to lack of annotations, we model regional saliency labels $\mathbf{h}$ as hidden variables in the latent structural SVM framework. We assume $f_{\mathbf{w}}(I, y)$ takes the following form $f_{\mathbf{w}}(I, y)=\max_{\mathbf{h}}\langle\mathbf{w}, \Psi(I, y, \mathbf{h})\rangle$, where $\Psi(I, y, \mathbf{h})$ is a feature vector depending on the input image $I$, its salient object existence label $y$, and regional saliency labels $\mathbf{h}$. We consider the global features $\Phi^e(I)$ of the input image $I$ to capture the salient object existence in a holistic manner as in~\cite{wang2012salient,zhang2015salient}. \rebuttal{Additionally, each superpixel $r_i$ is represented by two feature vectors $\Phi^f_i(I)$ and $\Phi^b_i(I)$, modeling its negative log-likelihood of belonging to the foreground and background, respectively.} Their detailed definitions are introduced in~\secref{sub_sec:reg_sal_feat}. To account for the spatial constraints of two adjacent superpixels that they tend to share the same saliency labels, we construct an undirected graph $\mathcal{G}=(\mathcal{V}, \mathcal{E})$. The vertex $j\in\mathcal{V}$ corresponds to the saliency configuration of the superpixel $r_j$ and $(j, k)\in\mathcal{E}$ indicates the spatial constraints of superxpixles $r_j$ and $r_k$. Finally, $\langle\mathbf{w}, \Psi(I, y, \mathbf{h})\rangle$ is defined as follows, \begin{align} \langle\mathbf{w}, &\Psi(I, y, \mathbf{h})\rangle = \sum_{a\in\mathcal{Y}}\delta(y=a)\langle \mathbf{w}_a^e, \Phi^e(I)\rangle \notag\\ & +\sum_{a\in\{0, 1\}}\delta(y=a)\sum_{j\in\mathcal{V}}\delta(h_j=1)\left(\langle \mathbf{w}_a^s, \Phi^f_j(I)\rangle + w_a^f\right) \notag \\ & +\sum_{a\in\{0, 1\}}\delta(y=a)\sum_{j\in\mathcal{V}}\delta(h_j=0)\left(\langle \mathbf{w}_a^s, \Phi^b_j(I)\rangle + w_a^b\right) \notag \\ & - \sum_{(j, k)\in\mathcal{E}}\delta(h_j\neq h_k) w^{p} \cdot v_{jk}. \label{eqn:w_psi} \end{align} The model parameters $\mathbf{w}$ are the concatenation of the parameters of all the factors in the above equation, \emph{i.e}\onedot} \def\Ie{\emph{I.e}\onedot, $\mathbf{w}=[\mathbf{w}^e, \mathbf{w}_a^s, , w_a^f, w_a^b, w^p]_{a\in\mathcal{Y}}$, where $w_a^f$ and $w_a^b$ are two prior terms for each region to be foreground and background, respectively. In the above formulation, both salient object existence prediction and detection problems are modeled together in a single integrated objective function. Salient object existence label does not only depend on the global image features $\Phi^e(I)$ in a standard classification term, but also on the regional saliency labels $\mathbf{h}$ and features $\Phi_j^f(I)$ and \rebuttal{$\Phi_j^b(I)$}. Although we are at the same supervision level as existing supervised models of predicting salient object existence labels~\cite{wang2012salient,zhang2015salient}, regional saliency labels are taken into consideration as latent variables in our approach. In turn, regional saliency labels $\mathbf{h}$ are dependent on the salient object existence label $y$ as well. We learn two groups of model parameters for salient object detection on salient object images and background images, respectively. Moreover, we learn two prior terms $w_a^f$ and $w_a^b$ modeling the influence of salient object existence label $y$ on the latent salient object detection $\mathbf{h}$. The last smoothness term encourages adjacent regions to take the same saliency label. $v_{jk}$ captures the similarity of two neighboring regions $r_j$ and $r_k$. It is defined as $v_{jk} = e^{-\frac{|\mathbf{c}_j - \mathbf{c}_k|^2}{2\sigma_c^2}}$, where $\mathbf{c}_j$ is the average color vector of the superpixel $r_j$ and parameter $\sigma_c$ is \rebuttal{set manually}. \newcommand{\mathbf{p}}{\mathbf{p}} \newcommand{\mathbf{q}}{\mathbf{q}} \newcommand{\mathbf{u}}{\mathbf{u}} \renewcommand{\AddImg}[1]{\includegraphics[width=0.12\textwidth,keepaspectratio]{#1}} \begin{figure*}[t] \centering \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.8} \renewcommand{\tabcolsep}{.4mm} \begin{tabular}{ccccccc} \AddImg{0_2_2310.png}& \AddImg{0_2_2310_gc.png}& \AddImg{0_2_2310_sd.png}& \AddImg{0_2_2310_bg.png}& \AddImg{0_2_2310_mr.png}& \AddImg{0_2_2310_bc.png}& \AddImg{0_2_2310_lssvm.png}\\ \AddImg{0_2_2721.png}& \AddImg{0_2_2721_gc.png}& \AddImg{0_2_2721_sd.png}& \AddImg{0_2_2721_bg.png}& \AddImg{0_2_2721_mr.png}& \AddImg{0_2_2721_bc.png}& \AddImg{0_2_2721_lssvm.png}\\ \AddImg{0017.png}& \AddImg{0017_gc.png}& \AddImg{0017_sd.png}& \AddImg{0017_bg.png}& \AddImg{0017_mr.png}& \AddImg{0017_bc.png}& \AddImg{0017_lssvm.png}\\ (a) & (b) & (c) & (d) & (e) & (f) & (g) \\ \end{tabular} \caption{Illustration of saliency features computed on the Lab color histogram channel. From left to right: (a) input images, (b) global contrast, (c) spatial distribution, (d) backgroundness, (e) manifold ranking, (f) boundary connectivity, and (g) final saliency maps.} \label{fig:feat_vis_nm} \end{figure*} \subsection{Saliency Features} \label{sub_sec:reg_sal_feat} In the past decade, reserchers have been mainly concentrating on designing various features to describe salient objects. Inspired by~\cite{ChengPAMI}, more and more research effort \rebuttal{is spent at the region level}. In this paper, we consider the following five kinds of regional saliency features. \textbf{Global contrast}. As studied in~\cite{ChengPAMI,perazzi2012saliency,borji2012exploiting}, the more distinct a region from others, the more salient it might be. Regional global contrast $\Phi^{gc}_i(I)$ is computed by comparing the region $r_i$ to others, where nearby regions are given larger weights to determine the contrast value. \textbf{Spatial distribution}. It is also an extensively studied saliency feature~\cite{liu2011learning,perazzi2012saliency,ChengWLZVC13Efficient,borji2012exploiting}, indicating that the wider a region spreads over the image, the less salient it is. Following~\cite{perazzi2012saliency}, we compute the spatial distribution $\Phi^{sp}_i(I)$ by computing spatial distances of the region $r_i$ with others, which are weighted by their appearance distances. \textbf{Backgroundness}. Since the salient object is placed near the image center to attract more attention, the image borders $B$ are thus more likely belong \rebuttal{to} the background. Following~\cite{JiangWYWZL13}, the regional backgroundness $\Phi^{bg}_i(I)$ is computed by examining the region $r_i$ with respect to $B$ based on different appearance features. \textbf{Manifold ranking}. In addition to directly comparing each region to the image border $B$, a region's saliency score can also be defined based on its relevance to $B$ via graph-based manifold ranking~\cite{YangZLRY13Manifold}. Following~\cite{YangZLRY13Manifold}, we compute the ranking score for the region $r_i$ w.r.t each side of the image border $B$ and combine them together to get the final manifold ranking score $\Phi^{mr}_i(I)$. \textbf{Boundary connectivity}. It is suggested in~\cite{zhu2014saliency} that a salient region is less likely connected to the pseudo-background $B$. To this end, the boundary connectivity score $\Phi^{bc}_i(I)$ of the region $r_i$ is defined as the ratio between its spanning area and the length along the image border. For robustness, we compute saliency features on different appearance channels including average RGB, RGB histogram, average HSV, HSV histogram, average Lab, Lab histogram, and Local Binary Pattern (LBP) histogram. Feature distances are computed as the $\chi^2$ distance for histograms and as absolute Euclidean distance for others. Each dimension of the feature is normalized in the range $[0, 1]$. Finally, we concatenate these five feature descriptors $\Phi^s_i(I)=[\Phi^{gc}_i(I), \Phi^{sp}_i(I), \Phi^{bg}_i(I), \Phi^{mr}_i(I), \Phi^{bc}_i(I)]$. In total, we obtain a 35-dimensional feature vector. See~\figref{fig:feat_vis_nm} for examples of different saliency features. We refer readers to the original papers for more technical details. Based on saliency features $\{\Phi^s_i(I)\}_{i=1}^N$, we adopt the same holistic manner as in~\cite{wang2012salient} to capture the existence of salient objects. We resize the pixel-wise saliency map resulting from each appearance channel of $\{\Phi^s_i(I)\}_{i=1}^N$ to $300\times300$ and divide it into $5\times 5$ grids, concatenating the average saliency value in each grid to form a global saliency feature vector $\Phi^{GS}(I)$. Additionally, we also consider the GIST descriptor~\cite{oliva2001gist} $\Phi^{GIST}(I)$, computed as a concatenation of averaged responses of 32 Garbor-like filters over a $4 \times 4$ grid . Finally, we get a 1387-dimensional ($5\times 5\times 35 + 32\times4\times4$) feature vector $\Phi^e(I)=[\Phi^{GS}(I), \Phi^{GIST}(I)]$ to capture salient object existence. We also define $\Phi^f_i(I)=-\log\left(1 - \Phi^s_i(I)\right)$ and $\Phi^b_i(I)=-\log\left(\Phi^s_i(I)\right)$, which can be regarded as the negative log-likelihood of each region belonging to the foreground and background, respectively. Since $\Phi^s_i(I)\in[0, 1]$, $\Phi^f_i(I)$ increases as it raises while $\Phi^b_i(I)$ decreases, indicating a region is more likely to be categorized as foreground with larger saliency feature values. \section{Learning and Inference} In this section, we introduce how to learn our model parameters $\mathbf{w}$ from training samples (\secref{sub_sec:learning}) and how to infer both the salient object existence label $y$ and regional saliency labels $\mathbf{h}$ given a test image (\secref{sub_sec:inference}). \subsection{Large Margin Learning} \label{sub_sec:learning} Given a set of training samples $\{(I_m, y_m)\}_{m=1}^M$, we find the optimal model parameters by minimizing the following regularized empirical risk~\cite{Do12regularized}, \begin{align} \min_{\mathbf{w}}~L(\mathbf{w}) = \frac{\lambda}{2}||\mathbf{w}||^2 + \frac{1}{M}\sum_{m=1}^M R_m(\mathbf{w}), \label{eqn:lssvm_objective_function} \end{align} where $\lambda$ controls the trade off between the regularization term and the loss term. $R_m(\mathbf{w})$ is a hinge loss function defined as \begin{align} R_m(\mathbf{w}) = & \max_{y, \mathbf{h}} \left(\langle\mathbf{w}, \Psi(I_m,y,\mathbf{h})\rangle + \Delta(y_m, y, \mathbf{h})\right)\notag \\ & - \max_{\mathbf{h}}\langle\mathbf{w}, \Psi(I_m,y_m,\mathbf{h})\rangle, \end{align} where the loss function $\Delta(y_m, y, \mathbf{h})$ is defined as follows \begin{align} \Delta(y_m, y, \mathbf{h}) = \delta(y_m\neq y) + \alpha(y_m, \mathbf{h}). \end{align} The first term is the 0/1 loss widely used for multi-class classification. In addition, we introduce the second term to constrain the latent salient object segmentation. For a background image, its regional saliency labels should be all zeros. For a salient object image, we resort to the pseudo-background prior~\cite{JiangWYWZL13} to treat all the saliency labels of regions in the border area of the image as zeros. To this end, the second loss term can be written as \begin{align} \alpha(y_m, \mathbf{h}) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll} \frac{1}{Z_0} \sum_{l=1}^N \beta_l \delta(h_l \neq 0 ), &\mbox{if $y_m=0$}, \\ \frac{1}{Z_1} \sum_{l=1}^N \beta_l \delta(h_l \neq 0 )\delta(r_l\in B), &\mbox{if $y_m=1$}, \\ \end{array}\right.\notag \end{align} where $\beta_l$ is the area of the region $r_l$. $Z_0$ and $Z_1$ are normalization terms to ensure $\alpha(y_m, \mathbf{h})\in[0, 1]$. \eqref{eqn:lssvm_objective_function} can be efficiently minimized using the bundle optimization method~\cite{Do12regularized}, which iteratively builds an increasingly accurate piecewise quadratic approximation of the objective function $L(\mathbf{w})$ based on its sub-gradient $\partial L(\mathbf{w})$. We first define \begin{align} \mathbf{h}_y^* &= \arg\max_{\mathbf{h}} \left(\langle\mathbf{w}, \Psi(I_m,y,\mathbf{h})\rangle + \Delta(y_m, y, \mathbf{h})\right), \forall \rebuttal{m}, \forall y\in\mathcal{Y}, \notag\\ y_m^* &= \arg\max_{y\in\mathcal{Y}}\left(\rebuttal{\langle\mathbf{w}, \Psi(I_m,y,\mathbf{h})\rangle} + \Delta(y_m, y, \mathbf{h}_y^*)\right), \end{align} The sub-gradient $\partial L(\mathbf{w})$ can then be computed as \begin{align} \partial L(\mathbf{w}) = \lambda\mathbf{w} + \Psi(I_m, y_m^*, \mathbf{h}_{y_m^*}^*) - \Psi(I_m, y_m, \mathbf{h}_{y_m}^*).\notag \label{eqn:loss_augment_optimization} \end{align} Given the sub-gradient $\partial L(\mathbf{w})$, the optimal model parameters can then be learned by minimizing~\eqref{eqn:lssvm_objective_function} using the method in~\cite{Do12regularized}. \subsection{Inference} \label{sub_sec:inference} Given a test image $I$, we maximize~\eqref{eqn:w_psi} to jointly predict its salient object existence label $y^*$ and regional saliency labels $\mathbf{h}^*$ as follows, \begin{align} (y^*, \mathbf{h}^*) = \arg\max_{y\in\mathcal{Y}, \mathbf{h}} \langle\mathbf{w}, \Psi(I, y, \mathbf{h})\rangle. \end{align} Since the search space $\mathcal{Y}$ of $y$ is small, we can iterate over all its possible values. Given any $y\in\mathcal{Y}$, we utilize the max-flow algorithm~\cite{Boykov04an} to optimize the~\eqref{eqn:w_psi} to get the optimal regional saliency labels. During training, we have to solve the loss-augmented energy function~\eqref{eqn:loss_augment_optimization}. Luckily, we can incorporate the loss of regional saliency labels into the unary term of~\eqref{eqn:w_psi}. Therefore, we can again utilize the max-flow algorithm~\cite{Boykov04an} for efficient inference. To output a saliency map, we diffuse the latent segmentation result of salient object using the quadratic energy function~\cite{lu2014learning} as follows, \begin{align} \mathbf{z} = \gamma(\mathbf{I} + \gamma\mathbf{L})^{-1}\mathbf{I} \mathbf{h}, \label{eqn:lssvm_diffusion} \end{align} where $\mathbf{z}=[z_i]_{i=1}^N$. $z_i\in[0, 1]$ is the saliency value of the superpixel $r_i$. $\mathbf{I}$ is the identity matrix. $\mathbf{V}=[v_{ij}]$ and $\mathbf{D}=diag\{d_{11}, \cdots, d_{NN}\}$ is the degree matrix, where $d_{ii}=\sum_{j}v_{ij}$. $\mathbf{L} = \mathbf{D} - \mathbf{V}$ is the Laplacian matrix. \renewcommand{\AddImg}[1]{\includegraphics[height=0.18\textwidth]{#1}} \begin{figure*}[t] \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.8} \renewcommand{\tabcolsep}{.4mm} \begin{tabular}{cccc} \AddImg{effectOfNumTrainExistenceAccuracy.pdf}& \AddImg{effectOfNumTrainAP.pdf} & \ \AddImg{featImpExistenceAccuracy.pdf}& \AddImg{featImpAP.pdf}\\ (a) & (b) & (c) & (d) \end{tabular} \caption{Empirical analysis of our approach on the test set, MSRA-B, and ECSSD datasets. From top to bottom: (a)(b): accuracy of salient object existence prediction and AP scores of salient object detection versus different number of training images ($M$ in~\eqref{eqn:lssvm_objective_function}), (c)(d): accuracy of salient object existence prediction and AP scores of salient object detection versus different settings of feature combinations. }\label{fig:empirical_analysis} \end{figure*} \section{Experimental Results} \label{sec:experiment} \subsection{Setup} Background images publicly available in the literature are only the thumbnail background image dataset~\cite{wang2012salient}. Images in this dataset, however, are of low resolution ($130\times130$). Since we are interested in images with common sizes (\emph{e.g}\onedot} \def\Eg{\emph{E.g}\onedot, $400\times300$), this dataset is not suitable for our scenarios. To this end, we collect 6182 background images from the SUN dataset~\cite{xiao10sun}, describable texture dataset~\cite{cimpoi14describing}, Flickr, and Bing image search engines. We randomly sample 5000 background images to train our model and leave other 1182 images for testing. Additionally, we randomly sample 5000 images from the MSRA10K dataset~\cite{ChengPAMI} for training and 1237 images for testing. In total, we have 10000 images for training and 2419 for testing. For the salient object detection task, we evaluate our proposed approach (LSSVM) on MSRA-B~\cite{JiangWYWZL13} and ECSSD~\cite{yan2013hierarchical} datasets with pixel-wise annotations. MSRA-B contains 5000 images with variations including natural scenes, animals, indoor scenes etc. There are 1000 semantically salient but structurally complex images in ECSSD, making it very challenging. {\small \begin{table}[t] \caption{Taxonomy of different salient object detection algorithms based on supervision type and tasks that each method can solve. (Abbreviations unspvd. and spvd. denote unsupervised and supervised, respectively.)} \label{tab:taxonomy_sal_obj_alg} {\small \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c} \hline methods & supervision & task & pub. \& year \\ \hline SVO~\cite{chang2011fusing} & unspvd. & detection & ICCV 2011\\ CA~\cite{goferman2012context} & unspvd. & detection & CVPR 2010 \\ CB~\cite{jiang2011automatic} & unspvd. & detection & BMVC 2011\\ RC~\cite{ChengPAMI} & unspvd. & detection & PAMI 2015\\ SF~\cite{perazzi2012saliency} & unspvd. & detection & CVPR 2012\\ LRK~\cite{shen2012unified} & unspvd. & detection & CVPR 2012\\ HS~\cite{yan2013hierarchical} & unspvd. & detection & CVPR 2013\\ GMR~\cite{YangZLRY13Manifold} & unspvd. & detection & CVPR 2013\\ PCA~\cite{margolinmakes} & unspvd. & detection & CVPR 2013\\ MC~\cite{Jiang2013Saliency} & unspvd. & detection & ICCV 2013\\ DSR~\cite{li2013saliency} & unspvd. & detection & ICCV 2013\\ RBD~\cite{zhu2014saliency} & unspvd. & detection & CVPR 2014\\ \hline DRFI~\cite{JiangWYWZL13} & spvd. & detection & CVPR 2013\\ HDCT~\cite{kim2014salient} & spvd. & detection & CVPR 2014\\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{GS~\cite{wang2012salient}} & \multirow{2}{*}{spvd.} & existence & \multirow{2}{*}{CVPR 2012}\\ \cline{3-3} & & localization & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{SOS~\cite{zhang2015salient}} & \multirow{2}{*}{spvd.} & existence & \multirow{2}{*}{CVPR 2015}\\ \cline{3-3} & & counting & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{LSSVM} & weakly spvd. & detection & \multirow{2}{*}{} \\ \cline{2-3} & spvd. + latent & existence & \\ \hline \end{tabular} } \end{table} } We compare our approaches with 14 state-of-the-art salient object detection models, including 12 unsupervised methods and 2 supervised models, which are summarized in~\tabref{tab:taxonomy_sal_obj_alg}. Following the benchmark~\cite{borji2012salient}, for quantitative comparisons, we binarize a saliency map with a fixed threshold ranging from 0 to 255. At each threshold, we compute Precision and Recall scores. We can then plot a Precision-Recall (PR) curve. To obtain a scalar metric, we report the average precision (AP) score defined as the area under the PR curve. Additionally, we also report the Mean Absolute Error (MAE) scores between saliency maps and the ground-truth binary masks. \subsection{Empirical Analysis of Our Approach} Here we empirically analyze our proposed approach on the test set, MSRA-B and ECSSD datasets. In particular, we quantitatively study the performance of both salient object detection and salient object existence prediction tasks by varying the following parameters. \textbf{Number of Training Images}. As can be seen from~\figref{fig:empirical_analysis}(a), the latent structural SVM benefits from larger number of training samples, where the classification accuracy almost keeps increasing when more training images are adopted on all three datasets. However, according to~\figref{fig:empirical_analysis}(b), the performance of salient object detection does not always increase when more training samples are available. The reason might be that in contrast to the salient object existence, we have indirect (weak) supervision during training to constrain the salient object segmentation results. \textbf{Feature Importance}. To measure the importance of features, we remove each kind of feature set and observe the performance variations on both tasks. In terms of salient object existence prediction, according to~\figref{fig:empirical_analysis}(c), the feature importance on three datasets are diverse. For instance, backgroundness is recognized as the most important on the test set while considered as the least critical one on MSRA-B. Regarding the salient object detection tasks according to~\figref{fig:empirical_analysis}(d), the ranking of feature importance is consistent on MSRA-B and ECSSD. Features, from the most important to the least important are: boundary connectivity, global contrast, backgroundness, spatial distribution, and manifold ranking. It is worth noting that the full feature vector performs the best. \renewcommand{\AddImg}[1]{\includegraphics[width=0.11\textwidth]{#1}} \newcommand{\AddImgs}[1]{\AddImg{#1.jpg}&\AddImg{#1_sf.png}&\AddImg{#1_gmr.png}& \AddImg{#1_dsr.png}&\AddImg{#1_rbd.png}&\AddImg{#1_hdct.png}&\AddImg{#1_drfi.png}& \AddImg{#1_lssvm.png}\\} \begin{figure*}[t] \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.8} \renewcommand{\tabcolsep}{.4mm} \centering \begin{tabular}{ccccccccc} \AddImgs{4_141_141591} \AddImgs{0_18_18723} \AddImgs{1_45_45191} \AddImgs{sun_awqyctvbyqmvvdjs} {\scriptsize (a) input} & {\scriptsize (b) SF~\cite{perazzi2012saliency}} & {\scriptsize (c) GMR~\cite{YangZLRY13Manifold}} & {\scriptsize(d) DSR~\cite{li2013saliency}} & {\scriptsize(e) RBD~\cite{zhu2014saliency}} & {\scriptsize(f) HDCT~\cite{kim2014salient}} & {\scriptsize(g) DRFI~\cite{JiangWYWZL13}} & {\scriptsize(h)LSSVM}\\ \end{tabular} \caption{Qualitative comparisons of saliency maps produced by different approaches. From left to right: (a) input images, (b)-(g) saliency maps of state-of-the-art approaches, (h) saliency maps of our proposed approach LSSVM.} \label{fig:qual_comp} \end{figure*} \subsection{Salient Object Existence Prediction} \label{sub_sec:salObjExistencePrediction} Here we quantitatively study our proposed approach in terms of the salient object existence prediction task. We compare our approach with three baselines, where we train a linear SVM, \rebuttal{two non-linear SVMs (using the $\chi^2$ and rbf kernels, respectively)}, and a Random Forest using our global image features $\Phi^e(I)$. As we can see \rebuttal{in~\tabref{tab:class_accuracy}}, by considering latent variables, our proposed approach (LSSVM) can achieve higher accuracy than the linear SVM. However, since both the rbf SVM, $\chi^2$ SVM and Random Forest are non-linear classifiers, they perform better than our approach. This motivates us that our approach may further benefit from non-linearly transforming our global features \rebuttal{(via a kernel function)}. \rebuttal{Therefore, we train a non-linear version of LSSVM (denoted as $\chi^2$ LSSVM), where we use the explicit feature mapping~\cite{vedaldi12efficient} to transform $\Phi^e(I)$ to approximate the $\chi^2$ kernel. As can be seen, benefiting from latent variables, its classification accuracy is still higher than its baseline ($\chi^2$ SVM) on both MSRA-B and ECSSD datasets. Moreover, it achieves the highest classification accuracy on the test set.} Compared with the state-of-the-art approach in~\cite{wang2012salient}, our approach has two advantages, more powerful features and incorporation of latent saliency information. Though a non-linear classifier (Random Forest) is utilized in~\cite{wang2012salient}, as we can see from~\tabref{tab:class_accuracy}, our approach has higher classification accuracy on all datasets. Moreover, compared with~\cite{wang2012salient}, our approach is able to jointly address salient object existence and detection problems. \begin{table} \caption{Classification accuracy of different approaches on benchmark datasets. \rebuttal{(Updated.)}} \centering \renewcommand{\tabcolsep}{4.0mm} \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c} \hline & Test Set & MSRA-B & ECSSD \\ \hline linear SVM & 90.20 & 87.84 & 75.20 \\ $\chi^2$ SVM & 93.14 & 90.80 & 81.80 \\ rbf SVM & 95.37 & \textbf{93.16} & 82.90 \\ RF & 92.24 & 91.52 & \textbf{84.50} \\ \cite{wang2012salient} & 90.64 & 89.26 & 72.50 \\ \hline LSSVM & 93.96 & 90.82 & 76.90 \\ $\chi^2$ LSSVM & \textbf{95.58} & 92.54 & 79.90 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{tab:class_accuracy} \end{table} \subsection{Salient Object Detection} In this section, we compare our LSSVM approach with other state-of-the-art salient object detection approaches. Our LSSVM approach is designed to address the limit of conventional approaches, where they impractically assume that at least one salient object exists in the input image. \rebuttal{For more fairer comparisons, we introduce a two-stage scheme to make comparisons fairer. Specifically, we first predict the existence label of salient objects using the rbf SVM introduced in~\secref{sub_sec:salObjExistencePrediction}. If there are no salient objects, we output an all-black saliency map. Otherwise, we generate saliency maps using different approaches.} In addition to MSRA-B and ECSSD benchmark datasets, we check performance of different approaches on the test set \rebuttal{consisting of 1237 salient object images and 1182 background images}. Since ground-truth annotations of background images are all-black images, only MAE scores are feasible to report on the test set. See~\tabref{tab:ap_mae} and~\figref{fig:pr_curve} for quantitative comparisons. \rebuttal{Since an all-black saliency map is generated for the input that is classified as a background image, precision and recall scores are all zeros at all thresholds but 0 (the recall score is 1 when the threshold is 0, indicating all pixels are recognized as salient). This is why PR curves become flat when the recall approaches to 1.} \rebuttal{We can see in~\figref{fig:pr_curve} that our approach PR curves are higher than others on most places. To this end, the linear version (LSSVM) outperforms other unsupervised and supervised approaches on both MSRA-B and ECSSD datasets in terms AP scores. Augmented with the explicit $\chi^2$ kernel feature mapping, better performance can be achieved, indicating that the salient object existence and detection problems can be mutually beneficial by modeling them in a unified framework. Specifically, $\chi^2$ LSSVM performs better than the second best method by 6.8\% (RBD) on MSRA-B and by 5.5\% (DRFI) on ECSSD. While the MAE scores are not as superior as the AP scores, $\chi^2$ LSSVM is ranked as the third best on both MSRA-B and ECSSD datasets. The reason why it performs inferior on the test set might be that our approach can not always produce all-black saliency maps for background images as other methods\rebuttal{\footnote{Recall that we produce an all-black saliency map if rbf SVM~recognizes an input as a background image.}}.} In~\figref{fig:qual_comp}, we provide qualitative comparisons of our approach and other top performing approaches. As can be seen, our LSSVM approach can produce appealing saliency maps on images where salient objects touch the image border, although we utilize the background prior to extract regional saliency features and constrain the latent salient object detection. Moreover, on background images, our LSSVM approach generates near all-black saliency maps, clearly denoting no existence of salient objects. \newcommand{\Coln}[2]{\multicolumn{#1}{|c}{{#2}}} \newcommand{\Colnn}[2]{\multicolumn{#1}{c|}{{#2}}} \newcommand{\Rows}[2]{\multirow{#1}{*}{#2}} \newcommand{\color{red}\textbf}{\color{red}\textbf} \newcommand{\color{green}\textbf}{\color{green}\textbf} \newcommand{\color{blue}\textbf}{\color{blue}\textbf} \begin{table} \caption{AP and MAE scores compared with state-of-the-art approaches on different benchmark datasets, where supervised approaches are marked with bold fonts. The best three scores are highlighted with {\color{red}\textbf red}, {\color{green}\textbf green}, and {\color{blue}\textbf blue} fonts, respectively. \rebuttal{(Updated.)}} \tabcolsep3.0pt \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c} \hline \Rows{2}{} & \Colnn{2}{AP} & \Coln{3}{MAE} \\ \cline{2-6} & MSRA-B & ECSSD & MSRA-B & ECSSD & Test Set \\ \hline \small{rbfSVM + SVO} & 0.631 & 0.458 & 0.333 & 0.388 & 0.212 \\ \small{rbfSVM + CA} & 0.512 & 0.390 & 0.241 & 0.326 & 0.101 \\ \small{rbfSVM + CB} & 0.652 & 0.483 & 0.184 & 0.275 & 0.111 \\ \small{rbfSVM + RC} & 0.672 & 0.506 & 0.135 & 0.233 & 0.093 \\ \small{rbfSVM + SF} & 0.607 & 0.473 & 0.168 & 0.270 & \color{red}\textbf{0.052} \\ \small{rbfSVM + LRK} & 0.680 & 0.483 & 0.207 & 0.295 & 0.118 \\ \small{rbfSVM + HS} & 0.631 & 0.479 & 0.153 & 0.258 & 0.104 \\ \small{rbfSVM + GMR} & 0.709 & 0.517 & 0.126 & 0.235 & 0.085 \\ \small{rbfSVM + PCA} & 0.666 & 0.468 & 0.185 & 0.282 & \color{blue}\textbf{0.080} \\ \small{rbfSVM + MC} & 0.701 & 0.509 & 0.142 & 0.247 & 0.101 \\ \small{rbfSVM + DSR} & 0.694 & 0.524 & \color{green}\textbf{0.119} & \color{green}\textbf{0.229} & \color{green}\textbf{0.076} \\ \small{rbfSVM + RBD} & \color{blue}\textbf{0.732} & 0.530 & \color{red}\textbf{0.113} & \color{red}\textbf{0.226} & 0.080 \\ \hline \small{rbfSVM + \textbf{DRFI}} & \color{blue}\textbf{0.732} & \color{blue}\textbf{0.548} & 0.129 & \color{blue}\textbf{0.231} & 0.101 \\ \small{rbfSVM + \textbf{HDCT}} & 0.707 & 0.502 & 0.148 & 0.250 & 0.112 \\ \hline \small{LSSVM} & \color{green}\textbf{0.748} & \color{green}\textbf{0.573} & 0.129 & 0.237 & 0.086 \\ \small{$\chi^2$ LSSVM} & \color{red}\textbf{0.780} & \color{red}\textbf{0.578} & \color{blue}\textbf{0.123} & \color{blue}\textbf{0.231} & 0.097 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{tab:ap_mae} \end{table} \renewcommand{\AddImg}[1]{\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{#1}} \begin{figure}[t] \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.8} \renewcommand{\tabcolsep}{.4mm} \centering \begin{tabular}{c} \AddImg{smap_comp_revised_pr_MSRA_B.pdf}\\ \AddImg{smap_comp_revised_pr_ECSSD.pdf}\\ \end{tabular} \caption{Precision-Recall curves of different approaches on MSRA-B and ECSSD benchmark datasets. \rebuttal{(Updated.)}} \label{fig:pr_curve} \end{figure} \rebuttal{On a PC equipped with an Intel i7 CPU (3.4GHz) and 32GB RAM, it takes about 12h to train our approach using MATLAB code and 0.5h to train the rbf SVM using C++. In testing, it takes around 3s to extract features. Our approach takes 0.02s for joint inference of the existence label and saliency map. In contrast, it takes 0.21s for the rbf SVM to predict the salient object existence (excluding feature extraction) and RBD takes 0.3s to output a saliency map.} \subsection{Limitations} Sometimes our approach makes incorrect classifications between salient object images and background images. See~\figref{fig:failure} for some failure cases. In the top row, the bird is hiding in the leaves, where the cluttered background and complex structure of the bird make the salient object detection difficult even for a human being at a first glance. In the bottom row, textures of the image produce inferior saliency features, resulting in an incorrect classification. \renewcommand{\AddImg}[1]{\includegraphics[width=0.11\textwidth]{#1}} \renewcommand{\AddImgs}[1]{\AddImg{#1.jpg}& \AddImg{#1_bc.png}& \AddImg{#1_mr.png}& \AddImg{#1_lssvm.png}\\} \begin{figure}[t] \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.8} \renewcommand{\tabcolsep}{.4mm} \centering \begin{tabular}{cccc} \AddImgs{1_65_65984} \AddImgs{sun_btczwgqisywkrvqz} (a) & (b) & (c) & (d)\\ \end{tabular} \caption{Failure cases of our LSSVM approach. Top row is a salient object image that is incorrectly recognized as a background image. Bottom row is a background image mis-classified as a salient object image. From left to right: (a) input images, (b)(c) saliency features of boundary connectivity and manifold ranking on the LAB histogram channel, and (d) saliency maps produced by our LSSVM approach.} \label{fig:failure} \end{figure} \section{Discussion and Conclusion} \label{sec:conclusion} In this paper, we propose a weakly supervised learning approach for salient object detection based on the latent structural SVM framework using background images. Without any prior assumption of existence of salient objects, our approach is capable of jointly dealing with salient object existence prediction and detection tasks. Experimental results on benchmark datasets validate the effectiveness of our approach. As a potential application, if we could recognize a background image, we no longer need to resort to complicated content-aware image resizing techniques (\emph{e.g}\onedot} \def\Eg{\emph{E.g}\onedot~\cite{avidan2007seam}). Instead, standard bicubic interpolation method may be enough for background images shown in~\figref{fig:qual_comp}. For future work, we plan to investigate more advanced global features, such as CNN features used in~\cite{zhang2015salient}, to further increase the accuracy of classification of salient object images and background images. Since most existing approaches focus on unsupervised and supervised scenarios, we hope our work to draw attention of researchers on the weak supervision and make them realize the value of background images. We will release our code and background images for further research. \small { \bibliographystyle{ieee}
\section{INTRODUCTION} The local standard of rest (LSR) is defined a point in space that is moving on a perfectly circular orbit around the Galactic centre at the solar position. An accurate estimate of the LSR, namely measuring the peculiar velocities of the Sun, is a starting point for Galactic kinematic and dynamic studies since all measurements are made relative to the Sun. It is needed for the derivations of basic parameters such as the Oort constants, which describe the local spatial variations of the stellar velocity field (Feast \& Whitelock 1997, Olling \& Dehnen 2003), as well as the orbital eccentricity distributions of different stellar populations which can be used to constrain the various scenarios of Galactic disk formation (Sales et al. 2009, Wilson et al. 2011, Lee et al. 2011). As a fundamental task of Galactic astronomy, an accurate determination of the three Galactic space velocity components of the solar motion with respect to the LSR, $U_{\odot}$, $V_{\odot}$ and $W_{\odot}$, has been a long-standing challenge. Similar to the ones given in Francis \& Anderson (2009) and Co\c{s}kuno\v{g}lu et al. (2011), Table\,1 presents an updated summary of determinations (including results from the current work) of the solar motion from the literature of over a century. As the Table 1 shows, in spite of utilizing a variety of methods and tracers, the measurements have hitherto failed to converge, especially for the component in the direction of Galactic rotation ($V_{\odot}$). In principle, the radial ($U_{\odot}$) and vertical ($W_{\odot}$) components of the solar motion can be directly obtained by taking the negative of the mean heliocentric velocities of various stellar populations in the solar-neighbourhood that are well relaxed. The situation for the component in the direction of Galactic rotation ($V_{\odot}$) is more complicated, due to the non-negligible values of asymmetric drift, $V_{a}$, of stars with respect to the LSR -- motions that are related to the velocity dispersions of the individual stellar populations of concern. The classical method to derive $V_{\odot}$ is based on Str\"omberg's equation (Str\"omberg 1946), which assumes a linear correlation between the mean negative heliocentric azimuthal velocity, $\overline{V_{\rm s}}=V_{\rm a}+{\rm V_{\odot}}$, and the squared radial velocity dispersion, ${\sigma_{\rm R}^{2}}$, of any stellar sample. Then a linear extrapolation to ${\sigma_{\rm R}^{2}}=0\,{\rm (km\,s^{-1})^{2}}$ for an idealized population yields $\overline{V_{\rm s}} = V_{\odot}$. Theoretically, for any well-relaxed stellar population, the Jeans equation, i.e. Eq.\, (4.228) of Binney \& Tremaine (2008), links the asymmetric drift, $V_{a}$, with the radial velocity dispersion and the square bracket term (radial scale lengths and the properties of velocity ellipsoid) in axisymmetric equilibrium. The physical underpinning of Str\"omberg's equation is that the square bracket term is a constant for the different stellar populations and the stellar populations used are in axisymmetric equilibrium. While the assumptions sound reasonable, the canonical value of $V_{\odot}=5.25\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$, derived by Dehnen and Binney (1998, hereafter DB98) based on Str\"omberg's equation, has recently been found to be $\sim 6 - 7\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$ smaller than those determined using open clusters (Piskunov et al. 2006) and masers in massive star forming regions (Reid et al. 2009; Bobylev \& Bajkova 2010; McMillan \& Binney 2010) as tracers. The possible causes of discrepancies have been addressed recently by a number of investigators. Sch\"onrich et al. (2010) show that Str\"omberg relation could underestimate $V_\odot$ due to the presence of a metallicity gradient, which breaks the linear relation between the mean rotation velocity and the squared velocity dispersion of stars binned by colour. This implies that the square bracket term may vary from one population to another population as represented binned by the individual colour bins. In addition, the axisymmetric equilibrium of Galactic potential, a basic assumption underlying Str\"omberg's equation as mentioned above, can be broken due to the presence of significant non-axisymmetric structures in our Galaxy (e.g. the spiral arms, the central bar; Francis \& Anderson 2009; Binney 2010). Apart from $V_{\odot}$, estimates of the radial and vertical components of the solar motion, $U_{\odot}$ and $W_{\odot}$, can also be biased by the presence of non-axisymmetric structures. To minimize the effects of asymmetric drifts when estimating $V_{\odot}$, two different methods have been developed that avoid the assumption of a constant square bracket term for the different stellar populations underlying Str\"omberg's equation. One is to determine the solar peculiar velocity from the offset of the modelled velocity distribution that best matches the observed data (Binney 2010; Sch\"onrich et al. 2010; Sch\"onrich \& Binney 2012, hereafter SB12). Alternatively, the LSR can also be determined utilizing cold populations of thin disc stars as tracers, under the assumption that they suffer from negligible asymmetric drifts (Francis \& Anderson 2009; Co\c skuno\u glu et al. 2011). Compared to the method based on Str\"{o}mberg's equation, the latter approach has the advantage that it is simple and straight forward, and the results do not depend on the assumption that underpins the former method. The key to a successful application of this technique is to select and define a well representing sample of cold populations of thin disc stars. It should be emphasised that all the approaches outlined above assume axisymmetric equilibrium. Thus it is essential to select a sample of stars that are least affected by those known non-axisymmetric structures. More discussions of this issue will be made below. \begin{table*} \begin{center} \caption{Measurements of the LSR in the literatures and from the current work} \begin{tabular}{cccccc} \hline Source & Data &$U_{\odot}$ &$V_{\odot}$ &$W_{\odot}$ \\ & & (km s$^{-1}$) & (km s$^{-1}$) & (km s$^{-1}$) \\ \hline This study (2014) &LSS-GAC DR1 &7.01$\pm$0.20 &10.13$\pm$0.12 &4.95$\pm$0.09 \\ Bobylev \& Bajkova (2014) & Young objects &6.00$\pm$0.50 & 10.60$\pm$0.80 & 6.50$\pm$0.30\\ Co\c skuno\u glu et al. (2011) & RAVE DR3 &8.50$\pm$0.29 &13.38$\pm$0.43 &6.49$\pm$0.26 \\ Bobylev \& Bajkova (2010) & Masers &5.50$\pm$2.2 &11.00$\pm$1.70 & 8.50$\pm$1.20 \\ Breddels et al. (2010) & RAVE DR2 &12.00$\pm$0.60 & 20.40$\pm$0.50 & 7.80$\pm$0.30 \\ Sch\"onrich et al. (2010) & Hipparcos &11.10$^{+0.69}_{-0.75}$ &12.24$^{+0.47}_{-0.47}$ & 7.25$^{+0.37}_{-0.36}$ \\ Reid et al. (2009) & Masers &9.0 &20 &10 \\ Francis \& Anderson (2009) & Hipparcos &7.50$\pm$1.00 & 13.50$\pm$0.30 & 6.80$\pm$0.10 \\ Bobylev \& Bajkova (2007) & F \& G dwarfs & 8.70$\pm$0.50 & 6.20$\pm$2.22 & 7.20$\pm$0.80 \\ Piskunov et al. (2006) & Open clusters & 9.44$\pm$1.14 & 11.90$\pm$0.72 & 7.20$\pm$0.42 \\ Mignard (2000) & K0-K5 & 9.88 & 14.19 & 7.76 & \\ Dehnen \& Binney (1998) & Hipparcos & 10.00 $\pm$0.36 & 5.25$\pm$0.62 & 7.17$\pm$0.38 \\ Binney et al. (1997)& Stars near South Celestial Pole & 11.00$\pm$0.60 & 5.30$\pm$1.70 & 7.00$\pm$0.60 \\ Mihalas \& Binney (1981)& Galactic Astronomy (2nd Ed.) & 9.00 & 12.00 & 7.0 \\ Homann (1886)& Solar neighborhood stars & 17.40$\pm$11.2 & 16.90$\pm$10.90 & 3.60$\pm$2.30 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \end{table*} \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[scale=0.35,angle=0]{HR_LSS_GAC.eps} \caption{Pseudo-color HR diagram of $\sim$ 0.7 million stars selected from the LSS-GAC DR1 that have spectral signa-to-noise ratios at 4650\,{\AA}, S/N(4650 \AA) $\ge 10$ and robust radial velocity and stellar parameter determinations. The colorbar shows the stellar density on a logarithmic scale. The blue box delineate the parameter space used to select FGK main-sequence stars analyzed in the current work.} \end{figure} \begin{figure*} \centering \includegraphics[scale=0.4,angle=0]{EBV_FGK_XY.eps} \includegraphics[scale=0.4,angle=0]{EBV_FGK_XZ.eps} \caption{Distributions of the integrated $E(B - V)$ reddening in the solar neighbourhood of 600\,pc for the current LSS-GAC DR1 sample of FGK stars in the Galactic $X$-$Y$ (left panel) and $X$-$Z$ (right panel) planes. The colorbars indicate values of $E(B-V)$ in units of magnitude. } \end{figure*} In this paper, we re-estimate the peculiar velocity of the Sun with respect to the LSR by applying both the aforementioned methods to a sample of stars selected from the Large Sky Area Multi-Object Fiber Spectroscopic Telescope\footnote{LAMOST is a 4 meter quasi-meridian reflecting Schmidt telescope equipped with 4000 fibers, each of an angular diameter of 3\farcs3 projected on the sky, distributed in a circular field of view (FoV) of 5$^{\circ}$ in diameter (Cui et al. 2012).} (LAMOST; also named the Guoshoujing Telescope) Spectroscopic Survey of the Galactic Anti-center (LSS-GAC, Liu et al. 2014). For the velocity distribution fitting (VDF) method, we use the analytic formulism of SB12, which has been shown to reproduce the results of rigorous torus-based dynamics modelling (Binney \& McMillan 2011) to high fidelity. As for the method based on cold populations of thin disc stars (CTDS), we use the orbital eccentricity, in replacement of the eccentricity vector adopted by Francis \& Anderson (2009), as a natural indicator of stellar population to select cold populations of thin disc stars. The sample selected from the LSS-GAC comprises FGK main-sequence stars that satisfy the following criteria: (i) surface gravities $3.8\, <{\rm log}\,g<\,5.0$ dex; (ii) effective temperatures $4,200\,<T_{\rm eff}<\,6,800$ K; (iii) distances less than 600 pc; (iv) total Galactic space velocity errors less than 15 km s$^{-1}$. The first two constraints ensure that the stellar parameters of selected stars are well determined with the current LAMOST stellar parameter pipeline (cf. Section 3). The third constraint is to minimize the effects of large-scale streaming motions, induced by, for example, non-axisymmetric structures. The fourth constraint is to ensure robust Galactic space velocities (cf. Section 4). To apply the CTDS method, we apply an additional cut to the sample: orbital eccentricities less than 0.13. The constraint is pivotal to the method (cf. Section 6). Stars of very low orbital eccentricities move in near-circular orbits with negligible asymmetric drifts and thus can be used to determine $V_{\odot}$ without the need of correcting for their effects. The paper is organized as following. Section 2 presents a brief description of the LSS-GAC. The data are presented in Section 3. Section 4 describes the Galactic space velocities of sample stars and uncertainty control. Section 5 and 6 presents respectively the VDF and CTDS methods and their results. The results are discussed in Section 7. Conclusions are given in the Section 8. \section{LSS-GAC} The LSS-GAC is a major component of the on-going LAMOST Galactic surveys, aiming to collect under dark and grey lunar conditions optical ($\lambda\lambda$3800-9000), low resolution ($R \sim 1, 800$) spectra for a statistically complete sample of over a million stars of all colors and of magnitudes $14.0 \leq r < 17.8$\,mag (18.5\,mag for limited fields), in a continuous sky area of $\sim$ 3, 400 sq.deg., centred on the Galactic anticentre (GAC), covering Galactic longitudes $150\,<l <\,210^{\circ}$ and latitudes $|b|\,<30^{\circ}$. Over 1.5 million very bright stars, brighter than $\sim$14.0\,mag., selected with a similar target selection algorithm, will also be observed, utilizing bright lunar conditions. The survey will deliver spectral classifications, values of stellar radial velocity $V_{\rm r}$ and atmospheric parameters (effective temperature $T_{\rm eff}$, surface gravity log $g$, metallicity [Fe/H]) for about 3 million Galactic stars. The survey will sample main-sequence stars out to a few kpc, and tens of kpc for giants. Combined with distances, e.g. the spectrophotometric distances of Yuan et al. (2015) and the proper motions from other surveys, the LSS-GAC provides a huge data set that {allows} one to study the stellar populations, kinematics and chemistry of the Galactic thin/thick disks and their interface with the halo in multi phase space (three dimensional space position and velocity, and metallicity). The Pilot and Regular Surveys of LSS-GAC were initiated in September of 2011 and 2012, respectively. The Regular Survey is expected to last for 5 years. More details about the survey, including the scientific motivations, target selections and data reduction, can be found in Liu et al. (2014) and Yuan et al. (2015). \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[scale=0.35,angle=0]{DIS_FGK.eps} \caption{Distribution of distances of FGK main-sequence stars in the LSS-GAC DR1 within 1\,kpc of the Sun. The shaded area shows stars within 600\,pc analyzed in the current work.} \end{figure} \section{DATA} The data used in the current study are from the first data release of value-added catalogs of the LSS-GAC (hereafter DR1; Yuan et al. 2015). There are about 0.7 million stars in the DR1 with a spectral signal-to-noise ratio per pixel ($\sim 1.07$\,\AA) at 4650\,{\AA}, ${\rm S/N\,(4650\,\AA)}\ge\,10$, and with robust determinations of stellar radial velocity $V_{\rm r}$ and atmospheric parameters ( $T_{\rm eff}$, log $g$ and [Fe/H]) determined with the LAMOST Stellar Parameter Pipeline at Peking University (LSP3; Xiang et al. 2015a,b). The HR diagram of the stars is presented in Fig.\,1. Parameters of FGK main-sequence stars are best determined with the LSP3. Comparisons of results deduced from LAMOST multi-epoch duplicate observations, with results for common targets as given by the SDSS DR9 (Ahn et al. 2012), RAVE (Steinmetz et al. 2006) and APOGEE (Ahn et al. 2013) surveys and from the PASTEL compilation (Soubiran et al. 2010), as well as applying the Pipeline to open and globular clusters, show that for FGK dwarfs the LSP3 has achieved an accuracy of 5.0\,${\rm km\,s^{-1}}$, 150 K, 0.25 dex, 0.15 dex for $V_{\rm r}$, $T_{\rm eff}$, log $g$ and [Fe/H], respectively. We apply a surface gravity cut, $3.8\,<{\rm log}\,g<\,5.0$\,dex and an effective temperature cut, $4,200\,<T_{\rm eff}<\,6,800$\,K, to select the sample stars of FGK dwarfs. In total, $\sim$ 0.4 million stars are selected, as rounded by the blue box in Fig.\,1. To test the robustness of the methods used in the current work, we further divide the total sample into three sub-samples, consisting respectively of stars of spectral type F, G and K, based on the effective temperatures of the stars: F-type of $6,000\le$\,$T_{\rm eff}$\,$\le 6,800$\,K, G-type of $5,300\le$\,$T_{\rm eff}$\,$< 6,000$\,K and K-type of $4,200\le$\,$T_{\rm eff}$\,$< 5,300$\,K and apply those methods to each sub-sample. \begin{figure*} \begin{center} \includegraphics[scale=0.4,angle=0]{SPATIAL_FGK_XY.eps} \includegraphics[scale=0.4,angle=0]{SPATIAL_FGK_XZ.eps} \caption{Spatial distributions of the sample stars in the $X$ -- $Y$ (left panel) and $X$ -- $Z$ (right panel) planes. The logarithmic stellar number densities in units of number per kpc$^{2}$ are indicated by the side colorbars.} \end{center} \end{figure*} \subsection{Extinctions and distances} Since most of the sample stars fall in the Galactic disc at distances beyond 100 pc (see Fig.\,3), corrections for the interstellar extinction by dust grains are essential for robust distance determinations. Here we adopt estimates of extinction for individual stars as deduced from the photometric colours with the ``standard pair'' technique (Stecher 1965; Massa et al. 1983; Yuan et al. 2013, 2015). A comparison with the values given by the extinction map of Schlegel et al. (1998) for high Galactic latitude regions shows the technique has achieved a precision of about 0.04 mag in $E(B-V)$\footnote{For targets without optical photometry, the estimated uncertainties of extinction increase to about 0.1\,mag in $E(B-V)$ (Yuan et al. 2015).}. Fig.\,2 shows the distributions of integrated $E(B - V)$ out to a distance of 600 pc in the $X$-$Y$ and $X$-$Z$ Galactic planes for the sample stars. As expected, the reddening increases with distance. The local bubble of very low extinction is also clearly visible in quadrants of $Y<\,0$ out to 600 pc. For distances, geometric parallaxes are not available for the majority of stars targeted by the LSS-GAC. We have thus developed an empirical relation between the absolute magnitudes and the atmospheric parameters ($T_{\rm eff}$, log $g$ and [Fe/H]), based on the MILES (S\'anchez-Bl\'azquez et al. 2006) spectral library (Yuan et al. 2015). The relation is based on the absolute magnitudes derived from the Hipparcos parallaxes (typical errors $\le$\,10 per cent) and the atmospheric parameters compiled and homogenized by Cenarro et al. (2007), mostly deduced from high spectral resolution measurements. We find that distances thus derived for FGK dwarfs are better than 15 per cent and show no obvious systematic errors. The distribution of distances of FGK dwarfs within 1 kpc in the DR1 is presented in Fig.\,3. For the purpose of current work, only stars within 600 pc, as shown by the shaded area are analyzed. Fig.\,4 shows the spatial distributions of the selected stars in the Galactic planes for a right-handed Cartesian coordinate system centred on the Galactic centre, where the $X$-axis passes through the Sun and points towards the Galactic centre, the $Y$-axis is in the direction of Galactic rotation and the $Z$-axis points towards the North Galactic Pole (NGP). The Sun is located at ($X$, $Y$, $Z$) = ($-R_{0}$, $0$, $0$), where $R_{0} = 8$\,kpc. Most of the stars fall in the anti-centre direction, with the rest coming from the Very Bright (VB) plates observed under bright lunar conditions. \subsection{Radial velocities and proper motions} \vspace{-5.7pt} As mentioned above, for FGK dwarfs radial velocities yielded by the LSP3 are accurate to $\sim$ 5 km s$^{-1}$. However, we find that for common stars targeted by both surveys, the LSS-GAC velocities yielded by the LSP3 have an offset of 3.1 km s$^{-1}$ relative to those of APOGEE, the latter have a measurement accuracy better than 0.15 km s$^{-1}$. Hence, we have applied an offset correction to all radial velocities yielded by the LSP3 (cf. Xiang et al. 2015b for a detailed description). The proper motions of our sample stars are taken from the Fourth United States Naval Observatory (USNO) CCD Astrograph Catalog (UCAC4; Zacharias et al. 2013), an all-sky astrometric catalog archiving over 113 million objects. Among them, over 105 million stars have proper motions. The catalog is completed to $R\sim$ 16 mag. Typical random and systematic errors of the UCAC4 proper motions are 4 and 1-- 4 mas yr$^{-1}$, respectively (Zacharias et al. 2013). \begin{table*} \begin{center} \caption{Coefficients of a two-dimensional second-order polynomials fit to the systematic errors of proper motions of UCAC4 as a function of the Right Ascension $\alpha$ and Declination $\delta$.} \begin{threeparttable} \begin{tabular}{lccccccc} \hline Components & $a_{0}$ & $a_{1}$ &$a_{2}$ &$a_{3}$ & $a_{4}$&$a_{5}$ \\ \hline $\mu_{\alpha}\cos \delta$ &1.29 &-0.0137&$3.27\times10^{-5}$&$-4.90\times10^{-5}$&$-0.0106$&$5.01\times10^{-5}$\\ $\mu_{\delta}$ & $ -1.82$&$3.68\times10^{-3}$&$-2.91\times10^{-6}$&$-5.57\times10^{-5}$&$-4.70\times10^{-3}$&$2.35\times10^{-4}$\\ \hline \end{tabular} \begin{tablenotes} \item[]\textbf{Note}: The fitting function has the form: $\mu_{\rm fit}=a_{0}+a_{1}\alpha+a_{2}\alpha^{2}+a_{3}\alpha\delta+a_{4}\delta+a_{5}\delta^{2}$, where $\mu_{\rm fit}$, in mas yr$^{-1}$, represent the the two components of quasar proper motions, $\mu_\alpha\cos\delta$ and $\mu_\delta$, and $\alpha$ and $\delta$, both in units of degree, are the Right Ascension and Declination. \end{tablenotes} \end{threeparttable} \end{center} \end{table*} For our sample, a systematic error of a few mas yr$^{-1}$ in proper motions could induce a bias of several km s$^{-1}$ in the determination of LSR, especially for the $V_{\odot}$ and $W_{\odot}$ components. To correct for the systematic errors of UCAC4 proper motions, we have cross-matched the UCAC4 with the 2nd release of Large Quasar Astrometric Catalog\footnote{Quasars, being distant extragalactic point sources, have essentially zero proper motions and are thus the best objects to estimate and correct for uncertainties of stellar proper motion measurements.} (LQAC, Souchay et al. 2012). After excluding quasars with poor proper motion determinations, this yields a total of 1,700 quasars distributed over the whole sky. Corrections to account for the systematic errors of UCAC4 proper motions are then derived by fitting the proper motions of quasars (by default, quasars should have zero proper motions) with a two-dimensional second-order polynomials as a function of the Right Ascension and Declination\footnote{Similar corrections for the PPMXL (Roeser et al. 2010) proper motions have been obtained by Carlin et al. (2013).}. Table 2 presents the fit coefficients. No magnitude and color dependences of the systematic errors of proper motions of UCAC4 are found for quasars of $R$ magnitudes between 12 and 16 mag and $B - V$ color between 0.1 and 1.4\,mag. UCAC4 proper motions corrected for the systematic errors, as calculated from the above fits, are used for all calculations given below. \begin{figure} \begin{center} \includegraphics[scale=0.55,angle=0]{UNCERTAINTY_UVW.eps} \caption{Histograms of Galactic { space} velocity uncertainties. The top panel shows the total { Galactic space} velocities and the rest the three components. Stars with a total { Galactic space} velocity error $\delta_{S}>\,15$ km s$^{-1}$ are removed from the sample. The histogram distributions of the remaining stars are represented by the shaded areas. The mean and standard deviation of errors of the total velocities marked in the top panel are calculated before applying the cut, whereas those in the rest panels for the three velocity components are calculated after applying the cut.} \end{center} \end{figure} \section{ Galactic space velocity and uncertainty control} { From the distances calculated with the empirical relation described in Section 3., the LSP3 radial velocities and the UCAC4 proper motions, with the latter two corrected for the systematic errors as discussed in Section\,3.2,} we calculate the total Galactic space velocities and their three components, ($U$, $V$, $W$) of the sample stars using the standard transformation matrices derived by Johnson \& Soderblom (1987). $U$, $V$ and $W$ refer to respectively the velocity components in the $X$, $Y$ and $Z$ directions in a right-handed Cartesian coordinate system as defined in Section 3.1. Uncertainties of the three velocity components, $\delta_{U}$, $\delta_{V}$ and $\delta_{W}$, are also calculated using the standard algorithm given by Johnson \& Soderblom (1987) by propagating the uncertainties of the radial velocities, proper motions and distances. The uncertainties of total { Galactic space} velocities are then calculated using, \begin{equation} \delta_{S}^{2} = \delta_{U}^{2} + \delta_{V}^{2} + \delta_{W}^{2}, \end{equation} The distributions of uncertainties of the total { Galactic space} velocities and their three components are presented in Fig.\,5. The mean and standard deviation of uncertainties of the total { Galactic space} velocities are {$\langle\delta_{S}\rangle = 10.91$ km s$^{-1}$} and ${\rm s.d.} = 8.25$ km s$^{-1}$, respectively. Stars with $\delta_{S}>\,15$ km s$^{-1}$ are discarded, totaling 30,829 stars, about 25\% of the sample. After applying the cut, the average uncertainties of the three velocity components for the remaining stars of the sample are reduced to about 5 km s$^{-1}$, with a standard deviation of $\sim 2$\,km s$^{-1}$. The velocities of the remaining sample stars are thus sufficient accurate to make a robust determination of the LSR. \section{Determining $V_{\odot}$ by VDF} \subsection{Bulk motion effects} As pointed out earlier, determining the solar peculiar velocity in the Galactic rotation direction, $V_{\odot}$, is not as straightforward as for those in the other two directions ($U_{\odot}$ and $W_{\odot}$), due to the presence of significant asymmetric drift in the azimuthal direction, $V_{\rm a}$. The classical linear Str\"omberg's equation was proposed to solve this problem (e.g. DB98). {However, as pointed out by Sch\"onrich et al. (2010), Str\"omberg's equation can be broken due to the presence of a metallicity gradient that breaks the linear relation between asymmetric drift and radial velocity dispersion of stars binned by colour.} To overcome the obstacle, a technique has been developed to derive $V_\odot$ from the offset of { the velocity distribution} of { a dynamical model} that best matches the measurements. Using this technique, Binney (2010) constructs an azimuthal velocity distribution based on actions estimated from the adiabatic invariance of the local sample of stars of the Geneva-Copenhagen Survey (GCS, Nordstr\"om et al. 2004; Holmberg, Nordstr\"om \& Andersen 2009), and revises $V_{\odot}$ upwards to 11 km s$^{-1}$. Similarly, by chemodynamically modeling the GCS sample, Sch\"onrich et al. (2010) conclude that { DB98 underestimated $V_{\odot}$ by $\sim 7$\,km s$^{-1}$ .} { As described earlier, the VDF method is also founded on the assumption of axisymmetric equilibrium. On the other hand, it has been known that non-axisymmetric structures (e.g. the spiral arms, the central bar) could distort the observed velocity distribution (Dehnen 1999; De Simone, Wu \& Tremaine 2004; Antoja et al. 2009; Minchev et al. 2009). For the moment, the only way to minimize the dynamical effects of those non-axisymmetric structures is to carefully select a sample of stars least affected by those structures.} Unfortunately, a number of moving groups have been found in the ($U, V$) velocity space in the GCS sample (e.g. Dehnen, 1998), which is restricted to the immediate vicinity of the Sun (within 100\,pc) and consists of just over ten thousand stars of a variety of spectral types. As shown in Fig. 6, the distribution of the $V$ velocity component of GCS stars is seriously distorted by four well-known moving groups, especially the Pleiades and/or Hyades streams. Unless the effects of bulk motions of those streams could be properly modeled, the aforementioned determinations of $V_{\odot}$ based on the GCS sample could be significantly biased. Unfortunately, the origin of those moving groups is still on debate (e.g. Antoja et al. 2011), making it difficult to either incorporate them in the dynamical model or remove their effects by subtracting the overdensities produced by them in the observed velocity distribution. Another large sample of local stars, alternative to the GCS one and less plagued by bulk motions of moving groups, is needed to apply this powerful technique developed by Biney (2010) in order to accurate determine $V_{\odot}$ without biases. The LSS-GAC sample of local stars presented in the current work seems to exactly fill the bill. As shown in Fig. 7, the distribution of $V_\phi$ velocity {components} of our LSS-GAC local sample of stars is { on the whole quite} smooth. Clearly, compared to the GCS sample, the LSS-GAC sample presented here is much less affected by the {bulk motions}, and thus should enable us to obtain a more robust estimate of $V_\odot$ than possible with the GSC sample. \subsection{Determining $V_{\odot}$ by fitting the velocity distribution of the LSS-GAC sample} To determine $V_{\odot}$, the model azimuthal velocity distribution is compared to the observed one of the LSS-GAC sample. The model azimuthal velocity distribution is generated using the analytic formula derived by SB12. As argued by SB12, this analytic formula provides excellent fit to the azimuthal velocity distribution yielded by rigorous torus-based dynamics modelling (Binney \& McMillan 2011) and reproduces the observed distribution of the GCS local sample of stars, which have accurate space velocity measurements. We refer the reader to SB12 for a detailed discussion about this formula. From the formula, the distribution of $V_{\phi}$ at a given Galactic position ($R$, $z$) is given by, \begin{equation} \begin{split} n(V_{\phi}|R, z) = \mathcal{ N}\,e ^{-(R_{\rm g}-R_{0})/R_{\rm d}}\frac{2\pi R_{\rm g}K}{\sigma}\\ \times\,{\rm exp}(-\frac{\Delta \Phi_{\rm ad}}{\sigma^{2}})\,f(z, R_{\rm g} - R)\,, \end{split} \end{equation} where $\mathcal{ N}$ is a normalizing factor. $R_{\rm g}$ is the guiding-center radius given by, $R_{\rm g} = RV_{\phi}/V_{\rm c}$ (where $V_{\rm c}$ is the circular velocity as a function of $R_{\rm g}$, namely, the rotation curve. In this work we adopt a flat rotation curve of constant value 220 km s$^{-1}$). $R_{0} = 8$ kpc is the Galactocentric distance of the Sun, $R_{\rm d}$ the disc scale length, $K$ a factor that can be numerically determined [cf. Eq (12) of SB12]. The term $\sigma$, being a function of $R_{\rm g}$, is given by \begin{equation} \sigma(R_{\rm g})\,=\,\sigma_{0}e^{-(R-R_{\rm g})/R_{\sigma}}\,, \end{equation} where $\sigma_{0}$ is the local velocity dispersion, $R_{\sigma}$ the scale length on which the velocity dispersion varies. ${\Delta \Phi_{\rm ad}}$ is the so-called ``adiabatic potential'' that includes the effects of radial motion induced by adiabatic invariance of vertical motion [cf. Eq (33) of SB12 for detail]. $f(z, R_{\rm g} - R)$ is the $z$ factor (cf. Section 3.1 in SB12), which introduces other two parameters, $\alpha$\footnote{SB12 assume that the vertical force $K_{z}$ is proportional to $z^{\alpha-1}$. Most of the LSS-GAC sample stars are near the Galactic midplane and we adopt $\alpha = 1.5$ in the current work.} and the disc scale length $h_{\rm z}$. We fit the $V_{\phi}$ distribution of our LSS-GAC sample by two components, a cool component representing the thin disc and another hot component representing the thick disc. The distribution of each of the two components are described by the above formula. The parameters adopted for the two components are listed in Table 3. To fit the data, each component is allowed to have two free parameters: the normalizing constant $\mathcal{N}$ and the local velocity dispersion $\sigma_{0}$. The combined distribution of $V_{\phi}$ of the two components is then calculated for a typical position ($R = 8.31$ kpc, $z = 0.04$ kpc) of our sample stars. The distribution is then shifted by an offset, which gives the value of $V_\odot$, in order to fit the observed distribution of the LSS-GAC sample. Fig. 7 shows the best fit performed for the velocity range, $130 < V_{\phi} < 275$ km\,s$^{-1}$, on a linear and logarithmic scale. The two component fit reproduces the observed distribution remarkably well. For the whole sample, the best fit yields $V_{\odot} = 9.75 \pm 0.19$\,km\,s$^{-1}$. The local velocity dispersions of the cool and hot components are 21.61 and 35.47 km\,s$^{-1}$, respectively. The analysis is repeated {for the three} sub-samples, consisting respectively of stars of spectral type F, G and K, {selected based on the values of effective temperature as described in Section 3. The typical position $(R, z)$, the number of stars $N$, as well as the value of $V_\odot$ deduced from the individual sub-samples, are listed in Table 4, along those for the whole sample. Table 4 shows that values of $V_{\odot}$ yielded by the individual sub-samples are consistent with each other suggesting the robustness of the results. The analyses also show that the local velocity dispersions of F-type stars are smaller than those of G- and K-type. The result can be easily explained by the fact that stars of F-type are younger on average compared to those of G- and K-type, thus have smaller velocity dispersions. The same effect also explains why the value of $V_{\odot}$ determined from F-type are slightly smaller than that deduced from G- or K-type stars. \begin{figure} \begin{center} \includegraphics[scale=0.6,angle=0]{GCS_STREAM.eps} \caption{Distribution of the $V$ velocity components of the GCS sample of local stars. Four well-known moving groups are clearly visible.} \end{center} \end{figure} \begin{figure*} \begin{center} \includegraphics[scale=0.55,angle=0]{Vfitting_lin.eps} \includegraphics[scale=0.55,angle=0]{Vfitting_log.eps} \caption{The $V_{\phi}$ velocity distribution of the LSS-GAC sample of FGK main-sequence stars are fitted by the combination of two components: a cool component for the thin disc and a hot component for the thick disc. Each component, characterized by distribution function Eq.\,(2), has two free parameters: a normalization constant $\mathcal{N}$ and the local velocity dispersion $\sigma_{0}$. To fit the data, the model distribution is shifted by a constant offset, which represents the peculiar velocity of the Sun, i.e. $V_{\odot}$. The left panel shows the model distributions and data points on a the linear scale, while in the right panel show the same distributions and data on a logarithmic scale, which reveals better the wings of the distributions.} \end{center} \end{figure*} \begin{table} \begin{center} \caption{Parameters adopted for the two components employed to fit the velocity distribution.} \begin{tabular}{cccc} \hline Components & $R_{\rm d}$ (kpc) & $h_{\rm z}$ (kpc) &$R_{\sigma}$ (kpc)\\ \hline Cool &2.4&0.2&7.5\\ Hot&2.5&1.0&15.0\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \end{table} \begin{table*} \center \caption{The solar motion in the Galactic rotation direction with respect to the LSR $V_{\odot}$ determined by VDF.} \begin{tabular}{lccccccc} \hline Sample & $T_{\rm eff}$& $V_{\odot}$&$R$&$Z$&$\sigma_{0}^{\rm cool}$&$\sigma_{0}^{\rm hot}$& $N$ \\ & (K) & (km s$^{-1}$) & (kpc) & (kpc) &(km s$^{-1}$)&(km s$^{-1}$)& \\ \hline Whole & $4200\,\le T_{\rm eff}\le\,6800$ & $9.75\pm0.19$ & $8.31$ & $0.03$&21.61&35.47 & 94332\\ F type& $6000\,\le T_{\rm eff}\le\,6800$ & $9.00\pm0.29$ & $8.38$ & $0.04$ & 19.02&26.85 &24220\\ G type& $5300\,\le T_{\rm eff}<\,6000$ & $10.03\pm0.21$ & $8.33$ & $0.05$ & 23.21&38.90&39100\\ K type& $4200\,\le T_{\rm eff}<\,5300$ & $10.20\pm0.23$ & $8.24$ & $0.01$ & 22.27&38.29&31012\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table*} \section{Determining the solar motion by CTDS} \subsection{Orbital eccentricities} In addition to the technique of VDF, another method to determine the LSR is using only stars from the cold populations, thin disc that suffer from negligible asymmetric drifts. The method is simple and straightforward. Co\c skuno\u glu et al. (2011) analyze the populations of a RAVE sample from which they select a sub-sample of thin disc stars based on their { Galactic space} velocity distribution, as proposed by Bensby et al. (2003, 2005), to derive the LSR. The result again confirms that previous estimates of $V_{\odot}$ from {Str\"omberg's equation} are grossly underestimated by 6--7 km s$^{-1}$. However, the {Galactic space} velocity distribution is not an efficient way to disentangle thin and thick disc stars, as shown by Binney (2010). As a result, the sample of thin disc stars selected by Co\c skuno\u glu et al. (2011) may be biased. Here we use the orbital eccentricity [defined by Eq.\,(2)] as a natural indicator to define and select {cold populations of thin disc stars}. Stars of low orbital eccentricities move in nearly circular orbits with negligible asymmetric drifts, whereas the orbits of those of stars with large eccentricities deviate from circular ones and thus possess significant asymmetric drifts. In addition, by applying a stringent eccentricity cut, stars with significant bulk motions can also be screened out (Francis \& Anderson 2009). By applying an eccentricity cut to the current sample, we expect to determine the LSR straightforwardly and robustly. For this purpose, we use an eccentricity cut of 0.13, the peak value of thin disc stars (Lee et al. 2011). As shown by Bobylev and Bajkova (2014), the orbital eccentricities of young O to B2.5 stars, used by them to derive the LSR range from 0 to 0.13. The mean orbital eccentricity of Galactic open clusters is also found to be around 0.13 (Piskunov et al. 2006). All those findings suggest that 0.13 is a reasonable eccentricity cut for the purpose of selecting thin disc stars. {Furthermore}, we will show in Section 7 that the asymmetric drifts of {cold populations} selected using this orbital eccentricity cut are negligible. The eccentricity of a star is defined by, \begin{equation} e = \frac{R_{\rm apo}-R_{\rm peri}}{R_{\rm apo}+R_{\rm peri}}\,, \end{equation} where $R_{\rm apo}$ ($R_{\rm peri}$) is the maximum (minimum) Galactocentric distance reached by the star in its orbit. To calculate the eccentricities of stars of our FGK main-sequence sample, we integrate their orbits assuming a Galactic potential given by Gardner \& Flynn (2010). In their model, the Milky Way consists of a Miyamoto \& Nagai (1975) disc, a Plummer (1911) bulge and inner core, and a spherical logarithmic halo. The characteristic parameters can be found in their Table 1. \subsection{Impacts of the initial LSR } \begin{table*} \begin{center} \caption{Impacts of the initial LSR.} \begin{tabular}{cccccccc} \hline Sources &\multicolumn{3}{c}{Initial} &\multicolumn{3}{c}{Final} &$N$\\ &$U_{\odot}$&$V_{\odot}$&$W_{\odot}$&$U_{\odot}$&$V_{\odot}$&$W_{\odot}$&\\ &(km s$^{-1}$)&(km s$^{-1}$)&(km s$^{-1}$)&(km s$^{-1}$)&(km s$^{-1}$)&(km s$^{-1}$)&\\ \hline Dehen \& Binney (1998) &10.00&5.25&7.17&6.94&10.35&4.94&4\\ Reid et al. (2009)& 9.00&20.00&10.00&6.98&10.38&4.95&5\\ Co\c skuno\u glu et al. (2011) &8.50&13.38&6.49&6.99&10.39&4.95&4\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \end{table*} To calculate orbital eccentricities, one however needs to assume a LSR. In our approach, we first calculate orbital eccentricities with an initial guess of LSR and then iterate the entire LSR determination process until all components of the solar motion converge to a degree less than the fitting errors (cf. Section 6.3). In this approach, it is thus of utter importance to check and ensure that the final values of LSR thus derived are not sensitive to the initial values of { the LSR assumed}. We have thus carried out extensive test of the impacts of initial LSR on the final results. As shown in Table 5, we have used three vastly different sets of estimates of { the LSR} from the literature as our initial guess. As pointed out earlier, the $U_{\odot}$ and $W_{\odot}$ components of the solar motion are hardly affected by the asymmetric drifts and straightforward to estimate. It is thus not surprising that their final derived values for the three completely different sets of initial guess do not differ much. {It is remarkable that}, for the $V_{\odot}$ component which is known to suffer from significant asymmetric drift effects, the final estimates that result from the three completely different sets of initial guess that span a wide range of value from $\sim$ 5 to 20 km s$^{-1}$ all converge within one per cent! In determining the LSR, we first calculate the orbital eccentricities of sample stars for each assumed set of initial values of LSR and then apply orbital eccentricity cut to select {a sample of cold populations.} The three components of the solar motions with respect to the LSR are then determined by the method described in the next subsection using the selected {sub-sample of cold populations.} As shown in Table\,5, the final values of LSR converge after 4--5 iterations (the numbers of which are listed in the last column of the Table\,5). The fact that the final values of LSR are insensitive to the initial guess can be understood physically. Stars belonging to the thick disc or halo population generally lag behind the rotation of thin disc stars by more than 45 km s$^{-1}$, {a lag that is more than two times the largest value} of the assumed initial ones of $V_{\odot}$. This implies that the orbital eccentricities of most thick disc or halo stars, calculated for the assumed initial LSR, remain {too large to pass} the orbital eccentricity cut, even for the case of { initial guess of} the largest value of $V_{\odot}$. Meanwhile, most stars of our sample are near the Galactic midplane. The sample is thus dominated by {cold populations of thin disc stars. Changes in the calculated eccentricities as induced by the different sets of initial LSR for most of those stars are quite small, and thus unlikely to significantly affect our selection of cold populations of thin disc stars using an eccentricity cut}. At the beginning of the iteration process, there might be some contaminations from those hot thick disc or halo stars. However, as the iteration progresses and the resultant {LSRs converge to} true values, the amount of contaminations {decreases}. It is thus quite natural that after several iterations, all results converge, even for quite different initial guess of LSR. The final distribution of orbital eccentricities of our FGK main-sequence sample is shown in Fig.\,8 (calculated as an example with the final LSR derived assuming the initial LSR of DB98). The sample consists of 60,595 thin disc stars selected by applying an eccentricity cut of less than 0.13. The sample is used to derive the LSR in next subsection. \begin{table*} \center \caption{Solar motion with respect to the LSR determined by the method of CTDS.} \begin{tabular}{lccccc} \hline Sample & $T_{\rm eff}$& $U_{\odot}$ & $V_{\odot}$ & $W_{\odot}$ & $N$ \\ & (K) & (km s$^{-1}$) & (km s$^{-1}$) & (km s$^{-1}$) & \\ \hline Whole & $4200\,\le T_{\rm eff}\le\,6800$ & $6.94\pm0.25$ & $10.35\pm0.15$ & $4.94\pm0.09$ & 60595\\ F type& $6000\,\le T_{\rm eff}\le\,6800$ & $7.11\pm0.32$ & $10.06\pm0.17$ & $5.22\pm0.10$ & 17206\\ G type& $5300\,\le T_{\rm eff}<\,6000$ & $6.56\pm0.31$ & $10.27\pm0.18$ & $4.83\pm0.12$ & 23722\\ K type& $4200\,\le T_{\rm eff}<\,5300$ & $7.27\pm0.31$ & $10.66\pm0.18$ & $4.78\pm0.11$ & 19667\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table*} \begin{figure} \begin{center} \includegraphics[scale=0.45,angle=0]{ECEN_CUT.eps} \caption{Distribution of orbital eccentricities of sample. A total of sample 60,595 stars have eccentricities less than 0.13 and they comprise the subsample of thin disc stars used to calculate the LSR.} \end{center} \end{figure} \begin{figure} \begin{center} \includegraphics[scale=0.45,angle=0]{U_FITTING.eps} \caption{$U$-component velocities are plotted against ${\rm sin}\,\alpha$ for the LSS-GAC thin disc sample of 60,595 FGK dwarfs. The blue dots represent the mean velocities of the individual bins of ${\rm sin}\,\alpha$ and the red line is a linear fit to the dots. } \end{center} \end{figure} \subsection{Corrections for differential Galactic rotation and determinations of the solar motions } \begin{figure*} \begin{center} \includegraphics[scale=0.6,angle=0]{LSR_FINAL.eps} \caption{Distributions of the three velocity components of a sample of 60,595 cold thin disk stars, after correcting for { differential Galactic rotation in radial and azimuthal direction ($U'$ and $V'$)}. Also overplotted are Gaussian fits to the distributions. Note that the distribution of { $U'$} is truncated due to the lack of stars of high eccentricities in the current sample as a result of the orbital eccentricity cut. Estimate of the mean of the distribution, which gives $-U_\odot$, is however not affected by the truncation.} \end{center} \end{figure*} Considering { differential Galactic rotation}, the Galactic space velocity components of a star measured by an observer at the Solar position can be expressed as {follows}: \begin{equation} U = V_{\rm c}^{\rm s}\,{\rm sin}\,\alpha - U_{\odot} + \epsilon_{U}\,, \end{equation} \begin{equation} V = (V_{\rm c} - V_{\rm c}^{\rm s}{\rm cos}\,\alpha) - V_{\odot} + \epsilon_{V}\,, \end{equation} \begin{equation} W = - W_{\odot} + \epsilon_{W}\,, \end{equation} where $\alpha$ is the angle between the star and the Sun with respect to the Galactic centre, $V_{\rm c}$ is the circular speed of the Sun, $V_{\rm c}^{\rm s}$ represents the { mean azimuthal speed of the selected stellar population} of concern here, and $\epsilon_{U}$, $\epsilon_{V}$, $\epsilon_{W}$ are respectively the noise values in the three velocity component $U$, $V$ and $W$, resulting from the combined effects of the velocity measurement uncertainties $\delta_{U}$, $\delta_{V}$, $\delta_{W}$ and the (intrinsic) velocity dispersions $\sigma_{U}$, $\sigma_{V}$, $\sigma_{W}$. In order to determine the LSR, two approaches are generally used to account for the effects of differential Galactic rotation in Eqs.\,(5) and (6). The first approach is to fit the observed values of $U$ and $V$ as a function of $\alpha$ { (Sch\"onrich et al. 2012)}. Alternatively, one can take a flat rotation curve with a constant $V_{\rm c} = 220$\,km s$^{-1}$, and then subtract the terms of differential Galactic rotation from the observed values of $U$ and $V$ in Eqs.\,(5) and (6). Here we should point out that the 600\,pc distance cut discussed above is needed for both the approaches to work, since the cut effectively reduces the effects of large-scale streaming motions, such as the radial velocity gradient and pattern in an extended disc (Siebert et al. 2011, Williams et al. 2013), induced by, for example, non-axisymmetric structures (e.g. central bar, spiral arms). The large number of stars peaking at 600\,pc in our sample (Fig.\,3) also ensures that a sufficient number of stars is available for robust LSR determination. The magnitude of streaming motions in $U$, represented by the term $V_{\rm c}^{\rm s}$\,${\rm sin}\,\alpha$ in Eq.\,(5), is of the same order of magnitude of the velocity { noise}, on the level of dozens of km\,s$^{-1}$ for stars of the current sample. However, the range of variations of the similar term in $V$, i.e. $V_{\rm c}^{\rm s}$\,${\rm cos}\,\alpha$, is less than 1 km s$^{-1}$, and thus will be lost in the velocity { noise}. Thus the first approach can only be used to determine $U_{\odot}$. Fig.\,9 plots the velocity component $U$ against sin\,$\alpha$ for 60,595 thin disc stars, selected from our LSS-GAC sample of FGK dwarfs after imposing an eccentricity cut of 0.13. The DB98 {initial LSR} is assumed. A linear fit to the data yields ($U_{\odot}$,\,$V_{\rm c}^{\rm s}$) = ($7.03\pm0.35$, $254.00\pm10.54$) km s$^{-1}$. The value of $V_{\rm c}^{\rm s}$ is not constrained by the current sample due to the relatively small range of $\sin \alpha$ covered by the sample. For the second approach, after correcting for { differential Galactic rotation}, only the solar peculiar velocities and the velocity { noise} remain. The noise value of each velocity component is assumed to obey a Gaussian distribution (Bensby et al. 2003, 2005) of dispersions $\zeta_{U,V,W}=\sqrt{\delta_{U,V,W}^{2}+\sigma_{U,V,W}^{2}}$. Thus the space velocities after corrections should also follow Gaussian distributions, { $U' = U - V_{c}\sin\alpha \sim$\,\textbf{G}\,($-{U_{\odot}},\,\zeta_{U}^{2}$), $V' = V- (V_{c} - V_{c}\cos\alpha) \sim$\,\textbf{G}\,($-{V_{\odot}},\,\zeta_{V}^{2}$) and $W' = W \sim $\,\textbf{G}\,($-{W_{\odot}},\,\zeta_{W}^{2}$)}. Distributions of the three velocity components, after correcting for { differential Galactic rotation}, for the current sample of 60,595 thin disc stars are presented in Fig.\,10, for the case of { the DB98} initial LSR. Also overplotted in the Figure are Gaussian fits to the distributions. { The corrected velocity distributions, $U'$ and $V'$, are well described by a Gaussian function. } The velocity distribution in radial component is however truncated as a result of the orbital eccentricity cut applied to the sample. {The estimate} of the mean of the distribution, which {yields} $-U_\odot$, is however not affected by the truncation. The fits presented in Fig.\,10 yield {($U_{\odot}$, $V_{\odot}$, $W_{\odot}$) = ($6.94\pm0.25$, $10.35\pm0.15$, $4.94\pm0.09$).} The value of $U_{\odot}$ derived from the Gaussian fit is consistent with that yielded by the first approach, i.e. by fitting { differential Galactic rotation}, as given above. \begin{table} \center \caption{Final adopted solar motions with respect to the LSR.} \begin{threeparttable} \begin{tabular}{lccc} \hline Methods & $U_{\odot}$ & $V_{\odot}$ & $W_{\odot}$ \\ & (km s$^{-1}$) & (km s$^{-1}$) & (km s$^{-1}$) \\ \hline VDF \tnote & -- &$9.75\pm0.19$ & -- \\ CTDS\tnote{a,*} & $6.97\pm0.25$ & $10.37\pm0.15$ & $4.95\pm0.09$ \\ CTDS\tnote{b,*} & $7.08\pm0.34$ & -- & -- \\ Adopted & $7.01\pm0.20$ & $10.13\pm0.12$ & $4.95\pm0.09$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \begin{tablenotes}\small \item[a] { After corrected differential Galactic rotation assuming a flat rotation curve of constant $V_{c}=220$\,km\,s$^{-1}$.} \item[b] {After corrected differential Galactic rotation by fitting Eq.\,(5) (see also Fig.\,9)}. \item[*] The value of each component is the mean of results deduced from the three sets of initial LSR listed in Table 5. \end{tablenotes} \end{threeparttable} \end{table} \begin{figure*} \begin{center} \includegraphics[scale=0.6,angle=0]{LSR_FINAL2.eps} \caption{Same as Fig.\,10 but for sub-samples of different spectral types. The numbers of stars of the individual spectral types are marked in the left panels of the Figure. } \end{center} \end{figure*} \section{DISCUSSION} The value of $V_{\odot}$ obtained in the current work by { the VDF method} is 1--2 km s$^{-1}$ smaller than those of Binney (2010) and Sch\"onrich et al. (2010). The small differences might be caused by bulk motions that affect the samples used in these work, as discussed earlier. As Fig.\,6 shows, the presence of the Pleiades and/or Hyades streams moves the peak of $V$ distribution of the GCS local sample toward negative values, leading to their estimates of $V_\odot$ being1--2 km s$^{-1}$ larger than obtained with the LSS-GAC sample, which shows a much smoother azimuthal velocity distribution and is less affected by the bulk motions of stellar streams. For the CTDS method, we have determined the LSR based on two assumptions. Firstly, we assume that {cold populations of thin disc stars} selected by applying an orbital eccentricity cut suffer from negligible asymmetric drift effects. The asymmetric drifts of { cold populations of thin disc stars selected from} the orbital eccentricity cut can be estimated approximately using Eq.\, (4.228) of Binney \& Tremaine (2008) from the velocity dispersions ($\sigma_{U,V,W}$), velocity ellipsoid, stellar density ($\nu$) and circular speed ($V_{\rm c}$). Assume that the tilt angle is toward the Galactic center (Binney et al. 2014; B\"udenbender et al. 2014) and both $\nu$ and $\sigma_{U}$ are exponential functions of $R$, \begin{equation} \nu \propto {{\exp}}(-\frac{R}{R_{d}})\,, \end{equation} \begin{equation} \sigma_{U} \propto {{\exp}}(-\frac{R}{R_{\sigma}})\,, \end{equation} where $R_{d}$ and $R_{\sigma}$ are the scale lengths of $\nu$ and $\sigma_{U}$, respectively. Under those assumptions, Eq.\, (4.228) of Binney \& Tremaine (2008) becomes, \begin{equation} V_{a} \simeq\frac{1}{2V_{c}}\left[\sigma_{V}^{2} + \sigma_{W}^{2} + R\sigma_{U}^{2}(\frac{1}{R_{d}} + \frac{2}{R_{\sigma}} - \frac{2}{R})\right]\,, \end{equation} where the intrinsic velocity dispersions\footnote{The intrinsic velocity dispersions are estimated by subtracting the space velocity errors using the sample of 60,595 thin disc stars described in Section 6.2.} of the selected thin disc stars are $\sigma_{U} = 18.98$, $\sigma_{V} = 11.05$ and $\sigma_{W} = 9.61$ km\,s$^{-1}$, respectively. Adopting $R_{\sigma} = 13.70$ kpc from Sharma et al. (2014), $R_{d} = 2.5$ kpc, $V_{c} = 220$ km\,s$^{-1}$ and a typical position $R = 8.3$ kpc of the selected stars, we have $V_{a} = 2.56$ km\,s$^{-1}$. If using instead a larger scale length $R_{d} = 3.7$ kpc from the recent work of Chang et al. (2011), the estimated value of $V_{a}$ decrease to 1.68 km\,s$^{-1}$. {The results show that our assumption that cold populations of thin disk stars selected with an orbital eccentricity cut of $e$\,$< 0.13$ have small asymmetric drifts is a reasonable one. This is corroborated by the close agreement of values of $V_\odot$ deduced from the two independent analyses, i.e. those based on the VDF and CTDS methods, respectively. The effects of asymmetric drifts of the current sample of thin disc stars on $V_\odot$ estimation, if any, are likely to be quite small\footnote{{ Considering the fact that the value of $V_\odot$ deduced from the CTDS} {method is only 0.62 km\,s$^{-1}$ {\em larger} than that deduced from the VDF method (which fully accounts for the effects of asymmetric drifts), the value of $V_{a}$ of the current sample of thin disc stars is likely to be smaller than 1 km\,s$^{-1}$.}}.} As a further test of the assumption, we note that stars of different spectral types (populations) suffer from different levels of the asymmetric drift effects. For sub-samples of dwarfs of F, G and K spectral type, the level of those effects can vary from a few to tens of km s$^{-1}$ (DB98, Sch\"onrich et al. 2010). The fact that all the three of F, G and K sub-samples give consistent results suggest again the assumption is a reasonable one. { As described earlier, the second assumption underlying our analysis with the CTDS method is that the sample suffers from little systematic kinematic effects, induced by, for example, non-axisymmetric structures, accretion events or asymmetric mass infall. As already pointed out in Section 5.1, the current sample does not seem to be affected significantly by any moving group.} The validity of this assumption also seems to be supported by the consistent results yielded by the individual sub-samples of different spectral type, considering that those sub-samples probe different depths (because of their different intrinsic, absolute magnitudes)\footnote{ Here, we are not arguing that cold populations are less affected by those non-axisymmetric structures than any warm tracer. We just point out, by good fortune or not, that the current sample of cold populations seems to happen to be hardly affected by those structures.}. Fig.\,11 plots the results from the three sub-samples for the case of {the DB98} initial LSR. The values of solar motion derived from the sub-samples are presented in Table\,6. Fig.\,11 and Table\,6 show that for all the three velocity components of LSR, the values yielded by all the three sub-samples agree within the fitting errors. As a by-product, the results also suggest that the local disk seems to be radially and vertically stable and circularly symmetric. We note all the errors quoted for the estimates of LSR presented here are purely formal. There are potential systematic errors for both the methods of VDF and CTDS. For the VDF method, potential biases may come from the underlying assumptions and approximations, as well as from the parameters adopted to construct the analytical azimuthal velocity distribution. As for the CTDS method, we believe that the effects of asymmetric drift are minor, although effects on the level of $\sim 1$--2 km s$^{-1}$ could be present as estimated above, considering that the thin disc stars selected do not have exactly zero eccentricity, i.e. they do not move in perfect circular orbits. Although there might be a variety of potential sources of systematic errors affecting the results from both methods, it is { reassuring} that both methods yield consistent values of $V_{\odot}$ within 2$\sigma$. Our final, adopted values of LSR are presented in Table 7, obtained by taking the mean of individual estimates, weighted by the inverse square of the formal errors of individual estimates. \section{CONCLUSIONS} The traditional method based on { Str\"omberg's equation} fails to produce accurate estimates of the LSR, especially for the $V_{\odot}$ component, due to the presence of kinematic and/or metallicity biases addressed recently by a number of investigators. In this work, two alternative and independent methods have been used to derive the LSR using a completely new sample of stars selected from the LSS-GAC DR1. The first method derives $V_{\odot}$ by fiting the observed azimuthal velocity distribution with {an analytical} distribution function which has been shown to reproduce well reults from rigorous torus-based dynamics modeling. We obtain $V_{\odot} = 9.75\pm0.19$\,km\,s$^{-1}$. The value is about 1--2 km\,s$^{-1}$ smaller than those derived by Binney (2010) and Sch\"onrich et al. (2010) by applying the same method to the GCS local sample. We suggest that the small differences are caused by the presence of stellar streams that significantly plagues the GCS sample, but to a much less extent the LSS-GAC DR1 sample. The second method derives the LSR directly using { cold populations of thin disc stars} as tracers. The method relies on the definition of a proper sample of {cold populations of thin disc stars}. In this paper, we propose that the orbital eccentricity serves as a natural quantity to select {cold populations of thin disc stars}. After applying an orbital eccentricity cut, two approaches are adopted to correct for the effects of differential Galactic rotation and determine the LSR. The first approach is applicable to the $U_\odot$ component only. The analysis yields $U_{\odot}\,=\,7.03\pm0.35$ km s$^{-1}$. The second approach, under the assumption of a flat rotation curve and negligible asymmetric drifts, is based on Gaussian fitting to the measured velocity distributions, after correcting for the effects of differential Galactic rotation. Values of $U_{\odot}$ derived from both approaches are consistent with each other and in agreement with that deduced from maser measurements (Bobylev \& Bajkova 2010, 2014). From the second approach, we find $V_{\odot}\,=\,10.35\pm0.15$ km s$^{-1}$, which is consistent within 2$\sigma$ with the value deduced by the method of VDF. Our newly derived value of $W_{\odot}\,=\,4.94\pm0.09$ km s$^{-1}$ is very close to the recent estimate of Sch\"onrich (2012). Both for VDF and CTDS methods, the whole sample is further divided into sub-samples of F, G and K spectral types. Results derived from those sub-samples all yield consistent results, as listed in Table \,4 and \,6. The results corroborate the robustness of the LSR determined by both methods. Benefited from the LSS-GAC DR1 and the UCAC4 proper motion catalog, we have built the largest local sample of FGK main-sequence stars within 600 pc of the Sun with accurate distances and velocities. By controlling the random errors discussed in Section 4 and correcting systematic errors both in radial velocities and in proper motions as discussed in Section 3.2, the sample has enabled us to determine the LSR with the smallest uncertainties hitherto (see Table 1). Our final recommended values of LSR are: ($U_{\odot}$, $V_{\odot}$, $W_{\odot}$) = ($7.01\pm0.20$, $10.13\pm0.12$, $4.95\pm0.09$) km s$^{-1}$ (see Table\,7). \section*{Acknowledgements} It is a pleasure to thank Dr. J. Binney for a critical reading of the manuscript and constructive comments. This work is supported by National Key Basic Research Program of China 2014CB845700. The Guoshoujing Telescope (the Large Sky Area Multi-Object Fiber Spectroscopic Telescope, LAMOST) is a National Major Scientific Project built by the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Funding for the project has been provided by the National Development and Reform Commission. LAMOST is operated and managed by the National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences.
\section{Introduction} \label{sec1} The speed of light, in curved space-time, is not as ``constant'' as one would otherwise imagine. The curvature of space-time, according to classical general relativity (see Appendix~\ref{appa}), acts as a refractive medium (without dispersion), giving rise to an effective change in the speed of light (as seen from a global, not local, coordinate system), which reads as \begin{equation} \label{classres} \frac{\Delta c}{c_0} = 2 \, \frac{\Phi_G(\vec r)}{c_0^2} = (1+\gamma) \, \frac{\Phi_G(\vec r)}{c_0^2} < 0 \,. \end{equation} Here, $\Phi_G(\vec r)$ is the gravitational potential, normalized to zero for two very distant objects, and the $\gamma$ parameter is introduced (for Einsteinian gravity, we have $\gamma=1$, see Refs.~\cite{Wi2006,Wi2014}). Throughout this article, we set $c_0 = 299\,792\,458\, {\rm m}/{\rm s}$ equal to the speed of light as consistent with the Einstein equivalence principle, which states that space-time is locally flat. The speed-of-light parameter $c_0$ is canonically set equal to unity in an appropriate unit system. The time delay formula~\eqref{classres} is valid to first order in the gravitational coupling constant (Newton's constant) $G$. The concomitant slow-down of light is known as the Shapiro time delay~\cite{Sh1964,ShEtAl1968,Sh1999}. One of the most precise tests has been accomplished with the Cassini spacecraft in superior conjunction on its way to Saturn~\cite{BeIeTo2003}; it involves Doppler tracking using both X-band ($7175\,{\rm MHz}$) as well as Ka-band ($34316\,{\rm MHz}$) radar. At high energy, the dispersion relation for a massive particle is not different from that for photons, $E = \sqrt{\vec p^2 \, c_0^2 + m^2 \, c_0^4} \approx |\vec p|\, c_0 = \hbar \, |\vec k| \, c_0$, where $E$ is the energy, $\vec p$ is the momentum and $\vec k$ is the wave vector of the (light or matter) wave. The modification~\eqref{classres} affects the speed of propagation for photons as well as highly energetic neutrinos. For the central field of the Sun, we have $\Phi_G(\vec r) = -G \, M_\odot/r$ where $M_\odot$ is the Sun's mass. In general, $\Phi_G$ is negative, implying that light is slowed down due to the bending of its trajectory caused by space-time curvature. Recently, in Ref.~\cite{Fr2014}, it has been claimed that an additional quantum electrodynamic (QED) correction to the result~\eqref{classres} exists, which is of the functional form \begin{equation} \label{quantcorr} \frac{\delta c_\gamma}{c_0} = \chi \, \alpha \, \frac{\Phi_G(\vec r)}{c_0^2} < 0\,, \end{equation} where $\alpha$ is the fine-structure constant, and $\chi$ is a constant coefficient. For details of the arguments which led Franson to his result given in Eq.~\eqref{quantcorr}, we refer the reader to Sec.~3 of Ref.~\cite{Fr2014}. Essentially, Franson~\cite{Fr2014} evaluates the vacuum-polarization correction for photons (on shell) in the gravitational field, using a partially noncovariant formalism [the photon energy $E$ is used as a noncovariant variable in the propagators; see Eq.~(13) ff.~of Ref.~\cite{Fr2014} for details of Franson's considerations]. It is known from quantum electrodynamic bound-state calculations that even a slight noncovariance in the regularization scheme can induce spurious terms~\cite{PeSaSu1998}; some scrutiny should thus be applied. Using his calculational scheme, Franson comes to the conclusion that the speed of {\em photons} [hence the subscript $\gamma$ in Eq.~\eqref{quantcorr}] is altered due to the gravitational correction to the electron-positron propagators that enter the vacuum-polarization loop calculation. For the coefficient $\chi$, the following result has been indicated in Ref.~\cite{Fr2014}, \begin{equation} \label{coeffres} \chi = \frac{9}{64} \qquad \mbox{(according to Ref.~\cite{Fr2014}).} \end{equation} The decisive point of the analysis presented in Ref.~\cite{Fr2014} is that the effect described by Eq.~\eqref{quantcorr} is claimed to affect only photons, not neutrinos, thus slowing the photons in comparison to the neutrinos (and other massive fermions). According to Ref.~\cite{Fr2014}, the propagation of otherwise massless photons is influenced by the electron-positron (light fermion) vacuum-polarization effect at one-loop order, that of fermions is not. A different {\em ansatz} for a modification of local Lorentz transformations stems from the work of Vachaspati~\cite{Va2004}, who claims that in addition to ``electromagnetic time'', one can define an ``absolute time'' (on the level of special relativity), which transforms according to a modified Lorentz transformation (referred to here as the Vachaspati transformation), and which, according to Ref.~\cite{Va2004}, is claimed to be compatible with muon lifetime and Michelson--Morley experiments (see Appendix~\ref{appb}). The Vachaspati transformation also leads to a ``speed of light'' parameter which is dependent on the inertial frame. Here, we aim to investigate three sets of questions: {\em (i)} Is the result given in Eq.~\eqref{quantcorr} compatible with all other astrophysical observations recorded so far in the literature? What bounds can be set for the $\chi$ parameter given in Eq.~\eqref{coeffres}? {\em Irrespective of the value of $\chi$,} what changes would result from a hypothetical quantum modification of the speed of light, induced according to the functional form Eq.~\eqref{quantcorr}, for the description of other physical phenomena? In particular, how would we describe neutrinos in strong gravitational fields, where according to Ref.~\cite{Fr2014}, they propagate faster than the speed of light, even at high energy? How would the result given in Eq.~\eqref{quantcorr} affect the Schiff conjecture~\cite{Wi2001,Wi2006,Wi2014}? {\em (ii)} The next question then is whether the modification given in Eq.~\eqref{quantcorr} {\em exists at all.} In Sec.~\ref{sec3}, we investigate whether or not the calculations reported in Ref.~\cite{Fr2014}, which lead to the quantum effect~\eqref{quantcorr}, stand the test of a fully covariant formulation of the gravitational corrections to vacuum polarization, where the virtual fermions in the loop are subject to gravitational interactions. Our calculation is restricted to an analysis of the electron-positron loop insertion into the photon propagator, which is the subject of Ref.~\cite{Fr2014}, and does not treat all possible quantum corrections to the photon propagator into account. The analysis in Sec.~\ref{sec2} thus covers a much more general scope and answers general questions regarding a modification of the speed of light in gravitational fields, induced according to Eq.~\eqref{quantcorr}, while the analysis in Sec.~\ref{sec3} only covers the vacuum-polarization loop with fermion propagators subject to gravitational interactions. {\em (iii)} In the context of atomic physics, what phenomenological consequences will result from the gravitational correction to the off-shell (virtual) photon propagator? This is briefly discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec4}. The first set of questions also has relevance for the work of Vachaspati~\cite{Va2004}. Conclusions are reserved for Sec.~\ref{sec5}. \section{Quantum Effects and Speed of Light} \label{sec2} \subsection{Quantum correction and Shapiro time delay} \label{sec2A} Because the quantum correction~\eqref{quantcorr} is conjectured to be induced by a virtual loop consisting of electrons and positrons lifted from the quantum vacuum, its existence is not excluded by classical theory, i.e., beyond the validity of the original (purely classical) general theory of relativity formulated by Einstein and Hilbert~\cite{Ei1915,Hi1915,Ei1916}. The delay induced by the conjectured modification Eq.~\eqref{quantcorr} for light rays propagating from the Large Magellanic Cloud is claimed to be in agreement~\cite{Fr2014} with the observed early arrival time of the (still somewhat mysterious) early neutrino burst under the Mont Blanc recorded in temporal coincidence with the SN1987A supernova~\cite{DaEtAl1987}. Essentially, the paper~\cite{Fr2014} claims that the apparent superluminality of the ``early'' neutrino burst could be due to a quantum electrodynamic effect which slows down light in comparison to the neutrinos, in strong gravitational potentials, with a delay induced according to Eq.~\eqref{quantcorr}. However, this result should be compared to other precision measurements of time delays induced by space-time curvature, such as the Shapiro time delay~\cite{Sh1964,ShEtAl1968,Sh1999}. The time delay due to the refractive index of curved space leads to the following formula for a light ray or radar wave as it bounces back from an object close to superior conjunction [see Eq.~(49) of Ref.~\cite{Wi2006} and Fig.~\ref{fig1}], \begin{equation} \label{std} \delta t = 2 \, \left(1 + \gamma \right) \, \frac{G \, M_\odot}{c_0^3} \, \ln\left( \frac{(r_\oplus + \vec r_\oplus \cdot \vec n) \, (r_e - \vec r_e \cdot \vec n)}{d^2} \right) \,. \end{equation} Here, $\vec r_e$ is the vector from the Sun to the source (e.g., the Cassini spacecraft), $\vec r_\oplus$ is the unit vector from the Sun to the Earth, while $\vec n$ is the vector from the source to the Earth, and $d$ is the distant of closest approach of the light ray as it travels from the Earth to the source and back. The parameter $\gamma$ is used in order to describe potential deviations from the classical prediction. \begin{figure}[t!] \begin{center} \begin{minipage}{1.0\linewidth} \includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{fig1.eps} \caption{\label{fig1} Geometry for Eq.~\eqref{std}.} \end{minipage} \end{center} \end{figure} The formula~\eqref{std} is obtained on the basis of the classical result~\eqref{classres}. For details of the derivation, we refer to Chap.~4.4 on page 196~ff.~of Ref.~\cite{OhRu1994} and exercise 4.8 of page 161 of Ref.~\cite{Pa2010}. The quantum ``correction'' given in~\eqref{quantcorr} has the same functional form as the classical result~\eqref{classres} but adds a correction to the prefactor. If we assume the explicit numerical result given in Eq.~\eqref{coeffres} to be valid, then this leads to a $\gamma$ coefficient different from unity, \begin{equation} \gamma - 1 = \chi \, \alpha = \frac{9 \, \alpha}{64} = 1.03 \times 10^{-3} \,. \end{equation} However, the {\color{black} result of the Cassini observations~\cite{BeIeTo2003}} reads as follows, \begin{equation} \label{experimental} \gamma - 1 = ( 2.1 \pm 2.3 ) \times 10^{-5} \,. \end{equation} The claim~\eqref{coeffres} thus is in a $44.8 \sigma$ disagreement with the experimental result~\eqref{experimental}, which is otherwise consistent with zero. Unless the authors of Ref.~\cite{BeIeTo2003} have overlooked a significant source of systematic error, the effect described by Eq.~\eqref{coeffres} thus is in severe disagreement with experiment. Finally, we should remark that the $\gamma$ parameter also enters the expression for the light deflection formula around a central gravitational centre. {\color{black} An analysis~\cite{ShDaLeGr2004}} of almost 2 million very-long baseline (VLBI) observations of 541 radio sources, made by 87 VLBI sites yields the bound \begin{equation} \delta\gamma = (-1.7 \pm 4.5) \times 10^{-4} \,, \end{equation} which also is in disagreement with the claim~\eqref{quantcorr}. According to Refs.~\cite{LaPL2009,LaPL2011}, all current VLBI data together yield a value of $\delta\gamma = (−0.8 \pm 1.2) \times 10^{−4}$, compatible with zero. Alternatively, we can convert the result~\eqref{experimental} into a bound for the $\chi$ coefficient, \begin{equation} \label{bound} \chi = ( 2.9 \pm 3.2 ) \times 10^{-3} \,, \end{equation} consistent with zero. However, quantum effects of the functional form~\eqref{quantcorr}, but with a numerically small coefficient compatible with the bound~\eqref{bound}, cannot be excluded at present. \subsection{Fermion wave equation} \label{sec2B} Let us analyze the problem of a fermion wave equation for a local Lorentz frame in which photons propagate slower than high-energy fermions. We remember that the Lorentz violation induced by Eq.~\eqref{quantcorr} actually is quite subtle; the effect is not excluded by classical physics and vanishes globally in the absence of gravitational interactions, i.e., it does not perturb the speed of light in globally flat (Minkowski) space-time. In order to write a wave equation describing fermions, we have to carefully distinguish between the flat-space speed of light {\color{black} $c_0$} (in the absence of gravitational interactions), the classical ``correction'' $\Delta c$ (which is compatible with the Einstein equivalence principle and does not preclude the existence of the local Minkowskian frame of reference), and the quantum correction $\delta c_\gamma$ given in Eq.~\eqref{quantcorr}, which changes the speed of light in a ``local'' reference frame to \begin{equation} c_{\rm loc} = {\color{black} c_0} + \delta c_\gamma = {\color{black} c_0} - |\delta c_\gamma| \,. \end{equation} We recall that, physically, the speed of light is the speed which describes the propagation of the transverse components of the electromagnetic field, which enter the Maxwell equations. (The necessity of a careful separation of transverse and longitudinal components has recently been highlighted in a consideration of the photon wave functions, given in Ref.~\cite{Mo2010}.) As already stated in Sec.~\ref{sec1}, according to Ref.~\cite{Fr2014}, the modification~\eqref{quantcorr} is supposed to slow down photons in strong gravitational fields, not neutrinos or electrons. Let us therefore investigate the question of a correct equation to describe fundamental fermions in strong gravitational fields (deep potentials), on the basis of a (possibly generalized) Dirac equation. One possibility is to postulate that the local Lorentz transformation has to be modified to include the local quantum modification of the speed of light, while the formalism of classical general relativity is unaltered by the quantum modification. Let us also assume that the ``local Lorentz transformation'', under the presence of the quantum correction~\eqref{quantcorr}, is formulated to be the transformation which preserves the light element \begin{equation} \mathrm d x^\mu \, \mathrm d x_\mu = c_{\rm loc}^2 \mathrm d t^2 - \mathrm d \vec r^{\,2} = 0\,, \end{equation} where $\mathrm d x^\mu = ( c_{\rm loc} \, \mathrm d t, \mathrm d \vec r)$ is a space-time interval, and $c_{\rm loc}$ is the speed of light in the local coordinate system. The correction $\Delta c$ given in Eq.~\eqref{classres} is compatible with the Einstein equivalence principle of a locally flat space-time and therefore does not change the Dirac equation (with parameter $c$) in the usual Dirac equation for fermion wave packets, but the quantum correction $\delta c_\gamma$, given in Eq.~\eqref{quantcorr}, leads to the replacement ${\color{black} c_0} \to c_{\rm loc}$. According to Eq.~\eqref{quantcorr}, high-energy fermions are faster than light rays at high energy, by an offset $|\delta c_\gamma|$, making them effectively superluminal, thus leading to an explanation for the early neutrino burst from the supernova 1978A (see Refs.~\cite{DaEtAl1987,Fr2014}). The preferred way to describe highly energetic fermions (neutrinos) which travel faster than {\color{black} light} is via the tachyonic Dirac equation~\cite{ChHaKo1985}, which in the local reference frame reads as \begin{equation} \label{tach} \left( \mathrm i \hbar \, \gamma^\mu \, \frac{\partial}{\partial x^\mu} - \gamma^5 m c_{\rm loc} \right) \, {\color{black} \psi}(t, \vec r) = 0 \,, \end{equation} {\color{black} where ${\color{black} \psi}(t, \vec r)$ is the fermion wave function.} The projector sums for the tachyonic spinor solutions have recently been investigated in Refs.~\cite{JeWu2012epjc,JeWu2014}. The main problem here does not lie in the tachyonic equation, but in the description of highly energetic neutrinos because of their uniform velocity offset $|\delta c_\gamma|$ at high energy from photons. This offset prevents them from reaching the photon mass shell in the local coordinate system. To see this, let us note the particles described by Eq.~\eqref{tach} fulfill the dispersion relation \begin{subequations} \begin{align} \label{tachdisp} E =& \; \sqrt{ \vec p^{\,2} \, c^2_{\rm loc} - (m c^2_{\rm loc})^2} \,, \\[0.77ex] E =& \; \frac{m c_{\rm loc}^2}{ \sqrt{ v^2/c_{\rm loc}^2 - 1 }} \,, \\[0.77ex] |\vec p| =& \; \frac{m v}{ \sqrt{ v^2/c_{\rm loc}^2 - 1 }} \,, \end{align} \end{subequations} where {\color{black} $v \approx c_0 > c_{\rm loc}$} is the propagation speed of highly energetic neutrinos, required for the explanation of the early arrival time of the neutrinos according to Ref.~\cite{Fr2014}. The energy can thus be expressed as \begin{subequations} \begin{align} \label{EE} E =& \; \frac{m c_{\rm loc}^2}{\sqrt{ v^2/c_{\rm loc}^2 - 1 }} \approx \frac{m \, c_{\rm loc}^{5/2}}{\sqrt{ 2 |\delta c_\gamma| }} \,, \\[0.77ex] v =& \; c_{\rm loc} + |\delta c_\gamma| \approx {\color{black} c_0} \,. \end{align} \end{subequations} We are now in a dilemma: On the one hand, the energy of a highly energetic neutrino is not bounded from above, but even for a neutrino traveling {\em exactly} at the speed of light {\color{black} $v = c_0$}, the right-hand side of Eq.~\eqref{EE} only contains the fixed parameters $ c_{\rm loc}$ and $|\delta c_\gamma|$. Hence, the only way to make Eq.~\eqref{EE} compatible with Eq.~\eqref{tach} is to assume a universal mass ``running'' of the tachyonic mass parameter in Eq.~\eqref{tach}, linear with the energy scale, of the functional form \begin{equation} m \to m(E) \propto E = \frac{\sqrt{2 |\delta c_\gamma|}}{c_{\rm loc}^{5/2}} \, E \,. \end{equation} It thus becomes clear that the mere existence of a ``local'' gravitational quantum correction of the functional form~\eqref{quantcorr} would induce severe problems in the description of high-energy fermions in local reference frames in strong gravitational fields (``deep potentials''). In other scenarios of Lorentz breaking mechanisms in local reference frames~\cite{BaKo2006,Ba2009,KoTa2011}, the Lorentz-breaking terms are not required to run with the energy scale. The same is true for small Lorentz-violating admixture terms to Dirac equations in free space~\cite{CoKo1997,DiKoMe2009,KoMe2012}. As a final remark, let us note that according to Ref.~\cite{Fr2014}, high-energy neutrinos would be traveling faster than {\rm light}, but not faster than electrons. Hence, the analogue of Cerenkov radiation emitted by neutrinos, namely, the reaction $\nu \to \nu + e^+ + e^-$ cannot occur; according to Ref.~\cite{CoGl2011}, this process constitutes the main decay channel of {\color{black} tachyonic neutrinos.} Genuine Cerenkov radiation $\nu \to \nu + \gamma$ is suppressed for the electrically neutral neutrinos and must proceed via a $W$ loop. The slow-down of light in comparison to high-energy fermions according to Eq.~\eqref{quantcorr}, though, would lead to Cerenkov radiation from highly energetic charged leptons [e.g., synchrotron losses at the Large {\color{black} Electron--Positron Collider} (LEP)]. Within the models studied in Refs.~\cite{KlSc2008,Al2009,HoLePhWe2009}, rather stringent bounds have been obtained for certain Lorentz-violating parameters. All of these results, though, are model dependent. E.g., the dispersion relation $E = p \, v_\nu$, assumed in Ref.~\cite{CoGl2011}, is different from the dispersion relation that is generally assumed for tachyonic neutrinos [see Eq.~\eqref{tachdisp} here in the paper and independently Ref.~\cite{ChHaKo1985}]. The Lorentz violation induced by the slow-down of light due to a radiative correction proposed in Ref.~\cite{Fr2014} is quite subtle; however, the functional form~\eqref{quantcorr} allows for a direct model-independent comparison with bounds on the $\gamma$ parameter introduced in Eq.~\eqref{classres}, as discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec2A}. \subsection{Equivalence principle and Schiff conjecture} \label{sec2C} The Schiff conjecture (see Sec.~2.2.1 of Ref.~\cite{Wi2001}) is connected with two different forms of the equivalence principle, namely, the weak equivalence principle and the Einstein equivalence principle. Originally, Newton stated that the property of a body called ``mass'' (``inertial mass'') is proportional to the ``weight'' (which enters the gravitational force law), a principle otherwise known as the ``weak equivalence principle'' (WEP). The Einstein equivalence principle (EEP) states that {\em (i)} WEP is valid, {\em (ii)} the outcome of any local non-gravitational experiment is independent of the velocity of the freely-falling reference frame in which it is performed (local Lorentz invariance, LLI), {\em (iii)} the outcome of any local non-gravitational experiment is independent of where and when in the universe it is performed (local position invariance, LPI). It is obvious to realize that the existence of a local modification of the speed of light in deep gravitational potentials according to~\eqref{quantcorr} would lead to a (very slight, but noticeable) violation of point {\em (iii)} of the EEP. Namely, because the shift $\delta c_\gamma$ affects only photons, not neutrinos or electrons (according to Ref.~\cite{Fr2014}), one could measure the local propagation velocity of high-energy fermion versus photon wave packets. The former propagate at velocity $c_0$ in a local reference frame, whereas the latter are affected by the correction~$\delta c_\gamma \propto \Phi_G$. The potential $\Phi_G$ depends on the position in the Universe where the experiment is performed (for reference values of $\Phi_G$ in different regions, see Table~1 of Ref.~\cite{Fr2014}). According to Sec.~2.2.1 of Ref.~\cite{Wi2001}, the Schiff conjecture states that for self-consistent theories of gravity, WEP necessarily embodies EEP; the validity of WEP alone guarantees the validity of local Lorentz and position invariance, and thereby of EEP. The question of whether the correction $\delta c_\gamma$ violates the WEP is a matter of interpretation because $\delta c_\gamma$ affects only massless objects, namely, photons; it is, as already emphasized, a {\em quantum} effect which goes beyond the scope of classical mechanics in which the weak equivalence principle was first formulated (in its original form by Newton). One could perform a thought experiment and enter a region of deep gravitational potential with three freely falling, propagating wave packets, one describing a photon, the others describing a very highly energetic neutrino and a very highly energetic electron, respectively. The latter two propagate at a velocity (infinitesimally close to) $c_0$. If a correction of the form $\delta c_\gamma$ exists, then photons will have been decelerated to a velocity $c_0 - |\delta c_\gamma|$ within the deep gravitational potential, whereas {\em both} fermions will have retained a velocity (infinitesimally close to) $c_0$. If we regard the photons as particles (the photon being a concept introduced into physics after the WEP was first introduced by Newton), then we could argue that a ``force'' must have acted onto the photon, causing deceleration, even though the particles were in free fall. This might indicate a violation of the WEP but only if the photon were regarded as a normal ``particle'' in the sense of Newton's idea (which is not fully applicable because of the vanishing rest mass of the photon). Alternatively, we could interpret any change in velocities relative to the local speed of light as an ``acceleration'' and thus interpret the faster propagation of the electrons and neutrinos in comparison to the photon within the region of deep gravitational potential as the result of a force which must have acted on the fermions. {\em Both} neutrinos and electrons retain a velocity very close to $c_0$ and have thus been accelerated by the same velocity $|\delta c_\gamma|$; because of their different rest mass, the force acting on them must have been different, thus violating the WEP. Today, one canonically understands the WEP as not being tied to ``massive'' objects, stating that free-fall at a given point in space-time is the same for all physical systems, and that photons, electrons, and neutrinos in a gravitational potential all act as if they are in the same accelerated coordinate frame. In that sense, if a theory predicts that gravitational potentials make the local photon velocity different from the local limiting velocity of high-energy massive particles, then that theory violates the WEP. Thus, depending on the interpretation, one might conclude that Schiff's conjecture holds true, in the sense that the correction~\eqref{quantcorr} violates {\em both} the WEP as well as the EEP. The caveat must be stated because strictly speaking, photons do not have a rest mass, and thus, the WEP in the original formulation is not fully applicable. One should also bear in mind that slight violations of fundamental laws and symmetries of nature are being discussed and all we can do is establish bounds for violating parameters~\cite{BaKo2006,Ba2009,KoTa2011,CoKo1997,DiKoMe2009,KoMe2012}. For the scenario studied by Vachaspati (see Appendix~\ref{appb} and Ref.~\cite{Va2004}), the violations of the EEP and the WEP would be of order unity; the ``light speed measured in absolute time'' can be different from the ``light speed measured in electromagnetic time'', depending on the relative velocity of the moving frames $v_A$. \section{Dirac Equation and Gravitational Coupling} \label{sec3} The far-reaching consequences of any correction of the form~\eqref{quantcorr} to the speed of light in deep gravitational potentials together with the bound formulated in Eq.~\eqref{bound} for the $\chi$ coefficient stimulate a recalculation of the leading gravitational correction to vacuum polarization, supplementing the analysis of Ref.~\cite{Fr2014}. Recently, the gravitationally coupled Dirac equation has been investigated~\cite{Je2013,JeNo2013pra,Je2014dirac,Je2014pra}, with particular emphasis on the Dirac--Schwarzschild problem, which is the equivalent of the Dirac--Coulomb problem for electrostatic interactions and describes a particle bound to a central gravitational field. From now on, for the remainder of this article, we revert to natural units with $\hbar = c_0 = \epsilon_0 = 1$, because we no longer consider a conceivable ``correction'' of the form~\eqref{quantcorr}. In leading order, the Hamiltonian which governs the gravitational interaction is given by [see Eq.~(12) of Ref.~\cite{Je2013}] \begin{align} \label{Hgrav} H =& \; \vec\alpha \cdot \vec p + \beta \, m \, w(r) \,, \\[0.133ex] w \approx & \; 1 - \frac{r_s}{2 r} = 1 - \frac{G \, M}{r} = 1 + \Phi_G \,, \end{align} where $r_s = 2 G M$ is the Schwarzschild radius. Here, $r$ is the Eddington coordinate in the Eddington form~\cite{Ed1924} of the Schwarzschild metric, which however is equal to the radial coordinate in the original Schwarzschild metric in the limit $r \to \infty$ (i.e., in the limit of a weak gravitational field). We use the vector of Dirac $\vec\alpha$ matrices, and the $\beta$ matrix, in the standard representation~\cite{ItZu1980}. After a Foldy--Wouthuysen transformation, the Hamiltonian~\eqref{Hgrav} takes the form (in the leading order in the relativistic expansion) \begin{equation} \label{schr} H \approx \beta \left(m + \frac{ \vec p^{\,2} }{2 m} - \frac{r_s}{2 r} \right) = \beta \left(m + \frac{ \vec p^{\,2} }{2 m} + \Phi_G \right) \,. \end{equation} Here, the $\beta$ matrix describes the particle-antiparticle symmetry~\cite{JeNo2013pra}, while the latter form shows that the gravitational potential can be inserted into the Schr\"{o}dinger equation ``by hand'' in the leading order (the somewhat nontrivial relativistic corrections involve the gravitational {\em Zitterbewegung} term, and the gravitational spin-orbit coupling~\cite{JeNo2013pra}). The leading gravitational term in Eq.~\eqref{Hgrav}, in the fully relativistic formalism, corresponds to a position-dependent modification of the Dirac mass of the electron, which is present only if one departs from the local Lorentz frame (locally flat space-time) and aims to describe the Dirac particle globally, in the curved space-time. Defining the effective mass $m_G$ of the electron as \begin{equation} m_{G} = m \, w(r) \approx m \left( 1 + \Phi_G \right) \,, \end{equation} one can carry out the calculation of the vacuum polarization insertion as described in the literature. One possibility is to use the covariant formalism described in Chap.~7 of Ref.~\cite{ItZu1980}, which relies on a Feynman parameter integral. A recent, particularly clear formulation given in Sec.~5 of Ref.~\cite{InMoSa2014} clarifies that the additional mass terms introduced in Pauli--Villars regularization do not affect the calculation of the vacuum-polarization tensor, which depends only on the physical, local, effective mass of the electron. An alternative possibility is given in Chap.~113 of Ref.~\cite{BeLiPi1982vol4}, where a subtracted dispersion relation is used in order to circumvent parts of the problems associated with regularization and renormalization, and leads to a dispersion integral which starts at the pair production threshold $(2 m_{G})^2$. The result of all these approaches invariantly reads as follows, in terms of a modification of the photon propagator $D_{\mu\nu} = g_{\mu\nu}/k^2$, \begin{equation} \label{feyn} \frac{g_{\mu\nu}}{k^2} \to \frac{g_{\mu\nu}}{k^2 \, [ 1 + {\overline \omega}^R(k^2) ]} \,, \qquad k^2 = \omega^2 - \vec k^2 \,. \end{equation} A straightforward application of the formalism of covariant quantum electrodynamics then leads to the renormalized (superscript $R$) vacuum-polarization insertion, written in terms of the effective mass $m_G$ of the electron, \begin{equation} \label{R} {\overline \omega}^R(k^2) = \frac{\alpha k^2}{3 \pi} \, \int\limits_{4 m_{G}^2}^\infty \frac{\mathrm d k'^2}{k'^2} \, \frac{1 + 2 m_{G}^2/k'^2}{k'^2 - k^2} \sqrt{ 1 - \frac{4 m_{G}^2}{k'^2} } \,. \end{equation} We note that ${\overline \omega}^R(k^2)$ vanishes for $k^2 = \omega^2 - \vec k^2 = 0$, thus leaving the speed of light of on-shell photons invariant. For $k^2 \neq 0$ (off-shell, virtual photons), we note the asymptotic behavior \begin{subequations} \label{off} \begin{align} {\overline \omega}^R(k^2) =& \; \dfrac{\alpha}{15 \pi} \dfrac{k^2}{m_{G}^2} + \mathcal O(k^4) \,, \qquad k^2 \to 0 \,, \\[2ex] {\overline \omega}^R(k^2) =& \; -\dfrac{\alpha}{3 \pi} \, \ln\left( - \dfrac{k^2}{m_{G}^2} \right) + \dfrac{5\alpha}{3\pi} + \mathcal O\left(\frac{\ln(-k^2)}{k^2} \right) \,, \nonumber\\[0.133ex] & \; k^2 \to \infty \,. \end{align} \end{subequations} These are in principle familiar formulas (see Chap.~7 of Ref.~\cite{ItZu1980}), and we identify the leading gravitational effect on vacuum polarization to be given by the gravitationally corrected mass. The conclusions of Ref.~\cite{Fr2014}, and the result~\eqref{quantcorr}, can thus be traced to an inconsistent evaluation of the vacuum polarization integral, which relies on a relativistically noncovariant formulation [see the discussion surrounding Eq.~(6) of Ref.~\cite{Fr2014}], and bears an analogy with similar problems encountered in bound-state quantum electrodynamics~\cite{PeSaSu1998}. \section{Bound--State Energies} \label{sec4} A final word on bound-state energies is in order. With the mass of the electron assuming the value $m \to m_{G}$, the vacuum polarization potential (Uehling, one loop), derived from the virtual exchange of space-like Coulomb photons ($k^2 = -\vec k^2$), is easily derived as (in units with $\hbar = c_0 = \epsilon_0 = 1$) \begin{equation} V_{\rm vp}(\vec r) = -\dfrac{4 \alpha}{15} \frac{Z \, \alpha}{m_G^2} \, \delta^{(3)}(\vec r) \,, \end{equation} where $Z$ is the nuclear charge number. However, the gravitationally corrected mass also enters the Dirac--Coulomb Hamiltonian $H = \vec\alpha \cdot \vec p + \beta \, m_G - Z\alpha/r$, where the Dirac matrices are used in the standard representation, and $r$ denotes the electron-proton distance~\cite{ItZu1980}. By consequence, after a Foldy--Wouthuysen transformation, the gravitationally corrected mass parameter $m_G$ also enters the Schr\"{o}dinger wave function, and the probability density of $S$ states with orbital angular momentum $\ell = 0$ at the origin becomes proportional to $(Z\alpha m_G)^3$. The gravitationally corrected energy shift reads as \begin{equation} \left< V_{\rm vp}(\vec r) \right> = -\dfrac{4 \alpha}{15 \pi} \frac{(Z \, \alpha)^4 \, m_{G}}{n^3} \, \delta_{\ell \,0} \,. \end{equation} The energy shift is proportional to the effective mass of the electron, which also enters the Schr\"{o}dinger spectrum $E_n = -(Z\alpha)^2 m_G/(2 n^2)$, where $n$ is the principal quantum number. [We recall that the Dirac-$\delta$ potential $\delta^{(3)}(\vec r)$ is formulated with respect to the central electrostatic potential generated by the nucleus of charge number $Z$, not the gravitational centre, while $n$ and $\ell$ denote the principal and orbital angular momentum quantum numbers of the state.] The scaling with the effective mass of the electron thus affects the vacuum polarization energy shift as much as the leading Schr\"{o}dinger term and thus does not shift atomic transitions with respect to each other. The gravitational correction to bound-state energy levels due to fluctuations of the electron position in the gravitational field of the Earth can easily be estimated as follows. Namely, the atomic electron coordinate fluctuates over a distance of a Bohr radius about the position in the gravitational field. If we denote by $\vec R = \vec r_N + \vec r$ the electro coordinate from the Earth's centre (with the Earth mass being denoted as $M_\oplus$), where $r_N$ is the proton coordinate, then the fluctuations of the electron about the gravitational centre of the atom cause an energy shift of the order of \begin{equation} -\frac{G m_e M_\oplus}{ | \vec r_N + \vec r |} + \frac{G m_e M_\oplus}{ | \vec r_N | } \sim \frac{G m_e M_\oplus \, a_0}{ \vec R^2 } = 2.9 \times 10^{-21} \, {\rm eV} \,. \end{equation} This effect influences typical atomic transitions (with transition frequencies on the order of one eV) at the level of one part in $10^{21}$. \section{Conclusions} \label{sec5} The main results of the current investigation can be summarized as follows: Both the Vachaspati transformation (see Appendix~\ref{appa} and Ref.~\cite{Va2004}) as well as the Franson time delay [see Eq.~\eqref{quantcorr} and Ref.~\cite{Fr2014}] are in disagreement with the Einstein equivalence principle (EEP, see the discussion in Sec.~\ref{sec2C}). The Franson time delay affects only photons, not fermions, is a subtle effect, and the violation of the EEP due to the Franson time delay would be at the quantum level (hence a small correction) as opposed to the Vachaspati transformation. Hence, it is warranted to establish an astrophysical bound on the magnitude of the $\chi$ parameter introduced in Eq.~\eqref{quantcorr}. This is done is Sec.~\ref{sec2A}. Furthermore, the description of fermions in deep gravitational potentials, under the assumption of a time delay $\delta c_\gamma$ for photons according to Eq.~\eqref{quantcorr}, is studied in Sec.~\ref{sec2B}. It is shown that the description of fermions in such a deep gravitational potential will require a mass term that ``runs'' with the energy and thus is more problematic than a superficial look at the ``small'' correction term~\eqref{quantcorr} would otherwise suggest. In Sec.~\ref{sec3}, we analyze the leading gravitational correction to vacuum polarization using a fully covariant formalism and find that, with on-mass-shell renormalization, the effect can be described by a mass term modification which depends on the value of the gravitational potential in the vicinity of the virtual electron-positron pair. It vanishes on shell and thus does {\em not} lead to a nonvanishing $\chi$ coefficient in the sense of Eq.~\eqref{quantcorr}. Finally, in Sec.~\ref{sec4}, we analyze conceivable shifts for atomic bound-state levels, caused by off-shell virtual photons in the vacuum-polarization loops. We find that the effect, at least within the approximations employed in Sec.~\ref{sec4}, does not shift spectral lines with respect to each other because it can be absorbed in a prefactor of the vacuum-polarization term which is also present in the leading Schr\"{o}dinger binding energy. Finally, we estimate the leading gravitational correction to atomic energy levels, which depends on the quantum numbers, in terms of fluctuations of the electron and nucleus coordinates in the gravitational field of the Earth, and come to the conclusion that the term induced by the coordinate fluctuations within the binding Coulomb potential is of relative order $10^{-21}$. \section*{Acknowledgments} The author acknowledges helpful conversations with Professor P.~J.~Mohr and thank A. Migdall for directing our attention to the phenomenological consequences of the paper by J. D. Franson~\cite{Fr2014}. This research has been supported by the National Science Foundation (Grants PHY--1068547 and PHY--1403973).
\section{Introduction}\label{intro} Social media have proved to foster aggregation of people around shared interests such as political ideas, narratives and worldviews \cite{mocanu2014collective,bessi2014science,anagnostopoulos2014viral,friggeri2014rumor}. An interesting scenario to be explored is the case of online political movements that coordinate and interact through social media \cite{mccaughey2003cyberactivism}. To which extent microblogging platforms such as Twitter or Facebook played a crucial role in protest dynamics has been a matter of debate in ~\cite{Garrett, bennett2003communicating, Myers}. Occupy Wall Street, an international movement against social and economic inequality, is a peculiar example of the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). There, the diffusion of ideas, the recruitment of people, as well as the promotion of the protest, are ascribed to online social media~\cite{Chomsky, Bryne}. Particular emphasis is given to the simplification gained in the communication and coordination paradigm of protest's activities. The reason why Twitter and Facebook appeared to be particularly suited in supporting the diffusion of political ideas and socio-economic objectives of the movement resides in their structure. Many works analyzed the topology and dynamics on the Occupy Movement's network \cite{Conover2013-twitter,flammini_digital,gargiulo2014topology,thorson2013youtube} on Twitter. However, users tend to be more active on Facebook. Indeed, the most of online activity during the Arab Spring has been done on Facebook (the total accesses to Twitter were just the 1\% of the entire population) \cite{Tufekci2012}. The {\em collective framing} -- the processes that, out of the essential features of the movement's purpose and struggle, establish its narratives, language, and imagery \cite{Garrett,benford2000framing} -- better deal with the Facebook interaction paradigm. On Facebook users can post information (videos, pictures, etc.) without particular limits and information can be liked (positive feedback), shared, or commented by other users. In \cite{Neal2011,gaby2012occupy} the diffusion of the Occupy movement on Facebook has been explored. Findings indicate that major uses for Facebook within the movement include the recruitment of people and resources to local occupations, information sharing and story telling, and across-group exchanges. Taking into account all the posts from $179$ public pages of the Occupy Movement inside the US (US Occupy pages for short) during the period September $2011$-February $2013$, we analyze users' activity on pages and posts. We find high levels of correlation for the number of users, posts, likes, comments and reshares\footnote{The two terms \textit{shares} and \textit{reshares} are interchangeable throughout the manuscript.} (which are all power law distributed) on each page, and different activity patterns for posts with different post types or shared by users from different categories. Then, we divide users in two categories, {\em habitual} and {\em occasional}, depending on their total number of likes. Furthermore, habitual users having at least $95\%$ of their liking activity on one particular page are defined as {\itshape polarized} in that page. Finally, we extract the multi-scale backbone structures for two networks, the {\itshape pages-reshares} network and the {\itshape pages-common users} network. We want to analyze geographical patterns in the information diffusion and polarized users' external activity -- i.e., the activity on all pages but the one where the user is polarized. Our findings show that the most of the activity, in terms of likes on each page, is made by occasional and not polarized users, and moreover only $21\%$ of polarized users commented at least once. However, polarized users tend to increase their probability of commenting multiple times, with respect to general users. Our analysis points out that, although the majority of posts is shared by common users, they attract little attention i.e., about $6\%$ of total likes. On the contrary, posts shared by page administrators, which represent only $27\%$ of the total, get all the remaining likes. These evidences emphasize the central role of the pages in promoting the debate and driving its direction, and at the same time reshape the idea of online debate participation. We find that online activities are not locally coordinated by geographically close pages, indeed pages linked to major US cities -- e.g., New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco -- drive the diffusion of contents online and serve as coordination points for all other pages, that perform a minor activity in the system. \section{Related Work}\label{related_works} Sociologists and political scientists explored the environment of Internet based social movements focusing on a set of common themes \cite{Garrett,bennett2003communicating,Myers,vanLaer,wray,bennett2008,gaffney2010iranelection,mccarthy,benford2000framing,myers2000media}. In the general frame of communicational and organizational issues, several relevant topics emerged, such as the aforementioned collective framing \cite{Garrett,benford2000framing} and the {\em resources mobilization}, which refers to all those processes exploited by social movements in order to arrange financial, material, and human resources required to sustain their activities in an efficient way \cite{mccarthy}. The Internet is commonly perceived as a flexible and relatively fluid media, in terms of reorganization. However, at the same time its flexibility may reduce the coherence of the movement's ideological definition. In \cite{myers2000media} three communication eras have been identified, each one dominated by a different communication medium -- i.e., print media and word of mouth, television and the Internet. It is argued that each of those communication technologies implies important differences in the network structures under which potential protestors may be influenced to act and, hence, in the resulting protest waves. In the particular case of Occupy Wall Street, many works investigated the role of Twitter in organizing and promoting the protest \cite{Conover2013-twitter,flammini_digital,gargiulo2014topology,thorson2013youtube}. The relationship between the geospatial dimensions of social movements communication networks and the organizational pressures facing such movements, was extensively investigated in \cite{Conover2013-twitter}. High levels of geospatial concentration in the attention allocation issue and a differentiation of contents from the national to the international level were found. The evolution of the communication activity and of the topics under discussion was analyzed in \cite{flammini_digital,gargiulo2014topology}. A study of the evolution of the Occupy Movement on Facebook was presented in \cite{Neal2011}. Twitter, in addition to Occupy, has also played a prominent role in several other social movements such as the Egyptian revolutionary protests of 2011~\cite{Lotan11,choudhary,gonzalez,Hassanpour2011} and the Arab Spring in general \cite{howard2011opening,khondker2011role}. The most investigated aspects concern information flows and relationships between news media and information sources \cite{Lotan11,howard2011opening}, analysis of tweets' contents \cite{choudhary}, impact of media disruption on the dispersion of the protest \cite{Hassanpour2011}, presence of social influence and complex contagion in the recruitment patterns \cite{gonzalez}. The role of social ties in movement recruitment were extensively analysed also offline \cite{mcadam1993specifying}. In \cite{Tufekci2012} evidences regarding the prominent role of Facebook with respect to Twitter are reported. A set of $1K$ interviews of people who took part in the protest was analyzed, with the interesting finding that, for about $50\%$ of the interviews, the news of the first demonstrations came from Facebook, face-to-face interaction and telephone. Moreover about $50\%$ of the interviewed declared to have access to Facebook, while it is known that less than $1\%$ had access to Twitter. \section{Data Description}\label{dataset} We collected all posts from $179$ Facebook public US pages about the Occupy Movement during the time span September $2011$-February $2013$. Data have been collected using the Facebook Graph API~\cite{API} on public accessible pages, for each of which we have a geographical reference located in the US. A total of $618K$ users is active, in terms of liking activity, on a set of $753K$ posts\footnote{ For each post we have the following data: post ID, sharing user ID, sharing time, post type -- e.g., photo, status, video or link -- number of received likes and comments, sharing page ID and object ID, that is a unique reference to the post in case of resharing.}. The total number of likes and comments on the downloaded posts are about $5.2M$ and $1.1M$, respectively. The dataset represents a complete screenshot of the Occupy Movement in the period immediately following the outbreak of the protest on September 17th, 2011 in the Zuccotti Park of New York. The dataset covers all the posts until the end of February 2013, at the time when all the major protests were no more active. After the Zuccotti occupation, in fact, an October full of similar occupational events followed, leading to an international protest movement that extended itself until the end of 2012, when the movement was principally an online collective protest. \section{Preliminaries and Definitions} In this section we introduce the basic notions and definitions that will be used throughout the paper. We refer to the set of US Occupy pages and their respective {\itshape active users} as the {\itshape Occupy System or Network}, where a user is said to be active if she liked at least one post belonging to the Occupy pages. \paragraph{Statistical Tools.} We use several figures showing PDFs, CDFs, and CCDFs of some metrics related to activity and consumption patterns. We remind that the probability density function (PDF) of a real--valued random variable is a function $f_{X}$ that describes the probability of the random variable falling within a given range of values, so that $$\mathbf{Pr}[a \leq X \leq b] = \int_{a}^{b}f_{X}(x)dx.$$ The cumulative distribution function (CDF) of a real--valued random variable $X$ is defined as $$F_{X}(x) = \mathbf{Pr}(X \leq x) = \int_{-\infty}^{x}f_{X}(u)du.$$ Similarly, the complementary cumulative distribution function (CCDF) is defined as one minus the CDF, so that $$C_{X}(x) = 1 - F_{X}(x) = \mathbf{Pr}(X > x) = \int_{x}^{\infty}f_{X}(u)du.$$ \paragraph{Classification of users activity.} We assume the following definitions for the users categories in the Occupy System. A first distinction is between {\em habitual} and {\em occasional} users: habitual users are those who liked at least $5$ posts within the Occupy System, while occasional users are those who liked less than $5$ posts. Being commonly perceived as positive feedbacks, likes are used as a determinant to identify the membership in one page. {\em Polarized} users have been identified by a thresholding technique, using again the like as a discriminant. Habitual users having $95\%$ or more of their liking activity on a particular page are said to be polarized on that page. Notice that a polarized user in the occupy scenario is a user having the most of her liking activity on a specific geolocated community. \paragraph{Bipartite networks and backbone filter.} A bipartite graph is a triple $\mathcal{G}=(A,B,E)$ where $A=\left\{ a_{i}\,|\,i=1\dots n_{A}\right\} $ and $B=\left\{ b_{j}\,|\,j=1\dots n_{B}\right\} $ are two disjoint sets of vertices, and $E\subseteq A\times B$ is the set of edges -- i.e. edges exist only between vertices of the two different sets $A$ and $B$. The bipartite graph $\mathcal{G}$ is described by the matrix $M$ defined as \[ M_{ij}=\left\{ \begin{array}{cc} 1 & if\, an\, edge\, exists\, between\, a_{i}\, and\, b_{j}\\ 0 & otherwise \end{array}\right. \] The co-occurrence matrices $C^{A}=MM^{T}$ and $C^{B}=M^{T}M$ count, respectively, the number of common neighbors between two vertices of $A$ or $B$. $C^{A}$ is the weighted adjacency matrix of the co-occurrence graph $\mathcal{C}^{A}$ with vertices on $A$. Each non-zero element of $C^{A}$ corresponds to an edge among vertices $a_{i}$ and $a_{j}$ with weight $P_{ij}^{A}$. The co-occurrence graph $\mathcal{C}^{B}$ is built in the same way from the co-occurrence matrix $C^{B}$. Let $A$ be the set of the $179$ Occupy US pages, $B_1$ the set of all posts equivalence classes' representatives (representatives posts for short)\footnote{We can consider the equivalence relation of having the same object ID; two posts are equivalent, and hence belong to the same equivalence class, if they have the same object ID.}, and $B_2$ the set of all polarized users active on $A$; the {\itshape pages-posts} bipartite network is then defined as the triple $\mathcal{G}_1=(A,B_1,E_1)$, where an edge $e_{ij}^1\in E_1$ exists if representative post $b_j^1$ is shared on page $a_i^1$, while the {\itshape pages-polarized users} bipartite network is defined as the triple $\mathcal{G}_2=(A,B_2,E_2)$, where an edge $e_{ij}^2\in E_2$ exists if polarized user $b_j^2$ is active on page $a_i^2$. For our analysis we used two networks derived as co-occurrence networks of the pages-posts and the pages-polarized users bipartite networks. Considering the co-occurrence matrices $C^{A}_1$ and $C^{A}_2$ we get two co-occurrence networks on the vertex set $A$: the {\itshape pages-reshares} ($\mathcal{C}^{A}_1$) and the {\itshape pages-common users} ($\mathcal{C}^{A}_2$) networks. In $\mathcal{C}^{A}_1$ an edge between two pages exists if at least one representative post is shared on both pages, while in $\mathcal{C}^{A}_1$ there is a link between two pages if they share at least one user who is polarized in either page. In the last section we show results about the {\itshape Backbone Extraction} presented in ~\cite{Backbone}. Such a method apply a thresholding filter based on the local identification of the statistically relevant weight heterogeneities. This kind of approach is able to filter out the backbone of dominant connections in weighted networks with strong disorder, preserving the structural properties and hierarchies at all scales. The Backbone structure has been extracted for the two aforementioned co-occurrence real networks. The discrimination of the right trade-off between the level of network reduction and the amount of relevant information preserved in the new representation involve additional issues. In many cases, the probability distribution $P(x)$ that any given link is carrying a weight $x$ is broadly distributed, spanning several orders of magnitude. Such a problem is addressed by using the aforementioned method presented in \cite{Backbone}. \section{Results and Discussion} \subsection{Activity on Pages} Our analysis targets information consumption patterns of the US Occupy Movement. The focus is on the relationship between geographic distance and the spreading of information across pages. In addition we characterize the role of polarized users promoting and bridging inter-page connections. As a first step we look at the users' activity on the different city related pages. Figure \ref{histogram_post_type} reports the fractions of number of posts, likes, and comments for the four kind of posts: status, photo, link, and video. The commenting activity is correlated to the number of posts, while more than a half of the likes is concentrated on photos. Statuses, that account for almost two fifths of the total number of posts, get less than a fifth of the total number of likes. Such a disproportion in the liking activity might be due to the users limited attention \cite{dukas2001limited,weng2012competition,bessi2014economy} that preferentially tend to select easy to handle post types. \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[scale=0.40]{1.pdf} \caption{\textbf{Fractions of number of posts and activity on posts} (likes and comments) divided by post types. The levels of commenting activities are proportional to those of the number of posts for each different post type. Photos get most part of the likes, although they represent less than a fifth of the total number of posts. For other post types the fraction of likes is one half of the number of posts.}\label{histogram_post_type} \end{figure} Figure \ref{activity_pages} shows the empirical complementary cumulative distribution function (CCDF) of the number of users, posts, likes, comments, and reshares for all pages. All the five distributions are heavy-tailed. \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[scale=0.40]{2.pdf} \caption{\textbf{Empirical CCDF for number of users, posts, likes, comments, and shares on pages.} Taking all the users (purple), posts (light blue), likes (red), comments (sky blue), and shares (pink) on each page we plotted the CCDF of the five quantities and we got a power law distribution for all the measures, with similar shapes and reasonable scale differences.}\label{activity_pages} \end{figure} To better visualize the geographical distribution of the Occupy Movement, activity patterns are shown on the US map (Figure \ref{maps}). Notice that there exists a high correlation between all pairs of measures -- i.e., users, posts, likes, comments, and shares. \begin{figure*} \centering \includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{3.pdf} \caption{\textbf{Geospatial distributions of activities.} The number of users (purple), posts (light blue), likes (red), and comments (sky blue) is plotted in the form of dots on the US map. The bigger the dot the higher the number of elements in the corresponding category (on the page corresponding to the geographical spot on the map). We can see how the size of the dots, across the different measures, is comparable for all the geographical points. This is a first empirical evidence of the high correlation among the four considered measures.} \label{maps} \end{figure*} \begin{figure*} \centering \includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{4.pdf} \caption{\textbf{Resharing patterns.} Results similar to the ones in Figure \ref{maps} hold for the resharing activity. We computed the number of reshares on a subset representing about the $14\%$ of all posts.} \label{reshares} \end{figure*} In Figure \ref{reshares} similar results to those depicted in Figure \ref{maps} hold for resharing patterns. \footnote{In order to identify a reshare we need a reference to the previous posts through an Object ID. This is a fundamental information for the reconstruction of resharing patterns, although we had no information about the original posts and no references to the directly reshared posts. } Pearson correlation coefficient shows high level of correlation between all considered measures -- i.e., number of users, posts, likes, comments and shares -- on the different pages, as shown in Table \ref{correlation_tab}. Summarizing, the activity of the users on the Occupy pages is comparable across pages; number of users, posts, likes, comments and shares for each page are highly correlated. \begin{table}[ht] \centering \begin{tabular}{l| c c c c c} \hline & Users & Posts & Likes & Comments & Shares \\ [0.5ex] \hline Users & 1 & 0.974 & 0.997 & 0.991 & 0.739 \\ Posts & 0.974 & 1 & 0.963 & 0.987 & 0.840 \\ Likes & 0.997 & 0.963 & 1 & 0.987 & 0.714 \\ Comments & 0.991 & 0.987 & 0.987 & 1 & 0.769 \\ Shares & 0.739 & 0.840 & 0.714 & 0.769 & 1 \\ [1ex] \hline \end{tabular} \caption{\textbf{Correlations between the number of users, posts, likes, comments, and shares.} Pearson correlation for number of users, posts, likes, comments, and shares is high for all different combinations. There are high correlation values among the five considered measures.}\label{correlation_tab} \end{table} \subsection{Activity on Posts} The CCDF of the number of likes and comments for each post shows power law distributions (Figure \ref{post_activity1}). \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[scale=0.40]{5.pdf} \caption{\textbf{Empirical CCDF for likes and comments on posts.} The CCDF of the number of likes (red) and comments (sky blue) on the totality of posts, shows power law distributions for the two measures, with a significant difference in the scale.}\label{post_activity1} \end{figure} Regardless of the page, information can be shared by its administrators, and hence appears as shared by the page itself, or by common users. Posts shared by page administrators -- i.e. admin posts -- are $27\%$ of the total (202K) against the $73\%$ (551K) from common users -- i.e., not admin posts -- and, on a page scale, there is a weak correlation $(0.37)$ between the number of posts made by admin and not admin users (Figure \ref{admin2}). \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[scale=0.40]{6.pdf} \caption{\textbf{Posts by admin and not admin.} On the x-axis there are the US Occupy pages and on the y-axis the corresponding number of posts shared by the page administrators (blue) and by common users (green). On the total of posts, $27\%$ is made by page administrators and $73\%$ by common users. However there is low correlation $(0.37)$ between the two sharing patterns.}\label{admin2} \end{figure} The number of likes to a post from the two categories is power law distributed with a quantitative difference: while the majority of posts is in the not admin category, they get less than $6\%$ of total likes, as shown in Figure \ref{admin1}. Number of posts by each category and number of likes reached are not proportional. This disproportion is due to the fact that, on Facebook public pages, posts by common users become soon hidden, while those from pages admin get higher visibility. \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[scale=0.40]{7.pdf} \caption{\textbf{Likes activity on posts by admin, not admin, and all users.} The CCDF for the number of likes reached by all users posts (red), admin posts (blue), and not admin posts (green) shows a significantly bigger probability of high number of likes for the admin posts rather than not admin posts. Considering that just about one third of all the posts is shared by page administrators, we got an evident disproportion, that may be explained by the higher visibility reserved to admin posts.}\label{admin1} \end{figure} Activity on posts is power law distributed. An interesting quantitative difference between posts shared by page administrators and common users emerges. \subsection{Users Activity} Our dataset includes 618K active users. A user is considered to be active if she liked at least one post. We identified two main users categories: {\itshape occasional} -- i.e., users that made less than $5$ total likes -- and {\itshape habitual} -- i.e., users that made at least $5$ total likes. Such a preliminary distinction, coherently with the heavy-tailed distributions of the users activities, counts $183K$ habitual users (about $30\%$ of the total). As a further step we define {\itshape polarized} users -- i.e., a habitual user is polarized on a given page if she has at least $95\%$ of her likes on that page. Such a thresholding classification detects about $128K$ polarized users ($21\%$ of the total), that produced $3.2M$ likes and $198K$ comments -- i.e., respectively the $62\%$ and $15\%$ of the overall likes and comments. \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[scale=0.40]{8.pdf} \caption{\textbf{CCDF of different users' categories on all pages.} The CCDF of the number of active users for each categories, computed for every single page, shows how the majority of the liking activity is made by occasional (red) and not polarized (purple) users. Remember that a user is active on a page if she liked at least one post from that page. However the activity of polarized users (blue) is still significant, while users polarized on other pages (violet) represent a marginal portion of the total likes.}\label{categories} \end{figure} Figure \ref{categories} shows the CCDF of the number of users from all different categories on a given page -- i.e., occasional, polarized, not polarized, and polarized on a different page --, they all show a power law decay. Moreover, the size of polarized communities, for each page, is shown on the US map in Figure \ref{map_polarized}. \begin{figure*} \centering \includegraphics[width=0.70\textwidth]{9.pdf} \caption{\textbf{Geospatial distributions of the polarized users on pages.} Representation of polarized users' communities for all pages: the size of the dots is proportional to the size of the communities and emphasizes the correlation between the number of polarized users and the number of users, posts, likes, comments, and reshares for each page (see also Figure \ref{maps} and \ref{reshares}). }\label{map_polarized} \end{figure*} Regarding the activity of polarized users we observe a power law distribution for both number of likes and comments (Figure \ref{polarized_activity}). Notice that only about $21\%$ of polarized users commented at least once. \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{10.pdf} \caption{\textbf{Activity patterns for polarized users.} The CCDF of liking (red) and commenting (sky blue) activity for polarized users shows again power law distributions. Comparing it with Figure \ref{post_activity1}, where the number of likes and comments are computed on all users, we can notice that the quantitative difference between red and sky blue curves is smaller and that, when a level of about $1000$ likes (comments) is reached, the trend starts to revert leading to a higher probability of commenting rather than liking (for polarized users).}\label{polarized_activity} \end{figure} The Pearson correlation coefficient computed on the number of polarized users, total users, posts, likes, comments, and shares, provides high correlations levels for all the combinations of measures, as shown in Table \ref{pol_tab}. \begin{table} \centering {\tiny{ \begin{tabular}{l| c c c c c c} \hline & Polarized & Users & Posts & Likes & Comments & Shares \\ [0.5ex] \hline Polarized& 1 & 0.993 & 0.948 & 0.998 & 0.978 & 0.675 \\ Users & 0.993 & 1 & 0.974 & 0.997 & 0.991 & 0.739 \\ Posts & 0.948 & 0.974 & 1 & 0.963 & 0.987 & 0.840 \\ Likes & 0.998 & 0.997 & 0.963 & 1 & 0.987 & 0.714 \\ Comments & 0.978 & 0.991 & 0.987 & 0.987 & 1 & 0.769 \\ Shares & 0.675 & 0.739 & 0.840 & 0.714 & 0.769 & 1 \\ \hline \end{tabular} }} \caption{\textbf{Correlations among number of polarized users, total users, posts, likes, comments, and reshares.} Pearson correlation coefficient measures high levels of correlation within the considered elements -- i.e. number of total users, polarized users, posts, likes, comments, and reshares.}\label{pol_tab} \end{table} Our findings, coherently with the heavy-tailed distributions of users activities, show a dominant role of occasional and not polarized users in the information consumption and a differentiation of the probability of liking and commenting for polarized users depending on their level of activity. \subsection{Backbone of Interaction Patterns} We want to understand if the geographical affiliation of pages or polarized users in the Occupy movement influence the diffusion of information. Hence, we have applied a {\itshape Backbone Extraction Algorithm}~\cite{Backbone} to two different networks, as mentioned before. Figure \ref{backbone1} shows on the US map the results for the backbone extraction applied to the pages-reshares network, for two different levels of significance $\alpha=\{0.01,\,0.05\}$. These results provide a clear image of the absence of geographical correlation in the resharing patterns. Moreover, pages corresponding to the major US cities\footnote{For both levels of significance, the following cities emerge as information spreading leaders: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Portland, Phoenix and Denver.} emerge as leaders in the information spreading. Figure \ref{backbone2} illustrates the multi-scale backbone structure for the pages-common users network, for the two levels of significance $\alpha=\{0.01,\,0.05\}$. The links correspond to the activity of users polarized on one page inside another page. Again, no geographic correlation is present, and five main cities showing an exchange of polarized users' activity may be identified: New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Portland and San Francisco. \begin{figure} \centering \subfigure[ \textbf{$\alpha =0.01$}] {\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{11a.pdf}} \hspace{1mm} \subfigure[\textbf{$\alpha =0.05$}] {\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{11b.pdf}} \caption{\textbf{Backbone structure for the pages-reshares network}, for $\alpha=\{0.01,\,0.05\}$. The Backbone Extraction Algorithm, applied to the pages-reshares network, preserves $26.58\%$ of the total edge weight for $\alpha=0.01$ and $42.7\%$ for $\alpha=0.05$. We can notice the absence of geographical correlation in the information spreading and the emergence of US major cities -- New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Portland, Phoenix and Denver -- as information diffusion leaders.}\label{backbone1} \end{figure} \begin{figure} \centering \subfigure[ \textbf{$\alpha =0.01$}] {\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{12a.pdf}} \subfigure[\textbf{$\alpha =0.05$}] {\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{12b.pdf}} \caption{\textbf{Backbone structure for the pages-common users network}, for $\alpha=\{0.01,\,0.05\}$. The Backbone Extraction Algorithm, applied to the pages-common users network, preserves $64.95\%$ of the total edge weight for $\alpha=0.01$ and $70.65\%$ for $\alpha=0.05$. We can notice the absence of geographical correlation in the activity of polarized users across pages and the emergence of US major cities -- New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Portland and San Francisco -- as polarized users' activity exchanger.}\label{backbone2} \end{figure} Hubs corresponding the US major cities drive the overall activity of the movement, the diffusion of contents online and serve as coordination points for all other pages. \section{Conclusion} In this paper we explore the case of online political movements, that coordinate and interact through social media even more often with the advent of the World Wide Web \cite{mccaughey2003cyberactivism}. Our focus is to characterize information consumption patterns by identifying different actors according to their interaction patterns with pages. As the Occupy movement online presents a geographical diversification of groups we address geographical patterns behind information diffusion. Taking into account all the posts from $179$ US public Facebook pages about the Occupy Movement during the time span September $2011$-February $2013$, we analyze users activity on pages and posts. We find high levels of correlation for the number of users, posts, likes, comments, and reshares on each page (that are all power law distributed) and different activity patterns for posts with different post types or shared by users from different categories. Then we divide the users in two categories, habitual and occasional, according to the total number of likes they made, and we further label habitual users with at least $95\%$ of their liking activity on one particular page as polarized in that page. We find that the number of polarized users for each page is positively correlated with all the measures mentioned above and that the most of the liking activity is performed by occasional or not polarized users. Moreover, we extract the multi-scale backbone for two networks, the pages-reshares network and the pages-common users network, in order to analyze geographical patterns in the information diffusion and polarized users activity. Our analysis reveals that activities online are not locally coordinated by geographically close pages. Indeed, pages linked to major US cities -- e.g., New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco -- drive the diffusion of contents online and serve as coordination points for all other pages, which perform a minor activity in the system. \section{Acknowledgments} Funding for this work was provided by EU FET project MULTIPLEX nr. 317532 and SIMPOL nr. 610704. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. \bibliographystyle{unsrt}
\section{Introduction} % The emergence of stationary behaviour in \emph{closed} quantum many-body systems is perhaps one of the most striking features of non-equilibrium dynamics. Rather generally subsystems behave as they were in a ``bath'' and correlation functions relax to stationary values that can be described in a statistical fashion. The maturation and refinement of experimental techniques have led to the design of experiments ever more effective in the extraction of information on the long time dynamics \cite{gm-02, kww-06, Getal, Tetal-12, chetal-12, schetal-12, Metal-13, Fateal-13, FSetal-13, Metal-14}. A sensitive communication between theory and experiment has then made it possible to identify the most interesting aspects of the non-equilibrium time evolution in quantum many-body systems\cite{QQrev}. In particular, it was realised that integrable models behave differently from generic ones. The stationary properties are indeed affected by the local conservation laws, which in integrable models are infinite in number. This led to the concept of generalised Gibbs ensemble (GGE) \cite{{rigol}, {rigol2}, {C-06}, {IC-09}, {CE-13}, {C-08}, {BS-08}, {FE:RDM}, {C-10}, {CEF}, {EK}, {rig2}, {CK}, {CIC}, {Gu}, {CSC-13}, {HSWR-13}, {andrei}, {DBZ-12}, {NI-13}, {KCC-14}, {RS-14}, {SC:cluster}, {FM-10}, {P-13}, {FE-12}, {M-13}, {KSCCI-13}, {FCEC-14}, {NWBC-14}, {QAXXZ-14}, {PMWKZT-14}, {A:bound}, {CC:2},FCG:FDT, EEF:dyn,P14:qb,EMP15}, which is often defined as the mixed state with maximal entropy under the constraints of the local conservation laws. Non-integrable models with no other local conservation laws except for the Hamiltonian itself are supposed to ``thermalise'' at some effective temperature \cite{deu-91, sred-94, rignat-08, bir-10, ban-11, bran-12, sir-14}, whereas integrable models retain infinite information about the initial state. In the same way as relaxation and thermalisation were associated with the late time behaviour in integrable and non-integrable models, pre-thermalisation \cite{Getal, QHubbard, metaOpt, Kollar, IsingNI, E:preT} has been recognised as a typical feature of generic models close to integrable points. Essentially, at intermediate times the non-purely-elastic processes typical of non-integrable models are almost absent and the system behaves as if it were integrable. Despite the strenuous efforts to understand the process of thermalisation in the presence of pre-thermalisation plateaux, the picture is still far from being clear and, so far, only the earliest plateau has found satisfactory descriptions \cite{Kollar, E:preT}. This state of affairs boosted the research into conserved and quasi-conserved operators in non-integrable models \cite{KAM,F:charge}, on the one hand, and put physicists' ingenuity to the test to propose sufficiently simple models to study pre-thermalisation \cite{IsingNI, E:preT}, on the other. One interesting proposal \cite{IsingNI} was to break the integrability of the transverse field Ising chain (TFIC) by adding a highly nonlocal interaction proportional to the global magnetisation squared per unit length. Even though the model possesses infinite local conservation laws (odd under reflection symmetry) \cite{F:pair, FE:RDM}, it was argued to behave like a non-integrable model in the sector of reflection symmetric states. In particular, \cite{IsingNI} developed a perturbation theory that allows one to follow the time evolution of the ground state of a TFIC for sufficiently long times to see a pre-thermalisation plateau. In fact, the situation seems to be more complicated. Some techniques that will be developed in this paper allow us to analytically study the dynamics of a class of nonlocal Hamiltonians that includes the model introduced in \cite{IsingNI}. The method we use is exact in the thermodynamic limit (in which the large-system limit is taken first): we prove some conjectures of \cite{IsingNI}, but we find that the time evolution does not result in thermalisation. Therefore, in the thermodynamic limit, models like the one of \cite{IsingNI} can not be naively related to the physics underlying pre-thermalisation. Nevertheless, we show that similar types of nonlocal Hamiltonians can emerge at intermediate times as effective descriptions of the dynamics generated by local Hamiltonians. Thus, instead of spoiling the interest in such models, our findings give new motivations for their study. Our main goal is to investigate the time evolution of local observables under Hamiltonians with local interactions in the particular time windows where such effective descriptions can be used. There are indeed interesting cases where the expectation values start moving significantly from a plateau that could have been approximately described by the stationary state of the unperturbed model. We show that the crossover is driven by the presence of infinitely many local conservation laws that do not commute with one another, which will be referred to as \emph{non-abelian integrability}. We therefore identify two necessary requirements for a nontrivial time evolution. First, the unperturbed model must have a non-abelian set of local conservation laws. Second, the perturbation must break non-abelian integrability. Since the crossover appears also in the presence of perturbations preserving integrability, we call it ``pre-relaxation'' and the limit ``pre-relaxation limit''. The pre-relaxation limit has been already considered in \cite{F:super}, where a typical crossover behaviour between two plateaux has been identified in noninteracting models like the XY quantum spin chain. Ref. \cite{F:super} also obtained similar results for a particular quench in an interacting model (XXZ spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ chain). However, despite an effective description was proposed that is supposed to capture the relaxation process for quite general interactions, the idea was tested only on simple cases in which the dynamics is essentially noninteracting. In this paper we start filling this gap by investigating the pre-relaxation behaviour triggered off by more general (interacting) perturbations. This is a highly non trivial generalisation. The first universal picture of the time evolution of correlation functions after a quantum quench was delineated in conformal field theories~\cite{CC, CC:2}, but most of the analytic results have been in fact obtained in models that can be mapped to free fermions or bosons~\cite{CEF,C-06,CSC-13,KCC-14,RS-14,F:super,SC:cluster,FM-10, EEF:dyn,BKC:exc,MCKC-14,RS:long}. For the serious complications introduced by the interactions, there are far less examples~\cite{B:sG, NC-14, D-14} in which the time evolution of some nontrivial observable has been worked out in interacting models. In the pre-relaxation limit some obstacles can be overcome. In particular we show that, at the leading order in the perturbation strength, the dynamics generated by (local) weakly interacting Hamiltonians are \emph{equivalent} to those generated by time-dependent (quasi-)local (mean-field) Hamiltonians, which can be solved in a self-consistent way. Differently from the common situations, the mean-field mapping presented here is not an uncontrolled approximation, but arises naturally in the timescale investigated under few reasonable assumptions. The possibility to write a compact system of nonlinear differential equations for the time evolution of local observables can therefore be used to investigate the essential aspects of the pre-relaxation limit even analytically. \subsection{Organisation of the paper}% The paper is organised as follows. \begin{itemize} \item[-] \Sref{s:summary} is a summary of our main results. \item[-] In \Sref{s:pre-rel} we propose an effective description of the dynamics within a time window in which perturbations to a non-abelian integrable model become relevant. \item[-] \Sref{s:int} is devoted to identify the class of effective Hamiltonians that emerge in the pre-relaxation limit. We show that they can be written as polynomials of the local conservation laws of the unperturbed model (with the correct scaling factors). \item[-] In \Sref{s:mf} we introduce mean-field Hamiltonians which, in the thermodynamic limit, generate \emph{exactly} the same dynamics of the effective Hamiltonians. \item[-] The formalism is explicitly applied to the XYZ spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ chain in \Sref{s:pre-relI}, where pre-relaxation is investigated also in the presence of interactions that break integrability. \item[-] \Sref{s:Ising} provides a detailed analysis of the model considered in \cite{IsingNI}. We examine its relaxation properties and rule out thermalisation (in the thermodynamic limit). Besides its intrinsic interest, the model will be useful to understand the emergence of oscillatory behaviour observed in the pre-relaxation limit of the XYZ model. \item[-] \Sref{s:conclusions} contains our conclusions. \item[-] Several appendices complement the main text with the proofs of the theorems and additional details. \end{itemize} \section{Summary of the results}\label{s:summary}% We consider the time evolution of some initial state $\ket{\Psi_0}$ with cluster decomposition properties\footnote{ We say that the state $\ket{\Psi_0}$ has cluster decomposition properties if $$ \fl\qquad\lim_{\min\limits_{i\neq j}|x_i-x_j|\rightarrow\infty}\Bigl(\braket{\mathcal O_1(x_1)\mathcal O_2(x_2)\cdots \mathcal O_n(x_n)}-\braket{\mathcal O_1(x_1)}\braket{\mathcal O_2(x_2)}\cdots \braket{\mathcal O_n(x_n)}\Bigr)=0 $$ where the operators $\mathcal O_{i}(x_i)$ are local (act trivially far away from the site $x_i$) and the expectation values are taken with respect to $\ket{\Psi_0}$.} under translation invariant Hamiltonians of the form \begin{equation}\label{eq:H} H=H_0+g V\, , \end{equation} where $V$ is a global perturbation and $g$ is a small coupling constant. We focus on perturbations $V$ that break some symmetries of $H_0$ in such a way that the limit of infinite time of the expectation value of a local observable $\mathcal O$ does not commute with the limit of infinitesimal $g$ \begin{equation}\label{eq:pre-relax} \fl \qquad \qquad \lim_{g\rightarrow0}\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\braket{\Psi_0|e^{i(H_0+g V)t}\mathcal O e^{-i(H_0+g V)t}|\Psi_0}\neq \lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\braket{\Psi_0|e^{i H_0t}\mathcal O e^{-i H_0 t}|\Psi_0}\, . \end{equation} This is the typical situation in which local degrees of freedom experience a pre-thermalisation/pre-relaxation behaviour. Indeed, at not too large times the effect of the perturbation is negligible and the expectation value has time to settle at the stationary value of the unperturbed Hamiltonian. On the other hand, at later times the perturbation can not be ignored anymore and the expectation value varies with a typical timescale that depends on the perturbation strength. Importantly, the amplitude of the variation is $\mathcal O(g^0)$, therefore the pre-relaxation behaviour can be understood in the limit of infinitesimal $g$. In principle, there could be many pre-relaxation plateaux, depending on how the time $t$ scales with the small parameter $g$. Here we focus on the limit $g\ll1$ and large time in such a way that $T=gt\sim O(g^0)$. \Fref{f:scheme} summarises the various steps of the formalism that will be developed in the next three sections to investigate the pre-relaxation limit. The analysis of explicit examples will be instead carried out in the last two sections. \begin{figure}[t] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{picture.pdf} \end{center}\caption{Scheme of the formalism employed to investigate a pre-relaxation limit in models described by Hamiltonian $H_0$ perturbed by some interacting term $g V$. In dark yellow, the section where the particular step is developed. }\label{f:scheme} \end{figure} We now present a comprehensive summary of the main results. \begin{itemize} \item {}[\Sref{s:pre-rel} and \Sref{s:int}] Under some assumptions, the pre-relaxation limit of weakly interacting local Hamiltonians can be described by effective nonlocal Hamiltonians of the form \begin{equation}\label{eq:opform0} \bar H=\frac{1}{L^{n_1-1}}Q^{(1)}_1 \dots Q^{(1)}_{n_1}+\dots +\frac{1}{L^{n_m-1}}Q^{(m)}_1 \dots Q^{(m)}_{n_m}\, , \end{equation} where $Q_j^{(\ell)}$ are \mbox{(quasi-)local} conservation laws\footnote{It is customary to call `local' a (translation invariant) conservation law with local density.} of the (integrable) unperturbed model. In order to be a nontrivial limit, $Q_j^{(\ell)}$ should not commute with one another. \item {}[Section \ref{s:mf} and Appendix \ref{a:MF}] In the thermodynamic limit, the time evolution of a state with cluster decomposition properties under Hamiltonians of the form \eref{eq:opform0} is completely equivalent to the time evolution under the time-dependent mean-field Hamiltonian \begin{equation}\label{eq:VMF} \bar H_{\rm MF}^{\Psi_0}(gt)=\sum_{i=1}^m\sum_{j=1}^{n_i} c^{(i)}_{j}(gt;\Psi_0)Q^{(i)}_{j}\, , \end{equation} where the coefficients $c^{(i)}_{j}(gt;\Psi_0)$ are obtained self-consistently as follows: \begin{equation} c^{(i)}_{j}(gt;\Psi_0)=\prod_{n\neq j}\mathrm{Tr}\Bigl[\rho_{\rm GGE}\bar U_{\rm MF}^{\dag}(gt;\Psi_0) \frac{Q_{n}^{(i)}}{L}\bar U_{\rm MF}(gt;\Psi_0)\Bigr]\, . \end{equation} Here $\rho_{\rm GGE}$ is the generalised Gibbs ensemble that emerges in the time evolution under the unperturbed Hamiltonian and $\bar U_{\rm MF}(gt;\Psi_0)$ is the time evolution operator of $\bar H_{\rm MF}^{\Psi_0}(gt)$ \begin{equation} \bar U_{\rm MF}(gt;\Psi_0)={\rm T} \exp\Bigl(-i\int_0^{gt}\mathrm d\tau \bar H_{\rm MF}^{\Psi_0}(\tau)\Bigr)\, ; \end{equation} $\rm T$ is the time-ordering operator, which formally orders operators depending on $\tau$ in such a way that those on the left are associated with larger (or equivalent) values of $\tau$. Despite mean-field approximations being extremely common also in the field of non-equilibrium physics \cite{GC-11,SC-10}, in the thermodynamic limit the mean-field mapping presented here is actually exact under a mild assumption. \item {}[Section \ref{s:pre-relI}] We consider Slater determinant initial states evolving under \begin{equation} \fl H=J \sum_\ell\Bigl(\frac{1+\gamma}{4}\sigma_{\ell}^x\sigma_{\ell+1}^x+\frac{1-\gamma}{4}\sigma_{\ell}^y\sigma_{\ell+1}^y+\frac{g}{4}\sigma_{\ell}^z\sigma_{\ell+1}^z+\frac{g U }{4}\sigma_{\ell}^z\sigma_{\ell+2}^z\Bigr)+\frac{gh}{2}\sum_\ell\sigma_\ell^z \end{equation} in the the pre-relaxation limit $g t\sim O(g^0)$ with $g\ll 1$. We identify three different behaviours: \begin{itemize} \item[-] Emergence of a \emph{second plateau} that can be described by a GGE constructed with the local conservation laws of the unperturbed model. The information about the initial state is \emph{not} encoded in a finite number of parameters because the effective Hamiltonian commutes with the unperturbed Hamiltonian and with infinitely many other conservation laws in involution. If broken, one-site shift invariance is generally not restored. \item[-] \emph{Oscillatory behaviour}: the expectation values of local observables keep oscillating with frequency proportional to $g$. Nevertheless, they can be described by a time-dependent GGE (that is not one-site shift invariant). \item[-] In the pre-relaxation limit the expectation values are \emph{independent of time}. This happens whenever the initial state is one-site shift invariant, or, more generally, when it is an excited state of $\bar H_{\rm MF}^{\Psi_0}(0)$ \eref{eq:VMF} (notice that the very definition of $\bar H_{\rm MF}^{\Psi_0}$ depends on the state, so there are implicit self-consistent conditions to be satisfied). In the latter case, one-site shift invariance is generally broken. \end{itemize} We stress that, rather unexpectedly, a genuine one-site shift invariant interaction is not always sufficient to induce the restoration of one-site shift invariance. This is an indication that non-abelian integrability can survive interacting perturbations (at least at the lowest orders of perturbation theory). We will report explicit examples of the aforementioned behaviours. \item {}[Section \ref{s:Ising}] The equivalence with the mean-field description does not rely on the fact that the operators $Q_j^{(\ell)}$ of \eref{eq:opform0} commute with the unperturbed Hamiltonian; relaxing such hypothesis allows us to construct more general models. Ref.~\cite{IsingNI} has recently proposed the model with Hamiltonian \begin{equation}\label{eq:TFICNIS} H(\texttt{g},\lambda)=-\sum_\ell^L(\sigma_\ell^x\sigma_{\ell+1}^x+\texttt{g}\sigma_\ell^z)+\frac{\lambda}{L}\left(\sum_\ell^L\sigma_\ell^z-\overline{\sum_\ell^L\sigma_\ell^z}\right)^2 \end{equation} as a convenient framework for studying pre-thermalisation/thermalisation issues. Here $\overline{\phantom{(}\!\!\!\cdots\phantom{)}\!\!\!}$ denotes the time average with respect to $H(\texttt{g},0)$. In the thermodynamic limit $L\rightarrow\infty$, we show that the time evolution does not result in thermalisation. The apparent conflict between our results and \cite{IsingNI} can be traced back to the different order of limits. We indeed investigate the expectation values of local observables in the limit\footnote{As a matter of fact, using the perturbative results of \cite{IsingNI}, for which the lifetime of the Ising quasiparticles that diagonalise $H_f$ \eref{eq:Hf} scales as $L^{-1}$, it is reasonable to expect that our results hold true even in the limit $J t\sim L^\alpha$ with $\alpha<1$ and $L\rightarrow\infty$.} \begin{equation}\label{eq:limit} (\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty})\lim_{L\rightarrow\infty}\braket{\Psi_0|e^{iH(\tilde g,\lambda) t}\mathcal Oe^{-iH(\tilde g,\lambda) t}|\Psi_0}\, , \end{equation} while, for what concerns the stationary properties, \cite{IsingNI} considered the time average in finite systems \begin{equation} \lim_{T\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{T}\int_0^T\mathrm d t \braket{\Psi_0|e^{iH(\tilde g,\lambda) t}\mathcal Oe^{-iH(\tilde g,\lambda) t}|\Psi_0}\, . \end{equation} We find that the stationary behaviour of local observables in the limit \eref{eq:limit} is not characterised by a finite number of parameters. More generally, we argue that thermal-like behaviour can be excluded when every linear combination of the operators $Q_j^{(\ell)}$ is the Hamiltonian of an integrable model. \begin{figure}[tbp] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{dephasing.pdf} \end{center}\caption{Quench dephasing diagram of the model \eref{eq:TFICNI1} in the limit of small quench with energy close to the ground state one. In the dark region there is persistent oscillatory behaviour at any time after the quench. }\label{f:diagram} \end{figure} \item {}[Section \ref{s:Ising}] For Hamiltonians like \eref{eq:TFICNI1} one can generally identify `critical regions' for which the late time dynamics is unstable under a small change of the parameters: an infinitesimal variation can lead both to relaxation and to persistent oscillatory behaviour (see \emph{e.g.} \cite{GC-11} for similar discussions in quantum field theories). In addition, the variance of the expectation value of some local operator in an arbitrarily large time window \begin{equation}\label{eq:variance} \Delta\mathcal O=\lim_{T\rightarrow\infty }\Bigl(\frac{1}{T}\int_T^{2T}\mathrm d t \braket{\mathcal O(t)}^2-\Bigl(\frac{1}{T}\int_T^{2T}\mathrm d t \braket{\mathcal O(t)}\Bigr)^2\Bigr)^{1/2} \end{equation} behaves like an `order parameter' for the transition, indeed it is not analytic at the boundaries of the relaxation region and vanishes inside. The crossover between relaxation and persistent oscillations can be illustrated by means of diagrams that depict the relaxation properties as a function of the Hamiltonian parameters; in particular here we focus on the limit of small quench (see also \cite{CEF} for some clarifications about the meaning of `small quench'). To highlight the close connection with the dephasing mechanisms \cite{BS-08} that allow local relaxation we call the diagrams `quench dephasing diagrams'\footnote{ The terminology has not been yet standardised and in the scientific literature similar diagrams were sometimes called `dynamical phase diagrams' (see \emph{e.g.} \cite{SB:conn}) but also `quench phase diagrams' (see \emph{e.g.} \cite{QPD})}. We point out that restricting ourselves to small quenches makes it easier to interpret the results in terms of low lying excitations. We investigated the quench dephasing diagram of a simplified version of \eref{eq:TFICNIS}, \emph{i.e.} \begin{equation}\label{eq:TFICNI1} H(\tilde g,\lambda)=-\sum_\ell^L(\sigma_\ell^x\sigma_{\ell+1}^x+\tilde g\sigma_\ell^z)+\frac{\lambda}{L}\Bigl(\sum_\ell^L\sigma_\ell^z\Bigr)^2\, , \end{equation} in the limit in which the initial state is almost the ground state of the Hamiltonian. In Figure~\ref{f:diagram} we can identify a `critical' piecewise smooth curve at the boundaries of the relaxation region (the bright area). Generally, as we move towards the critical lines from the inside of the regions with persistent oscillations, the variance \eref{eq:variance} of the transverse magnetisation approaches zero linearly with the distance in the $(\tilde g,\lambda)$ parameter space (\emph{cf.} \fref{f:relax}). Close to the Ising critical point ($\tilde g=1$ and $\lambda=0$) the region of persistent oscillatory behaviour degenerates into a line ending at the critical point. Finally we show that persistent oscillatory behaviour can be related to the emergence of localised excitations. \end{itemize} \section{Pre-relaxation limit}\label{s:pre-rel}% The time evolution operator for the Hamiltonian \eref{eq:H} can be formally written as follows \begin{equation}\label{eq:teo} e^{-i H t}=U_I(T)e^{-i H_0 t}\, , \end{equation} where $T=gt$, \begin{equation} U_I(T)=\mathrm {T}^\dag\exp\Bigl(-i \int_0^T\mathrm d \tau e^{-i \frac{H_0}{g}\tau} V e^{i \frac{H_0}{g}\tau} \Bigr)\, , \end{equation} and $\mathrm {T}^\dag$ is the anti-time-ordering operator. $U_I(T)$ can be interpreted as the evolution backwards in time under the time-dependent effective Hamiltonian \begin{equation} V(\tau)=e^{-i \frac{H_0}{g}\tau} V e^{i \frac{H_0}{g}\tau}\, . \end{equation} In the pre-relaxation limit, $\tau$ is finite while $g$ is infinitesimal; it is therefore convenient to isolate the stationary (\emph{i.e.} diagonal) contributions from $V(\tau)$ \begin{equation} V(\tau)=\bar V+\delta V(\tau)\, , \end{equation} where $\bar V$ can be formally written as follows \begin{equation}\label{eq:Vbar} \bar V=\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{t}\int_0^t\mathrm d\tau V(\tau)\, . \end{equation} Le us rewrite $\delta V(\tau)$ in terms of its Fourier transform $\delta \tilde V(\varepsilon)$ \begin{equation} \delta V(\tau)=\int_{-\infty}^\infty\mathrm d \varepsilon\ e^{i\frac{\varepsilon\tau}{g}}\delta \tilde V(\varepsilon)\qquad \delta \tilde V^\dag(\varepsilon)=\delta \tilde V(-\varepsilon)\, . \end{equation} We notice that for noninteracting $H_0$ (which is the case we are going to consider), the locality of $V$ (in the fermionic picture) implies that $\delta \tilde V(\varepsilon)$ is zero for $|\varepsilon|>\varepsilon_{\rm max}\sim O(1)$. After some formal manipulations we find \begin{equation}\label{eq:UA} \fl\qquad U_I(T)(\mathrm I -i g A(T))=\mathrm I -i g A(0)-i\int_0^T\mathrm d\tau U_I(\tau) [\bar V-i g \delta V(\tau)A(\tau)] \end{equation} with \begin{equation} A(\tau)=i \int_{-\infty}^\infty\mathrm d \varepsilon\ e^{i\frac{\varepsilon \tau}{g}}\frac{\delta \tilde V(\varepsilon)}{\varepsilon}\, . \end{equation} Eq. \eref{eq:UA} makes sense as long as $A(\tau)$ does. In particular, if $A(\tau)$ per unit length is a bounded operator, in the limit $g\rightarrow 0$ all the terms of \eref{eq:UA} that are multiplied by $g$ can be neglected, \emph{i.e.} $\delta V(\tau)$ is negligible. More generally, it is sufficient that the matrix elements of $A(\tau)$ that give a relevant contribution in the expectation values of local observables are bounded. In \cite{F:super} the operator $\delta V(\tau)$ was worked out for a particular noninteracting perturbation and the previous assumption turned out to be satisfied. Besides the noninteracting case, the irrelevance of $\delta V(\tau)$ was also implicitly assumed in \cite{E:preT}. There, using the continuous unitary transformation (CUT) formalism~\cite{W:CUT,QHubbard}, the authors worked out the dynamics after a quantum quench in a weakly interacting model and checked the results against numerical data. For the readers familiar with CUT, we indeed notice that the formal simplification of the terms proportional to $g$ in \eref{eq:UA} is equivalent to CUT at $O(g^0)$: At the lowest order of perturbation theory the CUT unitary transformation can be replaced by the identity; a residual dependence on $g$ remains in the CUT Hamiltonian $H_{\rm CUT}$, because we are considering the limit of infinite time with $T=g t$ finite, so $H_{\rm CUT}$ must be computed at $O(g)$. The latter is simply the time average of the Hamiltonian over its unperturbed part, namely $H_{\rm CUT}=H_0+g\bar V+o(g)$. The excellent agreement of \cite{E:preT} with the numerical simulations suggests that the interaction can be replaced by its time average for rather general perturbations. Therefore, from now on we shall assume that the effect of $\delta V(\tau)$ is negligible in the pre-relaxation limit. Going back to \eref{eq:teo}, if $\delta V(\tau)$ is negligible we find \begin{equation} e^{-i H t}\rightarrow e^{-i T \bar V}e^{-i H_0 T/g}\, , \end{equation} where $[\bar V,H_0]=0$. We now consider the time evolution of the expectation value of some local operator $\mathcal O$ \begin{equation}\label{eq:prsl} \braket{\Psi_0|e^{i H t}\mathcal O e^{-i H t}|\Psi_0}\rightarrow \braket{\Psi_0|e^{i H_0 T/g}e^{i T \bar V}\mathcal Oe^{-i T \bar V} e^{-i H_0 T/g}|\Psi_0}\, . \end{equation} It is well established that the stationary properties of \mbox{(quasi-)local} observables after quenches in translation invariant noninteracting models from states with cluster decomposition properties can be described by means of a generalised Gibbs ensemble (GGE) of the form \begin{equation} \rho_{\rm GGE}=\frac{e^{-\sum_j\lambda_j Q_j}}{Z}\, , \end{equation} where $Q_j$ are local conservation laws and $\lambda_j$ are real parameters determined by the initial state \cite{FE:RDM, SC:cluster}. We also remind the reader that, in order to avoid an explicit dependence of the charges on the initial state, in some special cases the set of charges $\{Q_j\}$ could be non-abelian \cite{F:super}. Let us now assume that the perturbation is sufficiently ``nice'' that the late time dynamics of $e^{i T \bar V}\mathcal Oe^{-i T \bar V}$ under $H_0$ can be obtained by replacing the state with the corresponding GGE \begin{equation}\label{eq:toGGE} \fl\qquad e^{-i H_0 T/g}\ket{\Psi_0}\bra{\Psi_0}e^{i H_0 T/g}\rightarrow \rho_{\rm GGE}=\lim_{|S|\rightarrow\infty}\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\tr_{\bar S}[e^{-i H_0 t}\ket{\Psi_0}\bra{\Psi_0}e^{i H_0 t}]\, . \end{equation} This step can be easily justified for $T=gt\ll t$ if $\bar V$ is \mbox{(quasi-)local}, however in the next sections we'll show that, in the presence of interactions, $\bar V$ belongs to a larger class of operators, so it is convenient to postpone the explanation of \eref{eq:toGGE} after having clarified the properties of $\bar V$. From \eref{eq:toGGE} it follows \begin{equation}\label{eq:toGGE2} \fl\qquad\qquad\lim_{g\rightarrow 0 }\braket{\Psi_0|e^{i H_0 T/g}e^{i T \bar V}\mathcal Oe^{-i T \bar V} e^{-i H_0 T/g}|\Psi_0}=\tr[\rho_{\rm GGE}e^{i T \bar V}\mathcal Oe^{-i T \bar V} ]\, , \end{equation} which suggests that the pre-relaxation limit can be described by the time-dependent ensemble \begin{equation}\label{eq:tGGE} \rho_{\rm tGGE}(t)=e^{-i \bar V g t}\rho_{\rm GGE}e^{i \bar V g t}\, , \end{equation} where we re-expressed the rescaled time $T=gt$ in terms of the time. It is important to note that both $\rho_{\rm GGE}$ and $\bar V$ commute with the Hamiltonian. Consequently, if the two operators can be written in terms of the same set of local conservation laws in involution, the time dependence disappears $\rho_{\rm tGGE}(t)=\rho_{\rm GGE}$. In the next section we will show that in many cases of interest $\bar V$ can be approximated by a polynomial of the local conservation laws. Therefore, in order to see some nontrivial pre-relaxation behaviour, the unperturbed Hamiltonian $H_0$ must have a non-abelian set of local charges. We refer the reader to \cite{F:super} for an extensive discussion of noninteracting models with that property. \section{Effective Hamiltonians}\label{s:int}% The simplest noninteracting model that possesses local conservation laws that are not mutually commuting is the XY model, whose Hamiltonian is given by \begin{equation}\label{eq:XY} H_{\rm XY}=J \sum_\ell(\frac{1+\gamma}{4}\sigma_\ell^x\sigma_{\ell+1}^x+\frac{1-\gamma}{4}\sigma_\ell^y\sigma_{\ell+1}^y)\, , \end{equation} where $\sigma_\ell^\alpha$ act like Pauli matrices on the site $\ell$ and like the identity elsewhere. If the initial state $\ket{\Psi_0}$ breaks one-site shift invariance, the latter symmetry is generally not restored in the GGE that describes local observables at infinite time after the quench. On the other hand, an infinitesimally small one-site shift invariant perturbation that breaks the non-abelian integrability of \eref{eq:XY} is expected to catalyse symmetry restoration, which may be captured by the pre-relaxation limit. Similar issues of symmetry restoration have been pointed out long ago, \emph{e.g.} in \cite{Glassy}. A perturbation that preserves the noninteracting character of the Hamiltonian was already considered in \cite{F:super}. Here we investigate perturbations that have a 4-fermion representation in terms of the noninteracting fermions that diagonalise \eref{eq:XY}, namely \begin{equation}\label{eq:V} V\sim \sum_\ell a_{\ell+n_1}^{\alpha_1}a_{\ell+n_2}^{\alpha_2}a_{\ell+n_3}^{\alpha_3} a_{\ell+n_4}^{\alpha_4}\, , \end{equation} where $a_\ell^\alpha$ are the Majorana fermions ($\{a_\ell^\alpha,a_n^\beta\}=2\delta_{\alpha \beta}\delta_{\ell n}$) \begin{equation}\label{eq:Maj} a_\ell^\alpha=\Bigl(\prod_{j<\ell}\sigma_j^z\Bigr) \sigma_\ell^\alpha\qquad \alpha\in\{x,y\}\, . \end{equation} From the qualitative argument presented in \Sref{s:pre-rel}, the relevant Hamiltonian in the pre-relaxation limit is determined by the time average of the perturbation. The calculation is not difficult but rather lengthy. However, a close inspection of the various contributions reveals a hidden structure that helps simplifying the computation. We indeed find (see Appendix \ref{a:Wick}) \begin{property}\label{L:Wick} The time average under $H_{\rm XY}$ of a one-site shift invariant four fermion operator can be written as follows \begin{equation}\label{eq:anom} \frac{1}{L}\overline{\sum_\ell a_{\ell+n_1}^{\alpha_1}a_{\ell+n_2}^{\alpha_2}a_{\ell+n_3}^{\alpha_3} a_{\ell+n_4}^{\alpha_4}}= F_{\{n\}}^{\{\alpha\}}+ A_{\{n\}}^{\{\alpha\}}\, , \end{equation} where $ F $ is a linear combination of factorised terms and $ A$ is an anomalous contribution originated by the nontrivial solutions of the energy constraint \begin{equation} \varepsilon(k_1)+\varepsilon(k_2)=\varepsilon(k_3)+\varepsilon(k_1+k_2+k_3)\, . \end{equation} The latter exists only in the thermodynamic limit and strongly depends on the details of the dispersion relation, whereas $F$ has a structure that is almost model independent: \begin{equation}\label{eq:Wick} F_{\{n\}}^{\{\alpha\}}=\sum_{s=0}^1\underbrace{a_{n_1}^{\alpha_1} a_{n_2}^{\alpha_2}}_{s}\underbrace{a_{n_3}^{\alpha_3} a_{n_4}^{\alpha_4}}_{s}-\underbrace{a_{n_1}^{\alpha_1} a_{n_3}^{\alpha_3}}_{s}\underbrace{a_{n_2}^{\alpha_2} a_{n_4}^{\alpha_4}}_{s}+\underbrace{a_{n_1}^{\alpha_1} a_{n_4}^{\alpha_4}}_{s}\underbrace{a_{n_2}^{\alpha_2} a_{n_3}^{\alpha_3}}_{s}\, , \end{equation} with \begin{equation} \underbrace{a_{n_1}^{\alpha} a_{n_2}^{\beta}}_s=\overline{ \frac{1}{L}\sum_\ell (-1)^{s\ell}a_{\ell+n_1}^{\alpha} a_{\ell+n_2}^{\beta} }\, . \end{equation} \end{property} Essentially, index $s$ appears because the XY model (with zero magnetic field) has local conservation laws with momentum $\pi$, while one-site shift invariance constrains the total momentum to be multiple of $2\pi$. We also notice that the factorised part of the time average can be easily generalised to an arbitrary number of fermions, keeping the same structure of the Wick decomposition. To the best of our knowledge, the (quasi-)local conservation laws of the XY model \eref{eq:XY} are noninteracting (for $|\gamma|\neq 1$) and $A_{\{n\}}^{\{\alpha\}}$ of \eref{eq:Wick} seems to be a nonlocal conservation law that can \emph{not} be (not even approximately) written as a function of the local charges. We then expect $ A_{\{n\}}^{\{\alpha\}}$ to become important (for local observables) only at times proportional to the chain length, which are far beyond the pre-relaxation limit. This persuaded us to conjecture that the anomalous terms are not relevant to our problem, which is equivalent to assume \begin{equation}\label{eq:condA} \braket{\Psi_0|e^{i H t}[\mathcal O,A] e^{-i H t}|\Psi_0}=0 \end{equation} for any local observable $\mathcal O$. In Appendix \ref{a:self} we check the self-consistency of our approximation, showing that it is compatible with \eref{eq:condA}. We leave further investigations to future works. Proposition \ref{L:Wick} suggests that in many cases of interest the effective Hamiltonian describing the pre-relaxation limit takes the form \begin{equation}\label{eq:opform} H_{\rm eff}=\frac{1}{L^{n_1-1}}H^{(1)}_1 \dots H^{(1)}_{n_1}+\dots +\frac{1}{L^{n_m-1}}H^{(m)}_1 \dots H^{(m)}_{n_m}\, , \end{equation} where $H_j^{(\ell)}$ are \mbox{(quasi-)local} (\emph{i.e.} their density is \mbox{(quasi-)local}, see \emph{e.g.} \cite{IP:Drude,F:charge}) translation invariant operators (\emph{i.e.} $n$-site shift invariant for some $n\in \mathbb{N}$). Indeed, provided that the anomalous terms in \eref{eq:anom} can be disregarded, similar factorisations appear whenever the unperturbed Hamiltonian is noninteracting (\emph{e.g.}, in the model considered in \cite{E:preT}). Hamiltonians of the form \eref{eq:opform} are therefore the perfect workbench for pre-relaxation or pre-thermalisation issues. We notice that the non-equilibrium dynamics generated by a subclass of Hamiltonians of the form \eref{eq:opform} have been already worked out in \cite{SB:conn}. The authors considered `completely connected quantum models', in which the Hamiltonian is symmetric under any permutation of the sites, and exhibited a mapping onto an effective classical Hamiltonian dynamics. We also point out that the simplest models of the form \eref{eq:opform} (\emph{e.g.} Curie-Weiss quantum Heisenberg models) have often been used as toy models to investigate the statistical properties in the presence of long range interactions \cite{K:long}. The rest of the paper will be focussed on the following points: \begin{enumerate} \item \label{I:1}Solution of the non-equilibrium problem for Hamiltonians of the form \eref{eq:opform}; \item \label{I:2}Characterisation of the pre-relaxation limit in an interacting model, also in the presence of perturbations that break integrability; \item \label{I:3}Non-equilibrium time evolution under \eref{eq:TFICNI1}. \end{enumerate} For the sake of clarity, we stress again that \eref{I:2} relies on two assumptions: \begin{enumerate}[(a)] \item \label{ass:a}In the limit $g\rightarrow 0$ with $g t$ finite, the time evolution under $H=H_0+g V$ can be split in two steps: \begin{enumerate}[1.] \item infinite time evolution under the unperturbed Hamiltonian $H_0$, which is supposed to give rise to a generalised Gibbs ensemble $\ket{\Psi_0}\bra{\Psi_0}\rightarrow\rho_{\rm GGE}$; \item time evolution with rescaled time $T=gt$ under the effective Hamiltonian given by the perturbation $V$ averaged with respect to $H_0$ \eref{eq:Vbar}; \end{enumerate} \begin{equation} e^{-i (H_0+g V)t}\ket{\Psi_0}\bra{\Psi_0}e^{i (H_0+g V)t}\sim e^{-i g t \bar V}\rho_{\rm GGE}e^{i g t \bar V}\, . \end{equation} \item \label{ass:b}The ``anomalous terms'' that appear in the time average of $V$ give a negligible contribution (\emph{cf.} Appendix \ref{a:self}, Property \ref{L:Wick} and discussion below). \end{enumerate} On the other hand, \eref{I:1} and \eref{I:3} will be treated as \emph{ab initio} problems. \section{Solution of the non-equilibrium problem}\label{s:mf} % In this section we work out Problem \eref{I:1}. We are going to show that, despite the nonlocal appearance, operators of the form \eref{eq:opform} generate a dynamics which is equivalent to that of a \mbox{(quasi-)local} time-dependent mean-field Hamiltonian. Here we only report some results and three useful corollaries, the details of the derivation can be found in Appendix \ref{a:MF}. For the sake of simplicity we only consider cases in which $H_j^{(\ell)}$ have local densities, however, as far as we can see, all the results can be generalised to quasi-local operators with tails that decay exponentially with the distance. In the light of \eref{eq:opform}, we define a class of operator $\mathcal E$ as follows: \begin{definition} We say that an operator acting on a spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ chain belongs to the class $\mathcal E$ if it is written as in \eref{eq:opform}, namely as a finite linear combination of operators of the form \begin{equation}\label{eq:form} \frac{1}{L^{n-1}}H_1\cdots H_n\, , \end{equation} where $n$ is finite, $H_j$ are local translation invariant operators, and $L$ is the chain length. \end{definition} We consider spin chains so that the local Hilbert space is finite dimensional. This turns out to be a fundamental assumption for most of our results. One of our goals is to show that the time evolution preserves cluster decomposition properties, which is the key element that allows us to simplify the calculation of expectation values. For example we have \begin{lemma}\label{L:1} Let $\mathcal O\in \mathcal E$ and $\ket{\Psi}$ a state with cluster decomposition properties. The expectation value of $\mathcal O/L$ in $\ket{\Psi}$ can be reduced to the expectation values of the local translation invariant operators it consists of: \begin{equation}\label{eq:fact} \lim_{L\rightarrow\infty }\braket{\Psi|\frac{H_1}{L}\cdots \frac{H_n}{L}|\Psi}=\lim_{L\rightarrow\infty }\prod_j \frac{\braket{\Psi|H_j|\Psi}}{L}\, . \end{equation} \end{lemma} Using this lemma it is rather natural to relate the dynamics under \eref{eq:opform} to that under the mean-field Hamiltonian defined as follows: \begin{definition} \emph{Mean-field effective Hamiltonian.} Let $H\in \mathcal E$. We define the time-dependent mean-field Hamiltonian $H^{\Psi_0}_{\rm MF}(t)$ as the operator resulting from mapping any generic term \eref{eq:form} of the Hamiltonian \eref{eq:opform} to an operator with local density, as follows \begin{equation}\label{eq:tran} \frac{1}{L^{n-1}}H_1\cdots H_n\rightarrow \sum_{j=1}^n \prod_{\ell\neq j}\frac{\braket{\Psi_0|\bar U^\dag(t)H_\ell \bar U(t)|\Psi_0}}{L}H_j\, , \end{equation} where $\bar U(t)$ is the time evolution under $H_{\rm MF}^{\Psi_0}(t)$ \begin{equation}\label{eq:U} \bar U(t)={\rm T}\exp\Bigl(-i\int_0^t\mathrm d \tau H^{\Psi_0}_{\rm MF}(\tau)\Bigr)\, . \end{equation} Thus, generally $H_{MF}^{\Psi_0}(t)$ must be computed in a self-consistent way. \end{definition} For example, the Hamiltonian \begin{equation} H=-\frac{1}{4}\sum_\ell^L\Bigl(\sigma_\ell^x\sigma_{\ell+1}^x+\sigma_\ell^y\sigma_{\ell+1}^y\Bigr)+\frac{\lambda}{L}\Bigl(\sum_\ell^L\sigma_\ell^z\Bigr)^2 \end{equation} belongs to $\mathcal E$. In this trivial case $\sum_\ell\sigma_\ell^z$ commutes with $H$, so the mean-field Hamiltonian is independent of time and it is given by \begin{equation} \fl\qquad\quad H_{\rm MF}^{\Psi_0}(t)=-\frac{1}{4}\sum_\ell\Bigl(\sigma_\ell^x\sigma_{\ell+1}^x+\sigma_\ell^y\sigma_{\ell+1}^y\Bigr)+2\lambda\braket{\Psi_0|\frac{1}{L}\sum_\ell\sigma_\ell^z|\Psi_0}\sum_\ell\sigma_\ell^z\, . \end{equation} We point out that the expectation value (per unit length) of $H\in \mathcal E$ in the state $\bar U(t)\ket{\Psi_0}$ is generally different from that of $H_{\rm MF}^{\Psi_0}$: \begin{eqnarray} \fl\quad\braket{\Psi_0|\bar U^\dag(t)\frac{1}{L^{n}} H_1\cdots H_n\bar U(t)|\Psi_0}=\prod\limits_{j=1}^n\braket{\Psi_0|\bar U^\dag(t)\frac{H_j}{L}\bar U(t)|\Psi_0} \nonumber\\ \fl\quad\braket{\Psi_0|\bar U^\dag(t)\sum\limits_{j=1}^n \prod\limits_{\ell\neq j}\frac{\braket{\Psi_0|\bar U^\dag(t)H_\ell \bar U(t)|\Psi_0}}{L}H_\ell \bar U(t)|\Psi_0}=n\prod\limits_{j=1}^n\braket{\Psi_0|\bar U^\dag(t)\frac{H_j}{L}\bar U(t)|\Psi_0}\, . \end{eqnarray} The main property that is proved in Appendix \ref{a:MF} is the exactness of the mean-field description in the thermodynamic limit: \begin{lemma}\label{T:1} Let $\ket{\Psi_0}$ be a translation invariant state with cluster decomposition properties and $H,\mathcal O\in \mathcal E$. Let the expectation value of $\mathcal O$ in the state that time evolves with $H_{\rm MF}^{\Psi_0}(t)$ be an analytic function of $t$ in the strip $|\mathrm{Im}[t]|<r$, with $r$ a nonzero constant. In the thermodynamic limit, the time evolution with $H$ can be replaced by the time evolution with the mean-field Hamiltonian: \begin{equation}\label{eq:rep} \lim_{L\rightarrow\infty}\braket{\Psi_0|e^{i H t}\frac{\mathcal O}{L} e^{-i H t}|\Psi_0}=\lim_{L\rightarrow\infty}\braket{\Psi_0|\bar U^\dag(t)\frac{\mathcal O}{L}\bar U(t) |\Psi_0}\, . \end{equation} \end{lemma} \begin{remark} The validity of the hypothesis of analyticity on a strip can be verified \emph{a posteriori}. The idea is the following. The self-consistent mean-field problem can be generally recast into an infinite nonlinear system of ordinary differential equations. The finiteness of $n$ in \eref{eq:form} implies that the system can be written as $\dot{\vec u}=\vec F(\vec u, t)$, with $\vec F$ a polynomial. If the system was finite, the solution would have been analytic. This is not always the case for an infinite system but, in practice, the numerical solution is obtained by introducing a cutoff parameter $N$ that makes the system finite. If the mean-field time evolution had a point of non-analyticity, the solution of the system of equations should display a non-trivial dependence of the mean-field parameters on the cutoff as $N\rightarrow\infty$. \end{remark} \begin{corollary}\label{C:1} Lemma \ref{T:1} holds true in particular for local operators. \end{corollary} The local equivalence with the mean-field time evolution can also be expressed in terms of reduced density matrices: \begin{corollary}\label{C:2} Let $\ket{\Psi_0}$ a translation invariant state with cluster decomposition properties and $H\in \mathcal E$. In the thermodynamic limit, the time evolution of the reduced density matrix (RDM) of some spin block $S$ is equal to the RDM in the state that time evolves with the mean-field Hamiltonian: \begin{equation}\label{eq:RDM} \rho_S(t)=\tr_{\bar S}[e^{-i H t}\ket{\Psi_0}\bra{\Psi_0}e^{i H t}]=\tr_{\bar S}[\bar U(t)\ket{\Psi_0}\bra{\Psi_0}\bar U^\dag(t)]\, . \end{equation} \end{corollary} The previous lemmas and corollaries are sufficient to reduce the time evolution under $H\in\mathcal E$ to the time evolution under a local time-dependent Hamiltonian. There is however another simple corollary to Lemma \ref{T:1} that will be useful to assess whether or not at large times it is possible to encode the entire information about the initial state in a finite number of parameters (`thermal-like behaviour'). \begin{corollary}\label{C:3} Let $H\in\mathcal E$ and $\ket{\Psi}$ a state with cluster decomposition properties. If $\ket{\Psi}$ is an excited state of the corresponding mean-field Hamiltonian $H_{\rm MF}^{\Psi}$ \begin{equation} H_{\rm MF}^{\Psi}\ket{\Psi}=E_\Psi\ket{\Psi}\, , \end{equation} the expectation value of local observables in $e^{-i H t}\ket{\Psi}$ is independent of time. Therefore, $\ket{\Psi}$ behaves locally as an excited state of $H$. The reverse is also true. If an excited state of $H$ is locally equivalent to a state with cluster decomposition properties, then the latter is (equivalent to) an excited state of the corresponding mean-field Hamiltonian. \end{corollary} \subsection{Time-dependent GGE} \label{ss:t-dGGE} % We are now in a position to justify \eref{eq:toGGE}, and in turn \eref{eq:toGGE2} and \eref{eq:tGGE}. In the limit of small $g$ the expectation value of a local observable $\mathcal O$ reads as \eref{eq:prsl} \begin{equation} \braket{\Psi_0|e^{i H_0 T/g}e^{i T \bar V}\mathcal Oe^{-i T \bar V} e^{-i H_0 T/g}|\Psi_0}\, . \end{equation} Since $H_0$ is local, the state $e^{-i H_0 T/g}\ket{\Psi_0}$ has cluster decomposition properties beyond some typical distance proportional to $T/g$ (in order to be outside of the light cone). From Corollary \ref{C:1} it follows that the time evolution under $\bar V$ is equivalent to that under the corresponding mean-field operator. We indeed only need $J T\ll g L$ (\emph{cf}. \eref{eq:rhs}), which is trivially satisfied in the thermodynamic limit. Thus we obtain \begin{equation} \braket{\Psi_T|U_{\bar V}^\dag(T)\mathcal O U_{\bar V}^{\phantom \dag}(T) |\Psi_T}\, , \end{equation} with \begin{equation}\label{eq:UV} U_{\bar V}(t)={\rm T}\exp\Bigl(-i\int_0^t\mathrm d \tau \bar V^{\Psi_T}_{\rm MF}(\tau)\Bigr) \end{equation} and \begin{equation} \ket{\Psi_T}=e^{-i H_0 T/g}\ket{\Psi_0}\, . \end{equation} Incidentally, we notice that the time-ordering in \eref{eq:UV} can not be simplified because $\bar V^{\Psi_T}_{\rm MF}$ is generally written in terms of conservation laws that are not in involution with one another. For the sake of simplicity we assume that the time-dependent coupling constants of $\bar V^{\Psi_T}_{\rm MF}$ are bounded. The operator $U_{\bar V}^\dag(T)\mathcal O U_{\bar V}^{\phantom \dag}(T) $ is then quasi-local with a typical range $\xi$ proportional to $T$ \cite{BHV:LRbounds}. On the other hand $\ket{\Psi_T}$ is the time evolution of $\ket{\Psi_0}$ at the time $(\infty \leftarrow )T/g\gg T\sim \xi$, which is the limit in which it is reasonable to expect that the state can be replaced by the corresponding generalised Gibbs ensemble (of the unperturbed Hamiltonian) \begin{equation}\label{eq:UVGGE} \fl\qquad\qquad\braket{\Psi_T|U_{\bar V}^\dag(T)\mathcal O U_{\bar V}^{\phantom \dag}(T) |\Psi_T}\sim \tr[\rho_{\rm GGE} U_{\bar V}^\dag(T)\mathcal O U_{\bar V}^{\phantom \dag}(T) ]\, . \end{equation} The operator $\bar V^{\Psi_T}_{\rm MF}$ is obtained self-consistently by computing the expectation values of (quasi-)local conservation laws, which can be obtained from \eref{eq:UVGGE}. Therefore, in the definition \eref{eq:tran} of the mean-field Hamiltonian we can replace $\ket{\Psi_0}$ by $\rho_{\rm GGE}$ \begin{equation} \frac{1}{L^{n-1}}H_1\cdots H_n\rightarrow \sum_{j=1}^n \prod_{\ell\neq j}\frac{\tr[\rho_{\rm GGE}U_{\bar V}^\dag(T)H_\ell U_{\bar V}(T)]}{L}H_\ell\, , \end{equation} which is consistent with \eref{eq:toGGE2}. We denote by $\bar H_{\rm MF}(T)$ the mean-field Hamiltonian with the expectation values computed in the GGE. \section{Pre-relaxation in XYZ models}\label{s:pre-relI}% In this section we investigate the (integrable) XYZ spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ chain in the limit of small anisotropy in the $z$ direction and also the effect of a small perturbation that breaks integrability. The Hamiltonian \begin{equation}\label{eq:XYYU} \fl\quad H=J \sum_\ell\Bigl(\frac{1+\gamma}{4}\sigma_{\ell}^x\sigma_{\ell+1}^x+\frac{1-\gamma}{4}\sigma_{\ell}^y\sigma_{\ell+1}^y+\frac{g}{4}\sigma_{\ell}^z\sigma_{\ell+1}^z+\frac{g U }{4}\sigma_{\ell}^z\sigma_{\ell+2}^z\Bigr)+\frac{gh}{2}\sum_\ell\sigma_\ell^z \end{equation} has the form \eref{eq:H} with $H_0=H_{\rm XY}$ \eref{eq:XY} and \begin{equation}\label{eq:Vj} V=\frac{J}{4}\sum_{\ell}(\sigma_\ell^z\sigma_{\ell+1}^z+U\sigma_\ell^z\sigma_{\ell+2}^z)+\frac{h}{2}\sum_{\ell}\sigma_\ell^z\, . \end{equation} For a fixed $g\neq 0$, the model is integrable for $J U=h=0$, corresponding to the spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ XYZ model, and for $J U=\gamma=0$, corresponding to the XXZ spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ chain; otherwise it is non-integrable. Following Sections \ref{s:pre-rel} and \ref{s:int}, in the pre-relaxation limit $g\ll 1$ with $gt\sim O(g^0)$, the initial state can be replaced by the corresponding GGE of the unperturbed Hamiltonian \begin{equation} \ket{\Psi_0}\rightarrow \rho_{\rm GGE}=\lim_{|S|\rightarrow\infty}\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\tr_{\bar S}[e^{-i H_{\rm XY} t}\ket{\Psi_0}\bra{\Psi_0}e^{i H_{\rm XY}t}]\, , \end{equation} and $V$ by the time averaged perturbation \eref{eq:Vbar}. We notice that the free Hamiltonian $H_{\rm XY}$ does not play any role in the pre-relaxation limit, because it commutes with $\rho_{\rm GGE}$. The mapping into a mean-field problem can be decomposed in the following steps: \begin{itemize} \item[-] Compute the time averaged perturbation $\bar V$; \item[-] Construct the mean-field Hamiltonian $\bar H_{\rm MF}$; \item[-] Solve the time evolution under $\bar H_{\rm MF}$ for \emph{any} local observable. \end{itemize} Some properties of the unperturbed Hamiltonian $H_{\rm XY}$ dramatically simplify the first step. $H_{\rm XY}$ is mapped to noninteracting fermions by a Jordan-Wigner transformation. Up to irrelevant (to our purposes) boundary terms, it can be written as follows \begin{equation}\label{eq:Hfrep} H_{XY}\sim\frac{1}{4}\sum_{\ell, n}\left(\begin{array}{cccc} a_{2\ell-1}^x&a_{2\ell-1}^y&a_{2\ell}^x&a_{2\ell}^y \end{array}\right)[\mathcal H]^{(2)}_{\ell n}\left( \begin{array}{cccc} a_{2n-1}^x \\ a_{2n-1}^y \\ a_{2n}^x \\ a_{2n}^y \end{array}\right) \end{equation} with $a_\ell^\alpha$ the Majorana fermions \eref{eq:Maj}; $\mathcal H$ is the block-circulant matrix \begin{equation}\label{eq:Helln} [\mathcal H]^{(2)}_{\ell n}\sim \int_{-\pi}^\pi\frac{\mathrm d k}{2\pi} e^{-i(n-\ell) k} \mathcal H^{(2)}(k)\, , \end{equation} where the 4-by-4 matrix $\mathcal H^{(2)}(k)$ is usually called \emph{symbol} (see also Appendix \ref{a:free}) and it is given by \begin{equation}\label{eq:Hsimb} \mathcal H^{(2)}(k)= -\varepsilon_k \sigma^x e^{ i {k}/{2}\sigma^z}\otimes\sigma^y e^{ i\theta_k\sigma^z}\, ; \end{equation} $\varepsilon_k$ and $\theta_k$ are the dispersion relation and the Bogoliubov angle, respectively \begin{equation} \fl\qquad\qquad\varepsilon_k=J\sqrt{\cos^2 k/2+\gamma^2\sin^2 k/2}\qquad e^{i\theta_k}=\frac{\cos k/2+ i\gamma\sin k/2}{\sqrt{\cos^2 k/2+\gamma^2\sin^2 k/2}}\, . \end{equation} Here we have chosen the two-site shift invariant representation of the Hamiltonian (\emph{i.e.} we gathered together the fermionic degrees of freedom of pairs of adjacent sites) in order to be able to treat a larger class of initial states. In translation invariant noninteracting models almost any calculation can be traced back to operations on the symbol associated with the operator, which is the Fourier transform of a block-row of the block-circulant matrix that appears in the fermionic representation of the operator as in \eref{eq:Hfrep} (see also Appendix \ref{a:free}). More generally the two-site representation of the symbol is a 4-by-4 Hermitian matrix, function of the momentum and odd under simultaneous transposition and reversion of the momentum. A $2n$-by-$2n$ symbol completely identifies a noninteracting operator that is translation invariant by $k$ sites, with $k$ a divisor of $n$, by the same kind of relations that we wrote for the Hamiltonian (\emph{i.e.} \eref{eq:Hfrep}, \eref{eq:Helln} and \eref{eq:Hsimb}). Thus, we will often report the symbols instead of writing the operators explicitly. Coming back to the calculation of $\bar V$, we find that the three constituents of the interaction term in \eref{eq:Vj} have the following fermionic representation \begin{equation} \frac{1}{4}\sum_\ell\sigma_\ell^z\sigma_{\ell+j}^z=\frac{1}{4}\sum_\ell i a_\ell^ya_\ell^xi a_{\ell+j}^ya_{\ell+j}^x\,,\qquad j=1,2\,, \end{equation} \begin{equation} \frac{1}{2}\sum_\ell \sigma_\ell^z=\frac{1}{2}\sum_\ell i a_\ell^ya_\ell^x\, . \end{equation} Therefore, on the basis of our assumptions and decomposition \eref{eq:Wick}, in the limit $g\ll 1$ with $gt\sim O(g^0)$, we expect the local Hamiltonian \eref{eq:XYYU} to be dynamically equivalent to the following nonlocal one \begin{equation}\label{eq:Hrel} H\rightarrow \bar H=H_{\rm XY}+g \bar V(U, h) \end{equation} where $H_{\rm XY}$ is the XY Hamiltonian \eref{eq:XY} and the nonlocal perturbation is given by \begin{equation}\label{eq:Vbar1} \fl\qquad {\bar V(U,h)}=\frac{J}{L}\sum_{s=0}^1\sum_{j=1}^2U^{j-1}\Bigl((-1)^{sj}\bar{H}_{s}^z \bar{H}_{s}^z+\bar{H}_{s,j}^{xy} \bar{H}_{s,j}^{y x}-\bar{H}_{s,j}^{xx} \bar{H}_{s,j}^{y y}\Bigr)+h \bar{H}_0^z\, . \end{equation} The time averaged quadratic operators appearing on the right hand side of \eref{eq:Vbar1} are the fundamental blocks of \eref{eq:Wick} and read as \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:timeavops} \fl\qquad\qquad \bar H_s^z=\overline{\frac{1}{2}\sum_\ell (-1)^{s\ell}\sigma_\ell^z}=\overline{\frac{1}{2}\sum_\ell (-1)^{s\ell} i a_\ell^ya_\ell^x}\nonumber\\ \fl\qquad\qquad \bar H_{s,j}^{xy}=\overline{\frac{1}{2}\sum_\ell (-1)^{s\ell}\sigma_\ell^x (\sigma_{\ell+1}^z)^{j-1}\sigma_{\ell+j}^y}=\overline{\frac{1}{2}\sum_\ell (-1)^{s\ell} (-i) a_\ell^ya_{\ell+j}^y}\nonumber\\ \fl\qquad\qquad \bar H_{s,j}^{yx}=\overline{\frac{1}{2}\sum_\ell (-1)^{s\ell}\sigma_\ell^y (\sigma_{\ell+1}^z)^{j-1}\sigma_{\ell+j}^x}=\overline{\frac{1}{2}\sum_\ell (-1)^{s\ell} i a_\ell^x a_{\ell+j}^x}\nonumber\\ \fl\qquad\qquad \bar H_{s,j}^{xx}=\overline{\frac{1}{2}\sum_\ell (-1)^{s\ell}\sigma_\ell^x (\sigma_{\ell+1}^z)^{j-1}\sigma_{\ell+j}^x}=\overline{\frac{1}{2}\sum_\ell (-1)^{s\ell} (-i) a_\ell^y a_{\ell+j}^x}\nonumber\\ \fl\qquad\qquad \bar H_{s,j}^{yy}=\overline{\frac{1}{2}\sum_\ell (-1)^{s\ell}\sigma_\ell^y (\sigma_{\ell+1}^z)^{j-1}\sigma_{\ell+j}^y}=\overline{\frac{1}{2}\sum_\ell (-1)^{s\ell} i a_\ell^x a_{\ell+j}^y}\, . \end{eqnarray} Since we have to compute the time average of quadratic operators evolving according to a noninteracting Hamiltonian (\emph{cf.} \eref{eq:Vbar} and \eref{eq:Hfrep}), we can use \eref{timeevolution}. This allows to find the following exact result \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:timeav} \fl\qquad\bar{\mathcal{O}}(k)=\lim_{T\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}\hspace{-0.2cm}\textrm{d}t\,\mathcal{O}(k,t)=\lim_{T\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}\hspace{-0.2cm}\textrm{d}t\,e^{ i \mathcal{H}^{(2)}(k) t}\mathcal{O}(k)e^{- i \mathcal{H}^{(2)}(k) t} \nonumber\\ =\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{O}(k,0)+\frac{1}{2}\left[\sigma^x e^{i\frac{k}{2}\sigma^z}\otimes\sigma^y e^{ i\theta_k\sigma^z}\right]\mathcal{O}(k,0)\left[\sigma^x e^{ i\frac{k}{2}\sigma^z}\otimes\sigma^y e^{ i\theta_k\sigma^z}\right]\, , \end{eqnarray} where $\mathcal{O}(k)$ is the symbol of a quadratic operator and $\overline{\phantom{(}\!\!\!\cdots\phantom{)}\!\!\!}$ denotes the time average. The symbols of the operators \eref{eq:timeavops} read \begin{eqnarray} \fl\qquad\quad\bar{{H}}^z_s(k) &=&\frac{J}{\varepsilon_k^2} (\delta_{s,0}\mathcal{Q}_2(k)-\gamma \delta_{s,1}\mathcal{Q}_8(k))\nonumber\\ \fl\qquad\quad\bar{{H}}^{xy}_{s, 1}(k) &=&\delta_{s,0}\mathcal{Q}_4(k)+\delta_{s,1} \mathcal{Q}_6(k)\nonumber\\ \fl\qquad\quad\bar{{H}}^{xy}_{s,2}(k) &=&\delta_{s,0} \mathcal{Q}_3(k)+\delta_{s,1} \mathcal{Q}_7(k)\nonumber\\ \fl\qquad\quad\bar{{H}}^{yx}_{s, 1}(k) &=&-\delta_{s,0} \mathcal{Q}_4(k)+\delta_{s,1}\mathcal{Q}_6(k)\nonumber\\ \fl\qquad\quad\bar{{H}}^{yx}_{s,2}(k) &=&- \delta_{s,0} \mathcal{Q}_3(k)+\delta_{s,1} \mathcal{Q}_7(k)\nonumber\\ \fl\qquad\quad\bar{{H}}^{xx}_{s,1}(k) &=&-\frac{J}{2 \varepsilon_k^2}\left((1+\gamma)+(1-\gamma)\cos k \right)(\delta_{s,0}\mathcal{Q}_1(k)-\delta_{s,1}\mathcal{Q}_5(k))\nonumber\\ \fl\qquad\quad\bar{{H}}^{xx}_{s,2}(k) &=&- \frac{J }{\varepsilon_k^2}\left[\gamma + (1-\gamma)(s+ \cos k) \right](\delta_{s,0}\mathcal{Q}_2(k) + \delta_{s,1}\mathcal{Q}_8(k))\nonumber\\ \fl\qquad\quad\bar{{H}}^{yy}_{s,1}(k) &=&-\frac{J }{2\varepsilon^2_k}\left((1-\gamma)+(1+\gamma)\cos k \right)(\delta_{s,0}\mathcal{Q}_1(k)+ \delta_{s,1}\mathcal{Q}_5(k))\nonumber\\ \fl\qquad\quad\bar{{H}}^{yy}_{s,2}(k) &=& \frac{J }{\varepsilon_k^2}\left( \gamma+s(1-\gamma)-(1+\gamma)(-1)^s\cos k\right)(\delta_{s,0}\mathcal{Q}_2(k)+ \delta_{s,1}\mathcal{Q}_8(k))\,.\label{eq:HQ8} \end{eqnarray} Here we expressed the results in terms of the symbols of the local charges of $H_{XY}$ \cite{F:super} \begin{eqnarray} \mathcal{Q}_1(k)=\mathcal{I}^{+\rm (e)}_1(k)=\varepsilon_k\,\bigl[\sigma^xe^{i\frac{k}{2}\sigma^z}\bigr]\otimes\bigr[\sigma^y e^{i \theta_k\sigma^z}\bigr] \nonumber\\ \mathcal{Q}_2(k)=\mathcal{I}^{+\rm (o)}_1(k)=\cos(k/2) \varepsilon_k \,\mathbbm{1}\otimes\bigl[\sigma^y e^{i \theta_k\sigma^z}\bigr]\nonumber\\ \mathcal{Q}_3(k)=\mathcal{I}^{-\rm (e)}_1(k)=\sin( k)\, \mathbbm{1}\otimes\mathbbm{1} \nonumber\\ \mathcal{Q}_4(k)=\mathcal{I}^{-\rm (o)}_1(k)=\sin(k/2)\,\bigl[\sigma^xe^{i\frac{k}{2}\sigma^z}\bigr]\otimes\mathbbm{1}\nonumber\\ \mathcal{Q}_5(k)=\mathcal{J}^{+\rm (e)}_1(k)=\varepsilon_k\, \bigl[\sigma^ye^{i\frac{k}{2}\sigma^z}\bigr]\otimes\bigl[\sigma^x e^{i \theta_k \sigma^z}\bigl]\nonumber\\ \mathcal{Q}_6(k)=\mathcal{J}^{+\rm (o)}_1(k)=\cos(k/2)\,\bigl[\sigma^ye^{i\frac{k}{2}\sigma^z}\bigr]\otimes\sigma^z\nonumber\\ \mathcal{Q}_7(k)=\mathcal{J}^{-\rm (e)}_1(k)=\sin(k)\,\sigma^z\otimes\sigma^z \nonumber\\ \mathcal{Q}_8(k)=\mathcal{J}^{-\rm (o)}_1(k)=\sin(k/2)\varepsilon_k\,\sigma^z\otimes\bigr[\sigma^x e^{i \theta_k \sigma^z}\bigl]\label{eq:C8}\,. \end{eqnarray} The first four symbols correspond to one-site shift invariant operators (the standard conservation laws of the quantum XY model), while the others change sign under a shift by one site. We remind the reader that from the symbol of an operator it is possible to infer its locality properties \cite{F:super}. In particular, a smooth symbol is associated with a quasi-local operator. If in addition the symbol has a finite number of nonzero Fourier components, as in \eref{eq:C8}, the associated operator is local. Equations \eref{eq:HQ8} imply that $\bar H^{xy}_s, \bar H^{yx}_s$ are local while $\bar H^{xx}_s, \bar H^{yy}_s, \bar H^{z}_s$ are quasi-local, thus the Hamiltonian \eref{eq:Hrel} is a member of the quasi-local extension of the class $\mathcal E$ studied in Section \ref{s:mf}. As pointed out in \Sref{s:mf}, we expect all the theorems of \Sref{s:mf}, in particular Corollary \ref{C:2}, to remain valid also for quasi-local operators. This guarantees the time evolution generated by \eref{eq:Hrel} to be \emph{locally} equivalent to the one generated by the following mean-field Hamiltonian \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:meanfieldXYZ} \fl \bar H_{MF}(T)= H_{XY}+2 J g \sum_s ((-1)^{s}+U)\frac{\braket{\bar{H}^z_s}_T}{L} \bar{H}^z_s\nonumber\\ +Jg\sum_{s,j} U^{j-1}\Bigl(\frac{\braket{\bar{H}^{xy}_{s j}}_T}{L} \bar{H}^{yx}_{s j}+\frac{\braket{\bar{H}^{yx}_{s j}}_T}{L} \bar{H}^{xy}_{s j}\Bigr)\nonumber\\ \qquad-Jg\sum_{s,j} U^{j-1}\Bigl(\frac{\braket{\bar{H}^{xx}_{s j}}_T}{L}\bar{H}^{yy}_{s j}+\frac{\braket{\bar{H}^{yy}_{s j}}_T}{L} \bar{H}^{xx}_{s j}\Bigr)+hg \bar{H}^z_0\, , \end{eqnarray} where $\braket{\mathcal O}_T$ is the expectation value of the operator $\mathcal O$ in the mean-field description (\emph{cf.} \eref{eq:UVGGE}) \begin{equation} \label{eq:mfexpval} \braket{\mathcal O}_T=\textrm{Tr}\left[ U_{\bar V}(T) \rho_{GGE} U^{\dag}_{\bar V}(T) \mathcal O\right]\,. \end{equation} To determine the time evolution generated by $\bar H_{MF}(T)$ we need to solve the self-consistency conditions encoded in \eref{eq:meanfieldXYZ} and \eref{eq:mfexpval}. To this end, it is again convenient to exploit the representation in terms of symbols. Using \eref{eq:HQ8}, the symbol $\mathcal{H}_{MF}(k, T)$ of the time-dependent mean-field Hamiltonian can be written in terms of the symbols $\{\mathcal Q_\alpha(k),\alpha=1,\dots,8\}$, as follows \footnote{From now on we set $J=1$.} \begin{equation} \label{eq:MFO} \mathcal{H}_{MF}(k, T)=-\mathcal{Q}_{1}(k)+g\mathcal{V}_{MF}(k, T)\,, \end{equation} \begin{equation} \label{eq:VMFO} \mathcal{V}_{MF}(k,T)=\frac{h}{\varepsilon_k^2}\mathcal{Q}_{2}(k)+ \sum_{\alpha=1}^{8}c_{\alpha}(k;\tilde y_{\alpha})\mathcal{Q}_{\alpha}(k)\,. \end{equation} The coefficients are given by \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:c8} \fl \qquad c_{1}(k; \tilde y_1)=-\frac{1+\cos k}{2\varepsilon^2_k}(\tilde y_{1}^{(0)}+\tilde y_{1}^{(1)})+\gamma^2\frac{1-\cos k}{2\varepsilon^2_k}(\tilde y_{1}^{(0)}-\tilde y_{1}^{(1)})\, \nonumber\\ \fl \qquad c_{2}(k; \tilde y_2)=2\frac{1+U}{ \varepsilon_k^2} \tilde y_{2}^{(0)}-2 U \frac{\cos k}{\varepsilon_k^2}\tilde y_{2}^{(1)} +2 U \gamma^2 \frac{1-\cos k}{\varepsilon_k^2}(\tilde y_{2}^{(0)}-\tilde y_{2}^{(1)})\, \nonumber\\ \fl \qquad c_{3}(k;\tilde y_{3})=-U(1+ \gamma^2) \tilde y_{3}^{(0)}-U(1-\gamma^2) \tilde y_{3}^{(1)}\, \nonumber\\ \fl \qquad c_{4}(k;\tilde y_{4})=-(1+ \gamma^2) \tilde y_{4}^{(0)}-(1-\gamma^2) \tilde y_{4}^{(1)}\, \nonumber\\ \fl \qquad c_{5}(k;\tilde y_5)= \frac{ 1+\cos k}{2\varepsilon^2_k} (\tilde y_{5}^{(0)}+\tilde y_{5}^{(1)})-\gamma^2 \frac{1-\cos k}{2\varepsilon^2_k} (\tilde y_{5}^{(0)}-\tilde y_{5}^{(1)})\, \nonumber\\ \fl \qquad c_{6}(k; \tilde y_{6})= (1+ \gamma^2) \tilde y_{6}^{(0)}+(1-\gamma^2) \tilde y_{6}^{(1)}\, \nonumber\\ \fl \qquad c_{7}(k; \tilde y_{7})= U(1+ \gamma^2) \tilde y_{7}^{(0)}+U(1-\gamma^2) \tilde y_{7}^{(1)}\, \nonumber\\ \fl \qquad c_{8}(k; \tilde y_{8})=2 \gamma^2\frac{U-1}{\varepsilon_k^2} \tilde y_{8}^{(0)}-2 \gamma^2 U \frac{\cos k}{ \varepsilon_k^2} \tilde y_{8}^{(1)}+2 U \frac{1+ \cos k}{\varepsilon_k^2} (\tilde y_{8}^{(0)}+\tilde y_{8}^{(1)})\, , \end{eqnarray} where we defined \begin{equation} \tilde y_\alpha^{(\ell)}(T)=\int_{-\pi}^\pi\frac{\mathrm d p}{2\pi}\frac{\cos(\ell p)}{\varepsilon_k^2}y_\alpha(p,T)\, , \end{equation} and \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:defy} y_\alpha(k,T)=\frac{1}{8}\textrm{Tr}\left[U_{\mathcal H_{MF}}(k,T) \Gamma_{GGE}(k)U^{\dag}_{\mathcal H_{MF}}(k,T) \mathcal{Q}_\alpha(k)\right]\, \nonumber\\ U_{\mathcal H_{MF}}(k,T)=\textrm{T}\exp\left[-i \int_0^{T}\textrm{d}s\,\mathcal V_{MF}(k,s)\right]\, . \end{eqnarray} By taking the first derivative of \eref{eq:defy} with respect to $T$ and using the (closed) commutator algebra of $\mathcal Q_\alpha(k)$ we get \begin{equation} \label{eq:equations} \fl\qquad\qquad \dot{y}_\alpha(k,T)=\frac{h}{\varepsilon_k^2}\sum_{\gamma =1}^{8}f^{2\alpha\gamma}_ky_{\gamma}(k,T)+\sum_{\beta,\gamma =1}^{8}c_{\beta}(k;\tilde y_\gamma)f^{\beta\alpha\gamma}_ky_{\gamma}(k,T)\,. \end{equation} The nonzero structure constants $f^{\alpha\beta\gamma}_k$ that are not connected to one another by symmetry are given by \begin{eqnarray} \fl\quad f^{562}_k=f^{548}_k=2f^{647}_k=2 &\qquad f^{782}_k=f^{746}_k=2f^{845}_k=-2(1-\cos k) \nonumber\\ \fl\quad f^{584}_k=f^{526}_k=2f^{827}_k=-2\varepsilon_k^2 &\qquad f^{728}_k=f^{764}_k=2f^{625}_k=2(1+\cos k)\nonumber\\ \end{eqnarray} The others follow from $f^{\beta\alpha\gamma}_k=-f^{\alpha\beta\gamma}_k$. In particular $\mathcal Q_{1}(k)$ and $\mathcal Q_{3}(k)$ commute with all the other charges, so $y_1(k)$ and $y_3(k)$ are conserved and the system \eref{eq:equations} is reduced to 6 first order integro-differential equations that depend on a continuous variable $k$. The solution of $\eref{eq:equations}$ entirely determines the time evolution generated by $\bar H_{\rm MF}$. Indeed, the expectation value of any local observable in the pre-relaxation limit can be computed using the Wick theorem with the correlation matrix \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:correlmatrix} \fl \qquad\qquad\Braket{\left(\begin{array}{c} a_{2n-1}^x \\ a_{2n-1}^y \\ a_{2n}^x \\ a_{2n}^y \end{array}\right) \left(\begin{array}{cccc} a_{2\ell-1}^x&a_{2\ell-1}^y&a_{2\ell}^x&a_{2\ell}^y \end{array}\right)}=\nonumber\\ \qquad\qquad\qquad\delta_{\ell n} \mathbbm{1}_4+\int_{-\pi}^\pi\frac{\mathrm d k}{2\pi} e^{-i(n-\ell)k}\sum_{i=1}^8 \frac{8y_i(k,T)}{\tr(\mathcal Q_i(k)^2)}\mathcal Q_i(k)\, . \end{eqnarray} This also means that the reduced density matrices of subsystems are gaussian at any time, so the two assumptions \eref{ass:a} and \eref{ass:b} could be also reformulated as a single hypothesis of RDMs being gaussian. Equations \eref{eq:correlmatrix} and \eref{eq:equations} are the main results of this section: they allow us to compute the expectation values of local observables in the pre-relaxation limit of a weakly interacting model by solving a nonlinear system of differential equations, which is rather easy from a numerical point of view. \paragraph{Reflection symmetry} The Hamiltonian \eref{eq:XYYU} is reflection symmetric, that is to say it is invariant under the transformation \begin{equation} \sigma_\ell^\alpha\rightarrow \sigma_{s+L-\ell}^\alpha\qquad \alpha\in \{x,y,z\}\, , \end{equation} where $s$ is odd for reflections about a bond and even for those about a site. The reflection operator acts on the Majorana fermions as follows \begin{eqnarray} a_\ell^x\rightarrow i \Bigl(\prod_{j}\sigma_j^z\Bigr)a_{s+L-\ell}^y\nonumber\\ a_\ell^y\rightarrow -i \Bigl(\prod_{j}\sigma_j^z\Bigr)a_{s+L-\ell}^x\, . \end{eqnarray} Therefore the symbol $\mathcal H$ of a one-site shift invariant operator transforms as \begin{equation} \mathcal H^{(1)}(k)\rightarrow\sigma^y\mathcal H^{(1)}(-k)\sigma^y\, , \end{equation} while for two-site shift invariant operators we find \begin{equation} \mathcal H^{(2)}(k)\rightarrow\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \sigma^x\otimes \sigma^y\ \mathcal H^{(2)}(-k)\ \sigma^x\otimes \sigma^y&s \rm{\ odd}\\ e^{-i\frac{k}{2}\sigma^z}\otimes \sigma^y\ \mathcal H^{(2)}(-k)\ e^{i\frac{k}{2}\sigma^z}\otimes \sigma^y&s \rm{\ even}\, . \end{array}\right. \end{equation} The symbols \eref{eq:C8} of the conservation laws have the simple transformation rules \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:transf} \mathcal Q_{1,2}(k) &\longrightarrow \mathcal Q_{1,2}(k)\nonumber\\ \mathcal Q_{3,4}(k) &\longrightarrow -\mathcal Q_{3,4}(k)\nonumber\\ \mathcal Q_{5,6}(k)&\longrightarrow -(-1)^sQ_{5,6}(k)\nonumber\\ \mathcal Q_{7,8}(k)&\longrightarrow (-1)^s\mathcal Q_{7,8}(k)\, . \end{eqnarray} Since a shift by one site is equivalent to a reflection about a bond followed by a reflection about a site, we recover the transformation rules pointed out below \eref{eq:C8}. If the initial state is reflection symmetric about a \emph{bond}, $\mathcal Q_j(k)=0$ for $j=3,4,7,8$. Thus, the system of equations \eref{eq:equations} can be reduced to \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:simplesystem} \fl\qquad\quad \dot{y}_2(k,T)&=-2 c_{5}(k;\tilde y_5)\varepsilon_k^2 y_{6}(k,T)+ c_{6}(k;\tilde y_6)(1+\cos k) y_{5}(k,T) \nonumber\\ \fl\qquad\quad \dot{y}_5(k,T)&=-2 c_{6}(k;\tilde y_6) y_{2}(k,T)+2 \Bigl(\frac{h}{\varepsilon_k^2}+c_{2}(k;\tilde y_2)\Bigr)\varepsilon_k^2 y_{6}(k,T)\nonumber\\ \fl\qquad\quad \dot{y}_6(k,T)&=2 c_{5}(k;\tilde y_5) y_{2}(k,T)- \Bigl(\frac{h}{\varepsilon_k^2}+c_{2}(k;\tilde y_2)\Bigr)(1+\cos k) y_{5}(k,T)\, . \end{eqnarray} We numerically identified three different behaviours: \begin{itemize} \item \emph{Stationarity}: The expectation values of the observables remain equal to the initial values given by the unperturbed GGE (\fref{f:noevolution}). \item \emph{Local relaxation}: The observables relax to a different stationary value: one-site shift invariance is restored in some cases (\fref{f:relaxrest}) while remaining broken in others (\fref{f:relaxbrok}). \item \emph{Persistent oscillations}: The amplitude of the oscillations of the expectation values of the observables does not approach zero (\fref{f:persistent}). \end{itemize} We point out that, even when there is relaxation (at some intermediate times with $Jt\gg g^{-1}$), the stationary state is not thermal, being the local conservation laws of $H_{\rm XY}$ with symbol proportional to $\mathcal Q_1(k)$ and $\mathcal Q_3(k)$ (namely the charges that preserve non-abelian integrability) conserved in the pre-relaxation limit. \begin{figure}[tbp] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{sxsxh0gamma2U5.pdf} \end{center}\caption{The time evolution of $\braket{\sigma^x_1\sigma^x_{2}}$ (red dashed) and $\braket{\sigma^x_2\sigma^x_{3}}$ (blue) after a quench from the state $\ket{\textrm{MG}}$ \eref{eq:MG} and Hamiltonian $H$ \eref{eq:XYYU} with $\gamma=2$, $h=0$, and $U=5$. The correlators are stationary. We find stationary behaviour whenever the initial state is reflection symmetric, $y_2(k)=y_6(k)=0$ (\emph{cf}. \eref{eq:defy}), and $h=0$.}\label{f:noevolution} \end{figure} \begin{figure}[tbp] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{sxsxh1gamma2Um2.pdf} \end{center}\caption{The time evolution of $\braket{\sigma^x_1\sigma^x_{2}}$ (red dashed) and $\braket{\sigma^x_2\sigma^x_{3}}$ (blue) after a quench from the state $\ket{\textrm{MG}}$ \eref{eq:MG} and Hamiltonian $H$ \eref{eq:XYYU} with $\gamma=2$, $h=1$ and $U=-2$. The correlators rapidly relax to the same stationary value, restoring translation invariance. We verified relaxation up to $gt=1000$. }\label{f:relaxrest} \end{figure} \begin{figure}[tbp] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{sxsxh2gamma2U2.pdf} \end{center}\caption{The time evolution of $\braket{\sigma^x_1\sigma^x_{2}}$ (red dashed) and $\braket{\sigma^x_2\sigma^x_{3}}$ (blue) after a quench from the state $\ket{\textrm{MG}}$ \eref{eq:MG} and Hamiltonian $H$ \eref{eq:XYYU} with $\gamma=2$, $h=2$ and $U=2$. The correlators rapidly relax to different stationary values. We verified relaxation up to $gt=1000$.}\label{f:relaxbrok} \end{figure} \begin{figure}[tbp] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{sxsxh1gamma4Um2.pdf} \end{center}\caption{The time evolution of $\braket{\sigma^x_1\sigma^x_{2}}$ (red dashed) and $\braket{\sigma^x_2\sigma^x_{3}}$ (blue) after a quench from the state $\ket{\textrm{MG}}$ \eref{eq:MG} and Hamiltonian $H$ \eref{eq:XYYU} with $\gamma=4$, $h=1$ and $U=-2$. The correlators exhibit persistent oscillations on the time window explored. Inset: the amplitude of the oscillations is still unabated at $gt= 1000$.}\label{f:persistent} \end{figure} \subsection{Perturbations preserving integrability}\label{ss:int} In this section we consider the case $U=\gamma=0$, in which $H$ \eref{eq:XYYU} is the Hamiltonian of the $XXZ$ spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ chain. Because of the $U(1)$ symmetry of rotations around $z$, there are many simplifications and the system of equations \eref{eq:simplesystem} can be rewritten as follows: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:simplesystemisot1} \fl\qquad \frac{1}{2}\dot{y}_2^{[n]}(T)&=y_5^{[n]}(T) y_6^{[0]}(T)-y_6^{[n]}(T)y_5^{[0]}(T) \nonumber\\ \fl\qquad \frac{1}{2}\dot{y}_5^{[n]}(T)&=-(2y_2^{[n]}(T)+y_2^{[n-1]}(T)+y_2^{[n+1]}(T))y_6^{[0]}(T)+(h+4y_2^{[0]}(T))y_6^{[n]}(T)\nonumber\\ \fl\qquad \frac{1}{2}\dot{y}_6^{[n]}(T)&=(2y_2^{[n]}(T)+y_2^{[n-1]}(T)+y_2^{[n+1]}(T))y_5^{[0]}(T)-(h+4y_2^{[0]}(T))y_5^{[n]}(T)\, , \end{eqnarray} where we defined \begin{equation} \label{eq:ntransf} \fl \quad y_2^{[n]}(T)=\int_{-\pi}^\pi\frac{\mathrm d p}{2\pi}\frac{\cos(n p)}{1+\cos p}y_2(p,T)\, ,\qquad y_{5,6}^{[n]}(T)=\int_{-\pi}^\pi\frac{\mathrm d p}{2\pi}\cos(n p)y_{5,6}(p,T)\, . \end{equation} We notice that, despite the denominator, $y_2^{[n]}$ are expectation values of local operators, as well as $y_{5,6}^{[n]}$. Since $S^z=\frac{1}{2}\sum_\ell\sigma_\ell^z$ commutes with the Hamiltonian, the dependence on $h$ is simple and, in particular, the expectation value of the one-site shift invariant conservation laws is independent of the magnetic field. This means that the functions $y_2^{[n]}$ are independent of $h$. It is useful to rewrite the system for $n=0$. We find \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:simplesystemisot20} \fl\qquad\quad \dot{y}_2^{[0]}(T)&=0\nonumber\\ \fl\qquad\quad \dot{y}_5^{[0]}(T)&=2(h+2y_2^{[0]}(T)-2y_2^{[1]}(T))y_6^{[0]}(T)\nonumber\\ \fl\qquad\quad \dot{y}_6^{[0]}(T)&=-2(h+2y_2^{[0]}(T)-2y_2^{[1]}(T))y_5^{[0]}(T)\, . \end{eqnarray} Inspecting the system we conclude that $y_2^{[0]}$ and $(y_5^{[0]})^2+(y_6^{[0]})^2$ are conserved. Moreover, the system \eref{eq:simplesystemisot20} can be directly solved, it yields \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:sol0} \fl\quad y_2^{[0]}(T)=\frac{\braket{S^z}}{2L}\equiv \frac{s^z}{2}\nonumber\\ \fl\quad y_5^{[0]}(T)=y_5^{[0]}(0)\cos\Bigl(\int_0^T \mathrm d \tau\, (2h+4m(\tau))\Bigr)+y_6^{[0]}(0)\sin\Bigl(\int_0^T \mathrm d \tau\, (2h+4m(\tau))\Bigr)\nonumber\\ \fl\quad y_6^{[0]}(T)=y_6^{[0]}(0)\cos\Bigl(\int_0^T \mathrm d \tau\, (2h+4m(\tau))\Bigr)-y_5^{[0]}(0)\sin\Bigl(\int_0^T \mathrm d \tau\, (2h+4m(\tau))\Bigr)\, . \end{eqnarray} Here we defined \begin{equation}\label{eq:mT} \fl \quad m(T)\equiv \frac{s^z}{2}-y_2^{[1]}(T)=s^z-\frac{\braket{Q_2}_T}{L}=\frac{1}{4}\Braket{\sigma_\ell^z}+\frac{1}{8}\Braket{\sigma_{\ell-1}^x\sigma_{\ell}^z\sigma_{\ell+1}^x+\sigma_{\ell-1}^y\sigma_{\ell}^z\sigma_{\ell+1}^y}_T\, . \end{equation} If both $y_5^{[0]}(T)$ and $y_6^{[0]}(T)$ are zero, \eref{eq:simplesystemisot1} has the solution \begin{eqnarray} y_2^{[n]}(T)=y_2^{[n]}(0)\nonumber\\ y_5^{[n]}(T)=y_5^{[n]}(0)\cos(2 (h+2s^z)T)+y_6^{[n]}(0)\sin(2 (h+2s^z) T)\nonumber\\ y_6^{[n]}(T)=y_6^{[n]}(0)\cos(2 (h+2s^z)T)-y_5^{[n]}(0)\sin(2 (h+2s^z) T)\, . \end{eqnarray} For $h\neq -2s^z$, local observables keep oscillating in time, otherwise, on the pre-relaxation timescale, the expectation values of local observables do not move from the values reached at times $1\ll Jt\ll g^{-1}$. More generally ($(y_5^{[0]})^2+(y_6^{[0]})^2\neq 0$), from \eref{eq:sol0} and \eref{eq:mT} we immediately infer that relaxation is possible only if \begin{equation}\label{eq:hrelax} \exists \lim_{T\rightarrow\infty}m(T)=-\frac{h}{2}\, , \end{equation} \begin{equation}\label{eq:hrelax2} \exists \lim_{T\rightarrow \infty}\Bigl|\int_{0}^{T}\textrm{d}\tau\Bigl(m(\tau)+\frac{h}{2}\Bigr)\Bigr|<\infty \, . \end{equation} We see that $m(T)$ could be interpreted as a sort of `induced magnetisation' that $h$ must compete with. The trivial dependence on $h$ is manifest choosing the variables \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:simplesystemisot2} Y_n=y_2^{[n]}(T)\nonumber\\ \Phi_n=y_5^{[n]}(T)y_5^{[0]}(T)+y_6^{[n]}(T)y_6^{[0]}(T)\, , \end{eqnarray} which satisfy the following system of equations independent of $h$: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:YPHI} \fl\quad\qquad m(T)\equiv \frac{s^z}{2}-Y_1(T)\nonumber\\ \fl\quad\qquad\ddot Y_n(T)=-4\Phi_0(2Y_n(T)+Y_{n+1}(T)+Y_{n-1}(T))+8(s^z-m(T))\Phi_n(T)\nonumber\\ \fl\quad\qquad\dot \Phi_n(T)=-2(s^z-m(T))\dot Y_n(T)\, . \end{eqnarray} Here we omitted the time dependence in the conserved quantity $\Phi_0$. Since $\Phi_0\neq 0$ by assumption, the original variables are obtained from the inverse transformation \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:invt} y_5^{[n]}(T)=\frac{2y_5^{[0]}(T)\Phi_n(T)+y_6^{[0]}(T)\dot Y_n(T)}{2\Phi_0}\nonumber\\ y_6^{[n]}(T)=\frac{2y_6^{[0]}(T)\Phi_n(T)-y_5^{[0]}(T)\dot Y_n(T)}{2\Phi_0}\, , \end{eqnarray} and \eref{eq:sol0}. Performing a qualitative analysis of the system \eref{eq:YPHI} we conclude that condition \eref{eq:hrelax} and $m(T)+{h}/{2}$ approaching 0 faster than $1/T$ imply relaxation of local degrees of freedom. Therefore the variance \eref{eq:variance} of $m(T)$ is what in \Sref{s:summary} we called an `order parameter' for the transition between relaxation and oscillatory behaviour. As we will show in \Sref{s:Ising}, some aspects of the solutions of nonlinear systems like \eref{eq:YPHI} can be worked out analytically. In the present context this would involve the study of quantum quenches from rather artificial initial states. Therefore we prefer to leave the entire discussion to \Sref{s:Ising}, where we will obtain a system of equations extremely similar to \eref{eq:YPHI}, with the advantage that the qualitative analysis can be carried out for more conventional initial states. \subsection{Perturbations breaking integrability: linearisation} In order to gain some insights into the time evolution under the Hamiltonian \eref{eq:XYYU} in the non-integrable case we focus on quantum quenches starting from the dimer product state \begin{equation}\label{eq:MG} \ket{\textrm{MG}} =\frac{\ket{\uparrow\downarrow}-\ket{\downarrow\uparrow}}{2}\otimes\cdots\otimes\frac{\ket{\uparrow\downarrow}-\ket{\downarrow\uparrow}}{2}\,, \end{equation} which is the ground state of the Majumdar-Ghosh Hamiltonian \begin{equation} H_0=\frac{J}{4}\sum_{\ell=1}^{L}\vec \sigma_{\ell}\cdot\vec \sigma_{\ell+1}+\frac{1}{2}\vec \sigma_{\ell}\cdot\vec \sigma_{\ell+2}\,. \end{equation} Despite the model being interacting, \eref{eq:MG} is a two-site shift invariant Slater determinant, whose correlation matrix has the following symbol \begin{equation} \Gamma_{\rm MG}(k)=\sigma^x\otimes\sigma^y\, . \end{equation} The initial conditions for $\{y_\alpha(k)\}$ \eref{eq:defy} are determined by the GGE correlation matrix for $g=0$. They can be obtained by expanding $\Gamma_{\rm MG}(k)$ in the base of the symbols \eref{eq:C8} of the conserved charges of $H_{XY}$ (the remaining space is zeroed by the time evolution, as $1\ll Jt$, \emph{cf}. \sref{ss:t-dGGE}) \begin{equation} \Gamma(k;0)=\sum_{i=1}^8 \frac{\tr[\Gamma_{\rm MG}(k)\mathcal Q_i(k)]}{\tr[(\mathcal Q_i(k))^2]}\mathcal Q_i(k) \, . \end{equation} We find \begin{equation}\label{eq:Gamma0} \fl\quad \Gamma(k;0)=\frac{1+\cos k}{1+\cos k+\gamma^2(1-\cos k )}\mathcal Q_1(k)-\gamma \frac{1-\cos k}{1+\cos k+\gamma^2(1-\cos k )}\mathcal Q_5(k)\, . \end{equation} The only nonzero initial conditions are given by (\emph{cf.} \eref{eq:defy}) \begin{eqnarray} y_1(k,0)=\frac{1+\cos k}{4}\, \nonumber\\ y_5(k,0)=-\gamma \frac{1-\cos k}{4}\, .\label{eq:intialconditionsMG2} \end{eqnarray} The initial state is reflection symmetric about a bond, so we can use the reduced system \eref{eq:simplesystem}. Since $y_5$ is the only nonzero initial condition that appears in \eref{eq:simplesystem}, for $\gamma=0$ (see previous section) the solution of the system of equations is independent of time, namely the pre-relaxation limit is trivial. It is easy to see that also for $h=0$ system \eref{eq:simplesystem}\eref{eq:intialconditionsMG2} has a stationary solution. We therefore assume $\gamma, h\neq 0$. Since $c_j(k;y_j)$ are linear homogeneous functions of $y_j$, the magnetic field $h$ enters into the equations essentially as a scale factor. We rescale the variables as follows \begin{equation} \label{eq:rescaling} \tau=2 h T=2 h g t\qquad \epsilon=\frac{\gamma}{2h }\qquad z_j=\frac{2 y_j}{\gamma}\qquad \gamma_j=\frac{2 c_j}{\gamma}\, . \end{equation} From \eref{eq:simplesystem} we then obtain \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:linears} \fl\qquad\qquad\partial_\tau z_2(k,\tau)&=&-\epsilon\, \varepsilon_k^2\gamma_5(k,\tau) z_6(k,\tau)+\epsilon\cos^2\frac{k}{2}\gamma_6(k,\tau) z_5(k,\tau)\nonumber\\ \fl\qquad\qquad\partial_\tau z_5(k,\tau)&=&-\epsilon\gamma_6(k,\tau) z_2(k,\tau)+(1+\epsilon\, \varepsilon_k^2\gamma_2(k,\tau))z_6(k,\tau)\nonumber\\ \fl\qquad\qquad\partial_\tau z_6(k,\tau)&=&\epsilon\gamma_5(k,\tau) z_2(k,\tau)-(1+\epsilon\, \varepsilon_k^2\gamma_2(k,\tau))\frac{\cos^2\frac{k}{2}}{ \varepsilon_k^2}z_5(k,\tau)\, , \end{eqnarray} with the initial conditions \begin{equation} z_2(k,0)=z_6(k,0)=0\qquad z_5(k,0)=-\sin^2\frac{k}{2}\, . \end{equation} For generic $\epsilon$ the system of equations is not exactly solvable, but the limit of small $\epsilon$ allows a linear approximation. For not too large rescaled times (we'll come back to this point later) the terms that are multiplied by $\epsilon$ in the last two equations can be neglected, while the functions that appear on the right hand side of the first equation can be computed at $O(\epsilon^0)$. For $z_5$ and $z_6$ we obtain the simple solution \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:linearisedsolution} \fl\qquad\qquad z_5(k,\tau)\approx -\sin^2\frac{k}{2}\cos\Bigl(\frac{\cos \frac{k}{2}}{\varepsilon_k} \tau\Bigr)\nonumber\\ \fl\qquad\qquad z_6(k,\tau)\approx \sin^2\frac{k}{2}\frac{\cos \frac{k}{2}}{\varepsilon_k} \sin\Bigl(\frac{\cos \frac{k}{2}}{\varepsilon_k} \tau\Bigr)\, , \end{eqnarray} while $z_2$ is a slightly more complicated function that involves integrals over the momentum of $z_{5,6}$, namely \begin{equation} \label{eq:linearisedsolution2} \fl\quad\quad z_2(k,\tau)\approx \epsilon\frac{\sin k\sin\frac{k}{2}}{2} \int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\frac{\textrm{d}p}{2\pi}\sum_{\sigma=\pm}g_\sigma(k,p)f(\frac{\cos \frac{k}{2}}{\varepsilon_k}+\sigma\frac{\cos \frac{p}{2}}{\varepsilon_p};\tau)\,. \end{equation} Here we defined \begin{equation} \fl\quad\quad g_{\sigma}(k,p)\equiv\frac{\sin^2\frac{p}{2}}{\varepsilon_p}\Bigl[\frac{\cos^2\frac{k}{2}\cos^2\frac{p}{2}-\gamma^2\sin^2\frac{k}{2} \sin^2\frac{p}{2}}{\varepsilon_k\varepsilon_p}+\sigma\cos\frac{k}{2} \cos \frac{p}{2}\Bigr]\,, \end{equation} \begin{equation} \fl\quad\quad f(x;\tau)\equiv\frac{1-\cos(x \tau)}{x}\, . \end{equation} For small $\epsilon$ and given $\gamma$, $z_2(k,\tau)$ relaxes to the stationary value \begin{equation}\label{eq:z2} \label{eq:stationary} \fl\qquad\qquad z_2(k,\infty)=\frac{\epsilon\sin^2 k}{8 \gamma^2} \Bigl[1- 3\gamma^2+(2+4\gamma^2)\cos k+(1-\gamma^2)\cos2k\Bigr]\,. \end{equation} Let us now estimate the time window in which the linear approximation is applicable. From \eref{eq:linearisedsolution} it follows that $\gamma_5$ and $\gamma_6$ decay to zero as $\tau^{-\frac{3}{2}}$. Instead, since $z_2$ approaches a nonzero stationary value, $\gamma_2$ is of the same order of $z_2$. This means that, as the time increases, the first term on the right hand side of the last two equations of \eref{eq:linears} becomes more and more negligible with respect to the other term multiplied by $\epsilon$. By neglecting the former we obtain essentially the same solution \eref{eq:linearisedsolution} as before, with the replacement \begin{equation} \tau\rightarrow\tau+\epsilon\ \varepsilon_k^2\int_0^\tau\mathrm d s \gamma_2(k,s)=\tau\left(1+\epsilon\ \varepsilon_k^2 \gamma_2(k,\infty)\right)+\dots\, . \end{equation} Being $\gamma_2\sim O(\epsilon)$, after a rescaled time $\tau\sim \frac{1}{\epsilon^2}$, the correction to $z_{5,6}$ becomes comparable with the function itself. Assuming that the relevant part of the time evolution occurs within this time scale, the linear approximation is justified only if $|z_2|\ll 1$ (and $\epsilon\ll 1$). For $\gamma<1/2$ we find $|z_2(k,\infty)|< \frac{\epsilon}{6\gamma^2}$, so we obtain the consistency condition \begin{equation}\label{eq:limitval} \frac{1}{12h}\ll \gamma\ll 2h\, . \end{equation} Figures \ref{f:q5} and \ref{f:q2} report a comparison between the solution of the linearised problem and the full numerical solution of system \eref{eq:simplesystem} for a set of parameters fulfilling \eref{eq:limitval}. From the expressions \eref{eq:linearisedsolution} of $z_5(k,\tau), z_6(k,\tau)$ and \eref{eq:z2} of $z_2(k,\tau)$, we can directly compute the time evolution of the expectation value of any local observable in the pre-relaxation limit. Indeed Corollary \ref{C:2} allows us to apply the Wick theorem at any time (in the limit under examination) and the correlation matrix is given by \eref{eq:correlmatrix}. \begin{figure}[tbp] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Q5.pdf} \end{center}\caption{The time evolution of $\braket{Q_5}_t=\gamma\int\frac{{\rm d}k}{4\pi} z_5(k,t)$, where $Q_5$ is the conserved charge of $H_{XY}$ corresponding to the symbol $\mathcal Q_5(k)$ \eref{eq:C8} for a time evolution starting from the state $\ket{MG}$ \eref{eq:MG}. The parameters of the Hamiltonian \eref{eq:XYYU} are $\gamma=0.2$, $h=3.5$ and $U=-1$, hence $\epsilon\approx0.029$ (\emph{cf.} \eref{eq:rescaling}) and $\gamma$ fulfils the consistency condition \eref{eq:limitval} of the linearisation procedure. The analytical prediction of \eref{eq:linearisedsolution} (red dashed line) is in excellent agreement with the numerical data (blue line).}\label{f:q5} \end{figure} \begin{figure}[tbp] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Q2.pdf} \end{center}\caption{The time evolution of $\braket{Q_2}_t=\gamma\int\frac{{\rm d}k}{4\pi} z_2(k,t)$, where $Q_2$ is the conserved charge of $H_{XY}$ corresponding to the symbol $\mathcal Q_2(k)$ \eref{eq:C8} for a time evolution starting from the state $\ket{MG}$ \eref{eq:MG}. The parameters of the Hamiltonian \eref{eq:XYYU} are $\gamma=0.2$, $h=3.5$ and $U=-1$, hence $\epsilon\approx0.029$ (\emph{cf.} \eref{eq:rescaling}) and $\gamma$ fulfils the consistency condition \eref{eq:limitval} of the linearisation procedure. The analytical prediction of \eref{eq:linearisedsolution} (red dashed line) is in fairly good agreement with the numerical data (blue line). The stationary value produced by the solution of the linearised problem (black dotted line) is $\braket{Q_2} =\frac{(1- 5\gamma^2)}{128h} $ (\emph{cf.} \eref{eq:stationary}).}\label{f:q2} \end{figure} Any integral involving $z_5$ and $z_6$ approaches zero and $z_2$ becomes independent of time even if not integrated. Therefore, in the limit \eref{eq:limitval} and for large times the expectation value of any local observable relaxes to a stationary value that can be described by the correlation matrix with symbol \begin{equation}\label{eq:inflin} \lim_{\tau\rightarrow\infty^{(*)}}\Gamma(k;\tau)= \frac{\gamma z_1(k,\infty)}{\varepsilon_k^2}\mathcal Q_1(k)+\frac{\gamma z_2(k,\infty)}{\varepsilon_k^2\cos^2(k/2)}\mathcal Q_2(k)\, , \end{equation} where the infinite time limit $\tau\rightarrow\infty^{(*)}$ must be understood within the limits of validity of the linear approximation. We point out that one-site shift invariance is restored, indeed the only contributions to the correlation matrix at infinite times arise from $\mathcal Q_1(k)$ and $\mathcal Q_2(k)$, which are symbols of one-site shift invariant operators. The manifestly one-site shift invariant expression of the correlation matrix in the limit \eref{eq:inflin} reads \begin{equation} \fl \qquad\qquad\lim_{\tau\rightarrow\infty^{(*)}}\Braket{\left(\begin{array}{c} a_{n}^x \\ a_{n}^y \end{array}\right) \left(\begin{array}{cccc} a_{\ell}^x&a_{\ell}^y \end{array}\right)}= \delta_{\ell n} \mathbbm{1}_2+\int_{-\pi}^\pi\frac{\mathrm d k}{2\pi} e^{-i(n-\ell)k}\,\Gamma^{(1)}(k)\, , \end{equation} with \begin{eqnarray} \fl \Gamma^{(1)}(k)=\frac{2h(1+\cos 2k) +\sin^2 k\cos k(1- 3\gamma^2+(2+4\gamma^2)\cos 2k+(1-\gamma^2)\cos 4k)}{2 h(1+\cos 2 k+\gamma^2(1-\cos 2k))}\nonumber\\ \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\times(\cos k\ \sigma^y-\gamma\sin k\ \sigma^x)\, . \end{eqnarray} \subsection{Remarks on the late time dynamics} We notice that, despite one-site shift invariance being restored in \eref{eq:inflin}, the asymptotic value is not given by the average over a shift of the expectation value of the operator in the GGE of the unperturbed model. Indeed the one-site shift average of \eref{eq:Gamma0} is proportional to $\mathcal Q_1(k)$ (\emph{cf}. \eref{eq:transf}) but the symbol of the large time correlation matrix \eref{eq:inflin} has also a term proportional to $\mathcal Q_2(k)$. Consequently, the shift-averaged stationary values can \emph{not} be recovered from those in the limit of small perturbation $g\rightarrow 0$. For example we have \begin{eqnarray} \lim_{1\ll t\ll \frac{1}{g}}\Braket{\frac{\sigma_{2\ell-1}^z+\sigma_{2\ell}^z}{2}}=O(g)\label{eq:zerom}\\ \lim_{2 h g t\rightarrow\infty^{(*)}}\Braket{\sigma_{\ell}^z} =-\frac{\gamma^2}{16 h}\frac{3+\gamma}{(1+\gamma)^3}+O(g)\label{eq:nonzerom}\, , \end{eqnarray} where we highlighted that there are $O(g)$ corrections. Besides this particular quench in a non-integrable model, similar issues arise also in the integrable case, where it is generally believed that at infinite time after the quench the expectation values can be computed in a GGE constructed with the (quasi-)local conservation laws of the model. In the rest of the section we propose a reasoning that relates this kind of deviations to possible atypical properties of the model. We notice that at times $1\ll t\ll\frac{1}{g}$, shift-symmetrised expectation values of quadratic operators, \emph{e.g.} \eref{eq:zerom}, can be obtained from the GGE of the unperturbed model constructed with only the local translation invariant conservation laws. This is because the limit $1\ll t\ll\frac{1}{g}$ with $g\rightarrow 0$ can be described by the GGE of the unperturbed model, but the conservation laws that break translation invariance are odd under a shift by one site, so they can in fact be neglected (this equivalence breaks down for operators that consist of the product of more than two Jordan-Wigner fermions). For nonzero $g$ non-abelian integrability is supposed to break down and the relevant charges are generally assumed to be one-site shift invariant and in involution with one another. We now speculate about the stationary state in the limit of small $g$ if the perturbation does not break integrability. Let the (quasi-)local conservation laws of the interacting (integrable) model be in a smooth one-to-one correspondence with the local one-site shift invariant conservation laws for $g=0$. In the limit of small $g$, the stationary state should locally approach the GGE constructed with the local one-site shift invariant conservation laws of the unperturbed model. The expectation values of shift-symmetrised quadratic operators at times $1\ll t\ll\frac{1}{g}$ are compatible with such a one-site shift invariant GGE. However, discrepancies like that between \eref{eq:zerom} and \eref{eq:nonzerom} show that at larger times there is a time window in which the expectation values approach a different value. Our assumption of regularity of the conservation laws as a function of $g$ requires that at even larger times the expectation values should eventually relax to the same values they had in the earliest plateau. This is clearly possible, but an infinite number of operators displaying a similar behaviour is rather surprising. This makes us wonder whether the hypothesis of regularity could break down, that is to say there are (quasi-)local conservation laws for $g\neq 0$ that become nonlocal when $g=0$ (\emph{e.g.} their typical range could be singular as $g\rightarrow 0$) or, \emph{vice versa}, some one-site shift invariant conservation laws of the unperturbed Hamiltonian do not have analogues at nonzero $g$. From this point of view, discrepancies like that between \eref{eq:zerom} and \eref{eq:nonzerom} could be indications that in the XYZ model there might be quasi-local conservation laws that do not behave well in the limit $g\rightarrow 0$. This scenario becomes even more plausible if one takes into account the issues in the construction of the GGE in XXZ spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ chains that were recently pointed out \cite{QAXXZ-14,PMWKZT-14,A:bound}. \subsection{Summary} In this section we considered the pre-relaxation limit in an XY spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ chain perturbed by interacting operators. As an example of pre-relaxation in integrable models we investigated the XXZ spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ chain. The model has $U(1)$ symmetry, manifested by the conservation of the spin in the $z$-direction. Consequently, the external magnetic field (along $z$) generally produces oscillatory behaviour in local observables. In fact we showed that there is a specific (generally nonzero) value of the magnetic field for which the time evolution in the pre-relaxation limit may end up in a second plateau. For non-integrable perturbations we exhibited examples of the typical time evolution of the expectation values of local observables in the pre-relaxation limit. We also described a linearisation scheme that allowed us to predict the time evolution of the dimer product state \eref{eq:MG} when the Hamiltonian parameters satisfy particular conditions. In that limit we found local relaxation to a one-site shift invariant state. In order to characterise the crossover between persistent oscillatory behaviour and relaxation, one should go beyond that linearisation scheme. In the next section we will consider the model \eref{eq:TFICNI}, which has several dynamical aspects in common with the Hamiltonian \eref{eq:Hrel}, especially in the integrable case $\gamma=U=0$ considered in \Sref{ss:int}. Specifically, we will present a method that resembles the linearisation considered in this section but that allows us to extract some information about the `quench dephasing diagram' of the model. \section{An exactly solvable model }\label{s:Ising} % The results of Section \ref{s:int} are a compelling motivation for the study of nonlocal Hamiltonians of the form \eref{eq:opform}. We now go beyond that rigid derivation: we skip the formal steps that relate \eref{eq:opform} to a pre-relaxation limit and start off directly with a Hamiltonian of the form \eref{eq:opform}. We then query whether such models with (apparently) non-integrable long-range interactions could display thermal-like behaviour at late times after a quench. Specifically, we consider the Hamiltonian \begin{equation}\label{eq:TFICNI} H(\tilde g,\lambda)=-\sum_\ell^L(\sigma_\ell^x\sigma_{\ell+1}^x+\tilde g\sigma_\ell^z)+\frac{\lambda}{L}\Bigl(\sum_\ell^L\sigma_\ell^z\Bigr)^2\, . \end{equation} This has been recently proposed as a convenient model to investigate pre-thermalisation issues~\cite{IsingNI}. In fact, in order to recover some temporal cluster decomposition properties, the authors of \cite{IsingNI} considered a slightly modified version of \eref{eq:TFICNI}, where, in the term proportional to $\lambda$, $\sum_\ell^L\sigma_\ell^z$ was replaced by $\sum_\ell^L\sigma_\ell^z-\overline{\sum_\ell^L\sigma_\ell^z}$, the latter being its time average for $\lambda=0$. The time average is a simple quadratic quasi-local operator (\emph{cf.} the first equation of \eref{eq:HQ8}), so our formalism could be readily applied. However, for the sake of simplicity, we consider \eref{eq:opform} and show later that a redefinition of $\tilde g$ is sufficient to recover the results shown in \cite{IsingNI}. From Corollary \ref{C:2}, in the thermodynamic limit $L\rightarrow\infty$ the time evolution under \eref{eq:TFICNI} is locally equivalent to the time evolution under the time-dependent mean-field Hamiltonian \begin{equation}\label{eq:HMFIS} H_{\rm MF}^{\Psi_0}(t)=-\sum_\ell(\sigma_\ell^x\sigma_{\ell+1}^x+h(t)\sigma_\ell^z)\, , \end{equation} with $h(t)$ the solution of the self-consistent equation \begin{equation}\label{eq:hm} \fl\qquad h(t)=\tilde g-2\lambda \braket{\Psi_0|{\rm T^\dag}\exp\Bigl(i\int_0^t\mathrm d\tau H_{\rm MF}^{\Psi_0}(\tau)\Bigr)\sigma_\ell^z\ {\rm T}\exp\Bigl(-i\int_0^t\mathrm d\tau H_{\rm MF}^{\Psi_0}(\tau\Bigr)|\Psi_0}\, . \end{equation} Here we used translation invariance to replace $\frac{1}{L}\sum_\ell\sigma_\ell^z$ by the local operator $\sigma_\ell^z$ (which removes the nasty dependence on the chain length $L$). For Slater determinant initial states the expectation value can be conveniently written in terms of the symbol $\Gamma(k)$ of the initial correlation matrix (see Appendix~\ref{a:free}). In particular we find \begin{equation}\label{eq:ht} h(t)=\tilde g-\lambda\int_{-\pi}^\pi\frac{\mathrm d k}{2\pi} y_k(t)\, , \end{equation} with \begin{equation} y_k(t)=\tr\Bigl[U_{{\mathcal H}_{\rm MF}}(k,t)\Gamma(k)U^\dag_{{\mathcal H}_{\rm MF}}(k,t) \sigma^y\Bigr]\, , \end{equation} \begin{equation} U_{{\mathcal H}_{\rm MF}}(k,t)={\rm T}\exp\Bigl[2i\int_0^t\mathrm d\tau \sigma^y(h(\tau)-e^{i k \sigma^z})\Bigr]\,. \end{equation} One can easily verify that $y_k$ is the solution of \begin{equation}\label{eq:system} \begin{array}{l} y_k^{''}(t)=4(h(t)-\cos k)\phi_k(t)+16(h(t)\cos k -1)y_k(t)\\ \phi_k^{'}(t)=-4h(t)y_k^{'}(t)\, , \end{array} \end{equation} with \begin{equation} \phi_k(t)=-4\tr\Bigl[U_{{\mathcal H}_{\rm MF}}(k,t)\Gamma(k)U^\dag_{{\mathcal H}_{\rm MF}}(k,t) \sigma^ye^{i k \sigma^z}\Bigr]\, . \end{equation} Equations \eref{eq:ht} and \eref{eq:system} could be solved by discretising the momenta $k$; however working in real space is more transparent. We therefore introduce the (real space) Fourier coefficients \begin{equation}\label{eq:Fcoeff} \tilde y_n=\int_{-\pi}^\pi\frac{\mathrm d k}{2\pi}\cos(n k)y_k(t)\qquad \tilde\phi_n=\int_{-\pi}^\pi\frac{\mathrm d k}{2\pi}\cos(n k)\phi_k(t)\, , \end{equation} which are the expectation values of local operators with range $n$ and $n+1$ respectively. The system of equations \eref{eq:system} can then be recast as follows \begin{equation}\label{eq:systemF} \fl\qquad\qquad\begin{array}{ll} h=g-\lambda \tilde y_0\\ \tilde y_0''=4 h \tilde\phi_0-4\tilde\phi_{1}+16 h\tilde y_{1}-16\tilde y_{0}\\ \tilde y_n^{''}=4 h \tilde\phi_n-2(\tilde\phi_{n+1}+\tilde\phi_{n-1})+8 h (\tilde y_{n+1}+\tilde y_{n-1})-16\tilde y_{n}& (n>0)\\ \tilde \phi_n^{'}=-4h \tilde y_n'& (n\geq 0)\, . \\ \end{array} \end{equation} The similarity with the system of equations \eref{eq:YPHI} for the pre-relaxation limit in XXZ spin chains is remarkable, although the meaning of the variables is different. For sufficiently large $n$ (in order to be outside of the (deformed) light cone), both $\tilde y_n$ and $\tilde\phi_n$ are small (in the noncritical case they are exponentially small in $n$). Thus, the error originated from truncating the system of equations to $n\leq N$ decays very fast to zero with $N$ and \eref{eq:systemF} can be conveniently reduced to a finite system of differential equations. This is the regularisation that we used in our numerical investigations\footnote{From a numerical point of view, this allows us to avoid integrating $y_k$ at each time step of the Runge-Kutta algorithm used for the resolution of \eref{eq:systemF}, at the cost of complicating the initial conditions. This is convenient because generally the number of time steps is much larger than $N$.}. The system of equations has at least one integral of motion, namely the energy per unit length $\varepsilon=\braket{\Psi_0|H|\Psi_0}/L$. This can be written as follows \begin{equation}\label{eq:energy} \varepsilon=\frac{h^2-\tilde g^2}{4\lambda}-\frac{1}{8}\tilde\phi_0\, . \end{equation} In addition, \eref{eq:TFICNI} has infinite noninteracting conservation laws that are odd under reflection symmetry \cite{F:pair,FE:RDM}. The Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction \begin{equation} H_{\rm D-M}=\sum_{\ell}\sigma_\ell^x\sigma_{\ell+1}^y-\sigma_\ell^y\sigma_{\ell+1}^x \end{equation} is one of them. For generic initial states, this is sufficient to rule out thermalisation. However, we embrace the point of view of \cite{IsingNI} and wonder whether at infinite time after a quench from a reflection symmetric state some form of thermalisation arises. \subsection{To relax or not to relax}\label{ss:RONR} % \begin{figure}[tbp] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{h0dot6.pdf} \end{center}\caption{The time-dependent magnetic field $h(t)$ of the mean-field Hamiltonian \eref{eq:HMFIS} (essentially, the magnetisation along $z$, \emph{cf}. \eref{eq:hm}) after a quench from the ground state of the TFIC \eref{eq:TFIC}, with $g_0=1.5$, and Hamiltonian $H(\tilde g,\lambda)$ \eref{eq:TFICNI}, with $\tilde g=0.5$ and $\lambda=0.6$. The system does not seem to relax, indeed also at very large times (inset) there are (rather regular) persistent oscillations. }\label{f:hosc} \end{figure} At late times the mean-field Hamiltonian \eref{eq:HMFIS} can result in two distinct behaviours: either the dynamics is governed by a (time independent) TFIC Hamiltonian (viz. $\exists \lim_{t\rightarrow\infty} h(t)$), or there is no relaxation (viz. $\cancel \exists \lim_{t\rightarrow\infty} h(t)$). In the following we will focus on quantum quenches from the ground state of the TFIC Hamiltonian \begin{equation}\label{eq:TFIC} H_0=-\sum_\ell(\sigma_\ell^x\sigma_{\ell+1}^x+g_0\sigma_\ell^z)\, . \end{equation} A numerical analysis suggests that for generic values of $g_0$, $\tilde g$ and $\lambda$, the system of equation \eref{eq:system} does not always describe a relaxation process. We indeed found cases in which $h(t)$ oscillates with almost constant amplitude (see Figure \ref{f:hosc}). If there are (finite) regions of the parameter space associated with relaxation and regions that are instead characterised by persistent oscillations, some quantities shall behave non-analytically at the boundaries of the regions. For example, the \emph{relaxation parameter} \begin{equation}\label{eq:DeltahT} \Delta h_T=\sqrt{\frac{1}{T}\int_{T}^{2T}\mathrm d \tau h^2(\tau)-\Bigl(\frac{1}{T}\int_{T}^{2T}\mathrm d \tau h(\tau)\Bigr)^2} \end{equation} approaches zero as $T\rightarrow\infty $ in the regions of (local) relaxation. On the other hand, if there are (sufficiently regular) persistent oscillations, $\Delta h_T$ remains nonzero for arbitrarily large $T$. \begin{figure}[tbp] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{relax.pdf} \end{center}\caption{The relaxation parameter $\Delta h_T$ \eref{eq:DeltahT} for quenches from the ground state of the TFIC \eref{eq:TFIC}, with $g_0=1.5$, and Hamiltonian $H(\tilde g,\lambda)$ \eref{eq:TFICNI}, with $\tilde g=0.5$, as a function of the rescaled time $\lambda_c+\frac{T}{T_M}(\lambda-\lambda_c)$ for various values of $\lambda$. The maximal time considered for the time average is $T_M=1920$; at $T_M$ the abscissa is exactly equal to $\lambda$, which can therefore be identified with the abscissa of the open squares. The critical value $\lambda_c\approx 0.5257$ (grey vertical line, where all curves collapse) has been estimated by a parabolic fit (black solid line) of $\Delta h_T$ (open squares) for large $T$ as a function of $\lambda$. The dashed line is the linear term of the fit.}\label{f:relax} \end{figure} We numerically analysed the region of the parameter space in which there is no relaxation (at least apparently). This generally happens for sufficiently large $\lambda$ (see Figures \ref{f:diagram} and \ref{f:hosc}). In the vicinity of (a numerical estimation of) $\lambda_c$, $\Delta h_T$ is nicely fitted by a line (\emph{cf.} Figure \ref{f:relax}) \begin{equation} \Delta h_T= \alpha (\lambda-\lambda_c)+O((\lambda-\lambda_c)^2) \qquad\lambda>\lambda_c\, . \end{equation} Since $\Delta h_T$ is positive, linear behaviour is indicative of discontinuous derivative at $\lambda=\lambda_c$. Indeed, for $\lambda<\lambda_c$, $\Delta h_T$ is compatible with zero (see \emph{e.g.} the three solutions with $\lambda<\lambda_c$ in Figure \ref{f:relax}). \subsubsection{Small quench.} % In the case $g_0= h(0)$ the solution of \eref{eq:systemF} is independent of time (as a consequence of Corollary \ref{C:3}). This can be turned into a condition on the parameter $\tilde g$ of the Hamiltonian as follows \begin{equation} \label{eq:noquench1} \tilde g=\bar g(g_0,\lambda)\, , \end{equation} where we defined \begin{equation}\label{eq:noquench} \bar g(g_0,\lambda)=g_0+2\lambda\int_{-\pi}^\pi\frac{\mathrm d k}{2\pi}\frac{g_0-\cos k}{\sqrt{1+g_0^2-2 g_0\cos k}}\, . \end{equation} The initial state $\ket{\psi_{g_0}}$ corresponding to this quench is then an effective eigenstate of $H(\tilde g,\lambda)$ \eref{eq:TFICNI}. In addition, in Appendix \ref{a:GS} we show that one of the solutions of \eref{eq:noquench1} corresponds to the state $\ket{\psi_{g_0}}$ with minimal energy among Slater determinants. As a matter of fact, the numerical analysis indicates that $\ket{\psi_{g_0}}$ is the true ground state of \eref{eq:TFICNI}. We can therefore use $\ket{\psi_{g_0}}$ as a reference state to define the limit of \emph{small quench}. In this limit, the transition relaxation/no-relaxation can be understood more clearly. Indeed, choosing the parameters such that \eref{eq:noquench1} is approximately satisfied, both $|\tilde y_n(t)-\tilde y_n(0)| $ and $|\tilde \phi_n(t)-\tilde \phi_n(0)| $ turn out to be small at any time. We can therefore linearise the system of equations \eref{eq:systemF} isolating a time independent contribution from $\tilde y_n$ and $\tilde\phi_n$: \begin{equation} \begin{array}{l} h=g_0+(\tilde g- \bar g(g_0,\lambda)- \lambda\delta y_0)\\ \tilde y_n=\bar y_n+\delta y_n\\ \tilde \phi_n=\bar \phi_n+\delta \phi_n\, ,\\ \end{array} \end{equation} where variables with a bar on top are expectation values calculated in $\ket{\psi_{g_0}}$. We then obtain \begin{equation}\label{eq:linsys} \fl\qquad\qquad \delta y_n''\approx -16(1+g_0^2)\delta y_n+16 g_0(\delta y_{n+1}+\delta y_{n-1})-\lambda \bar v_n\delta y_0+(\tilde g-\bar g) \bar v_n\, , \end{equation} where \begin{equation} \bar v_n=4(\bar\phi_n+2\bar y_{n-1}+2\bar y_{n+1})\, . \end{equation} The system of equations \eref{eq:linsys} can be readily solved. Since for quenches from the ground states of TFIC Hamiltonians $\tilde y_n'(0)=0$, we find \begin{equation}\label{eq:sollin} \delta y_n(t)\approx (\tilde g-\bar g)\sum_j k_j \Bigl[1-\cos(\sqrt{a_j}t)\Bigr] w_{n, j} \end{equation} where $a_j$ and $w_{n, j}$ are the eigenvalues and the components of the (right) eigenvectors (at fixed $j$) of \begin{equation}\label{eq:A} A_{\ell n}=16(1+g_0^2)\delta_{\ell n}-16 g_0\delta_{|\ell- n|,1}-16g_0\delta_{\ell 0}\delta_{n 1} +\lambda \bar v_\ell \delta_{n 0} \end{equation} and $k_j$ are given by \begin{equation}\label{eq:kappa} \vec k=(AW)^{-1}\vec{\bar v}\qquad ([\vec k]_j=k_j\, ,\quad [W]_{nj}=w_{n,j}\, ,\quad [\vec{\bar v}]_j= \bar v_j)\, . \end{equation} For $\lambda=0$, $A$ can be diagonalised in momentum space; the eigenvalues are given by \begin{equation}\label{eq:contsp} a_j=16(1+g_0^2-2 g_0\cos k_j)\, , \end{equation} and, in the limit $N\rightarrow\infty$ ($N$ is our regularisation parameter), the spectrum becomes continuous (the density of $k_j$ is uniform in $(0,\pi)$) and the eigenvectors unbounded. It is not difficult to show that the rank-1 perturbation $\lambda \bar v_\ell \delta_{n 0}$ does not change the continuous part of the spectrum, which is still described by \eref{eq:contsp} and, as $N\rightarrow\infty$, the density of $k_j$ remains uniform. For sufficiently small $\lambda$ the spectrum is continuous. Given that $k_j w_{n,j}$ is a smooth function of $a_j$ for a fix $n$ (as we numerically checked), we can apply the Riemann-Lebesgue lemma to extract the large time behaviour of \eref{eq:sollin}. We find that it relaxes to \begin{equation} \tilde y_n(\infty)\approx \bar y_n+(\tilde g-\bar g)\sum_j [A^{-1}]_{n j}\bar v_j\,. \end{equation} The power-law corrections to this result can be obtained by stationary phase approximations. On the other hand, when $\pm \lambda$ exceeds some critical value $\pm \lambda_c^{\pm}$, $A$'s spectrum develops an isolated eigenvalue and the corresponding eigenvector is bounded, whereas the continuous part of the spectrum is still described by \eref{eq:contsp}. The main consequence is that the oscillations associated with the isolated eigenvalue do not cancel by dephasing mechanisms and local degrees of freedom keep oscillating at arbitrarily large times. \subsubsection{The bound state.} % The isolated eigenvalue $a_0$ can be easily worked out in momentum space \begin{equation}\label{eq:boundw} \fl\qquad\sum_nA_{\ell n}w_{n,0}=a_0 w_{\ell,0}\Rightarrow [a_0-16(1+g_0^2-2g_0\cos k)]w(k;0)=\lambda \bar v(k)w_{0,0}\, , \end{equation} with $w(k;j)=w_{0,j}+2\sum_{n>0}\cos(n k)w_{n,j}$ and $\bar v(k)=\bar v_0+2\sum_{n>0}\cos(n k)\bar v_n$. Isolated eigenvalues are such that \mbox{$\omega=\sqrt{a_0}/4$} is outside of the continuous band, given by the image of $\sqrt{1+g_0^2-2g_0\cos k}$. We are therefore allowed to write \begin{equation} \frac{w(k;0)}{w_{0,0}}=\frac{\lambda}{16} \frac{\bar v(k)}{\omega^2-1-g_0^2+2g_0\cos k}\, , \end{equation} which, integrated over $k$, gives the condition \begin{equation}\label{eq:osc} 1=\frac{\lambda}{16}\int_{-\pi}^\pi\frac{\mathrm d k}{2\pi}\frac{\bar v(k)}{\omega^2-1-g_0^2+2g_0\cos k}\, . \end{equation} The critical values $\lambda_c^{\pm}$ at the boundaries of the relaxation region correspond to the extrema of the continuous band where $\omega=1+\mathrm{sgn}(\lambda)|g_0|$. Using the explicit form of $\bar v_n$ we then find \begin{equation}\label{eq:lambdac} \lambda_c^{\pm}=\left(\int_{-\pi}^\pi\frac{\mathrm d k}{2\pi}\frac{\sin^2 k}{(\mathrm{sgn}(\lambda)|g_0|+g_0\cos k)\sqrt{1+g_0^2-2g_0\cos k}}\right)^{-1} \end{equation} and for $\lambda>\lambda_c^+$ or $\lambda<\lambda_c^-$ equation \eref{eq:osc} can be rewritten as \begin{equation}\label{eq:oscifreq} \fl\qquad\qquad\int_{-\pi}^\pi\frac{\mathrm d k}{2\pi}\frac{\sin^2 k}{(\omega^2-1-g_0^2+2g_0\cos k)\sqrt{1+g_0^2-2g_0\cos k}}=\frac{1}{2\lambda}\, . \end{equation} Taking the derivative of this expression with respect to $\omega$ we obtain \begin{equation} \frac{\rm{d}\lambda}{\rm{d}\omega}>0\qquad0\leq\omega< |1-|g_0||\, \lor\, \omega> 1+|g_0| \, ; \end{equation} this fact, together with the observation that $\lambda>0$ if $\omega> 1+|g_0|$ and $\lambda<0$ if $0\leq\omega<|1-|g_0||$, implies that $\lambda$ is an increasing function of $\omega$ (in the allowed dominion), therefore it is injective. This means that \emph{there can not be more than one isolated eigenvalue} for a fixed $\lambda$. The right eigenvector corresponding to the isolated eigenvalue is given by \begin{equation} \fl\qquad\qquad w_{n,0}\propto \int_{-\pi}^\pi\frac{\mathrm d k}{2\pi}\frac{\sin^2 k\cos(n k)}{(\omega^2-1-g_0^2+2g_0\cos k)\sqrt{1+g_0^2-2g_0\cos k}}\, , \end{equation} which decays exponentially with $n$, confirming that it is a bound state. Analogously, the left eigenvector $w^L_{0,n}$ reads as (the factor in front of the integral is due to $A$'s asymmetry) \begin{eqnarray} w^L_{0,n}\propto (2-\delta_{n 0})\int_{-\pi}^\pi\frac{\mathrm d k}{2\pi}\frac{\cos(n k)}{\omega^2-1-g_0^2+2g_0\cos k}\nonumber\\ \qquad\qquad\qquad=\frac{(2-\delta_{n 0})(-1)^n e^{-n\theta}}{\sqrt{(1+g_0^2-\omega^2)^2-4 g_0^2}}\qquad (\lambda>0)\, , \end{eqnarray} where \begin{equation}\label{eq:theta} \theta=\mathrm{arccosh}\Bigl(\frac{\omega^2-1-g_0^2}{2g_0}\Bigr)\, . \end{equation} Using \eref{eq:sollin} and \eref{eq:kappa} we can compute the entire contribution of the isolated eigenvalue to the solution of \eref{eq:linsys}: \begin{equation}\label{eq:iseig} (\tilde g-\bar g)\frac{\vec {\bar v}\cdot \vec w_0^L\ \vec w_0}{\vec w_0^L\cdot \vec w_0}\frac{1-\cos(4\omega t)}{16\omega^2}\, . \end{equation} \begin{figure}[tbp] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{h3dot5nq.pdf} \end{center}\caption{The time-dependent magnetic field $h(t)$ (minus its long time average $\bar h$) of the mean-field Hamiltonian \eref{eq:HMFIS} after a small quench from the ground state of the TFIC \eref{eq:TFIC}, with $g_0=1.5$, and Hamiltonian $H(\tilde g,\lambda)$ \eref{eq:TFICNI}, with $\tilde g=7.6513$ and $\lambda=3.5$. The agreement with a function of the form $h(t)\sim \bar h+c\cos(\mathcal E t+\varphi)$ becomes excellent at large times. The parameters of the fit are given by $c\approx 0.000958[0.000989]$, $\mathcal E \approx 10.0507[10.0353]$, $\varphi=0.0019[0]$, where in square brackets we reported the corresponding values based on the prediction \eref{eq:iseig}. Despite the parameters do not differ much from the (asymptotic) prediction, at large times (inset) the corrections to the frequency have conspicuous effects. }\label{f:smallquench} \end{figure} We stress that, within the linear approximation, the oscillation frequency is independent of $\tilde g$. Figure \ref{f:smallquench} shows that the most important correction to \eref{eq:iseig} lies precisely in the frequency, essentially because it is multiplied by the time, which has to be large for the subleading (time dependent) contributions to be negligible. However, in not-too-large time windows, the numerical data are in excellent agreement with \eref{eq:iseig} (the expression must be modified including a corrective phase shift if $(\tilde g -\bar g) J t$ is not small). We point out that there is a third relevant point $\lambda_*<\lambda_c^-(<0)$ at which $\omega=0$: \begin{equation} \fl\qquad\qquad\lambda_*=-\Bigl(\int_{-\pi}^\pi\frac{\mathrm d k}{\pi}\frac{\sin^2 k}{(1+g_0^2-2g_0\cos k)^{3/2}}\Bigr)^{-1}\, . \end{equation} For $\lambda<\lambda_*$, the isolated eigenvalue of $A$ becomes negative (\emph{i.e.} $\omega$ becomes purely imaginary). This would result in an exponential growth of \eref{eq:sollin}, which after some finite time would no longer be consistent with the linearisation procedure. However, we point out that, for small quenches in which the energy is close to the ground state one, $\lambda$ is always larger than $\lambda_\ast$. Indeed, if we assume $\lambda\leq \lambda_*(g_0)$, it turns out that the ground state of \eref{eq:TFIC} is not equivalent to the ground state of $H(\bar g(g_0,\lambda),\lambda)$, with $\bar g(g_0,\lambda)$ given by \eref{eq:noquench}. The latter state is instead associated with the ground state of the TFIC Hamiltonian \eref{eq:TFIC} with magnetic field $g_0'\neq g_0$ such that $\bar g(g_0',\lambda)=\bar g(g_0,\lambda)$ and $\lambda_\ast(g_0')<\lambda$. In the quench dephasing diagram of Figure \ref{f:diagram} we can indeed easily identify $\lambda_c^\pm$ (the `critical' curves for $\lambda$ positive and negative, respectively) but there is no trace of $\lambda_\ast$. \paragraph{Interpretation.} % The bound state of the matrix $A$ may be put in relation with the existence of localised excitations in \eref{eq:TFICNI}. We emphasise that this is not an ab initio calculation but rather a physical picture that explains the observations. Since the time evolution of the expectation value of any local observable in $\ket{\psi_{g_0}}$ is stationary, we can assume that, to all intents and purposes, $\ket{\psi_{g_0}}$ is an eigenstate of $H(\bar g(g_0,\lambda),\lambda)$. We now consider the limit of small quench and assume $|\lambda|>|\lambda_c|$. From \eref{eq:sollin} it follows that the projection on the bound state of $y_n''(t)+4i \omega y_n'(t)$ is proportional to an oscillating phase \begin{equation}\label{eq:guess} \sum_n w^L_{0,n}(y_n''(t)+4i \omega y_n'(t))\propto e^{4i \omega t}\, . \end{equation} The left hand side can be written as the expectation value $\braket{\psi_{\tilde g_0}(t)|B^\dag_{g_0}|\psi_{\tilde g_0}(t)}$ of a noninteracting operator with symbol \begin{equation} \sin k\frac{(h(t)-\cos(k))\sigma^x-\sin k\sigma^y+i \omega\sigma^z}{\omega^2-1-g_0^2+2g_0\cos k}\, , \end{equation} where $\tilde g_0$ approximately satisfyes \eref{eq:noquench1}. In the no-quench limit the mean-field parameter is constant $h(t)\rightarrow g_0$ (and $\tilde g_0\rightarrow g_0$), so such operator can be written as \begin{equation}\label{eq:exit} B_{g_0}^\dag \sim\sum_{\ell, n}(\begin{array}{cc} a_\ell^x&a_\ell^y \end{array})[\mathcal B_{g_0}^\dag]_{\ell-n}\Bigl(\begin{array}{c} a_n^x\\ a_n^y \end{array}\Bigr)\, , \end{equation} where \begin{equation} [\mathcal B_{g_0}^\dag]_{\ell}=\int_{-\pi}^\pi\frac{\mathrm d k}{2\pi} e^{i \ell k} \sin k\frac{(g_0-\cos(k))\sigma^x-\sin k\sigma^y+i \omega\sigma^z}{\omega^2-1-g_0^2+2g_0\cos k} \end{equation} and $a_\ell^\alpha$ are the Majorana fermions \eref{eq:Maj}. In \eref{eq:exit} we left out the normalisation. Importantly, $[\mathcal B_{g_0}^\dag]_{\ell}\sim e^{-|\ell|\theta}$, with $\theta$ defined in \eref{eq:theta}; we have therefore found a quasi-local operator whose expectation value approximately oscillates in time as in \eref{eq:guess}. As a consequence, $\mathcal B_{g_0}^\dag$ acts like an excitation over the initial state. Indeed we have \begin{equation}\label{eq:Lehmann} \fl\qquad\qquad\braket{\psi_{\tilde g_0}(t)|B^\dag_{g_0}|\psi_{\tilde g_0}(t)}=\sum_{\ell, n}\braket{\psi_{\tilde g_0}|\ell}\braket{n|\psi_{\tilde g_0}}e^{i (E_\ell-E_n)}[B^\dag_{g_0}]_{\ell n}\sim e^{4i \omega t} \end{equation} and if the state $\ket{\psi_{\tilde g_0}}$ has a sufficiently general representation (\emph{i.e.} the overlaps with the eigenstates of $H(\tilde g,\lambda)$ are generally nonzero), \eref{eq:Lehmann} tells us that $B^\dag_{g_0}$ connects only states with energy difference equal to $4\omega$. In conclusion, the bound state of \eref{eq:A} seems to be a manifestation of a localised excitation of $H(\tilde g,\lambda)$. \subsubsection{Remark on quenches from the ordered phase.} In the previous section we ignored a subtlety that in principle could have invalidated part of the discussion (and part of the diagram in \Fref{f:diagram}). The mapping to a mean-field Hamiltonian relies on cluster decomposition properties but the ground state of the TFIC Hamiltonian in the ferromagnetic phase is the superposition of two Slater determinants \cite{CEF}, that separately do not possess cluster decomposition properties. Nevertheless, the discussion (and in turn \Fref{f:diagram}) remains correct also in this problematic case, at least for the operators commuting with $\prod_\ell\sigma_\ell^z$. This can be seen as follows: \begin{enumerate} \item The mean-field mapping is exact for the true ground state, which breaks the spin-flip symmetry realised by $\prod_\ell\sigma_\ell^z$. Thus \eref{eq:hm} is valid. \item Using that $\sigma^z$ is a quadratic operator in the Jordan-Wigner fermions, in \eref{eq:hm} the ground state can be replaced by one of the two Slater determinants, therefore $h(t)$ is still solution of \eref{eq:system}. Analogously, the expectation value of any operator commuting with $\prod_\ell\sigma_\ell^z$ can be found replacing the initial state with one of the two Slater determinants and then using Wick theorem. \item For any given $t$, the expectation value of operators $\mathcal O^{o}(\ell)$ that anticommute with $\prod_\ell\sigma_\ell^z$, like the order parameter, can be obtained from the large $r$ limit of $\braket{\Psi_0| U^{\dag}_{\rm MF}(t) \mathcal O^o(\ell) \mathcal O^o(\ell+r)U_{\rm MF}(t)|\Psi_0}$, using cluster decomposition properties. \end{enumerate} However, using similar general arguments we are not able to exclude that the expectation values of the odd operators might keep oscillating also when all the even operators relax. There is indeed a subtle problem of limits that comes from the trick of Point (iii). Nevertheless, in the cases considered we have never encountered this situation, suggesting that for the model under examination such complications do not arise. Here we provide a heuristic argument. When the limit of infinite time for $h(t)$ exists, at sufficiently long times the dynamics is essentially the same as for a quantum quench in the TFIC from a certain state with cluster decomposition properties. In the latter situation we can apply (a direct generalisation of) the results of \cite{FE:RDM}, which showed that the expectation values of odd operators decay to zero. This suggests that the diagram of \Fref{f:diagram} could be valid also taking into account the odd operators. \subsection{Relaxation properties}\label{ss:relprop} % We now focus on the regions (of the parameter space) in which the limit $\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}h(t)\equiv h_\infty$ exists and investigate more closely the relaxation properties. Even beyond the linear approximation \eref{eq:sollin}, we can still guess an asymptotic form for the solution $y_k$ of \eref{eq:system} \begin{equation}\label{eq:asymp} y_k\rightarrow \zeta_k+(A_k e^{2i\varepsilon_k t}+\mathrm{h.c.})\, , \end{equation} where $\varepsilon_k\sim2\sqrt{1+h_\infty^2-2h_\infty \cos k}$. Equation \eref{eq:asymp} is compatible with the relaxation of $h(t)$ with corrections $O(t^{-1/2-j})$ (stationary phase approximation), where $j$ is an integer that depends on the behaviour of $A_k$ around the extremal points of the dispersion relation ($k=0\vee \pi$). Our numerical analysis for several quenches from TFIC initial states is compatible with $j=1$. This is not surprising since the same exponent governs the late time behaviour of $\braket{\sigma^z}$ after quenches in the TFIC \cite{CEF}. Thus, we conjecture the large time expansion \begin{equation}\label{eq:asympt} \fl\qquad\quad h(t)\sim h_\infty+\frac{A_0\cos(4(1-h_\infty) t+\varphi_0)+A_\pi\cos(4(1+h_\infty) t+\varphi_\pi)}{t^{3/2}}\, , \end{equation} and similar behaviours for $\tilde y_n(t)$. Remarkably, the (leading) oscillatory frequency is only determined by $h_\infty$. In Figure \ref{f:hrel}, \eref{eq:asympt} is compared against numerical data for a quench that leads to relaxation. \begin{figure}[tbp] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{h0dot5.pdf} \end{center}\caption{The time-dependent magnetic field $h(t)$ of the mean-field Hamiltonian \eref{eq:HMFIS} after a quench from the ground state of the TFIC \eref{eq:TFIC}, with $g_0=1.5$, and Hamiltonian $H(\tilde g,\lambda)$ \eref{eq:TFICNI}, with $\tilde g=0.5$ and $\lambda=0.5$. The dashed red line is the asymptotic prediction \eref{eq:asympt} with the coefficients estimated by fitting the data at very large times $t>1800$. The inset shows the goodness of the prediction in some intermediate time window. The horizontal grey line corresponds to the value of $h_\infty$ extracted from the fit. }\label{f:hrel} \end{figure} Since for asymptotically large times the time evolution is equivalent to the one generated by the TFIC Hamiltonian \begin{equation}\label{eq:Hf} H_f=-\sum_\ell(\sigma_\ell^x\sigma_{\ell+1}^x+h_\infty\sigma_\ell^z)\, , \end{equation} at late times local observables are described by a generalised Gibbs ensemble constructed with the local conservation laws of $H_f$. However, the Lagrange multipliers can not be simply fixed by computing the corresponding integrals of motion at the initial time, as they are in fact conserved only at asymptotically large times. This is an example of a stationary state written in terms of operators commuting with one another but not with the Hamiltonian. In fact, this is not the first time that such an unusual description emerges: in \cite{E:preT} the pre-thermalisation plateau was described by a GGE constructed with operators in involution that are however not conserved at the perturbative order that was worked out. As it will be clarified in the next section, such a stationary state coincides with the pre-thermalisation plateau of \cite{IsingNI}. In the thermodynamic limit this is just the stationary state that emerges at \emph{infinite} time after the quench. Indeed, in the regions in which there is relaxation, we have not found any indication of pre-relaxation/pre-thermalisation behaviour. Furthermore, `relaxation' is not synonym of `thermalisation'. Indeed it is not difficult to show that at late times the system still retains infinite information about the initial state. To this aim, as initial state we choose the ground state of the local Hamiltonian \begin{equation}\label{eq:Hi} H[\{a\}]=\sum_j^n a_j H_j\, ,\qquad\qquad a_j\in\mathbb{R}\, , \end{equation} where $n$ is finite and $H_j$ are the most local reflection symmetric conservation laws of a TFIC model with Hamiltonian $H_{0}$. Such state can be easily constructed \cite{AFC:exc} and, using the notations of Appendix \ref{a:GS}, is completely characterised by the function \begin{equation}\label{eq:mform} m(k)=-\mathrm{sgn}(\sum_j^n a_j \cos(j k))\, , \end{equation} which is equal to $1$ if and only if the excitation $\alpha^\dag_k$ of $H_0$ is present in the state. It is important to note that different characteristic functions $m(k)$ correspond to locally inequivalent states. Thermal-like behaviour would imply that the only information about $m(k)$ that is retained at late times is the corresponding energy and magnetisation. We now consider the special cases in which the initial magnetisation is such that $H_0$ is the mean-field Hamiltonian at the initial time. In this way, by Corollary \ref{C:3}, the expectation value of local observables is independent of time and the late time stationary state is equivalent to the initial state. The only scenario compatible with thermal-like behaviour is that each distinct function $m(k)$ of the form \eref{eq:mform} corresponds to a distinct pair $\{h_m,\varepsilon_m\}$, where $h_m$ is the parameter of the late time mean-field Hamiltonian and $\varepsilon_m$ the energy. The self-consistent conditions behind the no-quench limit are worked out in Appendix \ref{a:GS} and are given by \begin{equation}\label{eqe:hm} h_m=g+2\lambda\int_{-\pi}^\pi\frac{\mathrm d k}{2\pi}m(k)\frac{h_m-\cos k}{\sqrt{1+h_m^2-2h_m\cos k}}\, . \end{equation} \begin{equation}\label{eqe:energyex} \varepsilon_m=\frac{h_m^2-g^2}{4\lambda}-\int_{-\pi}^\pi\frac{\mathrm d k}{2\pi} m(k)\frac{h_m\cos k-1}{\sqrt{1+h_m^2-2h_m\cos k}}\, . \end{equation} It is easy to see that the same pair $\{h_m,\epsilon_m\}$ is associated with infinitely many functions $m(k)$ of the form \eref{eq:mform} (it is enough to choose $n=3$ in \eref{eq:mform} to find (infinite) examples). Thus, the non-equilibrium time evolution under \eref{eq:TFICNI} does not generally result in thermalisation. We conclude the analysis of \eref{eq:TFICNI} considering the expectation value $\braket{Q_n}_t$ of the local conservation laws of $H_f$ \eref{eq:Hf}, which can be written as follows \cite{FE:RDM} \begin{equation} {\frac{Q_n}{L}}=\int_{-\pi}^\pi\frac{\mathrm d k}{2\pi} \cos(n k)\varepsilon_k\Bigl(\alpha^\dag_k\alpha^{\phantom \dag}_k-\frac{1}{2}\Bigr)\, , \end{equation} where $\varepsilon_k$ is the dispersion relation of $H_f$ and $\alpha_k$ are noninteracting fermions that diagonalise $H_f$. Using free-fermion techniques we obtain \begin{equation}\label{eq:Qcharge} \braket{\frac{Q_n}{L}}_t=-\frac{h_\infty}{2}\tilde y_n-\frac{1}{8}\tilde\phi_n\, . \end{equation} In particular, the expectation value of $H_f\equiv Q_0$ can be written as follows \begin{equation} \braket{\frac{H_f}{L}}_t=\varepsilon-\frac{(h(t)-h_\infty)^2-(h_\infty-\tilde g)^2}{4\lambda}\, , \end{equation} from which it is clear that the relaxation exponent of $\braket{H_f}_t$ is twice the exponent of $h$ (which in the cases that we investigated is $3/2$, \emph{cf.} \eref{eq:asympt}). This result can be easily generalised to any local conservation law of $H_f$. By taking the time derivative of \eref{eq:Qcharge}, the last equation of \eref{eq:systemF} implies \begin{equation} \braket{\frac{Q_n}{L}}_t'=\frac{h-h_\infty}{2}y_n'\, . \end{equation} Since both $h-h_\infty$ and $y_n'$ are expected to decay as $t^{-3/2}$ (with oscillatory factors like in \eref{eq:asympt}), we immediately obtain \begin{equation}\label{eq:corrQ} \braket{\frac{Q_n}{L}}_\infty-\braket{\frac{Q_n}{L}}_t\sim O(t^{-3})\, . \end{equation} \subsubsection{Comparison with \cite{IsingNI}.} It is not a coincidence that the same relaxation exponents were found in \cite{IsingNI} in a perturbative framework. In order to understand the relation between the two models we must come back to the modified version of Hamiltonian considered in \cite{IsingNI}, \emph{i.e.} \eref{eq:TFICNIS}. The mean-field Hamiltonian for that precise model reads \begin{equation}\label{eq:MFS} \fl\qquad H_{\rm MF}(t)=-\sum_\ell\sigma_\ell^x\sigma_{\ell+1}^x-\texttt{g}\sum_\ell\sigma_\ell^z+2\lambda\braket{\sigma_\ell^z-\bar\sigma_\ell^z}_{t, \rm MF}\Bigl(\sum_\ell\sigma_\ell^z-\overline{\sum_\ell\sigma_\ell^z}\Bigr)\, , \end{equation} where the time average $\overline{\phantom{(}\!\!\!\cdots\phantom{)}\!\!\!}$ is taken with respect to the Hamiltonian with $\lambda=0$. It is convenient to introduce the auxiliary Hamiltonian \begin{equation}\label{eq:MFST} \fl\qquad \tilde{H}_{\rm MF}(t)=-\sum_\ell\sigma_\ell^x\sigma_{\ell+1}^x-\texttt{g}\sum_\ell\sigma_\ell^z+2\lambda\braket{\sigma_\ell^z-\tilde\sigma_\ell^z}_{t, \rm MF}\Bigl(\sum_\ell\sigma_\ell^z-\widetilde{\sum_\ell\sigma_\ell^z}\Bigr)\, , \end{equation} where the time average $\widetilde{\phantom{(}\!\!\!\cdots\phantom{)}\!\!\!}$ is now taken with respect to \mbox{$\tilde{H}_{f}\equiv\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\tilde{H}_{MF}(t)$}, limit which is assumed to exist. It is now simple to prove that $\tilde H_f=H(\texttt{g},0)$, where $H(\texttt{g},\lambda)$ is given in eq. \eref{eq:TFICNIS}. To this aim let us consider the expectation value of $\sigma^z$ evolving via $\tilde{H}_{\rm MF}(t)$; it fulfils \begin{eqnarray} \fl\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\braket{\tilde \sigma_\ell^z}_{t,\rm MF} &=&\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\lim_{T\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}\textrm{d}s\, \braket{\Psi_0|\tilde{U}^{\dag}_{MF}(t)e^{i \tilde{H}_{f} s }\sigma_\ell^z e^{-i \tilde{H}_{f} s }\tilde{U}_{MF}(t)|\Psi_0} \nonumber\\ &=&\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\lim_{T\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}\textrm{d}s\, \braket{\Psi_0|\tilde{U}^{\dag}_{MF}(t+s) \sigma_\ell^z \tilde{U}_{MF}(t+s)|\Psi_0} \nonumber\\ &=&\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty} \braket{ \sigma_\ell^z}_{t,\rm MF}= \braket{ \sigma^z}_{\infty,\rm MF}\,, \end{eqnarray} where $\tilde{U}_{MF}(t)$ is the time evolution operator constructed with $\tilde{H}_{MF}(t)$ and in the second step we replaced $e^{-i \tilde{H}_{f} s} \tilde{U}_{MF}(t)$ with $\tilde{U}_{MF}(t+s)$, as it is legitimate at late times. From this it follows $\tilde H_f=H(\texttt{g},0)$ and, in turn, the equivalence between \eref{eq:MFS} and \eref{eq:MFST} $H_{\rm MF}(t)=\tilde H_{\rm MF}(t)$. Importantly, this means that \eref{eq:MFS} and \eref{eq:TFIC} have the same infinite time limit if we set $h_\infty=\texttt{g}$. As a matter of fact, the equivalence between \eref{eq:MFS} and \eref{eq:TFIC} is not restricted to infinite times. The mean-field time evolution operator for \eref{eq:MFS} can indeed be written as follows \begin{equation}\label{eq:UMfactor} \fl \qquad U_{\rm MF}(t)= e^{4i \lambda\int_0^t\mathrm d s\braket{\delta \sigma^z}_{s, \rm MF}\overline{S^z}}\mathrm{T}\exp\Bigl(-i\int_0^t\mathrm d s\ H_f+4\lambda\braket{\delta \sigma^z}_{s, \rm MF}S^z(s)\Bigr)\, . \end{equation} Here $S^z=\frac{1}{2}\sum_\ell\sigma_\ell^z$, $\delta\sigma^z=\sigma^z-\bar\sigma^z$ and \begin{equation} S^z(s)=e^{-4i \lambda\int_0^s\mathrm d s'\braket{\delta \sigma^z}_{s', \rm MF}\overline{S^z}}S^ze^{4i \lambda\int_0^s\mathrm d s'\braket{\delta \sigma^z}_{s', \rm MF}\overline{S^z}}\, . \end{equation} If the magnetisation relaxes faster than $1/t^{1+\alpha}$, with $\alpha>0$, the operator at the exponent of the first term of \eref{eq:UMfactor} is a bounded function of the time, so that exponential can be safely expanded. In fact the entire term can be neglected (it gives corrections $o(\lambda)$). The same holds true in $S^z(s)$, indeed the finiteness of $\sup_{s}\lambda\int_0^s\mathrm d s'\braket{\delta \sigma^z}_{s', \rm MF}$ guarantees that the series expansion of the exponentials in $S^z(s)$ can be truncated for any $s$ with an error that goes to zero as $\lambda\rightarrow 0$. By considering the first terms of the expansion one immediately realizes that the correction is $o(\lambda)$ and approaches zero for large $s$ as $1/s^{\alpha}$. Putting everything together, replacing $S^z(s)$ by $S^z$ in \eref{eq:UMfactor} introduces an error $o(\lambda)$, independently of the time. Therefore we obtain \begin{equation}\label{eq:UMfactor1} U_{\rm MF}(t)\sim \mathrm{T}\exp\Bigl(-i\int_0^t\mathrm d s\ H_f+4\lambda\braket{\delta \sigma^z}_{s, \rm MF}S^z\Bigr)+o(\lambda)\, . \end{equation} We can also replace $\braket{\delta \sigma^z}_{s, \rm MF}$ with $\braket{\sigma^z}_{s, \rm MF}-\braket{\sigma^z}_{\infty, \rm MF}$: the difference between the two terms is $o(\lambda^0)$ and approaches zero at large times at least as $1/t^{1+\alpha}$. In this way we have reduced the Hamiltonian \eref{eq:MFS} to \eref{eq:TFICNI}, provided that the condition (see first equation of \eref{eq:systemF}) $\tilde g= \texttt{g}+4\lambda m^z_\infty$ is satisfied. With this choice we recover the perturbative results of \cite{IsingNI}, \emph{e.g.} the relaxation exponents \eref{eq:corrQ}. \emph{A posteriori} we note that the large time behaviour of $\braket{\sigma_\ell^z}$ under \eref{eq:TFICNI} (\emph{cf}. \eref{eq:asympt}) is sufficiently fast ($\alpha=1/2$) to justify the approximation of \eref{eq:UMfactor} by \eref{eq:UMfactor1}. We also checked that the mean-field solution of \eref{eq:TFICNI} is perfectly compatible with the results shown in Figure 1 of \cite{IsingNI} (see \Fref{f:mirror59}). \begin{figure}[tbp] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{mirror59.pdf} \end{center}\caption{The time evolution of the number of quasiparticles $n_{qp}=\int_{-\pi}^\pi\frac{\mathrm d k}{2\pi} \alpha^\dag_k\alpha_k$ that diagonalise the late-time mean-field Hamiltonian for a quench with $g_0=8$, $\lambda=0.05$ and $\tilde g=3.597274\dots$. The parameters are chosen to reproduce the first figure of \cite{IsingNI} (dashed orange line). In particular, $\tilde g$ is such that the mean-field parameter $h(t)$ in the limit of infinite time approaches the value $\texttt{g}=3.5$, considered in \cite{IsingNI} (see the main text). The timescale and $\lambda$ differ from \cite{IsingNI} because of two small typos (the dispersion relation was unintentionally halved and the right hand side of Equation (3) of \cite{IsingNI} should have been multiplied by $4$). The (tiny) discrepancy is compatible with higher order corrections in $\lambda$.} \label{f:mirror59} \end{figure} Finally, we point out that \cite{IsingNI} introduced the term $\overline{\sum_\ell\sigma_\ell^z}$ to fix some conditions in the long-time limit, where \eref{eq:TFICNI} and the Hamiltonian of \cite{IsingNI} turn out to be equivalent. \Eref{eq:TFICNI} is therefore a sensible replacement for the Hamiltonian of \cite{IsingNI}. \subsection{Generalisations} \begin{figure}[tbp] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{lslambda0dto5gtilde0dot5.pdf} \end{center}\caption{The nearest neighbour spacing distribution $P(s)$ of the Hamiltonian \eref{eq:TFICNI} with $\tilde g=0.5$ and $\lambda=0.5$ in the reflection symmetric sector of the zero momentum subspace with spin-flip parity $\prod_\ell\sigma_\ell^z$ equal to 1 for various chain sizes ($L=10\div 19$). As the size is increased the colours vary from green to brown and the lines become thicker. Dashed lines correspond to odd sizes. The dotted black line is the exponential distribution (Poisson statistics). In the inset the distance $d(P,P_{stat})=\sqrt{\int_0^\infty(P(s)-P_{stat}(s))^2}$ from Poisson ($P_{stat}(s)=e^{-s}$) and Wigner ($P_{stat}(s)=\frac{\pi}{2} s e^{-\frac{\pi}{4}s^2}$). }\label{f:lsTFICNI} \end{figure} \begin{figure}[tbp] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{lslXYZgamma0dot25lambda0dot5.pdf} \end{center}\caption{The nearest neighbour spacing distribution $P(s)$ of the Hamiltonian \eref{eq:HWig} with $\gamma=0.25$ and $\lambda=0.5$ in the reflection symmetric sector of the zero momentum subspace with spin-flip parity $\prod_\ell\sigma_\ell^z$ equal to 1 for various chain sizes ($L=10\div 19$). As the size is increased the colours vary from green to brown and the lines become thicker. Dashed lines correspond to odd sizes. The dotted black line is the Wigner distribution. In the inset the distance $d(P,P_{stat})=\sqrt{\int_0^\infty(P(s)-P_{stat}(s))^2}$ from Poisson ($P_{stat}(s)=e^{-s}$) and Wigner ($P_{stat}(s)=\frac{\pi}{2} s e^{-\frac{\pi}{4}s^2}$). The distribution for odd chains converges rather quickly to Wigner. }\label{f:lsXYZNI} \end{figure} The construction of (low-entangled) stationary states that we proposed in the previous section (\eref{eq:Hi} and below) can be applied also to other Hamiltonians of the form \eref{eq:opform} if the corresponding mean-field Hamiltonian is integrable. In those cases we can rule out thermalisation if the self-consistent problem satisfied by the stationary solutions at fixed energy and mean-field parameters has more than one solution. When the mean-field Hamiltonian is noninteracting, following the lines of the proof sketched for the nonlocal generalisation of the Ising model in \Sref{ss:relprop}, one can generally show that the solution is not unique. It is also reasonable to expect that, also in the presence of interactions, the finite number of constraints given by the energy conservation and the late time values of the mean-field coupling constants could not reduce the parameter space of the initial Hamiltonian \eref{eq:Hi} to a single point. We indeed believe that thermalisation is unlikely to emerge if the mean-field Hamiltonian describes an integrable model at any time. Nevertheless, the interacting case exhibits counterintuitive behaviours, for example in the energy level-spacing statistics. Generally integrable models exhibit Poisson statistics, whereas generic models follow a Wigner distribution \cite{{BT:stat}, {GMGW:stat}}. There are many exceptions to this rule \cite{CM:rem}, however the nearest neighbour spacing distribution is probably the most reliable numerical check of integrability. In Figure \ref{f:lsTFICNI} the level spacing distribution is shown for various chain sizes for the Hamiltonian \eref{eq:TFICNI} with $\lambda=0.5$ and $\tilde g=0.5$ in the reflection symmetric sector of the zero momentum subspace with spin-flip parity $\prod_\ell\sigma_\ell^z$ equal to 1. The numerical data suggest that in the thermodynamic limit the curves collapse to an exponential distribution (Poisson statistics). This is consistent with our observation that at arbitrarily large times after a quantum quench the system keeps retaining infinite information about the initial state. A completely different scenario appears for the Hamiltonian \begin{equation}\label{eq:HWig} H=-\sum_{\ell}\Bigl(\frac{1+\gamma}{4}\sigma_\ell^x\sigma_{\ell+1}^x+\frac{1-\gamma}{4}\sigma_\ell^y\sigma_{\ell+1}^y\Bigr)+\frac{\lambda}{4 L}\Bigl(\sum_{\ell}\sigma_\ell^z\sigma_{\ell+1}^z\Bigr)^2\, . \end{equation} The corresponding mean-field Hamiltonian for a given one-site shift invariant initial state $\ket{\Psi_0}$ is given by \begin{equation}\label{eq:HWigMF} \fl \quad H_{\rm MF}^{\Psi_0}(t)=-\sum_{\ell}\Bigl(\frac{1+\gamma}{4}\sigma_\ell^x\sigma_{\ell+1}^x+\frac{1-\gamma}{4}\sigma_\ell^y\sigma_{\ell+1}^y\Bigr)+\frac{\lambda}{2}\braket{\Psi_t|\sigma_\ell^z\sigma_{\ell+1}^z|\Psi_t}\sum_{\ell}\sigma_\ell^z\sigma_{\ell+1}^z\, . \end{equation} At fixed time, this describes an XYZ model, which is known to be integrable for any choice of the coupling constants. Therefore, assuming relaxation, the stationary properties of local observables should be described by a GGE constructed with the conservation laws of an XYZ model. We considered $\gamma=0.25$ and $\lambda=0.5$. We found large finite size corrections in the level-spacing statistics (in the same sector as before) and, in particular, a remarkable even-odd parity effect (see Figure \ref{f:lsXYZNI}). However, it seems that increasing $L$ the curves collapse to a Wigner distribution, as it commonly happens in non-integrable models. This might appear in contradiction with our conjecture that thermalisation should not be expected when the mean-field Hamiltonian is interacting and integrable. In fact, we have not taken into account that at late times the mean-field parameters are fixed. In the previous section we ruled out thermalisation by constructing an infinite family of stationary states with the same energy and the same mean-field parameters. If this is possible, then we should find a signature of the huge degeneracy in the level-spacing statistics by restricting the space to the excited states that lie in some shell with mean-field parameters almost fixed. In the restricted space our preliminary analysis is indeed compatible with Poisson statistics also for the Hamiltonian \eref{eq:HWig}. However, our data turn out to be compatible with Poisson statistics even if the mean-field Hamiltonian does not describe an integrable model. This is in contrast to our expectations that in generic systems there should not be more than a few parameters that characterise the stationary state, namely the energy and, at worst, the mean-field coupling constants at infinite time after the quench. Our interpretation of these contradictory results is that we did not investigate sufficiently large chains, so our analysis of the energy-level statistics in the restricted space is not sufficiently indicative. We are confident that a more accurate analysis will show a different behaviour in the non-integrable case. Finally, we point out that the situation is trickier when there are isolated points in the parameter space of the mean-field coupling constants that correspond to integrable models. For example, it is not clear to us whether or not we should expect thermalisation when at asymptotically large times the coupling constants of the mean-field Hamiltonian match the integrability points. \subsection{Summary} We showed that the time evolution under \eref{eq:TFICNI} has a quite rich phenomenology, including both cases of relaxation and cases of persistent oscillatory behaviour. In the limit of small quench the latter has been interpreted as the effect of localised excitations that appear (or become relevant) when the Hamiltonian parameters cross some ``critical'' line. In addition, we confirmed the perturbative results of \cite{IsingNI} in a non-perturbative setup. Our analysis excludes that in the thermodynamic limit the late time behaviour of local observables could be described by a thermal-like ensemble. More generally, we provided some argument that suggests that thermalisation is unlikely to emerge if the mean-field Hamiltonian describes an integrable model at any time after the quench. We also proposed a numerical check of thermalisation based on the analysis of the energy-level statistics on some restricted space, however our preliminary analysis on small chains ($L<20$) was not sufficient to discriminate between the cases in which we expect thermal-like behaviour and the cases in which instead also at late times infinite information about the initial state is retained. \section{Conclusions}\label{s:conclusions} % Pre-relaxation is a dynamical phenomenon that arises when small perturbations break symmetries that affect the late time behaviour of local observables. When the perturbation breaks (abelian) integrability, this is usually called pre-thermalisation, which is generally thought as a two-step process in which local observables experience virtual relaxation before approaching thermal-like expectation values. However the relaxation process can also be more complicated, following many steps of quasi-stationary behaviour. This happens in particular when the model is close to a non-abelian integrable point. In order to extract the pre-relaxation behaviour one must therefore identify the correct time scale of the phenomenon. We have considered the problem of pre-relaxation after quantum quenches in weakly interacting models, starting from initial states with cluster decomposition properties. We focussed on the particular situation in which the unperturbed (one-site shift invariant) Hamiltonian has a non-abelian set of local conservation laws that break one-site shift invariance. In particular we considered interacting perturbations to the XY spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ chain and investigated both integrable extensions, like the Heisenberg XYZ model, and the effects of perturbations that break integrability. We identified the inverse perturbation strength as a relevant time scale of pre-relaxation and studied the dynamics of local observables at times proportional to it. Despite the model being interacting, the noninteracting structure, remnant of the unperturbed Hamiltonian and manifested in the Wick theorem, survives the pre-relaxation limit. However interactions do affect the dynamics by introducing a nontrivial time dependence in the effective noninteracting Hamiltonian that generates the time evolution. The most striking effect is probably that, even if local degrees of freedom approach stationary values, these can not be generally predicted without following the entire dynamics. We have shown how to recast the non-equilibrium problem into a system of nonlinear differential equations involving expectation values of quasi-local operators. The system of equations has qualitatively distinct solutions, which vary from trivial stationarity to persistent oscillatory behaviour over the entire time window considered. We have not found any relevant difference between integrable and non-integrable perturbations, suggesting that the scenario of thermalisation in generic models arises at much larger times. For the very nature of the local conservation laws of the XY model, in order to have a nontrivial time evolution the initial state must break one-site shift invariance. For a particular initial state of that kind we considered a limit in which the equations can be linearised and exhibited the analytic solution, in which one-site shift invariance is eventually restored. The regime worked out analytically shows quite clearly the \emph{importance of cluster decomposition} in the non-equilibrium problem. While, as mentioned above, the pre-relaxation limit is trivial for one-site shift invariant states, a shift symmetrisation of the two-site shift invariant initial state has a nontrivial time evolution. This is because cluster decomposition has been lost with the symmetrisation. It is important to take into account such aspect when analytic predictions of late time stationary behaviour are compared with numerical data at times in which one-site shift invariance is not yet restored. The crossover between oscillatory behaviour and relaxation is quite interesting \emph{per se}. This has been the main motivation for the analysis of a simplified model that shares most of the formal aspects with the effective description of pre-relaxation in the perturbed XY model, but that, in fact, has not been derived from a pre-relaxation limit. We considered a transverse-field Ising chain with an additional nonlocal interaction proportional to the magnetisation squared per unit length. This model was already studied in \cite{IsingNI} in the framework of a perturbation theory. We used some general properties, proven for Hamiltonians of that form, to obtain nonperturbative results and showed that in the thermodynamic limit subsystems retain infinite information about the initial state, whatever large the time is. This is not in disagreement with \cite{IsingNI}, where thermalisation was conjectured for time averages in finite systems: for this model the diagonal ensemble could not be locally equivalent to the stationary state that emerges in the thermodynamic limit when the quench parameters are compatible with relaxation. We showed that the late time behaviour in the thermodynamic limit (which corresponds to the `pre-thermal' behaviour of \cite{IsingNI}) can not always be described by a stationary state. In the parameter space there are indeed `critical lines' that separate relaxation from persistent oscillatory behaviour. We defined a limit of small quench and, in that limit, exhibited the analytic expressions for such critical lines. The appearance of oscillatory behaviour has been interpreted as a consequence of the emergence of localised excitations. We also discussed the generalisations to other Hamiltonians in which some terms have the form of interactions with macroscopic observables, like the magnetisation squared per unit length of the model above. In particular, we ruled out thermal-like behaviour in a large class of models of that kind. Finally, we would like to stress that our description of the pre-relaxation limit is based on a few hypotheses. In particular, we neglected some ``anomalous terms'', proving only the self-consistency of the conjecture. Some preliminary checks against iTEBD simulations are confirming the validity of the assumptions\cite{CF:entgr}; however, we leave a more rigorous analysis of the regimes of validity of our approximations to future research. \ack We thank Mario Collura, Fabian Essler and Andrea Gambassi for useful discussions and Matteo Marcuzzi for having provided us with the data for \fref{f:mirror59}. This work was supported by the EPSRC under grants EP/I032487/1 (BB) and EP/J014885/1 (MF) and by the LabEx ENS-ICFP: ANR-10-LABX-0010/ANR-10-IDEX-0001-02 PSL* (MF).
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:introduction}} \subsection{Motivation and Objective} \IEEEPARstart{C}{ar} is one of the most frequently seen object category in every day scenes. Car detection and viewpoint estimation by a computer vision system has broad applications such as autonomous driving and parking management. Fig.~\ref{fig:data} shows a few examples with varying complexities in car detection from four datasets. Car detection and viewpoint estimation are challenging problems due to the large structural and appearance variations, especially ubiquitous occlusions which further increase the intra-class variations significantly. In this paper, we are interested in learning a unified model which can detect cars in the four datasets and estimate car viewpoints. We aim to address two main issues in the following. \begin{figure} \centering {\includegraphics[width = 0.5\textwidth]{./carDatasets.pdf}} \caption{Illustration of varying complexities in car detection from four datasets. (a) The PASCAL VOC2007 car dataset~\cite{pascal} consists of single cars under different viewpoints but with less occlusion as pointed out in \cite{HoiemDiagnoseError}. (b) The KITTI car benchmark~\cite{Geiger12} includes on-road cars captured by a camera mounted upon a driving car which have more occlusions but restricted viewpoints. (c) The Street-Parking car dataset~\cite{boli_iccv13} includes cars with heavy occlusions but less multi-car context and (d) The Parking-Lot car dataset~\cite{boli_eccv14} consists of cars with heavy occlusions and rich multi-car context. The proposed And-Or model is learned for car detection in all four datasets.} \label{fig:data} \vspace{-4mm} \end{figure} The first is to explicitly represent occlusion. Occlusion is a critical aspect in object detection for several reasons: (i) we do not know ahead of time what portion of an object (e.g. car) will be visible in a test image; (ii) we also do not know the occluded areas in weakly-labeled training data (i.e. only bounding boxes of single cars are given, as considered in this paper); and (iii) object occlusions in testing data could be very different from those in training data. Handling occlusions entails models capable of capturing the underlying regularities of occlusions at part level (i.e. different occlusion configurations). \begin{figure*} \centering {\includegraphics[width = 1.0\textwidth]{./cad_simul_pami_v3_2.pdf}} \caption{Illustration of the statistical regularities of car occlusions and multi-car contextual patterns by CAD simulation. We represent car-to-car occlusion at semantic part level (left) and generate a large number of synthetic occlusion configurations (middle) w.r.t. four factors (car type, orientation, relative position and camera view). We represent the regularities of different combinations of part visibilities (i.e., occlusion configurations) by a hierarchical And-Or model. This model also represents multi-car contextual patterns (right) based on the geometric configurations of single cars.} \label{fig:regularity} \vspace{-4mm} \end{figure*} The second is to explicitly exploit contextual information co-occurring with occlusions (see examples in Fig.\ref{fig:data} (b), (c) and (d)), which goes beyond single-car detection. We focus on car-to-car contextual patterns (e.g., different multi-car configurations such as $2, 3$ or $4$ cars), which will be utilized in detection and viewpoint estimation and naturally integrated with occlusion configurations. To represent both occlusion and context, we propose to learn an And-Or model which takes into account structural and appearance variations at multi-car, single-car and part levels jointly. Our And-Or model belongs to grammar models \cite{grammar,DPMGrammar} embedded in a hierarchical graph structure, which can express a large number of configurations (occlusion configurations and multi-car configurations) in a compositional and reconfigurable manner. Fig.\ref{fig:demo} illustrates our And-Or model. By reconfigurable, it means that we learn appearance templates and deformation models for single cars and parts, and the composed appearance templates for a multi-car contextual pattern is inferred on-the-fly in detection according to the selections of their child single car Or-nodes. So, our model can express a large number of multi-car contextual patterns with different compatible occlusion configurations of single cars. \textit{Reconfigurability} is one of the most desired property in hierarchical models, which plays the main role in boosting the performance in our experiments, and also distinguishes the proposed method to other models such as the visual phrase model~\cite{VisualPhrases} and different object-pair models~\cite{ModelingOcclusion_PR2014,siyu_bmvc,xiaogang_cvpr13,bojan_cvpr13}. \subsection{Method Overview} \subsubsection{Data Preparation with Simulation Study} \label{sec:simulation} Manually annotating car views, parts and part occlusions on real images are time-consuming and usually error-prone. One innovation in this paper is that we generate a large set of occlusion configurations and multi-car configurations by CAD models~\footnote{we used 40 CAD models selected from www.doschdesign.com and Google 3D warehouse} and a publicly available graphics rendering engine, the SketchUp SDK~\footnote{www.sketchup.com}. In the CAD simulation, the occlusion configurations and multi-car contextual patterns reflect variations in four factors: \textit{car type, orientation, relative position and camera view}. We decompose a car into $17$ semantic parts as shown in different colors in the left side of Fig.~\ref{fig:regularity}. We then generate a large number of examples by placing 3 cars in a $3\times 3$ grid (resembling the regularities of cars in parking lots or on the road, see the middle of Fig.~\ref{fig:regularity}). For the cars in the center, we compare their part visibilities from different viewpoints (as illustrated by the camera icons), and obtain \textit{the part occlusion data matrix} (each row represents an example and each entry takes a binary value, 0/1, representing occluded or not for a part under a viewpoint). The data matrix is used to learn the occlusion configurations. Similarly, we learn different multi-car contextual patterns based on the geometric configurations (see some examples in the right side of Fig.~\ref{fig:regularity}). Note that the semantic part annotations in the synthetic examples are used to learn the structure of our And-Or model and the parts are treated as latent variables in weakly-annotated training data of real images. We do not evaluate the performance of part localization and instead evaluate the viewpoint estimation based on the inferred part configurations. In the simulation, we place 3 cars in a $3\times 3$ grid with three considerations: (i) It can generate different occlusion configurations for the car in the center under different camera viewpoints, as well as different multi-car contextual patterns (2-car or 3-car pattern), which is easier than using 2 cars in processing the data in simulation. (ii) It can generate the synthetic dataset in which the occlusion configurations and multi-car contextual patterns are generic enough to cover the four situations in Fig.\ref{fig:data}. (iii) It can also reduce the gap between the synthetic data and real data when learning the initial appearance parameters for parts with the car in the back instead of the white background (see more details in Sec.\ref{sec:learning}). \begin{figure*} \centering {\includegraphics[width = 1.0\textwidth]{./car_aog_pami_demo_v3_2.pdf}} \caption{Illustration of our And-Or model for car detection. It represents multi-car contextual patterns and occlusion configurations jointly by modeling spatially-aligned multi-cars together and composing visible parts explicitly for single cars. (Best viewed in color)} \label{fig:demo} \vspace{-3mm} \end{figure*} \subsubsection{The And-Or Model} There are three types of nodes in the And-Or model: an \textit{And-node} represents decomposition (e.g., a car is composed of a small number of parts), an \textit{Or-node} represents alternative ways of decomposition accounting for structural variations (e.g., different part configurations of a single car due to occlusions), and a \textit{Terminal-node} captures appearance variations to ground a car or a part to image data. Fig. \ref{fig:demo} illustrates the learned And-Or model. The hierarchy consists of a layer of multi-car contextual patterns (top) and several layers of occlusion configurations of single cars (bottom). The overall structure is as-follows: \textit{i) The root Or-node} represents different multi-car configurations which capture both viewpoints and car-to-car contextual patterns. Each multi-car contextual pattern is then represented by an And-node (e.g., car pairs and car triples shown in the figure). The contextual information reflect the layout regularities of a small number, $N$ (e.g., $N\in \{2,3\}$), of cars in real sitations (such as cars in a parking lot). \textit{ii) A multi-car And-node} is decomposed into nodes representing single cars. Each single car is represented by an Or-node (e.g., the $1^{st}$ car and the $2^{nd}$ car), since we have different combinations of car types, viewpoints and occlusion configurations Here, a multi-car And-node embeds the reconfigurable compositional grammar of a multi-car configuration (e.g., the three 2-car configurations in the right-top of Fig.\ref{fig:regularity}) in which the single cars are reconfigurable w.r.t. viewpoint and occlusion configuration (up to some extend), and car type. This reconfigurability gives our model expressive power to handle the large variations of multi-car configurations in real sitations. \textit{iii) Each occlusion configuration is represented by an And-node} which is further decomposed into parts. Parts are learned using CAD simulation (i.e., the $17$ semantic parts) and are organized into consistently visible parts and optional part clusters (see the example in the right-bottom of Fig.~\ref{fig:demo}). Then, a single car can be represented by the consistently visible parts (i.e., And) and one of the optional part clusters (i.e., Or). The green dashed bounding boxes show some examples corresponding to different occlusion configurations (i.e., visible parts) from the same viewpoint. \subsubsection{Weakly-supervised Learning of the And-Or Model} Using weakly-annotated real image training data and the synthetic data, we learn the And-Or model in two stages: \textit{i) Learning the structure of the hierarchical And-Or model}. Both the multi-car contextual patterns and occlusion configurations of single cars are learned automatically based on the annotated single car bounding boxes in training data together with the synthetic examples generated from CAD simulations. The multi-car contextual patterns are mined or clustered from the geometric layout features. The occlusion configurations are learned by a clustering method using the part visibility data matrix. The learned structure is a directed and acyclic graph since we have both single-car-sharing and part-sharing, thus Dynamic Programming (DP) can be applied in inference. \textit{ii) Learning the parameters for appearance, deformation and bias}. Given the learned structure of the And-Or model, we jointly train the parameters in the structural SVM framework and adopt the Weak-Label Structural SVM (WLSSVM) method \cite{pffgrammar,McAllesterLossBound} in implementation. \subsubsection{Experiments} In experiments, we evaluate the detection performance of our model on four car datasets: the KITTI dataset \cite{Geiger12}, the PASCAL VOC2007 car dataset \cite{pascal} and two self-collected datasets \--- the Street-Parking dataset \cite{boli_iccv13} and the Parking Lot dataset~\cite{boli_eccv14} (which are released with this paper). Our model outperforms different state-of-the-art variants of DPM \cite{DPM} (including the latest implementation \cite{voc5}) on all the four datasets, as well as other state-of-the-art models \cite{behley2013iros,Geiger11,bojan_cvpr13,boli_iccv13} on the KITTI and the Street-Parking datasets. We evaluate viewpoint estimation performance on three car datasets: the PASCAL VOC2006 car dataset~\cite{pascal}, the 3D car dataset~\cite{savarese}, and the PASCAL3D+ car dataset~\cite{xiang_wacv14}. Our model achieves comparable performance with the state-of-the-art methods (significantly better than the method using deep learning features~\cite{pedersoli}). \textit{The detection code and data are available on the author's homepage} \footnote{http://www.stat.ucla.edu/\textasciitilde tfwu/projects.htm}. \textbf{Paper Organization.} The remaining of this paper is organized as follows. Section \ref{sec:relatedwork} overviews the related work and summarizes our contributions. Section \ref{sec:model} presents the And-Or model and defines its scoring functions. Section \ref{sec:mining} presents the method of mining multi-car contextual patterns and occlusion configurations of single cars in weakly-labeled training data. Section \ref{sec:learning} discusses the learning of model parameters using WLSSVM, as well as details of the DP inference algorithm. Section \ref{sec:exp} presents the experimental results and comparisons of the proposed model on the four car detection datasets and the three viewpoint estimation datasets. Section \ref{sec:conclusion} concludes the paper with discussions. \section{Related Work and Our Contributions}\label{sec:relatedwork} Over the last decade, object detection has made much progress in various vision tasks such as face detection \cite{vj_detector}, pedestrian detection \cite{Dollar2012PAMI}, and generic object detection \cite{pascal,DPM,xisong_cvpr}. In this section we focus on occlusion and context modeling in object detection, and classify the recent literature into three research streams. For a full review of contemporary approaches, we refer the reader to recent survey articles \cite{recog_Grauman,survey_50,survey_zhang}. \textit{i) Single Object Modeling and Occlusion Modeling.} Hierarchical models are widely used in the recent literature of object detection and most existing approaches are devoted to learning a single object model. Many work extended the deformable part-based model \cite{DPM} (which has a two-layer structure) by exploring deeper hierarchy and global part configurations~\cite{xisong_cvpr,leo2010,pffgrammar}, using strong manually-annotated parts \cite{StrongSupervsionDPM} or CAD models \cite{teach3D}, or keeping human in-the-loop \cite{interactiveDPM}. To address the occlusion problem, various occlusion models estimate the visibilities of parts from image appearance, using assumptions that the visibility of a part is (a) independent from other parts \cite{wubo,hoglbp,HR_car,landmark_iccv13,desai_eccv12}, (b) consistent with neighboring parts \cite{Gao2011,pffgrammar}, or (c) consistent with its parent or child parts describing object appearance at different scales \cite{duan2010}. Another essential problem is to organize part configurations. Recently, \cite{pffgrammar, HR_car, boli_iccv13} explored different ways to deal with this problem. In particular, \cite{HR_car} modeled different part configurations by the local part mixtures. \cite{pffgrammar} used a more flexible grammar model to infer both the occluder and visible parts of an occluded person. \cite{boli_iccv13} regularized parts into consistently visible parts and optional part clusters, which is more efficient to represent occlusion configurations. Recent work~\cite{Mathias2013Iccv,consensus,zia,Ghiasi_face14,Ghiasi_people14} proposed to enumerate possible occlusion configurations and model each occlusion configuration as a specific component. {\cite{OhnBar} proposed a 2D model to learn discriminative subcategories, and \cite{xiang_cvpr15} further integrated it with an explicit 3D occlusion model, both showing excellent performance on the KITTI dataset.} Though those models were successful in some heavily occluded cases, they did not represent contextual information, and usually learned another separate context model using the detection scores as input features. Recently, an And-Or quantization method was proposed to learn And-Or tree models \cite{xisong_cvpr,Tangram} for generic object detection in PASCAL VOC~\cite{pascal} and learn 3D And-Or models \cite{Wenze3DCar} respectively, which could be useful in occlusion modeling. \textit{ii) Object-Pair and Visual Phrase Models}. To account for the strong co-occurrence, object-pair~\cite{ModelingOcclusion_PR2014,siyu_bmvc,xiaogang_cvpr13,bojan_cvpr13} and visual phrase~ \cite{VisualPhrases} methods modeled occlusions and interactions using a X-to-X or X-to-Y composite template that spans both one object (i.e., ``X" such as a person or a car) and another interacting object (i.e., ``X" or ``Y" such as the other car in a car-pair in parking lots or a bicycle on which a person is riding). Although these models can handle occlusion better than single object models, the object-pair or visual phrase modeled occlusion implicitly, and they were often manually designed with fixed structures (i.e., not reconfigurable in inference). They performed worse than original DPM in the KITTI dataset as evaluated by \cite{bojan_cvpr13}. \textit{iii) Context Models.} Many context models have been exploited in object detection with improved performance~\cite{Ramanan_objpair,ramanan_layout,putting,autocontext,guangchen_cvpr}. Hoiem et al. \cite{putting} explored a scene context, Desai et al. \cite{ramanan_layout} improved object detectors by incorporating the multi-class context on the pascal dataset \cite{pascal} in a max-margin framework. In \cite{autocontext}, Tu and Bai integrated the detector responses with background pixels to determine the foreground pixels. In \cite{guangchen_cvpr}, Chen et. al. proposed a multi-order context representation to take advantage of the co-occurrence of different objects. Recently, \cite{nyc3dcar} explored geographic contextual information to facilitate car detection, and \cite{pano} explored a 3D panoramic context in object detection. Although these work verified that context is crucial in object detection, most of them modeled objects and context separately, not in a unified framework. This paper is extended from our two previous conference papers \cite{boli_eccv14,boli_iccv13} in the following aspects: (i) A unified representation is learned for integrating occlusion and context; (ii) More details on the learning algorithm and the detection algorithm are presented; (iii) More analyses and comparisons on the experimental results are added with improved performance. This paper makes three contributions to the literature of car detection. i) It proposes an And-Or model to represent multi-car context and occlusion configurations. The proposed model is multi-scale and reconfigurable to account for large structure, viewpoint and occlusion variations. ii) It presents a simple, yet effective, approach to mine context and occlusion configurations from weakly-labeled training data. iii) It introduces two datasets for evaluating occlusion and multi-car context, and obtains performance comparable to or better than state-of-the-art car detection methods in four challenging datasets. \section{Representation and Inference} \label{sec:model} \subsection{The And-Or Model and Scoring Functions} In this section, we introduce the notations in defining the And-Or model and its scoring functions. An \textit{And-Or model} is defined by a $3$-tuple, $ \mathcal{G} = (\mathcal{V}, E, \Theta), $ where $ \mathcal{V} = \mathcal{V}_\mathrm{\scriptscriptstyle{And}} \cup \mathcal{V}_\mathrm{\scriptscriptstyle{Or}} \cup \mathcal{V}_T, $ represents the nodes in three subsets: And-nodes $\mathcal{V}_\mathrm{\scriptscriptstyle{And}}$, Or-nodes $\mathcal{V}_\mathrm{\scriptscriptstyle{Or}}$ and Terminal-nodes $\mathcal{V}_T$; $E$ is the set of edges organizing all the nodes in a directed and acyclic graph (DAG); $ \Theta=(\Theta^{app}, \Theta^{def}, \Theta^{bias}), $ is the set of parameters (for appearance, deformation and bias respectively, to be defined later). A \textit{Parse Tree} is an instantiation of the And-Or model by selecting the best child (according to the scoring functions to be defined) for each encountered Or-node. The green arrows in Fig.~\ref{fig:demo} show an example of parse tree. \textit{Appearance Features.} We adopt the Histogram of Oriented Gradients (HOG) feature \cite{HOG,DPM} to describe appearance. Let $I$ be an image defined on an image lattice. Denote by $\mathcal{H}$ the HOG feature pyramid computed for $I$ using $\lambda$ levels per octave, and by $\Lambda$ the lattice of the whole pyramid. Let $p=(l, x, y)\in \Lambda$ specify a position $(x, y)$ in the $l$-th level of the pyramid $\mathcal{H}$. Denote by $\Phi^{app}(\mathcal{H}, p_t)$ the extracted HOG features for a Terminal-node $t$ placing at position $p_t$ in the pyramid. \textit{Deformation Features.} We allow local deformation when composing the child nodes into a parent node. In our model, parts are placed at twice the spatial resolution w.r.t. single cars, while single cars and composite multi-cars are at the same spatial resolution. We penalize the displacements between the anchor locations of child nodes (w.r.t. the placed parent node) and their actual deformed locations. Denote by $\delta=[dx, dy]$ the displacement. The deformation feature is defined by, \[ \Phi^{def}(\delta) = [dx^2, dx, dy^2, dy]'. \] A \textbf{Terminal-node} $t\in \mathcal{V}_T$ grounds a single car or a part to image data (see Layer 3 and 4 in Fig.\ref{fig:demo}). Given a parent node $A$, the model for $t$ is defined by a 4-tuple \[(\theta_t^{app}, s_t, a_{t|A}, \theta^{def}_{t|A}) \] where $\theta_t^{app}\subset \Theta^{app}$ is the appearance template, $s_t\in\{0, 1\}$ the scale factor for placing node $t$ w.r.t. its parent node, $a_{t|A}$ a two-dimensional vector specifying an anchor position relative to the position of parent node $A$, and $\theta^{def}_{t|A}\subset \Theta^{def}$ the deformation parameters. Given the position $p_A=(l_A, x_A, y_A)$ of the parent node $A$, the scoring function of a Terminal-node $t$ is defined by, \begin{align} \nonumber score(t|A, p_A) = \max_{\delta \in \Delta}(&<\theta_t^{app}, \Phi^{app}(\mathcal{H}, p_t)> -\\ & <\theta^{def}_{t|A}, \Phi^{def}(\delta)>), \label{eq:tscore} \end{align} where $\Delta$ is the space of deformation (i.e., the lattice of the corresponding level in the feature pyramid), $p_t=(l_t, x_t, y_t)$ with $l_t=l_A-s_t\lambda$ and $(x_t, y_t)=2^{s_t}(x_A, y_A)+a_{t|A}+\delta$ where $s_t=0$ means the object and parts are placed at the same resolution and $s_t=1$ means parts are placed at twice the resolution of the object templates, and $<\cdot, \cdot>$ denotes the inner product. Fig.\ref{fig:demo} shows some learned appearance templates. An \textbf{And-node} $A\in \mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{\scriptscriptstyle{And}}}$ represents a decomposition of a large entity (e.g., a multi-car layout at Layer 1 or a single car at Layer 3 in Fig.\ref{fig:demo}) into its constituents (e.g., $2$ or $3$ single cars or a small number of parts). Single car And-nodes are associated with viewpoints. Unlike the Terminal-nodes, single car And-nodes are not allowed to be deformable in a multi-car configuration in this paper (we implemented it in experiments and did not observe performance improvement, so for simplicity we make them not deformable). Denote by $ch(v)$ the set of child nodes of a node $v\in \mathcal{V}_\mathrm{\scriptscriptstyle{And}} \cup \mathcal{V}_\mathrm{\scriptscriptstyle{Or}}$. The position $p_A$ of an And-node $A$ is inherited from its parent Or-node, and then the scoring function is defined by, \begin{equation} score(A, p_A) = \sum_{v\in ch(A)} score(v|A, p_A) + b_A \label{eq:andscore} \end{equation} where $b_A\in \Theta^{bias}$ is the bias term. Each single car And-node (at Layer 3) can be treated as the DPM \cite{DPM} or the And-Or structure proposed in \cite{boli_iccv13}. So, our model is flexible to integrate state-of-the-art single object models. For multi-car And-nodes (at Layer 1), their child nodes are Or-nodes and the scoring function $score(v|A, p_A)$ is defined below. An \textbf{Or-node} $O\in \mathcal{V}_\mathrm{\scriptscriptstyle{Or}}$ represents different structure variations (e.g., the root node and the $i$-th car node at Layer 2 in Fig.\ref{fig:demo}). For the root Or-node $O$, when placing at the position $p\in \Lambda$, the scoring function is defined by, \begin{equation} score(O, p) = \max_{v\in ch(O)} score(v, p), \label{eq:orscore1} \end{equation} where $ch(O)\subset \mathcal{V}_\mathrm{\scriptscriptstyle{And}}$. For the $i$-th car Or-node $O$, given a parent multi-car And-node $A$ placed at $p_A$, the scoring function is then defined by, \begin{align} \nonumber score(O|A, p_A) = \max_{v\in ch(O)} \max_{\delta\in \Delta}(&score(v, p_v) -\\ &<\theta_{O|A}^{def}, \Phi^{def}(\delta)>), \label{eq:orscore2} \end{align} where $p_v=(l_v, x_v, y_v)$ with $l_v = l_A$ and $(x_v, y_v) = (x_A, y_A) + \delta$. The best child of an Or-node is computed by taking $\operatornamewithlimits{argmax}$ of Eqn.(\ref{eq:orscore1}) and Eqn.(\ref{eq:orscore2}). \subsection{The DP Algorithm in Detection} In detection, we place the And-Or model at all positions $p\in \Lambda$ and retrieve the optimal parse trees for all positions at which the scores are greater than the detection threshold. Thank to the directed and acyclic structure of our And-Or model, we can utilize the efficient DP algorithm which consists of two stages: \textit{In the bottom-up pass:} Following the depth-first-search (DFS) order of nodes in the And-Or model, the bottom-up pass computes the matching scores of all possible parse trees of the And-Or model at all possible positions in the whole feature pyramid. First of all, we compute the appearance score maps (pyramid) for all Terminal-nodes (which is done by filter convolution). The optimal position of a Terminal-node w.r.t. a parent node can be computed as a function of the position of the parent node. The quality (matching score) of the optimal position for a Terminal-node w.r.t. a given position of the parent is computed using Eqn.\ref{eq:tscore} (which yields the deformed score map through the generalized distance transform trick as done in the DPM \cite{DPM} for efficiency), and the optimal position can be retrieved by replacing $\max$ in Eqn.(\ref{eq:tscore}) with $\arg \max$. Then, following the DFS order of nodes, we compute the score maps for all the And-nodes and Or-nodes using Eqn.(\ref{eq:andscore}), (\ref{eq:orscore1}) and (\ref{eq:orscore2}) with the score maps of their child nodes having been computed already. Similarly, we can obtain the optimal branch for each Or-node by replacing the $\max$ in Eqn.(\ref{eq:orscore1}) and (\ref{eq:orscore2}) with $\arg \max$. \textit{In the top-down pass}, we first find all detection candidates for the root Or-node $O$ based on its score maps, i.e., the positions $ \mathbb{P} = \{p; score(O,p) \geq \tau \text{ and } p \in \Lambda\}. $ Then, following the breadth-first-search (BFS) order of nodes, we retrieve the optimal parse tree at each $p\in \mathbb{P}$: starting from the root Or-node, we select the optimal branch of each encountered Or-node, keep all the child nodes of each encountered And-node, and retrieve the optimal position of each Terminal-node. Based on the parsed sub-tree rooted at single car And-nodes, we obtain the viewpoint estimation and the occlusion configuration. \textit{Post-processing.} To generate the final detection results of single cars for evaluation, we apply multi-car guided non-maximum suppression (NMS) to deal with occlusions: i) Some of the single cars in a multi-car detection candidate are highly overlapped due to occlusion, so if we directly use conventional NMS, we will miss the detection of the occluded cars. We enforce that all the single car bounding boxes in a multi-car prediction will not be suppressed by each other. A similar idea is also used in \cite{siyu_bmvc}. ii) Overlapped multi-car detection candidates might report multiple predictions for the same single car. For example, if a car is shared by a $2$-car detection candidate and a $3$-car detection candidate, it will be reported twice. We will keep only the one with higher score. \section{Learning And-Or Structures} \label{sec:mining} In this section, we present the methods of learning the structures of And-Or model by mining contextual patterns and occlusion configurations in the positive training dataset. \subsection{Generating Multi-car Training Samples} \textbf{Positive Samples.} Denote by $D^+=\{(I_1, \mathbb{B}_1), \cdots, (I_n, \mathbb{B}_n)\}$ the positive training dataset with $\mathbb{B}_i = \{B_i^j = (x_i^j, y_i^j, w_i^j, h_i^j)\}_{j=1}^{k_i}$ being the set of $k_i$ annotated single car bound boxes in image $I_i$. Here, $(x, y)$ is the left-top corner and $(w, h)$ the width and height. Denote the set of $N$-car positive samples by, \begin{equation} D_{N\mbox{-}car}^+ = \{(I_i, B_i^J); {|J| = N, B_i^J\subseteq \mathbb{B}_i, i\in [1, n]} \}. \end{equation} where all the $I_i$'s have more than $N$ annotated single cars (i.e., $k_i\geq N$). We have, i) $D_{1-car}^+$ consists of all the single car bounding boxes which do not overlap the other ones in the same image. For $N\geq 2$, $D_{N-car}^+$ is generated iteratively. ii) In generating $D_{2-car}^+$ (see Fig.\ref{fig:trainingData} (a)), for each positive image $(I_i, \mathbb{B}_i)\in D^+$ with $k_i\geq 2$, we enumerate all valid $2$-car configurations starting from $B_i^1\in \mathbb{B}_i$: we first select the current $B_i^j$ as the first car ($1\leq j \leq k_i$), obtain all the surrounding car bounding boxes $\mathcal{N}_{B_i^j}$ which overlap $B_i^j$, and then select the second car $B_i^{k}\in \mathcal{N}_{B_i^j}$ which has the largest overlap if $\mathcal{N}_{B_i^j}\neq \emptyset$ and $(I_i, B_i^J) \notin D^+_{2-car}$ ($J=\{j,k\}$). iii) In generating $D_{N-car}^+$ ($N>2$, see Fig.\ref{fig:trainingData} (b)), for each positive image with $k_i\geq N$ and $\exists (I_i, B_i^K)\in D_{(N-1)-car}^+$, we first select the current $B_i^K$ as the seed, obtain the neighbors $\mathcal{N}_{B_i^K}$ each of which overlaps at least one bounding box in $B_i^K$, and then select the bounding box $B_i^j\in \mathcal{N}_{B_i^K}$ which has the largest overlap and add $(I_i, B_i^J)$ to $D_{N-car}^+$ ($J = K \cup \{j\}$). \begin{figure} \centering {\includegraphics[width = 0.46\textwidth]{./createTrainingData.pdf}} \caption{Illustration of generating multi-car positive samples.} \label{fig:trainingData} \vspace{-4mm} \end{figure} \textbf{Negative Samples.} We collect negative samples in images without cars appearing provided in the benchmark datasets and apply the hard negative mining approach during learning parameters as done in the DPM \cite{DPM}. \begin{SCfigure*} \centering \caption{\textit{Left-Top}: $2$-car context patterns on the KITTI dataset \cite{Geiger12} and self-collected Parking Lot dataset. Each context pattern is represented by a specific color set, and each circle stands for the center of each cluster. \textit{Left-Bottom}: Overlap ratio histograms of the KITTI dataset and the Parking Lot dataset (we show the occluded cases only). \textit{Right}: some cropped examples with different occlusions. The $2$ bounding boxes in a car pair are shown in red and blue respectively. (Best viewed in color).}\label{fig:hist} \vspace{-3mm} \includegraphics[width=0.78\textwidth]% {./hist22.pdf \end{SCfigure*} \subsection{Mining Multi-car Contextual Patterns} \label{sec:cm} This section presents the method of learning multi-car patterns in Layer $0-2$ in Fig.\ref{fig:demo}. Considering $N\geq 2$, we use the relative positions of single cars to describe the layout of a multi-car sample $(I_i, B_i^J)\in D^+_{N-car}$. Denote by $(cx, cy)$ the center of a car bounding box ($J=\{1, \cdots, N\}$). Let $w_{J}$ and $h_{J}$ be the width and height of the union bounding box of $B_i^J$ respectively. With the center of the first car being the centroid, we define the layout feature by, \begin{equation} [{{cx_i^2-cx_i^1}\over w_{J}}, {{cy_i^2-cy_i^1}\over h_{J}}, \cdots, {{cx_i^N-cx_i^1}\over w_{J}}, {{cy_i^N-cy_i^1}\over h_{J}}]. \end{equation} We cluster these layout features over $D^+_{N-car}$ to get $T$ clusters using $k$-means. \textit{The obtained clusters are used to specify the And-nodes at Layer 1} in Fig.\ref{fig:demo}. The number of cluster $T$ is specified empirically for different training datasets in our experiments. In Fig.~\ref{fig:hist} (top), we visualize the clustering results for $D_{2-car}^+$ on the KITTI \cite{Geiger12} and the Parking Lot datasets. Each set of color points represents a $2$-car context pattern. In the KITTI dataset, we can observe there are some car-to-car ``peak" modes in the dataset (similar to the analyses in \cite{bojan_cvpr13}), while the context patterns are more diverse in the Parking Lot dataset. \subsection{Mining Occlusion Configurations} \label{sec:om} In this section we present the method of learning occlusion configurations for single cars in Layer 3 and 4 in Fig.\ref{fig:demo}. We learn the occlusion configurations automatically from a large number of occlusion configurations generated by CAD simulations. Note that the synthetic data are used to learn the occlusion configurations, while the appearance and geometry parameters are still learned from real data. \subsubsection{Generating Occlusion Configurations}\label{sec::sampling} As mentioned in Sec.\ref{sec:simulation}, we choose to put $3$ cars in generating occlusion configurations. Specifically, we choose the center and 2 other randomly selected positions on a $3 \times 3$ grid, and put cars around these grid points to simulate occlusions. See some examples in Fig.\ref{fig:regularity}. The occlusion configurations reflect the four factors: \emph{car type} $t$, \emph{orientation} $\rho$ , \emph {relative position} $r$ and \emph{camera view} $\Pi$. To generate an occlusion configuration, we randomly assign values for these factors, where for each car with type $i$, $\rho_i \in \{\textrm{frontal,rear}\}$, $r_i=r_i^{(0)} + \mathrm{d}r$, where $r_i^{(0)}$ is the nominated position for the $i$-$th$ car on the $3 \times 3$ grid, and $\mathrm{d}r = (\mathrm{d}x,\mathrm{d}y)$ is the relative distance (along $x$ axis and $y$ axis) between sampled position and nominated position of the $i$-$th$ car. The camera view is in the range of $\mathrm{azimuth} \in [0,2\pi]$ and $\mathrm{elevation} \in [0,\pi/4]$, we discretize the view space into $B$ view bins uniformly along the azimuth angle. In the synthesized configurations, a part is treated as occluded if $60\%$ of its area is not visible. \begin{figure*} \centering {\includegraphics[width = 1.0\textwidth]{./occlusion22.pdf}} \caption{Illustration of learning occlusion configurations. It consists of three components: (i) Generating occlusion configurations using CAD simulations with 17 semantic parts in total; (ii) Learning the initial And-Or structure based on the data matrix constructed from the simulated occlusion configurations. Each row of the data matrix represents an example and the columns represent the visibility of the 17 semantic parts (a white/gray entry denotes a part is visible/invisible. Each example is represented by an And-node as one child of the root Or-node; (iii) Refining the initial And-Or structure using graph compression algorithm~\cite{zzAoT} to seek the consistently visible parts (e.g., $X$) and optional part clusters (e.g., $Y$ and $Z$).} \label{fig:occlusion} \vspace{-4mm} \end{figure*} \subsubsection{Constructing the Initial And-Or model of Single Cars} With the part-level visibility information, we compute two vectors for each occlusion configuration: The first is a ($17$ parts$\times B$ camera views) dimension binary valued vector $\vec{v}$ for the visibilities of parts; and the second is a real valued (( $1$ root $+ 17$ parts) $\times B$ camera views$\times 4$) dimension vector $\vec{b}$ for the bounding boxes and parts. In both vectors, entries corresponding to invisible parts are set to $0$. Denoting $M$ as the dimension of the vector $vec{v}$, and by stacking $vec{v}$ for $N$ occlusion configurations, we can get an $N \times M$ occlusion matrix $\mathcal{D}$, where the first few rows of this matrix for $B=8$ is shown in the right side in Fig.\ref{fig:occlusion}. Note that we have partitioned the view space into $B$ views, so for each row, the visible parts always concentrate in a segment of the vector representing that view. In learning an initial And-Or model, each row in $\mathcal{D}$ corresponds to a small subtree of the root OR node. In particular, each subtree consists of an And-node as the root and a set of terminal nodes as its children. An example of the data matrix and corresponding initial And-Or model is shown in the middle in Fig.\ref{fig:occlusion}. \subsubsection{Refining the And-Or Structure}\label{sec::compression} The initial And-Or model is large and redundant, since it has many duplicated occlusion configurations (i.e. duplicated rows in $\mathcal{D}$) and a combinatorial number of part compositions. In the following, we will pursue a compact And-Or structure. The problem can be formulated as: \begin{equation}\label{eqn::compression} \min \sum_{i}^{N} \mid v_i - v_i(\mathcal{G})\mid_2^2 + \lambda\mid \mathcal{G} \mid \end{equation} where $v_i$ is the $i$-$th$ row of the data matrix $\mathcal{D}$, $v(\mathcal{G})$ returns its most approximate occlusion configuration generated by the And-Or graph (AOG), $|\mathcal{G}|$ is the number of nodes and edges in the structure, and $\lambda$ is the trade-off parameter balancing the model precision and complexity. In each view, we assume the number of occlusion branches is not greater than $K(=4)$. We solve Eqn.\ref{eqn::compression} using a modified graph compression algorithm similar to \cite{zzAoT}. As illustrated in the right side in Fig.\ref{fig:occlusion}, the algorithm starts from the initial And-Or model, and iteratively combines branches if the introduced loss was smaller than the decrements in complexity term $\lambda |\mathcal{G}|$. This process is equivalent to iteratively finding large blocks of $1$s on the corresponding data matrix through row and column permutations, where an example is shown in the bottom in Fig.\ref{fig:occlusion}. As there are consistently visible parts for each view, the algorithm will quickly converge to the structure shown in Fig.\ref{fig:demo}. With the refined And-Or model, we compute occlusion configurations (i.e., the consistently visible parts and optional occluded parts) in each view. In addition, the bounding box size and nominal position of each Terminal-node w.r.t. its parent And-node can also be estimated by geometric means of corresponding values in the vector $\vec{b}$. These information will be used to initialize the latent variables of our model in learning the parameters. \textbf{Variants of And-Or Models.} We will test our model using two types of specifications to be consistent with our two previous conference papers, one is called \textit{And-Or Structure}~\cite{boli_iccv13} for occlusion modeling based on CAD simulation without multi-car context components, and the other called \textit{Hierarchical And-Or Model}~\cite{boli_eccv14} for occlusion and context. We also compare two methods of part selection in hierarchical And-Or model, one is based on the greedy parts as done in the DPM~\cite{DPM}, denoted by \textit{AOG+Greedy}, and the other based on the proposed CAD simulation, denoted by \textit{AOG+CAD}. \section{Learning Parameters} \label{sec:learning} With the learned And-Or structure, we adopt the WLSSVM method \cite{pffgrammar} in learning the parameters $\Theta=(\Theta^{app}, \Theta^{def}, \Theta^{bias})$ (for appearance, deformation and bias). When the occlusion configurations are mined by CAD simulations (i.e., for the two model specifications, And-Or Structure and AOG+CAD), we will use both the \textit{Step 0} and \textit{Step 1} below in learning parameters, otherwise we use \textit{Step 1} only (i.e., for AOG+Greedy). \textbf{Step 0: Initializing Parameters with Synthetic Training Data.} We learn the initial parameters $\Theta$ with synthetic training data (see Fig.\ref{fig:simulation}). We randomly superimpose the synthetic positive samples on some randomly selected real images without cars appearing (instead of using white background directly, see Fig.\ref{fig:simulation}) to reduce the appearance gap between the synthetic samples and real car samples. In the synthetic data, the parse tree $pt$ for each multi-car positive sample is known except that the positions of parts are allowed to deform. \textbf{Step 1: Learning Parameters with Real Training Data.} In the real training data, we only have annotated bounding boxes for single cars. The parse tree $pt$ for each multi-car positive sample is hidden except for the multi-car configuration which can be computed based on the annotated bounding boxes of single cars as stated in Sec.\ref{sec:cm}. Then, we initialize the parse tree for each positive sample either based on the initial parameters learned in step 0 (for the And-Or structure and AOG+CAD) or using a similar idea as done in learning the mixture of DPMs [17] to initialize the single-car And-nodes for AOG+Greedy. After the initialization, the parameters $\Theta$ are learned iteratively under the WLSSVM framework. During learning, we run the DP inference to assign the optimal parse trees for multi-car positive samples. The objective function to be minimized is defined by, \begin{equation} \mathcal{E}(\Theta) = \frac{1}{2} \Arrowvert \Theta \Arrowvert^2 + C \sum_{i=1}^M L'(\Theta, x_i, y_i) \label{eqn:obj} \end{equation} where $x_i\in D_{N-car}^+$ represents a training sample ($N\geq 1$) and $y_i$ is the $N$ bounding box(es). $L'(\Theta, x, y)$ is the surrogate loss function, \begin{align} \nonumber L'(&\Theta,x,y) = \max_{pt \in \Omega_{\mathcal{G}}} [score(x, pt; \Theta) + L_{margin}(y, box(pt))] - \\ &\max_{pt \in \Omega_{\mathcal{G}}} [score(x, pt; \Theta) - L_{output}(y, box(pt))] \label{eqn:loss} \end{align} where $\Omega_{\mathcal{G}}$ is the space of all parse trees derived from the And-Or model $\mathcal{G}$, $score(x,pt; \Theta)$ computes the score of a parse tree as stated in Sec.\ref{sec:model}, and $box(pt)$ the predicted bounding box(es) base on the parse tree. As pointed out in \cite{pffgrammar}, the loss $L_{margin}(y, box(pt))$ encourages high-loss outputs to ``pop out" of the first term in the RHS, so that their scores get pushed down. The loss $L_{output}(y, box(pt))$ suppresses high-loss outputs in the second term in the right hand side, so the score of a low-loss prediction gets pulled up. More details are referred to \cite{pffgrammar,McAllesterLossBound}. In general, since $L'$ in Eqn.(\ref{eqn:loss}) is not convex, the objective function, Eqn.(\ref{eqn:obj}) leads to a nonconvex optimization problem. The WLSSVM adopts the CCCP procedure \cite{CCCP} in optimization, which can find a local optima of the objective. The loss function is defined by, \begin{equation} \small L_{\ell, \tau}(y, box(pt)) = \left\{ \begin{array}{l l} \ell & \quad \text{if $y=\perp$ and pt $\neq \perp$}\\ 0 & \quad \text{if $y=\perp$ and pt $=\perp$}\\ \ell & \quad \text{if $y\neq \perp$ and $\exists$ $B\in y$} \\ &\qquad \text{with $ov(B, B')< \tau, \forall B'\in box(pt)$}\\ 0 & \quad \text{if $y\neq \perp$ and $ov(B, B')\geq \tau$,} \\ &\qquad \text{$\forall$ $B\in y$ and $\exists B'\in box(pt)$} \end{array} \right., \end{equation} where $\perp$ represents background output and $ov(\cdot, \cdot)$ is the intersection-union ratio of two bounding boxes. Following the PASCAL VOC protocol we have $L_{margin} = L_{1, 0.5}$ and $L_{output} = L_{\infty, 0.7}$. In practice, we modify the implementation in \cite{voc5} for our loss formulation. \section{Experiments}\label{sec:exp} In this section, we evaluate our models on four car detection datasets and three car viewpoint estimation dataset and present detail analyses on different aspects of our models. We first introduce two self-collected car datasets of street-parking cars and parking-lot cars respectively (Sec.~\ref{sec:datasets}), and then evaluate the detection performance of our models on four datasets (Sec.~\ref{sec:detection}): the two self-collected datasets, the KITTI car dataset \cite{Geiger12} and the PASCAL VOC2007 car dataset \cite{pascal}. We further analyze the performance of our model w.r.t. different aspects of our models (Sec.~\ref{sec:analysis}). The performance of car viewpoint estimation is presented in Sec.~\ref{sec:pose}. \textit{Training and Testing Time.} In all experiments, we utilize a parallel computing technique to train our model. It takes about 9 hours to train an And-Or Structure model and 16 hours to train a hierarchical And-Or Model due to inferring the assignments of part latent variables on positive training examples and mining hard negatives. For detection, it takes about 2 and 3 seconds to process an image with size of $640 \times 480$ pixels for a And-Or structure and a hierarchical And-Or model, respectively. \subsection{Datasets} \label{sec:datasets} To test our model on occlusion and context modeling, we collected two car datasets \footnote{http://www.stat.ucla.edu/\textasciitilde boli/publication/street-parking-release.zip and parking\_lot\_release.zip}. \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[width = 0.45\textwidth]{./datastats22.pdf} \resizebox{0.9\hsize}{!}{ \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline {} & Pascal\cite{pascal} & KITTI\cite{Geiger12} & Street Parking \\ \hline Avg. cars & $1.75$ & $\approx 3$ & $7.04$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} } \caption{Top: The distribution of overlap ratio and cars per image on the Street-Parking dataset. Bottom: Comparison of the average number of cars per image.} \label{fig:datastats} \vspace{-4mm} \end{figure} \textbf{The Street Parking Car Dataset.} There are several datasets featuring a large amount of car images \cite{eth80,savarese,epfl,pascal}, but they are not suitable to evaluating occlusion handling, as the proportion of (moderately or heavily) occluded cars is marginal. The recently proposed KITTI dataset \cite{Geiger12} contains occluded cars parked along the streets, but it can not fully evaluate the ability of our model since the car views are rather fixed as the video sequences are captured from a car driving on the road (e.g., no birdeye's view). In addition, the average number of cars on each image is still not large enough (mostly $3$ cars, see the statistics in the bottom in Fig.~\ref{fig:datastats}). To provide a more challenging occlusion dataset, we collected one emphasizing street parking cars with heavy occlusions, diverse viewpoint changes and much larger number of cars per image (see the last two rows in Fig.\ref{fig:dets}). The dataset consists of $881$ images. Fig.~\ref{fig:datastats} shows the bounding box overlapping distribution and average number of cars per image. For the simplicity of annotation, we only label the bounding boxes of single cars in each image. We split the dataset into training and testing sets containing $440$ and $441$ images, respectively. \textbf{The Parking Lot Dataset.} Our Street Parking Car Dataset provides more viewpoints, however, the context and occlusion configurations are relatively restricted (most cars just compose the head-to-head occlusions). To thoroughly evaluate our models in terms of both context and occlusions, we collected the parking lot car dataset, which has larger occlusion variations and larger number of cars in each image (see the $4$-th and $5$-th rows in Fig. \ref{fig:dets}). It contains $65$ training images and $63$ testing images. Although the number of images is small, the number of cars is noticeably large, with $3,346$ cars (including left-right mirrored ones) for training and $2,015$ cars for testing. \subsection{Detection} \label{sec:detection} We test our hierarchical And-Or Model on four challenging datasets. \subsubsection{Results on the KITTI Dataset} \begin{figure}[!t] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width = 0.42\textwidth]{./pr_results22.pdf} \caption{Precision-recall curves on the test subset splitted from the KITTI trainset (Left) and the Parking Lot dataset (Right).} \label{fig:pr_results} \end{center} \vspace{-4mm} \end{figure} The KITTI dataset \cite{Geiger12} contains $7,481$ training images and $7,518$ testing images, which are captured from an autonomous driving platform. We follow the provided benchmark protocol for evaluation. Since the authors of \cite{Geiger12} have not released the test annotations, we test our model in the following two settings. \textbf{Training and Testing by Splitting the Trainset.} We randomly split the KITTI trainset into the training and testing subsets equally. \textit{Baseline Methods.} Since DPM \cite{DPM} is a very competitive model with source code publicly available, we compare our model with the latest version of DPM (i.e., voc-release5 \cite{voc5}). The number of components are set to $16$ as the baseline methods trained in \cite{Geiger12}, other parameters are set as default. \textit{Parameter Settings.} We consider multi-car contextual patterns with the number of cars $N=1, 2$. We set the number of context patterns and occlusion configurations to be $10$ and $16$, respectively. As a result, the learned hierarchical And-Or model has $10$ $2$-car configurations in layer $1$, and $16$ single car branches in layer $3$ (see Fig. \ref{fig:demo}). \begin{table} \begin{center} \resizebox{1.0\hsize}{!}{ \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|} \hline Methods & Easy & Moderate & Hard \\ \hline mBow \cite{behley2013iros} & $36.02\%$ & $23.76\%$ & $18.44\%$ \\ \hline LSVM-MDPM-us \cite{DPM} & $66.53\%$ & $55.42\%$ & $41.04\%$ \\ \hline LSVM-MDPM-sv \cite{DPM,Geiger11} & $68.02\%$ & $56.48\%$ & $44.18\%$ \\ \hline MDPM-un-BB \cite{DPM} & $71.19\%$ & $62.16\%$ & $48.43\%$ \\ \hline OC-DPM \cite{bojan_cvpr13} & $74.94\%$ & $65.95\%$ & $53.86\%$ \\ \hline DPM \cite{voc5} (trained by us) & $77.24\%$ & $56.02\%$ & $43.14\%$ \\ \hline MV-RGBD-RF \cite{mv_rgbd} & $76.40\%$ & $69.92\%$ & $57.47\%$ \\ \hline SubCat \cite{OhnBar} & $84.14\%$ & $75.46\%$ & $59.71\%$ \\ \hline 3DVP \cite{xiang_cvpr15} & \underline{$\mathbf{87.46\%}$} & $75.77\%$ & \underline{$\mathbf{65.38\%}$} \\ \hline Regionlets \cite{regionlets} & $84.75\%$ & \underline{$\mathbf{76.45\%}$} & $59.70\%$ \\ \hline AOG+Greedy-Half & $84.36\%$ & $71.88\%$ & $59.27\%$ \\ \hline AOG+Greedy-Full & ${84.80\%}$ & ${75.94\%}$ & ${60.70\%}$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} } \end{center} \caption{Performance comparison (in AP) on the KITTI benchmark \cite{Geiger12}.}\label{tab:bench} \vspace{-3mm} \end{table} \begin{table} \begin{center} \resizebox{1.0\hsize}{!}{ \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline {} & DPM \cite{voc5} & And-Or Structure \cite{boli_iccv13} & AOG+Greedy & AOG+CAD\\ \hline AP & $52.0\%$ & $57.8\%$ & $62.1\%$ & $\mathbf{65.3\%}$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} } \end{center} \caption{Performance comparison (in AP) on the Street Parking dataset \cite{boli_iccv13}.}\label{tab:street} \vspace{-4mm} \end{table} \textit{Detection Results.} The left figure in Fig. \ref{fig:pr_results} shows the precision-recall curves of DPM and our model. Our model outperforms DPM by $9.1\%$ in terms of average precision (AP). The performance gain comes from both precision and recall, which shows the importance of context and occlusion modeling. \textbf{Testing on the KITTI Benchmark.} We evaluate our model with two different training data settings: one trained using half training set on the KITTI testset, denoted by AOG+Greedy-Half, and the other trained with full training set, denoted by AOG+Greedy-Full (which has $16$ context patterns and $32$ occlusion configurations). The benchmark has three subsets (\emph{Easy, Moderate, Hard}) w.r.t the difficulty of object size, occlusion and truncation. All methods are ranked based on performance in the moderately difficult subset. Our entry in the benchmark is ``AOG". Table \ref{tab:bench} shows the detection results of our model and other state-of-the-art models. Here, we omit the CNN-based method, as they are all anonymous submissions. Details of the benchmark results are available at \textit{http://www.cvlibs.net/datasets/kitti/eval\_object.php}. Our AOG+Greedy-Full outperforms all the DPM-based models. Compared with their best model, OC-DPM \cite{bojan_cvpr13}, our model improved performance on the three subsets by $9.86\%$, $9.99\%$, and $6.84\%$ respectively. We also compare with the baseline DPM trained by ourselves using the voc-release5 code \cite{voc5}, and obtain $7.56$, $19.92\%$ and $17.56\%$ performance gains on the three stubsets. For other DPM based methods trained by the benchmark authors, our model outperforms the best one - MDPM-un-BB by $13.61\%$, $13.78\%$ and $12.27\%$ respectively. Our model is comparable with SubCat \cite{OhnBar}, 3DVP \cite{xiang_cvpr15} and Regionlets \cite{regionlets}. We achieve slightly better performance than Regionlets \cite{regionlets} on the \emph{Easy} and \emph{Hard} sets, but lose a bit AP on the \emph{Moderate} set. Though our method obtains better rank than 3DVP \cite{xiang_cvpr15} on the moderately difficult set, it performs slightly worse on the easy and hard subsets, which shows the promise of 3D occlusion modeling and subcategory clustering \cite{OhnBar,xiang_cvpr15}. Comparing AOG+Greedy-Half and AOG+Greedy-Full, we can observe that the major improvement ($4.06\%$) of AOG+Greedy-Full comes from the \emph{Moderate} set, while on the \emph{Easy} and \emph{Hard} sets, we obtain small improvement ($0.44\%$ and $1.43\%$, respectively). These results meet some analyses in \cite{ramanan_modedata}, which indicate there are still large potential improvement on object representation, and much effort should be devoted to improving our current hierarchical And-Or model. The first $3$ rows in Fig. \ref{fig:dets} show the qualitative results of our model. The red bounding boxes show successful detection, the blue ones missing detection, and the green ones false alarms. In experiments, our model is robust to detect cars with heavy car-to-car occlusions and background clutters. The failure cases are mainly due to extreme occlusions, extremly low resolution, large car deformation and/or inaccurate (or multiple) bounding box localization. \begin{SCfigure*} \caption{Examples of successful and failure cases by our model on the KITTI dataset (first 3 rows), the Parking Lot dataset (the $4$-th and $5$-th rows) and the Street Parking dataset (the last two rows). Best viewed in color and magnification.}\label{fig:dets} \vspace{-3mm} \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]% {./dets22.pdf \end{SCfigure*} \subsubsection{Results on the Parking Lot Dataset} \textit{Evaluation Protocol.} We follow the PASCAL VOC evaluation protocol \cite{pascal} with the overlap of intersection over union being greater than or equal to $60\%$ (instead of original $50\%$). In practice, we set this threshold to make a compromise between localization accuracy and detection difficulty. The detected cars with bounding box height smaller than $25$ pixels do not count as false positives as done in \cite{Geiger12}. We compare with the latest version of DPM implementation \cite{voc5} and set the number of contextual patterns and occlusion configurations to be $10$ and $18$ respectively. \textit{Detection Results.} The right side in Fig. \ref{fig:pr_results} shows the performance comparisons between our model and DPM. Our model obtains $55.2\%$ in AP, which outperforms the latest version of DPM by $10.9\%$. The fourth and fifth rows in Fig. \ref{fig:dets} show the qualitative results. Our model is capable of detecting cars with different occlusions and viewpoints. \subsubsection{Results on the Street Parking Dataset} To compare with the benchmark methods, we follow the evaluation protocol provided in \cite{boli_iccv13}. Results of our model and other benchmark methods are shown in Table \ref{tab:street}, our hierarchical And-Or model outperforms DPM \cite{voc5} and our previous And-Or Structure \cite{boli_iccv13} by $10.1\%$ and $4.3\%$ respectively. We think the performance is improved due to the joint representation of context patterns and occlusion configurations. The last two rows in Fig. \ref{fig:dets} show some qualitative examples. Our model is capable of detecting occluded street-parking cars, meanwhile it also has a few inaccurate detection results and misses some cars (mainly due to low resolution). \subsection{Diagnosing the Performance of our Model} \label{sec:analysis} In this section, we evaluate various aspects to diagnose the effects of each individual component in our model. \subsubsection{The Effect of Occlusion Modeling} Our And-Or Structure model is based on CAD simulation. Thus in the first analysis, we test the effectiveness of the learned And-Or structure in representing different occlusion configurations. To this purpose, we generate a synthetic dataset using 5,040 $3$-car synthetic images as our training data, and a mixture of 3,000 $3$-car and $7$-car (placed in a $1 \times 7$ grid) synthetic images as our testing data. For each generated image, we add the background from the category \emph{None} of the TU Graz-02 dataset \cite{tu} and apply Gaussian blur to reduce the boundary effects. Samples of the training and testing data are shown on the left and middle in Fig.\ref{fig:simulation}. In experimental comparisons, the best DPM has $16$ components and the best And-Or structure has $8$ views with $19$ occlusion configurations, $5$ layers and $111$ nodes in total. As shown in the right side in Fig.\ref{fig:simulation}, our model outperforms the DPM by 7.2\% in AP. \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[width = 0.5\textwidth]{./simulation22.pdf} \caption{Left and Middle: Training and testing samples from the synthetic dataset. Right: detection results of DPM and And-Or Structure.} \label{fig:simulation} \vspace{-3mm} \end{figure} \begin{figure* \centering \includegraphics[width = 1.0\textwidth]{./part_boxes22.pdf} \caption{Visualization of part layouts output by our AOG+Greedy (Top) and AOG+CAD (Bottom). Best viewed in color and magnification.} \label{fig:parts} \end{figure*} \subsubsection{The Effect of CAD Simulation in Real Situations} To verify the effectiveness of our And-Or Structure model in terms of occlusion modeling, we compare it with state-of-the-art DPM \cite{DPM}. Both of these two models are based on part-level occlusion modeling. The And-Or Structure learns semantic visible parts based on CAD simulations. The DPM handles occlusion implicitly by introducing a trunction feature at each HOG cell. The second and third column in Table \ref{tab:street} show their performance on Street Parking dataset. We can see the semantic visible parts learned from CAD simulations can generalize to real datasets. By adding context, we are interested in whether it affects the effectiveness of occlusion modeling. To compare AOG+Greedy and AOG+CAD fairly, they have the same number of context patterns and occlusion configurations, $8$ and $16$ respectively. As shown in the fourth and fifth column in Table \ref{tab:street}, AOG+CAD performs better than AOG+Greedy, which shows the advantage of modeling occlusion using semantic visible parts. Fig. \ref{fig:parts} shows the inferred part bounding boxes by AOG+Greedy and AOG+CAD. We can observe that the semantic parts in AOG+CAD are meaningful, although they may be not accurate enough in some examples. \begin{table} \begin{center} \resizebox{1\hsize}{!}{ \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline {car} & DPM \cite{voc5} & And-Or Structure \cite{boli_iccv13} & AOG+Greedy\\ \hline AP & $58.2\%$ & $58.7\%$ & $\mathbf{60.6\%}$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} } \end{center} \caption{Performance comparison (in AP) on the PASCAL VOC 2007\cite{pascal}.}\label{tab:pascal} \vspace{-5mm} \end{table} \subsubsection{The Effect of Multi-car Context Modeling} The state-of-the-art models are mainly based on single car modeling. To evaluate the effectiveness of context, we compare our hierarchical And-Or model with other non-context models in Table \ref{tab:bench}. We can see that our model outperforms all other models in different occlusion settings. Specifically, our model outperforms DPM by a large margin (above 10\% in AP) on the ``Moderate" and ``Hard" KITTI test data, which shows context is very important to object detection especially in heavily occluded car-to-car situations. On the Street Parking dataset, we observe the same results. In Table \ref{tab:street}, both AOG+Greedy and AOG+CAD outperform DPM and And-Or Structure by a large margin. Here, AOG+Greedy and AOG+CAD jointly model context and occlusions, while DPM and And-Or Structure model occlusions only. \subsubsection{Performance on General Occlusion Settings} Our model is generalizable in terms of context and occlusion modeling, it can cope with both occlusion and non-occlusion situations. To verify our model on less occluded settings, we use the PASCAL VOC 2007 Car dataset as a testbed. As analyzed by Hoiem, et. al. in \cite{HoiemDiagnoseError}, cars in the PASCAL VOC dataset do not have much occlusions and car-to-car context. We first show that our And-Or Structure is capable to detect cars on the PASCAL VOC 2007 as well as the DPM method \cite{voc5}. To approximate the occlusion configurations observed on this dataset, we generate synthetic images with car-to-car occlusions and car self-occlusions. For the car-to-car occlusions, we use the full $3 \times 3$ grid instead of the special case in the street parking dataset. Correspondingly, the learned And-Or structure contains branches for self-occlusions as well as those for car-to-car occlusions. On this dataset, the DPM has $6$ components and the And-Or structure has $6$ views with $10$ occlusion configurations, $5$ layers and $109$ nodes. The third column in Table \ref{tab:pascal} shows the performance of our And-Or structure model and the DPM. Our model achieves slightly better recall than DPM, which meets the analysis in \cite{HoiemDiagnoseError}. This experiment shows that our And-Or structure method does not lose performance in general datasets. Then, we verify our hierarchical And-Or model is capable to detect cars on the PASCAL VOC 2007 as well as other single object models. We compare with the latest version of DPM \cite{voc5}. The APs are 60.6\% (our model) and 58.2\% (DPM) respectively (Table \ref{tab:pascal}). \begin{table} \begin{center} \resizebox{0.7\hsize}{!}{ \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|} \hline \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{Pascal VOC 2006 Car Dataset\cite{pascal}} \\ \hline {} & DPM & \cite{Lopez2011} & \cite{gu10} & \cite{sun09} & ours \\ \hline MPPE & $0.69$ & $0.73$ & $\mathbf{0.86}$ & $0.57$ & $0.73$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} } \vspace{2mm} \resizebox{1\hsize}{!}{ \begin{tabular}[width = 1in]{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|} \hline \multicolumn{8}{|c|}{3D Car Dataset \cite{savarese}} \\ \hline {} & DPM & \cite{Lopez2011} & \cite{Liebelt10} & \cite{glasner} & \cite{teach3D}$^1$ & \cite{teach3D}$^2$ & ours \\ \hline AP & $99.6$ & $96$ & $76.7$ & $99.2$ & $\mathbf{99.9}$ & $99.7$ &$\mathbf{99.9}$ \\ \hline MPPE & $86.3$ & $89$ & $70$ & $85.3$ & $\mathbf{97.9}$ & $96.3$ & $94$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} } \end{center} \caption{View Estimation on Pascal VOC 2006 Car Dataset \cite{pascal} and 3D Car Dataset \cite{savarese}. \cite{teach3D}$^1$ and \cite{teach3D}$^2$ refer to DPM-VOC+VP and DPM-3D-Constraints, respectively.}\label{view_estimation} \vspace{-4mm} \end{table} \begin{table*} \begin{center} \resizebox{0.9\hsize}{!}{ \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline {} & VDPM \cite{xiang_wacv14} & DPM-VOC+VP \cite{teach3D} & (fisher+spm) \cite{pedersoli} & (decaf) \cite{pedersoli} & our And-Or Structure\\ \hline 4 views & $37.2\% / 20.2\%$ & $45.6\% / 36.9\%$ & $36.1\% / 28.9\%$ & $36.1\% / 24.1\%$ & $43.0\% / 34.3\%$ \\ \hline 8 views & $37.3\% / 23.5\%$ & $47.6\% / 36.6\%$ & $36.1\% / 26.6\%$ & $36.1\% / 23.3\%$ & $44.9\% / 33.2\%$ \\ \hline 16 views & $36.6\% / 18.1\%$ & $46.0\% / 29.6\%$ & $36.1\% / 19.6\%$ & $36.1\% / 19.4\%$ & $43.2\% / 27.6\%$ \\ \hline 24 views & $36.3\% / 13.7\%$ & $42.1\% / 24.6\%$ & $36.1\% / 15.9\%$ & $36.1\% / 16.7\%$ & $41.1\% / 22.9\%$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} } \end{center} \caption{The results of VDPM, DPM-VOC+VP and And-Or Structure on the PASCAL3D+ Car Dataset \cite{xiang_wacv14}. The first number indicates the average precision (AP) for detection and the second number shows the average viewpoint precision (AVP) for joint object detection and view estimation.}\label{tab:pascal3d} \vspace{-5mm} \end{table*} \subsection{View Estimation} \label{sec:pose} With the help of CAD simulations, our And-Or Structure model can compute the viewpoints of detected cars. To verify the capability of view estimation, we perform $2$ experiments. Firstly, we report the mean precision in pose estimation (MPPE), equivalent to the means of confusion matrix diagonals, on both the Pascal VOC 2006 car dataset \cite{pascal-voc-2006} and the 3D Object dataset \cite{savarese}. The 3D Object Classes dataset \cite{savarese} is introduced in 2007. For each class, it has images of 10 different object instances with 8 different poses. We follow the evaluation protocol described in \cite{savarese}: 7 randomly selected car instances are used for training, and 3 instances for testing. The 2D car bounding boxes are computed from the annotated segmentation masks. The negative examples are collected from the PASCAL VOC 2007 car dataset. For the VOC 2006 car database \cite{pascal-voc-2006}, there are 469 cars with viewpoint labels (frontal, rear, left and right). We only use these labeled images with the standard training/test split. The detection performance is evaluated through precision-recall (PR) curve. For view estimation, the two datasets emphasize visible cars. Our And-Or structure has $8$ views with $8$ (self-occlusion) branches, $5$ layers and $90$ nodes. Table \ref{view_estimation} shows the comparison of our model with the state-of-the-art methods on these two datasets. Our model is comparable to or better than some recently proposed models \cite{Lopez2011,gu10,teach3D}. Secondly, we compare our model with the state-of-the-art models on the recently proposed PASCAL3D+ Dataset \cite{xiang_wacv14}. This dataset augments $12$ rigid categories in the PASCAL VOC 2012 \cite{pascal} with 3D annotations by fitting CAD models with 2D images semi-manually. It is a challenging dataset for 3D object detection and pose estimation. We test on the car category. We use the metric - Average Viewpoint Precision (AVP) \cite{xiang_wacv14} to simultaneously evaluate 2D bounding box localization and viewpoint estimation. In computing the AVP, a candidate detection is considered to be a true positive if and only if the bounding box overlap is larger than $50\%$ and the viewpoint is correct. Table~\ref{tab:pascal3d} shows the results of our model and the state-of-the-art methods. Our method is better than VDPM \cite{xiang_wacv14} and a deep-cnn-feature-based model (decaf) \cite{pedersoli}. Our And-Or Structure is comparable with \cite{teach3D}, which also used CAD models to learn viewpoints and part-level car geometry. \section{Conclusion} \label{sec:conclusion} In this paper, we present an And-Or model to represent context and occlusion for car detection and viewpoint estimation. The model structure is learned by mining multi-car contextual patterns and occlusion configurations at three levels: a) multi-car layouts, b) single car and c) parts. Our model is organized in a directed and acyclic graph structure so the efficient DP algorithm can be used in inference. The model parameters are learned by WLSSVM\cite{pffgrammar}. Experimental results show that our model is effective in modeling context and occlusion information in complex situations, and achieves better performance over state-of-the-art car detection methods and comparable performance on viewpoint estimation. There are two main limitations in our current implementation. The first one is that we exploited the multi-car contextual patterns using $2$-car composite only. In the scenarios similar to street parking cars and parking lot cars, we could explore multi-car context with more than 2 spatially-aligned cars, as well as 3D scene parsing context~\cite{xiaobai_3DScene}. The second one is that we utilized only the HOG features for appearance. Based on the recent progress on feature learning by convolutional neural network (CNN) \cite{CNN_Hinton, RCNN}, we can also substitute the HOG by the CNN features. Both aspects are addressed in our on-going work and may potentially improve the performance. Meanwhile, we are applying the proposed method to other object categories and studying different ways of mining contextual patterns and occlusion configurations (e.g., integrating with the And-Or quantization methods for 2D object modeling \cite{xisong_cvpr} and 3D car modeling \cite{Wenze3DCar}). \ifCLASSOPTIONcompsoc \section*{Acknowledgments} \else \section*{Acknowledgment} \fi B. Li is supported by China 973 Program under Grant no. 2012CB316300. T.F. Wu and S.C. Zhu are supported by DARPA MSEE project FA 8650-11-1-7149, MURI grant ONR N00014-10-1-0933, and NSF IIS1018751. We thank Dr. Wenze Hu for helpful discussions. \ifCLASSOPTIONcaptionsoff \newpage \fi \bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
\section*{Introduction} On K\"ahler manifolds, a K\"ahler-Ricci flow is an equation \begin{equation} \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\omega=-Ric(\omega), \end{equation} which starts from a K\"ahler metric. Here, $Ric(\omega)$ is the form associated to the Ricci curvature of $\omega$, i.e., if $$ \omega=\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2\pi}g_{i\bar{j}}dz^i\wedge d\overline{z^j}, $$ then $$ Ric(\omega)=-\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2\pi}(\partial_i\partial_{\overline{j}}\log\det g) dz^i\wedge d\bar{z^j}. $$ This flow was become a poweful tool of geometry. The theory of K\"ahler-Ricci flow is well developed in the case of compact K\"ahler manifolds, see e.g. \cite{Cao85}, \cite{PS05}, \cite{ST07}, \cite{Zha09}, \cite{Tos10}, \cite{GZ13}, \cite{BG13}. It can be seen as the parabolic problem associated to an ``elliptic" problem which would be the complex Monge-Amp\`ere equation. Monge-Amp\`ere equations and their generalizations have long been studied in strictly pseudoconvex domains of $\mathbb C^n$, see for instance \cite{CKNS85}. This raises a natural question: what is the behavior of the corresponding parabolic equation in the case of $\mathbb{C}^n$? Let $\Omega$ be a bounded smooth strictly pseudoconvex domain of $\mathbb{C}^n$, i.e., there exists a smooth strictly plurisubharmonic function $\rho$ defined on a bounded neighbourhood of $\bar{\Omega}$ such that $\Omega=\{\rho<0\}$ and $d\rho|_{\partial\Omega}\neq 0$. Let $T\in (0,\infty]$. We consider the equation \begin{equation}\label{KRF} \begin{cases} \begin{array}{ll} \dot{u}=\log\det (u_{\alpha\bar{\beta}})+f(t,z,u)\;\;\;&\mbox{on}\;\Omega\times (0,T),\\ u=\varphi&\mbox{on}\;\partial\Omega\times [0,T),\\ u=u_0&\mbox{on}\;\bar{\Omega}\times\{ 0\},\\ \end{array} \end{cases} \end{equation} where $\dot{u}=\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}$, $u_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}=\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial z_{\alpha}\partial\bar{z}_{\beta}}$, $u_0$ is a plurisubharmonic function in a neighbourhood of $\Omega$ and $f$ is smooth in $[0,T)\times\bar{\Omega}\times\mathbb{R}$ and non increasing in the last variable. This equation has a close connection with the K\"ahler-Ricci flow. There are some previous results. If $u_0$ is continuous and $\varphi$ does not depend on the last variable, then \eqref{KRF} admits a unique viscosity solution \cite{EGZ14}. If $u_0$ is a smooth strictly plurisubharmonic function in $\bar{\Omega}$, $\varphi$ is smooth in $\bar{\Omega}\times [0,T)$ and the compatibility conditions are satisfied, then \eqref{KRF} admits a unique solution $u\in C^{\infty}(\Omega\times (0,T))\cap C^{2;1}(\bar{\Omega}\times [0,T))$ \cite{HL10}; we state their result in detail as Theorem \ref{houli} in Section \ref{prelim}. In this paper, we study the case where $\varphi$ is smooth and $u_0$ is merely bounded. The main result is the following: \begin{The} \label{app2} Let $\Omega$ be a bounded smooth strictly pseudoconvex domain of $\mathbb{C}^n$ and $T\in (0,\infty ]$. Let $u_0$ be a bounded plurisubharmonic function defined on a neighbourhood $\tilde{\Omega}$ of $\overline \Omega$. Assume that $\varphi\in C^{\infty}(\bar{\Omega}\times [0,T))$ and $f \in C^{\infty}([0,T)\times \bar{\Omega}\times \mathbb{R} )$ satisfying \begin{itemize} \item[(i)] $f_u\leq 0.$ \item[(ii)] $\varphi(z,0)=u_0(z)$ for $z\in\partial\Omega$. \end{itemize} Then there exists a unique function $u\in C^{\infty}(\bar{\Omega}\times (0,T))$ such that \begin{equation} \label{psh.dlchinh} u(.,t) \mbox{ is a strictly plurisubharmonic function on } \Omega \;\; \mbox{ for all } t\in (0,T), \end{equation} \begin{equation}\label{KRF.dlchinh} \dot{u}= \log\det (u_{\alpha\bar{\beta}})+f(t,z,u) \mbox{ on } \Omega\times (0,T), \end{equation} \begin{equation}\label{bien.dlchinh} u=\varphi \mbox{ on } \partial\Omega\times (0,T), \end{equation} \begin{equation}\label{initial.dlchinh} \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow 0} u(z,t)= u_0(z)\;\;\forall z\in\bar{\Omega}. \end{equation} Moreover, $u\in L^{\infty}(\bar{\Omega}\times [0,T'))$ for any $0<T'<T$, and $u(.,t)$ also converges to $u_0$ in capacity when $t\rightarrow 0$.\\ If $u_0\in C(\tilde{\Omega})$ then $u\in C(\bar{\Omega}\times [0,T))$. \end{The} Here, we say that $u(.,t)$ converges to $u_0$ in capacity if the convergence is uniform outside sets of arbitrarily small capacity. This improves the main result of \cite{HL10} in two directions: we do not need smoothness of the initial data, and still have continuity when $t\to 0$; and we obtain the maximal possible regularity when $z$ tends to $\partial \Omega$, for fixed $t>0$. Some techniques used in this paper are from the corresponding result in the case of compact K\"ahler manifolds. On a compact K\"ahler manifold, results have been obtained in the more general case where $u_0$ has zero or even positive Lelong numbers. We refer the reader to \cite{GZ13} and \cite{DL14} for the details. \begin{ackn} I am deeply grateful to Pascal Thomas and Vincent Guedj for many inspiring discussions on the subject and encouragement me to write down this paper. It is improved significantly thanks to their thorough reading and editing. I also would like to thank Lu Hoang Chinh for very useful discussions about Proposition \ref{gra 2}. \end{ackn} \section{Strategy of the proof} We fix some notation. We say that $u\in C^{2;1}(\bar{\Omega}\times [0,T))$ if $u(.,t)\in C^2(\bar{\Omega})$ for any $t\in [0,T)$, $u(z,.)\in C^1([0,T))$ for any $z\in\bar{\Omega}$ and $\dot{u},u_{s_js_k}\in C(\bar{\Omega}\times [0,T))$ for $s_j,s_k\in\{x_1,y_1,...x_n,y_n\}$.\\ In order to prove Theorem \ref{app2}, we use an approximation process and we first will need to prove the following a priori estimates theorem: \begin{The} \label{Main} Let $\Omega$ be a bounded smooth strictly pseudoconvex domain of $\mathbb{C}^n$ and $T>0$. Let $\varphi\in C^{\infty}(\bar{\Omega}\times [0,T))$ and $f\in C^{\infty}([0,T)\times \bar{\Omega}\times \mathbb{R} )$ and let $u\in C^{\infty}(\Omega\times (0,T))\cap C^{2;1}(\bar{\Omega}\times[0,T))$, strictly plurisubharmonic with respect to $z$, be a solution of the equation \begin{equation}\label{eqmain} \dot{u}=\log\det (u_{\alpha\bar{\beta}})+f(t,z,u)\;\;\;\mbox{on}\;\; \Omega\times (0,T) . \end{equation} Assume that \begin{equation}\label{uphi} u|_{\partial\Omega\times [0,T)}=\varphi|_{\partial\Omega\times [0,T)}, \end{equation} \begin{equation}\label{cu} \sup |u(z,0)|\leq C_u, \end{equation} \begin{equation}\label{fu} f_u(t,z,u)\leq 0\;\;\;\forall (t,z,u)\in (0,T)\times \Omega\times \mathbb{R}, \end{equation} \begin{equation}\label{cf} \|f\|_{C^2((0,T)\times\Omega \times \mathbb{R})}\leq C_f, \end{equation} \begin{equation}\label{cphi} \|\varphi\|_{C^4(\Omega\times (0,T))}\leq C_{\varphi}. \end{equation} Then there exists $M_0=M_0(\Omega, T, C_u, C_{\varphi},C_f)$ and for any $0<\epsilon<T$ there exists $C=C(\Omega, \epsilon, T, C_u, C_{\varphi},C_f)$ such that \begin{center} $|u|\leq M_0\;\;$ on $\;\; \Omega\times (0,T),$\\ $|\nabla u|+|\dot{u}|+\Delta u\leq C\;\;$ on $\;\;\Omega\times (\epsilon,T).$ \end{center} \end{The} \begin{Rem} In the theorem above, we denote $$ \|\varphi\|_{C^k(\Omega\times (0,T))} =\sum\limits_{|j|+2l\leq k}\sup\limits_{\Omega\times (0,T)} |D^j_s D^l_t\varphi|, $$ $$ \|f\|_{C^k((0,T)\times\Omega\times\mathbb{R}))} =\sum\limits_{j_1+|j_2|+j_3\leq k}\sup |D_t^{j_1}D_s^{j_2}D_u^{j_3}f|, $$ where $s=(s_1,...,s_{2n})=(x_1,y_1,...,x_n,y_n)$. \end{Rem} For the proof of Theorem \ref{app2}, the strategy is as follows. \begin{itemize} \item[+] Construct the solutions $u_m\in C^{\infty}(\Omega\times (0,T))\cap C^{2;1}(\bar{\Omega}\times [0,T))$ of \eqref{KRF.dlchinh} such that $u_m|_{\bar{\Omega}\times\{0\}}$ and $u_m|_{\partial\Omega\times (0,T)}$ converge pointwise, respectively, to $u_0$ and $\varphi|_{\partial\Omega\times (0,T)}$. We also ask that the $u_m$ be uniformly bounded and $u_m|_{\partial\Omega\times (\epsilon_m,T)}=\varphi|_{\partial\Omega\times (\epsilon_m,T)}$ for some $\epsilon_m\searrow 0$. \item[+] Use the a priori estimates to prove $$ \|u_m\|_{C^2(\bar{\Omega}\times (\epsilon,T'))}\leq C_{\epsilon,T'} $$ for any $0<\epsilon<T'<T$, where $C_{\epsilon,T'}>0$ is independent of $m$. \item[+] Use $C^{2,\alpha}$ estimates and to prove $$ \|u_m\|_{C^k(\bar{\Omega}\times (\epsilon,T'))}\leq C_{k,\epsilon,T'} $$ for any $0<\epsilon<T'<T$ and $k>0$, where $C_{k,\epsilon,T'}>0$ is independent on $m$. The $C^{2,\alpha}$ estimates and the $C^{k,\alpha}$ regularity will be mentioned in section 5. \item[+] By Ascoli's theorem, there exists a subsequence of $\{u_m\}$, denoted also by $\{u_m\}$, and $u\in C^{\infty}(\bar{\Omega}\times (0,T)$ such that $$ u_m\stackrel{C^k(\bar{\Omega}\times (\epsilon,T'))}{\longrightarrow}u. $$ Then, $u$ satisfies \eqref{psh.dlchinh}, \eqref{KRF.dlchinh} and \eqref{bien.dlchinh}. \item[+] Use Comparison principle to prove \eqref{initial.dlchinh}. \item[+]Finally, we prove the uniqueness of $u$. \end{itemize} We will study some important tools before we prove Theorem \ref{app2}. In Section \ref{prelim}, we introduce some basic results about parabolic complex Monge-Amp\`ere equations. In Sections \ref{order1} and \ref{order2}, we prove the a priori estimates theorem (Theorem \ref{Main}). In Section \ref{C2a} we establish the $C^{2,\alpha}$ estimate needed to solve our problem. Finally in Section \ref{pfmain} we prove Theorem \ref{app2}. \section{Preliminaries} \label{prelim} \subsection{Hou-Li theorem} \begin{flushleft} The Hou-Li theorem states that equation \eqref{KRF} has a unique solution when the conditions are good enough. We will use it in Section \ref{pfmain} to obtain smooth solutions to an approximating problem, to which we then will apply the a priori estimates from Theorem \ref{Main}. \end{flushleft} We first need the notion of subsolution. \begin{Def} \label{HLsubsol} A function $\underline{u}\in C^{\infty}(\bar{\Omega}\times [0,T))$ is called a \emph{subsolution} of the equation \eqref{HLKRF} if and only if \begin{equation} \label{subsolu.houli} \begin{cases} \underline{u}(.,t) \mbox{is a strictly plurisubharmonic function,}\\ \dot{\underline{u}}\leq \log\det (\underline{u})_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}+f(t,z,\underline{u}),\\ \underline{u}|_{\partial\Omega\times (0,T)}=\varphi|_{\partial\Omega\times (0,T)},\\ \underline{u}(.,0)\leq u_0 . \end{cases} \end{equation} \end{Def} \begin{The}\label{houli} Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{C}^n$ be a bounded domain with smooth boundary. Let $T\in (0,\infty]$. Assume that \begin{itemize} \item $\varphi$ is a smooth function in $\bar{\Omega}\times [0,T)$. \item $f$ is a smooth function in $[0,T)\times\bar{\Omega}\times\mathbb{R}$ non increasing in the lastest variable. \item $u_0$ is a smooth strictly plurisubharmonic funtion in a neighborhood of $\Omega$. \item $u_0(z)=\varphi (z,0),\;\forall z\in\partial\Omega$. \item The compatibility condition is satisfied, i.e. $$ \dot{\varphi}=\log\det (u_0)_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}+f(t,z,u_0), \;\;\forall (z,t)\in \partial\Omega\times \{ 0 \}. $$ \item There exists a subsolution to the equation \eqref{HLKRF}. \end{itemize} Then there exists a unique solution $u\in C^{\infty}(\Omega\times (0,T))\cap C^{2;1}(\bar{\Omega}\times [0,T))$ of the equation \begin{equation} \label{HLKRF} \begin{cases} \begin{array}{ll} \dot{u}=\log\det (u_{\alpha\bar{\beta}})+f(t,z,u)\;\;\;&\mbox{on}\;\Omega\times (0,T),\\ u=\varphi&\mbox{on}\;\partial\Omega\times [0,T),\\ u=u_0&\mbox{on}\;\bar{\Omega}\times\{ 0\}.\\ \end{array} \end{cases} \end{equation} \end{The} \begin{Rem} \begin{itemize} \item[(i)]There is a corresponding result in the case of a compact K\"ahler manifold. On the compact K\"ahler manifold $X$, we must assume that $0<T<T_{max}$, where $T_{max}$ depends on $X$. In the case of domain $\Omega\subset\mathbb{C}^n$, we can assume that $T=+\infty$ if $\varphi, \underline{u}$ are defined on $\bar{\Omega}\times [0,+\infty)$ and $f$ is defined on $[0,+\infty)\times\bar{\Omega}\times\mathbb{R}$. \item[(ii)] If $\Omega$ is a bounded smooth strictly pseudoconvex domain of $\mathbb{C}^n$ then one can prove that a subsolution always exists, and so Theorem \ref{houli} does not need the additional assumpation of existence of a subsolution. \end{itemize} \end{Rem} \subsection{Maximum principle} \begin{flushleft} The following maximum principle is a basic tool to establish upper and lower bounds in the sequel (see \cite{BG13} and \cite{IS13} for the proof). \end{flushleft} \begin{The}\label{max prin} Let $\Omega$ be a bounded domain of $C^n$ and $T>0$. Let $\{\omega_t\}_{0<t<T}$ be a continuous family of continuous positive definite Hermitian forms on $\Omega$. Denote by $\Delta_t$ the Laplacian with respect to $\omega_t$: $$ \Delta_t f=\dfrac{n\omega_t^{n-1}\wedge dd^cf}{\omega_t^n},\;\forall f\in C^{\infty}(\Omega). $$ Suppose that $H \in C^{\infty}(\Omega \times (0,T)) \cap C(\bar{\Omega}\times [0,T))$ and satisfies\\ \begin{center} $(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}-\Delta_t)H \leq 0 \:$ or $\: \dot{H}_t \leq \log\dfrac{(\omega_t+dd^c H_t)^n}{\omega_t^n}$. \end{center} Then $\sup\limits_{\bar{\Omega}\times [0,T)} H = \sup\limits_{\partial_P(\Omega \times [0,T))}H$. Here we denote $\partial_P(\Omega\times (0,T))=\partial\Omega\times (0,T) \cup \bar{\Omega}\times\{ 0\}$. \end{The} \begin{Cor}(Comparison principle)\label{compa} Let $\Omega$ be a bounded domain of $\mathbb{C}^n$ and $T\in (0,\infty]$. Let $u,v\in C^{\infty}(\Omega\times (0,T))\cap C(\bar{\Omega}\times [0,T))$ satisfying \begin{itemize} \item $u(.,t)$ and $v(.,t)$ are strictly plurisubharmonic functions for any $t\in [0,T)$, \item $\dot{u}\leq \log\det (u_{\alpha\bar{\beta}})+f(t,z,u),$ \item $\dot{v}\geq \log\det (v_{\alpha\bar{\beta}})+f(t,z,v),$ \end{itemize} where $f\in C^{\infty}([0,T)\times\bar{\Omega}\times\mathbb{R})$ is non increasing in the last variable.\\ Then $\sup\limits_{\Omega\times (0,T)}(u-v)\leq max\{ 0, \sup\limits_{\partial_P(\Omega\times (0,T))}(u-v)\}$. \end{Cor} \begin{Cor} Let $\Omega$ be a bounded domain of $\mathbb{C}^n$ and $T\in (0,\infty]$. We denote by $L$ a operator on $C^{\infty}(\Omega\times (0,T))$ satisfying $$ L(f)=\dfrac{\partial f}{\partial t}-\sum a_{\alpha\bar{\beta}} \dfrac{\partial^2f}{\partial z_{\alpha}\partial \bar{z}_{\beta}}-b.f, $$ where $a_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}, b\in C(\Omega\times (0,T))$, $(a_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}(z,t))$ are positive definite Hermitian matrices and $b(z,t)<0$.\\ Assume that $\phi\in C^{\infty}(\Omega\times (0,T))\cap C(\bar{\Omega}\times [0,T))$ satisfies\\ $$L(\phi)\leq 0.$$ Then $\phi\leq max(0,\sup\limits_{\partial_P(\Omega\times (0,T))}\phi).$ \end{Cor} \subsection{The Laplacian inequalities} \begin{flushleft} We shall need two standard auxiliary results (see \cite{Yau78}, \cite{Siu87} for a proof). \end{flushleft} \begin{The} \label{lap 1} Let $\omega_1,\omega_2$ be positive $(1,1)$-forms on a complex manifold $X$.Then\\ $$ n\left(\dfrac{\omega_1^n}{\omega_2^n}\right)^{1/n}\leq tr_{\omega_2}(\omega_1) \leq n\left(\dfrac{\omega_1^n}{\omega_2^n}\right)(tr_{\omega_1}(\omega_2))^{n-1}, $$ where $tr_{\omega_1}(\omega_2)=\dfrac{n\omega_1^{n-1}\wedge\omega_2}{\omega_1^n}$. \end{The} \begin{The}\label{lap 2} Let $\omega, \; \omega '$ be two K\"ahler forms on a complex manifold $X$. If the holomorphic bisectional curvature of $\omega$ is bounded below by a constant $B\in\mathbb{R}$ on $X$,then\\ $$ \Delta_{\omega '}\log tr_{\omega}(\omega ')\geq -\frac{tr_{\omega}Ric(\omega ')}{tr_{\omega}(\omega ')}+B\, tr_{\omega '} (\omega), $$ where $Ric(\omega')$ is the form associated to the Ricci curvature of $\omega'$. \end{The} \begin{Rem} Applying Theorem \ref{lap 2} for $\omega=dd^c|z|^2$ and $\omega'=dd^cu$, we have\\ $$ \sum u^{\alpha\bar{\beta}}(\log \Delta u)_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}\geq\dfrac{\Delta\log\det (u_{\alpha\bar{\beta}})}{\Delta u}. $$ \end{Rem} \subsection{Construction of subsolutions}\label{subsolution} \begin{flushleft} We give a first construction which will be used in the proof of Theorem \ref{Main}. First we need a notion of subsolution weaker than the one in Definition \ref{HLsubsol}. \end{flushleft} \begin{Def} We say that a function $\underline{u}\in C^{\infty}(\bar{\Omega}\times [0,T))$ is a \emph{subsolution} of the equation \eqref{eqmain} if $$ \dot{\underline{u}}\leq \log\det (\underline{u}_{\alpha\bar{\beta}})+f(t,z,\underline{u}). $$ \end{Def} We will construct subsolutions of \eqref{eqmain} in order to prove some estimates on the boundary. Let $\rho\in SPSH(\bar{\Omega})\cap C^{\infty}(\bar{\Omega})$ be a function which defines $\Omega$. We also assume that $\inf\rho=-1$. Let $\zeta\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})$ such that $0\leq\zeta\leq 1$, $\zeta|_{[0,1]}=1$ and $\zeta|_{[2,\infty)}=0$. Let $\varphi$ and $u_0$ be as in Theorem \ref{Main}. For any $m>0$, we denote the function $\varphi_m\in C^{\infty} (\bar{\Omega}\times [0,T))$ by the formula $$\varphi_m=\varphi-Osc(u_0)\cdot\zeta(mt).$$ Then there exists $M_m>0$ depending on $\rho, T, C_u, C_{\varphi}, C_f$ such that the function $\underline{u}_m=\varphi_m+M_m\rho$ satisfies \begin{center} $\dot{\underline{u}}_m\leq \log\det(\underline{u}_m )_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}+f(t,z,\underline{u}_m)$ on $\Omega\times (0,T),$\\ $dd^c(\underline{u}_m)\geq dd^c|z|^2$ on $\Omega\times [0,T).$\\ \end{center} Then $\underline{u}_m$ is a subsolution of \eqref{eqmain}. Moreover, \begin{center} $\underline{u}_m|_{\partial_P(\Omega\times (0,T))}\leq u|_{\partial_P(\Omega\times (0,T))},$\\ $\underline{u}_m|_{\partial\Omega\times (\frac{2}{m},T)}= \varphi|_{\partial\Omega\times (\frac{2}{m},T)}.$ \end{center} By the maximum principle, we have \begin{center} $\underline{u}_m\leq u$ on $\Omega\times (0,T)$.\\ \end{center} In the next two sections, we will prove Theorem \ref{Main}. For convenience, we define an operator $L$ on $C^{\infty}(\Omega\times (0,T))$ by the formula \begin{equation} \label{L} L(\phi)=\dot{\phi}-\sum u^{\alpha\bar{\beta}}\phi_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}-f_u(t,z,u)\phi, \end{equation} where $u$ is the function in Theorem \ref{Main} and $(u^{\alpha\bar{\beta}})$ is the transpose of inverse matrix of Hessian matrix $(u_{\alpha\bar{\beta}})$. \section{Order 1 a priori estimates} \label{order1} In this section, we will estimate $u$, $\dot{u}$ and $|\nabla u|$.\\ Clearly,\\ \begin{center} $\underline{u}_1\leq u \leq \sup\limits_{\partial\Omega\times (0,T)}\varphi\;$ on $\Omega\times (0,T)$.\\ \end{center} Then \\ \begin{center} $-M_1 -2\sup|\varphi|-C_u\leq u(z,t) \leq\sup\limits_{\partial\Omega\times (0,T)}\varphi,$\\ \end{center} where $M_1$ is the constant defined in \ref{subsolution}. Let $C_1=M_1+2C_{\varphi}+C_u$ , we obtain \begin{equation} \label{sup u} \sup |u|\leq C_1. \end{equation} \subsection{Bounds on $\bf{\dot{u}}$} \begin{Prop} \label{t} There exists $C_2>0$ depending only on $T,C_f, C_1$ such that\\ \begin{center} $t|\dot{u}|\leq C_2$ on $\Omega\times (0,T).$ \end{center} \end{Prop} \begin{proof} Take $L$ as in \eqref{L}, then $$ L(t\dot{u}-u)=t\ddot{u}-t\sum u^{\alpha\bar{\beta}}\dot{u}_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}+n -(t\dot{u}-u)f_u(t,z,u). $$ By equation \eqref{eqmain}, we have\\ $$t\ddot{u}=t\sum u^{\alpha\bar{\beta}}\dot{u}_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}+t.f_t(t,z,u)+t\dot{u}.f_u(t,z,u).$$\\ Then $$ -C^{'}_2\leq L(t\dot{u}-u)=n+t.f_t(t,z,u)+u.f_u(t,z,u)\leq C^{'}_2, $$ where $C^{'}_2=n+C_f(T+C_1)>0$.\\ Since $L(t\dot{u}-u-C^{'}_2t)\leq 0$ and $L(t\dot{u}-u +C^{'}_2t)\geq 0$, by the maximum principle, we obtain $$ t\dot{u}-u-C^{'}_2t\leq \sup\limits_{\partial_P(\Omega\times (0,T))}(t\dot{u}-u-C^{'}_2t) \leq (C_{\varphi}+C^{'}_2)T+C_1 , $$ $$ t\dot{u}-u +C^{'}_2t\geq \inf\limits_{\partial_P(\Omega\times (0,T))}(t\dot{u}-u +C^{'}_2t)\geq -(C_{\varphi}+C^{'}_2)T-C_1. $$ Thus $t|\dot{u}|\leq C_2$ on $\Omega\times (0,T)$, where $C_2=(C_{\varphi}+2C^{'}_2)T+2C_1$. \end{proof} \subsection{Gradient estimates} \begin{Prop} \label{gra 1} Let $m>\frac{2}{T}$. Then there exists $C_3=C_3(\Omega, M_m,C_{\varphi})>0$ such that\\ \begin{center} $|\nabla u |\leq C_3$ on $\partial\Omega\times (\frac{2}{m},T).$ \end{center} \end{Prop} \begin{proof} Let $h\in C^{\infty}(\bar{\Omega}\times [0,T))$ be a spatial harmonic function (i.e. harmonic with respect to $z$) satisfying \begin{center} $h=\varphi$ on $\partial\Omega\times [0,T).$ \end{center} Then taking $\underline{u}_m$ as \ref{subsolution} , we have \begin{center} $\underline{u}_m\leq u\leq h$ on $\Omega\times (\frac{2}{m},T),$\\ $\underline{u}_m=u=h=\varphi$ on $\partial\Omega\times (\frac{2}{m},T).$ \end{center} Hence \begin{center} $|\nabla (u-\underline{u}_m) |\leq |\nabla (h-\underline{u}_m)|$ on $\partial\Omega\times (\frac{2}{m},T).$ \end{center} Thus \begin{center} $|\nabla u|\leq |\nabla \underline{u}_m|+ |\nabla (h-\underline{u}_m)|\leq C_3$ on $\partial\Omega\times (\frac{2}{m},T),$\\ \end{center} where $C_3 > 0$ depends only on $\Omega, C_{\varphi}, M_m$.\\ \end{proof} \begin{Prop}\label{gra 2} Assume that $m, C_3$ satisfy Proposition $\ref{gra 1}$ and $\frac{2}{m}<\epsilon<T$. Then there exists $C_4=C_4(\Omega, m,\epsilon, T, C_f,C_1,C_2,C_3)>0$ such that \begin{center} $|\nabla u |\leq C_4$ on $\Omega\times (\epsilon,T).$ \end{center} \end{Prop} \begin{proof} We will use the technique of Blocki as in \cite{Blo08}. In this proof only, we denote\\ \begin{center} $g(t)=n\log (t-\dfrac{2}{m})$,\\ $\gamma (u)=Au-Bu^2\;\;$ where $\;\; A=\dfrac{1}{10C_1}, B=\dfrac{1}{20C_1^2}$,\\ $\eta=\dfrac{1}{4(\mbox{{\rm diam}} \Omega)^2}$,\\ $\phi=\log|\nabla u|^2+\gamma (u)+g(t) +\eta|z|^2$, \end{center} and we assume that $0\in\Omega$. Let $\epsilon<T'<T$, we will prove that $$ \sup\limits_{\Omega\times (\frac{2}{m},T')}\phi\leq \tilde{C}_4, $$ where $\tilde{C}_4$ depends on $\Omega,C_1,C_2,C_3,m, T, C_f$. Notice that the hypotheses and previous bounds on $|u|$ imply that, for $ t\in (\frac{2}{m},T'),$ \begin{equation} \label{philessu} \exp \phi(z,t) \le |\nabla u (z,t)|^2 (t-\dfrac{2}{m})^n \exp\left( \max_{\Omega\times (\frac{2}{m},T')} \gamma (u) +\eta \max_\Omega |z| \right) \le C |\nabla u|^2, \end{equation} and in a similar way $$ |\nabla u (z,t)|^2 \le C (\epsilon-\dfrac{2}{m})^{-n} \exp \phi(z,t) \le C_\epsilon \exp \phi(z,t), \quad t\in (\epsilon,T'), $$ so the bound on $\phi$ yields a bound on $|\nabla u (z,t)|$. Suppose that $$ \sup\limits_{\Omega\times (\frac{2}{m},T')}\phi=\phi (z_0,t_0). $$ By an orthogonal change of coordinates, we can assume that $(u_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}(z_0,t_0))$ is diagonal. For convenience, we denote $u_{\alpha\bar{\alpha}}(z_0,t_0)=\lambda_{\alpha}$. We also denote by $\mathcal{L}$ the operator $$ \mathcal{L}=\dfrac{\partial}{\partial t}-\sum u^{\alpha\bar{\beta}} \dfrac{\partial^2}{\partial z_{\alpha}\partial\bar{z}_{\beta}}. $$ If $|\nabla u|^2(z_0,t_0)\leq C$, by \eqref{philessu}, we are done. In particular, if $z_0 \in \partial \Omega$, we know that $ |\nabla u (z,t)|$ is bounded. So we may restrict attention to the case where $|\nabla u|^2(z_0,t_0)>1$ and $(z_0,t_0)\in\Omega\times (\dfrac{2}{m},T']$. Then $\mathcal{L}(\phi)|_{(z_0,t_0)}\geq 0$. We compute \begin{flushleft} $\begin{array}{ll} \mathcal{L}(\phi)&=\mathcal{L}(\log|\nabla u|^2)+\gamma'(u).\dot{u}+g'(t) -\gamma'(u)\sum u^{\alpha\bar{\beta}}u_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}\\[8pt] &-\gamma''(u)\sum u^{\alpha\bar{\beta}}u_{\alpha}u_{\bar{\beta}} -\eta\sum u^{\alpha\bar{\alpha}}\\[8pt] &=\mathcal{L}(\log|\nabla u|^2)+\gamma'(u).(\dot{u}-n)+g'(t)\\[8pt] &-\gamma''(u)\sum u^{\alpha\bar{\beta}}u_{\alpha}u_{\bar{\beta}} -\eta\sum u^{\alpha\bar{\alpha}}.\\[8pt] \end{array}$ \end{flushleft} When $|\nabla u|\neq 0$, we have \begin{flushleft} $\begin{array}{ll} (\log |\nabla u|^2)_{\alpha\bar{\beta}} &=\dfrac{|\nabla u|^2_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}}{|\nabla u|^2} -\dfrac{|\nabla u|^2_{\alpha}|\nabla u|^2_{\bar{\beta}}}{|\nabla u|^4}\\ &=\dfrac{\langle\nabla u_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}, \nabla u\rangle}{|\nabla u|^2} +\dfrac{\langle\nabla u, \nabla u_{\beta\bar{\alpha}}\rangle}{|\nabla u|^2} +\dfrac{\langle\nabla u_{\alpha}, \nabla u_{\beta}\rangle}{|\nabla u|^2}\\ &+\dfrac{\langle\nabla u_{\bar{\beta}}, \nabla u_{\bar{\alpha}}\rangle}{|\nabla u|^2} -\dfrac{|\nabla u|^2_{\alpha}|\nabla u|^2_{\bar{\beta}}}{|\nabla u|^4}. \end{array}$ \end{flushleft} \begin{flushleft} $\begin{array}{ll} \mathcal{L}(\log|\nabla u|^2)&= \dfrac{\langle\nabla\dot{u},\nabla u\rangle -\sum\langle u^{\alpha\bar{\beta}}\nabla u_{\alpha\bar{\beta}},\nabla u\rangle}{|\nabla u|^2} +\dfrac{\langle\nabla u,\nabla \dot{u}\rangle -\sum \langle\nabla u,u^{\beta\bar{\alpha}}\nabla u_{\beta\bar{\alpha}}\rangle}{|\nabla u|^2}\\[8pt] &-\sum u^{\alpha\bar{\beta}}\dfrac{\langle\nabla u_{\alpha},\nabla u_{\beta}\rangle+ \langle\nabla u_{\bar{\beta}},\nabla u_{\bar{\alpha}} \rangle}{|\nabla u|^2} +\sum u^{\alpha\bar{\beta}}\dfrac{(|\nabla u|^2)_{\alpha}(|\nabla u|^2)_{\bar{\beta}}}{|\nabla u|^4}.\\ \end{array}$ \end{flushleft} We have, by \eqref{eqmain}, \begin{flushleft} $\begin{array}{ll} \mathcal{L}(\log|\nabla u|^2)|_{(z_0,t_0)} &= 2Re\left(\dfrac{\langle\nabla u, \nabla f\rangle}{|\nabla u|^2}\right) +2f_u(t,z,u) |\nabla u|^2 -\sum\dfrac{|\nabla u_k|^2+|\nabla u_{\bar{k}}|^2}{\lambda_k|\nabla u|^2}\\[8pt] &+\sum\dfrac{(|\nabla u|^2)_k(|\nabla u|^2)_{\bar{k}}}{\lambda_k |\nabla u|^4}\\[8pt] &\leq \dfrac{2|\nabla f|}{|\nabla u|}+\sum\dfrac{(|\nabla u|^2)_k(|\nabla u|^2)_{\bar{k}}}{\lambda_k |\nabla u|^4}.\\[8pt] \end{array}$ \end{flushleft} Hence, there exists $C_4^{'}=C_4^{'}(m,C_1,C_2,C_f)$ such that\\ \begin{flushleft} $\begin{array}{ll} \mathcal{L}(\phi)|_{(z_0,t_0)}&\leq C_4^{'}+g'(t)-\gamma''(u)\sum\dfrac{|u_k|^2}{\lambda_k}-\eta\sum\dfrac{1}{\lambda_k} +\sum\dfrac{(|\nabla u|^2)_k(|\nabla u|^2)_{\bar{k}}}{\lambda_k |\nabla u|^4}.\\[8pt] \end{array}$ \end{flushleft} By the condition $\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial z_k}(z_0,t_0)=0$, we have\\ $$ \dfrac{(|\nabla u|^2)_k(|\nabla u|^2)_{\bar{k}}}{ |\nabla u|^4} =|\gamma'(u)u_k+\eta\bar{z}_k|^2\leq 2(\gamma'(u))^2|u_k|^2+2\eta^2|z_k|^2 \leq 2(\gamma'(u))^2|u_k|^2+\dfrac{\eta}{2}, $$ where $(z,t)=(z_0,t_0).$\\ Then \begin{flushleft} $\begin{array}{ll} 0\leq\mathcal{L}(\phi)|_{(z_0,t_0)}&\leq C_4^{'}+g'(t) +(2(\gamma'(u))^2-\gamma''(u))\sum\dfrac{|u_k|^2}{\lambda_k}-\dfrac{\eta}{2}\sum\dfrac{1}{\lambda_k}\\[8pt] &\leq C_4^{'}+g'(t) -a(\sum\dfrac{|u_k|^2}{\lambda_k}+\sum\dfrac{1}{\lambda_k}),\\[8pt] \end{array}$ \end{flushleft} where $a:=\min \{2B-(A+BC_1), \dfrac{\eta}{2}\}$. Hence, at $(z_0,t_0)$\\ \begin{equation} \label{blocki} \sum\dfrac{|u_k|^2}{\lambda_k}+\sum\dfrac{1}{\lambda_k}\leq \dfrac{1}{a}(C_4^{'}+g'(t)) \end{equation} Moreover, by Proposition \ref{t} and by \eqref{sup u}, there exists $C_4^{''}=C_4^{''}(m,C_1,C_2)$ such that \begin{equation} \label{tich} \lambda_1\lambda_2...\lambda_n=\det (u_{\alpha\bar{\beta}})=e^{\dot{u}-f(t,z,u)}\leq C_4^{''}. \end{equation} By \eqref{blocki} and \eqref{tich}, there exists $C_4^{'''}=C_4^{'''}(a,C_4^{'},C_4^{''})$ such that\\ \begin{center} $\lambda_k=\prod\lambda_j\prod\limits_{l\neq k}\dfrac{1}{\lambda_l}\leq (C_4^{'''}+g'(t_0))^{n-1}\;\;$ for $\;\;k=1,...,n.$\\[8pt] $|\nabla u|^2=\sum|u_k|^2\leq ((C_4^{'''}+g'(t_0))^n\;\;$ for $\;\; (z,t)=(z_0,t_0).$\\ \end{center} Then \begin{flushleft} $\begin{array}{ll} \phi (z_0,t_0)&\leq n\log(C_4^{'''}+g'(t_0))+g(t_0)+\gamma(u(z_0,t_0))+\eta|z_0|^2\\[8pt] &\leq n\log(C_4^{'''}(t_0-\frac{2}{m})+n)+\gamma(u(z_0,t_0))+\eta|z_0|^2\\[8pt] &\leq \tilde{C}_4.\\[8pt] \end{array}$ \end{flushleft} For $z\in\Omega, \frac{2}{m}<\epsilon<t<T'$, we have $$ \log |\nabla u|^2\leq \tilde{C}_4-\gamma (u)-\eta|z|^2-g(t)\leq 2\log C_4, $$ where $C_4>0$ depends on $\Omega,m, \epsilon, T, C_f,C_1,C_2,C_3$. \end{proof} \section{Higher order estimates} \label{order2} In this section, we prove that the second derivatives of $u$ are bounded on $\partial\Omega\times (\epsilon,T)$. Then we use the maximum principle to show that the Laplacian of $u$ is bounded on $\Omega\times (\epsilon,T)$. For convenience, we denote $\underline{u}:=\underline{u}_m$, $M:=M_m$, where $\frac{1}{2m}<\epsilon\leq \frac{1}{2m-1}$ and $u_m, M_m$ are defined as in \ref{subsolution}.\\ \subsection{Localisation technique} \begin{flushleft} In order to show that the second derivatives of $u$ are bounded on $\partial\Omega\times (\epsilon,T)$, we use a barrier function. The key to the construction is the following: \end{flushleft} \begin{Lem} \label{guan 98} We set $$v=(u-\underline{u})+a(h-\underline{u})-Nd^2,$$ where $d$ is the distance from $\partial\Omega$, $h$ is defined as in the proof of Proposition \ref{gra 1} and $a, N$ are positive constants to be determined. Let $\epsilon\in (0,T)$. Then there exist $a, N, \delta >0$ depending only on $\Omega,\epsilon, T, C_u, C_{\varphi}, C_f$ such that \begin{center} $L(v)\geq\frac{1}{4}(1+\sum u^{\alpha\bar{\alpha}})\;\;$ on $\;\; U_{\delta}\times (\epsilon,T)$,\\[10pt] $v\geq 0\;\;$ on $\;\; U_{\delta}\times (\epsilon,T)$,\\[6pt] \end{center} where $U_{\delta}=\{ z\in\Omega : d(z)\leq \delta\}$ . \end{Lem} \begin{proof} The elliptic version of this lemma was proved by \cite{Gua98} (page 5-7). The same arguments can be applied for the parabolic case. For the reader's convenience, we recall the arguments here.\\ We have $$ L(v)=\dot{v}-n+\sum u^{\alpha\bar{\beta}}\underline{u}_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}- a\sum u^{\alpha\bar{\beta}} (h_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}-\underline{u}_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}) +2N\sum u^{\alpha\bar{\beta}}(dd_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}+d_{\alpha}d_{\bar{\beta}}) -f_u(t,z,u)v. $$ Fix $\tilde{\delta}>0$ satisfying $d\in C^{\infty}(U_{\tilde{\delta}})$. Assume that $0<a<1$ and $0<\delta<\tilde{\delta}$ and $0<N< \frac{1}{\delta}$. Then there exists $C_5>0$ depending on $\Omega,\tilde{\delta}, \epsilon,T, C_{\varphi}, C_f, M, C_1, C_2$ such that \begin{center} $\dot{v}-n-f_u(t,z,u)v\geq -C_5$,\\ $-a\sum u^{\alpha\bar{\beta}} (h_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}-\underline{u}_{\alpha\bar{\beta}})\geq -C_5a\sum u^{\alpha\bar{\alpha}}$,\\ $2Nd\sum u^{\alpha\bar{\beta}}d_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}\geq -C_5N\delta\sum u^{\alpha\bar{\alpha}},$ \end{center} where $(z,t)\in U_{\delta}\times (\epsilon,T)$. Then $$ L(v)\geq \sum u^{\alpha\bar{\beta}}\underline{u}_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}-C_5-C_5(a+N\delta) \sum u^{\alpha\bar{\alpha}}+2N\sum u^{\alpha\bar{\beta}}d_{\alpha}d_{\bar{\beta}}, $$ where $(z,t)\in U_{\delta}\times (\epsilon,T)$. When $a+N\delta\leq \frac{1}{4C_5}$, we obtain $$ L(v)\geq \dfrac{3}{4}\sum u^{\alpha\bar{\alpha}}-C_5+2N \sum u^{\alpha\bar{\beta}}d_{\alpha}d_{\bar{\beta}}, $$ where $(z,t)\in U_{\delta}\times (\epsilon,T)$. Let $\lambda_1\leq \lambda_2\leq ...\leq\lambda_n$ be the eigenvalues of $\{ u_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}\}$. We have \begin{center} $\sum u^{\alpha\bar{\beta}}d_{\alpha}d_{\bar{\beta}}\geq \lambda_n^{-1}\sum d_{\alpha}d_{\bar{\alpha}}\geq \dfrac{\lambda_n^{-1}}{2}\;\;$ on $\;\; U_{\delta}\times (\epsilon,T)$. \end{center} By the inequality for arithmetic and geometric means \begin{center} $\dfrac{1}{4}\sum u^{\alpha\bar{\alpha}}+N\lambda_n^{-1} \geq n (\dfrac{1}{4})^{(n-1)/n}N^{1/n}(\lambda_1...\lambda_n)^{-1/n}\geq C_6N^{1/n}$, \end{center} where $C_6>0$ depends on $\epsilon,T,C_f, C_1,C_2$.\\ When $N>(\frac{C_5+1}{C_6})^n$, we have \begin{center} $L(v)\geq \dfrac{1}{2}(2+\sum u^{\alpha\bar{\alpha}})$. \end{center} Next, since $\Delta\underline{u}\geq n$, there exists $C_7>0$ depending only on $\Omega$ such that \begin{center} $(h-\underline{u})\geq C_7 d\;\;$ on $\;\; \Omega\times (\epsilon, T)$. \end{center} Fix $0<a, \delta <1$, $N>0$ so that \begin{itemize} \item $N>\left(\dfrac{C_5+1}{C_6}\right)^n$;\\ \item $a \leq \dfrac{1}{8C_5}$;\\ \item $0<\delta<\tilde{\delta}$;\\ \item $\min\{aC_7,a\}\geq N\delta$. \end{itemize} We obtain \begin{center} $L(v)\geq\frac{1}{4}(1+\sum u^{\alpha\bar{\alpha}})\;\;$ on $\;\; U_{\delta}\times (\epsilon,T)$, \\[10pt] $v\geq 0\;\;$ on $\;\; U_{\delta}\times (\epsilon,T)$.\\[6pt] \end{center} \end{proof} \subsection{$\mathcal{C}^2$-a priori estimates on the boundary} \begin{Lem} \label{bou 11} Let $\epsilon\in (0,T)$. Then there exists $c_{\epsilon} >0$ depending only on $\Omega, \epsilon, T, C_u, C_{\varphi},C_f$ such that \begin{center} $(dd^cu)|_{T^h_{\partial\Omega}}\geq c_{\epsilon}(dd^c|z|^2 )|_{T^h_{\partial\Omega}}$, \end{center} where $T^h_{\partial\Omega}$ is the holomorphic tangent bundle of $\partial\Omega$. \end{Lem} We refer the reader to \cite[pp. 221--223]{CKNS85} or \cite[p. 268--271]{Bou11} for related results in the elliptic case. \begin{proof} Fix $p\in\partial\Omega$ . By an affine change of coordinates, we can assume that $p=0$ and there exists a neighbourhood $U$ of $p$ such that $$\Omega\cap U=\{z\in U: x_n>Re(\sum\limits_{1\leq j\leq k\leq n}a_{j\bar{k}}z_j\bar{z}_k+\sum\limits_{1\leq j\leq k \leq n}a_{jk}z_jz_k)+O(|z|^3)\},$$ where $a_{j\bar{k}}, a_{jk}\in\mathbb{C}$ with $a_{1\bar{1}}>0$. By a holomorphic change of coordinates, we can assume that \begin{equation}\label{nearpholo.bou11} \Omega\cap U=\{z\in U: x_n>Re(\sum\limits_{1\leq j\leq k\leq n}a_{j\bar{k}}z_j\bar{z}_k)+O(|z|^3)\}, \end{equation} where $a_{j\bar{k}}$ with $a_{1\bar{1}}>0$. We need to show that $$ u_{1\bar{1}}(p,t)\geq C_{\epsilon}, $$ where $t\in (\epsilon,T)$ and $C_{\epsilon}>0$ depends on $\Omega, \epsilon, T, C_u, C_{\varphi},C_f$. \textit{Step 1: Choice of a K\"ahler potential.}\\ We construct a function $\tau\in C^{\infty}(\Omega_r\times (\epsilon , T))$ depending on $\underline{u} ,\epsilon , T, \Omega$ so that $dd^c\tau =dd^c\underline{u}$ and $\tau (p,t)=0$ and $$ \tau |_{(\partial\Omega\cap B_r)\times (\epsilon,T)}= Re\left(\sum\limits_{j=2}^n c_jz_1\bar{z}_j\right) + O\left( |z_2|^2+...+|z_n|^2\right), $$ where $r>0$, $B_r=B_r(p)$, $\Omega_r=\Omega\cap B_r$ and $c_j\in C^{\infty}([\epsilon, T), \mathbb{C})$.\\ Indeed, by Taylor's formula, \begin{flushleft} $\begin{array}{ll} \underline{u}(z,t)-\underline{u}(p,t)&=Re(\sum\limits_{j=1}^nb_jz_j)+Re(\sum\limits_{j=2}^nb_{1\bar{j}}z_1\bar{z}_j) +b_{1\bar{1}}|z_1|^2+Re(\sum\limits_{j=1}^nb_{1j}z_1z_j)\\ &+O(|z_2|^2+...+|z_n|^2)+O(|z|^3), \end{array}$ \end{flushleft} where $b_j,b_{1j},b_{1\bar{j}}\in\mathbb{C}^{\infty}([\epsilon,T),\mathbb{C} )$, $b_{1\bar{1}}=\underline{u}_{1\bar{1}}(p,t)>0$. Furthermore, near $p$ on $\partial\Omega$, we have by \eqref{nearpholo.bou11} \begin{equation}\label{xn} x_n=Re(\sum\limits_{j=2}^na_{1\bar{j}}z_1\bar{z}_j) +a_{1\bar{1}}|z_1|^2+O(|z_2|^2+...+|z_n|^2)+O(|z|^3), \end{equation} where $a_{1\bar{j}}\in\mathbb{C}$ with $a_{1\bar{1}}>0$.\\ Define $$ \tau(z,t)=\underline{u} (z,t)-\underline{u} (p,t)-Re(\sum\limits_{j=1}^nb_jz_j) -\dfrac{b_{1\bar{1}}}{a_{1\bar{1}}}x_n -Re(\sum\limits_{j=1}^nb_{1j}z_1z_j); $$ then $dd^c\tau =dd^c\underline{u}$ and $\tau (p,t)=0$ and $$ \tau |_{(\partial\Omega\cap B_r)\times (\epsilon,T)}=Re\left(\sum\limits_{j=2}^n c_jz_1\bar{z}_j\right) + O(|z_2|^2+...+|z_n|^2)+ \{\mbox{terms of order}\geq 3\}. $$ Moreover, for $z\in\partial\Omega$, we have \begin{itemize} \item For $j=2,...,n$\\ \begin{equation} \label{zj2z1} |z_j|^2|z_1|=O(|z_2|^2+...+|z_n|^2); \end{equation} \item By \eqref{xn} \begin{flushleft} $\begin{array}{ll} |z_1|^4 &=O(x_n^2)+O(\sum\limits_{j=2}^n|z_1|^2|z_j|^2)+O(|z|^6)+O((\sum\limits_{j=2}^n|z_j|^2)^2)\\ &=O(|z_2|^2+...+|z_n|^2)+O(|z|^6); \end{array}$ \end{flushleft} then \begin{equation} \label{z4} |z|^4=O(|z_2|^2+...+|z_n|^2); \end{equation} \item For $j=2,...,n$ \begin{equation}\label{z12zj} |z_1|^2|z_j|=O(|z_1|^4)+ O( |z_j|^2)=O(|z_2|^2+...+|z_n|^2). \end{equation} \end{itemize} Hence \begin{flushleft} $\begin{array}{ll} \tau |_{(\partial\Omega\cap B_r)\times (\epsilon,T)} &=Re (\sum\limits_{j=2}^n c_jz_1\bar{z}_j) +\sum\tilde{a}_jx_1^jy_1^{3-j} +O(|z_2|^2+...+|z_n|^2)\\ &=Re(\sum\limits_{j=2}^n c_jz_1\bar{z}_j) +Re(a_1z_1^3)+Re(a_2z_1|z_1|^2)+O(|z_2|^2+...+|z_n|^2), \end{array}$ \end{flushleft} where $a_1,a_2\in C^{\infty}([\epsilon,T),\mathbb{C})$ .\\ Next, by \eqref{xn}, \eqref{zj2z1}, \eqref{z12zj}, for $z\in\partial\Omega$, we have \begin{flushleft} $\begin{array}{ll} Re(a_2z_1|z_1|^2) &=Re(\dfrac{a_2}{a_{1\bar{1}}}z_1x_n)+ O(|z_2|^2+...+|z_n|^2)\\ &=Re(c_0z_1\bar{z}_n)+Re(c_0z_1z_n)+ O(|z_2|^2+...+|z_n|^2). \end{array}$ \end{flushleft} Replacing the term $c_n$ by $c_n-c_0$, we obtain \begin{flushleft} $\begin{array}{ll} \tau |_{(\partial\Omega\cap B_r)\times (\epsilon,T)}&=Re\left(\sum\limits_{j=2}^n c_jz_1\bar{z}_j\right) +Re(a_1z_1^3)+Re(c_0z_1z_n)+O(|z_2|^2+...+|z_n|^2). \end{array}$ \end{flushleft} Replacing $\tau$ by $\tau+Re(a_1z_1^3)+Re(c_0z_1z_n)$, we obtain\\ $$\tau |_{(\partial\Omega\cap B_r)\times (\epsilon,T)}=Re\left(\sum\limits_{j=2}^n c_jz_1\bar{z}_j\right) +O(|z_2|^2+...+|z_n|^2). $$ Therefore, \begin{equation} \label{taumaj} \tau |_{(\partial\Omega\cap B_r)\times (\epsilon,T)}\leq Re\left(\sum\limits_{j=2}^n c_jz_1\bar{z}_j\right) +a_3(|z_2|^2+...+|z_n|^2), \quad \sup\sum\limits_{j=2}^n|c_j|\leq a_4, \end{equation} where $a_3,a_4>0$ depend on $\Omega, \epsilon, T, M, C_{\varphi}$.\\ The conditions $dd^c\tau =dd^c\underline{u}$ and $\tau (p,t)=0$ are still satisfied.\\ \textit{Step 2: Choice of a barrier function.}\\ Recall that $\Omega_r=\Omega \cap B_r$. We construct a function \begin{equation} \label{bdef} b(z,t)=-\epsilon_1 x_n +\epsilon_2 |z|^2+\dfrac{1}{2\mu}\sum\limits_{j=2}^{n} |c_jz_1+\mu z_j|^2 \end{equation} such that $b\geq \tau + u-\underline{u}\;$ on $\; \Omega_r\times (\epsilon , T)$, where $r>0$ depends only on $\Omega$ and $\epsilon_1, \epsilon_2, \mu>0$ depend on $\Omega, \epsilon, T, M, C_{\varphi},C_f$.\\ Note that \begin{center} $|z_1|^2\leq\dfrac{1}{a_{1\bar{1}}} (x_n-Re(\sum\limits_{j=2}^na_{1\bar{j}}z_1\bar{z}_j)) +O(|z_2|^2+...+|z_n|^2)+O(|z|^3)$ on $\Omega$. \end{center} Since for $r_0$ small enough and $z\in \Omega_{r_0}$,we have $z\rightarrow 0$ as $|z_2|^2+...+|z_n|^2\rightarrow 0$, if we fix $r>0$ small enough, then there exists $r_1>0$ such that \begin{center} $|z_2|^2+...+|z_n|^2\geq r_1\;\;$ for $\;\; z\in\partial B_r\cap\Omega$. \end{center} Assume that $0<\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2<1$. Then there exists $\mu_1>0$ depending on $\Omega, M, C_{\varphi}, C_1, a_3,a_4,r_1$ such that the function $b$ in \eqref{bdef} verifies \begin{flushleft} $\begin{array}{ll} b|_{(\partial B_r(p)\cap\Omega)\times [\epsilon, T)} &\geq \dfrac{\mu r_1}{2} + Re(\sum\limits_{j=2}^n c_jz_1\bar{z}_j)-\epsilon_1x_n+\epsilon_2|z|^2\\[8pt] &\geq \dfrac{\mu_1 r_1}{2} + Re(\sum\limits_{j=2}^n c_jz_1\bar{z}_j)-\epsilon_1x_n+\epsilon_2|z|^2\\[8pt] &\geq (\tau+u-\underline{u})|_{(\partial B_r(p)\cap \Omega )\times [\epsilon,T)}\\ \end{array}$ \end{flushleft} when $\mu\geq\mu_1$.\\ There exists $r_2>0$ such that, when $z \in \partial\Omega$, \\ $$ x_n= Re(\sum\limits_{j=1}^na_{1\bar{j}}z_1\bar{z}_j)+O(|z_2|^2+...+|z_n|^2)+O(|z|^3)\leq r_2|z|^2. $$ Assume that $0<r_2\epsilon_1<\epsilon_2$. For $\mu\geq 2a_3$, by \eqref{taumaj}, we have \begin{flushleft} $\begin{array}{ll} b|_{(\partial\Omega\cap B_r(p))\times [\epsilon,T)} &\geq \dfrac{1}{2\mu}\sum\limits_{j=2}^n|c_jz_1+\mu z_j|^2\\[8pt] &\geq Re(\sum\limits_{j=2}^n c_jz_1\bar{z}_j)+\dfrac{\mu}{2}(|z_2|^2+...+|z_n|^2)\\[8pt] &\geq \tau|_{(\partial\Omega\cap B_r(p))\times [\epsilon,T)}\\[8pt] &\geq (\tau+u-\underline{u})|_{(\partial\Omega\cap B_r(p))\times [\epsilon,T)} . \end{array}$ \end{flushleft} Fix $\mu\geq \max(\mu_1, 2 a_3)$, we get $$ b|_{\partial_P(\Omega_r\times [\epsilon,T))}\geq (\tau+u-\underline{u})|_{\partial \Omega_r\times [\epsilon,T)}. $$ Next, by Proposition \ref{t} ,there exists $r_3>0$ such that \begin{center} $(dd^c(\tau-u-\underline{u}))^n=(dd^cu)^n=e^{\dot{u}-f(t,z,u)}\geq r_3\;\;$ on $\;\; \Omega_r\times[\epsilon,T).$ \end{center} On the other hand $$ (dd^c(\sum\limits_{j=2}^n|c_jz_1+\mu z_j|^2))^n=0, $$ so $(dd^cb)^n=O(\epsilon_2)$ on $\Omega_r\times [\epsilon,T)$.\\ Hence, there exists $\epsilon_2 >0$ depending on $\mu, \Omega, a_4,r_3$ such that \begin{center} $(dd^cb)^n\leq (dd^c(\tau+u-\underline{u}))^n$ on $\Omega_r\times [\epsilon, T)$. \end{center} When $b|_{\partial\Omega_r\times [\epsilon,T)}\geq (\tau+u-\underline{u})|_{\partial\Omega_r\times [\epsilon,T)}$ and $(dd^cb)^n\leq (dd^c(\tau +u-\underline{u}))^n$ on $\Omega_r\times [\epsilon, T)$, it follows from the comparison theorem (for the bounded plurisubharmonic functions) that \begin{center} $b\geq (\tau+u-\underline{u})\;\;$ on $\;\;\Omega_r\times [\epsilon ,T)$.\\ \end{center} \textit{Step 3: Conclusion.}\\ We have, since $b(p,t)= \tau(p,t)+ u(p,t)-\underline{u} (p,t)=0$, $$ -\epsilon_1=b_{x_n}(p,t)\geq \tau_{x_n}(p,t) + (u-\underline{u})_{x_n}(p,t). $$ Then, since $(u-\underline{u})|_{\partial \Omega\times (\epsilon, T)} \equiv 0$, $$ (u-\underline{u})_{1\bar 1} (p,t )= -(u-\underline{u})_{x_n} (p,t ) \rho_{1\bar 1} (p ), $$ and by the explicit choice of $\tau$, $-\tau_{x_n}(p,t) \rho_{1\bar 1} (p )=\tau_{1\bar{1}}(p,t)$, so $$ u_{1\bar{1}}(p,t)= (\tau_{1\bar{1}}+u_{1\bar{1}}-\underline{u}_{1\bar{1}})(p,t)= -\left( \tau_{x_n}(p,t)+(u-\underline{u})_{x_n}(p,t)\right)\rho_{1\bar{1}}(p) \geq \epsilon_1 \rho_{1\bar{1}}( p ). $$ \end{proof} \begin{Prop} \label{second 1} There exists $D_1=D_1 (\Omega, \epsilon, T, C_u, C_{\varphi}, C_f)$ such that\\ \begin{center} $|D^2u|\leq D_1\;\;$ on $\;\; \partial\Omega\times (\epsilon , T).$ \end{center} \end{Prop} \begin{proof} Fix $p\in\partial\Omega$. We can choose complex coordinates $(z_j)_{1\leq j\leq n}$ so that $p=0$ and the positive $x_n$ axis is the interior normal direction of $\partial\Omega$ at $p$. We set for convenience \begin{center} $s_1=y_1,s_2=x_1,...,s_{2n-1}=y_n, s_{2n}=x_n, s^{'}=(s_1,...,s_{2n-1}).$ \end{center} We also assume that near $p$, $\partial\Omega$ is represented as a graph \begin{center} $x_n=P(s^{'})=\sum\limits_{j,k<2n} P_{jk}s_js_k+O(|s^{'}|^3).$ \end{center} \textit{Step 1: Bounding the tangent-tangent derivatives.}\\ Since $(u-\underline{u})(s{'},P(s{'}),t)=0$, we have for $j,k<2n,\; 0<t<T\;$: \begin{center} $(u-\underline{u})_{s_js_k}(p,t)=-(u-\underline{u})_{x_n}(p,t)P_{jk}$. \end{center} By Proposition \ref{gra 1}, we obtain $$|u_{s_js_k}(p,t)|\leq D^{'}_1,$$ where $D^{'}_1>0$ depends only on $\Omega,C_{\varphi}, M$.\\ \textit{Step 2: Bounding the normal-tangent derivatives.}\\ Define\\ $$T_j=\frac{\partial}{\partial s_j}+P_{s_j}\frac{\partial}{\partial x_n}.$$ Again, denote $\Omega_{\delta}=B_{\delta}(p)\cap \Omega$. With $v$ as in Lemma \ref{bou 11}, we construct the functions \begin{center} $\psi_{\pm}=Av+B|z|^2-(t-\frac{\epsilon}{2})(u_{y_n}-\underline{u}_{y_n})^2\pm (t-\frac{\epsilon}{2}) T_j(u-\underline{u})$, \end{center} such that \begin{center} $L(\psi_{\pm})\geq 0\;\;$ on $\;\; \Omega_{\delta}\times (\frac{\epsilon}{2},T),$\\ $\psi_{\pm}\geq 0\;\;$ on $\;\; \Omega_{\delta}\times (\frac{\epsilon}{2},T),$\\ \end{center} where $A,B>0$ depend on $\Omega, C_{\varphi},C_f,\epsilon, T, M$.\\ We compute \begin{flushleft} $\begin{array}{ll} L(-(u_{y_n}-\underline{u}_{y_n})^2) &=-2(u_{y_n}-\underline{u}_{y_n})L(u_{y_n}-\underline{u}_{y_n})-f_u(t,z,u)(u_{y_n}-\underline{u}_{y_n})^2\\ &+2\sum u^{\alpha\bar{\beta}} (u_{y_n}-\underline{u}_{y_n})_{\alpha}(u_{y_n}-\underline{u}_{y_n})_{\bar{\beta}}\\ \end{array}$ \end{flushleft} and \begin{flushleft} $\begin{array}{ll} L(\pm T_j(u-\underline{u})) &=\pm L(u_{s_j}-\underline{u}_{s_j})\pm P_{s_j}L(u_{x_n}-\underline{u}_{x_n})\\ &\mp (u_{x_n}-\underline{u}_{x_n})\sum u^{\alpha\bar{\beta}} (P_{s_j})_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}\\ &\mp \sum u^{\alpha\bar{\beta}}\left((u_{x_n}-\underline{u}_{x_n})_{\alpha} (P_{s_j})_{\bar{\beta}}+(u_{x_n}-\underline{u}_{x_n})_{\bar{\beta}}(P_{s_j})_{\alpha}\right).\\ \end{array}$ \end{flushleft} By equation \eqref{eqmain}, for $k=1,2,..., 2n$ \begin{center} $L(u_{s_k}-\underline{u}_{s_k})= f_{s_k}(t,z,u)-\dot{\underline{u}}_{s_k} +\sum u^{\alpha\bar{\beta}} (\underline{u}_{s_k})_{\alpha\bar{\beta}} +\underline{u}_{s_k}f_u(t,z,u).$ \end{center} Hence \begin{flushleft} $\begin{array}{ll} &L(-(u_{y_n}-\underline{u}_{y_n})^2\pm T_j(u-\underline{u}))\\[8pt] &\geq -C_8(1+\sum u^{\alpha\bar{\alpha}}) +2\sum u^{\alpha\bar{\beta}} (u_{y_n}-\underline{u}_{y_n})_{\alpha}(u_{y_n}-\underline{u}_{y_n})_{\bar{\beta}}\\[8pt] &\mp \sum u^{\alpha\bar{\beta}}\left((u_{x_n}-\underline{u}_{x_n})_{\alpha} (P_{s_j})_{\bar{\beta}}+(u_{x_n}-\underline{u}_{x_n})_{\bar{\beta}}(P_{s_j})_{\alpha}\right),\\[8pt] \end{array}$ \end{flushleft} where $C_8>0$ depend on $\epsilon , C_1, C_2,C_3,M, C_{\varphi}, C_f, \rho,P$.\\ On the other hand $$ \sum\limits_{\alpha=1}^n u^{\alpha\bar{\beta}}u_{x_n\alpha}= 2\delta_{\beta n}-i\sum\limits_{\alpha=1}^n u^{\alpha\bar{\beta}}u_{y_n\alpha}, $$ $$ \sum\limits_{\beta=1}^n u^{\alpha\bar{\beta}}u_{x_n\bar{\beta}}= 2\delta_{\alpha n}+i\sum\limits_{\beta=1}^n u^{\alpha\bar{\beta}}u_{y_n\bar{\beta}}. $$ Then \begin{flushleft} $\begin{array}{ll} &L(-(u_{y_n}-\underline{u}_{y_n})^2\pm T_j(u-\underline{u}))\\[8pt] &\geq -C_9(1+\sum u^{\alpha\bar{\alpha}}) +2\sum u^{\alpha\bar{\beta}} (u_{y_n}-\underline{u}_{y_n})_{\alpha}(u_{y_n}-\underline{u}_{y_n})_{\bar{\beta}}\\[8pt] &\mp \sum u^{\alpha\bar{\beta}}\left((u_{y_n}-\underline{u}_{y_n})_{\alpha} (-iP_{s_j})_{\bar{\beta}}+(u_{y_n}-\underline{u}_{y_n})_{\bar{\beta}}(iP_{s_j})_{\alpha}\right)\\[8pt] \end{array}$ \end{flushleft} where $C_9>0$ depend on $\epsilon , C_1, C_2,C_3,M, C_{\varphi}, C_f, \rho,P$.\\ By the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality,\\ $2\sum u^{\alpha\bar{\beta}} (u_{y_n}-\underline{u}_{y_n})_{\alpha}(u_{y_n}-\underline{u}_{y_n})_{\bar{\beta}} +\dfrac{1}{2}\sum u^{\alpha\bar{\beta}}(iP_{s_j})_{\alpha}(-iP_{s_j})_{\bar{\beta}}$\\ $\geq \pm \sum u^{\alpha\bar{\beta}}\left((u_{y_n}-\underline{u}_{y_n})_{\alpha} (-iP_{s_j})_{\bar{\beta}}+(u_{y_n}-\underline{u}_{y_n})_{\bar{\beta}}(iP_{s_j})_{\alpha}\right)$.\\ Then $$ L(-(u_{y_n}-\underline{u}_{y_n})^2\pm T_j(u-\underline{u}))\geq -C_{10}(1+\sum u^{\alpha\bar{\alpha}}), $$ where $C_{10}>0$ depends on $\Omega, C_{\varphi},C_f,\epsilon, T, M$.\\ Hence, by Lemma \ref{bou 11}, we can choose $A,B>0$ independent of $u$ so that \begin{center} $L(\psi_{\pm})\geq 0\;\;$ on $\;\;\Omega_{\delta}\times (\epsilon, T),$\\ $\psi_{\pm} \geq 0\;\;$ on $\;\;\partial_P(\Omega_{\delta}\times (\epsilon, T)).$ \end{center} By the maximum principle, we obtain $\psi_{\pm}\geq 0$ on $\Omega_{\delta}\times (\frac{\epsilon}{2}, T)$. Note that $\psi_{\pm} (p,t)=0\;$ for $\; t\in (\frac{\epsilon}{2},T)$. Hence, $$ \lim\limits_{x_n\searrow 0} \dfrac{\psi_{\pm} (p+(0,\dots,x_n),t)-\psi_{\pm} (p,t)}{x_n}\geq 0, $$ thus $$ |u_{s_jx_n}(p,t)|\leq D^{''}_1, $$ where $t\in (\epsilon,T)$ and $D{''}_1>0$ depend only on $\Omega, C_{\varphi},C_f,\epsilon, T, C_u$.\\ \textit{Step 3:Bounding the normal-normal derivatives.}\\ We have that $$ \det (u_{\alpha\bar{\beta}})=e^{\dot{u}-f(t,z,u)}$$ is bounded from above and below on $\partial\Omega\times (\epsilon,T)$. \\ By step 1 and step 2, $|u_{z_n\bar{z}_n}\det (u_{\alpha\bar{\beta}})_{\alpha,\beta\leq n-1}|$ is bounded on $\{ p\}\times (\epsilon,T)$.\\ Hence, by Lemma \ref{bou 11} , we obtain\\ $$ |u_{z_n\bar{z}_n}(p,t)|\leq D^{'''}_1\,\, , \,\, t\in (\epsilon,T), $$ where $D^{'''}_1$ depends on $\Omega, C_{\varphi},C_f,\epsilon, T,C_u$.\\ Consequently\\ $$|u_{x_nx_n}|\leq D^{''''}_1,$$ where $D^{''''}_1$ depends on $\Omega, C_{\varphi},C_f,\epsilon, T, C_u$.\\ \end{proof} \subsection{Interior estimate of the Laplacian} \begin{Prop}\label{second 2} There exists $D_2=D_2 (\Omega, \epsilon, T, C_{\varphi}, C_f, C_u)$ such that\\ \begin{center} $\Delta u\leq D_2\;\;$ on $\;\; \Omega\times (\epsilon , T).$ \end{center} \end{Prop} \begin{proof} We set $$\phi=(t-\epsilon)\log\Delta u+A_1 |z|^2-A_2t,$$ where $A_1,A_2>0$ will be specified later.\\ We have \begin{flushleft} $\begin{array}{ll} L(\phi)&= \log\Delta u +(t-\epsilon)\dfrac{\Delta\dot{u}}{\Delta u}-A_2-(t-\epsilon)\sum u^{\alpha\bar{\beta}}(\log \Delta u)_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}\\[8pt] & -A_1\sum u^{\alpha\bar{\alpha}} -\phi f_u(t,z,u). \end{array}$ \end{flushleft} By Theorem \ref{lap 1}, $$ \log\Delta u\leq \log n + \log\det (u_{\alpha\bar{\beta}})+(n-1)\log (\sum u^{\alpha\bar{\alpha}}). $$ By Theorem \ref{lap 2}, \begin{flushleft} $\begin{array}{ll} \dfrac{\Delta\dot{u}}{\Delta u}-\sum u^{\alpha\bar{\beta}}(\log \Delta u)_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}&\leq\dfrac{\Delta\dot{u}}{\Delta u}-\dfrac{\Delta\log\det (u_{\alpha\bar{\beta}})}{\Delta u}\\[8pt] & =\dfrac{\Delta f(t,z,u)}{\Delta u}\\[8pt] &=\dfrac{\Delta_z f(t,z,u)}{\Delta u} +f_u(t,z,u) +\sum \dfrac{f_{u s_j}(t,z,u)u_{s_j}}{\Delta u}\\ &+\sum \dfrac{f_{uu}(t,z,u) u_{s_j}^2}{\Delta u}.\\ \end{array}$ \end{flushleft} Hence, there exist $A_1, A_2>0$ depending on $\Omega, \epsilon, T, C_{\varphi}, C_f, C_u$ such that\\ \begin{center} $L(\phi)\leq 0$ on $\Omega\times (\epsilon, T)$. \end{center} Thus, by the maximum principle and Proposition \ref{second 1},\\ \begin{center} $(t-\epsilon)\log\Delta u\leq D_2^{'}\;\;$ on $\;\;\Omega\times (\epsilon , T),$ \end{center} where $D_2^{'}$ depends on $\Omega, \epsilon, T, C_{\varphi}, C_f, C_u$.\\ Therefore,\\ \begin{center} $\Delta u\leq e^{D_2^{'}/\epsilon}\;\;$ on $\;\;\Omega\times (2\epsilon , T).$ \end{center} \end{proof} \section{$C^{2,\alpha}$ estimate up to the boundary for the parabolic equation} \label{C2a} \subsection{Parabolic H\"older spaces} \begin{flushleft} The reader can find more complete notations in \cite[Chapter 4]{Lieb96} or \cite[Chapter 8]{Kryl96}.\\ \end{flushleft} In $\mathbb{R}^N\times\mathbb{R}$ we define the parabolic distance between the points $X_1=(x_1,t_1)$, $X_2=(x_2,t_2)$ as\\ $$d(X_1,X_2)=|x_1-x_2|+|t_1-t_2|^{1/2}.$$ Let $0<\alpha<1$. Let $u$ be a function defined in a domain $Q\subset\mathbb{R}^N\times\mathbb{R}$. We say that $u$ is uniformly H\"older continuous in $Q$ with exponent $\alpha$, or $u\in C^{\alpha}(Q)$, if and only if \begin{center} $[u]_{\alpha;Q}=\sup\limits_{X_j\in Q, X_1\neq X_2 }\dfrac{|u(X_1)-u(X_2)|}{d^{\alpha} (X_1,X_2)}<\infty$. \end{center} Let $0<\beta<2$. We denote \begin{center} $\langle u \rangle_{\beta;Q}=\sup\limits_{(x,t_1)\neq(x,t_2)\in Q } \dfrac{|u(x,t_1)-u(x,t_2)|} {|t_1-t_2|^{\beta /2}}$. \end{center} We say that $u$ is uniformly H\"older continuous in $Q$ with exponent $k+\alpha$, or $u\in C^{k,\alpha}(Q)$ if the derivatives $D_x^jD_t^lu$ exist for $|j|+2l\leq k$ and the norm \begin{center} $\|u\|_{C^{k,\alpha}(Q)}=\sum\limits_{|j|+2l\leq k}\sup\limits_Q |D_x^jD_t^lu| +\sum\limits_{|j|+2l= k} [D_x^jD_t^lu]_{\alpha;Q} +\sum\limits_{|j|+2l= k-1}\langle D_x^jD_t^lu\rangle_{\alpha+1;Q}$ \end{center} is finite.\\ The norm $\|.\|_{C^{k,\alpha}(Q)}$ makes $ C^{k,\alpha}(Q)$ a Banach space. If we define the similar notions for $\bar{Q}$, then $ C^{k,\alpha}(Q)=C^{k,\alpha}(\bar{Q})$. \subsection{$\bf{C^{2,\alpha}}$ estimate up to the boundary }\label{C2a.subsec} \begin{flushleft} Let $\Omega$ be a bounded smooth domain of $\mathbb{R}^N$. We consider the equation \end{flushleft} \begin{equation} \label{intro.para} \dot{u}=F(D^2u)+f(t,x,u) \; \mbox{in}\; \Omega\times (0,\tilde{T}), \end{equation} where $\tilde{T}>0$, $f$ is a smooth function defined on $[0,\tilde{T}) \times\bar{\Omega}\times\mathbb{R}$ and $F$ is a smooth concave function defined on the set of all real $N\times N$ matrices. In addition, we assume that there exist $0<\lambda<\Lambda<\infty$ such that\\ \begin{equation}\label{F} \lambda \mbox{ \rm tr} \eta\leq F(r+\eta)-F(r)\leq \Lambda \mbox{ \rm tr} \eta \end{equation} for any symmetric matrix $r$, any positive definite matrix $\eta$.\\ We will establish $C^{2,\alpha}$ estimates for the solution of \eqref{intro.para} on $\bar{\Omega}\times (\epsilon, T)$ for any $0<\epsilon<T<\tilde{T}$ without $C^{2,\alpha}$ conditions on $\Omega\times \{ 0\}$. The main result of this section is the following: \begin{The} \label{main.C2alpha} Let $F$ be concave and smooth satisfying \eqref{F}. Let $f$ be a smooth function in $[0,\tilde{T})\times\bar{\Omega}\times\mathbb{R}$ and $\varphi$ be a smooth function in $\bar{\Omega}\times [0,\tilde{T})$. Assume that $u\in C^{2;1}(\bar{\Omega}\times [0,\tilde{T}))\cap C^{\infty}(\Omega\times (0,\tilde{T}))$ is a solution of \begin{equation}\label{parabollic} \begin{cases} \begin{array}{ll} \dot{u}=F(D^2u)+f(t,x,u) \; &\mbox{in}\; \Omega\times (0,\tilde{T}),\\ u=\varphi&\mbox{on}\; \partial\Omega\times(0,\tilde{T}), \end{array} \end{cases} \end{equation} and that $$|u|+|\dot{u}|+|\nabla u|+|D^2u|\leq C,$$ then $u\in C^{2,\alpha}(\bar{\Omega}\times (0,\tilde{T}))$ satisfies \begin{equation}\label{C2alpha} \|u\|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\Omega\times (\epsilon,T))}\leq C_{\epsilon,T}\;\;\;\forall 0<\epsilon<T<\tilde{T}, \end{equation} where $0<\alpha<1$, $C_{\epsilon,T}>0$ depend on $\lambda,\Lambda,\Omega,C,\epsilon,T$ and the upper bound of $\|\varphi\|_{C^4}+\|F\|_{C^1}+\|f\|_{C^2}$. \end{The} \begin{Rem} In the theorem above, we denote $$\|\varphi\|_{C^k(\Omega\times (0,\tilde{T}))} =\sum\limits_{|j|+2l\leq k}\sup\limits_{\Omega\times (0,\tilde{T})} |D^j_xD^l_t\varphi|, $$ $$ \|F\|_{C^k(Mat(N\times N,\mathbb{R}))}=\sum\limits_{|j|\leq k}\sup |D^jF|, $$ $$\|f\|_{C^k((0,\tilde{T})\times\Omega\times\mathbb{R}))} =\sum\limits_{j_1+|j_2|+j_3\leq k}\sup |D_t^{j_1}D_x^{j_2}D_u^{j_3}f|. $$ \end{Rem} In order to prove Theorem \ref{main.C2alpha}, we use the technique of Caffarelli as in \cite{CC95}. We need to prove a series of lemmas. \begin{Lem}\label{b-b} There exist $0<\beta<1$ and $C_{\epsilon,T}>0$ depending on $\lambda,\Lambda,\Omega,C,\epsilon,T$ and the upper bound of $\|\varphi\|_{C^4}+\|F\|_{C^1}+\|f\|_{C^1}$ such that $$\dfrac{\|D^2u(x,t)-D^2u(x_0,t_0)\|}{(|x-x_0|+|t-t_0|^{1/2})^{\beta}} \leq C_{\epsilon,T}, \;\;\;\forall x,x_0\in\partial\Omega; \forall t,t_0\in (\epsilon,T).$$ \end{Lem} \begin{proof} Let $x_0\in\partial\Omega$. We consider a smooth diffeomorphism \begin{center} $\psi : U\cap\Omega\longrightarrow B^+_4:=\{y\in\mathbb{R}^N:|y|<4,y_N>0\}$\\ $x\mapsto y=\psi(x)$ \end{center} such that $\psi (x_0)=0$ and $$\psi (U\cap\partial\Omega)=\Gamma_4=\{ y=(y',y_N)\in \mathbb{R}^{N-1}\times\mathbb{R}: |y'|<4,y_N=0\},$$ where $U$ is a neighborhood of $x_0$.\\ We define \begin{center} $v(y,t)=u(\psi^{-1}(y),t)-\varphi(\psi^{-1}(y),t),$ \end{center} where $y\in B^+_4\bigcup\Gamma_4$, $t\in (\epsilon,T)$. Then $v|_{\Gamma_4\times (\epsilon,T)}=0$ and $v$ satisfies the equation \begin{equation}\label{lembb.G} \dot{v}=G(t,y,v,Dv,D^2v) \end{equation} where the upper bound of $\|G\|_{C^1}$ depends on $\|F\|_{C^1}$, $\|f\|_{C^1}$ and $\psi$. Moreover,there exists $A>1$ depending on $\psi$ (hence, $A$ depends only on $\Omega$) such that $$\dfrac{\lambda}{A}|\xi|^2\leq \dfrac{\partial G}{\partial r_{ij}}\xi_i\xi_j \leq A\Lambda |\xi|^2$$ for all $\xi\in\mathbb{R}^N$.\\ Now we only need to show $$\|D^2v(y,t)-D^2v(0,t_0)\|\leq C_{\epsilon,T}(|y|+|t-t_0|^{1 /2})^{\beta}$$ for any $y\in\Gamma_1, t,t_0\in (\epsilon,T)$.\\ By the implicit function theorem, we have\\ $$v_{NN}=H(t,y,v,\dot{v},Dv, (v_{ij})_{j<N}).$$ By the chain rule, we have $$|DH|\leq \dfrac{A}{\lambda}(\sup |DG|+1).$$ Hence, there exists $B>0$ such that \begin{flushleft} $\begin{array}{ll} |v_{NN}(y,t)-v_{NN}(0,t_0)|&\leq B(\sup\limits_{j<N} |v_{ij}(y,t)-v_{ij}(0,t_0)|+|\dot{v}(y,t)-\dot{v}(0,t_0)|\\ &+|Dv(y,t)-Dv(0,t_0)|+|y|+|t-t_0|). \end{array}$ \end{flushleft} Note that $\dot{v}|_{\Gamma_4\times (\epsilon,T)}=v_j|_{\Gamma_4\times (\epsilon,T)}= v_{ij}|_{\Gamma_4\times (\epsilon,T)}=0$ for $j<N$. Then we only need to show \begin{equation}\label{lembb.vN} |v_N(y,t)-v_N(0,t_0)|\leq C_{\epsilon,T}(|y|+|t-t_0|^{1/2})^{\beta},\\ \end{equation} \begin{equation}\label{lembb.vNk} |v_{Nk}(y,t)-v_{Nk}(0,t_0)|\leq C_{\epsilon,T}(|y|+|t-t_0|^{1/2})^{\beta}, \end{equation} for any $y\in\Gamma_1, t,t_0\in (\epsilon, T)$ and $k<N$.\\ By \eqref{lembb.G}, we have\\ \begin{equation}\label{lembb.end1} \dot{v}=\Delta v+f_1(t,y), \end{equation} where $\Delta$ is the Laplacian operator and $f_1(t,y)=G(t,y,v,Dv,D^2v)-\Delta v$. By the hypothesis of theorem, $\|f_1\|_{L^{\infty}}$ is bounded by a universal constant.\\ Now we take the derivative of equation \eqref{lembb.G} in the direction $y_k$ and get that \begin{equation}\label{lembb.end2} \dot{v}_k=\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^N(v_k)_{ij} \dfrac{\partial G}{\partial r_{ij}}(t,y,v,Dv,D^2v)+f_2(t,y), \end{equation} where $$ f_2(t,y)=\frac{\partial G}{\partial y_k}(t,y,v,Dv,D^2v) +v_k\frac{\partial G}{\partial p}(t,y,v,Dv,D^2v) +\sum\limits_{l=1}^N v_{lk}\frac{\partial G}{\partial q_l}(t,y,v,Dv,D^2v). $$ Then $\|f_2\|_{L^{\infty}}$ is bounded by a universal constant.\\ Then \cite[Lemma 7.32]{Lieb96} states that \begin{Lem} If $u\in C^{2;1}(B_4^+\times (0,T))$ satisfies $$ |\dot{u}-\sum a_{ij}u_{ij}|\leq A_1, $$ $$|u|\leq A_2x_N, $$ where $a_{ij}\in C(B_4^+\times (0,T))$ is such that $$\sup |a_{ij}|\leq B \mbox{ and}$$ $$\lambda|\xi|^2\leq \sum a_{ij}\xi_i\xi_j\leq \Lambda |\xi|^2,$$ then there are positive constants $\beta$ and $C$ determined only by $A_1, A_2, B, \lambda, \Lambda,\epsilon, T, N$ such that $$(\sup\limits_{U(y,t,R)}\frac{u}{x_N}-\inf\limits_{U(y,R)}\frac{u}{x_N})\leq CR^{\beta}\left(\sup\limits_{B^+_4\times (0,T)}\frac{u}{x_N}- \inf\limits_{B^+_4\times (0,T)}\frac{u}{x_N}+1\right), $$ where $y\in B^+_1$, $2\epsilon<t<T-2\epsilon$, $R<\epsilon$ and $U(y,t,R)=B^+_R(y)\times (t-R^2,t+R^2)$. \end{Lem} Applying this lemma to the equations \eqref{lembb.end1} and \eqref{lembb.end2}, we obtain \eqref{lembb.vN} and \eqref{lembb.vNk}. \end{proof} \begin{Cor} There exists $C_{\epsilon,T}>0$ depending on $\lambda,\Lambda,\Omega,C,\epsilon,T$ and the upper bound of $\|\varphi\|_{C^4}+\|F\|_{C^1}+\|f\|_{C^1}$ such that\\ $$\dfrac{|\dot{u}(x,t)-\dot{u}(x_0,t_0)|}{(|x-x_0|+|t-t_0|^{1/2})^{\beta}} \leq C_{\epsilon,T}, \;\;\;\forall x,x_0\in\partial\Omega; \forall t,t_0\in (\epsilon,T).$$ where $0<\beta<1$ is the constant in Lemma \ref{b-b}. \end{Cor} \begin{Lem}\label{b-i-dot} There exists $C_{\epsilon,T}>0$ depending on $\lambda,\Lambda,\Omega,C,\epsilon,T$ and the upper bound of $\|\varphi\|_{C^4}+\|F\|_{C^1}+\|f\|_{C^1}$ such that\\ $$\dfrac{|\dot{u}(x,t)-\dot{u}(x_0,t_0)|}{(|x-x_0|+|t-t_0|^{1/2})^{\beta /2}} \leq C_{\epsilon,T}, \;\;\;\forall x\in\Omega , x_0\in\partial\Omega; \forall t,t_0\in (\epsilon,T).$$ where $0<\beta<1$ is the constant in Lemma \ref{b-b}. \end{Lem} \begin{proof} By equation \eqref{parabollic}, we have \begin{equation}\label{eq.Ca.b-i-dot.A} |\ddot{u}-\sum\limits\dfrac{\partial F}{\partial r_{ij}}\dot{u}_{ij}|= |f_t(t,x,u)+\dot{u}f_u(t,x,u)|\leq A, \end{equation} where $A>0$ is a universal constant.\\ Let $x_0\in\partial\Omega$ and $t_0\in (2\epsilon,T)$. We can choose coordinates $(x_j)_{1\leq j\leq N}$ so that $x_0=0$ and the positive $x_N$ axis is the interior normal direction of $\partial\Omega$ at $x_0$. We also assume that near $x_0$, $\partial\Omega$ is represented as a graph \begin{center} $x_N=P(x')=\sum\limits_{j,k<N} P_{jk}x_jx_k+O(|x'|^3),$ \end{center} where $x'=(x_1,...,x_{N-1})$.\\ Let $Q(x')=P(x')-|x'|^2$. We consider $$ v=K_1(x_N-Q(x'))^{\beta /2}+K_2((x_N-Q(x'))^2+(t_0-t))^{\beta /4}. $$ We have \begin{flushleft} $\begin{array}{ll} \dfrac{\partial^2(x_N-Q(x'))^{\beta /2}}{\partial x_i \partial x_j} &=\dfrac{\beta(\beta-2)}{4}(x_N-Q(x'))^{\beta/2-2} \dfrac{\partial (x_N-Q(x'))}{\partial x_i} \dfrac{\partial (x_N-Q(x'))}{\partial x_j} \\ &+\dfrac{\beta}{2}(x_N-Q(x'))^{\beta/2-1} \dfrac{\partial^2 (x_N-Q(x'))}{\partial x_i\partial x_j}, \end{array}$ \end{flushleft} and \begin{flushleft} $\dfrac{\partial^2 ((x_N-Q(x'))^2+t_0-t)^{\beta /4}}{\partial x_i \partial x_j}$\\ $=\dfrac{\beta(\beta-4)}{4}((x_N-Q(x'))^2+t_0-t)^{\beta/4-2} (x_N-Q(x'))^2\dfrac{\partial (x_N-Q(x'))}{\partial x_i} \dfrac{\partial (x_N-Q(x'))}{\partial x_j} $\\ $+\dfrac{\beta}{4}((x_N-Q(x'))^2+t_0-t)^{\beta/4-1} \dfrac{\partial^2 (x_N-Q(x'))^2}{\partial x_i \partial x_j}.$ \end{flushleft} Hence, there exists $R>0$ satisfying, by $F_{r_{11}}\geq \lambda$, \begin{equation}\label{eq.Ca.b-i-dot.K1} \sum\limits_{i,j=1}^N \dfrac{\partial F}{\partial r_{ij}} \dfrac{\partial^2(x_N-Q(x'))^{\beta /2}}{\partial x_i \partial x_j} \leq \dfrac{\lambda\beta (\beta-2)}{6}(x_N-Q(x'))^{\beta /2-2}<0, \end{equation} and \begin{equation}\label{eq.Ca.b-i-dot.K2} \sum\limits_{i,j=1}^N\dfrac{\partial F}{\partial r_{ij}} \dfrac{\partial^2 ((x_N-Q(x'))^2+t_0-t)^{\beta /4}}{\partial x_ix_j} = O(x_N-Q(x'))^{\beta /2-2}. \end{equation} On the other hand, \begin{equation}\label{eq.Ca.b-i-dot.u.} |\dot{u}-\dot{u}(0,t_0)|\;|_{\partial_P((\Omega\cap B_R)\times (\epsilon,t_0))} =O(((x_N-Q(x'))^2+t_0-t)^{\beta /4}). \end{equation} By \eqref{eq.Ca.b-i-dot.A}, \eqref{eq.Ca.b-i-dot.K1}, \eqref{eq.Ca.b-i-dot.K2}, \eqref{eq.Ca.b-i-dot.u.}, there exists $K_1,K_2>0$ such that \begin{center} $v|_{\partial_P((\Omega\cap B_R)\times (\epsilon,t_0))}\geq \pm(\dot{u}-\dot{u}(0,t_0))|_{\partial_P((\Omega\cap B_R)\times (\epsilon,t_0))},$\\[6pt] $(\pm\ddot{u}-\dot{v})-\sum\dfrac{\partial F}{\partial r_{ij}}(\pm\dot{u}_{ij}-v_{ij}) \leq A+\dfrac{K_1\lambda\beta(\beta-2)}{8}\leq 0.$ \end{center} The comparison principle of parabolic type (\cite{Fried83}) states that \begin{Lem} Let $\Omega$ be a bounded domain of $\mathbb{R}^N$ and $T>0$. Let $u,v\in C^{2;1}(\Omega\times (0,T])\cap C(\bar{\Omega}\times [0,T])$. Assume that $$ \dfrac{\partial (u-v)}{\partial t}-\sum a_{ij} \dfrac{\partial^2 (u-v)}{\partial x_i\partial x_j}-b.(u-v)\leq 0, $$ where $a_{ij}, b\in C(\Omega\times (0,T))$, $(a_{ij}(x,t))$ are positive definite symmetric matrices and $b(z,t)<0$. Then $(u-v) \leq max(0,\sup\limits_{\partial_P(\Omega\times (0,T))}(u-v)).$ \end{Lem} Applying the comparison principle, we have $$ (\dot{u}-\dot{u}(0,t_0))|_{(\Omega\cap B_R)\times (\epsilon,t_0)}\leq v|_{(\Omega\cap B_R)\times (\epsilon,t_0)}. $$ Hence there exists $K>0$ such that $$|\dot{u}(x,t)-\dot{u}(0,t_0)|\leq K(|x|+|t-t_0|^{1/2})^{\beta /2},$$ where $x\in\Omega\times B_R$ and $\epsilon<t\leq t_0$.\\ Note that $R$ is independent of $x_0$ and $K$ is independent of $t_0$. Then there exists $C_{\epsilon,T}$ such that $$\dfrac{|\dot{u}(x,t)-\dot{u}(x_0,t_0)|}{(|x-x_0|+|t-t_0|^{1/2})^{\beta /2}} \leq C_{\epsilon}, \;\;\;\forall x\in\Omega , x_0\in\partial\Omega; \forall t,t_0\in (2\epsilon,T).$$ \end{proof} \begin{Lem}\label{b-i 1} There exists $C_{\epsilon,T}>0$ depending on $\lambda,\Lambda,\Omega,C,\epsilon,T$ and upper bound of $\|\varphi\|_{C^4}+\|F\|_{C^1}+\|f\|_{C^2}$ such that\\ $$u_{\xi\xi}(x,t)-u_{\xi\xi}(x_0,t_0) \leq C_{\epsilon,T}(|x-x_0|+|t-t_0|^{1/2})^{\beta /2}$$ for any $\xi\in\mathbb{R}^N,|\xi|=1,x\in\Omega, x_0\in\partial\Omega, \epsilon<t,t_0<T$. Where $0<\beta<1$ is the constant in Lemma \ref{b-b}. \end{Lem} \begin{proof} By the equation \eqref{parabollic}, we have $$\dot{u}_{\xi\xi}-\sum\dfrac{\partial F }{\partial r_{ij}}(u_{\xi\xi})_{ij} -f_u.u_{\xi\xi} =\sum\dfrac{\partial^2 F}{\partial r_{ij}\partial r_{kl}}(u_{\xi})_{ij}(u_{\xi})_{kl} +O(1)\leq O(1)$$ By Lemma \ref{b-b}, we also obtain $$ (u_{\xi\xi}(x,t)-u_{\xi\xi}(x_0,t_0))|_{\partial_P(\Omega\times (\epsilon,T))} =O(|x-x_0|+|t-t_0|^{1/2})^{\beta /2})$$ Then, the proof of Lemma \ref{b-i 1} is similar to the proof of Lemma \ref{b-i-dot} with the same type of fuction $v$. \end{proof} \begin{Lem}\label{b-i 2} There exists $C_{\epsilon,T}>0$ depending on $\lambda,\Lambda,\Omega,C,\epsilon,T$ and upper bound of $\|\varphi\|_{C^4}+\|F\|_{C^1}+\|f\|_{C^2}$ such that\\ $$\|D^2u(x,t)-D^2u(x_0,t_0)\|\leq C_{\epsilon,T}(|x-x_0|+|t-t_0|^{1/2})^{\beta /2}$$ for any $x\in\Omega, x_0\in\partial\Omega, \epsilon<t,t_0<T$, where $0<\beta<1$ is the constant in Lemma \ref{b-b}. \end{Lem} \begin{proof} Let $\lambda_1,...,\lambda_N$ be eigenvalues of $D^2u(x,t)-D^2u(x_0,t_0)$. We have\\ $$\|D^2u(x,t)-D^2u(x_0,t_0)\|\leq\sum|\lambda_i|.$$ Moreover, \begin{flushleft} $\begin{array}{ll} \dot{u}(x,t)-f(t,x,u(x,t))&=F(D^2u(x,t))\\ &\leq F(D^2u(x_0,t_0)) +\Lambda\sum\limits_{\lambda_i>0}\lambda_i+\lambda \sum\limits_{\lambda_i<0}\lambda_i\\ &=\dot{u}(x_0,t_0)-f(t_0,x_0,u(x_0,t_0)) +\Lambda\sum\limits_{\lambda_i>0}\lambda_i+\lambda \sum\limits_{\lambda_i<0}\lambda_i.\\ \end{array}$ \end{flushleft} Hence, by Lemma \ref{b-i-dot} , we have\\ $$\Lambda\sum\limits_{\lambda_i>0}|\lambda_i|\geq \lambda \sum\limits_{\lambda_i<0}|\lambda_i| -A(|x-x_0|+|t-t_0|^{1/2})^{\beta /2},$$ where $A>0$ is a universal constant.\\ Then $$\|D^2u(x,t)-D^2u(x_0,t_0)\|\leq \frac{\Lambda+\lambda}{\lambda}\sum\limits_{\lambda_i>0}|\lambda_i| +\frac{A}{\lambda}(|x-x_0|+|t-t_0|^{1/2})^{\beta /2}.$$ Note that $$ \sum\limits_{\lambda_i>0}|\lambda_i|\leq N\max\{0,\lambda_1,...\lambda_N\} \leq N \max\{\sup\limits_{|\xi|=1}(u_{\xi\xi}(x,t)-u_{\xi\xi}(x_0,t_0)), 0\}.$$ By Lemma \ref{b-i 1}, there exists $C_{\epsilon,T}>0$ depending on $\lambda,\Lambda, \Omega,C,\epsilon, T$ and upper bound of $\|\varphi\|_{C^4}+\|F\|_{C^1}+\|f\|_{C^2}$ such that \\ $$\|D^2u(x,t)-D^2u(x_0,t_0)\|\leq C_{\epsilon,T}(|x-x_0|+|t-t_0|^{1/2})^{\beta /2}$$ for any $x\in\Omega, x_0\in\partial\Omega, \epsilon<t,t_0<T$.\\ \end{proof} \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{main.C2alpha}] We need to show that \begin{equation}\label{C2alpha.gol} \|D^2u(x,t_1)-D^2u(y,t_2)\|\leq C (|x-y|+|t_1-t_2|^{1 /2})^{\gamma}, \end{equation} where $x,y\in\Omega$, $2\epsilon<t_1,t_2<T-\epsilon$. $C$ and $\gamma$ are universal constants.\\ We can assume that $d_x:=d(x,\partial\Omega)\geq d_y:=d(y,\partial\Omega)$.\\ If $|x-y|^2 +|t_1-t_2|\leq \min\{\frac{d_x^2}{4},\frac{\epsilon}{2}\})$, we denote $$v(\xi,t)=\dfrac{1}{a^2}\left( u(x+a.\xi, t_1+a^2t) -u(x,t_1)-a\sum u_k(x,t_1)\xi_k\right),$$ where $a=\min\{ d_x, \epsilon^{1/2} \}$. Then $v\in C^{\infty} (\mathbb{B}\times (-1,1))$ satisfies $$\dot{v}=F(D^2v)+f(t_1+a^2t,x_1+a\xi,u(x_1+a\xi,t_1+a^2t))=F(D^2v)+\tilde{f}(t,\xi).$$ It follows from the interior estimate (see the theorem 14.7 and the lemma 14.8 of \cite{Lieb96}) that \begin{center} $\|v\|_{C^{2,\gamma}(\mathbb{B}_{1/2}\times (-1/2, 1/2))} \leq A (\|v\|_{C^2(\mathbb{B}\times (-1, 1))}+1),$ \end{center} where $A$ is universal, $\gamma=\min\{\alpha,\beta /2 \}$, $\beta$ is the constant in Lemma \ref{b-b} and $\alpha$ is the constant in Theorem 14.7 of \cite{Lieb96}.\\ Moreover \begin{flushleft} $\begin{array}{ll} |v(\xi,t)|&\leq \dfrac{|u(x+a\xi,t_1+a^2t)-u(x+a\xi,t_1)|}{a^2}\\[6pt] &+\dfrac{|u(x+a\xi,t_1)-u(x,t_1)-a\sum u_k(x,t_1)\xi_k|}{a^2}\\[6pt] &\leq \sup |\dot{u}|+\sup \|D^2 u\|,\\[6pt] \end{array}$ $|\dot{v}(\xi,t)|=|\dot{u}(x+a\xi,t_1+a^2t)|\leq \sup |\dot{u}|,$\\[6pt] $\|D^2v(\xi,t)\|=\|D^2u(x+a\xi,t_1+a^2t)\|\leq \sup \|D^2u\|.$\\ \end{flushleft} Hence \begin{center} $\|v\|_{C^{2,\gamma}(\mathbb{B}_{1/2}\times (-1/2, 1/2))} \leq B,$ \end{center} where $B$ is universal.\\ Then $$\|D^2u(x,t_1)-D^2u(y,t_2)\|\leq B (|x-y|+|t_1-t_2|^{1 /2})^{\gamma}. $$ If $|x-y|^2+|t_1-t_2|\geq \frac{\epsilon}{2}$, then $$ \|D^2u(x,t_1)-D^2u(y,t_2)\|\leq 2(\frac{\epsilon}{2})^{-\gamma/2} (\sup\|D^2u\|)(|x-y|+|t_1-t_2|^{1 /2})^{\gamma}. $$ If $\frac{\epsilon}{2}>|x-y|^2+|t_1-t_2|\geq \frac{d_x^2}{4}$, it follows from Lemma \ref{b-i 2} that \begin{flushleft} $\begin{array}{ll} \|D^2u(x,t_1)-D^2u(y,t_2)\|&\leq \|D^2u(x,t_1)-D^2u(x_0,t_1)\| +\|D^2u(x_0,t_1)-D^2u(y,t_2)\|\\ &\leq C_{\epsilon,T}(|x-x_0|^{\beta/2}+(|x_0-y|+|t_1-t_2|^{1/2})^{\beta/2})\\ &\leq C (|x-y|+|t_1-t_2|^{1/2})^{\beta /2}\\ &\leq C (|x-y|+|t_1-t_2|^{1/2})^{\gamma}\\ \end{array},$ \end{flushleft} where $C_{\epsilon,T}$ is the constant in Lemma \ref{b-i 2}, $x_0\in\partial\Omega$ satisfies $d_x=|x-x_0|$ and $C$ is universal. \end{proof} \subsection{Higher regularity} \begin{flushleft} Let $g\in C^{k+1,\alpha}(\bar{\Omega}\times [0,T))$, where $k\geq 0, 0<\alpha<1$. Let $F$ be a function defined on $Mat(N\times N,\mathbb{R})\times\bar{\Omega}\times [0,T)$ such that $F(.,x,t)$ is concave and satisfies \eqref{F}. Assume that $F\in C^{k+2;k+1,\alpha}(Mat(N\times N,\mathbb{R})\times\bar{\Omega}\times [0,T))$, i.e., the derivaties $D_r^iD_x^jD_t^lF$ are continuous for all $|i|\leq k+2, |j|+2l\leq k+1$ and satisfy \end{flushleft} $$\|F\|_{C^{k+2;k+1,\alpha}(Mat(N\times N,\mathbb{R})\times\bar{\Omega}\times [0,T))}= \sum\limits_{|i|\leq k+2}\sup\limits_{r\in Mat(N\times N,\mathbb{R})} |D_r^iF(r,.)|_{C^{k+1,\alpha}(\bar{\Omega}\times [0,T))}<\infty.$$ We consider the $C^{k+3,\alpha}$ regularity of a solution $u$ of the equation \begin{equation} \dot{u}=F(D^2u,x,t)+g(x,t). \end{equation} The following boundary estimates hold: \begin{Prop}\label{Ckalpha.prop1} Let $x_0\in\partial\Omega$, $k\geq 0$, $r>0$ and $u\in C^{\infty}((\Omega\cap B_r(x_0))\times (0,T))\cap C^{k+2,\alpha}((\Omega\cap B_r(x_0))\times (0,T))$ be a solution of \begin{equation}\label{Evans_Krylov} \begin{cases} \dot{u}=F(D^2u,x,t)+g(x,t)\,\mbox{ on }\, (\Omega\cap B_r(x_0))\times (0,T),\\ u=\varphi\,\mbox{ on }\, (\partial\Omega\cap B_r(x_0))\times (0,T), \end{cases} \end{equation} where $\varphi\in C^{k+3,\alpha}(\bar{\Omega}\times (0,T)$. Then there exists $r'\in (0,r)$ depending on $r, \Omega$ such that $u\in C^{3+k,\alpha}((\Omega\cap B_{r'}(x_0))\times (\epsilon,T'))$ for any $0<\epsilon<T'<T$. Moreover $$\|u\|_{C^{k+3,\alpha}((\Omega\cap B_{r'}(x_0))\times (\epsilon,T'))} \leq K,$$ where $K>0$ depends on $\lambda, \Lambda, \alpha, \Omega,\epsilon, T',T, r, r', \|u\|_{C^{k+2,\alpha}}, \|F\|_{C^{k+2;k+1,\alpha}}, \|g\|_{C^{k+1,\alpha}}$, \newline $\|\varphi\|_{C^{k+3,\alpha}}$. \end{Prop} This regularity is proved, for example, in \cite{Lieb96} (or \cite{GT83} , \cite{CC95} for the elliptic version). For the reader's convenience, we recall the arguments here. \begin{proof} Using a smooth diffeomorphism (as proof of Lemma \ref{b-b}), we can replace $\Omega\cap B_r(x_0)$ by $B_4^+$ and replace $\partial\Omega\cap B_r(x_0)$ by $\Gamma_4$. We need to show that $u\in C^{k+3,\alpha}(B_1^+\times (\epsilon,T')).$\\ Let $h>0$ be small and $e_l$ be the $l^{th}$ vector of the standard basis of $R^N$, $l<N$. We define \begin{flushleft} $\begin{array}{ll} a_{ij}^h(x,t) &=\int\limits_0^1\dfrac{\partial F}{\partial r_{ij}} (sD^2u(x+he_l,t)+(1-s)D^2u(x,t), x+she_l,t)ds ,\\ g^h(x,t)&=\dfrac{g(x+he_l,t)-g(x,t)}{h} ,\\ G^h(x,t)&=\int\limits_0^1 F_l(sD^2u(x+he_l,t)+(1-s)D^2u(x,t),x+she_l,t)ds,\\ \varphi^h(x,t)&=\dfrac{\varphi(x+he_l,t)-\varphi(x,t)}{h},\\ v^h(x,t)&=\dfrac{u(x+he_l,t)-u(x,t)}{h}. \end{array}$ \end{flushleft} For the convenience, we denote $Q_a=B_a^+\times (0,T)$ for any $a>0$. Then $$\|a_{ij}^h\|_{C^{k,\alpha}(Q_2)}+ \|g^h\|_{C^{k,\alpha}(Q_2)}+ \|G^h\|_{C^{k,\alpha} (Q_2)}+ \|v^h\|_{C^{k+1,\alpha}(Q_2)}+ \|\varphi^h\|_{C^{k+2,\alpha}(Q_2)}<A,$$ where $A>0$ depends only on $\|u\|_{C^{k+2,\alpha}(Q_4)}, \|F\|_{C^{k+2;k+1,\alpha}(Q_4)}, \|g\|_{C^{k+1,\alpha}(Q_4)}, \|\varphi\|_{C^{k+3,\alpha}(Q_4)}.$ Moreover, \begin{equation} \begin{cases} \dot{v}^h=\sum a_{ij}^hv_{ij}^h+g^h+G^h \,\mbox{ on } Q_2,\\ v^h=\varphi^h \,\mbox{ on } \Gamma_2\times (0,T). \end{cases} \end{equation} If $k=0$, using a cutoff function and applying Schauder's global estimates ( \cite{Fried83},page 65), we have \begin{equation}\label{quynap.smooth} \|v^h\|_{C^{k+2,\alpha}(B_1^+\times (\epsilon, T'))}\leq C, \end{equation} where $C>0$ depends on $A$ and $\epsilon, T'$. If $k>0$ and Proposition \ref{Ckalpha.prop1} is verified for $k-1$, then applying the case $k-1$, we also obtain \eqref{quynap.smooth}. It follows that $u_l\in C^{k+2,\alpha}(B_1^+\times (\epsilon, T'))$ with $\|u_l\|_{C^{k+2,\alpha}(B_1^+\times (\epsilon, T'))}\leq C.$ By the same method, we can also show that $\|\dot{u}\|_{C^{k+1,\alpha}(B_1^+\times (\epsilon, T'))}\leq C$. It remains to prove $\|u_{NNN}\|_{C^{k,\alpha}(B_1^+\times (\epsilon, T'))}\leq C$. On $B_1^+\times (\epsilon, T')$, we have \begin{center} $ \dot{u}_N=\sum (\dfrac{\partial F}{\partial r_{ij}}(D^2u,x,t))u_{ijN} +F_N(D^2u,x,t)+g_N(x,t). $ \end{center} Then \begin{center} $u_{NNN}=\dfrac{1}{\partial F /\partial r_{NN}} \left(\dot{u}_N-\sum\limits_{(i,j)\neq (N,N)}\dfrac{\partial F}{\partial r_{ij}}u_{ijN} -g_N \right).$ \end{center} Note that $\frac{\partial F}{\partial r_{NN}}\geq \lambda >0$. Hence, $u_{NNN}\in C^{k,\alpha}(B_1^+\times (\epsilon, T'))$ and $\|u_{NNN}\|_{C^{k,\alpha}(B_1^+\times (\epsilon, T'))}$ is bounded by a universal constant. \end{proof} Using the method of the proof above, we also obtain the interior estimates \begin{Prop}\label{Ckalpha.prop2} Let $x_0\in\Omega$ and $0<r<d(x_0, \partial\Omega)$. Let $u\in C^{k+2,\alpha}(B_r(x_0)\times(0,T))$ be a solution of \begin{equation} \dot{u}=F(D^2u,x,t)+g(x,t) \,\mbox{ on }\, B_r(x_0). \end{equation} Then $u\in C^{k+3,\alpha}(B_{r/2}(x_0)\times (\epsilon,T'))$ for any $0<\epsilon<T'<T$. Moreover $$\|u\|_{C^{k+3,\alpha}(B_{r/2}(x_0)\times (\epsilon,T'))}\leq C,$$ where $C>0$ depends on $\lambda, \Lambda, \alpha,\epsilon, T',T, r, \|u\|_{C^{k+2,\alpha}}, \|F\|_{C^{k+2;k+1,\alpha}}, \|g\|_{C^{k+1,\alpha}}$. \end{Prop} Combining Proposition \ref{Ckalpha.prop1} and Proposition \ref{Ckalpha.prop2}, we have the following \begin{Prop}\label{Cinftyalpha} Let $F,f,\varphi$ be functions defined as \ref{C2a.subsec}. Assume that $u\in C^{2,\alpha}(\Omega\times (0,T))$ is a solution of \begin{equation}\label{Cinfty } \begin{cases} \dot{u}=F(D^2u)+f(t,x,u) \,\mbox{ on }\, \Omega\times (0,T),\\ u=\varphi\,\mbox{ on }\, \partial\Omega\times (0,T). \end{cases} \end{equation} Then $u\in C^{\infty}(\bar{\Omega}\times (0,T))$. \end{Prop} \section{Proof of the main theorem} \label{pfmain} We recall the main theorem: \begin{The}[Main theorem]\label{maintheo} Let $\Omega$ be a bounded smooth strictly pseudoconvex domain of $\mathbb{C}^n$ and $T\in (0,\infty ]$. Let $u_0$ be a bounded plurisubharmonic function defined on a neighbourhood $\tilde{\Omega}$ of $\overline \Omega$. Assume that $\varphi\in C^{\infty}(\bar{\Omega}\times [0,T))$ and $f \in C^{\infty}([0,T)\times \bar{\Omega}\times \mathbb{R} )$ satisfying \begin{itemize} \item[(i)] $f_u\leq 0.$ \item[(ii)] $\varphi(z,0)=u_0(z)$ for $z\in\partial\Omega$. \end{itemize} Then there exists a unique function $u\in C^{\infty}(\bar{\Omega}\times (0,T))$ such that \begin{equation}\label{psh.cmdlc} u(.,t) \mbox{ is a strictly plurisubharmonic function on } \Omega, \;\;\forall t\in (0,T), \end{equation} \begin{equation}\label{KRF.cmdlc} \dot{u}= \log\det (u_{\alpha\bar{\beta}})+f(t,z,u) \mbox{ on } \Omega\times (0,T), \end{equation} \begin{equation}\label{bien.cmdlc} u=\varphi \mbox{ on } \partial\Omega\times (0,T), \end{equation} \begin{equation}\label{initial.cmdlc} \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow 0} u(z,t)= u_0(z)\;\;\forall z\in\bar{\Omega}. \end{equation} Moreover, $u\in L^{\infty}(\bar{\Omega}\times [0,T'))$ for any $0<T'<T$, and $u(.,t)$ also converges to $u_0$ in capacity when $t\rightarrow 0$.\\ If $u_0\in C(\tilde{\Omega})$ then $u\in C(\bar{\Omega}\times [0,T))$. \end{The} \begin{proof} \begin{flushleft} Replacing $T$ by $0<T'<T$, we can assume that $T<\infty$ and there exists $C_{\varphi}$ such that \end{flushleft} \begin{equation}\label{cphi.cmdlc} \|\varphi\|_{C^4(\Omega\times (0,T))}\leq C_{\varphi}. \end{equation} We can also assume that $\|f\|_{C^2([0,T)\times\bar{\Omega}\times [-M,M])}<\infty$ for any $M>0$.\\ \textbf{Existence of a solution.}\\ Using the convolution of $u_0+\frac{|z|^2}{m}$ with smooth kernels, we can take $u_{0,m}\in C^{\infty} (\bar{\Omega})$ such that $$u_{0,m}\searrow u_0,$$ $$dd^cu_{0,m}\geq \frac{1}{m}dd^c|z|^2.$$ Note that $u_0|_{\partial\Omega}$ is continuous. Then \begin{equation}\label{eq.deltam} \delta_m=\sup\limits_{z\in\partial\Omega}(u_{0,m}(z)-u_0(z)) \stackrel{m\rightarrow\infty}{\longrightarrow} 0. \end{equation} We define $g_m\in C^{\infty}(\bar{\Omega})$ and $\varphi_m\in C^{\infty}(\bar{\Omega}\times [0,T))$ by\\ $$g_m=-\log\det (u_{0,m})_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}+f(0,z,u_{0,m}),$$ $$\varphi_m=\zeta(\frac{t}{\epsilon_m}) (tg_m+u_{0,m})+(1-\zeta(\frac{t} {\epsilon_m}))\varphi,$$ where $\zeta$ is a smooth funtion on $\mathbb{R}$ such that $\zeta$ is decreasing, $\zeta|_{(-\infty,1]}=1$ and $\zeta|_{[2,\infty)}=0$. $\epsilon_m>0$ are chosen such that the sequences $\{\epsilon_m\}$, $\{\epsilon_m\sup|g_m|\}$ are decreasing to $0$ and $\zeta(\frac{t}{\epsilon_m})(u_{0,m}(z)-\varphi (z,t))\geq 0$ for any $m$.\\ Then $\varphi_m$ converges pointwise to $\varphi$ on $\partial\Omega\times [0,T)$ and for any $0<\epsilon<T$, there exists $m_{\epsilon}>0$ such that $\varphi_m|_{\bar{\Omega}\times (\epsilon,T)}=\varphi|_{\bar{\Omega}\times (\epsilon,T)}, \; \forall m>m_{\epsilon}.$\\ Moveover, \begin{center} $\varphi_m(z,0)=u_{0,m}(z)\;\; ,$\\ $\dot{\varphi}_m=\log\det(u_{0,m})_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}+f(t,z,u_{0,m}),$\\ \end{center} where $(z,t)\in\partial\Omega\times \{ 0 \}$.\\ By the theorem of Hou-Li, there exists $u_m\in C^{\infty}(\Omega\times (0,T)) \cap C^{2;1}(\bar{\Omega}\times [0,T))$ satisfying \begin{equation}\label{KRFM} \begin{cases} \begin{array}{ll} \dot{u}_m=\log\det (u_m)_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}+f(t,z,u_m)\;\;\;&\mbox{on}\;\Omega\times (0,T),\\ u_m=\varphi_m&\mbox{on}\;\partial\Omega\times [0,T),\\ u_m=u_{0,m}&\mbox{on}\;\bar{\Omega}\times\{ 0\}.\\ \end{array} \end{cases} \end{equation} Applying Corollary \ref{compa} for $u_1$ and $u_m$, we see that the functions $u_m$ are uniformly bounded by a constant $C_u>0$. Then we can assume that $\|f\|_{C^2((0,T)\times\Omega\times \mathbb{R})}\leq C_f$. Applying Theorem \ref{Main} on $\Omega\times (\frac{\epsilon}{2},T)$, we obtain $$\|u_m\|_{C^2(\Omega\times (\epsilon,T))}\leq C,$$ where $C=C(\epsilon, T,\Omega,C_f,C_{\varphi}, C_u)$, $m$ is large enough.\\ It follows from the $C^{2,\alpha}$ estimates in Section \ref{C2a} that for any $0<\epsilon<T'<T$, there exist $M=M(\epsilon,T', C,\Omega,C_{\varphi},C_f)$ and $0<\gamma<1$ such that $$\|u_m\|_{C^{2,\gamma}(\bar{\Omega}\times (\epsilon, T))}\leq M.$$ By Ascoli's theorem, there exists $u\in C^{2,\gamma/2}(\bar{\Omega}\times (0,T))$ such that \begin{equation}\label{defineu.cmdlc} u_{m_k}\stackrel{C^{2,\gamma/2}(\bar{\Omega}\times (\epsilon,T))}{\longrightarrow}u. \end{equation} Thus $u$ satisfies \eqref{psh.cmdlc}, \eqref{KRF.cmdlc} and \eqref{bien.cmdlc}. By Proposition \ref{Cinftyalpha} we have $u\in C^{\infty}(\bar{\Omega}\times (0,T))$.\\ Clearly, $u$ is bounded. We need to show the convergence of $u(.,t)$ when $t\rightarrow 0$.\\ \textit{Step 1: $\liminf\limits_{t\rightarrow 0} u(z,t)\geq u_0(z).$}\\ By \eqref{defineu.cmdlc}, there exists a subsequence of $(u_m)$, also denoted by $(u_m)$, which converges pointwise to $u$ on $\bar{\Omega}\times (0,T)$.\\ For any $a>0$, there exists $A>0$ such that $\forall m>0, v_m=u_{0,m}+a\rho-At$ satisfies \begin{equation}\label{eq.sualoi1.cmdlc} \begin{cases} \dot{v}_m\leq \log\det (v_m)_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}+f(t,z,v_m),\\ v_m|_{\partial_P(\Omega\times (0,T))}\leq u_m|_{\partial_P(\Omega\times (0,T))}+ \epsilon_m\sup|g_m|+\delta_m,\\ \end{cases} \end{equation} where $\rho\in C^{\infty}(\bar{\Omega})$ is a non-positive strictly plurisubharmonic function on $\Omega$. \\ It follows from Corollary \ref{compa} that $$v_m\leq u_m+\epsilon_m\sup|g_m|+\delta_m.$$ Hence \begin{equation}\label{convergeq.cmdlc} u(z,t)\geq \lim\limits_{m\rightarrow \infty}(v_m(z,t)-\epsilon_m\sup|g_m|-\delta_m) =u_0(z)+a\rho (z)-At. \end{equation} Then we have $$ \liminf\limits_{t\rightarrow 0} u(z,t)\geq u_0(z)+a\rho (z). $$ When $a\rightarrow 0$, we obtain \begin{equation}\label{liminf.cmdlc} \liminf\limits_{t\rightarrow 0} u(z,t)\geq u_0(z). \end{equation} \textit{Step 2: $\limsup\limits_{t\rightarrow 0} u(z,t)\leq u_0(z).$}\\ Let $\epsilon>0$. Assume that $m_0>0$ satisfies $\epsilon_{m_0}\sup|g_{m_0}|\leq\epsilon$.\\ For any $m>k>m_0$, we have \begin{flushleft} $\begin{array}{ll} u_{0,m}-u_{0,k}&\leq 0;\\ \varphi_m-\varphi_k&=\zeta(\frac{t}{\epsilon_m})(u_{0,m}-\varphi) -\zeta (\frac{t}{\epsilon_k})(u_{0,k}-\varphi)\\ &+tg_m\zeta(\frac{t}{\epsilon_m})-tg_k\zeta(\frac{t}{\epsilon_k})\\ &\leq \zeta(\frac{t}{\epsilon_k})(u_{0,m}-\varphi)-\zeta (\frac{t}{\epsilon_k}) (u_{0,k}-\varphi)+2\epsilon \\ &\leq \zeta(\frac{t}{\epsilon_k})(u_{0,m}-u_{0,k})+2\epsilon \\ &\leq 2\epsilon . \end{array}$ \end{flushleft} It follows Corollary \ref{compa} that $$u_m\leq u_k+2\epsilon .$$ Hence \begin{equation}\label{converleq.cmdlc} u(z,t)=\lim\limits_{m\rightarrow \infty} u_m(z,t)\leq u_k(z,t)+2\epsilon . \end{equation} Then we have $$\limsup\limits_{t\rightarrow 0} u(z,t)\leq u_{0,k}(z)+2\epsilon .$$ When $k\rightarrow\infty$ and $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$, we obtain \begin{equation}\label{limsup.cmdlc} \limsup\limits_{t\rightarrow 0} u(z,t)\leq u_0(z). \end{equation} Combining \eqref{liminf.cmdlc} and \eqref{limsup.cmdlc}, we obtain \eqref{initial.cmdlc}.\\ \textit{Step 3: Convergence in capacity.}\\ The bounded plurisubharmonic function $u_0$ is continuous outside sets of arbitrarily small capacity. Then the convergence in capacity is implied by \eqref{convergeq.cmdlc}, \eqref{converleq.cmdlc} and Hartogs lemma (Lemma 90 of \cite{Ber13}) .\\ If $u_0\in C(\tilde{\Omega})$ then $u_{ 0,m}$ and $\varphi_m$ converge uniformly, respectively, to $u_0$ and $\varphi$. It follows Corollary \ref{compa} that $u_m$ converges uniformly to $u$. So $u$ is continuous on $\bar{\Omega}\times [0,T)$.\\ \textbf{Uniqueness of the solution.}\\ Let $u, v\in C^{\infty}(\bar{\Omega}\times (0,T))$ be functions satisfying \eqref{psh.cmdlc}, \eqref{KRF.cmdlc}, \eqref{bien.cmdlc}, \eqref{initial.cmdlc}. Let $\epsilon>0$. We need to show that $u\leq v+(t+3)\epsilon$.\\ \textit{Step 1.} $\exists A>0 , v(z,t)\geq u_0(z)-\epsilon-At.$\\ For $m>0$, we denote $v_m(z,t)=v(z,t+\frac{1}{m})$. Then $v_m$ is the solution of \begin{equation} \begin{cases} \dot{v}_m=\log\det(v_m)_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}+f(t+\frac{1}{m},z,v_m)\mbox{ on } \Omega\times (0,T- \frac{1}{m}),\\ v_m(z,t)=\varphi(z,t+\frac{1}{m}) \mbox{ on } \partial\Omega\times (0,T-\frac{1}{m}). \end{cases} \end{equation} Let $\rho\in C^{\infty}(\bar{\Omega})$ be a non-positive strictly plurisubharmonic function on $\Omega$ such that $\inf\rho=-1$. Then there exists $A>0$ depending only on $\epsilon, \rho, \|\varphi\|_{C^1}, \sup f(t,z,\sup \varphi)$ such that \begin{equation} \begin{cases} \dot{w}_m\leq \log\det(w_m)_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}+f(t+\frac{1}{m},z,w_m)\mbox{ on } \Omega\times (0,T- \frac{1}{m}),\\ w_m(z,t)\leq \varphi(z,t+\frac{1}{m}) \mbox{ on } \partial\Omega\times (0,T-\frac{1}{m}), \end{cases} \end{equation} where $w_m =v(z,\frac{1}{m})+\epsilon\rho-At$.\\ Applying Corollary \ref{compa}, we have $v_m\geq w_m$. When $m\rightarrow\infty$, we obtain $$v(z,t)\geq u_0(z)+\epsilon\rho (z)-At\geq u_0(z)-\epsilon-At.$$ \textit{Step 2. }$\exists m_0>0, \forall m>m_0, \exists k_m>m, v(z,\frac{1}{m})\geq -3\epsilon +u(z,\frac{1}{k_m})$.\\ Step 1 implies that $v$ is bounded. Then we can assume that $\|f\|_{C^2([0,T)\times\bar{\Omega}\times\mathbb{R})}<\infty$.\\ By step 1, we have $$v(z,\frac{1}{m})+\epsilon+\frac{A}{m}\geq u_0(z)=\lim\limits_{t\rightarrow 0}u(z,t).$$ Applying Hartogs lemma, for any $K\Subset\Omega$ there exists $k_{m,K}>m$ such that \begin{equation}\label{trongK.step2.uni} u(z,\frac{1}{k_{m,K}})\leq v(z,\frac{1}{m})+2\epsilon+\frac{A}{m}\;\;\forall z\in K. \end{equation} Let $m_0\geq \frac{1}{\epsilon}\max\{1, A, \|f\|_{C^2},\|h\|_{C^2}\}$, where $h\in C^{\infty}(\bar{\Omega}\times [0,T))$ is a spatial harmonic function such that $h|_{\partial\Omega\times (0,T)}=\varphi|_{\partial\Omega\times (0,T)}$.\\ For any $m>m_0$, let $K=K_m\Subset\Omega$ such that $$v(z,\frac{1}{m})+\epsilon\geq h(z,\frac{1}{m})\;\;\forall z\in\Omega\setminus K.$$ Let $k_m=k_{m,K_m}$. Then \begin{equation}\label{ngoaiK.step2.uni} v(z,\frac{1}{m})\geq -2\epsilon + h(z,\frac{1}{k_m})\geq -2\epsilon +u(z,\frac{1}{k_m})\;\;\forall z\in \Omega\setminus K. \end{equation} Combining \eqref{trongK.step2.uni} and \eqref{ngoaiK.step2.uni}, we obtain $$v(z,\frac{1}{m})\geq -3\epsilon+u(z,\frac{1}{k_m})\;\;\forall z\in\Omega.$$ \textit{Step 3. Conclusion.} \begin{flushleft} Let $u_m(z,t)=u(z,t+\frac{1}{k_m})-\epsilon t$. For $m>m_0$, we have \end{flushleft} \begin{equation} \begin{cases} \dot{v}_m=\log\det (v_m)_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}+f(t+\frac{1}{m},z,v_m)\geq \log\det (v_m)_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}+f(t+\frac{1}{k_m},z,v_m)-\epsilon,\\ \dot{u}_m\leq \log\det (u_m)_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}+f(t+\frac{1}{k_m},z,u_m)-\epsilon. \end{cases} \end{equation} Applying Corollary \ref{compa}, we have $$(u_m-v_m)\leq\sup\limits_{\partial_P(\Omega\times (0,T-\frac{1}{m}))}(u_m-v_m) \leq 3\epsilon $$ When $m\rightarrow \infty$, we have $$u(z,t)-v(z,t)-\epsilon t=\lim\limits_{m\rightarrow \infty}(u_m(z,t)-v_m(z,t))\leq 3\epsilon.$$ When $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$, we obtain $$u(z,t)\leq v(z,t).$$ Since the roles of $u$ and $v$ are symmetric, $v(z,t)\leq u(z,t)$. Then $u=v$. \end{proof} \section{Further directions} In this section, we discuss further questions in the same general directions as our result. On compact K\"ahler manifolds, the corresponding problem was solved in the case where $f=0$ and $u_0$ has zero Lelong numbers. In that case, there exists a solution $u$ satisfying $u(.,t)\rightarrow u_0$ in $L^1$ (see \cite{GZ13}), and the solution is unique (see \cite{DL14}). It is natural to ask whether the same result holds for a domain in $\mathbb{C}^n$. Let us state our conjecture \begin{Conj} If we replace the condition "$u_0\in L^{\infty}(\tilde{\Omega})$" in Theorem \ref{maintheo} by the condition "$u_0$ has zero Lelong numbers" then there exists a unique function $u\in C^{\infty}(\bar{\Omega}\times (0,T))$ satisfying \eqref{psh.cmdlc}, \eqref{KRF.cmdlc}, \eqref{bien.cmdlc} such that $u(.,t)\rightarrow u_0$ in $L^1(\Omega)$. \end{Conj} The case where $u_0$ has positive Lelong numbers is another problem. It was also considered and solved in the case compact K\"ahler manifold by \cite{GZ13} and \cite{DL14}. It is the motivation of the second direction: the case of domain in $\mathbb{C}^n$ and $u_0$ has positive Lelong numbers. There is another question: What is the behavior when we replace the condition "$u_0\in PSH(\tilde{\Omega})$" in Theorem \ref{maintheo} by the condition "$u_0\in PSH(\Omega)$"? In order to prove Theorem \ref{maintheo}, we construct plurisubharmonic functions $u_{0,m}$ which converge to $u_0$. This step is easy if we suppose that $u_0\in PSH(\tilde{\Omega})$. If we only suppose that "$u_0\in PSH(\Omega)\mbox{ and } \lim\limits_{z\rightarrow z_0\in\partial\Omega}u_0(z)=\varphi (z_0)$", maybe this step is still realizable but more difficult. We give a provisional result in this direction. \begin{Prop} Let $\Omega$ be a bounded smooth strictly pseudoconvex domain of $\mathbb{C}^n$ and $T\in (0,\infty ]$. Let $u_0$ be a continuous plurisubharmonic function on $\Omega$ such that $u_0$ is smooth on $\bar{\Omega}\setminus \mathcal{K}$, where $\mathcal{K}\Subset\Omega$. Assume that $\varphi, f$ are functions satisfying the conditions of Theorem \ref{maintheo}. Then there exists a unique function $u\in C^{\infty}(\bar{\Omega}\times (0,T))\cap C(\bar{\Omega}\times [0,T))$ satisfying \eqref{psh.cmdlc}, \eqref{KRF.cmdlc}, \eqref{bien.cmdlc} and $u(.,0)=u_0$. \end{Prop} \begin{proof}[Proof sketch.] Let $\rho$, $\zeta$ be the functions defined in the proof of Theorem \ref{maintheo}. Let $\psi$ be a smooth function in $\Omega$ and $\phi$ be a smooth function on $\mathbb{R}$ satisfying \begin{itemize} \item $0\leq \psi\leq 1$, $\psi|_{U_1}=1$,$\psi|_{\Omega\setminus U_2}=0$, where $\mathcal{K}\Subset U_1 \Subset U_2 \Subset \Omega$.\\ \item $\phi$ is convex and increasing, $\phi|_{(-\infty,-3)}=-2$, $\phi|_{(-1,\infty)}=Id$.\\ \end{itemize} Using convolutions of $u_0+\frac{\rho}{m}$, we can find $\tilde{u}_{0,m}\in C^{\infty}(U_2)$ such that $\tilde{u}_{0,m}$ and $\psi\tilde{u}_{0,m}+ (1-\psi)(u_0+\frac{\rho}{m})$ are strictly plurisubharmonic functions.\\ We define $u_{0,m}\in C^{\infty}(\bar{\Omega})$, $g_m\in C^{\infty}(\bar{\Omega}\setminus\mathcal{K})$, $\varphi_m\in C^{\infty}(\bar{\Omega}\times [0,T))$ by $$u_{0,m}=\psi\tilde{u}_{0,m}+(1-\psi)(u_0+\frac{\rho}{m})+\frac{1}{m}\phi\circ (m\rho),$$ $$g_m=-\dot{\varphi}|_{t=0}+\log\det(u_0+ \dfrac{m+1}{m}\rho)_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}+f(t,z,u_0+\dfrac{m+1}{m}\rho),$$ $$\varphi_m=(1-\psi)(t\zeta(mt)g_m+u_0+\dfrac{m+1}{m}\rho+\int\limits_0^t\dot{\varphi} ).$$ Repeating the techniques in the proof of Theorem \ref{maintheo}, we show that there exists a unique function $u\in C^{\infty}(\bar{\Omega}\times (0,T))\cap C(\bar{\Omega}\times [0,T))$ satisfying \eqref{psh.cmdlc}, \eqref{KRF.cmdlc}, \eqref{bien.cmdlc} such that $u|_{t=0}=u_0$.\\ \end{proof}
\section{Introduction} The mechanical and radiative energy (from massive star winds and supernova explosions) injected in the interstellar medium (ISM) of galaxies is expected to drive gas outflows around regions of active star--formation. These outflows are indeed observed both on the scale of individual H~{\small II}\ regions as well as on full-galaxy scales. Outflows are currently invoked as the principal mechanism regulating the galactic baryonic cycle (i.e., the balance between the gas accretion rate and the star-formation rate) in state-of-the-art galaxy formation models \citep[e.g.][]{oppenheimer2010,dave2011,lilly2013}. Whether or not the observed outflows are actually able to do the job is, however, still unclear. In fact, although outflow-regulated models are able to broadly reproduce some of the fundamental correlations observed in massive galaxies, recent studies have pointed out the existence of a fundamental problem with the evolution of low mass ($M_*<10^{9.5}M_{\odot}$) galaxies \citep{weinmann2012}. This difficulty appears to indicate that crucial feedback processes are modeled incorrectly, since it is precisely in this low-mass regime that feedback-induced outflows are expected to have the strongest impact. \begin{figure*}[ht!] \centering \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{figure_1.ps} \caption{Side view of the outflow model. We consider a spherical galaxy (with radius $R_{\rm SF}$) surrounded by an expanding envelope with a velocity increasing radially with the distance from the center. For $r>R_W$ the gas velocity is $v_{\infty}$. The shaded yellow area shows the size of the aperture of radius $R_{\rm aper}$. The dotted vertical line indicates the edge-on view of the plane with constant observed velocity ($v_{\rm obs}$). } \label{fig:geometry} \end{figure*} What is lacking at this point are robust observational constraints on the physical properties of galaxy outflows and how these depend on the galaxy star--formation rates, stellar masses, and so on. In order to characterize how effective feedback is in quenching the star--formation (by, e.g., heating the gas and/or completely remove it from a galaxy dark matter halo) we need to be able to probe the kinematics of the outflows, their density structure, and their extent. Absorption line studies against the strong UV continuum produced in the star-forming regions can probe the neutral and ionized components of the outflows, with numerous resonant transitions in low and high ionization metals \citep[such as, Si~{\small II}, C~{\small II}, Mg~{\small II}, C~{\small III}, Fe~{\small II}, andC~{\small IV}; e.g., ][]{rupke2005a,martin2005, sato2009, weiner2009,rubin2010,steidel1996, shapley2003}. Recent studies show that outflowing gas moving with velocities up to several hundreds of km s$^{-1}$\ is common in star--forming galaxies \citep[e.g.,][]{pettini2002,martin2005}. Generally, these studies use standard absorption--line analysis \citep[e.g][]{savage1991}, where the velocity of the outflowing material is determined by the amount of blueshift observed in the resonant absorption lines (typically UV lines, but absorption of Na--D lines has been used). Recent observations, however, have revealed the presence of numerous resonant and fluorescent emission lines associated with the blueshifted resonant absorptions \citep[e.g.,][]{weiner2009, france2010,rubin2011,jones2012, erb2012, martin2012, martin2013,kornei2013}. Although originally interpreted as the result of photoionization by weak AGNs \citep[e.g.,][]{weiner2009}, these lines are now believed to be the result of scattered resonant photons in an expanding envelope around galaxies \citep[][]{rubin2011,erb2012,martin2013}. The scattered re--emission into the line of sight affects the velocity measurements based on pure absorption lines analysis, as well as mimic a partial covering fraction of the outflowing gas \citep[e.g.,][]{prochaska2011}. In these cases, it is crucial to be able to consistently model both the resonant absorption as well as the associated resonant and (if present) fluorescent emission originating from the same ionic species. Steps in this direction have been taken by \citet[][]{rubin2011}, who pioneered the study of outflows in emission using resonantly-scattered MgII, and Fe lines. Prochaska et al. (2011) used Monte Carlo radiative transfer techniques to study the nature of resonant absorption and emission for winds, accounting for the effects of resonant scattering and fluorescence. In this paper we go a step forward and develop a Semi--Analytical Line Transfer (hereafter referred to as SALT) model to interpret the absorption/scattered emission line profiles resulting from extended galactic outflows. We assume that the Sobolev approximation holds, and we account for multiple scattering within the outflow with a simple statistical approach. As an example of an application of the model, we apply SALT to multiple transitions in the $\rm Si^+$ ion observed in the stack spectrum of $z\sim 0.3$ Ly$\alpha$\ emitters. We show how our model is able to consistently reproduce the profiles of both the absorption and resonant and fluorescent emission lines and thus constrain the outflow velocity-- and density--fields. Although rather simplified, the SALT model can be used to gain a more physical understanding of the outflowing gas, in both local and high redshift galaxies. We focus here on a few specific lines of Si$^+$ ion, however, the models are readily applicable to any other ions. The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we present the derivation of the semi analytical line profile for an outflowing spherical shell. The model is compared with the observed stacked spectrum in Section~3, and the results are discussed in Section~4. We offer our conclusions in Section~5. \section{P-Cygni profile from a spherical expanding envelope} \label{sec:model} In spherical outflows, such as those produced in winds from early type stars, resonant lines are characterized by the well understood P--Cygni profile \citep[e.g.,][]{castor1970,castor1979}. The profile shows both an emission and an absorption component. The absorption is created in the material between the source and the observer, while the emission is produced by scattering photons into the line of sight. For spherical outflows, the velocity profile of the absorption component will be blueshifted relative to the systemic velocity of the source and will depend on the density and velocity fields of the absorbing material. Because of the spherically symmetric geometry, the emission component will be centered at the systemic velocity of the source and thus will contribute to fill in the absorption at negative velocities. This effect, well known in the context of stellar winds, has generally been neglected in the context of absorption line studies of galaxies. Recently, however, a few studies have emphasized the importance of properly accounting for scattered re-emission in studies of galaxy absorption line spectra. These studies have also highlighted how the emission line features can be used as powerful diagnostics of the geometry and physical conditions of galaxy outflows both in the local and high--redshift Universe \citep[][]{rubin2011,prochaska2011,erb2012, martin2013}.The goal of this paper is to present a semi-analytical line transfer (SALT) model that can be used to consistently interpret the absorption and emission line profiles of both resonant and fluorescent transmissions observed in galactic spectra. The line profiles are modeled for outflow geometries similar to those introduced by the recent works of \citet[][]{rubin2011,prochaska2011,erb2012, martin2013}. In this Section we first describe the basic assumptions to derive the line profiles in single scattering approximation \citet[following ][]{scuderi1992}. We then modify the wind model to include a more realistic description of the scattering process by relaxing the single scattering approximation. We also include the possibility of re-emission in the fluorescent channel, different envelope geometries and effect of a finite aperture. \subsection{The basic model} To build our SALT model we start with the simplest description for the gas/star configuration. We approximate a galaxy as a spherical source of UV radiation with radius $R_{SF}$ (i.e., where the bulk of star-formation occurs), surrounded by an expanding envelope of gas, extending to $R_{W}$. In the following we will refer to the expanding envelope as the ``galactic wind''. Prochaska et al. (2011) use a Monte Carlo radiative transfer technique to derive the absorption line profiles resulting from similar galactic winds. In what follows, we simplify their calculations by computing semi-analytical expressions for the line profiles (including the effects of fluorescent emission and spectroscopic aperture size). Martin et al. (2013) use a similar outflow model to study the extended scattered emission from galactic outflows at $z\sim 1$, considering the effects of a clumpy expanding medium on the derived mass outflow rate. Here, we build upon these works, and we develop a semi-analytical algorithm to simply but accurately calculate the expected line profiles originating in extended outflows. Our results can be used to easily model galactic extended outflows commonly observed in local and high redshift galaxies. In Figure~\ref{fig:geometry} we show the geometry of the wind and the definition of the coordinate system. The coordinates $\xi$ and $s$ are given in units of $R_{SF}$, so that in Figure~\ref{fig:geometry} the dashed line tangential to the galaxy has $\xi=1$. We also introduce the normalized radial coordinate $\varrho=r/R_{SF}$ ($\varrho=\sqrt{\xi^2+s^2}/R_{SF}$). A given point P in the envelope is identified by the pair of coordinates $\varrho$, $\theta$, where $\theta$ is the angle between the direction of $r$ and the line of sight to the observer. \begin{figure}[ht!] \centering \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{figure_2.ps} \caption{Iso-velocity contours of observed velocity for a shell moving at radial velocity $v$. The observed velocity ranges from $v_{\rm obs}=v$ at the center of the shell, to $v_{\rm obs}=0$ at the edge.} \label{fig:obs_velocity} \end{figure} We consider a velocity field where the velocity ($v$) increases with $r$ as a power law of exponent $\gamma$: \begin{eqnarray} v=v_0\, \Big( \frac{r}{R_{SF}} \Big)^{\gamma} \,\, {\rm for} \,\, r \leq R_{W}=R_{SF}\Big( \frac{v_{\infty}}{v_0} \Big) ^{ 1 / \gamma}; \end{eqnarray} \begin{eqnarray} v=v_{\infty} \,\, {\rm for} \,\, r \geq R_{W}; \end{eqnarray} \noindent where $v_0$ is the wind velocity at the surface of the star-forming region (i.e., at $R_{SF}$), and $v_{\infty}$ is the terminal velocity of the wind at $R_{W}$. \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[scale=0.2]{figure_3.ps} \caption{Energy levels of Si$^+$.} \label{fig:levels} \end{figure} When the velocity gradient in the expanding envelope is large, photons will interact with the outflowing material only where the absorbing ions are exactly ``at resonance'' due to their Doppler shift \citep[this is a condition also known as ``Sobolev' approximation'', e.g., ][]{sobolev}. In this case, the radiative transport of the line photons can be reduced to a local problem, and the optical depth for absorption ($\tau$) can be evaluated at the {\it interaction surface}, which is defined in terms of the velocity as: \begin{equation} v= - c\frac{\Delta\,\nu}{\nu_0}; \end{equation} \noindent where $\nu_0$ is the resonance frequency of the line. The numerical results of Prochaska et al (2011) show that for the physical conditions of typical galaxy outflows, the Sobolev approximation is a justified assumption. The wind optical depth at the interaction surface, can be written as a function of wavelength, wind parameters, and atomic constants, as follows \citep[e.g.,][]{castor1970}:\\ \begin{eqnarray} \tau(r)=\frac{\pi e^2}{mc}f_{lu}\lambda_{lu}n_l(r)\Big[1-\frac{n_u g_l}{n_lg_u}\Big]\frac{r/v}{1+\sigma\mu^2}; \end{eqnarray} \noindent where $f_{ul}$ and $\lambda_{lu}$ are the oscillator strength and wavelength, respectively, for the $ul$ transition, $\mu=\cos(\theta)$, and $\sigma=\frac{{\rm d}\ln(v)}{{\rm d}\ln(r)}-1$ (see Table~\ref{tab:siII} for Si$^+$ atomic data). The expression for the optical depth can be simplified by assuming that 1) it does not depend on the angle $\theta$ between a radius and the line of sight, 2) the above velocity law holds, 3) stimulated emission is negligible (i.e., $\Big[1-\frac{n_u g_l}{n_lg_u}\Big]=1$), and 4) the mass outflow rate is constant, so that $n_l(r)\propto (vr^2)^{-1}$. For $\gamma=1$, and with these assumptions, we can write: \begin{eqnarray} \tau(r)=\frac{\pi e^2}{mc}f_{lu}\lambda_{lu}n_{0}\left(\frac{R_{SF}}{r}\right)^3 \frac{r}{v}\\ =\tau_0 \left(\frac{R_{SF}}{r}\right)^3 \end{eqnarray} and \begin{equation} \tau_0= \frac{\pi e^2}{mc}f_{lu}\lambda_{lu} n_{0}\frac{R_{SF}}{v_0}; \label{eqn:tau0} \end{equation} \noindent where $n_0$ is the gas density at $R_{SF}$ (for $\gamma=1$, $n_l(r)=n_{0}\Big(\frac{r}{R_{SF}}\Big)^{-3}$). Now consider a thin shell located at a distance $r = R_{SF} (\frac{v}{v_0})^{1/\gamma}$, moving with an intrinsic radial velocity $v$. The velocity measured by the observer, i.e. the component of the radial velocity along the line of sight to the observer ($v_{\rm obs}=v\,\cos{\theta}$) will depend on the position on the shell and in particular on the projected distance to the center. This is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:obs_velocity}, where we plot contours of constant {\it observed} (i.e., projected) velocity from a shell moving outward with radial velocity $v$. For the sake of clarity, we show only the half of the shell moving toward the observer. The observed velocities range from $-v$ at the projected center of the envelope (where the gas is moving directly toward us) to 0 at the projected distance $r=r_v$ (where the shell is moving on the plane of the sky). Obviously, only the portion of the shell {\it in front} of the continuum disk (hatched area in Figures~\ref{fig:obs_velocity}) will produce a net absorption in the spectrum (blueward of the line center) by scattering photons out of the line of sight. Globally the shell will absorb a fraction $E(v)=[1-\exp{(-\tau(v))}]$ of the energy that, in terms of observed velocities ($v_{\rm obs}=v\,\cos{\theta}$), will be redistributed evenly over the velocity interval ($v_{\rm min}$, $v$). Here $v_{\rm min}$ is the projection of the shell velocity along the line of sight tangential to the galaxy (i.e., at $\xi =1$). Following Scuderi {\it et al.} (1992), we can compute $v_{min}$ as: \begin{equation} v_{\rm min}=v\,\cos{\theta}=v\,\frac{s(\varrho(v))}{\varrho(v)}. \end{equation} \noindent Or, setting $y=v/v_0$, as: \begin{equation} y_{\rm min}=y^{(\gamma -1)/\gamma}\, (y^{2/\gamma}-1)^{1/2}. \label{eqn:vmin} \end{equation} Only shells with intrinsic radial velocities in the range from $v_{\rm obs}$ and $v_1=v_{\rm obs}/\cos{\theta}$ (for $\xi = 1$) can contribute to the absorption at $v_{\rm obs}$. Setting $x=v_{\rm obs}/v_0$, $y_1=v_1/v_0$ can be computed by solving the equation: \begin{equation} y_1^2\,(1-y_1^{-2/\gamma})=x^2. \end{equation} Thus, we can write the absorption component of the profile, in units of the stellar continuum as: \begin{equation} I_{\rm abs, blue}(x)=\int_{max(x,1)} ^{y_1} \, \frac{1 - e^{-\tau (y)}}{y-y_{\rm min}} \, \mathrm{d}y. \end{equation} Surfaces of constant {\it observed} velocity can be described by the equation: \begin{equation} v_{\rm obs}=v_0\left(\frac{r}{R_{SF}}\right)^{\gamma}\cos{\theta}. \end{equation} \noindent For the particular case of $\gamma=1$, this equation describes parallel planes at distance $r=R_{SF}\frac{v_{\rm obs}}{v_0}\cos{\theta}$ from the center of the emitting region (see Figure~\ref{fig:geometry}). \subsubsection{Single scattering approximation} Resonant photons absorbed in the envelope can be detected when re--emitted toward the observer. Assuming that a re-emitted photon escapes a given shell without further interactions, we can compute the emission component of the line profile as follows. If the photons are re--emitted isotropically, then they will uniformly cover the range of projected velocities between $\pm v$. To describe the profile of this emission component, we divide the range of observed velocities into blueward and redward of the systemic velocity. The blue side of the emission profile originates in the half of the envelope approaching the observer (i.e., $s\ge 0$). For a given observed velocity, the emission will come from all shells with $v>v_{\rm obs}$, and we can write: \begin{equation} I_{\rm em, blue}(x)=\int_{max(x,1)} ^{y_{\infty}} \, \frac{1 - e^{-\tau (y)}}{2y} \, \mathrm{d}y. \label{eqn:iemblue} \end{equation} The red side of the profile is produced in the unocculted, receding portion of the envelope. Because of the occultation, however, only shells with velocities larger than $v_{\rm min}$ (see Eq.~\ref{eqn:vmin}) will contribute to a given observed receding velocity: \begin{equation} I_{\rm em, red}(x)=\int_{y_1} ^{y_{\infty}} \, \frac{1 - e^{-\tau (y)}}{2y} \, \mathrm{d}y. \label{eqn:red} \end{equation} Finally, the resulting P-Cyg profile for the ideal spherical outflows can be computed as: \begin{equation} I(x)=1-I_{\rm abs, blue}+I_{\rm em, blue}+I_{\rm em, red}. \label{eqn:full} \end{equation} \begin{figure*}[t!] \centering \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{figure_4a.ps} \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{figure_4b.ps} \caption{Left: Effect of fluorescent channel on the resonant P-Cygni profile. The Si$^+$ doublet line profiles are shown with and without the inclusion of the fluorescent emission (dashed and solid line respectively) for the single-scattering approximation. The pure absorption component of the profile is also shown for reference (dotted line). Right: Si$^+$ doublet profiles computed with single scattering approximation (black) and multiple scatterings (red).} \label{fig:fluo} \end{figure*} \subsubsection{Fluorescent emission in single scattering approximation} Depending on the energy levels of the particular ionic species, the absorption of a resonant photon can result in the production of a fluorescent photon. This occurs when the electron decays into an excited ground level\footnote{In what follows, fluorescent transitions will be indicated with an $*$.}. As an example, figure~\ref{fig:levels} shows the energy level diagram of the $\lambda$~1190.42 and 1193.28\AA\ $\rm Si^+$ doublet. Resonant and fluorescent transitions are marked with dashed and dotted lines, respectively. We account for the fluorescent channel in the modeling of the line profile as follows. For a bound electron, the probability of decaying into the lower level $l$ is proportional to $p_{ul}=A_{ul}/\sum_i{A_{ui}}$, where $A_{ui}$ is the spontaneous decay probability from the upper level $u$ to the lower level $i$. Relevant $A_{ui}$ values are given in Table~\ref{tab:siII}. In the single scattering approximation, the resulting line profile accounting for the emission in the fluorescent channel becomes: \begin{equation} I(x)=1-I_{\rm abs, blue}+p_{R}\, (I_{\rm em, blue}+I_{\rm em, red}) +p _{F} \, (I_{\rm em, blue}+I_{\rm em, red}) , \label{eqn:fullfluo} \end{equation} \noindent where $p_{R}$ and $p_{F}$ are the probabilities that a photon is re--emitted in the resonant and the fluorescent channels, respectively. When only one fluorescent channel is available, as in the cases considered here, $p_R+p_F=1$. The left panel in Figure~\ref{fig:fluo} shows how the line profiles of the Si~{\small II}\ doublet generated in an outflowing envelope change when the fluorescent channels are taken into account. When a fraction of the photons are re--emitted in the fluorescent transition, the filling effect of the resonant absorption due to photons scattered in the wind is substantially reduced for the 1190\AA\ transition. It is only minimally reduced for the transition at 1193\AA\ due to contamination from the fluorescent re-emitted photons at 1194.5\AA\ (see Table~\ref{tab:siII}). Because of the re--emission in the fluorescent channel, the total equivalent width of the resonant P-Cygni profile (i.e., including both the absorption and emission components) is negative (net absorption). \subsubsection{Accounting for multiple scatterings} More realistically, a photon re-emitted with the resonant energy will likely interact with the ions in the shell where it was created, resulting in multiple scattering events of a single photon within a given shell. Multiple scatterings will not change the shape of the absorption profile ($I_{abs,blue}$), but will reduce the contribution of the re--emission in the resonant line, while enhancing the re--emission in the fluorescent channel (when this is available). The number of scatterings will clearly be a function of the ion density at any given point in the outflow. Thus, for our assumed density profile, this process will be more important in the internal regions of the outflow, where the density is highest. We account for multiple scatterings within a single shell, as follows. We define the photon's escape probability from a shell of optical depth $\tau(v)$ as \citep[e.g.,][]{Mathis1972}: \begin{equation} \beta=(1- e^{-\tau})/\tau, \end{equation} \noindent Thus, for a shell with velocity $v$, a photon has a probability $\beta$ of escaping the shell, and therefore --because of the underlying Sobolev approximation-- escaping the outflow. Of all photons absorbed at resonance by the moving shell, a fraction $p_F$ will be re-emitted in the fluorescent channel and escape. Of the fraction $p_R$ of the photons re-emitted at resonance, a faction $1-\beta$ will be absorbed again before they are able to escape the shell. Of these [$p_R\,(1-\beta)$], a fraction $p_F$ will be converted into fluorescent photons and escape [i.e., $p_F\,p_R\,(1-\beta)$]. Again, out of the resonantly re--emitted photons, a fraction $1-\beta$ will be re--absorbed within the shell, contribute to the fluorescent re--emission and escape the outflow. It can be easily shown that, {\it for each shell}, the fraction of absorbed photons converted into fluorescent photons is given by: \begin{equation} F_{F}(\tau)=p_{F}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} [p_R\,(1-\beta)]^n, \label{eqn:msf} \end{equation} \noindent while the fraction of absorbed photons that are able to escape will be: \begin{equation} F_{R}(\tau)=p_{R}\beta\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} [p_R\,(1-\beta)]^n. \label{eqn:msr} \end{equation} \noindent Because $p_R\,(1-\beta)<1$, the summation of the geometric series in Equations~\ref{eqn:msf} and \ref{eqn:msr} converges, and \begin{subequations} \begin{align} F_F &=p_F/[1-p_R\,(1-\beta)] \\ F_R &=\beta\,p_R /[1-p_R\,(1-\beta)]. \end{align} \end{subequations} Figure~\ref{fig:fluo_frac} shows the fraction of absorbed photons that escape in the fluorescent channel as a function of the shell optical depth for three representative values of $p_F$. Analogously to Eqns~\ref{eqn:iemblue} and \ref{eqn:red}, the blue and red resonant-emission components become: \begin{subequations} \begin{align} I_{\rm em, blue,MS}(x)&=\int_{max(x,1)} ^{y_{\infty}} \, F_{R}(y)\frac{1 - e^{-\tau (y)}}{2y} \, \mathrm{d}y\\ I_{\rm em, red,MS}(x)&=\int_{y_1} ^{y_{\infty}} \, F_{R}(y)\frac{1 - e^{-\tau (y)}}{2y} \, \mathrm{d}y, \label{eqn:redMS} \end{align} \end{subequations} \begin{figure}[t!] \centering \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{figure_5.ps} \caption{The fraction of absorbed resonant photons re-emitted in the fluorescent channel after multiple scatterings depends on the gas column density as well as on the transition probability. We show the calculations for three transitions of Si$^+$, as indicated in the label.} \label{fig:fluo_frac} \end{figure} \noindent while the blue and red fluorescent components can be written as: \begin{subequations} \begin{align} I_{\rm em, blue,MS,F}(x)&=\int_{max(x,1)} ^{y_{\infty}} \, F_{F}(y)\frac{1 - e^{-\tau (y)}}{2y} \, \mathrm{d}y\\ I_{\rm em, red,MS,F}(x)&=\int_{y_1} ^{y_{\infty}} \, F_{F}(y)\frac{1 - e^{-\tau (y)}}{2y} \, \mathrm{d}y. \label{eqn:fullMS} \end{align} \end{subequations} In the right panel of Figure~\ref{fig:fluo} we show the effect of accounting for multiple scatterings on the line profiles of the SiII doublet. As expected, the re-scattered emission component at resonance is reduced significantly compared to the single-scattering approximation resulting in an increased intensity of the fluorescent lines. We note that this effect enhances the contamination of the SiII~1193\AA\ absorption component from re--emitted fluorescent photons from the SiII~1190\AA\ transmission. This enhancement is particularly prevalent in low resolution spectra. \begin{figure}[t!] \centering \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{figure_6.ps} \caption{The P-Cygni line profile changes as function of size of spectroscopic aperture, from a pure absorption profile ($R_{\rm aper}=R_{\rm SF}$), to a classic P-Cyg profile ($R_{\rm aper}=R_{\rm W}$). The profiles where computed assuming a spherical expanding envelope, $\gamma=1$, $\tau=60$, $v_0=25$ km s$^{-1}$\ and $v_{\infty}=450$ km s$^{-1}$\ (we consider here a line with no fluorescent transition, such as, e.g., SiIII $\lambda=1260$).} \label{fig:slit} \end{figure} \subsection{Spherical envelope observed with a circular finite aperture} \label{sec:aperture} If the spectroscopic observations are made using an aperture that does not include the full extent of the scattering envelope, then the observed line profile can change dramatically. To illustrate the consequences, we consider here the case of a spherical envelope observed with a circular aperture larger than the central source but smaller than the entire envelope, i.e., with $R_{\rm aper}\ge R_{SF}$ and $R_{\rm aper} \le R_{W}$. We also restrict our analysis to $\gamma =1$. Clearly, the blueshifted absorption component of the profile will remain unchanged due to the presence of the aperture. The blue and red scattered emission, however, will change. In fact, for a shell of intrinsic velocity $v$, the aperture will block those photons scattered at velocities smaller than $v_{\rm aper}=v\,cos(\theta_{\rm aper})$, where $\theta_{\rm aper}$ is such that $sin(\theta_{\rm aper})= R_{\rm aper}/r_v$. Clearly, see Figure~\ref{fig:geometry}, each shell will correspond to a different $\theta_{\rm aper}$. In Figure~\ref{fig:geometry} we show the edge-on view of a plane of constant $v_{\rm obs}$ ({\it dotted line}). As we saw earlier, only layers with $v \ge v_{\rm obs}$ will contribute to the emission at $v_{\rm obs}$. Figure~\ref{fig:geometry} shows that the effect of adding a circular aperture is to remove the contribution at $v_{\rm obs}$ from all shells with $v>v_{\rm up}$, where: \begin{equation} v_{\rm up}=\frac{v_{\rm obs}}{cos\theta_{\rm aper}}. \end{equation} In terms of $v_0$, and after a little algebra, we get: \begin{equation} y_{\rm up}^2=x^2+\left(\frac{R_{\rm aper}}{R_{SF}}\right)^2. \end{equation} Thus, $I_{em, blue}^{aper}(x)$ (see Eq.~\ref{eqn:iemblue}) can be written here as: \begin{equation} I_{\rm em, blue}(x)^{aper}=\int_{max(x,1)} ^{y_{\rm up}} \, \frac{1 - e^{-\tau (y)}}{2y} \, \mathrm{d}y; \end{equation} Analogously, $I_{em, red}^{aper}(x)$ will be: \begin{equation} I_{\rm em, red}(x)^{aper}=\int_{y_1} ^{y_{\rm up}} \, \frac{1 - e^{-\tau (y)}}{2y} \, \mathrm{d}y; \end{equation} In Figure~\ref{fig:slit} we show how the P-Cygni profile changes with the ratio $R_{\rm aper}/R_{SF}$. In the extreme case of $R_{\rm aper}/R_{SF}=1$ (dotted line), i.e., when the aperture is only as large as the source of continuum, the line is observed only in absorption, and blueshifted relative to the systemic velocity of the galaxy. A component of scattered re--emitted photons coming from the absorbing material is contributing to the blue side of the line, but no re--emitted photons are detected on the red side, because of both the effect of the aperture, and the -often neglected- occultation by the galaxy. As the ratio $R_{\rm aper}/R_{SF}$ increases, fewer photons scattered toward the observer are blocked by the aperture. As a result, the emission component of the profile (centered at the systemic velocity) becomes more and more pronounced. The shape of the absorption profile also changes because of the increasing contribution of photons scattered by material moving toward the observer. It is also evident from Figure~\ref{fig:slit} that the velocity at maximum absorption shifts toward higher blueshifted velocities as the the contribution from scattered emission increases (i.e., as $R_{\rm aper}/R_{SF}$ increases). \section{Application to real spectra} \label{sec:comparison_observations} As an example of its flexibility, we apply the SALT model to resonant line profiles observed in a stacked spectrum of Ly$\alpha$\ emitting galaxies. We first summarize the data and the measurements (Section~\ref{sec:data}) and then discuss the properties of that outflow that can be inferred from the absorption line analysis performed with the SALT model. \subsection{Data and measurements} \label{sec:data} The average spectrum modeled in this section was created by stacking Cosmic Origin Spectrograph \citep[COS][]{COS} medium-resolution spectra of a sample of 25 known $z\sim0.3$ Ly$\alpha$\ emitters \citep{deharveng2008, cowie2010}. The details of the data reduction and spectral extraction are presented in Scarlata et al. (2014). For each galaxy, we have accurate redshift measurements obtained from the H$\alpha$\ emission line profiles \citep{cowie2011}. To create the stacked spectrum, we first blueshift the observed spectra of individual galaxies into the rest-frame using the measured H$\alpha$\ velocities. Then, at each wavelength we compute a flux-weighted average and a standard deviation. The mean stacked UV spectrum (shown after a box-car smoothing of 0.85\AA) is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:stack}, where the shaded gray area corresponds to $\pm$ one weighted standard deviation. In Figure~\ref{fig:stack}, the top panel shows the number of galaxies that entered the stack at each wavelength. In the stacked spectrum we are able to clearly identify and reliably measure the features presented in Tables~\ref{tab:abs} and~\ref{tab:emi} and marked in Figure~\ref{fig:stack}. The list includes five absorption lines and four fluorescent emission lines. The list also includes the C~{\sc iii}$\,\lambda 1175$ absorption line, which is mainly produced in the stellar photospheres. If we assume that lines are pure absorption and pure emission we could measure the bulk velocity of the gas from the peak velocity of the lines. We derive the peak positions by fitting Gaussian line profiles to the observed absorption/emission lines. When two lines of a given multiplet/ion are blended, we fit them simultaneously constraining the width of the Gaussian function to be the same for both lines. In Figure~\ref{fig:gaussian} we zoom--in on the spectral regions around different transitions in the Si$^+$ and Si$^{++}$ ions and plot the resulting best-fit Gaussian models. The errors on the peak wavelength were computed with a Monte Carlo simulation. We created 1000 realizations of the stacked spectrum by changing the flux at each wavelength within $\pm 1\,\sigma$. The new profiles were fitted with a Gaussian, and the error on the peak wavelength was computed as the standard deviation of the 1000 best--fit peak wavelengths. In Tables~\ref{tab:abs} and \ref{tab:emi} we report the vacuum wavelength of the considered transitions, the observed peak wavelength of the profiles, as well as the velocity shift between the galaxy's rest frame velocity (computed from the H$\alpha$) and the peak velocity of the profiles. The stellar C~{\small III}\ velocity is consistent with the systemic velocity computed from the H$\alpha$\ emission line profiles. Note that the peak/trough velocities obtained from the Gaussian fits offer an easy mathematical representation of the data but do not add immediate physical meaning. The velocity profiles shown in Figure~\ref{fig:gaussian} are typical of star forming galaxies at both high and low redshifts \citep[e.g.][]{shapley2003,steidel2011,jones2012,heckman2011,wofford2013}, where they are usually interpreted as originating in a gas outflow probably driven by the current episode of star-formation. \begin{figure*}[h] \centering \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{figure_7.ps} \caption{Composite rest-frame UV spectrum of 25 $z\sim 0.3$ Ly$\alpha$-emitting galaxies. Multiple absorption features are identified with vertical lines. Solid lines indicate stellar photospheric absorptions, dotted and dashed lines indicates resonant absorption originating in the galaxy's ISM, with dotted and dashed showing low-- and high-- ionization metal lines, respectively. The top panel shows the number of galaxies used to compute the average spectrum at each wavelength.} \label{fig:stack} \end{figure*} The results of the Gaussian fits presented in Figure~\ref{fig:gaussian} would indicate that the gas is moving toward the observers with velocities --as measured at the maximum absorption/emission-- ranging between $-160$ and $-220$km s$^{-1}$. The average velocity computed in this way from all absorption lines is $-185 \pm 25$ km s$^{-1}$. The profiles in Figure~\ref{fig:gaussian} also show absorption at velocities as high as $-500$km s$^{-1}$, indicating the presence of multiple velocity components and/or a velocity gradient in the outflowing gas. All detected fluorescent emission lines are blueshifted with respect to the systemic H$\alpha$\ velocity with peak velocities ranging between $-88$ and $-137$km s$^{-1}$. With an average outflow velocity of $-100\pm 22$km s$^{-1}$, the fluorescent emission components appear to have a systematically-lower velocity shift than the resonant absorption lines. Resonant photons can be either re--emitted at resonance, or in the fluorescent channel, when available. Thus, the two lines originate in the same gas and will share the same kinematical properties. Naively, the measured systematic difference in the bulk velocities of the absorption and fluorescent emission lines could then be interpreted as an indication that these lines formed in two kinematically--distinct components. In the following section, we use SALT to consistently model the scattering from the outflowing gas, and show how the systematic velocity difference can be the result of a non-symmetric outflow. \begin{figure*}[t!] \centering \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{figure_8a.ps} \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{figure_8b.ps} \caption{Zoom in on the spectral regions around the absorption and emission line features considered in this work. In each panel, the dashed vertical lines show the vacuum wavelength of each transition (as indicated by each label). The orange line shows the sum of the best-fit Gaussian profiles, while the dot-dashed line shows the continuum level. } \label{fig:gaussian} \end{figure*} \subsection{Modeling the line profiles} \label{sec:data_modeling} Here we use SALT to model the observed absorption/emission profiles observed in the stacked spectrum. The free parameters for the models are $\tau_0$, $v_0$, and $v_{\infty}$ for the spherical outflow, and $\tau_0$, $v_0$, $v_{\infty}$ and $R_{\rm aper}$, for the spherical outflow plus aperture. These parameters fully describe the density and velocity field of the galactic outflow, and do not depend on the particular transition within a given ionic species. We therefore constrain the model's free parameters by simultaneously fitting the four radiative transitions of Si$^+$, observed around $\lambda=1190$\AA. We chose this spectral region because it shows the highest $S/N$ of the stacked spectrum, and because of the presence of both two resonant absorption and the corresponding fluorescent emission lines. To model the observed line profiles we use equation~\ref{eqn:fullMS}, which accounts multiple scattering within each shell as explained in section~\ref{sec:model}. We derive the best-fit parameters for the symmetric outflow model with and without a view-limiting aperture, by performing a $\chi^2$ minimization on the entire doublet profile, including both absorption and emission lines. The models were computed on the same velocity vector as the data, and then box-car smoothed with the same kernel, before proceeding to the computation and minimization of the $\chi^2$. The best--fit line profiles for the SiII doublet are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:model_fits}, and the parameter values are given in Table~\ref{tab:model_fits}. The blue and red curves show the best fit for the spherical outflow with and without the spectroscopic aperture, respectively. The simplest spherical models (with or without aperture) well reproduce the depth, shape and central velocities of the blueshifted absorption components of the resonant doublet. This indicates that our simple assumptions for the density and velocity fields of the scattering material are adequate representation of the $\rm Si^+$ distribution. On the other hand, the spherical model with no limiting aperture fails to reproduce the observed profiles in two key aspects: 1) it substantially overproduces the amount of scattered emission, and 2), due to the symmetry in the considered configuration, it predicts that the emission component of the P-Cygni profile should be centered at the systemic velocity, while the observations shows that the peaks of the fluorescent emission are clearly blueshifted. As we discussed in Section~\ref{sec:aperture}, the effect of a spectroscopic aperture is to selectively decrease the number of scattered photons that are able to reach the observer. As Figure~\ref{fig:model_fits} shows (blue curve), adding an aperture alleviates the first of the two discrepancies. However, because of the intrinsic symmetry of the outflow model, the scattered re--emission is still centered at zero velocity, and therefore the model still fails in fully reproducing the observed features. A blueshift in the scattered emission component originating in outflowing material can be obtained if the outflow is not spherically symmetric with respect to the central source. A simple way to implement this, is by differentially weighting the contribution to the final profile from different portions of the envelope. Thus, we introduce a scaling factor -- $f_{\rm obsc}$ -- to the red component of the scattered profile (Eqn~\ref{eqn:red}); i.e., the radiation scattered in the half sphere moving away from the observer). Physically, the parameter $f_{\rm obsc}$ can be used to mimic a face-on galaxy, where the disk is absorbing part of the radiation emitted by the outflowing material (see Section~\ref{sec:discussion}). The profile can now be written as: \begin{equation} I(x)^{asy}=1-I_{\rm abs} + I_{\rm emi, blue} + f_{\rm obsc} \times I_{\rm emi, red}. \end{equation} \noindent $f_{\rm obsc}$, represents the fraction of $I_{\rm emi, red}$ that is allowed to reach the observer. We refer to the above profile as the ``asymmetric model'', to indicate that the receding half of the expanding envelope is seen less easily than the approaching front part. The best fit asymmetric outflow model is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:model_fits} with the yellow line. This model is clearly able to \textit{simultaneously reproduce the relative intensity of the fluorescent emission and resonant absorption lines, as well as their systematically different peak positions}. We can test our results using a different resonant transition in Si$+$. The resonant line at $\lambda=1260.42$ is ideal for this purpose. As Figure~\ref{fig:gaussian} shows, we detect both the resonant absorption and the corresponding fluorescent emission. This absorption originates in the same material where the Si~{\sc ii}$\lambda 1190$ doublet is produced and is thus perfect to test the parameters of the outflow model (i.e., the density, velocity field, and geometry). In Figure~\ref{fig:siii1260} we show the observed Si~{\sc ii}$\lambda 1260$ profile, together with the model profile computed using the best-fit outflow parameters derived from our analysis of the 1190--1193\AA\ doublet (i.e., changing only the transition dependent parameters in the profile equations). Figure~\ref{fig:siii1260} shows that the model optimized to fit the Si~{\small II}\ doublet fully reproduces the observed Si~{\sc ii}$\lambda 1260$ profile as well. In particular, it reproduces both the blueshifted absorption component as well as the intensity and peak wavelength of the fluorescent emission. We stress again that the parameters of the outflow are kept fixed to the best-fit values given in Table~\ref{tab:model_fits}. \begin{figure}[t!] \centering \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{figure_9.ps} \caption{The absorption and re--emission profiles of the Si~{\sc ii} doublet are well reproduced with an asymmetric model and accounting for the effect of the finite COS aperture size. Best fit model profiles to the Si~{\sc ii}~1190--1193\AA\ doublet are shown for different outflow geometries, as indicated in the label. All models shown in this Figure include multiple scattering within each shell.} \label{fig:model_fits} \end{figure} \section{Discussion} \label{sec:discussion} Near and far--UV spectra include numerous resonant metal absorption lines that, combined with the appropriate theoretical tools, provide powerful diagnostics for galactic outflows. High--quality rest--frame UV spectra are currently available for nearby individual galaxies (e.g., with data from the Hubble Space Telescope), and stacked spectra of high--redshift galaxies (with data from 8m class telescopes). Soon, with the planned 30m telescopes, we will be able to study at high resolution absorption line spectra in individual objects up to the highest redshifts. Resonant blue--shifted UV absorption features are commonly modeled as originating in a thin shell of gas moving at the outflow velocity \citep[as measured from the centroids of resonant absorption lines, e.g.,][]{verhamme2006,schaerer2008,verhamme2008,schaerer2011}. Substantial evidence, however, suggests that this description is too simplistic, as noted already by, e.g., \citet{pettini2002}. First of all, when the absorption lines are observed at high enough spectral resolution, they show asymmetric profiles covering a broad range of velocities \citep[up to as much as -1000 km s$^{-1}$, ][]{tremonti2007,diamondstanic2012,sell2014}. This indicates that the gas is not confined to a thin shell, but rather is distributed in an extended envelope, with velocity and density changing with the distance from the galaxy. More realistic models of extended outflows, with velocity and density gradients have been proposed \citep[e.g.,][]{prochaska2011,rubin2011,martin2013}, and highlight the importance of properly accounting for the geometry of the outflowing material. Second, well defined P--Cigny profiles from resonant transitions of MgII, as well as the detection of fluorescent emission associated with resonant transitions of Si~{\small II}, and FeII, are commonly observed \citep[][]{shapley2003,france2010,rubin2011}, indicating that the re--emission component from the outflowing gas cannot be neglected, particularly in compact galaxies or galaxies at high--z, where the spectroscopic aperture may include a substantial fraction of the extended scattering outflow. Neglecting possible contribution from re--emitted photons may have important consequences for the determination of the gas column density and/or covering fraction, as recently noted by, e.g., \citet{prochaska2011}. The SALT model discussed in this paper provides a simple analytical description of the line profiles originating in the expanding envelopes around galaxies, that properly account for multiple scattering of resonant photons, scattered re-emission, and observational aperture effects. \subsection{On the use of the absorption profiles as indication of covering fraction} In the approximation of pure absorption and with well resolved line profiles, the gas apparent optical depth at a given velocity $\tau(v)$ is often used to derive the apparent column density profile \citep[$-ln(I(v)/I_0(v))=\tau(v) \propto f\lambda N(v)$, e.g.][]{pettini2002}. However, it is well known that the apparent column density obtained from line profiles can be underestimated if undetected saturated components contribute at some velocities. When two or more transitions of a given species differing only in the product of $f \lambda$ are available, then information about line saturation can be inferred from the comparison of the apparent optical depth profiles (that should be identical within the observational errors). If saturation is present, the line with the highest oscillator strength will result in a lower apparent column density. The previous reasoning is correct only if the absorbing gas fully covers the continuum source. If this is not the case, the line profile will also depend on the gas covering fraction ($f_C$), {\it as well as} the optical depth (i.e., $I/I_0=1-f_C (1-e^{- \tau } )$). Various works have used absorption-line profiles to determine the gas $f_C$, under the assumption that absorption lines are saturated \citep[i.e., $e^{-\tau} \rightarrow 0$ in $I/I_0$, e.g.][]{jones2013,martin2009}. When the scattering envelope is included in the spectroscopic aperture, however, this approach cannot be used: the resonant scattered re--emission affects substantially the residual intensity at line center, in different ways depending on the atomic level structure and the spontaneous transition probabilities.. We show this point in Figure~\ref{fig:discussion}, where we present the resonant absorption profiles originating in an outflowing envelope with $f_c=1$, for three transitions of Si$^+$. The top panel shows the absorption component only of the profile: when only absorption is considered, the three profiles scales as expected, according to the value of $f\lambda$ for each transition. This is not true anymore when the resonant scattered and fluorescent re-emission are included (middle panel): close to the maximum absorption, in fact, the transmission with the lowest value of $f\lambda$ is in fact the deepest! This is simply due to the relative value of the branching ratios for the resonant and fluorescent channels for these particular transitions. At the largest velocities, where the filling from scattered radiation is less important and the optical depth is smaller, the absorption profiles are again proportional to $f\lambda$. In the bottom panel of Figure~\ref{fig:discussion} we simulate the line profiles as they would be observed with COS, assuming a spectral resolution of 30km s$^{-1}$, and a noise of 10\%. Because of the resolution and S/N ratio, the three lines are identical close to the core, and barely distinguishable at the largest velocities. We note, however, that we did not account for uncertainties in the normalization of the spectra, which may affect the profiles, particularly at the largest velocities. The simulated lines also show that from the resonant profiles alone it is hard to identify the presence of scattered re--emission: because at least 50\% of the photons are re--emitted in the fluorescent line, for all the transitions considered. However, \textit{the presence of the fluorescent emission is a clear sign--post that the absorption profiles will be affected by emission filling}. Because the strength of the filling depends on the branching ratio for the fluorescent transitions, it is not correct to average together profiles of different lines of the same ion. Moreover, the effect of the filling of the absorption lines will also depend on the {\it geometry of the outflow} (see Section~\ref{sec:data_modeling}) as well as the {\it the relative size of the scattering outflow region and the spectroscopic aperture.}. As an example of what can be achieved by modeling absorption profiles with SALT, we have modeled the UV stacked spectrum of 25 Ly$\alpha$\ emitters in the nearby Universe. The spectrum shows a number of resonant absorption and fluorescent emission lines generating in the $\rm Si^+$ in the galaxy's gaseous medium. The profiles of the resonant absorption lines are systematically blueshifted with respect to the systemic velocity, with an average gas velocity at maximum absorption of $-185 \pm 25$ km s$^{-1}$. The peak velocity of the fluorescent emission lines, however, is systematically lower than the outflow velocity obtained from the absorption profiles ($-100\pm 22$ km s$^{-1}$). We showed with SALT how simple symmetric models fail to reproduce this velocity difference, and asymmetry in the gas distribution needs to be present. Our best fit model with $f_{obsc}=0.1$ describes a geometry in which the half a sphere receding from the observer contributes only $10$\% to the fluorescent emission, which is then dominated by the emission from the half a sphere approaching the observer. Physically, this simple model can be used to describe the outflow from a disk galaxy seen approximately face--on, where the radiation scattered from the half--sphere receding from the observer has to go through the opaque disk, that will have an optical depth $\tau = -ln(1-f_{\rm obsc})=2.3$. The sample of galaxies that entered the stacked analysis is not randomly selected among starforming objects, but rather it comprises only galaxies showing Ly$\alpha$\ in emission. The conditions that allow more Ly$\alpha$\ radiation to escape from a galaxy are still highly debated, with some authors suggesting that age is a dominant factor \citep[e.g.,][]{cowie2011}, while others advocating for dust extinction \citep[e.g.][]{hayes2013,atek2014}. Our result seems to indicate that, on average, Ly$\alpha$-emitters are able to escape more easily in the direction perpendicular to the galaxy disk, than along the disk, suggesting that the viewing angle is also an important factor in determining the Ly$\alpha$\ escape/visibility. This result is not unexpected, since the direction perpendicular to the galactic disk is also the one that offers the minimum column density of diffuse material, and, thus, of neutral gas \citep[e.g., see ][for results of radiative transfer simulations of Ly$\alpha$\ photons in a realistic spiral galaxy]{verhamme2012}. In support of our findings, a recent structural analysis of hundreds of Ly$\alpha$\ emitters at $z\sim 2.2$ showed that Ly$\alpha$\ emitters tend to have smaller ellipticity than galaxies at similar redshift with no Ly$\alpha$\ emission, reinforcing the idea that Ly$\alpha$\ photons escape more easily in the direction of minimum optical depth, i.e., minimum hydrogen column density \citep{shibuya2014}. \begin{figure}[h] \centering \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{figure_10.ps} \caption{ Si~{\sc ii}$\lambda 1260$ absorption line profile and corresponding fluorescent emission, together with the models computed using the best-fit outflow parameters derived from the Si~{\small II}~1190--1193\AA\ doublet.} \label{fig:siii1260} \end{figure} \begin{figure}[h] \centering \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{figure_11.ps} \caption{Neglecting emission filling of the absorption profiles can cause erroneous conclusions regarding the gas covering fraction. Top: absorption-only components of three resonant transitions of Si$+$, as indicated in the legend. The model correspond to a spherical envelope with $v_0=35$km/s, $v_{\infty}=450$km/s, and $\tau_{1190\AA}=30$. When only the absorption components are considered, the profiles scale according to the value of $f\lambda$. Middle: full line profiles including the scattered re--emission component. Particularly at velocities close to zero, the profiles do not scale as $f\lambda$ anymore. Bottom: simulated spectrum with 10\% errors, and resolution of 30km/s.} \label{fig:discussion} \end{figure} \section{Conclusions} In this work we have presented and discussed a simple Semi--Analytical Line Transfer model, SALT, to describe the expected absorption and re--emission line profile generated in a spherical outflow surrounding a galaxy with a finite size ($R_{SF}$), under the Sobolev approximation. We derive the analytical profiles computed for the velocity field with the velocity increasing with distance from the galaxy ($v\propto r^{\gamma}$), and the densitity radial profile obtained assuming a constant mass outflow rate ($n_l(r)\propto (vr^2)^{-1}$). We include the effect of multiple scatterings properly accounting for the atomic structure of the scattering ions. We also discuss how the line profile changes due to the effect of a circular spectroscopic aperture that does not cover the full extent of the outflow (Section~\ref{sec:comparison_observations}), and the case in which part of the outflow is obscured. Our analysis reproduces the main features observed in the profiles generated with more complex radiative transfer codes applied to gaseous outflows with the same geometry \citep{prochaska2011}. Namely, we show how -for a spherically symmetric outflow- the scattered re--emission is centered at zero velocity and thus alters the shape of the pure absorption component generated in the material in front of the emitting galaxy. Outflow velocities computed from the wavelength of the absorption line trough do not include this effect. Such an analysis results in an overestimate of the outflow velocity. The intensity of the emission component of the line profile depends not only on the spectroscopic aperture used for the observations, but also on the atomic structure of the particular ion used in the analysis and the spontaneous transition probabilities. In the case of the Si$^+$1190--1193\AA\ doublet, a photon absorbed in the 1190\AA\ transition has a higher chance of being re--emitted in the fluorescent transition to the 2$P^0 3/2$ level, thus somewhat limiting the ``filling'' effect on the absorption component. We have considered the resonance absorption and fluorescent emission profiles observed in the average UV spectrum of 25 $z\sim 0.3$ Ly$\alpha$\ emitters. With a simplistic Gaussian profile fit one would find that the average velocities computed from the trough ($-185 \pm 25$ km s$^{−1}$) and the peak wavelengths ($-100 \pm 22$ km s$^{−1}$) of the profiles systematically differ, with the absorption-derived velocity being more negative than the emission-derived velocity. Regardless of the size of the spectroscopic aperture, a symmetric outflow of an arbitrary shape produces a profile with the emission component centered at the systemic velocity of the galaxy, and so cannot explain the systematic difference between the emission and absorption velocities. On the other hand, we used SALT to show that this shifts comes naturally if most of the radiation scattered by the receding half of the outflow is obscured from view. This model can be interpreted as a simple representation of a disk galaxy observed face--on, where the thick disk acts as a semi--transparent screen for the backscattered radiation. This result thus indicates that, on average, galaxies tend to show Ly$\alpha$\ in emission more frequently when observed face--on. This idea is supported both by recent observations of high--redshift Ly$\alpha$--emitting galaxies \citep{shibuya2014}, as well as high--resolution radiative transfer simulation of Ly$\alpha$\ photons in disk galaxies \citep{verhamme2012}. To conclude, by simultaneously reproducing both the resonant absorption and the associated resonant and fluorescent emission, the line profiles computed with our SALT model are more far-reaching than a simple absorption--line based analysis. This is especially true when the data show evidence (e.g., the presence of a P-Cygni profile and/or fluorescent emission lines) of scattered re--emission from the galaxy wind. The formalism developed here can be easily extended to other geometries, to account for clumpiness of the outflowing gas (Card et al., in prep), and to different ions/transitions. \acknowledgments We wish to thank our referee for valuable comments that helped us to improve the presentation of our work. CS acknowledges Alaina Henry, Crystal Martin, Dawn Erb, Marc Dijkstra for stimulating discussions. CS acknowledges partial support by HST-GO-12269.01 grant. NP acknowledges partial support by STScI--DDRF grant D0001.82435. CS acknowledges M. Bagley for a careful reading of the manuscript (and pointing out the randomness in the use of commas). \begin{deluxetable*}{cccccccc} \tablecaption{Atomic data for Si~{\small II}\ and Si~{\small III}\ ions. Data taken from the NIST Atomic Spectra Database\footnote{http://www.nist.gov/pml/data/asd.cfm}.\label{tab:siII}} \tablehead{ \colhead{Ion} &\colhead{Vac. Wavelength} & \colhead{$A_{ul}$} & \colhead{$f_{lu}$} &\colhead{$E_{l}-E_{u}$}&\colhead{$g_l-g_u$} & \colhead{Lower level} & \colhead{Upper level}\\ \colhead{} &\colhead{\AA} & \colhead{s$^{-1}$} &\colhead{}&\colhead{eV}&\colhead{}&\colhead{Conf.,Term, J}&\colhead{Conf.,Term, J}} \startdata Si~{\small II}\ &1190.42&6.53$\times10^8$& 2.77$\times 10^{-1}$ &$0.0 - 10.41520$&$2-4$& $3s^23p \, 2P^0 \, 1/2$ & $3s3p^2 \, 2P \, 3/2$\\ &1193.28&2.69$\times10^9$& 5.75$\times 10^{-1}$ &$0.0 - 10.39012$&$2-2$& $3s^23p \, 2P^0 \, 1/2$ & $3s3p^2 \, 2P \, 1/2$\\ &1194.50&3.45$\times10^9$& 7.37$\times 10^{-1}$ &$0.035613 - 10.41520$&$4-4$& $3s^23p \, 2P^0 \, 3/2$ & $3s3p^2 \, 2P \, 3/2$\\ &1197.39&1.40$\times10^9$& 1.50$\times 10^{-1}$ &$0.035613 - 10.39012$&$4-2$& $3s^23p \, 2P^0 \, 3/2$ & $3s3p^2 \, 2P \, 1/2$\\ &1260.42 & 2.57$\times 10^9$ & 1.22 & $ 0.0 - 9.836720 $ & $ 2-4$ & $3s^23p \, 2P^0 \, 1/2 $& $3s^23d \, 2D \, 3/2 $\\ &1264.73 & 3.04$\times 10^9$ & 1.09 & $0.035613 - 9.838768$ & $4-6$ & $3s^23p \, 2P^0\, 3/2$& $ 3s^23d \, 2D\, 5/2$\\ \enddata \end{deluxetable*} \begin{deluxetable}{llccc} \tablecaption{Absorption lines measured in the stacked spectrum.\label{tab:abs}} \tablehead{ \colhead{Species} & Formation & \colhead{$\lambda_\mathrm{vac}$} & \colhead{$\lambda_{\mathrm{obs}}$} & \colhead{$\Delta v$ \tablenotemark{a} } \\ \colhead{} & & \colhead{\AA} & \colhead{\AA} } \startdata Si~{\sc ii} & ISM & 1190.42 & 1189.83 $\pm 0.09$& --160 $\pm$ 25\\ Si~{\sc ii} & ISM & 1193.29 & 1192.60 $\pm 0.09$ & --174 $\pm$ 24\\ Si~{\sc ii} & ISM & 1260.42 & 1259.56$\pm 0.08$ & --218 $\pm 21$\\ C~{\sc ii} & ISM & 1334.53 & 1333.81 $\pm 0.10$ & --164$\pm$ 24\\ Si~{\sc iii} & ISM & 1206.50 & 1205.75 $\pm 0.08$ & --188$\pm 20$ \\ C~{\sc iii} & Photo & 1175.53 & 1175.42$\pm0.1$ & --28 $\pm$25 \enddata \tablenotetext{a}{Velocity shift of the absorption trough with respect to the H$\alpha$\ emission line systemic velocity. } \end{deluxetable} \begin{deluxetable}{llccc} \tablecaption{Fluorescent emission lines measured in the stacked spectrum.\label{tab:emi}} \tablehead{ \colhead{Species} & Formation & \colhead{$\lambda_\mathrm{vac}$} & \colhead{$\lambda_{\mathrm{obs}}$} & \colhead{$\Delta v$ \tablenotemark{a} } \\ \colhead{} & & \colhead{\AA} & \colhead{\AA} } \startdata Si~{\sc ii}$^*$ & ISM & 1194.50 & 1194.10 & --100.2 \\ Si~{\sc ii}$^*$ & ISM & 1197.39 & 1197.04 & --88.2\\ Si~{\sc ii}$^*$ & ISM & 1265.00 & 1264.42 & --137.5\\ C~{\sc ii}$^*$ & ISM & 1335.71 & 1334.53 & --55.7 \enddata \tablenotetext{a}{Velocity shift of the absorption trough with respect to the H$\alpha$\ emission line systemic velocity. } \end{deluxetable} \begin{deluxetable*}{lccccc} \tablecaption{Best fit values for the Si~{\small II}\, $lambda 1190-1193$ doublet.\label{tab:model_fits}} \tablehead{ \colhead{Model} &\colhead{$v_0$} & \colhead{$v_{\infty}$} & \colhead{$\tau_0$} & \colhead{$\frac{R_{\rm aper}}{R_{\rm SF}}$}&\colhead{$f_{\rm obsc}$}\\ \colhead{}&\colhead{[km s$^{-1}$]} & \colhead{[km s$^{-1}$]} & \colhead{} & \colhead{}&\colhead{} } \startdata Spherical model full view & 38&425&160&\dots&\dots\\ Spherical model -- limited view& 40&426&120&2&\dots\\ Asymmetric model -- limited view & 55&425&45&3&0.1 \enddata \end{deluxetable*} \bibliographystyle{apj}
\section{Introduction} We want to study in this paper the following general situation: \begin{setup}\label{set:restricted} Let $G$ be a (discrete) group together with a descending chain of subgroups \begin{eqnarray} & G = G_0 \supseteq G_1 \supseteq G_2 \supseteq \cdots & \label{normal_chain} \end{eqnarray} such that $G_i$ is normal in $G$, the index $[G:G_i]$ is finite and $\bigcap_{i \ge 0} G_i = \{1\}$. Let $p \colon \overline{X} \to X$ be a $G$-covering. Put $X[i] := G_i\backslash \overline{X}$. \end{setup} We obtain a $[G:G_i]$-sheeted covering $p[i] \colon X[i] \to X$. Its total space $X[i]$ inherits the structure of a finite $CW$-complex, a closed manifold or a closed Riemannian manifold respectively if $X$ has the structure of a finite $CW$-complex, a closed manifold or a closed Riemannian manifold respectively. Let $\alpha$ be a classical topological invariant such as the Euler characteristic, the signature, the $n$th Betti number with coefficients in the field ${\mathbb Q}$ or ${\mathbb F}_p$, torsion in the sense of Reidemeister or Ray-Singer, the minimal number of generators of the fundamental group, the minimal number of generators of the $n$th homology group with integral coefficients, or the logarithm of the cardinality of the torsion subgroup of the $n$th homology group with integral coefficients. We want to study the sequence \begin{eqnarray*} \left(\frac{\alpha(X[i])}{[G:G_i]}\right)_{i \ge 0}. \label{alpha(X[i])/[G:G_i]} \end{eqnarray*} \begin{problem}[Approximation Problem]\ \label{pro:approximation_problem} \begin{enumerate} \item Does the sequence converge? \item If yes, is the limit independent of the chain? \item If yes, what is the limit? \end{enumerate} \end{problem} The hope is that the answer to the first two questions is yes and the limit turns out to be an $L^2$-analogue $\alpha^{(2)}$ of $\alpha$ applied to the $G$-space $\overline{X}$, i.e., one can prove an equality of the type \begin{eqnarray} \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{\alpha(X[i])}{[G:G_i]} = \alpha^{(2)}(\overline{X};{\mathcal N}(G)). \label{expected_formula} \end{eqnarray} Here ${\mathcal N}(G)$ stands for the group von Neumann algebra and is a reminiscence of the fact that the $G$-action on $\overline{X}$ plays a role. Equation~\eqref{expected_formula} is often used to compute the $L^2$-invariant $\alpha^{(2)}(\overline{X};{\mathcal N}(G))$ by its finite-dimensional analogues $\alpha(X[i])$. On the other hand, it implies the existence of finite coverings with large $\alpha(X[i])$, if $\alpha^{(2)}(\overline{X};{\mathcal N}(G))$ is known to be positive. For some important invariants $\alpha$ one can prove~\eqref{expected_formula}, for instance for $\alpha$ the Euler characteristic, the signature or the $n$-th Betti number with rational coefficients. In other very interesting cases Problem~\ref{pro:approximation_problem} and the equality~\eqref{expected_formula} are open, and hence there is the intriguing and hard challenge to find a proof. Here we are thinking of $\alpha$ as one of the following invariants: \begin{itemize} \item the $n$-th Betti number $b_n(X[i];{\mathbb F}_p)$ of $X[i]$ with coefficients in the field ${\mathbb F}_p$ for a prime $p$; \item the minimal number of generators $d(G_i)$ or the deficiency ${\rm def}(G_i)$ of $G_i = \pi_1(X[i])$, if $\overline{X} $ is contractible; \item Reidemeister or Ray-Singer torsion $\rho_{\operatorname{an}}(X[i])$ if $X$ is a closed Riemannian manifold; \item the logarithm of the cardinality of the torsion in the $n$-th singular homology with integer coefficients $\ln\big(\bigl|\operatorname{tors}\bigl(H_n(X[i])\bigr)\bigr|\bigr)$, if $X$ is an aspherical closed manifold and $\overline{X}$ its universal covering. \end{itemize} Here are two highlights of open problems which will be treated in more detail later in the manuscript. \\[3mm] \begin{bf} Question~\ref{que:Rank_gradient_cost_first_L2_Betti_number_and_approximation} \end{bf} (Rank gradient, cost, first $L^2$-Betti number and approximation) Let $G$ be a finitely presented residually finite group. Let $(G_i)$ be a descending chain of normal subgroups of finite index of $G$ with $\bigcap_{i \ge 0 } G_i=\{1\}$. Let $F$ be any field. When do we have \[ \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{b_1(G_i;F)-1 }{[G:G_i]} = b_1^{(2)}(G) - b_0^{(2)}(G)= {\rm cost}(G)-1 = \operatorname{RG}(G;(G_i)_{i \ge 0}), \] where $ {\rm cost}(G)$ denotes the cost and $\operatorname{RG}(G;(G_i)_{i \ge 0})$ the rank gradient? \\[5mm] \begin{bf} Conjecture~\ref{con:Homological_growth_and_L2-torsion_for_aspherical_manifolds} \end{bf} (Homological growth and $L^2$-torsion for aspherical closed manifolds) Let $M$ be an aspherical closed manifold of dimension $d \ge 1$ and fundamental group $G = \pi_1(M)$. Let $\widetilde{M}$ be its universal covering. Then \begin{enumerate} \item For any natural number $n$ with $2n \not= d$ we get \[ b_n^{(2)}(\widetilde{M}) = 0. \] \noindent If $d = 2n$, we have \[ (-1)^{n} \cdot \chi(M) = b_n^{(2)}(\widetilde{M}) \ge 0. \] \noindent If $d = 2n$ and $M$ carries a Riemannian metric of negative sectional curvature, then \[ (-1)^n \cdot \chi(M) = b_n^{(2)}(\widetilde{M}) > 0; \] \item Let $(G_i)_{i \ge 0}$ be any chain of normal subgroups $G_i \subseteq G$ of finite index $[G:G_i]$ and trivial intersection $\bigcap_{i \ge 0} G_i = \{1\}$. Put $M[i] = G_i \backslash \widetilde{M}$. Then we get for any natural number $n$ and any field $F$ \[ b_n^{(2)}(\widetilde{M}) = \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{b_n(M[i];F)}{[G:G_i]} = \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{d\bigl(H_n(M[i];{\mathbb Z})\bigr)}{[G:G_i]}, \] where $d\bigl(H_n(M[i];{\mathbb Z})\bigr)$ is the minimal numbers of generators of $H_n(M[i];{\mathbb Z})$, and for $n = 1$ \begin{multline*} \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad b_1^{(2)}(\widetilde{M}) = \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{b_1(M[i];F)}{[G:G_i]} = \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{d\bigl(G_i/[G_i,G_i]\bigr)}{[G:G_i]} \\ = RG(G,(G_i)_{i \ge 0}) = \begin{cases} 0 & d \not= 2; \\ -\chi(M) & d = 2; \end{cases} \end{multline*} \item We get for the truncated Euler characteristic in dimension $m$ \[ \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{\chi_m^{\operatorname{trun}}(M[i])}{[G:G_i]} = \begin{cases} \chi(M) & \text{if} \; d \;\text{is even and}\; 2m \ge d; \\ 0 & \text{otherwise}; \end{cases} \] \item If $d = 2n+1$ is odd, we get for the $L^2$-torsion \[ (-1)^n \cdot \rho^{(2)}_{\operatorname{an}}\bigl(\widetilde{M}\bigr) \ge 0; \] If $d = 2n+1$ is odd and $M$ carries a Riemannian metric with negative sectional curvature, we have \[ (-1)^n \cdot \rho^{(2)}_{\operatorname{an}}\bigl(\widetilde{M}\bigr) > 0; \] \item Let $(G_i)_{i \ge 0}$ be any chain of normal subgroups $G_i \subseteq G$ of finite index $[G:G_i]$ and trivial intersection $\bigcap_{i \ge 0} G_i = \{1\}$. Put $M[i] = G_i \backslash \widetilde{M}$. Then we get for any natural number $n$ with $2n +1 \not= d$ \[ \lim_{i \to \infty} \;\frac{\ln\big(\bigl|\operatorname{tors}\bigl(H_n(M[i])\bigr)\bigr|\bigr)}{[G:G_i]} = 0, \] and we get in the case $d = 2n+1$ \[ \lim_{i \to \infty} \;\frac{\ln\big(\bigl|\operatorname{tors}\bigl(H_n(M[i])\bigr)\bigr|\bigr)}{[G:G_i]} = (-1)^n \cdot \rho^{(2)}_{\operatorname{an}}\bigl(\widetilde{M}\bigr) \ge 0. \] \end{enumerate} The earliest reference, where a version of Problem~\ref{pro:approximation_problem} appears, is to the best of our knowledge Kazhdan \cite{Kazhdan(1975)}, where for a closed manifold $X$ the inequality $\limsup_{i \to \infty} \frac{b_n(X[i];F)}{[G:G_i]} \le b^{(2)}_n(\overline{X};{\mathcal N}(G))$ is discussed; see also Gromov~\cite[pages 13, 153]{Gromov(1993)}. Commencing with Section~\ref{sec:Dropping_the_finite_index_condition} we will drop the condition that $[G:G_i]$ is finite. We assume that the reader is familiar with basic concepts concerning $L^2$-Betti numbers and $L^2$-torsion. More information about these notions can be found for instance in~\cite{Lueck(2002),Lueck(2009algview)}. Most of the article consists of surveys of open problems and known results. There are a few new aspects in this manuscript: \begin{itemize} \item In Section~\ref{subsec:Truncated_Euler_characteristics} we introduce the truncated Euler characteristic which leads to a high-dimensional version of the rank gradient and to Question~\ref{que:asymptotic_Morse_equality_general} about asymptotic Morse inequalities; \item In Theorem~\ref{the:the_uniform_logarithmic_estimate} we discuss a strategy to prove the Approximation Conjecture for Fuglede-Kadison determinants under a uniform logarithmic estimate; \item The vanishing of the regulators on the homology comparing the inner product coming from a Riemannian metric with the one coming from a triangulation in the $L^2$-acyclic case, see Theorem~\ref{the:comparing_torsion_and_FK-determinants}, or more generally Theorem~\ref{the:comparing_analytic_and_chain_complexes}. \item The question whether $L^2$-torsion can be approximated by integral torsion depends only on the ${\mathbb Q} G$-chain homotopy type of a finite based free $L^2$-acyclic ${\mathbb Z} G$-chain complex, see Lemma~\ref{lem:invariance_of_homological_conjecture_under_Q-homotopy_equivalence}. \end{itemize} {\bf Acknowledgments.} This paper is financially supported by the Leibniz-Preis of the author, granted by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft {DFG}. The author thanks Nicolas Bergeron, Florian Funke, Holger Kammeyer, Clara L\"oh, Roman Sauer, and Andreas Thom for their useful comments. The paper is organized as follows: \tableofcontents \typeout{------------------------ Section 1: Euler characteristic and signature --------------------} \section{Euler characteristic and signature} \label{sec:Euler_characteristic_and_signature} \subsection{Euler characteristic} \label{subsec:Euler_characteristic} Let us begin with one of the oldest and most famous invariants, the \emph{Euler characteristic} $\chi(X)$ for a finite $CW$-complex. It is defined as $\sum_{n \ge 0 } (-1)^n \cdot c_n$, where $c_n$ is the number of $n$-cells. It is easy to see that it is multiplicative under finite coverings. Since this implies $\chi(X) = \frac{\chi(X[i])}{[G:G_i]}$, the answer in this case is yes to the questions appearing in Problem~\ref{pro:approximation_problem}, and the limit is \begin{eqnarray} \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{\chi(X[i])}{[G:G_i]} & = & \chi(X). \label{solution_for_chi(X)} \end{eqnarray} \subsection{Signature of closed oriented manifolds} \label{subsec:Signature_of_closed_oriented_manifolds} Next we consider the \emph{signature} of a closed oriented topological $4k$-dimensional manifold $M$. It is defined as the signature of the non-degenerate symmetric bilinear ${\mathbb R}$-pairing given by the intersection form \[ H^{2k}(M;{\mathbb R}) \times H^{2k}(M;{\mathbb R}) \to {\mathbb R}, \quad (x,y) \mapsto \langle x \cup y,[M]_{{\mathbb R}}\rangle. \] It is known that it is multiplicative under finite coverings, however, the proof is more involved than the one for the Euler characteristic. It follows for instance from Hirzebruch's Signature Theorem, see~\cite{Hirzebruch(1970)}, or Atiyah's $L^2$-index theorem~\cite[(1.1)]{Atiyah(1976)} in the smooth case; for closed topological manifolds see Schafer~\cite[Theorem 8]{Schafer(1970)}. Since this implies $\operatorname{sign}(X) = \frac{\operatorname{sign}(X[i])}{[G:G_i]}$, each of the questions appearing in Problem~\ref{pro:approximation_problem} has a positive answer, and the limit is \begin{eqnarray} \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{\operatorname{sign}(X[i])}{[G:G_i]} & = & \operatorname{sign}(X). \label{solution_for_sign(X)_manifolds} \end{eqnarray} \subsection{Signature of finite Poincar\'e complexes} \label{subsec:Signature_of_finite_Poincare_complexes} The next level of generality is to pass from a topological manifold to a finite Poincar\'e complex whose definition is due to Wall~\cite{Wall(1967)}. For them the signature is still defined if the dimension is divisible by $4$. There are Poincar{\'e} complexes $X$ for which the signature is not multiplicative under finite coverings, see~\cite[Example~22.28]{Ranicki(1992)},~\cite[Corollary~5.4.1]{Wall(1967)}. Hence the situation is more complicated here. Nevertheless, it turns out that the answer in this case each of the questions appearing in Problem~\ref{pro:approximation_problem} has a positive answer, and the limit is \begin{eqnarray} \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{\operatorname{sign}(X[i])}{[G:G_i]} & = & \operatorname{sign}^{(2)}(X;{\mathcal N}(G)), \label{solution_for_signi(M)_Poincare} \end{eqnarray} where $\operatorname{sign}^{(2)}(\overline{X};{\mathcal N}(G))$ denotes the $L^2$-signature, which is in general different from $\operatorname{sign}(X)$ for a finite Poincar\'e complex $X$. Actually, for any closed oriented $4k$-dimensional topological manifold $M$ one has $\operatorname{sign}(M) = \operatorname{sign}^{(2)}(\overline{M};{\mathcal N}(G))$. Equation~\eqref{solution_for_signi(M)_Poincare} for finite Poincar\'e complexes extends to finite Poincar\'e pairs. For a detailed discussion of these notions and results we refer to~\cite{Lueck-Schick(2003),Lueck-Schick(2005)}. \typeout{------------------------ Section 2: Betti numbers --------------------} \section{Betti numbers} \label{sec:Betti_numbers} \subsection{Characteristic zero} \label{subsec:characteristic_zero} Fix a field $F$ of characteristic zero. We consider the \emph{$n$-th Betti number with $F$-coefficients} $b_n(X;F) := \dim_F(H_n(X;F))$. Notice that $b_n(X;F) = b_n(X;{\mathbb Q}) = \operatorname{rk}_{{\mathbb Z}}(H_n(X;{\mathbb Z}))$ holds, where $\operatorname{rk}_{{\mathbb Z}}$ denotes the rank of a finitely generated abelian group. In this case each of the questions appearing in Problem~\ref{pro:approximation_problem} has a positive answer by the main result of L\"uck~\cite{Lueck(1994c)}. \begin{theorem}\label{the:approx_Betti_char_zero} Let $F$ be a field of characteristic zero and let $X$ be a finite $CW$-complex. Then we have \[ \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{b_n(X[i];F)}{[G:G_i]} = b^{(2)}_n(\overline{X};{\mathcal N}(G)), \] where $b^{(2)}(\overline{X};{\mathcal N}(G))$ denotes the $n$-th $L^2$-Betti number. \end{theorem} \subsection{Prime characteristic} \label{subsec:prime_characteristic} Fix a prime $p$. Let $F$ be a field of characteristic $p$. We consider the \emph{$n$-th Betti number with $F$-coefficients} $b_n(X;F) := \dim_F(H_n(X;F))$. Notice that $b_n(X;F) = b_n(X;{\mathbb F}_p)$ holds, where ${\mathbb F}_p$ is the field of $p$-elements. In this setting a general answer to Problem~\ref{pro:approximation_problem} is only known in special cases. The main problem is that one does not have an analogue of the von Neumann algebra in characteristic $p$ and the construction of an appropriate extended dimension function, see~\cite{Lueck(1998a)}, is not known in general. If $G$ is torsion-free elementary amenable, one gets the full positive answer by Linnell-L\"uck-Sauer~\cite[Theorem~0.2]{Linnell-Lueck-Sauer(2011)}, where we give more explanations, e.g., about Ore localizations, and actually virtually torsion-free elementary amenable groups are considered. \begin{theorem}\label{the:dim_approximation_over_fields} Let $F$ be a field (of arbitrary characteristic) and $X$ be a connected finite $CW$-complex. Let $G$ be a torsion-free elementary amenable group. Then: \[ \dim_{FG}^{\operatorname{Ore}} \bigl(H_n(\overline{X};F)\bigr) = \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{b_n(X[i];F)}{[G:G_n]}. \] \end{theorem} For a brief survey on elementary amenable groups we refer for instance to~\cite[Section~6.4.1 on page 256ff]{Lueck(2002)}. Solvable groups are examples of elementary amenable groups. Every elementary amenable group is amenable, but the converse is not true in general. Notice that Theorem~\ref{the:dim_approximation_over_fields} is consistent with Theorem~\ref{the:approx_Betti_char_zero} since for a field $F$ of characteristic zero and a torsion-free elementary amenable group $G$ we have $b_n^{(2)}(\overline{X};{\mathcal N}(G)) = \dim_{FG}^{\operatorname{Ore}} \bigl(H_n(\overline{X};F)\bigr)$. The latter equality follows from~\cite[Theorem~6.37 on page~259, Theorem~8.29 on page~330, Lemma~10.16 on page~376, and Lemma~10.39 on page~388]{Lueck(2002)}. Here is another special case taken from Bergeron-L\"uck-Linnell-Sauer~\cite{Bergeron-Linnell-Lueck-Sauer(2014)}, (see also Calegari-Emerton~\cite{Calegari-Emerton(2009bounds), Calegari-Emerton(2011)}), where we know the answer only for special chains. Let $p$ be a prime, let $n$ be a positive integer, and let $\phi\colon G \rightarrow \operatorname{GL}_n ({\mathbb Z}_p)$ be a homomorphism, where ${\mathbb Z}_p$ denotes the $p$-adic integers. The closure of the image of $\phi$, which is denoted by $\Lambda$, is a $p$-adic analytic group admitting an exhausting filtration by open normal subgroups $\Lambda_i = \ker \left( \Lambda \rightarrow \operatorname{GL}_n ({\mathbb Z} / p^i {\mathbb Z}) \right)$. Put $G_i = \phi^{-1} (\Lambda_i )$. \begin{theorem} \label{the:BLLS} Let $F$ be a field (of arbitrary characteristic). Put $d= \dim (\Lambda)$. Let $X$ be a finite $CW$-complex. Then for any integer $n$ and as $i$ tends to infinity, we have: \[ b_n(X[i];F) = b_n^{(2)}(\overline{X};F) \cdot [G : G_i] + O\left([G : G_i]^{1-{1/d}} \right), \] where $b_n^{(2)}(\overline{X};F)$ is the $n$th mod $p$ $L^2$-Betti numbers occurring in~\cite[Definition~1.3]{Bergeron-Linnell-Lueck-Sauer(2014)}. In particular \[ \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{b_n(X[i] ;F)}{[G:G_i]} = b_n^{(2)}(\overline{X};F). \] \end{theorem} Returning to the setting of arbitrary chains $(G_i)_{i \ge 0}$, we get by the universal coefficient theorem $b_n(X[i];{\mathbb Q}) \le b_n(X[i];F)$ for any field $F$ and hence by Theorem~\ref{the:approx_Betti_char_zero} the inequality \[ \liminf_{i \to \infty} \frac{b_n(X[i] ;F)}{[G:G_i]} \ge b_n^{(2)}(\overline{X};{\mathcal N}(G)). \] If $p$ is a prime and we additionally assume that each index $[G:G_i]$ is a $p$-power, then the sequence $\frac{b_n(X[i] ;F)}{[G:G_i]}$ is monotone decreasing and in particular $\lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{b_n(X[i] ;F)}{[G:G_i]}$ exists, see~\cite[Theorem~1.6]{Bergeron-Linnell-Lueck-Sauer(2014)}. \begin{conjecture}[Approximation in zero and prime characteristic] \label{con:Approximation_in_zero_and_prime_characteristic} We get \[ \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{b_n(X[i] ;F)}{[G:G_i]} = b_n^{(2)}(\overline{X};{\mathcal N}(G)) \] for all fields $F$ and $n \ge 0$, provided that $X$ is finite, and $\overline{X}$ is contractible, or, equivalently, that $X$ is aspherical, $G = \pi_1(X)$ and $\overline{X}$ is the universal covering $\widetilde{X}$. \end{conjecture} The assumption that $\overline{X} $ is contractible is necessary in Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_in_zero_and_prime_characteristic}, see~\cite[Example~6.2]{Linnell-Lueck-Sauer(2011)}. An obvious modification of~\cite[Example~6.2]{Linnell-Lueck-Sauer(2011)} applied to $G = {\mathbb Z}$ and $X = S^1 \vee Y$ for a finite aspherical $CW$-complex $Y$ with $H_n(Y;{\mathbb Q}) \not= 0$ and $H_n(Y;{\mathbb F}_p) \not=0$ yields a counterexample, where $X$ is aspherical, (but $\overline{X}$ is not the universal covering). Estimates of the growth of Betti-numbers in terms of the volume of the underlying manifold and examples of aspherical manifolds, where this growth is sublinear, are given in~\cite{Sauer(2016)}. \subsection{Minimal number of the generators of the homology} \label{subsec:Minimal_number_of_the_generators_of_the_homology} Recall the standard notation that $d(G)$ denotes the minimal number of generators of a finitely generated group $G$. The Universal Coefficient Theorem implies $d\bigl(H_n(X[i] ;{\mathbb Z})\bigr) \ge b_n(X[i];F)$ if $F$ has characteristic zero, but this inequality is not necessarily true in prime characteristic. One can make the following version of Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_in_zero_and_prime_characteristic}, which is in some sense stronger; see the discussion in~\cite[Remark~1.3 and Lemma~2.13]{Lueck(2013l2approxfib)}. \begin{conjecture}[Growth of number of generators of the homology] \label{con:Growth_of_number_of_generators_of_the_homology} We get \[ \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{d\bigl(H_n(X[i] ;{\mathbb Z})\bigr)}{[G:G_i]} = b_n^{(2)}(\overline{X};{\mathcal N}(G)), \] provided that $\overline{X} $ is contractible. \end{conjecture} \typeout{------------------------ Section 3: Rank gradient --------------------} \section{Rank gradient and cost} \label{sec:Rank_gradient_and_cost} Let $G$ be a finitely generated group. Let $(G_i)_{i\ge 0}$ be a descending chain of subgroups of finite index of $G$. The \emph{rank gradient of $G$} (with respect to $(G_i)$) is defined by \begin{eqnarray} \operatorname{RG}(G;(G_i)_{i \ge 0}) &= & \lim_{i \to\infty} \frac{d(G_i) -1}{[G:G_i]}. \label{rank_gradient} \end{eqnarray} The above limit always exists since for any finite index subgroup $H$ of $G$ one has $\frac{d(H)-1}{[G:H]} \le d(G)-1$ by the Schreier index formula and hence the sequence $\frac{d(G_i) -1}{[G:G_i]}$ is a monotone decreasing sequence of non-negative rational numbers. The rank gradient was originally introduced by Lackenby~\cite{Lackenby(2005expanders)} as a tool for studying 3-manifold groups, but is also interesting from a purely group-theoretic point of view, see, e.g., \cite{Abert-Jaikin-Zapirain-Nikolov(2011),Abert-Nikolov(2012),Osin(2011_rankgradient),Schlage-Puchta(2012)}. In the sequel let $(G_i)_{i \ge 0}$ be a descending chain of normal subgroups of finite index of $G$ with $\bigcap_{i \ge 0} G_i=\{1\}$. The following inequalities are known to hold: \begin{equation} \label{inequalities1} b_1^{(2)}(G) - b_0^{(2)}(G) \leq \operatorname{cost}(G)-1\leq \operatorname{RG}(G;(G_i)_{i \ge 0}). \end{equation} The first inequality is due to Gaboriau~\cite[Corollaire~3.16,~3.23]{Gaboriau(2002a)} and the second was proved by Ab\'ert and Nikolov~\cite[Theorem~1]{Abert-Nikolov(2012)}. See~\cite{Gaboriau(2000b),Gaboriau(2002a),Gaboriau(2002b)} for the definition and some key results about the cost of a group. It is not known whether the inequalities in~\eqref{inequalities1} are equalities. This is true, if $G$ is finite since then all values are $|G|^{-1}$. The following questions remain open: \begin{question}[Rank gradient, cost, and first $L^2$ Betti number] \label{que:Rank_gradient_cost_and_first_L2_Betti_number} Let $G$ be an infinite finitely generated residually finite group. Let $(G_i)_{i \ge 0}$ be a descending chain of normal subgroups of finite index of $G$ with $\bigcap_{i \ge 0} G_i=\{1\}$. Do we have \[ b_1^{(2)}(G) = {\rm cost}(G)-1 = \operatorname{RG}(G;(G_i)_{i \ge 0})? \] \end{question} \begin{question}[Rank gradient, cost, first $L^2$-Betti number and approximation] \label{que:Rank_gradient_cost_first_L2_Betti_number_and_approximation} Let $G$ be a finitely presented residually finite group. Let $(G_i)$ be a descending chain of normal subgroups of finite index of $G$ with $\bigcap_{i \ge 0 } G_i=\{1\}$. Let $F$ be any field. Do we have \[ \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{b_1(G_i;F)-1}{[G:G_i]} = b_1^{(2)}(G) - b_0^{(2)}(G) = {\rm cost}(G)-1 = \operatorname{RG}(G;(G_i)_{i \ge 0})? \] \end{question} Notice that a positive answer to the questions above also includes the statement, that $\lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{b_n(X[i];F)}{[G:G_i]}$ and $\operatorname{RG}(G;(G_i)_{i \ge 0})$ are independent of the chain. One can ask for any finitely generated group $G$ (without assuming that it is residually finite) whether $b_1^{(2)}(G) = {\rm cost}(G)-1$ is true, and whether the Fixed Price Conjecture is true which predicts that the cost of every standard action of $G$, i.e., an essentially free $G$-action on a standard Borel space with $G$-invariant probability measure, is equal to the cost of $G$. \begin{remark}[Minimal number of generators versus rank of the abelianization] \label{rem:Minimal_number_of_generators_versus_rank_of_the_abelianization} A positive answer to Question~\ref{que:Rank_gradient_cost_first_L2_Betti_number_and_approximation} is equivalent to the assertion that \[ \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{d(G_i) - \operatorname{rk}_{{\mathbb Z}}(H_1(G_i))}{[G:G_i]} = 0. \] This is surprising since in general one would not expect that for a finitely generated group $H$ the minimal number of generators $d(H)$ agrees with the rank of its abelianization $\operatorname{rk}_{{\mathbb Z}}(H_1(H))$. So a positive answer to Question~\ref{que:Rank_gradient_cost_first_L2_Betti_number_and_approximation} would imply that this equality is true asymptotically. This raises the question whether this equality holds for a ``random group'' in the sense of Gromov. \end{remark} \begin{remark}[Known cases] \label{rem:known_cases} The answers to Question~\ref{que:Rank_gradient_cost_and_first_L2_Betti_number} and~\ref{que:Rank_gradient_cost_first_L2_Betti_number_and_approximation} is known to be positive if $G$ contains a normal infinite amenable subgroup. Namely, in this case all values are $0$ since $\operatorname{RG}(G;(G_i)_{i \ge 0}) = 0$ for all descending chains $(G_i)_{i \ge 0}$ of normal subgroups of finite index of $G$ with trivial intersection, as proved by Lackenby~\cite[Theorem~1.2]{Lackenby(2005expanders)} when $G$ is finitely presented, and by Ab\'ert and Nikolov~\cite[Theorem~3]{Abert-Nikolov(2012)} in general, where actually more general chains are considered. It is also positive for limit groups by Bridson-Kochlukova~\cite[Theorem~A and Corollary~C]{Bridson-Kochlukova(2013)}, where all values are $- \chi(G)$. \end{remark} \begin{remark}[All conditions are necessary] \label{rem:All_conditions_are_necessary} One cannot drop in Question~\ref{que:Rank_gradient_cost_first_L2_Betti_number_and_approximation} the assumption that the intersection $\bigcap_{i \ge 0} G_i$ is trivial. Indeed, there exists a finitely presented group $G$ together with a descending chain $(G_i)_{i \ge 0}$ of normal subgroups $G_i$ of finite index of $G$, but with non-trivial intersection $\bigcap_{i \ge 0} G_i$, such that \[ \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{b_1(G_i;{\mathbb Q})}{[G:G_i]} < \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{b_1(G_i;{\mathbb F}_p)}{[G:G_i]} < \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{d(H_1(G_i;{\mathbb Z}))}{[G:G_i]} < RG(G;(G_i)) \] holds, see Ershov-L\"uck~\cite[Section~4]{Ershov-Lueck(2014)}. The condition that each subgroup $G_i$ is normal in $G$ cannot be discarded in Question~\ref{que:Rank_gradient_cost_first_L2_Betti_number_and_approximation}. Indeed, one can conclude from Ab\'ert and Nikolov~\cite[Proposition~14]{Abert-Nikolov(2012)}, see~\cite[Proposition~3.14]{Funke(2013)} for details that there exists for every prime $p$ a finitely presented group together with a descending chain $(G_i)_{i \ge 0}$ of (not normal) subgroups of finite index of $G$ with $\bigcap_{i \ge 0} G_i$ satisfying \[ \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{b_1(G_i;{\mathbb Q})}{[G:G_i]} < b_1^{(2)}(G) < \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{b_1(G_i;{\mathbb F}_p)}{[G:G_i]} < \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{d(H_1(G_i;{\mathbb Z}))}{[G:G_i]} < RG(G;(G_i)). \] One can find also examples where $G$ is the fundamental group of an oriented hyperbolic $3$-manifold of finite volume and the rank gradient is positive for a descending chain $(G_i)_{i \ge 0}$ of (not normal) subgroups of finite index of $G$ with $\bigcap_{i \ge 0} G_i$ trivial, whereas the first $L^2$-Betti number of $G$ is zero; see Gir\~ao~\cite{Girao(2013), Girao(2014)}. Also the condition that $G$ is finitely presented has to appear in Question~\ref{que:Rank_gradient_cost_first_L2_Betti_number_and_approximation}. (Notice that in Question~\ref{que:Rank_gradient_cost_and_first_L2_Betti_number} we demand $G$ only to be finitely generated.) For finitely generated $G$ and $F$ of characteristic zero one knows at least $\limsup_{i \to \infty} \frac{b_1(G_i;F))}{[G:G_i]} \le b_1^{(2)}(G)$, see L\"uck-Osin~\cite[Theorem~1.1]{Lueck-Osin(2011)}. However, for every prime $p$ there exists an infinite finitely generated residually $p$-finite $p$-torsion group $G$ such that for any descending chain of normal subgroups $(G_i)_{i \ge 0} $, for which $[G:G_i]$ is finite and a power of $p$ and $\bigcap_{i \ge 0} G_i$ is trivial, \[ 0 = \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{b_1(G_i;{\mathbb Q})}{[G:G_i]} < b_1^{(2)}(G) \le \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{b_1(G_i;{\mathbb F}_p)}{[G:G_i]} \] holds. This follows from Ershov-L\"uck~\cite[Theorem~1.6]{Ershov-Lueck(2014)} and L\"uck-Osin~\cite[Theorem~1.2]{Lueck-Osin(2011)}. \end{remark} \typeout{------------------ Section 4: A high dimensional version of the rank gradient ----------------} \section{A high dimensional version of the rank gradient} \label{sec:A_high_dimensional_version_of_the_rank_gradient} One may speculate about the following higher dimensional analogue of Question~\ref{que:Rank_gradient_cost_first_L2_Betti_number_and_approximation}. \subsection{Truncated Euler characteristics} \label{subsec:Truncated_Euler_characteristics} Let $d$ be a natural number and let $X$ be a space. Denote by $\mathcal{CW}_d(X)$ the set of $CW$-complexes $Y$ which have a finite $d$-skeleton $Y_d$ and are homotopy equivalent to $X$. Provided that $\mathcal{CW}_d(X)$ is not empty, define the \emph{$d$-th truncated Euler characteristic of $X$} by \begin{eqnarray} \label{chimin_d} & & \\ \chi^{\operatorname{trun}}_d(X) & := & \begin{cases} \min \{\chi(Y_d) \mid Y \in \mathcal{CW}_d(X) \} & \text{if} \; d \; \text{is even}; \\ \max \{\chi(Y_d) \mid Y \in \mathcal{CW}_d(X) \} & \text{if} \; d \; \text{is odd}, \end{cases} \nonumber \end{eqnarray} where $\chi(Y_d)$ is the Euler characteristic of the $d$-skeleton $Y_d$ of $Y$. If $X$ is a finite $CW$-complex, then $\chi^{\operatorname{trun}}_d(X) = \chi(X)$ if $d \ge \dim(X)$. Fix a $G$-covering $\overline{X} \to X$. Consider $Y \in \mathcal{CW}_d(X)$. Choose a homotopy equivalence $h \colon Y \to X$. We obtain a $G$-covering $\overline{Y} \to Y$ by applying the pullback construction to $\overline{X} \to X$ and $h \colon Y \to X$. We get using~\cite[Theorem~6.80~(1) on page~277]{Lueck(2002)} \begin{eqnarray*} \chi(Y_d) & = & \chi^{(2)}(\overline{Y_d};{\mathcal N}(G)) \\ & = & \sum_{n = 0}^d (-1)^n \cdot b_n^{(2)}(\overline{Y_d};{\mathcal N}(G)) \\ & = & (-1)^d \cdot b_d^{(2)}(\overline{Y_d};{\mathcal N}(G)) + \sum_{n = 0}^{d-1} (-1)^n \cdot b_n^{(2)}(\overline{Y_d};{\mathcal N}(G)) \\ & = & (-1)^d \cdot b_d^{(2)}(\overline{Y_d};{\mathcal N}(G)) + \sum_{n = 0}^{d-1} (-1)^n \cdot b_n^{(2)}(\overline{Y};{\mathcal N}(G)) \\ & = & (-1)^d \cdot \bigl(b_d^{(2)}(\overline{Y_d};{\mathcal N}(G)) - b_d^{(2)}(\overline{Y};{\mathcal N}(G))\bigr) + \sum_{n = 0}^{d} (-1)^n \cdot b_n^{(2)}(\overline{Y};{\mathcal N}(G)) \\ & = & (-1)^d \cdot \bigl(b_d^{(2)}(\overline{Y_d};{\mathcal N}(G)) - b_d^{(2)}(\overline{Y};{\mathcal N}(G))\bigr) + \sum_{n = 0}^{d} (-1)^n \cdot b_n^{(2)}(\overline{X},{\mathcal N}(G)). \end{eqnarray*} Since $b_d^{(2)}(\overline{Y_d};{\mathcal N}(G)) \ge b_d^{(2)}(\overline{Y};{\mathcal N}(G))$ holds, we always have the inequality \[ \chi(Y_d) \; \begin{cases} \ge \; \sum_{n = 0}^d (-1)^n \cdot b_n^{(2)}(\overline{X},{\mathcal N}(G)) & \text{if} \; d \; \text{is even}; \\ \le \; \sum_{n = 0}^d (-1)^n \cdot b_n^{(2)}(\overline{X},{\mathcal N}(G)) & \text{if} \; d \; \text{is odd}. \end{cases} \] This implies that $\chi^{\operatorname{trun}}_d(X)$ is a well-defined integer satisfying \[ \chi^{\operatorname{trun}}_d(X) \; \begin{cases} \ge \; \sum_{n = 0}^d (-1)^n \cdot b_n^{(2)}(\overline{X},{\mathcal N}(G)) & \text{if} \; d \; \text{is even}; \\ \le \; \sum_{n = 0}^d (-1)^n \cdot b_n^{(2)}(\overline{X},{\mathcal N}(G)) & \text{if} \; d \; \text{is odd}. \end{cases} \] Next we show that the limit $\lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{\chi^{\operatorname{trun}}_d(X[i])} {[G:G_i]}$ always exists. Consider a natural number $i$. Choose an element $Y[i] \in \mathcal{CW}_d(X[i])$ such that $\chi^{\operatorname{trun}}_d(X[i]) = \chi(Y[i]_d)$ holds. We can find a $[G_i:G_{i+1}]$-sheeted covering $Y[i+1] \to Y[i]$ such that $Y[i+1]$ belongs to $\mathcal{CW}_d([X[i+1])$. Obviously $\chi(Y[i+1]_d) = \chi(Y[i]_d) \cdot [G_i : G_{i+1}]$. Suppose that $d$ is even. We conclude \begin{eqnarray*} \frac{\chi_d^{\operatorname{trun}}(X[i+1])}{[G:G_{i+1}]} & = & \frac{\chi_d^{\operatorname{trun}}(X[i+1])}{[G:G_i] \cdot [G_i:G_{i+1}]} \\ & \le & \frac{\chi(Y[i+1]_d)}{[G:G_i] \cdot [G_i:G_{i+1}]} \\ & = & \frac{\chi(Y[i]_d)}{[G:G_i]} \\ & = & \frac{\chi_d^{\operatorname{trun}}(X[i])}{[G:G_i]}. \end{eqnarray*} Hence the sequence $\left(\frac{\chi^{\operatorname{trun}}_d(X[i])} {[G:G_i]}\right)_{i \ge 0}$ is monotone decreasing. Since we get by an argument similar to the one above \[ \frac{\chi^{\operatorname{trun}}_d(X[i])}{[G:G_i]} \ge \sum_{n = 0}^d (-1)^n \cdot b_n^{(2)}(X[i];{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)) = \sum_{n = 0}^d (-1)^n \cdot \frac{b_n(X[i];{\mathbb Q})}{[G:G_i]} \] for all $i$, we conclude from Theorem~\ref{the:approx_Betti_char_zero} that the sequence $\left(\frac{\chi^{\operatorname{trun}}_d(X[i])} {[G:G_i]}\right)_{i \ge 0}$ is bounded from below by $\sum_{n = 0}^d (-1)^n \cdot b_n^{(2)}(\overline{X};{\mathcal N}(G))$. Hence its limit exists and satisfies \[ \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{\chi^{\operatorname{trun}}_d(X[i])} {[G:G_i]} \ge \sum_{n = 0}^d (-1)^n \cdot b_n^{(2)}(\overline{X};{\mathcal N}(G)), \] if $d$ is even. Provided that $d$ is odd, one analogously shows that the sequence $\left(\frac{\chi^{\operatorname{trun}}_d(X[i])} {[G:G_i]}\right)_{i \ge 0}$ is monotone increasing, bounded from above by $\sum_{n = 0}^d (-1)^n \cdot b_n^{(2)}(\overline{X};{\mathcal N}(G))$ and hence converges with \[ \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{\chi^{\operatorname{trun}}_d(X[i])} {[G:G_i]} \le \sum_{n = 0}^d (-1)^n \cdot b_n^{(2)}(\overline{X};{\mathcal N}(G)). \] This leads to \begin{question}[Asymptotic Morse equality]\label{que:asymptotic_Morse_equality_general} Let $\overline{X} \to X$ be a $G$-covering and let $d$ be a natural number such that $\mathcal{CW}_d(X)$ is not empty. When do we have \[ \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{\chi^{\operatorname{trun}}_d(X[i])} {[G:G_i]} = \sum_{n = 0}^d (-1)^n \cdot b_n^{(2)}(\overline{X};{\mathcal N}(G))? \] \end{question} In this generality, the answer to Question~\ref{que:asymptotic_Morse_equality_general} is not positive in general. For instance if $G$ is trivial and $d =1$, a positive answer to Question~\ref{que:asymptotic_Morse_equality_general} would mean for a connected $CW$-complex $X$ with non-empty $\mathcal{CW}_1(X)$ that $\pi_1(X)$ is finitely generated and satisfies $d(\pi_1(X)) = b_1(X)$ which is not true in general. Of particular interest is the case where $\overline{X}$ is contractible, or, equivalently, $X = BG$ and $\overline{X} = EG$. Since $\chi^{\operatorname{trun}}_d(X)$ depends only on the homotopy type of $X$, we will abbreviate $\chi^{\operatorname{trun}}_d(G_i) := \chi^{\operatorname{trun}}_d(BG_i)$, provided that $\mathcal{CW}_d(BG)$ for some (and hence all) model for $BG$ is not empty. Then Question~\ref{que:asymptotic_Morse_equality_general} reduces to the following question, for which we do not know an example where the answer is negative. \begin{question}[Asymptotic Morse equality for groups] \label{que:asymptotic_Morse_equality} Let $G$ be a group and let $d$ be a natural number such that $\mathcal{CW}_d(BG)$ is not empty. When do we have \[ \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{\chi^{\operatorname{trun}}_d(G_i)} {[G:G_i]} = \sum_{n = 0}^d (-1)^n \cdot b_n^{(2)}(G)? \] \end{question} \begin{example}[Morse relation in degree $d = 1,2$] \label{exa:Morse_relation_in_degree_d_is_1,2} Question~\ref{que:asymptotic_Morse_equality} is in the case $d = 1$ precisely Question~\ref{que:Rank_gradient_cost_first_L2_Betti_number_and_approximation}, since a group $H$ is finitely generated if and only if there is a model for $BH$ with finite $1$-skeleton and in this case $\chi^{\operatorname{trun}}_1(H) = 1 - d(H)$. In the case $d =2$ Question~\ref{que:asymptotic_Morse_equality} can be rephrased as the question, for a finitely presented group $G$, when do we have \[ \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{1 - {\rm def}(G_i)}{[G:G_i]} = b_2^{(2)}(G) - b_1^{(2)}(G) + b_0^{(2)}(G), \] where ${\rm def}(H)$ denotes for a finitely presented group $H$ its \emph{deficiency}, i.e, the maximum over the numbers $g-r$ for all finite presentations $H = \langle s_1, s_2, \ldots , s_g \mid R_1, R_2, \ldots, R_r\rangle$. \end{example} \begin{remark}[Asymptotic Morse inequalities imply Approximation for Betti numbers over any field] \label{rem:Asymptotic_Morse_inequalities_imply_Approximation_for_Betti_numbers_over_any_field} Let $G$ be a group with a finite model for $BG$. It is not hard to show that Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_in_zero_and_prime_characteristic} is true for $G$, provided that the answer to Question~\ref{que:asymptotic_Morse_equality} is positive for all $d \ge 0$. The main idea of the proof is to show for every field $F$ and $CW$-complex $Z$ with non-empty $\mathcal{CW}_d(Z)$ \[ \chi_d^{\operatorname{trun}}(Z) \; \begin{cases} \ge \; \sum_{n = 0}^d (-1)^n \cdot b_n(Z;F) & \text{if} \; d \; \text{is even}; \\ \le \; \sum_{n = 0}^d (-1)^n \cdot b_n(Z;F) & \text{if} \; d \; \text{is odd}, \end{cases} \] and then show in the situation of Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_in_zero_and_prime_characteristic} for $n = 0,1,2, \ldots$ by induction using Theorem~\ref{the:approx_Betti_char_zero} the equality \[ \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{b_n(X[i];F)}{[G:G_i]} = b_n^{(2)}(\widetilde{X}). \] More generally, Conjecture~\ref{con:Growth_of_number_of_generators_of_the_homology} is true for $G$, provided that the answer to Question~\ref{que:asymptotic_Morse_equality} is positive for all $d \ge 0$, since for $Y \in \mathcal{CW}_d(Z)$ we get $b_d(Y_d;{\mathbb Q}) = d(H_d(Y_d;{\mathbb Z})) \ge d(H_d(Y;{\mathbb Z})) = d(H_d(Z;{\mathbb Z}))$. \end{remark} \subsection{Groups with slow growth} \label{subsec:groups_with_slow_growth} The answer to Question~\ref{que:asymptotic_Morse_equality} is positive by Bridson-Kochlukova~\cite[Theorem~A and Corollary~C] {Bridson-Kochlukova(2013)} if $G$ is a limit group. Their proofs are based on various notions of groups with slow growth. It is interesting that limit groups may have non-trivial first $L^2$-Betti numbers. Here is a another case, where the answer to Question~\ref{que:asymptotic_Morse_equality} is positive. Following Bridson-Kochlukova~\cite[page~4] {Bridson-Kochlukova(2013)} we make \begin{definition}[Slow growth in dimensions $\le d$] \label{def:Slow_growth_in_dimensions_le_d} We say that a residually finite group has \emph{slow growth in dimension $\le d$} if for any chain $(G_i)_{i \ge 0}$ of normal subgroups of finite index with trivial intersection there is a choice of $CW$-complexes $(X[i])_{i \ge 0} $ such that $X[i]$ has a finite $d$-skeleton and is a model for $BG_i$ for each $i \ge 0$, and $\lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{c_k(X[i])}{[G:G_i]} = 0$ holds for every $k = 0,1,2 \ldots, d$, where $c_k(X[i])$ is the number of $k$-cells in $X[i]$. \end{definition} \begin{lemma} \label{lem:consequences_of_slow_growth} Suppose that $G$ has \emph{slow growth in dimension $\le d$}. Then we get for $k = 0,1,2, \ldots ,d$ \begin{eqnarray*} \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{\chi^{\operatorname{trun}}_k(G_i)}{[G:G_i]} & = & 0, \\ b_k^{(2)}(G) & = & 0. \end{eqnarray*} \end{lemma} \begin{proof} By assumption there is a choice of $CW$-complexes $(X[i])_{i \ge 0} $ such that $X[i]$ has a finite $d$-skeleton and is a model for $BG_i$ for each $i \ge 0$, and $\lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{c_n(X[i])}{[G:G_i]} = 0$ holds for every $n = 0,1,2 \ldots, d$. Since $b_n(G_i;{\mathbb Q}) \le c_n(X[i])$ holds, we conclude $\lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{b_n(G_i;{\mathbb Q})}{[G:G_i]} = 0$ for every $n = 0,1,2 \ldots, d$. Theorem~\ref{the:approx_Betti_char_zero} implies \[ b_k^{(2)}(G) = 0 \quad \text{for}\; k = 0,1,2 \ldots, d. \] If $k \in \{0,1,2, \ldots, d\} $ is even, we get \begin{eqnarray*} 0 & = & \sum_{n = 0}^k (-1)^n \cdot b_n^{(2)}(G) \\ & \le & \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{\chi_k^{\operatorname{trun}}(G_i)}{[G:G_i]} \\ & \le & \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{\chi\bigl((X[i])_k\bigr)}{[G:G_i]} \\ & = & \lim_{i \to \infty} \sum_{n = 0}^k \frac{c_n(X[i])}{[G:G_i]} \\ & = & \sum_{n = 0}^k \lim_{i \to \infty}\frac{c_n(X[i])}{[G:G_i]} \\ & = & 0, \end{eqnarray*} and hence \[ \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{\chi^{\operatorname{trun}}_k(G_i)}{[G:G_i]} = 0. \] The proof in the case where $k$ is odd is analogous. \end{proof} \begin{lemma} \label{lem:slow_growth_and_extensions} Let $1 \to K \xrightarrow{j} G \xrightarrow{q} Q \to 1$ be an extension of groups. Suppose that $K$ has slow growth in dimensions $\le d$. Suppose that there is a model for $BQ$ with finite $d$-skeleton or that there is a model for $BG$ with finite $d$-skeleton. Then $G$ has slow growth in dimensions $\le d$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} If $BG$ has a model with finite $d$-skeleton, then also $BQ$ has a model with finite $d$-skeleton by~\cite[Lemma~7.2~(2)]{Lueck(1997a)}. Hence it suffices to treat the case where $BQ$ has a model with finite $d$-skeleton. Consider any chain $(G_i)_{i \ge 0}$ of normal subgroups of finite index with trivial intersection. Put $K_i = j^{-1}(G_i)$ and $Q_i = q(G_i)$. We obtain an exact sequence of groups $1 \to K_i \xrightarrow{j_i} G_i \xrightarrow{q_i} Q_i \to 1$, where $j_i$ and $q_i$ are obtained from $j$ and $q$ by restriction. The subgroups $K_i \subseteq K$, $G_i \subseteq G$ and $Q_i \subseteq Q$ are normal subgroups of finite index and $[G:G_i] = [K : K_i] \cdot [Q:Q_i]$. We have $\bigcap_{i \ge 0} K_i = \{1\}$. By assumption there is a choice of $CW$-complexes $(X[i])_{i \ge 0} $ such that $X[i]$ has a finite $d$-skeleton and is a model for $BK_i$ for each $i \ge 0$, and $\lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{c_m(X[i])}{[K:K_i]} = 0$ holds for every $m = 0,1,2 \ldots, d$, where $c_m(X[i])$ is the number of $m$-cells in $X[i]$. Choose a $CW$-model $Z$ for $BQ$ with finite $d$-skeleton. Let $Z_i \to BQ$ be the $[Q:Q_i]$-sheeted finite covering associated to $Q_i \subseteq Q$. Equip $Z_i$ with the $CW$-structure induced by the one of $Z$. Then $Z_i$ is a model for $BQ_i$, has a finite $d$-skeleton, and we get for the number of $n$-cells for $n \in \{0,1,2, \ldots ,d\}$ that \begin{eqnarray*} c_n(Z_i) & = & [Q:Q_i] \cdot c_n(Z). \end{eqnarray*} There is a fibration $X[i] \to BG_i \to Z_i$ such that after taking fundamental groups we obtain the exact sequence $1 \to K_i \xrightarrow{j_i} G_i \xrightarrow{q_i} Q_i \to 1$. Then one can find a $CW$-complex $Y_i$ which is a model for $BG_i$ such that we get for the number of $k$-cells for $k \in \{0,1,2, \ldots ,d\}$ \begin{eqnarray*} c_k(Y_i) & = & \sum_{m +n = k} c_m(X[i]) \cdot c_n(Z_i), \end{eqnarray*} see for instance~\cite[Section~3]{Farrell-Lueck-Steimle(2010)}. This implies for $k \in \{0,1,2, \ldots ,d\}$ \begin{eqnarray*} \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{c_k(Y_i)}{[G:G_i]} & = & \lim_{i \to \infty} \sum_{m +n = k} \frac{c_m(X[i]) \cdot c_n(Z_i)}{[G:G_i]} \\ & = & \lim_{i \to \infty} \sum_{m +n = k} \frac{c_m(X[i])}{[K:K_i]} \cdot \frac{c_n(Z_i)}{[Q:Q_i]} \\ & = & \sum_{m +n = k} c_n(Z) \cdot \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{c_m(X[i])}{[K:K_i]} \\ & = 0. \end{eqnarray*} \end{proof} \begin{example}[Examples of groups with slow growth in dimensions $\le d$] \label{exa:Examples_of_groups_with_slow_growth_in_dimensions_le_d} A residually finite group has slow growth in dimensions $\le 0$ if and only if it is infinite. Obviously ${\mathbb Z}$ has slow growth in dimensions $\le d$ for all natural numbers $d$ since any non-trivial subgroup $K$ of ${\mathbb Z}$ is isomorphic to ${\mathbb Z}$ again and has $S^1$ as model for $BK$. We conclude from Lemma~\ref{lem:slow_growth_and_extensions} that any infinite virtually poly-${\mathbb Z}$-group has slow growth in dimensions $\le d$. Moreover, if $G$ is any residually finite group which possesses a finite sequence $K_0 \subseteq K_1 \subseteq \cdots \subseteq K_n = G$ of subgroups such that $K_0 \cong {\mathbb Z}$, $K_i$ is normal in $K_{i+1}$ and $B(K_{i+1}/K_i)$ has a model with finite $d$-skeleton for $i = 0, \ldots, (n-1)$, then $G$ has slow growth in dimensions $\le d$ by Lemma~\ref{lem:slow_growth_and_extensions}. \end{example} \typeout{------------------------ Section 5: Speed of convergence --------------------} \section{Speed of convergence} \label{sec:Speed_of_convergence} The speed of convergence of \[ \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{b_n(X[i];F)}{[G:G_i]} = b_n^{(2)}(\widetilde{X}) \] (if it converges) and of \[ \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{d(G_i) -1)}{[G:G_i]} = \operatorname{RG}(G;(G_i)_{i \ge 0}) \] can be arbitrarily slow for one chain and very fast for another chain in a sense that we shall now explain. Fix a prime $p$ and two functions $F^s,F^f \colon \{i \in {\mathbb Z} \mid i \ge 1\} \to (0,\infty)$ such that \begin{eqnarray*} \lim_{i \to \infty} F^s(i) & = & 0; \\ \lim_{i \to \infty} F^f(i) & = & 0; \\ \lim_{i \to \infty} i \cdot F^f (i) & = & \infty. \end{eqnarray*} \subsection{Betti numbers} \label{subsec:Betti_numbers} \begin{theorem}\label{the:L2-Betti_numbers_speed_of_convergence} For every integer $n \ge 1$, there is a closed $(2n+1)$-dimensional Riemannian manifold $X$ with non-positive sectional curvature and two chains $(G_i^s)_{i \ge 0}$ and $(G_i^f)_{i \ge 0}$ for $G = \pi_1(X)$ such that $G_i^s$ and $G_i^f$ are normal subgroups of $G$ of finite $p$-power index, the intersections $\bigcap_{i \ge 0} G_i^s$ and $\bigcap_{i \ge 0} G_i^f$ are trivial, and we have for every field $F$ \begin{eqnarray*} \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{b_n(X^s[i];F)}{[G:G^s_i]} & = & b_n^{(2)}(\widetilde{X}) = 0; \\ \frac{b_n(X^s[i];F)}{[G^s:G^s_i]} & \ge & F^s([G:G^s_i]); \\ \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{b_n(X^f[i];F)}{[G:G^f_i]} & = & b_n^{(2)}(\widetilde{X}) = 0; \\ \frac{b_n(X^f[i];F)}{[G:G^f_i]} & \le & F^f([G:G^f_i]). \end{eqnarray*} \end{theorem} \begin{proof} Consider any finite connected $CW$-complex $Y$ with universal covering $\widetilde{Y} \to Y$ and $b_n^{(2)}(\widetilde{Y}) + b_{n-1}^{(2)}(\widetilde{Y}) > 0$ such that $K = \pi_1(Y)$ is infinite and residually $p$-finite. Choose any chain $(K_i)_{i \ge 0}$ of normal subgroups of $K$ of finite index $[K : K_i]$ which is a power of $p$ and with trivial intersection $\bigcap_{i \ge 0} K_i = \{1\}$. Because of Theorem~\ref{the:approx_Betti_char_zero} and~\cite[Theorem~1.6]{Bergeron-Linnell-Lueck-Sauer(2014)} the limit $\frac{b_n(Y[i];F) + b_{n-1}(Y[i];F)}{[K:K_i]}$ exists and is greater than $0$. Hence there exist real numbers $C_1$ and $C_2$ (independent of $i$) with $0 < C_1 \le C_2$ such that for each $i \ge 1$ \[ C_1 \le \frac{b_n(Y[i];F) + b_{n-1}(Y[i];F)}{[K:K_i]} \le C_2. \] Let $k_i$ be the natural number for which $[K:K_i] = p^{k_i}$ holds. Then $(k_i)_{i \ge 0}$ is a monotone increasing sequence of natural numbers with $\lim_{i \to \infty} k_i = \infty$. Since $\lim_{k \to \infty} F^s\bigl(p^k \cdot p^m\bigr) = 0$ holds for any integer $m \ge 0$, we can construct a strictly monotone increasing sequence of natural numbers $(j_i)_{i \ge 0}$ such that we get for all $i \ge 0$ \begin{eqnarray*} F^s\bigl(p^{k_{j_i}} \cdot p^i\bigr) & \le & C_1 \cdot p^{-i}. \end{eqnarray*} Since $\lim_{n \to \infty} p^n \cdot F^f\bigl(p^k \cdot p^n\bigr) = \infty$ for any natural number $k$, we can construct a strictly monotone increasing sequence of natural numbers $(n_i^f)_{i \ge 0}$ satisfying \begin{eqnarray*} C_2 \cdot p^{-n_i^f} & \le & F^f\bigl(p^{k_{j_i}} \cdot p^{n_i^f}\bigr). \end{eqnarray*} Put \[ X = Y \times S^1. \] Then $G = \pi_1(X)$ can be identified with $K \times {\mathbb Z}$. We conclude $b_n^{(2)}(\widetilde{X}) = 0$ from~\cite[Theorem~1.39 on page~42]{Lueck(2002)}. Put \begin{eqnarray*} G_i^s & = & K_{j_i} \times (p^i \cdot {\mathbb Z}); \\ G_i^f & = & K_{j_i} \times (p^{n_i^f} \cdot {\mathbb Z}). \end{eqnarray*} Then $(G_i^s)_{i \ge 0}$ is a chain of normal subgroups of $G$ with finite index $[G:G_i^s] = [K:K_{j_i}] \cdot p^i$ which is a $p$-power, namely $p^{k_{j_i} + i}$, and trivial intersection $\bigcap_{i \ge 0} G_i^s = \{1\}$, and analogously for $(G_i^f)_{i \ge 0}$. We estimate using the K\"unneth formula: \begin{eqnarray*} \frac{b_n(X^s[i];F)}{[G:G_i^s]} & = & \frac{b_n(Y[j_i];F) + b_{n-1}(Y[j_i];F)}{[K:K_{j_i}] \cdot p^{i}} \\ & \ge & C_1 \cdot p^{-i} \\ & \ge & F^s\bigl(p^{k_{j_i}} \cdot p^{i}\bigr) \\ & = & F^s([G:G_i^s]), \end{eqnarray*} and \[ \frac{b_n(X^s[i];F)}{[G:G_i^s]} = \frac{b_n(Y[j_i];F) + b_{n-1}(Y[j_i];F)}{[K:K_{j_i}] \cdot p^{i}} \le C_2 \cdot p^{-i}. \] The latter implies $\lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{b_n(X^s[i];F)}{[G:G_i^s]} = 0$. We estimate \begin{eqnarray*} \frac{b_n(X^f[i];F)}{[G:G_i^f]} & = & \frac{b_n(Y[j_i];F) + b_{n-1}(Y[j_i];F)}{[K:K_{j_i}] \cdot p^{n_i^f}} \\ & \le & C_2 \cdot p^{-n_i^f} \\ & \le & F^f\bigl(p^{k_{j_i}} \cdot p^{n_i^f}\bigr) \\ & = & F^f([G:G_i^f]). \end{eqnarray*} Since $\lim_{i \to \infty} C_2 \cdot p^{-n_i^f} = 0$, we also get $\lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{b_n(X^f[i];F)}{[G:G_i^f]} = 0$. It remains to construct the desired finite $CW$-complex $Y$. The fundamental group of an oriented closed surface of genus $\ge 2$ is residually free and hence residually $p$-finite for any prime $p$ by~\cite{Baumslag(1962)}. The $L^2$-Betti numbers of its universal covering are all zero except in dimension $1$, where it is non-zero, see~\cite[Example~1.36 on page~40]{Lueck(2002)}. We conclude from the K\"unneth formula for $L^2$-Betti numbers~\cite[Theorem~6.54~(5) on page~266]{Lueck(2002)} that an example for $Y$ is the direct product of $n$ closed oriented surfaces of genus $\ge 2$. So we can arrange that $X$ is an aspherical closed $(2n+1)$-dimensional Riemannian manifold with non-positive sectional curvature. \end{proof} Theorem~\ref{the:L2-Betti_numbers_speed_of_convergence} implies that one can find for any $\epsilon > 0$ two chains $(G_i^s)_{i \ge 0}$ and $(G_i^f)_{i \ge 0}$ satisfying \begin{eqnarray*} \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{b_n(X[i];F)}{{[G:G^s_i]}^{1-\epsilon}} & = & \infty; \\ \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{b_n(X[i];F)}{{[G:G^f_i]}^{\epsilon}} & = & 0, \end{eqnarray*} since we can take $F^s(i) = i^{-\epsilon/2}$ and $F^f(i) = i^{\epsilon/2 - 1}$. The condition $\lim_{i \to \infty} i \cdot F^f(i) = \infty$ is reasonable. Namely, in most cases one would expect $\lim_{i \to \infty} b_n(X[i];F) = \infty$ and if this is true, we get \[ \lim_{i \to \infty} [G:G_i] \cdot \frac{b_n(X[i];F)}{[G:G_i]} = \infty. \] \subsection{Rank gradient} \label{subsec:rank_gradient} \begin{theorem}\label{the:rank_gradient_speed_of_convergence} Let $G$ be the direct product of ${\mathbb Z}$ with a finitely generated free group of rank $\ge 2$ or the product of ${\mathbb Z}$ with the fundamental group of a closed surface of genus $\ge 2$. Then there are two chains $(G_i^s)_{i \ge 0}$ and $(G_i^f)_{i \ge 0}$ such that $G_i^s$ and $G_i^f$ are normal subgroups of $G$ of finite $p$-power index, the intersections $\bigcap_{i \ge 0} G_i^s$ and $\bigcap_{i \ge 0} G_i^f$ are trivial, and we have \begin{eqnarray*} \operatorname{RG}(G,(G_i^s)_{i\ge 0}) & = & 0; \\ \frac{d(G_i^s) -1 }{[G:G_i^s]} & \ge & F^s([G:G^s_i]); \\ \operatorname{RG}(G,(G_i^f)_{i\ge 0}) & = &0; \\ \frac{d(G_i^f) -1 }{[G:G_i^f]} & \le & F^f([G:G^f_i]). \end{eqnarray*} \end{theorem} \begin{proof} Essentially the same argument as in the proof of Theorem~\ref{the:L2-Betti_numbers_speed_of_convergence} also applies to the rank gradient. Let $K$ be a finitely presented group with $b_1^{(2)}(K) > 0$. Choose any chain $(K_i)_{i \ge 0}$ of normal subgroups of $K$ of finite index $[K : K_i]$ which is a power of $p$ and with trivial intersection $\bigcap_{i \ge 0} K_i = \{1\}$. Then $\left(\frac{d(K_i)-1}{[K:K_i]}\right)_{i \ge 0}$ is a monotone decreasing sequence. Its limit $\operatorname{RG}(K,(K_i)_{i \ge 0}) := \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{d(K_i)-1}{[K:K_i]}$ exists and is greater than $b_1^{(2)}(K)$. Hence we can choose constants $C_1> 0$ and $C_2 > 0$ such that such that for each $i \ge 1$ we get \[ C_1 \le \frac{d(K_i) -1 }{[K:K_i]} \le \frac{d(K_i)}{[K:K_i]} \le C_2. \] Put $G = K \times {\mathbb Z}$. Now construct the sequences $(j_i)_{i \ge 0}$ and $(n_i^s)_{i\ge 0}$ and define $G_i^s$ and $G_i^f$ as in the proof of Theorem~\ref{the:L2-Betti_numbers_speed_of_convergence}. Then $d(K_{j_i}) \le d(G_i^s) \le d(K_{j_i}) +1$ and $d(K_{j_i}) \le d(G_i^f) \le d(K_{j_i}) +1$ holds. Now a calculation analogous to the one in the proof of Theorem~\ref{the:L2-Betti_numbers_speed_of_convergence} shows \begin{eqnarray*} \frac{d(G_i^s) -1 }{[G:G_i^s]} & \ge & F^s([G^s:G^s_i]); \\ \frac{d(G_i^f) -1 }{[G:G_i^f]} & \le & F^f([G^f:G^f_i]). \end{eqnarray*} If $K$ is a finitely generated free group of rank $\ge 2$ or the fundamental group of a closed surface of genus $\ge 2$, then $K$ is finitely presented, residually $p$-finite and $b_1^{(2)}(K) > 0$. \end{proof} \typeout{------------------------ Section 6: Determinants --------------------} \section{The Approximation Conjecture for Fuglede-Kadison determinants} \label{sec:The_Approximation_Conjecture_for_Fuglede-Kadison_determinants} Let $A \in M_{r,s}({\mathbb Q} G)$ be a matrix. It induces by right multiplication a $G$-equivariant bounded operator $r_A^{(2)} \colon L^2(G)^r \to L^2(G)^s$. We denote by ${\det}^{(2)}_{{\mathcal N}(G)}\bigl(r_A^{(2)}\colon L^2(G)^r \to L^2(G)^s\bigr)$ its Fuglede-Kadison determinant. Denote by $A[i] \in M_{r,s}({\mathbb Q}[G/G_i])$ the matrix obtained from $A$ by applying elementwise the ring homomorphism ${\mathbb Q} G \to {\mathbb Q}[G/G_i]$ induced by the projection $G \to G/G_i$. It induces a ${\mathbb C}$-homomorphism of finite-dimensional complex Hilbert spaces $r_{A[i]}^{(2)} \colon {\mathbb C}[G/G_i]^r \to {\mathbb C}[G/G_i]^s$. Consider a ${\mathbb C}$-homomorphism of finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces $f \colon V \to W$. It induces an endomorphism $f^*f \colon V \to V$. We have $\ker(f) = \ker(f^*f)$. Denote by $\ker(f)^{\perp}$ the orthogonal complement of $\ker(f)$. Then $f^*f$ induces an automorphism $(f^*f)^{\perp} \colon \ker(f)^{\perp} \to \ker(f)^{\perp}$. Define \begin{eqnarray} {\det}'(f) & := & \sqrt{\det\bigl((f^*f)^{\perp}\bigr)}. \label{detprime(f)} \end{eqnarray} If $0 < \lambda_1 \le \lambda_2 \le \lambda_3 \le \cdots$ are the non-zero eigenvalues (listed with multiplicity) of the positive operator $f^*f \colon V \to V$ , then \[ {\det}'(f) = \prod_{j \ge 1} \sqrt{\lambda_j}. \] If $f$ is an isomorphism, then $\det'(f)$ reduces to $\sqrt{\det(f^*f)}$. \begin{conjecture}[Approximation Conjecture for Fuglede-Kadison determinants] \label{con:Approximation_conjecture_for_Fuglede-Kadison_determinants_with_finite_index} Consider a matrix $A \in M_{r,s}({\mathbb Q} G)$. Then we get \[ \ln\bigl({\det}^{(2)}_{{\mathcal N}(G)}(r_A^{(2)})\bigr) = \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{\ln\bigl({\det}'(r_{A[i]}^{(2)})\bigr)}{[G:G_i]}. \] \end{conjecture} \begin{remark} \label{rem:complicated_case_for_determinants-necessary} If $r = s$ and $A \in M_{r,r}({\mathbb Q} G)$ is invertible, then the following equality is always true \[ \ln\bigl({\det}^{(2)}_{{\mathcal N}(G)}(r_A^{(2)})\bigr) = \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{\ln\bigl(\det(r_{A[i]}^{(2)})\bigr)}{[G:G_i]}. \] However, for applications to $L^2$-torsion we have to consider the case, where $r$ and $s$ may be different and the maps $(r_A^{(2)})^*r_A^{(2)}$ and $(r_{A[i]}^{(2)})^*r_{A[i]}^{(2)}$ may not be injective. \end{remark} \begin{remark}[${\mathbb Q}$ coefficients are necessary] \label{rem:IQ-coefficients_are_necessary} Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_conjecture_for_Fuglede-Kadison_determinants_with_finite_index} does not hold if one replaces ${\mathbb Q}$ by ${\mathbb C}$ by the following result appearing in~\cite[Example~13.69 on page~481]{Lueck(2002)}. There exists a sequence of integers $2 \le n_1 < n_2 < n_3 < \cdots$ and a real number $s$ such that for $G = {\mathbb Z}$ and $G_i = n_i \cdot {\mathbb Z}$ and the $(1,1)$-matrix $A$ given by the element $z-\exp(2\pi i s)$ in ${\mathbb C}[{\mathbb Z}] = {\mathbb C}[z,z^{-1}]$ we get for all $i \ge 1$ \begin{eqnarray*} \ln\bigl({\det}^{(2)}_{{\mathcal N}(G)}(r_A^{(2)})\bigr) & = & 0; \\ \frac{\ln\bigl(\det(r_{A[i]}^{(2)})\bigr)}{[G:G_i]} & \le & - 1/2. \end{eqnarray*} \end{remark} \begin{remark}[Status of Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_conjecture_for_Fuglede-Kadison_determinants_with_finite_index}] \label{con:status_of_Approx_Conj_Fuglede-Kadison} Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_conjecture_for_Fuglede-Kadison_determinants_with_finite_index} has been proved for $G = {\mathbb Z}$ by Schmidt~\cite{Schmidt(1995)}, see also~\cite[Lemma~13.53 on page~478]{Lueck(2002)}. To the author's knowledge infinite virtually cyclic groups are the only infinite groups for which Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_conjecture_for_Fuglede-Kadison_determinants_with_finite_index} is known to be true. One does know in general the inequality, see Theorem~\ref{the:inequality_det_det}, \begin{eqnarray} \ln\bigl({\det}^{(2)}_{{\mathcal N}(G)}(r_A^{(2)})\bigr) & \ge & \limsup_{i \to \infty} \frac{\ln\bigl({\det}'(r_{A[i]}^{(2)})\bigr)}{[G:G_i]}. \label{ln(det)_ge_limsup} \end{eqnarray} For $G = {\mathbb Z}^n$ the last inequality for the limit superior is known to be an equality by L\^e~\cite{Le(2013)}. But nothing seems to be known beyond virtually finitely generated free abelian groups. \end{remark} \typeout{------------------------ Section 7: Torsion invariants --------------------} \section{Torsion invariants} \label{sec:torsion_invariants} Before we start talking about torsion, we want to shed some light on the name. To the best of our knowledge it comes from the visualization of a $3$-dimensional lens space and its cells structure, where for different models the cells appear to be distorted in different ways. The Reidemeister torsion, which was invented to classify lens spaces, measures this distorsion. \subsection{$L^2$-torsion} \label{sec:L2-torsion} Let $D_*$ be a finite based free ${\mathbb Z}$-chain complex, for instance the cellular chain complex $C_*(Y) $ of a finite $CW$-complex $Y$. The ${\mathbb C}$-chain complex $D_* \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} {\mathbb C}$ inherits from the ${\mathbb Z}$-basis on $D_*$ and the standard Hilbert space structure on ${\mathbb C}$ the structure of a Hilbert space and the resulting $L^2$-chain complex is denoted by $D_*^{(2)}$ with differentials $d_p^{(2)} := d_p \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} \operatorname{id}_{{\mathbb C}}$. Define its \emph{$L^2$-torsion} by \begin{eqnarray} \rho^{(2)}(D_*^{(2)};{\mathcal N}(\{1\})) := - \sum_{n \ge 1} (-1)^n \cdot \ln\bigl({\det}_{{\mathcal N}(\{1\})}^{(2)}(d_n^{(2)})\bigr) \quad \in {\mathbb R}. \label{rho_caln(1)(2)(C_ast(2))_over_Z} \end{eqnarray} Notice that ${\det}_{{\mathcal N}(\{1\})}^{(2)}(c_n^{(2)})$ is the same as $\det'(c_n^{(2)})$ which we have introduced in~\eqref{detprime(f)}. More generally, if $C_*$ is a finite based free ${\mathbb Z} G$-chain complex, we obtain a finite Hilbert ${\mathcal N}(G)$-chain complex $C_*^{(2)} := C_* \otimes_{{\mathbb Z} G} L^2(G)$ and we define its \emph{$L^2$-torsion} \begin{eqnarray} \rho^{(2)}(C_*^{(2)};{\mathcal N}(G)) := - \sum_{n \ge 1} (-1)^n \cdot \ln({\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G)}^{(2)}\bigl(c_n^{(2)})\bigr)\quad \in {\mathbb R}. \label{rho_caln(1)(2)(C_ast(2))_over_ZG} \end{eqnarray} \begin{conjecture}[Approximation Conjecture for $L^2$-torsion] \label{con:Approximation_conjecture_for_chain_complexes_with_finite_index} Let $C_*$ be a finite based free ${\mathbb Z} G$-chain complex. Denote by $C[i]_*$ the finite free ${\mathbb Z}$-chain complex given by $C[i]_* = C_* \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}[G_i]} {\mathbb Z} = C_* \otimes_{{\mathbb Z} G} {\mathbb Z}[G/G_i]$. Then we get \[ \rho^{(2)}(C_*^{(2)};{\mathcal N}(G)) = \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{\rho^{(2)}(C[i]_*^{(2)};{\mathcal N}(\{1\}))}{[G:G_i]}. \] \end{conjecture} Obviously Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_conjecture_for_chain_complexes_with_finite_index} is just the chain complex version of Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_conjecture_for_Fuglede-Kadison_determinants_with_finite_index} and these two conjectures are equivalent for a given group $G$. \subsection{Analytic and topological $L^2$-torsion} \label{sec:analytic_and_topological_L2-torsion} Let $X$ be a closed Riemannian manifold. In the sequel we denote by $G \to \overline{X} \to X$ some $G$-covering. Let $\rho_{\operatorname{an}}(X[i])$ be the analytic torsion in the sense of Ray and Singer of the closed Riemannian manifold $X[i]$. Denote by $\rho^{(2)}_{\operatorname{an}}(\overline{X})$ the analytic $L^2$-torsion of the Riemannian manifold $\overline{X}$ with isometric free cocompact $G$-action. \begin{conjecture}[Approximation Conjecture for analytic torsion] \label{con:Approximation_for_analytic_torsion} Let $X$ be a closed Riemannian manifold. Then \[ \rho^{(2)}_{\operatorname{an}}(\overline{X};{\mathcal N}(G)) = \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{\ln(\rho_{\operatorname{an}}(X[i]))}{[G:G_i]}. \] \end{conjecture} There are topological counterparts which we will denote by $\rho_{\operatorname{top}}(X[i])$ and $\rho^{(2)}_{\operatorname{top}}(\overline{X})$ which agree with their analytic versions by results of Cheeger~\cite{Cheeger(1979)} and M\"uller~\cite{Mueller(1978)} and Burghelea-Friedlander-Kappeler-McDonald~\cite{Burghelea-Friedlander-Kappeler-McDonald(1996a)}. So the conjecture above is equivalent to its topological counterpart. \begin{conjecture}[Approximation Conjecture for topological torsion] \label{con:Approximation_for_topological_torsion} Let $X$ be a closed Riemannian manifold. Then \[ \rho^{(2)}_{\operatorname{top}}(\overline{X};{\mathcal N}(G)) = \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{\ln(\rho_{\operatorname{top}}(X[i]))}{[G:G_i]}. \] \end{conjecture} \begin{remark}[Dependency on the triangulation and the Riemannian metric] \label{rem:Dependency_on_the_triangulation_and_the_Riemannian_metric} Let $X$ be a closed smooth manifold. Fix a smooth triangulation. Since this induces a structure of a free finite $G$-$CW$-complex on $\overline{X}$, we get a ${\mathbb Z} G$-basis for $C_*(\overline{X})$ and hence can consider $\rho^{(2)}(C_*^{(2)}(\overline{X});{\mathcal N}(G))$. The cellular ${\mathbb Z} G$-basis for $C_*(\overline{X})$ is not unique, but it is up to permutation of the basis elements and multiplying base elements with trivial units, i.e., elements of the shape $\pm g$ for $g \in G$. It turns out that $\rho^{(2)}(C_*^{(2)}(\overline{X});{\mathcal N}(G))$ is independent of these choices after we have fixed a smooth triangulation of $X$. However, if we pass to a subdivision of the smooth triangulation of $X$, then $\rho^{(2)}(C_*^{(2)}(\overline{X});{\mathcal N}(G))$ changes in general, unless $b_n^{(2)}(\overline{X};{\mathcal N}(G))$ vanishes for all $n \ge 0$. Let $X$ be a closed smooth Riemannian manifold. Then $\rho^{(2)}_{\operatorname{an}}(\overline{X};{\mathcal N}(G))$ and $\rho^{(2)}_{\operatorname{top}}(\overline{X};{\mathcal N}(G))$ are independent of the choice of smooth triangulation and hence depend only on the isometric diffeomorphism type of $X$. However, changing the Riemannian metric does in general change $\rho^{(2)}_{\operatorname{an}}(\overline{X};{\mathcal N}(G))$ and $\rho^{(2)}_{\operatorname{top}}(\overline{X};{\mathcal N}(G))$. If we have $b_n^{(2)}(\overline{X};{\mathcal N}(G)) = 0$ for all $n \ge 0$, then $\rho^{(2)}_{\operatorname{an}}(\overline{X};{\mathcal N}(G))$ and $\rho^{(2)}_{\operatorname{top}}(\overline{X};{\mathcal N}(G))$ are independent of the Riemannian metric and depend only on the diffeomorphism type of $X$, actually, they depend only on the simple homotopy type of $X$. There is a lot of evidence that in this situation only the homotopy type of $X$ matters, see for instance~\cite[Conjecture~3.94 on page~163]{Lueck(2002)} and the Determinant Conjecture~\ref{con:Determinant_Conjecture}. \end{remark} The next result is a special case of Theorem~\ref{the:comparing_analytic_and_chain_complexes}. \begin{theorem}[Relating the Approximation Conjectures for Fuglede-Kadison determinant and torsion invariants] \label{the:comparing_torsion_and_FK-determinants} Suppose that $X$ is a closed Riemannian manifold such that $b_n^{(2)}(\overline{X},{\mathcal N}(G))$ vanishes for all $n \ge 0$. If $G$ satisfies Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_conjecture_for_Fuglede-Kadison_determinants_with_finite_index} for all matrices $A \in M_{r,s}({\mathbb Q} G)$ and all natural numbers $r,s$, then Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_for_analytic_torsion} and Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_for_topological_torsion} hold for $X$. \end{theorem} \begin{remark}[On the $L^2$-acyclicity assumption] \label{rem:On_the_L2-acyclicity_assumption_with_finite_index} Recall that in Theorem~\ref{the:comparing_torsion_and_FK-determinants} we require that $b_n^{(2)}(M;{\mathcal N}(G)\bigr) = 0$ holds for $n \ge 0$. This assumption is satisfied in many interesting cases. It is possible that this assumption is not needed for Theorem~\ref{the:comparing_torsion_and_FK-determinants} to be true, but our proof does not work without it. \end{remark} \subsection{Integral torsion} \label{sec:integral_torsion} \begin{definition}[Integral torsion]\label{def:integral_torsion} Define for a finite ${\mathbb Z}$-chain complex $D_*$ its \emph{integral torsion} \begin{eqnarray*} \rho^{{\mathbb Z}}(D_*) & := & \sum_{n \ge 0} (-1)^n \cdot \ln\left(\bigl|\operatorname{tors}(H_{n}(D_*))\bigr|\right) \quad \in {\mathbb R}, \end{eqnarray*} where $\bigl|\operatorname{tors}(H_n(D_*))\bigr|$ is the order of the torsion subgroup of the finitely generated abelian group $H_n(D_*)$. Given a finite $CW$-complex $X$, define its \emph{integral torsion} $\rho^{{\mathbb Z}}(X)$ by $\rho^{{\mathbb Z}}(C_*(X))$, where $C_*(X)$ is its cellular ${\mathbb Z}$-complex. \end{definition} \begin{remark}[Integral torsion and Milnor's torsion] \label{rem:Milnor_torsion} Let $C_*$ be a finite free ${\mathbb Z}$-chain complex. Fix for each $n \ge 0$ a ${\mathbb Z}$-basis for $C_n$ and for $H_n(C)/\operatorname{tors}(H_n(C))$. These induce ${\mathbb Q}$-bases for ${\mathbb Q} \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} C_n$ and $H_n\bigl({\mathbb Q} \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} C_*) \cong {\mathbb Q} \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} \bigl(H_n(C)/\operatorname{tors}(H_n(C)\bigr)\bigr)$. Then the torsion in the sense of Milnor~\cite[page~365]{Milnor(1966)} is $\rho^{{\mathbb Z}}(C_*)$. \end{remark} The following two conjectures are motivated by~\cite[Conjecture~1.3]{Bergeron-Venkatesh(2013)} and~\cite[Conjecture~11.3 on page~418 and Question~13.52 on page~478]{Lueck(2002)}. They are true in special cases by Theorem~\ref{the:Groups_containing_a_normal_infinite_nice_subgroups}. The assumption that $b_n^{(2)}(\overline{X};{\mathcal N}(G))$ vanishes for all $n \ge 0$ ensures that the definition of the topological $L^2$-torsion $\rho^{(2)}_{\operatorname{top}}(\overline{X};{\mathcal N}(G))$ makes sense for $X$ also in the case of a connected finite $CW$-complex. \begin{conjecture}[Approximation Conjecture for integral torsion] \label{con:Approximation_Conjecture_for_Milnor_torsion} Let $X$ be a finite connected $CW$-complex. Suppose that $b_n^{(2)}(\overline{X};{\mathcal N}(G))$ vanishes for all $n \ge 0$. Then \[ \rho^{(2)}_{\operatorname{top}}(\overline{X};{\mathcal N}(G)) = \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{\rho^{{\mathbb Z}}(X[i])}{[G:G_i]}. \] \end{conjecture} The chain complex version of Conjectures~\ref{con:Approximation_Conjecture_for_Milnor_torsion} is \begin{conjecture}[Approximating Fuglede-Kadison determinants and $L^2$-torsion by homology] \label{con:Approximating_Fuglede-Kadison_determinants_and_L2-torsion_by_homology}\ \begin{enumerate} \item \label{con:Approximating_Fuglede-Kadison_determinants_and_L2-torsion_by_homology:ZG-maps} Let $f \colon {\mathbb Z} G^r \to {\mathbb Z} G^r$ be a ${\mathbb Z} G$-homomorphism such that $f^{(2)} \colon L^2(G)^r \to L^2(G)^r$ is a weak isomorphism of Hilbert ${\mathcal N}(G)$-modules. Let $f[i] := f \otimes_{{\mathbb Z} G_i} {\mathbb Z} = f \otimes_{{\mathbb Z} G} {\mathbb Z}[G/G_i] \colon {\mathbb Z}[G/G_i]^r \to {\mathbb Z}[G/G_i]^r$ be the induced ${\mathbb Z}$-homomorphism. Then \begin{eqnarray*} {\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G)}^{(2)}(f^{(2)}) & = & \lim_{i \to \infty} \; \bigl|\operatorname{tors}\bigl(\operatorname{coker}(f[i])\bigr)\bigr|^{1/[G:G_i]}; \end{eqnarray*} \item \label{con:Approximating_Fuglede-Kadison_determinants_and_L2-torsion_by_homology:chain_complexes} Let $C_*$ be a finite based free ${\mathbb Z} G$-chain complex. Suppose that $C_*^{(2)}$ is $L^2$-acyclic, i.e., $b_p^{(2)}\bigl(C_*^{(2)}\bigr) = 0$ for all $p \ge 0$. Let $C[i]_* := C_* \otimes_{{\mathbb Z} G_i} {\mathbb Z} = C_* \otimes_{{\mathbb Z} G} {\mathbb Z}[G/G_i]$ be the induced finite based free ${\mathbb Z}$-chain complex. Then \begin{eqnarray*} \rho^{(2)}\bigl(C_*^{(2)}\bigr) & = & \lim_{i \to \infty} \;\frac{\rho^{{\mathbb Z}}(C[i]_*)}{[G:G_i]}; \end{eqnarray*} \end{enumerate} \end{conjecture} In Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_Conjecture_for_Milnor_torsion} and Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximating_Fuglede-Kadison_determinants_and_L2-torsion_by_homology} it is necessary to demand that $f$ is a weak isomorphism and that $C_*$ and $X$ are $L^2$-acyclic, otherwise there are counterexamples, see Remark~\ref{rem:condition_L2_acyclic_necessary}. Here are some results about the conjecture above which will be proved in Section~\ref{sec:Proof_of_Theorem_ref(the:about_approximating_by_IZ-torsion)}. \begin{theorem}\label{the:about_approximating_by_IZ-torsion}\ \begin{enumerate} \item \label{the:about_approximating_by_IZ-torsion:inequality} Let $f \colon {\mathbb Z} G^r \to {\mathbb Z} G^s$ be a ${\mathbb Z} G$-homomorphism. Then \begin{eqnarray*} \ln\bigl({\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G)}^{(2)}(f^{(2)})\bigr) & \ge & \limsup_{i \to \infty} \frac{\bigl|\operatorname{tors}\bigl(\operatorname{coker}(f[i])\bigr)\big|}{[G:G_i]}; \end{eqnarray*} \item \label{the:about_approximating_by_IZ-torsion:acyclic_in_each_degree} Suppose in the situation of assertion~\eqref{con:Approximating_Fuglede-Kadison_determinants_and_L2-torsion_by_homology:ZG-maps} of Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximating_Fuglede-Kadison_determinants_and_L2-torsion_by_homology} that $f\otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} \operatorname{id}_{{\mathbb Q}} \colon {\mathbb Q}[G]^r \to {\mathbb Q}[G]^r$ is bijective. Then the conclusion appearing there is true. Suppose in the situation of assertion~\eqref{con:Approximating_Fuglede-Kadison_determinants_and_L2-torsion_by_homology:chain_complexes} of Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximating_Fuglede-Kadison_determinants_and_L2-torsion_by_homology} that $H_p(C_*) \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} {\mathbb Q} = 0$ for all $p \ge 0$. Then the conclusion appearing there is true; \item \label{the:about_approximating_by_IZ-torsion:G_is_Z} If $G$ is the infinite cyclic group ${\mathbb Z}$, then Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximating_Fuglede-Kadison_determinants_and_L2-torsion_by_homology} is true. \end{enumerate} \end{theorem} Assertion~\eqref{the:about_approximating_by_IZ-torsion:acyclic_in_each_degree} of Theorem~\ref{the:about_approximating_by_IZ-torsion} is generalized in Lemma~\ref{lem:invariance_of_homological_conjecture_under_Q-homotopy_equivalence}. Assertion~\eqref{the:about_approximating_by_IZ-torsion:G_is_Z} of Theorem~\ref{the:about_approximating_by_IZ-torsion} has already been proved by Bergeron-Venkatesh~\cite[Theorem~7.3]{Bergeron-Venkatesh(2013)}. Applied to cyclic coverings of a knot complement this reduces to a theorem of Silver-Williams~\cite[Theorem~2.1]{Silver-Williams(2002)}. An extension of the results in this paper is given by Raimbault~\cite{Raimbault(2012abelian)}. \typeout{-------- Section 8: On the relation of $L^2$-torsion and integral torsion ------------------------} \section{On the relation of $L^2$-torsion and integral torsion} \label{sec:On_the_relation_of_L2-torsion_and_integral_torsion} Let $C_*$ be a finite based free ${\mathbb Z}$-chain complex, for instance the cellular chain complex $C_*(X) $ of a finite $CW$-complex. We have introduced in Subsection~\ref{sec:L2-torsion} the $L^2$-chain complex $C_*^{(2)} = C_* \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} {\mathbb C} $ with differentials $c_n^{(2)} := c_n \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} \operatorname{id}_{{\mathbb C}}$ and its $L^2$-torsion $\rho^{(2)}(C_*^{(2)};{\mathcal N}(\{1\}))$. Let $H_n^{(2)}(C_*^{(2)})$ be the $L^2$-homology of $C_*^{(2)}$ with respect to the von Neumann algebra ${\mathcal N}(\{1\}) = {\mathbb C}$. The underlying complex vector space is the homology $H_n(C_* \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} {\mathbb C}$) of $C_*\otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} {\mathbb C}$, but it comes now with the structure of a Hilbert space. For the reader's convenience we recall this Hilbert space structure. Let \[\Delta_n^{(2)} = \bigl(c_n^{(2)}\bigr)^*\circ c_n^{(2)} + c_{n+1}^{(2)} \circ \bigl(c_{n+1}^{(2)}\bigr)^* \colon C_n^{(2)} \to C_n^{(2)}\] be the associated Laplacian. Equip $\ker(\Delta_n^{(2)}) \subseteq C_n^{(2)}$ with the induced Hilbert space structure. Equip $H_n^{(2)}(C_*^{(2)})$ with the Hilbert space structure for which the obvious ${\mathbb C}$-isomorphism $\ker(\Delta_n^{(2)}) \to H_n^{(2)}(C_*^{(2)})$ becomes an isometric isomorphism. This is the same as the Hilbert subquotient structure with respect to the inclusion $\ker\bigl(c_n^{(2)}\bigr) \to C_n^{(2)}$ and the projection $\ker\bigl(c_n^{(2)}\bigr) \to H_n^{(2)}(C_*^{(2)})$. \begin{notation} \label{not_M_f} If $M$ is a finitely generated abelian group, define \begin{eqnarray*} M_f & := & M/ \operatorname{tors}(M). \end{eqnarray*} \end{notation} We have the canonical ${\mathbb C}$-isomorphism \begin{eqnarray} \alpha_n \colon \bigl(H_n(C_*)_f\bigr)^{(2)} := \bigl(H_n(C_*)/\operatorname{tors}(H_n(C_*)\bigr) \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} {\mathbb C} & \xrightarrow{\cong} & H_n^{(2)}(C_*^{(2)}). \label{iso_alpha} \end{eqnarray} Choose a ${\mathbb Z}$-basis on $H_n(C_*)_f$. This and the standard Hilbert space structure on ${\mathbb C}$ induces a Hilbert space structure on $\bigl(H_n(C_*)_f\bigr)^{(2)}$. Now we can consider the logarithm of the Fuglede-Kadison determinant \begin{eqnarray} R_n(C_*) & = & \ln\left({\det}_{{\mathcal N}(\{1\})}\bigl(\alpha_n \colon \bigl(H_n(C_*)_f)^{(2)} \to H_n^{(2)}(C_*^{(2)})\bigr)\right), \label{nth-regulator} \end{eqnarray} which is sometimes called the \emph{$n$th regulator}. It is independent of the choice of the ${\mathbb Z}$-basis of $H_n(C_*)_f$, since the absolute value of the determinant of an invertible matrix over ${\mathbb Z}$ is always $1$. If $\{b_1, b_2, \ldots ,b_r\}$ is an integral basis of $H_n(C_*)_f$ and we equip $H_n(C_*)_f \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} {\mathbb C}$ with an inner product $\langle -,-\rangle$ for which the map $\alpha_n$ of~\eqref{iso_alpha} becomes an isometry, then \[ R_n(C_*) = \frac{\ln\big({\det}_{{\mathbb C}}(B)\bigr)}{2}, \] where $B$ is the Gram-Schmidt matrix $\bigl(\langle b_i,b_j\rangle\bigr)_{i,j}$. The next result is proved for instance in~\cite[Lemma~2.3]{Lueck(2013l2approxfib)}. \begin{lemma} \label{lem:rho(2)-rhoZ} Let $C_*$ be a finite based free ${\mathbb Z}$-chain complex. Then \begin{eqnarray*} \rho^{{\mathbb Z}}(C_*) - \rho^{(2)}\bigl(C_*^{(2)};{\mathcal N}(\{1\})\bigr) & = & \sum_{n \ge 0} (-1)^n \cdot R_n(C_*). \end{eqnarray*} \end{lemma} \begin{remark}[Comparing conjectures for $L^2$-torsion and integral torsion] \label{rem:Comparing_conjectures_for_L2-torsion_and_integral_torsion} Consider the following three statements: \begin{enumerate} \item \label{rem:Comparing_conjectures_for_L2-torsion_and_integral_torsion:L(2)} Every finite based free ${\mathbb Z} G$-chain complex $C_*$ with $b_n^{(2)}\bigl(C_*^{(2)}\bigr) = 0$ for all $n \ge 0$ satisfies \[ \rho^{(2)}\bigl(C_*^{(2)}\bigr) = \lim_{i \to \infty} \;\frac{\rho^{(2)}\bigl(C[i]_*^{(2)}\bigr)}{[G:G_i]}; \] \item\label {rem:Comparing_conjectures_for_L2-torsion_and_integral_torsion:Z} Every finite based free ${\mathbb Z} G$-chain complex $C_*$ with $b_n^{(2)}\bigl(C_*^{(2)}\bigr) = 0$ for all $n \ge 0$ satisfies assertion~\eqref{con:Approximating_Fuglede-Kadison_determinants_and_L2-torsion_by_homology:chain_complexes} of Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximating_Fuglede-Kadison_determinants_and_L2-torsion_by_homology}, i.e., \begin{eqnarray*} \rho^{(2)}\bigl(C_*^{(2)}\bigr) & = & \lim_{i \to \infty} \;\frac{\rho^{{\mathbb Z}}(C[i]_*)}{[G:G_i]}; \end{eqnarray*} \item \label{rem:Comparing_conjectures_for_L2-torsion_and_integral_torsion:alpha} Every finite based free ${\mathbb Z} G$-chain complex $C_*$ with $b_n^{(2)}\bigl(C_*^{(2)}\bigr) = 0$ for all $n \ge 0$ satisfies \begin{eqnarray*} \lim_{i \to \infty}\; \sum_{n \ge 0} (-1)^n \cdot \frac{R_n(C[i]_*)}{[G:G_i]} & = & 0, \end{eqnarray*} \end{enumerate} By Lemma~\ref{lem:rho(2)-rhoZ} all of these statements are true if any two of them hold. \end{remark} \begin{lemma} \label{lem:R_0_is_okay} Let $X$ be an oriented closed smooth manifold of dimension $d$. Fix a smooth triangulation. Let $s_n$ be the number of $n$-simplices of the triangulation of $X$. Then we get \begin{eqnarray*} R_d(C_*(X[i])) & = & \frac{\ln([G:G_i] \cdot s_d)}{2}; \\ R_0(C_*(X[i])) & = & -\frac{\ln([G:G_i] \cdot s_0)}{2}; \\ \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{R_n(C_*(X[i]))}{[G:G_i]} &= & 0\quad \text{for}\; n = 0,d. \end{eqnarray*} \end{lemma} \begin{proof} The fundamental class $[X[i]]$ is a generator of the infinite cyclic group $H_d(X[i];{\mathbb Z})$, and is represented by the cycle $\sigma[i]_d$ in $C_d(X[i])$ given by the sum over all $d$-dimensional simplices. The number of $d$-simplices in $X[i]$ is $[G:G_i] \cdot s_d$. If we consider $\sigma[i]_d$ as an element in $C_d^{(2)}(X[i])$, it belongs to the kernel of $\Delta[i]_d^{(2)}$ and has norm $\sqrt{[G:G_i] \cdot s_d}$. Hence $R_d(C_*(X[i]))$, which is the logarithm of the norm of $\sigma[i]_d$ considered as an element in $C_d^{(2)}(X[i])$, is $\frac{\ln([G:G_i] \cdot s_d)}{2}$. Consider the element $\sigma[i]_0 \in C_0(X[i])$ given by the sum of the $0$-simplices of $X[i]$. The number of $0$-simplices in $X[i]$ is $[G:G_i] \cdot s_0$. The element $\sigma[i]_0$ considered as an element in $C_0^{(2)}(X[i])$ has norm $\sqrt{[G:G_i] \cdot s_0}$ and lies in the kernel of $\bigl(c[i]_1^{(2)}\bigr)^*$ and hence in the kernel of $\Delta[i]_0^{(2)}$ since it is orthogonal to any element of the shape $e_1$ - $e_0$ for $0$-simplices $e_0$ and $e_1$ and hence to the image of $c_1^{(2)} \colon C_1^{(2)}(X[i]) \to C_0^{(2)}(X[i])$. The augmentation map $C_0(X[i]) \to {\mathbb Z}$ sending a $0$-simplex to $1$ induces an isomorphism $H_0(C_*(X[i])) \xrightarrow{\cong} {\mathbb Z}$. This shows that $\sigma[i]_0$ represents $[G:G_i] \cdot s_0$ times the generator of $H_0(X[i];{\mathbb Z})$. Hence $R_0(C_*(X[i]))$, which is the logarithm of the norm of $\frac{\sigma[i]_0}{[G:G_i] \cdot s_0}$, is $-\frac{\ln([G:G_i] \cdot s_0)}{2}$. In particular we get $\lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{R_n(C_*(X[i]))}{[G:G_i]} = 0$ for $n = 0,d$. \end{proof} \typeout{-------- Section 9: Elementary example about $L^2$-torsion and integral torsion ----------------} \section{Elementary example about $L^2$-torsion and integral torsion} \label{sec:elementary_example_about_L2-torsion_and_integral_torsion} Consider integers $a$, $b$, $k$, $l$, and $g \ge 1$, such that $(a,b) = (1)$ and $(k,l) = (1)$. Consider the following finite based free ${\mathbb Z}$-chain complex $C_*$ which is concentrated in dimensions $0$, $1$, $2$ and $3$ and given there by \[ 0\cdots \to 0 \to {\mathbb Z} \xrightarrow{c_3 = \left(\begin{matrix} -l \\ k\end{matrix}\right)} {\mathbb Z}^2 \xrightarrow{c_2 = \left(\begin{matrix} gka & gla\\ gkb & glb\end{matrix}\right)} {\mathbb Z}^2 \xrightarrow{c_1 = \left(\begin{matrix} -b & a \end{matrix}\right)} {\mathbb Z} \to 0 \to \cdots. \] Notice that any matrix homomorphism $c_2 \colon {\mathbb Z}^2 \to {\mathbb Z}^2$ whose kernel has rank one is of the shape above. One easily checks that \begin{eqnarray*} \ker(c_3) & = & \{0\}; \\ \operatorname{im}(c_3) & = & \{ n \cdot \begin{pmatrix}-l \\ k \end{pmatrix} \mid n \in {\mathbb Z}\}; \\ \ker(c_2) & = & \{ n \cdot \begin{pmatrix}-l \\ k \end{pmatrix} \mid n \in {\mathbb Z}\}; \\ \operatorname{im}(c_2) & = & \{n \cdot \begin{pmatrix} ga \\ gb \end{pmatrix} \mid n \in {\mathbb Z}\}; \\ \ker(c_1) & = & \{n \cdot \begin{pmatrix} a \\ b \end{pmatrix}\mid n \in {\mathbb Z}\}; \\ \operatorname{im}(c_1) & = & {\mathbb Z}. \end{eqnarray*} This implies \[ H_i(C_*) = \begin{cases} {\mathbb Z}/g & i = 1; \\ \{0\} & i \not= 1. \end{cases} \] We conclude from~\cite[Lemma~3.15~(4) on page~129]{Lueck(2002)} \begin{multline*} \ln\bigl({\det}^{(2)}_{{\mathcal N}(\{1\})}\bigl(c_3^{(2)}\bigr)\bigr) = \frac{1}{2} \cdot \ln\bigl({\det}^{(2)}_{{\mathcal N}(\{1\})}\bigl((c_3^{(2)})^* \circ c_3^{(2)}\bigr)\bigr) \\ = \frac{1}{2} \cdot \ln\bigl({\det}^{(2)}_{{\mathcal N}(\{1\})}\bigl((k^2 +l^2) \colon {\mathbb C} \to {\mathbb C}\bigr)) = \frac{\ln(k^2 + l^2)}{2}. \end{multline*} Analogously one shows $$\ln\bigl({\det}^{(2)}_{{\mathcal N}(\{1\})}\bigl(c_1^{(2)}\bigr)\bigr) = \frac{\ln(a^2 + b^2)}{2}.$$ The kernel of $c_2^{(2)}$ is the subvector space of ${\mathbb C}^2$ generated by $\frac{1}{\sqrt{k^2+l^2}} \cdot \begin{pmatrix} -l \\ k \end{pmatrix} $ and the image of $c_2^{(2)}$ is the subvector space of ${\mathbb C}^2$ generated by $\frac{1}{\sqrt{a^2+b^2}} \cdot \begin{pmatrix} a \\ b \end{pmatrix} $. Hence the orthogonal complement $\ker\bigl(c_2^{(2)}\bigr)^{\perp}$ of the kernel of $c_2^{(2)}$ is the subvector space of ${\mathbb C}^2$ generated by $\frac{1}{\sqrt{k^2+l^2}} \cdot \begin{pmatrix} k \\ l \end{pmatrix} $. Since $\frac{1}{\sqrt{a^2+b^2}} \cdot \begin{pmatrix} a \\ b \end{pmatrix}$ and $\frac{1}{\sqrt{k^2+l^2}} \cdot \begin{pmatrix} k \\ l \end{pmatrix} $ have norm $1$ and \[ c_2^{(2)}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{k^2+l^2}} \cdot \begin{pmatrix} k \\ l \end{pmatrix} \right) = \left(g \cdot \sqrt{k^2+l^2} \cdot \sqrt{a^2 + b^2}\right) \cdot \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{a^2+b^2}} \cdot \begin{pmatrix} a \\ b \end{pmatrix} \right), \] we conclude from~\cite[Lemma~3.15~(3) on page~129]{Lueck(2002)} \[ \ln\bigl({\det}^{(2)}_{{\mathcal N}(\{1\})}\bigl(c_2^{(2)}\bigr)\bigr) = \ln(g) + \frac{\ln(a^2 + b^2) + \ln(k^2 +l^2)}{2}. \] Notice that Lemma~\ref{lem:rho(2)-rhoZ} predicts $\rho^{(2)}\bigl(C_*^{(2)}\bigr) = \rho^{{\mathbb Z}}(C_*)$ which is consistent with the direct computation \begin{eqnarray*} \rho^{(2)}\bigl(C_*^{(2)}\bigr) & = & - \ln\bigl({\det}^{(2)}_{{\mathcal N}(\{1\})}\bigl(c_3^{(2)}\bigr)\bigr) + \ln\bigl({\det}^{(2)}_{{\mathcal N}(\{1\})}\bigl(c_2^{(2)}\bigr)\bigr) -\ln\bigl({\det}^{(2)}_{{\mathcal N}(\{1\})}\bigl(c_1^{(2)}\bigr)\bigr) \\ & = & \ln(g) \\ & = & \ln\bigl(\operatorname{tors}\bigl(H_1(C_*)\bigr)\bigr) \\ & = & \rho^{{\mathbb Z}}(C_*). \end{eqnarray*} We also compute the combinatorial Laplace operators of $C_*$. We get for their matrices \begin{eqnarray*} \Delta_3 & = & (k^2 +l^2); \\ \Delta_2 & = & \left(\begin{matrix} g^2k^2a^2 + g^2k^2b^2 + l^2 & g^2kla^2 + g^2klb^2 - kl \\ g^2kla^2 + g^2klb^2 - kl & g^2l^2a^2 + g^2l^2b^2 + k^2 \end{matrix}\right); \\ \Delta_1 & = & \left(\begin{matrix} g^2k^2a^2 + g^2l^2a^2 + b^2 & g^2k^2ab + g^2l^2ab - ab \\ g^2k^2ab + g^2l^2ab - ab & g^2k^2b^2 + g^2l^2b^2 + a^2 \end{matrix}\right); \\ \Delta_0 & = & (a^2 +b^2). \end{eqnarray*} This implies $${\det}_{{\mathbb Z}}(\Delta_i) = {\det}_{{\mathcal N}(\{1\})}^{(2)}\bigl(\Delta_i^{(2)}\bigr) \; = \; \begin{cases} k^2+l^2 & i = 3; \\ (a^2 + b^2) \cdot g^2 \cdot (k^2+l^2)^2 & i = 2; \\ (a^2 +b^2)^2 \cdot g^2 \cdot (k^2 +l^2) & i = 1; \\ (a^2 + b^2) & i = 0. \end{cases}$$ This is consistent with the formula \[\rho^{(2)}\bigl(C_*^{(2)};{\mathcal N}(\{1\})\bigr) = - \frac{1}{2} \cdot \sum_{i \ge 0} (-1)^i \cdot i \cdot \ln\bigl({\det}^{(2)}_{{\mathcal N}(\{1\})}\bigl(\Delta_i^{(2)}\bigr)\bigr). \] \begin{remark}[No relationship between the differentials and homology in each degree] \label{no_relation_between_Laplace_and_homology} We see that there is no relationship between $\ln \bigl({\det}_{{\mathcal N}(\{1\})}\bigl(\Delta_i^{(2)}\bigr)\bigr) $ and $\ln\bigl(\operatorname{tors}\bigl(H_i(C_*)\bigr)\bigr)$ or between $\ln \bigl({\det}_{{\mathcal N}(\{1\}}^{(2)}\bigl(c_i^{(2)}\bigr)\bigr)$ and $\ln\bigl(\operatorname{tors}\bigl(H_i(C_*)\bigr)\bigr)$ for each individual $i \in {\mathbb Z}$, there is only a relationship after taking the alternating sum over $i \ge 0$. This shows that a potential proof of Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximating_Fuglede-Kadison_determinants_and_L2-torsion_by_homology} will require more input than one would expect for a potential proof of Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_conjecture_for_chain_complexes_with_finite_index}, Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_for_analytic_torsion}, or Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_for_topological_torsion}. \end{remark} \begin{remark}[$L^2$-acyclicity is necessary for the homological version] \label{rem:condition_L2_acyclic_necessary} This example can also be used to show that the condition of $L^2$-acyclicity appearing in Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximating_Fuglede-Kadison_determinants_and_L2-torsion_by_homology} is necessary. This is not a surprise since $\rho^{{\mathbb Z}}(C[i]_*)$ depends only on the ${\mathbb Z}$-chain homotopy type of $C[i]_*$ which is not true for $\rho^{(2)}(C_*^{(2)})$ unless $C_*^{(2)}$ is $L^2$-acyclic. Consider the $1$-dimensional ${\mathbb Z}$-chain complex chain complex $D_*$ whose only non-trivial differential $d_1$ is the differential $c_2$ in the chain complex $C_*$ above. Let $E_* := D_* \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} {\mathbb Z}[{\mathbb Z}]$. Put $E_*[n] = E_*\otimes_{{\mathbb Z}[{\mathbb Z}]} {\mathbb Z}[{\mathbb Z}/n]$. Then $E_*[n] = D_* \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} {\mathbb Z}[{\mathbb Z}/n]$. We conclude from the computations above and~\cite[Theorem~3.14~(5) and~(6) on page~128]{Lueck(2002)} \begin{eqnarray*} \rho^{(2)}\bigl(E_*^{(2)};{\mathcal N}({\mathbb Z})\bigr) & = & \ln(g) + \frac{\ln(a^2 + b^2) + \ln(k^2 +l^2)}{2}; \\ \frac{\rho^{(2)}\bigl(E[n]_*^{(2)};{\mathcal N}(\{1\})\bigr)}{n} & = & \ln(g) + \frac{\ln(a^2 + b^2) + \ln(k^2 +l^2)}{2}; \\ \frac{\rho^{{\mathbb Z}}(E[n]_*)}{n} & = & \ln(g). \end{eqnarray*} Hence we have \begin{eqnarray*} \rho^{(2)}\bigl(E_*^{(2)};{\mathcal N}({\mathbb Z})\bigr) & = & \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{\rho^{(2)}\bigl(E[n]_*^{(2)};{\mathcal N}(\{1\})\bigr)}{n} \end{eqnarray*} but \begin{eqnarray*} \rho^{(2)}\bigl(E_*^{(2)};{\mathcal N}({\mathbb Z})\bigr) & \not= & \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{\rho^{{\mathbb Z}}(E[n]_*)}{n}. \end{eqnarray*} Notice that the condition of $L^2$-acyclicity is not demanded in Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_conjecture_for_chain_complexes_with_finite_index}, Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_for_analytic_torsion}, Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_for_topological_torsion}, Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_conjecture_for_L2-torsion_of_chain_complexes}, and Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_conjecture_for_analytic_L2-torsion}. \end{remark} \typeout{------------------------ Section 10: Aspherical manifolds --------------------} \section{Aspherical manifolds} \label{sec:Aspherical_manifolds} The following conjecture is in our view the most advanced and interesting one. It combines Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_Conjecture_for_Milnor_torsion}, that one can approximate $L^2$-torsion by integral torsion in the $L^2$-acyclic case, with the conjecture that for closed aspherical manifolds $X$ the $L^2$-cohomology of $\widetilde{X}$, and asymptotically the homology of $X[i]$ are concentrated in the middle dimension. \begin{conjecture}[Homological growth and $L^2$-torsion for aspherical closed manifolds] \label{con:Homological_growth_and_L2-torsion_for_aspherical_manifolds} Let $M$ be an aspherical closed manifold of dimension $d$ and fundamental group $G = \pi_1(M)$. Let $\widetilde{M}$ be its universal covering. Then \begin{enumerate} \item \label{con:Homological_growth_and_L2-torsion_for_aspherical_manifolds:Betti} For any natural number $n$ with $2n \not= d$ we get \[ b_n^{(2)}(\widetilde{M}) = 0. \] \noindent If $d = 2n$, we have \[ (-1)^{n} \cdot \chi(M) = b_n^{(2)}(\widetilde{M}) \ge 0. \] \noindent If $d = 2n$ and $M$ carries a Riemannian metric of negative sectional curvature, then \[ (-1)^n \cdot \chi(M) = b_n^{(2)}(\widetilde{M}) > 0; \] \item \label{con:Homological_growth_and_L2-torsion_for_aspherical_manifolds:Betti_and_limit} Let $(G_i)_{i \ge 0}$ be any chain of normal subgroups $G_i \subseteq G$ of finite index $[G:G_i]$ and trivial intersection $\bigcap_{i \ge 0} G_i = \{1\}$. Put $M[i] = G_i \backslash \widetilde{M}$. Then we get for any natural number $n$ and any field $F$ \[ b_n^{(2)}(\widetilde{M}) = \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{b_n(M[i];F)}{[G:G_i]} = \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{d\bigl(H_n(M[i];{\mathbb Z})\bigr)}{[G:G_i]}; \] and for $n = 1$ \begin{multline*} \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad b_1^{(2)}(\widetilde{M}) = \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{b_1(M[i];F)}{[G:G_i]} = \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{d\bigl(G_i/[G_i,G_i]\bigr)}{[G:G_i]} \\ = RG(G,(G_i)_{i \ge 0}) = \begin{cases} 0 & d \not= 2; \\ -\chi(M) & d = 2; \end{cases} \end{multline*} \item \label{con:Homological_growth_and_L2-torsion_for_aspherical_manifolds:truncated_Euler_characteristic} We get for $m \ge 0$ \[ \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{\chi_m^{\operatorname{trun}}(M[i])}{[G:G_i]} = \begin{cases} \chi(M) & \text{if} \; d \;\text{is even and}\; 2m \ge d; \\ 0 & \text{otherwise}; \end{cases} \] \item \label{con:Homological_growth_and_L2-torsion_for_aspherical_manifolds:tors_parity} If $d = 2n+1$ is odd, we have \[ (-1)^n \cdot \rho^{(2)}_{\operatorname{an}}\bigl(\widetilde{M}\bigr) \ge 0; \] If $d = 2n+1$ is odd and $M$ carries a Riemannian metric with negative sectional curvature, we have \[ (-1)^n \cdot \rho^{(2)}_{\operatorname{an}}\bigl(\widetilde{M}\bigr) > 0; \] \item \label{con:Homological_growth_and_L2-torsion_for_aspherical_manifolds:tors} Let $(G_i)_{i \ge 0}$ be any chain of normal subgroups $G_i \subseteq G$ of finite index $[G:G_i]$ and trivial intersection $\bigcap_{i \ge 0} G_i = \{1\}$. Put $M[i] = G_i \backslash \widetilde{M}$. Then we get for any natural number $n$ with $2n +1 \not= d$ \[ \lim_{i \to \infty} \;\frac{\ln\big(\bigl|\operatorname{tors}\bigl(H_n(M[i])\bigr)\bigr|\bigr)}{[G:G_i]} = 0, \] and we get in the case $d = 2n+1$ \[ \lim_{i \to \infty} \;\frac{\ln\big(\bigl|\operatorname{tors}\bigl(H_n(M[i])\bigr)\bigr|\bigr)}{[G:G_i]} = (-1)^n \cdot \rho^{(2)}_{\operatorname{an}}\bigl(\widetilde{M}\bigr) \ge 0. \] \end{enumerate} \end{conjecture} Notice that in assertions~\eqref{con:Homological_growth_and_L2-torsion_for_aspherical_manifolds:Betti} and~\eqref{con:Homological_growth_and_L2-torsion_for_aspherical_manifolds:tors_parity} we are not demanding that $G = \pi_1(M)$ is residually finite. This assumption only enters in assertions~\eqref{con:Homological_growth_and_L2-torsion_for_aspherical_manifolds:Betti_and_limit},% \eqref{con:Homological_growth_and_L2-torsion_for_aspherical_manifolds:truncated_Euler_characteristic}, and~\eqref{con:Homological_growth_and_L2-torsion_for_aspherical_manifolds:tors}, where the chain $(G_i)_{i \ge 0}$ occurs. \begin{remark}[Rank growth versus torsion growth] \label{rem:Rank_growth_versus_torsion_growth} Let us summarize what Conjecture~\ref{con:Homological_growth_and_L2-torsion_for_aspherical_manifolds} means for an aspherical closed manifold $M$ of dimension $d$. It predicts that the rank of the singular homology grows in dimension $m$ sublinearly if $2m \not= d$, and grows linearly if $d = 2m$ and $M$ carries a Riemannian metric of negative sectional curvature. It also predicts that the cardinality of the torsion of the singular homology grows in dimension $m$ grows subexponentially if $2m +1 \not = d$ and grows exponentially if $d = 2m+1$ and $M$ carries a Riemannian metric of negative sectional curvature. Roughly speaking, the free part of the singular homology is asymptotically concentrated in dimension $m$ if $d = 2m$ and the torsion part is asymptotically concentrated in dimension $m$ if $d = 2m+1$. A vague explanation for this phenomenon could be that Poincar\'e duality links the rank in dimensions $m$ and $d - m$, whereas the torsion is linked in dimensions $m$ and $d-1-m$, and there must be some reason that except in the middle dimension the growth of the rank and the growth of the cardinality of the torsion block one another in dual dimensions. \end{remark} \begin{remark}[Finite Poincar\'e complexes] \label{rem:finite_Poincare_complexes} One may replace in the formulation of Conjecture~\ref{con:Homological_growth_and_L2-torsion_for_aspherical_manifolds} the aspherical closed manifold $M$ by an aspherical finite Poincar\'e complex. In the formulation of the part of assertion~\eqref{con:Homological_growth_and_L2-torsion_for_aspherical_manifolds:Betti}, where negative sectional curvature is required, one has to add an assumption on $\pi_1(X)$, for instance that $\pi_1(X)$ is a CAT(-1)-group. \end{remark} Assertion~\eqref{con:Homological_growth_and_L2-torsion_for_aspherical_manifolds:Betti} of Conjecture~\ref{con:Homological_growth_and_L2-torsion_for_aspherical_manifolds} in the case that $M$ carries a Riemannian metric with non-positive sectional curvature is the Singer Conjecture. The Singer Conjecture and also the related Hopf Conjecture are discussed in detail in~\cite[Section~11]{Lueck(2002)}. Assertion~\eqref{con:Homological_growth_and_L2-torsion_for_aspherical_manifolds:Betti_and_limit} is closely related to Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_in_zero_and_prime_characteristic}, Conjecture~\ref{con:Growth_of_number_of_generators_of_the_homology} and Question~\ref{que:Rank_gradient_cost_first_L2_Betti_number_and_approximation}. Assertion~\eqref{con:Homological_growth_and_L2-torsion_for_aspherical_manifolds:truncated_Euler_characteristic} is connected to Question~\ref{que:asymptotic_Morse_equality_general}. The parity condition about the $L^2$-torsion appearing in assertion~\eqref{con:Homological_growth_and_L2-torsion_for_aspherical_manifolds:tors_parity} of Conjecture~\ref{con:Homological_growth_and_L2-torsion_for_aspherical_manifolds} is already considered in~\cite[Conjecture~11.3 on page~418]{Lueck(2002)}. Assertion~\eqref{con:Homological_growth_and_L2-torsion_for_aspherical_manifolds:tors} appearing in Conjecture~\ref{con:Homological_growth_and_L2-torsion_for_aspherical_manifolds} in the case that $M$ is a locally symmetric space, is discussed in Bergeron-Venkatesh~\cite{Bergeron-Venkatesh(2013)}, where also twisting with a finite-dimensional integral representation is considered. Some evidence for Conjecture~\ref{con:Homological_growth_and_L2-torsion_for_aspherical_manifolds} comes from the following result of L\"uck~\cite[Corollary~1.13]{Lueck(2013l2approxfib)}. \begin{theorem} \label{the:Groups_containing_a_normal_infinite_nice_subgroups} Let $M$ be an aspherical closed manifold with fundamental group $G = \pi_1(M)$. Suppose that $M$ carries a non-trivial $S^1$-action or suppose that $G$ contains a non-trivial elementary amenable normal subgroup. Then we get for all $n \ge 0$ and fields $F$ \begin{eqnarray*} \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{b_n(M[i];F)}{[G:G_i]} & = & 0; \\ \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{d\bigl(H_n(M[i];{\mathbb Z})\bigr)}{[G:G_i]} & = & 0; \\ \lim_{i \to \infty} \;\frac{\ln\big(\bigl|\operatorname{tors}\bigl(H_n(M[i])\bigr)\bigr|\bigr)}{[G:G_i]} & = & 0; \\ \lim_{i\to \infty} \frac{\rho_{\operatorname{an}}\bigl(M[i];{\mathcal N}(\{1\})\bigr)}{[G:G_i]} & = & 0; \\ \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{\rho^{{\mathbb Z}}\bigl(M[i]\bigr)}{[G:G_i]} & = & 0; \\ b_n^{(2)}(\widetilde{M}) & = & 0; \\ \rho^{(2)}_{\operatorname{an}}(\widetilde{M}) & = & 0. \end{eqnarray*} In particular Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_in_zero_and_prime_characteristic}, Conjecture~\ref{con:Growth_of_number_of_generators_of_the_homology}, Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_for_analytic_torsion}, Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_for_topological_torsion}, Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_Conjecture_for_Milnor_torsion} and Conjecture~\ref{con:Homological_growth_and_L2-torsion_for_aspherical_manifolds} with the exception of assertion~\eqref{con:Homological_growth_and_L2-torsion_for_aspherical_manifolds:truncated_Euler_characteristic} are known to be true for $G = \pi_1(M)$ and $X =M$. \end{theorem} Estimates of the growth of the torsion in the homology in terms of the volume of the underlying manifold and examples of aspherical manifolds, where this growth is subexponential, are given in~\cite{Sauer(2016)}. Sometimes one can express for certain classes of closed Riemannian manifolds $M$ the $L^2$-torsion of the universal covering $\widetilde{M}$ by the volume \[ \rho_{\operatorname{an}}^{(2)}(\widetilde{M}) = C_{\dim(M)} \cdot \operatorname{vol}(M), \] where $C_{\dim(M)} \in {\mathbb R}$ is a dimension constant depending only on the class but not on the specific $M$. This follows from the Proportionality Principle due to Gromov, see for instance~\cite[Theorem~1.183 on page~201]{Lueck(2002)}. Typical examples are locally symmetric spaces of non-compact type, for instance hyperbolic manifolds, see~\cite[Theorem~5.12 on page~228]{Lueck(2002)}. Since $\rho_{\operatorname{an}}^{(2)}(\widetilde{M})$ vanishes for even-dimensional closed Riemannian manifolds, only the case of odd dimensions is interesting. For locally symmetric spaces of non-compact type with odd dimension $d$ one can show that $(-1)^{(d-1)/2} \cdot C_d \ge 0$ holds. Thus one obtains some computational evidence for Conjecture~\ref{con:Homological_growth_and_L2-torsion_for_aspherical_manifolds}. Here is a concrete and already very interesting special case. \begin{example}[Hyperbolic $3$-manifolds] \label{exa:hyperbolic_3-manifolds} Suppose that $M$ is a closed hyperbolic $3$-manifold. Then $\rho_{\operatorname{an}}(\widetilde{M})$ is known to be $- \frac{1}{6\pi} \cdot \operatorname{vol}(M)$, see~\cite[Theorem~4.3 on page~216]{Lueck(2002)}, and hence Conjecture~\ref{con:Homological_growth_and_L2-torsion_for_aspherical_manifolds} predicts \[ \lim_{i \to \infty} \;\frac{\ln\big(\bigl|\operatorname{tors}\bigl(H_1(G_i\bigr)\bigr|\bigr)}{[G:G_i]} = \frac{1}{6\pi} \cdot \operatorname{vol}(M). \] Since the volume is always positive, the equation above implies that $|\operatorname{tors}\bigl(H_1(G_i\bigr)|$ growth exponentially in $[G:G_i]$. This is in contrast to the question appearing in the survey paper by Aschenbrenner-Friedl-Wilton~\cite[Question~9.13]{Aschenbrenner-Friedl-Wilton(2015)} whether a hyperbolic $3$-manifold of finite volume admits a finite covering $N \to M$ such that $\operatorname{tors}\bigl(H_1(N)\bigr)$ is non-trivial. However, a positive answer to this question and evidence for Conjecture~\ref{con:Homological_growth_and_L2-torsion_for_aspherical_manifolds} for closed hyperbolic $3$-manifolds is given in Sun~\cite[Corollary~1,6]{Sun(2015)}, where it is shown that for any finitely generated abelian group $A$, and any closed hyperbolic 3-manifold $M$, there exists a finite cover $N$ of $M$, such that $A$ is a direct summand of $H_1(N;{\mathbb Z})$. Bergeron-Sengun-Venkatesh~\cite{Bergeron-Sengun-Venkatesh(2016)} consider the equality above for arithmetic hyperbolic $3$-manifolds and relate it to a conjecture about classes in the second integral homology. Some numerical evidence for the equality above is given in Sengun~\cite{Sengun(2011)}. The inequality \[ \limsup _{i \to \infty} \;\frac{\ln\big(\bigl|\operatorname{tors}\bigl(H_1(G_i\bigr)\bigr|\bigr)}{[G:G_i]} \le \frac{1}{6\pi} \cdot \operatorname{vol}(M) \] is proved by Thang~\cite{Le(2014)} for a compact connected orientable irreducible $3$-manifold $M$ with infinite fundamental group and empty or toroidal boundary. \end{example} \begin{remark}[Possible Scenarios] \label{rem:possible_scenarios} Consider the situation of Conjecture~\ref{con:Homological_growth_and_L2-torsion_for_aspherical_manifolds}. We can find for each $i \ge 0$, $n \ge 0$ and prime number $p$ integers $r[i,n] \ge 0$, $t[i,n,p]\ge 0 $, and $n[i,n,p]_1, n[i,n,p]_2, \ldots, n[i,n,p]_{t[i,n,p]} \ge 1$ such that the set $\{p \; \text{prime} \mid t[i,n,p] > 0\}$ is finite and \[ H_n(M[i];{\mathbb Z}) \cong {\mathbb Z}^{r[i,n]} \oplus \bigoplus_{p \; \text{prime}} \;\bigoplus_{j =1}^{t[i,n,p]} {\mathbb Z}/p^{n[i,n,p]_j}. \] Then \begin{eqnarray*} b_n(M[i];{\mathbb Q}) & = & r[i,n]; \\ b_n(M[i];{\mathbb F}_p) & = & r[i,n] + t[i,n,p]; \\ d\bigl(H_n(M[i];{\mathbb Z})\bigr) & = & r[i,n] + \max\{t[i,n,p]\mid p \; \text{prime}\}; \\ \ln\big(\bigl|\operatorname{tors}\bigl(H_n(M[i])\bigr)\bigr|\bigr) & = & \sum_{p} \sum_{j =1}^{t[i,n,p]} n[i,n,p]_j \cdot \ln(p). \end{eqnarray*} Let us discuss first the case where $M$ possesses a Riemannian metric with negative sectional curvature and $\dim(M) = 2n+1$. Then Conjecture~\ref{con:Homological_growth_and_L2-torsion_for_aspherical_manifolds} predicts \begin{eqnarray*} \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{r[i,n]}{[G:G_i]} & = & 0; \\ \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{ \max\{t[i,n,p]\mid p \; \text{prime}\}}{[G:G_i]} & = & 0; \\ \lim_{i \to \infty} \;\frac{\sum_{p} \sum_{j =1}^{t[i,n,p]} n[i,n,p]_j \cdot \ln(p)}{[G:G_i]} & > & 0. \end{eqnarray*} There are two scenarios which can explain these expected statements. Of course there are other scenarios as well, but the two below illustrate nicely what may happen. \begin{itemize} \item The number $ \max\{t[i,n,p]\mid p \; \text{prime}\}$ grows sublinearly in comparison with $[G:G_i]$. The number of primes $p$ for which $t[i,n,p] \ge 1$ grows linearly with $[G:G_i]$. A concrete example is the case where \[ H_1(M[i];{\mathbb Z})) \cong {\mathbb Z}^{r[i,1]} \oplus \bigoplus_{p \in \mathcal{P}[i]} {\mathbb Z}/p, \] where $\mathcal{P}[i]$ is a set of primes satisfying $\lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{|\mathcal{P}[i]|}{[G:G_i]} > 0$, and $\lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{r[i,1]}{[G:G_i]} = 0$ holds; \item The number $\max\{t[i,n,p]\mid p \; \text{prime}\}$ grows sublinearly in comparison with $[G:G_i]$. There is a prime $p$ such that the number $\sum_{j =1}^{t[i,n,p]} n[i,n,p]_j$ grows linearly with $[G:G_i]$. A concrete example is the case, when \[ H_1(M[i];{\mathbb Z})) \cong {\mathbb Z}^{r[i,1]} \oplus {\mathbb Z}/p^{m[i,1]} \] for a prime $p$ such that $\lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{m[i,1]}{[G:G_i]} > 0$ and $\lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{r[i,1]}{[G:G_i]} = 0$ holds. \end{itemize} Next we discuss the case where $M$ possesses a Riemannian metric with negative sectional curvature and $\dim(M) = 2n$. Then Conjecture~\ref{con:Homological_growth_and_L2-torsion_for_aspherical_manifolds} predicts \begin{eqnarray*} \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{r[i,n]}{[G:G_i]} & > & 0; \\ \lim_{i \to \infty} \;\frac{\sum_{p} \sum_{j =1}^{t[i,n,p]} n[i,n,p]_j \cdot \ln(p)}{[G:G_i]} & = & 0. \end{eqnarray*} \end{remark} \typeout{--------------------------------- Section 11: Mapping tori ---------- --------------------} \section{Mapping tori} \label{sec:Mapping_tori} A very interesting case is the example of a mapping torus $T_f$ of a self-map $f \colon Z \to Z$ of a connected finite $CW$-complex $Z$ (which is not necessarily a homotopy equivalence). The canonical projection $q \colon T_f \to S^1$ induces an epimorphism $\operatorname{pr} \colon G = \pi_1(T_f) \to {\mathbb Z}$. Let $K$ be its kernel which can be identified with the colimit of the direct system of groups indexed by ${\mathbb Z}$. \[ \cdots \xrightarrow{\pi_1(f)} \pi_1(Z) \xrightarrow{\pi_1(f)} \pi_1(Z) \xrightarrow{\pi_1(f)} \cdots \] In particular the inclusion $Z \to T_f$ induces a homomorphism $j \colon \pi_1(Z) \to K$ which corresponds to the structure map at $0 \in {\mathbb Z}$ in the description of $K$ as a colimit. We obtain a short exact sequence $1 \to K \xrightarrow{j} G \xrightarrow{\operatorname{pr}} {\mathbb Z} \to 1$. We use the Setup~\eqref{set:restricted} with $X = T_f$ and $\overline{X} = \widetilde{T_f}$. Put $K_i = j^{-1}(G_i)$. Let $d_i \in {\mathbb Z}$ be the integer for which $~pr(G_i) = d_i \cdot {\mathbb Z}$. We obtain an induced exact sequence $1 \to K_i \xrightarrow{j_i} G_i \xrightarrow{\operatorname{pr}_i} d_i \cdot {\mathbb Z} \to 1$. We have \begin{eqnarray*} [G:G_i] & = & [K:K_i] \cdot d_i. \end{eqnarray*} If $\pi_1(f)$ is an isomorphism, then $j \colon \pi_1(Z) \to K$ is an isomorphism. Let $p_i \colon S^1 \to S^1$ be the $d_i$-sheeted covering given by $z \mapsto z^{d_i}$. It is the covering associated to $d_i \cdot {\mathbb Z} \subseteq {\mathbb Z}$. Let $\overline{p_i} \colon T_f[i]' \to T_f$ be the $d_i$-sheeted covering given by the pullback \[\xymatrix{T_f[i]' \ar[r]^{q[i]'} \ar[d]_{\overline{p_i}} & S^1 \ar[d]^{p_i} \\ T_f \ar[r]_q & S^1 } \] It is the covering associated to $\operatorname{pr}^{-1}(d_i \cdot {\mathbb Z}) \subseteq G = \pi_1(T_f)$. Let $q_i \colon T_f[i] \to T_f[i]'$ be the $[K:K_i]$-sheeted covering which is associated to $G_i \subseteq \operatorname{pr}^{-1}(d_i \cdot {\mathbb Z}) = \pi_1(T_f[i]')$. The composite $T_f[i] \xrightarrow{q_i} T_f'[i] \xrightarrow{\overline{p_i}} T_f$ is the $[G:G_i]$-sheeted covering associated to $G_i \subseteq G = \pi_1(T_f)$. Let $\overline{q_i} \colon Z[i]\to Z$ be the $[K:K_i]$-sheeted covering given by the pullback \[ \xymatrix{Z[i] \ar[d]^{\overline{q_i}} \ar[r] & T_f[i] \ar[d]^{q_i} \\ Z \ar[r]^{i} & T_f[i]' } \] It is the covering given by $K/K_i \times_{\pi_1(Z)/j^{-1}(K_i)} \widetilde{Z}$. Since $T_f[i]'$ is obtained from the $d_i$-fold mapping telescope of $f$ by identifying the left and the right end by the identity, there is an obvious map $T_f[i]' \to T_{f^{d_i}}$ which turns out to be a homotopy equivalence. Hence we can choose a homotopy equivalence \[ u \colon T_{f^{d_i}} \xrightarrow{\simeq} T_f[i]'. \] Define the homotopy equivalence $\overline{u} \colon \overline{T_{f^{d_i}}} \xrightarrow{\simeq} T_f[i]$ by the pullback \[ \xymatrix{ \overline{T_{f^{d_i}}} \ar[r]^{\overline{u}} \ar[d]^{\overline{q_i}} & T_f[i] \ar[d]^{q_i} \\ T_{f^{d_i}} \ar[r]^{u} & T_f[i]' } \] There is a finite $CW$-structure on $T_{f^{d_i}}$ such that the number of $n$-cells $c_n(T_{f^{d_i}})$ is $c_n(Z) + c_{n-1}(Z)$, where $c_n(Z)$ is the number of $n$-cells in $Z$. Since $\overline{q_i} \colon \overline{T_{f^{d_i}}} \to T_{f^{d_i}}$ is a $[K:K_i]$-sheeted covering, there is a finite $CW$-structure on $\overline{T_{f^{d_i}}}$ such that the number of $n$-cells $c_n(T_{f^{d_i}})$ is $[K:K_i] \cdot (c_n(Z) + c_{n-1}(Z))$. This implies \begin{eqnarray*} \frac{c_n(T_{f^{d_i}})}{[G:G_i]} & = & \frac{c_n(Z) + c_{n-1}(Z)}{d_i}. \end{eqnarray*} Hence we get for any field $F$ \begin{eqnarray*} \frac{b_n(T_f[i];F)}{[G:G_i]} & \le & \frac{c_n(Z) + c_{n-1}(Z)}{d_i}; \\ d(\pi_1(T_f[i])) & \le & \frac{c_1(Z) + c_0(Z)}{d_i}; \\ \frac{{\rm def}(\pi_1(T_f[i]))}{[G:G_i]} & \le & \frac{c_2(Z) + c_1(Z) + c_0(Z)}{d_i}; \\ \frac{\chi_n^{\operatorname{trun}}(T_f[i])}{[G:G_i]} & \le & \frac{\sum_{i = 0}^n c_i(Z)}{d_i}. \end{eqnarray*} \subsection{The case $\bigcap_{i \ge 0} d_i \cdot {\mathbb Z} = \{1\}$} \label{subsec:The_case_bigcap_d_i_cdotZ_is_1} Suppose that $\bigcap_{i \ge 0} d_i \cdot {\mathbb Z} = \{1\}$, or, equivalently, $\lim_{i \to \infty} d_i = \infty$ holds. Then we conclude for any field $F$ \begin{eqnarray*} \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{b_n(T_f[i];F)}{[G:G_i]} & = & 0; \\ \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{d(\pi_1(T_f[i]))}{[G:G_i]} & = & 0; \\ \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{{\rm def}(\pi_1(T_f[i]))}{[G:G_i]} & = & 0; \\ \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{\chi_n^{\operatorname{trun}}(T_f[i])}{[G:G_i]} & = & 0. \end{eqnarray*} Since \begin{eqnarray} b_n^{(2)}(\widetilde{T_f}) & = & 0 \label{L2-Betti_numbers_of_tori_vanish} \end{eqnarray} holds for $n \ge 0$ by~\cite[Theorem~2.1]{Lueck(1994b)}, this gives evidence for Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_in_zero_and_prime_characteristic} and Conjecture~\ref{con:Growth_of_number_of_generators_of_the_homology}, and positive answers to Questions~\ref{que:Rank_gradient_cost_and_first_L2_Betti_number} and Question~\ref{que:asymptotic_Morse_equality}, provided that $Z$ is aspherical. \subsection{The case $\bigcap_{i \ge 0} d_i \cdot {\mathbb Z} \not= \{1\}$} \label{subsec:The_case_bigcap_d_i_cdotZ_is_not_1} Next we consider the hard case $\bigcap_{i \ge 0} d_i \cdot {\mathbb Z} \not= \{1\}$. Then there exists an integer $i_0$ such that $d_i = d_{i_0}$ for all $i \ge i_0$. We can assume without loss of generality that $d_i = 1$ holds for all $i \ge 0$, otherwise replace $T_f$ by $T_f[i_0]$, $G$ by $G_{i_0}$, ${\mathbb Z}$ by $n_{i_0} \cdot {\mathbb Z}$, and $(G_i)_{i \ge 0}$ by $(G_i)_{i \ge i_0}$. We conclude from Theorem~\ref{the:approx_Betti_char_zero}, Theorem~\ref{the:dim_approximation_over_fields} and~\eqref{L2-Betti_numbers_of_tori_vanish} \begin{eqnarray} \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{b_n(T_f[i];F)}{[G:G_i]} & = & 0. \label{lim_Betti_numbers_mapping_torus_is_zero} \end{eqnarray} provided that $F$ has characteristic zero. We get the same conclusion~\eqref{lim_Betti_numbers_mapping_torus_is_zero} for any field $F$ provided that $G$ is torsion-free elementary amenable and residually finite by Theorem~\ref{the:dim_approximation_over_fields} and~\eqref{L2-Betti_numbers_of_tori_vanish}, since Theorem~\ref{the:dim_approximation_over_fields} implies for torsion-free elementary $G$ that $\lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{b_n(T_f[i];F)}{[G:G_i]}$ exists and is independent of the chain $(G_i)_{i \ge 0}$ and because of Subsection~\ref{subsec:The_case_bigcap_d_i_cdotZ_is_1} there exists an appropriate chain, for instance $(G_i \cap \operatorname{pr}^{-1}(2^i \cdot {\mathbb Z}))_{i \ge 0}$, with $\lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{b_n(T_f[i];F)}{[G:G_i]} = 0$. We do not know whether~\eqref{lim_Betti_numbers_mapping_torus_is_zero} holds for arbitrary fields and arbitrary residually finite groups $G$, as predicted by Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_in_zero_and_prime_characteristic}. We do not know whether the rank gradient $RG(G,(G_i)_{i_\ge 0})$ is zero for any chain $(G_i)_{i \ge 0}$ as predicted by Conjecture~\ref{que:Rank_gradient_cost_and_first_L2_Betti_number} in view of~\eqref{lim_Betti_numbers_mapping_torus_is_zero}, but at least for chains with $\bigcap_{i \ge 0} d_i \cdot {\mathbb Z} = \{1\}$ this follows from Subsection~\ref{subsec:The_case_bigcap_d_i_cdotZ_is_1}. This illustrates why it would be very interesting to know whether the rank gradient $RG(G,(G_i)_{i \ge 0})$ is independent of the chain $(G_i)_{i \ge 0}$. The same remark applies to the more general Question~\ref{que:asymptotic_Morse_equality}. One can express $b_n(T_f[i];F)$ in terms of $f$ as follows. Obviously $K_i$ is a normal subgroup of $G$, the automorphism of $K$ induced by $f$ sends $K_i$ to $K_i$ and we have $[G:G_i] = [K:K_i]$ for all $i \ge 0$. Put $f[0] = f \colon Z = Z[0] \to Z = Z[0]$. We can choose for each $i \ge 1$ self-homotopy equivalences $f[i] \colon Z[i] \to Z[i]$ for which the following diagram with the obvious coverings as vertical maps \[ \xymatrix{Z[i] \ar[r]^{f[i]} \ar[d] & Z[i]\ar[d] \\ Z[i-1] \ar[r]^{f[i-1]} & Z[i-1] } \] commutes. Then $T_f[i]$ is $T_{f[i]}$. We have the Wang sequence of $R$-modules for any commutative ring $R$ \begin{multline} \cdots \to H_n(Z[i];R) \xrightarrow{\operatorname{id} - H_n(f[i];R)} H_n(Z[i];R) \to H_n(T_f[i]) \\ \to H_{n-1}(Z[i];R) \xrightarrow{\operatorname{id} - H_{n-1}(f[i];R)} H_{n-1}(Z[i];R) \to\cdots \label{Wang_sequence} \end{multline} This implies \begin{multline} b_n(T_f[i];F) \\ = \dim_F\bigl(\operatorname{coker}\bigl(\operatorname{id} - H_n(f[i];F) \bigr)\bigr) + \dim_F\bigl(\ker\bigl(\operatorname{id} - H_{n-1}(f[i];F) \bigr)\bigr). \label{Betti_numbers_and_Wang} \end{multline} \subsection{Self-homeomorphism of a surface} \label{subsec:Selfhomeomorphism_of_a_surface} Now assume that $Z$ is a closed orientable surface of genus $g$ and $f \colon Z \to Z$ is an orientation preserving selfhomeomorphism. If $g = 0$, we get $T_f = S^1 \times S^2$ and in this case everything can be computed directly. If $g = 1$, then $\pi_1(T_f)$ is poly-${\mathbb Z}$ and $T_f$ is aspherical, and hence we know already that Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_in_zero_and_prime_characteristic} and Conjecture~\ref{con:Growth_of_number_of_generators_of_the_homology} are true, the answers to Questions~\ref{que:Rank_gradient_cost_and_first_L2_Betti_number} and Question~\ref{que:asymptotic_Morse_equality} are positive, and Conjecture~\ref{con:Homological_growth_and_L2-torsion_for_aspherical_manifolds} is true by applying Remark~\ref{rem:known_cases}, Lemma~\ref{lem:consequences_of_slow_growth}, Example~\ref{exa:Examples_of_groups_with_slow_growth_in_dimensions_le_d} and Theorem~\ref{the:Groups_containing_a_normal_infinite_nice_subgroups}. So the interesting (and open) case is $g \ge 2$. In this situation equality~\eqref{Betti_numbers_and_Wang} becomes \begin{eqnarray*} b_n(T_f[i];F) & = & \begin{cases} \dim_F\bigl(\operatorname{coker}\bigl(\operatorname{id} - H_1(f[i];F) \bigr)\bigr) + 1 & n = 1; \\ \dim_F\bigl(\ker\bigl(\operatorname{id} - H_1(f[i];F) \bigr)\bigr) + 1 & n = 2; \\ 1 & n = 0,3; \\ 0 & n \ge 4. \end{cases} \end{eqnarray*} We know for all $n \ge 0$ \begin{eqnarray} \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{b_n(T_f[i];F)}{[G:G_i]} & = & 0, \label{lim_Betti_numbers_mapping_torus_for_surface_is_zero} \end{eqnarray} provided that $F$ has characteristic zero. Notice that~\eqref{lim_Betti_numbers_mapping_torus_for_surface_is_zero} for a field of characteristic zero is equivalent to \begin{eqnarray*} \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{\dim_{{\mathbb Q}}\bigl(\operatorname{coker}(\operatorname{id} - H_1(f[i];{\mathbb Z})) \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} {\mathbb Q}\bigr)}{[G:G_i]} & = & 0. \end{eqnarray*} Next we consider the case that $F$ is a field of prime characteristic $p$. Then we do know~\eqref{lim_Betti_numbers_mapping_torus_for_surface_is_zero} in the situation of Subsection~\ref{subsec:The_case_bigcap_d_i_cdotZ_is_1} but not in the situation of Subsection~\ref{subsec:The_case_bigcap_d_i_cdotZ_is_not_1}. Recall that Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_in_zero_and_prime_characteristic} predicts~\eqref{lim_Betti_numbers_mapping_torus_for_surface_is_zero} in view of~\eqref{L2-Betti_numbers_of_tori_vanish} also in this case. In order to prove~\eqref{lim_Betti_numbers_mapping_torus_is_zero} also for a field $F$ of prime characteristic $p$ for all $n \ge 0$ in the situation of Subsection~\ref{subsec:The_case_bigcap_d_i_cdotZ_is_1}, it suffices to show \begin{eqnarray*} \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{\dim_{{\mathbb F}_p}\bigl(\operatorname{tors}(H_1(T_f[i];{\mathbb Z})) \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} {\mathbb F}_p\bigr)}{[G:G_i]} & = & 0; \end{eqnarray*} or equivalently \begin{eqnarray*} \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{\dim_{{\mathbb F}_p}\bigl(\operatorname{tors}\bigl(\operatorname{coker}(\operatorname{id} - H_1(f[i];{\mathbb Z}))\bigr) \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} {\mathbb F}_p\bigr)}{[G:G_i]} & = & 0. \end{eqnarray*} So one needs to understand more about the maps $\operatorname{id} - H_1(f[i];{\mathbb Z}) \colon H_1(Z[i];{\mathbb Z}) \to H_1(Z[i];{\mathbb Z})$ for $i \ge 0$. The status of Conjecture~\ref{con:Homological_growth_and_L2-torsion_for_aspherical_manifolds}~% \eqref{con:Homological_growth_and_L2-torsion_for_aspherical_manifolds:tors} is even more mysterious. Suppose that $f \colon Z \to Z$ is an orientation preserving irreducible selfhomeomorphism of a closed orientable surface $Z$ of genus $g \ge 2$. If $f$ is periodic, $T_f$ is finitely covered by $S^1 \times Z$ and Conjecture~\ref{con:Homological_growth_and_L2-torsion_for_aspherical_manifolds} is known to be true. Therefore we consider from now on the case, where $f$ is not periodic. Then $f$ is pseudo-Anosov, see~\cite[Theorem 6.3]{Casson-Bleiler(1988)}, and $T_f$ carries the structure of a hyperbolic $3$-manifold by~\cite[Theorem 3.6 on page 47, Theorem 3.9 on page 50]{McMullen(1996)}. Hence Conjecture~\ref{con:Homological_growth_and_L2-torsion_for_aspherical_manifolds} predicts, see Example~\ref{exa:hyperbolic_3-manifolds}, \begin{eqnarray*} \lim_{i \to \infty} \;\frac{\ln\big(\bigl|\operatorname{tors}(H_1(T_f[i];{\mathbb Z}))\bigr|\bigr)}{[G:G_i]} > 0, \\ \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{\dim_{{\mathbb F}_p}\bigl(\operatorname{tors}(H_1(T_f[i];{\mathbb Z})) \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} {\mathbb F}_p\bigr)}{[G:G_i]} & = & 0, \\ \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{d\bigl(\operatorname{tors}(H_1(T_f[i];{\mathbb Z})) \bigr)}{[G:G_i]} & = & 0, \end{eqnarray*} or, because of the Wang sequence~\eqref{Wang_sequence} equivalently, \begin{eqnarray*} \lim_{i \to \infty} \;\frac{\ln\big(\bigl|\operatorname{tors}\bigl(\operatorname{coker}(\operatorname{id} - H_1(f[i];{\mathbb Z}))\bigr)\bigr|\bigr)}{[G:G_i]} & > & 0, \\ \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{\dim_{{\mathbb F}_p}\bigl(\operatorname{tors}\bigl(\operatorname{coker}(\operatorname{id} - H_1(f[i];{\mathbb Z}))\bigr) \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} {\mathbb F}_p\bigr)}{[G:G_i]} & = & 0, \\ \lim_{i \to \infty} \frac{d\bigl(\operatorname{tors}\bigl(\operatorname{coker}(\operatorname{id} - H_1(f[i];{\mathbb Z}))\bigr)\bigr)}{[G:G_i]} & = & 0. \end{eqnarray*} \typeout{-------------------- Section 12: Dropping the finite index condition --------------------------} \section{Dropping the finite index condition} \label{sec:Dropping_the_finite_index_condition} From now on we want to drop the condition that the index of the subgroups $G_i$ in $G$ is finite and that the index set for the chain is given by the natural numbers. So we will consider for the remainder of this paper the following more general situation: \begin{setup}[Inverse system]\label{set:inverse_systems} Let $G$ be a group together with an inverse system $\{G_i \mid i \in I\}$ of normal subgroups of $G$ directed by inclusion over the directed set $I$ such that $\bigcap_{i \in I} G_i = \{1\}$. \end{setup} If $I$ is given by the natural numbers, this boils down to a nested sequence of normal subgroups \[G = G_0 \supset G_1 \supseteq G_2 \supseteq \cdots \] satisfying $\bigcap_{n \ge 1} G_n = \{1\}$. If we additionally assume that $[G:G_i]$ is finite, we are back in the previous special situation~\eqref{normal_chain}. Some of the following conjectures reduce to previous conjectures in this special case. The reason is that for a finite group $H$ and a based free finite ${\mathbb Z} H$-chain complex $D_*$ we have \begin{eqnarray*} b_p^{(2)}(D_*^{(2)};{\mathcal N}(H)) & = & \frac{b_p^{(2)}(D_*^{(2)};{\mathcal N}(\{1\}))}{|H|}; \\ \rho^{(2)}(D_*^{(2)};{\mathcal N}(H)) & = & \frac{\rho^{(2)}(D_*^{(2)};{\mathcal N}(\{1\}))}{|H|}. \end{eqnarray*} \typeout{--- Section 13: Review of the Determinant Conjecture and the Approximation Conjecture for L2-Betti numbers --} \section{Review of the Determinant Conjecture and the Approximation Conjecture for $L^2$-Betti numbers} \label{sec:Review_of_the_Determinant_Conjecture_and_the_Approximation_Conjecture_for_L2-Betti_numbers} We begin with the Determinant Conjecture (see~\cite[Conjecture~13.2 on page~454]{Lueck(2002)}). \begin{conjecture}[Determinant Conjecture for a group $G$] \label{con:Determinant_Conjecture} For any matrix $A \in M_{r,s}({\mathbb Z} G)$, the Fuglede-Kadison determinant of the morphism of Hilbert modules $r_A^{(2)}\colon L^2(G)^r \to L^2(G)^s$ given by right multiplication with $A$ satisfies \[{\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G)}^{(2)}\bigl(r_A^{(2)}\bigr)\ge 1. \] \end{conjecture} \begin{remark}[Status of the Determinant Conjecture] \label{rem:status_of_Determinant_Conjecture} We will often have to assume that the Determinant Conjecture~\ref{con:Determinant_Conjecture} is true. This is an acceptable condition since it is known for a large class of groups. Namely, the following is known (see~\cite[Theorem~5]{Elek-Szabo(2005)}, \cite[Section~13.2 on pages~459~ff]{Lueck(2002)}, \cite[Theorem~1.21]{Schick(2001b)}). Let $\mathcal{F}$ be the class of groups for which the Determinant Conjecture~\ref{con:Determinant_Conjecture} is true. Then: \begin{enumerate} \item \label{rem:status_of_Determinant_Conjecture:amenable_quotient} Amenable quotient\\ Let $H \subset G$ be a normal subgroup. Suppose that $H \in \mathcal{F}$ and the quotient $G/H$ is amenable. Then $G \in \mathcal{F}$; \item \label{rem:status_of_Determinant_Conjecture:direct_limit} Colimits\\ If $G = \operatorname{colim}_{i \in I} G_i$ is the colimit of the directed system $\{G_i \mid i \in I\}$ of groups indexed by the directed set $I$ (with not necessarily injective structure maps) and each $G_i$ belongs to $\mathcal{F}$, then $G$ belongs to $\mathcal{F}$; \item \label{rem:status_of_Determinant_Conjecture:inverse_limit} Inverse limits\\ If $G = \lim_{i \in I} G_i$ is the limit of the inverse system $\{G_i \mid i \in I\}$ of groups indexed by the directed set $I$ and each $G_i$ belongs to $\mathcal{F}$, then $G$ belongs to $\mathcal{F}$; \item \label{rem:status_of_Determinant_Conjecture:subgroups} Subgroups\\ If $H$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of a group $G$ with $G \in \mathcal{F}$, then $H \in \mathcal{F}$; \item \label{rem:status_of_Determinant_Conjecture:quotient_with_finite_kernel} Quotients with finite kernel\\ Let $1 \to K \to G \to Q \to 1$ be an exact sequence of groups. If $K$ is finite and $G$ belongs to $\mathcal{F}$, then $Q$ belongs to $\mathcal{F}$; \item \label{rem:status_of_Determinant_Conjecture:sofic_groups} Sofic groups belong to $\mathcal{F}$. \end{enumerate} The class of sofic groups is very large. It is closed under direct and free products, taking subgroups, taking inverse and direct limits over directed index sets, and is closed under extensions with amenable groups as quotients and a sofic group as kernel. In particular it contains all residually amenable groups. One expects that there exists non-sofic groups but no example is known. More information about sofic groups can be found for instance in~\cite{Elek-Szabo(2006)} and~\cite{Pestov(2008)}. \end{remark} \begin{notation}[Inverse systems and matrices]\label{not:inverse_systems_and_matrices} Let $R$ be a ring with ${\mathbb Z} \subseteq R \subseteq {\mathbb C}$. Given a matrix $A \in M_{r,s}(RG)$, let $A[i]\in M_{r,s}(R[G/G_i])$ be the matrix obtained from $A$ by applying elementwise the ring homomorphism $RG \to R[G/G_i]$ induced by the projection $G \to G/G_i$. Let $r_A \colon RG^r \to RG^s$ and $r_{A[i]} \colon R[G/G_i]^r \to R[G/G_i]^s$ be the $RG$- and $R[G/G_i]$-homomorphisms given by right multiplication with $A$ and $A[i]$. Let $r_A^{(2)} \colon L^2(G)^r \to L^2(G)^s$ and $r_{A[i]}^{(2)} \colon L^2(G/G_i)^r \to L^2(G/G_i)^s$ be the morphisms of Hilbert ${\mathcal N}(G)$- and Hilbert ${\mathcal N}(G/G_i)$-modules given by right multiplication with $A$ and $A[i]$. \end{notation} Next we deal with the Approximation Conjecture for $L^2$-Betti numbers (see~\cite[Conjecture~1.10]{Schick(2001b)}, \cite[Conjecture~13.1 on page~453]{Lueck(2002)}). \begin{conjecture}[Approximation Conjecture for $L^2$-Betti numbers] \label{con:Approximation_conjecture_for_L2-Betti_numbers} A group $G$ together with an inverse system $\{G_i \mid i \in I\}$ as in Setup~\ref{set:inverse_systems} satisfies the \emph{Approximation Conjecture for $L^2$-Betti numbers} if one of the following equivalent conditions holds: \begin{enumerate} \item Matrix version\\[1mm] Let $A \in M_{r,s}({\mathbb Q} G)$ be a matrix. Then \begin{eqnarray*} \lefteqn{\dim_{{\mathcal N}(G)}\bigl(\ker\bigl(r_A^{(2)}\colon L^2(G)^r \to L^2(G)^s \bigr)\bigr)} & & \\ & \hspace{14mm} = & \lim_{i \in I} \;\dim_{{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)}\big(\ker \big(r_{A[i]}^{(2)}\colon L^2(G/G_i)^r \to L^2(G/G_i)^s \bigr)\bigr); \end{eqnarray*} \item $CW$-complex version\\[1mm] Let $X$ be a $G$-$CW$-complex of finite type. Then $X[i] := G_i\backslash X$ is a $G/G_i$-$CW$-complex of finite type and \begin{eqnarray*} b_p^{(2)}(X;{\mathcal N}(G)) & = & \lim_{i \in I} \;b_p^{(2)}(X[i];{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)). \end{eqnarray*} \end{enumerate} \end{conjecture} The two conditions appearing in Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_conjecture_for_L2-Betti_numbers} are equivalent by~\cite[Lemma~13.4 on page~455]{Lueck(2002)}. We will frequently make the following assumption: \begin{assumption}[Determinant Conjecture] \label{ass:Determinant_Conjecture} For each $i \in I$ the quotient $G/G_i$ satisfies the Determinant Conjecture~\ref{con:Determinant_Conjecture}. \end{assumption} \begin{theorem}[The Determinant Conjecture implies the Approximation Conjecture for $L^2$-Betti numbers] \label{the:The_Determinant_Conjecture_implies_the_Approximation_Conjecture_for_L2-Betti_numbers} If Assumption~\ref{ass:Determinant_Conjecture} holds, then the conclusion of the Approximation Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_conjecture_for_L2-Betti_numbers} holds for $\{G_i \mid i \in I\}$. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} See~\cite[Theorem~13.3 (1) on page~454]{Lueck(2002)} and~\cite{Schick(2001b)}. \end{proof} Suppose that each quotient $G/G_i$ is finite. Then Assumption~\ref{ass:Determinant_Conjecture} is fulfilled by Remark~\ref{rem:status_of_Determinant_Conjecture}, and we recover Theorem~\ref{the:approx_Betti_char_zero} from Theorem~\ref{the:The_Determinant_Conjecture_implies_the_Approximation_Conjecture_for_L2-Betti_numbers}. For more information about the Approximation Conjecture and the Determinant Conjecture we refer to~\cite[Chapter~13 on pages~453~ff]{Lueck(2002)} and~\cite{Schick(2001b)}. \typeout{----- Section 14: The Approximation Conjecture for Fuglede-Kadison determinants and L^2-torsion ----} \section{The Approximation Conjecture for Fuglede-Kadison determinants and $L^2$-torsion} \label{sec:The_Approximation_Conjecture_for_Fuglede-Kadison_determinants_and_L2-torsion} Next we turn to Fuglede-Kadison determinants and $L^2$-torsion. \subsection{The chain complex version} \label{subsec:The_chain_complex_version} \begin{conjecture}[Approximation Conjecture for Fuglede-Kadison determinants] \label{con:Approximation_conjecture_for_Fuglede-Kadison_determinants_with_arbitrary_index} A group $G$ together with an inverse system $\{G_i \mid i \in I\}$ as in Setup~\ref{set:inverse_systems} satisfies the \emph{Approximation Conjecture for Fuglede-Kadison determinants} if for any matrix $A \in M_{r,s}({\mathbb Q} G)$ we get for the Fuglede-Kadison determinant \begin{eqnarray*} \lefteqn{{\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G)}\bigl(r_A^{(2)}\colon L^2(G)^r \to L^2(G)^s\bigr)} & & \\ & \hspace{14mm} = & \lim_{i \in I}\; {\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)}\big(r_{A[i]}^{(2)}\colon L^2(G/G_i)^r \to L^2(G/G_i)^s\bigr), \end{eqnarray*} where the existence of the limit above is part of the claim. \end{conjecture} \begin{notation}[Inverse systems and chain complexes] \label{not:inverse_system_and_chain_complexes} Let $C_*$ be a finite based free ${\mathbb Q} G$-chain complex. In the sequel we denote by $C[i]_*$ the ${\mathbb Q} [G/G_i]$-chain complex ${\mathbb Q} [G/G_i]\otimes_{{\mathbb Q} G} C_* $, by $C^{(2)}_*$ the finite Hilbert ${\mathcal N}(G)$-chain complex $L^2(G) \otimes_{{\mathbb Q} G} C_*$, and by $C[i]^{(2)}_*$ the finite Hilbert ${\mathcal N}(G/G_i)$-chain complex $L^2(G/G_i) \otimes_{{\mathbb Q}[G/G_i]} C[i]_* $. The ${\mathbb Q} G$-basis for $C_*$ induces a ${\mathbb Q}[G/G_i]$-basis for $C[i]_*$ and Hilbert space structures on $C^{(2)}_*$ and $C[i]_*^{(2)}$ using the standard Hilbert structure on $L^2(G)$ and $L^2(G/G_i)$. We emphasize that in the sequel after fixing a ${\mathbb Q} G$-basis for $C_*$ the ${\mathbb Q}[G/G_i]$-basis for $C_*[i]$ and the Hilbert structures on $C_*^{(2)}$ and $C[i]_*^{(2)}$ have to be chosen in this particular way. Denote by \begin{eqnarray} \rho^{(2)}\big(C_*^{(2)}\bigr) & := & - \sum_{p \ge 0} (-1)^p \cdot \ln\bigl({\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G)}^{(2)}\bigl(c_p^{(2)}\bigr)\bigr); \label{L2-torsion_for_C_over_cakln(G)} \\ \rho^{(2)}\big(C[i]_*^{(2)}\bigr) & := & - \sum_{p \ge 0} (-1)^p \cdot \ln\bigl({\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)}^{(2)}\bigl(c[i]_p^{(2)}\bigr)\bigr), \label{L2-torsion_for_C[i]_over_caln(G/G_i)} \end{eqnarray} their \emph{$L^2$-torsion} over ${\mathcal N}(G)$ and ${\mathcal N}(G/G_i)$ respectively. \end{notation} We have the following chain complex version of Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_conjecture_for_Fuglede-Kadison_determinants_with_arbitrary_index} which is obviously equivalent to Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_conjecture_for_Fuglede-Kadison_determinants_with_arbitrary_index} \begin{conjecture}[Approximation Conjecture for $L^2$-torsion of chain complexes] \label{con:Approximation_conjecture_for_L2-torsion_of_chain_complexes} A group $G$ together with an inverse system $\{G_i \mid i \in I\}$ as in Setup~\ref{set:inverse_systems} satisfies the \emph{Approximation Conjecture for $L^2$-torsion of chain complexes} if for any finite based free ${\mathbb Q} G$-chain complex $C_*$ we have \[ \rho^{(2)}\bigl(C_*^{(2)}\bigr) = \lim_{i \in I} \;\rho^{(2)}\bigl(C[i]_*^{(2)}\bigr). \] \end{conjecture} \subsection{$L^2$-torsion} \label{subsec:L2-torsion} Let $\overline{M}$ be a Riemannian manifold without boundary that comes with a proper free cocompact isometric $G$-action. Denote by $M[i]$ the Riemannian manifold obtained from $\overline{M}$ by dividing out the $G_i$-action. The Riemannian metric on $M[i]$ is induced by the one on $M$. There is an obvious proper free cocompact isometric $G/G_i$-action on $M[i]$ induced by the given $G$-action on $\overline{M}$. Notice that $M = \overline{M}/G$ is a closed Riemannian manifold and we get a $G$-covering $\overline{M} \to M$ and a $G/G_i$-covering $M[i] \to M$ which are compatible with the Riemannian metrics. Denote by \begin{eqnarray} \rho^{(2)}_{\operatorname{an}}\big(\overline{M};{\mathcal N}(G)\bigr) & \in & {\mathbb R}; \label{L2-torsion_for_M_over_cakln(G)} \\ \rho^{(2)}_{\operatorname{an}}\big(M[i];{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)\bigr) & \in & {\mathbb R}, \label{L2-torsion_for_M[i]_over_caln(G/G_i)} \end{eqnarray} their \emph{analytic $L^2$-torsion} over ${\mathcal N}(G)$ and ${\mathcal N}(G/G_i)$ respectively. \begin{conjecture}[Approximation Conjecture for analytic $L^2$-torsion] \label{con:Approximation_conjecture_for_analytic_L2-torsion} Consider a group $G$ together with an inverse system $\{G_i \mid i \in I\}$ as in Setup~\ref{set:inverse_systems}. Let $\overline{M}$ be a Riemannian manifold without boundary that comes with a proper free cocompact isometric $G$-action. Then \[\rho^{(2)}_{\operatorname{an}}\big(\overline{M};{\mathcal N}(G)\bigr) = \lim_{i \in I} \;\rho^{(2)}_{\operatorname{an}}\big(M[i];{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)\bigr). \] \end{conjecture} \begin{remark} \label{rem:main_theorem_answers_questions} The conjectures above imply a positive answer to~\cite[Question~21]{Deninger(2009Mahler)} and~\cite[Question~13.52 on page~478 and Question~13.73 on page~483]{Lueck(2002)}. They also would settle~\cite[Problem~4.4 and Problem~6.4]{Kitano-Morifuji(2008)} and~\cite[Conjecture~3.5] {Kitano-Morifuji-Takasawa(2004surface_bundle)}. One may wonder whether it is related to the Volume Conjecture due to Kashaev~\cite{Kashaev(1997)} and H. and J. Murakami~\cite[Conjecture~5.1 on page~102]{Murakami-Murakami(2001)}. \end{remark} We will prove in Section~\ref{sec:The_L2de_Rham_isomorphism_ad_the_proof_of_theorem_ref(the:comparing_analytic_and_chain_complexes)} the following result which in the weakly acyclic case reduces Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_conjecture_for_analytic_L2-torsion} to Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_conjecture_for_Fuglede-Kadison_determinants_with_arbitrary_index}. \begin{theorem}\label{the:comparing_analytic_and_chain_complexes} Consider a group $G$ together with an inverse system $\{G_i \mid i \in I\}$ as in Setup~\ref{set:inverse_systems}. Let $\overline{M}$ be a Riemannian manifold without boundary that comes with a proper free cocompact isometric $G$-action. Suppose that $b_p^{(2)}(\overline{M};{\mathcal N}(G)) = 0$ for all $p \ge 0$. Assume that the Approximation Conjecture for $L^2$-torsion of chain complexes~\ref{con:Approximation_conjecture_for_L2-torsion_of_chain_complexes} (or, equivalently, Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_conjecture_for_Fuglede-Kadison_determinants_with_arbitrary_index}) holds for $G$. Then Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_conjecture_for_analytic_L2-torsion} holds for $M$, i.e., \[ \rho^{(2)}_{\operatorname{an}}\big(\overline{M};{\mathcal N}(G)\bigr) = \lim_{i \in I} \;\rho^{(2)}_{\operatorname{an}}\big(M[i];{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)\bigr). \] \end{theorem} It is conceivable that Theorem~\ref{the:comparing_analytic_and_chain_complexes} remains to true if we drop the assumption that $b_p^{(2)}(\overline{M};{\mathcal N}(G))$ vanishes for all $p \ge 0$, but our present proof works only under this assumption (see Remark~\ref{rem:On_the_L2-acyclicity_assumption}). A more general notion of $L^2$-torsion called \emph{universal $L^2$-torsion} and the relevant algebraic $K$-groups, where it takes values in, are investigated in~\cite{Friedl-Lueck(2016l2_universal),Linnell-Lueck(2016)}. \subsection{An inequality} \label{subsec:an_inequality} We always have the following inequality. \begin{theorem}[Inequality] \label{the:inequality_det_det} Consider a group $G$ together with an inverse system $\{G_i \mid i \in I\}$ as in Setup~\ref{set:inverse_systems}. Suppose that Assumption~\ref{ass:Determinant_Conjecture} holds. Consider a matrix $A \in M_{r,s}({\mathbb Q} G)$ with coefficients in ${\mathbb Q} G$. Then we get the inequality \begin{multline*} {\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G)}^{(2)}\big(r_A^{(2)}\colon L^2(G)^r \to L^2(G)^s \bigr) \\ \ge \limsup _{i \in I} {\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)}^{(2)}\big(r_{A[i]}^{(2)}\colon L^2(G/G_i)^r \to L^2(G/G_i)^s \bigr). \end{multline*} \end{theorem} The proof of Theorem~\ref{the:inequality_det_det} will be given in Section~\ref{sec:Proof_of_some_Theorems_for_Fuglede-Kadison_determinants}. \subsection{Matrices invertible in $L^1(G)$} \label{subsec:Matrices_invertible_in_L1(G)} \begin{theorem}[Invertible matrices over $L^1(G)$] \label{the:invertible_matrices_over_l1(G)} Consider a group $G$ together with an inverse system $\{G_i \mid i \in I\}$ as in Setup~\ref{set:inverse_systems}. Consider an invertible matrix $A \in \operatorname{GL}_d(L^1(G))$ with coefficients in $L^1(G)$. The projection $G \to G/G_i$ induces a ring homomorphism $L^1(G) \to L^1(G/G_i)$. Thus we obtain for each $i \in I$ an invertible matrix $A[i] \in \operatorname{GL}_d(L^1(G/G_i))$. Then the Approximation Conjecture for Fuglede-Kadison determinants~\ref{con:Approximation_conjecture_for_Fuglede-Kadison_determinants_with_arbitrary_index} holds for $A$, i.e., \[ {\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G)}^{(2)}\big(r_A^{(2)}\colon L^2(G)^d\to L^2(G)^d \bigr) = \lim_{i \in I} {\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)}^{(2)}\big(r_{A[i]}^{(2)}\colon L^2(G/G_i)^d \to L^2(G/G_i)^d \bigr). \] \end{theorem} Theorem~\ref{the:invertible_matrices_over_l1(G)} has already been proved by Deninger~\cite[Theorem~17]{Deninger(2009Mahler)} in the case $d = 1$. Notice that Deninger~\cite[page~46]{Deninger(2009Mahler)} uses a different definition of Fuglede-Kadison determinant which agrees with ours for injective operators by~\cite[Lemma~3.15 (5) on page~129]{Lueck(2002)}. \begin{corollary}\label{cor:l1-chain_equivalence} Consider a group $G$ together with an inverse system $\{G_i \mid i \in I\}$ as in Setup~\ref{set:inverse_systems}. \begin{enumerate} \item \label{cor:l1-chain_equivalence:acyclic} Let $C_*$ be a finite based free $L^1(G)$-chain complex which is acyclic. Then \[ \rho^{(2)}\bigl(C_*^{(2)}\bigr) = \lim_{i \in I} \rho^{(2)}\bigl(C_*[i]^{(2)}\bigr); \] \item \label{cor:l1-chain_equivalence:equivalence} Let $C_*$ and $D_*$ be finite based free $L^1(G)$-chain complexes. Suppose that they are $L^1(G)$-chain homotopy equivalent. Then \[\rho^{(2)}\bigl(C_*^{(2)}\bigr)- \rho^{(2)}\bigl(D_*^{(2)}\bigr) = \lim_{i \in I} \left(\rho^{(2)}\bigl(C_*[i]^{(2)}\bigr) - \rho^{(2)}\bigl(D_*[i]^{(2)}\bigr)\right). \] \end{enumerate} \end{corollary} The proofs of Theorem~\ref{the:invertible_matrices_over_l1(G)} and Corollary~\ref{cor:l1-chain_equivalence} will be given in Section~\ref{sec:Proof_of_some_Theorems_for_Fuglede-Kadison_determinants}. \typeout{--- Section 15: The L2-de Rham isomorphism proof of Theorem ref(the:comparing_analytic_and_chain_complexes)---} \section{The $L^2$-de Rham isomorphism and the proof of Theorem~\ref{the:comparing_analytic_and_chain_complexes}} \label{sec:The_L2de_Rham_isomorphism_ad_the_proof_of_theorem_ref(the:comparing_analytic_and_chain_complexes)} In this section we investigate the $L^2$-de Rham isomorphism in order to give the proof of Theorem~\ref{the:comparing_analytic_and_chain_complexes}. Let $M$ be a closed Riemannian manifold. Fix a smooth triangulation $K$ of $M$. Consider a (discrete) group $G$ and a $G$-covering $\operatorname{pr}\colon \overline{M} \to M$. The smooth triangulation $K$ of $M$ lifts to $G$-equivariant smooth triangulation $\overline{K}$ of $\overline{M}$. Denote by $\operatorname{pr}\colon \overline{K} \to K$ the associated $G$-covering. Equip $\overline{M}$ with the Riemannian metric for which $\operatorname{pr} \colon \overline{M} \to M$ becomes a local isometry. In the sequel we will consider the de Rham isomorphism \begin{eqnarray} \operatorname{Int}^p \colon \mathcal{H}^p_{(2)}(\overline{M}) & \xrightarrow{\cong} & H^p_{(2)}(\overline{K}). \label{de_Rham_isomorphism} \end{eqnarray} from the space of harmonic $L^2$-integrable $p$-forms on $\overline{M}$ to the $L^2$-cohomology of the free simplicial $G$-complex $\overline{K}$. It is essentially given by integrating a $p$-form over a $p$-simplex and is an isomorphism of finitely generated Hilbert ${\mathcal N}(G)$-modules. For more details we refer to~\cite{Dodziuk(1977)} or~\cite[Theorem~1.59 on page~52]{Lueck(2002)}. There is the de Rham cochain map (for large enough fixed $k$) (see~\cite{Dodziuk(1977)} or~\cite[(1.77) on page~61]{Lueck(2002)}) \begin{eqnarray} A^* \colon H^{k-*}\Omega^p(\overline{M}) & \to & C^*_{(2)}(\overline{K}) \label{de_Rham_chain_map} \end{eqnarray} where $H^{k-*}\Omega^p(\overline{M}) $ denotes the Sobolev space of $p$-forms on $\overline{M}$. \begin{lemma} \label{lem:bound_for_de_Rham} Assume that for every simplex $\sigma$ of $K$ we can find a neighborhood $V_{\sigma}$ together with a diffeomorphism $\eta_{\sigma} \colon {\mathbb R}^m \to V_{\sigma}$. (This can be arranged by possibly passing to a $d$-fold barycentric subdivision of $K$.) Fix an integer $p$ with $0 \le p \le \dim(M)$. Then there exist constants $L_1,L_2 > 0$, which depend on data coming from $M$ and $K$, but do not depend on $G$ and $\operatorname{pr} \colon \overline{M} \to M$, such that for every $\overline{\omega} \in H^{k-p}\Omega^p(\overline{M})$ we have \[L_1\cdot ||\overline{\omega}||_{H^{k-p}} \le ||A^p(\overline{\omega})||_{L^2} \le L_2 \cdot ||\overline{\omega}||_{H^{k-p}}, \] and we get for the operator norm of the operator $\operatorname{Int}^p$ of~\eqref{de_Rham_isomorphism} \[ L_1 \le ||\operatorname{Int}^p|| \le L_2. \] \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Dodziuk~\cite[Lemma~3.2]{Dodziuk(1977)} proves for a given $G$-covering $\operatorname{pr} \colon \overline{M} \to M$ and $p \ge 0$ that the map $A^p \colon H^{k-p} \Omega^p(\overline{M}) \xrightarrow{\cong} C^p_{(2)}(\overline{K})$ is bounded, i.e., there exists a constant $L_2$ such that for $\overline{\omega} \in H^{k-p}\Omega^p(\overline{M})$ we have \[ ||A^p(\overline{\omega})||_{L^2} \le L_2 \cdot ||\overline{\omega}||_{H^{k-p}}. \] Next we will analyze Dodziuk's proof and explain why the constant $L_2$ depends only on data coming from $M$ and $K$ and does not depend on $G$ and $\operatorname{pr} \colon \overline{M} \to M$. For every $p$-simplex $\sigma$ in $K$ we choose a relatively compact neighborhood $U_{\sigma}$ of $\sigma$ with $U_{\sigma} \subseteq V_{\sigma}$. Choose $N$ to be an integer such that every point $x \in M$ belongs to at most $N$ of the sets $U_{\sigma}$, where $\sigma$ runs through the $p$-simplices of $K$, e.g., take $N$ to be the number of $p$-simplices of $K$. We can apply~\cite[Lemma~3.1]{Dodziuk(1977)} to $\sigma \subseteq V_{\sigma}$ and obtain a constant $C_{\sigma}> 0$ such that for any $p$-form $\omega$ in $H^{k-p} \Omega^p(M)$ and any $p$-simplex $\sigma$ of $K$ \begin{eqnarray*} \sup_{x\in \sigma} |\omega(x)| & \le & C_{\sigma}\cdot \bigl(||\omega||^{U_{\sigma}}_{H^{k-p}} + ||\omega||^{U_{\sigma}}_{L^2}\bigr) \end{eqnarray*} holds. The real number $|\omega(x)|$ is the norm of $\omega(x)$ as an element in $\Lambda^pT_{x}^*M$, and $||\omega||^{U_{\sigma}}_{H^{k-p}}$ and $||\omega||^{U_{\sigma}}_{L^2}$ are the Sobolev norm and $L^2$-norm of $\omega$ restricted to $U_{\sigma}$. Let $C$ be the maximum of the numbers $C_{\sigma}$, where $\sigma$ runs through all $p$-simplices of $K$. Let $E$ be the maximum over the volumes of the $p$-simplices of $K$. Obviously the numbers $C$, $E$ and $N$ depend only on data coming from $M$ and $K$, but do not depend on $G$ and $\operatorname{pr} \colon \overline{M} \to M$. Since $V_{\sigma}$ is contractible, the restriction of $\operatorname{pr} \colon \overline{M} \to M$ to $\operatorname{pr}^{-1}(V_{\sigma})$ is trivial and hence $\operatorname{pr}^{-1}(V_{\sigma})$ is $G$-diffeomorphic to $G \times V_{\sigma}$. Hence there are for every $p$-simplex $\overline{\sigma} \in \overline{M}$ open neighborhoods $U_{\overline{\sigma}}$ and $V_{\overline{\sigma}}$ which are uniquely determined by the property that they are mapped diffeomorphically under $\operatorname{pr} \colon \overline{M} \to M$ onto $U_{\operatorname{pr}(\overline{\sigma})}$ and $V_{\operatorname{pr}(\overline{\sigma})}$. Notice for the sequel that $\operatorname{pr}|_{V_{\overline{\sigma}}} \colon V_{\overline{\sigma}} \to V_{\operatorname{pr}(\overline{\sigma})}$ and $\operatorname{pr}|_{U_{\overline{\sigma}}} \colon U_{\overline{\sigma}} \to U_{\operatorname{pr}(\overline{\sigma})}$ are isometric diffeomorphisms. Hence we get for every $p$-form $\overline{\omega}$ in $H^{k-p} \Omega^p(\overline{M})$ and any $p$-simplex $\overline{\sigma}$ of $\overline{K}$ \begin{eqnarray*} \sup_{\overline{x}\in \overline{\sigma}} |\omega(\overline{x})| & \le & C \cdot \bigl(||\overline{\omega}||^{U_{\overline{\sigma}}}_{H^{k-p}} + ||\overline{\omega}||^{U_{\overline{\sigma}}}_{L^2}\bigr). \end{eqnarray*} Here the real number $|\overline{\omega}(\overline{x})|$ is the norm of $\overline{\omega}(\overline{x})$ as an element in $\Lambda^pT_{\overline{x}}^*\overline{M}$, and $||\overline{\omega}||^{V_{\overline{\sigma}}}_{H^{k-p}}$ and $||\omega||^{V_{\overline{\sigma}}}_{L^2}$ are the Sobolev norm and $L^2$-norm of the restriction of $\overline{\omega}$ to $V_{\overline{\sigma}}$. One easily checks that every point $\overline{x} \in \overline{M}$ belongs to at most $N$ of the sets $U_{\overline{\sigma}}$, where $\overline{\sigma}$ runs through the $p$-simplices of $\overline{K}$ and that the volume of every $p$-simplex of $\overline{K}$ is bounded by $E$. Put \[L_2 := \sqrt{4 \cdot C^2 \cdot E^2 \cdot N}. \] Then $L_2$ depends only on data coming from $M$ and $K$, but does not depend on $G$ and $\operatorname{pr} \colon \overline{M} \to M$. Next we perform essentially the same calculation as in~\cite[Lemma~3.2]{Dodziuk(1977)}. We estimate for a $p$-simplex $\overline{\sigma}$ of $\overline{K}$ and an element $\overline{\omega} \in H^{k-p} \Omega^p(\overline{M})$ \begin{eqnarray*} \left(\int_{\overline{\sigma}} \overline{\omega}\right)^2 & \le & \left(\sup_{\overline{x} \in \overline{\sigma}} \bigl\{|\overline{\omega}(\overline{x})|\bigr\} \cdot \operatorname{vol}(\overline{\sigma})\right)^2 \\ & \le & \left(C \cdot \bigl(||\overline{\omega}||^{U_{\overline{\sigma}}}_{H^{k-p}} + ||\overline{\omega}||^{U_{\overline{\sigma}}}_{L^2}\bigr) \cdot \operatorname{vol}(\overline{\sigma})\right)^2 \\ & \le & C^2 \cdot 2 \cdot \left(\bigl(||\overline{\omega}||^{U_{\overline{\sigma}}}_{H^{k-p}}\bigr)^2 + \bigl(\bigl||\overline{\omega}||^{U_{\overline{\sigma}}}_{L^2}\bigr)^2\right) \cdot E^2. \end{eqnarray*} This implies for $\overline{\omega} \in H^{k-p} \Omega^p(\overline{M})$, where $\overline{\sigma}$ runs through the $p$-simplices of $\overline{K}$, \begin{eqnarray*} \sum_{\overline{\sigma}}\left(\int_{\overline{\sigma}} \overline{\omega}\right)^2 & \le & \sum_{\overline{\sigma}} C^2 \cdot 2 \cdot \left(\bigl(||\overline{\omega}||^{U_{\overline{\sigma}}}_{H^{k-p}}\bigr)^2 + \bigl(\bigl||\overline{\omega}||^{U_{\overline{\sigma}}}_{L^2}\bigr)^2\right) \cdot E^2 \\ & \le & 2 \cdot C^2 \cdot E^2 \cdot \left(\sum_{\overline{\sigma}} \left(\bigl(||\overline{\omega}||^{U_{\overline{\sigma}}}_{H^{k-p}}\bigr)^2 + \bigl(||\overline{\omega}||^{U_{\overline{\sigma}}}_{L^2}\bigr)^2\right)\right) \\ & \le & 2 \cdot C^2 \cdot E^2 \cdot N \cdot \left(\bigl(||\overline{\omega}||_{H^{k-p}}\bigr)^2 + \bigl(\bigl||\overline{\omega}||_{L^2}\bigr)^2\right) \\ & \le & 2 \cdot C^2 \cdot E^2 \cdot N \cdot 2 \cdot ||\overline{\omega}||_{H^{k-p}}^2 \\ & = & L_2^2 \cdot ||\overline{\omega}||_{H^{k-p}}^2. \end{eqnarray*} We conclude that the de Rham map \[ A^p \colon H^{k-p}\Omega^p(\overline{M}) \to C^p_{(2)}(\overline{K}) \] is a bounded operator whose norm is less than or equal to $L_2$. Dodziuk~\cite[Lemma~3.7]{Dodziuk(1977)} (see also~\cite[(1.78) on page~61]{Lueck(2002)}) constructs a bounded $G$-equivariant operator \begin{eqnarray} W^p \colon C^p_{(2)}(\overline{K}) & \to & H^{k-p}\Omega^p(\overline{M}), \label{Whitney_map} \end{eqnarray} and gives an upper bound for its operator norm by a number \[ \left|\bigl\{p\text{-simplices of}\, K\bigr\}\right| \cdot \max\big\{||W^p\sigma||_{H^{k-p}}\mid \sigma \, p\text{-simplex of}\, K\bigr\}. \] Define \[ L_1 := \frac{1}{\left|\bigl\{p\text{-simplices of}\, K\bigr\}\right| \cdot \max\big\{||W\sigma||_{H^{k-p}}\mid \sigma \, p\text{-simplex of}\, K\bigr\}}. \] Obviously $L_1$ depends only on data coming from $M$ and $K$, but not on $G$ and $\operatorname{pr} \colon \overline{M} \to M$. The maps $A^p$ of~\eqref{de_Rham_chain_map} and $W^p$ of~\eqref{Whitney_map} induce bounded $G$-operators (see~\cite[Corollary on page~162 and Corollary on page~163]{Dodziuk(1977)}) \begin{eqnarray*} H^p_{(2)}(A^*) \colon H^p_{(2)}\bigl(H^{k-*}\Omega^*(\overline{M})\bigr) & \to & H^p_{(2)}\bigl(C^*_{(2)}(\overline{K})\bigr); \\ H^p_{(2)}(W^*) \colon H^p_{(2)}\bigl(C^*_{(2)}(\overline{K})\bigr) & \to & H^p_{(2)}\bigl(H^{k-*}\Omega^*(\overline{M})\bigr), \end{eqnarray*} such that we obtain for their operator norms \begin{eqnarray*} \bigl|\bigl|H^p_{(2)}(A^*)\bigr|\bigr| & \le & L_2; \\ \bigl|\bigl|H^p_{(2)}(W^*)\bigr|\bigr| & \le & \frac{1}{L_1}. \end{eqnarray*} Since $W^p \circ A^p = \operatorname{id}$ and $H^p_{(2)}(A^p)$ is an isomorphism (see~\cite[(3.6), Lemma~3.8 and Lemma~3.10]{Dodziuk(1977)} and~\cite[(1.79) and~(1.80) on page~61]{Lueck(2002)}, the map $H^p_{(2)}(W^*)$ is the inverse of $H^p_{(2)}(A^*)$. This implies \[L_1 \le \bigl|\bigl|H^p_{(2)}(A^*)\bigr|\bigr| \le L_2. \] Since the canonical inclusion \[ i^p \colon \mathcal{H}^p_{(2)} \xrightarrow{\cong} H^p_{(2)}\bigl(H^{k-*}\Omega^*(\overline{M})\bigr) \] is an isometric $G$-isomorphism (see~\cite[Lemma~1.75 on page~59]{Lueck(2002)}) and the map $\operatorname{Int}^p \colon \mathcal{H}^p_{(2)} \to H^p_{(2)}(\overline{K})$ is the composite $H^p_{(2)}(A^*)\circ i^p$, Lemma~\ref{lem:bound_for_de_Rham} follows. \end{proof} Now we are ready to give \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{the:comparing_analytic_and_chain_complexes}] Let $\overline{M}$ be a Riemannian manifold without boundary that comes with a proper free cocompact isometric $G$-action such that $b_p^{(2)}(\overline{M};{\mathcal N}(G))$ vanishes for all $p \ge 0$. Fix a smooth triangulation $K$ of $M = G \backslash \overline{M}$. By possibly subdividing it we can arrange that Lemma~\ref{lem:bound_for_de_Rham} will apply to $M$ and $K$. The triangulation $K$ lifts to a $G$-equivariant smooth triangulation $\overline{K}$ of $\overline{M}$ and to a $G/G_i$-equivariant smooth triangulation $\overline{K}[i]$ of $M[i] :=G_i \backslash \overline{M}$. We assume that the Approximation Conjecture for $L^2$-torsion of chain complexes~\ref{con:Approximation_conjecture_for_L2-torsion_of_chain_complexes} is true. Hence we get \begin{eqnarray} \rho^{(2)}\bigl(\overline{K};{\mathcal N}(G)\bigr) & = & \lim_{i \in I} \; \rho^{(2)}(\overline{K}[i];{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)\bigr). \end{eqnarray} In the sequel we will use the theorem of Burghelea, Friedlander, Kappeler and McDonald \cite{Burghelea-Friedlander-Kappeler-McDonald(1996a)} that the topological and the analytic $L^2$-torsion agree. Since $M$ and hence $\overline{K}$ is $L^2$-acyclic, we get from the definitions \begin{eqnarray*} \rho^{(2)}_{\operatorname{an}}\bigl(\overline{M};{\mathcal N}(G)\bigr) & = & \rho^{(2)}\bigl(\overline{K};{\mathcal N}(G)\bigr); \\ \rho^{(2)}_{\operatorname{an}}\bigl(M[i];{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)\bigr) & = & \rho^{(2)}\bigl(\overline{K}[i];{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)\bigr) - \sum_{p \ge 0} (-1)^p \cdot {\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)}^{(2)}(\operatorname{Int}[i]^p), \end{eqnarray*} where $\operatorname{Int}[i]^p \colon \mathcal{H}^p_{(2)}(M[i]) \xrightarrow{\cong} H^p_{(2)}(\overline{K}[i])$ is the $L^2$-de Rham isomorphism of~\eqref{de_Rham_isomorphism}. Hence it suffices to show for $p \ge 0$ \begin{eqnarray} \lim_{i \in I} \;\ln\bigl({\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)}^{(2)}(\operatorname{Int}[i]^p)\bigr) & = & 0. \label{lim_det_de_Rham_is_zero} \end{eqnarray} We obtain from Lemma~\ref{lem:bound_for_de_Rham} constants $L_1> 0$ and $L_2> 0$ which are independent of $i \in I$ such that for every $i \in I$ \[ L_1 \le ||\operatorname{Int}[i]^p|| \le L_2 \] holds for the operator norm of $\operatorname{Int}[i]^p$. Since \[ b_p^{(2)}\bigl(M[i];{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)\bigr) = \dim_{{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)}\bigl( \mathcal{H}^p_{(2)}(M[i])\bigr) = \dim_{{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)}\bigl(H^p_{(2)}(K[i])\bigr), \] we conclude \begin{eqnarray*} \ln(L_1) \cdot b_p^{(2)}\bigl(M[i];{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)\bigr) & \le & \ln\bigl({\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)}^{(2)}(\operatorname{Int}[i]^p)\bigr) \\ & \le & \ln(L_2) \cdot b_p^{(2)}(M[i];{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)\bigr). \end{eqnarray*} Since the Approximation Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_conjecture_for_L2-Betti_numbers} holds for $\overline{M}$ by Theorem~\ref{the:The_Determinant_Conjecture_implies_the_Approximation_Conjecture_for_L2-Betti_numbers} and we have $b_p^{(2)}(\overline{M};{\mathcal N}(G)\bigr) = 0$ for $p \ge 0$ by assumption, we have \begin{eqnarray*} \lim_{i \in I} \; b_p^{(2)}\bigl(M[i];{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)\bigr) & = & 0. \end{eqnarray*} Now~\eqref{lim_det_de_Rham_is_zero} follows. This finishes the proof of Theorem~\ref{the:comparing_analytic_and_chain_complexes}. \end{proof} \begin{remark}[On the $L^2$-acyclicity assumption] \label{rem:On_the_L2-acyclicity_assumption} Recall that in Theorem~\ref{the:comparing_analytic_and_chain_complexes} we require that $b_p^{(2)}(\overline{M};{\mathcal N}(G)\bigr) = 0$ holds for $p \ge 0$. This assumption is satisfied in many interesting cases. It is possible that this assumption is not needed for Theorem~\ref{the:comparing_analytic_and_chain_complexes} to be true, but our proof does not work without it. We can drop this assumption if we can generalize~\eqref{lim_det_de_Rham_is_zero} to \begin{eqnarray*} \lim_{i \in I} \; \ln\bigl({\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)}(\operatorname{Int}[i]^p)\bigr) & = & \ln\bigl({\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G)}(\operatorname{Int}^p)\bigr). \end{eqnarray*} \end{remark} \typeout{------ Section 16: A general strategy to prove the Approximation Conjecture for Fuglede-Kadison determinants ---------} \section{A strategy to prove the Approximation Conjecture for Fuglede-Kadison determinants~\ref{con:Approximation_conjecture_for_Fuglede-Kadison_determinants_with_arbitrary_index}} \label{sec:A_general_strategy_to_prove_the_Approximation_Conjecture_for_Fuglede-Kadison_determinants} \subsection{The general setup} \label{subsec:The_general_setup} Throughout this section we will consider the following data: \begin{itemize} \item $G$ is a group, $B$ is a matrix in $M_d({\mathcal N}(G))$ and $\operatorname{tr} \colon M_d({\mathcal N}(G)) \to {\mathbb C}$ is a faithful finite normal trace. \item $I$ is a directed set. For each $i \in I$ we have a group $Q_i$, a matrix $B[i] \in M_d({\mathcal N}(Q_i))$ and a faithful finite normal trace $\operatorname{tr}_i\colon M_d({\mathcal N}(Q_i)) \to {\mathbb C}$ such that $\operatorname{tr}_i(I_d) = d$ holds for the unit matrix $I_d \in M_d({\mathcal N}(Q_i))$. \end{itemize} Faithful finite normal trace $\operatorname{tr}$ means that $\operatorname{tr}$ is ${\mathbb C}$-linear, satisfies $\operatorname{tr}(B_1B_2) = \operatorname{tr}_i(B_2B_1)$, sends $B^*B$ to a real number $\operatorname{tr}(B^*B) \ge 0$ such that $\operatorname{tr}(B^*B) = 0 \Leftrightarrow B = 0$, and for $f \in {\mathcal N}(G)$, which is the supremum with respect to the usual ordering $\le$ of positive elements of some monotone increasing net $\{f_j \mid j \in J\}$ of positive elements in ${\mathcal N}(G)$, we get $\operatorname{tr}(f) = \sup\{\operatorname{tr}(f_j) \mid j \in J\}$. The trace $\operatorname{tr}$ or $\operatorname{tr}_i$ respectively may or may not be the von Neumann trace (see~\cite[Definition~1.2 on page~15]{Lueck(2002)}) $\operatorname{tr}_{{\mathcal N}(G)}$ or $\operatorname{tr}_{{\mathcal N}(Q_i)}$ respectively. Let $F\colon [0,\infty) \to [0,\infty)$ be the spectral density function of $r_B^{(2)}\colon L^2(G)^d \to L^2(G)^d$ with respect to $\operatorname{tr}$ as defined in~\cite[Definition~2.1 on page~73]{Lueck(2002)}. Let $F[i]\colon [0,\infty) \to [0,\infty)$ be the spectral density function of $r_{B[i]}^{(2)}\colon L^2(Q_i)^d \to L^2(Q_i)^d$ with respect to the trace $\operatorname{tr}_i$. If $r_B^{(2)}$ is positive, we get $F(\lambda) = \operatorname{tr}(E_{\lambda})$ for $\{E_{\lambda} \mid \lambda \in {\mathbb R}\}$ the family of spectral projections of $r_B^{(2)}$ (see~\cite[Lemma~2.3 on page~74 and Lemma~2.11~(11) on page~77]{Lueck(2002)}). The analogous statement holds for $F[i]$. Recall that for a directed set $I$ and a net $(x_i)_{i \in I}$ of real numbers one defines \begin{eqnarray} \liminf_{i \in I} x_i% & := & \sup\{\inf\{x_j\mid j \in I, j \ge i\}\mid i \in I\}; \label{liminf} \\ \limsup_{i \in I} x_i% & := & \inf\{\sup\{x_j\mid j \in I, j \ge i\}\mid i \in I\}. \label{limsup} \end{eqnarray} \subsection{The general strategy} \label{subsec:The_general_strategy} To any monotone non-decreasing function $f\colon [0,\infty) \to [0,\infty)$ we can assign a density function, i.e., a monotone non-decreasing right-continuous function, \begin{eqnarray*} f^+\colon [0,\infty) \to [0,\infty), & & \hspace{5mm}\lambda \mapsto \lim_{\epsilon \to 0+} f(\lambda + \epsilon). \end{eqnarray*} Put \begin{eqnarray*} \underline{F}(\lambda) & := & \liminf_{i \in I} F[i](\lambda); \\ \overline{F}(\lambda) & := & \limsup_{i \in I} F[i](\lambda). \end{eqnarray*} Let $\det$ and $\det_i$ be the Fuglede-Kadison determinant with respect to $\operatorname{tr}$ and $\operatorname{tr}_i$ (compare~\cite[Definition~3.11 on page~127]{Lueck(2002)}). If $\operatorname{tr}$ is the von Neumann trace $\operatorname{tr}_{{\mathcal N}(G)}$, then $\det$ is the Fuglede-Kadison determinant $\det_{{\mathcal N}(G)}$ as defined in~\cite[Definition~3.11 on page~127]{Lueck(2002)}. We want to prove \begin{theorem} \label{the:approxi_for_spectral_density} Consider the following conditions, where $K > 0$ and $\kappa > 0$ are some fixed real numbers: \renewcommand{\theenumi}{\roman{enumi}} \begin{enumerate} \item \label{the:approxi_for_spectral_density:uniform_bound_K} The operator norms satisfy $||r_B^{(2)}|| \le K$ and $||r_{B[i]}^{(2)}|| \le K$ for all $i \in I$; \item \label{the:approxi_for_spectral_density:traces_and_polynomials} For every polynomial $p$ with real coefficients we have \[\operatorname{tr}(p(B)) = \lim_{i \in I} \;\operatorname{tr}_i(p(B[i])); \] \item \label{the:approxi_for_spectral_density:det} We have ${\det}_i\bigl(r_{B[i]}^{(2)} \colon L^2(Q_i)^d \to L^2(Q_i)^d\bigr) \ge \kappa$ for each $i \in I$, \item \label{the:approxi_for_spectral_density:positivity} Suppose $r_B^{(2)}\colon L^2(G)^d \to L^2(G)^d$ and $r_{B[i]}^{(2)}\colon L^2(Q_i)^d \to L^2(Q_i)^d$ for $i \in I$ are positive; \item \label{the:approxi_for_spectral_density:integrability} The \emph{uniform integrability condition} is satisfied, i.e., there exists $\epsilon > 0$ such that \begin{eqnarray*} \int_{0+}^{\epsilon} \left. \sup \left\{\frac{F[i](\lambda) - F[i](0)}{\lambda} \, \right|\,i \in I \right\}\; d\lambda & < & \infty. \end{eqnarray*} \end{enumerate} \renewcommand{\theenumi}{\arabic{enumi}} Then: \begin{enumerate} \item \label{the:approxi_for_spectral_density:inequality} If conditions~\eqref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density:uniform_bound_K},~% \eqref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density:traces_and_polynomials}~% \eqref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density:det}, and~\eqref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density:positivity} are satisfied, then \[ \det\bigl(r_B^{(2)} \colon L^2(G)^d \to L^2(G)^d\bigr) \ge \limsup_{i \in I} {\det}_i\bigl(r_{B[i]}^{(2)}\colon L^2(Q_i)^d \to L^2(Q_i)^d\bigr); \] \item \label{the:approxi_for_spectral_density:equality} If conditions~\eqref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density:uniform_bound_K},~% \eqref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density:traces_and_polynomials}~% \eqref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density:det},~% \eqref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density:positivity} and~\eqref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density:integrability} are satisfied, then \[ \det\bigl(r_B^{(2)} \colon L^2(G)^d \to L^2(G)^d\bigr) = \lim_{i \in I} {\det}_i\bigl(r_{B[i]}^{(2)}\colon L^2(Q_i)^d \to L^2(Q_i)^d\bigr). \] \end{enumerate} \end{theorem} \begin{proof} Completely analogously to the proof of~\cite[Theorem~13.19 on page~461]{Lueck(2002)} we prove \begin{eqnarray} F(\lambda) & = & \underline{F}^+(\lambda) \;= \; \overline{F}^+(\lambda) \quad \text{for} \; \lambda \in {\mathbb R}; \label{F[i]s_underlineFplus_isoverlineFplus} \\ F(0) & = & \lim_{i \in I} F[i](0); \label{F(0)_is_lim_i_F[i](0)} \\ \kappa &\le & \det\bigl(r_B^{(2)} \colon L^2(G)^d \to L^2(G)^d\bigr). \label{ln(det(R_B)_greater_or_equal_zero} \end{eqnarray} The proof of~\cite[(13.22) and~(13.23) on page~462]{Lueck(2002)} carries directly over and yields \begin{eqnarray} \quad \quad \ln(\det(r_B^{(2)})) & = & \ln(K)\cdot (F(K) - F(0)) - \int_{0+}^K \frac{F(\lambda) - F(0)}{\lambda} \, d\lambda; \label{det(r_B)_is_int} \\ \quad \quad \quad \ln({\det}_i(r_{B[i]}^{(2)})) & = & \ln(K)\cdot (F[i](K) - F[i](0)) - \int_{0+}^K \frac{F[i](\lambda) - F[i](0)}{\lambda} \, d\lambda. \label{det(r_B[i])_is_int} \end{eqnarray} We conclude from~\eqref{ln(det(R_B)_greater_or_equal_zero} and~\eqref{det(r_B)_is_int} \begin{eqnarray} 0 & \le & \int_{0+}^K\frac{F(\lambda) - F(0)}{\lambda} d\lambda < + \infty. \label{0_le_int_F/lambda} \end{eqnarray} Since $\underline{F}$ and $\overline{F}$ are monotone increasing bounded functions, there are only countably many elements $\lambda \in (0,\infty)$ such that $\underline{F}(\lambda) \not= \underline{F}^+(\lambda)$ or $\overline{F}(\lambda) \not= \overline{F}^+(\lambda)$ hold. We conclude from~\eqref{F[i]s_underlineFplus_isoverlineFplus} that there is a countable set $S \subseteq [0,\infty)$ such that for all $\lambda \in [0,\infty) \setminus S$ the limit $\lim_{i \to \infty} F[i](\lambda)$ exists and is equal to $F(\lambda)$. Since $S$ has measure zero and we have~\eqref{F(0)_is_lim_i_F[i](0)}, we get almost everywhere for $\lambda \in [0,\infty)$ \begin{eqnarray} \lim_{i \in I} \frac{F[i](\lambda) - F[i](0)}{\lambda} & = & \frac{F(\lambda) - F(0)}{\lambda} \label{lim_isF_almost_everywhere} \end{eqnarray} Analogously to the proof of~\cite[(13.28) on page~463]{Lueck(2002)} one shows \begin{eqnarray*} \int_{0+}^K\frac{\lim_{i \in I} \bigl(F[i](\lambda) - F[i](0)\bigr)}{\lambda} d\lambda & \le & \liminf_{i \in I} \int_{0+}^K \frac{F[i](\lambda) - F[i](0)}{\lambda} d\lambda. \end{eqnarray*} This implies \begin{eqnarray} \int_{0+}^K\frac{F(\lambda) - F(0)}{\lambda} d\lambda & \le & \liminf_{i \in I} \int_{0+}^K \frac{F[i](\lambda) - F[i](0)}{\lambda} d\lambda. \label{int_F/lambda_le_int_liminf} \end{eqnarray} Now assertion~\eqref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density:inequality} follows from~\eqref{det(r_B)_is_int},~\eqref{det(r_B[i])_is_int}, and~\eqref{int_F/lambda_le_int_liminf}. Next we prove assertion~\eqref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density:equality}. We can apply Lebesgue's Dominated Convergence Theorem to~\eqref{lim_isF_almost_everywhere} because of the assumption~\eqref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density:integrability} and obtain \begin{eqnarray*} \int_{0+}^K\frac{\lim_{i \in I} \bigl(F[i](\lambda) - F[i](0)\bigr)}{\lambda} d\lambda & = & \lim_{i \in I} \int_{0+}^K \frac{F[i](\lambda) - F[i](0)}{\lambda} d\lambda. \end{eqnarray*} Now assertion~\eqref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density:equality} follows from~\eqref{det(r_B)_is_int}, and~\eqref{det(r_B[i])_is_int}. This finishes the proof of Theorem~\ref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density}. \end{proof} \subsection{The uniform integrability condition is not automatically satisfied} \label{subsec:The_uniform_integrability_condition_is_not_automatically_satisfied} The main difficulty to apply Theorem~\ref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density} to the situations of interest is the verification of the uniform integrability condition~\eqref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density:integrability} appearing in Theorem~\ref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density}. We will illustrate by an example that one needs extra input to ensure this condition since there are examples where this condition is violated but all properties of the spectral density functions which are known so far are satisfied. Define the following sequence of functions $f_n \colon [0,1] \to [0,1]$ \[ f_n(\lambda) = \begin{cases} \lambda & 0 \le \lambda \le e^{-3n}; \\ \frac{(e^{-2n} -\lambda) \cdot e^{-3n} + (\lambda- e^{-3n}) \cdot \bigl(\frac{1} {-\ln(e^{-2n})} + e^{-2n}\bigr)}{e^{-2n}- e^{-3n}} & e^{-3n} \le \lambda \le e^{-2n}; \\ \frac{1}{-\ln(\lambda)} + \lambda & e^{-2n} \le \lambda \le e^{-n}; \\ \frac{1}{-\ln(e^{-n})} + e^{-n} & e^{-n} \le \lambda \le \frac{1}{-\ln(e^{-n})} + e^{-n}; \\ \lambda & \frac{1}{-\ln(e^{-n})} + e^{-n} \le \lambda \le 1. \end{cases} \] \begin{lemma} \label{lem:addendum}\ \begin{enumerate} \item \label{lem:addendum:(1)} The function $f_n(\lambda)$ is monotone non-decreasing and continuous for $n \ge 1$; \item \label{lem:addendum:(2)} $f_n(0) = 0$ and $f_n(1) = 1$ for all $n \ge 1$; \item \label{lem:addendum:(3)} $\lim_{n \to \infty} f_n(\lambda) = \lambda$ for $\lambda \in [0,1]$; \item \label{lem:addendum:(4)} We have for all $n \ge 1$ and $\lambda \in [0,1)$ \[ \lambda \le f_n(\lambda) \le \frac{1}{-\ln(\lambda)} + \lambda \le \frac{2}{-\ln(\lambda)}; \] \item \label{lem:addendum:(5)} We have for $\lambda \in [0,e^{-1}]$ \[ \sup\bigl\{f_n(\lambda) \mid n \ge 0\} = \frac{1}{-\ln(\lambda)} + \lambda; \] \item \label{lem:addendum:(6)} We have \[ \int_{0+}^1 \frac{\sup\{f_n(\lambda) \mid n \ge 0\}}{\lambda} \; d\lambda = \infty; \] \item \label{lem:addendum:(7)} We get for all $n \ge 1$ \[ \int_{0+}^1 \frac{f_n(\lambda)}{\lambda} \; d\lambda \ge \ln(2) + 1; \] \item \label{lem:addendum:(8)} We have \[ \int_{0+}^1 \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{ f_n(\lambda)}{\lambda} d \lambda < \liminf_{n \to \infty} \int_{0+}^1 \frac{f_n(\lambda)}{\lambda} d \lambda \le \limsup_{n \to \infty} \int_{0+}^1 \frac{f_n(\lambda)}{\lambda} d \lambda; \] \item \label{lem:addendum:(9)} We get for all $n \ge 1$ \[\int_{0+}^1 \frac{f_n(\lambda)}{\lambda} \,d\lambda \le 4. \] \end{enumerate} \end{lemma} \begin{proof}~% \eqref{lem:addendum:(1)} One easily checks that the definition of $f_n$ makes sense, in particular at the values $\lambda = e^{-3n}, e^{-2n}, e^{-n}$. The first derivative of $f_n(\lambda)$ exists with the exception of $\lambda = e^{-3n}, e^{-2n}, e^{-n}, \frac{1}{-\ln(e^{-n})} + e^{-n}$ and is given by \[ f_n'(\lambda) = \begin{cases} 1 & 0 \le \lambda < e^{-3n}; \\ 1 + \frac{1}{2n \cdot (e^{-2n}- e^{-3n})} & e^{-3n} < \lambda < e^{-2n}; \\ \frac{1}{\lambda \cdot \ln(\lambda)^2} + 1 & e^{-2n} <\lambda < e^{-n}; \\ 0 & e^{-n} \le \lambda \le \frac{1}{-\ln(e^{-n})} + e^{-n}; \\ 1 & \frac{1}{-\ln(e^{-n})} + e^{-n} < \lambda \le 1. \end{cases} \] Hence for $n \ge 1$ the function $f_n$ is smooth with non-negative derivative on the open intervals $(0,e^{-3n})$, $(e^{-3n},e^{-2n})$, $(e^{-2n},e^{-n})$, and $(e^{-n},1)$, and is continuous on the closed intervals $[0,e^{-3n}]$, $[e^{-3n},e^{-2n}]$, $[e^{-2n},e^{-n}]$, and $[e^{-n},1]$. Hence each $f_n$ is continuous and monotone non-decreasing. \\[1mm]~% \eqref{lem:addendum:(2)} This is obvious. \\[1mm]~% \eqref{lem:addendum:(3)} This follows since $\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{-\ln(e^{-n})} + e^{-n} = 0$, $f_n(\lambda) = \lambda$ for $\frac{1}{-\ln(e^{-n})} + e^{-n} \le \lambda \le 1$ and $f_n(0) = 0$ for all $n \ge 1$. \\[1mm]~% \eqref{lem:addendum:(4)} We conclude $\lambda \le f_n(\lambda) \le \frac{1}{-\ln(\lambda)} + \lambda$ for $\lambda \in [0,1)$ by inspecting the definitions since $\lambda \le \frac{1}{-\ln(\lambda)} + \lambda$ holds and $\frac{1}{-\ln(\lambda)} + \lambda$ is monotone non-decreasing. We have $\lambda \le \frac{1}{-\ln(\lambda)}$ for $\lambda \in (0,1)$. \\[1mm]~% \eqref{lem:addendum:(5)} From assertion~\eqref{lem:addendum:(4)} we conclude $\sup\bigl\{f_n(\lambda) \mid n \ge 0\} \le \frac{1}{-\ln(\lambda)} + \lambda$ for $\lambda \in [0,1)$. Since for $\lambda$ with $0 < \lambda \le e^{-1}$ we can find $n \ge 1$ with $e^{-2n} \le \lambda \le e^{-n}$ and hence $f_n(\lambda) = \frac{1}{-\ln(\lambda)} + \lambda$ holds for that $n$, we conclude $\sup\bigl\{f_n(\lambda) \mid n \ge 0\} = \frac{1}{-\ln(\lambda)} + \lambda$ for $\lambda \in [0,e^{-1}]$. \\[1mm]~% \eqref{lem:addendum:(6)} We compute using assertion~\eqref{lem:addendum:(5)} for every $\epsilon \in (0,e^{-1})$ \begin{eqnarray*} \int_{0+}^1 \frac{\sup\bigl\{f_n(\lambda) \mid n \ge 0\}}{\lambda} \; d\lambda & \ge & \int_{\epsilon}^{e^{-1}} \frac{\sup\bigl\{f_n(\lambda) \mid n \ge 0\}}{\lambda} \; d\lambda \\ & = & \int_{\epsilon}^{e^{-1}} 1 + \frac{1}{\lambda\cdot (-\ln(\lambda))} \; d\lambda \\ & = & e^{-1} - \epsilon + \left[-\ln(-\ln(\lambda))\right]_{\epsilon}^{e^{-1}} \\ & = & e^{-1} - \epsilon - \ln(-\ln(e^{-1}) + \ln(-\ln(\epsilon)) \\ & = & e^{-1} - \epsilon + \ln(-\ln(\epsilon)) \\ & \ge & \ln(-\ln(\epsilon)). \end{eqnarray*} Since $\lim_{\epsilon \to 0+} \ln(-\ln(\epsilon)) = \infty$, assertion~\eqref{lem:addendum:(6)} follows. \\[1mm]~% \eqref{lem:addendum:(7)} We estimate for given $n \ge 1$ using the conclusion $f_n(\lambda) - \lambda \ge 0$ for $\lambda \in [0,1]$ from assertion~\eqref{lem:addendum:(4)} \begin{eqnarray*} \int_{0+}^1 \frac{f_n(\lambda)}{\lambda} \; d\lambda & = & \int_{0+}^1 \frac{f_n(\lambda) - \lambda }{\lambda} \; d\lambda + 1 \\ & \ge & \int_{e^{-2n}}^{e^{-n}} \frac{f_n(\lambda)- \lambda}{\lambda} \; d\lambda + 1 \\ & = & \int_{e^{-2n}}^{e^{-n}} \frac{1}{\lambda \cdot (-\ln(\lambda))} \; d \lambda + 1 \\ & = & \left[-\ln(-\ln(\lambda))\right]_{e^{-2n}}^{e^{-n}} + 1 \\ & = & -\ln(-\ln(e^{-n}) + \ln(-\ln(e^{-2n})) + 1 \\ & = & -\ln(n) + \ln(2n) + 1 \\ & = & \ln(2) + 1. \end{eqnarray*} \eqref{lem:addendum:(8)} This follows from assertion~\eqref{lem:addendum:(3)},~\eqref{lem:addendum:(7)}. \\[1mm]~% \eqref{lem:addendum:(9)} We estimate \begin{eqnarray*} \lefteqn{\int_{0+}^1 \frac{f_n(\lambda)}{\lambda} \,d\lambda} & & \\ & = & \int_{0+}^{e^{-3n}} \frac{f_n(\lambda)}{\lambda} \,d\lambda + \int_{e^{-3n}}^{e^{-2n}} \frac{f_n(\lambda)}{\lambda} \, d\lambda + \int_{e^{-2n}}^{e^{-n}} \frac{f_n(\lambda)}{\lambda} \, d\lambda \\ & & \hspace{30mm} + \int_{e^{-n}}^{\frac{1}{-\ln(e^{-n})} + e^{-n}} \frac{f_n(\lambda)}{\lambda} \,d\lambda + \int_{\frac{1}{-\ln(e^{-n})} + e^{-n}}^1 \frac{f_n(\lambda)}{\lambda} \,d\lambda \\ & = & \int_{0+}^{e^{-3n}} \frac{\lambda}{\lambda} \,d\lambda + \int_{e^{-3n}}^{e^{-2n}} \frac{(e^{-2n} -\lambda) \cdot e^{-3n} + (\lambda- e^{-3n}) \cdot \bigl(\frac{1} {-\ln(e^{-2n})} + e^{-2n}\bigr)}{e^{-2n}- e^{-3n}}\cdot \frac{1}{\lambda} \, d\lambda \\ & & \hspace{5mm} + \int_{e^{-2n}}^{e^{-n}} \frac{\frac{1}{-\ln(\lambda)} + \lambda}{\lambda} \, d\lambda + \int_{e^{-n}}^{\frac{1}{n} + e^{-n}} \frac{\frac{1}{-\ln(e^{-n})} + e^{-n}}{\lambda} \,d\lambda + \int_{\frac{1}{n} + e^{-n}}^1 \frac{\lambda}{\lambda} \,d\lambda \\ & = & \int_{0+}^{e^{-3n}} 1 \,d\lambda + \int_{e^{-3n}}^{e^{-2n}} 1 + \frac{1}{2n \cdot (e^{-2n}- e^{-3n})} + \frac{e^{-3n} }{2n \cdot (e^{-2n}- e^{-3n})}\cdot \frac{1}{\lambda} \, d\lambda \\ & & \hspace{5mm} + \int_{e^{-2n}}^{e^{-n}} 1 - \frac{1}{\ln(\lambda) \cdot \lambda} \, d\lambda + \int_{e^{-n}}^{\frac{1}{n} + e^{-n}} \frac{\frac{1}{n} + e^{-n}}{\lambda} \,d\lambda + \int_{\frac{1}{n} + e^{-n}}^1 1 \,d\lambda \\ & = & e^{-3n} + \int_{e^{-3n}}^{e^{-2n}} 1 + \frac{1}{2n \cdot (e^{-2n}- e^{-3n})} \, d\lambda + \int_{e^{-3n}}^{e^{-2n}} \frac{e^{-3n} }{2n \cdot (e^{-2n}- e^{-3n})}\cdot \frac{1}{\lambda} \, d\lambda \\ & & \hspace{5mm} + \int_{e^{-2n}}^{e^{-n}} 1 \, d\lambda - \int_{e^{-2n}}^{e^{-n}} \frac{1}{\ln(\lambda) \cdot \lambda} \, d\lambda + \int_{e^{-n}}^{\frac{1}{n} + e^{-n}} \frac{\frac{1}{n} + e^{-n}}{\lambda} \,d\lambda + 1 - \frac{1}{n} - e^{-n} \\ & = & e^{-3n} + \bigl(e^{-2n}- e^{-3n}\bigr) \cdot \left(1 + \frac{1}{2n \cdot (e^{-2n}- e^{-3n})}\right) + \left[\frac{e^{-3n} \cdot \ln(\lambda)}{2n \cdot (e^{-2n}- e^{-3n})} \right]_{e^{-3n}}^{e^{-2n}} \\ & & \hspace{5mm} + e^{-n} - e^{-2n} - \left[\ln(-\ln(\lambda))\right]_{e^{-2n}}^{e^{-n}} + \left[\left(\frac{1}{n} + e^{-n}\right) \cdot \ln(\lambda)\right]_{e^{-n}}^{\frac{1}{n} + e^{-n}} + 1 - \frac{1}{n} - e^{-n} \\ & = & 1 - \frac{3}{2n}+ \frac{e^{-3n} \cdot (-2n + 3n)}{2n \cdot (e^{-2n}- e^{-3n})} \\ & & \hspace{5mm} - \bigl(\ln(n) - \ln(2n)\bigr) + \left(\frac{1}{n} + e^{-n}\right) \cdot \left(\ln\left(\frac{1}{n} + e^{-n} \right) - \ln(e^{-n})\right) \\ & = & 1 - \frac{3}{2n} + \frac{1}{2 \cdot (e^{n}- 1)} + \ln(2) + \left(\frac{1}{n} + e^{-n}\right) \cdot \ln\left(\frac{e^n}{n} + 1\right) \\ & \le & 1 + \frac{1}{2 \cdot (e - 1)} + \ln(2) + \frac{2}{n} \cdot \ln(2 e^n) \\ & = & 1 + \frac{1}{2 \cdot (e - 1)} + \ln(2) + 2 \cdot \ln(2) \\ & \le & 4. \end{eqnarray*} This finishes the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:addendum}. \end{proof} \begin{remark}[Exotic behavior at zero] \label{rem:exotic_behavior_at_zero} The sequence of functions $(f_n)_{n \ge 0}$ has an exotic behavior close to zero in a small range depending on $n$. There are no $C> 0$ and $\epsilon > 0$ such that $f_n'(\lambda) \le C$ holds for all $n \ge 1$ and all $\lambda \in (0,\epsilon)$ for which the derivative exists. This exotic behavior is responsible for the violation of the the uniform integrability condition, see Lemma~\ref{lem:addendum}~\eqref{lem:addendum:(6)}. It is very unlikely that such a sequence $(f_n)_{n \ge 0}$ actually occurs as the sequence of spectral density functions of the manifolds $G_i\backslash M$ for some smooth manifold $M$ with proper free cocompact $G$-action and $G$-invariant Riemannian metric. The example above shows that we need to have more information on such sequences of spectral density functions. \end{remark} \subsection{Uniform estimate on spectral density functions} \label{subsec:Uniform_estimate_on_spectral_density_functions} The crudest way to ensure the uniform integrability condition~\eqref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density:integrability} appearing in Theorem~\ref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density} is to assume a uniform gap in the spectrum, namely we have the obvious \begin{lemma}\label{lem:uniform_gap} Suppose that \emph{the uniform gap in the spectrum at zero condition} is satisfied, i.e., there exists $\epsilon > 0$ such that for all $i \in I$ and $\lambda \in [0,\epsilon]$ we have $F[i](\lambda) = F[i](0)$. Then the uniform integrability condition~\eqref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density:integrability} appearing in Theorem~\ref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density} is satisfied. \end{lemma} However, this is an unrealistic condition in our situation for closed aspherical manifolds because of the following remark. \begin{remark}[The Zero-in-the-Spectrum Conjecture] \label{rem:The_Zero-in-the-Spectrum_Conjecture} Let $M$ be an aspherical closed manifold. If one wants to use Lemma~\ref{lem:uniform_gap} in connection with Theorem~\ref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density} to prove Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_conjecture_for_Fuglede-Kadison_determinants_with_finite_index} or more generally Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_conjecture_for_analytic_L2-torsion} for $\widetilde{M}$, one has to face the fact that the assumption that one has in each dimension a uniform gap in the spectrum at zero implies that $b_p^{(2)}(\widetilde{M})$ vanishes and the $p$-th Novikov-Shubin invariant satisfies $\alpha_p(\widetilde{M}) = \infty^*$ for all $p \ge 0$. In other words, $M$ must be a counterexample to the Zero-in-the-Spectrum Conjecture which is discussed in detail in~\cite[Chapter~12 on pages~437~ff]{Lueck(2002)}. Such counterexample is not known to exist and it is evident that it is hard to find one. Therefore the uniform gap in the spectrum at zero condition is not useful in this setting. There are examples where Lemma~\ref{lem:uniform_gap} does apply when one allows to twist with representations in favorable case, see for instance~\cite{Bergeron-Venkatesh(2013),Marshall-Mueller(2013),Mueller-Pfaff(2013locsym),Mueller-Pfaff(2013asymp)}. \end{remark} Here is a more promising version. \begin{theorem}[The uniform logarithmic estimate] \label{the:the_uniform_logarithmic_estimate} Suppose that there exists constants $C > 0 $, $0 < \epsilon < 1$ and $\delta > 0$ independent of $i$ such that for all $\lambda$ with $0 < \lambda \le \epsilon$ and all $i \in I$ we have \begin{eqnarray*} F[i](\lambda) - F[i](0) \le & \frac{C}{(-\ln(\lambda))^{1 + \delta}}. \label{ln(lambda)(-1-1delta_n)_bound} \end{eqnarray*} Then the uniform integrability condition~\eqref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density:integrability} appearing in Theorem~\ref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density} is satisfied. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} This follows from the following calculation. \begin{eqnarray*} \int_{+0}^{\epsilon} \frac{C}{\lambda \cdot (-\ln(\lambda))^{1 + \delta}} d \lambda & \stackrel{\lambda = \exp(\mu)}{=} & \int_{-\infty}^{\ln(\epsilon)} \frac{C}{\exp(\mu) \cdot (-\ln(\exp(\mu)))^{1 + \delta}} \cdot \exp(\mu) \, d\mu \\ & = & \int_{-\infty}^{\ln(\epsilon)} \frac{C}{(-\mu)^{1 + \delta}} d\mu \\ & \stackrel{\mu = -\nu}{=} & \int_{-\ln(\epsilon)}^{\infty} \frac{C}{\nu^{1 + \delta}} d\nu \\ & = & \lim_{x \to \infty} \int_{-\ln(\epsilon)}^{x} \frac{C}{\nu^{1 + \delta}} d\nu \\ & = & \lim_{x \to \infty} - \delta \cdot \left(x^{-\delta} - (-\ln(\epsilon))^{-\delta}\right) \\ & = & \delta \cdot (-\ln(\epsilon))^{-\delta} \\ & < & \infty, \end{eqnarray*} \end{proof} The $p$-th spectral density function $F_p(X[i])$ of $X[i]$ is defined as the spectral density function $F\bigl(c_p^{(2)}(X[i])\bigr))$ of the $p$-th differential of $C_*^{(2)}(X[i])$. If we now consider the Setup~\ref{set:restricted}, we get from~\cite[Theorem~0.3]{Lueck(1994c)} for all $p \ge 0$ at least the inequality \begin{eqnarray} \frac{F_p(X[i])(\lambda) - F_p(X[i])(0)}{[G:G_i]} & \le & \frac{C}{-\ln(\lambda)}. \label{ln(lambda)(-1)_bound} \end{eqnarray} But this is not enough, since one cannot take $\delta = 0$ in Theorem~\ref{the:the_uniform_logarithmic_estimate}, namely, we have for every $C > 0$ and $0 < \epsilon < 1$ \begin{eqnarray*} \int_{+0}^{\epsilon} \frac{C}{\lambda \cdot (-\ln(\lambda))} d \lambda & = & \lim_{x \to 0+} \int_x^{\epsilon} \frac{C}{\lambda \cdot (-\ln(\lambda))} d \lambda \\ & = & \lim_{x \to 0+} C \cdot \left(- \ln(-\ln(\epsilon)) + \ln(-\ln(x))\right) \\ & = & \infty. \end{eqnarray*} Condition~\eqref{ln(lambda)(-1-1delta_n)_bound} is implied by the stronger condition that there exist for each $p \ge 0$ constants $C_p > 0$, $\epsilon_p > 0$ and $\alpha_p> 0$ independent of $i$ such that we have for all $\lambda \in [0,\epsilon_p)$ and all $i = 1,2, \ldots$ \begin{eqnarray} \frac{F_p(X[i])(\lambda) - F_p(X[i])(0)}{[G:G_i]} & \le & C \cdot \lambda^{\alpha_p}. \label{lambda(alpha_n)_bound} \end{eqnarray} Condition~\eqref{lambda(alpha_n)_bound} is known for $p = 0$, see~\cite[Theorem~1.1]{Koch-Lueck(2014)}. However, there is an unpublished manuscript by Grabowski and Virag~\cite{Grabowski-Virag(2013)}, where they show that there exists an explicit element $a$ in the integral group ring of the wreath product ${\mathbb Z}^3 \wr {\mathbb Z}$ such that the spectral density function of the associated ${\mathcal N}({\mathbb Z}^3\wr {\mathbb Z})$-map $r_a \colon {\mathcal N}({\mathbb Z}^3 \wr {\mathbb Z}) \to {\mathcal N}({\mathbb Z}^3 \wr {\mathbb Z})$ does not satisfy condition~\eqref{lambda(alpha_n)_bound}. This implies that there exists a closed Riemannian manifold $M$ with fundamental group $G = \pi_1(X) = {\mathbb Z}^3 \wr {\mathbb Z}$ such that for some $p$ condition~\eqref{lambda(alpha_n)_bound} is not satisfied for $X = \widetilde{M}$ and the $p$-th Novikov-Shubin invariant of $\widetilde{M}$ is zero, disproving a conjecture of Lott and L\"uck, see~\cite[Conjecture~7.1 and~7.2]{Lott-Lueck(1995)}. It may still be possible that Condition~\ref{lambda(alpha_n)_bound} and the conjecture of Lott and L\"uck hold for an aspherical closed manifold $M$. There is no counterexample known to the condition appearing in Theorem~\ref{the:the_uniform_logarithmic_estimate} but the constant $\delta$ has to be depend on the group $G$, see Grabowski~\cite{Grabowski(2015large)}. \typeout{------- Section 17: Proof of some Theorems for Fuglede-Kadison determinants ------------------} \section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{the:inequality_det_det}, Theorem~\ref{the:invertible_matrices_over_l1(G)}, and Corollary~\ref{cor:l1-chain_equivalence}} \label{sec:Proof_of_some_Theorems_for_Fuglede-Kadison_determinants} In this section we derive the proofs of Theorem~\ref{the:inequality_det_det},~% \ref{the:invertible_matrices_over_l1(G)} from Theorem~\ref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density}. This needs some preparation. Define for a matrix $B \in M_{r,s}(L^1(G))$ the real number \begin{eqnarray} K^G(B) & := & rs \cdot \max\{||b_{i,j}||_{L^1} \mid 1 \le i \le r, 1 \le j \le s\}, \label{KG(B)} \end{eqnarray} where for $a = \sum_{g \in G} \lambda_g \cdot g$ its $L^1$-norm $||a||_{L^1}$ is defined by $\sum_{g \in G} |\lambda_g|$. The proof of the following result is analogous to the proof of~\cite[Lemma~13.33 on page~466]{Lueck(2002)}. \begin{lemma} \label{lem_KG(B)-estimate} We get for $B \in M_{r,s}(L^1(G))$ \[ ||r_B^{(2)} \colon L^2(G)^r \to L^2(G)^s|| \le K^G(B). \] \end{lemma} Consider the setup~\ref{set:inverse_systems}. \begin{lemma} \label{lem_trace_and_limit} Consider $B \in M_{d}(L^1(G))$. Let $B[i] \in M_d(L^1(G/G_i))$ be obtained from $B$ by applying the map $L^1(G) \to L^1(G/G_i)$ induced by the projection $\psi_i \colon G \to G/G_i$. Then \[ \operatorname{tr}_{{\mathcal N}(G)}(B) = \lim_{i \in I} \operatorname{tr}_{{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)}(B[i]). \] \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Suppose that $B$ looks like $\left(\sum_{g \in G} \lambda_g(r,s) \cdot g\right)_{r,s}$. Denote in the sequel by $e$ the unit element in $G$ or $G/G_i$. Then \begin{eqnarray*} \operatorname{tr}_{{\mathcal N}(G)}(B) & = & \sum_{r = 1 }^d \lambda_e(r,r); \\ \operatorname{tr}_{{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)}(B[i]) & = & \sum_{r = 1 }^d \sum_{g \in G, \psi_i(g) = e} \lambda_g(r,r). \end{eqnarray*} Consider $\epsilon > 0$. We can choose a finite subset $S \subseteq G$ with $e \in S$ such that $\sum_{g \in G, g \notin S} |\lambda_g(r,r)| < \epsilon/d$ holds for all $r \in \{1,2, \ldots , d\}$. Since $\bigcap_{i \in I} G_i = \{1\}$, there exists an index $i_S$ such that $\psi_i(g) = e \Rightarrow g = e$ holds for all $g \in S$ and $i \ge i_S$. This implies for $i \ge i_S$ \begin{eqnarray*} \bigl|\operatorname{tr}_{{\mathcal N}(G)}(B) - \operatorname{tr}_{{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)}(B[i])\bigr| & = & \biggl|\sum_{r = 1 }^d \lambda_e(r,r) - \sum_{r = 1 }^d \sum_{g \in G, \psi_i(g) = e} \lambda_g(r,r)\biggr| \\ & \le & \sum_{r = 1 }^d \; \biggl|\lambda_e(r,r) - \sum_{g \in G, \psi_i(g) = e} \lambda_g(r,r)\biggr| \\ & = & \sum_{r = 1 }^d \; \biggl|\sum_{g \in G, g \notin S,\psi_i(g) = e} \; \lambda_g(r,r)\biggr| \\ &\le & \sum_{r = 1 }^d \;\sum_{g \in G, g \notin S,\psi_i(g) = e} \biggl|\lambda_g(r,r)\biggr| \\ &\le & \sum_{r = 1 }^d \; \sum_{g \in G, g \notin S} \biggl|\lambda_g(r,r)\biggr| \\ &\le & \sum_{r = 1 }^d \epsilon/d \\ & = & \epsilon. \end{eqnarray*} \end{proof} Next we give the proof of Theorem~\ref{the:inequality_det_det}. \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{the:inequality_det_det}] We have to show for $A \in M_{r,s}({\mathbb Q} G)$. \begin{multline} {\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G)}\big(r_A^{(2)}\colon L^2(G)^r \to L^2(G)^s \bigr) \\ \ge \limsup _{i \in I} {\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)}\big(r_{A[i]}^{(2)}\colon L^2(G/G_i)^r \to L^2(G/G_i)^s \bigr). \label{claim_to_prove} \end{multline} We first deal with the special case that $A \in M_{r,s}({\mathbb Z} G)$. We will apply Theorem~\ref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density} to the following special situation: \begin{itemize} \item $B = A^*A$; \item $Q_i = G/G_i$; \item $B[i] = A[i]^*A[i]$; \item$\operatorname{tr}$ is the von Neumann trace $\operatorname{tr}_{{\mathcal N}(G)} \colon {\mathcal N}(G) \to {\mathbb C}$; \item$\operatorname{tr}_i$ is the von Neumann trace $\operatorname{tr}_{{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)} \colon {\mathcal N}(G/G_i) \to {\mathbb C}$. \end{itemize} We have to check that the conditions of Theorem~\ref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density}~\eqref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density:inequality} are satisfied. We obtain Condition~\eqref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density:uniform_bound_K} appearing in Theorem~\ref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density} from Lemma~\ref{lem_KG(B)-estimate} since the projection $L^1(G) \to L^1(G/G_i)$ has operator norm at most $1$ and hence we get for the number $K^G(B)$ defined in~\eqref{KG(B)} \[ K^{Q_i}(B[i]) \le K^G(B). \] Condition~\eqref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density:traces_and_polynomials} appearing in Theorem~\ref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density} follows from Lemma~\ref{lem_trace_and_limit}. Condition~\eqref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density:det} appearing in Theorem~\ref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density} follows from the Assumption~\ref{ass:Determinant_Conjecture} that each quotient $G/G_i$ satisfies the Determinant Conjecture~\ref{con:Determinant_Conjecture}. Condition~\eqref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density:positivity} appearing in Theorem~\ref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density} is satisfied because of $B = A^*A$ and $B[i]=A[i]^*A[i]$. Hence we conclude from Theorem~\ref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density}~\eqref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density:inequality} \[ {\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G)}\bigl(r_B^{(2)} \colon L^2(G)^r \to L^2(G)^r\bigr) \ge \limsup_{i \in I} \;{\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G)}\bigl(r_{B[i]}^{(2)}\colon L^2(G/G_i)^r \to L^2(G/G_i)^r\bigr). \] Since we get from~\cite[Lemma~3.15~(4) on page~129]{Lueck(2002)} \begin{eqnarray*} {\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G)}\bigl(r_A^{(2)}\bigr) & = & \sqrt{{\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G)}\bigl(r_B^{(2)}\bigr)}; \\ {\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G/G_i})\bigl(r_{A[i]}^{(2)}\bigr) & = & \sqrt{{\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G/G_i}\bigl(r_{B[i]}^{(2)}\bigr)}, \end{eqnarray*} equation~\eqref{claim_to_prove} follows for $A \in M_{r,s}({\mathbb Z} G)$. Next we reduce the general case $A \in M_{r,s}({\mathbb Q} G)$ to the case above. Consider any real number $m > 0$, any group $H$ and any morphism $f \colon L^2(H)^r \to L^2(H)^s$. We conclude from~\cite[Lemma~1.18 on page~24 and Theorem~3.14~(1) on page~128 and Lemma~3.15~(3), (4) and~(7) on page~129]{Lueck(2002)} \begin{eqnarray*} \lefteqn{{\det}_{{\mathcal N}(H)}\bigl(f \circ m\operatorname{id}_{L^2(H)^r}\bigr)^2} & & \\ & = & {\det}_{{\mathcal N}(H)}\left(\bigl(f \circ m\operatorname{id}_{L^2(H)^r}\bigr)^* \circ \bigl(f \circ m\operatorname{id}_{L^2(H)^r}\bigr)\right) \\ & = & {\det}_{{\mathcal N}(H)}\bigl(f^* \circ f \circ m^2\operatorname{id}_{L^2(H)^r}\bigr) \\ & = & {\det}_{{\mathcal N}(H)}\left(\bigl(\left.f^* \circ f \circ m^2\operatorname{id}_{L^2(H)^r}\bigr) \right|_{\ker\bigl(f^* \circ f \circ m^2\operatorname{id}_{L^2(H)^r}\bigr)^{\perp}}\right) \\ & = & {\det}_{{\mathcal N}(H)}\left(\left.\bigl(f^* \circ f \bigr)\right|_{\ker(f^*f)^{\perp}} \circ m^2\operatorname{id}_{\ker(f^*f)^{\perp}}\right) \\ & = & {\det}_{{\mathcal N}(H)}\left(\left.\bigl(f^* \circ f \bigr)\right|_{\ker(f^*f)^{\perp}}\right) \cdot {\det}_{{\mathcal N}(H)}\left(m^2\operatorname{id}_{\ker(f^*f)^{\perp}}\right) \\ & = & {\det}_{{\mathcal N}(H)}\bigl(f^* \circ f \bigr) \cdot m^{2 \cdot \dim_{{\mathcal N}(H)}\ker(f^*f)^{\perp}} \\ & = & {\det}_{{\mathcal N}(H)}(f)^2 \cdot m^{2r-2\dim_{{\mathcal N}(H)}(\ker(f^*f))} \\ & = & \left({\det}_{{\mathcal N}(H)}(f) \cdot m^{r-\dim_{{\mathcal N}(H)}(\ker(f))}\right)^2. \end{eqnarray*} Thus we have shown \begin{eqnarray} {\det}_{{\mathcal N}(H)}\bigl(f \circ m\operatorname{id}_{L^2(H)^r}\bigr) & = & {\det}_{{\mathcal N}(H)}\bigl(f) \cdot m^{r - \dim_{{\mathcal N}(H)}(\ker(f))}. \label{nice_estimate_for_morphisms} \end{eqnarray} Let $m\ge 1 $ be an integer such that $mI_r\cdot A$ belongs to $M_{r,s}({\mathbb Z} G)$, where $m I_r$ is obtained from the identity matrix by multiplying all entries with $m$. If we apply~\eqref{nice_estimate_for_morphisms} in the case $H = G$ and $H = G/G_i$ to $f = r_A^{(2)}$ and $f = r_{A[i]}^{(2)}$, we obtain \begin{eqnarray*} {\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G)}\bigl(r_{mI_r\cdot A}^{(2)}\bigr) & = & {\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G)}\bigl(r_{A}^{(2)}\bigr) \cdot m^{r-\dim_{{\mathcal N}(G)}(\ker(r_A^{(2)}))}; \\ {\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)}\bigl(r_{mI_r\cdot A[i]}^{(2)}\bigr) & = & {\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)}\bigl(r_{A[i]}^{(2)}\bigr) \cdot m^{r -\dim_{{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)}(\ker(r_{A[i]}^{(2)}))}. \end{eqnarray*} Since ${\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G)}\bigl(r_{mI_r\cdot A}^{(2)}\bigr) \ge 1$ follows from~\eqref{claim_to_prove} and the assumption that we have ${\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)}\bigl(r_{mI_r\cdot A[i]}^{(2)}\bigr) \ge 1$ for $i \in I$, we get ${\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G)}\bigl(r_{A}^{(2)}\bigr) > 0$. We conclude \begin{multline} \frac{{\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)}\bigl(r_{A[i]}^{(2)}\bigr)}{{\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G)}\bigl(r_{A}^{(2)}\bigr)} \\ = \frac{{\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)}\bigl(r_{mI_rA[i]}^{(2)}\bigr)}{{\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G)}\bigl(r_{mI_rA}^{(2)}\bigr)} \cdot m^{|\dim_{{\mathcal N}(G)}(\ker(r_{A}^{(2)})) - \dim_{{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)}(\ker(r_{A[i]}^{(2)}))|}. \label{conclusion_I} \end{multline} We derive \begin{eqnarray} \lim_{i \in I} \; \left(\dim_{{\mathcal N}(G)}\bigl(\ker\bigl(r_{A}^{(2)}\bigr)\bigr) - \dim_{{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)}\bigl(\ker\bigl(r_{A[i]}^{(2)}\bigr)\bigr)\right) & = & 0 \label{conclusion_II} \end{eqnarray} from Theorem~\ref{the:The_Determinant_Conjecture_implies_the_Approximation_Conjecture_for_L2-Betti_numbers}. Since~\eqref{claim_to_prove} holds for $mI_rA$, it holds also for $A$ by~\eqref{conclusion_I} and~\eqref{conclusion_II}. This finishes the proof of Theorem~\ref{the:inequality_det_det}. \end{proof} Next we give the proof of Theorem~\ref{the:invertible_matrices_over_l1(G)}. \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{the:invertible_matrices_over_l1(G)}] We will apply Theorem~\ref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density} to the following special situation: \begin{itemize} \item $B = A^*A$; \item $Q_i = G/G_i$; \item $B[i] = A[i]^*A[i]$; \item$\operatorname{tr}$ is the von Neumann trace $\operatorname{tr}_{{\mathcal N}(G)} \colon {\mathcal N}(G) \to {\mathbb C}$; \item$\operatorname{tr}_i$ is the von Neumann trace $\operatorname{tr}_{{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)} \colon {\mathcal N}(G/G_i) \to {\mathbb C}$. \end{itemize} We have to check that the conditions of Theorem~\ref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density}~\eqref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density:equality} are satisfied. Condition~\eqref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density:traces_and_polynomials} appearing in Theorem~\ref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density} follows from Lemma~\ref{lem_trace_and_limit}. Condition~\eqref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density:positivity} appearing in Theorem~\ref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density} is satisfied because of $B = A^*A$ and $B[i]=A[i]^*A[i]$. Let $B^{-1}$ be the inverse of $B$ in $\operatorname{GL}_d(L^1(G))$. Put $K:= \max\{K^G(B),K^{G/G_i}(B[i])\}$. Since the projection $L^1(G) \to L^1(G/G_i)$ has operator norm at most $1$, we get for the numbers $K^G(B)$ and $K^G(B^{-1})$ defined in~\eqref{KG(B)} and all $i \in I$ \begin{eqnarray*} K^{G/G_i}(B[i]) & \le & K; \\ K^{G/G_i}(B[i]^{-1}) & \le & K. \end{eqnarray*} hold. We conclude $||r_{B[i]^{-1}}^{(2)}|| \le K$ and $||r_{B[i]^{-1}}^{(2)}|| \le K$ for all $i \in I$ from Lemma~\ref{lem_KG(B)-estimate}. In particular condition~\eqref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density:uniform_bound_K} appearing in Theorem~\ref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density} is satisfied. Since $r_{B[i]^{-1}}^{(2)}$ is the inverse of $r_{B[i]}^{(2)}$, we conclude from~\cite[Lemma~2.13~(2) on page~78, Theorem~3.14~(1) on page~128 and Lemma~3.15~(6) on page~129]{Lueck(2002)} \begin{eqnarray} F[i](\lambda) & = & 0 \quad \text{for all} \; \lambda < K^{-1}\;\text{and}\; i \in I; \label{gap_at_zero} \\ {\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)}^{(2)}\bigl(r^{(2)}_{B[i]}\bigr) & \ge & d \cdot \ln(K) \quad \text{for all}\; i \in I. \label{lower_bound_for_det} \end{eqnarray} Hence condition~\eqref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density:det} is satisfied if we take $\kappa := d \cdot \ln(K)$. We conclude from~\eqref{gap_at_zero} that also condition~\eqref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density:integrability} is satisfied. We conclude from Theorem~\ref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density}~\eqref{the:approxi_for_spectral_density:equality} \[ {\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G)}^{(2)}\bigl(r_B^{(2)} \colon L^2(G)^d \to L^2(G)^d\bigr) = \lim_{i \in I} \;{\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)}^{2}\bigl(r_{B[i]}^{(2)}\colon L^2(G/G_i)^d \to L^2(G/G_i)^d\bigr). \] Since we get from~\cite[Lemma~3.15~(4) on page~129]{Lueck(2002)} \begin{eqnarray*} {\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G)}^{(2)}\bigl(r_A^{(2)}\bigr) & = & \sqrt{{\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G)}^{(2)}\bigl(r_B^{(2)}\bigr)}; \\ {\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)}^{(2)}\bigl(r_{A[i]}^{(2)}\bigr) & = & \sqrt{{\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)}^{(2)}\bigl(r_{B[i]}^{(2)}\bigr)}, \end{eqnarray*} Theorem~\ref{the:invertible_matrices_over_l1(G)} follows. \end{proof} Next we prove Corollary~\ref{cor:l1-chain_equivalence} \begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary~\ref{cor:l1-chain_equivalence}]~\eqref{cor:l1-chain_equivalence:acyclic} Since $C_*$ is acyclic over $L^1(G)$ and finitely generated free, we can choose an $L^1(G)$-chain contraction $\gamma \colon C_* \to C_{*+1}$. Then $(c+ \gamma)_{\operatorname{odd}} \colon C_{\operatorname{odd}} \xrightarrow{\cong} C_{\operatorname{ev}}$ is an isomorphism of finitely generated based free $L^1(G)$-modules. It induces an isomorphism of finitely generated Hilbert ${\mathcal N}(G)$-modules $(c+ \gamma)_{\operatorname{odd}}^{(2)} \colon C_{\operatorname{odd}}^{(2)} \xrightarrow{\cong} C_{\operatorname{ev}}^{(2)}$. We conclude from~\cite[Lemma~3.41 on page~146]{Lueck(2002)} \[ \rho^{(2)}\bigl(C_*^{(2)}\bigr) := \ln\left({\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G)}^{(2)}\bigl((c+ \gamma)_{\operatorname{odd}}^{(2)} \colon C_{\operatorname{odd}}^{(2)} \xrightarrow{\cong} C_{\operatorname{ev}}^{(2)}\bigr)\right). \] Analogously we prove for each $i \in I$ \[ \rho^{(2)}\bigl(C[i]_*^{(2)}\bigr) := \ln\left({\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)}^{(2)}\bigl((c[i]+ \gamma[i])_{\operatorname{odd}}^{(2)} \colon C[i]_{\operatorname{odd}}^{(2)} \xrightarrow{\cong} C[i]_{\operatorname{ev}}^{(2)}\bigr)\right). \] Now assertion~\eqref{cor:l1-chain_equivalence:acyclic} follows from Theorem~\ref{the:invertible_matrices_over_l1(G)}. \\[1mm]~\eqref{cor:l1-chain_equivalence:equivalence} We begin with the case of an isomorphism $f_* \colon C_* \xrightarrow{\cong} D_*$ of finitely generated based free $L^1(G)$-chain complexes. We conclude from~\cite[Lemma~3.41 on page~146]{Lueck(2002)} for all $i \in I$ \begin{eqnarray*} \rho^{(2)}\bigl(D_*^{(2)}\bigr) - \rho^{(2)}\bigl(C_*^{(2)}\bigr) & = & \sum_{p \ge 0} (-1)^p \cdot \ln\bigl({\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G)}^{(2)}(f_p^{(2)})\bigr); \\ \rho^{(2)}\bigl(D[i]_*^{(2)}\bigr) - \rho^{(2)}\bigl(C[i]_*^{(2)}\bigr) & = & \sum_{p \ge 0} (-1)^p \cdot \ln\bigl({\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)}^{(2)}(f[i]_p^{(2)})\bigr). \end{eqnarray*} Now the claim follows in this special case from Theorem~\ref{the:invertible_matrices_over_l1(G)}. Finally we consider an $L^1(G)$-chain homotopy equivalence $f_* \colon C_* \xrightarrow{\simeq} D_*$. Let $\operatorname{cyl}(f_*)$ be its mapping cylinder and $\operatorname{cone}(f_*)$ be its mapping cone. Let $\operatorname{cone}(C_*)$ be the mapping cone of $C_*$. We obtain based exact sequences of $L^1(G)$-chain complexes $$0 \to C_* \to \operatorname{cyl}(f_*) \to \operatorname{cone}(f_*) \to 0$$ and $$0 \to D_* \to \operatorname{cyl}(f_*) \to \operatorname{cone}(C_*) \to 0.$$ Since $f_*$ is a $L^1(G)$-chain homotopy equivalence, $\operatorname{cone}(f_*)$ is contractible. Since $\operatorname{cone}(C_*)$ is contractible, we can find isomorphisms of $L^1(G)$-chain complexes (cf.~\cite[Lemma~3.42 on page~148]{Lueck(2002)}) \begin{eqnarray*} u_* \colon C_* \oplus \operatorname{cone}(f_*) & \xrightarrow{\cong} &\operatorname{cyl}(f_*); \\ v_* \colon D_* \oplus \operatorname{cone}(C_*) & \xrightarrow{\cong} & \operatorname{cyl}(f_*). \end{eqnarray*} Since we have already treated the case of a chain isomorphism, we conclude \begin{multline*} \rho^{(2)}\left(\bigl(C_* \oplus \operatorname{cone}(f_*)\bigr)^{(2)}\right) - \rho^{(2)}\bigl(\operatorname{cyl}(f_*)^{(2)}\bigr) \\ = \; \lim_{i \in I} \rho^{(2)}\left(\bigl(C[i]_* \oplus \operatorname{cone}(f[i]_*)\bigr)^{(2)}\right) - \rho^{(2)}\bigl(\operatorname{cyl}(f[i]_*)^{(2)}\bigr); \end{multline*} and \begin{multline*} \rho^{(2)}\left(\bigl(D_* \oplus \operatorname{cone}(C_*)\bigr)^{(2)}\right) - \rho^{(2)}\bigl(\operatorname{cyl}(f_*)^{(2)}\bigr) \\ = \; \lim_{i \in I} \rho^{(2)}\left(\bigl(D[i]_* \oplus \operatorname{cone}(C[i]_*)\bigr)^{(2)}\right) - \rho^{(2)}\bigl(\operatorname{cyl}(f[i]_*)^{(2)}\bigr). \end{multline*} This implies \begin{multline*} \rho^{(2)}\bigl(C_*^{(2)}\bigr) + \rho^{(2)}\bigl(\operatorname{cone}(f_*^{(2)})\bigr) - \rho^{(2)}\bigl(D_*^{(2)}\bigr) - \rho^{(2)}\bigl(\operatorname{cone}(C_*)^{(2)}\bigr) \\ = \; \lim_{i \in I} \left(\rho^{(2)}\bigl(C[i]_*^{(2)}\bigr) + \rho^{(2)}\bigl(\operatorname{cone}(f[i]_*)^{(2)}\bigr) - \rho^{(2)}\bigl(D[i]_*^{(2)}\bigr) - \rho^{(2)}\bigl(\operatorname{cone}(C[i]_*)^{(2)}\bigr)\right). \end{multline*} We conclude from assertion~\eqref{cor:l1-chain_equivalence:acyclic} \begin{eqnarray*} \rho^{(2)}\bigl(\operatorname{cone}(f_*^{(2)})\bigr) & = & \lim_{i \in I} \rho^{(2)}\bigl(\operatorname{cone}(f[i]_*)^{(2)}\bigr); \\ \rho^{(2)}\bigl(\operatorname{cone}(C_*^{(2)})\bigr) & = & \lim_{i \in I} \rho^{(2)}\bigl(\operatorname{cone}(C[i]_*)^{(2)}\bigr). \end{eqnarray*} This implies \begin{eqnarray*} \rho^{(2)}\bigl(C_*^{(2)}\bigr) - \rho^{(2)}\bigl(D_*^{(2)}\bigr) & = & \lim_{i \in I} \left(\rho^{(2)}\bigl(C[i]_*^{(2)}\bigr) - \rho^{(2)}\bigl(D[i]_*^{(2)}\bigr) \right). \end{eqnarray*} This finishes the proof of Corollary~\ref{cor:l1-chain_equivalence}. \end{proof} \typeout{------- Section 18: Proof of some the Theorem about_approximating_by_Z-torsion -------------} \section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{the:about_approximating_by_IZ-torsion}} \label{sec:Proof_of_Theorem_ref(the:about_approximating_by_IZ-torsion)} Next we want to prove Theorem~\ref{the:about_approximating_by_IZ-torsion}. First we deal with homotopy invariance and with the relationship between $L^2$-torsion and integral torsion. \begin{lemma} \label{lem:homotopy_invariance} Let $G$ be a group for which the Determinant Conjecture~\ref{con:Determinant_Conjecture} is true. Let $f_* \colon D_* \to E_*$ be a ${\mathbb Z} G$-chain homotopy equivalence equivalence of finite based free ${\mathbb Z} G$-chain complexes. Suppose that $D_*^{(2)}$ or $E_*^{(2)}$ is $L^2$-acyclic. Then both $D_*^{(2)}$ and $E_*^{(2)}$ are $L^2$-acyclic and \[\rho^{(2)}\bigl(D_*^{(2)}\bigr) = \rho^{(2)}\bigl(E_*^{(2)}\bigr). \] \end{lemma} \begin{proof} This follows from~\cite[Theorem~3.93~(1) on page~161 and Lemma~13.6 on page~456]{Lueck(2002)}. \end{proof} \begin{notation}\label{not:closure_of_submodule} Let $A$ be a finitely generated free abelian group and let $B \subseteq A$ be a subgroup. Define the \emph{closure} of $B$ in $A$ to be the subgroup \begin{eqnarray*} \overline{B} & = & \{x \in A \mid n\cdot x \in B \; \text{for some non-zero integer}\; n\}. \end{eqnarray*} \end{notation} Notice that $A/\overline{B}$ and $M_f:= M/\operatorname{tors}(M)$ are finitely generated free and we have $\overline{\ker(f)} = \ker(f)$ for a homomorphism $f \colon A_0 \to A_1$ of finitely generated free abelian groups. The proof of the next result can be found in~\cite[Lemma~2.11]{Lueck(2013l2approxfib)}. \begin{lemma} \label{lem:Fuglede-Kadison_and_tors_for_G_is_trivial} Let $u \colon {\mathbb Z}^r \to {\mathbb Z}^s$ be a homomorphism of abelian groups. Let $j \colon \ker(u) \to {\mathbb Z}^r$ be the inclusion and $\operatorname{pr} \colon {\mathbb Z}^s \to \operatorname{coker}(u)_f$ be the canonical projection. Choose ${\mathbb Z}$-basis for $\ker(u)$ and $\operatorname{coker}(u)_f$. Then ${\det}_{{\mathcal N}(\{1\})}\bigl(j^{(2)}\bigr)$ and ${\det}_{{\mathcal N}(\{1\})}\bigl(\operatorname{pr}^{(2)}\bigr)$ are independent of the choice of the ${\mathbb Z}$-basis for $\ker(u)$ and $\operatorname{coker}(u)_f$, and we have \begin{eqnarray*} {\det}_{{\mathcal N}(\{1\})}(u^{(2)}) & = & {\det}_{{\mathcal N}(\{1\})}\bigl(j^{(2)}\bigr) \cdot \bigl|\operatorname{tors}(\operatorname{coker}(u))\bigr| \cdot {\det}_{{\mathcal N}(\{1\})}\bigl(\operatorname{pr}^{(2)}\bigr); \end{eqnarray*} and \[ \begin{array}{lclcl} 1 & \le & {\det}_{{\mathcal N}(\{1\})}(j^{(2)}) & \le & {\det}_{{\mathcal N}(\{1\})}(u^{(2)}); \\ 1 & \le & {\det}_{{\mathcal N}(\{1\})}\bigl(\operatorname{pr}^{(2)}\bigr) & \le & {\det}_{{\mathcal N}(\{1\})}(u^{(2)}); \\ 1 & \le & \bigl|\operatorname{tors}(\operatorname{coker}(u))\bigr| & \le & {\det}_{{\mathcal N}(\{1\})}(u^{(2)}). \end{array} \] \end{lemma} The point of the next lemma is that the chain complexes live over ${\mathbb Z} G$ but the chain homotopy equivalence has only to exist over ${\mathbb Q} G$. \begin{lemma} \label{lem:invariance_of_homological_conjecture_under_Q-homotopy_equivalence} Let $C_*$ and $D_*$ be two finite free ${\mathbb Z} G$-chain complexes. Suppose that $C_* \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} {\mathbb Q}$ and $D_* \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} {\mathbb Q}$ are ${\mathbb Q} G$-chain homotopy equivalent and that $C_*^{(2)}$ is $L^2$-acyclic. Then $D_*^{(2)}$ is $L^2$-acyclic and \begin{eqnarray*} \rho^{(2)}\bigl(D_*^{(2)}\bigr) - \rho^{(2)}\bigl(C_*^{(2)}\bigr) & = & \lim_{i \in I} \;\frac{\rho^{{\mathbb Z}}\bigl(D[i]_*\bigr) - \rho^{{\mathbb Z}}\bigl(C[i]_*\bigr)}{[G:G_i]}. \end{eqnarray*} \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Let $g_* \colon C_* \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} {\mathbb Q} \to D_* \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} {\mathbb Q}$ be a ${\mathbb Q} G$-chain homotopy equivalence. Since $C_*$ and $D_*$ are finite based free ${\mathbb Z} G$-chain complexes, we can find a ${\mathbb Z} G$-chain map $f_* \colon C_* \to D_*$ and an integer $l$ such that $f_* \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} {\mathbb Q} = l \cdot g_*$. Obviously $f_* \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} {\mathbb Q}$ is a ${\mathbb Q} G$-chain homotopy equivalence. In the sequel we abbreviate $C_*' := \operatorname{cyl}(f_*)$ and $C_*'' := \operatorname{cone}(f_*)$. By the chain homotopy invariance of integral torsion and of $L^2$-torsion (see Lemma~\ref{lem:homotopy_invariance}) it suffices to prove the claim for $C_*$ and $C_*'$ instead of $C_*$ and $D_*$. We have the obvious exact sequence of finite based free ${\mathbb Z} G$-chain complexes \[0 \to C_* \xrightarrow{i_*} C_*' \xrightarrow{p_*} C_*'' \to 0. \] Since $f_* \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} {\mathbb Q}$ is a ${\mathbb Q} G$-chain homotopy equivalence, we can choose a ${\mathbb Q} G$-chain contraction $\gamma_*\colon C_*''\otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} {\mathbb Q} \to C_{*+1}''\otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} {\mathbb Q}$. Since each $C_*''$ is a finite free ${\mathbb Z} G$-chain complex, we can find an integer $m$ and ${\mathbb Z} G$-maps $\delta_p \colon C_p \to C_{p+1}''$ such that $m \cdot \gamma_p = \delta_p \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} \operatorname{id}_{{\mathbb Q}}$ holds for all $p \ge 0$. Hence $\delta_* \colon C_*'' \to C_{*+1}''$ is a ${\mathbb Z} G$-chain homotopy from $m \cdot \operatorname{id}_{C_*}$ to the zero homomorphism. Moreover, $\delta[i]_* \colon C''[i]_* \to C''[i]_{*+1}$ is a ${\mathbb Z} [G/G_i]$-chain homotopy from $m \cdot \operatorname{id}_{C''[i]_*}$ to the zero homomorphism for all $i \in I$. Hence multiplication with $m$ annihilates $H_p(C''[i])$ for all $n \ge 0$ and $p \in I$. We have the long exact homology sequence \[ \cdots \to H_p(C[i]_*) \to H_p(C'[i]_*) \to H_p\bigl(C''[i]_*\bigr) \to H_{p-1}(C[i]_*) \to \cdots. \] The group $H_p\bigl(C''[i]_*\bigr)$ is a finite abelian group for each $p \ge 0$. We obtain the following commutative diagram with exact rows \begin{eqnarray} && \label{exact_sequence_of_chain_complexes_new} \\ \xymatrix{ & \vdots \ar[d] & \vdots \ar[d] & \vdots \ar[d] & \\ 0 \ar[r] & \operatorname{tors}\bigl(H_p(C[i]_*)\bigr) \ar[r] \ar[d] & H_p(C[i]_*) \ar[r] \ar[d] & H_p(C[i]_*)_f \ar[r] \ar[d] & 0 \\ 0 \ar[r] & \operatorname{tors}\bigl(H_p(C'[i]_*)\bigr) \ar[r] \ar[d] & H_p(C'[i]_*) \ar[r] \ar[d] & H_p(C'[i]_*)_f \ar[r] \ar[d] & 0 \\ 0 \ar[r] & \operatorname{tors}\bigl(H_p(C''[i]_*)\bigr) \ar[d] \ar[r]^{\cong} & H_p(C''[i]_*) \ar[r]\ar[d] & 0 \ar[r]\ar[d] & 0 \\ 0 \ar[r] & \operatorname{tors}\bigl(H_{p-1}(C[i]_*)\bigr) \ar[r] \ar[d] & H_{p-1}(C[i]_*) \ar[r] \ar[d] & H_{p-1}(C[i]_*)_f \ar[r] \ar[d] & 0 \\ & \vdots & \vdots& \vdots & } \nonumber \end{eqnarray} We view it as a short exact sequence of ${\mathbb Z}$-chain complexes and hence can consider the associated long homology sequence. Notice that the chain complex given by the middle column is acyclic. Hence we obtain isomorphisms \begin{multline} \ker\left(\operatorname{tors}\bigl(H_p(C'[i]_*)\bigr) \to \operatorname{tors}\bigl(H_p(C''[i]_*)\bigr)\right)\left/ \operatorname{im}\left(\operatorname{tors}\bigl(H_p(C[i]_*)\bigr) \to \operatorname{tors}\bigl(H_p(C'[i]_*)\bigr)\right)\right. \\ \cong \ker\left(H_p(C[i]_*)_f \to H_p(C'[i]_*)_f\right), \label{ker/coker_I} \end{multline} \begin{multline} \ker\left(\operatorname{tors}\bigl(H_p(C''[i]_*)\bigr) \to \operatorname{tors}\bigl(H_{p-1} (C[i]_*)\bigr) \right) \left/ \operatorname{im}\left(\operatorname{tors}\bigl(H_p(C'[i]_*)\bigr) \to \operatorname{tors}\bigl(H_p(C''[i]_*)\bigr)\right)\right. \\ \cong \operatorname{coker}\left(H_p(C[i]_*)_f \to H_p(C'[i]_*)_f\right), \label{ker/coker_II} \end{multline} and \begin{multline} \ker\left(\operatorname{tors}\bigl(H_p(C[i]_*)\bigr) \to \operatorname{tors}\bigl(H_p(C'[i]_*)\bigr)\right)\left/ \operatorname{im}\left(\operatorname{tors}\bigl(H_{p+1}(C[i]''_*)\bigr) \to \operatorname{tors}\bigl(H_p(C[i]_*)\bigr)\right)\right. \\ \cong 0. \label{ker/coker_III} \end{multline} Obviously $(H_p(C[i]_*)_f$ and hence $\ker\left(H_p(C[i]_*)_f \to H_p(C'[i]_*)_f\right)$ are torsion-free. On the other hand $\ker\left(H_p(C[i]_*)_f \to H_p(C'[i]_*)_f\right)$ is finite, since $\operatorname{tors}(H_p(C'[i]_*))$ is finite and $\ker\left(H_p(C[i]_*) \to H_p(C'[i]_*)\right)$ is a quotient of $H_{p+1}(C''[i]_*)$ and hence finite. Hence $\ker\left(H_p(C[i]_*)_f \to H_p(C'[i]_*)_f\right)$ is trivial. We conclude from~\eqref{ker/coker_I} \begin{multline} \ker\left(\operatorname{tors}\bigl(H_p(C'[i]_*)\bigr) \to \operatorname{tors}\bigl(H_p(C''[i]_*)\bigr)\right) \\ = \operatorname{im}\left(\operatorname{tors}\bigl(H_p(C[i]_*)\bigr) \to \operatorname{tors}\bigl(H_p(C'[i]_*)\bigr)\right). \label{kernel(tors)_is_im(tors)} \end{multline} The cokernel of the map $H_p(C[i]_*) \to H_p(C'[i]_*)$ is a submodule of $H_{p}(C''[i]_*)$ and hence annihilated by multiplication with $m$. The cokernel of $H_p(C[i]_*)_f \to H_p(C'[i]_*)_f$ is a quotient of the cokernel of $H_p(C[i]_*)\to H_p(C'[i]_*)$. We conclude that $\operatorname{coker}\bigl(H_p(C[i]_*)_f \to H_p(C'[i]_*)_f\bigr)$ is annihilated by multiplication with $m$. Hence we obtain an epimorphism \[ H_p(C'[i]_*)_f/m \cdot H_p(C'[i]_*)_f \to \operatorname{coker}\bigl(H_p(C[i]_*)_f \to H_p(C'[i]_*)_f\bigr). \] This implies \begin{eqnarray*} \left|\operatorname{coker}\big(H_p(C[i]_*)_f \to H_p(C'[i]_*)_f\bigr)\right| & \le & m^{\operatorname{rk}_{{\mathbb Z}}\left(H_p(C'[i]_*)\right)}. \end{eqnarray*} Since $C_*^{(2)}$ is $L^2$-acyclic, and $C_*\otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} {\mathbb Q}$ and $C_*'\otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} {\mathbb Q}$ are ${\mathbb Q} G$-chain homotopy equivalent, $(C')_*^{(2)}$ is $L^2$-acyclic. We conclude from~\cite[Theorem~0.1]{Lueck(1994c)} for all $p \ge 0$ \begin{eqnarray*} \lim_{i \in I} \frac{\operatorname{rk}_{{\mathbb Z}}\bigl(H_p(C_*'[i])\bigr)}{[G:G_i]} = 0. \end{eqnarray*} Since $m$ is independent of $p$, we conclude \begin{eqnarray} \lim_{i \in I} \frac{\ln\left(\left|\operatorname{coker}\big(H_p(C[i]_*)_f \to H_p(C'[i]_*)_f\bigr)\right|\right)}{[G:G_i]} = 0. \label{approxi_for_ln(rk_ZH_k(C[i]_toH_k(Cprime[i])} \end{eqnarray} Taking the logarithm of the order of a finite abelian group is additive under short exact sequences of finite abelian groups. Hence we get for any finite-dimensional chain complex $E_*$ of finite abelian groups \[\ \sum_{p \ge 0} (-1)^p \cdot |E_p| = \sum_{p \ge 0} (-1)^p \cdot |H_p(E_*)|. \] If we apply this to the left column in the diagram~\eqref{exact_sequence_of_chain_complexes_new}, we conclude from~\eqref{ker/coker_II},~\eqref{ker/coker_III}, and~\eqref{kernel(tors)_is_im(tors)} \begin{eqnarray*} \lefteqn{\left|\, \sum_{p \ge 0} (-1)^p \cdot \ln\left(\left|\operatorname{tors}\bigl(H_p(C[i]_*))\right|\right) - \sum_{p \ge 0} (-1)^p \cdot \ln\left(\left|\operatorname{tors}\bigl(H_p(C'[i]_*)\bigr)\right| \right)\right.} & & \\ & & \left. + \sum_{p \ge 0} (-1)^p \cdot \ln\left(\left|\operatorname{tors}\bigl(H_p(C''[i]_*)\right|\right)\,\right| \\ & & \hspace{30mm} = \; \left|\,\sum_{p \ge 0} (-1)^p \cdot \ln\left(\left|\operatorname{coker}\left(H_p(C[i]_*)_f \to H_p(C'[i]_*)_f\right)\right|\right)\,\right| \\ & & \hspace{30mm} \le \; \sum_{p \ge 0} \ln\left(\left|\operatorname{coker}\left(H_p(C[i]_*)_f \to H_p(C'[i]_*)_f\right)\right|\right). \end{eqnarray*} This together with~\eqref{approxi_for_ln(rk_ZH_k(C[i]_toH_k(Cprime[i])} implies \begin{eqnarray} \lim_{i \in I} \left(\frac{\rho^{{\mathbb Z}}(C[i]_*)}{[G:G_i]} - \frac{\rho^{{\mathbb Z}}(C'[i]_*)}{[G:G_i]} + \frac{\rho^{{\mathbb Z}}(C''[i]_*)}{[G:G_i]}\right) & = & 0. \label{additivity_approxi_for_three_rhoZ-s} \end{eqnarray} We conclude from~\cite[Lemma~3.68 on page~153]{Lueck(2002)} \begin{eqnarray} \rho^{(2)}\bigl(C^{(2)}_*\bigr) - \rho^{(2)}\bigl((C')^{(2)}_*\bigr) + \rho^{(2)}\bigl((C'')^{(2)}_*\bigr) & = & 0. \label{additivity_for_three_rho(2)-s} \end{eqnarray} Hence it suffices to show \begin{eqnarray} \rho^{(2)}\bigl((C'')^{(2)}_*\bigr) & = & \lim_{i \in I} \frac{\rho^{{\mathbb Z}}(C''[i]_*)}{[G:G_i]}. \label{equality_for_C_prime_prime} \end{eqnarray} We conclude from Corollary~\ref{cor:l1-chain_equivalence}~\eqref{cor:l1-chain_equivalence:acyclic} \begin{eqnarray*} \rho^{(2)}\bigl((C'')^{(2)}_*\bigr) & = & \lim_{i \in I} \frac{\rho^{(2)}\bigl(C''[i]_*^{(2)}\bigr)}{[G:G_i]}. \end{eqnarray*} Since $H_p\bigl((C''[i])_*\bigr) \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} {\mathbb Q}$ vanishes for all $p\ge 0$ and $i \in I$, \eqref{equality_for_C_prime_prime} follows from~Lemma~\ref{lem:rho(2)-rhoZ}. This finishes the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:invariance_of_homological_conjecture_under_Q-homotopy_equivalence}. \end{proof} Now we are ready to prove Theorem~\ref{the:about_approximating_by_IZ-torsion}. \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{the:about_approximating_by_IZ-torsion}]% ~\eqref{the:about_approximating_by_IZ-torsion:inequality} Notice that \begin{eqnarray*} \frac{\ln\bigl({\det}_{{\mathcal N}(\{1\})}(f[i]^{(2)})\bigr)}{[G:G_i]} & = & \ln\bigl({\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)}(f[i]^{(2)})\bigr) \end{eqnarray*} holds by~\cite[Theorem~3.14~(5) on page~128]{Lueck(2002)}. Theorem~\ref{the:inequality_det_det} implies \begin{eqnarray*} \ln\bigl({\det}_{{\mathcal N}(G)}(f^{(2)})\bigr) & \ge & \limsup_{i \in I} \frac{\ln\bigl({\det}_{{\mathcal N}(\{1\})}(f[i]^{(2)})\bigr)}{[G:G_i]}. \end{eqnarray*} Now apply Lemma~\ref{lem:Fuglede-Kadison_and_tors_for_G_is_trivial}. \\[1mm]~\eqref{the:about_approximating_by_IZ-torsion:acyclic_in_each_degree} Obviously it suffices to prove the claim for chain complexes. Notice that \begin{eqnarray*} \frac{\rho^{(2)}\bigl(C[i]_*^{(2)}\bigr)}{[G:G_i]} & = & \rho^{(2)}\bigl(C[i]_*^{(2)};{\mathcal N}(G/G_i)\bigr) \end{eqnarray*} holds by~\cite[Theorem~3.35~(7) on page~143]{Lueck(2002)}. We conclude from Corollary~\ref{cor:l1-chain_equivalence}~\eqref{cor:l1-chain_equivalence:acyclic} \begin{eqnarray*} \rho^{(2)}\bigl(C^{(2)}_*\bigr) & = & \lim_{i \in I} \frac{\rho^{(2)}\bigl(C[i]_*^{(2)}\bigr)}{[G:G_i]}. \end{eqnarray*} Since $H_p\bigl(C[i]_*\bigr) \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} {\mathbb Q}$ vanishes for all $p \ge 0$ and $i \in I$, assertion~\eqref{the:about_approximating_by_IZ-torsion:acyclic_in_each_degree} follows from~Lemma~\ref{lem:rho(2)-rhoZ} \\[1mm]~\eqref{the:about_approximating_by_IZ-torsion:G_is_Z} Obviously it suffices to prove the chain complex version. Let $C_*$ be a finite based free ${\mathbb Z}[{\mathbb Z}]$-chain complex that is $L^2$-acyclic. If ${\mathbb Q}[{\mathbb Z}]_{(0)}$ is the quotient field of the integral domain ${\mathbb Q}[{\mathbb Z}]$, then $H_k(C_*) \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}[{\mathbb Z}]} {\mathbb Q}[{\mathbb Z}]_{(0)}$ is trivial for $k \ge 0$ because of~\cite[Lemma~1.34~(1) on page~35]{Lueck(2002)}. Since ${\mathbb Q}[{\mathbb Z}]$ is a principal ideal domain, we can find non-negative integers $t_k$ and pairwise prime irreducible elements $p_{k,1}$, $p_{k,2}$, \ldots , $p_{k,t_k}$ in ${\mathbb Q}[{\mathbb Z}]$ and natural numbers $m_{k,1}$, $m_{k,2}$, \ldots $m_{k,t_k}$ such that we have isomorphisms of ${\mathbb Q}[{\mathbb Z}]$-modules \[ H_k(C_*) \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} {\mathbb Q} \cong H_k(C_*) \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}[{\mathbb Z}]} {\mathbb Q}[{\mathbb Z}] \cong \bigoplus_{j=1}^{t_k} {\mathbb Q}[{\mathbb Z}]/(p_{k,j}^{m_{k,j}}). \] By multiplying the elements $p_{k,j}$ with some natural number and a power of the generator $t \in {\mathbb Z}$, we can arrange that the elements $p_{k,1}$, $p_{k,2}$, \ldots , $p_{k,t_k}$ belong to ${\mathbb Z}[t]$. Since ${\mathbb Q}[{\mathbb Z}]/(p_{k,j}^{m_{k,j}}) \cong \left({\mathbb Z}[{\mathbb Z}]/(p_{k,j}^{m_{k,j}})\right)\otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} {\mathbb Q}$, there is a map of ${\mathbb Z}[{\mathbb Z}]$-modules \[\xi_k \colon \bigoplus_{j=1}^{t_k} {\mathbb Z}[{\mathbb Z}]/(p_{k,j}^{m_{k,j}}) \to H_k(C_*) \] which becomes an isomorphism of ${\mathbb Q}[{\mathbb Z}]$-modules after applying $- \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} {\mathbb Q}$. By possibly enumerating the polynomials $p_{k,j}$ we can arrange, that for some integer $s_k$ with $0 \le s_k \le t_k +1$ a polynomial $p_{k,j}$ has some root of unity as a root if and only if $j\le s_k$. Consider $j \in\{1,2,\ldots, s_k\}$. Let $d_{k,j} \ge 2$ be the natural number for which $p_{k,j}$ has a primitive $d_{k,j}$-th root of unity as zero. Recall the $d$-th cyclotomic polynomial $\Phi_d$ is a polynomial over ${\mathbb Z}[t]$ with $\Phi_{d_{k,j}}(0) = \pm 1$ and is irreducible over ${\mathbb Q}[t]$. Hence we can find a unit in $u \in {\mathbb Q}[{\mathbb Z}]$ such that $u \cdot \Phi_{d_{k,j}} = p_{k,j}$. Every unit in ${\mathbb Q}[{\mathbb Z}] = {\mathbb Q}[t,t^{-1}]$ is of the shape $rt^l$ for some $r \in {\mathbb Q}, r \not=0$ and $l \in {\mathbb Z}$. Since $p_{k,j}$ is a polynomial in ${\mathbb Z}[t]$, we can arrange $p_{k,j} = \Phi_{d_{k,j}}$. To summarize, we have achieved that $p_{k,j}$ is $\Phi_{d_{k,j}}$ for $j \in\{1,2,\ldots, s_k\}$ and that no root of unity is a root of $p_{k,j}$ for $j \in\{s_k+1, s_k +2, \ldots , t_k\}$. Let $F^{k,j}_*$ for $j \in\{1,2,\ldots, t_k\}$ be the ${\mathbb Z}[{\mathbb Z}]$-chain complex which is concentrated in dimensions $(k+1)$ and $k$ and whose $(k+1)$-th differential is the ${\mathbb Z}[{\mathbb Z}]$-homomorphism ${\mathbb Z}[{\mathbb Z}] \xrightarrow{p_{k,j}} {\mathbb Z}[{\mathbb Z}]$ given by multiplication with $p_{k,j}$. There is an obvious identification of ${\mathbb Z}[{\mathbb Z}]$-modules \[ H_k\bigl(F^{k,j}_*\bigr) \cong {\mathbb Z}[{\mathbb Z}]/(p_{k,j}) \] and $H_i\bigl(F^{k,j}_*\bigr) = 0$ for $ i \not= k$. Since $F^{k,j}_*$ has projective chain modules and is concentrated in dimensions $(k+1)$ and $k$ and we have the exact sequence of ${\mathbb Z}[{\mathbb Z}]$-modules $C_{k+1} \xrightarrow{c_{k+1}} \ker(c_k) \to H_k(C_*)$, we can construct a ${\mathbb Z}[{\mathbb Z}|$-chain map \[f^{k,j}_* \colon F^{k,j}_* \to C_* \] such that $H_k\bigl(f^{k,j}_*\bigr)$ agrees with the restriction of $\xi_k$ to the $j$-th summand. Define a ${\mathbb Z}[{\mathbb Z}]$-chain map \[ f_*:= \bigoplus_{k \ge 0} \bigoplus_{j = 1}^{t_k} f^{k,j}_* \colon \bigoplus_{k \ge 0} \bigoplus_{j = 1}^{t_k} F^{k,j}_* \to C_*. \] By construction $H_k(f_*) \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} {\mathbb Q}$ is bijective for all $k \ge 0$. We conclude from Lemma~\ref{lem:invariance_of_homological_conjecture_under_Q-homotopy_equivalence} that we can assume without loss of generality \[C_* = \bigoplus_{k \ge 0} \bigoplus_{j = 1}^{t_k} F^{k,j}_*. \] Obviously assertion~\eqref{the:about_approximating_by_IZ-torsion:G_is_Z} is satisfied for a direct sum $D_* \oplus E_*$ of two based free $L^2$-acyclic ${\mathbb Z}[{\mathbb Z}]$-chain complexes if both $D_*$ and $E_*$ satisfy assertion~\eqref{the:about_approximating_by_IZ-torsion:G_is_Z}. Hence we only have to treat the case, where $C_*$ is concentrated in dimension $0$ and $1$ and its first differential is given by $p \cdot \operatorname{id} \colon {\mathbb Z}[{\mathbb Z}] \to {\mathbb Z}[{\mathbb Z}]$ for some non-trivial polynomial $p$ such that either $p$ is of the shape $\phi_d^m$ for some natural numbers $d$ and $m$ or no root of unity is a root of $p$. We begin with the case where $p$ is of the shape $\phi_d^m$ for some natural numbers $d$ and $m$. Then all roots of $p$ have norm $1$ and hence \[ \ln\bigl(\rho^{(2)}(C_*)\bigr) = \ln\bigl({\det}_{{\mathcal N}({\mathbb Z})}\bigl(p \cdot \operatorname{id} \colon L^2({\mathbb Z}) \to L^2({\mathbb Z})\bigr)\bigr) = 0 \] by~\cite[(3.23) on page~136]{Lueck(2002)}. Now the claim follows from assertion~\eqref{the:about_approximating_by_IZ-torsion:inequality}. Finally we treat the case, where no root of unity is a root of $p$. Fix $i \in I$. Put $n = [{\mathbb Z}:{\mathbb Z}_i]$. Then ${\mathbb Z}/{\mathbb Z}_i = {\mathbb Z}/n$. For $l \in {\mathbb Z}/n$ let ${\mathbb C}_l$ be the unitary ${\mathbb Z}/n$-representation whose underlying Hilbert space is ${\mathbb C}$ and on which the generator in ${\mathbb Z}/n$ acts by multiplication with $\zeta_n^l$, where we put $\zeta_n := \exp(2 \pi i/n)$. We obtain a unitary ${\mathbb Z}/n$-isomorphism \[ \omega \colon \bigoplus_{l \in {\mathbb Z}/n} {\mathbb C}_l \xrightarrow{\cong} {\mathbb C}[{\mathbb Z}/n]. \] The following diagram of Hilbert ${\mathcal N}({\mathbb Z}/n)$-modules commutes \[\xymatrix{ \bigoplus_{l \in {\mathbb Z}/n}{\mathbb C}_l \ar[d]_{\bigoplus_{l \in {\mathbb Z}/n} p(\zeta_n^l)}\ar[r]^{\omega}_{\cong} & {\mathbb C}[{\mathbb Z}/n] \ar[d]^{p[i]} \\ \bigoplus_{l \in {\mathbb Z}/n} {\mathbb C}_l\ar[r]^{\omega}_{\cong} & {\mathbb C}[{\mathbb Z}/n] } \] Hence $p[i]^{(2)} \colon {\mathbb Z}[{\mathbb Z}/n]^{(2)} \to {\mathbb Z}[{\mathbb Z}/n]^{(2)}$ is an isomorphism. Therefore $p[i]\colon {\mathbb Z}[{\mathbb Z}/n] \to {\mathbb Z}[{\mathbb Z}/n]$ is rationally an isomorphism. Now the claim follows from assertion~\eqref{the:about_approximating_by_IZ-torsion:acyclic_in_each_degree}. This finishes the proof of Theorem~\ref{the:about_approximating_by_IZ-torsion}. \end{proof} \typeout{------------------------ Section 19: Miscellaneous --------------------} \section{Miscellaneous} \label{sec:Miscellaneous} We briefly mention some variations of the problems considered here or some other prominent open conjectures about $L^2$-invariants. \subsection{Approximation for lattices} \label{subsec:Approximation_for_lattices} In our setting we approximate the universal covering of a closed manifold or compact CW-complex by a tower of finite coverings corresponding to the normal chain $(G_i)_ {i \ge 0}$ of normal subgroups of $G$ with finite index and trivial intersection. One can also look at a uniformly discrete sequence of lattices $(G_i)_{i \ge 0}$ in a connected center-free semisimple Lie group $L$ without compact factors and study the quotients $M[i] = X/G_i$, where $X$ is the associated symmetric space $L/K$ for $K \subseteq L$ a maximal compact subgroup. There is a notion of BS-convergence for lattices which generalizes our setting. One can ask whether for such a convergence sequence of cocompact lattices the sequence $\frac{b_n(M[i];{\mathbb Q})}{\operatorname{vol}(M[i])}$ converges to the $L^2$-Betti number of $X$. This setup and various convergence questions are systematically examined in the papers by Abert-Bergeron-Biringer-Gelander-Nikolov-Raimbault-Samet~\cite{Abert-Bergeron-Biringer-Gelander-Nokolov_Raimbault-Samet(2011), Abert-Bergeron-Biringer-Gelander-Nokolov_Raimbault-Samet(2012)}. Another paper containing interesting information about these questions is Bergeron-Lipnowski~\cite{Bergeron-Lipnowski(2014)}. \subsection{Twisting with representations} \label{subsec:Twisting_with_representations} We have already mentioned that one can twist the analytic torsion with special representations. This has in favorite situations the effect that one obtains a uniform gap for the spectrum of the Laplace operators and can prove the desired approximations results, see Remark~\ref{rem:The_Zero-in-the-Spectrum_Conjecture}. For more information we refer for instance to~\cite{Bergeron-Venkatesh(2013),Marshall-Mueller(2013),Mueller-Pfaff(2013locsym),Mueller-Pfaff(2013asymp)}. In~\cite{Lueck(2015twisting)} twisted $L^2$-torsion for finite $CW$-complex $X$ with $b_n^{(2)}(\widetilde{X}) = 0$ for all $n \ge 0$ is introduced for finite-dimensional representations which are given by restricting finite-dimensional ${\mathbb Z}^d$-representations with any homomorphism $\pi_1(M) \to {\mathbb Z}^d$. In particular one can twist the $L^2$-torsion for a given element $\phi \in H^1(X;{\mathbb Z})$ with the $1$-dimensional representation whose underlying complex vector space is ${\mathbb C}$ and on which $g \in \pi_1(X)$ acts by multiplication with $t^{\phi(g)}$. This yields the $L^2$-torsion function $(0,\infty) \to {\mathbb R}$ whose value at $1$ is the $L^2$-torsion itself. The proof that this function is well-defined is based on approximation techniques. This function seem to contain very interesting information, in particular for $3$-manifolds, see for instance~\cite{Dubois-Friedl-Lueck(2014Alexander),Dubois-Friedl-Lueck(2015symmetric), Dubois-Friedl-Lueck(2015flavors),Dubois-Friedl-Lueck(2015CRMASP),Lueck(2015twisting)}. In particular one can read off the Thurston norm of $\phi$ from the asymptotic behavior at $0$ and $\infty$ if $X$ is a connected compact orientable $3$-manifold with infinite fundamental group and empty or toroidal boundary which is not $S^1 \times D^2$, see \cite{Friedl-Lueck(2015l2+Thurston),Liu(2015)}. \subsection{Atiyah's Question} \label{subsec:Atiyahs_question} Atiyah~\cite[page 72]{Atiyah(1976)} asked the question, whether the $L^2$-Betti numbers $b_p^{(2)}(\widetilde{M})$ for a closed Riemannian manifold $M$ are always rational numbers. Meanwhile it is known that the answer can be negative, see for instance~\cite{Austin(2009),Grabowski(2010),Pichot-Schick-Zuk(2015)}. However, the following problem, often referred to as the strong Atiyah Conjecture, remains open. \begin{question}\label{que:Atiyahs_strong_conjecture} Let $G$ be a group for which there exists natural number $d$ such that the order of any finite subgroup divides $d$. Then: \begin{enumerate} \item \label{que:Atiyahs_strong_conjecture:matrices} For any $A \in M_{m,n}({\mathbb Z} G)$ we get for the von Neumann dimension of the kernel of the induced $G$-equivariant bounded operator $r_A^{(2)} \colon L^2(G)^m \to L^2(G)^n$ \[ d \cdot \dim_{{\mathcal N}(G)}\bigl(\ker(r_A^{(2)})\bigr) \in {\mathbb Z}; \] \item \label{que:Atiyahs_strong_conjecture:manifolds} For every closed manifold $M$ with $G \cong \pi_1(M)$ and $n \ge 0$ we have \[d \cdot b_n^{(2)}(\widetilde{M}) \in {\mathbb Z}. \] \end{enumerate} \end{question} Notice that we can choose $d = 1$ if $G$ is torsion-free. For a discussion, a survey on the literature and the status of this Question~\ref{que:Atiyahs_strong_conjecture}, we refer for instance to~\cite[Chapter~10]{Lueck(2002)}. The Approximation Conjecture~\ref{con:Approximation_conjecture_for_L2-Betti_numbers}, which is known by Remark~\ref{rem:status_of_Determinant_Conjecture} and Theorem~\ref{the:The_Determinant_Conjecture_implies_the_Approximation_Conjecture_for_L2-Betti_numbers} for a large class of groups, can be used to enlarge the class of groups for which the answer to part~\eqref{que:Atiyahs_strong_conjecture:matrices} of Question~\ref{que:Atiyahs_strong_conjecture} is positive. Namely, if $G$ is torsion-free and possesses a chain of normal subgroups $(G_i)_{i \ge 0}$ with trivial intersection $\bigcap_{i \ge 0} G_i = \{1\}$ such that the answer to part~\eqref{que:Atiyahs_strong_conjecture:matrices} of Question~\ref{que:Atiyahs_strong_conjecture} is positive for each quotient $G/G_i$, then the answer to part~\eqref{que:Atiyahs_strong_conjecture:matrices} of Question~\ref{que:Atiyahs_strong_conjecture} is positive for each quotient $G/G_i$. Here it becomes important that we could drop the condition that each $G/G_i$ is finite. An example for $G$ is a finitely generated free group whose descending central series gives such a chain $(G_i)_{i \ge 0}$ with torsion-free nilpotent quotients $G/G_i$. Notice that Conjecture~\ref{con:Homological_growth_and_L2-torsion_for_aspherical_manifolds} implies a positive answer to part~\eqref{que:Atiyahs_strong_conjecture:manifolds} of Question~\ref{que:Atiyahs_strong_conjecture} if $M$ is an aspherical closed manifold. One can ask an analogous question in the mod $p$ case as soon as one has a replacement for the $L^2$-Betti number in the mod $p$ case. In some special cases this replacement exists and the answer is positive, see for instance Theorem~\ref{the:dim_approximation_over_fields} for torsion-free elementary amenable groups, and Theorem~\ref{the:BLLS} for torsion-free $G$ taking into account that the $n$th mod $p$ $L^2$-Betti numbers $b_n^{(2)}(\overline{X};F)$ occurring in~\cite[Definition~1.3]{Bergeron-Linnell-Lueck-Sauer(2014)} is an integer for torsion-free $G$. \subsection{Simplicial volume} \label{subsec:Simplicial_volume} The following conjecture is discussed in~\cite[Chapter~14]{Lueck(2002)}. \begin{conjecture}[Simplicial volume and $L^2$-invariants] \label{con:simplicial_volume_and_L2-invariants} Let $M$ be an aspherical closed orientable manifold of dimension $\ge 1$. Suppose that its simplicial volume $||M||$ vanishes. Then \begin{eqnarray*} b_p^{(2)}(\widetilde{M}) & = & 0 \hspace{5mm} \mbox{ for } p \ge 0; \\ \rho^{(2)}(\widetilde{M}) & = & 0. \end{eqnarray*} \end{conjecture} If the closed orientable manifold $M$ has a self-map $f \colon M \to M$ of degree different from $-1$, $0$, $1$, then one easily checks that its simplicial volume $||M||$ vanishes. If its minimal volume is zero, i.e., for every $\epsilon > 0$ one can find a Riemannian metric on $M$ whose sectional curvature is pinched between $-1$ and $1$ and for which the volume of $M$ is less or equal to $\epsilon$, then its simplicial volume $||M||$ vanishes. This follows from~\cite[page~37]{Gromov(1982)}. If one replaces in Conjecture~\ref{con:simplicial_volume_and_L2-invariants} the simplicial volume by the minimal volume, whose vanishing implies the vanishing of the simplicial volume, then the claim for the $L^2$-Betti numbers in Conjecture~\ref{con:simplicial_volume_and_L2-invariants} has been proved by Sauer~\cite[Second Corollary of Theorem~A]{Sauer(2009amen)}. There are versions of the simplicial volume such as the integral foliated simplicial volume and stable integral simplicial volume which are related to Conjecture~\ref{con:simplicial_volume_and_L2-invariants} and may be helpful for a possible proof, and reflect a kind of approximation conjecture for the simplicial volume, see for instance~\cite{Francaviglia-Frigerio-Martelli(2012), Loeh-Pagliantini(2014),Schmidt(2005)}. More information about the simplicial volume and the literature can be found for instance in~\cite{Gromov(1982)},~\cite{Loeh(2011Atlas)},~\cite[Section~14.1]{Lueck(2002)}. \subsection{Entropy, Fuglede-Kadison determinants and amenable exhaustions} \label{subsec:Entropy_and_L2-torsion} In recent years the connection between entropy and Fuglede-Kadison determinant has been investigated in detail, see for instance~\cite{Deninger(2006Fuglentramen),Deninger(2009entropy),Li(2012Annals),Li-Thom(2014)}. In particular the amenable exhaustion approximation result for Fuglede-Kadison determinants of Li-Thom~\cite[Theorem~0.7]{Li-Thom(2014)} for amenable groups $G$ is very interesting, where the Fuglede-Kadison determinant of a matrix over ${\mathbb Z} G$ is approximated by finite-dimensional analogues of its ``restrictions'' to finite F\"olner subsets of the group $G$. \subsection{Lehmer's problem} \label{subsec:Lehmers_problem} Let $p(z) \in {\mathbb C}[{\mathbb Z}] = {\mathbb C}[z,z^{-1}]$ be a non-trivial element. Its \emph{Mahler measure} is defined by \begin{eqnarray} M(p) &:= & \exp\left(\int_{S^1} \ln(|p(z)|) d\mu\right). \label{Mahler_measure} \end{eqnarray} By Jensen's inequality we have \begin{eqnarray} \int_{S^1} \ln(|p(z)|) d\mu & = & \sum_{\substack{i=1,2, \ldots, r\\|a_i| > 1}} \ln(|a_i|), \label{Jensen} \end{eqnarray} if we write $p(z)$ as a product \[ p(z) = c \cdot z^k \cdot \prod_{i=1}^r (z - a_i) \] for an integer $r \ge 0$, non-zero complex numbers $c$, $a_1$, $\ldots$, $a_r$ and an integer $k$. This implies $M(p) \ge 1$. \begin{problem}[Lehmer's Problem]\label{pro:Lehmers_problem} Does there exist a constant $\Lambda > 1$ such that for all non-trivial elements $p(z) \in {\mathbb Z}[{\mathbb Z}] = {\mathbb Z}[z,z^{-1}]$ with $M(p) \not= 1$ we have \[ M(p) \ge \Lambda? \] \end{problem} \begin{remark}[Lehmer's polynomial] \label{rem:Lehmers_polynomial} There is even a candidate for which the minimal Mahler measure is attained, namely, \emph{Lehmer's polynomial} \[ L(z) := z^{10} + z^9 - z^7 - z^6 -z^5 -z^4- z^3 + z +1. \] It is conceivable that for any non-trivial element $p \in {\mathbb Z}[{\mathbb Z}]$ with $M(p) \not= 1$ \[ M(p) \ge M(L) = 1.17628 \ldots \] holds. \end{remark} For a survey on Lehmer's problem were refer for instance to~\cite{Boyd-Lind-Villegas-Deninger(1999),Boyd(1981speculations),Carrizosa(2009),Smyth(2008)}. Consider an element $p = p(z) \in {\mathbb C}[{\mathbb Z}] = {\mathbb C}[z,z^{-1}]$. It defines a bounded ${\mathbb Z}$-operator $r^{(2)}_p \colon L^2({\mathbb Z}) \to L^2({\mathbb Z})$ by multiplication with $p$. Suppose that $p$ is not zero. Then the Fuglede-Kadison determinant of $r_p^{(2)}$ agrees with the Mahler measure of $p$ by~\cite[(3.23) on page~136]{Lueck(2002)}. \begin{definition}[Lehmer's constant of a group] \label{def:Lehmers_constant_of_a_group} Define \emph{Lehmer's constant} $\Lambda(G)$ of a group $G$ \[ \Lambda(G) \in [1,\infty) \] to be the infimum of the set of Fuglede-Kadison determinants \[ {\det}^{(2)}_{{\mathcal N}(G)}\bigl(r_A^{(2)} \colon {\mathcal N}(G)^r \to {\mathcal N}(G)^s\bigr), \] where $A$ runs through all $(r,s)$-matrices $A \in M_{r,s}({\mathbb Z} G)$ for all $r,s \in {\mathbb Z}$ with $r,s \ge 1$ for which ${\det}^{(2)}_{{\mathcal N}(G)}(r_A^{(2)}) > 1$ holds. If we only allow square matrices $A$ such that $r_A^{(2)} \colon {\mathcal N}(G)^r \to {\mathcal N}(G)^r$ is injective and ${\det}^{(2)}_{{\mathcal N}(G)}(r_A^{(2)}) > 1$, then we denote the corresponding infimum by \[ \Lambda^w(G) \in [1,\infty) \] \end{definition} Obviously we have $\Lambda(G) \le \Lambda^w(G)$. We suggest the following generalization of Lehmer's problem to arbitrary groups. \begin{problem}[Lehmer's problem for arbitrary groups] \label{pro:Lehmers_problem_for_arbitrary_groups} For which groups $G$ is $\Lambda(G) > 1$ or $\Lambda^w(G) > 1$? \end{problem} For a discussion and results on these problems see~\cite[Question~4.7]{Chung-Thom(2015)} and~\cite{Lueck(2015_lehmer_general)}.
\section{\textbf{Introduction}} \subsection{Preliminaries} In this article we shall give an extension of the $L^{2}-$theory of the asymptotic behavior of elliptic, anisotropic singular perturbations problems. This kind of singular perturbations has been introduced by M. Chipot \cite{12}. From the physical point of view, these problems can modelize diffusion phenomena when the diffusion coefficients in certain directions are going toward zero. The $L^{2}$ theory of the asymptotic behavior of these problems has been studied by M. Chipot and many co-authors. First of all, let us begin by a brief discussion on the uniqueness of the weak solution ( by weak a solution we mean a solution in the sense of distributions) to the problem \begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} -\func{div}(A\nabla u)=f\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } & \\ u=0\text{ \ \ on }\partial \Omega \text{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } & \text{ \end{array \right. \label{1} \end{equation} where $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R} ^{N}$, $N\geq 2$ is\ a bounded Lipschitz domain, we suppose that $f\in L^{p}(\Omega )$ ($1<p<2$). The diffusion matrix $A=(a_{ij})$ is supposed to be bounded and satisfies the ellipticity assumption on $\Omega $ ( see assumptions (\ref{2}) and (\ref{3}) in subsection 1.2). It is well known that (\ref{1}) has at least a weak solution in $W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega )$. Moreover, if $A$ is symmetric and continuous and $\partial \Omega \in C^{2}$ \cite{1} then (\ref{1}) has a unique solution in $W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega )$. If A$ is discontinuous the uniqueness assertion is false, in \cite{4} Serrin has given a counterexample when $N\geq 3$. However, if $N=2$ and if \partial \Omega $ is sufficiently smooth and without any continuity assumption on $A$, (\ref{1}) has a unique weak solution in W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega )$. The proof is based on the Meyers regularity theorem (see for instance \cite{8}). To treat this pathology, Benilin, Boccardo, Gallouet, and al have introduced the concept of the entropy solution \cite{2} for problems involving $L^{1}$ data (or more generally a Radon measure). For every $k>0$ We define the function $T_{k} \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R} $ by \begin{equation*} T_{k}(s)=\left\{ \begin{array}{cc} s & ,\left\vert s\right\vert \leq k \\ ksgn(x) & \left\vert s\right\vert \geq \end{array \right. \end{equation*} And we define the space $\mathcal{T}_{0}^{1,2}$ introduced in \cite{2} \begin{equation*} \mathcal{T}_{0}^{1,2}(\Omega )=\left\{ \begin{array}{c} u\text{ }:\Omega \rightarrow \mathbb{R} \text{ measurable such that for any }k>0\text{ there exists} \\ \text{ }(\phi _{n})\subset H_{0}^{1}(\Omega ):\phi _{n}\rightarrow T_{k}(u \text{ a.e in }\Omega \text{ } \\ \text{and }(\nabla \phi _{n})_{n\in \mathbb{N} }\text{ is bounded in }L^{2}(\Omega \end{array \right\} \end{equation*} This definition of $\mathcal{T}_{0}^{1,2}$ is equivalent to the original one given in \cite{2}.In fact, this is a characterization of this space \cite{2 . Now, more generally, for $f\in L^{1}(\Omega )$ we have the following definition of entropy solution \cite{2}. \begin{definition} \bigskip A function $u\in \mathcal{T}_{0}^{1,2}(\Omega )$ is said to be an entropy solution to (\ref{1}) if \ \ \begin{equation*} \int_{\Omega }A\nabla u\cdot \nabla T_{k}(u-\varphi )dx\leq \int_{\Omega }fT_{k}(u-\varphi )dx\text{, }\varphi \in \mathcal{D(}\Omega \mathcal{) \text{, }k>0 \end{equation*} \end{definition} We refer the reader to \cite{2} for more details about the sense of this formulation. The main results of \cite{2} show that (\ref{1}) has a unique entropy solution which is also a weak solution of (\ref{1}) moreover since \Omega $ is bounded then this solution belongs to $\dbigcap\limits_{1\leq r \frac{N}{N-1}}W_{0}^{1,r}(\Omega )$. \subsection{Description of the problem and functional setting} Throughout this article we will suppose that $f\in L^{p}(\Omega )$, $1<p<2$, (we can suppose that $f\notin L^{2}(\Omega )$). We give a description of the linear problem (some nonlinear problems will be studied later). Consider the following singular perturbations proble \begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} -\func{div}(A_{\epsilon }\nabla u_{\epsilon })=f\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } & \\ u_{\epsilon }=0\text{ \ \ on }\partial \Omega \text{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } & \text{ \end{array \right. , \label{2} \end{equation where $\Omega $ is a bounded Lipschitz domain of \mathbb{R} ^{N}$. Let $q\in \mathbb{N} ^{\ast }$, $N-q\geq 2$. We denote by $x=(x_{1},...,x_{N})=(X_{1},X_{2})\in \mathbb{R} ^{q}\times \mathbb{R} ^{N-q}$ i.e. we split the coordinates into two parts. With this notation we se \begin{equation*} \nabla =(\partial _{x_{1}},...,\partial _{x_{N}})^{T}=\binom{\nabla _{X_{1} }{\nabla _{X_{2}}},\text{ } \end{equation*} where \begin{equation*} \nabla _{X_{1}}=(\partial _{x_{1}},...,\partial _{x_{q}})^{T}\text{ and \nabla _{X_{2}}=(\partial _{x_{q+1}},...,\partial _{x_{N}})^{T} \end{equation*} Let $A=(a_{ij}(x))$ be a $N\times N$ matrix which satisfies the ellipticity assumptio \begin{equation} \exists \lambda >0:A\xi \cdot \xi \geq \lambda \left\vert \xi \right\vert ^{2}\text{ }\forall \xi \in \mathbb{R} ^{N}\text{ for a.e }x\in \Omega , \label{3} \end{equation} and \begin{equation} a_{ij}(x)\in L^{\infty }(\Omega ),\forall i,j=1,2,....,N,\text{ } \label{4} \end{equation} We have decomposed $A$ into four block \begin{equation*} A=\left( \begin{array}{cc} A_{11} & A_{12} \\ A_{21} & A_{22 \end{array \right) , \end{equation*} where $A_{11}$, $A_{22}$ are respectively $q\times q$ and $(N-q)\times (N-q)$ matrices. For $0<\epsilon \leq 1$ we have set \begin{equation*} A_{\epsilon }=\left( \begin{array}{cc} \epsilon ^{2}A_{11} & \epsilon A_{12} \\ \epsilon A_{21} & A_{22 \end{array \right) \end{equation*} We denote $\Omega _{X_{1}}=\left\{ X_{2}\in \mathbb{R} ^{N-q}:(X_{1},X_{2})\in \Omega \right\} $ and $\Omega ^{1}=P_{1}\Omega $ where $P_{1} \mathbb{R} ^{N}\rightarrow \mathbb{R} ^{p}$ is the usual projector. We introduce the space \begin{equation*} V_{p}=\left\{ \begin{array}{c} u\in L^{p}(\Omega )\mid \nabla _{X_{2}}u\in L^{p}(\Omega )\text{,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } \\ \text{and for a.e }X_{1}\in \Omega ^{1},u(X_{1},\cdot )\in W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega _{X_{1}} \end{array \right\} \end{equation*} We equip $V_{p}$ with the norm \begin{equation*} \left\Vert u\right\Vert _{V_{p}}=\left( \left\Vert u\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega )}^{p}+\left\Vert \nabla _{X_{2}}u\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega )}^{p}\right) ^{\frac{1}{p}}, \end{equation*} then one can show easily that $(V_{p},\left\Vert \cdot \right\Vert _{V_{p}})$ is a separable reflexive Banach space. The passage to the limit (formally) in (\ref{2}) gives the limit proble \begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} -\func{div}_{X_{2}}(A_{22}\nabla _{X_{2}}u_{0}(X_{1},\cdot ))=f\text{ (X_{1},\cdot )\text{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } & \\ u_{0}(X_{1},\cdot )=0\text{ \ \ on }\partial \Omega _{X_{1}}\text{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ }X_{1}\in \Omega ^{1}\text{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } & \text{ \end{array \right. \label{5} \end{equation} The $L^{2}$-theory (when $f\in L^{2}$) of problem (\ref{2}) has been treated in \cite{3}, convergence has been proved in $V_{2}$ and rate of convergence in the $L^{2}-$norm has been given. For the $L^{2}-$theory of several nonlinear problems we refer the reader to \cite{9},\cite{11},\cite{10}. This article is mainly devoted to study the $L^{p}-$theory of the asymptotic behavior of linear and nonlinear singularly perturbed problems. In other words, we shall study the convergence $u_{\epsilon }\rightarrow u_{0}$ in V_{p}$ (Notice that in \cite{9}, authors have treated some problems involving $L^{p}$ data where some others data of the equations depend on $p , one can check easily that it is not the $L^{p}$ theory which we expose in this manuscript). Let us briefly summarize the content of the paper: \begin{itemize} \item In section 2: We study the linear problem, we prove convergences for weak and entropy solutions. \item In section 3: We give the rate of convergence in a cylindrical domain when the data is independent of $X_{1}$. \item In section 4: We treat some nonlinear problems. \end{itemize} \section{The Linear Problem} The main results in this section are the following \begin{theorem} Assume (\ref{3}), (\ref{4}) then there exists a sequence $(u_{\epsilon })_{0<\epsilon \leq 1}\subset W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega )$ of weak solutions to \ref{2}) and $u_{0}\in V_{p}$ such that $\ $ $\epsilon \nabla _{X_{1}}u_{\epsilon }\rightarrow 0$ in $L^{p}(\Omega )$, $u_{\epsilon }\rightarrow u_{0}$ in $V_{p}$ where $u_{0}$ satisfies (\ref{5}) for a.e X_{1}\in \Omega ^{1}$. \end{theorem} \begin{corollary} Assume (\ref{3}), (\ref{4}) then if $A$ is symmetric and continuous and \partial \Omega \in C^{2}$, then there exists a unique $u_{0}\in V_{p}$ such that $u_{0}(X_{1};\cdot )$ is the unique solution to (\ref{5}) in W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega _{X_{1}})$ for a.e $X_{1}$. Moreover the sequence (u_{\epsilon })_{0<\epsilon \leq 1}$ of the unique solutions (in W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega )$) to (\ref{2}) converges in $V_{p}$ to $u_{0}$ and \epsilon \nabla _{X_{1}}u_{\epsilon }\rightarrow 0$ in $L^{p}(\Omega )$. \end{corollary} \begin{proof} This corollary follows immediately from Theorem 1 and uniqueness of the solutions of (\ref{2}) and (\ref{5}) as mentioned in subsection 1.1 (Notice that $\partial \Omega _{X_{1}}\in C^{2}$). \end{proof} \begin{theorem} Assume (\ref{3}), (\ref{4}) then there exists a unique $u_{0}\in V_{p}$ such that $u_{0}(X_{1},\cdot )$ is the unique entropy solution of (\ref{5}). Moreover, the sequence of \ the entropy solutions $(u_{\epsilon })_{0<\epsilon \leq 1}$ of (\ref{2}) converges to $u_{0}$ in $V_{p}$ and \epsilon \nabla _{X_{1}}u_{\epsilon }\rightarrow 0$ in $L^{p}(\Omega )$. \end{theorem} \subsection{Weak convergence} Let us prove the following primary result \begin{theorem} Assume (\ref{3}), (\ref{4}) then there exists a sequence $(u_{\epsilon _{k}})_{k\in \mathbb{N} }\subset W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega )$ of weak solutions to (\ref{2}) ($\epsilon _{k}\rightarrow 0$ as $k\rightarrow \infty $) and $u_{0}\in V_{p}$ such that $\nabla _{X_{2}}u_{\epsilon _{k}}\rightharpoonup \nabla _{X_{2}}u_{0}$, \epsilon _{k}\nabla _{X_{1}}u_{\epsilon _{k}}^{n}\rightharpoonup 0$, u_{\epsilon _{k}}\rightharpoonup u_{0}$ in $L^{p}(\Omega -weak$. and $u_{0}$ satisfies (\ref{5}) for a.e $X_{1}\in \Omega ^{1}.$ \end{theorem} \begin{proof} By density let $(f_{n})_{n\in \mathbb{N} }\subset L^{2}(\Omega )$ be a sequence such that $f_{n}\rightarrow f$ in L^{p}(\Omega )$, we can suppose that $\forall n\in $ \mathbb{N} $ :$\left\Vert f_{n}\right\Vert _{L^{p}}\leq M$, $M\geq 0$. Consider the regularized proble \begin{equation} u_{\epsilon }^{n}\in H_{0}^{1}(\Omega ),\text{ \ }\int_{\Omega }A_{\epsilon }\nabla u_{\epsilon }^{n}\cdot \nabla \varphi dx=\int_{\Omega }f_{n}\varphi dx\ ,\ \varphi \in \mathcal{D(}\Omega \mathcal{)} \label{7} \end{equation} Assumptions (\ref{2}) and (\ref{3}) shows that $u_{\epsilon }^{n}$ exists and it is unique by the Lax-Milgram theorem. (Notice that $u_{\epsilon }^{n}$ also belongs to $W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega )$). We introduce the function \begin{equation*} \theta (t)=\dint\limits_{0}^{t}(1+\left\vert s\right\vert )^{p-2}ds\text{, t\in \mathbb{R \end{equation* This kind of function has been used in \cite{6}. We have $\theta ^{\prime }(t)=$ $(1+\left\vert t\right\vert )^{p-2}\leq 1$ and $\theta (0)=0$, therefore we have $\theta (u)\in H_{0}^{1}(\Omega )$ for every $u\in H_{0}^{1}(\Omega )$. Testing with $\theta (u_{\epsilon }^{n})$ in (\ref{7}) and using the ellipticity assumption we deduce \begin{multline*} \lambda \epsilon ^{2}\int_{\Omega }(1+\left\vert u_{\epsilon }^{n}\right\vert )^{p-2}\left\vert \nabla _{X_{1}}u_{\epsilon }^{n}\right\vert ^{2}dx+\lambda \int_{\Omega }(1+\left\vert u_{\epsilon }^{n}\right\vert )^{p-2}\left\vert \nabla _{X_{2}}u_{\epsilon }^{n}\right\vert ^{2}dx \\ \leq \int_{\Omega }f_{n}\theta (u_{\epsilon }^{n})dx\leq \frac{2}{p-1 \int_{\Omega }\left\vert f_{n}\right\vert (1+\left\vert u_{\epsilon }^{n}\right\vert )^{p-1}dx\text{,} \end{multline* where we have used $\left\vert \theta (t)\right\vert \leq \frac 2(1+\left\vert t\right\vert )^{p-1}}{p-1}$. In the other hand, by H\"{o lder's inequality we hav \begin{equation*} \int_{\Omega }\left\vert \nabla _{X_{2}}u_{\epsilon }^{n}\right\vert ^{p}dx\leq \left( \int_{\Omega }(1+\left\vert u_{\epsilon }^{n}\right\vert )^{p-2}\left\vert \nabla _{X_{2}}u_{\epsilon }^{n}\right\vert ^{2}dx\right) ^{\frac{p}{2}}\left( \int_{\Omega }(1+\left\vert u_{\epsilon }^{n}\right\vert )^{p}dx\right) ^{1-\frac{p}{2}} \end{equation* From the two previous integral inequalities we deduce \begin{multline*} \int_{\Omega }\left\vert \nabla _{X_{2}}u_{\epsilon }^{n}\right\vert ^{p}dx\leq \left( \frac{2}{\lambda (p-1)}\int_{\Omega }\left\vert f_{n}\right\vert (1+\left\vert u_{\epsilon _{k}}^{n}\right\vert )^{p-1}dx\right) ^{\frac{p}{2}}\times \\ \left( \int_{\Omega }(1+\left\vert u_{\epsilon _{k}}^{n}\right\vert )^{p}dx\right) ^{1-\frac{p}{2}} \end{multline* By H\"{o}lder's inequality we get \begin{equation} \left\Vert \nabla _{X_{2}}u_{\epsilon }^{n}\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega )}\leq \left( \dfrac{2\left\Vert f_{n}\right\Vert _{L^{p}}}{\lambda (p-1)}\right) ^ \frac{1}{2}}\left( \int_{\Omega }(1+\left\vert u_{\epsilon }^{n}\right\vert )^{p}dx\right) ^{\frac{1}{2p}} \label{8} \end{equation Using Minkowki inequality we get \begin{equation*} \left\Vert \nabla _{X_{2}}u_{\epsilon }^{n}\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega )}^{2}\leq C(1+\left\Vert u_{\epsilon }^{n}\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega )}), \end{equation* Thanks to Poincar\'{e}'s inequality $\left\Vert u_{\epsilon }^{n}\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega )}\leq C_{\Omega }\left\Vert \nabla _{X_{2}}u_{\epsilon }^{n}\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega )}$ we obtain\qquad \begin{equation*} \left\Vert \nabla _{X_{2}}u_{\epsilon }^{n}\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega )}^{2}\leq C^{\prime }(1+\left\Vert \nabla _{X_{2}}u_{\epsilon }^{n}\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega )}), \end{equation*} where the constant $C^{\prime }$ depends on $p$, $\lambda $, $mes(\Omega )$, $M$ and $C_{\Omega }$. Whence, we deduc \begin{equation} \left\Vert u_{\epsilon }^{n}\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega )}\text{, }\left\Vert \nabla _{X_{2}}u_{\epsilon }^{n}\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega )}\leq C^{\prime \prime } \label{9} \end{equation} Similarly we obtain \begin{equation} \left\Vert \epsilon \nabla _{X_{1}}u_{\epsilon }^{n}\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega )}\leq C^{\prime \prime \prime }, \label{10} \end{equation where the constants $C^{\prime \prime }$, $C^{\prime \prime \prime }$ are independent of $n$ and $\epsilon $, so \begin{equation} \left\Vert u_{\epsilon }^{n}\right\Vert _{W^{1,p}(\Omega )}\leq \frac{Const} \epsilon } \label{11} \end{equation} Fix $\epsilon $, since $W^{1,p}(\Omega )$ is reflexive then (\ref{11}) implies that there exists a subsequence $(u_{\epsilon _{k}}^{n_{l}(\epsilon )})_{l\in \mathbb{N} }$ and $u_{\epsilon }\in W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega )$ such that $u_{\epsilon }^{n_{l}(\epsilon )}\rightharpoonup u_{\epsilon }\in W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega )$ (as $l\rightarrow \infty $) in $W^{1,p}(\Omega )-$weak. Now, passing to the limit in (\ref{7}) as $l\rightarrow \infty $ we deduc \begin{equation} \text{ \ }\int_{\Omega }A_{\epsilon }\nabla u_{\epsilon }\cdot \nabla \varphi dx=\int_{\Omega }f\varphi dx\ ,\ \varphi \in \mathcal{D(}\Omega \mathcal{)} \label{12} \end{equation} Whence $u_{\epsilon }$ is a weak solution of (\ref{2}) ($u_{\epsilon }=0$ on $\partial \Omega $ in the trace sense of $W^{1,p}-$functions, indeed the trace operator is well defined since $\partial \Omega $ is Lipschitz). Now, from (\ref{9}) and (\ref{10}) we deduc \begin{equation*} \left\Vert u_{\epsilon }\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega )}\leq \underset l\rightarrow \infty }{\lim \inf }\left\Vert u_{\epsilon }^{n_{l}(\epsilon )}\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega )}\leq C^{\prime } \end{equation*} and similarly we obtain \begin{equation*} \left\Vert \epsilon \nabla _{X_{1}}u_{\epsilon }\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega ) \text{, }\left\Vert \nabla _{X_{2}}u_{\epsilon }\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega )}\leq C^{\prime } \end{equation*} Using reflexivity and continuity of the derivation operator on $\mathcal{D ^{\prime }(\Omega )$ one can extract a subsequence $(u_{\epsilon _{k}})_{k\in \mathbb{N} }$ such that $\nabla _{X_{2}}u_{\epsilon _{k}}\rightharpoonup \nabla _{X_{2}}u_{0}$, $\epsilon _{k}\nabla _{X_{1}}u_{\epsilon _{k}}^{n}\rightharpoonup 0$, $u_{\epsilon _{k}}\rightharpoonup u_{0}$ in L^{p}(\Omega )-weak$. Passing to the limit in (\ref{12}) we get \begin{equation} \int_{\Omega }A_{22}\nabla _{X_{2}}u_{0}\cdot \nabla _{X_{2}}\varphi dx=\int_{\Omega }f\varphi dx\ ,\ \varphi \in \mathcal{D(}\Omega \mathcal{)} \label{13} \end{equation} Now, we will prove that $u_{0}\in V_{p}.$ Since $\nabla _{X_{2}}u_{\epsilon _{k}}\rightharpoonup \nabla _{X_{2}}u_{0}$ and $u_{\epsilon _{k}}\rightharpoonup u_{0}$ in $L^{p}(\Omega )-weak$ then there exists a sequence $(U_{n})_{n\in \mathbb{N} }\subset conv(\left\{ u_{\epsilon _{k}}\right\} _{k\in \mathbb{N} })$ such that $\nabla _{X_{2}}U_{n}\rightarrow \nabla _{X_{2}}u_{0}$ in L^{p}(\Omega )-strong$, where $conv(\left\{ u_{\epsilon _{k}}\right\} _{k\in \mathbb{N} })$ is the convex hull of the set $\left\{ u_{\epsilon _{k}}\right\} _{k\in \mathbb{N} }$. Notice that we have $U_{n}\in W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega )$ then -up to a subsequence- we have $U_{n}(X_{1},\cdot )\in W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega _{X_{1}})$, a.e $X_{1}\in \Omega ^{1}$. And we also have -up to a subsequence- $\nabla _{X_{2}}U_{n}(X_{1},\cdot )\rightarrow $ $\nabla _{X_{2}}u_{0}(X_{1},.)$ in L^{p}(\Omega _{X_{1}})-strong$ a.e $X_{1}\in \Omega ^{1}$. Whence u_{0}(X_{1},.)\in W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega _{X_{1}})$ for a.e $X_{1}\in \Omega ^{1} $, so $u_{0}\in V_{p}$. Finally, we will prove that $u_{0}$ is a solution of (\ref{5}). Let $E$ be a Banach space, a family of vectors $\left\{ e_{n}\right\} _{n\in \mathbb{N} }$ in $E$ is said to be a Banach basis or a Schauder basis of $E$ if for every $x\in E$ there exists a family of scalars $(\alpha _{n})_{n\in \mathbb{N} }$ such that $x=\dsum\limits_{n=0}^{\infty }\alpha _{n}e_{n}$, where the series converges in the norm of $E$. Notice that Schauder basis does not always exist. In \cite{5} P. Enflo has constructed a separable reflexive Banach space without Schauder basis!. However, the Sobolev space W_{0}^{1,r} $ ( $1<r<\infty $) has a Schauder basis whenever the boundary of the domain is sufficiently smooth \cite{7}. Now, we are ready to finish the proof. Let $(U_{i}\times V_{i})_{i\in \mathbb{N} }$ be a countable covering of $\Omega $ such that $U_{i}\times V_{i}\subset \Omega $ where $U_{i}\subset \mathbb{R} ^{q},V_{i}\subset \mathbb{R} ^{N-q}$ are two bounded open domains, where $\partial V_{i}$ is smooth ( V_{i}$ are Euclidian balls for example), such a covering always exists. Now, fix $\psi \in \mathcal{D}(V_{i})$ then it follows from (\ref{13}) that for every $\varphi \in \mathcal{D}(U_{i})$ we hav \begin{equation*} \int_{U_{i}}\varphi dX_{1}\int_{V_{i}}A_{22}\nabla _{X_{2}}u_{0}\cdot \nabla _{X_{2}}\psi dX_{2}\ =\int_{U_{i}}\varphi dX_{1}\int_{V_{i}}f\psi dX_{2}\ \end{equation*} Whence for a.e $X_{1}\in U_{i}$ we have \begin{equation*} \int_{V_{i}}A_{22}(X_{1},\cdot )\nabla _{X_{2}}u_{0}(X_{1},\cdot )\cdot \nabla _{X_{2}}\psi dX_{2}\ =\int_{V_{i}}f(X_{1},\cdot )\psi dX_{2} \end{equation*} Notice that by density we can take $\psi \in W_{0}^{1,p^{\prime }}(V_{i})$ where $p^{\prime }$ is the conjugate of $p$. Using the same techniques as in \cite{3}, where we use a Schauder basis of $W_{0}^{1,p^{\prime }}(V_{i})$ and a partition of the unity, one can easily obtai \begin{equation*} \int_{\Omega _{X_{1}}}A_{22}(X_{1},\cdot )\nabla _{X_{2}}u_{0}(X_{1},\cdot )\cdot \nabla _{X_{2}}\varphi dx=\int_{\Omega _{X_{1}}}f(X_{1},\cdot )\varphi dx\text{, }\varphi \in \mathcal{D(}\Omega \mathcal{)}\text{,} \end{equation*} for a.e $X_{1}\in \Omega ^{1}$. Finally, since $u_{0}(X_{1},\cdot )\in W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega _{X_{1}})$ (as proved above) then $u_{0}(X_{1},\cdot )$ is a solution of (\ref{5}) (Notice that $\Omega _{X_{1}}$ is also a Lipschitz domain so the trace operator is well defined). \end{proof} \subsection{Strong convergence} Theorem 1 will be proved in three steps. the proof is based on the use of the approximated problem (\ref{7}). In the first step, we shall construct the solution of the limit problem $\mathbf{Step1:}$ Let $u_{\epsilon }^{n}\in H_{0}^{1}(\Omega )$ be the unique solution to (\ref{7}), existence and uniqueness of $u_{\epsilon }^{n}$ follows from assumptions (\ref{3}), (\ref{4}) as mentioned previously. One have the following \begin{proposition} Assume (\ref{3}), (\ref{4}) then there exists $(u_{0}^{n})_{n\in \mathbb{N} }\subset V_{2}$ such that $\epsilon u_{\epsilon }^{n}\rightarrow 0$ in L^{2}(\Omega )$, $u_{\epsilon }^{n}\rightarrow u_{0}^{n}$ in $V_{2}$ for every $n\in \mathbb{N} $, in particular the two convergences holds in $L^{p}(\Omega )$ and $V_{p}$ respectively. And $u_{0}^{n}$ is the unique weak solution in $V_{2}$ to the proble \begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} \func{div}_{X_{2}}(A_{22}(X_{1},\cdot )\nabla _{X_{2}}u_{0}^{n}(X_{1},\cdot ))=f_{n}(X_{1},\cdot )\text{, }X_{1}\in \Omega ^{1} & \\ u_{0}^{n}(X_{1},\cdot )=0\text{ on }\partial \Omega _{X_{1}}\text{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } & \text{ \end{array \right. \label{14} \end{equation} \end{proposition} \begin{proof} This result follows from the $L^{2}-$theory (Theorem 1 in \cite{3}), The convergences in $V_{p}$ and $L^{p}(\Omega )$ follow from the continuous embedding $V_{2}\hookrightarrow V_{p}$, $L^{2}(\Omega )\hookrightarrow L^{p}(\Omega )$ ($p<2$). \end{proof} Now, we construct $u_{0}$ the solution of the limit problem (\ref{5}). Testing with $\varphi =\theta (u_{0}^{n}(X_{1},\cdot ))$ in the weak formulation of (\ref{14}) ($\theta $ is the function introduced in subsection 2.1) and estimating like in the proof of Theorem 3 we obtain as in (\ref{8} \begin{eqnarray} &&\left\Vert \nabla _{X_{2}}u_{0}^{n}(X_{1},\cdot )\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega _{X_{1}})} \notag \\ &\leq &\left( \dfrac{\left\Vert f_{n}(X_{1},\cdot )\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega _{X_{1}})}}{\lambda (p-1)}\right) ^{\frac{1}{2}}\times \left( \int_{\Omega _{X_{1}}}(1+\left\vert u_{0}^{n}(X_{1},\cdot )\right\vert )^{p}dX_{2}\right) ^{\frac{1}{2p}} \label{15} \end{eqnarray} Integrating over $\Omega ^{1}$ and using Cauchy-Schwaz's inequality in the right hand side we get \begin{equation*} \left\Vert \nabla _{X_{2}}u_{0}^{n}\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega )}^{p}\leq C\left\Vert f_{n}\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega )}^{\frac{p}{2}}\left( \int_{\Omega }(1+\left\vert u_{0}^{n}\right\vert )^{p}dx\right) ^{\frac{1}{2 } \end{equation*} and therefore \begin{equation*} \left\Vert \nabla _{X_{2}}u_{0}^{n}\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega )}^{2}\leq C^{\prime }(1+\left\Vert u_{0}^{n}\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega )}) \end{equation*} Using Poincar\'{e}'s inequality $\left\Vert u_{0}^{n}\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega )}\leq C_{\Omega }\left\Vert \nabla _{X_{2}}u_{0}^{n}\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega )}$ ( which holds since u_{0}^{n}(X_{1},\cdot )\in W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega _{X_{1}})$ a.e $X_{1}\in \Omega ^{1}$), one can obtain the estimat \begin{equation} \left\Vert u_{0}^{n}\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega )}\leq C^{\prime \prime \text{ for every }n\in \mathbb{N} \text{, } \label{16} \end{equation} where $C^{\prime \prime }$ is independent of $n$. Now, using the linearity of the problem and (\ref{14}) with the test function $\theta (u_{0}^{n}(X_{1},\cdot )-u_{0}^{m}(X_{1},\cdot ))$, $m,n\in \mathbb{N} $ one can obtain like in (\ref{15} \begin{multline*} \left\Vert \nabla _{X_{2}}\left( u_{0}^{n}(X_{1},\cdot )-u_{0}^{m}(X_{1},\cdot )\right) \right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega _{X_{1}})} \\ \leq \left( \dfrac{\left\Vert f_{n}(X_{1},\cdot )-f_{m}(X_{1},\cdot )\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega _{X_{1}})}}{\lambda (p-1)}\right) ^{\frac{1}{2 }\times \\ \left( \int_{\Omega _{X_{1}}}(1+\left\vert u_{0}^{n}(X_{1},\cdot )-u_{0}^{m}(X_{1},\cdot )\right\vert )^{p}dX_{2}\right) ^{\frac{1}{2p}} \end{multline*} \bigskip integrating over $\Omega ^{1}$ and using Cauchy-Schwarz and (\re {16}) yield \begin{equation*} \left\Vert \nabla _{X_{2}}(u_{0}^{n}-u_{0}^{m})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega )}\leq C\left\Vert f_{n}-f_{m}\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega )}^{\frac{1}{2}}, \end{equation*} where $C$ is independent of $m$ and $n$. The Poincar\'{e}'s inequality shows that \begin{equation*} \left\Vert u_{0}^{n}-u_{0}^{m}\right\Vert _{V_{p}}\leq C^{\prime }\left\Vert f_{n}-f_{m}\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega )}^{\frac{1}{2}} \end{equation*} Since $(f_{n})_{n\in \mathbb{N} }$ is a converging sequence in $L^{p}(\Omega )$ then this last inequality shows that $(u_{0}^{n})_{n\in \mathbb{N} }$ is a Cauchy sequence in $V_{p}$, consequently there exists $u_{0}\in V_{p} $ such that $u_{0}^{n}\rightarrow u_{0}$ in $V_{p}$. Now, passing to the limit in (\ref{7}) as $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$ we get \begin{equation*} \dint\limits_{\Omega }A_{22}\nabla _{X_{2}}u_{0}^{n}\cdot \nabla _{X_{2}}\varphi dX_{2}=\dint\limits_{\Omega }f_{n}\varphi dX_{2}\text{, \varphi \in \mathcal{D}(\Omega ) \end{equation*} Passing to the limit as $n\rightarrow \infty $ we deduce \begin{equation*} \int_{\Omega }A_{22}\nabla _{X_{2}}u_{0}\cdot \nabla _{X_{2}}\varphi dX_{2}=\int_{\Omega }f\varphi dX_{2}\text{, }\varphi \in \mathcal{D}(\Omega ) \end{equation*} \bigskip Then it follows as proved in Theorem 3 that $u_{0}$ satisfies (\re {5}). Whence we have proved the following \begin{proposition} Under assumption of Proposition 1 there exists $u_{0}\in V_{p}$ solution to \ref{5}) such that $u_{0}^{n}\rightarrow u_{0}$ in $V_{p}$ where (u_{0}^{n})_{n\in \mathbb{N} }$ is the sequence given in Proposition 1 \end{proposition} $\mathbf{Step2:}$ In this second step we will construct the sequence (u_{\epsilon })_{0<\epsilon \leq 1}$ solutions of (\ref{2}), one can prove the following \begin{proposition} There exists a sequence $(u_{\epsilon })_{0<\epsilon \leq 1}\subset W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega )$ of weak solutions to (\ref{2}) such that $u_{\epsilon }^{n}\rightarrow u_{\epsilon }$ in $W^{1,p}(\Omega )$ for every $\epsilon $ fixed. Moreover, $u_{\epsilon }^{n}\rightarrow u_{\epsilon }$ in $V_{p}$ and $\epsilon \nabla _{X_{2}}u_{\epsilon }^{n}\rightarrow \epsilon \nabla _{X_{2}}u_{\epsilon }$, uniformly in $\epsilon $. \end{proposition} \begin{proof} Using the linearity of (\ref{7}) testing with $\theta (u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{\epsilon }^{m})$, $m,n\in \mathbb{N} $ we obtain as in (\ref{8}) \begin{equation*} \left\Vert \nabla _{X_{2}}u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{\epsilon }^{m}\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega )}\leq \left( \dfrac{\left\Vert f_{n}-f_{m}\right\Vert _{L^{p}}}{\lambda (p-1)}\right) ^{\frac{1}{2}}\left( \int_{\Omega }(1+\left\vert u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{\epsilon }^{m}\right\vert )^{p}\right) ^ \frac{1}{2p}} \end{equation*} And (\ref{9}) gives \begin{equation*} \left\Vert \nabla _{X_{2}}(u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{\epsilon }^{m})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega )}\leq C\left\Vert f_{n}-f_{m}\right\Vert _{L^{p}}^{\frac{1}{ }} \end{equation*} where $C$ is independent of $\epsilon $ and $n$, whence Poincar\'{e}'s inequality implies \begin{equation} \left\Vert u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{\epsilon }^{m}\right\Vert _{V_{p}}\leq C^{\prime }\left\Vert f_{n}-f_{m}\right\Vert _{L^{p}}^{\frac{1}{2}} \label{17} \end{equation} Similarly we obtain \begin{equation} \left\Vert \epsilon \nabla _{X_{2}}(u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{\epsilon }^{m})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega )}\leq C^{\prime \prime }\left\Vert f_{n}-f_{m}\right\Vert _{L^{p}}^{\frac{1}{2}} \label{18} \end{equation} its follows that \begin{equation*} \left\Vert u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{\epsilon }^{m}\right\Vert _{W^{1,p}(\Omega )}\leq \frac{C}{\epsilon }\left\Vert f_{n}-f_{m}\right\Vert _{L^{p}}^{\frac{ }{2}} \end{equation*} The last inequality implies that for every $\epsilon $ fixed $(u_{\epsilon }^{n})_{n\in \mathbb{N} }$ is a Cauchy sequence in $W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega )$, Then there exists u_{\epsilon }\in W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega )$ such that $u_{\epsilon }^{n}\rightarrow u_{\epsilon }$ in $W^{1,p}(\Omega )$, then the passage to the limit in (\ref{7}) shows that $u_{\epsilon }$ is a weak solution of (\re {2}). Finally (\ref{17}) and (\ref{18}) show that $u_{\epsilon }^{n}\rightarrow u_{\epsilon }$ (resp $\epsilon \nabla _{X_{2}}u_{\epsilon }^{n}\rightarrow \epsilon \nabla _{X_{2}}u_{\epsilon }$) in $V_{p}$ ( resp in $L^{p}(\Omega )$) uniformly in $\epsilon $. \end{proof} $\mathbf{Step3:}$ Now, we are ready to conclude. Proposition 1, 2 and 3 combined with the triangular inequality show that $u_{\epsilon }\rightarrow u_{0}$ in $V_{p}$ and $\epsilon \nabla _{X_{2}}u_{\epsilon }\rightarrow 0$ in $L^{p}(\Omega )$, and the proof of Theorem 1 is finished. \subsection{Convergence of the entropy solutions} As mentioned in section 1 the entropy solution $u_{\epsilon }$ of (\ref{2}) exists and it is unique. We shall construct this entropy solution. Using the approximated problem (\ref{7}), one has a $W^{1,p}-$strongly converging sequence $u_{\epsilon }^{n}\rightarrow u_{\epsilon }\in W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega )$ as shown in Proposition 3. We will show that $u_{\epsilon }\in \mathcal{T _{0}^{1,2}(\Omega )$. Clearly we have$T_{k}(u_{\epsilon }^{n})\in H_{0}^{1}(\Omega )$ for every $k>0$. Now testing with $T_{k}(u_{\epsilon }^{n})$ in (\ref{7}) we obtain \begin{equation*} \int_{\Omega }A_{\epsilon }\nabla u_{\epsilon }^{n}\cdot \nabla T_{k}(u_{\epsilon }^{n})dx=\int_{\Omega }f_{n}T_{k}(u_{\epsilon }^{n})dx \end{equation*} Using the ellipticity assumption we ge \begin{equation} \int_{\Omega }\left\vert \nabla T_{k}(u_{\epsilon }^{n})\right\vert ^{2}\leq \frac{Mk}{\lambda (1+\epsilon ^{2})} \label{19} \end{equation} Fix $\epsilon ,k$, we have $u_{\epsilon }^{n}\rightarrow u_{\epsilon }$ in L^{p}(\Omega )$ then there exists a subsequence $(u_{\epsilon }^{n_{l}})_{l\in \mathbb{N} }$ such that $u_{\epsilon }^{n_{l}}\rightarrow u_{\epsilon }$ a.e $x\in \Omega $ and since $T_{k}$ is bounded then it follows that T_{k}(u_{\epsilon }^{n_{l}})\rightarrow T_{k}(u_{\epsilon })$ a.e in $\Omega $ and strongly in $L^{2}(\Omega )$ whence $u_{\epsilon }\in \mathcal{T _{0}^{1,2}(\Omega )$. It follows by (\ref{19}) that there exists a subsequence still labelled T_{k}(u_{\epsilon }^{n_{l}})$ such that $\nabla T_{k}(u_{\epsilon }^{n_{l}})\rightarrow v_{\epsilon ,k}\in L^{2}(\Omega )$.The continuity of \nabla $ on $\mathcal{D}^{\prime }\mathcal{(}\Omega \mathcal{)}$ implies that $v_{\epsilon ,k}=\nabla T_{k}(u_{\epsilon })$, whence T_{k}(u_{\epsilon }^{n_{l}})\rightarrow T_{k}(u_{\epsilon })$ in H^{1}(\Omega )$. Now, since $T_{k}(u_{\epsilon }^{n_{l}})\in H_{0}^{1}(\Omega )$ then we deduce that $T_{k}(u_{\epsilon })\in H_{0}^{1}(\Omega )$. It follows \cite{2} that \begin{equation*} \int_{\Omega }A_{\epsilon }\nabla u_{\epsilon }\cdot \nabla T_{k}(u_{\epsilon }-\varphi )dx\leq \int_{\Omega }fT_{k}(u_{\epsilon }-\varphi )dx \end{equation* Whence $u_{\epsilon }$ is the entropy solution of (\ref{2}). Similarly the function $u_{0}$ (constructed in Proposition 2) is the entropy solution to \ref{5}) for a.e $X_{1}$ The uniqueness of $u_{0}$ in $V_{p}$ follows from the uniqueness of the entropy solution of problem (\ref{5}). Finally, the convergences given in Theorem 2 follows from Theorem 1. \begin{remark} Uniqueness of the entropy solutions implies that it does not depend on the choice of the approximated sequence $(f_{n})_{n}$. \end{remark} \subsection{A regularity result for the entropy solution of the limit proble } In this subsection we assume that $\Omega =\omega _{1}\times \omega _{2}$ where $\omega _{1},$ $\omega _{2}$ are two bounded Lipschitz domains of \mathbb{R} ^{q}$, \mathbb{R} ^{N-q}$ respectively. We introduce the space \begin{equation*} W_{p}=\left\{ u\in L^{p}(\Omega )\mid \nabla _{X_{1}}u\in L^{p}(\Omega )\right\} \end{equation*} We suppose the following \begin{equation} f\in W_{p}\text{ and }A_{22}(x)=A_{22}(X_{2})\text{ i.e }A_{22}\text{ is independent of }X_{1} \label{21} \end{equation} \begin{theorem} Assume (\ref{3}), (\ref{4}), (\ref{21}) then $u_{0}\in W^{1,p}(\Omega )$, where $u_{0}$ is the entropy solution of (\ref{5}). \end{theorem} \begin{proof} Let $(u_{0}^{n})$ the sequence constructed in subsection 2.2, we have u_{0}^{n}\rightarrow u_{0}$ in $V_{p}$, where $u_{0}$ is the entropy solution of (\ref{5}) as mentioned in the above subsection. Let $\omega _{1}^{\prime }\subset \subset \omega _{1}$ be an open subset$,$ for $0<h<d(\partial \omega _{1},\omega _{1}^{\prime })$ and for $X_{1}\in \omega _{1}^{\prime }$ we set $\tau _{h}^{i}u_{0}^{n}=u_{0}^{n}(X_{1}+he_{i},X_{2})$ where $e_{i}=(0,..,1,..,0)$ then we have by (\ref{14}) \begin{equation*} \int_{\omega _{2}}A_{22}\nabla _{X_{2}}(\tau _{h}^{i}u_{0}^{n}-u_{0}^{n})\cdot \nabla _{X_{2}}\varphi dX_{2}=\int_{\omega _{2}}(\tau _{h}^{i}f_{n}-f_{n})\varphi dX_{2}\text{ ,\ \ }\varphi \in \mathcal{D}(\omega _{2}) \end{equation*} where we have used $A_{22}(x)=A_{22}(X_{2}).$ We introduce the function $\theta _{\delta }(t)=\dint\limits_{0}^{t}\left( \delta +\left\vert s\right\vert \right) ^{p-2}ds$, $\delta >0$, $t\in \mathbb{R} $ we have $0<\theta _{\delta }^{\prime }(t)=\left( \delta +\left\vert t\right\vert \right) ^{p-2}\leq \delta ^{p-2}$ and $\left\vert \theta _{\delta }(t)\right\vert \leq \frac{2(\delta +\left\vert t\right\vert )^{p-1 }{p-1}$ Testing with $\varphi =\frac{1}{h}\theta _{\delta }(\frac{\tau _{h}^{i}u_{0}^{n}-u_{0}^{n}}{h})\in H_{0}^{1}(\omega _{2})$. To make the notations less heavy we se \begin{equation*} U=\frac{\tau _{h}^{i}u_{0}^{n}-u_{0}^{n}}{h}\text{, }\frac{\text{ }(\tau _{h}^{i}f_{n}-f_{n})}{h}=F \end{equation*} Then we get \begin{equation*} \int_{\omega _{2}}\theta _{\delta }^{\prime }(U)A_{22}\nabla _{X_{2}}U\cdot \nabla _{X_{2}}UdX_{2}=\int_{\omega _{2}}F\theta _{\delta }(U)dX_{2}\text{ } \end{equation*} Using the ellipticity assumption for the left hand side and H\"{o}lder's inequality for the right hand side of the previous inequality we deduce \begin{equation*} \lambda \int_{\omega _{2}}\theta _{\delta }^{\prime }(U)\left\vert \nabla _{X_{2}}U\right\vert ^{2}dX_{2}\leq \frac{2}{p-1}\left\Vert F\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\omega _{2})}\left( \int_{\omega _{2}}\left( \delta +\left\vert U\right\vert \right) ^{p}dX_{2}\right) ^{\frac{p-1}{p}} \end{equation*} Using H\"{o}lder's inequality we derive \begin{multline*} \left\Vert \nabla _{X_{2}}U\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\omega _{2})}^{p}\leq \left( \int_{\omega _{2}}\theta _{\delta }^{\prime }(U)\left\vert \nabla _{X_{2}}U\right\vert ^{2}dX_{2}\right) ^{\frac{p}{2}}\left( \int_{\omega _{2}}\theta _{\delta }^{\prime }(U)^{^{\frac{p}{p-2}}}dX_{2}\right) ^{\frac 2-p}{2}} \\ \leq \left( \frac{2}{\lambda (p-1)}\left\Vert F\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\omega _{2})}\left( \int_{\omega _{2}}\left( \delta +\left\vert U\right\vert \right) ^{p}dX_{2}\right) ^{\frac{p-1}{p}}\right) ^{\frac{p}{2}}\times \\ \left( \int_{\omega _{2}}\theta _{\delta }^{\prime }(U)^{^{\frac{p}{p-2 }}dX_{2}\right) ^{\frac{2-p}{2}} \end{multline*} Then we deduc \begin{equation*} \left\Vert \nabla _{X_{2}}U\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\omega _{2})}^{2}\leq \frac{ }{\lambda (p-1)}\left\Vert F\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\omega _{2})}\left( \int_{\omega _{2}}\left( \delta +\left\vert U\right\vert \right) ^{p}dX_{2}\right) ^{\frac{1}{p}} \end{equation*} Now passing to the limit as $\delta \rightarrow 0$ using the Lebesgue theorem we deduc \begin{equation*} \left\Vert \nabla _{X_{2}}U\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\omega _{2})}^{2}\leq \frac{ }{\lambda (p-1)}\left\Vert F\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\omega _{2})}\left( \int_{\omega _{2}}\left( \left\vert U\right\vert \right) ^{p}dX_{2}\right) ^ \frac{1}{p}}, \end{equation*} and Poincar\'{e}'s inequality gives \begin{equation*} \left\Vert \nabla _{X_{2}}U\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\omega _{2})}\leq \frac 2C_{\omega _{2}}}{\lambda (p-1)}\left\Vert F\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\omega _{2})} \end{equation*} Now, integrating over $\omega _{1}^{\prime }$ yields \begin{equation*} \left\Vert \frac{\tau _{h}^{i}u_{0}^{n}-u_{0}^{n}}{h}\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\omega _{1}^{\prime }\times \omega _{2})}\leq \frac{2C_{\omega _{2} }{\lambda (p-1)}\left\Vert \frac{\text{ }(\tau _{h}^{i}f_{n}-f_{n})}{h \right\Vert _{L^{p}(\omega _{1}^{\prime }\times \omega _{2})} \end{equation*} Passing to the limit as $n\rightarrow \infty $ using the invariance of the Lebesgue measure under translations we get \begin{equation*} \left\Vert \frac{\tau _{h}^{i}u_{0}-u_{0}}{h}\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\omega _{1}^{\prime }\times \omega _{2})}\leq \frac{2C_{\omega _{2}}}{\lambda (p-1) \left\Vert \frac{\text{ }(\tau _{h}^{i}f-f)}{h}\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\omega _{1}^{\prime }\times \omega _{2})} \end{equation*} Whence, since $f\in W_{p}$ then \begin{equation*} \left\Vert \frac{\tau _{h}^{i}u_{0}-u_{0}}{h}\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\omega _{1}^{\prime }\times \omega _{2})}\leq C, \end{equation*} where $C$ is independent of $h$, therefore we have $\nabla _{X_{1}}u_{0}\in L^{p}(\Omega )$. Combining this with $u_{0}\in V_{p}$ we get the desired result. \end{proof} \section{The Rate of convergence Theorem} In this section we suppose that $\Omega =\omega _{1}\times \omega _{2}$ where $\omega _{1},\omega _{2}$ are two bounded Lipschitz domains of \mathbb{R} ^{q}$ and \mathbb{R} ^{N-q}$ respectively. We suppose that $A_{12}$, $A_{22}$ and $f$ depend on X_{2}$ only i.e $A_{12}(x)=A_{12}(X_{2})$, $A_{22}(x)=A_{22}(X_{2})$ and f(x)=f(X_{2})\in L^{p}(\omega _{2})$ ($1<p<2$), $f\notin L^{2}(\omega _{2})$. Let $u_{\epsilon }$, $u_{0}$ be the unique entropy solutions of (\ref{2}), \ref{5}) respectively then under the above assumptions we have the following \begin{theorem} For every $\omega _{1}^{\prime }\subset \subset \omega _{1}$ and $m\in \mathbb{N} ^{\ast }$ there exists $C\geq 0$ independent of $\ \epsilon $ such that \begin{equation*} \left\Vert u_{\epsilon }-u_{0}\right\Vert _{W^{p}(\omega _{1}^{\prime }\times \omega _{2})}\leq C\epsilon ^{m} \end{equation*} \end{theorem} \begin{proof} Let $u_{\epsilon }$, $u_{0}$ be the entropy solutions of (\ref{2}), (\ref{5 ) respectively, we use the approximated sequence $(u_{\epsilon }^{n})_{\epsilon ,n}$, $(u_{0}^{n})_{n}$ introduced in section 2. Subtracting (\ref{14}) from (\ref{7}) we obtai \begin{equation*} \int_{\Omega }A_{\epsilon }\nabla (u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{0}^{n})\cdot \nabla \varphi dx=0, \end{equation*} where we have used that $u_{0}^{n}$ is independent of $X_{1}$ (since $f$ and $A_{22}$ are independent of $X_{1}$) and that $A_{12}$ is independent of X_{1}$. Let $\omega _{1}^{\prime }\subset \subset \omega _{1}$ then there exists \omega _{1}^{\prime }\subset \subset \omega _{1}^{\prime \prime }\subset \subset \omega _{1}$. We introduce the function $\rho \in \mathcal{D}(\omega _{1})$ such that $Supp(\rho )\subset \omega _{1}^{\prime \prime }$ and\ \rho =1$ on $\omega _{1}^{\prime }$\textbf{( }we can choose $0\leq \rho \leq 1$) Testing with $\varphi =\rho ^{2}\theta _{\delta }(u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{0}^{n})\in H_{0}^{1}(\Omega )$ (we can check easily that this function belongs to $H_{0}^{1}(\Omega )$ using approximation argument) in the above integral equality we ge \begin{multline*} \int_{\Omega }\rho ^{2}\theta _{\delta }^{\prime }(u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{0}^{n})A_{\epsilon }\nabla (u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{0}^{n})\cdot \nabla (u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{0}^{n})dx \\ =-\int_{\Omega }\rho \theta _{\delta }(u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{0}^{n})A_{\epsilon }\nabla (u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{0}^{n})\cdot \nabla \rho dx \\ =-\epsilon ^{2}\int_{\Omega }\rho \theta _{\delta }(u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{0}^{n})A_{11}\nabla _{X_{1}}(u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{0}^{n})\cdot \nabla _{X_{1}}\rho dx \\ -\epsilon \int_{\Omega }\rho \theta _{\delta }(u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{0}^{n})A_{12}\nabla _{X_{2}}(u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{0}^{n})\cdot \nabla _{X_{1}}\rho dx \end{multline*} where we have used that $\rho $ is independent of $X_{2}.$ Using the ellipticity assumption for the left hand side and assumption (\re {4}) for the right hand side of previous equality we deduc \begin{multline*} \epsilon ^{2}\lambda \int_{\Omega }\theta _{\delta }^{\prime }(u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{0}^{n})\left\vert \rho \nabla _{X_{1}}(u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{0}^{n})\right\vert ^{2}dx+\lambda \int_{\Omega }\theta _{\delta }^{\prime }(u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{0}^{n})\left\vert \rho \nabla _{X_{2}}(u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{0}^{n})\right\vert ^{2}dx \\ \leq \epsilon ^{2}C\int_{\Omega }\rho \left\vert \theta _{\delta }(u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{0}^{n})\right\vert \left\vert \nabla _{X_{1}}(u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{0}^{n})\right\vert dx \\ +\epsilon C\int_{\Omega }\rho \left\vert \theta _{\delta }(u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{0}^{n})\right\vert \left\vert \nabla _{X_{2}}(u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{0}^{n})\right\vert dx \end{multline*} Where $C\geq 0$ depends on $A$ and $\rho $. Using Young's inequality $ab\leq \dfrac{a^{2}}{2c}+c\dfrac{b^{2}}{2}$ for the two terms in the right hand side of the previous inequality we obtai \begin{multline*} \epsilon ^{2}\frac{\lambda }{2}\int_{\Omega }\theta _{\delta }^{\prime }(u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{0}^{n})\left\vert \rho \nabla _{X_{1}}(u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{0}^{n})\right\vert ^{2}dx+\frac{\lambda }{2}\int_{\Omega }\theta _{\delta }^{\prime }(u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{0}^{n})\left\vert \rho \nabla _{X_{2}}(u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{0}^{n})\right\vert ^{2}dx \\ \leq \epsilon ^{2}C^{\prime }\int_{\omega _{1}^{\prime \prime }\times \omega _{2}}\left\vert \theta _{\delta }(u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{0}^{n})\right\vert ^{2}\theta _{\delta }^{\prime }(u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{0}^{n})^{-1}dx \end{multline*} Whenc \begin{multline*} \epsilon ^{2}\frac{\lambda }{2}\int_{\Omega }\theta _{\delta }^{\prime }(u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{0}^{n})\left\vert \rho \nabla _{X_{1}}(u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{0}^{n})\right\vert ^{2}dx+\frac{\lambda }{2}\int_{\Omega }\theta _{\delta }^{\prime }(u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{0}^{n})\left\vert \rho \nabla _{X_{2}}(u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{0}^{n})\right\vert ^{2}dx \\ \leq \frac{4}{(p-1)^{2}}\epsilon ^{2}C^{\prime }\int_{\omega _{1}^{\prime \prime }\times \omega _{2}}(\delta +\left\vert u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{0}^{n}\right\vert )^{p}dx \end{multline*} where $C^{\prime \prime }$ is independent of $\epsilon $ and $n$ Now, using H\"{o}lder's inequality and the previous inequality we deduc \begin{multline*} \epsilon ^{2}\frac{\lambda }{2}\left\Vert \rho \nabla _{X_{1}}(u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{0}^{n})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega )}^{2}+\frac{\lambda }{2 \left\Vert \rho \nabla _{X_{2}}(u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{0}^{n})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega )}^{2} \\ \leq \left[ \begin{array}{c} \epsilon ^{2}\frac{\lambda }{2}\left( \int_{\Omega }\theta _{\delta }^{\prime }(u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{0}^{n})\left\vert \rho \nabla _{X_{1}}(u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{0}^{n})\right\vert ^{2}dx\right) \\ +\frac{\lambda }{2}\left( \int_{\Omega }\theta _{\delta }^{\prime }(u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{0}^{n})\left\vert \rho \nabla _{X_{2}}(u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{0}^{n})\right\vert ^{2}dx\right \end{array \right] \times \\ \left( \int_{\omega _{1}^{\prime \prime }\times \omega _{2}}(\delta +\left\vert u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{0}^{n}\right\vert )^{p}dx\right) ^{\frac{2- }{p}} \\ \leq \frac{4C^{\prime }}{(p-1)^{2}}\epsilon ^{2}\left( \int_{\omega _{1}^{\prime \prime }\times \omega _{2}}(\delta +\left\vert u_{\epsilon }^{n}-u_{0}^{n}\right\vert )^{p}dx\right) ^{\frac{2}{p}} \end{multline*} Passing to the limit as $\delta \rightarrow 0$ using the Lebesgue theorem. Passing to the limit as $n\rightarrow \infty $ we ge \begin{eqnarray} &&\epsilon ^{2}\left\Vert \nabla _{X_{1}}(u_{\epsilon }-u_{0})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\omega _{1}^{\prime }\times \omega _{2})}^{2}+\left\Vert \nabla _{X_{2}}(u_{\epsilon }-u_{0})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\omega _{1}^{\prime }\times \omega _{2})}^{2} \label{48} \\ &\leq &C^{\prime \prime }\epsilon ^{2}\left\Vert (u_{\epsilon }-u_{0})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\omega _{1}^{\prime \prime }\times \omega _{2})}^{2} \notag \end{eqnarray} Using Poincar\'{e}'s inequality \begin{equation*} \left\Vert (u_{\epsilon }-u_{0})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\omega _{1}^{\prime \prime }\times \omega _{2})}\leq C_{\omega _{2}}\left\Vert \nabla _{X_{2}}(u_{\epsilon }-u_{0})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\omega _{1}^{\prime \prime }\times \omega _{2})}\text{,} \end{equation*} we obtai \begin{multline*} \epsilon ^{2}\left\Vert \nabla _{X_{1}}(u_{\epsilon }-u_{0})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\omega _{1}^{\prime }\times \omega _{2})}^{2}+\left\Vert \nabla _{X_{2}}(u_{\epsilon }-u_{0})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\omega _{1}^{\prime }\times \omega _{2})}^{2} \\ \leq C^{\prime \prime }\epsilon ^{2}\left\Vert \nabla _{X_{2}}(u_{\epsilon }-u_{0})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\omega _{1}^{\prime \prime }\times \omega _{2})}^{2} \end{multline*} Let $m\in \mathbb{N} ^{\ast }$ then there exists $\omega _{1}^{\prime }\subset \subset \omega _{1}^{\prime \prime }\subset \subset ...\omega _{1}^{(m+1)}\subset \subset \omega _{1}$. Iterating the above inequality $m-$time we deduc \begin{multline*} \epsilon ^{2}\left\Vert \nabla _{X_{1}}(u_{\epsilon }-u_{0})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\omega _{1}^{\prime }\times \omega _{2})}^{2}+\left\Vert \nabla _{X_{2}}(u_{\epsilon }-u_{0})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\omega _{1}^{\prime }\times \omega _{2})}^{2} \\ \leq C_{m}\epsilon ^{2m}\left\Vert \nabla _{X_{2}}(u_{\epsilon }-u_{0})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\omega _{1}^{(m)}\times \omega _{2})}^{2} \end{multline*} Now, from (\ref{48}) (with $\omega _{1}^{\prime }$ and $\omega _{1}^{\prime \prime }$ replaced by $\omega _{1}^{(m)}$ and $\omega _{1}^{(m+1)}$ respectively) we deduc \begin{multline*} \epsilon ^{2}\left\Vert \nabla _{X_{1}}(u_{\epsilon }-u_{0})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\omega _{1}^{\prime }\times \omega _{2})}^{2}+\left\Vert \nabla _{X_{2}}(u_{\epsilon }-u_{0})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\omega _{1}^{\prime }\times \omega _{2})}^{2} \\ \leq C_{m}^{\prime }\epsilon ^{2(m+1)}\left\Vert u_{\epsilon }-u_{0}\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\omega _{1}^{(m+1)}\times \omega _{2})}^{2} \end{multline*} Since $u_{\epsilon }\rightarrow u_{0}$ in $L^{p}(\Omega )$ then $\left\Vert u_{\epsilon }-u_{0}\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega )}$ is bounded and therefore we obtain \begin{equation*} \left\Vert u_{\epsilon }-u_{0}\right\Vert _{W^{p}(\omega _{1}^{\prime }\times \omega _{2})}\leq C_{m}^{\prime \prime }\epsilon ^{m} \end{equation*} And the proof of the theorem is finished. \end{proof} Can one obtain a more better convergence rate? In fact, the anisotropic singular perturbation problem (\ref{2}) can be seen as a problem in a cylinder becoming unbounded. Indeed the two problems can be connected to each other via a scaling \ $\epsilon =\frac{1}{\ell }$ (see \cite{13} for more details). So let us consider the proble \begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} -\func{div}(\tilde{A}\nabla u_{\ell })=f\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } & \\ u_{\ell }=0\text{ \ \ on }\partial \Omega _{\ell }\text{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } & \text{ \end{array \right. \label{22} \end{equation} where $\tilde{A}=(\tilde{a}_{ij})$ is a $N\times N$ matrix such tha \begin{equation} \tilde{a}_{ij}\in L^{\infty } \mathbb{R} ^{q}\times \omega _{2}) \label{23} \end{equation} \begin{equation} \exists \lambda >0:\tilde{A}\xi \cdot \xi \geq \lambda \left\vert \xi \right\vert ^{2}\text{ }\forall \xi \in \mathbb{R} ^{N}\text{ for a.e }x\in \mathbb{R} ^{q}\times \omega _{2}, \label{24} \end{equation} $\Omega _{\ell }=\ell \omega _{1}\times \omega _{2}$ a bounded domain where \omega _{1},$ $\omega _{2}$ are two bounded Lipschitz domain with $\omega _{1}$ convex and containing $0.$ We assume that $f\in L^{p}(\omega _{2})$ ($1<p<2$) and $\tilde{A}_{22}(x) \tilde{A}_{22}(X_{2})$, $\tilde{A}_{12}(x)=\tilde{A}_{12}(X_{2})$. We consider the limit problem \begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} -\func{div}(\tilde{A}_{22}\nabla _{X_{2}}u_{\infty })=f\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } & \\ u_{\infty }=0\text{ \ \ on }\partial \omega _{2}\text{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } & \text{ \end{array \right. \label{25} \end{equation} Then under the above assumptions we have \begin{theorem} Let $u_{\ell }$, $u_{\infty }$ be the unique entropy solutions to (\ref{22}) and (\ref{25}) then for every $\alpha \in (0,1)$ there exists $C\geq 0,c>0$ independent of $\ell $ such that \begin{equation*} \left\Vert \nabla (u_{\ell }-u_{\infty })\right\Vert _{W^{1,p}(\Omega _{\alpha \ell })}\leq Ce^{-c\ell } \end{equation*} \end{theorem} \begin{proof} Let $u_{\ell }$, $u_{\infty }$ the unique entropy solutions to (\ref{22}) and (\ref{25}) respectively, and let $(u_{\ell }^{n})$ and $(u_{\infty }^{n}) $ the approximation sequences (as in section 2). we have $u_{\ell }^{n}\rightarrow u_{\ell }$ in $W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega _{\ell })$ and $u_{\infty }^{n}\rightarrow u_{\infty }$ in $W_{0}^{1,p}(\omega _{2}).$Subtracting the associated approximated problems to (\ref{22}) and (\ref{25}) and take the weak formulation we get \begin{equation} \int_{\Omega _{\ell }}\tilde{A}\nabla (u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n})\nabla \varphi dx=0\text{, }\varphi \in \mathcal{D}(\Omega ) \label{26} \end{equation Where we have used that $\tilde{A}_{22}$, $\tilde{A}_{12}$, $u_{\infty }^{n}$ are independent of $X_{1}$. Now we will use the iteration technique introduced in \cite{14}, let $0<\ell _{0}\leq \ell -1$, and let $\rho \in \mathcal{D} \mathbb{R} ^{q})$ a bump function such tha \begin{equation*} 0\leq \rho \leq 1\text{, }\rho =1\text{ on }\ell _{0}\omega _{1}\text{ and \rho =0\text{ on \mathbb{R} ^{q}\diagdown (\ell _{0}+1)\omega _{1}\text{, }\left\vert \nabla _{X_{1}}\rho \right\vert \leq c_{0} \end{equation* where $c_{0}$ is the universal constant (see \cite{13}). Testing with $\rho ^{2}\theta _{\delta }(u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n})\in H_{0}^{1}(\Omega _{\ell })$ in (\ref{26}) we ge \begin{multline*} \int_{\Omega _{\ell }}\rho ^{2}\theta _{\delta }^{\prime }(u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n})\tilde{A}\nabla (u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n})\cdot \nabla (u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n})dx \\ +\int_{\Omega _{\ell }}\rho \theta _{\delta }(u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n} \tilde{A}\nabla (u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n})\cdot \nabla \rho dx=0 \end{multline* Using the ellipticity assumption (\ref{24}) \begin{multline*} \int_{\Omega _{\ell }}\rho ^{2}\theta _{\delta }^{\prime }(u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n})\left\vert \nabla (u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n})\right\vert ^{2}dx \\ \leq 2\int_{\Omega _{\ell }}\rho \left\vert \theta _{\delta }(u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n})\right\vert \left\vert \tilde{A}\nabla (u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n})\right\vert \left\vert \nabla \rho \right\vert dx \end{multline* Notice that $\nabla \rho =0$ on $\Omega _{\ell _{0}}$, and $\Omega _{\ell _{0}}\subset \Omega _{\ell _{0}+1}$ ( since $\omega _{1}$ is convex and containing $0$). Then by the Cauchy-Schwaz inequality we ge \begin{multline*} \int_{\Omega _{\ell }}\rho ^{2}\theta _{\delta }^{\prime }(u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n})\left\vert \nabla (u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n})\right\vert ^{2}dx \\ \leq 2c_{0}C\int_{\Omega _{\ell _{0}+1}\diagdown \Omega _{\ell _{0}}}\rho \left\vert \theta _{\delta }(u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n})\right\vert \left\vert \nabla (u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n})\right\vert dx \\ \leq 2c_{0}C\left( \int_{\Omega _{\ell }}\rho ^{2}\theta _{\delta }^{\prime }(u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n})\left\vert \nabla (u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n})\right\vert ^{2}dx\right) ^{\frac{1}{2}}\times \\ \left( \int_{\Omega _{\ell _{0}+1}\diagdown \Omega _{\ell _{0}}}\left\vert \theta _{\delta }(u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n})\right\vert ^{2}\theta _{\delta }^{\prime }(u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n})^{-1}dx\right) ^{\frac{1} 2}} \end{multline* where we have used (\ref{23}). Whence we get ( since $\rho =1$ on $\Omega _{\ell _{0}}$) \begin{eqnarray*} \int_{\Omega _{\ell _{0}}}\theta _{\delta }^{\prime }(u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n})\left\vert \nabla (u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n})\right\vert ^{2}dx &\leq &\int_{\Omega _{\ell }}\rho ^{2}\theta _{\delta }^{\prime }(u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n})\left\vert \nabla (u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n})\right\vert ^{2}dx \\ &\leq &\left( \frac{4c_{0}C}{p-1}\right) ^{2}\int_{\Omega _{\ell _{0}+1}\diagdown \Omega _{\ell _{0}}}(\delta +\left\vert u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n}\right\vert )^{p}dx \end{eqnarray*} From H\"{o}lder's inequality it holds tha \begin{multline*} \left\Vert \nabla (u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega _{\ell _{0}})}^{2} \\ \leq \left( \int_{\Omega _{\ell _{0}}}\theta _{\delta }^{\prime }(u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n})\left\vert \nabla (u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n})\right\vert ^{2}dx\right) \left( \int_{\Omega _{\ell _{0}}}(\delta +\left\vert u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n}\right\vert )^{p}dx\right) ^{\frac 2-p}{p}} \\ \leq \left( \frac{4c_{0}C}{p-1}\right) ^{2}\left( \int_{\Omega _{\ell _{0}+1}\diagdown \Omega _{\ell _{0}}}(\delta +\left\vert u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n}\right\vert )^{p}dx\right) \left( \int_{\Omega _{\ell _{0}}}(\delta +\left\vert u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n}\right\vert )^{p}dx\right) ^{\frac{2-p}{p}} \end{multline*} Passing to the limit as $\delta \rightarrow 0$ (using the Lebesgue theorem) we ge \begin{multline*} \left\Vert \nabla (u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega _{\ell _{0}})}^{2} \\ \leq C_{1}\left( \int_{\Omega _{\ell _{0}+1}\diagdown \Omega _{\ell _{0}}}\left\vert u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n}\right\vert ^{p}dx\right) \times \left( \int_{\Omega _{\ell _{0}}}\left\vert u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n}\right\vert ^{p}dx\right) ^{\frac{2-p}{p}}\text{,} \end{multline*} where we have used $0\leq \rho \leq 1$. Using Poincar\'{e}'s inequality \begin{equation*} \left\Vert \nabla (u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega _{\ell _{0}})}\leq C_{\omega _{2}}\left\Vert \nabla (u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega _{\ell _{0}})} \end{equation* we get \begin{equation*} \left\Vert \nabla (u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega _{\ell _{0}})}^{p}\leq C_{2}\left\Vert u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n}\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega _{\ell _{0}+1}\diagdown \Omega _{\ell _{0}})}^{p} \end{equation*} Using Poincar\'{e}'s inequality \begin{equation*} \left\Vert u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n}\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega _{\ell _{0}+1}\diagdown \Omega _{\ell _{0}})}\leq C_{\omega _{2}}\left\Vert \nabla (u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega _{\ell _{0}+1}\diagdown \Omega _{\ell _{0}})} \end{equation*} we get \begin{equation*} \left\Vert \nabla (u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega _{\ell _{0}})}^{p}\leq C_{3}\left\Vert \nabla (u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega _{\ell _{0}+1}\diagdown \Omega _{\ell _{0}})}^{p} \end{equation*} Whence \begin{equation*} \left\Vert \nabla (u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega _{\ell _{0}})}^{p}\leq \frac{C_{3}}{C_{3}+1}\left\Vert \nabla (u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega _{\ell _{0}+1})}^{p} \end{equation*} Let $\alpha \in (0,1)$, iterating this formula starting from $\alpha \ell $ we get \begin{equation*} \left\Vert \nabla (u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega _{\alpha \ell })}^{p}\leq \left( \frac{C_{3}}{C_{3}+1}\right) ^{\left[ \alpha \ell \right] }\left\Vert \nabla (u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega _{\alpha \ell +\left[ (1-\alpha )\ell \right] })}^{p} \end{equation*} Whence \begin{equation} \left\Vert \nabla (u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega _{\alpha \ell })}\leq ce^{-c^{\prime }\ell }\left\Vert \nabla (u_{\ell }^{n}-u_{\infty }^{n})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega _{\ell })} \label{27} \end{equation} where $c,c^{\prime }>0$ are independent of $\ell $ and $n.$ Now we have to estimate the right hand side of (\ref{27}). Testing with \theta (u_{\ell }^{n})$ in the approximated problem associated to (\ref{22}) one can obtain as in subsection 2.1 \begin{equation} \left\Vert \nabla u_{\ell }^{n}\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega _{\ell })}\leq C\ell ^{\frac{q}{2}} \label{28} \end{equation} Similarly testing with $\theta (u_{\infty }^{n})$ in the approximated problem associated to (\ref{25}). we get \begin{equation} \left\Vert \nabla u_{\infty }^{n}\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega _{\ell })}\leq C^{\prime }\ell ^{\frac{q}{2}} \label{29} \end{equation} Replace (\ref{29}), (\ref{28}) in (\ref{27}) and passing to the limit as n\rightarrow \infty $ we obtain the desired result. \end{proof} \begin{corollary} Under the above assumptions then for every $\alpha \in (0,1)$ there exists C\geq 0$, $c>0$ independent of $\ \epsilon $ such tha \begin{equation*} \left\Vert u_{\epsilon }-u_{0}\right\Vert _{W^{1,p}(\alpha \omega _{1}\times \omega _{2})}\leq Ce^{-\dfrac{c}{\epsilon }} \end{equation*} where $u_{\epsilon }$, $u_{0}$ are the entropy solutions to (\ref{2}) and \ref{5}) respectively \end{corollary} \begin{remark} It is very difficult to prove the rate convergence theorem for general data. When $f(x)=f_{1}(X_{2})+f_{2}(x)$ with $f_{1}\in L^{p}(\omega _{2})$ and f_{2}\in W_{2}$ we only have the estimates \begin{multline*} \epsilon \left\Vert \nabla _{X_{1}}(u_{\epsilon }-u_{0})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\omega _{1}^{\prime }\times \omega _{2})}+\left\Vert \nabla _{X_{2}}(u_{\epsilon }-u_{0})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\omega _{1}^{\prime }\times \omega _{2})} \\ +\left\Vert u_{\epsilon }-u_{0}\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\omega _{1}^{\prime }\times \omega _{2})}\leq C\epsilon \end{multline* This follows from the linearity of the equation, Theorem 5 and the $L^{2}- theory \cite{3}. \end{remark} \section{Some Extensions to nonlinear problems and applications} \subsection{A semilinear monotone problem} We consider the semilinear problem \begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} -\func{div}(A_{\epsilon }\nabla u_{\epsilon })=f+a(u_{\epsilon })\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } & \\ u_{\epsilon }=0\text{ \ \ on }\partial \Omega \text{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } & \text{ \end{array \right. \label{30} \end{equation} Where the $a \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R} $ is a continuous nonincreasing function which satisfies the growth conditio \begin{equation} \forall x\in \mathbb{R} :\left\vert a(x)\right\vert \leq K(1+\left\vert x\right\vert )\text{, }K\geq 0 \label{31} \end{equation} and $f\in L^{p}(\Omega )$ where $1<p<2$ $,$ $f\notin L^{2}(\Omega )$ and $A$ is given as in Subsection 1.2. Clearly the Nemytskii operator $u\rightarrow a(u)$ maps $L^{r}(\Omega )\rightarrow L^{r}(\Omega )$ continuously for every $1\leq r<\infty $. The passage to the limit (formally) gives the limit proble \begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} -\func{div}_{X_{2}}(A_{22}(X_{1},\cdot )\nabla u_{0}(X_{1},\cdot ))=f(X_{1},\cdot )+a(u_{0}(X_{1},\cdot ))\text{\ \ \ \ } & \\ u_{0}(X_{1},\cdot )=0\text{ \ \ on }\partial \Omega _{X_{1}}\text{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } & \text{ \end{array \right. \label{32} \end{equation} We can suppose that $a(0)=0$. Indeed, in the general case the right hand side of (\ref{30}) can be replaced by $(a(0)+f)+b(x)$ where $b(x)=a(x)-a(0) . Clearly $b$ is continuous nonincreasing and satisfies $\left\vert b(x)\right\vert \leq (K+\left\vert a(0)\right\vert )(1+\left\vert x\right\vert )$. First of all, suppose that $f\in L^{2}(\Omega ),$then we have the following \begin{proposition} Assume (\ref{3}), (\ref{4}) and $a(0)=0$. Let $u_{\epsilon }$ be the unique weak solution in $H_{0}^{1}(\Omega )$ to (\ref{30}) then $\epsilon \nabla _{X_{1}}u_{\epsilon }\rightarrow 0$ in $L^{2}(\Omega )$ and $u_{\epsilon }\rightarrow u_{0}$ in $V_{2}$ where $u_{0}$ in the unique solution in V_{2} $ to the limit problem (\ref{32}). \end{proposition} \begin{proof} Existence of $u_{\epsilon }$ follows directly by a simple application of the Schauder fixed point theorem for example. The uniqueness follows form monotonicity of $a$ and the Poincar\'{e}'s inequality. Take $u_{\epsilon }$ as a test function in (\ref{30}) then one can obtain the estimates \begin{equation*} \epsilon \left\Vert \nabla _{X_{1}}u_{\epsilon }\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\Omega ) \text{, }\left\Vert \nabla _{X_{2}}u_{\epsilon }\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\Omega ) \text{, }\left\Vert u_{\epsilon }\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\Omega )}\leq C\text{,} \end{equation*} where $C$ is independent of $\epsilon $, we have used that $\int_{\Omega }a(u_{\epsilon })u_{\epsilon }dx\leq 0$ (thanks to monotonicity assumption and $a(0)=0$). And we also have (thanks to assumption (\ref{31}) \begin{equation*} \left\Vert a(u_{\epsilon })\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\Omega )}\leq K(\left\vert \Omega \right\vert ^{\frac{1}{2}}+C) \end{equation*} so there exists $v\in L^{2}(\Omega )$, $u_{0}\in L^{2}(\Omega )$, $\nabla _{X_{2}}u_{0}\in L^{2}(\Omega )$ and a subsequence $(u_{\epsilon _{k}})_{k\in \mathbb{N} }$ such that \begin{equation} a(u_{\epsilon _{k}})\rightarrow v\text{, }\epsilon _{k}\nabla _{X_{1}}u_{\epsilon _{k}}\rightharpoonup 0\text{, }\nabla _{X_{2}}u_{\epsilon _{k}}\rightharpoonup \nabla _{X_{2}}u_{0}\text{, u_{\epsilon _{k}}\rightharpoonup u_{0}\text{ in }L^{2}(\Omega )\text{-weak} \label{33} \end{equation} Passing to the in the weak formulation of (\ref{30}) we ge \begin{equation} \int_{\Omega }A_{22}\nabla _{X_{2}}u_{0}\cdot \nabla _{X_{2}}\varphi dx=\int_{\Omega }f\varphi dx\ +\int_{\Omega }v\varphi dx\text{,}\ \varphi \in \mathcal{D(}\Omega \mathcal{)} \label{34} \end{equation} Take $\varphi =u_{\epsilon _{k}}$ in the previous equality and passing to the limit we ge \begin{equation} \int_{\Omega }A_{22}\nabla _{X_{2}}u_{0}\cdot \nabla _{X_{2}}u_{0}dx=\int_{\Omega }fu_{0}dx\ +\int_{\Omega }vu_{0}dx \label{35} \end{equation} Let us computing the quantity \begin{multline*} 0\leq I_{k}=\int_{\Omega }A_{\epsilon _{k}}\left( \begin{array}{c} \nabla _{X_{1}}u_{\epsilon _{k}} \\ \nabla _{X_{2}}(u_{\epsilon _{k}}-u_{0} \end{array \right) \cdot \left( \begin{array}{c} \nabla _{X_{1}}u_{\epsilon _{k}} \\ \nabla _{X_{2}}(u_{\epsilon _{k}}-u_{0} \end{array \right) dx \\ -\int_{\Omega }(a(u_{\epsilon _{k}})-a(u_{0}))(u_{\epsilon _{k}}-u_{0})dx \\ =\int_{\Omega }fu_{\epsilon _{k}}dx-\epsilon \int_{\Omega }A_{12}\nabla _{X_{2}}u_{0}\cdot \nabla _{X_{1}}u_{\epsilon _{k}}dx-\epsilon \int_{\Omega }A_{21}\nabla _{X_{1}}u_{\epsilon _{k}}\cdot \nabla _{X_{2}}u_{0}dx \\ -\int_{\Omega }A_{22}\nabla _{X_{2}}u_{\epsilon _{k}}\cdot \nabla _{X_{2}}u_{0}dx-\int_{\Omega }A_{22}\nabla _{X_{2}}u_{0}\cdot \nabla _{X_{2}}u_{\epsilon _{k}}dx \\ +\int_{\Omega }fu_{0}dx+\int_{\Omega }vu_{0}dx+\int_{\Omega }a(u_{0})u_{\epsilon _{k}}dx \\ +\int_{\Omega }a(u_{\epsilon _{k}})u_{0}dx-\int_{\Omega }a(u_{0})u_{0}dx \end{multline*} (This quantity is positive thanks to the ellipticity and monotonicity assumptions). Passing to the limit as $k\rightarrow \infty $ using (\ref{33}), (\ref{34}), (\ref{35}) we get \begin{equation*} \lim I_{k}=0 \end{equation*} And finally The ellipticity assumption and Poincar\'{e}'s inequality show that \begin{equation} \left\Vert \epsilon _{k}\nabla _{X_{1}}u_{\epsilon _{k}}\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\Omega )}\text{, }\left\Vert \nabla _{X_{2}}(u_{\epsilon _{k}}-u_{0})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\Omega )}\text{, }\left\Vert u_{\epsilon _{k}}-u_{0}\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\Omega )}\rightarrow 0 \label{36} \end{equation} Whence (\ref{34}) become \begin{equation} \int_{\Omega }A_{22}\nabla _{X_{2}}u_{0}\cdot \nabla _{X_{2}}\varphi dx=\int_{\Omega }f\varphi dx\ +\int_{\Omega }a(u_{0})\varphi dx\text{,}\ \varphi \in \mathcal{D(}\Omega \mathcal{)} \label{37} \end{equation} $\left\Vert \nabla _{X_{2}}(u_{\epsilon _{k}}-u_{0})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\Omega )}\rightarrow 0$ shows that $u_{0}\in V_{2}$, and therefor \begin{equation*} \int_{\Omega _{X_{1}}}A_{22}\nabla _{X_{2}}u_{0}\cdot \nabla _{X_{2}}\varphi dx=\int_{\Omega _{X_{1}}}f\varphi dx\ +\int_{\Omega _{X_{1}}}a(u_{0})\varphi dx\text{,}\ \varphi \in \mathcal{D(}\Omega _{X_{1}}\mathcal{)} \end{equation*} Hence $u_{0}(X_{1},\cdot )$ is a solution to (\ref{32}). The uniqueness in H_{0}^{1}(\Omega _{X_{1}})$ of the the solution of the limit problem (\re {32}) shows that $u_{0}$ is the unique function in $V_{2}$ which satisfies \ref{37}). Therefore the convergences (\ref{36}) hold for the whole sequence $(u_{\epsilon })_{0<\epsilon \leq 1}.$ \end{proof} Now, we are ready to give the main result of this subsection \begin{theorem} Suppose that $f\in L^{p}(\Omega )$ where $1<p<2$ (we can suppose that f\notin L^{2}(\Omega )$) then there exists $u_{0}\in V_{p}$ such that u_{0}(X_{1},\cdot )$ is the unique entropy solution to (\ref{32}) and we have $u_{\epsilon }\rightarrow u_{0}$ in $V_{p}$, $\epsilon \nabla _{X_{1}}u_{\epsilon }\rightarrow 0$ in $L^{p}(\Omega )$, where $u_{\epsilon } $ is the unique entropy solution to (\ref{30}). \end{theorem} \begin{proof} We only give a sketch of the proof. Existence and uniqueness of the entropy solutions to (\ref{30}) and (\ref{32}) follows from the general result proved in \cite{2}. As in proof of Theorem 2 we shall construct the entropy solution $u_{\epsilon }$. we consider the approximated proble \begin{equation*} \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} -\func{div}(A_{\epsilon }\nabla u_{\epsilon }^{n})=f_{n}+a(u_{\epsilon }^{n} \text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } & \\ u_{\epsilon }^{n}=0\text{ \ \ on }\partial \Omega \text{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } & \text{ \end{array \right. \end{equation*} We follows the same arguments as in section 2, where we use the above proposition and the following \begin{equation*} \int_{\Omega }(a(u)-a(v)\theta (u-v)dx\leq 0 \end{equation*} Which holds for every $u,v\in L^{2}(\Omega )$, in fact this follows from monotonicity of $a$ and $\theta $. \end{proof} \subsection{Nonlinear problem without monotonicity assumption} Suppose that $\Omega =\omega _{1}\times \omega _{2}$ where $\omega _{1}$, \omega _{2}$ and consider the following nonlinear proble \begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} -\func{div}(A_{\epsilon }\nabla u_{\epsilon })=f+B(u_{\epsilon })\text{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } & \\ u_{\epsilon }=0\text{ \ \ on }\partial \Omega \text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } & \text{ \end{array \right. \label{38} \end{equation \bigskip Where $f\in L^{p}(\Omega )$, $1<p<2$ and $B:L^{p}(\Omega )\rightarrow L^{p}(\Omega )$ is a continuous nonlinear operator. We suppose tha \begin{equation} \exists M\geq 0\text{, }\forall u\in L^{p}(\Omega ):\left\Vert B(u)\right\Vert _{L^{p}}\leq M \label{39} \end{equation} \begin{proposition} Assume (\ref{3}), (\ref{4}),and (\ref{39}) then: 1) There exists a sequence $(u_{\epsilon })_{0<\epsilon \leq 1}\subset W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega )$ of an entropy solutions to (\ref{38}) which are also a weak solutions such that \begin{equation*} \epsilon \left\Vert \nabla _{X_{1}}u_{\epsilon }\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega ) \text{, }\left\Vert \nabla _{X_{2}}u_{\epsilon }\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega ) \text{, }\left\Vert u_{\epsilon }\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega )}\leq C_{0 \text{,} \end{equation*} where $C_{0}\geq 0$ is independent of $\epsilon $( the constant $C_{0}$ depends only on $\Omega $, $\lambda $, $f$ and $M$). 2) If $(u_{\epsilon })_{0<\epsilon \leq 1}$ is a sequence of entropy and weak solutions to (\ref{38}) then we have the above estimates. \end{proposition} \begin{proof} 1) The existence of $u_{\epsilon }$ is based on the Schauder fixed point theorem, we define the mapping $\Gamma :L^{p}(\Omega )\rightarrow L^{p}(\Omega )$ by \begin{equation*} v\in L^{p}(\Omega )\rightarrow \Gamma (v)=v_{\epsilon }\in W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega ) \end{equation*} where $v_{\epsilon }$ is the entropy solution of the linearized proble \begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} -\func{div}(A_{\epsilon }\nabla v_{\epsilon })=f+B(v)\text{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } & \\ v_{\epsilon }=0\text{ \ \ on }\partial \Omega \text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } & \text{ \end{array \right. \label{40} \end{equation} Since the entropy solution is unique then $\Gamma $ is well defined. we can prove easily (by using the approximation method) that $\Gamma $ is continuous. As in subsection 2.1 we can obtain the estimate \begin{equation*} \epsilon \left\Vert \nabla _{X_{1}}u_{\epsilon }\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega ) \text{, }\left\Vert \nabla _{X_{2}}u_{\epsilon }\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega ) \text{, }\left\Vert u_{\epsilon }\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega )}\leq C_{0} \end{equation*} where $C_{0}$ is independent of $\epsilon $ and $v$ (thanks to (\ref{39})) Now, define the subse \begin{equation*} K=\left\{ u\in W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega ):\epsilon \left\Vert \nabla _{X_{1}}u\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega )}\text{, }\left\Vert \nabla _{X_{2}}u\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega )}\text{, }\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega )}\leq C_{0}\right\} \end{equation*} The subset $K$ is convex and compact in $L^{p}(\Omega )$ thanks to the Sobolev compact embedding $W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega )\subset L^{p}(\Omega ).$ The subset $K$ is stable under $\Gamma $ (since $C_{0}$ is independent of $v$ as mentioned above). Whence $\Gamma $ admits at least a fixed point u_{\epsilon }\in K,$ in other words $u_{\epsilon }$ is a weak solution to \ref{38}) which is also an entropy solution, this last assertion follows from the definition of $\Gamma $. 2) Let $(u_{\epsilon })_{0<\epsilon \leq 1}$ be a sequence of entropy and weak solutions to (\ref{38}) \ $u_{\epsilon }$ is the unique entropy solution to (\ref{40}) with $v$ replaced by $u_{\epsilon }$ and therefore we obtain the desired estimates as proved above. \end{proof} \begin{remark} In the general case the entropy solution $u_{\epsilon }$ of (\ref{38}) is not necessarily unique. \end{remark} Now, assume that \begin{equation} f(x)=f(X_{2})\text{, }A_{22}(x)=A_{22}(X_{2})\text{, }A_{12}(x)=A_{12}(X_{2}) \label{41} \end{equation} And assume that for every $E\subset W_{p}$ bounded in $L^{p}(\Omega )$ we hav \begin{equation} \overline{conv}\left\{ B(E)\right\} \subset W_{2}\text{,} \label{42} \end{equation} where $\overline{conv}\left\{ B(E)\right\} $ is the closed convex-hull of B(E)$ in $L^{p}(\Omega )$. Assumption (\ref{42}) appears strange. We shall give later some concrete examples of operators which satisfy this assumption. Let us prove the following \begin{theorem} Assume (\ref{3}), (\ref{4}), (\ref{39}), (\ref{41}) and (\ref{42}). Let (u_{\epsilon })_{0<\epsilon \leq 1}\subset W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega )$ be an entropy and weak solution to (\ref{38}) then for every $\Omega ^{\prime }\subset \subset \Omega $ there exists $C_{\Omega ^{\prime }}\geq 0$ independent of $\epsilon $ such that \begin{equation*} \forall \epsilon :\left\Vert u_{\epsilon }\right\Vert _{W^{1,p}(\Omega ^{\prime })}\leq C_{\Omega ^{\prime }} \end{equation*} \end{theorem} \begin{proof} The proof is similar the one given in our preprint \cite{10}. Let $(\Omega _{i})_{j\in \mathbb{N} }$ an open covering of $\Omega $ such that $\overline{\Omega _{j}}\subset \Omega _{j+1}$. We equip the space $Z=W_{loc}^{1,p}(\Omega )$ with the topology generated by the family of seminorms $(p_{j})_{j\in \mathbb{N} }$ defined by \begin{equation*} p_{j}(u)=\left\Vert u_{\epsilon }\right\Vert _{W^{1,p}(\Omega _{j})} \end{equation*} Equipped with this topology, $Z$ is a separated locally convex topological vector space. We set $Y=L^{p}(\Omega )$ equipped with its natural topology. We define the family of the linear continuous mappings \begin{equation*} \Lambda _{\epsilon }:Y\rightarrow Z \end{equation*} defined by: $g\in Y$, $\Lambda _{\epsilon }(g)=v_{\epsilon }$ where v_{\epsilon }$ is the unique entropy solution to \begin{equation*} \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} -\func{div}(A_{\epsilon }\nabla v_{\epsilon })=g\text{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } & \\ v_{\epsilon }=0\text{ \ \ on }\partial \Omega \text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } & \text{ \end{array \right. \end{equation*} The continuity of $\Lambda _{\epsilon }$ follows immediately if we observe \Lambda _{\epsilon }$ as a composition of $\Lambda _{\epsilon }:Y\rightarrow Y$ and the canonical injection $Y$ $\rightarrow Z$ Now, we denote $Z_{w}$, $Y_{w}$ the spaces $Z$, $Y$ equipped with the weak topology respectively. then $\Lambda _{\epsilon }:Y_{w}\rightarrow Z_{w}$ is also continuous. Consider the bounded (in $Y$) subse \begin{equation*} E_{0}=\left\{ u\in W_{p}\mid \left\Vert u\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega )}\leq C_{0}\right\} , \end{equation*} where $C_{0}$ is the constant introduced in Proposition 5. Consider the subset $G=f+\overline{conv}\left\{ B(E_{0})\right\} $ where the closure is taken in the $L^{p}-$topology. Thanks to assumption (\ref{42}) and (\ref{39 ) $G$ is closed convex and bounded in $Y$. Now for every $g\in G$ the orbit \left\{ \Lambda _{\epsilon }g\right\} _{\epsilon }$ is bounded in $Z$ thanks to Remark 2. And therefore $\left\{ \Lambda _{\epsilon }g\right\} _{\epsilon }$ is bounded in $Z_{w}$. Clearly the set $G$ is compact in $Y_{w}$. Then it follows by the Banach-Steinhaus theorem (applied on the quadruple $\Lambda _{\epsilon }$, G $, $Y_{w}$, $Z_{w}$) that there exists a bounded subset $F$ in $Z_{w}$ such tha \begin{equation*} \forall \epsilon :\text{ }\Lambda _{\epsilon }(G)\subset F \end{equation*} The boundedness of $F$ in $Z_{w}$ implies its boundedness in $Z$.i.e For every $j\in \mathbb{N} $ there exists $C_{j}\geq 0$ independent of $\epsilon $ such tha \begin{equation*} \forall \epsilon :p_{j}(\Lambda _{\epsilon }(G))\leq C_{j} \end{equation*} Let $u_{\epsilon }$ be an entropy and weak solution to (\ref{38}) then we have $u_{\epsilon }\in E_{0}$ as proved in Proposition 5 then $\Lambda _{\epsilon }(f+B(u_{\epsilon }))=u_{\epsilon }$ $\in F$ for every $\epsilon , therefor \begin{equation*} \forall \epsilon :\left\Vert u_{\epsilon }\right\Vert _{W^{1,p}(\Omega _{j})}\leq C_{j} \end{equation*} Whence for every $\Omega ^{\prime }\subset \subset \Omega $ there exists C_{\Omega ^{\prime }}\geq 0$ independent of $\epsilon $ such that \begin{equation*} \forall \epsilon :\left\Vert u_{\epsilon }\right\Vert _{W^{1,p}(\Omega ^{\prime })}\leq C_{\Omega ^{\prime }} \end{equation*} \end{proof} Now we are ready to prove the convergence theorem. Assume tha \begin{equation} B:(L^{p}(\Omega ),\tau _{L_{loc}^{p}})\rightarrow L^{p}(\Omega )\text{ is continuous} \label{43} \end{equation} where $(L^{p}(\Omega ),\tau _{L_{loc}^{p}})$ is the space $L^{p}(\Omega )$ equipped with the $L_{loc}^{p}(\Omega )$-topology. Notice that (\ref{43}) implies that $B:L^{p}(\Omega )\rightarrow L^{p}(\Omega )$ is continuous. Then we have the following \begin{theorem} Under assumptions of Theorem 8, assume in addition (\ref{43}), suppose that \Omega $ is convex, then there exists $u_{0}\in V_{p}$ and a sequence (u_{\epsilon _{k}})_{k\in \mathbb{N} }$ of entropy and weak solution to (\ref{38}) such that \begin{eqnarray*} \epsilon _{k}\nabla _{X_{1}}u_{\epsilon _{k}} &\rightharpoonup &0\text{, \nabla _{X_{2}}u_{\epsilon _{k}}\rightharpoonup \nabla _{X_{2}}u_{0}\text{ in }L^{p}(\Omega )-weak \\ \text{ and \ }u_{\epsilon _{k}} &\rightarrow &u_{0}\text{ in L_{loc}^{p}(\Omega )-strong \end{eqnarray*} Moreover $u_{0}$ satisfies in $\mathcal{D}^{\prime }(\omega _{2})$ the equation \begin{equation*} -\func{div}_{X_{2}}(A_{22}\nabla _{X_{2}}u_{0}(X_{1},\cdot ))=f+B(u_{0})(X_{1},\cdot ) \end{equation*} for a.e $X_{1}\in \omega _{1}$ \end{theorem} \begin{proof} The estimates given in Proposition 5 show that there exists $u_{0}\in L^{p}(\Omega )$ and a sequence $(u_{\epsilon _{k}})_{k\in \mathbb{N} }$ solutions to (\ref{38}) such tha \begin{equation} \epsilon _{k}\nabla _{X_{1}}u_{\epsilon _{k}}\rightharpoonup 0\text{, \nabla _{X_{2}}u_{\epsilon _{k}}\rightharpoonup \nabla _{X_{2}}u_{0}\text{ and }u_{\epsilon _{k}}\rightharpoonup u_{0}\text{ in }L^{p}(\Omega )-weak \label{44} \end{equation} As we have proved in Theorem 3 we have $u_{0}\in V_{p}$. The particular difficulty is the passage to the limit in the nonlinear term. This assertion is guaranteed by Theorem 8. Indeed, since $\Omega $ is convex and Lipschitz then there an open covering $(\Omega _{j})_{j\in \mathbb{N} }$, $\Omega _{j}\subset \Omega _{j+1}$ and $\overline{\Omega _{j}}\subset \Omega $ such that each $\Omega _{j}$ is a Lipschitz domain (Take an increasing sequence of number $0<\beta _{j}<1$ with $\lim \beta _{j}=1$.\ Fix $x_{0}\in \Omega $ and take $\Omega _{j}=\beta _{j}(\Omega -x_{0})+x_{0} , since $\Omega $ is convex then $\overline{\Omega _{j}}\subset \Omega $. The Lipschitz character is conserved since the multiplication by $\beta _{j}$ and translations are $C^{\infty }$ diffeomorphisms). Theorem 8 shows that for every $j\in \mathbb{N} $ there exists $C_{j}\geq 0$ such tha \begin{equation*} \left\Vert u_{\epsilon }\right\Vert _{W^{1,p}(\Omega _{j})}\leq C_{\Omega _{j}} \end{equation*} Since $\Omega _{j}$ is Lipschitz then the embedding $W^{1,p}(\Omega _{j})\hookrightarrow L^{p}(\Omega _{j})$ is compact \cite{15} and therefore for each $k$ there exists a subsequence $(u_{\epsilon _{k}^{j}})_{k}\subset L^{p}(\Omega _{j})$ such that \begin{equation*} u_{\epsilon _{k}^{j}}\mid _{\Omega _{j}}\rightarrow u_{0}\mid _{\Omega _{j}} \end{equation*} By the diagonal process one can construct a sequence $(u_{\epsilon _{k}})_{k} $ such that $u_{\epsilon _{k}}\rightarrow u_{0}$ in $L^{p}(\Omega _{j})$ for every $j$, in other words we have \begin{equation} u_{\epsilon _{k}}\rightarrow u_{0}\text{ in }L_{loc}^{p}(\Omega )-strong \label{45} \end{equation Now passing to the limit in the weak formulation of (\ref{38}) we deduce \begin{equation*} -\func{div}_{X_{2}}(A_{22}\nabla _{X_{2}}u_{0}(X_{1},\cdot ))=f+B(u_{0})(X_{1},\cdot )\text{,} \end{equation*} where we have used (\ref{44}) for the passage to the limit in the left hand side. For the passage to the limit in the nonlinear term we have used (\re {45}) and assumption (\ref{43}). \end{proof} \begin{example} \bigskip We give a concrete example of application of the above abstract analysis. Let $\Omega =\omega _{1}\times \omega _{2}$ be a Lispchitz convex domain of \mathbb{R} ^{q}\times \mathbb{R} ^{N-q}$ and let $A$ be a bounded $(N-q)\times (N-q)$ matrix defined on \omega _{2}$ which satisfies the ellipticity assumption. Let us consider the integro-differential problem \begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} -\func{div}_{X_{2}}(A(X_{2})\nabla _{X_{2}}u)=f(X_{2})+\dint_{\omega _{1}}h(X_{1}^{\prime },X_{1},X_{2})a(u(X_{1}^{\prime },X_{2}))dX_{1}^{\prime }\text{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } & \\ u(X_{1},\cdot )=0\text{ \ \ on }\partial \omega _{2}\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } & \text{ \end{array \right. \label{46} \end{equation} \end{example} where $h\in L^{\infty }(\omega _{1}\times \Omega )$ and $f\in L^{p}(\omega _{2})$, $1<p<2$, and $a$ is a continuous real bounded function. This equation is based on the Neutron transport equation (see for instance \cite{11}) A solution to (\ref{46}) is a function $u\in V_{p}$ Which satisfies (\ref{46 ) in $\mathcal{D}^{\prime }(\omega _{2})$. suppose that \begin{equation*} \nabla _{X_{1}}h(X_{1}^{\prime },X_{1},X_{2})\in L^{\infty }(\omega _{1}\times \Omega ) \end{equation*} Then we have \begin{theorem} Under the assumptions of this example, (\ref{46}) has at least a solution in $V_{p}$ in the sense of $\mathcal{D}^{\prime }(\omega _{2})$ for a.e X_{1}\in \omega _{1}$ \end{theorem} \begin{proof} We introduce the singular perturbation problem \begin{equation*} \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} -\func{div}_{X}(A_{\epsilon }\nabla u_{\epsilon })=f(X_{2})+\dint_{\omega _{1}}h(X_{1}^{\prime },X_{1},X_{2})a(u_{\epsilon }(X_{1}^{\prime },X_{2}))dX_{1}^{\prime }\text{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } & \\ u_{\epsilon }=0\text{ \ \ on }\partial \Omega \text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } & \text{ \end{array \right. \end{equation*} where \begin{equation*} A_{\epsilon }=\left( \begin{array}{cc} \epsilon ^{2}I & 0 \\ 0 & \end{array \right) \end{equation* Clearly $A_{\epsilon }$ satisfies the ellipticity assumption and it is Clear that the operator \begin{equation*} u\rightarrow \dint_{\omega _{1}}h(X_{1}^{\prime },X_{1},X_{2})a(u(X_{1}^{\prime },X_{2}))dX_{1}^{\prime } \end{equation*} satisfies assumption (\ref{39}). We can prove easily that the above operator satisfies assumption (\ref{43}). Indeed, let $u_{n}\rightarrow u$ in $L_{loc}^{p}(\Omega )$ then there exists a subsequence $(u_{n_{k}})$ (constructed by the diagonal process) such that u_{n_{k}}\rightarrow u$ a.e in $\Omega $. Since $a$ is bounded then it follows by the Lebesgue theorem that \begin{equation*} \dint_{\omega _{1}}h(X_{1}^{\prime },X_{1},X_{2})a(u_{n_{k}}(X_{1}^{\prime },X_{2}))dX_{1}^{\prime }\rightarrow \dint_{\omega _{1}}h(X_{1}^{\prime },X_{1},X_{2})a(u(X_{1}^{\prime },X_{2}))dX_{1}^{\prime }, \end{equation*} in $L^{p}(\Omega )$. Whence by a contradiction argument we get \begin{equation*} \dint_{\omega _{1}}h(X_{1}^{\prime },X_{1},X_{2})a(u_{n}(X_{1}^{\prime },X_{2}))dX_{1}^{\prime }\rightarrow \dint_{\omega _{1}}h(X_{1}^{\prime },X_{1},X_{2})a(u(X_{1}^{\prime },X_{2}))dX_{1}^{\prime }, \end{equation*} in $L^{p}(\Omega )$ We can prove similarly as in \cite{10} that (\ref{42}) holds, therefore the assertion of the theorem is a simple application of theorem 9 \end{proof} \begin{remark} Notice that the compacity of the operator given in the previous example is not sufficient to prove a such result as in the $L^{2}$ theory \cite{11}. This shows the importance of assumption (\ref{42}) wich holds for the above operator. \end{remark} Does operator whose assumption (\ref{42}) holds admit necessarily an integral representation as in (\ref{46})?. \begin{example} We shall replace the integral by a general linear operator. Let us consider the following problem: Find $u\in V_{p}$ such that \begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} -\func{div}_{X_{2}}(A\nabla _{X_{2}}u)=f(X_{2})+gP(ha(u))\text{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } & \\ u(X_{1},\cdot )=0\text{ \ \ on }\partial \omega _{2}\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } & \text{ \end{array \right. , \label{47} \end{equation} \end{example} where $a$, $A$ and $f$ are defined as in Example 1. We suppose that $g$, $h\in L^{\infty }(\Omega )$ with $Supp(h)\subset \Omega $ \ compact. Assume $\nabla _{X_{1}}g\in L^{\infty }(\Omega )$ and P:L^{p}(\Omega )\rightarrow L^{2}(\omega _{2})$ is a bounded linear operator. When $P$ is not compact then the operator $u\rightarrow gP(ha(u))$ is not necessarily compact, if this is the case then this operator cannot admit an integral representation. \begin{theorem} Under the assumptions of this example there exists at least a solution $u\in V_{p}$ to (\ref{47}) in the sense of $\mathcal{D}^{\prime }(\omega _{2})$ for a.e $X_{1}\in \omega _{1}$ \end{theorem} \begin{proof} Similarly, the proof is a simple application of theorem 9. \end{proof} \section{Some Open questions} \begin{problem} Suppose that $\infty >p>2$. Given $f\in L^{p}$ and consider (\ref{2}), since $f\in L^{2}$then $u_{\epsilon }\rightarrow u_{0}$ in $V_{2}$. Assume that \Omega $ and $A$ are sufficiently regular .Can one prove that $u_{\epsilon }\rightarrow u_{0}$ in $V_{p}$? \end{problem} \begin{problem} What happens when $f\in L^{1}?$ As mentioned in the introduction there exists a unique entropy solution to (\ref{2}) which belongs to \dbigcap\limits_{1\leq r<\frac{N}{N-1}}W_{0}^{1,r}(\Omega )$. Can one prove that $u_{\epsilon }\rightarrow u_{0}$ in $V_{r}$ for some $1\leq r<\frac{N} N-1}?$ Can one prove at least weak convergence in $L^{r}$ for some $1<r \frac{N}{N-1}$ as given in Theorem 4? \end{problem}
\section{Introduction} Consider an \'etale finite covering $f: Y \rightarrow X$ of degree $p$ of a smooth complex projective curve $X$ of genus $g \geq 2$. Let $\Nm_f : JY \rightarrow JX$ denote the norm map of the corresponding Jacobians. One can associate to the covering $f$ its Prym variety $$ P(f):= (\Ker \Nm_f)^0, $$ the connected component containing 0 of the kernel of the norm map, which is an abelian variety of dimension $$ \dim P(f) = g(Y) - g(X) = (p-1)(g-1). $$ The variety $P(f)$ carries a natural polarization namely, the restriction of the principal polarization $\Theta_Y$ of $JY$ to $P(f)$. Let $D$ denote the type of this polarization. If moreover $f: Y \rightarrow X$ is a cyclic covering of degree $p$, then the group action induces an action on the Prym variety. Let $\mathcal{B}_D$ denote the moduli space of abelian varieties of dimension $(p-1)(g-1)$ with a polarization of type $D$ and an automorphism of order $p$ compatible with the polarization. If $\mathcal{R}_{g,p}$ denotes the moduli space of \'etale cyclic coverings of degree $p$ of curves of genus $g$, we get a map $$ \Prym_{g,p}: \mathcal{R}_{g,p} \rightarrow \mathcal{B}_D $$ associating to every covering in $\mathcal{R}_{g,p}$ its Prym variety, called the {\it Prym map}. Particularly interesting are the cases where $\dim \mathcal{R}_{g,p} = \dim \mathcal{B}_D$. For instance, for $p=2$ this occurs only if $g=6$. In this case the Prym map $\pr_{6,2} : \mathcal{R}_6 \rightarrow \mathcal{A}_5$ is generically finite of degree 27 (see \cite{ds}) and the fibers carry the structure of the 27 lines on a smooth cubic surface. For $(g,p) = (4,3)$, it is also known that $\pr_{4,3}$ is generically finite of degree 16 onto its 9-dimensional image $\mathcal{B}_D$ (see \cite{f}) . In this paper we investigate the case $(g,p) = (2,7)$, where $\dim \mathcal{R}_{g,p} = \dim \mathcal{B}_D$. The main result of the paper is the following theorem. Let $G$ be the cyclic group of order 7. \begin{thm} \label{main-theorem} For any \'etale $G$-cover $f: \widetilde C \rightarrow C$ of a curve $C$ of genus $2$, the Prym variety $\Prym(f)$ is an abelian variety of dimension $6$ with a polarization of type $D=(1,1,1,1,1,7)$ and a $G$-action. The Prym map $$ \Prym_{2,7}: \mathcal{R}_{2,7} \rightarrow \mathcal{B}_D $$ is generically finite of degree 10. \end{thm} The paper is organized as follows. First we compute in Section 2 the dimension of the moduli space $\mathcal{B}_D$ when $(g,p)=(2,7)$. We also show that the case $(g,p)=(2,6)$, mentioned in \cite{f} as one where the dimension of $\mathcal{R}_{2,7}$ equals the dimension of the image of the Prym map, does not have this property. In Sections 3-5, we extend the Prym map to a partial compactification of admissible coverings $\widetilde{\mathcal{R}}_{2,7}$ such that $\Prym_{2,7}: \widetilde{\mathcal{R}}_{2,7} \rightarrow \mathcal{B}_D$ is a proper map. We prove the generic finiteness of the Prym map in Section 6 by specializing to a curve in the boundary. In order to compute the degree of the Prym map we describe in Section 7 a complete fiber over a special abelian sixfold with polarization type $(1,1,1,1,1,7)$, and in Section 8 we give a basis for the Prym differentials for the different types of admissible coverings appearing in the special fiber. Finally, in Section 9 we determine the degree of the Prym map by computing the local degrees along the special fiber. We would like to thank E. Esteves for his useful suggestions for the proof of Theorem \ref{thm5.2}. The second author is thankful to G. Farkas for stimulating discussions. \section{Dimension of the moduli space $\mathcal{B}_D$ } As in the introduction, let $\mathcal{R}_{2,7}$ denote the moduli space of non-trivial cyclic \'etale coverings $f: \widetilde{C} \rightarrow C$ of degree 7 of curves of genus 2. The Hurwitz formula gives $g(\widetilde{C}) = 8$. Hence the Prym variety $P = P(f)$ is of dimension 6 and the canonical polarization of the Jacobian $J\widetilde{C}$ induces a polarization of type $(1,1,1,1,1,7)$ on $P$. Let $\sigma$ denote an automorphism of $J\widetilde{C}$ generating the group of automorphisms of $\widetilde{C}/C$. It induces an automorphism of $P$, also of order 7, which is compatible with the polarization. The Prym map $ \Pr_{2,7} : \mathcal{R}_{2,7} \rightarrow \mathcal{B}_D $ is the morphism defined by $f \mapsto P(f)$. Here $\mathcal{B}_D$ is the moduli space of abelian varieties of dimension 6 with a polarization of type $(1,1,1,1,1,7)$ and an automorphism of order 7 compatible with the polarization. The main result of this section is the following proposition. \begin{prop} \label{p2.1} $$ \dim \mathcal{B}_D = \dim \mathcal{R}_{2,7} =3. $$ \end{prop} \begin{proof} Clearly $\dim \mathcal{R}_{2,7} = \dim \mathcal{M}_2 = 3$. So we have to show that also $\dim \mathcal{B}_D = 3$. For this we use Shimura's theory of abelian varieties with endomorphism structure (see \cite{sh} or \cite[Chapter 9]{bl}). Let $K = \mathbb Q(\rho_7)$ denote the cyclotomic field generated by a primitive 7-th root of unity $\rho_7$. Clearly $\mathcal{B}_D$ coincides with one of Shimura's moduli spaces of polarized abelian varieties with endomorphism structure in $K$. The field $K$ is a totally complex quadratic extension of a totally real number field of degree $e_0 = 3$. Denote $$ m := \frac{\dim P}{e_0} = 2. $$ The polarization of $P$ depends on the lattice of $P$ and a skew-hermitian matrix $T \in M_m(\mathbb Q(\rho_7))$. For each of the $e_0$ real embeddings of the totally real subfield of $\mathbb Q(\rho_7)$ consider an extension $\mathbb Q(\rho_7) \hookrightarrow \mathbb C$ and let $(r_{\nu},s_{\nu})$ be the signature of $T$ considered as a matrix in the extension $\mathbb C$. The signature of $T$ is defined to be the $e_0$-tuple $((r_1,s_1).\dots, (r_{e_0},s_{s_0}))$ with $$ r_{\nu} + s_{\nu} = m = 2. $$ for all $i$. Then, according to \cite[p. 162]{sh} or \cite[p. 266, lines 6-8]{bl} we have \begin{equation}\label{eq1.5} \dim \mathcal{B}_D = \sum_{\nu=1}^{e_0} r_{\nu} s_{\nu} \leq 3 \end{equation} with equality if and only if $r_{\nu}= s_{\nu} = 1$ for all $\nu$. On the other hand, in Section 6 we will see that the map $\Pr_{2,7}$ is generically injective. This implies that $$ \dim \mathcal{B}_D \geq \dim \mathcal{R}_{2,7} = 3 $$ which completes the proof of the proposition. \end{proof} \begin{rem} According to \cite{o} we know that $P$ is isogenous to the product of a Jacobian of dimension 3 with itself. Then $\End_{\mathbb Q}(P)$ is not a simple algebra. Hence, if one knew that $\Pr_{2,7}$ is dominant onto the component $\mathcal{B}_D$, then \cite[Proposition 9.9.1]{bl} implies that $r_{\nu} = s_{\nu} = 1$ for $\nu = 1,2,3$ which also gives $\dim \mathcal{B}_D = 3$. \end{rem} \begin{rem} In \cite{f} it is claimed that also the Prym map $\Pr_{2,6}: \mathcal{R}_{2,6} \rightarrow \mathcal{B}_D$ satisfies $\dim \mathcal{B}_D = \dim \mathcal{R}_{2,6} = 3$. However, we claim that the dimension of $\mathcal{B}_D$ in this case cannot be $3$. For the proof note that the cyclotomic field of the 6-th roots of unity $\mathbb Q(\rho_6)$ is the imaginary quadratic field $\mathbb Q(\sqrt{-3})$. So with the notation of the proof of Proposition \ref{p2.1} we have in this case $$ e_0 = 1 \; \mbox{and} \; m = \frac{\dim P}{e_0} = 5 $$ and we have that $$ \dim \mathcal{B}_D = r_1s_1 \;\mbox{with}\; r_1 + s_1 = 5. $$ So for $(r_1,s_1)$ there are the following possibilities (up to exchanging $r_1$ and $s_1$ which does not modify $\dim \mathcal{B}_D$): $$ (r_1,s_1) = (5,0), (4,1) \; \mbox{or} \; (3,2) $$ giving respectively $$ \dim \mathcal{B}_D = 0, 4 \; \mbox{or} \; 6 $$ which in any case is different from 3. \end{rem} \section{The condition (*)} In this section we study the Prym map for coverings of degree 7 between stable curves. Let $G = \mathbb Z/7\mathbb Z$ be the the cyclic group of order 7 with generator $\sigma$ and $f:\widetilde C \rightarrow C$ be a $G$-cover of a connected stable curve $C$ of arithmetic genus $g$. We fix in the sequel a primitive 7-th root of the unity $\rho$. In this section we assume the following condition for the covering $f$. $$ (*) \left\{ \begin{array}{l} \mbox{The fixed points of} \; \sigma \; \mbox{are exactly the nodes of} \; \widetilde C \; \\ \mbox{and at each node one local parameter is multiplied by}\\ \rho^{\delta} \; \mbox{and the other by} \; \rho^{-\delta} \; \mbox{for some} \; \delta, \; 1 \leq \delta \leq 3. \end{array} \right. $$ As in \cite{b} we have $f^*\omega_{C} \simeq \omega_{\widetilde C}$ which implies $$ p_a(\widetilde C) = 7g -6. $$ Let $\widetilde N$ respectively $N$ be the normalization of $\widetilde C$, respectively $C$, and $\widetilde f: \widetilde N \rightarrow N$ the induced map. At each node $s$ of $\widetilde C$ we make the usual identification $$ \mathcal{K}_s^*/\mathcal{O}_s^* \simeq \mathbb C^* \times \mathbb Z \times \mathbb Z. $$ Then the action of $\sigma$ on $\mathcal{K}_s^*/\mathcal{O}_s^*$ is: $$ \sigma^*((z,m,n)_s) = (\rho^{\delta(m+n)} z,m,n) $$ for some $\delta, \;1 \leq \delta \leq 3$. Here we label the branches at the node $s$ such that a local parameter at the first branch (corresponding to $m$) is multiplied by $\rho^{\delta}$ with $1 \leq \delta \leq 3$. Then we have $$ f_*((z,m,n)_s) = (\prod_{k=0}^6 (\sigma^{k})^*z,m,n)_{f(s)} = (z^7,m,n)_{f(s)}. $$ We define the multidegree of a line bundle $L$ on $\widetilde C$ by $$ \deg L = (d_1,\dots, d_v) $$ where $v$ is the number of components of $\widetilde C$ and $d_i$ is the degree of $L$ on the $i$-th component of $\widetilde C$. \begin{lem} \label{lem2.1} Let $L \in \Pic \widetilde C$ with $\Nm L \simeq \mathcal{O}_{\widetilde C}$. Then $$ L \simeq M \otimes \sigma^*M^{-1} $$ for some $M \in \Pic \widetilde C$. Moreover, $M$ can be chosen of multidegree $(k,0,\dots,0)$ with $0 \leq k \leq 6$. \end{lem} \begin{proof} As in \cite[Lemma 1]{m} using Tsen's theorem, there is a divisor $D$ such that $L \simeq \mathcal{O}_{\widetilde C}(D)$ and $f_*D = 0$. Writing $D = \sum_{x \in \widetilde C_{reg}} x + \sum_{s \in \widetilde C_{sing}} (z_s,m_s,n_s)$, we see that, at singular points $s \in \widetilde C$, $D$ is a linear combination of divisors $x - \sigma^*x$ for $x \in \widetilde C_{reg}$ and $(\rho,0,0)_s$ (note that it suffices to show that $(\rho,0,0)$ is in the image of $1 - \sigma^*$ because $(\rho,0,0) + (\rho,0,0) = (\rho^2,0,0)$). If at $s$ $\delta$ is as above, choose an integer $i$ such that $-i\delta \equiv 1 \mod 7$. Then $$ (1,i,0) - \sigma^*(1,i,0) = (\rho^{-\delta i},0,0) = (\rho,0,0). $$ Hence $D = E - \sigma^*E$ for some divisor $E$ on $\widetilde C$. Moreover, $$ (1,1,-1)_s - \sigma^*(1,1,-1)_s = (1,0,0)_s $$ which altogether implies that $L \simeq M \otimes \sigma^*M^{-1}$, where $M$ can be chosen of multidegree as stated. \end{proof} Let $P$ denote the Prym variety of $f: \widetilde C \rightarrow C$, i.e. the connected component of 0 of the kernel of norm map $\Nm: J\widetilde C \rightarrow JC$. By definition it is a connected commutative algebraic group. Lemma \ref{lem2.1} implies that $P$ is the variety of line bundles in $\ker \Nm$ of the form $M \otimes \sigma^*M^{-1}$ with $M$ of multidegree $(0,\dots,0)$. \begin{prop} \label{prop2.2} Suppose $p_a(C) = g$. Then $P$ is an abelian variety of dimension $6g-6$. \end{prop} \begin{proof} (As in \cite{b} and \cite{f}). Consider the following diagram of commutative algebraic groups: \begin{equation} \label{eq2.1} \xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r] & \widetilde T \ar[r] \ar[d]^{\Nm} & J\widetilde C \ar[r] \ar[d]^{\Nm} &J\widetilde N \ar[r] \ar[d]^{\Nm} & 0\\ 0 \ar[r] & T \ar[r] & JC \ar[r] & JN \ar[r] & 0 } \end{equation} where the vertical arrows are the norm maps and $T$ and $\widetilde T$ are the groups of classes of divisors of multidegree $(0,\dots,0)$ with singular support. Since $f^*$ is injective on $T$ and $\Nm \circ f^* = 7$, the norm on $\widetilde T$ is surjective and $$ \ker Nm_{|\widetilde T} \simeq \widetilde T_7= \{\mbox{points of order $7$ in}\; \widetilde T\}. $$ On the other hand, Lemma \ref{lem2.1} implies that $$ \ker (\Nm: J\widetilde C \rightarrow JC) \simeq P \times \mathbb Z/7 \mathbb Z. $$ Hence one obtains an exact sequence \begin{equation} \label{eq2.2} 0 \rightarrow \widetilde T_7 \rightarrow P \times \mathbb Z/7\mathbb Z \rightarrow R \rightarrow 0. \end{equation} Suppose first that $C$ and hence $\widetilde C$ are nonsingular. Then $\widetilde C = \widetilde N$ and hence $\widetilde T =0$. Since $\ker (J\widetilde N \rightarrow JN)$ has 7 components, $P$ is an abelian variety. Suppose that $C$ and thus also $\widetilde C$ have $s>0$ singular points. Then $\dim \widetilde T = \dim T = s$. Then $R$ is an abelian variety, since $\widetilde f$ is ramified. We get a surjective homomorphism $P \rightarrow R$ with kernel consisting of $7^{s-1}$ elements. Hence also $P$ is an abelian variety. Moreover, $$ \dim P = \dim R = \dim J\widetilde C - \dim JC. $$ Now, if $C$ has $s$ nodes and $N$ has $t$ connected components, then also $\widetilde C$ has $s$ nodes and $\widetilde N$ has $t$ connected components. This implies $$ \dim J\widetilde C - \dim JC= p_a(\widetilde C) - p_a(C) = 6g-6. $$ \end{proof} Let $\widetilde \Theta$ denote the canonical polarization of the generalized Jacobian $J\widetilde C$ (see \cite{b}). It restricts to a polarization $\Sigma$ on the abelian subvariety $P$. We denote the isogeny $P \rightarrow \widehat P$ associated to $\Sigma$ by the same letter. \begin{prop} \label{prop2.3} The polarization $\Sigma$ on $P$ is of type $D:=(1,\dots,1,7,\dots,7)$ where $7$ occurs $g-1$ times and $1$ occurs $5g-5$ times. \end{prop} \begin{proof}(Following \cite[Proposition 2.4]{f}). Consider the isogeny $$ h: P \times JN \rightarrow J \widetilde N. $$ Clearly $\ker(h) \subset P[7]$. As in \cite[Proof of Theorem 3.7]{b}, one sees that $\ker(h)$ is isomorphic to the group of points $a \in JC[7]$ such that $f^*a \in P$ and $$ \dim_{\mathbb F_7} \ker(h) = \dim_{\mathbb F_7} (JC[7]) -1 = 2g -t -1, $$ where $t = \dim T = \dim \widetilde T$. Now $\ker(h)$ is a maximal isotropic subgroup of the kernel of the polarization of $P \times JN$, since this polarization is the pullback under $h$ of the principal polarization of $J \widetilde N$. This implies $\dim_{\mathbb F_7} (\ker \Sigma \times JN[7]) = 4g-2t-2$. Since $\dim_{\mathbb F_7} (JN[7]) = 2g-2t$, it follows that $\dim_{\mathbb F_7} (\ker \Sigma)= 2g-2$. Since $\ker \Sigma \subset P[7]$, this gives the assertion. \end{proof} \section{The condition (**)} As in the last section let $f:\widetilde C \rightarrow C$ be a $G$-covering of stable curves. Recall that a node $z \in \widetilde C$ is either \begin{itemize} \item of index 1, i.e $|\Stab z| = 1$ in which case $f^{-1} (f(z))$ consists of 7 nodes which are cyclicly permuted under $\sigma$ or \item of index 7, i.e. $|\Stab z| = 7$ in which case $z$ is the only preimage of the node $f(z)$ and $f$ is totally ramified at both branches of $z$. Since $\sigma$ is of order 7, the two branches of $z$ are not exchanged. \end{itemize} We also call a node of $C$ {\it of index} $i$ if a preimage (and hence every preimage) under $f$ is a node of index $i$. We assume the following condition for the $G$-covering $f:\widetilde C \rightarrow C$ of connected stable curves: $$ (**) \left\{ \begin{array}{l} p_a(C) = g \; \mbox{and} \; p_a(\widetilde C) = 7g-6;\\ \sigma \; \mbox{is not the identity on any irreducible component of} \;\widetilde C;\\ \mbox{if at a fixed node of} \; \sigma \; \mbox{one local parameter is multiplied by} \; \rho^i, \; \mbox{the other is} \\ \mbox{multiplied by} \; \rho^{-i}, \; \mbox{where} \; \rho \; \mbox{ denotes a fixed 7-th root of unity};\\ P := \Prym(f) \; \mbox{is an abelian variety}. \end{array} \right. $$ Under these assumptions the nodes of $\widetilde C$ are exactly the preimages of the nodes of $C$. We denote for $i =1$ and 7: \begin{itemize} \item $n_i:=$ the number of nodes of $C$ of index $i$, i.e. nodes whose preimage consists of $\frac{7}{i}$ nodes of $\widetilde C$, \item $c_i :=$ the number irreducible components of $C$ whose preimage consists of $\frac{7}{i}$ irreducible components of $\widetilde C$, \item $r :=$ the number of fixed nonsingular points under $\sigma$. \end{itemize} \begin{lem} \label{lem3.1} The covering satisfies $(**)$ if and only if $r=0$ and $c_1 = n_1$. \end{lem} In particular, any covering satisfying $(**)$ is an admissible $G$-cover (for the definition see Section 5 below). \begin{proof} (As in \cite{b} and \cite{f}). Let $\widetilde N$ respectively $N$ be the normalization of $\widetilde C$ respectively $C$. The covering $\widetilde f: \widetilde N \rightarrow N$ is ramified exactly at the points lying over the fixed points of $\sigma: \widetilde C \rightarrow \widetilde C$. Hence the Hurwitz formula says $$ p_a(\widetilde N) -1 = 7(p_a(N) -1) + 3r +6 n_7. $$ So \begin{eqnarray*} p_a(\widetilde C) -1 & = & p_a(\widetilde N) -1 + 7n_1 + n_7\\ & = & 7(p_a(N) -1) + 3r + 7n_1 + 7 n_7. \end{eqnarray*} Moreover, $$ p_a(C) -1 = p_a(N) -1 +n_1 + n_7 $$ which altogether gives $$ p_a(\widetilde C) -1 = 7(p_a(C) -1) + 3r. $$ Hence the first condition in $(**)$ is equivalent to $r = 0$. Now we discuss the condition that $P$ is an abelian variety. For this consider again the diagram \eqref{eq2.1}. From the surjectivity of the norm maps it follows that $P$ is an abelian variety if and only if $\dim \widetilde T = \dim T$. Now $\dim J \widetilde N = p_a(\widetilde N) - n_7 - 7 n_1 +c_7 + 7c_1 -1$ and thus $$ \dim \widetilde T = (n_7 - c_7) + 7(n_1 - c_1) + 1 $$ and $$ \dim T = (n_7 - c_7) + (n_1 -c_1) + 1. $$ Hence $\dim \widetilde T = \dim T$ if and only if $c_1 = n_1$. \end{proof} Let $f: \widetilde C \rightarrow C$ be a $G$-covering satisfying the condition $(**)$ with generating automorphism $\sigma$. We denote by $B$ the union of the components of $\widetilde C$ fixed under $\sigma$ and write $$ \widetilde C = A_1 \cup \cdots \cup A_7 \cup B $$ with $\sigma(A_i) = A_{i+1}$ where $A_8 = A_1$. \begin{prop} \label{prop3.2} {\em (i)} If $B = \emptyset$, then $\widetilde C = A_1 \cup \cdots \cup A_7$ where $A_1$ can be chosen connected and tree-like and $\#A_i \cap A_{i+1} = 1$ for $i = 1, \dots, 7$.\\ {\em (ii)} If $B \neq \emptyset$, then $A_i \cap A_{i+1} = \emptyset$ for $i = 1, \dots , 7$. Each connected component of $A_1$ is tree-like and meets $B$ at only one point. Also $B$ is connected. \end{prop} For the proof we need the following elementary lemma (the analogue of \cite[Lemma 5.3]{b} and \cite[Lemma 2.6]{f}) which will be applied to the dual graph of $\widetilde C$. \begin{lem} \label{lem3.3} Let $\Gamma$ be a connected graph with a fixed-point free automorphism $\sigma$ of order 7. Then there exists a connected subgraph $S$ of $\gamma$ such that $\sigma^i(S) \cap \sigma^{i+1}(S) = \emptyset$ for $i = 0, \dots,6$ and $\cup_{i=0}^6 \sigma^i(S)$ contains every vertex of $\Gamma$. \end{lem} \begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{prop3.2}] (As in \cite{b} and \cite{f}). Let $\Gamma$ denote the dual graph of $\widetilde C$. If $B= \emptyset$, let $A_1$ correspond to the subgraph $S$ of Lemma \ref{lem3.3}. Let $v$ be the number of vertices of $S$, $e$ the number of edges of $S$ and $s$ the numbers of nodes of $A_1$ which belong to only one component. The equality $c_1 = n_1$ implies $$ v = e + s - \#A_1 \cap A_2. $$ Since $1 - v + e \geq 0$ and $\#A_1 \cap A_2 \geq 1$ gives $s=0, \; \#A_1 \cap A_2 = 1$ and $1-v+e = 0$. So $A_1$ is tree-like. This proves (i). Asume $B \neq \emptyset$ and denote \begin{itemize} \item $t := \# A_1 \cap A_2, $ \item $m := \# A_i \cap B$ for $i = 1, \dots , 7$, \item $i_{A_1} := \#$ irreducible components of $A_1$, \item $c_{A_1} := \#$ of connected components of $A_1$, \item $n_{A_1} := \#$ nodes of $A_1$. \end{itemize} Recall that assumption $(**)$ implies that $B$ does not contain any node which moves under $\sigma$. Then $$ c_1 = i_{A_1} \quad \mbox{and} \quad n_1 = n_{A_1} + r + m. $$ For any curve we have $n_{A_1} - i_{A_1} + c_{A_1} \geq 0$ (see \cite[Proof of Lemma 5.3]{b}). Thus, if $c_1 = n_1$, $$ 0 = n_{A_1} + t + m - i_{A_1}\geq t+m - c_{A_1}. $$ Since $\widetilde C$ is connected, any connected component of $\cup_{i=1}^7 A_i $ meets $B$. But then any connected component of $A_1$ meets $B$ which implies $m \geq c_{A_1}$. Hence $$ 0 \geq t+m-c_{A_1} \geq t \geq 0. $$ Hence $t = 0, \; m= c_{A_1}$ and $n_{A_1} - i_{A_1} + c_{A_1} = 0$. So $A_i \cap A_{i+1} = \emptyset$ and $B$ is connected. \end{proof} \begin{thm} Suppose that $f : \widetilde C \rightarrow C$ satisfies condition $(**)$. Then there exist the following isomorphisms of polarized abelian varieties: \\ In case {\em (i)}, \; $(P,\Sigma) \simeq \ker((JA_1)^7 \rightarrow JA_1)$ with the polarization induced by the principal polarization on $(JA_1)^7$. \\ In case {\em (ii)}, \; $(P,\Sigma) \simeq \ker((JA_1)^7 \rightarrow JA_1) \times Q$, where $Q$ is the generalized Prym variety associated to the covering $B \rightarrow B/ \sigma$. \end{thm} \begin{proof} (As in \cite[Theorem 5.4]{b}). In case (i), $\widetilde C$ is obtained from the disjoint union of 7 copies of $A_1$ by fixing 2 smooth points $p$ and $q$ of $A_1$ and identifying $q$ in the $i$-th copy with $p$ in the $i+1$-th copy of $A_1$ cyclicly. The curve $C = \widetilde C/G$ is obtained from $A_1$ by identifying $p$ and $q$ and $f: \widetilde C \rightarrow C$ is an \'etale covering. Note that $JA_1$ is an abelian variety, since $A_1$ is tree-like. Consider the following diagram \begin{equation*} \xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r] & \mathbb C^* \ar[r] \ar^{\Nm}[d] & J\widetilde C \ar[r] \ar^{\Nm}[d] & (JA_1)^7 \ar[r] \ar^{m}[d] & 0\\ 0 \ar[r] & \mathbb C^* \ar[r] & JC \ar[r] & JA_1 \ar[r] & 0 } \end{equation*} where $m$ is the addition map. One checks immediately that $\Nm: \mathbb C^* \rightarrow \mathbb C^*$ is an isomorphism. This implies the assertion. In case (ii) we have $$ J\widetilde C \simeq (JA_1)^7 \times JB \quad \mbox{and} \quad P = \ker(\Nm)^0 \simeq \ker((JA_1)^7 \rightarrow JA_1) \times Q $$ which immediately implies the assertion. \end{proof} \section{The extension of the Prym map to a proper map} Let $\mathcal{R}_{g,7}$ denote the moduli space of non-trivial \'etale $G$-covers $f: \widetilde C \rightarrow C$ of smooth curves $C$ of genus $g$ and $\mathcal{B}_D$ the moduli space of polarized abelian varieties of dimension $6g-6$ with polarization of type $D$ with $D$ as in Proposition \ref{prop2.3} and compatible with the $G$-action. As in the introduction we denote by $$ \pr_{g,7}: \mathcal{R}_{g,7} \rightarrow \mathcal{B}_D $$ the corresponding Prym map associating to the covering $f$ the Prym variety $\Prym(f)$. In order to extend this map to a proper map we consider the compactification $\overline \mathcal{R}_{g,7}$ of $\mathcal{R}_{g,7}$ consisting of admissible $G$-coverings of stable curves of genus $g$ introduced in \cite{acv}. Let $\mathcal{X} \rightarrow S$ be a family of stable curves of arithmetic genus $g$. A {\it family of admissible $G$-covers} of $\mathcal{X}$ over $S$ is a finite morphism $\mathcal{Z} \rightarrow \mathcal{X}$ such that, \begin{enumerate} \item the composition $\mathcal{Z} \rightarrow \mathcal{X} \rightarrow S$ is a family of stable curves; \item every node of a fiber of $\mathcal{Z} \rightarrow S$ maps to a node of the corresponding fiber of $\mathcal{X} \rightarrow S$; \item $\mathcal{Z} \rightarrow \mathcal{X}$ is a principal $G$-bundle away from the nodes; \item if $z$ is a node of index 7 in a fibre of $\mathcal{Z} \rightarrow S$ and $\xi$ and $\eta$ are local coordinates of the two branches near $z$, any element of the stabilizer $\Stab_G(z)$ acts as $$ (\xi, \eta) \mapsto (\rho \xi, \rho^{-1}\eta) $$ where $\rho$ is a primitive $7$-th root of unity. \end{enumerate} In the case of $S = \Spec \mathbb C$ we just speak of an admissible $G$-cover. In this case the ramification index at any node $z$ over $x$ equals the order of the stabilizer of $z$ and depends only on $x$. It is called the {\it index} of the $G$-cover $\mathcal{Z} \rightarrow \mathcal{X}$ at $x$. Since 7 is a prime, the index of a node is either 1 or 7. Note that, for any admissible $G$-cover $Z \rightarrow X$, the curve $Z$ is stable if and only if and only if $X$ is stable. As shown in \cite{acv} or \cite[Chapter 16]{acg}, the moduli space $\overline \mathcal{R}_{g,7}$ of admissible $G$-covers stable of curves of genus $g$ is a natural compactification of $\mathcal{R}_{g,7}$. Clearly the coverings satisfying condition $(**)$ are admissible and form an open subspace $\widetilde \mathcal{R}_{g,7}$ of $\overline \mathcal{R}_{g,7}$. \begin{thm} \label{thm4.1} The map $\pr_{g,7}: \mathcal{R}_{g,7} \rightarrow \mathcal{B}_D$ extends to a proper map $\widetilde {\pr}_{g,7}: \widetilde \mathcal{R}_{g,7} \rightarrow \mathcal{B}_D$. \end{thm} \begin{proof} The proof is the same as the proof of \cite[Theorem 2.8]{f} just replacing 3-fold covers by 7-fold covers. So we will omit it. \end{proof} \section{Generic finiteness of $\pr_{2,7}$} From now on we consider only the case $g=2$, i.e. of $G$-covers of curves of genus 2. So $\dim \mathcal{R}_{2,7} = \dim \mathcal{M}_2 = 3$ and $\mathcal{B}_D$ is the moduli space of polarized abelian varieties of type $(1,1,1,1,1,7)$ with $G$-action which is also of dimension 3. Let $[f:\widetilde{C} \rightarrow C] \in \mathcal{R}_{2,7}$ be a general point and let the covering $f$ be given by the $7$-division point $\eta \in JC$. \begin{lem} \label{lem5.1} {\em (i)} The cotangent space of $\mathcal{B}_D$ at the point $\pr_{2,7}([f:\widetilde{C} \rightarrow C]) \in \mathcal{B}_D$ is identified with the vector space $\bigoplus_{i=1}^{3} \left( H^0(\omega_C \otimes \eta^{i}) \otimes H^0(\omega_C \otimes \eta^{7-i}) \right)$. {\em (ii)} The codifferential of the map $\pr_{2,7}: \mathcal{R}_{2,7} \rightarrow \mathcal{B}_D$ at the point $(f,\eta)$ is given by the sum of the multiplication maps $$ \bigoplus_{i=1}^{3} \left( H^0(\omega_C \otimes \eta^{i}) \otimes H^0(\omega_C \otimes \eta^{7-i}) \right) \longrightarrow H^0(\omega_C^2). $$ \end{lem} \begin{proof} (i): Consider the composed map $\mathcal{R}_{g,7} \stackrel{\pr_{2,7}}{\longrightarrow} \mathcal{B}_D \stackrel{\pi}{\longrightarrow} \mathcal{A}_D$. The cotangent space of the image of $[f:\widetilde{C} \rightarrow C]$ in $\mathcal{A}_D$ is by definition the cotangent at the Prym variety $P$ of $f$. It is well known that the cotangent space $T^*_{P,0}$ at 0 is \begin{equation} \label{eq5.1} T^*_{P,0} = H^0(\widetilde{C},\omega_{\widetilde{C}})^- = \bigoplus_{i=1}^6 H^0(C, \omega_C \otimes \eta^i). \end{equation} According to \cite{lo} the cotangent space of $\mathcal{A}_D$ at the point $P$ can be identified with the second symmetric product of $H^0(\widetilde{C},\omega_{\widetilde{C}})^-$. This gives \begin{equation} \label{eq5.2} T^*_{\mathcal{A}_D,P} = \bigoplus_{i=1}^6 S^2 H^0(\omega_C \otimes \eta^i) \oplus \bigoplus_{i=1}^3 \left( H^0 (\omega_C \otimes \eta^i) \otimes H^0(\omega_C \otimes \eta^{7-i}) \right) \end{equation} Since the map $\pi: \mathcal{B}_D \rightarrow \mathcal{A}_D$ is finite onto its image and the group $G$ acts on the cotangent space of $\mathcal{B}_D$ at the point, we conclude that this space can be identified with a 3-dimensional $G$-subspace of the $G$-space $T^*_{\mathcal{A}_D,P}$ which is defined over the rationals. But there is only one such subspace, namely $\bigoplus_{i=1}^{3} \left( H^0(\omega_C \otimes \eta^{i}) \otimes H^0(\omega_C \otimes \eta^{7-i}) \right)$. This gives (i). (ii): It is well known that the cotangent space of $\mathcal{R}_{2,7}$ at a point $(C, \eta)$ without automorphism is given by $H^0(\omega_C^2)$ and the codifferential of $\pr_{2,7}: \mathcal{R}_{2,7} \rightarrow \mathcal{A}_D$ at $(C,\eta)$ by the natural map $S^2(H^0(\widetilde{C}, \omega_{\widetilde{C}})^-) \longrightarrow H^0(\omega_C^2)$. The assertion follows immediately from Lemma \ref{lem5.1} (i) and equations \eqref{eq5.1} and \eqref{eq5.2}. \end{proof} \begin{thm} \label{thm5.2} The map $\widetilde \pr_{2,7}: \widetilde \mathcal{R}_{2,7} \rightarrow \mathcal{B}_D$ is surjective and hence of finite degree. \end{thm} \begin{proof} Since the extension $\widetilde \pr_{2,7}$ is proper according to Theorem \ref{thm4.1}, it suffices to show that the map $\pr_{2,7}$ is generically finite. Now $\pr_{2,7}$ is generically finite as soon as its differential at the generic point $[f:\widetilde{C} \rightarrow C] \in \mathcal{R}_{2,7}$ is injective. Let $f$ be given by the 7-division point $\eta$. According to Lemma \ref{lem5.1}, the codifferential of $\Prym_{2,7}$ at $[f: \widetilde{C} \rightarrow C]$ is given by (the sum of) the multiplication of sections $$ \mu_{C,\eta} : \oplus_{j=1}^3 H^0(C, \omega_C \otimes \eta^{j} ) \otimes H^0(C, \omega_C \otimes \eta^{7-j} ) \longrightarrow H^0(C, \omega^2_C ). $$ Since $\overline \mathcal{R}_{2,7}$ is irreducible and $\widetilde \mathcal{R}_{2,7}$ is open and dense in $\overline \mathcal{R}_{2,7}$, it suffices to show that the map $\mu_{X,\eta}$ is surjective at a point $(X,\eta)$ in the compactification $\overline \mathcal{R}_{2,7}$, even if $\pr_{2,7}$ is not defined at $(X,\eta)$. So if $\mu_{X,\eta}$ is surjective at this point, it will be surjective at a general point of $\mathcal{R}_{2,7}$. Moreover, it suffices to show that $\mu_{X,\eta}$ is injective, since both sides of the map are of dimension 3. Consider the curve $$ X = Y \cup Z, $$ the union of two rational curves intersecting in 3 points ${q_1, q_2, q_3}$ which we can assume to be $[1,0], [0,1], [1,1]$ respectively. A line bundle $\eta_X= (\eta_Y, \eta_Z)$ on $X$ of degree 0 is uniquely determined by the gluing of the fiber over the nodes $\mathcal{O}_{Y_{|q_i}} \stackrel{\cdot c_i}{\rightarrow } \mathcal{O}_{Z|_{q_i}}$, given by the multiplication by a non-zero constant $c_i$. We may assume $c_3=1$ and since $\eta_X^7\simeq \mathcal{O}_X$ we have $c_1^7=c_2^7=1$. Notice that $\omega_{X_{|Y}} = \mathcal{O}_Y(1)$ and $\omega_{X_{|Z}} = \mathcal{O}_Z(1)$ and the restrictions $\eta_Y, \eta_Z$ are trivial line bundles. From the exact sequence $$ 0 \rightarrow \mathcal{O}_Z(-2) \rightarrow \omega_X\otimes \eta_X^i \stackrel{\beta_i}{\rightarrow} \mathcal{O}_Y(1) \rightarrow 0 $$ follows that $h^0(X, \omega_X \otimes \eta_X^i)=1 $ for $i=1, \dots, 6$. Moreover, since $H^0(Z, \mathcal{O}_Z(-2))=0$, the map $\beta_i$ induces an inclusion $H^0(X, \omega_X \otimes \eta_X^i) \hookrightarrow H^0(Y, \mathcal{O}_Y(1))$ for $i=1, \dots, 6$. Therefore, to study the injectivity of the map $\mu_{X,\eta}$, it is enough to check whether the projection of $\oplus_{i=1}^{3} H^0(X, \omega_X \otimes \eta_X^i) \otimes H^0(X, \omega_X \otimes \eta_X^{7-i}) $ to $H^0(Y, \mathcal{O}_Y(1)) \otimes H^0(Y, \mathcal{O}_Y(1))$ is contained in the kernel of the multiplication map $$ H^0(Y, \mathcal{O}_Y(1)) \otimes H^0(Y, \mathcal{O}_Y(1)) \longrightarrow H^0(Y, \mathcal{O}_Y(2)). $$ We claim that the line bundle $\omega_X= (\omega_{|Y}, \omega_{|Z})$ is uniquely determined and one can choose the gluing $c_i$ at the nodes $q_i$ to be the multiplication by the same constant. To see this, first notice that, since $(X, \omega_X)$ is a limit linear series of canonical line bundles, the nodes of $X$ are necessary Weierstrass points of $X$. Let $s_3 \in H^0(X, \omega_X(-2q_3)) $ be a section giving a trivialization of $\omega_Y$ and $\omega_Z$ away from $q_3$. For $i=1,2$, we have $\mathcal{O}_Y (1)_{|q_i} \stackrel{s_3^{-1}}{\rightarrow} {\mathcal{O}_X}_{|q_i} \stackrel{s_3}{\rightarrow} \mathcal{O}_Z(1)_{|q_i}$, which implies that $c_1=c_2$. Similarly, by using a section in $ H^0(X, \omega_X(-2q_2)) $ one shows that $c_1=c_3$. A section of $\omega_{X_{|Y}} \otimes \eta_Y^i \simeq \mathcal{O}_Y (1)$ for $i=1,2,3$ is of the form $f_i(x,y)= a_ix + b_i y$, with $a_i, b_i $ constants. Suppose that the sections $f_i$ are in the image of the inclusion $$ H^0(X, \omega_X \otimes \eta_X^i) \hookrightarrow H^0(Y, \mathcal{O}_Y(1)). $$ By evaluating the section at the points $q_i$ and using the gluing conditions one gets $a_i=c_1^i-1$ and $b_i = c_2^i-1$. One obtains a similar condition for the image of the sections of $H^0(X, \omega_{X} \otimes \eta^{7-i}_X )$ in $H^0(Y, \mathcal{O}_Y(1))$. Set $j=7-i$. By multiplying the corresponding sections of $ \omega_X \otimes \eta_X^i$ and $\omega_X \otimes \eta_X^j$ we have that an element in the image of $\mu_{X,\eta}$ is of the form $$ (2-c_1^i-c_1^j) x^2 + (2-c_2^i-c_2^j) y^2 - (2- c_1^j- c_2^i + c_1^jc_2^i - c_1^i - c_2^j + c_1^ic_2^j )xy. $$ Hence, after taking the sum of such sections for $i=1,2,3$ we conclude that there is a non-trivial element in the kernel of $\mu_{X,\eta}$ if and only if there is a non-trivial solution for the linear system $A{\bf x} =0 $ with $$ A= \left( \begin{array}{ccc} 2-c_1-c_1^6 & 2- c_1c_2^6 -c_1^6c_2 & 2-c_2-c_2^6 \\ 2-c_1^2-c_1^5 & 2- c_1^2c_2^5 -c_1^5c_2^2 & 2-c_2^2-c_2^5 \\ 2-c_1^3-c_1^4 & 2- c_1^3c_2^4 -c_1^4c_2^3 & 2-c_2^3-c_2^4 \end{array} \right) $$ Clearly, if $c_i =1$ for some $i$ or $c_1=c_2$ the determinant of $A$ vanishes. We compute $$ \frac{1}{7}\det A= c_1^6(c_2^3 -c_2^5) + c_1^5(c_2^6 -c_2^3) + c_1^4(c_2^2 -c_2) + c_1^3(c_2^5 -c_2^6) + c_1^2(c_2 -c_2^4) + c_1(c_2^4 -c_2^2). $$ Suppose that $c_i \neq 1$ and $c_2 = c_1^k$ for some $2\leq k\leq 6$. Then a straightforward computation shows that $\det A \neq 0 $ if and only if $k=3$ or $k=5$. In conclusion, we can find a limit linear series $(X, \eta_X)$ with $\eta_X^7 \simeq \mathcal{O}_X$, for suitable values of the $c_i$, such that the composition map in the commutative diagram $$ \xymatrix{ \oplus_{i=1}^{3 } H^0(X, \omega_X \otimes \eta^{i} )\otimes H^0(X, \omega_X \otimes \eta^{7-i} )\ar[r] \ar@{^(->}[d] & H^0(X, \omega^2_X ) \ar[d]^{\simeq} \\ H^0(Y, \mathcal{O}_Y(1)) \otimes H^0(Y, \mathcal{O}_Y(1)) \ar[r] & H^0(Y, \mathcal{O}_Y(2)) } $$ is an isomorphism. \end{proof} \section{A complete fibre of $\widetilde \pr_{2,7}$} For a special point of $\mathcal{B}_D$ consider a smooth curve $E$ of genus 1. Then the kernel of the addition map $$ X = X(E):= \ker (m: E^7 \rightarrow E) \quad \mbox{with} \quad m(x_1, \dots,x_7) = x_1 + \dots + x_7 $$ is an abelian variety of dimension 6, isomorphic to $E^6$. The kernel of the induced polarization of the canonical principal polarization of $E^7$ is $\{ (x,\dots,x) : x \in E_7 \}$ which consists of $7^2$ elements. So the polarization on $X$ induced by the canonical polarization of $E^7$ is of type $D = (1,1,1,1,1,7)$. Since the symmetric group $\mathcal{S}_7$ acts on $E^7$ in the obvious way, $X$ admits an automorphism of order 7. Hence $X$ with the induced polarization is an element of $\mathcal{B}_D$. To be more precise, the group $\mathcal{S}_7$ admits exactly 120 subgroups of order 7. Hence to every elliptic curves there exist exactly 120 abelian varieties $X$ as above with $G$-action. All of them are isomorphic to each other, since the corresponding subgroups are conjugate to each other according the Sylow theorems. We want to determine the complete preimage $\widetilde \pr_{2,7}^{-1}(X)$ of $X$. We need some lemmas. For simplicity we denote $ \pr(f)$ the Prym variety of a covering $f$ in $\widetilde \mathcal{R}_{2,7}$. \begin{lem} \label{L6.1} Let $f: \widetilde C \rightarrow C$ be a covering satisfying $(**)$ with $g = 2$ such that $ \pr(f) \simeq X$. Then $C$ contains a node of index $1$. \end{lem} \begin{proof} Suppose that either $C$ is smooth or all the nodes of $C$ are of index 7. Then the exact sequence \eqref{eq2.2} gives an isogeny $j: \pr(f) \rightarrow \pr(\widetilde f)$ onto the Prym variety of the normalization $\widetilde f$ of $f$. Actually, in the smooth case $j$ is an isomorphism and, if there is a node of index $1$, then the kernel $\widetilde{T}_7$ would be positive dimensional. The isomorphism $\pr(f) = X$ implies that the kernel of $j$ is of the form $\{(x, \dots,x)\}$ with $x \in X_7$. Hence the action of the symmetric group $S_7$ on $X$ descends to a non-trivial action on $ \pr(\widetilde f)$. We can extend this action to $J \widetilde N$ by combining it with the identity on $JN$. Namely, $J \widetilde N \simeq (JN \times \pr(\widetilde f)/H$ where $H$ is constructed as follows. Let $\langle \eta \rangle \subset JN_7$ be the subgroup defining the covering $\widetilde f$ and $H_1 \subset JN_7$ be its orthogonal complement with respect to the Weil pairing. Then $H = \{(\alpha,-f^*\alpha): \alpha \in H_1\}$. Since $f^*H_1 = \{(x,\dots,x): x \in E_7 \} \subset \pr(f)$, we get an $S_7$-action on $J \widetilde N$ which is clearly non-trivial. If $C$ is smooth $\widetilde{N} \simeq \widetilde{C}$. On the other hand, if all the nodes of $C$ are of index 7, $\widetilde{N}$ consists of at least two components. In any case, for each component $\widetilde{N}_i$ of $\widetilde{N}$ we have $$ \# \Aut(J\widetilde N_i) \geq \frac{1}{2} \# S_7 = 2520. $$ Moreover, according to a classical theorem of Weil, $\Aut \widetilde N_i$ embeds into $\Aut J\widetilde N_i$ with quotient of order $\leq 2$. So $$ \# \Aut \widetilde N_i \geq \frac{1}{2} \# \Aut (J \widetilde N_i). $$ On the other hand, $\widetilde N_i$ is a smooth curve of genus $\leq 8$. So Hurwitz' theorem implies that $$ \# \Aut (\widetilde N_i) \leq 84 \cdot (8-1) = 588. $$ Together, this gives a contradiction. \end{proof} \begin{lem} \label{L6.2} Let $f:\widetilde C \rightarrow C$ be a covering satisfying $(**)$ such that $C$ has a component containing nodes of index $1$ and $7$. Then any node of index $1$ is the intersection with another component of $C$. \end{lem} \begin{proof} Suppose $x$ and $y$ are nodes of $C$ in a component $C_i$ of index 1 and 7 respectively. Then the preimage $f^{-1}(C_i)$ is a component, since over $y$ the map $f$ is totally ramified. Since $f^{-1}(x)$ consists of $7$ nodes, the equality $n_1 = c_1$ implies that $x$ is the intersection of 2 components. \end{proof} \begin{thm} \label{thm6.3} Let $X = \ker(m: E^7 \rightarrow E)$ be a polarized abelian variety as above. The fibre $\widetilde \pr_{2,7}^{-1}(X)$ consists of the following $4$ types of elements of $\widetilde \mathcal{R}_{2,7}$. {\em (i)} $C = E/{p \sim q}$ and $\widetilde C = \sqcup _{i=1}^7 E_i /{p_i \sim q_{i+1}}$ with $E_i \simeq E$ for all $i$ and $q_8 = q_1$ and we can enumerate in such a way that the preimages of $p$ and $q$ are $p_i, q_i \in E_i$. {\em (ii)} $C = E_1 \cup_p E_2$ consists of $2$ elliptic curves intersecting in one point $p$. Then up to exchanging $E_1$ and $E_2$ we have: $\widetilde C$ consists of an elliptic curve $F_1$, which is a 7-fold cover of $E_1$ and 7 copies of $E_2 \simeq E$ not intersecting each other and intersecting $F_1$ each in one point. {\em (iii)} $C = E_1 \cup_p E_2$ with $E_2$ elliptic and $E_1$ rational with a node at $q$. Then $E_2 \simeq E$ and $f^{-1}(E_2)$ consists of $7$ disjoint curves all isomorphic to $E$ and $f^{-1}(E_1)$ is a rational curve with one node lying $7:1$ over $E_1$ and intersecting each component of $f^{-1}(E_2)$ in a point over $p$. {\em (iv)} $C = E_1 \cup_p E_2$ as in {\em (iii)} and $\widetilde C$ and \'etale $G$-cover over $C$. \end{thm} We call the coverings of the theorem {\it of type} (i) , (ii), (iii) and (iv) respectively. \begin{proof} There are 7 types of stable curves of genus 2. We determine the coverings $f:\widetilde C \rightarrow C$ in $ \widetilde \pr_{2,7}^{-1}(X)$ in each case separately. 1) There is no \'etale $G$-cover $f:\widetilde C \rightarrow C$ of a smooth curve $C$ of genus $2$ such that $P = \Prym(f) \simeq X.$ This is a direct consequence of Lemma \ref{L6.1}. 2) If $C = E/{p\sim q}$ then the singular point of $C$ is of index 1 and $f: \widetilde C \rightarrow C$ a $G$-covering satisfying $(**)$ such that $P = \Prym(f) \simeq X$. Then $$ \widetilde C = \sqcup _{i=1}^7 E_i /({p_i \sim q_{i+1}}) $$ with $E_i \simeq E$ and we enumerate in such a way that the preimages of $p$ and $q$ are $p_i$ and $q_i$ with $q_8 = q_1$. In this case $\Prym(f) \simeq X$. {\it Proof:} According to Lemma \ref{L6.1} the node is necessarily of index 1 and thus the map $\widetilde f: \widetilde C \rightarrow C$ is \'etale. The exact sequence \eqref{eq2.2} gives an isomorphism $P \simeq R$ with $R$ the Prym variety of the map $\widetilde f$. Clearly we can enumerate the components of $\widetilde N$ in such a way $\widetilde C$ is as above and $R$ is the kernel of the map $m: \times_{i=1}^7 E \rightarrow E$, i.e. $R \simeq X$. We are in case (i) of the theorem. 3) There is no rational curve $C$ with $2$ nodes admitting a $G$-cover $f: \widetilde C \rightarrow C$ satisfying $(**)$ such that $P = \Prym(f) \simeq X$. {\it Proof:} Suppose there is such a covering. By Lemmas \ref{L6.1} and \ref{L6.2} both nodes are of index 1 and hence the map $\widetilde C \rightarrow C$ is \'etale. Then all components of $\widetilde C$ are rational. This implies that $P \simeq {\mathbb C^*}^6$ is not an abelian variety, a contradiction. 4) Let $C = E_1 \cup_p E_2$ consist of $2$ elliptic curves intersecting in one point and $f: \widetilde C \rightarrow C$ be covering satisfying $(**)$ such that $P = \Prym(f) \simeq X$. Then, up to exchanging $E_1$ and $E_2$, we have that $\widetilde C$ consists of an elliptic curve $F_1$ which is a 7-fold cover of $E_1$, and 7 copies of $E_2 \simeq E$ not intersecting each other and intersecting $F_1$, each in one point. So $X = \ker(m: E_2^7 \rightarrow E_2)$. {\it Proof:} By Lemma \ref{L6.1} the node is of index 1 and the map $f:\widetilde C \rightarrow C$ is \'etale. since there is no connected graph with 14 vertices and 7 edges, we are necessarily in case (ii) of the theorem. 5) Suppose $C = E_1 \cup_p E_2$ with components $E_2$ elliptic and $E_1$ rational with a node $q$ and $f: \widetilde C \rightarrow C$ a $G$-covering satisfying $(**)$ such that $P = \Prym(f) \simeq X$. Then $E_2 \simeq E$ and either $f: \widetilde C \rightarrow C$ is \'etale and connected or $\widetilde C$ consists of 7 components all isomorphic to $E$ and a rational component $F_2$ over $E_2$ totally ramified exactly over $q$ and intersecting each $E_i$ exactly in one point lying over $p$. So $\pr(f) \simeq X$. {\it Proof:} According to Lemma \ref{L6.1} at least one node of $C$ is of index 1. Suppose first that both nodes are of index 1. Then clearly $f$ is \'etale and we are in case (iv) of the theorem. If only one node is of index 1, then according to Lemma \ref{L6.2}, $q$ is of index 7 and $p$ of index 1. This gives case (iii) of the theorem. 6) There is no curve $C$ consisting of 2 rational components intersecting in one point $p$ admitting a $G$-cover $f: \widetilde C \rightarrow C$ satisfying $(**)$ such that $P = \Prym(f) \simeq X$. {\it Proof:} According to Lemmas \ref{L6.1} and \ref{L6.2} the node $p$ is of index 1 and the nodes $q_1$ and $q_2$ of the rational components of $C$ are of index 1 or 7. By the Hurwitz formula all components of $\widetilde{C}$ are rational. This implies $\pr(f) \simeq {\mathbb C^*}^6$ contradicting $(**)$. 7) If $C$ is the union of 2 rational curves intersecting in 3 points, there is no cover $f: \widetilde C \rightarrow C$ satisfying $(**)$ such that $P = \Prym(f) \simeq X$. {\it Proof:} By Lemma \ref{L6.1} at least one of the 3 nodes of $C$ is of index 1. So $\widetilde C$ consists of at least 8 components. But then the other nodes also are of index 1, because if one node is of index 7, the curve $\widetilde C$ consists of 2 components only. Hence all 3 nodes nodes are of index 1. But then all components of $\widetilde C$ are rational. So $P=\pr(f)$ cannot be an abelian variety contradicting $(**)$. Together, steps 1) to 7) prove the theorem. \end{proof} \begin{figure} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=12.7cm, height=10cm]{coverings.eps} \caption{Admissible coverings on the fiber of $X(E)$} \end{center} \end{figure} Varying the elliptic curve $E$, we obtain a one dimensional locus $\mathcal{E} \subset \mathcal{B}_D$ consisting of the polarized abelian varieties $X(E)$ with $G$-action as above. Let $\mathcal{S}$ denote the preimage of $\mathcal{E}$ under the extended Prym map $\widetilde \pr_{2,7}: \widetilde \mathcal{R}_{2,7} \rightarrow \mathcal{B}_D$. \begin{prop} \label{prop6.4} The scheme $\mathcal{S}$ is the union of $2$ closed subschemes $$ \mathcal{S} = \mathcal{S}_1 \cup \mathcal{S}_2, $$ where $\mathcal{S}_1$ (respectively $\mathcal{S}_2)$ parametrizes coverings of type {\em (i)} and {\em (iv)} (respectively of types {\em (ii), (iii)} and {\em (iv)}). In particular they intersect exactly in the points parametrizing coverings of type {\em (iv)}. For a general elliptic curve $E$ and $f$ a covering in $\mathcal{S}$ with $X(E) = \widetilde \pr_{2,7}(f)$ we have If $f$ is of type {\em (i)}, then $\widetilde \pr_{2,7}^{-1}(X(E))$ is isomorphic to a finite covering of $E \setminus p$ where $p$ maps to the singular point of $C$. If $f$ is of type {\em (ii)}, then $\widetilde \pr_{2,7}^{-1}(X(E))$ is isomorphic to a finite covering of the moduli space of elliptic curves. There is only one covering $f$ of type {\em (iii)} and {\em (iv)} in the fiber $\widetilde \pr_{2,7}^{-1}(X(E))$. \end{prop} \begin{proof} It is known that for 2 elliptic curves $E_1 \neq E_2$ we can have $X(E_1) \simeq X(E_2)$ as abelian varieties, but not necessarily as polarized abelian varieties. Hence $X(E)$ determines $E$ (which can be seen also from Theorem \ref{thm6.3}). We claim that the coverings of type (iv) are contained in $\mathcal{S}_1$ and $\mathcal{S}_2$ whereas the coverings of type (iii) are contained in $\mathcal{S}_2$ only: it is known that a curve $\widetilde C$ degenerate to a curve $\widetilde C'$ of some other type if and only if the the dual graph of $\widetilde{C}'$ can be contracted to the dual graph of $\widetilde{C}$. On the other hand, the locus of curves covering some curve of genus $\geq 2$ of some fixed degree is closed in the moduli space of curves. Now considering the dual graphs of the curves $\widetilde{C}$ of the coverings of the different types gives the assertion. Hence it suffices to show the assertions about the fiber of $X(E)$ under the map $\widetilde \pr_{2,7}$. In case (i) we have $C = E/p_1 \sim p_2$. We can use the translations of $E$ to fix $p_1$ and then $p_2$ is free, which gives the assertion, since there are only finitely many \'etale coverings of $C$. In case (ii) we have $C = E_1 \cup_p E_2$ where $E_1$ is an arbitrary elliptic curves and $E_2 \simeq E$. Since $p$ may be fixed with an isomorphism of $E$ and $E_2$, this give the isomorphism of $\widetilde \pr_{2,7}^{-1}(E)$ with a finite covering of the moduli space of elliptic curves, again since there are only finitely many coverings $\widetilde{C}$ of type (ii) of $C$. Finally in cases (iii) and (iv), the 3 points of the normalization of $E_1$ given by $p$ and the 2 preimages of the node, that we can assume to be $1,0,$ and $\infty$ respectively, determine the curve $C$ uniquely. For the type (iii) the induced map on the normalization of $F_1$ is a 7:1 map $h: \mathbb P^1 \rightarrow \mathbb P^1$ totally ramified at 2 points, that we assume to be $\infty$ and $0$. So $h$ it can be expressed as a polynomial in one variable of degree 7, with vanishing order 7 at 0 and such that $h(1)=1$, that is $h(x)=x^7$. Then the map $h$, and hence the covering is uniquely determined. For a covering of type (iv) over $C$ we consider 7 copies of $\mathbb P^1$ and where the point $1$ on every rational component is identified to the point $\infty$ of other rational component and we attach elliptic curves isomorphic to $E_2$ at each point $0$. The number of \'etale coverings is number of subgroups of order 7 in $JE_1[7] \simeq \mathbb Z/7\mathbb Z $, (the 7-torsion points in the nodal curve $E_1$ are determined by a 7-rooth of unity). So there is only one of such covering up to isomorphism. \end{proof} \section{The codifferential on the boundary divisors} In this section we will give bases of the Prym differentials and an explicit description of the codifferential of the Prym map. Let $f:\widetilde C \rightarrow C$ be a covering corresponding to a point of $\mathcal{S}$. We want to compute the rank of the codifferential of the Prym map $\pr_{2,7}: \widetilde \mathcal{R}_{2,7} \rightarrow \mathcal{B}_D$ at the point $[f:\widetilde C \rightarrow C] \in \widetilde \mathcal{R}_{2,7}$. According to \cite{ds} this codifferential is the map $$ \mathcal{P}^*: S^2(H^0(\widetilde C, \omega_{\widetilde C})^-)^G \rightarrow H^0(C,\Omega_C \otimes \omega_C). $$ where $\Omega_C$ is the sheaf of K\"ahler differentials on $C$ and $S^2(H^0(\widetilde C, \omega_{\widetilde C})^-)^G$ is the cotangent space to $\mathcal{B}_D$ at the Prym variety of the covering $f: \widetilde C \rightarrow C$. If $j: \Omega_C \rightarrow \omega_C$ denotes the canonical map we first compute the rank of the composed map $$ S^2(H^0(\widetilde C, \omega_{\widetilde C})^-)^G \stackrel{\mathcal{P}^*}{\longrightarrow} H^0(C,\Omega_C \otimes \omega_C) \stackrel{j}{\longrightarrow} H^0(C, \omega^2). $$ Suppose first that $f$ is of type (i), (ii) or (iv). In these cases the covering $f$ is \'etale and hence given by a $7$-division point $\eta$ of $JC$. According to the analogue of \cite[equation (3.4)]{lo} we have \begin{equation} \label{eq1} H^0(\widetilde C, \omega_C)^- = \oplus_{i=1}^6 H^0(C,\omega_C \otimes \eta^i) \end{equation} and hence \begin{equation} \label{eq2} S^2(H^0(\widetilde C, \omega_C)^-)^G = \oplus_{i=1}^3 ( H^0(C, \omega_C \otimes \eta^i) \otimes H^0(C, \omega_C \otimes \eta^{7-i})). \end{equation} Using this, the above composed map is just the sum of the cup product map \begin{equation} \label{eq3} \phi: \oplus_{i=1}^3 (H^0(C, \omega_C \otimes \eta^i) \otimes H^0(C, \omega_C \otimes \eta^{7-i})) \longrightarrow H^0(C, \omega_C^2) \end{equation} whose rank we want to compute first. We shall give a suitable basis for the space of Prym differentials. First we consider a covering of type (i) constructed as follows. Let $E$ be a smooth curve of genus 1 and $q \neq q'$ be two fixed points of $E$. Then $$ C := E/ q \sim q' $$ is a stable curve of genus 2 with normalization $n:E \rightarrow C$ and node $p:= n(q) = n(q')$. Let $f:\widetilde C \rightarrow C$ be a cyclic \'etale covering with Galois group $G = \langle \sigma \rangle \simeq \mathbb Z/7\mathbb Z$. The normalization $ \widetilde n: \widetilde N \rightarrow \widetilde C$ consists of 7 components $N_i \simeq E$ with $\sigma(N_i) = N_{i+1}$ for $i = 1, \dots 7$ with $N_8 = N_1$. Let $q_i$ and $q'_i$ the elements of $N_i$ corresponding to $q$ and $q'$. Then $\widetilde n(q_i) = \widetilde n(q'_{i+1}) =:p_i$ for $i= 1,\dots 7$ with $q'_8 = q'_1$. Clearly $\sigma(p_i) = p_{i+1}$ for all $i$. Recall that $\omega_{\widetilde C}$ is the subsheaf of $\widetilde n_*\left( \mathcal{O}_{\widetilde N}\sum(q_i + q'_i) \right)$ consisting of (local) sections $\varphi$ which considered as sections of $\mathcal{O}_{\widetilde N}\sum(q_i + q'_i) $ satisfy the condition $$ Res_{q_i}(\varphi) + Res_{q'_{i+1}}(\varphi) = 0 $$ for $i = 1, \dots 7$. Here we use the fact that $\omega_{\widetilde N} = \mathcal{O}_{\widetilde N}$. Consider the following elements of $H^0(\widetilde C,\widetilde n_*\left( \mathcal{O}_{\widetilde N}\sum(q_i + q'_i) \right)$, regarded as sections on $\widetilde N$: $$ \omega_1:= \left\{ \begin{array}{l} \mbox{nonzero section of} \; \mathcal{O}_{N_1}(q_1+q'_1) \; \mbox{vanishing at} \; q_1 \; \mbox{and} \; q'_1\\ 0 \; \mbox{elsewhere} \end{array} \right. $$ and for $2, \dots 7$, $$ \omega_i := (\sigma^{-i})^* (\omega_1). $$ Note that $\omega_i$ is nonzero on $N_i$ vanishing in $q_i$ and $q'_i$ and zero elsewhere. Now we construct similar differentials for coverings of type (ii). Let $$ C = E_1 \cup_p E_2 $$ consist of 2 elliptic curves $E_1$ and $E_2$ intersecting transversally in one point $p$ and let $f: \widetilde{C} \rightarrow C$ be a covering of type (ii). So $\widetilde{C}$ consists of an elliptic curve $F_1$, which is an \'etale cyclic cover of $E_1$ of degree 7 and 7 disjoint curves $E_2^1, \dots, E_2^7$ all isomorphic to $E_2$. The curve $E_i$ intersects $F_1$ transversally in a point $p_i$, such that the group $G$ permutes the curves $E_i$ and the points $p_i$ cyclicly i.e. $\sigma(E_2^i) = E_2^{i+1}$ and $\sigma(p_i) = p_{i+1}$ with $E_2^8 = E_2^1$ and $p_8 = p_1$. Let $\widetilde n:\widetilde N \rightarrow\widetilde{C}$ denote the normalization map. Then $\widetilde N$ is the disjoint union of the 8 elliptic curves $F_1, E_2^1, \dots, E_2^7$. We denote the point $p_i$ be the same letter when considered as a point of $F_1$ and $E_2^i$. Consider the line bundle $$ L = \mathcal{O}_{F_1}(p_1 + \cdots + p_7) \sqcup \mathcal{O}_{E_2^1}(p_1) \sqcup \cdots \sqcup \mathcal{O}_{E_1^7}(p_7). $$ Then $\omega_{\widetilde{C}}$ is the subsheaf of $\widetilde n_*(L)$ consisting of (local) sections $\varphi$, which considered as sections of $L$ satisfy the condition \begin{equation} \label{eq9.4} Res_{p_i}|_{F_1}(\varphi) + Res_{p_i}|_{E_2^i}(\varphi) = 0 \end{equation} for $i = 1, \dots, 7$. Consider the following section of $\widetilde n_*(L)$ regarded as section on $\widetilde N$: $$ \omega_1:= \left\{ \begin{array}{l} \mbox{nonzero sections of} \; \mathcal{O}_{F_1}(p_1) \; \mbox{and } \; \mathcal{O}_{E_2^1}(p_1) \; \mbox{satisfying \eqref{eq9.4} at} \; p_1,\\ 0 \; \mbox{elsewhere} \end{array} \right. $$ and for $2, \dots 7$, the sections $$ \omega_i := (\sigma^{-i})^* (\omega_1). $$ Thus $\omega_i$ is nonzero on $F_1(p_i) \sqcup E_2^i(p_i)$, vanishing in $p_i$ and zero elsewhere. We construct the analogous differentials for the covering $f$ of type (iv), which is uniquely determined according to Proposition \ref{prop6.4}. So let $$ C = E_1 \cup_p E_2 $$ with $E_2$ elliptic and $E_1$ a rational curve with one node $q$ and let $f: \widetilde{C} \rightarrow C$ be the covering of type (iv). So $\widetilde{C}$ consists of 14 components $F_1, \dots, F_7$ isomorphic to $\mathbb P^1$ with $f|_{F_i}: F_i \rightarrow E_1$ the normalization and $E_2^1, \dots, E_2^7$ all isomorphic to $E_2$ with $f|_{E_2^i}: E_2^i \rightarrow E_2$ the isomorphism. Then $E_2^i$ intersects $F_i$ in the point $p_i$ lying over $p$ and no other component of $\widetilde{C}$. If $q_i$ and $q_i'$ are the points of $F_i$ lying over $q$, the $F_i$ and $F_{i+1}$ intersect transversally in the points $q_i$ and $q'_{i+1}$ for $i= 1, \dots, 7$ where $q'_8 = q_1$. The group $G$ permutes the components and points cyclicly, i.e. $\sigma(F_1) = F_{i+1}$ and similarly for $E_2^i, p_i, q_i$ and $q_i'$. The normalization $\widetilde n: \widetilde N \rightarrow \widetilde{C}$ of the curve $\widetilde{C}$ is the disjoint union of the components $F_i$ and $E_2^i$. We denote also the point $p_i$ by the same letter when considered as a point of $F_i$ and $E_2^i$. Consider the following line bundle on $\widetilde N$ $$ L = \bigsqcup_{i=1}^7 \mathcal{O}_{F_i}(q_i + q_i' + p_i) \sqcup \bigsqcup_{i=1}^7 \mathcal{O}_{E_2^i}(p_i). $$ Then $\omega_{\widetilde{C}}$ is the subsheaf of $\widetilde n_*(L)$ consisting of (local) sections $\varphi$, which viewed as sections of $L$ satisfy the conditions \begin{equation} \label{eq9.5} Res_{p_i}|_{F_i}(\varphi) + Res_{p_i}|_{E_2^i}(\varphi) = 0 \quad \mbox{and} \quad Res_{q_i}|_{F_i}(\varphi) + Res_{q_{i+1}'}|_{F_{i+1}}(\varphi) = 0 \end{equation} for $i = 1, \dots, 7$. Let $\omega_1$ be the section of $\widetilde n_*( L)$ considered as section on $\widetilde N$ defined as follows: $$ \omega_1:= \left\{ \begin{array}{l} \mbox{nonzero sections of} \; \omega_{F_1}(q_1 + q_1' +p_1) \; \mbox{and} \; \mathcal{O}_{E_2^1}(p_1) \; \mbox{ satisfying \eqref{eq9.5} at} \; p_1 \; \mbox{and} \\ \mbox{vanishing at} \;q_1 \;\mbox{and} \; q_1';\\ 0 \; \mbox{elsewhere} \end{array} \right. $$ and for $2, \dots, 7$ define $$ \omega_i := (\sigma^{-i})^* (\omega_1). $$ Note that up to a multiplicative constant there is exactly one such section $\omega_1$, since $h^0(\omega_{F_1}(q_1 + q_1' +p_1)) = 2$ and $h^0( \mathcal{O}_{E_2^1}(p_1)) = 1$. Finally, we consider coverings of type (iii). Let $C = E_1 \cup_p E_2$ as for the covering of type (iv) above and let $f : \widetilde{C} \rightarrow C$ be a covering of type (iii). So $\widetilde{C}$ consists of a rational curve $F_1$ with a node $r$ lying over the node $q$ of $C$ and 7 components $E_2^1, \dots, E_2^7$ all isomorphic to $E_2$. Then $E_2^i$ intersects $F_1$ in the point $p_i$ lying over $p$ and intersects no other component of $\widetilde{C}$. The group $G$ acts on $F_1$ with only fixed point $r$ and permutes the $E_i^2$ and $p_i$ cyclically as above. We use the following partial normalization $\widetilde n: \widetilde N \rightarrow \widetilde{C}$ of $\widetilde{C}$: $$ \widetilde N : = F_1 \sqcup \bigsqcup_{i=1}^7 E_2^i. $$ Consider the following line bundle on $\widetilde N$ $$ L = \mathcal{O}_{F_1}(p_1 + \cdots + p_7) \sqcup \bigsqcup_{i=1}^7 \mathcal{O}_{E_2^i}(p_i) . $$ Since the canonical bundles of $F_1$ and $E_2^i$ are trivial, it is clear that $\omega_{\widetilde{C}}$ is the subsheaf of $\widetilde n_*(L)$ consisting of (local) sections $\varphi$, which regarded as sections of $L$ satisfy the relations \begin{equation} \label{eq8.6} Res_{p_i}|_{F_1}(\varphi) + Res_{p_i}|_{E_2^i}(\varphi) = 0 \end{equation} for $i = 1, \dots ,7$. As before, define a section $\omega_1$ of $\widetilde n_*(L)$ considered as a section of $\widetilde N$: $$ \omega_1:= \left\{ \begin{array}{l} \; \mbox{nonzero sections of} \; \mathcal{O}_{F_1}(p_1 + \cdots + p_7) \; \mbox{and} \; \mathcal{O}_{E_2^i}(p_1) \; \mbox{vanishing at} \; p_1, \dots, p_7;\\ 0 \; \mbox{ elsewhere.} \end{array} \right. $$ and define the sections $\omega_i$, for $i=2, \ldots , 7$, as in the previous cases. Note that up to a multiplicative constant there is exactly one such section $\omega_1$. From now $f:\widetilde{C} \rightarrow C$ will be a covering of type (i)-(iv) as above. We fix a primitive 7-th root of unity, for example $\rho := e^{\frac{2 \pi i}{7}}$ and define for $i = 0, \dots ,6$ the section $$ \Omega_i := \sum_{j=1}^7 \rho^{ij} \omega_j. $$ Clearly $\Omega_i$ is a global section of $L$ which defines a section of $\omega_{\widetilde{C}}$ which we denote with the same symbol. \begin{lem} \label{basis} $\sigma^* (\Omega_i) = \rho^i \Omega_i$ for $i = 0, \dots,6$. In particular, $\Omega_0 \in H^0(\widetilde C, \omega_{\widetilde C})^+$ and $\{ \Omega_1, \dots, \Omega_6 \}$ is a basis of $H^0(\widetilde C, \omega_{\widetilde C})^-$. \end{lem} \begin{proof} The first assertion follows from a simple calculation using the definition of $\omega_i$. So clearly $\Omega_0 \in H^0(\widetilde C, \omega_{\widetilde C})^+$ and $ \Omega_i \in H^0(\widetilde C, \omega_{\widetilde C})^-$ for $i=1, \ldots,6 $. Since $\Omega_1, \dots, \Omega_6 $ are in different eigenspaces of $\sigma$, they are linearly independent and since $H^0(\widetilde C, \omega_{\widetilde C})^-$ is of dimension 6, they form a basis. \end{proof} \begin{rem} In cases (i), (ii) and (iv) $H^0(C, \omega_C \otimes \eta^{7-i}) $ is the eigenspace of $\sigma^i$ and $\Omega_i$ is a generator for $i=1, \ldots, 6$. \end{rem} \begin{prop}\label{codifDiv} The map $$ \phi: S^2 (H^0(\widetilde{C}, \omega_{\widetilde{C}})^-)^G \longrightarrow H^0(C, \omega_C^2) $$ is of rank $1$. \end{prop} \begin{proof} We have to show that the kernel of $\phi$ is 2-dimensional. A basis of $S^2 (H^0(\widetilde{C}, \omega_{\widetilde{C}})^-)^G $ is given by $\{ \Omega_1 \otimes \Omega_6, \Omega_2 \otimes \Omega_5, \Omega_3 \otimes \Omega_4 \}$. So let $a,b,c$ be complex numbers with $$ \phi(a \Omega_1 \otimes \Omega_6 + b \Omega_2 \otimes \Omega_5 + c \Omega_3 \otimes \Omega_4) = 0. $$ Define for $i = 1, \dots,7$, $$ \psi_i := \sum_{i=1}^7 \omega_j \otimes \omega_{j+i-1}. $$ An easy but tedious computation gives $$ \Omega_1 \otimes \Omega_6 = \psi_1 + \rho \psi_7 + \rho^2 \psi_6 + \rho^3 \psi_5+ \rho^4 \psi_4 + \rho^5 \psi_3 + \rho^6 \psi_2, $$ $$ \Omega_2 \otimes \Omega_5 = \psi_1 + \rho \psi_4 + \rho^2 \psi_7 + \rho^3 \psi_3 + \rho^4 \psi_6 + \rho^5 \psi_2 + \rho^6 \psi_5, $$ $$ \Omega_3 \otimes \Omega_4 = \psi_1 + \rho \psi_3 + \rho^2 \psi_5 + \rho^3 \psi_7 + \rho^4 \psi_2 + \rho^5 \psi_4 + \rho^6 \psi_6. $$ So we get \begin{eqnarray*} 0 &=& \phi( (a+b+c)\psi_1 +(a\rho^6 + b \rho^5 + c \rho^4)\psi_2 + (a \rho^5 + b \rho^3 + c \rho) \psi_3 + (a \rho^4 + b \rho + c \rho^5) \psi_4\\ && \hspace{1.5cm}+(a \rho^3 + b \rho^6 +c \rho^2) \psi_5 + (a \rho^2 + b \rho^4 + c \rho^6)\psi_6 + (a \rho + b \rho^2 + c \rho^3) \psi_7)\\ &=& (a+b+c)(\omega_1^2 + \cdots + \omega_7^2) \\ && \hspace{1.5cm}+[a(\rho+\rho^6) + b(\rho^2 + \rho^5) + c (\rho^3 + \rho^4)]\sum_{j=1}^7 \omega_j \omega_{j+1}\\ && \hspace{1.5cm}+[a(\rho^2+\rho^5) + b(\rho^3 + \rho^4) + c (\rho + \rho^6)]\sum_{j=1}^7 \omega_j \omega_{j+2}\\ && \hspace{1.5cm}+[a(\rho^3+\rho^4) + b(\rho + \rho^6) + c (\rho^2 + \rho^5)]\sum_{j=1}^7 \omega_j \omega_{j+3}. \end{eqnarray*} This section is zero if and only if its restriction to any component is zero. Now the restriction to $N_i$ for all $i$ gives \begin{eqnarray*} 0 &=& a+b+c +(6a +6b +6c)\sum_{j=1}^6 \rho^j = -5(a+b+c). \end{eqnarray*} So $\phi(a \Omega_1 \otimes \Omega_6 + b \Omega_2 \otimes \Omega_5 + c \Omega_3 \otimes \Omega_4) = 0$ if and only if $a+b+c = 0$. Hence the kernel of $\phi$ is of dimension 2, which proves the proposition. \end{proof} The proposition \ref{codifDiv} shows that the codifferential map along the divisors $\mathcal{S}_1$ and $ \mathcal{S}_2$ in Proposition \ref{prop6.4} is not surjective. In fact, as we will see later, the kernel of $\phi$ coincides with the conormal bundle of the image of these divisors in $\mathcal{B}_D$. In order to compute the degree we will perform a blow up along these divisors. Let $\mathcal{E} \subset \mathcal{B}_D$ denoted the one dimensional locus consisting of the abelian varieties which are of the form $X = \ker (m: E^7 \rightarrow E) \quad \mbox{with} \quad m(x_1, \dots,x_7) = x_1 + \dots + x_7$ for a given elliptic curve $E$. As we saw in Section 7, the induced polarization is of type $D$. Note that $\mathcal{E}$ is a closed subset of $\mathcal{B}_D$. The aim is to compute the degree of $\Pr_{7,2}$ above a point $X \in \mathcal{E}$. We denote by $\mathcal{S} \subset \widetilde {\mathcal{R}}_{2,7}$ the inverse image of $\mathcal{E}$ under $\widetilde \Pr_{2,7}$. According to Proposition \ref{prop6.4}, $\mathcal{S}$ is a divisor consisting of 2 irreducible components in the boundary $\widetilde{\mathcal{R}}_{2,7} \setminus \mathcal{R}_{2,7}$. We have $\mathcal{S} = \mathcal{S}_1 \cup \mathcal{S}_2$ where a general point of $ \mathcal{S}_1$, respectively of $ \mathcal{S}_2$, corresponds to the $G$-covers with base an irreducible nodal curve of genus 1, respectively a product of elliptic curves intersecting in a point. Moreover, for any fixed elliptic curve $E$, $\mathcal{S}_1$ and $\mathcal{S}_2$ intersect in the unique point given by the covering of type (iv).\\ As in \cite{ds}, we blow up $\mathcal{B}_D$ along $\mathcal{E}$ and obtain the following commutative diagrams: $$ \xymatrix{ \widetilde{\mathcal{S}} \ar[d] \ar[r]^{\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}} & \widetilde{\mathcal{B}}_D \ar[d] \\ \widetilde {\mathcal{R}}_{2,7} \ar[r]^{\widetilde \pr_{2,7}} & {\mathcal{B}}_D } \hspace{2cm} \xymatrix{ \widetilde{\mathcal{S}} \ar[d]_{\simeq} \ar[r]^{\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}} & \widetilde{\mathcal{E}} \ar[d]^{\mathbb P^1} \\ \mathcal{S} \ar[r]^{\widetilde \pr_{2,7}} & \mathcal{E} } $$ where $\tilde{\mathcal{S}}$ and $\tilde{\mathcal{E}}$ are the exceptional loci. Lemma I.3.2 of \cite{ds} guarantees that the local degree of $\widetilde{\pr}_{2,7}$ along a component of $\mathcal{S} $ equals the degree of the induced map on the exceptional divisors $\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}_{|\mathcal{S}_i}: \mathcal{S}_i \rightarrow \widetilde{\mathcal{E}} $ if the codifferential map $\mathcal{P}^*$ is surjective on the respective conormal bundles. Recall that the fibers of the conormal bundles at the point $X$ are given by $$ \mathcal{N}^*_{X, \mathcal{E} / \mathcal{B}_D} = \ker ( T_X^*\mathcal{B}_D \rightarrow T_X^* \mathcal{E} ) $$ $$ \mathcal{N}^*_{(C, \eta), \mathcal{S}_i / \widetilde{\mathcal{R}}_{2,7}} = \ker ( T^*_{(C, \eta)}\widetilde{\mathcal{R}}_{2,7} \rightarrow T^*_{(C, \eta)} \mathcal{S}_i) $$ for $i=1,2$. As in \cite{ds} by taking level structures on the moduli spaces we can assume we are working on fine moduli spaces, which allows to identify the tangent space to $\mathcal{S}_1$ (respectively $\mathcal{S}_2$) at the $G$-admissible cover $[\widetilde{C} \rightarrow C]$, where $C=E /(p \sim q)$ (respectively $C=E_1 \cup_p E_2$) with the tangent to $\overline{\mathcal{M}}_2$ at $C$. Thus the conormal bundle $\mathcal{N}^*_{(C, \eta), \mathcal{S}_1 / \widetilde{\mathcal{R}}_{2,7}}$ (respectively $\mathcal{N}^*_{(C, \eta), \mathcal{S}_2 / \widetilde{\mathcal{R}}_{2,7}}$) can be identified with the conormal bundle $\mathcal{N}^*_{C,\Delta_0 / \overline{\mathcal{M}}_2} \subset H^0(\Omega_C \otimes \omega_C)$ (respectively with $\mathcal{N}^*_{C,\Delta_1 / \overline{\mathcal{M}}_2}$ ) where $\Delta_0$ denotes the divisor of irreducible nodal curves in $\overline \mathcal{M}_2$ and $\Delta_1$ the divisor of reducible nodal ones. Using the fact that $X= \Prym (\widetilde{C}, C) $ we can identify $$ (T_X\mathcal{A}_D)^* \simeq \oplus_{i=1}^6 \Omega_i \mathbb C $$ and $S^2(H^0(\widetilde C, \omega_C)^-)^G$ as in \eqref{eq2} . Then for a covering $(C,\eta)$ the conormal bundles fit in the following commutative diagram \begin{equation} \label{diagconormal} \xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r] & \mathcal{N}^*_{X,\mathcal{E}/\mathcal{B}_D} \ar[r] \ar^{n^*}[d] & S^2(H^0(\widetilde C, \omega_C)^-)^G \ar[r] \ar^{\mathcal{P}^*}[d] & T^*_X \mathcal{E} \ar[r] \ar[d] & 0 \\ 0 \ar[r] & \mathcal{N}^*_{(C,\eta), \mathcal{S}_i/ \widetilde \mathcal{R}_{2,7}} \ar[r] & H^0(C, \Omega_C \otimes \omega_C) \ar[r] \ar^{H^0(j)}[d] & T^*_{(C,\eta)} \mathcal{S}_i \ar[r] & 0\\ &&H^0(C,\omega_C^2) && } \end{equation} where $n^*$ is the conormal map and $i=1,2$. \begin{lem} The kernel of $H^0(j)$ is one-dimensional. \end{lem} \begin{proof} As a map of sheaves the canonical map $j: \Omega_C \otimes \omega_C \rightarrow \omega^2_C$ has one-dimensional kernel, namely the one-dimensional torsion sheaf with support the node of $C$ (see \cite[Section IV, 2.3.3]{ds}). On the other hand, the map $H^0(j)$ is the composition of the pullback to the normalization with the push forward to $C$. This implies that the kernel of $H^0(j)$ consists exactly of the sections of the skyscraper sheaf supported at the node and hence is one-dimensional. \end{proof} \begin{prop} \label{p9.5} For coverings of type {\em(i)}-{\em(iv)} the restricted codifferential map $n^* : \mathcal{N}^*_{X, \mathcal{E} / \mathcal{B}_D} \rightarrow \mathcal{N}^*_{(C, \eta), \mathcal{S}_i / \widetilde{\mathcal{R}}_{2,7}}$ is surjective, for $i=1,2$. \end{prop} \begin{proof} First notice that from the ``local-global" exact sequence (see \cite{ba}), $\Ker H^0( j) = \mathcal{N}^*_{C,\Delta_0 / \overline{\mathcal{M}}_2} \subset H^0(\Omega_C \otimes \omega_C)$. So $\Ker H^0(j) \subset \im \mathcal{P}^*$. Since $\dim \Ker H^0(j) =1$ and by Proposition \ref{codifDiv}, $\dim \Ker (H^0(j) \circ \mathcal{P}^*) =2$, we have that $\dim \Ker ( \mathcal{P}^*) =1 $. By the diagram \eqref{diagconormal} this implies that the kernel of $n^*$ is of dimension $\leq 1$. Since $\mathcal{N}^*_{X,\mathcal{E}/\mathcal{B}_D}$ is a vector space of dimension 2 and $\mathcal{N}^*_{(C,\eta), \mathcal{S}_i/ \widetilde \mathcal{R}_{2,7}}$ a vector space of dimension 1, it follows that $n^*$ has to be surjective. \end{proof} \section{Local degree of $\pr_{2,7}$ over the boundary divisors} First we compute the local degree of the Prym map $\widetilde {\pr}_{2,7}$ along the divisor $\mathcal{S}_1$. Since the conormal map of $\pr_{2,7}$ along $\mathcal{S}_1$ is surjective according to Proposition \ref{p9.5}, \cite[I, Lemma 3.2]{ds} implies that the local degree along $\mathcal{S}_1$ is given by the degree of the induced map $\widetilde \mathcal{P}: \widetilde S_1 \rightarrow \widetilde \mathcal{E}$ on the exceptional divisor $\widetilde \mathcal{S}_1$. Now the polarized abelian variety $X(E)$ is uniquely determined by the elliptic curve $E$ according to its definition. Hence the curve $\mathcal{E}$ can be identified with the moduli space of elliptic curves, i.e. with the affine line. The exceptional divisor $\widetilde \mathcal{E}$ is then a $\mathbb P^1$-bundle over $\mathcal{E}$. On the other hand, $\mathcal{S}_1$ is a divisor in $\widetilde \mathcal{R}_{2,7}$, so $\widetilde \mathcal{S}_1$ is isomorphic to $\mathcal{S}_1$. Clearly $\widetilde \mathcal{P}$ maps the fibers $\widetilde {\pr}^{-1}(X(E)) \cap \widetilde \mathcal{S}_1$ onto the fibers $\mathbb P^1$ over the elliptic curves $E$. Now $\widetilde {\pr}^{-1}(X(E)) \cap \widetilde \mathcal{S}_1$ consists of coverings of type (i) and one covering of type (iv), that we denote by $\mathcal{C}^{(iv)}_E$. The coverings of type (i) have as base a nodal curve of the form $C=E/p\sim q$ and we can assume that $p=0$, thus $\widetilde {\pr}^{-1}(X(E)) \cap \widetilde \mathcal{S}_1$ is parametrized by $E$ itself (the point $q=0$ corresponds to the covering of type (iv)). Hence the induced conormal map on the exceptional divisors $\widetilde{\mathcal{P}} : \widetilde{\mathcal{S}}_1\rightarrow \widetilde{\mathcal{E}}$ restricted to a the fiber over $X(E)$ is a map $\phi: E \rightarrow \mathbb P^1$. Combining everything we conclude that the local degree of the Prym map along $\mathcal{S}_1$ coincides with the degree of the induced map $\phi: E \rightarrow \mathbb P^1$. \begin{prop} \label{degS1} The local degree of the Prym map $\widetilde {\pr}_{2,7}$ along $\mathcal{S}_1 $ is two. \end{prop} \begin{proof} According to what we have written above, it is sufficient to show that the map $\phi: E \rightarrow \mathbb P^1$ induced by $\widetilde{\mathcal{P}} $ is a double covering. We use again the identification \eqref{eq2} (respectively its analogue for coverings of type (iii)). As in \cite{ds}, let $x,y$ be local coordinates at 0 and $q$ and $dx$, $dy$ the corresponding differentials. If $(a,b,c) \in S^2(H^0(\widetilde{C}, \omega_{\widetilde{C}})^-)$ are coordinates in the basis of Lemma \ref{basis}, then $\mathbb P (\Ker (H^0(j) \circ \mathcal{P}^*)) \simeq \mathbb P^1$ has coordinates $[a,b]$ and its dual is identified with $\mathbb P(\Ima \widetilde{\mathcal{P}}_{|\textnormal{fibre}})$. In order to describe the kernel of $\mathcal{P}^*$, we look at the multiplication on the stalk over the node $p=(q\sim 0)$. Around $p$ the line bundles $\eta^i$ are trivial, then the element $(a, b, c) \in \oplus_{i=1}^{3} (\omega_{C,p} \otimes \omega_{C,p})$ (in coordinates $a,b,c \in \mathcal{O}_p$ for a fixed basis of $\omega_{C,p} \otimes \omega_{C,p}$) is sent to $a+b+c \in (\Omega_C \otimes \omega_C)_p$ under $\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}$. Thus the germ $a+b+c \in \mathcal{O}_p$ is zero if it is in the kernel of $\mathcal{P}^*$. In particular, the coefficient of $dxdy$ must vanish. Let $\alpha=a_0 dx , \beta=b_0 dx, \gamma=c_0 dx $ and $\alpha=a_q dy , \beta=b_q dy, \gamma=c_q dy$ be the local description of the differentials, then the coefficient of $dxdy$ must satisfy: \begin{equation} \label{condition} a_0a_q +b_0b_q + c_0c_q=0. \end{equation} Now, by looking at the dual picture, we consider $\mathbb P^1 = \mathbb P(\Ker \mathcal{P}^*)^* \subset \mathbb P^{2*}$. Let $E$ be embedded in $\mathbb P^{2*}$ by the linear system $|3\cdot 0|$. The coordinate functions $[a,b, c] \in \mathbb P^{2*}$ satisfy condition \eqref{condition} for all $q\in E$. Then the points on the fiber over $[a_q , b_q, c_q]$ are points in $E$ over the line passing through the origin $0\in E \subset \mathbb P^{2*}$ and $q$. Hence the map $E \rightarrow \mathbb P^1$ corresponds to the restriction to $E$ of the projection $\mathbb P^{2*} \rightarrow \mathbb P^1$ from the origin, which is the double covering $E \rightarrow \mathbb P^1$ determined by the divisor $0 + q$ of $E$ and thus of degree two. \end{proof} We turn now our attention to the Prym map on $\mathcal{S}_2 $. By the surjectivity of the conormal map of $\pr_{2,7}$ on $\mathcal{S}_2$ (Proposition \ref{p9.5}), the local degree along $\mathcal{S}_2$ is computed by the degree of the map $\widetilde \mathcal{P}: \widetilde S_2 \rightarrow \widetilde \mathcal{E}$ on the divisor $\widetilde \mathcal{S}_2$, which is a $\mathbb P^1$-bundle over $\mathcal{E}$. Given an elliptic curve $E$ the fiber of $\widetilde{\pr}^{-1}(X(E))$ intersected with the divisor $\mathcal{S}_2$ consists of coverings of type (ii), one covering of type (iii), denoted by $\mathcal{C}_E^{(iii)}$, and one covering of type (iv) $\mathcal{C}_E^{(iv)}$ which lies in the intersection with the divisor $\mathcal{S}_1$. Recall that the type (ii) coverings have base curve $C=E_1 \cup E$ intersecting at one point that we can assume to be $0$ and $E_1$ is an arbitrary elliptic curve. The covering over $C$ is the union of a degree-7 \'etale cyclic covering $F_1$ over $E_1$ and 7 elliptic curves $E_i$ attached to $F_1$ mapping each one of them isomorphically to $E$. So the type (ii) coverings on the fiber over $E$ are parametrized by pairs $(E_1, \langle \eta \rangle)$ where $E_1$ is an elliptic curve and $\langle \eta \rangle \subset E_1$ is a subgroup of order 7. It is know that the parametrization space of the pairs $(E_1, \langle \eta \rangle)$ is the modular curve $Y_0(7):= \Gamma_0(7) / \mathbb{H}$. The natural projection $(E_1, \eta) \mapsto E_1$ defines a map $\pi_0: Y_0(7) \rightarrow \mathbb C $. Moreover, the curve $Y_0(7)$ admits a compactification $X_0(7):= \overline{Y_0(7)}$ such that the map $\pi_0$ extends to a map $\pi: X_0(7) \rightarrow \mathbb P^1$ (see \cite{s1}). The genus of $X_0(7)$ can be computed by Hurwitz formula using the fact that $\pi$ is of degree 8 and it is ramified over the points corresponding to elliptic curves with $j$-invariant 0 and $12^3$ (with ramification degree 4 on each fibre) and over $\infty$, where the inverse image consists of two cusps, one \'etale and the other of ramification index $7$. The two cusps over $\infty$ represent the coverings $\mathcal{C}_E^{(iii)}$ and $\mathcal{C}_E^{(iv)}$ above $X(E)$ (see Remark \ref{polygons}). This gives that $X_0(7)$ is of genus zero. Thus, we can identify ${\widetilde \mathcal{S}_2} \cap \widetilde{\pr}^{-1}(X(E))$ with $X_0(7) \simeq \mathbb P^1$. Then, since $\widetilde{\mathcal{S}}_2 \simeq \mathcal{S}_2 $, the restriction of the conormal map $\widetilde \mathcal{P}$ to a fiber over the point $[E] \in \mathcal{E}$ is a map $\psi: \mathbb P^1 \rightarrow \mathbb P^1$. \begin{prop} The map $\pi$ coincides with the map $\psi: \mathbb P^1 \rightarrow \mathbb P^1$ of the fibers of $\widetilde{\mathcal{S}}_2 \rightarrow \widetilde{\mathcal{E}}$ over a point $[E] \in \mathcal{E}$. \end{prop} \begin{proof} Let $o$, respectively $o'$ be the zero element of $E$ respectively $E_1$ with local coordinates $x$ respectively $y$. Set $\alpha=a_o dx , \beta=b_o dx, \gamma=c_o dx $ and $\alpha=a_{o'} dy , \beta=b_{o'} dy, \gamma=c_{o'} dy$ the local description of elements of $(\omega_{C,p} \otimes \omega_{C,p})$ around the node $p= (o \sim o')$. As in the proof of Proposition \ref{degS1}, we have that for an element $(a,b,c)$ in the kernel of $\mathcal{P}^*$ the coefficient of $dxdy$ must vanish, i.e. it satisfies \begin{equation} \label{condition2} a_oa_{o'} +b_ob_{o'} + c_oc_{o'}=0. \end{equation} in a neighborhood of the node. Considering the dual map one sees that the fiber of $\widetilde \mathcal{P}$ over a point $[a_o, b_o, c_o ] \in \mathbb P(\Ker \mathcal{P}^*)^* \subset \mathbb P^2$ with $c_o = -a_o-b_o$, corresponds to the pairs $(E_1, \langle \eta \rangle)$ such that the local functions $a,b,c \in \mathcal{O}_p$ take the values $[a_{o'}, b_{o'}, c_{o'}]$ around the $o' \in E_1$ with $c_{o'} = -a_{o'}-b_{o'}$ and they verify \eqref{condition2}. This determines completely the triple $[a_{o'}, b_{o'}, c_{o'}]$ and it depends only on the values at the node $o' \in E_1$ of the base curve. Note that $a,b,c$ are elements of the local ring $\mathcal{O}_p$ which determines the curve $E_1$ uniquely. In fact, its quotient ring is the direct product of the function fields of $E_1$ and $E$ which in turn determines the curves. Therefore the map $\psi$ can be identified with the projection $(E_1, \langle \eta \rangle) \mapsto E_1$. \end{proof} As an immediate consequence we have \begin{cor}\label{degS2} The local degree of the Prym map $\widetilde {\pr}_{2,7}$ along the divisor $\mathcal{S}_2$ is 8. \end{cor} Using Proposition \ref{degS1} and Corollary \ref{degS2} we conclude that the degree of the Prym map $\widetilde{\pr}_{2,7}$ is 10, which finishes the proof of Theorem \ref{main-theorem} \begin{rem} \label{polygons} The moduli interpretation of $X_0(7) \setminus Y_0(7)$ is given by the {\it N\'eron polygons}: one of the cusps represents a {\it 1-gon}, that is a nodal cubic curve, corresponding to the covering $\mathcal{C}_E^{(iii)}$ and the other represents a {\it 7-gon}, that is 7 copies of $\mathbb P^1$ with the point 0 of one attached to the point $\infty$ of other in a closed chain, which corresponds to the covering $\mathcal{C}_E^{(iv)}$ (see \cite[IV.\S 8]{s2}). \end{rem}
\section{Introduction} The presence or absence of topologically protected states at the edge of a material is determined by the topology of its bulk Bloch states~\cite{Bernevig_book}. This topology can be characterized by integer invariants, that determine whether the material is topologically trivial or non-trivial. Thus, development of methods to measure the topological invariants is one of the most important problems in the field. The topological invariants of the electron gas in external magnetic field (Chern numbers) are directly related to the quantized Hall conductivity~\cite{TKNN}. Determining the topological invariants in various recently proposed counterparts of this system~\cite{Lu2014} is though more complicated. Particularly, the time-of-flight images were demonstrated to contain information about topological invariants of a cold-atom system~\cite{Alba2011,Zhao2011,Goldman2013}. Theoretically predicted possibility to extract Zak phase, Chern numbers or $\mathbb{Z}_2$ topological invariants from semiclassical dynamics of a wave packet~\cite{Price2012,Wang2013,Abanin2013,Liu2013,Grusdt2014,Ozawa2014} was recently experimentally realized for cold atoms in one-dimensional optical lattice~\cite{Atala2013}. Photonic systems are more preferable for realization of different measurement schemes due to easier optical access to microscopic properties as compared to conventional electronic topological insulators or cold-atom systems. The methods to measure the topological numbers by tracing the individual edge states fingerprints in transmission spectra~\cite{Hafezi2014} or by manipulating the single unit cell and directly measuring the Bloch function~\cite{Bardyn2013arXiv} were proposed for a lattice of coupled ring waveguides. The winding number of the scattering matrix eigenvalues was shown to determine the number of edge states and topological invariants~\cite{Meidan2011,Fulga2012,Rudner2013,Pasek2014,Hu2014arXiv}, although no clear way to measure them has been proposed yet. Recently, the relation between the surface impedance and Zak phase for a centrosymmetric one-dimensional photonic crystal was revealed~\cite{Xiao2014}. In this work we show that the topological indexes of a photonic system can be measured via the phase of the reflection coefficient, that is accessible in simplest optical experiments. We consider both one-dimensional (1D) Aubry-Andr\'e-Harper (AAH) photonic crystal~\cite{aubrey,Lang2012,dassarma2013,Poshakinskiy2014prl} and two-dimensional (2D) lattice of tunneling-coupled resonators with synthetic magnetic field~\cite{Hafezi2011,Hafezi2013}. The direct correspondence between (i) the winding numbers of the reflection coefficient, (ii) the Chern numbers, and (iii) the presence of the edge states is proven. This provides the general recipe to access the edge states and topological indexes from outside the structure by optical means. \section{Topological indexes in 1D photonic crystal.} First, we explain the proposed method for the 1D photonic crystal inspired by the AAH model~\cite{aubrey,Poshakinskiy2014prl}. We consider the stack of alternating layers $\mathcal A$ and $\mathcal B$, see Fig.~1a, where all the layers $\mathcal A$ have the same width $d_{\mathcal A}$, while the width of the layers $\mathcal B$ is periodically modulated as~\cite{aubrey} \begin{equation}\label{eq:pos} d_{\mathcal B,n} = \bar d_{\mathcal B} [ 1 + \eta \cos \left( 2 \pi b n + \varkappa \right) ]\:. \end{equation} Here, $\bar d_{\mathcal B}$ is the width of unmodulated layers, $\eta$, $b$, and $\varkappa$ are the modulation strength, frequency and phase; we focus on the rational frequency case $b=P/Q$, where $P$ and $Q$ are the integers with no common factor. The difference between the dielectric constants of the layers $\varepsilon_{\mathcal A}$ and $\varepsilon_{\mathcal B}$ leads to the Bragg reflection of the normally propagating light. Namely, in the absence of modulation the system forms an elementary photonic crystal with the period $d=d_{\mathcal A}+\bar d_{\mathcal B}$ and the Bragg gaps in the energy spectrum around the integer multiples of $\omega_B = \pi c/ ({\sqrt{\varepsilon_{\mathcal A}}} d_{\mathcal A} + {\sqrt{\varepsilon_{\mathcal B}}} \bar d_{\mathcal B})$. The modulation ($\eta\ne 0$) enlarges the unit cell size and the period from $d$ to $D=Qd$, and drastically modifies the spectrum by splitting each Bragg gap into $Q$ gaps. Importantly, the system exhibits cyclic evolution when the modulation phase $\varkappa$ is continuously changed by $2\pi$. In the real system, it might be possible to realize this continuous variation if the modulation is induced by a running acoustic wave. This cyclic behavior allows one to map the 1D system to 2D one, and introduce the topological indices --- Chern numbers~\cite{Lang2012,dassarma2013}. The considered 1D photonic system is completely characterized by the dependence of the dielectric function $\varepsilon_\varkappa(z)$ on the coordinate along the growth axis $z$, and on the external parameter $\varkappa$. In the case of normal light incidence the wave equation at the frequency $\omega$ for the electric field component $E(z)$ perpendicular to $z$ axis reads \begin{equation}\label{Max0} \frac{{\rm d}^2}{{\rm d} z^2}\, E(z) + \frac{ \omega^2}{c^2}\,\varepsilon_\varkappa(z)\, E(z) = 0\:. \end{equation} The properties of the eigenstates of Eq.~\eqref{Max0} can be most conveniently analyzed in the reciprocal space. Performing the spatial Fourier transform we obtain the system of coupled equations for the harmonics $E_{K-G}$ with the wave vectors $K-G$, \begin{equation}\label{Max} (q^2-K^2)E_K + q^2\sum\limits_G \epsilon_{G,\varkappa} E_{K-G} = 0\:, \end{equation} where $G=2\pi g/D$ $(g=0,\pm 1,...)$ is the reciprocal lattice vector, $q=\omega \sqrt{\varepsilon_{0,\varkappa}}/c$, $\varepsilon_{G,\varkappa} = (1/D) \int_0^D {\rm d} z\, \varepsilon_\varkappa(z) \,\e^{-{\rm i} G z} $, $\epsilon_{G,\varkappa} = \varepsilon_{G,\varkappa}/\varepsilon_{0,\varkappa}$. In the case $d_\mathcal{A} \ll d_\mathcal{B}$ the quantity $\epsilon_{G,\varkappa}^*$ reduces to the structure factor, $\epsilon_{G,\varkappa}^* \propto \sum_i \exp({\rm i} G z_i)$, where $z_i$ are the positions of the layers $\mathcal{A}$ inside the unit cell. The light with the wave vector $q$ close to some reciprocal lattice vector $G/2$ exhibits Bragg diffraction, leading to the formation of a stop band at the corresponding frequency. In the spectral vicinity of this stop band we can use the two-wave approximation~\cite{poddubny2009} valid in the regime of relatively weak spatial modulation of the dielectric function $\varepsilon_\varkappa (z)$, which means either $d_{\mathcal A}\ll d_{\mathcal B,n}$ or $|\varepsilon_{\mathcal A}-\varepsilon_{\mathcal B}|\ll\varepsilon_{\mathcal A},\varepsilon_{\mathcal B}$, so that $|\epsilon_{G,\varkappa}| \ll 1$. We take into account in Eq.~\eqref{Max} only the two harmonics, $E = (E_{K} , E_{K-G})$, with the wave vectors $K\approx q$ and $K-G \approx -q$, coupled by the structure factor component $\epsilon_{G,\varkappa}$, and neglect all other harmonics. This yields the equation \begin{align}\label{sys2} \bm d_{K,\varkappa} \text{$\cdot$} \bm \sigma \, E =[ q^2 - K^2 + G( K-G/2 )] E \:, \end{align} where \begin{align} \bm d_{K,\varkappa} = [-q^2 \Re \epsilon_{G,\varkappa}^*,\, -q^2 \Im \epsilon_{G,\varkappa}^*,\, G(K-G/2)]\,, \end{align} and $\bm \sigma$ is the vector of Pauli matrices. Introducing the dimensionless energy $\mathcal{E}=4q/G-2 \ll 1$ and the wave vector $p=4K/G-2 \ll 1$, Eq.~\eqref{sys2} can be simplified to a Dirac-like form, \begin{equation}\label{dirac} \begin{bmatrix} p & -\epsilon_{G,\varkappa} \\ -\epsilon_{G}^* & -p \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} E_{K} \\ E_{K-G} \end{bmatrix} = \mathcal{E} \begin{bmatrix} E_{K} \\ E_{K-G} \end{bmatrix} \:, \end{equation} where the structure factor $\epsilon_{G,\varkappa}$ plays the role of mass. Equation~\eqref{dirac} yields the dispersion relation $\mathcal{E}^2 = p^2 + |\epsilon_{G,\varkappa}|^2$, describing the presence of the stop band of the width $cG|\epsilon_{G,\varkappa}|/(2\sqrt{\varepsilon_0})$ centered at the frequency $cG/(2\sqrt{\varepsilon_0})$. The topological properties of the problem are hidden in the dependencies on the modulation phase $\varkappa$. Particularly, when $\varkappa$ changes from $0$ to $2\pi$, the system characteristics continuously vary and for $\varkappa=2\pi$ they are the same as for $\varkappa=0$. Hence, the phase $\varkappa$ can be treated as a wave vector in an auxiliary direction. This provides the correspondence between the 1D problem and the 2D one~\cite{Lang2012,Kraus2012b}, where the Bloch eigenstates depend on two wave vectors, $K$ and $\varkappa$. Hence, we introduce the Chern numbers of the allowed bands in a standard way as $\int_{0}^{2\pi}d\varkappa \int_{-\pi/D}^{\pi/D} dK \left( \partial_K A_\varkappa - \partial_{\varkappa} A_K \right)/(2\pi\i)\:, $ where $A_K = \int {\rm d} z\, \sqrt{\varepsilon_\varkappa(z)}\, E^*(K,\varkappa)\partial_K \sqrt{\varepsilon_\varkappa(z)} E(K,\varkappa)$, $E(K,\varkappa)$ is the normalized solution of the wave equation~\eqref{Max} with the wave vector $K$, and $A_\varkappa$ is obtained replacing $\partial_K$ by $\partial_\varkappa$. Using the Dirac approximation~\eqref{dirac}, valid in the vicinity of the stop band, we calculate this stop band contributions to the Chern number of the above- and the below-laying allowed bands. The results differ only by sign and are given by the solid angle swept out by $\bm d_{K,\varkappa}$ when $K$ and $\varkappa$ are varied divided by $4\pi$~\cite{Bernevig_book}. This angle equals to the winding number of $\epsilon_{G}^*$, i.e., the divided by $2\pi$ phase that $\epsilon_{G}^*$ gains when $\varkappa$ is changed from $0$ to $2\pi$. Thus, the allowed band is characterized by a Chern number given by the winding number of the structure factor in above-lying stop band minus that in the below-lying stop band. Conversely, the winding number of the structure factor is a topological invariant of the stop band. Indeed, this number can not be changed without $\epsilon_{G,\varkappa}^*$ turning to zero for some $\varkappa$, which would mean eliminating the considered stop band. Now we show that the winding number of the structure factor $\epsilon_{G,\varkappa}^*$ coincides with that of the reflection coefficient $r_{\infty}$ from the semi-infinite structure for the incident light frequency lying inside the corresponding stop band. To this end the field inside the structure is expanded as a sum of Bloch waves and the field outside $(z<0)$ as a sum of incoming $(\propto \e^{{\rm i} qz})$ and reflected $(\propto \e^{-{\rm i} qz})$ waves. We apply the boundary conditions at the interface $z=0$ with the surrounding medium with the dielectric constant $\varepsilon_{0}$ and at $z\to \infty$. In the two-wave approximation Eq.~\eqref{dirac} the resulting reflection coefficient is equal to the ratio of left- and right-going waves in the corresponding eigenstate of Eq.~\eqref{dirac}, $ r_\infty (\omega)=E_{K-G}/E_{K} $~\cite{Kagan1999,Ivchenko2013}, where the wave vector $K$ should correspond to the spatially decaying eigenstate with $p={\rm i}\sqrt{|\epsilon_{G,\varkappa}|^2-\mathcal E^2}$. This relation directly links the measurable quantity, reflection coefficient, to the topological properties of the Bloch states in the bulk. Using the Hamiltonian~\eqref{dirac} we can obtain the reflection coefficient \begin{equation}\label{rinf} r_\infty (\omega) = - \frac{\epsilon_{G}^*}{\mathcal E + {\rm i}\sqrt{|\epsilon_{G,\varkappa}|^2-\mathcal E^2}} \:. \end{equation} We see that for the energy $\mathcal E$ lying inside the stop band we have full reflection, $|r_\infty|=1$, and the phase of the reflection coefficient is determined by the phase of structure factor $\epsilon_{G,\varkappa}^*$. Thus, the winding number of structure factor is equal to that of the reflection coefficient, and they both can be used to calculate the Chern numbers. \begin{figure*}[t] \includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{fig1.png} \caption{The color map of the squared amplitude (b) and the phase (c) of the reflection coefficient from the left edge of semi-infinite 1D photonic crystal (a) as a function of light frequency $\omega$ and the parameter $\varkappa$. Solid curves show the real part of the left-edge state frequency. The subplots in panel (c) show the cross sections of the phase map at different frequencies. The calculation parameters are $b=1/3$, $\eta=0.5$, $n_{\mathcal A}/n_{\mathcal B}=2$, $d_{\mathcal A}/d_{\mathcal B}=0.2$.} \label{fig1} \end{figure*} \section{Phase spectroscopy of topological states} We have shown that from the phase of the reflection coefficient one can deduce the winding numbers of stop zones and, thus, the Chern numbers of allowed bands. Figure~\ref{fig1} illustrates an application of this technique to the semi-infinite 1D photonic crystal illuminated from the left. Panel~(b) presents the absolute value of reflectivity, while panel~(c) shows the phase of the amplitude reflection coefficient $r_\infty (\omega)$. Following the theory above, we characterize each stop band by a winding number i.e. the extra phase divided by $2\pi$ that the reflection coefficient $r_\infty (\omega)$ gains when the parameter $\varkappa$ is varied from $0$ to $2\pi$ while $\omega$ remains inside the stop band. If we measure the phase in some interval (e.g. from $-\pi$ to $\pi$, as in Fig.~\ref{fig1}) the winding number is equal to the number of phase cuts that cross the considered band gap, taking into account their sign. Each cut connects two phase branching points. These phase branching points are the zeros of the reflection coefficient and can be located only in the allowed bands, since in the stop band $|r(\omega)|=1$. Unless the gap closes, its winding number is invariant as there exists no way to eliminate a cut but annihilating the corresponding branching points that is impossible while they are separated by the stop band. Comparing this result with the definition of the winding numbers through the phase of reflection spectra we find that the Chern number of a band equals to the number of phase branching points (zeros) of the reflection coefficient that are located inside this allowed band, taking into account their sign. Now we examine the bulk-boundary correspondence, i.e. we prove that the stop-band possesses edge states for any $\varkappa$, provided that the corresponding winding number is nonzero. To this end, we analyze the analytical behavior of the winding number \begin{equation}\label{windn} w(\omega+\i \gamma) = \frac{1}{2\pi{\rm i}} \int\limits_{0}^{2\pi} \frac{\partial\ln[r_{\infty}(\omega+\i\gamma,\varkappa)]}{\partial \varkappa} {\rm d}\varkappa\:. \end{equation} in the complex plane of frequencies. Here, we have expressed the winding number via the reflection coefficient from the semi-infinite structure and introduced the imaginary part of the complex frequency $\gamma$. At the first stage of the proof we demonstrate that for every $\omega$ lying inside the stop-band there exist some $\gamma>0$ and $\varkappa$ such that $r_{\infty}(\omega+\i\gamma,\varkappa)=0$. Indeed, at $\gamma=0$ by definition $w(\omega) \ne 0$. On the other hand, for $\gamma\to +\infty$ the phase factors $\exp [({\rm i}\omega-\gamma)d_{\mathcal A,B}\sqrt{\varepsilon_{A,B}}/c] $, describing the propagation through the layers, are quenched and only the infinitely small front part of the structure contributes to the reflection coefficient. This part is $\varkappa$-independent so the winding number vanishes. Since $w(\omega)\ne 0$, $\lim_{\gamma\to\infty}w(\omega+\i\gamma)=0$, and the winding number is integer, we conclude that there exists a jump of the winding number at certain $\gamma$. Such a discontinuity can only be caused by the singularity of the integrand in Eq.~\eqref{windn}, that can be either a zero or a pole of the reflection coefficient $r_{\infty}(\omega+{\rm i}\gamma,\varkappa)$. The poles of the reflection coefficient for $\gamma > 0$ are forbidden by the causality principle so the singularity corresponds to $r_{\infty}(\omega+{\rm i}\gamma,\varkappa) = 0$. To finalize the proof we use the identity $|r_{\infty}(\omega)|^2=1$ valid for the real values of $\omega$ lying inside the stop band. Being analytically continued onto the entire complex plane it turns into $r_{\infty}(\omega+{\rm i}\gamma)r_{\infty}^*(\omega-{\rm i}\gamma)=1$. Hence, the zero of the reflection coefficient at $\omega+{\rm i}\gamma$ enforces the pole at $\omega-{\rm i}\gamma$. Such a pole means the presence of the radiative edge state with the frequency $\omega$ and decay rate $\gamma$~\cite{Poshakinskiy2014prl}. % The real part of the left-edge state frequency is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig1}c by solid curves. The points where the left-edge state appears or disappears as $\varkappa$ is varied match the branching points of reflection coefficient phase. All the above conclusions remain valid if we introduce some coating layers at the border of the photonic crystal with vacuum. Indeed, since the coating cannot close the stop band, the corresponding winding number remains unaffected and can be still used for calculation of Chern numbers and determination of presence of edge states. This reflects the topological protection of the considered states. \begin{figure*}[t] \includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{fig2} \caption{Panels (a) and (d) show two proposed schemes of measuring of topological invariants. Panels (b) and (c) show the calculated color map of the squared amplitude and the phase of the reflection coefficient in the multi-port scheme for the rectangular $N_x \times N_y = 15 \times 15$ lattice, with $b=1/3$, $\kappa/J=1$, $\gamma/J=0.01$. Panels (e) and (f) show the squared amplitude and the phase of the reflection coefficient in the single port scheme for the same parameters except for $\kappa/J=0.01$ and $N_x \times N_y = 21 \times 21$.} \label{fig2} \end{figure*} \section{Application to a 2D system} Finally, we show how the phase spectroscopy can be used to measure the topological invariants in 2D systems. As described above, in the 1D Aubry-Andr\'e lattice the topological properties follow from the dependence of the reflection coefficient phase on the modulation parameter $\varkappa$. Now we demonstrate that in a 2D system the same topological invariants can be obtained by measuring the phase of the reflection coefficient from the edge of the system as a function of the wave vector along the edge. We consider a 2D square optical lattice with one site per unit cell, see Fig.~2a. Its realization using the ring resonators linked by waveguides was studied theoretically and experimentally in Refs.~\onlinecite{Hafezi2011,Hafezi2013}. The nontrivial topology is induced by the synthetic magnetic field that stems from the specially engineered asymmetry of link waveguides that couple the neighboring sites. The direction of the magnetic field is opposite for the clockwise and counter-clockwise resonator modes. For adiabatic links these modes are uncoupled, so in what follows we consider only one of them. The tight-binding Hamiltonian for the given mode reads \begin{align} \hat H = -J \sum_{n,m}\left( {\hat a}_{n,m}^{\dagger}{\hat a}_{n-1,m}+ {\hat a}_{n,m}^{\dagger}{\hat a}_{n,m-1}\e^{2\pi {\rm i} b n}\right)+ {\rm H.c.} ,\nonumber \end{align} where $J$ is the coupling constant, ${\hat a}_{n,m}$ and ${\hat a}_{n,m}^{\dagger}$ are the photon annihilation and creation operators at the site $(n,m)$, and $2\pi b$ is the phase acquired when hopping around the unit cell. We have chosen the gauge in such a way that for rational $b=P/Q$ the magnetic unit cell has the shape $Q\times1$. Figure~\ref{fig2}a shows the proposed scheme of measuring the topological numbers. We couple the probing waveguides to the sites on the left and right edges of a rectangular sample. The input waveguides on the left edge are all simultaneously coherently excited at the frequency $\omega$ in such a way that the phase difference between the adjacent sites is equal to $\varkappa$. As shown in the Fig.~\ref{fig2}a, this can be easily realized by using the same light source for all input waveguides and gradually changing the length of the input waveguide from site to site. Evidently, such an excitation scheme simulates an incident oblique plane wave with the wave vector $\varkappa$ along the structure edge. The reflection and transmission signals are collected from the output waveguides at the left and the right edges of the structure, respectively. The reflected and transmitted waves are given by the sum of the field over all the output waveguides at the corresponding edge, with the phases corresponding to the wave vector $\varkappa$ along the edge, which can be again realized by a proper tuning of the length of output waveguides. In the linear regime where $\langle \hat a_{n,m} \rangle = a_{n,m}$ the system is described by the equation set \begin{align}\label{Liou} -{\rm i} \omega {{a}}_{n,m}=&-{\rm i} H_{n,m;n'm'} {a}_{n',m'}\nonumber \\ -&(\kappa_{n,m}+\gamma) {a}_{n,m} -\sqrt{2\kappa_{n,m}} E_{n,m} , \end{align} where $H_{n,m;n',m'} = \langle 0|\hat a_{n,m} \hat H \hat a^\dag_{n',m'}|0 \rangle$, $\kappa_{n,m}=\kappa (\delta_{n,1}+\delta_{n,N_x})$ describes the light coupling to the probing waveguides, i.e. $\kappa_{n,m}=\kappa$ if a probing waveguide is connected to the site $(n,m)$ and $\kappa_{n,m}=0$ if not, $E_{n,m} = \delta_{n,1} \e^{{\rm i} \varkappa m} $ is an incident field in the input waveguides on the left edge of the structure, that corresponds to the wave vector $\varkappa$ along the vertical edge, and $\gamma$ takes into account the on-site losses. The reflection coefficient for the discussed geometry of detection reads \begin{align} &r(\varkappa)=\sum_{m=1}^{N_y}(1+ \sqrt{2\kappa}a_{1,m} \e^{-{\rm i} \varkappa m}) /N_y\,. \end{align} The reflection coefficient intensity as a function of frequency and wave vector along the edge $\varkappa$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig2}b. One can distinguish two band gaps, where the reflectivity is close to unity. Fig.~\ref{fig2}c shows the phase of the reflection coefficient. Clearly, the winding numbers of the band gaps and the Chern numbers of the allowed bands follow from the phase map in Fig.~\ref{fig2}c in the exactly same way as for the 1D system. Formal correspondence with the 1D Aubry-Andr\'e case is attained when the twist boundary conditions are introduced on the upper and lower edges of the system. Particularly, we roll the rectangular lattice into a cylinder as shown by the dashed arrow in Fig.~\ref{fig2}a. The additional links with the twist phase $-\varkappa N_y$, describing the flux of an effective magnetic field through the cylinder, are inserted between the corresponding sites on the upper and lower edges. These twist links are described the extra terms $\sum_{n=1}^{N_x} a^\dag_{n,1} a_{n,N_y} \e^{-{\rm i} \varkappa N_y} + {\rm H.c.} $ in the Hamiltonian. Then the Fourier transform along the $y$ axis shows that the only component excited is that with the wave vector $\varkappa$. This reduces the 2D system to a 1D one, similar to one described in the first part of the work. Importantly, for large enough $N_y$ the boundary conditions do not affect the result of the measurement. Thus we can omit the twist links and consider the unrolled rectangle geometry, as it was done for the calculation shown in Fig.~\ref{fig2}b,c. The multi-port scheme shown in Fig.~\ref{fig2}a can be transformed into a scheme with single input and output (see Fig.~\ref{fig2}d), which is expected to be easier in realization. The phase $\varkappa$ that corresponds to the wave vector along the edge is now introduced by tuning the length of the input and output waveguides between the neighboring lattice sites in such a way that it corresponds to the phase delay $\varkappa$ for the input waveguide and $-\varkappa$ for the output waveguide. The scheme is still described by Eq.~\eqref{Liou}, where $E_{n,m}= \delta_{n,1} E_m + \delta_{n,N_x} E'_m$ and \begin{align} &E_m = E_{m-1} \e^{{\rm i}\varkappa} + \sqrt{2\kappa}a_{1,m}, \quad (1\leq m \leq N_y)\,, \\ &E'_{m-1} = E'_{m} \e^{-{\rm i}\varkappa} + \sqrt{2\kappa}a_{1,m-1}, \quad (1\leq m \leq N_y)\,, \\ &E_0=1\,, \quad E'_M=0\,. \end{align} The reflection and transmission coefficients are equal to the fields $E_{N_y}$ and $E'_0$, respectively. In the linear by $\kappa$ regime one can neglect the multiple tunneling of the light between the input/output waveguide and the lattice. Then the scheme presented in Fig.~\ref{fig2}d reduces to that shown in Fig.~\ref{fig2}a. The squared amplitude and the phase of the reflection coefficient in the single input/output configuration are shown in Figs~\ref{fig2}e and f. One can see that the reflection phase in this configuration is similar to that shown in Fig.~\ref{fig2}c and can be also used to determine the topological indexes. \section{Summary} To summarize, we have shown that the Chern number of a photonic structure can be deduced from the winding number of the reflection phase. We have demonstrated that the nonzero winding number in a certain stop band gives rise to the topological edge states. In the 1D Aubry-Andr\'e-Harper photonic crystal the winding number of the reflection coefficient in the stop band is equal to that of the structure factor characterizing the strength of the corresponding Bragg diffraction peak. To determine topological numbers of a 2D system one can use the reflection phase measured in the single- or multi-port configurations corresponding to oblique excitation. The authors acknowledge fruitful discussions with E.L.~Ivchenko and S. Ganeshan. This work was supported by the RFBR, RF President Grant No. MK-6029.2014.2 and the ``Dynasty'' Foundation. M. Hafezi acknowledges the support of NSF PFC at the Joint Quantum Institute, MURI-ARO and AFOSR.
\section*{References}} \biboptions{sort&compress} \newcommand{\s}[1]{ {\begin{center}\fbox{\begin{minipage}{.95\columnwidth}\small #1\end{minipage}}\end{center}}} \setcounter{MaxMatrixCols}{64} \usepackage[scr=rsfso,scrscaled=1]{mathalfa} \begin{document} \title{Heuristic for estimation of multiqubit genuine multipartite entanglement} \author[uq]{Paulo E. M. F. Mendon\c{c}a\corref{cor1}\fnref{fn1}} \ead{<EMAIL>} \author[jabuca]{Marcelo A. Marchiolli} \ead{marcelo{\_}march@bol.com.br} \author[uq]{Gerard J. Milburn} \ead{<EMAIL>} \address[uq]{ARC Centre for Engineered Quantum Systems, School of Mathematics and Physics, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland 4072, Australia} \address[jabuca]{Avenida General Os\'orio 414, centro, 14.870-100 Jaboticabal, SP, Brazil} \cortext[cor1]{Corresponding author} \fntext[fn1]{Permanent address: Academia da For\c{c}a A\'{e}rea, C.P. 970, 13.643-970 Pirassununga, SP, Brazil} \date{\today} \begin{abstract} For every $N$-qubit density matrix written in the computational basis, an associated ``X-density matrix'' can be obtained by vanishing all entries out of the main- and anti-diagonals. It is very simple to compute the genuine multipartite (GM) concurrence of this associated $N$-qubit X-state, which, moreover, lower bounds the GM-concurrence of the original (non-X) state. In this paper, we rely on these facts to introduce and benchmark a heuristic for estimating the GM-concurrence of an arbitrary multiqubit mixed state. By explicitly considering two classes of mixed states, we illustrate that our estimates are usually very close to the standard lower bound on the GM-concurrence, being significantly easier to compute. In addition, while evaluating the performance of our proposed heuristic, we provide the first characterization of GM-entanglement in the steady states of the driven Dicke model at zero temperature. \end{abstract} \begin{keyword} Multipartite Entanglement \sep Genuine Multipartite Concurrence \sep Multiqubit X-states \PACS 03.65.Ud \sep 03.67.Mn \sep 03.65.Aa \end{keyword} \maketitle \section{Introduction} During the last one and a half decades, increasing interest has been manifested in the topic of multipartite entanglement. Just as we learnt, in the early days of quantum information, that \emph{bipartite} entanglement is an invaluable resource for quantum cryptography~\cite{91Ekert661}, communication~\cite{92Bennett2881} and speed-up of classical algorithms~\cite{92Deutsch553,94Simon116,96Grover212,97Shor1484} (to name but a few), we have now a growing awareness of the role that \emph{multipartite} entanglement plays in quantum computing~\cite{03Jozsa2011,11Bruss052313,01Raussendorf5188,09Briegel19}, high-precision metrology~\cite{04Giovannetti1330,12Hyllus022321,13Marchiolli1330001,14Lucke155304,14Vitagliano032307}, quantum phase transitions~\cite{02Osborne032110,05Bruss014301,06Oliveira010305R,06Oliveira039902E1,07Oliveira039901E2,10Montakhab062313,13Giampaolo052305,14Hofmann134101,14Giampaolo93033,14Stasinska032330} and even biology~\cite{10Sarovar462,10Caruso062346}. Despite significant interest and progresses, many limitations from the theory of bipartite entanglement are naturally inherited in the multipartite setting. For example, since the entanglement detection problem was shown to be NP-hard already in the bipartite case~\cite{03Gurvits10,07Ioannou335}, there is very little hope that computable measures of (multipartite) entanglement can be found for an arbitrary quantum state. As a result, much of the effort in this field is centered around devising \emph{sufficient} criteria for (multipartite) entanglement detection~\cite{96Peres1413,96Horodecki1,00Terhal319,10Huber210501}, which are then turned into computable (multipartite) entanglement estimators~\cite{02Vidal032314,05Brandao022310,11Jungnitsch190502,11Ma062325}. Amongst all types of multipartite entanglement, special interest is devoted to the detection and quantification of \emph{genuine multipartite} entanglement, a type of multipartite entanglement established collectively between all $N$ parties of an $N$-partite system. More precisely, a GM-entangled state is any state that cannot be written as a mixture of biseparable states, which, in turn, are those states that are separable with respect to some bipartition of the relevant Hilbert space~\cite{09Guhne1,09Horodecki865}. Besides, it is GM-entanglement that occupies the highest position in the hierarchy of multipartite entanglement~\cite{13Levi150402}. In this paper, we consider a particular set of sufficient conditions for detecting GM-entanglement introduced by Huber \emph{et al.}~\cite{10Huber210501} --- and turned into an entanglement estimator by Ma \emph{et al.}~\cite{11Ma062325} --- to obtain our main result: a heuristic approach for approximating these estimates with a considerably lower computational cost than that required by the optimization problem appearing in Refs.~\cite{10Huber210501,11Ma062325}. In practice, this result opens the way for systematical and analytical estimation of GM-entanglement in symmetric multiqubit mixed states and, more generally, enables a significant reduction in the computational time required by standard numerical solvers, usually accompanied by some small impact on the accuracy of the estimate. Our heuristic relies upon three basic facts: (i) the estimates proposed by Ma \emph{et al.}~\cite{11Ma062325} are actually lower bounds on the GM-concurrence --- a GM-entanglement monotone introduced by the authors to generalize the Wootters concurrence~\cite{98Wootters2245} to the multipartite setting; (ii) this lower bound is saturated for the family of $N$-qubit X-states, in which case it is also remarkably easy to compute~\cite{12Rafsanjani062303}; and (iii) in general, it is computationally easier to determine a local-unitary (LU) transformation that approximates a generic density matrix to the X-form, than it is to solve the optimization problem in Refs.~\cite{10Huber210501,11Ma062325}. Accordingly, our so-called \emph{X-heuristic}, estimates the GM-concurrence of an arbitrary $N$-qubit density matrix by applying a LU-transformation that minimizes the entries out of its main- and anti-diagonals and, subsequently, outputting the GM-concurrence of the associated X-density matrix (obtained by neglecting any entry that may have remained out of the main- and anti-diagonals of the LU-transformed density matrix). In order to illustrate the strengths and drawbacks of the X-heuristic, we explicitly apply it to the family of diagonal symmetric states~\cite{54Dicke99,14Quesada052319,14Wolfe140402} and steady states of the driven Dicke model~\cite{79Puri200,80Drummond1179,81Lawande4171,02Schneider042107}. In both cases, we discuss the trade-off between computational efficiency and accuracy \emph{vis-\`a-vis} the standard scheme for GM-concurrence estimation~\cite{10Huber210501,11Ma062325}. Our comparative analysis reveals the X-heuristic as a useful computational tool for GM-concurrence estimation in multiqubit systems. As side results, while assessing the X-heuristic with the steady states of the driven Dicke model at zero temperature, we provide the first characterization of multipartite entanglement in this model. In particular, we note that our estimates agree on that GM-entanglement is maximal for the parameter values corresponding roughly to a bifurcation of a fixed point in the corresponding semiclassical dynamics, reinforcing the long-standing (and widely-accepted) conjecture that multipartite entanglement must be maximal at quantum phase transitions~\cite{02Osborne032110}. While the driven Dicke model is a zero-dimensional many-body problem, the bifurcation is controlled by a parameter in the Hamiltonian and the correlations in the quantum steady state change at a particular value of that parameter in analogy to the change in the character of a ground state in a spatially extended many-body quantum phase transition. Moreover, we show that the two-qubit steady states of this model are examples of non-X states whose concurrence can be \emph{exactly} computed with the simple concurrence formula for X-states, settling an open problem posed in Ref~\cite{12Rafsanjani12043912}. Our paper is structured as follows. In Sec.~\ref{sec:preliminaries} we review some key concepts relating GM-entanglement and its quantification. In Sec.~\ref{sec:heuristic} our heuristic for GM-concurrence estimation is presented and, in Sec.~\ref{sec:applications}, its accuracy is benchmarked against the standard scheme for the two aforemetioned families of $N$-qubit mixed states. In Sec.~\ref{sec:efficiency} we focus on the computational advantage of our heuristic over the standard scheme. Finally, in Sec.~\ref{sec:conclusion}, we summarize our results and discuss some possible avenues for future work. \section{Preliminaries}\label{sec:preliminaries} In this section we briefly review the concept of GM-entanglement and some key results regarding its detection and quantification. In particular, we outline the scheme introduced in Refs.~\cite{10Huber210501,11Ma062325} (here referred to as the ``optimal-$\ket{\Phi}$'' method), a current standard for GM-concurrence estimation in multipartite mixed states. Although we are only interested in multiqubit states, throughout most of this section we leave the dimensionality of each party arbitrary. \subsection{Genuine Multipartite Entanglement} An $N$-partite pure state $\ket{\psi}\in \mathcal{H}=\mathcal{H}_1\otimes \mathcal{H}_2\otimes\ldots\otimes \mathcal{H}_N$ (with $\dimension{\mathcal{H}_n}=d_n$), is said to be GM-entangled if it is not biseparable; $\ket{\psi}$ is said to be biseparable, in turn, if there is a bipartition of $\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{H}_A\otimes \mathcal{H}_B$ and a pair of states $\ket{\psi_A}\in \mathcal{H}_A$ and $\ket{\psi_B}\in \mathcal{H}_B$ such that \begin{equation}\label{eq:biseparablestructure} \ket{\psi}=\ket{\psi_A} \otimes \ket{\psi_B}\,. \end{equation} In general, there are $\mathfrak{n}\mathrel{\mathop:}= 2^{N-1}-1$ possible bipartitions of $\mathcal{H}$ and, if a decomposition of the form~(\ref{eq:biseparablestructure}) is found with respect to any one of them, then $\ket{\psi}$ can be immediately declared biseparable. On the other hand, $\ket{\psi}$ can only be declared GM-entangled after ruling out the existence of such a decomposition with respect to every bipartition of $\mathcal{H}$. The notions of GM-entanglement and biseparability are extended to mixed states via a convex roof construction: An $N$-partite mixed state $\bm{\rho}$ acting on $\mathcal{H}$ is GM-entangled if it is not biseparable; $\bm{\rho}$ is biseparable if it can be expressed as a convex combination of biseparable pure states, that is, \begin{equation}\label{eq:cvxsum} \bm{\rho}=\sum_i p_i\ket{\psi_i}\!\bra{\psi_i} \end{equation} where every $\ket{\psi_i}$ is biseparable. Remarkably, although the biseparability of $\bm{\rho}$ requires every $\ket{\psi_i}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:cvxsum}) to be biseparable, each one of them can be so with respect to a different bipartition of $\mathcal{H}$, meaning that a biseparable mixed state need not to be separable with respect to any particular bipartition of $\mathcal{H}$. So far we have only established the notion of GM-entanglement. In what follows we review some recent results on (i) how to tell if a given density matrix $\bm{\rho}$ is biseparable (detection) and (ii) if not, how to estimate the amount of GM-entanglement that it contains (quantification). Needless to say, these are hard problems even in the case $N=2$~\cite{03Gurvits10,07Ioannou335,09Horodecki865}, let alone $N>2$. \subsection{GM-entanglement detection} Detection of GM-entanglement has been intensely studied (see, e.g., Ref.~\cite{09Guhne1} for a review). To date, one of the most effective detection schemes was proposed by Huber \emph{et al.}~\cite{10Huber210501}, where it was shown that every biseparable state $\bm{\rho}$ satisfies every inequality of the $\ket{\Phi}$-parametrized family \begin{equation}\label{eq:gmecriterion} \mathscr{I}_{\ket{\Phi}}(\bm{\rho})\leq 0\,, \end{equation} where \begin{equation}\label{eq:Iketphirho} \mathscr{I}_{\ket{\Phi}}(\bm{\rho})\mathrel{\mathop:}= \sqrt{\bra{\Phi}\bm{\rho}^{\otimes 2} \bm{\Pi}\ket{\Phi}}-\sum_{i=1}^{\mathfrak{n}}\sqrt{\bra{\Phi}(\bm{\Pi}_{A_i}\otimes \mathbf{1}_{B_i})^\dagger\bm{\rho}^{\otimes 2}(\bm{\Pi}_{A_i}\otimes \mathbf{1}_{B_i})\ket{\Phi}}\,. \end{equation} In the above, $\ket{\Phi}$ can be chosen as any product state of $\mathcal{H}^{\otimes 2}$, i.e., \begin{equation} \ket{\Phi}=\ket{\mu_1\, \mu_2\, \mu_3\,\cdots\,\mu_N}\otimes \ket{\nu_1\, \nu_2\, \nu_3\,\cdots\,\nu_N}. \end{equation} The symbol $\bm{\Pi}$ denotes the global permutation operator that peforms simultaneous permutations of all subsystems across the two copies of $\mathcal{H}$, \begin{equation} \bm{\Pi}(\ket{\mu_1\, \mu_2\, \mu_3\,\cdots\,\mu_N}\otimes \ket{\nu_1\, \nu_2\, \nu_3\,\cdots\,\nu_N})=\ket{\nu_1\, \nu_2\, \nu_3\,\cdots\,\nu_N}\otimes\ket{\mu_1\, \mu_2\, \mu_3\,\cdots\,\mu_N}\,, \end{equation} whereas $\bm{\Pi}_{A_i}\otimes \mathbf{1}_{B_i}$ only permutes those subsystems whose labels are in $A_i$ (of a given Hilbert space bipartition $\{A_i|B_i\}$). For example, consider the following bipartitions of the $N$-partite Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$: \begin{equation} \{A_1|B_1\}=\{1|2,3,\ldots,N\}\,,\quad \{A_2|B_2\}=\{2|1,3,\ldots,N\} \quad\mbox{and}\quad \{A_{N+1}|B_{N+1}\}=\{1,2|3,\ldots,N\}\,. \end{equation} Then, \begin{align} (\bm{\Pi}_{A_1}\otimes\mathbf{1}_{B_1})\ket{\mu_1\, \mu_2\, \mu_3\,\cdots\,\mu_N}\otimes \ket{\nu_1\, \nu_2\, \nu_3\,\cdots\,\nu_N}&=\ket{\nu_1\, \mu_2\, \mu_3\,\cdots\,\mu_N}\otimes \ket{\mu_1\, \nu_2\, \nu_3\,\cdots\,\nu_N}\,,\\ (\bm{\Pi}_{A_2}\otimes\mathbf{1}_{B_2})\ket{\mu_1\, \mu_2\, \mu_3\,\cdots\,\mu_N}\otimes \ket{\nu_1\, \nu_2\, \nu_3\,\cdots\,\nu_N}&=\ket{\mu_1\, \nu_2\, \mu_3\,\cdots\,\mu_N}\otimes \ket{\nu_1\, \mu_2\, \nu_3\,\cdots\,\nu_N}\,,\\ (\bm{\Pi}_{A_{N+1}}\otimes\mathbf{1}_{B_{N+1}})\ket{\mu_1\, \mu_2\, \mu_3\,\cdots\,\mu_N}\otimes \ket{\nu_1\, \nu_2\, \nu_3\,\cdots\,\nu_N}&=\ket{\nu_1\, \nu_2\, \mu_3\,\cdots\,\mu_N}\otimes \ket{\mu_1\, \mu_2\, \nu_3\,\cdots\,\nu_N}\,. \end{align} Thus, if one can find a state $\ket{\tilde{\Phi}}$ such that $\mathscr{I}_{\ket{\tilde{\Phi}}}(\bm{\rho})>0$, then $\bm{\rho}$ can be promptly declared to be GM-entangled. Unfortunately, such a criterion does not detect every GM-entanglement [there are GM-entangled density matrices that satisfy the entire family of inequalities~(\ref{eq:gmecriterion})], but it is stronger than many commonly used criteria (see, e.g., \cite{08Seevinck032101} and references therein). \subsection{GM-concurrence estimation: The optimal-$\ket{\Phi}$ scheme} The relevance of $\mathscr{I}_{\ket{\Phi}}(\bm{\rho})$ transcends its application in the detection problem, manifesting itself also in the context of GM-entaglement quantification. Indeed, it was shown by Ma \emph{et al.}~\cite{11Ma062325} that, for every choice of $\ket{\Phi}$, the following inequality holds \begin{equation}\label{eq:familylb} C_{GME}(\bm{\rho})\geq \max\left[0, 2\mathscr{I}_{\ket{\Phi}}(\bm{\rho})\right]\,, \end{equation} where $C_{GME}(\bm{\rho})$ denotes the \emph{concurrence of GM-entanglement} of $\bm{\rho}$; a well-defined (but difficult to compute) entanglement monotone. Unlike $C_{GME}(\bm{\rho})$, the lower bounds $2\mathscr{I}_{\ket{\Phi}}(\bm{\rho})$ are easy to measure and to compute, emerging thus as natural candidates for GM-concurrence estimation. However, the accuracy of such estimates are strongly dependent on the choice of $\ket{\Phi}$ for a given $\bm{\rho}$, highlighting the importance of devising efficient ways of making such a choice. Formally, the strongest inequality of the family~(\ref{eq:familylb}) is given by \begin{equation}\label{eq:strongest} C_{GME}(\bm{\rho})\geq \max\left[0,2\max_{\ket{\Phi}}\mathscr{I}_{\ket{\Phi}}(\bm{\rho})\right]\equiv C_{\ket{\Phi}}(\bm{\rho})\,, \end{equation} where the optimization runs over all product states of $\mathcal{H}^{\otimes 2}$. Since any product state can be constructed from LU transformations on a reference product state $\ket{\Phi_0}\in \mathcal{H}^{\otimes 2}$, we can set \begin{equation} \ket{\Phi}=\left(\bigotimes_{n=1}^N \bm{V}_n \otimes \bigotimes_{n=1}^N \bm{W}_n\right)\ket{\Phi_0}\,, \end{equation} where $\bm{V}_n$ and $\bm{W}_n$ are $SU(d_n)$ elements. In this case, the optimization is performed over $2N$ independent (special) unitary transformations ($\bm{V}_n$ and $\bm{W}_n$), in terms of which the objective function takes the form \begin{equation} \mathscr{I}_{\ket{\Phi}}(\bm{\rho})=|\bra{\bm{0}}\overline{\bm{U}}_0^\dagger\,\bm{\rho}\, \bm{U}_0\ket{\bm{0}}|-\sum_{i=1}^{\mathfrak{n}}\sqrt{\bra{\bm{0}}{\bm{U}}_i^\dagger\,\bm{\rho}\, \bm{U}_i\ket{\bm{0}} \bra{\bm{0}}\overline{\bm{U}}_i^\dagger\,\bm{\rho}\, \overline{\bm{U}}_i\ket{\bm{0}}}\,, \end{equation} where we have chosen $\ket{\Phi_0}=\ket{0}^{\otimes N}\otimes \ket{0}^{\otimes N}\equiv\ket{\bm{0}}\otimes \ket{\bm{0}}$ and defined the LU transformations \begin{equation} \bm{U}_0\mathrel{\mathop:}= \bigotimes_{n=1}^N \bm{V}_n\,,\quad\overline{\bm{U}}_0\mathrel{\mathop:}= \bigotimes_{n=1}^N \bm{W}_n\,,\quad \bm{U}_i\mathrel{\mathop:}= \bigotimes_{n=1}^N\bm{S}_{i,n} \,,\quad\overline{\bm{U}}_i\mathrel{\mathop:}= \bigotimes_{n=1}^N \overline{\bm{S}}_{i,n}\,. \end{equation} In the above, the single particle unitary matrices $\bm{S}_{i,n}$ and $\overline{\bm{S}}_{i,n}$ have the index $i$ referring to a particular bipartition $\{A_i|B_i\}$ of $\mathcal{H}$ and, in terms of this, are given by: \begin{equation} \bm{S}_{i,n}\mathrel{\mathop:}= \left\{\begin{array}{cc} \bm{W}_n&\mbox{if }n\in A_i\\ \bm{V}_n&\mbox{otherwise} \end{array} \right.\quad\mbox{and}\quad \overline{\bm{S}}_{i,n}\mathrel{\mathop:}= \left\{\begin{array}{cc} \bm{V}_n&\mbox{if }n\in A_i\\ \bm{W}_n&\mbox{otherwise} \end{array} \right.\,. \end{equation} Thus, we end up with the optimization problem \begin{equation}\label{eq:optproblemexact} \max_{\bm{V}_n,\bm{W}_n \in SU(d_n)} |\bra{\bm{0}}\overline{\bm{U}}_0^\dagger\,\bm{\rho}\, \bm{U}_0\ket{\bm{0}}|-\sum_{i=1}^{\mathfrak{n}}\sqrt{\bra{\bm{0}}{\bm{U}}_i^\dagger\,\bm{\rho}\, \bm{U}_i\ket{\bm{0}} \bra{\bm{0}}\overline{\bm{U}}_i^\dagger\,\bm{\rho}\, \overline{\bm{U}}_i\ket{\bm{0}}}\,. \end{equation} Let us now restrict the analysis of this optimization problem to the case of $N$-qubits (i.e., $d_n=2$ for every $n=1,\ldots, N$). Since single-qubit unitary transformation require only $2$ real parameters and our objective function involves $2N$ unitaries, the number of real variables to be optimized is $4 N$. Although the linear scaling with $N$ is certainly an appealing feature of this approach, the resulting objective function is not everywhere differentiable. This fact compromises the performance of numerical algorithms that rely on differentiating the objective function to approach the optima. \section{X-Heuristic}\label{sec:heuristic} We now introduce a heuristic approach for estimating the GM-concurrence of a density matrix of $N$-qubits. To motivate our heuristic, we start by reviewing the concept of X-density matrices and how to quantify their GM-concurrence. An $N$-qubit $X$-density matrix is any density matrix that, in the computational basis, takes the form \begin{equation}\label{eq:NqubitXstate} \bm{\rho}_X=\left[\begin{array}{cccccccc} a_1 & & & & & & &r_1e^{i\phi_1}\\ &a_2 & & & & &r_2e^{i\phi_2} & \\ & &\ddots & & &\iddots& & \\ & & &a_n &r_ne^{i\phi_n}& & & \\ & & &r_ne^{-i\phi_n}&b_n& & & \\ & &\iddots& & &\ddots & & \\ &r_2e^{-i\phi_2}& & & & &b_2& \\ r_1e^{-i\phi_1}& & & & & & &b_1 \end{array}\right] \end{equation} with $n=2^{N-1}$ and, for every $k=1,\ldots,n$, $\{a_k, b_k\} \in \mathbb{R}_+$, $\phi_k\in[0,2\pi]$, $r_k \in [0,\sqrt{a_k b_k}]$ (non-negativity of $\bm{\rho}_X$) and $\sum_{k} (a_k+b_k)=1$ (normalization of $\bm{\rho}_X$). As shown by Hashemi Rafsanjani \emph{et al.}~\cite{12Rafsanjani062303}, such states can have their GM-concurrence easily --- and exactly --- quantified by the formula: \begin{equation}\label{eq:cx} C_X(\bm{\rho}_X)=\max\left[0,c_X(\bm{\rho}_X)\right] \end{equation} where \begin{equation}\label{eq:cXSn} c_X(\bm{\rho}_X)\mathrel{\mathop:}= 2\max_{k\in \mathfrak{S}_n}\left[r_k-\sum_{j\in \mathfrak{S}_n\setminus\{k\}}\sqrt{a_jb_j}\right]\quad\mbox{and}\quad \mathfrak{S}_n\mathrel{\mathop:}=\{1,\ldots,n\}\,. \end{equation} The proposed heuristic takes advantage of the simplicity of Eq.~(\ref{eq:cx}) to produce computable estimates of GM-concurrence for non-X density matrices. In fact, as noted in Ref.~\cite{12Rafsanjani062303} (and explictly demonstrated in the~\ref{app:xlbGM}), the evaluation of $C_X(\bm{\rho})$ for an arbitrary $N$-qubit density matrix $\bm{\rho}$ (written in the computational basis), leads to a lower bound on the GM-concurrence of $\bm{\rho}$. In principle, depending on the particular form of $\bm{\rho}$, this lower bound can be very loose and, consequently, a very poor estimate of $C_{GME}(\bm{\rho})$ [see, e.g., Eqs.~(\ref{eq:cxrhos3}) and~(\ref{eq:cxrhos4})]. However, since this lower bound is \emph{saturated} for X-density matrices, one should expect that the ``closest'' $\bm{\rho}$ is to a X-density matrix, the better that estimate will turn out to be. The X-heuristic materializes this reasoning by ``approximating'' $\bm{\rho}$ to a X-matrix with a LU transformation $\bm{U}_l$ and, subsequently, estimating its GM-concurrence as $C_X(\tilde{\bm{\rho}})$, where \begin{equation}\label{eq:rhotil} \tilde{\bm{\rho}}\mathrel{\mathop:}=\bm{U}_l\,\bm{\rho}\,\bm{U}_l^\dagger\,. \end{equation} Of course, the constraint of LU transformation is sufficient to imply that $\bm{\rho}$ and $\tilde{\bm{\rho}}$ have the same amount of GM-concurrence. However, whereas $C_{GME}(\bm{\rho})$ is invariant under LU transformations of $\bm{\rho}$, $C_X(\bm{\rho})$ is not. Once again, we are left with the problem of choosing a LU transformation, but now aiming to implement the ``approximation to the X-form''. In order to formalize the meaning of this \emph{approximation}, we introduce the penalty function \begin{equation}\label{eq:f} f(\tilde{\bm{\rho}})=\sum_{\substack{j>i\\ j+i\neq 2^N +1}}|\tilde{\rho}_{i,j}|^2\,, \end{equation} which (i) vanishes if and only if $\tilde{\bm{\rho}}$ is a X-density matrix and (ii) smoothly increases as the magnitudes of the off-X entries of $\tilde{\bm{\rho}}$ increase. Under this ``$f$-metric''\footnote{Here and throughout, the term ``metric'' is used in a loose way to suggest a notion of distance between a given density matrix and the set of X-density matrices.}, the optimal choice of $\bm{U}_l$ is given by the solution of the optimization problem \begin{equation}\label{eq:optprobx} \min_{\bm{U}_l} f(\bm{U}_l\, \bm{\rho}\, \bm{U}_l^\dagger)\,, \end{equation} which is a \emph{non-linear least square problem} on $2N$ real variables with residuals given by $|\tilde{\rho}_{i,j}|$. We can think of it as finding the LU related density matrix that most accurately ``fits'' the X-density matrix model. Besides halving the number of variables in the optimization problem~(\ref{eq:optproblemexact}), the objective function in (\ref{eq:optprobx}) is smooth, which implies that numerical algorithms can take advantage of well-defined derivatives to more efficiently approach a minimum. On the analytical side, for density matrices $\bm{\rho}$ with enough symmetry, the objective function $f(\bm{U}_l\bm{\rho}\bm{U}_l^\dagger)$ will be sufficiently simple to enable educated guesses on the location of the minima, which can be certified \emph{a posteriori} by evaluating the gradient and the spectrum of the Hessian matrix at the candidate point. In any case, even if the gradient vanishes and the Hessian turns out to be positive definite, we cannot be sure that we have attained a \emph{global} minimum. Nevertheless, at this point we may have already obtained a non-trivial lower bound on the amount of GM-concurrence of $\bm{\rho}$ at a considerably low computational cost. \section{Applications}\label{sec:applications} In this section we apply the X-heuristic to estimate the amount of GM-concurrence in two families of $N$-qubit density matrices: the diagonal symmetric states and the steady states of the driven Dicke Model at zero temperature. For each family, we benchmark the quality of the resulting estimates against those produced by the optimal-$\ket{\Phi}$ scheme. \subsection{Diagonal symmetric states} Diagonal symmetric states are a natural extension of W-states to the domain of multiqubit mixed states and have recently attracted much attention in the fields of GM-entanglement detection and quantification~\cite{09Toth170503,12Tura060302R,13Novo012305,14Quesada052319,14Wolfe140402}. Formally, they can be defined as \begin{equation}\label{eq:defdss} \bm{\rho}_{ds,N}\mathrel{\mathop:}=\sum_{k=0}^N p_k \ket{D_k^N}\!\bra{D_k^N}\,, \end{equation} where $p_k\in[0,1]$ and $\sum_k{p_k}=1$. Here, the states $\ket{D_k^N}$ are the (totally symmetric) $N$-qubit Dicke states of $k$ excitations~\cite{54Dicke99,03Stockton022112}, defined in the computational basis as \begin{equation} \ket{D_k^N}\mathrel{\mathop:}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{C_k^N}}\sum_{\sigma}\ket{\sigma(1,\stackrel{k}{\cdots},1,0,\stackrel{N-k}{\cdots},0)} \end{equation} with the summation running over every distinct permutation of the sequence of $k$ ones and $N-k$ zeros. Of course, there are $C_k^N=N!/[k! (N-k)!]$ such permutations, justifying the normalization constant upfront. Moreover, note that $\ket{D_1^N}$ are the $N$-qubit W-states~\cite{00Dur062314}, which sets the context in which $\bm{\rho}_{ds,N}$ can be considered a generalization thereof. In the~\ref{app:matrixform}, we give explicit matrix forms of $\bm{\rho}_{ds,N}$ in the computational basis for $N=2,3,4$. For $N=2$, the resulting density matrix is already an X-state [cf. Eq.~(\ref{eq:rhodss2})]. As a result, $\bm{U}_l=\mathbf{1}_4$, $f_{min}=0$ and $C_X(\bm{\rho}_{ds,2})=C_{GME}(\bm{\rho}_{ds,2})$. For $N>2$, the corresponding density matrices are no longer of the X-form [see, e.g., Eqs.~(\ref{eq:rhodss3}) and~(\ref{eq:rhodss4})] and thus, in order to optimally estimate $C_{GME}$ with $C_{X}$, we must first determine a LU transformation \begin{equation} \bm{U}_l=\bigotimes_{j=1}^N\left[\begin{array}{cc} \cos\vartheta_j & \sin \vartheta_j e^{i\varphi_j}\\ -\sin \vartheta_j e^{-i\varphi_j} & \cos \vartheta_j \end{array} \right] \end{equation} that minimizes $f(\bm{U}_l\bm{\rho}_{ds,N}\bm{U}_l^\dagger)$. Thanks to the symmetry of $\bm{\rho}_{ds,N}$, some simple analysis of this function reveals a minimum at\footnote{A complementary numerical analysis strongly suggests that Eq.~(\ref{eq:SYMXminimumcoords}) gives, actually, a global minimum.} \begin{equation}\label{eq:SYMXminimumcoords} \vartheta_j=\frac{\pi}{4}\quad\mbox{and}\quad \varphi_j=0\quad \mbox{for every}\quad j \in \mathfrak{S}_N\,, \end{equation} for which the corresponding values of $f=f_{min}$ can be promptly computed with the aid of Eqs. (\ref{eq:rhotil}) and (\ref{eq:f}). In Fig.~\ref{fig:SYMfmin}, these are plotted for a family of populations $p_k$ specified by the single parameter $\tau\in[0,1]$ as follows: \begin{equation}\label{eq:dssparams} p_{\left\lfloor\frac{N}{2}\right\rfloor}=(\tau-1)^2\,,\quad p_{\left\lfloor\frac{N}{2}\right\rfloor+1}=\tau^2\quad\mbox{and}\quad p_\ell= \frac{2\tau(1-\tau)}{N-1} \quad \mbox{for every }\ell\in \{0,\ldots,N\}\setminus\left\{\left\lfloor\frac{N}{2}\right\rfloor, \left\lfloor\frac{N}{2}\right\rfloor+1\right\}\,. \end{equation} \begin{figure}[h] \centering \includegraphics{fig1.pdf} \caption{Distance (``$f$-metric'') between the set of X-density matrices and the LU transformed diagonal symmetric state as a function of $\tau$. The included dashed (red) lines represent (half of) the sum of the absolute values squared of the anti-diagonal terms. For $N=2$, the density matrix is of the X-form for every value of $\tau\in[0,1]$ and, as $\tau$ increases, it approximates a diagonal matrix. For $N>2$ the density matrices are not of the X-form for any value of $\tau\in[0,1]$ and better approximate this condition at intermediate values of $\tau$. }\label{fig:SYMfmin} \end{figure} Intuitively, the plots of Fig.~\ref{fig:SYMfmin} can be interpreted as some error measure associated with the process of estimating $C_{GME}(\bm{\rho}_{ds,N})$ as $C_X(\tilde{\bm{\rho}}_{ds,N})$. Indeed, if $f_{min}=0$ (e.g., case $N=2$), then $C_X(\tilde{\bm{\rho}}_{ds,N})$ is exactly equal to $C_{GME}(\bm{\rho}_{ds,N})$. As $f$ increases, $\tilde{\bm{\rho}}_{ds,N}$ deviates from the X-form and, hence, the estimate $C_X(\tilde{\bm{\rho}}_{ds,N})$ is expected to be poorer. Nevertheless, recall that $C_X(\tilde{\bm{\rho}}_{ds,N})$ is always a lower bound on $C_{GME}(\bm{\rho}_{ds,N})$, so the ``$f$-error bars'' are not \emph{centered} in $C_X(\tilde{\bm{\rho}}_{ds,N})$, but lay strictly \emph{above} it. In Fig.~\ref{fig:SYMlowerbound} we present the resulting values of $C_X(\tilde{\bm{\rho}}_{ds,N})$ (solid line) along with the points corresponding to $C_{\ket{\Phi}}(\bm{\rho}_{ds,N})$ for one hundred values of $\tau$ uniformly distributed in the range $[0,1]$. While the line was analytically constructed, each point was obtained by numerically solving the optimization problem~(\ref{eq:optproblemexact}). Overall, we notice that both estimates follow very similar trends and coincide in a significant portion of the domain. Next, their similarities and differences are discussed in greater detail. \begin{figure}[h] \centering \includegraphics{fig2.pdf} \caption{Comparison between lower bounds (LBs) on the GM-concurrence of a family of $N$-qubit diagonal symmetric states [cf. Eq.~(\ref{eq:dssparams})]. The solid line represents $C_X(\tilde{\bm{\rho}}_{ds,N})$ and the red circles represent $C_{\ket{\Phi}}(\bm{\rho}_{ds,N})$. While the density matrices $\tilde{\bm{\rho}}_{ds,N}$ (and their corresponding X-concurrence) were analitically computed [cf. Eqs.~(\ref{eq:defdss})--(\ref{eq:dssparams})], the values of $C_{\ket{\Phi}}(\bm{\rho}_{ds,N})$ were obtained from a numerical implementation of the optimal $\ket{\Phi}$ method [cf. Eq.~(\ref{eq:optproblemexact})].}\label{fig:SYMlowerbound} \end{figure} For $N=2$, owing to the X-form of $\bm{\rho}_{ds,2}$, $C_X$ is precisely equal to the Wootters concurrence and, therefore, exactly matches $C_{\ket{\Phi}}$ for every $\tau\in[0,1]$ --- see Plot~\ref{fig:SYMlowerbound}a. For $N=4, 6$, this \emph{exact} matching no longer occurs for $0<\tau\lesssim 0.212$ ($N=4$) and $0<\tau \lesssim 0.121$ ($N=6$). Nevertheless, as the insets in Plots~\ref{fig:SYMlowerbound}b,c show, the difference between $C_{\ket{\Phi}}$ and $C_X$ is orders of magnitude smaller than the actual value of the estimates, being thus negligible for most practical applications. For odd $N$, a more significant mismatch between $C_X$ and $C_{\ket{\Phi}}$ occurs at the extremes of the domain (cf. Plots~\ref{fig:SYMlowerbound}d,e,f), but it rapidly decreases and vanishes in a large central region of the domain, where neither estimates detect GM-entanglement. An important difference between $C_X(\tilde{\bm{\rho}}_{ds,N})$ and $C_{\ket{\Phi}}(\bm{\rho}_{ds,N})$ becomes apparent in the case $N=7$ (Plot~\ref{fig:SYMlowerbound}f), where we note that each estimate arrives to (and departs from) zero at slightly different values of $\tau$, in such a way that there are a few states whose GM-entanglement can be detected by the optimal-$\ket{\Phi}$ scheme, but not by the X-heuristic. \subsection{Steady states of the driven Dicke model} From the theoretical point of view, the Dicke model~\cite{54Dicke99} represents a special quantum mechanical model whose unique mathematical and physical properties allow us to describe important cooperative phenomena (such as, for example, resonance fluorescence and cooperative emission) far from the thermodynamic limit. Their virtues are also reflected in works involving the exact steady state solutions of its master equation that include (or not) the effects of detuning between a collective driving field and the atomic resonant frequency~\cite{79Puri200,80Drummond1179,81Lawande4171,02Schneider042107}. In this section, we focus on the steady state solution of the driven Dicke model at zero temperature \begin{equation}\label{eq:rhosN} \bm{\rho}_{s,N}=\frac{1}{D_N}\sum_{m,n=0}^N\left(\frac{\bm{J}_-}{g^\ast}\right)^m\left(\frac{\bm{J}_+}{g}\right)^n\,, \end{equation} where $N$ depicts the number of two-level atoms (ions), $D_{N}$ is a normalization constant, $\gamma \mathrel{\mathop:}= \gamma_{A}/\Omega$ denotes the ratio between the Einstein $A$-coefficient $\gamma_{A}$ of each atom (ion) and the Rabi frequency $\Omega$, and $g \mathrel{\mathop:}= i/\gamma$. Note that $\bm{J}_{\pm} \mathrel{\mathop:}= \sum_{\ell} \mathbf{1}_{2^{\ell-1}}\otimes\bm{\sigma}_\pm\otimes\mathbf{1}_{2^{N-\ell}}$ for $\ell=1,\ldots,N$ correspond to the collective raising and lowering operators expressed in terms of the Pauli matrices $\bm{\sigma}_{\pm}$ which satisfy, together with the collective inversion operator $\bm{J}_{z}$, the usual angular momentum commutation relations. In the~\ref{app:matrixform}, explicit matrix forms of $\bm{\rho}_{s,N}$ in the computational basis are given for $N=2,3,4$. Noticeably, the resulting matrices are not of the X-form and, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:minfvsgamma}, they cannot be exactly brought to the X-form via LU transformations (i.e., they do not assume the X-form in any orthonormal basis of product states). These observations qualify $\bm{\rho}_{s,N}$ as a good testbed for the X-heuristic and so, in Fig.~\ref{fig:DIKlowerbound}, we present the corresponding estimates obtained from numerical implementations of the X-heuristic and optimal-$\ket{\Phi}$ scheme. \begin{figure}[h] \centering \includegraphics{fig3.pdf} \caption{Distance (``$f$-metric''), as function of $\gamma$, between the set of X-density matrices and the closest LU transformed steady state of the driven Dicke model. The included red data points represent (half of) the sum of the absolute values squared of the anti-diagonal terms. For $N>2$, the LU operation that optimally decreases the off-X entries has a deleterious effect on the anti-diagonal as well, essentially making diagonal the transformed density matrix.}\label{fig:minfvsgamma} \end{figure} \begin{figure}[h] \centering \includegraphics{fig4.pdf} \caption{Comparison between the lower bounds $C_X(\tilde{\bm{\rho}}_{s,N})$ (black circles) and $C_{\ket{\Phi}}(\bm{\rho}_{s,N})$ (red circles) of the genuine multipartite concurrence of the $N$-qubit steady states of the driven Dicke model [cf. Eq.~(\ref{eq:rhosN})]. Both estimates were numerically calculated.}\label{fig:DIKlowerbound} \end{figure} At a glance of Fig.~\ref{fig:DIKlowerbound}, both $C_X$ and $C_{\ket{\Phi}}$ are seen to follow very similar trends: a zero plateau that extends from $\gamma=0$ up until $\gamma\approx 1$, followed by a sudden growth and, finally, an asymptotic decay. In what follows we offer a more in-depth analysis of these results by considering the cases $N=2$ and $N>2$ separately. In the case $N=2$, on top of $C_X$ and $C_{\ket{\Phi}}$, we have also plotted the Wootters concurrence of $\bm{\rho}_{s,2}$ which, in this case, is the ``genuine multipartite'' concurrence $C_{GME}$. Despite $\tilde{\bm{\rho}}_{s,2}$ not being of the X-form, we note that the three measures coincide up to the numerical precision of $10^{-14}$, with the zero plateu ranging up until $\gamma=1.00$ and the maximal concurrence ($\sim 7.735\times 10^{-2}$) occurring at $\gamma_{max}\approx 1.65$. Interestingly, the observed coincidence between the three measures signals that the X-concurrence formula may also be an exact concurrence formula for some non-X states. In~\ref{app:xlbGM}, this point is further explored with a demonstration that $C_X(\bm{\rho}_{s,2})$ matches \emph{exactly} the Wootters concurrence ($C_W$) of $\bm{\rho}_{s,2}$. This observation provides a (constructive) negative answer to an open question in Ref.~\cite{12Rafsanjani12043912} on whether the saturation of $C_{W}(\bm{\rho})\geq C_X(\bm{\rho})$ requires $\bm{\rho}$ to be of the X-form in some orthonormal product basis. For $N>2$, $C_X$ and $C_{\ket{\Phi}}$ no longer coincide for every value of $\gamma$. Nevertheless, the difference between them asymptoticaly decreases and nearly vanishes at relatively small values of $\gamma$. For example, the ratio $(C_{\ket{\Phi}}-C_X)/C_{\ket{\Phi}}$ is smaller than $3.2\%$ for $\gamma\gtrsim 7$ ($N=3$), $\gamma\gtrsim 2.2$ ($N=4$), $\gamma\gtrsim 1.66$ ($N=5$), $\gamma\gtrsim 1.4$ ($N=6$) and $\gamma\gtrsim 1.2$ ($N=7$). Of course, this behavior was to be expected since for such values of $\gamma$ we have already seen, in Fig.~\ref{fig:minfvsgamma}, that $\tilde{\bm{\rho}}_{s,N}$ is nearly X-formed. In fact, thanks to that, we can also infer that $C_X$ must well aproximate the (unknown) value of $C_{GME}$ in such values of $\gamma$. As it ocurred with the diagonal symmetric states, the main drawback in replacing $C_{\ket{\Phi}}$ with $C_X$ is that there are certain states that have its GM-entangled detected by the former but not by the latter. In Fig.~\ref{fig:DIKlowerbound}, this is expressed by the fact that the zero plateau generated by the X-heuristic is longer than that obtained with the optimal-$\ket{\Phi}$ scheme. However, as the plots show, the difference is usually very small, meaning that failure to detect GM-entanglement with the X-heuristic will only occur for very few and specific values of $\gamma$. Other than that, it is also worth noticing that each method foresees a maximal value of $C_{GME}$ at slightly different values of $\gamma$, in such a way that $\gamma_{max}^{(X)}>\gamma_{max}^{(\ket{\Phi})}$. However, the difference $\gamma_{max}^{(X)}-\gamma_{max}^{(\ket{\Phi})}$ is again very small and, ultimately, it is not clear which one more accurately describes the actual location of the maximum of $C_{GME}$. \section{Computational Efficiency}\label{sec:efficiency} The GM-concurrence estimates produced by the X-heuristic cannot improve on the corresponding estimates produced by the optimal-$\ket{\Phi}$ scheme; a fact that follows directly from the derivation of the X-heuristic (cf. Sec.~\ref{sec:heuristic}). There is, however, an important trade-off between accuracy and efficiency that must be considered before disregarding the X-heuristic in favor of the optimal-$\ket{\Phi}$ scheme. On the accuracy side, we have already seen that the X-estimates are usually pretty good approximations of the optimal-$\ket{\Phi}$ estimates. On the efficiency side, we now explicitly demonstrate that the X-estimates are significantly easier to compute both for the diagonal symmetric states and for the steady states of the driven Dicke model. As mentioned before, the computational advantage of the X-heuristic over the optimal-$\ket{\Phi}$ scheme relies upon two aspects of the objective function associated with the former: (i) it is smooth and (ii) it depends on a number of variables that halves the number of variables in the (non-smooth) objective function of the optimal-$\ket{\Phi}$ scheme. While the relevance of (ii) is obvious, the importance of (i) cannot be overestimated. Thanks to (i), the X-heuristic optimization problem can be regarded as ideal for the application of a \emph{quasi-Newton} method~\cite{06Nocedal}, a family of nonlinear optimization algorithms that take advantage of well-defined derivatives of smooth objective functions to more efficiently converge to a minimum. In this work, the numerical computations of the X-heuristic and optimal-$\ket{\Phi}$ estimates were performed with the MATLAB function \texttt{fminunc}, which implements a popular quasi-Newton algorithm known as BFGS (after its discoverers Broyden, Fletcher, Goldfarb and Shanno). As with any quasi-Newton algorithm, the BFGS performs successive evaluations of the gradient to build a quadratic model of the objective function that is sufficiently good to attain a superlinear rate of convergence. It contrasts with Newton's method~\cite{06Nocedal} in the sense that it does not require (nor attempts to compute) the Hessian matrix, typically a time-consuming and error-prone task. Instead, at each step, it gains information about the second derivative along the search direction by considering changes in the gradient. Although the BFGS algorithm requires repeated computations of the gradient, it has been noted to perform well also in nonsmooth optimization problems, as long as it does not run into a nonsmooth point (see, e.g.,~\cite{13Lewis135} and references therein). Consistently with this observation, we have observed a better performance of the optimal-$\ket{\Phi}$ scheme with the BFGS algorithm than with algorithms that do not rely on evaluations of the gradient (e.g., Nelder Mead algorithm~\cite{65Nelder308}, implemented by the MATLAB function \texttt{fminsearch}), especially for larger values of $N$. For this reason, aiming to build the most efficient implementation of the two schemes, we employed the BFGS algorithm for both. In order to compare the performance of the two schemes in producing reasonable estimates of GM-concurrence, we set a threshold equal to the X-estimates presented in Figs.~\ref{fig:SYMlowerbound} and \ref{fig:DIKlowerbound} and timed how long it took for each scheme to reach that threshold. As it is usually the case with search algorithms, a starting value had to be provided, and so we resorted to random initial guesses (uniformly sampled) to avoid biasing the optimizer toward (or against) a satisfactory minimum. By doing so, we could gauge how hard it is for each scheme to reach the threshold from a zero-knowledge initial condition. Each optimization was repeated $100$ times\footnote{Except for the time measurements of the optimal-$\ket{\Phi}$ scheme for states with $N=6$, which were repeated only $5$ times due to the long time-frame necessary to converge to a satisfactory value.}, and the five-number summary of the resulting ``wall-clock time'' distributions is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:time} as a box-and-whiskers plot. Plot~\ref{fig:time}a refers to the time measurements obtained for the diagonal symmetric state with $\tau=3.03\times 10^{-2}$ for every $N\in[2,7]$, whereas Plot~\ref{fig:time}b refers to the time measurements for the steady states of the driven Dicke model that, for each $N$, have the value of $\gamma$ corresponding to the peak of the X-estimates in Fig.~\ref{fig:DIKlowerbound}. We note that to obtain each box-and-whisker appearing in Fig.~\ref{fig:time}, several initial guesses were typically made because either (i) the optimizer converged to a unsatisfactory minimum or (ii) the optimizer failed to converge after $10^4$ iterations. Of course, the resulting box-and-whiskers take into account every (if any) unsuccessful attempt as well as the successful one. \begin{figure}[h] \centering \includegraphics{fig5.pdf} \caption{Box-and-whisker plots of computation time taken to reach the X-estimates of GM-concurrence shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:SYMlowerbound} and \ref{fig:DIKlowerbound} for (a) the $N$-qubit diagonal symmetric states with $\tau=3.03\times 10^{-2}$ and (b) the $N$-qubit steady state of the driven Dicke model (zero temperature) corresponding to the peaks of the X-estimate in Fig.~\ref{fig:DIKlowerbound}, i.e., $\gamma=1.652$ ($N=2$), $\gamma=1.623$ ($N=3$), $\gamma=1.362$ ($N=4$), $\gamma=1.217$ ($N=5$), $\gamma=1.072$ ($N=6$), $\gamma=0.956$ ($N=7$). The time measurements were conducted while running our MATLAB implementations of the X-heuristic (black) and optimal-$\ket{\Phi}$ scheme (red) with random initial guesses (uniformly sampled) and termination tolerances on the parameter values (\texttt{TolX}) and on the objective function value (\texttt{TolFun}) set to $10^{-11}$. For each combination of method and state, the timing was repeated $100$ times (except for the optimal-$\ket{\Phi}$ method applied to states with $N=6$, in which cases we contented ourselves with only $5$ repetitions). The plots display the five-number summary of the resulting time distributions. Whenever the optimization terminated without converging to a value equal to or greater than the desired threshold, another try was made (with a different random initial guess) until the threshold was reached. Computations were performed on a $2.2$-GHz Intel Core i7-2670QM.}\label{fig:time} \end{figure} Remarkably, Fig.~\ref{fig:time} reveals a significant advantage of the X-heuristic over the optimal-$\ket{\Phi}$ scheme, especially for the larger values of $N$. For $N=7$, for example, the X-heuristic estimates were produced in roughly $10$~s, whereas the optimal-$\ket{\Phi}$ scheme was unable to reach the threshold once, even after a week (approximately $6\times 10^5$~s) of computation. Most importantly, the plots suggest that the computational time for each scheme scales differently with $N$, with the X-heuristic resembling an exponential growth and the optimal-$\ket{\Phi}$ some worse scaling. Naturally, this observation cannot be explained by the difference in the number of variables associated to each scheme (since they both scale linearly with $N$), and we assign it to the smoothness (or lack thereof) of the objective functions. Because of this scaling, the X-heuristic may be the only viable option for GM-concurrence estimation in generic $N$-qubit states with intermediate values of $N$. The results of this section indicate that, despite the theoretical superiority of the optimal-$\ket{\Phi}$ scheme over the X-heuristic, the latter may actually overperform the former in practical situations where a time horizon has to be considered. For example, if we allow one second to obtain a GM-concurrence estimate for a state with $N\in[3,5]$, then Fig.~\ref{fig:time} implies that we are much more likely to obtain a better estimate with the X-heuristic than with the optimal-$\ket{\Phi}$ scheme, which may have converged to a lesser estimate (or even have not converged at all). Naturally, time constraints like this become virtually more important as $N$ increases. \section{Concluding Remarks}\label{sec:conclusion} In this paper we introduced a heuristic method for estimating the GM-concurrence of an $N$-qubit density matrix. It consists of evaluating the $N$-qubit X-state GM-concurrence formula for density matrices that are not of the X-form, but were previously brought ``as close as possible'' to it with a LU transformation. We have shown that the estimates thus produced are lower bounds on the GM-concurrence by demonstrating that they actually lower bound a standard lower bound on the GM-concurrence (attainable via a numerical procedure which we refer to as the ``optimal-$\ket{\Phi}$'' method). Most importantly, by examining two prominent families of mixed $N$-qubit states, we found that our estimates are usually very close to those produced by the optimal-$\ket{\Phi}$ scheme and are significantly easier to be numerically computed and, in certain cases of high symmetry, can be analytically obtained. As for future directions, let us mention two possible extensions of the present work. First, it would be interesting to evaluate the performance of the X-heuristic in other well-established families of $N$-qubit mixed states such as reduced ground states of spin chain models. As a matter of fact, it is fair to say that the X-heuristic has already been successfully applied in this context, in Ref.~\cite{14Giampaolo93033}, where the genuine tripartite concurrence of the reduced ground state of three spins symmetrically distributed in the cluster-Ising model was exactly calculated thanks to the fact that such states can be turned into X-states via LU transformations. Nevertheless, the application of our heuristic in alike models for which the X-form is not exactly attainable is yet to be explored and is likely to provide an efficient tool for GM-entanglement estimation in condensed matter systems. Second, the requirement of approximating the X-form via LU transformations is unnecessarily strong for the goal of preserving GM-concurrence. In fact, it was recently conjectured that a generic two-qubit density matrix can always be turned into a X-density matrix of same entanglement via a unitary transformation that is not necessarily local~\cite{13Hedemann}. In Ref.~\cite{14Mendonca79}, this conjecture was rigourously proved for three entanglement measures and, moreover, a semi-analitic prescription for constructing the corresponding ``entanglement-preserving-unitaries'' was delineated. Along the same lines, it would be interesting to characterize the most general family of ``GM-concurrence-preserving-unitaries'' and attempt to approximate the X-form via conjugation with elements of this less constrained family. In that case, better X-form approximations should be expected, presumably improving the quality of the resulting GM-concurrence estimates. Of course, this new optimization problem may be less suitable for numerical implementation, in which case the trade-off between efficiency and accuracy should be carefully reconsidered. \section*{Acknowledgements} P.E.M.F.M. acknowledges the financial support of the Brazilian Air Force and the program ``Ci\^encia sem Fronteiras'', Project No. 200024/2014-0.
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro} Ground-based observations are naturally affected by various physical processes in the Earth's atmosphere, in particular scattering and absorption. The dynamics of the weather conditions, seasonal effects, or climate change lead to variabilities in temperature, pressure, and the chemical composition on time scales from seconds to decades, making the absorption correction a demanding matter. Thus, any data calibration usually needs supplementary calibration frames. However, this approach is very expensive in terms of telescope time, because these data should be taken directly before or after the science target. This applies particularly to the correction arising from molecular absorption in the Earth's atmosphere. The required supplementary calibration frames are observations of telluric standard stars (hereafter TSS). The TSS are usually bright hot stars (e.g. B-type), that show only a few, well known intrinsic spectral features. The TSS have to be observed at a similar airmass, time, and line of sight as the science target to probe the same atmosphere column. Within the framework of the in-kind contribution of Austria's accession to the European Southern Observatory (ESO), we developed a comprehensive sky model\footnote{\url{http://www.eso.org/observing/etc/skycalc/skycalc.htm}} covering a wavelength range from $0.3$ to $30~\mu$m \citep{NOL12}. It was originally designed for the ESO Exposure Time Calculator\footnote{\url{http://www.eso.org/observing/etc/}} and incorporates several components, such as airglow, scattered moonlight \citep{JON13}, zodiacal light \citep{LEI98}, scattered starlight, and the telescope emission modelled as a grey body. It also contains a spectral model of the Earth's lower atmosphere in local thermal equilibrium calculated by means of the radiative transfer code LNFL/LBLRTM\footnote{\url{http://rtweb.aer.com/lblrtm_frame.html}} \citep{CLO05}. This code is used with the spectral line parameter database {\tt aer}, which is based on HITRAN\footnote{\url{http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/}} \citep{ROT09} and delivered together with the code. Averaged atmospheric profiles for Cerro Paranal describing the chemical composition as a function of height (combination of the ESO MeteoMonitor\footnote{\tt http://archive.eso.org/asm/ambient-server}, a standard atmosphere\footnote{\url{http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/RFM/atm/}} and the 3D Global Data Assimilation System (GDAS) model\footnote{\tt http://www.ready.noaa.gov/gdas1.php\label{fn:gdas1}}) are also used as input. The GDAS model is provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)\footref{fn:gdas1} and contains time-dependent profiles of the temperature, pressure, and humidity. The ESO In-Kind software also includes tools for removing the atmospheric signature in spectra\footnote{\url{http://www.eso.org/pipelines/skytools/}}$^,$\footnote{\url{http://www.uibk.ac.at/eso/software/}}. The package \mf{} is an alternative approach for performing the telluric absorption correction by means of theoretically calculated transmission spectra based on the atmospheric model. We use the previously mentioned radiative transfer code and line database to derive synthetic transmission curves. The required atmospheric input profile is created in the same way as for the sky model, but for the time and location of the observations and not averaged. The algorithm and package functionalities are described in more detail in \cite{SME14} (hereafter Paper~I). Here, we evaluate the quality of {\tt molecfit} as a telluric absorption correction tool for ESO Very Large Telescope (VLT) instruments. The focus lies on observations taken with the \xshoot{} instrument \citep{VER11}, an echelle spectrograph covering simultaneously the wavelength regime from the $U$ to the $K$ band at medium resolution. We use two methods: (a) a statistical study of the quality of the correction by means of figures of merit, and (b) a comparison of the molecfit correction with that obtained using the traditional method based on observations of TSS. We first briefly describe the method of the telluric absorption correction incorporated in \mf{} (Sect.~\ref{subsec:tellcorr}). A description of the test data set is given in Sect.~\ref{sec:data}. In the following, we perform two different tests: In Sect.~\ref{sec:results}, we investigate the dependence of the telluric absorption correction quality on several parameters, i.e. the influence of the line transmission, observing conditions, spectral resolution, fitting ranges, input parameters, the atmospheric profiles, and the signal-to-noise ratio $S/N$. For this purpose, we introduce two figures of merit to estimate the quality of the telluric correction $I_\mathrm{off}$ and $I_\mathrm{res}$, describing the systematic offsets and the remaining small-scale residuals of the corrections, respectively. These quantities are determined for a large data set of X-Shooter spectra, to which \mf{} is applied with default parameters optimised for this instrument. The results of this analysis allow the user to estimate the achievable quality for the telluric absorption correction in case an individual parameter set optimisation is not possible, e.g. due to the large number of spectra. In Sect.~\ref{sec:comparison}, we compare the classical method based on a TSS with \mf{} as another test. We have selected four science observations, for which both methods are optimised. In this way, individually optimised results can be compared for both methods. The results of this comparison are demonstrated by focusing on the scientifically relevant spectral details. Section~\ref{sec:summary} provides a summary of our findings. \section{Telluric correction with \mf{}}\label{subsec:tellcorr} The correction with the \mf{} package is performed in two steps: \begin{itemize} \item Determination of the best-fit atmospheric and instrumental parameters: they are related to the total column densities of the input atmospheric profile and the instrumental parameters (spectral line profile, wavelength calibration, continuum position) are optimised by means of a $\chi^2$-Levenberg-Marquardt minimisation algorithm (see Paper~I for a comprehensive description of the underlying algorithms) to best reproduce the observed telluric spectrum in selected wavelength regions. By varying the scaling factor of the molecular profiles of the initial input atmospheric profile, the programme iteratively calculates transmission curves, which are fitted to the input science spectrum. To minimise the calculation time, to optimise the continuum fit, and/or to avoid regions affected by stellar spectral features or instrument defects, the fitting is restricted to user-defined spectral ranges. \item Correction of the telluric spectrum: the best-fit atmospheric and instrumental parameters are used to calculate the atmospheric transmission spectrum over the entire wavelength range of the scientific observation. The science spectrum is then divided by this transmission curve to produce telluric corrected data. \end{itemize} \begin{table} \caption[]{Table of objects used for detailed tests.} \label{tab:tac_comp_dataset1} \centering \begin{tabular}{l l r l l} \hline\hline \noalign{\smallskip} \#$^{a}$ & object & median counts & slit & Prog.-ID\\ & type & [ADU] & [$\arcsec\times\arcsec$] & \\ \noalign{\smallskip} \hline \noalign{\smallskip} 1 & Seyfert 2 & 462 & 1.5x11 & 087.B-0614\\ 2 & GRB & 241 & 0.9x11$^{b}$ & 091.C-0934\\ \noalign{\smallskip} \hline \noalign{\smallskip} 3 & B[e] star & 7684 & 0.4x11 & 084.C-0952\\ 4 & E0 galaxy & 5236 & 0.9x11 & 384.B-1029\\ 5 & Carbon star & 50587 & 0.9x11 & 084.D-0117\\ 6 & PN & 6214 & 0.4x11 & 385.C-0720\\ \noalign{\smallskip} \hline \end{tabular} \tablefoot{\\ \tablefoottext{a}{Objects \#1 and \#2 are data with low $S/N$ used for tests on the reliability of \mf{} when applied to such data. \#3 through \#6 are used for a detailed comparison with the classical method. \\} \tablefoottext{b}{observed with the $K$ band blocking filter \citep{VER11}} } \end{table} \section{The data set}\label{sec:data} In order to evaluate the performance of \mf{}, we have used archival data obtained with the \xshoot{} instrument mounted at the ESO VLT \citep{VER11}. This instrument covers the entire wavelength range from $0.3$ to $2.5\,\mu$m in three spectral arms (UVB arm from the ultraviolet to the $B$ band; VIS arm in the visual regime; NIR arm in the near-infrared regime), at medium resolution ($R\sim3300$ to $18200$, depending on the slit width) simultaneously. This broad wavelength regime gives the opportunity to study the correction of several absorption bands of different species simultaneously (e.g. H$_2$O, O$_2$, CO$_2$). We have reduced the entire publically available ESO archive data from October 2009 to March 2013, leading to a comprehensive data set taken under various observing conditions, since \xshoot{} is frequently used. We used the ESO standard pipeline in version V2.0.0 under Reflex V2.3 on our cluster\footnote{12 x Intel Xeon X5650@2.67GHz/ 12GB RAM per node}. For studying the influence of the atmospheric conditions and instrumental set-ups on the quality of telluric absorption correction (see Sect.~\ref{sec:results}), we have taken all 1D spectra of TSS without flux calibration until March 2013. In total, there are 4218 NIR-arm and 3823 VIS-arm spectra. UVB-arm spectra were not considered due to the lack of molecular absorption features\footnote{Note that the ozone absorption by the Huggins and Chappuis bands (see Paper~I) is usually taken into account by the extinction correction \citep[see e.g.][]{PAT11}.}. Due to occasional failures of the automatic \xshoot{} pipeline, the number of obtained spectra is lower than the number of exposures in the archive. Since the obtained set of reduced data was large enough for our purpose, we did not attempt to re-run the pipeline manually (possibly using tuned reduction parameters) for the cases for which the automatic approach failed. Two observations of a $\gamma$-ray burst and a Seyfert 2 galaxy (\#1 and 2 in Tables~\ref{tab:tac_comp_dataset1} and \ref{tab:tac_comp_dataset2}) were used to investigate the quality of the telluric absorption correction obtained with \mf{} when applied to data with low $S/N$. Both observations show low count numbers (462 and 241 ADU, respectively) and were also taken at significant airmass, which increases the effect of atmospheric absorption. For the comparison with the classical method described in Sect.~\ref{sec:comparison}, we have selected science observations of four different astrophysical objects (\#3 through 6 in Tables~\ref{tab:tac_comp_dataset1} and \ref{tab:tac_comp_dataset2}) in conjunction with their corresponding TSS observations manually from our \xshoot{} test data set in order to perform a comparison between the telluric absorption correction achieved with \mf{} and the classical method related to TSS. The science test data sets were selected to cover different astrophysical objects and $S/N$ traced by the counts in ADU (see Table~\ref{tab:tac_comp_dataset1}) to also estimate the limits of the application of both methods. The TSS spectra were selected to coincide best with the airmass and the date of the corresponding science observation (see Table~\ref{tab:tac_comp_dataset2}) and were usually reduced with the same flat field. As the majority of the telluric absorption features arise in the infrared regime, we restrict this investigation to NIR-arm data. \begin{table*} \caption[]{\xshoot{} NIR-arm data set used for the detailed tests (see also Table~\ref{tab:tac_comp_dataset1}).} \label{tab:tac_comp_dataset2} \centering \vspace{5pt} \begin{tabular}{l | l l l | l l l | c} \hline\hline \noalign{\smallskip} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Science observations} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Telluric standard stars } & \\ \#$^{a}$ & object & airmass & obs. date $t_{\rm SCI}$ & star & airmass & obs. date $t_{\rm TSS}$ & $\Delta t_{\rm obs}$$^{b}$ [min]\\ \noalign{\smallskip} \hline \noalign{\smallskip} 1 & PKS 1934-63 & 1.69 & 2011-07-01T01:57:23 & -- & -- & -- & -- \\ 2 & GRB 130606A & 1.715 & 2013-06-07T04:09:16 & -- & -- & -- & -- \\ \noalign{\smallskip} \hline \noalign{\smallskip} 3& V921-Sco & 1.109 & 2010-03-10T09:01:02 & Hip084409 & 1.058 & 2010-03-10T09:42:39 & 42 \\ 4& NGC5812 & 1.06 & 2010-03-13T08:57:03 & Hip073345 & 1.128 & 2010-03-13T08:48:11 & 9 \\ 5& HE 1331-0247 & 1.075 & 2010-03-24T06:10:55 & Hip085195 & 1.152 & 2010-03-24T07:54:29 & 104 \\ 6& IC1266 & 1.222 & 2010-07-05T05:54:38 & Hip085885 & 1.248 & 2010-07-05T06:07:41 & 13 \\ \noalign{\smallskip} \hline \end{tabular} \tablefoot{\\ \tablefoottext{a}{Objects \#1 and \#2 are data with low $S/N$ used for tests on the reliability of \mf{} when applied to such data. \#3 through \#6 are used for a detailed comparison with the classical method. \\} \tablefoottext{b}{approximate time between TSS and science target observations ($\Delta t_{\rm obs}=\mid\!t_{\rm SCI}-t_{\rm TSS}\!\mid$)}\\ } \end{table*} \section{Quality of telluric absorption correction}\label{sec:results} In the following, we evaluate the quality of telluric absorption correction with \mf{} by means of a large sample of \xshoot{} TSS spectra (see Sect.~\ref{sec:data}). We mainly focus on the NIR arm, where the telluric absorption correction is most crucial. We also complement the discussion with results from the VIS arm. The \mf{} test set-up for the data set and the quality indicators used are discussed in Sect.~\ref{sec:approach}. The results are shown in Sects.~\ref{sec:outliers} to \ref{sec:instru}. The effect of changing the fitting ranges and \mf{} input parameters is discussed for an example spectrum in Sects.~\ref{sec:ranges} and \ref{sec:inputpar}, respectively. The influence of differences in the input water vapour profile is described in Sect.~\ref{sec:profiles}. Finally, we investigate the effect of low $S/N$ data on the fitting quality in Sect.~\ref{sec:low_sn}. \subsection{Test set-up and figures of merit}\label{sec:approach} \begin{table*} \caption[]{\Mf{} parameter set-up for the telluric absorption correction evaluation of NIR-arm \xshoot{} TSS spectra} \label{tab:setup_nir} \centering \vspace{5pt} \begin{tabular}{l l l} \hline\hline \noalign{\smallskip} Parameter$^\mathrm{a}$ & Value & Short description \\ \noalign{\smallskip} \hline \noalign{\smallskip} {\sc wlgtomicron} & $10^{-3}$ & factor to convert the input wavelength units into $\mu$m \\ {\sc vac\_air} & air & wavelengths in vacuum or air \\ {\sc ftol} & $10^{-2}$ & relative $\chi^2$ convergence criterion \\ {\sc xtol} & $10^{-2}$ & relative parameter convergence criterion \\ {\sc list\_molec} & O$_2$ CO$_2$ H$_2$O CH$_4$ CO & list of molecules to be included in the model \\ {\sc fit\_molec} & 0 0 1 0 0 & flags for if each molecule is to be fit (1=yes, 0=no) \\ {\sc relcol} & 1. 1.05 1. 1. 1. & relative molecular column densities (1~=~input profile) \\ {\sc fit\_cont} & 1 & flag for polynomial fit of the continuum (1=yes, 0=no) \\ {\sc cont\_n} & 1 & degree of polynomial for the continuum fit \\ {\sc cont\_const} & $10^{4}$ & initial constant term for the continuum fit \\ {\sc fit\_wlc} & 1 & flag for refinement of wavelength solution (1=yes, 0=no) \\ {\sc wlc\_n} & 0 & degree of Chebyshev polynomial for refined wavelength \\ & & solution \\ {\sc wlc\_const} & 0. & initial constant term of the Chebyshev polynomial \\ {\sc fit\_res\_box} & 1 & flag for resolution fit using a boxcar filter (1=yes, 0=no) \\ {\sc relres\_box} & 0.75 & initial value for FWHM of boxcar relative to slit width \\ & & ($\geq 0$ and $\leq 2$) \\ {\sc kernmode} & 0 & kernel mode (0=independent Gaussian and Lorentzian, \\ & & 1=Voigt profile) \\ {\sc fit\_res\_gauss} & 1 & flag for resolution fit using a Gaussian filter (1=yes, 0=no) \\ {\sc res\_gauss} & 1. & initial value for FWHM of Gaussian (in pixels) \\ {\sc fit\_res\_lorentz} & 0 & flag for resolution fit using a Lorentzian filter (1=yes, 0=no) \\ {\sc res\_lorentz} & 0. & initial value for FWHM of Lorentzian (in pixels) \\ {\sc kernfac} & 3. & kernel size in units of FWHM \\ {\sc varkern} & 1 & flag for selecting a constant (=0) or a variable kernel (=1) \\ {\sc pixsc} & 0.20 & pixel scale in arcsec \\ \noalign{\smallskip} \hline \end{tabular} \tablefoot{\\ \tablefoottext{a}{Only parameters required for the fitting procedure and specific to the \xshoot{} data are listed} (see the \mf{} User Manual for more details} \end{table*} \begin{table} \caption[]{Wavelength ranges (vacuum) for fitting NIR- and VIS-arm \xshoot{} TSS spectra} \label{tab:ranges} \centering \vspace{5pt} \begin{tabular}{c c c c l} \hline\hline \noalign{\smallskip} Arm & No. & $\lambda_\mathrm{min}$ [$\mu$m] & $\lambda_\mathrm{max}$ [$\mu$m] & Main molecule \\ \noalign{\smallskip} \hline \noalign{\smallskip} NIR & 1 & 1.120 & 1.130 & H$_2$O \\ NIR & 2 & 1.470 & 1.480 & H$_2$O \\ NIR & 3 & 1.800 & 1.810 & H$_2$O \\ NIR & 4 & 2.060 & 2.070 & CO$_2$ \\ NIR & 5 & 2.350 & 2.360 & CH$_4$ \\ \noalign{\smallskip} \hline \noalign{\smallskip} VIS & 1 & 0.686 & 0.694 & O$_2$ \\ VIS & 2 & 0.759 & 0.770 & O$_2$ \\ VIS & 3 & 0.930 & 0.945 & H$_2$O \\ \noalign{\smallskip} \hline \end{tabular} \end{table} \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[width=9.0cm,clip=true]{mfr_method_nir.ps} \caption[]{Reference \xshoot{} NIR-arm model transmission spectrum binned in 1\,nm stepsfor a mean amount of precipitable water vapour (PWV) of 3.1\,mm and an airmass of 1. The bins marked by red symbols are classified as continuum. The transmission of these bins ranges from 0.95 to 1.00. The mean value is 0.99. The selected bins are used to derive the systematic offsets (residuals) in the telluric absorption corrected spectra. Bins that belong to four specific transmission ranges corresponding to $T = 0.9$ (blue), 0.8 (cyan), 0.5 (magenta), and 0.2 (green) are indicated as well. The figure also shows the fitting ranges (yellow bars) that were used by \mf{} (see also Table~\ref{tab:ranges}).} \label{fig:method_nir} \end{figure} \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[width=9.0cm,clip=true]{mfp_taceval_nir_1000.ps} \caption[]{Quality of telluric absorption correction for an example TSS spectrum taken with the NIR arm of the \xshoot{} spectrograph. The star was observed with a 1.2'' slit at an airmass of 1.32. The seeing was 0.76'' and the PWV (as derived from the fitting) was 1.46\,mm. {\em Upper panel:} The telluric absorption corrected spectrum (red) is shown in comparison with the original spectrum (black). {\em Middle and lower panels:} Mean counts and standard deviation in ADU for a grid of 1\,nm bins for the telluric absorption corrected example spectrum. The two subfigures also highlight the pixels for the continuum interpolation (red) and the different transmission ranges for the quality analysis of the telluric absorption correction. For more details, see Fig.~\ref{fig:method_nir}.} \label{fig:taceval_nir_1000} \end{figure} \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[width=9.0cm,clip=true]{mfp_tacevalbin.ps} \caption[]{Indicators $I_\mathrm{off}$ for systematic offsets ({\em upper panel}) and $I_\mathrm{res}$ for small-scale residuals ({\em lower panel}) of the telluric absorption correction for single 1\,nm bins of the \xshoot{} NIR-arm spectrum shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:taceval_nir_1000}. Both quantities are given as a function of transmission. Bins belonging to the different transmission ranges used in the discussion are marked by different colours (see legend and Fig.~\ref{fig:method_nir}). Small red symbols identify bins which are excluded from further analysis due to either very low transmission or very weak line strength.} \label{fig:tacevalbin} \end{figure} The performance of \mf{} was tested with a fixed input parameter set. This approach is appropriate to estimate statistically the quality of the correction on a large set of data. Nevertheless, further quality improvements could be obtained by adjusting the fitting parameters for each individual spectrum. For the NIR arm, the applied set-up is shown in Table~\ref{tab:setup_nir} (see also Paper~I). For the wavelength range from 1 to 2.5\,$\mu$m, the model-relevant molecules are O$_2$, CO$_2$, H$_2$O, CH$_4$, and CO. For the VIS arm, it is sufficient to consider O$_2$ and H$_2$O. Only water vapour is fitted in spectra of both arms, since the concentration variations and the impact on the \xshoot{} data of the other species are expected to be small. The equatorial standard atmospheric profile that we use is already more than a decade old (prepared by J. J. Remedios 2001; see \citealt{SEI10}). As the global CO$_2$ concentration increases with time \citep{WMO12}, the input CO$_2$ column was multiplied by 1.05 to be representative of the \xshoot{} archival data. A linear fit ({\sc cont\_n}~=~1) was performed to correct the continua of the spectra in each of the fitting ranges (see below). The initial continuum factor {\sc cont\_const} was set to $10^4$ to be in the order of the typical count level in ADU of \xshoot{} data without flux calibration. For the wavelength grid correction, which is required to handle calibration uncertainties and an inaccurate centring of the target in the slit, only a constant shift was allowed ({\sc wlc\_n}~=~0) (see Sect.~\ref{sec:inputpar} for a discussion). For the instrumental profile, a combination of a boxcar and Gaussian was assumed. A possible Lorentzian was not considered, since a study of the shape of the line profiles did not reveal significant Lorentzian wings. The width of the initial boxcar was chosen to be 75\% of the slit width ({\sc relres\_box}), which should be close to the real value for the different slits (as confirmed by tests). An exception is the 5'' slit, which is, however, rarely used for observations of science targets. For the Gaussian, a reasonable initial FWHM of 1~pixel ({\sc res\_gauss}) and a kernel size of 3~FWHM ({\sc kernfac}) were given. Since echelle spectra are fitted, the kernel FWHM was selected to be proportional to the wavelength ({\sc varkern}~=~1). The profile-related input parameters refer to the central wavelengths of 1.74\,$\mu$m and 0.78\,$\mu$m for the NIR and VIS arm, respectively. For the 214 spectra (5.1\%) taken with a $K$-blocking filter \citep[see][]{VER11}, the corresponding wavelength is 1.55\,$\mu$m. As shown by Table~\ref{tab:ranges} and Fig.~\ref{fig:method_nir}, the fitting of the atmospheric transmission model in the NIR arm was restricted to five narrow 10\,nm wide fitting ranges (or inclusion regions; cf. Paper~I). They cover only about 3\% of the entire wavelength range, which ensures that the fitting time is reasonable (typically 1 to 2\,min) and the continuum fit with a low order polynomial is accurate enough. Moreover, only a relatively small fraction of the NIR-arm wavelength range is suitable for the fits, since a good fit requires a wide range of transmission values. The windows are sufficient to derive the amount of atmospheric water vapour (CO$_2$ and CH$_4$ are not fitted), the wavelength shift, and the instrumental profile. Since the last two properties have to be determined for the entire spectrum, Ranges~4 and 5, which do not show significant H$_2$O absorption, are also important for a good coverage of the full wavelength range (see also Sects.~\ref{sec:ranges} and \ref{sec:inputpar}). Moreover, our optimised set of fitting ranges avoids absorption features of typical TSS. The VIS arm is much less affected by molecular absorption. The only prominent bands are the A and B molecular oxygen bands and the water vapour band at 0.94\,$\mu$m. Therefore, fitting ranges were only defined in these three bands as indicated by Table~\ref{tab:ranges}. The H$_2$O-related range avoids the wavelengths of potentially strong Paschen lines, which are present in spectra of hot TSS. Running \mf{} for the input parameters listed in Table~\ref{tab:setup_nir} and the fitting ranges shown in Table~\ref{tab:ranges} results in the best-fit parameters for each sample exposure (see Sect.~\ref{sec:data}). These are then used to provide a telluric absorption corrected spectrum for the full wavelength range (see Fig.~\ref{fig:taceval_nir_1000}). The quality of the fit in the pre-defined fitting ranges can be evaluated by considering the RMS of the residuals, which is provided by \mf{}. However, the quality of the telluric absorption correction must be studied over the whole spectral range with respect to the quality of the corrected object spectrum and therefore requires a different analysis. For this purpose, we have defined the figures of merit $I_\mathrm{off}$ and $I_\mathrm{res}$. The former measures the continuum-normalised difference between the original and telluric absorption corrected spectrum, relative to a locally-averaged telluric absorption strength. The latter traces the continuum-normalised standard deviation of the residuals of the correction, relative to a locally-averaged telluric absorption strength. Therefore, $I_\mathrm{off}$ and $I_\mathrm{res}$ are indicators of large-scale systematic offsets in the telluric absorption corrected spectra and small-scale (or high-frequency) variations of the residuals, respectively. These quality indicators were calculated in the following way: \begin{itemize} \item First, each telluric absorption corrected NIR- and VIS-arm spectrum was divided into 1\,nm and 0.5\,nm wide bins, respectively (corresponding to about 17 and 25~pixels, i.e. a few resolution elements; cf. Sect.~\ref{sec:instru}). \item The mean and the standard deviation were calculated for each of these bins (see Fig.~\ref{fig:taceval_nir_1000}). \item The bins for which the average transmission model in Fig.~\ref{fig:method_nir} shows no or only minor absorption were selected as continuum nodes. Even though this selection includes weak outer wings of some bands, this is not critical. Lines with a depth of about 1\% can be well corrected (see Fig.~\ref{fig:taceval_nir_1000}), especially with respect to the much stronger lines for which the quality of the correction is evaluated. \item The continuum bins were used to interpolate the object continuum at the positions of bins with significant absorption. \item The interpolated continuum intensity for each bin was then subtracted from the corresponding measured mean. This results in an estimate of systematic offsets in the telluric absorption corrected spectra. \item To be independent of the absolute flux, the offsets and standard deviations of each bin were divided by the interpolated continuum mean values. \item To make the resulting values independent of the wavelength- and time-dependent transmission $T$, the relative offsets and standard deviations were divided by $1 - T$, i.e. the average amount of absorption for each bin (see Fig.~\ref{fig:tacevalbin}). \item Five transmission ranges were defined for a detailed analysis of the telluric absorption correction. Apart from a wide range from 0.1 to 0.95, ranges centred around 0.9, 0.8, 0.5, and 0.2 were defined (see Figs.~\ref{fig:method_nir} to \ref{fig:tacevalbin}). We did not consider $T$ close to 1 and 0, since the related results are mainly noise driven and are therefore not suited to evaluate \mf{} (see also Sects.~\ref{sec:outliers} and \ref{sec:obscond}). \item The bins that belong to each of the five ranges were determined by using the best-fit transmission spectra of the individual sample spectra. Thus, the bin assignment depends on the airmass, amount of atmospheric water vapour, and spectral resolution. \item Finally, to obtain the figures of merit and to reduce the effect of outliers, we took the median of the relative offset and standard deviation of the bins for each transmission range as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:tacevalbin}. \end{itemize} The resulting quality indicators $I_\mathrm{off}$ and $I_\mathrm{res}$ are used in the subsequent analysis. If the transmission range is not specified explicitly, the results for the wide range are given. Note that $I_\mathrm{off}$ and $I_\mathrm{res}$ have to be multiplied by $1 - T$ to provide the systematic offsets of the correction and the intra-bin standard deviations of the residuals relative to the object continuum. More details on the interpretation of our figures of merit can be found in Sect.~\ref{sec:obscond}. \subsection{Outliers}\label{sec:outliers} \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[width=9.0cm,clip=true]{mfp_mcont_sig.ps} \caption[]{Small-scale residual indicator $I_\mathrm{res}$ for 1\,nm bins versus the mean model continuum counts in ADU for the five fitting ranges. The red dashed line shows the selection criterion for sufficiently high S/N for the detailed analysis.} \label{fig:mcont_sig} \end{figure} The indicator $I_\mathrm{res}$ measures variations in the count level within each of the narrow bins of a telluric absorption corrected spectrum. Primarily, this traces the small-scale quality of the telluric absorption correction. However, random noise, defects in the spectra, sky subtraction residuals, and spectral features of the observed object can also cause an increase of $I_\mathrm{res}$. This is demonstrated for random noise in Fig.~\ref{fig:mcont_sig}, which shows a clear increase of the scatter for lower mean counts (calculated for the fitted pixels), i.e. decreasing S/N. In order to avoid difficulties in interpreting the $I_\mathrm{res}$ sample statistics, spectra with mean counts less than $10^4$\,ADU are excluded from further analysis. This threshold concerns 120 spectra of the NIR arm (i.e. 2.8\% of the sample) and 36 spectra of the VIS arm (0.9\%). Excluding these data does not mean that their corrected spectra have a bad quality. For example, the mean $I_\mathrm{off}$ for NIR-arm spectra with mean counts between $10^3$ and $10^4$\,ADU is 0.000 ($\sigma = 0.053$), i.e. there are no systematic continuum offsets on average. For a discussion of the quality of the telluric absorption correction for low-S/N spectra, see Sect.~\ref{sec:low_sn}. The output files of the \xshoot{} pipeline provide bad pixel masks, which can be used by \mf{} to exclude critical pixels from the fitting procedure. Sometimes in the NIR arm, it seems that more pixels were rejected by the pipeline than required. In the case of a very small number of available pixels, the fit becomes unreliable. While the standard deviation might even decrease, systematic offsets are expected to become more significant. In addition, crucial continuum pixels for the interpolation of ranges with strong absorption bands could be missing, which makes the derivation of $I_\mathrm{off}$ less reliable. For this reason, we excluded 247 NIR-arm spectra (5.9\%) with less than half the maximum number of pixels in the fitting ranges. So far, we have mainly rejected spectra where a proper calculation of the quality indicators $I_\mathrm{off}$ and $I_\mathrm{res}$ could not be guaranteed. However, for evaluating the quality of the telluric absorption correction, it is important to know the fraction of obviously failed fits. For this purpose, we studied the best-fit FWHM of the instrumental profile (combined boxcar and Gaussian) and the best-fit shift of the wavelength grid. Interestingly, only a small number of NIR-arm spectra (no VIS-arm spectra) showed values which were clearly separated from the general distribution. 28 best-fit model spectra with a FWHM above 10~pixels (or below 1.5~pixels) or wavelength shifts of more than 2.5~pixels relative to the sample mean could be identified as clear outliers. 14 of these 28 spectra were already rejected by the critera described above. \Mf{} appears to show a very robust performance, at least for \xshoot{} TSS spectra. For further analysis, we excluded all the discussed spectra with suspicious fits. This results in subsamples of 3837 NIR-arm (91\% of the full sample) and 3787 VIS-arm spectra (99\%). \subsection{Influence of line transmission and observing conditions} \label{sec:obscond} \begin{table} \caption[]{Sample averages and standard deviations for the transmission-dependent indicators $I_\mathrm{off}$ and $I_\mathrm{res}$ of the quality of the telluric absorption correction of NIR-arm \xshoot{} spectra} \label{tab:nmed_nir} \centering \vspace{5pt} \begin{tabular}{c c c@{\ \ \ }c c@{\ \ \ }c} \hline\hline \noalign{\smallskip} Ref. $T$ & $T$ range & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$I_\mathrm{off}$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$I_\mathrm{res}$} \\ & & mean & $\sigma$ & mean & $\sigma$ \\ \noalign{\smallskip} \hline \noalign{\smallskip} --- & $0.10 - 0.95$ & $-0.009$ & 0.032 & 0.196 & 0.063 \\ 0.9 & $0.88 - 0.92$ & $-0.008$ & 0.044 & 0.209 & 0.071 \\ 0.8 & $0.75 - 0.85$ & $-0.024$ & 0.046 & 0.184 & 0.068 \\ 0.5 & $0.45 - 0.55$ & $-0.004$ & 0.038 & 0.150 & 0.059 \\ 0.2 & $0.15 - 0.25$ & $+0.035$ & 0.063 & 0.237 & 0.136 \\ \noalign{\smallskip} \hline \end{tabular} \end{table} \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[width=9.0cm,clip=true]{mfp_nmed_x.ps} \caption[]{Indicators $I_\mathrm{off}$ for systematic offsets and $I_\mathrm{res}$ for small-scale residuals of the telluric absorption correction for 1\,nm bins. Only data points of the filtered subsample are shown.} \label{fig:nmed_x} \end{figure} \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[width=9.0cm,clip=true]{mfp_fbadres_PWV.ps} \caption[]{Fraction of NIR-arm bins with standard deviations of the residuals of the telluric absorption correction greater than or equal to 5\% of the object continuum as function of the best-fit PWV in mm. The red regression line has a slope of 0.15 per dex.} \label{fig:fbadres_PWV} \end{figure} \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[width=9.0cm,clip=true]{mfp_PWV.ps} \caption[]{Best-fit PWV obtained by \mf{} in mm as function of the observing date in years.} \label{fig:PWV} \end{figure} For the filtered NIR-arm sample (see Sect.~\ref{sec:outliers}), Table~\ref{tab:nmed_nir} shows the mean values and standard deviations of $I_\mathrm{off}$ and $I_\mathrm{res}$ for the five transmission ranges listed. In addition, the individual values for the wide transmission range from 0.1 to 0.95 are plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:nmed_x}. The latter does not indicate significant features in the distribution of the data points. $I_\mathrm{off}$ clusters around a value of 0, which means that the telluric absorption correction does not appear to be affected by systematic offsets. The scatter is only about 3\% of the line strengths. The mean $I_\mathrm{res}$ is about 0.20 with a scatter of 0.06, i.e. the relative standard deviation of the residuals of the corrected telluric absorption is about 20\%. This translates into typical errors of 2\% and 10\% relative to the continuum for spectral ranges with $T = 0.9$ and 0.5, respectively. The mean $I_\mathrm{off}$ and $I_\mathrm{res}$ values for the \xshoot{} VIS arm $-0.002$ ($\sigma = 0.048$) and $0.184$ ($\sigma = 0.059$) are very similar to the NIR-arm results. This implies that the telluric absorption correction is of good quality in both \xshoot{} arms. The results are consistent with a typical correction accuracy of 2\% of the continuum or better for wavelength ranges with unsaturated telluric lines as reported in Paper~I based on data from different instruments. Note that individual molecular lines are not resolved in the \xshoot{} spectra, which lowers and smoothes the measured telluric absorption. Table~\ref{tab:nmed_nir} lists $I_\mathrm{off}$ and $I_\mathrm{res}$ depending on the four narrow transmission ranges centred at $T = 0.9$, 0.8, 0.5, and 0.2. The distributions agree quite well with the results for the wide transmission range. Consequently, the mixing of transmissions is not crucial for the resulting quality indicators, at least if $T$ very close to 1 and 0 are not considered (as for our wide $T$ range). In the case of very high $T$, the figures of merit are no longer reliable with respect to the quality of the telluric absorption correction, since random noise, systematic errors in the reduced spectra, and features of the observed object can have a strong effect due to the normalisation by $1 - T$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:tacevalbin}). The correction quality is probably comparable with the results for intermediate $T$, which are crucial for the model fit for all $T$. In the case of very low $T$, the relatively low S/N, possible zeropoint errors, and the strong variation in $T$ over narrow wavelength ranges can cause high $I_\mathrm{off}$ and $I_\mathrm{res}$. The correction of spectral ranges with $T$ close to 0 is difficult (see Fig.~\ref{fig:taceval_nir_1000}). However, this is usually not an issue, since the information from the science target also tends to be very limited. The $I_\mathrm{res}$ values in Table~\ref{tab:nmed_nir} illustrate the described effects. The minimum of 0.15 is obtained for intermediate transmissions ($T = 0.5$), whereas the values for $T = 0.9$ and 0.2 are above 0.2. The rough proportionality of the telluric absorption correction errors relative to the continuum and $1 - T$ for a wide range of $T$ implies that the overall correction quality of a spectrum is correlated with properties which affect $T$, i.e. the airmass of the observation and the column density of the molecular species concerned. This can be understood by considering that the transmission $T$ is related to the optical depth along the line of sight $\tau$ for each wavelength $\lambda$ by \begin{equation}\label{eq:extinction} T(\lambda) = \mathrm{e}^{-\tau(\lambda)}, \end{equation} where $\tau$ can be approximated by the product of the optical depth at zenith $\tau_0$ and the airmass $X$: \begin{equation}\label{eq:opticaldepth} \tau(\lambda) \approx \tau_0(\lambda)\,X. \end{equation} This works best if the geometrical distributions of the given molecule and air are similar. Finally, the optical depth $\tau_0$ for molecular absorption by a single species at wavelength $\lambda$ can be calculated by \begin{equation}\label{eq:opticaldepth0} \tau_0(\lambda) = \sigma_\mathrm{abs}(\lambda) \,\int_{h_0}^{\infty}{n(h)\,\mathrm{d}h}, \end{equation} where $\sigma_\mathrm{abs}$ is the wavelength-dependent absorption cross section and the integral corresponds to the column density of the molecule, which is derived from the density $n$ at heights $h$ above the observer at $h_0$. Consequently, telluric absorption correction is most difficult if a target is observed at a large zenith distance and with a high atmospheric water vapour content. The amount of water vapour is critical, since most prominent bands in the \xshoot{} wavelength range are caused by this molecule and the concentration and distribution is highly variable in time and space. The effect of water vapour on the quality of the telluric absorption correction is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:fbadres_PWV}, which displays the fraction of 1\,nm NIR-arm bins with residuals greater than or equal to 5\% of the corrected object continuum as function of the amount of precipitable water vapour (PWV) in mm as derived by \mf{}. For our \xshoot{} NIR-arm TSS sample, the fitted PWV range from 0.2 to 18.2\,mm with a mean value of 3.1\,mm. The median is 2.2\,mm. These values are in good agreement with other measurements of the PWV, which is routinely monitored at Cerro Paranal by a stand-alone microwave radiometer in support of science observations \citep[see][and Sect.~\ref{sec:profiles}]{KER14}. There is a clear, nearly linear increase of the number of bins with significant residuals with increasing PWV in logarithmic units. A regression analysis indicates that the fraction $f_{\sigma \ge 0.05}$ grows from about 0.20 at 1\,mm to about 0.35 at 10\,mm. For comparison, the fraction of bins with a transmission lower than 0.95 of the mean spectrum plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:method_nir} is about 0.5. The effect of the airmass on $f_{\sigma \ge 0.05}$ is smaller than for the PWV, since the airmass only varies by a factor of about 2. In the VIS-arm range, the regression line exhibits an increase of $f_{\sigma \ge 0.05}$ from about 0.04 at 1\,mm to 0.07 at 10\,mm. Since strong (water vapour) lines are rare in this wavelength regime, the fractions are distinctly smaller than in the NIR-arm range. The quality of the correction of water vapour bands may roughly depend on the time of the year. Figure~\ref{fig:PWV} indicates a strong seasonal dependence of the atmospheric water vapour abundance. In winter, the PWV is relatively low (mean of 1.9\,mm for meteorological winter), whereas the highest amounts and a large scatter are found in summer (mean of 5.2\,mm). The strength of molecular oxygen and carbon dioxide bands can be considered as nearly stable except for the long-term increase of the CO$_2$ concentration (see Sect.~\ref{sec:approach}). \subsection{Influence of resolution}\label{sec:instru} \begin{table} \caption[]{Slit-dependent quality of the telluric absorption correction of NIR-arm \xshoot{} spectra} \label{tab:slit_nir} \centering \vspace{5pt} \begin{tabular}{@{\ \ }c c c@{\ \ \ }c c@{\ \ \ }c c @{\ \ \ }c@{\ \ }} \hline\hline \noalign{\smallskip} Slit & $N$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{FWHM$^\mathrm{a}$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$I_\mathrm{off}$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$I_\mathrm{res}$} \\ {}[''] & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{[pixels]} & & \\ & & mean & $\sigma$ & mean & $\sigma$ & mean & $\sigma$ \\ \noalign{\smallskip} \hline \noalign{\smallskip} 0.4 & 437 & 2.49 & 0.20 & $+0.008$ & 0.059 & 0.239 & 0.069 \\ 0.6 & 711 & 3.07 & 0.31 & $-0.002$ & 0.020 & 0.199 & 0.047 \\ 0.9 & 1927 & 3.95 & 0.74 & $-0.012$ & 0.027 & 0.193 & 0.064 \\ 1.2 & 566 & 4.44 & 1.01 & $-0.015$ & 0.024 & 0.179 & 0.056 \\ 1.5 & 148 & 5.03 & 1.62 & $-0.020$ & 0.020 & 0.158 & 0.059 \\ 5.0 & 48 & 5.41 & 1.57 & $-0.057$ & 0.025 & 0.156 & 0.066 \\ \noalign{\smallskip} \hline \end{tabular} \tablefoot{\\ \tablefoottext{a}Since the FWHM in pixels depends on the wavelength for a nearly constant spectral resolution, the FWHM is given for the centre of the full NIR-arm wavelength range, i.e. 1.74\,$\mu$m (see also Sect.~\ref{sec:approach}). For spectra taken with a $K$-blocking filter, which only extend up to 2.1\,$\mu$m, the FWHM was corrected to be also representative of 1.74\,$\mu$m.} \end{table} \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[width=9.0cm,clip=true]{mfp_FWHM_sig.ps} \caption[]{Small-scale residual indicator $I_\mathrm{res}$ for 1\,nm bins versus the FWHM of the line profile in pixels. As indicated by the legend, the different colours correspond to different slit widths.} \label{fig:FWHM_sig} \end{figure} Since the echelle gratings of the \xshoot{} spectrographs are fixed, the slit width is the only instrumental parameter that affects the line-spread functions of the resulting spectra. For the NIR and VIS arms, seven different widths from 0.4'' to 5.0'' can be selected as displayed in Table~\ref{tab:slit_nir}\footnote{In the case of the VIS arm, the 0.6'' slit is replaced with 0.7''.}. Apart from the slit selection, the positioning accuracy of the target in the slit and its change with time contribute to the resulting line-spread function. Finally, the FWHM of a line is influenced by the seeing at the time of the observation of the point-like standard star, especially if the slit is larger than the light profile of the target. For this reason, Table~\ref{tab:slit_nir} shows an increase of the FWHM (as derived from the combined best-fit boxcar and Gaussian kernels, see Sect.~\ref{sec:approach}) as well as its scatter with increasing slit width for the NIR arm. The slit-dependent results for the quality indicators $I_\mathrm{off}$ and $I_\mathrm{res}$ for the wide transmission range are also provided by Table~\ref{tab:slit_nir}. The systematic offsets appear to indicate a weak trend from slight overcorrection for the 0.4'' slit to moderate undercorrection for the 5.0'' slit. However, except for the value for the rarely used 5.0'' slit, the mean offsets can be considered as negligible. Nevertheless, the slit width seems to contribute to a broadening of the $I_\mathrm{off}$ distribution of the entire data set (see Fig.~\ref{fig:nmed_x} and Table~\ref{tab:nmed_nir}). As indicated by Fig.~\ref{fig:FWHM_sig} and Table~\ref{tab:slit_nir}, the intra-bin variations of the residuals of the telluric absorption correction increase with decreasing slit width or FWHM. The mean $I_\mathrm{res}$ values range from 0.156 for the 5.0'' slit to 0.239 for the 0.4'' slit. For the VIS arm, the corresponding values are 0.153 and 0.219. This clear dependence broadens the distribution of $I_\mathrm{res}$ for the entire data set (see Fig.~\ref{fig:nmed_x} and Table~\ref{tab:nmed_nir}). At first, the trend can be explained by the expected steepness of the line profiles if a line comprises only a few pixels (about 2.5~pixels for the 0.4'' slit of the NIR arm). In this case, small discrepancies between the modelled and the true profile can cause significant residuals. On the other hand, the scatter in the NIR/VIS arm is calculated for bins of a width of 1\,nm/0.5\,nm (about 17/25 pixels). If the FWHM is low, more (probably uncorrelated) resolution elements fit into the bin range. This effect could also augment $I_\mathrm{res}$. \subsection{Influence of fitting ranges}\label{sec:ranges} \begin{table} \caption[]{Influence of fitting ranges on the telluric absorption correction of the NIR-arm spectrum displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:taceval_nir_1000}} \label{tab:tac_ranges_nir} \centering \vspace{5pt} \begin{tabular}{@{\,}c c c c c c c@{\,}} \hline\hline \noalign{\smallskip} Run & Ranges$^\mathrm{a}$ & Rel. & FWHM$^\mathrm{b}$ & PWV & $I_\mathrm{off}$ & $I_\mathrm{res}$ \\ & & RMS & [pixels] & [mm] & & \\ \noalign{\smallskip} \hline \noalign{\smallskip} 1 & 1\,2\,3\,4\,5 & 0.054 & 3.76 & 1.46 & $-0.008$ & 0.235 \\ 2 & 1\,--\,--\,--\,-- & 0.030 & 3.19 & 1.68 & $+0.085$ & 0.349 \\ 3 & --\,2\,--\,--\,-- & 0.022 & 2.60 & 1.32 & $-0.063$ & 0.246 \\ 4 & --\,--\,3\,--\,-- & 0.028 & 3.08 & 1.40 & $-0.041$ & 0.222 \\ 5 & 1\,2\,3\,--\,-- & 0.066 & 3.79 & 1.48 & $-0.004$ & 0.238 \\ 6 & 1\,--\,--\,--\,5 & 0.035 & 3.29 & 1.56 & $+0.039$ & 0.315 \\ 7 & --\,2\,--\,4\,-- & 0.034 & 3.28 & 1.36 & $-0.036$ & 0.235 \\ \noalign{\smallskip} \hline \end{tabular} \tablefoot{\\ \tablefoottext{a}{For the wavelength limits of the different ranges with the indicated numbers, see Table~\ref{tab:ranges}.\\} \tablefoottext{b}{The FWHM is given for the centre of the full NIR-arm wavelength range, i.e. 1.74\,$\mu$m.}} \end{table} \begin{table} \caption[]{Influence of changing fitting ranges in a molecular band on the telluric absorption correction of the NIR-arm spectrum displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:taceval_nir_1000}} \label{tab:tac_ranges2_nir} \centering \vspace{5pt} \begin{tabular}{@{\,}c@{\ \ }c c c c c c@{\,}} \hline\hline \noalign{\smallskip} Run & Range & Rel. & FWHM$^\mathrm{a}$ & PWV & $I_\mathrm{off}$ & $I_\mathrm{res}$ \\ & [$\mu$m] & RMS & [pixels] & [mm] & & \\ \noalign{\smallskip} \hline \noalign{\smallskip} 2$^\mathrm{b}$ & 1.12$-$1.13 & 0.030 & 3.19 & 1.68 & $+0.085$ & 0.349 \\ 2a & 1.13$-$1.14 & 0.033 & 3.21 & 1.72 & $+0.101$ & 0.399 \\ 2b & 1.14$-$1.15 & 0.039 & 3.03 & 1.42 & $+0.061$ & 0.502 \\ 2c & 1.12$-$1.15 & 0.041 & 3.25 & 1.56 & $+0.100$ & 0.494 \\ \noalign{\smallskip} \hline \noalign{\smallskip} 3$^\mathrm{b}$ & 1.47$-$1.48 & 0.022 & 2.60 & 1.32 & $-0.063$ & 0.246 \\ 3a & 1.46$-$1.47 & 0.021 & 2.78 & 1.37 & $-0.044$ & 0.237 \\ 3b & 1.45$-$1.46 & 0.023 & 2.97 & 1.35 & $-0.067$ & 0.256 \\ 3c & 1.44$-$1.45 & 0.023 & 2.97 & 1.35 & $-0.067$ & 0.256 \\ 3d & 1.44$-$1.48 & 0.036 & 2.82 & 1.37 & $-0.045$ & 0.242 \\ \noalign{\smallskip} \hline \end{tabular} \tablefoot{\\ \tablefoottext{a}The FWHM is given for the centre of the full NIR-arm wavelength range, i.e. 1.74\,$\mu$m.\\ \tablefoottext{b}{same runs as in Table~\ref{tab:tac_ranges_nir}}} \end{table} \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[width=9.0cm,clip=true]{mfp_rangetest.ps} \caption[]{Mean counts in ADU and standard deviation relative to mean counts for a grid of 1\,nm bins of the telluric absorption corrected example spectrum shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:taceval_nir_1000} for three different sets of fitting ranges. The black spectrum equals the one in Fig.~\ref{fig:taceval_nir_1000} and corresponds to the standard set-up of windows described in Table~\ref{tab:ranges}. The red and the green spectra were calculated by only using a single fitting range (see legend and Table~\ref{tab:tac_ranges_nir}).} \label{fig:rangetest} \end{figure} So far, the discussion has been based on a fixed set of fitting ranges (see Table~\ref{tab:ranges} and Sect.~\ref{sec:approach}). In the following, we focus on changes in the quality of the telluric absorption correction when these ranges are changed. For this purpose, we tested the NIR-arm example spectrum shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:taceval_nir_1000}, which is characterised by an airmass of 1.32 and a best-fit PWV of 1.46\,mm. We ran \mf{} for different subsets of the five standard NIR-arm fitting ranges, which had to include at least one range dominated by water vapour lines. Table~\ref{tab:tac_ranges_nir} shows the results of the seven test runs we performed. The table indicates the selected fitting ranges (see Table~\ref{tab:ranges} for the numbers), the RMS of the fit residuals relative to the mean counts, the best-fit FWHM, the best-fit PWV, and the two quality indicators $I_\mathrm{off}$ and $I_\mathrm{res}$ (see Sect.~\ref{sec:approach}). The table entries for the different parameters show a clear difference in the quality of the fit and the telluric absorption correction depending on the fitting ranges considered. As expected, the RMS of the fit is reduced if the number of the fitting ranges is decreased. The resulting FWHM range from 69\% to 101\% of the value of the standard run. For the PWV, we obtained values from 90\% to 115\%. The largest deviations are found for runs that were based on only one fitting range. For the quality of the telluric absorption correction as measured by $I_\mathrm{off}$ and $I_\mathrm{res}$, there is a similar trend. However, the quality of the correction also strongly depends on the ranges involved. While the fit only depending on Range~1 ($1.12$ to $1.13$\,$\mu$m) is by far the worst (Run~2), the result for Run~4, which is only based on Range~3 ($1.80$ to $1.81$\,$\mu$m), is remarkably good. This is also illustrated by Fig.~\ref{fig:rangetest}, which shows the mean values and relative standard deviations for 1\,nm bins of the resulting spectra of Run~2 and 4 in comparison with the standard Run~1. Run~2 only led to a good telluric absorption correction in the fitted range, whereas Run~4 shows a reasonable correction over the entire wavelength range. Since the results for the \mf{} runs with single fitting ranges differ significantly, we performed the model fitting and telluric absorption correction for single ranges that cover telluric lines in the same bands such as Runs~2 and 3, but with different wavelength limits. Only ranges where lines of intermediate strength dominate were selected (see Fig.~\ref{fig:method_nir}). For ranges within the same H$_2$O band, Table~\ref{tab:tac_ranges2_nir} reveals similar values for the listed parameters. This suggests that changing centre and width of a fitting range in a band (in a reasonable way) has less of an impact than changing the band. These results imply that modifying the fitting range within the H$_2$O band at 1.13\,$\mu$m does not significantly improve the quality of the fit. The PWV, $I_\mathrm{off}$, and $I_\mathrm{res}$ values remain unsatisfying if a fitting range within this band is not combined with ranges in other molecular bands. Since the line depths of the different ranges are comparable, this does not seem to explain the discrepancies. Differences in the best-fit line shapes and wavelength shifts (up to 1~pixel) for the different \mf{} runs could imply that the issue is linked to the structure of the \xshoot{} composite echelle spectra consisting of many orders. At least, line profiles in the 1.13\,$\mu$m band cover less pixels than those in bands at longer wavelengths (see Sect.~\ref{sec:instru}). In view of the uncertainties in the line profile and wavelength calibration, a good telluric absorption correction over the entire wavelength range (see Fig.~\ref{fig:rangetest}) requires that all critical molecular absorption bands are probed by fitting ranges. Therefore, our standard set of fitting windows (see Table~\ref{tab:ranges}) is well defined, even though only low order corrections of the different kinds of systematic deviations from the atmospheric transmission model are possible (see Sect.~\ref{sec:inputpar}). The best fit is always the result of a compromise, as indicated by the smaller residuals for individual fitting ranges in the corresponding wavelength regimes (see Fig.~\ref{fig:rangetest}). \subsection{Influence of input parameters}\label{sec:inputpar} \begin{table} \caption[]{Influence of wavelength grid correction by a Chebyshev polynomial of order {\sc wlc\_n} on the telluric absorption correction of the spectrum displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:taceval_nir_1000}} \label{tab:tac_grid_nir} \centering \vspace{5pt} \begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline\hline \noalign{\smallskip} {\sc wlc\_n} & Rel. & FWHM & PWV & $I_\mathrm{off}$ & $I_\mathrm{res}$ \\ & RMS & [pixels] & [mm] & & \\ \noalign{\smallskip} \hline \noalign{\smallskip} 0 & 0.054 & 3.76 & 1.46 & $-0.008$ & 0.235 \\ 1 & 0.126 & 7.25 & 1.51 & $-0.046$ & 0.456 \\ 3 & 0.121 & 7.05 & 1.51 & $-0.053$ & 0.459 \\ 5 & 0.120 & 6.98 & 1.51 & $-0.050$ & 0.453 \\ \noalign{\smallskip} \hline \end{tabular} \end{table} \begin{table} \caption[]{Influence of wavelength grid correction by a Chebyshev polynomial of order {\sc wlc\_n} on the telluric absorption correction of the spectrum displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:taceval_nir_1000} for the fixed best-fit line profile ({\sc relres\_box}~=~0.560 and {\sc res\_gauss}~=~1.671) as derived from the standard test run} \label{tab:tac_grid_noprof_nir} \centering \vspace{5pt} \begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline\hline \noalign{\smallskip} {\sc wlc\_n} & Rel. & FWHM & PWV & $I_\mathrm{off}$ & $I_\mathrm{res}$ \\ & RMS & [pixels] & [mm] & & \\ \noalign{\smallskip} \hline \noalign{\smallskip} 0 & 0.054 & 3.75 & 1.47 & $-0.007$ & 0.235 \\ 1 & 0.031 & 3.75 & 1.44 & $-0.028$ & 0.195 \\ 3 & 0.040 & 3.75 & 1.39 & $-0.042$ & 0.262 \\ 5 & 0.031 & 3.75 & 1.42 & $-0.021$ & 0.343 \\ \noalign{\smallskip} \hline \end{tabular} \end{table} \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[width=9.0cm,clip=true]{mfp_gridtest.ps} \caption[]{Mean counts in ADU and standard deviation relative to mean counts for a grid of 1\,nm bins of the telluric absorption corrected example spectrum shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:taceval_nir_1000} for different orders of the Chebyshev polynomial for the wavelength grid correction and fixed line profile (see legend and Table~\ref{tab:tac_grid_noprof_nir}).} \label{fig:gridtest} \end{figure} Next, we investigate the influence of the input fit parameters on the quality of the telluric absorption correction. In this respect, our input parameter set (see Table~\ref{tab:setup_nir}) appears to be a reasonable choice (see discussion in Sect.~\ref{sec:approach}). However, there could be a critical restriction of the maximum order of the Chebyshev polynomial for the correction of the wavelength grid. The selection {\sc wlc\_n}~=~0 only allows a constant shift of the wavelength grid. As discussed in Sect.~\ref{sec:ranges}, this is most likely not sufficient to achieve good fits in all the different fitting ranges at the same time. For this reason, we studied the effect of the degree of the Chebyshev polynomial on the quality of the fit. Table~\ref{tab:tac_grid_nir} shows the results of our investigation of the standard NIR-arm example (see Fig.~\ref{fig:taceval_nir_1000}) for four different degrees of the polynomial. The result columns are the same as in Table~\ref{tab:tac_ranges_nir}. The values for the relative RMS, FWHM, $I_\mathrm{off}$, and $I_\mathrm{res}$ clearly imply that the fits of the runs with {\sc wlc\_n}~=~1, 3, and 5 failed. The doubling of the FWHM for these runs indicates an increase of the degrees of freedom by the additional coefficients of the Chebyshev polynomial caused degeneracies, which led to an erroneous fit of the instrumental profile. In other words, the fitting algorithm was not able to find the global $\chi^2$ minimum. To make the wavelength correction more robust, we performed a second series of runs with reduced degrees of freedom. For this purpose, we fixed the properties of the line profile. We took the best-fit results of the standard run and set {\sc relres\_box}~=~0.560, {\sc res\_gauss}~=~1.671, and the corresponding fit flags to 0 (cf. Table~\ref{tab:setup_nir}). The results for the four different degrees of the Chebyshev polynomial are listed in Table~\ref{tab:tac_grid_noprof_nir}. For the higher {\sc wlc\_n}, the fits in the five fitting ranges are now better than for the standard run, as the relative RMS indicate. The PWV values and the related $I_\mathrm{off}$ for systematic offsets are relatively stable. The small-scale residuals indicator $I_\mathrm{res}$ is the lowest (0.195) for a linear wavelength correction function, i.e. {\sc wlc\_n}~=~1. Higher order corrections indicate worse $I_\mathrm{res}$ (0.343 for {\sc wlc\_n}~=~5). They tend to deteroriate the telluric absorption correction, despite the fixed line profile. This is also demonstrated by Fig.~\ref{fig:gridtest}, which shows the mean values and relative standard deviations for 1\,nm bins of the telluric absorption corrected spectra for the different runs. For higher degrees of the polynomial, the quality of the correction seems to be highly wavelength dependent. These findings suggest that very high {\sc wlc\_n} are risky because of fit degeneracies. The situation could improve if there were more and/or broader fitting ranges. However, for the wavelength range covered by \xshoot{}, this approach is not feasible due to the small fraction of wavelengths with suitably strong absorption lines. Irrespective of these issues, the example has shown that a combination of two runs (where the second run benefits from the results of the first run) could significantly improve the quality of the telluric absorption correction. For a successful $\chi^2$ minimisation, the number of free parameters should not be too high. Apart from the wavelength grid correction, the line shape parameters are prone to $\chi^2$ degeneracies. Line blends by low spectral resolution and only small numbers of telluric absorption lines by very narrow fitting ranges can be critical. Fortunately, the \xshoot{} spectra do not seem to require modelling of possible broad line wings by a Lorentzian kernel component (see Table~\ref{tab:setup_nir}), which makes the fits more robust. \subsection{Influence of the input atmospheric profile}\label{sec:profiles} \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[width=9.0cm,clip=true]{mfp_PWV_rH2O.ps} \caption[]{PWV in mm versus the best-fit scaling factor for the input water vapour profile (output value for {\sc relcol} parameter; see Table~\ref{tab:setup_nir}).} \label{fig:PWV_rH2O} \end{figure} Water vapour is an abundant and very variable component of the Earth's atmosphere (see Fig.~\ref{fig:PWV}). Most telluric absorption in the \xshoot{} NIR-arm range is caused by this molecule. Therefore, the quality of the telluric absorption correction strongly depends on a good fit of the water vapour column density. The PWV fit corresponds to a scaling of the input water vapour profile. The parameter {\sc relcol} describes the relative scaling with respect to the input profile. Fig.~\ref{fig:PWV_rH2O} shows the final PWV value from the best fit versus the best-fit {\tt relcol} (see Table~\ref{tab:setup_nir}) for the NIR-arm data set selected in Sect.~\ref{sec:outliers}. The mean factor is 0.87 with a scatter of 0.26. This is relatively close to 1, i.e. the case that the PWV of the input profile is the best-fit one. However, for low PWV, the merged input profiles tend to have too much water vapour. For PWV below the median value of 2.2, the mean scaling factor is 0.73, whereas for PWV above the median, a mean factor of 1.01 is obtained. The standard deviation is similar in both cases (0.22 versus 0.23). In view of the significant scatter and the systematic offsets at low PWV, a reliable scaling of the input profiles is indispensable. To more accurately investigate the effect of the initial atmospheric profiles, we used data of a radiometer, which was installed on Cerro Paranal in October 2011 for water vapour monitoring purposes \citep{KER12a,KER12b}. It is a Low Humidity And Temperature PROfiling microwave radiometer (LHATPRO), manufactured by Radiometer Physics GmbH (RPG\footnote{\tt http://www.radiometer-physics.de/}). The instrument uses several channels across the strong water vapour emission line at 183 GHz, necessary for measuring the low levels of PWV that are common on Cerro Paranal. Details of the radiometer are described in \cite{ROS05}. This radiometer provides continuous direct on-site measurements of the temperature and water vapour content. It also calculates the pressure profile up to a height of about $12$\,km above Cerro Paranal, and the integrated water vapour (IWV), identical to the PWV. We created an additional set of initial atmospheric profiles for \mf{} in the same way as the default combination of a standard atmosphere, GDAS model, and ESO MeteoMonitor described in Paper~I, but replaced the GDAS by the radiometer profiles and skipped the MeteoMonitor data since the latter profiles already contain this information. From our \xshoot{} data set, we selected 549 telluric standard star observations obtained in Jan, Feb, and Aug-Dec 2012, which correspond to the period of the radiometer data provided to us by ESO. Every spectrum was fitted with \mf{} incorporating both, the GDAS/MeteoMonitor and the LHATPRO based set, respectively. In both cases, we used the closest available profiles. We finally applied a telluric absorption correction based on both methods. The telluric corrected spectra differ usually by only a few per cent, with larger deviations in the ranges affected by strong atmospheric absorption (see Fig.~\ref{fig:gdas_vs_hatro_resi} for an example). For a closer look, we also compared the resulting {\sc relcol} values and the water vapour content values, PWV and IWV respectively, for the whole data set. Figure~\ref{fig:gdas_vs_hatro_relcol} gives the comparison of the {\sc relcol} parameters between the GDAS and the LHATPRO based fits. As expected, the LHATPRO based scaling parameters are closer to unity (median value~= 0.95) than the {\sc relcol} parameter derived with the help of the GDAS model (median value~= 0.92). Also the {\sc relcol} scatter $\sigma_{\rm H}=0.13$ for the LHATPRO method is significantly lower than the GDAS based scatter ($\sigma_{\rm G}=0.25$). This means that the atmospheric profile based on the radiometer data requires less scaling than the modelled one. This is expected, since the LHATPRO profiles are direct on-site measurements providing more accurate estimates of the actual atmospheric conditions than the combined GDAS/MeteoMonitor model. Although the radiometer based initial profiles lead to less scatter in the {\tt relcol} parameter, the quality of the final telluric absorption correction is comparable within a few per cent. This means that due to the adaption with the scaling parameter, an inappropriate initial atmospheric profile also leads to a good telluric absorption correction. We therefore conclude that the underlying fitting algorithm incorporated in \mf{} is highly efficient. However, it appears that the derived PWV value is overestimating the real water vapour content in the case of very dry observing conditions. This indicates inadequate input profiles. \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[clip=true]{gdas_hatpro_wo_esomm_residual_paper.eps} \caption[]{Relative difference of the telluric absorption corrected spectra of the TSS Hip039634 (IWV\,$=1.5\,$mm), one corrected with a LHATPRO, and one with a GDAS based profile (in per cent). cts$_{\rm H} =$ counts of the LHATPRO based telluric absorption corrected spectrum; cts$_{\rm G} =$ GDAS counterpart.} \label{fig:gdas_vs_hatro_resi} \end{figure} \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[clip=true,width=0.48\textwidth]{gdas_hatpro_wo_esomm_relcol_paper.eps} \caption[]{Comparison of the relative water vapour column scaling factors {\sc relcol} derived with the standard GDAS/MeteoMonitor model and the LHATPRO measurements for 549 TSS spectra. } \label{fig:gdas_vs_hatro_relcol} \end{figure} \subsection{Influence of the $S/N$}\label{sec:low_sn} In this section, we investigate the performance of \mf{} with respect to low signal data. For this purpose, we used a spectrum of the $\gamma$-ray burst GRB 130606A \citep{XU13, UKW13, CAS13, DEU14} at redshift $z\sim5.913$ \citep{HAR14} taken in June 2013 (Prog.-ID: 091.C-0934; P.I.: Kaper). Fig.~\ref{fig:grb} shows the uncorrected (upper panel), the transmission (middle panel), and the corrected spectrum (lower panel). Although the object flux has a low mean count level of 241 ADU, \mf{} was able to reliably correct the telluric absorption in wide parts. Another low $S/N$ example is the spectrum of PKS1934-63, a Seyfert 2 galaxy, taken in July 2011 (Prog.-ID: 087.B-0614; P.I.: Holt). These data contain a comparably low median count level of only 462 ADU (c.f. Table~\ref{tab:tac_comp_dataset1}). Fig.~\ref{fig:pks} shows as an example the three wavelength ranges $1.1$ to $1.3\,\mu$m (upper panel), $1.3$ to $1.5\,\mu$m (middle panel) and $1.9$ to $2.1\,\mu$m (lower panel), respectively. The first two ranges covers the strong water vapour absorption bands between $1.1$ and $1.17\,\mu$m and $1.34$ and $1.52\,\mu$m, respectively. The correction for minor absorption regions is reasonable. The prominent CO$_2$ features between $2.0$ to $2.08\,\mu$m plotted in the lower panel are corrected well. However, strong absorption bands cause major problems when correcting low ADU data. Fig.~\ref{fig:pks} also shows the strong absorption bands between $1.34$ to $1.52\,\mu$m (panel (a)) and $1.8$ to $1.94\,\mu$m (panel (b)) arising from water vapour and carbon dioxide, respectively. In these regions, the correction leads to large uncertainties, since the incorporated division and the low signal level increase the noise significantly. We therefore conclude that the telluric absorption correction with \mf{} can be critical in such cases. For very low $S/N$ data it might be even impossible to apply \mf{}. In this case, the user might consider observing TSS to derive the correction function. \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[clip=true,width=\textwidth/2]{GRB130606A_grb_tac_paper.eps} \caption[]{X-Shooter NIR-arm spectrum of $\gamma$-ray burst GRB 130606A at $z=5.913$. The graphs show the wavelength range from $1.15$ to $1.16\,\mu$m, which is affected by both telluric and some intrinsic absorption lines arising at a redshift $z=3.4515$ \citep{HAR14}. Upper panel: the uncorrected spectrum. Middle panel: transmission spectrum as calculated by \mf{}. Lower panel: corrected spectrum.} \label{fig:grb} \end{figure} \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[clip=true,width=\textwidth/2]{PKS1934-63_mf_details_paper.eps} \caption[]{X-Shooter NIR-arm spectrum of the Seyfert 2 galaxy PKS1934-63 ($z\sim0.183$). The upper panels of (a), (b), and of (c) show the uncorrected and the \mf{} corrected spectrum in different wavelength ranges. This observation has a low mean ADU level of 462 counts. The displayed transmission curve (lower panels) is based on a fit in the standard fitting regions (yellow areas).} \label{fig:pks} \end{figure} \section{Comparison with the classical method}\label{sec:comparison} \subsection{Method}\label{subsec:comparison_method} The classical way of the telluric absorption correction is done with the help of TSS, which are used to derive the transmission of the Earth's atmosphere at the time of the observation. Since TSS are stars with few or well known spectral features, they can be used to obtain an atmospheric transmission after subtracting their continuum and subsequent normalisation. We used the following approach: We fitted a cubic spline to base points selected on positions with or close to transmission $T=1$ in the TSS spectrum in order to determine the continuum. This spline fit is then used to normalise the TSS spectrum resulting in a transmission spectrum (see Fig.~\ref{fig:tsstrans}). We corrected the science spectrum with this transmission using the IRAF task {\tt telluric}\footnote{\url{ http://iraf.net/irafhelp.php?val=telluric&help=Help+Page}}. This task also performs a wavelength shift and a scaling of the input spectrum to achieve the telluric absorption correction. For the comparison of the quality of the telluric absorption correction between classical TSS and \mf{} methods, we used X-Shooter NIR-arm spectra of four different scientific objects, a B(e) star, an E0 galaxy, a Carbon star, and a planetary nebula (PN), in conjunction with their corresponding telluric standard stars (see Tables~\ref{tab:tac_comp_dataset1} and \ref{tab:tac_comp_dataset2}). We divided the wavelength range covered by the NIR arm into 16 pieces: eight regions with major atmospheric absorption features (labelled with the numbers \#1 through \#8) and another eight regions with minor absorption (labelled with the letters 'a' through 'h', see Fig.~\ref{fig:tsstrans} and Table~\ref{tab:spec_regions1}). To optimise the telluric absorption correction, an individual set of fitting parameters was derived for each spectral region with high absorption. Ranges with minor atmospheric absorption were corrected with \mf{} using the standard parameters given in Table~\ref{tab:setup_nir}. To achieve a comparison based on optimised conditions for both methods, the classical method was also applied to each spectral piece individually. In addition, the positions of the base points for the continuum fit were individually chosen for every TSS spectrum to obtain an optimal transmission curve. \begin{table} \caption[]{Table of individual regions used for the telluric absorption correction.} \label{tab:spec_regions1} \centering \begin{tabular}{c | c | c } \hline\hline \noalign{\smallskip} region & wavelength & included \\ \# & range [$\mu$m] & molecules \\ \noalign{\smallskip} \hline \noalign{\smallskip} a & 0.9402 -- 1.1079 & O$_2^{a}$, CO$_2^{a}$, H$_2$O$^{b}$, CH$_4^{a}$, CO$^{a}$\\ b & 1.1687 -- 1.2537 & O$_2^{a}$, CO$_2^{a}$, H$_2$O$^{b}$, CH$_4^{a}$, CO$^{a}$\\ c & 1.2800 -- 1.3023 & O$_2^{a}$, CO$_2^{a}$, H$_2$O$^{b}$, CH$_4^{a}$, CO$^{a}$\\ d & 1.5159 -- 1.7610 & O$_2^{a}$, CO$_2^{a}$, H$_2$O$^{b}$, CH$_4^{a}$, CO$^{a}$\\ e & 1.9827 -- 1.9918 & O$_2^{a}$, CO$_2^{a}$, H$_2$O$^{b}$, CH$_4^{a}$, CO$^{a}$\\ f & 2.0333 -- 2.0435 & O$_2^{a}$, CO$_2^{a}$, H$_2$O$^{b}$, CH$_4^{a}$, CO$^{a}$\\ g & 2.0809 -- 2.2400 & O$_2^{a}$, CO$_2^{a}$, H$_2$O$^{b}$, CH$_4^{a}$, CO$^{a}$\\ h & 2.3210 -- 2.3500 & O$_2^{a}$, CO$_2^{a}$, H$_2$O$^{b}$, CH$_4^{a}$, CO$^{a}$\\ \noalign{\smallskip} \hline \noalign{\smallskip} 1 & 1.1079 -- 1.1687 & H$_2$O$^{b}$\\ 2 & 1.2537 -- 1.2800 & O$_2$$^{b}$ \\ 3 & 1.3023 -- 1.5159 & H$_2$O$^{b}$\\ 4 & 1.7610 -- 1.9827 & H$_2$O$^{b}$, CO$_2$$^{b}$\\ 5 & 1.9918 -- 2.0333 & H$_2$O$^{b}$, CO$_2$$^{b}$\\ 6 & 2.0435 -- 2.0809 & H$_2$O$^{b}$, CO$_2$$^{b}$\\ 7 & 2.2400 -- 2.3210 & CH$_4$$^{b}$\\ 8 & 2.3500 -- 2.3600 & CH$_4$$^{b}$\\ \noalign{\smallskip} \hline \end{tabular} \tablefoot{\\ \tablefoottext{a}{molecular abundance calculated, but not fitted} \tablefoottext{b}{molecular abundance fitted}} \end{table} \subsection{Results}\label{subsec:comparison_results} The comparison of the quality of the telluric absorption correction achieved with the classical TSS and \mf{} method reveals that in some regions with minor atmospheric absorption both methods perform similarly, e.g. the weak CO$_2$ bands between $1.6$ and $1.615\,\mu$m are well corrected (see Fig.~\ref{fig:mf_vs_iraf_details1}). There are also some regions with major atmospheric absorption, where both methods achieve very good absorption correction (e.g. redwards of about $2\,\mu$m in Fig.~\ref{fig:mf_vs_iraf_details3}). However, usually noticeable differences in the quality of the correction are visible. These differences even become critical for regions \#1 through \#8, where major absorption bands affect any ground based observation. In total, we identified three classes of critical problems: \subsubsection{Object continuum reconstruction} Reconstructing the continuum of the science target in a reliable way is a difficult issue, particularly in regions with broad absorption regions like \#3 and \#4 (see Fig.~\ref{fig:tsstrans} and Table~\ref{tab:spec_regions1}). The quality for the continuum reconstruction with this implementation of the classical method crucially depends on the incorporated interpolation. As such, a fit only can be based on a limited number of base points. Artificial continuum variations are unavoidably introduced in any wavelength range, even with minor or no molecular absorption. Fig.~\ref{fig:mf_vs_iraf_details2} shows an example of a poor continuum reconstruction in a minor absorption region, where the Brackett series and some FeII lines of the B(e) star \citep{KRA12} arise (see Fig.~\ref{fig:mf_vs_iraf_details2}a). The continuum is not well reproduced in the region around the Brackett line (4-11), even though this region is only marginally affected by absorption. Another example is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:mf_vs_iraf_details3}, where the spectrum of the E0 galaxy NGC5812 is given in the range of a prominent CO$_2$ absorption region. The continuum shortwards of about $2\,\mu$m derived with the TSS method is too low, leading to an overcorrection of the continuum. \subsubsection{Line correction/reconstruction} Reliable reconstruction of object lines can be a difficult matter for the telluric absorption correction. It becomes critical if a line intrinsic to the TSS affects a scientifically important line in the science spectrum. For example, this applies to hydrogen lines, which is demonstrated by a spectrum of the PN IC1266. Fig.~\ref{fig:mf_vs_iraf_details5} shows the hydrogen Pa$_\beta$ line at $1.2818\,\mu$m, which has significantly higher flux and much broader wings when corrected with the classical method. This is induced by the fitting method to derive the transmission curve, which shows significant differences compared with the one derived with \mf{} (see lower panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:mf_vs_iraf_details5}). In addition, a small wavelength shift is visible in Fig.~\ref{fig:mf_vs_iraf_details5} that is probably caused by a small radial velocity shift affecting the TSS Hip085885. Another example is given in Fig.~\ref{fig:mf_vs_iraf_details7}, which shows a spectrum of the E0 galaxy NGC5812 with significant overcorrection by the classical method arising from TSS Brackett lines. As \mf{} incorporates a purely theoretical transmission curve, such intrinsic stellar features do not occur. One of the possible drawbacks of using \mf{} could be the sensitivity of the fit to intrinsic object lines, if they have not been excluded. To investigate this, we used the spectrum of data set \#4, the elliptical galaxy NGC5812, which shows some intrinsic features in region \#5 between $1.995$ and $2.035\,\mu$m (see upper panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:mf_vs_iraf_details3}). This region is dominated by carbon dioxide and minor water vapour absorption. We only used the fitting range \#5 (between $1.9918$ and $2.0333\,\mu$m), where H$_2$O and CO$_2$ were varied. It can be seen that the intrinsic object features remain unchanged (see Fig.~\ref{fig:mf_vs_iraf_details3}). To estimate how sensitive \mf{} is with respect to object lines, we again fitted region \#5, but excluded the object lines from the fit (see blue areas in upper panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:mf_vs_iraf_details3}). We find only marginal differences in the telluric absorption corrected spectra of $\pm20~$ppm. We therefore consider \mf{} to be robust with respect to single object lines, at least if object features do not dominate the corresponding fitting range. However, care should be taken when prominent intrinsic spectral object features or even entire bands are expected at the same wavelength as strong telluric absorption lines. These features might be visible e.g. in low mass stars, molecular clouds, or planetary atmospheres. Prominent features indeed might influence the fit by mimicking differing molecular abundances in the Earth's atmosphere. Hence, the contributions of the astronomical target and the Earth's atmosphere cannot be disentangled by \mf{}. In this case, the user is advised to either mask these features, if applicable, or choose different fitting ranges to avoid an unintended removal of object features. Alternatively, if such features are known to be visible in the entire spectrum, \mf{} can be applied to a corresponding TSS and subsequent usage of the resulting transmission spectrum for the correction of the science target. \subsubsection{Increased noise} The finite $S/N$ of the TSS becomes critical when it is smaller or comparable to the one of the object spectrum. Applying a noisy transmission for the telluric correction derived by means of such a spectrum unavoidably degrades the $S/N$ of the science spectrum. Fig.~\ref{fig:mf_vs_iraf_details8} shows a spectral region with negligible atmospheric absorption, where both methods usually lead to a good reproduction of intrinsic spectral object features (except the variations at $1.094~\mu$m introduced by the TSS transmission). Since the theoretical transmission curve obtained with the radiative transfer code does not show any random noise, \mf{} does not introduce noise-driven features in the science spectrum. However, the classical method does change the noise level. This becomes more and more significant, the more prominent the atmospheric absorption features are. For example, the prominent bands from $1.3$ to $1.5\,\mu$m (H$_2$O) and from $1.8$ to $2.0\,\mu$m (H$_2$O and CO$_2$) lead to very noisy science spectra, when the telluric absorption correction is done with the classical method (see Figs.~\ref{fig:mf_vs_iraf_details9} and \ref{fig:mf_vs_iraf_details10}, respectively). This is particularly important when object features of scientific interest are located there. \begin{figure*} \centering \includegraphics[clip=true,width=\textwidth]{V921-Sco_trans_spec_regions_paper.eps} \caption[]{Upper panel: Telluric standard star spectrum Hip084409, test data set \#3, see Tables\,\ref{tab:tac_comp_dataset1} and \ref{tab:tac_comp_dataset2}) and the fitting method for extracting a transmission curve: A cubic spline fit to base points (blue dots in upper panel) is used to derive the continuum of the telluric standard star. This fit is then used to normalise the spectrum to achieve the corresponding transmission (lower panel). We divided the spectrum into several wavelength regions based on the amount of absorption. Regions \#1 through \#8 are heavily affected by absorption, in contrast to regions (a) through (h) (see Table~\ref{tab:spec_regions1}). Each region was corrected individually with \mf{} and IRAF. Middle panel: The resulting transmission curve including some molecular absorption features. Lower panel: Theoretical transmission curve achieved with \mf{}.} \label{fig:tsstrans} \end{figure*} \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[clip=true]{V921-Sco_1_opti_tac_paper_5.eps} \caption[]{Comparison of the telluric absorption correction methods: uncorrected object spectrum (black), \mf{} corrected spectrum (red line), and the spectrum corrected with the classical method (green) in a region with minor atmospheric absorption (CO$_2$ band).} \label{fig:mf_vs_iraf_details1} \end{figure} \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[clip=true]{NGC5812_2_opti_tac_paper_2.eps} \caption[]{Upper panel: Example for poor continuum reproduction by the classical method (colour coding as in Fig.~\ref{fig:mf_vs_iraf_details1}). Although the prominent CO$_2$ absorption feature is well corrected by both methods, significant variations in the continuum are visible in the spectrum corrected by the classical method. Intrinsic object lines redwards of $2\,\mu$m are well reconstructed by both methods. Lower panel: relative residuals of the corrected spectra when object lines are excluded from the fit in region \#5 (blue areas in upper panel).} \label{fig:mf_vs_iraf_details3} \end{figure} \begin{figure*} \centering \includegraphics[clip=true]{V921-Sco_1_opti_tac_paper_4.eps} \caption[]{Panel (a) shows the Brackett series from V921-Sco, a B(e) star. Panel (b) is a zoomed in region with bad continuum correction by the classical method (colour coding as in Fig.~\ref{fig:mf_vs_iraf_details1}).} \label{fig:mf_vs_iraf_details2} \end{figure*} \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[clip=true]{IC1266_17_opti_tac_paper_1.eps} \caption[]{Pa$_\beta$ line visible in the spectrum of the PN IC1266. Upper panel: Although the line is located in a wavelength range with minor atmospheric absorption, it is not well corrected with the classical method. An intrinsic wavelength shift is probably introduced by the radial velocity of the object (colour coding as in Fig.~\ref{fig:mf_vs_iraf_details1}). Lower panel: The transmission derived with the classical method (green line) shows a broad dip leading to a significant higher flux and different line shape in the corrected spectrum. The transmission derived with \mf{} (red) does not show this feature.} \label{fig:mf_vs_iraf_details5} \end{figure} \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[clip=true]{NGC5812_2_opti_tac_paper_1.eps} \caption[]{Example of an overcorrection by spectral features arising from the Brackett lines (H(4-10), H(4-11), and H(4-12)) visible in the TSS. In the \mf{} based correction such features do not occur (colour coding as in Fig.~\ref{fig:mf_vs_iraf_details1}).} \label{fig:mf_vs_iraf_details7} \end{figure} \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[clip=true]{HE1331-0247_6_opti_tac_paper_1.eps} \caption[]{Upper panel: Detailed zoomed in region with minor atmospheric absorption. Due to variations caused by the spline fit and noise in the TSS spectrum, the classical method introduces continuum variations and noise to the corrected spectrum. All spectral features in the theoretical transmission arise from molecular absorption. Since it is free from random variations, the noise in the corrected spectrum is not increased (colour coding as in Fig.~\ref{fig:mf_vs_iraf_details1}).} \label{fig:mf_vs_iraf_details8} \end{figure} \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[clip=true]{V921-Sco_1_opti_tac_paper_2.eps} \caption[]{Close up of the prominent water vapour absorption feature between $1.3$ and $1.5\,\mu$m. Due to the intrinsic noise of the TSS spectrum and the subsequent telluric absorption correction, the noise introduced by the classical method is significantly higher (colour coding as in Fig.~\ref{fig:mf_vs_iraf_details1}).} \label{fig:mf_vs_iraf_details9} \end{figure} \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[clip=true]{HE1331-0247_6_opti_tac_paper_2.eps} \caption[]{Same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:mf_vs_iraf_details9} but for the prominent water vapour and carbon dioxide absorption feature between $1.8$ and $2.0\,\mu$m (colour coding as in Fig.~\ref{fig:mf_vs_iraf_details1}).} \label{fig:mf_vs_iraf_details10} \end{figure} \section{Summary and conclusion}\label{sec:summary} We have developed the software package \mf{} consisting of routines to fit synthetic atmospheric transmission spectra to science data (see Paper~I) and to apply these synthetic spectra as telluric absorption correction to science files. We have extensively tested the software with a large \xshoot{} data set to evaluate the performance of the package with two figures of merit, the offset and the small-scale residual parameters, $I_{\rm off}$ and $I_{\rm res}$, respectively. Moreover, we compared the telluric correction by \mf{} with the classical method based on TSS for several science spectra. In the following, we summarise our findings: \begin{itemize} \item The telluric absorption correction with \mf{} of TSS does not introduce systematic offsets in the corrected spectra. The scatter of $I_{\rm off}$ is about 3\% of the line strength. The relative small-scale residual strength is about 20\% (see Sect.~\ref{sec:obscond} and Fig.~\ref{fig:nmed_x}) for the NIR arm, i.e. the quality of the correction is roughly proportional to the strength of the telluric absorption lines. The VIS arm data show results of similar quality. \item The telluric correction shows a dependency on the number of pixels per FWHM. The small-scale residuals increase with decreasing slit width or FWHM (see Sects.~\ref{sec:obscond}, \ref{sec:instru}, and Table~\ref{tab:slit_nir}) if the pixel size is kept constant. \item The quality of the fit crucially relies on the selection of the fitting ranges. In particular, all critical molecular absorption bands existing in the wavelength range of the science spectrum should be covered by corresponding regions (see Sect.~\ref{sec:ranges}). On the other hand, a few narrow fitting ranges are sufficient to achieve a good quality of the correction over the entire wavelength range. Spreading these narrow fitting regions over the entire wavelength range helps to improve the fit for the line spread function and the wavelength calibration correction. \item \Mf{} offers the possibility to influence the fit by adjustable parameters. The selection of appropriate parameters is crucial for a good result. In particular, the degree of freedom for the fit should the minimised, e.g. the Chebyshev polynomial for the wavelength grid correction has a great influence on the fitting quality. This should be chosen carefully if the fitting ranges are small compared to the entire wavelength range covered by the spectrum as in the case of \xshoot{} (see Sect.~\ref{sec:inputpar}). \item Comparisons with atmospheric profiles measured by a microwave radiometer reveal that the fitting algorithm is very robust with respect to variations of the input atmospheric profile. Thus, the initial profile does not have a large effect as long as it does not deviate extremely from the real one. The PWV value determined with \mf{} tends to be too high in the case of very dry observing conditions. However, this does not affect the quality of the telluric corrections. \item \Mf{} is also applicable to low $S/N$ data. However, there may be a loss of quality in the telluric correction for very low $S/N$ observations leading to more residuals. Data with extremely low $S/N$ cannot be fitted reliably. In this case, a TSS can alternatively be used for the fit instead of the science spectrum (see Sect.~\ref{sec:low_sn}). \item We performed a comparison with the classical method, which is affected by the following problems: \begin{itemize} \item (a) The implementation of the TSS continuum determination can lead to significant continuum changes in the corrected spectrum, e.g. by the limited number of fitting points, and subsequent normalisation of the spectrum. \item (b) Intrinsic spectral lines of the TSS can change the flux and shape of object lines or mimic additional spectral features in the corrected object spectrum. \item (c) The intrinsic noise of the TSS observation lead to additional noise in the corrected object spectrum. \end{itemize} Whenever such a TSS-related problem appears, it can be expected that \mf{} performs significantly better, as demonstrated in several examples. Moreover, direct fitting of the science spectrum with \mf{} avoids issues related to differences in the atmospheric conditions for the science and TSS observations. \item \Mf{} is very robust with respect to single object lines lying in the fitting regions, at least if the regions are not dominated by these features. The telluric correction is only affected marginally in this case. However, care should be taken when molecular bands are expected in the scientific target, which are present in the fitting ranges. \end{itemize} The incorporation of synthetic atmospheric transmission spectra based on theoretical calculations provide a promising way to perform the telluric absorption correction. The highly efficient underlying algorithm of \mf{} offers the opportunity to achieve a reasonable and reliable correction without supplementary observations of TSS which are time expensive. In addition, the applicability of \mf{} with standard parameters allows already reasonable results. In addition, optimising these standard parameters can be achieved in much less time than optimising the standard method, making \mf{} a very efficient tool for the telluric absorption correction. We also successfully applied \mf{} to several other ESO instruments covering several wavelength and resolution regimes (see Paper~I). Only a slight adaption of instrument dependent parameters is necessary. Any required information can be added in the parameter file if the FITS header of the files does not contain ESO compliant keywords, which are read by \mf{}. Although the software is delivered with meteorological data for Cerro Paranal, it provides the capability to create atmospheric profiles appropriate also for other observing sites. This flexibility makes \mf{} a general tool for the telluric absorption correction adaptable to various instruments and observing sites. \begin{acknowledgements} We thank Sabine M\"ohler (ESO) for the help with the \xshoot{} pipeline and Thomas Kr\"uhler (ESO) for providing us the GRB spectrum. This project made use of the ESO archive facility. This study was carried out in the framework of the Austrian ESO In-Kind project funded by BM:wf under contracts BMWF-10.490/0009-II/10/2009 and BMWF-10.490/0008-II/3/2011. This publication is also supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF): P26130 and by the project IS538003 (Hochschulraumstrukturmittel) provided by the Austrian Ministry for Research (bmwfw). \end{acknowledgements} \bibliographystyle{aa}
\section{Introduction} When a soliton equation is integrable, one can construct exact analytic solutions in principle. Among topological solitons and instantons, Yang-Mills instantons \cite{Belavin:1975fg} and Bogomol'nyi-Prasad-Sommerfield (BPS) monopoles \cite{Bogomolny:1975de,Prasad:1975kr} are such examples studied in detail both in physics and mathematics, for which exact solutions are accessible from the Atiyah-Drinfeld-Hitchin-Manin \cite{Atiyah:1978ri} and Nahm \cite{Nahm:1979yw} constructions, respectively. For BPS monopoles, Donaldson proposed a rational map construction \cite{Donaldson:1985id}, in which three-dimensional space is decomposed into one particular direction and its orthogonal plane is parametrized by a complex coordinate. Recently, a physical interpretation of the Donaldson's rational map was provided in Ref.~\cite{Nitta:2010nd} by putting monopoles into the Higgs phase, in which vortices that confine monopoles extend to the above-mentioned one particular direction. A spherical rational map construction was also proposed in Ref.~\cite{Jarvis:1998} in which three-dimensional space is decomposed into a sphere and a radial direction. The Skyrme model that describes baryons as solitons known as Skyrmions \cite{Skyrme:1962vh} is not integrable, unlike its BPS version proposed recently whose Lagrangian consists of only a six-derivative term and a potential term \cite{Adam:2010fg}. Since exact solutions are impossible to obtain for the original Skyrme model, approximate analytic solutions are the most useful if they exist, unless one obtains solutions numerically. One such approximation is the Atiyah-Manton Ansatz \cite{Atiyah:1989dq,Atiyah:1992if} in which an approximate Skyrme field is obtained from a holonomy of a Yang-Mills instanton configuration integrated along one particular direction. A physical realization of the Atiyah-Manton ansatz has been obtained recently \cite{Eto:2005cc} in which a Skyrmion is realized as a Yang-Mills instanton absorbed into a domain wall that is placed perpendicular to the above-mentioned one particular direction. The other more useful approximation is the rational map Ansatz proposed in Refs.~\cite{Houghton:1997kg,Manton:2004tk}, in which three-dimensional space is decomposed into a sphere and a radial direction, as for the Jarvis's spherical rational map Ansatz for BPS monopoles. This Ansatz was also generalized to $SU(N)$ Skyrmions \cite{Ioannidou:1999mf}. For a recent application to realistic situation, see Ref.~\cite{Lau:2014baa}. While this Ansatz gives only an initial configuration for numerical relaxation, a physical realization of this Ansatz can be also given as a spherical domain wall \cite{Gudnason:2013qba,Gudnason:2014gla} which can be stabilized in a Skyrme model with a six-derivative term. On the other hand, a Donaldson-type rational map Ansatz for Skyrmions has been found \cite{Nitta:2012wi,Nitta:2012rq,Gudnason:2014nba, Gudnason:2014hsa} together with its physical realization in which ${\mathbb C}P^1$ lumps inside a domain wall are Skyrmions in the bulk in the Skyrme model with the modified mass term admitting two discrete vacua \cite{Kudryavtsev:1999zm}. However, a generalization to $SU(N)$ Skyrmions has a difficulty that such a potential term admitting a domain wall is not known. The purpose of this paper is to give a physical realization of an $SU(N)$ rational map of the Donaldson type for Skyrmions. A key ingredient is a non-Abelian sine-Gordon soliton proposed recently \cite{Nitta:2014rxa} (see also earlier work \cite{Gepner:1984au}), in which it has been found that a $U(N)$ chiral Lagrangian with the usual pion mass term, instead of $SU(N)$, admits a topologically stable non-Abelian sine-Gordon soliton. The point is that the $U(N)$ group has the structure of $[SU(N) \times U(1)] /{\mathbb Z}_N$, and consequently there exists a topologically nontrivial closed path winding around the $U(1)$ group $1/N$ times together with an $SU(N)$ path from the unit element to an element in the center ${\mathbb Z}_N$. The diagonal $SU(N)$ symmetry in the vacuum is spontaneously broken into an $SU(N-1) \times U(1)$ subgroup in the presence of the non-Abelian sine-Gordon soliton, giving rise to localized ${\mathbb C}P^{N-1} \simeq SU(N)/[SU(N-1) \times U(1)]$ Nambu-Goldstone modes. Therefore, the term ``non-Abelian" is the same with that of non-Abelian vortices \cite{Hanany:2003hp,Auzzi:2003fs, Shifman:2004dr,Eto:2004rz,Eto:2005yh, Balachandran:2005ev} carrying non-Abelian ${\mathbb C}P^{N-1}$ moduli; see Refs.~\cite{Tong:2005un,Eto:2006pg,Shifman:2007ce, Eto:2013hoa} for a review. While a non-Abelian vortex can terminate on a non-Abelian monopole because of the matching of the moduli ${\mathbb C}P^{N-1}$ \cite{Auzzi:2003em,Eto:2006dx}, a non-Abelian sine-Gordon soliton can terminate on a non-Abelian global vortex \cite{Balachandran:2002je,Nitta:2007dp, Nakano:2007dq,Eto:2009wu,Eto:2013hoa}. Non-Abelian sine-Gordon solitons exist stably in the color-flavor locking (CFL) phase of dense quark matter \cite{Alford:2001dt} or the confining phase of QCD as far as the axial anomaly term can be neglected at high density or high temperature \cite{Eto:2013bxa}. In this paper, we construct the effective theory on the non-Abelian sine-Gordon soliton by using the moduli approximation \cite{Manton:1981mp,Eto:2006uw}, that is a nonlinear sigma model with the target space ${\mathbb R} \times {\mathbb C}P^{N-1}$. We then show that ${\mathbb C}P^{N-1}$ lumps on it represent $SU(N)$ Skyrmions in the bulk point of view. This setting offers a physical realization of the rational map Ansatz for $SU(N)$ Skyrmions of the Donaldson type. One of the interesting features is that Skyrmions can exist stably without the Skyrme term. This fact is consistent with the the Derrick's scaling argument \cite{Derrick:1964ww} that implies a three-dimensional soliton in scalar field theories shrinks in the absence of the Skyrme term, because the sine-Gordon soliton has divergent energy proportional to the world-volume directions. This situation is similar to lumps inside a vortex representing a Yang-Mills instanton in the Higgs phase \cite{Eto:2004rz,Fujimori:2008ee}. This paper is organized as follows. In Sec.~\ref{sec:model}, we give the $U(N)$ chiral Lagrangian and construct a non-Abelian sine-Gordon soliton. In Sec.~\ref{sec:eff-th}, we construct the effective field theory on a non-Abelian sine-Gordon soliton which is the ${\mathbb C}P^{N-1}$ model. In Sec.~\ref{sec:rational}, we show that ${\mathbb C}P^{N-1}$ lumps on the non-Abelian sine-Gordon soliton are nothing but $SU(N)$ Skyrmions in the bulk point of view. Sec.~\ref{sec:summary} is devoted to summary and discussion. In the Appendix, we summarize the Abelian sine-Gordon soliton. \section{ $U(N)$ chiral Lagrangian and Non-Abelian sine-Gordon soliton \label{sec:model}} In this section, we give the Lagrangian for a $U(N)$ principal chiral model (chiral Lagrangian) and its sine-Gordon solution. A $U(N)$-valued field $U(x)$ takes a value in the $U(N)$ group having a nontrivial first homotopy group: \beq && U(x) \in U(N) \simeq {U(1) \times SU(N) \over {\mathbb Z}_N} , \quad \pi_1 [U(N)] = {\mathbb Z}. \eeq The Lagrangian for a $U(N)$ chiral Lagrangian with the usual pion mass term is given by \beq {\cal L}/f_\pi^2 &=& \1{2} \tr \del_{\mu} U^\dagger \del^{\mu} U - {m^2 \over 2} \tr (2{\bf 1}_N - U - U^\dagger) \non &=& \1{2} \tr (i U^\dagger \del_{\mu} U)^2 - {m^2 \over 2}\tr (2{\bf 1}_N - U - U^\dagger), \label{eq:U(N)SG} \eeq with $f_\pi$ being a constant of the mass dimension 1, and $\mu=0,1,\cdots,d-1$. In the absence of the pion mass, $m=0$, this Lagrangian is invariant under the chiral $SU(N)_{\rm L} \times SU(N)_{\rm R}$ symmetry \beq U(x) \to V_{\rm L}U(x)V_{\rm R}^\dagger , \quad V_{\rm L,R} \in SU(N)_{\rm L,R} \label{eq:U(N)sym0} \eeq that is spontaneously broken to the vectorlike symmetry \beq U(x) \to V U(x)V^\dagger , \quad V \in SU(N)_{\rm L+R=V} .\label{eq:U(N)sym} \eeq In the presence of the pion mass, $m\neq0$, the chiral symmetry is explicitly broken to the vectorlike symmetry in Eq.~(\ref{eq:U(N)sym}) in the unique vacuum $U={\bf 1}_N$. The energy density for static configuration and its Bogomol'nyi completion are given as \beq {\cal E}/f_\pi^2 &=& \1{2} \tr (i U^\dagger \del_x U)^2 - {m^2\over 2} \tr (2{\bf 1}_N - U - U^\dagger)\non &=& \1{2} \tr \left[- {i\over 2} (U^\dagger \del_x U - \del_x U^\dagger U ) \mp m \sqrt {2 {\bf 1}_N - U -U^\dagger} \right]^2\non && \pm {m \over 2} \tr \left[ - {i\over 2} (U^\dagger \del_x U - \del_x U^\dagger U ) \sqrt {2 {\bf 1}_N - U - U^\dagger)}\right] \non &\geq& |t_{U(N)}| , \eeq with the topological charge density defined by \beq t_{U(N)} \equiv - {m \over 2} \tr \left[ i (U^\dagger \del_x U - \del_x U^\dagger U ) \sqrt {2{\bf 1}_N - U- U^\dagger}\right]. \eeq The BPS equation is obtained as \beq - {i\over 2} (U^\dagger \del_x U - \del_x U^\dagger U ) \mp m \sqrt {2 {\bf 1}_N - U - U^\dagger} ={\bf 0}_N. \label{eq:BPS-U(N)} \eeq This equation is invariant under the $SU(N)_{\rm V}$ symmetry in Eq.~(\ref{eq:U(N)sym}). A non-Abelian sine-Gordon soliton solution is of the following form: \beq U(x) = V{\rm diag} (u(x),1,\cdots,1) V^\dagger , \quad V\in SU(N)_{\rm V}, \label{eq:solution} \eeq with $u(x)$ ($u \in U(1), \; |u|^2=1$) satisfying the Abelian sine-Gordon equation \beq -{i \over 2} (u^* \del_x u - (\del_x u^*) u ) \mp m \sqrt {2-u-u^*} = 0 \label{eq:BPS-U(1)} \eeq that allows for instance a single sine-Gordon soliton solution \cite{Perring:1962vs} \beq u(x) = \exp \left(4 i \, \arctan \exp [m (x- X)] \right) \label{eq:U(1)-one-kink} \eeq with the boundary condition $u \to 1$ for $x \to \pm \infty$ (see Appendix). Since there exists a redundancy in the action of $V$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:solution}), $V$ in fact takes a value in the coset space \beq V \in {SU(N)_{\rm V} \over SU(N-1)_{\rm V} \times U(1)_{\rm V}} \simeq {\mathbb C}P^{N-1}. \eeq The single-soliton solution has the moduli \beq {\cal M} = {\mathbb R} \times {\mathbb C}P^{N-1}, \eeq where the first and second factors are parametrized by $X$ and $V$, respectively. In terms of the group elements, the general solution can be rewritten as \beq U(x) &=& \exp \left(i {\theta(x) \over N}\right) \exp \left(i \theta(x) VT_0 V^\dagger\right) \non &=& \exp \left(i {\theta(x) \over N}\right) \exp i{\theta(x)\over N}T \non &=& \exp \left({i\theta(x) \phi\phi^\dagger}\right), \label{eq:general} \eeq with $T_0 \equiv {1 \over N} {\rm diag.}(N-1,-1,\cdots,-1)$, where $T \equiv V T_0 V^\dagger$ can be any $SU(N)$ generator normalized as $e^{i2\pi T} = \omega^{-1}{\bf 1}_N$ ($\omega =\exp(2\pi i/N)$). In the last line, we have introduced the orientational vector $\phi \in {\mathbb C}^N$ that represents homogeneous coordinates of ${\mathbb C}P^{N-1}$ and satisfies \beq && \phi^\dagger \phi =1,\label{eq:cond}\\ && T = V T_0 V^\dagger = \phi \phi^\dagger - {1\over N}{\bf 1}_N. \label{eq:phi} \eeq This form of $T$ is known as the projector in the rational map Ansatz for Skyrmions \cite{Houghton:1997kg,Ioannidou:1999mf}, already implying the possibility of physical realization of the rational map. \section{The Effective Theory on Non-Abelian Sine-Gordon Soliton}\label{sec:eff-th} In this section, we construct the low-energy effective theory, which is the ${\mathbb C}P^{N-1}$ model, by using the moduli approximation \cite{Manton:1981mp}. Let us place a single sine-Gordon soliton perpendicular to the $x^3$-coordinate, that we denote $x$ for simplicity. In the following, we will promote the moduli parameters $X$ and $\phi$ to be the fields on the $(2+1)$-dimensional soliton's world volume as \beq X \to X(x^\alpha),\quad \phi \to \phi(x^\alpha),\qquad (\alpha = 0,1,2). \eeq We will derive the effective theory including derivatives with respect to $x^\alpha$ up to the leading (second) order, by taking into account only the zero modes $X$ and $\phi$ and discarding massive modes. Therefore, what we will do in the rest of this section is integrating the kinetic term of the chiral Lagrangian over $x$ \beq {\cal L}_{\rm eff} = - \frac{f_\pi^2}{2} \int^\infty_{-\infty} dx\ \tr \left[\left(U^\dagger \partial_\alpha U\right)^2\right], \label{eq:lag_eff} \eeq where $U$ is a non-Abelian sine-Gordon soliton solution in which the moduli parameters $X$ and $\phi$ are promoted to the fields on the world volume. The effective Lagrangian correctly describe low energy physics with momenta sufficiently lower than the mass scale: $|p_\alpha| \ll m$. \subsection{The $U(2)$ case} As an exercise, we first consider the simplest case of $N=2$. We start with specifying an inhomogeneous coordinate $\varphi$ of the $\mathbb{C}P^1$ manifold instead of the complex two-vector $\phi$ defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:phi}). Note that $T$ defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:phi}) is invariant under the $U(1)_{\rm V} \in SU(2)_{\rm V}$ transformation \beq T \to V V_0(\eta) T_0 V_0(\eta)^\dagger V^\dagger,\quad V_0(\eta) \equiv e^{i\eta T_0}, \eeq with $\eta$ being an arbitrary real number. Therefore, an $SU(2)_{\rm V}$ matrix $V$ can always be transformed as $V \to V V_0(\eta)$. By using this $U(1)_{\rm V}$ transformation, one can always cast the diagonal element of $V$ to be real valued. So, we will take the following concrete matrix \beq V = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 + |\varphi|^2}} \left( \begin{array}{cc} 1 & -\varphi^* \\ \varphi & 1 \end{array} \right),\quad \varphi \in \mathbb{C}. \eeq Then, we have \beq T = \frac{1}{2(1+|\varphi|^2)} \left( \begin{array}{cc} 1-|\varphi|^2 & 2\varphi^* \\ 2\varphi & -(1-|\varphi|^2) \end{array} \right). \eeq The relation between $\phi$ and $\varphi$ can be found through the equation $T = \phi \phi^\dagger - {\bf 1}_2/2$ by \beq \phi = V \left( \begin{array}{c} 1\\ 0 \end{array} \right) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 + |\varphi|^2}} \left( \begin{array}{c} 1\\ \varphi \end{array} \right). \eeq With these matrices, the concrete form of the matrix field $U$ given in Eq. (\ref{eq:solution}) is given by \beq U(x;x^\alpha) = \frac{1}{1+|\varphi(x^\alpha)|^2} \left( \begin{array}{cc} u(x;X(x^\alpha)) + |\varphi(x^\alpha)|^2 & -(u(x;X(x^\alpha))-1)\varphi^*(x^\alpha)\\ -(u(x;X(x^\alpha))-1)\varphi(x^\alpha) & 1 + u(x;X(x^\alpha))|\varphi(x^\alpha)|^2 \end{array} \right). \eeq Plugging this into Eq.(\ref{eq:lag_eff}), we have \beq {\cal L}_{\rm eff} = C_X \partial_\alpha X \partial^\alpha X + C_\varphi \frac{\partial_\alpha\varphi \partial^\alpha \varphi^*}{\left( 1 + |\varphi|^2\right)^2}, \eeq with \beq C_X &=& \frac{f_\pi^2}{2} \int^\infty_{-\infty} dx\ \left(\frac{\partial\theta(x;X(x^\alpha))}{\partial x}\right)^2 = \frac{f_\pi^2 T_{\rm sG}}{2}, \label{eq:eff_coeff1}\\ C_\varphi &=& 4 f_\pi^2 \int^\infty_{-\infty} dx\ \sin^2\frac{\theta(x;X(x^\alpha))}{2} = \frac{f_\pi^2 T_{\rm sG}}{m^2}, \label{eq:eff_coeff2} \eeq where $\theta$ is an ordinary sine-Gordon field which is related with $u$ by $u= e^{i\theta}$, see the Appendix \ref{sec:sG}. In the calculation above, we have used the BPS equation $\partial_x \theta = \pm 2m \sin \theta/2$, and the tension of the sine-Gordon domain wall is given by \beq T_{\rm sG} = 8m. \eeq Some comments are in order: First, the coefficient $C_X = T_{\rm sG}/2$ of the translational zero mode $X$ is consistent with the Nambu-Goto action of the order ${\cal O}(\partial_\alpha^2)$. Second, it is remarkable that the coefficient $C_\varphi$, called the K\"ahler class, has been exactly obtained. The situation is similar to the BPS non-Abelian local vortex \cite{Hanany:2003hp,Shifman:2004dr}. Note that the K\"ahler class of the non-Abelian orientational zero modes cannot always be obtained. For example, the one for the non-BPS non-Abelian vortex in the dense QCD \cite{Balachandran:2005ev} is only numerically determined. \subsection{The $U(N)$ case} Now we generalize the results in the previous subsection for $N=2$ to the generic $N$. Let us first specify the orientational zero modes as in the previous subsection. Let $V_{ij}$ be an $(i,j)$ element of an $SU(N)_{\rm V}$ matrix. Since the $SU(N)$ generator $T_0$ is expressed as $(T_0)_{ij} = \delta_{i1}\delta_{j1} - \delta_{ij}/N$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:phi}) can be written as \beq T_{il} = V_{ij}\left( \delta_{j1}\delta_{k1} - \delta_{jk}\frac{1}{N} \right) V_{lk}^* = V_{i1}V_{l1}^* - \delta_{il}\frac{1}{N} = \phi_i\phi_l^* - \delta_{il}\frac{1}{N}. \eeq We thus can identify $\phi$ as the first column vector of $V$, namely $\phi_i \equiv V_{i1}$. Of course, the condition Eq.~(\ref{eq:cond}) is automatically satisfied: $\phi^\dagger \phi = \phi_i^*\phi_i = V_{i1}^*V_{i1} = \delta_{11} = 1$. Similarly, we can explicitly write down the matrix $U$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:solution}) as \beq U_{il} = (VU_0V^\dagger)_{il} = V_{ij}\left(\delta_{jk} + (u-1)\delta_{1j}\delta_{1k}\right)V_{lk}^* = \delta_{il} + (u-1) \phi_i\phi_l^*, \eeq where we have introduced $U_0 = {\rm diag}(u,1,\cdots,1) \in U(N)$. In the matrix notation, this can be simply expressed as \beq U = {\bf 1}_N + (u-1)\phi\phi^\dagger. \eeq Note that this can also be derived from Eq.~(\ref{eq:general}) as \beq \exp\left(i\theta\phi\phi^\dagger\right) &=& {\bf 1}_N + i \theta \phi \phi^\dagger + \frac{1}{2!} \left(i \theta \phi \phi^\dagger\right)^2 + \frac{1}{3!} \left(i \theta \phi \phi^\dagger\right)^3 + \cdots \non &=& {\bf 1}_N + \left(i\theta + \frac{1}{2!}(i\theta)^2 + \frac{1}{3!}(i\theta)^3 + \cdots\right) \phi\phi^\dagger \non &=& {\bf 1}_N + \left(e^{i\theta} - 1\right) \phi\phi^\dagger. \eeq Thus, we have \beq \partial_\alpha U = \phi\phi^\dagger \partial_\alpha u + (u-1)\left(\partial_\alpha \phi\phi^\dagger + \phi\partial_\alpha\phi^\dagger\right). \eeq By plugging this into the integrand of Eq.~(\ref{eq:lag_eff}), we find \beq \tr\left[\partial_\alpha U \partial^\alpha U^\dagger\right] = \partial_\alpha u \partial^\alpha u + 2 |1-u|^2 \left[\partial_\alpha \phi^\dagger \partial^\alpha \phi + (\phi^\dagger\partial_\alpha \phi)(\phi^\dagger\partial^\alpha \phi) \right]. \eeq In order to compute this, let us recall the following equations: \beq \partial_\alpha u &=& \partial_\alpha e^{i\theta(x;X(x^\alpha))} = i \partial_\alpha X \frac{\partial \theta}{\partial X} u = - i \partial_\alpha X \frac{\partial\theta}{\partial x} u,\\ 2|1-u|^2 &=& 2(2 - u - u^*) = 8\sin^2 \frac{\theta}{2}. \eeq By plugging these into Eq.~(\ref{eq:lag_eff}) and performing the integral over $x$, we again find the same integrals in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:eff_coeff1}) and (\ref{eq:eff_coeff2}). Thus, we eventually reach the following Lagrangian for the generic $N$: \beq {\cal L}_{\rm eff} = \frac{f_\pi^2 T_{\rm sG}}{2} \partial_\alpha X \partial^\alpha X + \frac{f_\pi^2 T_{\rm sG}}{m^2} \left[ \partial_\alpha \phi^\dagger \partial^\alpha \phi + (\phi^\dagger\partial_\alpha \phi)(\phi^\dagger\partial^\alpha \phi) \right]. \eeq The first term corresponds to the translational zero modes while the second term is the well-known Lagrangian for the $\mathbb{C}P^{N-1}$ nonlinear sigma model. If one wants to express the $\mathbb{C}P^{N-1}$ Lagrangian in terms of the inhomogeneous coordinate $\varphi^a$ ($a=1,2,\cdots,N-1$), as in the previous subsection, we take the $SU(N)_{\rm V}$ matrix \beq V = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+|\vec\varphi|^2}} \left( \begin{array}{ccccc} 1 & - \varphi_1^* & - \varphi_2^* & \cdots & - \varphi_{N-1}^* \\ \varphi_1 & 1 + i \frac{|\vec\varphi|^2-|\varphi_1|^2}{|\vec\varphi|} & - i \frac{\varphi_1\varphi_2^*}{|\vec\varphi|} & \cdots & - i \frac{\varphi_1\varphi_{N-1}^*}{|\vec\varphi|}\\ \varphi_2 & - i \frac{\varphi_2\varphi_1^*}{|\vec\varphi|} & \ddots & \ddots & \vdots \\ \vdots &\vdots & \ddots & \ddots & - i \frac{\varphi_{N-2}\varphi_{N-1}^*}{|\vec\varphi|} \\ \varphi_{N-1} & -i\frac{\varphi_{N-1}\varphi_1^*}{|\vec\varphi|} & \cdots & -i\frac{\varphi_{N-1}\varphi_{N-2}^*}{|\vec\varphi|} & 1 + i \frac{|\vec\varphi|^2-|\varphi_{N-1}|^2}{|\vec\varphi|} \end{array} \right). \eeq This $V$ includes $N-1$ complex parameters $\vec\varphi^T = ( \varphi_1, \varphi_2, \cdots, \varphi_{N-1})$. A compact form of the elements of $V$ is given by \beq V_{ij} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+|\vec\varphi|^2}}\left( \delta_{ij} + i \frac{|\vec\varphi|^2\delta_{ij} - \varphi_{i-1}\varphi_{j-1}^*}{|\vec\varphi|}\right),\qquad \varphi_0 \equiv -i |\vec\varphi|. \eeq By making use of the identity $\sum_{i=1}^{N}|\varphi_{i-1}|^2 = 2 |\vec\varphi|^2$, it is straightforward to check that the condition $(VV^\dagger)_{ik} = V_{ij}V_{kj}^* = \delta_{ik}$ is satisfied. The effective Lagrangian can be rewritten as \beq && {\cal L}_{\rm eff} = \frac{f_\pi^2 T_{\rm sG}}{2} \partial_\alpha X \partial^\alpha X + \frac{f_\pi^2 T_{\rm sG}}{m^2} g_{ab^*} \del_{\alpha} \ph^a \del^\alpha \ph^{*b} ,\non && g_{ab^*} = \frac{\delta_{ab^*} (1+|\vec \ph|^2) - \ph^b \ph^{*a}} {(1+|\vec \ph|^2)^2}= \del_a \del_{b^*} \log (1 + |\vec \ph|^2). \eeq \section{${\mathbb C}P^{N-1}$ lumps on Sine-Gordon soliton as $SU(N)$ Skyrmions} \label{sec:rational} In this section, we construct ${\mathbb C}P^{N-1}$ lumps in the effective theory on the sine-Gordon soliton in $d=3+1$ dimensions, and then show that they represent $SU(N)$ Skyrmions. A similar case was found before in the $SU(2)$ principal chiral model and the Skyrme model with a potential term admitting two discrete vacua \cite{Nitta:2012wi,Nitta:2012rq,Gudnason:2014nba}. By placing a single sine-Gordon soliton perpendicular to the $x^3$-coordinate. the effective theory on it is defined in the $x^0$, $x^1$, $x^2$ coordinates as in the last section. Apart from the translational modulus $X$, the energy of static configuration and this Bogomol'nyi completion are given by \beq E &=& \frac{f_\pi^2 T_{\rm sG}}{m^2} \int d^2x g_{ab^*} (\del_1 \ph^a \del_1 \ph^{*b} + \del_2 \ph^a \del_2 \ph^{*b})\non &=& \frac{f_\pi^2 T_{\rm sG}}{m^2} \int d^2x g_{ab^*} (\del_1 \ph^a \pm i \del_2 \ph^a) (\del_1 \ph^{*b} \mp i \del_2 \ph^{*b}) \pm \frac{f_\pi^2 T_{\rm sG}}{m^2} \int d^2x \epsilon^{mn} i g_{ab^*} \del_m \ph^a \del_n \ph^{*b} \non &\geq& |Q| \label{eq:BPS-bound} \eeq with spatial indices $m,n=1,2$ on the world volume. Here, $Q$ is the topological lump charge defined by \beq Q \equiv \frac{f_\pi^2 T_{\rm sG}}{m^2} \int d^2x \epsilon^{mn} i g_{ab^*} \del_m \ph^a \del_n \ph^{*b} = \frac{f_\pi^2 T_{\rm sG}}{m^2} 2\pi k = {16 \pi f_\pi^2 \over m} k \eeq with $k \in \pi_2 ({\mathbb C}P^{N-1})$ being the topological lump number. The topological lump charge is the pullback of the K\"ahler form on ${\mathbb C}P^{N-1}$. In terms of homogeneous coordinates $\phi$, the lump charge $k$ can also be expressed by \cite{Din:1980jg} \beq k = \frac{i}{2\pi} \int dz d\bar z\ \tr\left(\left[\partial_{\bar z} {\cal P},\partial_z {\cal P}\right]{\cal P}\right), \quad {\cal P} \equiv \phi\phi^\dagger. \label{eq:lump-charge} \eeq Note that ${\cal P}$ is a projection operator ${\cal P}^2 = {\cal P}$. The inequality of the Bogomol'nyi energy bound in Eq.~(\ref{eq:BPS-bound}) is saturated if and only if the BPS or anti-BPS lump equation, \beq \del_{\bar z}\ph^a =0, \quad {\rm or} \quad \del_z\ph^a =0,\quad (a=1,2,\cdots,N-1), \eeq is satisfied, where we have defined a complex coordinate by $z\equiv x^1+ix^2$. Generic BPS solutions in terms of $\phi$ are given by a set of holomorphic function $\{P_i(z)\}$, \beq \phi^T = (\phi_1,\cdots,\phi_N) = \1{\sqrt{ \sum_{i=1}^N|P_i(z)|^2}} (P_1(z),P_2(z),\cdots,P_N(z)). \eeq The lump charge $k$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:lump-charge}) corresponds to the degree of the highest-order polynomial $P_i(z)$ \cite{Din:1980jg}. For instance, a single BPS lump solution in the ${\mathbb C}P^{N-1}$ model is given by \beq k=1:\quad P_1 = z - z_0,\ P_2 = a,\ P_{i\ge3} = 0, \eeq up to symmetry, where $a$ is a complex modulus representing the size ($|a|$) and the phase (arg $a$), and $z_0$ is the position moduli which we will set to be zero in the following. Let us take the non-Abelian sine-Gordon solution $U$ whose moduli parameter $\phi$ is replaced by the lump solution \beq U(z,\bar z,x^3) &=& \exp \left({i\theta(x^3) \phi(z,\bar z)\phi^\dagger(z,\bar z)}\right) \non &=& {\bf 1}_N + \left(u(x^3)-1\right) \phi(z,\bar z) \phi^\dagger(z,\bar z). \label{eq:rational} \eeq As long as the condition $\partial_1,\partial_2 \ll \partial_3 \sim m$ holds, this is an approximate solution of the full equations of motion in $3+1$ dimensions. So we should keep the size moduli of the lump $|a|^{-1}$ to be smaller than $m$. For a configuration with $|a|^{-1} \gtrsim m$, one should take into account higher derivative corrections to the effective action or solve the full equations of motion in $3+1$ dimensions without using the effective theory at all, which we do not work out in this paper. By using the Maurer-Cartan one-form $R_i \equiv U^\dagger \del_i U$, the baryon (Skyrmion) number $B$ taking a value in $\pi_3 [SU(N)]\simeq {\mathbb Z}$ in the bulk can be calculated as \beq B &=& \1{24 \pi^2} \int d^3x\ \epsilon_{ijk} \tr (R_iR_jR_k) \non &=& -\1{8 \pi^2} \int d^3x\ \tr \left[\left(\partial_1U^\dagger\partial_2U - \partial_2U^\dagger\partial_1U\right) U^\dagger \partial_3 U \right] \non &=& -\frac{1}{8\pi^2}\int dx^1dx^2\ \tr\left( \left[\partial_1 {\cal P},\partial_2{\cal P}\right] {\cal P} \right) \int dx^3\ |u-1|^2 u^*\partial_3u\non &=& \frac{1}{8\pi^2}\int dzd\bar z\ \tr\left( \left[\partial_{\bar z} {\cal P},\partial_z{\cal P}\right] {\cal P} \right) \int dx^3\ 4 i \sin^2 \frac{\theta}{2} \partial_3\theta\non &=& \frac{i}{2\pi}\int dzd\bar z\ \tr\left( \left[\partial_{\bar z} {\cal P},\partial_z{\cal P}\right] {\cal P} \right) \times \frac{1}{2\pi} \int dx^3\ (1-\cos\theta) \partial_3\theta\non &=& k \times \frac{\Delta}{2\pi} \eeq where we have defined the sine-Gordon soliton charge by \beq \Delta \equiv \theta(x^3=+\infty) - \theta(x^3=-\infty) = 2\pi (n_+ - n_-),\qquad (n_\pm \in \mathbb{Z}). \eeq The single non-Abelian sine-Gordon soliton has $\Delta = 2\pi$. Therefore, we have found that ${\mathbb C}P^{N-1}$ lumps on the non-Abelian sine-Gordon soliton represent $SU(N)$ Skyrmions as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:lump-on-soliton}. \begin{figure}[t] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth,keepaspectratio]{lumps-on-soliton.eps} \caption{ An $SU(N)$ Skyrmion as a ${\mathbb C}P^{N-1}$ lump inside a $U(N)$ non-Abelian sine-Gordon soliton. \label{fig:lump-on-soliton}} \end{center} \end{figure} Note that the Skyrmion confined in the non-Abelian sine-Gordon soliton is not spherical but looks like a pancake, a Go stone, or M$\&$M's candy; see Fig.~\ref{fig:Go_stone}. Although this calculation is valid only for $a$ satisfying $|a| \gg m^{-1}$, the result is independent of the size moduli $a$. Therefore, we expect that this is true for any $a$. \begin{figure}[t] \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{ccc} \includegraphics[width=7cm]{baryon_density_xy} && \includegraphics[width=7cm]{baryon_density_zx} \end{tabular} \caption{An isosurface of the baryon density $(1/4\pi^2)\tr\left[R_1R_2R_3\right]$. We take $m=1$ and $|a|=2$. The left panel shows the top view and the right panel shows the front view.} \label{fig:Go_stone} \end{center} \end{figure} Configurations with higher baryon charges are also easy to construct in terms of the effective theory. For example, $B=2$ configurations are described by \beq k=2:\quad P_1=(z-d)(z+d),\ P_2=a,\ P_{k\ge3} = 0. \eeq Two Skyrmions sit at $z= \pm d$. Some configurations are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:k2}. When the two Skyrmions have an overlap region, the baryon density isosurface becomes a donut shape as usual $B=2$ Skyrmions in the Skryme model. \begin{figure}[t] \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{ccccc} \includegraphics[width=5cm]{k2_type1_d0} && \includegraphics[width=5cm]{k2_type1_d2} && \includegraphics[width=5cm]{k2_type1_d4} \end{tabular} \caption{$B=2$ Skyrmions: We fix $|a|=10$ and change $d$. The left, middle, and right panels have $d=0,2,4$, respectively.} \label{fig:k2} \end{center} \end{figure} A difference appears for $k\ge 3$. It is known that when usual $B=3$ Skyrmions coincide on top of each other, the baryon density exhibits a tetrahedral structure. On the other hand, since the Skyrmions are confined inside a soliton in our model, such a three-dimensional structure does not appear. For instance, a ${\mathbb Z}_3$ symmetric $B=3$ configuration can be given by \beq k=3:\quad P_1 = (z-d)(z-d\omega)(z-d\omega^2),\ P_2 = a,\ P_{i\ge3} = 0, \eeq with $z=1,\omega,\omega^2$ being roots of $z^3 =1$. As can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:k3}, instead of having a tetrahedron, a torus structure again appear when multiple Skyrmions coincide ($d=0$) inside the sine-Gordon soliton. \begin{figure}[t] \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{ccccc} \includegraphics[width=5cm]{k3_d0} && \includegraphics[width=5cm]{k3_d2} && \includegraphics[width=5cm]{k3_d4} \end{tabular} \caption{$B=3$ Skyrmions: The left, middle, and right panels have $(a,d) = (10,0), (20,2), (40,4)$, respectively.} \label{fig:k3} \end{center} \end{figure} We note that configurations in Eq.~(\ref{eq:rational}) show a physical realization of the rational map Ansatz of the Donaldson type. For conventional Skyrmions, rational maps give merely initial configurations for numerical relaxations, although a spherical version of the rational map eventually gives a good approximation to the final configurations \cite{Houghton:1997kg,Manton:2004tk,Ioannidou:1999mf,Lau:2014baa}. On the other hand, we would like to emphasize that, in our case, the rational map of the Donaldson type solves the equation of motion in the moduli approximation, that is, as far as the condition $\partial_1,\partial_2 \ll \partial_3 \sim m$ holds. We have seen that the Skyrmion can exist stably even in the absence of the Skyrme term. One might have concerns about Derrick's theorem \cite{Derrick:1964ww} implying that Skyrmions should shrink without four (higher) derivative terms in three spatial dimensions in the bulk. However, Derrick's theorem in the whole three dimensions cannot be applied to our case because of the divergent energy of the sine-Gordon soliton linearly extended to two spacial directions. In the presence of such an extended object, Derricks's theorem should be applied to each direction separately; we first use Derrick's theorem in one dimension for the sine-Gordon soliton ensuring its stability. Then we use it for two dimensions in the soliton's world volume, ensuring the marginal stability of the lumps. In addition, topology which supports our solution is a combination of $\pi_1[U(N)] \simeq {\mathbb Z}$ for the sine-Gordon soliton and $\pi_2({\mathbb C}P^{N-1}) \simeq {\mathbb Z}$ for the lumps. This situation is parallel to lumps inside a vortex corresponding to Yang-Mills instantons in the Higgs phase \cite{Eto:2004rz,Fujimori:2008ee}. The sine-Gordon soliton is BPS saturating the Bogomol'nyi bound and lumps are also BPS saturating the Bogomol'nyi bound in the world-volume theory. However the Skyrmion as the composite soliton itself is not BPS. \section{Summary and Discussion}\label{sec:summary} We have constructed the effective theory on a non-Abelian sine-Gordon soliton in the $U(N)$ chiral Lagrangian to obtain the nonlinear sigma model with the target space ${\mathbb R} \times {\mathbb C}P^{N-1}$. We have shown that ${\mathbb C}P^{N-1}$ lumps on the non-Abelian sine-Gordon soliton are nothing but $SU(N)$ Skyrmions in the bulk point of view. This setting offers a physical realization of the rational map Ansatz for Skyrmions of the Donaldson type that solves the equations of motion in the moduli approximation. Skyrmions can exist stably inside the soliton without the Skyrme term. Several discussions are addressed here. In this paper, we have used the moduli approximation to construct the Skyrmions trapped inside the sine-Gordon soliton. Full numerical analyses of the stability beyond the moduli approximation are available in related models. The stable solution in the $SU(2)$ principal chiral model with two vacua without any higher derivative terms was obtained numerically \cite{Gudnason:2014nba}. Furthermore, dynamical stability was tested in Ref.~\cite{Jennings:2013aea} for configurations similar to ours in lower dimensions (baby Skyrmions trapped inside the domain wall in 2+1 dimensions). Since we have not considered the Skyrme term in this paper, the ${\mathbb C}P^{N-1}$ Lagrangian on the soliton admits ${\mathbb C}P^{N-1}$ lumps with arbitrary sizes and there is no force between Skyrmions. If we add the Skyrme term in the original Lagrangian, it will induce a baby-Skyrme term (as well as enhancement of the kinetic term \cite{Gudnason:2014gla,Gudnason:2014hsa}) in the ${\mathbb C}P^{N-1}$ model on the soliton, which was the case for the $SU(2)$ chiral Lagrangian with two discrete vacua \cite{Nitta:2012wi,Nitta:2012rq,Gudnason:2014nba, Gudnason:2014hsa}. In this case, the lumps are unstable to expand. In order to stabilize them, one has to further introduce a mass term that explicitly breaks the $SU(N)_{\rm V}$ symmetry in the bulk, resulting in ${\mathbb C}P^{N-1}$ baby Skyrmions \cite{Piette:1994ug} on the soliton corresponding to $SU(N)$ Skyrmions in the bulk. In this paper, we have constructed the effective theory on a single soliton. It is well known that the sine-Gordon equation admits more general solutions such as a breather solution of two solitons and a static multiple soliton lattice. Constructing the effective theory on these cases will be interesting while paying attention to the relation between orientational zero modes localized on different solitons, in particular for a soliton lattice. The orientational modes on a non-Abelian $U(N)$ vortex lattice have been discussed recently, and found to give an inhomogeneous ${\mathbb C}P^{N-1}$ model \cite{Kobayashi:2013axa}. Therefore, a similar mechanism may work here. In the Skyrme model, Skyrmions are identified with baryons. In the quark model, baryons are composite states of constituent quarks. Hence, one would naively expect that Skyrmions are also composite sates of constituent solitons in the Skyrme model. Unfortunately, no fractional solitons that could be identified with quarks have been found in the original Skyrme model of hadrons. On the other hand, there can exist fractional solitons in our model with some modifications. It is known that one $\mathbb{C}P^{N-1}$ lump can be decomposed into $N$ fractional lumps (merons) with $1/N$ lump charges in certain situations such as a twisted boundary condition \cite{Eto:2004rz,Eto:2006mz,Bruckmann:2007zh}, an introduction of a suitable potential \cite{Schroers:1995he,Jaykka:2010bq} or a deformation of the target space metric \cite{Collie:2009iz,Eto:2009bz}. Since the lump is identified with the Skyrmion (baryon) in our model, the merons with $1/N$ baryon charge might be identified with quarks. The ``quarks" are confined to baryons and cannot be observed in our model as it is. In order to obtain deconfined quarks, we might need to break the chiral symmetry explicitly. We will report this interesting problem elsewhere. The CFL phase of dense quark matter \cite{Alford:2001dt} admits a non-Abelian $U(3)$ sine-Gordon soliton. Therefore, we can construct $SU(3)$ Skyrmions stably inside a non-Abelian sine-Gordon soliton. It was conjectured that Skyrmions in the CFL phase are quarks (called qualitons) rather than baryons as in the usual Skyrme model \cite{Hong:1999dk,Eto:2013hoa}. In the CFL phase, however, it was a problem that Skyrmions cannot exist stably in the absence of the Skyrme term. In our case, they exist stably inside a non-Abelian sine-Gordon soliton. Physical implications of this remain a future problem. While a non-Abelian sine-Gordon soliton is stable in the framework of a chiral Lagrangian, it can be unstable or metastable in a linear sigma model because it can be terminated by a non-Abelian global vortex \cite{Nitta:2014rxa}. Consequently, a soliton is bounded by a closed loop of a non-Abelian vortex. The effective theory is therefore the ${\mathbb C}P^{N-1}$ model with the boundary, which will be interesting to explore. We have considered the group $U(N)$ for sine-Gordon solitons. In the case of non-Abelian vortices, $U(N)$ were extended to arbitrary gauge groups $G$ in the form of ${G \times U(1) \over {\mathbb Z}_r}$ with the center ${\mathbb Z}_r$ of $G$ of rank $r$ \cite{Eto:2008yi} such as $SO(N)$ and $USp(2N)$ groups \cite{Eto:2009bg}. In the same way, non-Abelian $U(N)$ sine-Gordon solitons can also be extended to such cases. The effective theory on such a $G$ sine-Gordon soliton can be constructed to obtain a nonlinear sigma model with the target space ${\mathbb R} \times G/H$ with a suitable subgroup $H$. In this case, $G/H$ lumps on the sine-Gordon soliton will represent $G$ Skyrmions. The composite Skyrmions constructed in this paper are not BPS although their constituents, sine-Gordon solitons and lumps, are all BPS. On the other hand, the Skyrmions are BPS in the BPS Skyrme model consisting of a six-derivative term and a potential term \cite{Adam:2010fg}. A corresponding model to our $U(N)$ case may admit BPS Skyrmions as BPS lumps inside a BPS soliton. We have not discussed supersymmetry in this paper. If we promote the target space $U(N)$ to $T^* U(N) \simeq GL(N,{\mathbb C})$, the model can be made supersymmetric \cite{Nitta:2014fca}. For that case, sine-Gordon solitons and lumps may preserve a half supersymmetry, while the total configuration breaks all supersymmetry because it is non-BPS. As a lower-dimensional analogue, a lump (baby Skyrmion) can be constructed \cite{Nitta:2012xq,Jennings:2013aea} as a sine-Gordon soliton on a ${\mathbb C}P^1$ kink \cite{Abraham:1992vb}. This relation can be generalized to ${\mathbb C}P^{N-1}$ lumps as sine-Gordon solitons on ${\mathbb C}P^{N-1}$ kinks \cite{Gauntlett:2000ib}. Combined with the result in this paper, $SU(N)$ Skyrmions can be constructed only from domain walls, as was so for $SU(2)$ Skyrmions \cite{Nitta:2012rq}. As shown in this paper, the target space of the effective theory on a single non-Abelian sine-Gordon soliton is ${\mathbb C}P^{N-1}$ having the nontrivial second homotopy group $\pi_2 ({\mathbb C}P^{N-1}) \simeq {\mathbb Z}$. In the latter part of the paper, we have constructed the lump solutions as topological textures characterized by this homotopy group. On the other hand, the same homotopy group admits a monopole as a topological defect if the soliton world volume is 3+1 dimensional, that is, the bulk is 4+1 dimensional. This gives a D-brane soliton, that is, a Skyrmion string ending on a domain wall, as has been recently shown in Ref.~\cite{Gudnason:2014uha} for the $SU(2)$ Skyrme model with two vacua, as a higher-dimensional generalization of lump strings ending on a domain wall in the ${\mathbb C}P^1$ model \cite{Gauntlett:2000de}, ${\mathbb C}P^N$ or Grassmann sigma model \cite{Isozumi:2004vg}. One advantage of our model is the existence of parallel solitons as many as possible without antisolitons, in contrast to previous works (the ${\mathbb C}P^N$ model admits at most $N$ parallel walls). \section*{Acknowledgments} This work is supported in part by JSPS KAKENHI Grant No. 23740198 (M.~E.) and No.~25400268 (M.~N.) and by the ``Topological Quantum Phenomena'' Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Innovative Areas (No.~25103720 (M.~N.)) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) of Japan. \begin{appendix} \section{The sine-Gordon model} \label{sec:sG} Here, we summarize the conventional sine-Gordon soliton to fix notations. The Lagrangian density of the conventional sine-Gordon model is \beq {\cal L} &=& \1{2} (\del_{\mu} \theta)^2 - m^2 \left(1-\cos \theta\right) \label{eq:SG} \eeq with $\mu=0,1,\cdots,d-1$ and $0 \leq \theta <2\pi$. The sine-Gordon soliton is characterized by the first homotopy group $\pi_1[U(1)] \simeq {\mathbb Z}$. The static energy density of static configurations depending on one spatial direction $x$ and its Bogomol'nyi completion are given by \beq {\cal E} &=& \1{2} (\del_x \theta)^2 + m^2 \left(1-\cos \theta\right) \non &=& \1{2} (\del_x \theta)^2 + 2 m^2 \sin^2{\theta \over 2} \non &=& \1{2} \left(\del_x\theta \mp 2 m \sin {\theta\over 2}\right)^2 \pm 2 m \partial_x \theta \sin {\theta\over 2} \non &\geq& \left|2 m \partial_x \theta \sin {\theta\over 2} \right| = \left|t_{\rm sG}\right| \eeq with the topological charge density defined by \beq t_{\rm sG} \equiv 2m \partial_x \theta \sin {\theta\over 2} = - 4 m \partial_x \left( \cos {\theta \over 2}\right). \eeq The inequality is saturated by the BPS equation \beq \del_x \theta \mp 2 m \sin {\theta\over 2} = 0. \eeq A single-soliton solution interpolating between $\theta =0$ at $x \to -\infty$ to $\theta =2\pi$ at $x \to +\infty$ and its topological charge are \beq && \theta(x) = 4 \arctan \exp{m (x- X)} ,\\ && T_{\rm sG} = \int dx t_{\rm sG} = -4 m \left[\cos {\theta\over 2}\right]^{x=+\infty}_{x=-\infty} = -4 m (-1-1) = 8 m, \label{eq:SG-charge} \eeq respectively. Here, $X$ is the sine-Gordon soliton position and the width of the soliton is $1/m$. By using the field $u \equiv e^{i\theta}$ and taking a value in the $U(1)$ group, the BPS equation, the topological charge density and the single-soliton solution can be rewritten as \beq && -{i \over 2} (u^* \del_x u - (\del_x u^*) u ) \mp m \sqrt {2-u-u^*} = 0 , \label{eq:BPS-U(1)}\\ && t_{\rm U(1)} = -{i m\over 2} (u^* \del_x u - (\del_x u^*) u ) \sqrt {2-u-u^*} = - 2 m \del_x \left( \sqrt {2+ u+u^*} \right) ,\\ && u(x) = \exp \left(4 i \, \arctan \exp [m (x- X)] \right) , \label{eq:U(1)-one-kink} \eeq respectively, with the boundary condition $u \to 1$ for $x \to \pm \infty$. \end{appendix} \newcommand{\J}[4]{{\sl #1} {\bf #2} (#3) #4} \newcommand{\andJ}[3]{{\bf #1} (#2) #3} \newcommand{Ann.\ Phys.\ (N.Y.)}{Ann.\ Phys.\ (N.Y.)} \newcommand{Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.}{Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.} \newcommand{Nucl.\ Phys.}{Nucl.\ Phys.} \newcommand{Phys.\ Lett.}{Phys.\ Lett.} \newcommand{ Phys.\ Rev.}{ Phys.\ Rev.} \newcommand{Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}{Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.} \newcommand{Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.}{Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.} \newcommand{\hep}[1]{{\tt hep-th/{#1}}}
\section{Introduction} Twitter is an online social information network which has become tremendously popular in the past few years \cite{Kywe:2012}. Millions of users are sharing rich information using social media sites, such as Twitter, which can be used by social recommender systems \cite{Guy:2011}. Item providers often let users express their opinion about an item in social networks. For instance, users can give a rating to each movie in Internet Movie Database (IMDb) website\footnote{http://imdb.com} and also share it in Twitter. This intensifies the importance of considering social media sites for recommendation and information filtering systems \cite{Uysal:2011}. Product rating prediction is a traditional recommender system problem which has been studied extensively in the literature \cite{Ekstrand:2011,Nguyen:2009,Oghina:2012}. One important issue in recommender systems is the engagement which can be gained by the users' comments/opinions. When users share their comments on different items, the amount of user interactions achieved by each comment can be used to improve the quality of recommender systems. In this paper, we focus on ranking these comments by their engagements. We focus on movie ratings tweeted by IMDb users in Twitter. Hereafter, we use the word ``engagement" as the user interaction which is expressed by adding up the number of retweets and favorites a tweet has gained. Our purpose is to rank the tweets of each user, each containing a rating for a movie in IMDb, by their engagements. For this task, we first extract several features from the tweets. The features are categorized into three groups: user-based, movie-based, and tweet-based. It should be noted that the content of the tweets are hidden and there is no textual feature among our defined features. Then, we propose two different supervised approaches in order to rank the tweets. The first approach tires to predict the tweets engagements globally. In other words, although our purpose is to sort the tweets of each user, we consider tweets of all the users together and then try to predict the tweets engagements. We can then extract the sorted list of each user from the global ranked list. Therefore, we fit regression models to predict the engagement of each tweet. In the second approach, for each user, we rank the tweets by their engagement without predicting the engagements. To this aim, we use learning to rank approach which is extensively exploited in information retrieval, natural language processing, and recommender systems. Learning to rank methods rank the tweets for each user. In contrary to regression models which try to predict the engagements by considering all the tweets together, learning to rank methods emphasize on maximizing an objective function for each user. According to the different points of view of regression and learning to rank methods, we further propose to aggregate the results obtained by different regression and learning to rank methods to improve the performance. In the experiments, we use an extended version of MovieTweetings dataset \cite{Dooms:2013} provided by ACM RecSys Challenge 2014 and report the results of a number of state-of-the-art regression and learning to rank methods, separately. We further discuss the aggregation of the results of these two approaches. The experimental results show that although the results of regression methods are not so impressive, aggregation of regression and learning to rank methods improves the results significantly. \section{Related Work} \label{sec:relwork} The problem of engagement prediction or online participation has been studied from different points of view in news websites, social networks, and discussion forums. Several machine learning algorithms have been used in the literature for this task. To address the problem of engagement prediction, several features have been proposed for training a model. Suh et al. \cite{Suh:2010} have provided an analysis on the factors impacting the number of retweets. They have concluded that hashtags, number of followers, number of followees, and the account age play important roles in increasing the probability of the tweets to be retweeted. Zaman et al. \cite{Zaman:2010} have trained a probabilistic collaborative filtering model to predict the future retweets using the history of the previous ones. Linear models have been used in some other studies to predict the popularity of videos on YouTube by observing their popularity after regular periods \cite{Szabo:2010}. Petrovic et al. \cite{Petrovic:2011} have proposed a passive-aggressive algorithm to predict whether a tweet will be retweeted or not. Recognizing popular messages is also one of the similar problems which is used for breaking news detection and personalized tweet/content recommendation. Hong et al. \cite{Hong:2011} have formulated this task as a classification problem by exploiting content-based features, temporal information, meta-data of messages, and the users social graph. Predicting the extent to which a news is going to be breaking or how many comments a news is going to gain is one of the engagement prediction problems. Tatar et al. \cite{Tatar:2012} have analyzed a news dataset to address this problem. They have focused on sorting the articles based on their future popularity and they have proposed to use linear regression for this task. It is worth noting that ranking instances is one of the problems which has been extensively studied in information retrieval, natural language processing, and machine learning fields \cite{Li:2011}. To solve a similar problem, Uysal and Croft \cite{Uysal:2011} have proposed ``Coordinate Ascent learning to rank" algorithm to rank tweets for a user in a way that tweets which are more likely to be retweeted come on top. They have also worked on ranking users for a tweet in a way that the higher the rank, the more likely the given tweet will be retweeted. Several learning to rank algorithms have been proposed in the literature. Moreover, there are some supervised and unsupervised ensemble methods to aggregate different rankings, such as Borda Count \cite{Aslam:2001} and Cranking \cite{Lebanon:2002}. Previous studies show that in many cases, ranking aggregation methods outperform single ranking methods \cite{Chapelle:2011,Li:2011}. \vfill \pagebreak \section{Methodology} \label{sec:method} In general, our idea is to extract a number of features for each tweet and then try to learn machine learning based models on the training data. Then, for each user in test data, we apply the learned model to rank his/her tweets based on their engagements. In this section, we first introduce the features, and then we propose some machine learning approaches to rank the tweets based on their engagements. We also try to aggregate the results of these different techniques to improve the performance. In the following subsections, we explain our methodology in details. \subsection{Features} \label{sec:features} Each tweet contains the opinion of a user about a specific movie. We partition the features extracted from each tweet into three different categories: user-based, movie-based, and tweet-based features. Overall, we extract several features from each tweet T tweeted by user U about movie M. User-based features give us some information about the user who has tweeted his/her opinion about a specific movie. These features are not tweet-specific and they are equal for all tweets of each user. The total number of followers of U is an example of user-based features. Movie-based features only include information about movie M, e.g., the total number of tweets about movie M. Tweet-based features contain specific information of tweet T. This information may also contain the opinion of user U about movie M. The time and language of a tweet are two examples of tweet-based features. The name and description of the extracted features are shown in Table \ref{tab:features}. These features are extracted for each tweet T. We specify the category of the features and also their type; ``N", ``C", and ``B" are used for numerical, categorical, and boolean types, respectively. It should be noted that the feature values are normalized using z-score normalization method. We also perform feature selection to improve the performance and also to analyse the effectiveness of the proposed features. We exploit backward elimination for feature selection. The bolded features in Table \ref{tab:features} are those that are retained after performing feature selection. We discuss the selected features in Subsection \ref{sec:res} \bgroup \def1.5{1.5} \begin{table*} \centering \caption{Extracted features from each tweet T tweeted by user U about movie M} \label{tab:features} \begin{tabular}{|p{0.75cm}|p{3cm}|C{0.85cm}|p{11cm}|} \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\bfseries Cat.} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\bfseries Feature Name} & \textbf{Type} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\bfseries Description}\\ \hline \multirow{18}{*}{\begin{sideways}User-based\end{sideways}} & \textbf{Number of followers} & N & The total number of users who are following user U in Twitter. \\ \cline{2-4} & Number of followees & N & The total number of users who are followed by user U in Twitter.\\ \cline{2-4} & \textbf{Number of tweets} & N & The total number of tweets written by user U.\\ \cline{2-4} & \textbf{Number of IMDb tweets} & N & The total number of tweets tweeted by user U using IMBD about different movies.\\ \cline{2-4} & Average of ratings & N & The average of ratings provided by user U about different movies in IMDb.\\ \cline{2-4} & Number of liked tweets & N & The total number of tweets which are liked by user U.\\ \cline{2-4} & Number of lists & N &The total number of Twitter lists which user U is involved in.\\ \cline{2-4} & Tweeting frequency & N & The frequency of tweets written by user U in each day.\\ \cline{2-4} & Attracting followers frequency & N & The frequency of attracting followers per day. This feature is calculated by dividing the total number of followers by the membership age of user U in Twitter in terms of number of days.\\ \cline{2-4} & Following frequency & N &The frequency of following different users by user U per day.\\ \cline{2-4} & Like frequency & N &The frequency of liking tweets by user U per day.\\ \cline{2-4} & Followers/Followees & N & The total number of followers of user U divided by the total number of his/her followees.\\ \cline{2-4} & \textbf{Followers-Followees} & N & The difference between the total number of followers and followees of user U.\\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\begin{sideways}Movie-based\end{sideways}} & Number of tweets about M & N & The total number of tweets tweeted using IMDb about movie M. This feature shows how much movie M is rated by different users around the world in IMDb. \\ \cline{2-4} & \textbf{Average rating of M} & N & The average of ratings reported by different users for movie M.\\ \hline \multirow{16}{*}{\begin{sideways}Tweet-based\end{sideways}} & \textbf{Rate} & N & The rating provided by user U for movie M. This rating is a positive integer up to 10. \\ \cline{2-4} & \textbf{Mention count} & N & The total number of people who are mentioned in tweet T.\\ \cline{2-4} & Number of hash-tags & N &The total number of hash-tags used in tweet T.\\ \cline{2-4} & Tweet age & N & The age of tweet T in terms of number of days.\\ \cline{2-4} & Membership age until now & N & The number of days from when user U registered in Twitter until when tweet T is tweeted.\\ \cline{2-4} & \textbf{opinion difference} & N & The difference between the rate tweeted by user U for movie M and the average of rates given by different users about movie M.\\ \cline{2-4} & Hour of tweet & C & The hour when tweet T is tweeted. This feature is an integer between 0 and 23.\\ \cline{2-4} & Day of tweet & C & The day of week which tweet T is tweeted.\\ \cline{2-4} & Time of tweet & C & The part of the day that tweet T is tweeted. We have partitioned each day into four parts.\\ \cline{2-4} & \textbf{Holidays or not} & B & This feature give us whether tweet T is tweeted on holidays or not.\\ \cline{2-4} & \textbf{Same language or not }& B & This feature illustrates whether tweet T is tweeted in the same language as the default language of user U or not.\\ \cline{2-4} & \textbf{English or not} & B & This feature tells us whether tweet T is tweeted in English or not.\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table*} \egroup \subsection{Machine Learning Techniques for User Engagement Ranking} In this subsection, we propose two different learning based approaches to rank the tweets of each user based on their engagements. The first approach is predicting the engagement of tweets, globally. In other words, for predicting the engagement of tweets of a user, we consider the tweets of all users for training the model and not only the tweets of the user. To this aim, we use regression models to predict the engagement of each tweet. The next approach is to rank the tweets for each user without predicting their engagements. We exploit learning to rank methods to rank the tweets of each user, which focus on ranking the tweets of each user individually and try to maximize a given objective function for each user. Finally, we propose a supervised method to aggregate the regression and learning to rank results using supervised Kemeny approach \cite{Agarwal:2012}. In the following, we explain our proposed methods in details. \vfill \pagebreak \subsubsection{Regression} To rank the tweets of each user based on their possible engagements, we can first predict the engagement of each tweet and then sort the tweets by their predicted values. To predict the engagements, we propose to train regression models by using the features defined in Subsection \ref{sec:features} as the features and the engagements as the labels. Then, we apply the learned model on the same extracted features from the test set. To create the regression model, we exploit Extremely Randomized Trees (also known as Extra-Trees) \cite{Geurts:2006}, Bayesian Ridge Regression \cite{Mackay:1992}, and Stochastic Gradient Descent Regression (SGDR) \cite{Leon:2004}. Extra-Trees are tree-based ensemble regression methods which are successfully used in several tasks. In Extra-Trees, when a tree is built, the node splitting step is done randomly by choosing the best split among a random subset of features. The results of all trees are combined by averaging the individual predictions. SGDR is a generalized linear regression model that tries to fit a linear model by minimizing a regularized empirical loss function using gradient descent technique. \subsubsection{Learning to Rank} Instead of predicting the exact engagements, we can rank the tweets directly, without predicting the engagements of each tweet. Learning to Rank (LTR) methods are machine learning techniques which try to solve ranking problems \cite{Li:2011}. LTR methods have been widely used in many different areas such as information retrieval, natural language processing, and recommender systems \cite{Karatzoglou:2013,Li:2011}. LTR methods train a ranking model and use the learned model to rank the instances using several features which are extracted from each instance. To build our LTR model, we consider a number of ranking algorithms which are among state-of-the-art in many test collections: ListNet \cite{Cao:2007}, RankingSVM \cite{Joachims:2002}, AdaRank \cite{Xu:2007}, RankNet \cite{Burges:2005}, LambdaRank \cite{Burges:2007}, and ListMLE \cite{Xia:2008}. ListNet is a probabilistic listwise approach to solve ranking problems, which exploits a parameterized Plackett-Luce model to compute different permutations. Ranking SVM is a pairwise ranking approach which uses SVM classifier in its core computations. The basic idea behind AdaRank is constructing some weak rankers and combining them linearly to achieve a better performance. Although, Ranking SVM creates a ranking model by minimizing the classification error on instance pairs, AdaRank tries to minimize the loss function which is directly defined as an evaluation measure (such as NDCG@10). RankNet is one of the pairwise methods that adopts cross entropy as the loss function. RankNet employs a three layered neural network with a single output node to compare each pairs. LambdaRank is one of the ranking algorithms inspired by RankNet which uses Gradient Descent approach to optimize the evaluation measure. Similar to ListNet, ListMLE is a probabilistic listwise approach to rank instances by maximizing a logarithmic loss function. \subsubsection{Aggregating Regression and Learning to Rank Outputs} According to the aforementioned facts, regression and learning to rank techniques take two different points of view into consideration and their results might be totally different. Therefore, by aggregating their results, the performance can potentially be increased. To aggregate all the mentioned regression and learning to rank results, we use \textit{supervised Kemeny approach} \cite{Agarwal:2012}. Kemeny optimal aggregation \cite{Kemeny:1959} tries to minimize total number of pairwise disagreements between the final ranking and the outputs of all base rankers. In other words, if $r_1,~r_2,~...,~r_n$ represent the outputs of $n$ different rankers, the final ranking $r^*$ is computed as: \begin{equation*} r^* = \arg\max_{r}~\{\sum_{i=1}^{n}{k(r,~r_i)}\} \end{equation*} where $k(\alpha,~\beta)$ is the Kendall tau distance \cite{Kendall:1938} measured as: \begin{equation*} |{(i,~j):~i<j,~\alpha_i>\alpha_j~\wedge~\beta_i<\beta_j}| \end{equation*} where $\alpha_i$ denotes the $i^{th}$ position of ranking $\alpha$. While in Kemeny optimal aggregation all the rankers have the same importance, supervised Kemeny approach assumes that there is a weight for each ranker. In more details, in supervised Kemeny instead of counting the number of disagreements, we use the following equation to compute the final ranking: \begin{equation*} r^* = \arg\max_{r}~\{\sum_{i=1}^{n}{k(r,~r_i)}*w_i\} \end{equation*} where $w_i$ denotes the weight of $i^{th}$ ranker. To find the weight of each ranker, we propose to perform a Randomized Search \cite{Bergstra:2012}. To this aim, we perform cross validation over training data and find the optimal weight for each ranker. \section{Experiments} \label{sec:exp} In the experiments, we consider an extended version of MovieTweetings dataset \cite{Dooms:2013} which is provided by ACM RecSys Challenge 2014 \cite{Said:2014}.\footnote{http://2014.recsyschallenge.com/} The dataset contains movie ratings which are automatically tweeted by the users of IMDb iOS application. The reported results throughout this work are those obtained on the test set. The evaluation measure is the mean of normalized discounted cumulative gain \cite{Jarvelin:2002} computed for top 10 tweets of each user. We call it \textit{NDCG@10}, hereafter. In our experiments, we used Scikit-learn library \cite{Pedregosa:2011} for all the regression and feature selection algorithms. To select the parameters of the learning methods, we performed hyper-parameter optimization using Randomized Search \cite{Bergstra:2012} with 5-fold cross validation. For the learning to rank algorithms except AdaRank, we exploited an open source package, named ToyBox-Ranking\footnote{https://github.com/y-tag/cpp-ToyBox-Ranking}. For AdaRank, we used the software developed in Microsoft Research \cite{Xu:2007}.\footnote{http://goo.gl/xycK0h} \subsection{Experimental Results and Discussion} \label{sec:res} In this subsection, we report and discuss the results of different regression and learning to rank methods. We also provide the results obtained by aggregating the regression and learning to rank results using the supervised Kemeny approach. To show the impact of feature selection, we report the results of regression and learning to rank methods both before and after feature selection. As mentioned before, the bolded features in Table \ref{tab:features} are those retained after performing backward elimination method. The selected features are diffused among all the three feature categories. This shows the importance of using a combination of different kinds of features in this problem. The selected user-based features show how active and popular the user is in Twitter. Interestingly, all the boolean features are selected and none of the categorical features are retained. The reason may be that the values of the boolean features are constant and the difference between them are not a continuous value. So it may be easier and more efficient to use these features. Moreover, for the categorical features, we assign a number to each possible category and the arithmetic difference between these numbers is not informative. Table \ref{tab:reg} shows the results obtained by different regression algorithms, in terms of NDCG@10. In Table \ref{tab:reg}, ``XT", ``BRR", and ``SGDR" respectively denote Extremely Randomized Trees, Bayesian Ridge Regression, and Stochastic Gradient Descent Regression. The results reported in Table \ref{tab:reg} demonstrate that feature selection does not help with regression algorithms. In other words, after performing the feature selection, the results of regression models are dropped dramatically. This shows that backward elimination is not sufficient for regression models. According to Table \ref{tab:reg}, there is a considerable difference between the results achieved by different regression models \bgroup \def1.5{1.5} \begin{table} \centering \begin{small} \caption{Regression results with and without feature selection} \label{tab:reg} \begin{tabular}{|C{2cm}|C{2.5cm}|C{2.5cm}|} \cline{2-3} \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{NDCG@10}\\ \hline REG method & REG w/ FS & REG w/o FS\\ \hline XT & 0.7441384724 & 0.7863435909 \\ \hline BRR & 0.7541443109 & 0.7759180414 \\ \hline SGDR & 0.7507494314 & 0.8168741812 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{small} \end{table} \egroup Table \ref{tab:ltr} shows the results of using several learning to rank methods. The results also include NDCG@10 before and after applying feature selection. The results reported in Table \ref{tab:ltr} emphasize on the importance of using feature selection in learning to rank methods; since after performing feature selection, the results are improved. Therefore, backward elimination method works well for LTR methods. Table \ref{tab:ltr} demonstrates that ListNet performs better than the other LTR methods. Comparing the results of Table \ref{tab:reg} and Table \ref{tab:ltr} shows that all the learning to rank methods outperform all the regression models. \bgroup \def1.5{1.5} \begin{table} \centering \begin{small} \caption{Learning to rank results with and without feature selection} \label{tab:ltr} \begin{tabular}{|C{2.1cm}|C{2.5cm}|C{2.5cm}|} \cline{2-3} \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{NDCG@10}\\ \hline LTR method & LTR w/ FS& LTR w/o FS\\ \hline ListNet & 0.8243394623 & 0.8190048552 \\ \hline RankingSVM & 0.8225893034 & 0.8169257071 \\ \hline AdaRank & 0.8182340058 & 0.8153622186 \\ \hline RankNet & 0.8223464432 & 0.8169752826 \\ \hline LambdaRank & 0.8209622031 & 0.8126243442 \\ \hline ListMLE & 0.8217342257 & 0.8174866943 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{small} \end{table} \egroup Table \ref{tab:agg} represents the results obtained by aggregating the mentioned regression and learning to rank results using supervised Kemeny approach. To show the importance of considering both regression and learning to rank methods together, we also report the results achieved by aggregating all the LTR methods and all the regression methods, separately. Table \ref{tab:agg} indicates that although most of the results of regression models are far lower than the LTR methods, their aggregation improves the results. It shows that aggregating regression and learning to rank methods achieves better results in comparison with aggregating only LTR methods or regression models. To show that this improvement is significant, we performed 10-fold cross validation over the training data and conducted a statistical significant test (\textit{t-test}) on the improvements of LTRs+REGs over the other methods. The results show that the improvement achieved by LTRs+REGs is statistically significant ($p-value<0.01$). \bgroup \def1.5{1.5} \begin{table} \centering \begin{small} \caption{Ranking aggregation results} \label{tab:agg} \begin{tabular}{|C{2.1cm}|C{3cm}|} \cline{2-2} \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{NDCG@10}\\ \hline LTRs & 0.8242044953 \\ \hline REGs & 0.8063031984 \\ \hline LTRs+REGs & 0.8261454943 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{small} \end{table} \egroup \section{Conclusions} \label{sec:conclusion} In this paper, to rank the tweets of each user based on their engagements, we first defined several features partitioned into three different categories: user-based, movie-based, and tweet-based. We showed that after performing feature selection, the features are selected from all of these categories. Then, we exploited regression and learning to rank methods to rank the tweets of each user by their engagements. Finally, we aggregated the results of all the regression and learning to rank methods using supervised Kemeny approach. We evaluated our methods on an extended version of MovieTweeting dataset provided by ACM RecSys Challenge 2014. The experimental results demonstrate that feature selection significantly affects the performance. The results also show that however the results of most regression models are far lower than learning to rank methods, their aggregation improves the performance. \bibliographystyle{abbrv}
\section{Introduction} A celebrated theorem of Nakajima \cite{Nak} and Grojnowski \cite{Groj} identifies the cohomology of Hilbert schemes of points on a surface with the Fock space representation of the Heisenberg Lie algebra associated to the cohomology of the surface itself. One would like to lift the Heisenberg action to the level of the Grothendieck groups or, even better, the derived categories of the Hilbert schemes. Schiffmann and Vasserot \cite{SV} as well as Feigin and Tsymbaliuk \cite{FT} constructed a Heisenberg action on the Grothendieck groups in the case of the affine plane. In \cite{CL}, Cautis and Licata constructed a categorical Heisenberg action on the derived categories of the Hilbert schemes in the case that the surface is a minimal resolution of a Kleinian singularity. Their construction makes use of the derived McKay correspondence between the derived category of the Hilbert scheme of points on a smooth quasi-projective surface and the derived category of the symmetric quotient stack associated to the surface; see \cite{BKR} and \cite{Hai}. In this paper, we generalise the construction of \cite{CL} to obtain functors between the derived categories of the symmetric quotient stacks of an arbitrary smooth complete variety which descend to a Heisenberg action on the Grothendieck groups of the symmetric quotient stacks. Our construction can also be seen as a global version of a construction of Khovanov \cite{Khov} which deals with the case that the variety is a point. Note, however, that there are deeper categorical structures in \cite{CL} as well as \cite{Khov} that we do not generalise; see also Section \ref{open}. Our construction is much closer to the construction of \cite{Groj} (see also \cite[Ch.\ 9]{Nakbook}) than to that of \cite{Nak}. In some sense, what our paper does is to fill in the proof of the claim made in \cite[footnote 3]{Groj}, though while working on the higher level of the derived categories. \subsection{Generators of the Heisenberg algebra}\label{Heisgen} Let $V$ be a vector space over $\mathbb Q$ (not necessarily of finite dimension) with a bilinear form $\langle\_,\_\rangle$. Set $L_V= V^{\mathbbm Z\setminus \{0\}}$ and denote the image of $\beta \in V$ in the $n$-th factor of $L_V$ by $a_\beta(n)$ for $n\in \mathbbm Z\setminus \{0\}$. The \textit{Heisenberg algebra $\mathsf H_V$} associated to $(V,\langle \_,\_\rangle)$ is the unital $\mathbbm Q$-algebra given by the tensor algebra $T(L_V)$ modulo the relations \begin{align}\label{originalrel} [a_\alpha(m),a_\beta(n)]=\delta_{m,-n} n\langle \alpha,\beta\rangle \,. \end{align} Note that, with our definition, the Heisenberg algebra is the quotient of the universal enveloping algebra $U(\mathfrak h_V)$ of the Heisenberg Lie algebra associated to $(V,\langle\_,\_\rangle)$ where the central charge is identified with 1. Hence, every module over the Heisenberg algebra $\mathsf H_V$ yields a representation of the Heisenberg Lie algebra $\mathfrak h_V$. In particular, the Fock space representation is induced from a $\mathsf H_V$-module; see Section \ref{Fock}. We define elements $p^{(n)}_\beta$ and $q^{(n)}_\beta$ for $\beta\in V$ and $n$ a non-negative integer by the formulae \begin{align}\label{pqdefin} \sum_{n\ge 0}p^{(n)}_\beta z^n=\exp\left( \sum_{\ell \ge 1} \frac{a_\beta(-\ell)}{\ell} z^\ell\right)\quad,\quad \sum_{n\ge 0}q^{(n)}_\beta z^n=\exp\left(\sum_{\ell \ge 1} \frac{a_\beta(\ell)}{\ell} z^\ell\right)\,. \end{align} As $\beta$ runs through a basis of $V$ and $n$ through the positive integers, the elements $q_\beta^{(n)}$ and $p_\alpha^{(n)}$ together form a set of generators of $\mathsf H_V$. In order to describe their relations, we introduce the following notation. \begin{defin} For $\chi\in \mathbb Q$ and $k$ a non-negative integer, we set \[ s^k\chi:=\binom{\chi +k-1}{k}:=\frac 1{k!}(\chi+k-1)(\chi+k-2)\cdots (\chi+1)\chi\,. \] \end{defin} \begin{lemma}\label{relationlem} The relations among the above generators are given by \begin{align} &[q^{(m)}_\alpha,q^{(n)}_\beta]=0=[p^{(m)}_\alpha,p^{(n)}_\beta]\,,\label{trivrel}\\ &q^{(m)}_\alpha p^{(n)}_\beta=\sum_{k=0}^{\min\{m,n\}} s^k\langle \alpha,\beta\rangle \cdot p^{(n-k)}_\beta q^{(m-k)}_\alpha\,. \label{nontrivrel} \end{align} \end{lemma} We will prove Lemma \ref{relationlem} in Section \ref{lemproofsect}. Note the following simple but important fact. \begin{lemma}\label{symmetricEuler} Let $W^*$ be a finite-dimensional graded vector space. Then the Euler characteristic of its symmetric product $S^kW^*$ (formed in the graded sense) is given by \begin{align*} \chi(S^kW^*)=s^k(\chi(W^*))\,. \end{align*} \end{lemma} \subsection{Construction and results}\label{constr} Let $X$ be a smooth complete variety over a field $\mathsf k$ of characteristic zero. For a non-negative integer $\ell$, we consider the cartesian product $X^\ell$ together with the natural action of the symmetric group $\mathfrak S_\ell$ given by permuting the factors. The associated quotient stack $[X^\ell/\mathfrak S_\ell]$ is called the \textit{$\ell$-th symmetric quotient stack}. Its derived category can equivalently be described as the $\mathfrak S_\ell$-equivariant derived category of the cartesian product, that means $\D([X^\ell/\mathfrak S_\ell])\cong \D_{\mathfrak S_\ell}(X^\ell)$. We set \begin{align*} \mathbbm D:= \bigoplus_{\ell\ge 0} \D_{\mathfrak S_\ell}(X^\ell) \end{align*} For $1\le n\le N$ and $\beta\in \D(X)$ we define the functor \begin{align}\label{Pdefin} P^{(n)}_{N,\beta}\colon \D_{\mathfrak S_{N-n}}(X^{N-n})\to \D_{\mathfrak S_{N}}(X^{N})\quad,\quad E\mapsto \Inf_{\mathfrak S_n\times \mathfrak S_{N-n}}^{\mathfrak S_N}\bigl(\beta^{\boxtimes n}\boxtimes E \bigr)\,. \end{align} Note that for $E\in \D_{\mathfrak S_{N-n}}(X^{N-n})$ we can consider $\beta^{\boxtimes n}\boxtimes E$ canonically as an object of $\D_{\mathfrak S_n\times \mathfrak S_{N-n}}(X^N)$. The \textit{inflation} functor $\Inf_{\mathfrak S_n\times \mathfrak S_{N-n}}^{\mathfrak S_N}\colon \D_{\mathfrak S_n\times \mathfrak S_{N-n}}(X^N)\to\D_{\mathfrak S_N}(X^N)$ is the adjoint of the forgetful functor; see Section \ref{equibasics} for details on the functor $\Inf$ and Section \ref{PQdesc} for details on the functor $P^{(n)}_{N,\beta}$. We set \begin{align*} P^{(n)}_\beta:=\bigoplus_{N\ge n} P^{(n)}_{N,\beta}\colon \mathbbm D\to \mathbbm D \quad\text{for $n\ge 1$,}\quad P^{(0)}_\beta:=\id\colon \mathbbm D\to \mathbbm D\,. \end{align*} Finally, we define $Q^{(n)}_\beta\colon \mathbbm D\to \mathbbm D$ as the right adjoint of $P^{(n)}_\beta$. \begin{theorem}\label{mainthm} For every $\alpha,\beta\in \D(X)$ and $n,m\in \mathbbm N$, we have the relations \begin{align} & Q^{(m)}_\alpha Q^{(n)}_\beta\cong Q^{(n)}_\beta Q^{(m)}_\alpha\quad,\quad P^{(m)}_\alpha P^{(n)}_\beta\cong P^{(n)}_\beta P^{(m)}_\alpha \label{trivialfunctorrel} \\ & Q^{(m)}_\alpha P^{(n)}_\beta\cong \bigoplus_{k=0}^{\min\{m,n\}} S^k\Hom^*(\alpha,\beta)\otimes_\mathsf k P^{(n-k)}_\beta Q^{(m-k)}_\alpha\,.\label{nontrivialfunctorrel} \end{align} \end{theorem} We denote by $\K([X^n/\mathfrak S_n])\cong \K_{\mathfrak S_n}(X^n)$ the equivariant Grothendieck group with coefficients in $\mathbbm Q$ and set $\mathbb K:=\bigoplus_{\ell\ge 0}\K_{\mathfrak S_n}(X^n)=\K(\mathbb D)$. We consider $\K(X)$ together with the bilinear form $\langle\_,\_\rangle$ given by the Mukai pairing, i.e.\ \begin{align}\label{bidefin} \langle [\alpha],[\beta]\rangle :=\chi(\alpha, \beta):=\chi\bigl(\Hom^*(\alpha,\beta) \bigr) \end{align} where $[\alpha]$ denotes the class of an object $\alpha\in \D(X)$ in the Grothendieck group $\K(X)$ \begin{cor} The descent of the functors $P^{(n)}_\beta$ and $Q^{(n)}_\beta$ to the level of the Grothendieck groups makes $\mathbb K$ into a representation of the Heisenberg algebra $\mathsf H_{\K(X)}$. \end{cor} \begin{proof} Let $p^{(n)}_\beta:=[P^{(n)}_\beta]\colon \mathbb K\to \mathbb K$ and $q^{(n)}_\beta:=[Q^{(n)}_\beta]\colon \mathbb K\to \mathbb K$ be the induced maps on the level of the Grothendieck groups. By Lemma \ref{symmetricEuler} and (\ref{bidefin}), the relations of Theorem \ref{mainthm} translate to the $p^{(n)}_\beta$ and $q^{(n)}_\beta$ satisfying the relations of Lemma \ref{relationlem}. \end{proof} The category $\mathbb D$ together with the functors $Q_\beta^{(n)}$ and $P_\beta^{(n)}$ can be regarded as a categorification of the Heisenberg representation $\mathbb K$. Since all the $q^{(n)}_\beta$ vanish on $\mathbb K_0=\K_{\mathfrak S_0}(X^0)= \K(\text{point})\cong \mathbb Q$, one gets an embedding of the Fock space representation into $\mathbb K$; see Section \ref{Fock} for details. We will give the proof of Theorem \ref{mainthm} in Sections \ref{mainproof1} and \ref{mainproof2}. One main ingredient is the following easy fact. \begin{lemma}[``Symmetric K\"unneth formula'']\label{symmetricKun} Let $\alpha,\beta\in \D(X)$ and $k\in \mathbbm N$. Then \[ \Hom^*_{\D_{\mathfrak S_k}(X^k)}(\beta^{\boxtimes k},\alpha^{\boxtimes k})\cong S^k \Hom^*(\beta,\alpha) \] \end{lemma} \subsection{Conclusion} The reason for the occurrence of Heisenberg actions in the context of symmetric quotient stacks, and hence also of Hilbert schemes of points on surfaces, can be summarised in the following simple and, in the author's opinion, satisfying way: \begin{enumerate} \item The Heisenberg algebra has generators whose relations involve the numbers $s^n\langle \alpha,\beta\rangle$ as coefficients; see Lemma \ref{relationlem}. \item A ``vector-spaceification'' of these numbers is given by the graded vector spaces $S^n\Hom^*(\alpha,\beta)$; see Lemma \ref{symmetricEuler}. \item Because of the symmetric K\"unneth formula (Lemma \ref{symmetricKun}), these graded vector spaces show up very naturally in the context of derived categories of symmetric quotient stacks. In particular, the relatively simple construction (\ref{Pdefin}) yields a categorical action of the Heisenberg algebra. \end{enumerate} \subsection{Organisation of the paper} In Section \ref{lemproofsect} we prove Lemma \ref{relationlem}. Afterwards, we recall some basic facts on equivariant derived categories and functors in Section \ref{equibasics}, introduce some notation in Section \ref{notations}, and describe the functors $P^{(n)}_\beta$ and $Q^{(n)}_\beta$ in some more detail in Section \ref{PQdesc}. In Sections \ref{mainproof1} and \ref{mainproof2}, we give the proof of Theorem \ref{mainthm}. We explain in Section \ref{Fock} the embedding of the Fock space representation into $\mathbb K$. In Section \ref{transposed} we define further functors which give a categorification of the action on $\mathbb K$ with respect to the so-called transposed generators of $\mathsf H_{\K(X)}$. In particular, this recovers the construction of \cite{Khov}. In Section \ref{gen} we discuss some generalisations and variants, for example to the non-complete case and the case where we replace the category $\D(X)$ by some equivariant category. Finally, we point out two open problems in Section \ref{open}. \smallskip \textbf{Conventions} With the exception of Section \ref{gen}, $X$ will be a smooth complete variety over a field $\mathsf k$ of characteristic zero. Its \textit{derived category} is understood to be the bounded derived category of coherent sheaves, i.e. $\D(X):=\D^b(\Coh(X))$. All functors between derived categories are assumed to be derived although this will not be reflected in the notation. \smallskip \textbf{Acknowledgements.} The author was financially supported by the research grant KR 4541/1-1 of the DFG. He thanks Daniel Huybrechts, Ciaran Meachan, David Ploog, Miles Reid, and Pawel Sosna for helpful comments. \section{Proofs} \subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{relationlem}}\label{lemproofsect} Let $\alpha, \beta \in V$ and $m,n\in \mathbbm N$. The vanishing of the commutators $[q^{(m)}_\alpha,q^{(n)}_\beta]$ and $[q^{(m)}_\alpha,q^{(n)}_\beta]$ follows immediately from the fact that $[a_\alpha(r),a_\beta(s)]=0$ if $r$ and $s$ are both positive or both negative. For the proof of relation (\ref{nontrivrel}) we follow closely the proof of \cite[Lem.\ 1]{CL}. Set \[ A(z):=\sum_{\ell \ge 1} \frac{a_\beta(-\ell)}{\ell} z^\ell\quad,\quad B(w):=\sum_{\ell \ge 1} \frac{a_\alpha(\ell)}{\ell} w^\ell \] so that $q^{(m)}_\alpha p^{(n)}_\beta=[w^mz^n]\exp(B)\exp(A)$. We also set $\chi:=\langle \alpha,\beta\rangle$. By relation (\ref{originalrel}), we have \begin{align}\label{a} [B,A]=\sum_{\ell\ge 1} \frac{\ell\cdot\chi}{\ell^2}w^\ell z^{\ell} =\chi\sum_{\ell\ge 1} \frac{(w z)^\ell}{\ell}=-\chi\log(1-wz)\,. \end{align} In particular, $[B,A]$ commutes with $A$ and $B$. Thus, \begin{align}\label{b} \exp(B)\exp(A)=\exp([B,A])\exp(A)\exp(B)\,; \end{align} see \cite[Lem.\ 9.43]{Nakbook}. Recall the binomial formula \begin{align}\label{c} (1-t)^{-\chi}=\sum_{k\ge 0} s^k\chi\cdot t^k\,. \end{align} Together, (\ref{a}), (\ref{b}), and (\ref{c}) give \[ \exp(B)\exp(A)=(1-wz)^{-\chi}\exp(A)\exp(B)=\left( \sum_{k\ge 0} s^k\chi\cdot (wz)^k\right) \exp(A)\exp(B)\,. \] Comparing the coefficients of $w^mz^n$ on both sides gives relation (\ref{nontrivrel}). In order to show that there are no further relations among the generators $q_\beta^{(n)}$ and $p_\beta^{(n)}$ we need to introduce the following notation. Let $\{\beta_{i}\}_{i\in I}$ be a basis of $V$. Consider maps \begin{align}\label{map}\nu\colon I\to \coprod_{n\ge 0}\bigl\{\text{partitions of $n$} \bigr\}\end{align} such that $\nu(i)\neq 0$ only for a finite number of $i\in I$. We write the partitions in the form $\nu(i)=1^{\nu(i)_1} 2^{\nu(i)_2}\cdots$. We fix a total order on $I$ and set \begin{align*}a(\nu):=\prod_{i\in I}\bigl(\prod_{k\ge 1} a_{\beta_i}(k)^{\nu(i)_k}\bigr)\quad&,\quad a(-\nu):=\prod_{i\in I}\bigl(\prod_{k\ge 1} a_{\beta_i}(-k)^{\nu(i)_k}\bigr)\,,\\ q(\nu):=\prod_{i\in I}\bigl(\prod_{k\ge 1} (q_{\beta_i}^{(k)})^{\nu(i)_k}\bigr)\quad&,\quad p(\nu):=\prod_{i\in I}\bigl(\prod_{k\ge 1} (p_{\beta_i}^{(k)})^{\nu(i)_k}\bigr)\,. \end{align*} Here, the inner product is formed with respect to the usual order of $\mathbbm N$ and the outer product with respect to the fixed order of $I$. Since the only relation between the generators $a_\beta(k)$ is the commutator relation (\ref{originalrel}), the elements $a(-\nu)a(\mu)$ form a basis of $\mathsf H_V$ as a vector space. In the algebra with generators $q_{\beta_i}^{(n)}$ and $p_{\beta_i}^{(n)}$ and the relations (\ref{trivrel}) and (\ref{nontrivrel}), one can write every element as a linear combination of the form \begin{align}\label{lincomb} \sum_{\nu,\mu} \lambda(\nu,\mu)p(\nu)q(\mu)\quad,\quad \lambda(\mu,\nu)\in \mathbb Q\,. \end{align} Thus, it is sufficient to show that the $p(\nu)q(\mu)$ are linearly independent in $\mathsf H_V$. For two maps $\nu,\nu'$ as in (\ref{map}) we say that $\nu$ is coarser than $\nu'$, and write $\nu\succ \nu'$, if $|\nu(i)|=|\nu'(i)|$ and $\nu(i)$ is a coarser partition than $\nu'(i)$ for every $i\in I$. For pairs, we set $(\nu,\mu)\succ(\nu',\mu')$ if $\nu\succ\nu'$ and $\mu\succ \mu'$. Note that by (\ref{pqdefin}), we have \begin{align*} p^{(n)}_\beta=a_\beta(-n)+ \bigl(\text{linear combination of $a_\beta(-1)^{\nu_1}a_\beta(-2)^{\nu_2}\cdots$ for partitions $\nu$ of $n$} \bigr) \end{align*} and similarly for $q^{(n)}_\beta$. Thus, \begin{align}\label{aa} p(\nu)q(\mu)=a(-\nu)a(\mu)+ \bigl(\text{linear combination of $a(-\nu')a(\mu')$ for $(\nu,\mu)\succ(\nu',\mu')$} \bigr)\,. \end{align} Let $x= \sum_{\nu,\mu} \lambda(\mu,\nu)p(\nu)q(\mu)$ as in (\ref{lincomb}) such that not all coefficients vanish. Pick a pair $(\nu_0,\mu_0)$ with $\lambda(\nu_0,\mu_0)\neq 0$ such that for each coarser pair the corresponding coefficient vanishes. Then, by (\ref{aa}), $x$ is a linear combination of the $a(-\nu)b(-\mu)$ such that the coefficient of $a(-\nu_0)a(\mu_0)$ equals $\lambda(\nu_0,\mu_0)$. Since the $a(-\nu)b(\mu)$ form a basis, $x\neq 0$ in $\mathsf H_V$. \subsection{Basic facts about equivariant functors}\label{equibasics} For details on equivariant derived categories and functors between them, we refer to \cite[Sect.\ 4]{BKR}. Let $G$ be a finite group acting on a smooth projective variety $M$. The \textit{equivariant derived category} $\D_G(M)$ has as objects pairs $(E,\lambda)$ where $E\in \D(M)$ and $\lambda$ is a $G$-linearisation of $E$. A \textit{$G$-linearisation} is a family of isomorphisms $(E\xrightarrow\cong g^*E)_{g\in G}$ in $\D(M)$ such that for every pair $g,h\in G$ the composition \[ E\xrightarrow{\lambda_g}g^*E\xrightarrow{g^*\lambda_h}g^*h^*E\cong (hg)^*E \] equals $\lambda_{hg}$. The morphisms are morphisms in the ordinary derived category $\D(X)$ which are compatible with the linearisations. The category $\D_G(M)$ is equivalent to the bounded derived category $\D^b(\Coh_G(M))$ of $G$-equivariant coherent sheaves on $M$; see \cite{Chen} or \cite{Elagin}. For a subgroup $U\subset G$ there is the functor $\Res_G^U\colon \D_G(M)\to \D_U(M)$ given by restricting the linearisations. It has the \textit{inflation} functor $\Inf_U^G\colon \D_U(M)\to \D_G(M)$ as a left and right adjoint. Let $U\setminus G$ be the left cosets and $E\in \D(X)$. Then \begin{align}\label{Infdef} \Inf_U^G(E)\cong \bigoplus_{\sigma\in U\setminus G} \sigma^*E \end{align} with the $G$-linearisation of $\Inf_U^G(E)$ given by a combination of the $U$-linearisation of $E$ and permutation of the direct summands. Let $G$ act trivially on $M$. Then there is the functor $\triv\colon \D(M)\to \D_G(M)$ which equips every object with the trivial linearisation. It has the functor of invariants $(\_)^G\colon \D_G(M)\to \D(M)$ as a left and right adjoint. We use the following principle for the computation of invariants; see e.g.\ \cite[Sect.\ 3.5]{Kru4}. Let $\mathcal E=(E,\lambda)$ be a $G$-equivariant sheaf such that $E=\oplus_{i\in \mathcal K}E_i$ for some finite index set $\mathcal K$. Assume that there is an action of $G$ on $\mathcal K$ such that $\lambda_g(E_i)=E_{g\cdot i}$ for all $i\in \mathcal K$ and $g\in G$. We say that the linearisation $\lambda$ induces the action on the index set $\mathcal K$. \begin{lemma}\label{Danlemma} Let $\mathcal R\subset \mathcal K$ be a set of representatives of the $G$-orbits in $\mathcal K$ under the action induced by the linearisation. Then $E^G\cong \bigoplus_{i\in \mathcal R} E_i^{G_i}$ where $G_i\subset G$ is the stabiliser subgroup. \end{lemma} \subsection{Combinatorial notations}\label{notations} For a finite set $I$ we set $X^I:=\prod_{I}X\cong X^{|I|}$. For $J\subset I$ we denote by $\pr_J^I\colon X^I\to X^J$ the projection. We often drop the index $I$ in the notation and simply write $\pr_J$ when the source of the projection should be clear from the context. For $n\in \mathbbm N$, we set $\underline{n}:=[1,n]=\{1,2,\dots,n\}$. By convention, $\underline 0:=\emptyset$. Later, there will be a fixed number $N\in \mathbbm N$ such that all occurring finite sets will be subsets of $\underline N$. Hence, we will often write $N$ instead of $\underline N$ to ease the notation. Furthermore, for a subset $J\subset \underline N$ we set $\bar J:=\underline N\setminus J$. For $0\le n\le N$ we set $\overline{n}:=\overline{\underline{n}}=\underline N\setminus \underline{n}=[n+1,N]$. \subsection{The functors $P^{(n)}_\beta$ and $Q^{(n)}_\alpha$}\label{PQdesc} For every object $\beta\in \D(X)$ and $N\ge n$, the functor $P^{(n)}_{N,\beta}\colon \D_{\mathfrak S_{N-n}}(X^{N-n})\to \D_{\mathfrak S_N}(X^N)$ is given by the composition \begin{align*} &\D_{\mathfrak S_{N-n}}(X^{N-n})\xrightarrow{\triv} \D_{\mathfrak S_{n}\times \mathfrak S_{N-n}}(X^{N-n})\xrightarrow{\pr_{\overline{n}}^{*}}\D_{\mathfrak S_{n}\times \mathfrak S_{N-n}}(X^{N})\\ &\xrightarrow{\otimes\pr_{\underline{n}}^{*}\beta^{\boxtimes n}} \D_{\mathfrak S_{n}\times \mathfrak S_{N-n}}(X^{N})\xrightarrow{\Inf_{\mathfrak S_{\underline{n}}\times \mathfrak S_{\overline{n}}}^{\mathfrak S_N}} \D_{\mathfrak S_{N}}(X^{N}) \end{align*} where we use the identifications $X^{\overline{n}}\cong X^n$ and $X^{\overline{n}}=X^{[n+1,N]}\cong X^{N-n}$. Hence, the right-adjoint $Q^{(n)}_{N,\beta}\colon \D_{\mathfrak S_{N}}(X^{N})\to \D_{\mathfrak S_{N-n}}(X^{N-n})$ is the composition \begin{align*} &\D_{\mathfrak S_{N-n}}(X^{N-n})\xleftarrow{(\_)^{\mathfrak S_n}} \D_{\mathfrak S_{n}\times \mathfrak S_{N-n}}(X^{N-n})\xleftarrow{\pr_{\overline{n}*}}\D_{\mathfrak S_{n}\times \mathfrak S_{N-n}}(X^{N})\\ &\xleftarrow{\otimes\pr_{\underline{n}}^{*}\beta^{\vee \boxtimes n}} \D_{\mathfrak S_{n}\times \mathfrak S_{N-n}}(X^{N})\xleftarrow{\Res_{\mathfrak S_{\underline{n}}\times \mathfrak S_{\overline{n}}}^{\mathfrak S_N}} \D_{\mathfrak S_{N}}(X^{N})\,. \end{align*} Note that $(\beta^\vee)^{\boxtimes n}\cong (\beta^{\boxtimes n})^\vee$ so that we simply write $\beta^{\vee \boxtimes n}$ without ambiguity. Since \begin{align*} \sigma^*\bigl(\pr_{\underline{n}}^*\beta^\boxtimes\otimes \pr_{\overline{n} }^* E\bigr)\cong \pr_{\sigma^{-1}(\underline{n})}^*\beta^\boxtimes\otimes \pr_{\sigma^{-1}(\overline{n} )}^* E\bigr) \end{align*} for every $E\in \D_{\mathfrak S_{N-n}}(X^{N-n})$ and $\sigma\in \mathfrak S_n$, we get by (\ref{Infdef}) \begin{align}\label{Pformula} P^{(n)}_{N,\beta}(E)\cong\bigoplus_{I\subset \underline N, |I|=n} \pr_I^*\beta^{\boxtimes n}\otimes \pr_{\bar I}^*E \end{align} Furthermore, the functor $Q^{(m)}_\alpha$ is given on objects $F\in \D_{\mathfrak S_N}(X^N)$ by \begin{align}\label{Qformula} Q^{(m)}_\alpha(F)\cong \pr_{\overline{m}*}(\pr_{\mathfrak m}^* \alpha^{\vee\boxtimes m}\otimes F)^{\mathfrak S_{\mathfrak m}} \end{align} \begin{remark}\label{flexible} Let $I$ be any set of cardinality $N$ and $J\subset I$ be any subset of cardinality $m$. Making the identifications $X^I\cong X^N$, $X^J\cong X^m$, and $X^{I\setminus J}\cong X^{N-m}$ we can also write \begin{align*} Q^{(m)}_{N,\alpha}(F)\cong \pr_{I\setminus J*}^I(\pr_{J}^{I*} \alpha^{\vee\boxtimes m}\otimes F)^{\mathfrak S_{J}}\,. \end{align*} \end{remark} \subsection{Proof of relation (\ref{trivialfunctorrel})}\label{mainproof1} In order to verify the relations (\ref{trivialfunctorrel}) of Theorem \ref{mainthm} it is sufficient to show the first relation, i.e. $Q^{(m)}_\alpha Q^{(n)}_\beta\cong Q^{(n)}_\beta Q^{(m)}_\alpha$ for $\alpha,\beta\in \D(X)$ and $m,n\in \mathbbm N$. The relation $P^{(m)}_\alpha P^{(n)}_\beta\cong P^{(n)}_\beta P^{(m)}_\alpha$ follows by adjunction. This means that we have to show that \[ Q^{(m)}_{N-n,\alpha} Q^{(n)}_{N,\beta}\cong Q^{(n)}_{N-m,\beta} Q^{(m)}_{N,\alpha}\,\colon \D_{\mathfrak S_N}(X^N)\to \D_{\mathfrak S_{N-m-n}}(X^{N-m-n}) \quad\text{for every $N\ge n+m$.} \] Indeed, using Remark \ref{flexible}, the projection formula along $\pr^N_{\overline{n}}$, the projection formula along $\pr_{\overline{[n+1,n+m]}}^N$, and finally Remark \ref{flexible} again, we get isomorphisms \begin{align*} & Q^{(m)}_{N-n,\alpha} Q^{(n)}_{N,\beta}(F)\\ \cong& \Bigl[\pr_{\overline{n+m}*}^{\overline{n}}\Bigl(\pr_{[n+1,n+m]}^{\overline{n}*}\alpha^{\vee\boxtimes m}\otimes \bigl[\pr_{\overline{n}*}^{N}(\pr_{\underline{n}}^{N*}\beta^{\vee\boxtimes n}\otimes F ) \bigr]^{\mathfrak S_{\underline{n}}} \Bigr)\Bigr]^{\mathfrak S_{[n+1,n+m]}}\\ \cong& \Bigl[\pr_{\overline{n+m}*}^{N}\bigl(\pr_{\underline{n}}^{N*}\beta^{\vee\boxtimes n}\otimes \pr_{[n+1,n+m]}^{N*}\alpha^{\vee\boxtimes m}\otimes F \bigr)\Bigr]^{\mathfrak S_{\underline{n}}\times \mathfrak S_{[n+1,n+m]}} \\ \cong& \Bigl[\pr_{\overline{n+m}*}^{\overline{[n+1,n+m]}*}\Bigl(\pr_{\underline{n}}^{\overline{[n+1,n+m]}*}\beta^{\vee\boxtimes n}\otimes \bigl[\pr_{\overline{[n+1,n+m]}*}^{N}(\pr_{[n+1,n+m]}^{N*}\alpha^{\vee\boxtimes m}\otimes F ) \bigr]^{\mathfrak S_{[n+1,n+m]}} \Bigr)\Bigr]^{\mathfrak S_{\underline{n}}}\\ \cong& Q^{(n)}_{N-m,\beta} Q^{(m)}_{N,\alpha}(F) \end{align*} which are functorial in $F\in \D_{\mathfrak S_N}(X^N)$. \subsection{Proof of relation (\ref{nontrivialfunctorrel})}\label{mainproof2} Let $N\ge \max\{m,n\}$ and $E\in \D_{\mathfrak S_{N-n}}(X^{N-n})$. Combining (\ref{Pformula}) and (\ref{Qformula}) we get \begin{align*} Q^{(m)}_\alpha P^{(n)}_\beta (E)\cong \bigl[\bigoplus_{I\in \mathcal K} T_I \bigr]^{\mathfrak S_{\mathfrak m}} \end{align*} where \begin{align*} \mathcal K=\{I\subset \underline N\,,\, |I|=n\}\quad\text{and}\quad T_I=\pr_{\overline{m}*}\bigl(\pr_{\mathfrak m}^*\alpha^{\vee\boxtimes m}\otimes \pr_I^*\beta^{\boxtimes n}\otimes \pr_{\bar I}^*E \bigr)\,. \end{align*} The $\mathfrak S_{\mathfrak m}$-linearisation of $\otimes_{I\in \mathcal K} T_I$ induces on the index set $\mathcal K$ the action $\sigma\cdot I=\sigma(I)$. A set of representatives of the $\mathfrak S_{\mathfrak m}$-orbits in $\mathcal K$ is given by \[\mathcal R=\{I=\underline{k}\cup J\mid n+m-N\le k\le \min\{m,n\}\,,\, J\subset \overline{m} \,,\, |J|=n-k\}\,.\] Thus, Lemma \ref{Danlemma} yields \begin{align}\label{decompinva} Q^{(m)}_\alpha P^{(n)}_\beta (E)\cong \bigoplus_{I=\underline{k}\cup J\in \mathcal R} T_I^{\mathfrak S_{\underline{k}}\times \mathfrak S_{[k+1,m]}}\,. \end{align} Let $I=\underline{k}\cup J\in \mathcal R$ and consider the diagram \begin{align}\label{largediag} \xymatrix{ & X^{\overline{m}} \ar_{\pr_{\overline{m}\setminus J}^{\overline{m}}}[dl] \ar^{\pr_{J}^{\overline{m}}}[rr] & & X^{\overline{m}\cap I}=X^J \\ X^{\overline{I}\cap\overline{m}}=X^{\overline{m}\setminus J} & X^{\overline{k}}=X^{\overline{m}\cup \overline{I}} \ar^{\pr_{\overline{m}}^{\overline{k}}}[u]\ar_{\pr_{\overline{I}}^{\overline{k}}}[d] & X^N \ar_{\pr_{\overline{m}}^{N}}[ul] \ar^{\quad\pr_{\overline{k}}^{N}}[l] \ar^{\pr_{\overline{I}}^{N}}[dl] \ar^{\pr_{\underline{k}}^{N}\quad}[r] & X^{\mathfrak m\cap I}=X^{\underline{k}} \\ & X^{\overline{I}} \ar^{\pr_{\overline{m}\setminus J}^{\overline{I}}}[ul] \ar^{\pr_{[k+1,m]}^{\overline{I}}}[rr] & & X^{\mathfrak m\cap \overline{I}}=X^{[k+1,m]}\,. } \end{align} The two triangles in the middle of the diagram are commutative and the square on the left is cartesian. We can rewrite $T_I=T_{\underline{k}\cup J}$ as \begin{align*} T_I\cong \pr_{\overline{m} *}^{\overline{k}} \pr_{\overline{k} *}^{N} \left[\pr_{\overline{k}}^{N*}\Bigl(\pr_{\overline{m}}^{\overline{k}*}\pr_{J}^{\overline{m}*} \beta^{\boxtimes n-k}\otimes \pr_{\overline{I}}^{\overline{k}*}\bigl(E\otimes \pr_{[k+1,m]}^{\overline{I} *}\alpha^{\vee\boxtimes m-k}\bigr) \Bigr) \otimes \pr_{\underline{k}}^{N*}(\alpha^\vee\otimes \beta)^{\boxtimes k} \right]\,. \end{align*} By the projection formula along $\pr_{\overline{k}}^N$, we get \begin{align*} T_I\cong \pr_{\overline{m} *}^{\overline{k}} \left[\pr_{\overline{m}}^{\overline{k}*}\pr_{J}^{\overline{m}*} \beta^{\boxtimes n-k}\otimes \pr_{\overline{I}}^{\overline{k}*}\bigl(E\otimes \pr_{[k+1,m]}^{\overline{I} *}\alpha^{\vee\boxtimes m-k}\bigr) \otimes \pr_{\overline{k}* }^{N}\pr_{\underline{k}}^{N*}(\alpha^\vee\otimes \beta)^{\boxtimes k} \right]\,. \end{align*} By the fact that $X^N= X^{\underline{k}}\times X^{\overline{k}}$ and K\"unneth formula \begin{align*} \pr_{\overline{k}* }^{N}\pr_{\underline{k}}^{N*}(\alpha^\vee\otimes \beta)^{\boxtimes k}\cong \mathcal O_{X^{\overline{k}}}\otimes_{\mathsf k} \glob\bigl((\alpha^\vee\otimes \beta)^{\boxtimes k}\bigr)&\cong \mathcal O_{X^{\overline{k}}}\otimes_{\mathsf k} \Hom^*(\alpha^{\boxtimes k},\beta^{\boxtimes k})\\&\cong \mathcal O_{X^{\overline{k}}}\otimes_{\mathsf k} \Hom^*(\alpha,\beta)^{\otimes k}\,. \end{align*} This gives \begin{align*} T_I\cong\Hom^*(\alpha,\beta)^{\otimes k}\otimes_\mathsf k \tilde T_I\quad, \quad \tilde T_I=\pr_{\overline{m} *}^{\overline{k}} \left[\pr_{\overline{m}}^{\overline{k}*}\pr_{J}^{\overline{m}*} \beta^{\boxtimes n-k}\otimes \pr_{\overline{I}}^{\overline{k}*}\bigl(E\otimes \pr_{[k+1,m]}^{\overline{I} *}\alpha^{\vee\boxtimes m-k}\bigr) \right]\,. \end{align*} By the projection formula along $\pr_{\overline{m}}^{\overline{k}}$ and base change along the cartesian square in (\ref{largediag}), \begin{align*} \tilde T_I&\cong \pr_{J}^{\overline{m}*} \beta^{\boxtimes n-k}\otimes \pr_{\overline{m}*}^{\overline{k}}\pr_{\overline{I}}^{\overline{k}*}\bigl(E\otimes \pr_{[k+1,m]}^{\overline{I} *}\alpha^{\vee\boxtimes m-k}\bigr)\\ &\cong \pr_{J}^{\overline{m}*} \beta^{\boxtimes n-k}\otimes \pr_{\overline{m}\setminus J}^{\overline{m}*}\pr_{\overline{m}\setminus J*}^{\overline{I}}\bigl(E\otimes \pr_{[k+1,m]}^{\overline{I} *}\alpha^{\vee\boxtimes m-k}\bigr) \end{align*} In summary, \begin{align*} T_I\cong\Hom^*(\alpha,\beta)^{\otimes k}\otimes_\mathsf k \pr_{J}^{\overline{m}*} \beta^{\boxtimes n-k}\otimes \pr_{\overline{m}\setminus J}^{\overline{m}*}\pr_{\overline{m}\setminus J*}^{\overline{I}}\bigl(E\otimes \pr_{[k+1,m]}^{\overline{I} *}\alpha^{\vee\boxtimes m-k}\bigr)\,. \end{align*} Taking $\mathfrak S_{\underline{k}}\times \mathfrak S_{[k+1,m]}$-invariants yields \begin{align*} T_I^{\mathfrak S_{\underline{k}}\times \mathfrak S_{[k+1,m]}}\cong S^k\Hom^*(\alpha,\beta)\otimes_\mathsf k \pr_{J}^{\overline{m}*} \beta^{\boxtimes n-k}\otimes \pr_{\overline{m}\setminus J}^{\overline{m}*}\Bigl[\pr_{\overline{m}\setminus J*}^{\overline{I}}\bigl(E\otimes \pr_{[k+1,m]}^{\overline{I} *}\alpha^{\vee\boxtimes m-k}\bigr)\Bigr]^{\mathfrak S_{[k+1,m]}}. \end{align*} Plugging this into (\ref{decompinva}) gives \begin{align*} &Q_\alpha^{(m)}P_\beta^{(n)}(E) \cong \bigoplus_{k=n+m-N}^{\min\{m,n\}}S^k\Hom^*(\alpha,\beta)\otimes \widehat T_k \end{align*} where \[\widehat T_k:=\bigoplus_{J\subset \overline{m},\, |J|=n-k}\pr_{J}^{\overline{m}*} \beta^{\boxtimes n-k}\otimes \pr_{\overline{m}\setminus J}^{\overline{m}*}\bigl[\pr_{\overline{m}\setminus J*}^{\overline{I}}(E\otimes \pr_{[k+1,m]}^{\overline{I} *}\alpha^{\vee\boxtimes m-k})\bigr]^{\mathfrak S_{[k+1,m]}}\,.\] Using Remark \ref{flexible}, we see that $\widehat T_k\cong P^{(n-k)}_{N-m,\beta} Q^{(m-k)}_{N-n,\alpha}(E)$. Hence, \begin{align*} Q_\alpha^{(m)}P_\beta^{(n)}(E) \cong \bigoplus_{k=n+m-N}^{\min\{m,n\}}S^k\Hom^*(\alpha,\beta)\otimes_\mathsf k P^{(n-k)}_{N-m,\beta} Q^{(m-k)}_{N-n,\alpha}(E)\,. \end{align*} Since all the isomorphisms used above are functorial, this shows the isomorphism (\ref{nontrivialfunctorrel}). \section{Further remarks} \subsection{The Fock space}\label{Fock} The \textit{Fock space} representation of the Heisenberg algebra is defined as the quotient $\mathbb F_V:=\mathsf H_V/I$ where $I$ is the left ideal generated by all the $a_\beta(n)$ with $n>0$. Let $\mathbf 1\in \mathbb F_V$ be the class of $1\in \mathsf H_V$. The Fock space is an irreducible representation. Hence, given any representation $M$ of $\mathsf H_V$ together with an element $0\neq x\in M$ such that $a_\beta(n)\cdot x=0$ for all $\beta\in V$ and $n>0$, the map \[\mathbb F_V\to M\quad,\quad \mathbf 1\mapsto x\] gives an embedding of $\mathsf H_V$-representations. Let $\mathbb K=\bigoplus_{\ell\ge 0} \K_{\mathfrak S_\ell}(X^\ell)$ be the representation described in Section \ref{constr}. Then every non-zero $x\in \K_{\mathfrak S_0}(X^0)\cong \K(\text{point})\cong \mathbb Q$ is annihilated by all the $q^{(n)}_\beta$ and hence by the $a_\beta(n)$ for $n>0$. Thus, the Fock space can be realised as a subrepresentation of $\mathbb K$. In general, it is a proper subrepresentation, i.e. $\mathbb F_{\K(X)}\subsetneq \mathbb K$. However, if $\K(X)$ is of finite dimension and the exterior product $\K(X)^{\otimes n}\to \K(X^n)$ is an isomorphism, for example if $X$ has a cellular decomposition, we do have the equality $\mathbb F_{\K(X)}= \mathbb K$. In this case \[ \mathbb K_\ell:= \K_{\mathfrak S_\ell}(X^\ell)\cong \bigoplus_{\nu \text{ partition of } \ell} \bigl(S^{\nu_1}\K(X)\bigr)\otimes \bigl(S^{\nu_2} \K(X)\bigr)\otimes \dots \] as follows from the general decomposition of equivariant K-theory described in \cite{Vistdecomp}. Thus, the dimensions of $\mathbb F_{\K(X)}$ and $\mathbb K$ agree in every degree $\ell$. \subsection{Transposed generators}\label{transposed} There is yet another set of generators of the Heisenberg algebra, namely $p^{(1^n)}_{\beta}$, $q^{(1^n)}_\beta$ defined by \begin{align*} \sum_{n\ge 0}p^{(1^n)}_\beta z^n=\exp\left( -\sum_{\ell \ge 1} \frac{a_\beta(-\ell)}{\ell} z^\ell\right)\quad,\quad \sum_{n\ge 0}q^{(1^n)}_\beta z^n=\exp\left(-\sum_{\ell \ge 1} \frac{a_\beta(\ell)}{\ell} z^\ell\right)\,; \end{align*} compare \cite[Sect.\ 2.2.2]{CL}. The relations among these generators are exactly the same as those between the $p^{(n)}_{\beta}$ and $q^{(n)}_\beta$. Moreover, one can mix these two sets of generators to get the set of generators consisting of $p^{(n)}_\beta$ and $q^{(1^n)}_\beta$ (or, alternatively, $p^{(1^n)}_\beta$ and $q^{(n)}_\beta$). These are the generators used by Khovanov in \cite{Khov} for his construction of a categorification of the Heisenberg algebra $\mathsf H_V$ in the case that $V=\mathbbm Q$. The relations between these generators are \begin{align*} [q^{(1^m)}_\alpha,q^{(1^n)}_\beta]=0=[p^{(m)}_\alpha,p^{(n)}_\beta]\quad, \quad q^{(m)}_\alpha p^{(n)}_\beta=\sum_{k=0}^{\min\{m,n\}} s^k(-\langle \alpha,\beta\rangle) \cdot p^{(n-k)}_\beta q^{(m-k)}_\alpha\,. \end{align*} For $\beta\in\D(X)$ and $n>0$, we set $P_\beta^{(1^n)}:=\bigoplus_{N\ge n} P^{(1^n)}_{N,\beta}$ with \begin{align*} P^{(1^n)}_{N,\beta}\colon \D_{\mathfrak S_{N-n}}(X^{N-n})\to \D_{\mathfrak S_{N}}(X^{N})\quad,\quad E\mapsto \Inf_{\mathfrak S_n\times \mathfrak S_{N-n}}^{\mathfrak S_N}\bigl((\beta^{\boxtimes n}\otimes \mathfrak a_n)\boxtimes E \bigr)\,. \end{align*} Here, $\mathfrak a_n$ denotes the non-trivial character of $\mathfrak S_n$. Again, $Q_\beta^{(1^n)}$ is defined as the right-adjoint of $P^{(1^n)}_\beta$. Using the ``anti-symmetric K\"unneth formula'' \[ \Hom^*_{\D_{\mathfrak S_k}(X^k)}(\beta^{\boxtimes k}\otimes \mathfrak a_k,\alpha^{\boxtimes k})\cong \wedge^k \Hom^*(\beta,\alpha)\,, \] one can prove in complete analogy to Sections \ref{mainproof1} and \ref{mainproof2} the relations \begin{align} & Q^{(1^m)}_\alpha Q^{(1^n)}_\beta\cong Q^{(1^n)}_\beta Q^{(1^m)}_\alpha\quad,\quad P^{(m)}_\alpha P^{(n)}_\beta\cong P^{(n)}_\beta P^{(m)}_\alpha \label{t1} \\ & Q^{(1^m)}_\beta P^{(n)}_\alpha\cong \bigoplus_{k=0}^{\min\{m,n\}} \wedge^k\Hom^*(\beta,\alpha)\otimes_\mathsf k P^{(n-k)}_\alpha Q^{(1^{m-k})}_\beta\,. \label{t2} \end{align} One can reformulate Lemma \ref{symmetricEuler} as the formula $\chi(\wedge^k W^*)=s^k(-\chi(W^*))$ for $W^*$ a graded vector space. Thus, relations (\ref{t1}) and (\ref{t2}) show that the $P^{(n)}_\beta$ and $Q^{(1^n)}_\beta$ give again a categorical Heisenberg action, this time lifting the generators $p_\beta^{(n)}$ and $q_\beta^{(1^n)}$. The special case that $X$ is a point is exactly the construction of \cite{Khov}. \subsection{Generalisations and variants}\label{gen} Since the construction (\ref{Pdefin}) of the functors $P^{(n)}_\beta$ is very simple and formal, it generalises well to other settings beside smooth complete varieties. Let $X$ be a non-complete smooth variety. Then Theorem \ref{mainthm} continues to hold if we assume that the objects $\alpha$ and $\beta$ have complete support, i.e. $\alpha,\beta\in \D^c(X)$, which ensures that $\Hom^*(\alpha,\beta)$ is a finite dimensional graded vector space. Thus, we get an induced action of the Heisenberg algebra associated to $\K^c(X):=\K(\D^c(X))$ on $\mathbb K$ (note that $\mathbb K$ needs not necessarily be replaced by Grothendieck groups with finite support). Similarly, if one wants to also drop the smoothness assumption one needs $\alpha$ and $\beta$ to be perfect objects with complete support. Furthermore, one can replace the variety $X$ by a Deligne--Mumford stack $\mathcal X$. The case that $\mathcal X=[X/\mathbbm C^*]$ for $X$ the affine plane or a minimal resolution of a Kleinian singularity gives a Heisenberg action on the equivariant Grothendieck groups $\bigoplus_{\ell\ge 0} \K_{\mathbbm C*}(\Hilb^\ell(X))$ as in \cite{SV}, \cite{FT}, and \cite{CL}. \subsection{Open problems}\label{open} In \cite{GKsym}, the symmetric product $S^n\mathcal T$ of a category $\mathcal T$ is defined in such a way that $S^n(\D(X))\cong \D_{\mathfrak S_n}(X^n)$ for a smooth projective variety $X$. Thus, one may hope that our construction can be generalised to a setting where $\D(X)$ is replaced by any (Hom-finite and symmetric monoidal) dg-enhanced triangulated category $\mathcal T$. Note that in \cite{Khov} and \cite{CL} a categorification of the Heisenberg action is given in a much stronger sense than in this paper. In particular, 2-categories whose Grothendieck groups are isomorphic to the Heisenberg algebra are constructed. Clearly, one would like to do the same in our more general setting too. \bibliographystyle{alpha}
\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{10pt}{-1.25ex plus -1ex minus -.1ex}{0ex plus 0ex}{\normalsize\bf}} \def\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{10pt}{-1.25ex plus -1ex minus -.1ex}{0ex plus 0ex}{\normalsize\textit}} \renewcommand\@biblabel[1]{#1} \renewcommand\@makefntext[1 {\noindent\makebox[0pt][r]{\@thefnmark\,}#1} \makeatother \renewcommand{\figurename}{\small{Fig.}~} \sectionfont{\large} \subsectionfont{\normalsize} \fancyfoot{} \fancyfoot[RO]{\footnotesize{\sffamily{1--\pageref{LastPage} ~\textbar \hspace{2pt}\thepage}}} \fancyfoot[LE]{\footnotesize{\sffamily{\thepage~\textbar\hspace{3.45cm} 1--\pageref{LastPage}}}} \fancyhead{} \renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{1pt} \renewcommand{\footrulewidth}{1pt} \setlength{\arrayrulewidth}{1pt} \setlength{\columnsep}{6.5mm} \setlength\bibsep{1pt} \twocolumn[ \begin{@twocolumnfalse} \noindent\LARGE{\textbf{Dynamics and stability of icosahedral Fe-Pt nanoparticles }} \vspace{0.6cm} \noindent\large{\textbf{Paweł T. Jochym,$^{\ast}$\textit{$^{a}$} Jan Łażewski,\textit{$^{a}$} Małgorzata Sternik\textit{$^{a}$} and Przemysław Piekarz\textit{$^{a}$} }}\vspace{0.5cm} \vspace{0.6cm} \noindent \normalsize{ The structure, dynamics and stability of Fe-Pt nanoparticles have been investigated using DFT-based techniques: total energy calculations and DFT molecular dynamics. The investigated systems included multi-shell and disordered nanoparticles of iron and platinum. The study is concerned with icosahedral particles with magic number of atoms (55): iron-terminated \ce{Fe43Pt12}, platinum-terminated \ce{Fe12Pt43}, and disordered \ce{Fe27Pt28}. Additionally, the \ce{Fe6Pt7} cluster has been investigated to probe behaviour of extremely small Fe-Pt particles. Molecular dynamics simulations have been performed for a few temperatures between $T=150-1000$ K. The calculations revealed high structural instability of the Fe-terminated nanoparticles and a strong stabilising effect of the Pt-termination in the shell-type icosahedral particles. The platinum termination prevented disordering of the particle even at $T=1000$ K indicating very high melting temperatures of these Fe-Pt icosahedral structures. The analysis of evolution of the radial distribution function has shown significant tendency of Pt atoms to move to the outside layer of the particles -- even in the platinum deficient cases.} \vspace{0.5cm} \end{@twocolumnfalse} ] \footnotetext{\textit{$^{a}$~Department of Computational Material Science, Institute of Nuclear Physics PAN, Cracow, Poland ; E-mail: <EMAIL>}} \section{\label{sec:intro}Introduction} Nanoalloys are bi- or multi-component metallic nanoparticles (NPs), with the complex structures and properties, which depend on their size, structure, and composition.\cite{ferrando2008, johnston2008, ortigoza2008, mariscal2012, duan2013} The size of nanoalloys (1--100 nm) places them between small molecules and bulk crystals. They can be considered as the intermediate phase sharing common properties of atoms and solid materials. By adjusting the size, geometry and chemical composition, nanoalloys can be optimised for various applications in catalysis,\cite{campbell2004} nanomedicine,\cite{huang2007} optics,\cite{iskandar2009} data recording\cite{sun2000} and energy storage.\cite{duan2014} Iron-platinum (Fe-Pt) nanoalloys consist of two metallic components with significant ratios (Pt/Fe) of masses (195.1 / 55.8 in amu), bulk moduli (230 / 170 in GPa) and atomic radii (1.46 / 1.30 in \AA) which result in very interesting, not only geometrical, features. They belong to the most studied systems due to an extremely high uniaxial magnetocrystalline anisotropy ($K_u=7\times 10^6$ J/m$^3$), which makes Fe-Pt a promising material for applications in ultra-dense magnetic recording media.\cite{sun2000} As evidenced by many studies, Fe-Pt systems exhibit enhanced catalytical properties, comparing to pure platinum surfaces. Fe-Pt nanoalloys may be used as a powerful catalyst for the electro-oxidation of formic acid in fuel cells \cite{chen2006,kim2010,guo2012} and as highly efficient oxidation catalysts for degradation of organic pollutants.\cite{hsieh2012} Fe-Pt NPs are also promising candidates for biomedical {\it in vivo} applications (e.g. for cellular magnetic resonance imaging\cite{chen2010}) because of their high stability in the presence of oxygen.\cite{kim2005} By coating with inorganic molecules, the core-shell Fe-Pt nanoparticles become optically detectable \cite{seemann2014} and can be functionalised for the hyperthermia treatment of cancer and advanced radiopharmaceutical applications.\cite{seemann2015} Due to small sizes, standard diffraction techniques cannot be applied for NPs and most information about their structural properties comes from high-resolution transmission electron microscopy.\cite{tan2006,wang2008,wang2009} Relevant information about structural stability and electronic properties of the Fe-Pt nanoclusters have been obtained by the theoretical studies based on either semiempirical potentials or {\it ab initio} techniques.\cite{fortunelli1999,chepulskii2005a,chepulskii2005b,muller2005,yang2006,gruner2008} The Monte Carlo simulations showed that a continuous transformation between the ordered structure $L1_0$ ($tP4$) and a disordered phase in Fe-Pt NPs occures at temperatures lower than the bulk melting temperature (1572~K).\cite{chepulskii2005a,chepulskii2005b} Disordering processes in nanoalloys are enhanced due to finite-size and surface effects, e.g. strong surface segregation tendency of Pt atoms.\cite{muller2005,yang2006} The structural order and magnetic properties of Fe-Pt nanoalloys with various morphologies and chemical composition have been studied previously within the large-scale Density Functional Theory (DFT) calculations.\cite{gruner2008} In the present study, we focus on icosahedral Fe-Pt NPs, which are energetically favoured over the $L1_0$ phase for small particles.\cite{tan2006,wang2008,gruner2008} Application of DFT-based methods, including DFT molecular dynamics, provides additional, independent information on the behaviour of Fe-Pt NPs, which supplement the published studies based mainly on semiempirical potentials and supplies a valuable consistency check on the already established models of these systems. Our study of Fe-Pt NPs has been divided into two main parts. The first part is a set of total energy calculations and structural optimisations, designed to establish static stability properties of the investigated systems. The methods employed in this part are described in section \ref{ssec:structopt} and the results in section \ref{ssec:static}. The second part of the work concerns the investigation of dynamical stability of the systems using DFT-based molecular dynamics (MD). Description of the methods employed for this part of the work is included in section \ref{ssec:mdcalc} and the results are discussed in section \ref{ssec:md}. Section \ref{sec:rnd} contains the results of the investigation of dynamical stability of the disordered \ce{Fe6Pt7} and \ce{Fe27Pt28} particles. The concluding section \ref{sec:concl} summarizes the key results of the paper. \section{\label{sec:method}Methods} A common denominator of the methods used in the present work is the Density Functional Theory.\cite{hohenberg1964,kohn1965} Both parts of our analysis use the same DFT code as implemented in Vienna {\it Ab initio} Simulation Package (VASP)\cite{kresse1996a,kresse1996b} and the same atomic data sets provided with this package. For the preparation and analysis of the molecular dynamics runs and control of the DFT computations, we have used standard, python-based software stack\cite{IPython,ASE,SciPyLib,NumPy,MPL}. The details of the computational setups used for the work are described below -- separately for each part of the analysis. \subsection{\label{ssec:structopt}Structural optimisation} The static, zero Kelvin temperature calculations were performed using the full-potential projector-augmented wave method\cite{blochl1994,kresse1999} within the GGA approach in PAW-PBE form.\cite{perdew1992,perdew1996} The following valence base configurations were included: Fe $3d^74s^1$ and Pt $6s^15d^9$. The integrations in the reciprocal space was reduced to the single {\bf k}-point $\Gamma$ and the energy cut-off for the plane waves expansion was equal to 320 eV. The crystal structure was optimised using the conjugate gradient technique with the energy convergence criteria set at $10^{-7}$ and $10^{-5}$ eV for the electronic and ionic iterations, respectively. In order to prevent interactions between system images created due to the periodic boundary conditions used in VASP, each nanoparticle was placed in the big 20\AA$\times$20\AA$\times$20\AA{} box containing about 10 \AA{} wide vacuum. This limited force constants between neighbouring images below 0.3\% of the strongest force constant in the system. \subsection{\label{ssec:mdcalc}Molecular dynamics} The molecular dynamics simulations were carried out in the same DFT framework as the static calculations described above and with the set of methods and tools used in our previous work on minerals.\cite{jochym2010} We used the PAW-PBE atomic data sets and the spin-polarised VASP calculation for the DFT part. To lower the computational cost we adjusted the accuracy parameters of the calculation -- since the MD does not need extremely precise inter-atomic forces. The precision parameter of the calculation was set to Normal, the cut-off energy was reduced to 275 eV and the energetic convergence threshold was set at $10^{-6}$~eV. A small numerical noise added by lowering accuracy of the calculation is drowned by the thermal noise of the system. Furthermore, additional energy pumped into the system by this noise is cancelled out by the action of the thermostat. The actual molecular dynamics used the VASP implementation of the Nose thermostat MD algorithm with 10~fs time step, which was determined by convergence testing. The use of this fairly large time step was possible thanks to large masses of atoms in the system. The starting configurations correspond to perfect icosahedral geometries with the multi-shell or disordered structures. In case of the disordered structure the atomic sites were assigned randomly to one of the species by drawing from the pre-determined set of atoms -- 6 Fe and 7 Pt or 27 Fe and 28 Pt, respectively. The resulting structures were pre-optimised, by standard static methods (see sec.~\ref{ssec:structopt}) to avoid large inter-atomic forces at the start of the MD run. For the same reasons we have used the results of the static structural optimisation (sec. \ref{ssec:static}) for the starting configuration of ordered particles. \begin{figure}[h] \centering \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure_1} \caption{Distribution of particle kinetic energy in the icosahedral-shell system (dots) and Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution fits for each data set (lines). The best-fit temperature for each data set is included in the legend.} \label{fig:Ek-dist} \end{figure} \begin{figure}[h] \centering \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure_2} \caption{Distribution of particle kinetic energy in the random systems (dots) and Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution fits for each data set (lines). 'Small' system (left column) is a disordered \ce{Fe6Pt7} cluster, while 'Large' system (right column) is a disordered \ce{Fe27Pt28} cluster (see sec. \ref{sec:rnd}). The best-fit temperature for each data set is included in the legend.} \label{fig:Ek-rnd} \end{figure} The calculation procedure involved a thermalisation run of the system with kinetic energies assigned to atoms according to the Maxwell distribution. To assess the level of thermalisation of the system we calculated a distribution of kinetic energies in each step for all the atoms and for an ensemble configurations in the 0.1 ps sliding window (10 steps). The average energies in each step were compared with the value expected for the perfect Maxwell distribution. When the systematic drift of the computed average value transitioned into random-looking fluctuations, we performed an additional check for good thermalisation of the system by computing the full distribution of kinetic energies in the ensemble built from the configurations in the 1 ps window (100 steps) and comparing it with the Maxwell distribution. The comparison was performed by fitting the Maxwell distribution to the histogram of the kinetic energy in the ensemble and comparing the obtained temperature with the expected value. We also checked if the size of the residuals is consistent with the size of the fluctuations expected for the ensemble. The combination of all such comparisons is presented in Figs \ref{fig:Ek-dist} and \ref{fig:Ek-rnd}. The probability distributions presented in these figures are based on the whole measurement part of the MD run -- the thermalisation part was discarded. Very good agreement of data points with the perfect Maxwell distribution is slightly broken only at the extreme large energy range in the case of the Fe-terminated system at the lowest temperature ($T=150$ K). Notice the logarithmic scale on both axis in Figs \ref{fig:Ek-dist} and \ref{fig:Ek-rnd}, which was chosen to amplify any discrepancy from the expected distribution -- on the linear scale the discrepancy is invisible. This is the range of a high-energy tail of the distribution and one can fully expect large relative fluctuations there, due to the small probability density in this region and thus, small counts in the histogram bins. Furthermore, as the calculations revealed, the \ce{Fe43Pt12} is a quite unstable system which results in difficulties with bringing it to equilibrium at low temperatures. Nevertheless, we do not consider this single discrepancy to be significant for the analysis carried out in this work and regard all investigated systems as adequately thermalised. \section{\label{sec:struct}Icosahedral Fe-Pt nanoparticles} Icosahedron (Ih) is one of the five Platonic solids and one of the non-crystallographic structures with fivefold symmetries.\cite{mackay1962} It consists of 20 surfaces, 12 vertices and 30 edges, each surface has close-packed structure with the (111) orientation. The most stable particles are built of closed shells with the number of atoms $N_{shell}=1,12,42,\dots$. Fe-Pt NPs crystallising in the icosahedral geometry with the alternating Fe and Pt shells exhibit very high structural stability.\cite{wang2009} The stability of Ih NPs results from the low energy of the close-packed (111) surfaces, which compensates the internal stress existing in the particle core. The present study focuses on two types of icosahedral particles: particles with perfect shell structures (terminated with Pt or Fe atoms) and disordered NPs with approximately equal number of Fe and Pt atoms. The ordered \ce{Fe12Pt43} particle with the alternating shell structure: 1 Pt, 12 Fe and 42 Pt atoms is displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:pfp150}(a). \subsection{\label{ssec:static}Static calculations} The first step, after constructing individual NPs, was to optimise the structure at $T=0$~K, by minimising the total energy of the system, keeping $T_h$ point group symmetry elements only, since $I_h$ symmetry was broken in periodic boundary conditions.\footnote{$I_h$ point group includes 5-fold axes, which are not compatible with the translational symmetry and 3D periodic boundary conditions imposed on supercell in VASP package. Remaining elements of $I_h$ group, forming $T_h$ point group, were considered in our static calculations.} The lowering of particle symmetry allows not only for volume changing but also for surface shell relaxation. In both cases, \ce{Fe43Pt12} and \ce{Fe12Pt43}, high symmetry configuration with well-defined alternating Fe/Pt shells was obtained. The calculated radial distribution functions of optimised structures are presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:rdf-static}. In icosahedra there is only one non-equivalent position of atoms in the first shell, which defines the distance between the centre and the first shell, and two different positions in the second shell: at vertices and edges of the icosahedron. Interestingly, in both NPs, the distances from the central atom to the first shell (2.643 \AA{} and 2.587 \AA{} for \ce{Fe43Pt12} and \ce{Fe12Pt43}, respectively) as well as to vertices in the second shell (5.091 \AA{} for \ce{Fe43Pt12} and 5.054 \AA{} in \ce{Fe12Pt43} case) are quite similar. A larger difference ($\sim0.1$ \AA) is found for the distance between the centre and edge atoms in the second shell (4.374 \AA{} in \ce{Fe43Pt12} and 4.477 \AA{} in \ce{Fe12Pt43} case). \begin{figure}[h] \centering \includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{Figure_3} \caption{Radial distribution of atomic positions from the mass centre of \ce{Fe43Pt12} (left panel) and \ce{Fe12Pt43} (right panel).} \label{fig:rdf-static} \end{figure} In the surface shell, there are two characteristic nearest neighbours (NN) distances: from a vertical atom to the nearest edge atoms (1--2 in Fig.~\ref{fig:pfp150}) and between two nearest edge atoms (2--2 in Fig.~\ref{fig:pfp150}). In \ce{Fe43Pt12}, they read 2.704~\AA{} and 2.677~\AA{}, while in \ce{Fe12Pt43} -- 2.767~\AA{} and 2.663~\AA{}, respectively. In the Pt subsurface shell NN distances are equal to 2.778 \AA, while in the Fe one they are 2.720 \AA. For comparison, in the {\it bcc} iron structure simulated with the same atomic data set,\cite{lazewski2006} the NN distance is equal to 2.485~\AA{} and in {\it fcc} platinum 2.772~\AA. This means that, contrary to platinum shells, the inter-atomic distances in both iron shells, the surface one of \ce{Fe43Pt12} and subsurface of \ce{Fe12Pt43}, are strongly stretched ($\sim8-10\%$) which can be one of the main reasons of the iron-terminated NP instability. The similar influence of strain on iron surface stability was observed previously in the Fe monolayer on W(110) surface\cite{lazewski2007} and in FeAu and FePt multilayers\cite{sternik2006,jochym2008}. In both particles, the NN distances between the Fe and Pt atoms located in the first and second shell ($\sim2.50$ \AA) and between the central atom and the first shell ($\sim2.60$ \AA) are reduced comparing to the Fe-Pt distance in the bulk {\it fct} $L1_0$ structure (2.70 \AA).\cite{couet2010} It causes the internal stress in the core, which may be the driving force for the amorphisation processes and may induce the structural transformation observed in larger Fe-Pt particles. \subsection{\label{ssec:md}Molecular dynamics} The dynamical stability of a nanoparticle is quite different from the static one. The later requires only that the system is in the \emph{local} energy minimum, the former necessitates stability of the structure against finite, even large, thermal fluctuations. The amplitude of fluctuations is determined by the temperature of the system and the strength of inter-atomic bonds present in the system. To go beyond the static stability analysis described above, we need to include temperature in our calculations. We used the DFT-MD technique described above (see section~\ref{ssec:mdcalc}). The simple way to asses the effects of such calculation is by inspection of the evolution of the structure. \begin{figure}[h] \centering \includegraphics[height=3cm]{Figure_4a}${(a)}$ \includegraphics[height=3cm]{Figure_4b}${(b)}$ \caption{\ce{Fe12Pt43} (a) and \ce{Fe43Pt12} (b) structures at $T=150$ K after 10 ps thermalisation and 20 ps of MD run. The difference in structural stability is visible even at such a low temperature. Elements: Fe -- dark/brown, Pt -- light/grey. 1 and 2 denote two non-equivalent positions of atoms in the surface shell of ideal icosahedron.} \label{fig:pfp150} \end{figure} \begin{figure}[h] \centering \includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{Figure_5} \caption{Radial distribution of atomic positions from the mass centre (c.m.) of the icosahedral-shell system. The results for all temperatures are compared side-by-side for two investigated systems Pt-terminated (left) and Fe-terminated (right). The probabilities are normalised to unity per each element. The semitransparent colour of the Fe plot (orange) is used to show the Pt plot (blue) in the same range.} \label{fig:rdf-order} \end{figure} The structures after thermalisation (10 ps) and equilibration (20 ps) runs at target temperature $T=150$ K are depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:pfp150}. At the first glance the qualitative difference between platinum-terminated (a) and iron-terminated (b) particles is obvious. All the Fe atoms are in the subsurface in the former, nearly perfect structure, while there are many platinum atoms on the surface of the later, strongly distorted structure -- despite the fact that this is a Pt-deficient system. What is more, the picture is virtually identical at higher temperatures. Even at $T=1000$ K there is no \emph{qualitative} visual difference between Fig.~\ref{fig:pfp150} and the corresponding picture at that temperature. This calls for more detailed, quantitative analysis. In the crystalline material the radial distribution function (RDF) would be a first-line tool for such investigation. Here, the system is finite and we cannot use standard RDF directly. Instead we have used radial probability distribution $p_i(r)$ of finding atom of element $i$ at the distance $r$ from the centre of mass of the system. The probability is calculated over the ensemble of last 10 ps (1000 steps) of configurations at the end of the MD run. We performed the same calculation on the much smaller ensembles ($0.1-1$ ps) and determined that there is no significant difference except for much larger fluctuations present in the histograms (for obvious statistical reasons). The probability density $p_i(r)$ plots, normalized to unity for each atomic species, for all investigated icosahedral systems and temperatures are collected in Fig.~\ref{fig:rdf-order}. It should be remembered that the systems are started in the perfectly ordered state with temperature-determined kinetic energy distribution. At the start of the simulation $p_i(r)$ function for all systems resembles the plot for \ce{Fe12Pt43} at $T=150$ K (top, left corner of Fig.~\ref{fig:rdf-order}) or the static RDF from Fig.~\ref{fig:rdf-static}. The probability distributions in the Fig.~\ref{fig:rdf-order} are calculated at the end of the equilibration. Since the relaxation processes may have very different time scales, one cannot be sure that the \emph{true} equilibrium state has been reached. Nevertheless, the lack of systematic drift in the probability distributions at the end of the simulation period allows us to conclude that the systems are reasonably close to equilibrium. There is a clear difference between final states of the Pt-terminated (left column in Fig.~\ref{fig:rdf-order}) and Fe-terminated (right column in Fig.~\ref{fig:rdf-order}) system. The former, essentially, exhibits temperature-caused broadening of the distribution peaks, while the later shows clear signs of substantial reconstruction of the structure as well as much stronger broadening and distortion of the peaks. Since there is not much happening in the Pt-terminated structure, let us concentrate on the Fe-terminated one. We can distinguish two main phenomena in these plots. The first one is a significant disordering of the system, shown in very broad and irregular peaks -- even at low temperatures. The second phenomenon is a systematic drift of the platinum distribution to the external shell of the particle. We expect the former process to have fairly short time scale and low activation barriers, opposite to the other one which requires global, collective movements and thus large activation energy, and exhibits much longer time scale. Consequently, the reconstruction is probably close to finished only in the high temperature case ($T=1000$ K bottom of Fig.~\ref{fig:rdf-order}), is under way for intermediate temperatures ($T=500$ K), and is only starting for lower temperatures ($T=150$ K, $T=300$ K). Nevertheless, even at $T=150$ K we can see non-vanishing Pt probability at the outside shell and some migration of Fe atoms towards the interior of the particle. This process seems fully consistent with our earlier observations drawn from the structures in Fig.~\ref{fig:pfp150}. The high temperature in the $T=1000$ K case helps to overcome the activation barriers and speeds up the reconstruction. We expect that if we leave the lower temperature cases to evolve long enough they will reach similar shape of the distribution as the high temperature case. Unfortunately, this kind of time scale is prohibitively long to achieve -- we estimate it will require at least one year worth of MD run for $T=150$~K. Note also that after reconstruction some level of ordering is recovered in the high temperature system -- the peaks are better defined and localised and actually narrower than for the low-temperature systems. In fact, one can recognise a clear gradient of decreasing noise and disorder of the distributions with increasing temperature in the right column of Fig.~\ref{fig:rdf-order}. Interestingly, Fe atoms can be found close to the centre only at low temperatures, while they are systematically replaced by platinum atoms at higher temperatures. The results obtained for two types of particles can be easily understood if we take into account strong tendency of Pt atoms for occupying the outer layers of NPs. It prevents disordering of Pt-terminated particles, which keep their perfect multi-shell structure even at high temperatures. It agrees with the previous theoretical studies\cite{fortunelli1999,chepulskii2005a,chepulskii2005b,muller2005,yang2006,gruner2008} and the experimental observations of good thermal stability of icosahedral Fe-Pt particles even with much larger sizes.\cite{wang2008} In the thin films, the Pt-termination was deduced from the DFT calculations of the phonon spectra and the surface sensitive nuclear inelastic scattering measurement.\cite{couet2010} The simulated Fe-terminated surface showed strong deviation from the bulk behaviour. The crucial role in the stabilization of multi-twinned nanoalloys is played by the difference in atomic sizes of the two elements: larger size mismatch reduces the compression of the core. The MD simulations performed on the polyicosahedral core-shell Ag-Cu and Ag-Ni clusters revealed much higher melting temperatures than for pure Ag, Cu and Ni particles.\cite{rossi2004,ferrando2005} Even single impurities can stabilize the icosahedral Ag particles -- the smaller the doping atom, the higher the melting temperature.\cite{mottet2005} As shown in recent studies, the stability of Ni-Au NPs is also enhanced in the core-shell structure, which has much higher melting temperature than random alloys.\cite{li2014} The \ce{Fe43Pt12} particle is very unstable due to the movement of Pt atoms towards the surface. This leads to significant changes of atomic positions and strong deformation of the icosahedral geometry. Apart from the segregation processes resulting from different sizes of constituent atoms, other amorphisation mechanisms may also be of some importance here. The previous MD simulations revealed the amorphisation of mono-atomic \ce{Pt55} icosahedral particles involving the rosette-like structural transformation, which forms a sixfold ring centred around the fivefold vertices and breaks the $I_h$ symmetry.\cite{apra2004} A preference for low-symmetry amorphous structures was found also in the Au nanoclusters.\cite{garzon1998} \section{\label{sec:rnd}Disordered Fe-Pt nanoparticles} The results described above concerned icosahedral multi-shell structures. These structures are inherently non-stoichiometric and thus quite different from the fragments of the bulk crystals. On the other hand, such highly ordered small particles are very unlikely to form naturally, although advanced experimental techniques may be well capable of producing just such systems. The synthesised icosahedral particles with larger sizes ($\sim5-6$ nm) and close to equiatomic compositions exhibit the shell-periodic structure with the Fe/Pt core and the Pt enriched outer shell.\cite{wang2008} For small systems such ordered core-shell structures may be very unstable and we expect natural processes to form rather disordered particles with the composition of elements determined by their relative concentrations in the environment and other factors such as chemical potentials, surface energies, bonding energies etc. \begin{figure}[h] \centering \includegraphics[height=1.5cm]{Figure_6a}${(a)}$ \includegraphics[height=3cm]{Figure_6b}${(b)}$ \includegraphics[height=3cm]{Figure_6c}${(c)}$ \caption{Small disordered particle at $T=300$ K (a), larger disordered particle at $T=300$ K (b) and at $T=500$ K (c). All structures after 30 ps thermalisation. Elements: Fe -- dark/brown, Pt -- light/grey.} \label{fig:rndstruct} \end{figure} As the simplest model we have decided to select two \emph{magic number} (i.e. numbers from the partial sum: $1+12+42+\dots$) particles with concentrations close to 50/50 (the magic numbers are odd, thus the exact 50\% concentration is unattainable). The selected structures are \ce{Fe6Pt7} and \ce{Fe27Pt28} -- both with slight iron deficiency -- as we expect such particles to be more stable than their platinum-deficient counterparts (see above). We selected magic-number particles (13 and 55 atoms respectively) to make it possible for the systems to relax to closed-shell configurations which one can expect to be energetically favourable. The applied procedure was identical to the one used above in section~\ref{ssec:mdcalc}. The only notable difference was a much longer thermalisation period required for the system to settle down close to the equilibrium -- of the order of 10~ps. Due to a large size of the configuration space of disordered particle and a long time scale of slow relaxation processes, we do not expect the system to reach the true equilibrium state. Nevertheless, by examining the directions the system configuration drifts after thermalisation, we can determine the direction of these relaxation processes. This idea can be further cross-checked by application to very small particles. Due to much smaller configuration space and much lower barriers for collective movements, a small particle can reach its equilibrium in much shorter time. Running the MD simulation until full relaxation is actually feasible in this case. We ran this procedure for the smallest non-trivial, magic cluster: \ce{Fe6Pt7} at $T=300$~K and $T=500$~K. The parameters of the simulation were the same as for larger systems, except that the total simulation length of 30~ps was easy and inexpensive to achieve. Simultaneously, the small system stopped to drift in any significant way after only few picoseconds of simulation -- indicating arrival at the equilibrium configuration. The resulting structures (at the end of the MD run) for both sizes of the particles are depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:rndstruct}. \begin{figure}[h] \centering \includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{Figure_7} \caption{Radial distribution of atomic positions from the mass centre (c.m.) of the system. The results for all temperatures are compared side-by-side for two investigated systems small (left) and large (right). The semitransparent colour of the Fe plot (orange) is used to show the Pt plot (blue) in the same range.} \label{fig:rdf-rnd} \end{figure} We applied the same analysis techniques as described above for icosahedral particles. The resulting radial distribution functions are plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:rdf-rnd}. The results for the small system indicate the same pattern we observed in the icosahedral particles -- the platinum atoms tend to move to the external layer of the particle and the iron atoms gather closer to the centre. The same pattern is less visible in the data for the larger particle -- which is not as close to equilibrium as the small one -- but the same trend is visible anyway. There is clear difference in the level of ordering exhibited by small versus larger particles, for the reasons explained above, but even for a larger system there are clear signs of the emerging structure in the form of obvious peaks in the RDF function and visible movement of platinum atoms to the outside of the particle. The details of the RDF distribution are subject to standard short-term statistical and thermal fluctuations, but the overall shape of the distributions proved to be fairy robust and subject only to long time scale relaxation processes. We believe that if the system is left to evolve even longer, it will probably reach partially ordered equilibrium with platinum atoms located mainly on the surface of the particle. Unfortunately, the expected time scale -- measured at least in nanoseconds, perhaps even longer -- is prohibitive for the pure DFT MD technique. This type of calculation would require a method which is at least few orders of magnitude more effective than pure DFT MD -- e.g. neural network derived, multi-parameter effective potentials.\cite{hobday1999,malshe2008,springborg_neural_2010} \section{\label{sec:concl}Conclusions} In the presented work we have investigated the stability and dynamics of icosahedral nanoparticles constructed with two radically different (in terms of mass, atomic radius, bulk modulus, magnetic moment) metals: iron and platinum. The optimised icosahedral NPs with perfect layered structures have rather stiff platinum shells with inter-atomic NN distances well corresponding to the Pt bulk values and strongly stretched iron shells with NN distance elongated by $8-10$\% in comparison to the bulk. Even for iron-separated NPs, with significant dominance of Fe atoms, compression of Pt shells does not occur and proves to be impossible. On the other hand, unstable iron shells drive the system to reconstruction and/or significant lowering of the melting temperature. The DFT molecular dynamics calculations carried out in a number of temperatures ($T=150-1000$~K) revealed strong instability of the iron-terminated structure and significant tendency for platinum atoms to migrate into surface layer -- even at low temperatures and platinum-deficient particles. The same tendency was observed in the very small (13 atoms) as well as larger disordered particles (55 atoms) with atomic concentrations close to the 50/50 ratio. Furthermore, the platinum capping layer seems to additionally stabilise the particle. In our calculations the platinum-terminated system proved to be stable up to $T=1000$~K. On the other hand, the iron-terminated system shows substantial instability -- leading to significant reconstruction of the structure and probably partial melting even at a low temperature ($T=150$~K). The stabilizing effect of platinum atoms seem to be related to the geometric aspect of platinum enclosure of the NP. In the case of \ce{Fe43Pt12} NP, platinum atoms have no significant influence on the stability of the NP because they only decorate the surface instead of forming complete enclosure. The case of 50/50 Fe-Pt NPs further indicates that it is rather geometry than concentration of platinum atoms that effects the stability of nanoparticles. The structural properties of small Fe-Pt NPs and their dependence on temperature discussed in the present work may be important for nano-technological applications. For instance, the catalytic activity of strongly distorted NPs could be enhanced comparing to pure Pt surfaces or larger Fe-Pt particles. A larger distribution of Fe-Pt bond lengths as well as the presence of both types of atoms at the surface may lead to selective modification of electronic structure and catalytic activity of Pt atoms. It was observed that additional Co atoms decorating the surface of Pt nanocrystals lead to increased selectivity of hydrogenation reactions.\cite{tsang2008} \section{\label{sec:ack}Acknowledgements} This work was partially supported by the COST Action MP0903 "Nanoalloys as Advanced Materials: From Structure to Properties and Applications" and by the Polish National Science Centre (NCN) under Project No. 2011/01/M/ST3/00738. \footnotesize{
\section{Introduction} \label{sec-intro} Deformation quantization, initiated in \cite{Bayen:1978}, consists in deforming the pointwise product of the commutative algebra of smooth functions $\caC^\infty(M)$ on a Poisson manifold $M$ into a noncommutative star-product $\star_\theta$ depending on a deformation parameter $\theta$. Formal deformation quantizations were intensively studied \cite{Omori:1991,Lecomte:1992,Fedosov:1994,Gutt:2000} and definitely classified in \cite{Kontsevich:2003}. In the non-formal setting, there exist some examples of deformation of groups and their actions like Abelian Lie groups $\gR^{2n}$ \cite{Rieffel:1993}, Abelian Lie supergroups \cite{Bieliavsky:2010su,deGoursac:2014kv}, K\"ahlerian Lie groups \cite{Bieliavsky:2010kg}, Abelian $p$-adic groups \cite{Gayral:2014ad}, deformations of $\gC^{2n}$ in holomorphic \cite{Omori:2000,Bieliavsky:2002ma} or resurgent \cite{Garay:2013gya} context, deformations of $SU(1,n)$ \cite{Bieliavsky:2008mv,Korvers:2014}, but no general classifying theory is available. Associated to star-products and following \cite{Fronsdal:1978}, the notion of star-exponential \cite{Bayen:1978,Bayen:1982,Arnal:1988} plays an important role for the study of deformation quantization, for giving access to spectrum of operators \cite{Cahen:1984,Cahen:1985}, for the link with representation theory. In the non-formal context, star-exponential of quadratic functions were explicitly computed \cite{Omori:2000,Omori:2011tr} for the Moyal-Weyl product. Applications to harmonic analysis such as character formula or Fourier transformation can be obtained by computing non-formal star-exponential of momentum maps of some Lie group's action. This was performed for nilpotent Lie groups in \cite{Arnal:1990} by using the Moyal-Weyl product. By using Berezin and Weyl quantizations, this program of star-representations was achieved in the case of unitary irreducible representations of compact semisimple Lie groups \cite{Arnal:1988cg}, of holomorphic discrete series \cite{Arnal:1989cg} (see also \cite{Bieliavsky:1999st} for $SL_2(\gR)$) and principal series of semisimple Lie groups \cite{Cahen:1996st} (see also \cite{Arnal:1996ya}). However, one can wonder wether it is possible to construct non-formal star-exponentials for star-products that are geometrically more natural for the orbits of the group. In this spirit, the non-formal star-exponential of K\"ahlerian Lie groups with negative curvature was exhibited in \cite{Bieliavsky:2013sk} for invariant star-products on their coadjoint orbits, with application to the construction of an adapted Fourier transformation. In this paper, we are interested in the one-sheeted hyperboloid orbits of $SL_2(\gR)$ \cite{Lang:1975}, also called two-dimensional anti-de Sitter space, $AdS_2\,:=\,SL_2(\gR)/SO(1,1)$. To compute its star-exponential, we want to dispose of a non-formal $\mathfrak{sl}_2(\gR)$-covariant star-product geometrically adapted to $AdS_2$, and to this aim, we will look at its natural contraction. Let us first show that this contraction of $AdS_2$ corresponds locally to the symmetric space $M\,:=\,SO(1,1)\ltimes\gR^2/\gR$ called Poincar\'e coset. The global picture is however given in the conclusion of this paper but it is not needed now. \medskip This curvature contraction is induced by the contraction of Lie algebras: \begin{equation*} \mathfrak{sl}_2(\gR)\longrightarrow\mathfrak{so}(1,1)\ltimes\gR^2 \end{equation*} that corresponds to the limit $t\to0$ in the following three-dimensional real Lie algebra $\kg_t$ table: \begin{equation*} \left[H,E\right]=2E,\qquad \left[H,F\right]=-2F,\qquad \left[E,F\right]=t\,H\;, \end{equation*} where $\kg_t$ is isomorphic to $\kg_{1}\simeq\mathfrak{sl}_2(\gR)$ for every $t>0$, while $\kg_0\simeq\mathfrak{so}(1,1)\ltimes\gR^2$. \noindent The above contraction of Lie algebras induces a geometric contraction at the level of naturally associated symmetric spaces. To see this, observe first that setting \begin{equation*} \sigma_t(H)\;:=\;-H\quad\sigma_t(E+F)\;:=\;E+F\quad\sigma_t(E-F)\;:=\;F-E \end{equation*} defines an involutive automorphism of $\kg_t$ for every $t\in\gR$. When $t>0$, the adjoint orbit of the element $E+F$ in $\kg_t$ then realizes a symmetric space $M_t$ admitting $(\kg_t,\sigma_t)$ as associated infinitesimal involutive Lie algebra. \noindent One gets a local chart on $M_t$ by considering the open orbit of the base point $E+F$ under the action the Iwasawa factor $\gS\;:=\;\exp(\gR H\oplus\gR E)$: \begin{equation*} \varphi_{(t)}\;:\;\gR H\oplus\gR E\longrightarrow M_t:(a,\ell)\mapsto\Ad_{e^{aH}e^{\ell E}}(E+F)\;. \end{equation*} Within this local chart, the geodesic symmetry at the base point $E+F$ in $M_t$ corresponds to the map\footnote{The expression of the symmetry centered around another point is easily computed from the $\gS$-equivariance of the symmetric space structure.} \begin{equation*} s^{(t)}_{(0,0)}(a,\ell)\;:=\;(\,-a\,-\,\log(1-t\ell^2)\,,\,-\ell) \end{equation*} whose maximal domain is the open strip $|\ell|\,<\,t^{-1/2}$. \noindent Note that in the limit $t\to0$, the symmetry becomes global ($s^{(0)}_{(0,0)}=-\mbox{\rm id}$), realizing the canonical (non-flat) symmetric space structure on $M=M_0=SO(1,1)\ltimes\gR^2/\gR$: \begin{equation*} s_{(a,\ell)}^{(0)}(a',\ell')\;=\;(2a-a'\,,\,2\cosh(2(a-a'))\ell-\ell')\;. \end{equation*} All the $\star$-products on $M$ that are invariant under the symmetries $\{s^{(0)}_x\}_{x\in M}$ are known in a totally explicit way \cite{Bieliavsky:2008or}. Of course, while $\gS$-invariant, none of them is $SL_2(\gR)$-invariant, even not at the infinitesimal level. However, the contraction procedure is somehow partially remembered at the limit $t\to0$: every such $\star$-product turns out to be $\mathfrak{sl}_2(\gR)$-{\sl covariant} in the sense that the classical moment mapping \begin{equation} \label{MOMENT} \lambda^{(t)}\;:\;\mathfrak{sl}_2(\gR)\to C^\infty(M_t):X\mapsto\lambda^{(t)}_X \end{equation} when restricted to the image of the local chart still yields a Lie algebra homomorphism into the $\star$-product algebra at the limit $t\to0$. It means that if one endows $C^\infty(M)[[\theta]]$ with a $SO(1,1)\ltimes\gR^2$-invariant $\star$-product $\star_\theta^1$, the map \begin{equation*} \mathfrak{sl}_2(\gR)\to \left(C^\infty(M)[[\theta]],\star^1_\theta\right)\,:\,X\,\mapsto\,(\varphi_{(0)}^{-1})^\star\left(\varphi_{(t)}^\star\lambda^{(t)}_X\right) \end{equation*} is a homomorphism of Lie algebras for every $t>0$. \medskip In view of the fact that this contraction process is entirely canonical, it is tempting to study its possible relation with the representation theory of $SL_2(\gR)$ and in particular to investigate whether it reproduces the unitary irreducible representation series canonically associated to the $AdS_2$-orbits i.e. the principal series. This is what is done in the present article within a non-formal star-product (i.e. operator algebraic) approach. More precisely, we here consider the non-formal $SO(1,1)\ltimes\gR^2$-invariant product $\star^1_\theta$ ($\theta\in\gR_0$) on $L^2(M)$ defined in \cite{Bieliavsky:2010kg}. Setting the Hilbert algebra $\algA_\theta\;:=\;(L^2(M), \star^1_\theta)$ and denoting by $\kM_\bb(\algA_\theta)$ its von Neumann algebra of bounded multipliers (see in particular \cite{deGoursac:2014mu}), we prove that the formal Lie map (\ref{MOMENT}), say at $t=1$, actually exponentiates to a weakly continuous group morphism: \begin{equation*} \caE_{\star_\theta^1}:SL_2(\gR)\to\kM_\bb(\algA_\theta)\;. \end{equation*} After a presentation of the geometric context in section \ref{sec-present}, the explicit expression of $\caE_{\star_\theta^1}$ on the generator $F$ in some coordinate chart $\Phi_\kappa$ is directly computed in terms of Bessel functions in section \ref{sec-direct} by constructing the spectral measure of the differential operator involved in the defining equation of the star-exponential. On another coordinate chart $\Psi_\kappa$ and with another star-product $\sharp_\theta$ (already considered in \cite{Cahen:1996st}), the star-exponential $\caE_{\sharp_\theta}$ is expressed in terms of the principal series representation $\caP^\theta$ associated with the $AdS_2$-orbit in section \ref{sec-principal}. Then, we want to relate both star-exponentials, $\caE_{\star_\theta^1}$ expressed with Bessel functions and $\caE_{\sharp_\theta}$ expressed with the principal series representation, so we need an intertwiner between the corresponding star-products. Three different methods are presented to obtain explicitly a unitary intertwining operator $W$ between $\sharp_\theta$ and $\star_\theta^1$ in section \ref{sec-inter}. In order to get unitarity of $W$, we need two copies of the range, namely $\algA_\theta\oplus\algA_{-\theta}$, so that we rather proved that the associated left-regular representation \begin{equation*} g\mapsto\big(\caE_{\star_\theta^1}(g)\star_\theta^1\,\bullet,\ \caE_{\star_{-\theta}^1}(g)\star_{-\theta}^1\,\bullet\big) \end{equation*} is unitarily equivalent with $\caP^\theta(g)\otimes\mbox{\rm id}$. In section \ref{sec-concl}, we get a nice geometric interpretation of these two copies in terms of the global curvature contraction of $AdS_2$. As an application, we end this article by deriving from the comparison of $\caE_{\star_\theta^1}(e^{tF})$ and $W(\caE_{\sharp_\theta}(e^{tF}))$ a new identity on Bessel functions. \section{Star-products for Anti-deSitter space} \label{sec-present} \subsection{Adjoint orbits of $SL(2,\gR)$} \label{subsec-orbit} Let us fix the notations. We consider $\kg:=\mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{R})$ the Lie algebra of the group $G:=SL(2,\mathbb{R})$. We choose a basis of $\kg$ satisfying the following commutation relations: \begin{equation*} [H,E]=2E,\qquad [H,F]=-2F,\qquad [E,F]=H. \end{equation*} The maximal compact subgroup of $G$ is isomorphic to $SO(2)$ and its Lie algebra is generated by the element $E-F$. The Lie algebra $\kg$ can be (Cartan) decomposed as a direct vector space sum $\mathfrak{k}\oplus \mathfrak{P}$, where $\mathfrak{P}=\langle H,E+F \rangle $ is the orthogonal complement for the Killing form of the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{k}\equiv \langle E-F \rangle$ of $SO(2)$. The Killing form $\beta$ on $\kg$ is given by : $\beta(X,Y)=\frac{1}{8}\tr(\ad_X\ad_Y)$ (this normalization differs from the usual one). Furthermore, the Lie algebra $\kg$ can also be (Iwasawa) decomposed as \begin{equation*} \kg=\mathfrak{k}\oplus \mathfrak{a} \oplus \mathfrak{n}, \end{equation*} where $\mathfrak{a}$ is a maximal abelian subalgebra of $\mathfrak{P}$, and $\mathfrak{n}$ is the nilpotent algebra obtained as the sum of the positive root spaces of $\mathfrak{a}$, for some choice of positiveness on $\mathfrak{a}^{*}$. Here we choose $\mathfrak{a}=\langle H\rangle$ so that the roots are $-2H^{*}$, $0$ and $2H^{*}$, and with the natural order we get $\mathfrak{n}=\langle E\rangle$. The Iwasawa subgroup of $G=SL(2,\mathbb{R})$ will be denoted by $\gS$, its Lie algebra is exactly $\ks=\ka\oplus\kn$. Let us consider the adjoint orbits of $SL(2,\gR)$. For $\kappa \in \mathbb{R}$, fix $o_{\kappa} := E+\kappa F \in \kg$ and $\mathcal{O}_{\kappa}=\Ad_{G}(o_{\kappa})$ the adjoint orbit of $o_{\kappa}$ under the adjoint action of $G$. The case $\kappa>0$ corresponds to the Anti-DeSitter space, $\kappa=0$ to the positive half-line along $E$, while $\kappa<0$ corresponds to the hyperbolic plane. We will assume in this paper that $\kappa>0$. The Kirillov-Kostant-Souriau (KKS) symplectic form defined on the adjoint orbits of $G$ can be written as follows \begin{displaymath} \omega_z^{\mathcal{O}_{\kappa}}(X^{*}_z,Y^{*}_z)\equiv\beta(z,[X,Y]), \end{displaymath} where $\beta$ is the Killing form of $\kg$ as above and $X^{*}$ is the fundamental vector field associated to $X\in \kg$, defined at a point $z\in \kg$ on $f\in C^\infty(\kg)$ by $X^{*}_z f=\frac{\dd}{\dd t}_{|t=0}f(e^{-tX}z)$. We will consider the coordinate system $\Phi_{\kappa}: \ks \rightarrow \mathcal{O}_{\kappa}$ on the orbit $\mathcal{O}_{\kappa}$, given in terms of the Iwasawa subgroup $\gS$: \begin{equation} \label{eq-chartphi} \Phi_\kappa(aH+\ell E):= \Ad_{e^{aH}e^{\ell E}}(o_{\kappa})=\kappa \ell H+(1-\kappa\ell^2 )e^{2a}E+ \kappa e^{-2a}F. \end{equation} It turns out that $\Phi_{\kappa}$ is a Darboux chart, but its image only corresponds to half of the adjoint orbit (see Figure \ref{fig-AdS-habit}). As we normalize the Killing form such that $\beta(H,H)=1$, $\beta(E,F)=\beta(F,E)=\frac{1}{2}$, we have $\omega^{\Phi}:=\Phi_{\kappa}^*\omega_z^{\mathcal{O}_{\kappa}}=\kappa \dd a\wedge\dd \ell$. In this chart, the action of $\gS$ corresponds to the left-multiplication. The adjoint action of $G$ on $\ks\simeq\caO_\kappa$ (in this coordinate system) is strongly hamiltonian with moment map $\lambda$ given explicitly by \begin{equation*} \lambda_H(a,\ell )=\ell\kappa,\qquad \lambda_E(a,\ell )=\frac{\kappa}{2} e^{-2a},\qquad \lambda_F(a,\ell)=\frac{(1-\kappa\ell^2)}{2}e^{2a}. \end{equation*} \begin{figure}[!htb] \centering \includegraphics[height=10cm]{AdS-habit.JPG} \caption[AdS]{\footnotesize{The two charts $\Phi_\kappa$ and $\Phi'_\kappa$ on $AdS_2$.}} \label{fig-AdS-habit} \end{figure} \subsection{Star-products and star-exponentials} \label{subsec-starprod} Set $\theta\in\gR^*$. The $\Phi_\kappa$ coordinate system yields a subspace $\ks$ of $\caO_\kappa$ isomorphic to $\gR^2$, on which we can define the Moyal product in the direction of the symplectic form $\kappa\dd a\wedge\dd \ell$. It is given by: for Schwartz functions $f_1,f_2\in \caS(\gR^2)$, \begin{equation} \big(f_1\star^0_\theta f_2\big)(a,\ell):=\frac{\kappa^2}{\pi^2\theta^2}\int f_1(a_1,\ell_1) f_2(a_2,\ell_2) e^{\frac{-2i\kappa}{\theta} (a_1\ell_2-a_2\ell_1+a_2\ell-a\ell_2+a\ell_1-a_1\ell)} \dd a_i\dd \ell_i\label{eq-star0} \end{equation} Such a Moyal star-product is $\kg$-covariant but not $\gS$-invariant. One prefers to deal with a star-product on $\gS\simeq\ks$ with symplectic form $\kappa\dd a\wedge\dd \ell$, which is $\gS$-invariant for the left action on $\gS$, or equivalently for the coadjoint action on $\ks$. It is also $\kg$-covariant, it was explicitly found in \cite{Bieliavsky:2002} and has the expression \begin{multline} (f_1\star_\theta^1 f_2)(a,\ell):=\frac{\kappa^2}{\pi^2\theta^2}\int \sqrt{\cosh(2(a_1-a_2))\cosh(2(a_2-a))\cosh(2(a-a_1))}\\ f_1(a_1,\ell_1)f_2(a_2,\ell_2)\, e^{\frac{i\kappa}{\theta}\Big(\sinh(2(a_1-a_2))\ell+\sinh(2(a_2-a))\ell_1+\sinh(2(a-a_1))\ell_2\Big)} \dd a_1\dd a_2\dd \ell_1\dd \ell_2.\label{eq-star1} \end{multline} Actually, it can be obtained by intertwining the Moyal product $\star_\theta^0$: $f_1\star^1_{\theta}f_2= T_{01}((T_{01}^{-1}f_1)\star_\theta^0(T_{01}^{-1}f_2))$ where the intertwiners (which are not $\gS$-equivariant) lie: \begin{align} &T_{01} f(a,\ell):=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int\ \sqrt{\cosh(\frac{\theta t}{\kappa})} e^{\frac{i\kappa}{\theta}\sinh(\frac{\theta t}{\kappa})\ell-i\xi t}f(a,\xi)\dd t\dd\xi\nonumber\\ &T^{-1}_{01} f(a,\ell)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int\ \sqrt{\cosh(\frac{\theta t}{\kappa})} e^{-\frac{i\kappa}{\theta}\sinh(\frac{\theta t}{\kappa})\xi+it\ell}f(a,\xi)\dd t\dd\xi\label{eq-inter01} \end{align} \begin{remark} \label{rmk-prodpoincare} There is a $\gS$-equivariant diffeomorphism with the Poincar\'e coset $M:=SO(1,1)\ltimes\gR^2/\gR\simeq\gS$. In this point of view, the star-product $\star_\theta^1$ introduced above coincides with the natural star-product on $M$, namely the unique star-product invariant under the action of $SO(1,1)\ltimes\gR^2$ and of involution $(a,\ell)\mapsto (-a,-\ell)$ \cite{Bieliavsky:2008or}. It explains why we will consider it in the following and why we are interested in its associated star-exponential. \end{remark} It turns out that these products give rise to complete Hilbert algebras $(L^2(\gR^2),\star_\theta^0)$ and $(L^2(\gS),\star_\theta^1)$ for the usual complex conjugation and the standard scalar product. We call them Hilbert deformation quantizations \cite{deGoursac:2014mu} and we can consider the left von Neumann algebra (type $I_\infty$ factor), which will be expressed here as bounded multipliers of the Hilbert algebra. Recall that a complex algebra with involution and scalar product is a Hilbert algebra if $\forall f_i\in\algA$, \begin{equation*} \langle f_2^*,f_1^*\rangle=\langle f_1,f_2\rangle,\qquad \langle f_1\fois f_2,f_3\rangle=\langle f_2,f_1^*\fois f_3\rangle, \end{equation*} if the map $\lambda_{f_1}:f_2\in\algA\mapsto f_1\fois f_2$ is bounded for the norm $\norm f\norm:=\sqrt{\langle f,f\rangle}$, and if the set $\{f_1\fois f_2,\ f_i\in\algA\}$ is dense in $\algA$. Suppose that $\algA$ is a complete Hilbert algebra, it is in particular a Hilbert space. Its left von Neumann algebra can be expressed as the left part of bounded multipliers $\kM_\bb(\algA)$ \cite{deGoursac:2014mu} that are pairs $T=(L,R)$ of bounded operators on $\algA$ satisfying $\forall f_i\in\algA$, \begin{equation} f_1\fois L(f_2)=R(f_1)\fois f_2.\label{eq-multiplier} \end{equation} We have the equivalent characterization that $L$ is a bounded operator on $\algA$ satisfying \begin{equation} L(f_1\fois f_2)=L(f_1)\fois f_2\quad\text{ and }\quad R(f)=(L^*(f^*))^*.\label{eq-multiplier2} \end{equation} Note that any unitary *-isomorphism $\Phi:\algA\to\algB$ between two complete Hilbert algebras can be extended to the bounded multipliers \begin{equation} \tilde\Phi:\kM_\bb(\algA)\to\kM_\bb(\algB),\label{eq-morphmult} \end{equation} by $\tilde\Phi(T):=(\Phi\circ L\circ\Phi^{-1},\Phi\circ R\circ \Phi^{-1})$. \medskip We note $\kM_{\star_\theta^0}(\gR^2)$ and $\kM_{\star_\theta^1}(\gS)$ the bounded multipliers algebras associated to the Hilbert algebras $(L^2(\gR^2),\star_\theta^0)$ and $(L^2(\gS),\star_\theta^1)$. These von Neumann algebras will be very useful as functional spaces to characterize the non-formal star-exponential. The intertwiner $T_{01}$ is actually a unitary *-isomorphism between these two Hilbert algebras. Even if the group $G=SL(2,\gR)$ does not stabilize the spaces $\gR^2$ and $\gS$ seen as part of the adjoint orbit $\caO_\kappa$ via the coordinate system $\Phi_\kappa$, we can consider the space generated by the moment maps $\lambda_H$, $\lambda_E$ and $\lambda_F$. Since the star-products are $\kg$-covariant, such a space has a Lie algebra structure for the star-commutator and it can also be denoted by $\kg$: \begin{equation*} [\lambda_H,\lambda_E]_{\star_\theta^j}=-2i\theta\lambda_E,\qquad [\lambda_H,\lambda_F]_{\star_\theta^j}=2i\theta\lambda_F,\qquad [\lambda_E,\lambda_F]_{\star_\theta^j}=-i\theta\lambda_H, \end{equation*} for $j=0,1$, and where one understands these functions $\lambda_X$ ($X\in\kg$) as unbounded operators acting by left $\star_\theta^j$-multiplication. It means that $\kg$ is a symmetry in the sense of \cite{deGoursac:2014mu} for the Hilbert deformation quantizations $(L^2(\gR^2),\star_\theta^0)$ and $(L^2(\gS),\star_\theta^1)$. Therefore, the (non-formal) star-exponential of this symmetry is well-defined \cite{Arnal:1990,Omori:2000} \begin{equation*} E_{\star_\theta^j}(\frac{i}{\theta}\lambda_X):=\sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{1}{k!}\left(\frac{i}{\theta}\lambda_X\right)^{(\star_\theta^j k)}, \end{equation*} as being a unitary (bounded) multiplier and we have $E_{\star_\theta^1}(\frac{i}{\theta}\lambda_X)=T_{01}E_{\star_\theta^0}(\frac{i}{\theta}\lambda_X)$ since $T_{01}\lambda_X=\lambda_X$. Moreover, this star-exponential satisfies the BCH property \begin{equation*} E_{\star_\theta^j}(\frac{i}{\theta}\lambda_X)\star_\theta^j E_{\star_\theta^j}(\frac{i}{\theta}\lambda_Y)=E_{\star_\theta^j}(\frac{i}{\theta}\lambda_{\text{BCH}(X,Y)}) \end{equation*} if $\text{BCH}(X,Y)$ is defined. In particular, note that \begin{align*} &\text{BCH}(aH,\ell E)=aH+\frac{ae^a\ell}{\sinh(a)}E,\qquad \text{BCH}(aH,mF)=aH+\frac{ae^{-a}m}{\sinh(a)}F,\\ & \text{BCH}(\ell E,mF)=\frac{\text{Arccosh}(1+\frac12\ell m)}{\sqrt{\ell m+\frac14\ell^2m^2}}(\frac12\ell mH+\ell E+mF)\quad\text{if }\ell m>0. \end{align*} The $ax+b$ part of the symmetry ($\gS\subset G$) was studied in \cite{Bieliavsky:2013sk} and its star-exponential was explicitly computed \begin{equation} E_{\star^0_\theta}(\frac{i}{\theta}t\lambda_H)(a,\ell)=e^{\frac{i\kappa}{\theta}t\ell},\qquad E_{\star^0_\theta}(\frac{i}{\theta}t\lambda_E)(a,\ell)=e^{\frac{i\kappa}{2\theta} te^{-2a}}.\label{eq-starexphe} \end{equation} In the following, we want to compute explicitly the star-exponential of the last generator $\lambda_F$ of the symmetry $\kg$, to express the link between this star-exponential and the principal series representation of $SL(2,\gR)$ and to integrate the star-exponential at the level of the group. \section{Direct computation of the star-exponential} \label{sec-direct} \subsection{Resolution of the equation} Let us solve the defining equation of the star-exponential of $\lambda_F$ \begin{equation*} \partial_t E_{\star^0_{\theta}}(\frac{i}{\theta}t\lambda_F)(a,\ell)=\frac{i}{\theta}\lambda_F\star_\theta^0 E_{\star^0_{\theta}}(\frac{i}{\theta}t\lambda_F)(a,\ell) \end{equation*} with initial condition $E_{\star^0_{\theta}}(\frac{i}{\theta}t\lambda_F)\equiv 1$ for $t=0$. We use the star-product $\star_\theta^0$ instead of the natural $\star_\theta^1$ for more simplicity in this equation, but we know explicitly the intertwiner $T_{01}$ \eqref{eq-inter01} between both star-products. Actually, we will solve this equation with a general initial condition $f\in L^2(\gR^2)$ to be able to turn it into a multiplier. Note that due to the expression of the Moyal product \eqref{eq-star0}, this equation is not a PDE but it contains integrals. To obtain a PDE, one can first perform a partial Fourier transformation with respect to the variable $\ell$ \begin{equation} \caF_\ell(f)(a,\xi):=\int_{\gR} f(a,\ell)e^{-i\xi \ell}\dd \ell \label{eq-partfourier} \end{equation} Indeed, we compute that \begin{equation*} \caF_\ell(\lambda_F\star^0_{\theta}v)(a,\xi)=\frac12e^{2a+\frac{\theta\xi}{\kappa}}(1+\kappa\partial_\xi^2+\theta(2+\partial_a)\partial_\xi+\frac{\theta^2}{4\kappa}(4+4\partial_a+\partial_a^2))\caF_\ell( v)(a,\xi), \end{equation*} for a function $v \in \caS(\gR^2)$. To simplify this expression, let us also perform the change of variables \begin{equation} \varphi:(a,\xi)\mapsto (\xw,\yw):=\big(a+\frac{\theta}{2\kappa}\xi,a-\frac{\theta}{2\kappa}\xi\big).\label{eq-changevar} \end{equation} We obtain \begin{equation} \partial_t \thatp v_t(\xw,\yw)=\frac{i}{2\theta}e^{2\xw}\Big(1+\frac{\theta^2}{\kappa}(1+\partial_\xw)^2\Big)\thatp v_t(\xw,\yw).\label{eq-fouriersimple} \end{equation} if we denote $\thatp v_t(\xw,\yw)$ the image of the star-exponential $v_t=E_{\star^0_{\theta}}(t\lambda_F)$ by the above transformation $(\varphi^{-1})^*\circ\caF_\ell$. To solve this PDE, we choose a new unknown function $\thatp{u}_t(\xw,\yw)=e^{\xw-\yw}\thatp{v}_t(\xw,\yw)$, and the equation becomes: \begin{equation*} \partial_t \thatp u_t(\xw,\yw)=\frac{i}{2\theta}e^{2\xw}\Big(1+\frac{\theta^2}{\kappa}\partial_\xw^2\Big)\thatp u_t(\xw,\yw). \end{equation*} The corresponding general initial condition is $\thatp u_0(\xw,\yw)=e^{\xw-\yw}\thatp f(\xw,\yw)$, with $\thatp f:=(\varphi^{-1})^*\circ\caF_\ell(f)$ (or take $\thatp f(\xw,\yw)=\frac{2\pi\theta}{\kappa}\delta(\xw-\yw)$ to recover directly the star-exponential). If we change the variables once more $q:=\frac{\sqrt{2\kappa}}{\theta} e^{-\xw}$, we get \begin{displaymath} \partial_t \thatp u_t(q,\yw)=-\frac{i}{\theta}D \thatp u_t(q,\yw),\quad\text{ with }\quad D:=-\partial_q^2-\frac{1}{q}\partial_q-\frac{\kappa}{\theta^2 q^2}. \end{displaymath} The equation of eigenfunctions of $D$ associated to an eigenvalue $\lambda\in\gC$ turns out to be an adaptation of the Bessel equation of order $\frac{i\sqrt\kappa}{\theta}$: \begin{equation} \partial_q^2\varphi+\frac{1}{q}\partial_q\varphi+(\lambda+\frac{\kappa}{\theta^2q^2})\varphi=0.\label{eq-besseleqdiff} \end{equation} The general solution is known (see \cite[p. 97]{Watson:1966}) to be the following linear combination of Bessel functions of the first ($J$) and second ($Y$) kind: \begin{equation*} \varphi(q)=K_1 J_{\frac{i\sqrt\kappa}{\theta}}(\sqrt{\lambda}q)+K_2Y_{\frac{i\sqrt\kappa}{\theta}}(\sqrt{\lambda}q). \end{equation*} \subsection{Description of the functional transformation} \label{subsec-funcdescr} Before applying the initial condition to this solution, we want to have a closer look on the transformation $\thatp f:=(\varphi^{-1})^*\circ\caF_\ell(f)$ with $\caF_\ell$ given by \eqref{eq-partfourier} and $\varphi$ by \eqref{eq-changevar}. It has the form \begin{equation} \thatp f(\xw,\yw)=\int_\gR f(\frac12(\xw+\yw),\ell)e^{-i\frac{\kappa}{\theta}(\xw-\yw)\ell}\dd \ell,\label{eq-transtilde2} \end{equation} with new variables $(\xw,\yw):=\varphi(a,\xi)$ belonging also to $\gR^2$. The star-product $\star_\theta^0$, the complex conjugation and the scalar product can be transported by this functional transformation and we then obtain a (continuous) matrix Hilbert algebra. \begin{proposition} \label{prop-contmatrix} Transported by \eqref{eq-transtilde2}, the Moyal product \eqref{eq-star0}, the complex conjugation, and the scalar product have the form of the standard matrix product, transpose-conjugation and scalar product on continuous matrices. Namely, we have for any $f_1,f_2\in L^2(\gR^2)$, \begin{align} & f_1\thatp\star_\theta f_2(\xw,\yw)=\frac{\kappa}{2\pi\theta}\int_\gR\ f_1(\xw,\eta)f_2(\eta,\yw)\dd\eta,\nonumber\\ & f^*(\xw,\yw)= \overline{f(\yw,\xw)},\label{eq-contmatrix2}\\ &\langle f_1,f_2\rangle=\frac{\kappa^2}{2\pi\theta}\int\ \overline{f_1(\xw,\yw)} f_2(\xw,\yw)\dd \xw\dd \yw.\nonumber \end{align} $(L^2(\gR^2),\thatp\star_\theta)$ is then a Hilbert algebra. \end{proposition} We note $\kM_{\thatp\star_\theta}(\gR^2)$ the corresponding bounded multiplier algebra. Then, the transformation \eqref{eq-transtilde2} extends as a spatial isomorphism of von Neumann algebras $\kM_{\star_\theta^0}(\gR^2)\to\kM_{\thatp\star_\theta}(\gR^2)$. \begin{proof} It is direct to obtain the expression of the product, the involution and the scalar product on $L^2(\gR^2)$. By definition, the transformation \eqref{eq-transtilde2} is a unitary *-isomorphism, so that $(L^2(\gR^2),\thatp\star_\theta)$ is a Hilbert algebra. \end{proof} \subsection{Orthogonality relation} For a real order $\nu\in\gR$, there is a well-known orthogonality relation for Bessel functions given by \begin{equation} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{+}} r J_{\nu}(kr)J_{\nu}(k^{'}r)dr = \frac{\delta (k-k^{'})}{k}, \end{equation} understood in the distributional sense, for $k$ and $k'$ positive. However, this identity does not extend directly to the case of pure imaginary order $\nu$, and involving real Bessel functions. In this section, we will determine such an extension by using the method of Sturm-Liouville expansion \cite{Naimark:1968,Weidmann:1987,Titchmarsh:1962}. This orthogonality relation will be associated to the spectral measure of $D$ which will give directly the star-exponential. To this aim, we consider real Bessel functions corresponding to a pure imaginary order. See \cite{Dunster:1990a} for the definition: \begin{equation*} \tilde J_\nu(q):=\frac{1}{\sinh(\frac{\pi\nu}{2})}\Re(J_{i\nu}(q)),\qquad \tilde Y_\nu(q):=\frac{1}{\sinh(\frac{\pi\nu}{2})}\Re(Y_{i\nu}(q)). \end{equation*} By using the Liouville transformation $\varphi(q)\mapsto \sqrt{q}\varphi(q)$, the extension of Equation \eqref{eq-besseleqdiff} with an arbitrary spectral value $\lambda\in\gC$ becomes \begin{equation} \varphi''(q)+\Big(\lambda+\frac{1}{q^2}(\frac14+\frac{\kappa}{\theta^2})\Big)\varphi(q)=0.\label{eq-besseleqdiff2} \end{equation} We fix $\nu=\frac{\sqrt\kappa}{\theta}$ and consider the case where $\lambda=s^2\geq 0$. Then the real solutions of this equation are $\sqrt{q}\tilde J_\nu(sq)$ and $\sqrt{q}\tilde Y_\nu(sq)$. In the notations of \cite{Titchmarsh:1962}, we look at the following system $(\phi,\vartheta)$ of solutions with conditions \begin{equation*} \phi(a,s^2)=0,\quad \phi'(a,s^2)=-1,\qquad \vartheta(a,s^2)=1,\quad\vartheta'(a,s^2)=0, \end{equation*} for a fixed value of the parameter $a\in\gR_{>0}$. We find \begin{align*} &\phi(q,s^2)=\frac{\pi}{2}\sqrt{aq}\big(\tilde Y_\nu(sa)\tilde J_\nu(sq)-\tilde J_\nu(sa)\tilde Y_\nu(sq)\big),\\ &\vartheta(q,s^2)=\frac{\pi s}{2}\sqrt{aq}\big((\tilde Y'_\nu(sa)+\frac{\tilde Y_\nu(sa)}{2as})\tilde J_\nu(sq)-(\tilde J'_\nu(sa)+\frac{\tilde J_\nu(sa)}{2as})\tilde Y_\nu(sq)\big). \end{align*} In the terminology of the Sturm-Liouville theory, the bound $q=+\infty$ is a limit point case and \begin{equation*} m_2(s^2)=-\frac{1}{2a}-s\Big(\frac{\tilde J'_\nu(sa)+i\tilde Y'_\nu(sa)}{\tilde J_\nu(sa)+i\tilde Y_\nu(sa)}\Big) \end{equation*} is defined such that the continuation of $\vartheta(q,s^2)+m_2(s^2)\phi(q,s^2)$ to $\Im(s)>0$ is in $L^2(a,\infty)$ in the variable $s$. For this, use the asymptotic expansions \begin{equation*} \tilde J_\nu(q)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi q}}\cos(q-\frac{\pi}{4})+O(q^{-\frac32}),\qquad \tilde Y_\nu(q)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi q}}\sin(q-\frac{\pi}{4})+O(q^{-\frac32}). \end{equation*} For the bound $q=0^+$, we are in the limit circle case and \begin{equation*} m_1(s^2)=-\frac{1}{2a}-s\Big(\frac{\tilde Y'_\nu(sa)-2s\nu \tilde J'_\nu(sa)}{\tilde Y_\nu(sa)-2s\nu \tilde J_\nu(sa)}\Big) \end{equation*} corresponds to a well-chosen point of this circle. For $s\geq 0$, $m_1(s^2)$ is real and we have \begin{equation*} -\Im\Big(\frac{1}{m_1(s^2)-m_2(s^2)}\Big)=\frac{\pi a}{2(1+4s^2\nu^2)}(\tilde Y_\nu(sa)-2s\nu \tilde J_\nu(sa))^2. \end{equation*} Consider now the other case for the eigenvalue $\lambda=-s^2<0$ ($s>0$), we can proceed in a similar way by using the solutions $\sqrt{q}\tilde I_\nu(sq)$ and $\sqrt{q}\tilde K_\nu(sq)$, with real functions \cite{Dunster:1990a}: \begin{equation*} \tilde I_\nu(q):=\Re(I_{i\nu}(q)),\qquad \tilde K_\nu(q):=K_{i\nu}(q). \end{equation*} We find explicitly \begin{align*} &\phi(q,-s^2)=\sqrt{aq}\big(\tilde K_\nu(sa)\tilde I_\nu(sq)-\tilde I_\nu(sa)\tilde K_\nu(sq)\big),\\ &\vartheta(q,-s^2)=s\sqrt{aq}\big((\tilde K'_\nu(sa)+\frac{\tilde K_\nu(sa)}{2as})\tilde I_\nu(sq)-(\tilde I'_\nu(sa)+\frac{\tilde I_\nu(sa)}{2as})\tilde K_\nu(sq)\big). \end{align*} Then, \begin{equation*} m_2(-s^2)=-\frac{1}{2a}-\frac{s\tilde K'_\nu(sa)}{\tilde K_\nu(sa)},\qquad m_1(-s^2)=-\frac{1}{2a}-s\Big(\frac{\tilde I'_\nu(sa)+\frac{\sinh(\pi\nu)}{2\pi\nu} \tilde K'_\nu(sa)}{\tilde I_\nu(sa)+\frac{\sinh(\pi\nu)}{2\pi\nu} \tilde K_\nu(sa)}\Big) \end{equation*} so that $-\Im\Big(\frac{1}{m_1(-s^2)-m_2(-s^2)}\Big)=0$. We are now in position to apply Formula (3.1.12) of \cite[page 53]{Titchmarsh:1962} and Formula (3.1.5) of \cite[page 51]{Titchmarsh:1962} to determine the spectral measure of the differential operator involved in Equation \eqref{eq-besseleqdiff2}. We obtain the measure $\frac{\pi a}{2(1+4s^2\nu^2)}(\tilde Y_\nu(sa)-2s\nu \tilde J_\nu(sa))^2\dd\lambda$ for positive spectral values $\lambda=s^2$ and the measure $0$ for negative spectral values. To summarize, we obtained the following result. \begin{theorem} \label{thm-orth} For positive $q,q'$ and real $\nu$, we have the following orthogonality relation \begin{equation} \int_0^\infty\big(\tilde Y_\nu(sq)-2s\nu \tilde J_\nu(sq)\big)\big(\tilde Y_\nu(sq')-2s\nu \tilde J_\nu(sq')\big)\frac{s}{1+4s^2\nu^2}\dd s=\frac{1}{\sqrt{qq'}}\delta(q-q'),\label{eq-orthbessel} \end{equation} understood in the distributional sense. \end{theorem} \subsection{Construction of the star-exponential} \label{subsec-unique} \begin{remark} The operator $D=-\partial_q^2-\frac{1}{q}\partial_q-\frac{\kappa}{\theta^2 q^2}$ defined on $\caD(\gR)$ admits selfadjoint extensions, since its defect indices are equal by Sturm-Liouville theory. Such a selfadjoint extension, also denoted by $D$, can be decomposed with its spectral measure. \end{remark} Let us determine the spectral measure of $D$. We saw in Theorem \ref{thm-orth} what is the spectral measure of the operator $-\partial_q^2-\frac{1}{q^2}(\frac14+\frac{\kappa}{\theta^2})$: the orthogonality relation indeed corresponds to the resolution of the identity of this operator. So we deduce that the kernel of this operator is given by the same spectral integral, but with multiplication by the eigenvalue $s^2$: \begin{equation*} K'(q,q')=\int_0^\infty s^2\sqrt{qq'}A_{\frac{\sqrt\kappa}{\theta}}(q,s)A_{\frac{\sqrt\kappa}{\theta}}(q',s)\frac{s}{1+\frac{4\kappa s^2}{\theta^2}}\dd s \end{equation*} where we set $A_{\frac{\sqrt\kappa}{\theta}}(q,s):=\tilde Y_{\frac{\sqrt\kappa}{\theta}}(sq)-2s \frac{\sqrt\kappa}{\theta} \tilde J_{\frac{\sqrt\kappa}{\theta}}(sq)$. To get the operator $D$, we perform the inverse Liouville transformation, which consists here to intertwin this operator by the multiplication operator $\frac{1}{\sqrt q}$; so that the kernel of $D$ is \begin{equation*} K_D(q,q')=q'\int_0^\infty A_{\frac{\sqrt\kappa}{\theta}}(q,s)A_{\frac{\sqrt\kappa}{\theta}}(q',s)\frac{s^3}{1+\frac{4\kappa s^2}{\theta^2}}\dd s. \end{equation*} Note that for any measurable function $f$ on $\gR_+$, we have the explicit expression of the functional calculus $f(D)$, with kernel \begin{equation*} K_{f(D)}(q,q')=q'\int_0^\infty A_{\frac{\sqrt\kappa}{\theta}}(q,s)A_{\frac{\sqrt\kappa}{\theta}}(q',s)\frac{s f(s^2)}{1+\frac{4\kappa s^2}{\theta^2}}\dd s. \end{equation*} Since $\thatp u_t(q,\yw)=e^{-\frac{i}{\theta}tD}\thatp u_0(q,\yw)$, we obtain \begin{equation*} \thatp u_t(q,\yw)=\int_0^\infty q'\int_0^\infty e^{-\frac{i}{\theta}ts^2} A_{\frac{\sqrt\kappa}{\theta}}(q,s)A_{\frac{\sqrt\kappa}{\theta}}(q',s)\thatp u_0(q',\yw)\frac{s}{1+\frac{4\kappa s^2}{\theta^2}}\dd s\dd q'. \end{equation*} We change the variables $q=\frac{\sqrt{2\kappa}}{\theta} e^{-\xw}$ and $q'=\frac{\sqrt{2\kappa}}{\theta} e^{-\eta}$, and the function $\thatp v_t(\xw,\yw)=e^{-\xw+\yw}\thatp u_t(\xw,\yw)$: \begin{equation} \thatp v_t(\xw,\yw)=\frac{2\kappa}{\theta^2}\int_\gR \int_0^\infty e^{-\frac{i}{\theta}ts^2} e^{-\xw-\eta} A_{\frac{\sqrt\kappa}{\theta}}(\frac{\sqrt{2\kappa}}{\theta}e^{-\xw},s)A_{\frac{\sqrt\kappa}{\theta}}(\frac{\sqrt{2\kappa}}{\theta}e^{-\eta},s)\thatp f(\eta,\yw)\frac{s}{1+\frac{4\kappa s^2}{\theta^2}}\dd s\dd \eta.\label{eq-solution} \end{equation} The next result summarizes this section by giving the explicit expression of the non-formal star-exponential of $\lambda_F$. \begin{theorem} \label{thm-starexpbessel} After transformation \eqref{eq-transtilde2}, the star-exponential of $\lambda_F$ is the multiplier associated to the function \begin{equation*} E_{\thatp\star_\theta}(\frac{i}{\theta}t\lambda_F)(\xw,\yw)=\frac{4\pi}{\theta}e^{-\xw-\yw}\int_{\gR_+} \,e^{-\frac{i}{\theta}s^2t} A_{\frac{\sqrt\kappa}{\theta}}(\frac{\sqrt{2\kappa}}{\theta}e^{-\xw},s) A_{\frac{\sqrt\kappa}{\theta}}(\frac{\sqrt{2\kappa}}{\theta}e^{-\yw},s)\frac{s}{1+\frac{4\kappa s^2}{\theta^2}}\dd s. \end{equation*} \end{theorem} \begin{proof} We saw in Proposition \ref{prop-contmatrix} that $(L^2(\gR^2),\thatp\star_\theta)$ is a Hilbert algebra isomorphic to $(L^2(\gR^2),\star_\theta^0)$ where the star-exponential of $\lambda_F$ exists and is well-defined (see section \ref{subsec-starprod}). So, the star-exponential $E_{\thatp\star_\theta}(\frac{i}{\theta}t\lambda_F)$ is also well-defined as a bounded multiplier and it satisfies Equation \eqref{eq-fouriersimple}. More precisely, the left multiplication by the star-exponential $E_{\thatp\star_\theta}(\frac{i}{\theta}t\lambda_F)\thatp \star_\theta \thatp f$ satisfies Equation \eqref{eq-fouriersimple} with initial condition $\thatp f$. Since $e^{-\frac{i}{\theta}tD}$ is a unitary operator, we see directly that \eqref{eq-solution} is a bounded solution of \eqref{eq-fouriersimple}: $\norm \thatp v_t\norm=\norm \thatp f\norm$. And it is straightforward to show that it is also the left part of a multiplier (see $L$ in \eqref{eq-multiplier2}): $\thatp v_t(\thatp f_1\thatp\star_\theta\thatp f_2)=\thatp v_t(\thatp f_1)\thatp\star_\theta\thatp f_2$. By uniqueness of the star-exponential, we deduce that \eqref{eq-solution} corresponds exactly to $E_{\thatp\star_\theta}(\frac{i}{\theta}t\lambda_F)\thatp \star_\theta \thatp f$. \end{proof} This star-exponential, or more precisely its image by the intetwining operator from $\hat\star_\theta$ to $\star_\theta^1$, then corresponds to the geometric information that we wanted to compute for the moment $\lambda_F$, and to realize on the (local) contraction of $AdS_2$ for its natural star-product $\star_\theta^1$. We want now to express its link with the principal series representations. \section{Link with principal series representations} \label{sec-principal} An application of \cite{Cahen:1996st} to the group $SL_2(\gR)$ gives the star-exponential of this group for another star-product in terms of the principal series representations. This other star-product actually coincides with the Moyal-Weyl product on another coordinate chart $\Psi_\kappa$ (see also \cite{Bieliavsky:1999st}). We present here this chart $\Psi_\kappa$, we give also another method as in \cite{Cahen:1996st} to obtain the expression of the star-exponential and we then show that it is not only a distribution but an element of the von Neumann algebra of the multipliers as in section \ref{subsec-unique}. \subsection{Another coordinate chart} To express the star-exponential of the $SL(2,\gR)$, for a certain star-product on (a part) of its adjoint orbit, as the principal series representation, we need to deal with a coordinate system different from the one $\Phi_\kappa$ used in section \ref{subsec-orbit}. For $\kappa >0$, we consider $H_{\kappa}:= \sqrt{\kappa}H$ in the adjoint orbit $\mathcal{O}_{\kappa}$. Let us define the coordinate system $\Psi_{\kappa} : \gR^2 \rightarrow \mathcal{O}_{\kappa}$ by \begin{equation*} \Psi_\kappa(x E + y F):= \Ad_{e^{x E}e^{y F}}(H_{\kappa})=\sqrt{\kappa}(1+2x y)H - 2 \sqrt{\kappa} x (1+x y)E + 2 \sqrt{\kappa} yF. \end{equation*} $\Psi_{\kappa}$ is also a Darboux chart and its image corresponds to the whole Anti-deSitter space except one line. The KKS form is $\omega^\Psi:=\Psi_{\kappa}^*\omega_z^{\mathcal{O}_{\kappa}}=\sqrt{\kappa}\dd x\wedge\dd y$. The image of $\Psi_\kappa$ is not invariant under the action of $SL(2,\gR)$ but it is for the action of the subgroup $\gS$. In this chart, this action of $\gS$ can be written \begin{equation} \Ad_{e^{aH}e^{\ell E}}\Psi_{\kappa}(xE+yF)=\Psi_{\kappa}((x+\ell)e^{2a}E+ye^{-2a}F).\label{eq-actsq} \end{equation} The image of $\Psi_\kappa$ contains exactly the one of $\Phi_\kappa$, the one of $\Phi'_\kappa$ and the line $\{\sqrt\kappa (H-2xE),\ x\in\gR\}$ (see Figure \ref{fig-AdS-habit}). One has in particular the following change of coordinates $j_{\kappa} := \Psi_{\kappa}^{-1} \circ \Phi_{\kappa}:\gR^2\to\gR\times\gR_+^*$ between the systems $\Phi_\kappa$ and $\Psi_\kappa$: \begin{equation} \label{eq-changej} j_{\kappa}(aH+\ell E)=(\ell-\frac{1}{\sqrt{\kappa}})e^{2a}E+\frac{\sqrt{\kappa}}{2}e^{-2a}F. \end{equation} The moment maps $\lambda$ for the action of $G$ expressed in the coordinate system $\Psi_\kappa$ are \begin{equation*} \lambda_H(x,y)=\sqrt{\kappa}(1+2x y),\qquad \lambda_E(x,y)=\sqrt{\kappa}y,\qquad \lambda_F(x,y)=-\sqrt{\kappa}x (1+x y). \end{equation*} The part of the adjoint orbit corresponding to the coordinate system $\Psi_\kappa$ is symplectomorphic to $\gR^2$ with symplectic form $\sqrt\kappa\dd x\wedge\dd y$, so that we can consider the Moyal product. It has the expression: for $f_1,f_2\in\mathcal{S}(\gR^2)$, \begin{equation} \big(f_1\sharp_\theta f_2\big)(x,y):=\frac{\kappa}{\pi^2\theta^2}\int f_1(x_1,y_1) f_2(x_2,y_2) e^{\frac{-2i\sqrt{\kappa}}{\theta} (x_1y_2-x_2y_1+x_2y-xy_2+xy_1-x_1y)} \dd x_i\dd y_i\label{eq-sharp} \end{equation} Note that this Moyal product in this coordinate system is very different from \eqref{eq-star0} as you have to use the change of coordinates $j_\kappa$ \eqref{eq-changej}. The asymptotic expansion of \eqref{eq-sharp} writes \begin{equation*} \big(f_1\sharp_\theta f_2\big)(x,y)\sim \exp\Big(\frac{-i\theta}{2\sqrt{\kappa}}(\partial_{x_1}\partial_{y_2}-\partial_{y_1}\partial_{x_2})\Big)f_1(x_1,y_1)f_2(x_2,y_2)|_{x_1=x_2=x,\ y_1=y_2=y}. \end{equation*} The star-product $\sharp_\theta$ is also $\gS$-invariant and $\kg$-covariant, so that the star-exponential $E_{\sharp_\theta}(\frac{i}{\theta}\lambda_X)$ ($X\in\kg$) is well defined in the bounded multipliers $\kM_{\sharp_\theta}(\gR^2)$ of the Hilbert algebra $(L^2(\gR^2),\sharp_\theta)$. \subsection{Resolution of the equation} \label{subsec-starexppsi} Let us find the explicit expression of the star-exponential $E_{\sharp_\theta}(\frac{i}{\theta}\lambda_X)$ as before. We will see that in this coordinate chart, the equations will be easier and one can solve them for arbitrary $X\in\kg$. For $X=\alpha H +\beta E +\gamma F$ in $\kg$, the defining equation of the star-exponential of $\lambda_X$ is given by \begin{equation} \partial_t v_t(x,y)=\frac{i}{\theta}\lambda_X\sharp_{\theta} v_t(x,y). \label{eq-defstarexp} \end{equation} As before, we take a general initial condition $v_0(x,y)=f(x,y)$, with $f\in L^2(\gR^2)$. Let us use the same functional transformation $v\mapsto \that v$ \eqref{eq-transtilde2} as before to obtain a PDE. After the partial Fourier transformation in the variable $y$, we change the coordinates into \begin{equation*} \xz=x+\frac{\theta }{2\sqrt{\kappa}}\xi,\qquad \yz=x-\frac{\theta }{2\sqrt{\kappa}}\xi, \end{equation*} with $(\xz,\yz)\in\gR^2$ (note that there is a change of normalization with respect to \eqref{eq-transtilde2}). Then, we can compute partial Fourier transform of the left multiplication by moment maps: \begin{itemize} \item $\mathcal{F}_y\big(\lambda_H\sharp_\theta v\big)(x,\xi)=(\sqrt{\kappa}+i\theta)\that{v} + 2i\theta \xz\partial_\xz \that{v}(\xz,\yz)$, \item $\mathcal{F}_y\big(\lambda_E\sharp_\theta v\big)(x,\xi)=i\theta \partial_\xz \that{v}$, and \item $\mathcal{F}_y\big(\lambda_F\sharp_\theta v\big)(x,\xi)=-(\sqrt{\kappa}+i\theta)\xz\that{v} -i\theta\xz^{2}\partial_\xz\that{v}$. \end{itemize} Then, Equation \eqref{eq-defstarexp} becomes a PDE of order 1: \begin{equation} \partial_t \that v_t(\xz,\yz) =\frac{i}{\theta} \Big( \alpha (\sqrt{\kappa} + i\theta) + 2i\alpha \theta \xz \partial_\xz + i \beta \theta \partial_\xz -\gamma (\sqrt{\kappa}+i\theta)\xz -i\theta\gamma \xz^2 \partial_\xz \Big) \that v_t(\xz,\yz).\label{eq-defstarexp2} \end{equation} Let us concentrate on the part of order one in the derivatives of this equation. It is given by \begin{equation*} \partial_t\that u_t(\xz,\yz)=\big(-2\alpha \xz -\beta + \gamma \xz^2 \big) \partial_\xz \that u_t(\xz,\yz), \end{equation*} together with the initial data $\that u_0(\xz,\yz)=\that{f}(\xz,\yz)$. We look for the integral curves $Y(t,\xz)$ of the vector field $(-\beta -2\alpha \xz + \gamma \xz^2)\partial_\xz$ with initial condition $Y(0)=\xz$; they satisfy the following equation: \begin{equation*} \frac{\dd Y}{\dd t}=-\beta-2\alpha Y+ \gamma Y^2. \end{equation*} The solutions are $Y(t,\xz)=M(t).\xz$ where the stereographic action of $SL(2,\gR)$ is given by \begin{equation} \begin{pmatrix} a& b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix}.\xz:=\frac{a\xz-c}{-b\xz+d},\label{eq-steract} \end{equation} $\tau:=\sqrt{\alpha^2+\beta\gamma}$ and the matrix \begin{equation*} M(t):=\begin{pmatrix} \cosh(\tau t)-\frac{\alpha}{\tau}\sinh(\tau t)& \frac{\gamma}{\tau}\sinh(\tau t) \\ \frac{\beta}{\tau}\sinh(\tau t) & \cosh(\tau t)+\frac{\alpha}{\tau}\sinh(\tau t) \end{pmatrix} =e^{-\alpha tH+\gamma tE+\beta tF}, \end{equation*} with $X=\alpha H+\beta E+\gamma F$. So we have $M(t)=\sigma(e^{tX})$ where \begin{equation*} \sigma \begin{pmatrix} a& b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix}:=\begin{pmatrix} d& c \\ b & a \end{pmatrix}. \end{equation*} is a group automorphism and an involution. At the end, we obtain the solution of the order 1 part of the PDE as \begin{equation*} \that u_t(\xz,\yz)=\that f(M(t).\xz,\yz). \end{equation*} We come now to the general equation \eqref{eq-defstarexp2}. If we try the Ansatz $\that{v}_t=\rho_t \that u_t$ where $\that u_t$ was determined just above, and $\rho_t$ depends on the variable $\xz$ only and with the initial condition $\rho_0(\xz)\equiv 1$, we find the following equation for $\rho_t$: \begin{equation*} \partial_t\rho_t = \Big( (-\beta -2\alpha \xz + \gamma \xz^2 )\partial_\xz +\frac{i}{\theta}(\sqrt{\kappa} + i\theta)(\alpha -\gamma \xz)\Big) \rho_t (\xz). \end{equation*} Let us choose new coordinates: \begin{equation*} t' =t,\qquad \xz'=Y(t,\xz)=M(t).\xz. \end{equation*} Therefore, $\partial_{t'}=\partial_t+(\beta + 2\alpha \xz - \gamma \xz^2)\partial_\xz$. This gives the following equation on $\rho_t$, in the new coordinates \begin{equation*} \partial_{t'}\rho_{t'}(\xz')=\frac{i}{\theta}(\sqrt{\kappa}+ i\theta) (\alpha - \gamma M(t')^{-1}.\xz')\rho_{t'}(\xz'), \end{equation*} which admits as solution the function $\rho$ given by \begin{equation*} \rho_{t'}(\xz')=\exp\Big( -(1-\frac{i\sqrt\kappa}{\theta})(\alpha t'-\gamma \int_0^{t'} M(s)^{-1}.\xz'\dd s))\Big). \end{equation*} This yields the following expression for the solution: \begin{equation*} \that v_t(\xz,\yz)=\exp\Big( -(1-\frac{i\sqrt\kappa}{\theta})(\alpha t-\gamma \int_0^{t} M(s).\xz\, \dd s) \Big) \that{f}(M(t).\xz,\yz). \end{equation*} A long but straightforward computation shows that \begin{multline*} \int_0^{t} M(s).\xz\dd s=\int_0^{t}\frac{(\cosh(\tau s)-\frac{\alpha}{\tau}\sinh(\tau s))\xz-\frac{\beta}{\tau}\sinh(\tau s)}{-\frac{\gamma}{\tau}\sinh(\tau s)\xz+\cosh(\tau s)+\frac{\alpha}{\tau}\sinh(\tau s)}\dd s\\ =\frac{1}{\gamma}(\alpha t-\log\Big(\cosh(\tau t)+\frac{\alpha-\gamma \xz}{\tau}\sinh(\tau t)\Big)). \end{multline*} Then, the solution takes the form \begin{equation*} \that v_t(\xz,\yz)=\Big| \cosh(\tau t)+\frac{\alpha-\gamma \xz}{\tau}\sinh(\tau t)\Big|^{-(1-\frac{i\sqrt\kappa}{\theta})}\that{f}(M(t).\xz,\yz)=\Big((\caP^{+,i\mu}(M(t))\otimes\text{id})\that f\Big)(\xz,\yz) \end{equation*} where $\caP^{+,i\mu}$ denotes the principal series representation of the group $SL(2,\gR)$: \begin{equation} \mathcal{P}^{+,i\mu} \begin{pmatrix} a&b\\c&d \end{pmatrix} f(\xz) = \vert -b\xz+d\vert^{-1-i\mu} f(\frac{a\xz-c}{-b\xz+d}),\label{eq-princseries} \end{equation} the parameter is $\mu:=-\frac{\sqrt\kappa}{\theta}$ and the left (resp. right) part of the tensor product acts on the variable $\xz$ (resp. $\yz$). We obtained here a simple solution of the Equation \eqref{eq-defstarexp2} in terms of the principal series representation and of $M(t)=\sigma(e^{tX})$. Up to differences of notations, it coincides with the star-exponential of \cite{Cahen:1996st}. \subsection{Star-exponential as principal series} We denote by \begin{equation*} \that L_{tX}(\that f)(\xz,\yz)=\Big((\caP^{+,i\mu}(\sigma(e^{tX}))\otimes\text{id})\that f\Big)(\xz,\yz) \end{equation*} the previous solution to take into account the dependence in the initial condition $f\in L^2(\gR^2)$. Let us identify it with the left multiplication by the non-formal star-exponential $E_{\that\sharp_\theta}(\frac{i}{\theta}t\lambda_X)\that\sharp_\theta\that f$. We can prove directly that this solution is a bounded multiplier. \begin{lemma} \label{lem-multstarexppsi} For $X\in\kg$, the solution $\that L_{tX}$ corresponds to a unitary multiplier in $\kM_{\that\sharp_\theta}(\gR^2)$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} For any $\that f\in L^2(\gR^2)$ and fixed $t$, we write $M(t)=\begin{pmatrix} a&b\\c&d \end{pmatrix}$ and the unitarity condition is obtained by \begin{multline*} \norm \that L_{tX}(\that f)\norm^2=\frac{\kappa}{2\pi\theta}\int |\that L_X(\that f)(\xz,\yz)|^2\dd\xz\dd\yz =\frac{\kappa}{2\pi\theta}\int |-b\xz+d|^{-2}|\that f(M(t).\xz,\yz)|^2\dd\xz\dd\yz\\ =\frac{\kappa}{2\pi\theta}\int |\that f(\xz',\yz)|^2\dd\xz'\dd\yz=\norm \that f\norm^2, \end{multline*} if we perform the change of variable $\xz'=M(t).\xz$ of Jacobian $|-b\xz+d|^{-2}$. To prove that $\that L_{tX}$ is the left part of a multiplier, just check that \begin{equation*} \that L_{tX}(\that f_1\that\sharp_\theta \that f_2)(\xz,\yz)=|-b\xz+d|^{-1+i\frac{\sqrt\kappa}{\theta}} \frac{\sqrt\kappa}{2\pi\theta}\int \that f_1(M(t).\xz,\eta)\that f_2(\eta,\yz)\dd\eta= \that L_{tX}(\that f_1) \that\sharp_\theta \that f_2(\xz,\yz) \end{equation*} \end{proof} \begin{theorem} For any $X\in\kg$, the solution $\that L_{tX}$ given in terms of the principal series representation coincides with the non-formal star-exponential $E_{\that\sharp_\theta}(\frac{i}{\theta}t\lambda_X)$. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} There are two ways to prove this identification. First, one can proceed as in section \ref{subsec-unique}. The operators $(\sqrt{\kappa}+i\theta)+ 2i\theta \xz\partial_\xz$, $i\theta \partial_\xz$ and $-(\sqrt{\kappa}+i\theta)\xz -i\theta\xz^{2}\partial_\xz$ are symmetric, which proves the uniqueness of the solution of the defining equation. And it has to identify with the star-exponential also satisfying this equation. We sketch the other method. By Lemma \ref{lem-multstarexppsi}, the solution $\that L_{tX}(\that f)$ is a unitary multiplier. In a similar way, one can show that $t\mapsto \that L_{tX}(\that f)$ is a strongly continuous one-parameter group valued in the unitary multipliers, so that the Stone theorem applies and this group is the exponential of a anti-selfadjoint operator. By using the defining equation, we conclude that this generator is $\frac{i}{\theta}\lambda_X$ and that this one-parameter group is the non-formal star-exponential. \end{proof} Note that the BCH property is a consequence of the fact that the principal series is a representation. Moreover, this fact implies also that the star-exponential can be defined at the level of the group $G=SL(2,\gR)$. Setting $\caE_{\that\sharp_\theta}(e^{tX}):=E_{\that\sharp_\theta}(t\lambda_X)$, we have the following result showing a better regularity than in \cite{Cahen:1996st}. \begin{proposition} \label{prop-bchpsi} The star-exponential at the level of the group $G$ is a continuous map \begin{equation*} \caE_{\that\sharp_\theta}:G\to\kM_{\that\sharp_\theta}(\gR^2) \end{equation*} for the weak topology of $\kM_{\that\sharp_\theta}(\gR^2)$, as well as a group homomorphism. \end{proposition} \begin{proof} First, due to the expressions of $\that L_{tX}$ in terms of the principal series, the star-exponential $\caE_{\that\sharp_\theta}(e^{tX}):=E_{\that\sharp_\theta}(t\lambda_X)$ induces a well-defined map $\caE_{\that\sharp_\theta}:G\to\kM_{\that\sharp_\theta}(\gR^2)$ that takes the form \begin{equation} \caE_{\that\sharp_\theta}(g)\that\sharp_\theta \that f= (\caP^{+,-i\frac{\sqrt\kappa}{\theta}}(\sigma(g))\otimes\text{id})\that f,\label{eq-expr1starexp} \end{equation} for any $g\in G$ and $\that f\in L^2(\gR^2)$. Since $\sigma$ is an automorphism and $\caP^+$ is a continuous representation (for the weak topology), we deduce that the left multiplication is continuous in the variable $g\in G$. Group homomorphism property is a translation of the BCH property at the level of the group. \end{proof} \section{Computing intertwining operators} \label{sec-inter} In section \ref{sec-direct}, we obtained the non-formal star-exponential of $\lambda_H$, $\lambda_E$ and $\lambda_F$ in the natural coordinate chart $\Phi_\kappa$ associated to the contraction of $G=SL(2,\gR)$, and for the Moyal star-product $\star_\theta^0$. In order to link it to the principal series, we saw in section \ref{sec-principal} the star-exponential of any generator $\lambda_X$ in the other coordinate chart $\Psi_\kappa$ and for the Moyal product $\sharp_\theta$ of this other coordinate chart, and we were able to obtain this star-exponential at the level of the group $G$. Now, we would like to compare these two expressions of the star-exponential. To this aim, we have to find a (unitary) intertwining operator $W$ between the Moyal product $\sharp_\theta$ on $\Psi_\kappa$ and the Moyal product $\star_\theta^0$ (or equivalently the product $\star_\theta^1$ related by $T_{01}$) on $\Phi_\kappa$. We give here three different methods to find explicitly such an intertwiner. We expose these three methods because they are somehow general ways to obtain explicit intertwiners between star-products and we believe they can be used in various different contexts. \subsection{Method via quantizations} \label{subsec-retractqu} Let us expose the first method that uses quantization map associated to the star-products. More precisely, the star-products $\sharp_\theta$ and $\star_\theta^1$ have associated quantization maps $\Omega$ and $\Omega^1$, which are both equivariant under a common symmetry $\gS$. Then, taking the inverse of one quantization map composed with the other quantization map (presented on the same Hilbert space) gives the intertwiner. This method comes from ideas of retract with shared symmetry. \subsubsection{Quantization of $\sharp_\theta$} First, we want to express the quantization map associated to $\sharp_\theta$ on the chart defined by $\Psi_\kappa$. The Moyal product is of course associated to the Weyl quantization. However, in order to see the equivariance of this quantization with respect to a larger group of symmetry, let us proceed as below. Indeed, the shared symmetry $\gS$ will be part of the translation group and also part of symplectic group for which the Weyl quantization is also equivariant. Let $\mathfrak{H}=\gR^2\times\gR$ be the Heisenberg group. We denote by $e_0,e_1$ the generators of the $\gR^2$-part and $Z$ the generator of its center. Let $\underline H,\underline E, \underline F$ the generators of $Sp(2,\gR)$ acting linearly (by matrix action) on $(\gR^2,\sqrt\kappa \dd x\wedge\dd y)$. We denote by $\underline\gS$ the subgroup of $Sp(2,\gR)\ltimes \mathfrak{H}$ generated by $\underline H$ and $e_0$, which is isomorphic to $\gS$, and by $\underline G$ the one generated by $\underline H,\underline E, e_0,e_1,Z$. We have the following relations: \begin{align} &[\underline{H},\underline{E}]=4\underline{E} & [\underline{H},\underline{F}]=-4\underline{F}\nonumber\\ &[\underline{H},e_0]=2e_0 &[\underline{H},e_1]=-2e_1 \nonumber\\ &[\underline{E},e_1]=e_0 &[e_0,e_1]=Z.\label{eq-comrelundg} \end{align} We denote $\tilde{\underline G}=\gR\underline H\ltimes\ehH$, it is a subgroup of $\underline G$. Let \begin{equation*} (a,q,v,t):=(\begin{pmatrix} e^{2a} &0 \\ 0& e^{-2a} \end{pmatrix}, qe_0+ve_1,tZ) \end{equation*} a coordinate system of $\tilde {\underline G}$ and the group law yields in this coordinate system: \begin{equation*} (a,q,v,t)\fois (a',q',v',t')=(a+a',e^{-2a'}q+q',e^{2a'}v+v',t+t'+\frac12(e^{-2a'}qv'-e^{2a'}vq')). \end{equation*} The coadjoint orbit $\tilde\caO_\kappa$ of this group associated to the form $\sqrt\kappa Z^\ast$ can be expressed as \begin{equation*} \Ad^\ast_{(a,q,v,t)}(\sqrt\kappa Z^\ast)=\sqrt\kappa\Big(2qv\underline H^\ast-ve^{-2a}e_0^\ast+qe^{2a}e_1^\ast+Z^\ast\Big). \end{equation*} We see that $(q'=e^{2a}q,v'=e^{-2a}v)$ forms a coordinate system of the two-dimensional space $\tilde\caO_\kappa$. The KKS form is $\sqrt\kappa \dd q'\wedge\dd v'$. The action of an element $(a,\ell):=e^{a\underline H}e^{\ell e_0}$ of $\underline\gS\subset\tilde {\underline G}$ on $\tilde\caO_\kappa$ can be read in this chart as $(a,\ell)\fois (q',v')=((\ell+q')e^{2a},v'e^{-2a})$, which is the same as \eqref{eq-actsq}, so that this coadjoint orbit $\tilde\caO_\kappa$ coincides $\gS$-equivariantly with the symplectic space $(\gR^2,\sqrt\kappa \dd x\wedge \dd y)$ corresponding to the chart $\Psi_\kappa$ of the adjoint orbit $\caO_\kappa$ of $G=SL(2,\gR)$. We use Kirillov's orbits method to construct a representation of $\tilde {\underline G}$. $\kb:=\langle \underline H,e_1,Z\rangle$ is a polarization affiliated to this coadjoint orbit, and $\chi(a,0,v,t)=e^{i\frac{\sqrt\kappa}{\theta} Z^\ast(\log(a,0,v,t))}=e^{i\frac{\sqrt\kappa}{\theta} t}$ on the subgroup $B$ generated by $\underline H,e_1,Z$. We denote $Q=\tilde G/B\simeq \gR e_0$. The induced representation comes from the left regular representation acting on $B$-equivariant smooth functions. Since the measure $\dd q$ is not $\tilde {\underline G}$-invariant, the representation has to be corrected by some weight to be unitary. It is given by $U:\tilde{\underline G}\to \caL(L^2(Q))$ with \begin{equation} U(a,q,v,t)\varphi(q_0)=e^{-a}e^{i\frac{\sqrt\kappa}{\theta}\Big(t+\frac12qv-e^{-2a}q_0v\Big)}\varphi(e^{-2a}q_0-q).\label{eq-schro} \end{equation} We can reduce it to the group $\underline\gS$: $U(a,q,0,0)\varphi(q_0)=e^{-a}\varphi(e^{-2a}q_0-q)$. One can also introduce an involution on $\tilde {\underline G}$ by \begin{equation*} \sigma(a,q,v,t)=(a,-q,-v,t) \end{equation*} which is compatible with the polarization. Then, the Weyl-type quantizer \cite{Bieliavsky:2010kg} is a map $\Omega:\tilde {\underline G}\to\caL(L^2(Q))$ defined by \begin{equation*} \Omega(a,q,v,t)\varphi(q_0)=U(a,q,v,t)\sigma^\ast U(a,q,v,t)^{-1}\varphi(q_0)= e^{\frac{2i\sqrt\kappa}{\theta}(qv-e^{-2a}q_0v)}\varphi(2e^{2a}q-q_0), \end{equation*} which is $\tilde {\underline G}$-equivariant (and therefore $\underline\gS$-equivariant). We can notice that this map is actually well-defined on the coadjoint orbit $\tilde\caO_\kappa$ (take coordinates $(q'=e^{2a}q,v'=e^{-2a}v)$). As expected, the quantization map $\Omega:L^1(\tilde\caO_\kappa)\to\caL(L^2(Q))$ defined by \begin{equation} \Omega(f)\varphi(q_0):=\frac{\sqrt\kappa}{\pi\theta}\int_{\tilde\caO_\kappa} f(q',v') \Omega(q',v')\dd q'\dd v'\label{eq-quweyl} \end{equation} coincides exactly with the Weyl quantization. We know in particular that $\tr(\Omega(f)\Omega(a,q,v,t))=\frac12 f(e^{2a}q,e^{-2a}v)$ and that $\Omega(f_1\sharp_\theta f_2)=\Omega(f_1)\Omega(f_2)$. \subsubsection{Quantization of $\star^1_{\theta}$} We recall here results from \cite{Bieliavsky:2010kg}. There are two inequivalent irreducible induced representations in the unitary dual of $\gS$. They can be obtained by the method of coadjoint orbits due to Kirillov, with $\ee=\pm1$: \begin{equation} U_\ee^1(a,\ell)\varphi(a_0)= e^{\frac{i\kappa\ee}{2\theta}e^{2(a-a_0)}\ell}\varphi(a_0-a),\label{eq-unitindrep} \end{equation} for $(a,\ell)\in \gS$, $\varphi\in L^2(A_\ee)$ and $a_0\in A_\ee$, where we denote by $A_\ee$ the subgroup generated by $H$ of Lie algebra $\ka_\ee$, and the sign $\ee$ on $A_\ee$ is just an indication of the chosen representation. These representations $U_\ee^1:\gS\to\caL(L^2(A_\ee))$ are unitary and irreducible. A weight $\bfm$ is a function on $A_\ee$. There is a particular weight: \begin{equation} \bfm_0(a)=2\sqrt{\cosh(2a)}.\label{eq-multiplier} \end{equation} The symmetric structure of $\gS$ comes from the involutive automorphism $\sigma$ which can be restricted to $A_\ee$: \begin{equation} \sigma^\ast\varphi(a)=\varphi(-a).\label{eq-sigma} \end{equation} Then, for $\bfm$ a weight with $\bfm(0)=1$, the Weyl-type quantizer is given by \begin{multline} \Omega^1_{\ee}(a,\ell)\varphi(a_0):=U_\ee^1(a,\ell)\bfm\bfm_0\sigma^\ast U_\ee^1(a,\ell)^{-1}\varphi(a_0)\\ =2\sqrt{\cosh(2(a-a_0))} \bfm(a-a0) e^{\frac{i\kappa\ee}{\theta}\sinh(2(a-a_0))\ell}\varphi(2a-a_0).\label{eq-qumap} \end{multline} On smooth functions with compact support, one has the quantization map $\Omega^1_{\ee}:\caD(\gS)\to\caL(L^2(A_\ee))$ \begin{equation*} \Omega^1_{\ee}(f):=\frac{\kappa}{2\pi\theta}\int_\gS f(a,\ell)\Omega_{\ee}(a,\ell)\dd a\dd \ell. \end{equation*} The normalization was chosen such that $\Omega^1_{\ee}(1)=\gone$. Moreover, it is $\gS$-equivariant, that is \begin{equation*} \forall (a,\ell)\in \gS\quad:\quad \Omega^1_{\ee}((a,\ell)^* f)= U_\ee^1(a,\ell) \Omega^1_{\ee}(f) U_\ee^1(a,\ell)^{-1}. \end{equation*} Moreover, the unitary representation $U_\ee^1:\gS\to\caL(L^2(A_\ee))$ induces a resolution of the identity. Indeed, by denoting the norm $\norm\varphi\norm^2_w:=\int |\varphi(a)|^2e^{2a}\dd a$ and $\varphi_{(a,\ell)}(a_0)=U_\ee^1(a,\ell)\varphi(a_0)$ for $(a,\ell)\in\gS$ and $\varphi\in L^2(A_\ee)$ (such that this norm exists and does not vanish), we have \begin{equation*} \frac{\kappa}{2\pi\theta\norm\varphi\norm^2_w}\int_\gS |\varphi_{(a,\ell)}\rangle\langle\varphi_{(a,\ell)}|\dd a\dd \ell=\gone. \end{equation*} This resolution of identity shows that the trace has the form \begin{equation} \tr(T)=\frac{\kappa}{2\pi\theta\norm\varphi\norm^2_w}\int_\gS \langle\varphi_{(a,\ell)}, T\varphi_{(a,\ell)}\rangle\dd a\dd \ell\label{eq-tracesymb} \end{equation} for $T\in\caL^1(L^2(A_\ee))$. As for the Weyl quantization, there is a left-inverse of the quantization map $\Omega_{\ee}^1$ given by the formula \begin{equation*} \forall f\in L^1(\gS),\ \forall (a,\ell)\in\gS\quad:\quad \tr(\Omega_{\ee}^1(f) \Omega_{\ee}^1(a,\ell))=f(a,\ell), \end{equation*} if the weight is unitary: $|\bfm(a)|=1$. This quantization is compatible with the star-product: $\Omega_{\ee}(f_1\star_{\ee\theta,\bfm}^1 f_2)=\Omega_{\ee}^1(f_1) \Omega_{\ee}^1(f_2)$, where the associative star-product $\star_{\ee\theta,\bfm}^1$ corresponds to \eqref{eq-star1} by changing the parameter to $\ee\theta$ and also adding $\frac{\bfm(a_1-a)\bfm(a-a_2)}{\bfm(a_1-a_2)}$ inside the integral of \eqref{eq-star1}. \subsubsection{Intertwining operator} \label{subsubsec-intqu} Let us exhibit first an intertwining operator between the representations $U$ \eqref{eq-schro} restricted to $\underline\gS\simeq\gS$ and $U_\ee^1$ \eqref{eq-unitindrep} of the group $\gS$. In the spirit of the retract method, we define \begin{equation*} J_\ee:=\int_\gS |U(a,\ell)\varphi_0\rangle\langle U_\ee(a,\ell)\varphi_1| \dd a\dd \ell \end{equation*} for adapted $\varphi_0\in L^2(Q)$ and $\varphi_1\in L^2(A_\ee)$. A direct computation gives: \begin{equation*} J_\ee\psi(q_0)=N_\kappa \int_\gR e^{-\frac{i\kappa\ee}{2\theta}e^{-2a_0}q_0}e^{-a_0}\psi(a_0)\dd a_0 \end{equation*} with $N_\kappa=\int_\gS e^{a}e^{\frac{i\kappa\ee}{2\theta}e^{-2a}\ell}\overline{\underline\varphi_0(a)}\varphi_0(\ell)\dd a\dd \ell$. We arrange the choice of $\varphi_0\in L^2(Q)$ and $\varphi_1\in L^2(A_\ee)$ such that $N_\kappa=\sqrt{\frac{\kappa}{2\pi\theta}}$. Then, we have \begin{proposition} \label{prop-j} The operator $J:=J_++ J_-: L^2(A_+)\oplus L^2(A_-)\to L^2(Q)$ of inverse $J^*=J_+^*\oplus J_-^*$, defined by \begin{equation*} J(\psi_+,\psi_-)(q_0)=J_ +(\psi_+)(q_0)+J_-(\psi_-)(q_0),\qquad J^*(\varphi)(a_+,a_-)=(J_+^*(\varphi)(a_+),J_-^*(\varphi)(a_-)), \end{equation*} is unitary and intertwines the representations $U$ and $U_+^1\oplus U_-^1$: \begin{equation*} \forall (a,\ell)\in\gS\quad :\quad J\big(U_+^1(a,\ell)\oplus U_-^1(a,\ell)\big)=U(a,\ell)J. \end{equation*} \end{proposition} \begin{proof} Indeed, the expression of the adjoints is \begin{equation*} \forall \varphi\in L^2(Q)\quad :\quad J_\ee^\ast\varphi(a_0)=\sqrt{\frac{\kappa}{2\pi\theta}}e^{-a_0}\int_\gR e^{\frac{i\kappa\ee}{2\theta}e^{-2a_0}q_0}\varphi(q_0)\dd q_0. \end{equation*} Then, it is straightforward to show $J_\ee^*J_\ee=\gone$, $J_\ee^*J_{-\ee}=0$ and $J_+J_+^*+J_-J_-^*=\gone$. \end{proof} We want to consider the Weyl quantization $\Omega$ \eqref{eq-quweyl} but on the Hilbert space $L^2(A_+)\oplus L^2(A_-)$. Therefore, we define $\tilde\Omega(f):= J^{-1}\Omega(f) J$ and adopt a matrix notation $\tilde\Omega(f)_{\ee\ee'}$. The computation of its expression gives: \begin{equation*} \tilde\Omega(f)_{\ee\ee'}\varphi(a_0)=\frac{\kappa}{2\pi\theta}e^{-a_0}\int f\Big(q,\frac{\sqrt\kappa}{4}(\ee e^{-2a_0}+\ee' e^{-2a})\Big)e^{\frac{i\kappa}{2\theta}q(\ee e^{-2a_0}-\ee' e^{-2a})}e^{-a}\varphi(a)\dd a\dd q. \end{equation*} Finally, we define \begin{equation*} W_\ee(f)(a,\ell):=\tr(\tilde\Omega(f)_{\ee\ee}\Omega_{\ee}^1(a,\ell)). \end{equation*} A straightforward computation permits to obtain \begin{multline*} W_\ee(f)(a,\ell)=\frac{\kappa}{\pi\theta}e^{-2a}\int_{\gR^2} \sqrt{\cosh(2(a_0-a))}\bfm(a_0-a) e^{\frac{i\kappa\ee}{\theta}\sinh(2(a_0-a))(\ell-e^{-2a}q)}\\ f\Big(q,\frac{\sqrt\kappa\ee}{2}e^{-2a}\cosh(2(a_0-a))\Big)\dd a_0\dd q \end{multline*} or with the change of variables $\eta=\sinh(2(a_0-a))$, \begin{equation} W_\ee(f)(a,\ell)=\frac{\kappa}{2\pi\theta}e^{-2a}\int_{\gR^2} (1+\eta^2)^{-\frac14}\bfm\big(\frac12\text{Arcsinh}(\eta)\big)e^{\frac{i\kappa\ee}{\theta}\eta(\ell-e^{-2a}q)}f\Big(q,\frac{\sqrt\kappa\ee}{2}e^{-2a}\sqrt{1+\eta^2}\Big)\dd \eta\dd q.\label{eq-intertw} \end{equation} \begin{theorem} \label{thm-wqu} For a unitary weight $\bfm$, the operator $W_\ee$ is an intertwiner between the two star-products: \begin{equation*} W_\ee(f_1 \sharp_\theta f_2)=W_\ee(f_1)\star_{\ee\theta,\bfm}^1 W_\ee(f_2), \end{equation*} which is $\gS$-equivariant. Moreover, $W:=W_+\oplus W_-: L^2(\gR^2)\to L^2(\gS)\oplus L^2(\gS)$ is unitary. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} Indeed, we have $W_\ee(f_1 \sharp_\theta f_2)(a,\ell) =\tr(\tilde\Omega(f_1)\tilde\Omega(f_2)\Omega_{\ee}^1(a,\ell))$ since $\Omega(f_1 \sharp_\theta f_2)=\Omega(f_1)\Omega(f_2)$. In the same way, we have \begin{equation*} W_\ee(f_1)\star_{\ee\theta,\bfm}^1 W_\ee(f_2)=\tr(\Omega_{\ee}^1(W_\ee(f_1))\Omega_{\ee}^1(W_\ee(f_2))\Omega_{\ee}^1(a,\ell)) \end{equation*} By using the following property, straightforward to check, \begin{equation*} \Omega_{\ee}^1(\tr(T\Omega_{\ee}^1(\fois,\fois)))=T, \end{equation*} we obtain that $\Omega_{\ee}^1(W_\ee(f))=\tilde\Omega(f)$, which permits to show that $W_\ee$ is an intertwiner. Since $\Omega$, resp. $\Omega_\ee^1$, is a unitary operator from $L^2(\gR^2)$, resp. $L^2(\gS)$, onto Hilbert-Schmidt operators $\caL^2(L^2(Q))$, resp. $\caL^2(L^2(A_\ee))$, and since $J$ is unitary (Proposition \ref{prop-j}), we obtain directly the unitarity of $W$. Moreover, by denoting $\tau$ the action \eqref{eq-actsq} of $\gS$ on $\gR^2$: $\tau_{(a,\ell)}(x,y)=((x+\ell)e^{2a},ye^{-2a})$, we have \begin{equation*} W(\tau_{(a,\ell)}^\ast f)(a_0,\ell_0)=W(f)(a_0+a,\ell_0+\ell e^{-2a_0})=W(f)((a,\ell)\fois (a_0,\ell_0)). \end{equation*} \end{proof} We see here and from Proposition \ref{prop-j} that it is essential for unitarity to take two copies of $L^2(\gS)$ in the range of the intertwiner $W$. And unitarity is necessary for relating Hilbert algebras or their multipiers. Such a unitary intertwiner preserves all the functional properties of the star-exponential when acting on. \subsection{Geometric method via equations} \label{subsec-retractgeo} In this section, we expose another method, also based on retract ideas of shared symmetries, but using geometric considerations and PDE instead of quantization maps. So, this method can be used for star-products even if there is no quantization map available. Let us consider here only formal star-products. The basic idea to find a $\gS$-equivariant intertwiner between the star-products $\sharp_\theta$ and $\star_\theta^1$ is to notice the following result, in the notations of section \ref{subsec-retractqu}. \begin{lemma} \label{lem-moyal} The formal version of the product $\sharp_\theta$ \eqref{eq-sharp} is the unique star-product on $(\gR^2,\sqrt\kappa \dd x\wedge\dd y)$ strongly invariant under $\underline G$, the group generated by $\underline H$, $\underline E$, $e_0$, $e_1$ and $Z$. \end{lemma} This means that this Moyal product is completely characterized by the action of $\underline G$, there is no need to consider the action of the generator $\underline F$ (which is quite complicated) in the following. For $X\in\underline\kg$, we note $X^*$ the associated fundamental vector field on $\gR^2$. Strong invariance of $\sharp_\theta$ means that \begin{equation*} \forall X\in\underline\kg\quad:\quad [\underline\lambda_X,f]_{\sharp_\theta}=-i\theta X^*f \end{equation*} with $\underline\lambda$ the moment map of the affine action of $\underline G$ on $\gR^2$. A $\gS$-equivariant intertwiner $W$ would then leave invariant (or just change the coordinates with $j_\kappa$) the vector fields $\underline H^*$, $e_0^*$ corresponding to the $\underline\gS$-part in $\underline G$, but $W$ will transform $\underline E^*$, $e_1^*$ and $Z^*$ into $\star_\theta^1$-derivations. But such derivations can be classified and this gives a strong constraint on $W$ that can be re-expressed by a PDE. Solving this PDE produces the possible intertwiners $W$. \subsubsection{Equation on the intertwiner} Let us determine all Lie algebra homomorphisms $\underline\kg\to\Der(\ks,\star_\theta^{1})$, with conditions on $\underline\ks$. \begin{proposition} The set of Lie algebra morphisms $D:\underline\kg\to\Der(\ks,\star_\theta^{1})$ satisfying $\forall X\in\underline\ks$ $D_X=(j^{-1}_\kappa)_*X^*$ is a complex two-dimensional manifold. \end{proposition} \begin{proof} Since the de Rham cohomology of $\gS$ is trivial, we deduce that all the derivations of the formal star-product $\star_\theta^1$ are inner. For $X\in\underline\kg$, set $D_X=:\frac{i}{\theta}[\Lambda_X,\fois]_{\star_\theta^1}$ where $\Lambda_X$ is defined up to a constant. $D$ is a Lie algebra morphism, so due to Jacobi identity, we obtain that \begin{equation*} \forall X,Y\in\underline\kg\quad:\quad\Lambda_{[X,Y]}=\frac{i}{\theta}[\Lambda_X,\Lambda_Y]_{\star_\theta^1} \end{equation*} up to a constant term. For $X\in\underline\ks$ and $Y\in\underline\kg$, we have $((j^{-1}_\kappa)_*X^*)(\Lambda_Y)=\Lambda_{[X,Y]}$ up to a constant. These equations, which are due to the shared symmetry $\gS$, are sufficient to obtain the expression of $D$. First, note that $(j^{-1}_\kappa)_*\underline H^*=-\partial_a$ and $(j^{-1}_\kappa)_* e_0^*=-e^{-2a}\partial_\ell$ which actually coincide with the expressions of $H^*$ and $E^*$ for the action of $\gS$ on $\caO_\kappa$ in the $\Phi_\kappa$-coordinates. Therefore, we have $\Lambda_{\underline H}=\lambda_H$ and $\Lambda_{e_0}=\lambda_E$. Let us now write these equations, for $X=\underline H,e_0$ and $Y=\underline E,e_1,Z$ with the help of \eqref{eq-comrelundg}: \begin{align*} &-\partial_a\Lambda_{\underline E}=4\Lambda_{\underline E}+k_1,\qquad -\partial_a\Lambda_{e_1}=-2\Lambda_{e_1}+k_2,\qquad -\partial_a\Lambda_Z=k_3\\ &-e^{-2a}\partial_\ell\Lambda_{\underline E}=k_4,\qquad -e^{-2a}\partial_\ell\Lambda_{e_1}=\Lambda_Z+k_5,\qquad -e^{-2a}\partial_\ell\Lambda_{Z}=k_6, \end{align*} where $k_i$ are undetermined complex constants. The solutions are \begin{equation*} \Lambda_{\underline E}=\alpha e^{-4a},\qquad \Lambda_{e_1}=(\beta-\gamma \ell)e^{2a},\qquad \Lambda_Z=0 \end{equation*} with $\alpha,\beta,\gamma$ complex constants, and up to constant terms. The condition $\frac{i}{\theta}[\Lambda_{\underline E},\Lambda_{e_1}]_{\star_\theta^1}=\Lambda_{e_0}$ (see \eqref{eq-comrelundg}), up to a constant term, implies $\gamma=\frac{\kappa^2}{8\alpha}$. We have thus two parameters $\alpha,\beta$ to parametrize the set of morphisms $D^{(\alpha,\beta)}$ of this Proposition: \begin{align*} \Lambda_{\underline H}=\kappa \ell,\qquad \Lambda_{\underline E}=\alpha e^{-4a},\qquad \Lambda_{e_0}=\frac{\kappa}{2}e^{-2a},\qquad \Lambda_{e_1}=(\beta-\frac{\kappa^2}{8\alpha} \ell)e^{2a},\qquad \Lambda_Z=0. \end{align*} \end{proof} Suppose that there exists an intertwiner $W$ between $\sharp_\theta$ and $\star_\theta^1$. We set $\tilde D^{(\alpha,\beta)}_X:=W^{-1}D^{(\alpha,\beta)}_XW$ for $X\in\underline\kg$. $\tilde D^{(\alpha,\beta)}$ describe the Lie algebra homomorphisms $\underline\kg\to\Der(\kq,\sharp_\theta)$ that satisfy $\forall X\in\underline\ks$, $\tilde D_X=X^*$. But we saw below Lemma \ref{lem-moyal} that the fundamental vector fields $X^*$ (due to the strong invariance) give such a Lie algebra homomorphism. So there exist $\alpha,\beta\in\gC$ such that $\forall X\in\underline\kg$, \begin{equation} W^{-1}D^{(\alpha,\beta)}_XW=\tilde D^{(\alpha,\beta)}_X=X^*.\label{eq-retractgeo1} \end{equation} For $X\in\underline\ks$ (elements of the shared symmetry), this is a tautology. But this equation evaluated on the other generators will permit to determine the intertwiner $W$. The Schwartz kernel lemma together with the $\gS$-equivariance of $W$ lead us to the following form of the intertwiner \begin{equation*} (W\varphi)(a,\ell)=\int_{\gR^2} \, K_w(\tau_{(a,\ell)^{-1}}(x,y))\varphi(x,y)\dd x\dd y \end{equation*} where $K_w\in\caD'(\gR^2)[[\theta]]$. Then, Equation \eqref{eq-retractgeo1} becomes \begin{equation*} \int_{\gR^2}\, (D^{(\alpha,\beta)}_X)_{|(a,\ell)}K_w(\tau_{(a,\ell)^{-1}}(x,y))\varphi(x,y)\dd x\dd y=\int_{\gR^2}\, K_w(\tau_{(a,\ell)^{-1}}(x,y)) X^*_{|(x,y)}\varphi(x,y)\dd x\dd y. \end{equation*} with \begin{equation*} \underline E^*=-y\partial_x,\qquad e_1^*=\partial_y,\qquad Z^*=0. \end{equation*} By integration by part, we have \begin{equation*} (D^{(\alpha,\beta)}_X)_{|(a,\ell)}K_w(\tau_{(a,\ell)^{-1}}(x,y))=-X^*_{|(x,y)}K_w(\tau_{(a,\ell)^{-1}}(x,y)). \end{equation*} We set $\tilde K_w(a,\ell):=K_w(\tau_{(a,\ell)^{-1}}(0,\ee))=K_w(-\ell,\ee e^{2a})$ and\\ $T_X(\tilde K_w)(a,\ell):=-X^*_{|(x,y)}K_w(\tau_{(a,\ell)^{-1}}(x,y))_{|(x=0,\,y=\ee)}$, i.e. $T_{\underline E}=-\ee e^{-2a}\partial_\ell$ and $T_{e_1}=\frac{\ee}{2}\partial_a$. Within these notations, we obtain a simple form for the equation \begin{equation*} D^{(\alpha,\beta)}_X\tilde K_w(a,n)=T_X(\tilde K_w)(a,n). \end{equation*} \subsubsection{Resolution} With partial Fourier transform $\caF_\ell$ in $\ell$ as in \eqref{eq-partfourier}, an explicit computation using $\Lambda_{\underline E}=\alpha e^{-4a}$, $\Lambda_{e_1}=(\beta-\frac{\kappa^2}{8\alpha} \ell)e^{2a}$ and the expression \eqref{eq-star1} of $\star_\theta^1$ gives \begin{align} &\caF_\ell D^{(\alpha,\beta)}_{\underline E}\tilde K_w(a,\xi)=-\frac{4i\alpha}{\kappa}e^{-4a}\xi\sqrt{1+\frac{\theta^2}{\kappa^2}\xi^2}\caF_\ell\tilde K_w(a,\xi)\nonumber\\ &\caF_\ell D^{(\alpha,\beta)}_{e_1}\tilde K_w(a,\xi)=e^{2a}\Big[\frac{2i\beta}{\kappa}\xi+\frac{\kappa}{8\alpha}\sqrt{1+\frac{\theta^2}{\kappa^2}\xi^2}(\partial_a+2+2\xi\partial_\xi)+\frac{\theta^2}{8\alpha\kappa}\frac{\xi^2}{\sqrt{1+\frac{\theta^2}{\kappa^2}\xi^2}}\Big]\caF_\ell\tilde K_w(a,\xi).\label{eq-exprD} \end{align} By setting $u(a,\xi)=\caF_\ell\tilde K_w(a,\xi)$, we obtain the following system: \begin{align*} &\Big(\frac{4\alpha}{\kappa}e^{-4a}\sqrt{1+\frac{\theta^2}{\kappa^2}\xi^2}-\ee e^{-2a}\Big)\xi\, u(a,\xi)=0\\ &\Big(\frac{2i\beta}{\kappa}\xi+\frac{\kappa}{8\alpha}\sqrt{1+\frac{\theta^2}{\kappa^2}\xi^2}(\partial_a+2+2\xi\partial_\xi)+\frac{\theta^2}{8\alpha\kappa}\frac{\xi^2}{\sqrt{1+\frac{\theta^2}{\kappa^2}\xi^2}}-\ee \frac{e^{-2a}}{2}\partial_a\Big)u(a,\xi)=0. \end{align*} The first equation tells us that $u$ will be a linear combination of a distribution of support $\xi=0$ and one of support $1+\frac{\theta^2\xi^2}{\kappa^2}=\frac{\kappa^2}{16\alpha^2}e^{4a}$. Then, we can plug this form into the second equation. For more simplicity and to recover the result of section \ref{subsec-retractqu}, we want to find a solution for the constant $\alpha=\frac{\kappa^{\frac32}}{8}\ee$. Then, we can check that \begin{equation*} u(a,\xi)=e^{-3a}\Big|\frac{2}{\sqrt\kappa}e^{2a}+\sqrt{\frac{4}{\kappa}e^{4a}-1}\Big|^{\frac{i\beta\sqrt\kappa}{\theta}}\delta\Big(\xi\pm \frac{\kappa}{\theta}\sqrt{\frac{4}{\kappa}e^{4a}-1}\Big) \end{equation*} is a solution of these equations, with a freedom in the normalization. An easy computation shows that it corresponds actually to the intertwiner \begin{equation*} W_\ee(f)(a,\ell)=\frac{\kappa}{2\pi\theta}e^{-2a}\int_{\gR^2} (1+\eta^2)^{-\frac14} |\sqrt{1+\eta^2}+\eta|^{\frac{i\beta\sqrt\kappa}{\theta}} e^{\frac{i\kappa\ee}{\theta}\eta(\ell-e^{-2a}q)}f\Big(q,\frac{\sqrt\kappa\ee}{2}e^{-2a}\sqrt{1+\eta^2}\Big)\dd \eta\dd q, \end{equation*} where the normalization has been set to preserve the function 1. It coincides with the expression \eqref{eq-intertw} if the weight is chosen as $\bfm(a)=|\cosh(2a)+\sinh(2a)|^{\frac{i\beta\sqrt\kappa}{\theta}}=e^{\frac{2i\beta\sqrt\kappa}{\theta}a}$, which is unitary. Note that the star-product $\star^1$ is not affected by this weight $\bfm$: we have $\star_{\ee\theta,\bfm}^1=\star_{\ee\theta}^1$. \subsection{Method via star-exponential} \label{subsec-interstarexp} Let us give a third method to construct the intertwining operator $W$ between $\sharp_\theta$ and $\star_\theta^1$. Knowing the expression of the one $T_{01}$ between $\star_\theta^0$ and $\star_\theta^1$, it suffices to determine an intertwiner $T$ between $\sharp_\theta$ and $\star_\theta^0$. To this aim, we will compute the expression of the star-exponential $E_{\star_\theta^0}(j_1)$ and $E_{\star_\theta^0}(j_2)$ of the coordinates $x=j_1(a,\ell)$ and $y=j_2(a,\ell)$ via the change of charts \eqref{eq-changej} (we omit the $\kappa$ in the notation $j_\kappa$). Then, the usual exponential in the $\Psi_\kappa$ coordinates coincides with the star-exponential for $\sharp_\theta$. Pushed by the intertwiner, it gives the star-exponential of $x=j_1(a,\ell)$ and $y=j_2(a,\ell)$ for the star-product $\star_\theta^0$. Using Fourier transformation with respect to these star-exponential, we can express the intertwiner $T$. \subsubsection{Star-exponential of the coordinates} First, let us compute by the method of section \ref{subsec-starexppsi} the expression of $E_{\star_\theta^0}(p(\ell+\beta')e^{2a}+q\frac{\sqrt\kappa}{2}e^{-2a})$, with $\beta',p,q\in\gR$, which is more general as just $E_{\star_\theta^0}(j_1)$ or $E_{\star_\theta^0}(j_2)$. Note that the coordinates are affine in the variable $\ell$ so that we obtain PDE of order 1 for the star-exponential. Let $u_t(a,\ell)$ be a solution of \begin{equation} \partial_t u_t=\frac{i}{\theta} (p(\ell+\beta')e^{2a}+\frac{\sqrt\kappa}{2}qe^{-2a})\star_\theta^0 u_t\label{eq-defstarexpcoord} \end{equation} with initial condition $u_0(a,\ell)=1$. We apply the functional transform \eqref{eq-transtilde2}, so we get \begin{equation*} \partial_t \thatp u_t(\xz,\yz)=-\frac{p}{\kappa}e^{2\xz}(\partial_\xz+1-\frac{i\beta'\kappa}{\theta})\thatp u_t(\xz,\yz) +\frac{i q\sqrt\kappa}{2\theta}e^{-2\xz}\,\thatp u_t(\xz,\yz). \end{equation*} Then, with $Z=e^{2\xz}$, we arrive at \begin{equation*} \partial_t \thatp u_t=-\frac{pZ}{\kappa}(2Z\partial_Z+1-\frac{i\beta'\kappa}{\theta})\thatp u_t+\frac{i q\sqrt\kappa}{2\theta}\frac{1}{Z}\thatp u_t. \end{equation*} As in section \ref{subsec-starexppsi}, we obtain the integral curves $X(t,Z)$ of the vector field $-\frac{2p}{\kappa}Z^2\partial_Z$ with condition $X(0,Z)=Z$: \begin{equation*} X(t,Z)=\frac{Z}{1+\frac{2pt}{\kappa}Z}. \end{equation*} And the solution of the part of degree 1 of the equation can be written as $\thatp u_t(Z,\yz)=\thatp f(\frac{Z}{1+\frac{2pt}{\kappa}Z},\yz)\rho_t(Z)$ with $\thatp f(Z,\yz)=\frac{2\pi\theta}{\kappa}\delta(\frac12\log(Z)-\yz)$ due to the initial condition. The function $\rho_t$ then satisfies the same equation as $\thatp u$. Performing the change of variables $t':=t$ and $Z':=X(t,Z)=\frac{Z}{1+\frac{2pt}{\kappa}Z}$, we obtain \begin{equation*} \partial_{t'} \rho_{t'}(Z')=-\frac{pZ'}{\kappa(1-\frac{2pt'}{\kappa}Z')} (1-\frac{i\beta'\kappa}{\theta})\rho_{t'}(Z') +\frac{i q\sqrt\kappa}{2\theta}\big(\frac{1}{Z'}-\frac{2pt'}{\kappa}\big)\rho_{t'}(Z'). \end{equation*} With initial condition $\rho_0(Z)\equiv 1$, we find the solution \begin{equation*} \rho_t(Z)=\exp\Big(-\frac12(1-\frac{i\beta'\kappa}{\theta})\log(1+\frac{2pt}{\kappa}Z) +\frac{i q\sqrt\kappa}{2\theta}\big(\frac{t}{Z}+\frac{pt^2}{\kappa}\big)\Big). \end{equation*} Plugging this expression into $\thatp u_t$ and simplifying, we get \begin{multline} E_{\star_\theta^0}(tp(\ell+\beta')e^{2a}+t \frac{\sqrt\kappa}{2}qe^{-2a})=u_t(a,\ell)=\frac{1+\frac{2pt}{\kappa}e^{2a}(\frac{pt}{\kappa}e^{2a}+\sqrt{1+\frac{p^2t^2}{\kappa^2}e^{4a}})}{1+\frac{pt}{\kappa}e^{2a}(\frac{pt}{\kappa}e^{2a}+\sqrt{1+\frac{p^2t^2}{\kappa^2}e^{4a}})}\\ \exp\Big(\frac{i\kappa}{\theta}\ell\log(\frac{pt}{\kappa}e^{2a}+\sqrt{1+\frac{p^2t^2}{\kappa^2}e^{4a}})\Big) \, \Big(\frac{pt}{\kappa}e^{2a}+\sqrt{1+\frac{p^2t^2}{\kappa^2}e^{4a}}\Big)^{-1+\frac{i\beta'\kappa}{\theta}}\\ \exp\Big(\frac{i q\sqrt\kappa}{2\theta}\big(\frac{te^{-2a}}{\frac{pt}{\kappa}e^{2a}+\sqrt{1+\frac{p^2t^2}{\kappa^2}e^{4a}}}+\frac{pt^2}{\kappa}\big)\Big).\label{eq-starexpcoord} \end{multline} \subsubsection{Intertwining operator} Let us now construct the intertwining operator $T$ between $\sharp_\theta$ and $\star_{\theta}^0$. We have indeed to distinguish the two cases $=\pm 1$ as we learned from previous sections. With a Fourier and a Fourier inverse transformation, for any function $f$ on $\gR^2$, we have \begin{equation*} f(x,y)=\frac{1}{(2\pi\theta)^2}\int\, e^{-\frac{i}{\theta}(\xi p+\eta q)} f(\xi,\eta) E_{\sharp_\theta}(px+qy) \dd\xi\dd\eta\dd p\dd q \end{equation*} since $E_{\sharp_\theta}(px+qy)=e^{\frac{i}{\theta}(px+qy)}$ for the Moyal product $\sharp_\theta$. So if such an intertwiner $T$ exists, it has to be of the form \begin{equation} T(f)(a,\ell):=\frac{1}{(2\pi\theta)^2}\int\, e^{-\frac{i}{\theta}(\xi p+\eta q)} f(\xi,\eta) E_{\star_{\theta}^0}(pT(x)+qT(y))(a,\ell) \dd\xi\dd\eta\dd p\dd q.\label{eq-defT} \end{equation} Let us define $T$ as above. We have to choose the values $T(x)$ and $T(y)$ in such a way that $[T(x),T(y)]_{\star_{\theta}^0}=T([x,y]_{\sharp_\theta})$. This condition looks like covariance of the star-product and the following BCH-like formula will be derived from this condition: \begin{equation} E_{\star_{\theta}^0}(T(x))\star_{\theta}^0 E_{\star_{\theta}^0}(T(y))=E_{\star_{\theta}^0}(\text{BCH}(T(x),T(y))).\label{eq-bchformT} \end{equation} This formula will be the crucial argument to prove that $T$ is an intertwining operator between $\sharp_\theta$ and $\star_{\theta}^0$. \begin{theorem} The operator $T$ defined in \eqref{eq-defT} satisfies the equivalence: $T_{01}\circ T$ is $\gS$-equivariant if and only if $T(x)(a,\ell)=(\ell+\beta')e^{2a}$ and $T(y)(a,\ell)=\frac{\sqrt{\kappa}\gamma}{2}e^{-2a}$, for $\beta',\gamma\in\gR$. For these values, $T$ is an intertwining operator between $\sharp_\theta$ and $\star_{\theta}^0$. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} First, we notice that \begin{multline*} T(x)(a,\ell)=\frac{1}{2\pi\theta}\int\, e^{-\frac{i}{\theta}\xi p} \xi\,E_{\star_{\theta}^0}(p T(x))(a,\ell) \dd\xi\dd p= \frac{i}{2\pi}\int\, (\partial_p e^{-\frac{i}{\theta}\xi p}) E_{\star_{\theta}^0}(p T(x))(a,\ell) \dd\xi\dd p\\ = -i\theta (\partial_p E_{\star_{\theta}^0}(p T(x)))_{p=0}(a,\ell)=T(x)(a,\ell), \end{multline*} which does not impose any constraint on $T(x)$. We have the same argument for $T(y)$. We recall the action $\tau$ \eqref{eq-actsq} of $\gS$ on $\gR^2$: $\tau_{(a,\ell)}(x,y)=((x+\ell)e^{2a},ye^{-2a})$. With the help of \eqref{eq-inter01}, we have: \begin{multline*} (T_{01}\circ T)(\tau_{(a,\ell)}^*f)(a_0,\ell_0)=\frac{1}{(2\pi\theta)^2}\int\, f((\xi+\ell)e^{2a},\eta e^{-2a}) e^{-\frac{i}{\theta}(\xi p+\eta q)}\\ E_{\star_\theta^1}((T_{01}\circ T)(px+qy))(a_0,\ell_0) \dd\xi\dd\eta\dd p\dd q = \frac{1}{(2\pi\theta)^2}\int\, f(\xi',\eta') e^{-\frac{i}{\theta}(\xi' p'+\eta' q')}\\ E_{\star_\theta^1}\Big(p' e^{2a} (T_{01}\circ T (x)+\ell)+q'e^{-2a}T_{01}\circ T (y)\Big)(a_0,\ell_0) \dd\xi'\dd\eta'\dd p'\dd q' \end{multline*} with a change of variable and using $E_{\star_\theta^1}(p' e^{2a}\ell)(a_0,\ell_0)=e^{\frac{i}{\theta}p'e^{2a}\ell}$ (constant with respect to $a_0,\ell_0$). To obtain $(T_{01}\circ T)(f)((a,\ell)\fois(a_0,\ell_0))$ as a result, we have to identify $p'e^{2a} ((T_{01}\circ T) (x)(a_0,\ell_0)+\ell)+q'e^{-2a}(T_{01}\circ T) (y)(a_0,\ell_0)$ with $(T_{01}\circ T)(p'x+q'y)((a,\ell)\fois(a_0,\ell_0))$, for any $p',q'$, since $\star_\theta^1$ and so $E_{\star_\theta^1}$ are $\gS$-invariant. By taking $a_0=\ell_0=0$, we find $(T_{01}\circ T) (x)(a,\ell)=(\ell+\beta')e^{2a}$ and $(T_{01}\circ T)(y)(a,\ell)=\frac{\sqrt{\kappa}\gamma}{2}e^{-2a}$ with free parameters $\beta',\gamma\in\gR$. Due to explicit computations with $T_{01}^{-1}$, we obtain the desired values for $T(x)$ and $T(y)$. In the following, since it is just a renormalization of $q$, we will take $\gamma= 1$. Note that by an explicit computation, we have \begin{equation*} T([x,y]_{\sharp_\theta})=-\frac{i\theta}{\sqrt\kappa}=\Big[(\ell+\beta')e^{2a},\frac{\sqrt\kappa}{2}e^{-2a}\Big]_{\star_\theta^0}=[T(x),T(y)]_{\star_\theta^0} \end{equation*} which will permit to show a particular case of the identity \eqref{eq-bchformT}. Indeed, let us compute \begin{equation*} E_{\star_\theta^0}\Big(p(\ell+\beta')e^{2a}+\frac{\sqrt\kappa}{2}qe^{-2a}\Big)\star_\theta^0 E_{\star_\theta^0}\Big(p'(\ell+\beta')e^{2a}+\frac{\sqrt\kappa}{2}q'e^{-2a}\Big). \end{equation*} It satisfies the equation \eqref{eq-defstarexpcoord} with a change of initial condition: $u_0(a,\ell)=E_{\star_\theta^0}(p'(\ell+\beta')e^{2a}+\frac{\sqrt\kappa}{2}q'e^{-2a})$. By using the same method as in the computation of \eqref{eq-starexpcoord} with another adapted initial condition $\thatp f$, we obtain \begin{multline} E_{\star_\theta^0}\Big(p(\ell+\beta')e^{2a}+\frac{\sqrt\kappa}{2}qe^{-2a}\Big)\star_\theta^0 E_{\star_\theta^0}\Big(p'(\ell+\beta')e^{2a}+\frac{\sqrt\kappa}{2}q'e^{-2a}\Big)\\ = E_{\star_\theta^0}\Big((p+p')(\ell+\beta')e^{2a}+\frac{\sqrt\kappa}{2}(q+q')e^{-2a}\Big) e^{\frac{i}{2\theta\sqrt\kappa}(pq'-p'q)},\label{eq-bchformT2} \end{multline} which is the identity \eqref{eq-bchformT} applied to the present situation. Let $f_1,f_2$ be two functions on $\gR^2$. We will check that $T(f_1\sharp_\theta f_2)=T(f_1)\star_\theta^0 T(f_2)$. By using the definition \eqref{eq-defT} of $T$ and the fact that the Fourier transformation changes the Moyal product $\sharp_\theta$ into the convolution \begin{equation*} \int\, e^{-\frac{i}{\theta}(\xi p+\eta q)} (f_1\sharp_\theta f_2)(\xi,\eta) \dd\xi\dd\eta=\int f_1(\xi,\eta) f_2\big(\xi-\frac{q}{2\sqrt\kappa},\eta+\frac{p}{2\sqrt\kappa}\big) e^{-\frac{i}{\theta}(\xi p+\eta q)}\dd\xi\dd\eta, \end{equation*} we find \begin{multline*} T(f_1\sharp_\theta f_2)(a,\ell)=\frac{1}{(2\pi\theta)^2}\int\, e^{-\frac{i}{\theta}(\xi p+\eta q)} f_1(\xi,\eta) f_2\big(\xi-\frac{q}{2\sqrt\kappa},\eta+\frac{p}{2\sqrt\kappa}\big)\\ E_{\star_\theta^0}(pT(x)+qT(y))(a,\ell) \dd\xi\dd\eta\dd p\dd q. \end{multline*} In the other way, by using \eqref{eq-bchformT2}, we have \begin{multline*} T(f_1)\star_\theta^0 T(f_2)(a,\ell)=\frac{1}{(2\pi\theta)^4}\int\, e^{-\frac{i}{\theta}(\xi p+\eta q+\xi' p'+\eta' q')} f_1(\xi,\eta) f_2(\xi',\eta')\\ E_{\star_\theta^0}((p+p')(\ell+\beta')e^{2a}+\frac{\sqrt\kappa}{2}(q+q')e^{-2a}) e^{\frac{i}{2\theta\sqrt\kappa}(pq'-p'q)}\dd\xi\dd\eta\dd p\dd q\dd\xi'\dd\eta'\dd p'\dd q'. \end{multline*} By performing some integrations, we obtain exactly what we wanted to prove: \begin{multline*} T(f_1)\star_\theta^0 T(f_2)(a,\ell)=\frac{1}{(2\pi\theta)^2}\int\, e^{-\frac{i}{\theta}(\xi p+\eta q)} f_1(\xi,\eta) f_2\big(\xi-\frac{q}{2\sqrt\kappa},\eta+\frac{p}{2\sqrt\kappa}\big)\\ E_{\star_\theta^0}(pT(x)+qT(y))(a,\ell) \dd\xi\dd\eta\dd p\dd q. \end{multline*} \end{proof} From Equations \eqref{eq-starexpcoord} and \eqref{eq-inter01}, we compute that \begin{multline*} W_+(f)(a,\ell):=(T_{01}\circ T)(f)(a,\ell)\\ =\frac{1}{(2\pi\theta)^2}\int\, e^{-\frac{i}{\theta}(\xi p+\eta q)} f(\xi,\eta) T_{01}(E_{\star_\theta^0}(p(n \ell+\beta')e^{2a}+\frac{\sqrt\kappa}{2}qe^{-2a}))(a,n) \dd\xi\dd\eta\dd p\dd q\\ = \frac{\kappa}{2\pi\theta}e^{-2a}\int_{\gR^2} (1+\eta^2)^{-\frac14}e^{\frac{i\kappa}{\theta}\eta(\ell-e^{-2a}q)}f(q,\frac{\sqrt\kappa}{2}e^{-2a}\sqrt{1+\eta^2}) \, \Big(\eta+\sqrt{1+\eta^2}\Big)^{\frac{i\beta'\kappa}{\theta}}\dd \eta\dd q. \end{multline*} To find $W_-$, just replace $\theta$ by $-\theta$ and $q$ by $-q$ in $T_{01}E_{\star_\theta^0}$ in the second line of the above equation. We see that for $\beta'=\ee\frac{\beta}{\sqrt\kappa}$, we obtain exactly the expression \eqref{eq-intertw} once again. To conclude, we found here by a third method the same family of $\gS$-equivariant intertwining operator $W_\ee$ between $\sharp_\theta$ and $\star_{\ee\theta}^1$, depending on $\beta\in\gR$. This method is completely different method as the two first where shared symmetry $\gS$ was crucial. Here, we used properties of the Moyal product $\sharp_\theta$, BCH-like formula \eqref{eq-bchformT}, as well as explicit computations of the star-exponential of the coordinates $j_1(a,\ell),$ and $j_2(a,\ell)$. \section{Conclusion} \label{sec-concl} \subsection{Global curvature contraction of the Anti-deSitter space} \label{subsec-contract} We note from Theorem \ref{thm-wqu} that unitarity of the intertwiner $W$, which means no loss of information, implies that it is valued in two copies of $\gS$: \begin{equation*} W:L^2(\gR^2)\to L^2(\gS)\oplus L^2(\gS). \end{equation*} In this section, we interpret these two copies as the global curvature contraction of the Anti-deSitter space $AdS_2$. Let us first compute this global contraction. As in the introduction, we consider the real Lie algebra $\kg_t$ given by \begin{equation*} [H,E]=2E,\qquad [H,F]=-2F,\qquad [E,F]=tH, \end{equation*} with $t\geq 0$. However, instead of looking at local charts like in the introduction, we consider globally the Anti-deSitter space denoted by $\tilde M_t$, for $t>0$. One way to describe it globally in view of its contraction ($t\to 0$) is to see it as a sphere for the Killing form in the dual Lie algebra $\kg_t^*$ (so as a coadjoint orbit). Let $(H^*,E^*,F^*)$ be the dual basis of $\kg_t^*$ with respect to $(H,E,F)$. It turns out that the Killing form on $\kg_t$ is given by \begin{equation*} \beta=\begin{pmatrix} 8 & 0 & 0\\ 0&0& 4t\\ 0& 4t &0\end{pmatrix} \end{equation*} in the basis $(H,E,F)$. So we define the musical isomorphism $X\in\kg_t\mapsto {}^\flat X\in\kg_t^*$ by ${}^\flat X(Y):=\beta(X,Y)$. One has \begin{equation*} {}^\flat H=8H^*,\qquad {}^\flat E=4tF^*,\qquad {}^\flat F=4t E^*. \end{equation*} Then, the Killing form can be transported to $\kg_t^*$ by the expression $\beta^*({}^\flat X,{}^\flat Y):=\beta(X,Y)$. And the computation gives \begin{equation*} \beta^*=\begin{pmatrix} \frac{1}{8} & 0 & 0\\ 0&0& \frac{1}{4t}\\ 0& \frac{1}{4t} &0\end{pmatrix} \end{equation*} in the fixed basis $(H^*,E^*,F^*)$. To obtain the curvature contraction, one also has to increase the radius of the one-sheeted hyperboloid as $\frac{1}{\sqrt{4t}}$. This will correspond to normalize $\beta^*$ in the following way: \begin{equation*} \beta_t:=4t\beta^* \end{equation*} This scalar product is actually invariant under the coadjoint action and its spheres coincide with the one-sheeted hyperboloids. Namely, if $\tilde M_t$ is defined as the coadjoint orbit $\Ad^*_G(E^*+F^*)$, one has the following simple characterization \begin{equation*} \tilde M_t=\{\xi\in\kg_t^*,\quad \beta_t(\xi,\xi)=2\}. \end{equation*} To make explicit the link with the notations of the rest of the paper, we give the $\Phi_\kappa$-local chart of (part of) $\tilde M_t$: \begin{equation*} \{2\ell H^*+e^{-2a}E^*+e^{2a}(1-\ell^2 t)F^*,\quad a,\ell\in\gR\}. \end{equation*} Now, the global curvature contraction is defined as the limit in $t\to0$, so it corresponds to \begin{equation*} \tilde M_0:=\{\xi\in\kg_0^*=(\mathfrak{so}(1,1)\ltimes\gR^2)^*,\quad \beta_0(\xi,\xi)=2\}, \end{equation*} which can be reformulated as $\tilde M_0=\{\alpha H^*+\gamma E^*+\frac{1}{\gamma}F^*,\ \alpha\in\gR,\, \gamma\in\gR^*\}$. $\tilde M_0$ has two connected components, each corresponding to the Poincar\'e coset $M=SO(1,1)\ltimes\gR^2/\gR$ (see Figure \ref{fig-AdS-Poinca}). Let us summarize the above discussion. \begin{proposition} \label{prop-contract} The global curvature contraction of the Anti-deSitter space $AdS_2$ consists in two copies of the Poincar\'e coset (see Figure \ref{fig-AdS-Poinca}). \end{proposition} \begin{figure}[!htb] \centering \includegraphics[height=20cm]{AdS-Poinca-4.JPG} \caption[Contour]{\footnotesize{Global curvature contraction ($t\to 0$): Anti-deSitter $\to$ two Poincar\'e cosets.}} \label{fig-AdS-Poinca} \end{figure} \subsection{Star-exponential on the curvature contraction} Let us show why we can interpret the two copies of $\gS\simeq M$ (see Remark \ref{rmk-prodpoincare}) in the intertwiner $W$ as the global curvature contraction of $AdS_2$. One can extend in a non-formal way $W$ to polynomials in $x,y$ (see \cite{deGoursac:2014mu}), so that we can evaluate it on the moment maps. Remember that $\lambda_H=\sqrt\kappa (1+2xy)$, $\lambda_E=\sqrt\kappa y$ and $\lambda_F=-\sqrt\kappa x(1+xy)$, so that we have \begin{align*} &W_\ee(\lambda_H)=\kappa\ee\ell+\sqrt\kappa(1+\beta),\\ &W_\ee(\lambda_E)=\frac{\kappa}{2}\ee e^{-2a},\\ &W_\ee(\lambda_F)= \frac12e^{2a}\Big((\frac{\theta^2}{2\kappa}-2\beta-\beta^2)\ee-2\sqrt\kappa(1+\beta)\ell-\kappa\ee\ell^2\Big). \end{align*} It appears that $\beta=-1$ is a convenient value for this parameter. Then, the coordinates transform as \begin{equation*} W_\ee(x)(a,\ell)=e^{2a}(\ell-\frac{\ee}{\sqrt\kappa}),\qquad W_\ee(y)(a,\ell)=\frac{\sqrt\kappa}{2}\ee e^{-2a}. \end{equation*} We see that for $\ee=+1$, this corresponds exactly to the change of coordinates defined in Equation \eqref{eq-changej}, so that the first space $\gS$ in the range of $W$ coincides exactly with the one of the coordinate chart $\Phi_\kappa$ (see Equation \eqref{eq-chartphi} and Figure \ref{fig-AdS-habit}). With $\ee=-1$, it turns out by replacing $x,y$ by their above expression that we get a part of the adjoint orbit described by \begin{equation*} -\sqrt\kappa\ell H -e^{2a}(1-\kappa\ell^2)E-\kappa e^{-2a}F \end{equation*} in the notations of section \ref{subsec-orbit}. It actually coincides with the chart $\Phi_\kappa'$ (see Figure \ref{fig-AdS-habit}), i.e. with an application of a central symmetry with respect to the origin to the first space $\gS$. In coordinates $x,y$, it corresponds to look at the chart $\Ad_{e^{xE}e^{yF}Z}(H_\kappa)=-\Psi_\kappa(xE+yF)$ with $Z=E-F$. In the global contraction process (see section \ref{subsec-contract}) - by identifying adjoint and coadjoint orbits thanks to the Killing form for $t>0$ - one can see that the chart $\Phi_\kappa$, now seen as a part of the coadjoint orbit $\tilde M_t$, goes exactly to the first copy of the Poincar\'e coset \begin{equation*} \tilde M_0^+:=\{\alpha H^*+\gamma E^*+\frac{1}{\gamma}F^*,\ \alpha\in\gR,\, \gamma>0\}\simeq M, \end{equation*} while its symmetric counterpart $\Phi_\kappa'$ (also seen in $\tilde M_t$) goes to the second copy \begin{equation*} \tilde M_0^-:=\{\alpha H^*+\gamma E^*+\frac{1}{\gamma}F^*,\ \alpha\in\gR,\, \gamma<0\}\simeq M. \end{equation*} Therefore, for $\eps=+1$, the space $\gS$ in the range of $W_+$ can be geometrically interpreted as the chart $\Phi_\kappa$ but also as the first connected component $\tilde M_0^+$ of the global contraction $\tilde M_0$. In the same way, for $\eps=-1$, the space $\gS$ in the range of $W_-$ can be geometrically interpreted as the chart $\Phi_\kappa'$ but also as the second connected component $\tilde M_0^-$ of $\tilde M_0$. Let us now give the interpretation of the star-products. Due to Remark \ref{rmk-prodpoincare}, the natural $SO(1,1)\ltimes \gR^2$-invariant star-product coincides with $\star_\theta^1$ on $M\simeq \gS$. But passing from $\tilde M_0^+\simeq\gS$ to $\tilde M_0^-$ corresponds to a central symmetry, so an overall minus sign, which by Kirillov's orbits method and Weyl type quantization maps \cite{Bieliavsky:2010kg} corresponds to change the sign of the deformation parameter $\theta$ of the star-product. This induces the following definition. \begin{definition} The natural $SO(1,1)\ltimes \gR^2$-invariant star-product $\star_\theta$ on the global curvature contraction $\tilde M_0=\tilde M_0^+\cup\tilde M_0^-$ is defined by \begin{equation*} f\star_\theta h:= f_+\star_\theta^1 h_+ \,+\, f_-\star^1_{-\theta} h_-, \end{equation*} where $f_{\pm}$ is the restriction of $f$ to $\tilde M_0^\pm$ and we use the identification $\tilde M_0^\pm\simeq\gS$. \end{definition} Then, it turns out that $(L^2(\tilde M_0),\star_\theta)\simeq (L^2(\gS),\star_\theta^1)\oplus (L^2(\gS),\star_{-\theta}^1)$ as Hilbert algebras, like in the range of $W$. \medskip We can now collect the results of section \ref{sec-inter}. \begin{proposition} \label{prop-multW} For any $\beta\in\gR$, the intertwining operator $W=W_{+}\oplus W_{-}: L^2(\gR^2)\to L^2(\gS)\oplus L^2(\gS)$ defined by \begin{equation*} W_\ee(f)(a,\ell)=\frac{\kappa}{2\pi\theta}e^{-2a}\int_{\gR^2} (1+\eta^2)^{-\frac14} |\sqrt{1+\eta^2}+\eta|^{\frac{i\beta\sqrt\kappa}{\theta}} e^{\frac{i\kappa\ee}{\theta}\eta(\ell-e^{-2a}q)}f\Big(q,\frac{\sqrt\kappa\ee}{2}e^{-2a}\sqrt{1+\eta^2}\Big)\dd \eta\dd q, \end{equation*} is an isomorphism of Hilbert algebras. Therefore, it induces a spatial isomorphism of von Neumann algebras $W:\kM_{\sharp_\theta}(\gR^2)\to\kM_{\star_\theta^1}(\gS)\oplus \kM_{\star_{-\theta}^1}(\gS)\simeq\kM_{\star_\theta}(\tilde M_0)$. \end{proposition} \begin{proof} In Theorem \ref{thm-wqu} was proved that $W$ is a unitary algebra homomorphism for the star-products $\sharp_\theta$ and $(\star_\theta^1,\star_{-\theta}^1)$. Let us show that it is compatible with the complex conjugation: \begin{multline*} \overline{W_\ee(f)(a,\ell)}=\frac{\kappa}{2\pi\theta}e^{-2a}\int_{\gR^2} (1+\eta^2)^{-\frac14} |\sqrt{1+\eta^2}+\eta|^{\frac{-i\beta\sqrt\kappa}{\theta}} e^{-\frac{i\kappa\ee}{\theta}\eta(\ell-e^{-2a}q)}\\ \overline{f\Big(q,\frac{\sqrt\kappa\ee}{2}e^{-2a}\sqrt{1+\eta^2}\Big)}\dd \eta\dd q =W_\ee(\overline f)(a,\ell), \end{multline*} by performing the change of variables $\eta\mapsto -\eta$ and using $(\sqrt{1+\eta^2}-\eta)^{-1}=(\sqrt{1+\eta^2}+\eta)$. \end{proof} The intertwiner $W$ is defined on the multipliers $\kM_{\sharp_\theta}(\gR^2)$, so that we can push by $W$ the non-formal star-exponential $\caE_{\sharp_\theta}$ of the group $G=SL(2,\gR)$ obtained in section \ref{sec-principal}. We have $W_\ee(E_{\sharp_{\theta}}(t\lambda_X))(a,\ell)=E_{\star_{\ee\theta}^1}(t T_{01}(\lambda_X))(a,\ell)$ and an easy computation gives \begin{equation*} T_{01}(\lambda_H)=\lambda_H,\qquad T_{01}(\lambda_E)=\lambda_E,\qquad T_{01}(\lambda_F)=\lambda_F+\frac{\theta^2}{4\kappa}e^{2a}, \end{equation*} so $W(\caE_{\sharp_\theta})$ is characterized by the expressions \eqref{eq-expr1starexp} and \eqref{eq-intertw}. \begin{proposition} The expression \begin{equation*} \caE_{\star_\theta}:=W(\caE_{\sharp_\theta}):G\to\kM_{\star_\theta}(\tilde M_0) \end{equation*} defines the non-formal star-exponential of the group $G=SL_2(\gR)$ realized on the global curvature contraction $\tilde M_0$ of the Anti-deSitter space $AdS_2$ (see Figure \ref{fig-AdS-Poinca}) with its natural $SO(1,1)\ltimes\gR^2$-invariant star-product $\star_\theta$. It is a continuous group homomorphism for the weak topology of the von Neumann algebra $\kM_{\star_\theta}(\tilde M_0)$. \end{proposition} By analytic methods (through the determination of the intertwiner $W$ and to get unitarity), we thus obtained the geometric information that the global curvature contraction coincides with two copies of the Poincar\'e coset. Moreover, we know from \cite{deGoursac:2014mu} that the left or right $\star_\theta$-multiplication by this star-exponential $\caE_{\star_\theta}$ preserves the Fr\'echet algebra $(\caS(\tilde M_0),\star_\theta)$ defined by \begin{align*} \caS(\tilde M_0):=\{f\in L^2(\tilde M_0),\quad &\forall X_j,Y_j\in\mathfrak{sl}_2(\gR),\\ & \norm \{\lambda_{X_1},\{\lambda_{X_2},\dots\{\lambda_{X_p},[\lambda_{Y_1},\dots[\lambda_{Y_q},f_+]_{\star_\theta^1}\dots]_{\star_\theta^1}\}_{\star_\theta^1}\dots\}_{\star_\theta^1} \norm<\infty,\\ \text{and }& \norm \{\lambda_{X_1},\{\lambda_{X_2},\dots\{\lambda_{X_p},[\lambda_{Y_1},\dots[\lambda_{Y_q},f_-]_{\star_{-\theta}^1}\dots]_{\star_{-\theta}^1}\}_{\star_{-\theta}^1}\dots \}_{\star_{-\theta}^1} \norm<\infty\}. \end{align*} \subsection{Application to Bessel function identities} Let us finally compare the star-exponential of section \ref{sec-direct} involving Bessel functions with the one of section \ref{sec-principal} involving principal series representation pushed by the intertwiner $W$. We saw previously that expressions are much simpler in coordinates $(\xz,\yz)$ and $(\xw,\yw)$ instead of $(x,y)$ and $(a,\ell)$. So, we denote by $\caT$ the composition of the transformation $(\xz,\yz)\mapsto (x,y)$ (with partial Fourier transform and change of variables, see section \ref{subsec-starexppsi}) with $T:=T_{01}^{-1}\circ W_+$, which is the intertwiner between $\sharp_\theta$ and $\star_\theta^0$, and with the transformation $(a,\ell)\mapsto (\xw,\yw)$ (see section \ref{subsec-funcdescr}). Then $\caT:\kM_{\that\sharp_\theta}(\gR^2)\to\kM_{\thatp\star_\theta}(\gS)$ intertwines the products $\that\sharp_\theta$ and $\thatp\star_\theta$. Its explicit expression is given by \begin{equation*} \caT(\that f)(\xw,\yw)=\frac{\sqrt\kappa}{2\pi\theta} e^{-\xw-\yw} e^{\frac{-i\sqrt\kappa}{\theta}(\xw-\yw)} \int e^{\frac{i\kappa}{2\theta}(e^{-2\xw}\xz-e^{-2\yw}\yz)}\that f(\xz,\yz)\dd\xz\dd\yz. \end{equation*} We use now the form of the star-exponential of the group $G=SL(2,\gR)$ in the variables $(\xz,\yz)$ (see \eqref{eq-expr1starexp}): \begin{equation*} \caE_{\that\sharp_\theta}(g)(\xz,\yz)=\frac{2\pi\theta}{\sqrt\kappa}|a-c\xz|^{-1+\frac{i\sqrt\kappa}{\theta}}\,\delta\Big(\yz-\frac{d\xz-b}{a-c\xz}\Big), \end{equation*} for $g=\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix}$, to obtain \begin{equation*} \caE_{\thatp\star_\theta}(g)(\xw,\yw)=\caT(\caE_{\that\sharp_\theta}(g))(\xw,\yw)=e^{-(\xw+\yw)} e^{-\frac{i\sqrt\kappa}{\theta}(\xw-\yw)}\int |a-c\xz|^{-1+\frac{i\sqrt\kappa}{\theta}}\,e^{\frac{i\kappa}{2\theta}(e^{-2\xw}\xz-e^{-2\yw}\frac{d\xz-b}{a-c\xz})}\dd \xz. \end{equation*} In particular, with $g=e^{tF}=\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ t & 1 \end{pmatrix}$, the above expression satisfies Equation \eqref{eq-fouriersimple}, so by unicity it should coincide with the star-exponential $E_{\thatp \star_\theta}(\frac{i}{\theta}t\lambda_F)$ obtained in Theorem \ref{thm-starexpbessel}. This identification yields a new identity on Bessel functions as we will see. Before stating the result, let us recall some identities on Bessel functions. Combining \cite[p. 395]{Watson:1966} and \cite[p. 181]{Watson:1966}, we obtain the following property: \begin{equation*} \int_{\gR_+} s\,e^{-p^2s^2} J_{\nu}(\alpha s) J_{\nu}(\beta s)\dd s =-\frac{1}{4i\pi p^2}e^{-\frac{\alpha^2+\beta^2}{4p^2}}\int_{(0+)}^{+\infty} u^{-1-\nu}\,e^{-\frac{\alpha\beta}{4p^2}(u+\frac1u)}\dd u, \end{equation*} for $\alpha,\beta\in\gR_+^*$, $\nu, p\in\gC$ such that $|\text{Arg}(p)|<\frac{\pi}{4}$, $-1<\Re(\nu)<1$, and the integration contour is described on Figure \ref{fig-contour}. \begin{figure}[!htb] \centering \includegraphics[height=4cm]{contour.JPG} \caption[Contour]{\footnotesize{Integration contour $(0+)\to +\infty$.}} \label{fig-contour} \end{figure} Note that the RHS of the identity involves a well-defined Lebesgue integral on the complex contour, with an exponential decreasing because of the condition $|\text{Arg}(p)|<\frac{\pi}{4}$. We can now show that the comparison between the two star-exponential gives this type of identity but at the singular limit $|\text{Arg}(p)|=\frac{\pi}{4}$, for $\nu\in i\gR^*$, and if we replace the Bessel function $J$ by another function $A$ of Bessel type. Therefore, there will be no exponential decreasing in the second member, only an oscillatory integral. \begin{theorem} For $\alpha,\beta\in\gR_+^*$, $\tau\in\gR^*$ and $p\in\gC$ such that $|\text{Arg}(p)|=\frac{\pi}{4}$, we have the following identity: \begin{equation*} \int_{\gR_+} \,e^{-p^2s^2} A_{\tau}(\alpha,s) A_{\tau}(\beta,s)\frac{s}{1+4\tau^2 s^2}\dd s =\frac{1}{4\pi |p^2|}e^{-\frac{\alpha^2+\beta^2}{4p^2}}\int_\gR |\xz|^{-1+i\tau}\,e^{-\frac{\alpha\beta}{4p^2}(\xz+\frac{1}{\xz})}\dd \xz, \end{equation*} where we recall that \begin{equation*} A_\tau(\alpha,s):=\frac{1}{\sinh(\frac{\pi\tau}{2})} \Re\big( Y_{i\tau}(s\alpha)-2s\tau J_{i\tau}(s\alpha)\big). \end{equation*} \end{theorem} \begin{proof} Indeed, the identification $E_{\thatp\star_\theta}(\frac{i}{\theta}\lambda_F)$ with $\caT(E_{\that\sharp_\theta}(\frac{i}{\theta}\lambda_F))$ gives \begin{multline*} \frac{4\pi}{|\theta|}\int_{\gR_+} \,e^{-\frac{i}{\theta}s^2t} A_{\frac{\sqrt\kappa}{\theta}}( \frac{\sqrt{2\kappa}}{\theta}e^{-\xw},s) A_{\frac{\sqrt\kappa}{\theta}}(\frac{\sqrt{2\kappa}}{\theta} e^{-\yw},s)\frac{s}{1+\frac{4\kappa s^2}{\theta^2}}\dd s\\ =e^{-\frac{i\sqrt\kappa}{\theta}(\xw-\yw)}\int_\gR |1-t\xz|^{-1+\frac{i\sqrt\kappa}{\theta}}\,e^{\frac{i\kappa}{2\theta}(e^{-2\xw}\xz-e^{-2\yw}\frac{\xz}{1-t\xz})}\dd \xz. \end{multline*} for $t\in\gR$ and $\xw,\yw\in\gR$. We set $\tau=\frac{\sqrt\kappa}{\theta}$, $\alpha=\sqrt 2\tau e^{-\xw}$ and $\beta=\sqrt 2\tau e^{-\yw}$. After the change of variables $\xz\mapsto \frac{\alpha}{\beta}(t\xz-1)$, we obtain indeed \begin{equation*} \frac{4\pi}{|\theta|}\int_{\gR_+} \,e^{-\frac{i}{\theta}s^2t} A_{\tau}(\alpha,s) A_{\tau}(\beta,s)\frac{s}{1+4\tau^2 s^2}\dd s =\frac{1}{|t|}e^{\frac{i\theta}{4t}(\alpha^2+\beta^2)}\int_\gR |\xz|^{-1+i\tau}\, e^{\frac{i\alpha\beta\theta}{4t}(\xz+\frac{1}{\xz})}\dd \xz, \end{equation*} and we set $p^2=\frac{it}{\theta}$. \end{proof} \bibliographystyle{hplain}
\section{#1}\setcounter{equation}{0}} \def\nsection#1{\section{#1}} \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}} \def\nappendix#1{\vskip 1cm\noindent{\Large\bf Appendix #1}\def\thesection{#1} \setcounter{equation}{0}} \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}} \usepackage[latin1]{inputenc} \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{epsfig} \usepackage{psfrag} \usepackage{bm} \textheight=24.5cm\textwidth=14.8cm \hoffset -1cm \topmargin=-2cm \raggedbottom \usepackage[english]{babel} \newcommand{\tr}{{\rm tr}} \newcommand{\Tr}{{\rm Tr}} \newcommand{\dd}{{\rm d}} \newcommand{\ii}{{\rm i}} \newcommand{\ee}{{\rm e}} \newcommand{\CA}{{\cal A}} \newcommand{\CB}{{\cal B}} \newcommand{\CC}{{\cal C}} \newcommand{\CD}{{\cal D}} \newcommand{\CH}{{\cal H}} \newcommand{\CI}{{\cal I}} \newcommand{\CJ}{{\cal J}} \newcommand{\CN}{{\cal N}} \newcommand{\CS}{{\cal S}} \newcommand{\CT}{{\cal T}} \newcommand{\CU}{{\cal U}} \newcommand{\sfrac}[2]{\frac{_{#1}}{^{#2}}} \newcommand{\NZ}{\mathbf Z} \newcommand{\bra}[1]{\left\langle #1 \right|} \newcommand{\ket}[1]{\left| #1 \right\rangle} \newcommand{\tbra}[1]{\langle #1|} \newcommand{\tket}[1]{| #1 \rangle} \newcommand{\CF}{{\mathcal F}} \newcommand{\qq}{\begin{equation}} \newcommand{\qqq}{\end{equation}} \begin{document} \title{Nonequilibrium transport through quantum-wire junctions and boundary defects for free massless bosonic fields} \author{Krzysztof Gaw\c{e}dzki\\ {\small{Laboratoire de Physique, C.N.R.S., ENS de Lyon, Universit\'e de Lyon,}}\\\small{46 All\'ee d'Italie, 69364 Lyon, France}\\{}\\ Cl\'ement Tauber\\ {\small{Laboratoire de Physique, ENS de Lyon, Universit\'e de Lyon,}}\\\small{46 All\'ee d'Italie, 69364 Lyon, France}} \date{} \maketitle \begin{abstract}{\noindent We consider a model of quantum-wire junctions where the latter are described by conformal-invariant boundary conditions of the simplest type in the multicomponent compactified massless scalar free field theory representing the bosonized Luttinger liquids in the bulk of wires. The boundary conditions result in the scattering of charges across the junction with nontrivial reflection and transmission amplitudes. The equilibrium state of such a system, corresponding to inverse temperature $\beta$ and electric potential $V$, is explicitly constructed both for finite and for semi-infinite wires. In the latter case, a stationary nonequilibrium state describing the wires kept at different temperatures and potentials may be also constructed following Ref.\,\cite{MSLL}. The main result of the present paper is the calculation of the full counting statistics (FCS) of the charge and energy transfers through the junction in a nonequilibrium situation. Explicit expressions are worked out for the generating function of FCS and its large-deviations asymptotics. For the purely transmitting case they coincide with those obtained in Refs.\,\cite{BD1,BD2}, but numerous cases of junctions with transmission and reflection are also covered. The large deviations rate function of FCS for charge and energy transfers is shown to satisfy the fluctuation relations of Refs.\,\cite{AGMT,BD3}. The expressions for FCS obtained here are compared with the Levitov-Lesovic formulae of Refs.\,\cite{LL,Klich}.} \end{abstract} \vskip 1cm \nsection{Introduction} \label{sec:intro} The transport phenomena in quantum wires (carbon nanotubes, semiconducting, metallic and molecular nanowires, quantum Hall edges) and, in particular, across their junctions, have attracted a lot of interest in recent times, \,see e.g.\,\,\cite{Datta,BB}. To a good approximation, the charge carriers inside the wires may be described by the Tomonaga-Luttinger model \cite{Voit,SassKram,G,Ishii}. In the low energy limit, such a model reduces to a relativistic 1+1 dimensional interacting fermionic field theory that can also be represented by free massless bosonic fields. The junction between the leads couples together the conformal field theories (CFTs) describing at low energies the bulk volumes of the wires. Specific features of the coupling depend on how the junction is realized. Various models that couple two or more wires locally at their connected extremities were considered in the literature, \,see e.g.\,\cite{FLS,NFLL,OCA0,OCA} where important results about transport properties of such models of wire-junctions were obtained. The low-energy long-distance effect of the interaction at the junction may be described with the use of boundary CFT, similarly as the effect of a magnetic impurity in the multi-channel Kondo problem \cite{Affleck}. Even if the coupling of the Luttinger liquid theories introduced by the junction breaks the conformal symmetry, the latter should be restored in the long-distance scaling limit. In the scaling limit, the effect of the junction will be represented, using the ``folding trick'' of ref.\,\cite{WA}, by a conformal boundary defect in the tensor product of the bulk CFTs of individual wires \cite{BdeBDO}. Such a boundary defect preserves half of the conformal symmetry of the bulk theory. Examples of conformal boundary defects that describe the renormalization group fixed points of Luttinger liquid theories with a coupling localized at the junction were discussed in \cite{FLS,NFLL,OCA0,OCA}. It was also realized that the boundary CFT description of the junction of wires gives via the Green-Kubo formalism a direct access to the low temperature electric conductance of junctions \cite{OCA,RHFCA,RHFOCA} that measure small currents induced by placing different wires in slightly different external electric potentials. Getting hold of the transport properties of the quantum-wire junctions beyond the linear response regime is more complicated, see \cite{FLS} for an early result using an exact integrability of a model of contact between two wires. The CFT approach seems also helpful here. It was shown in \cite{BD1,BD2,BD3,DHB} that for some boundary defects (those with pure transmission of charge or energy), not only the electric and thermal conductance but also the long-time asymptotics of the full counting statistics (FCS) of charge and energy transfers through the junction may be calculated for the wires initially equilibrated at different temperatures and different potentials. Moreover, steady nonequilibrium states obtained at long times from such initial conditions could be explicitly constructed. Physical restrictions for the applicability of the CFT approach in such a nonequilibrium situations were also discussed in some detail in those works, in particular in \cite{BD2}, see also \cite{BDLS,D,AJPP,BJP}. The incorporation of junctions corresponding to boundary defects with transmission and reflection into that approach poses more problems, although for a junction of two CFTs a general scheme has been recently laid down in \cite{BDV}, together with some examples. \vskip 0.1cm The present paper arose from an attempt to calculate the FCS for nonequilibrium charge and energy transfers for simple conformal boundary defects with transmission and reflection. We describe each of $\,N\,$ wires by a compactified free massless $1+1$-dimensional bosonic field, with the compactification radius related to the Luttinger model coupling constants that may be different for different wires. The product theory is a toroidal compactification of the massless $N$-component free field, \,i.e., \,on the classical level, its field takes values in the torus $\,U(1)^N$. \,In such a theory, we consider the simplest conformal boundary defects that restrict the boundary values of the field at the junction to a subgroup $\,\CB\subset U(1)^N\,$ isomorphic to the torus $\,U(1)^M\,$ with $M\leq N$. In the string-theory jargon, $\,\CB\,$ is called the D(irichlet)-brane \cite{Polchinski}. First, we study the wires of finite length $\,L\,$ with the reflecting boundary condition at their ends not connected to the junction. The overall $U(1)$-symmetry of the theory is imposed, leading to the conservation of the total electric charge. We show that the boundary defect gives rise to an $N\times N$ scattering matrix $\,S\,$ that relates linearly the left-moving and the right-moving components of the electric currents in various wires. The classical theory described above may be canonically quantized preserving the latter property. The exact solution for the quantum theory includes the formula for the partition function of the equilibrium state corresponding to inverse temperature $\beta$ and electric potential $V$ and for the equilibrium correlation functions of the chiral components of the electric currents. The thermodynamic limit $\,L\to\infty\,$ may then be performed giving rise to a free-field theory that was constructed directly for $\,L=\infty\,$ in \cite{MSLL}. In that limit, the equilibrium correlation functions involving only left-moving (or only right-moving) currents factorize into the product of contributions from the individual wires. This property was used in \cite{MSLL}, \,following the earlier work \cite{Mintchev}, to construct a nonequilibrium stationary state (NESS) where the correlation functions of left-moving currents factorize into the product of equilibrium contributions from individual wires, each corresponding to a different temperature and a different potential. The NESS correlation functions involving also the right-moving currents are reduced to those of the left-moving ones using the scattering relation between the chiral current components. Following the approach of \cite{BD1,BD2}, we show that such a state is obtained if one prepares disconnected wires each in the equilibrium state at different temperature and potential and then one connects the wires instantaneously and lets the initial state evolve for a long time \cite{Ruelle}. \vskip 0.1cm The main aim of the present paper is the study of the FCS for charge and energy (heat) transfers through the junction modeled by the brane defect of the type described above. Similarly as in \cite{BD2}, the FCS is obtained from a two-time measurement protocol. First, the total charge and total energy is measured in each of the disconnected wires of finite length $\,L\,$ prepared in equilibria with different temperatures and potentials. Next the wires are instantaneously connected and evolve for time $\,t\,$ with the dynamics described by the field theory with the brane defect. After time $\,t$, \,the wires are disconnected again and the second measurement of total charge and total energy in individual wires is performed. The FCS is encoded in the characteristic function of the probability distribution of the changes of total charge and total energy of individual wires. The above protocol is not practical for long wires as the total charge and and total energy of the wires, unlike their change in time, behave extensively with $\,L$, \,but a similar charge and energy transfer statistics should be obtainable from an indirect measurement protocol where one observes the evolution of gauges coupled appropriately to the wires and registering the flow of charge and energy through the junction, see \cite{LL,LLL}. In our model, we compute the generating function of FCS of charge transfers explicitly for any $\,L\,$ and $\,t\,$ and confirm that it takes for large $\,t\,$ the large-deviations exponential form that is independent of whether $\,L\,$ is sent to infinity first or, \,e.g., \,kept equal to $\,t/2$. \,The equality of the large deviation forms for the two limiting procedures appears, however, to be less obvious than one could have expected. The choice $\,L=t/2\,$ leads to the simplest calculation of the large deviation rate function and was implicitly employed in \cite{BD1,BD2}, where it was argued that it reproduces correctly the large deviations of the FCS for the junction of semi-infinite wires. We also compute explicitly the generating function of the FCS for heat transfers for $\,L=t/2\,$ and its large deviations form. The case of general $\,L\,$ and $\,t\,$ could be also dealt with but the corresponding formulae are considerably heavier and we did not present them here. The generating function of the joint FCS of the charge and energy transfers for $\,L=t/2\,$ and its large deviations form were also obtained. To our knowledge, the calculations of FCS presented in this paper are the first ones obtained for junctions with transmission and reflection modeled by conformal boundary defects. It should be mentioned, however, that in a different physical setup, the FCS of charge transfers across an inhomogeneous Luttinger liquid conductor connected to two leads with distinct energy distributions was obtained by a ``nonequilibrium bosonization'' in \cite{GGM1,GGM2,NDBM}. \vskip 0.1cm The present paper is organized as follows. In Sec.\,\ref{sec:QFT}, we briefly recall the description of relativistic free massless fermions and bosons on an interval. We discuss the correspondence between the two theories and how it extends to the case of the Luttinger model of interacting fermions. Sec.\,\ref{sec:bosjunc} describes in detail the model of a junction based on a toroidal compactification of the multi-component massless bosonic free field with a boundary defect of the type mentioned above. We discuss first the classical theory on a space-interval of length $\,L\,$ and subsequently canonically quantize that theory in Sec.\,\ref{sec:Quant}. In particular, we show how the scattering matrix $\,S\,$ relating the chiral components of the electric current arises from the brane describing the boundary defect. Sec.\,\ref{sec:equilib} constructs the equilibrium states of the quantized theory labeled by inverse temperature $\,\beta\,$ and electric potential $\,V$. In Sec.\,\ref{sec:funcint}, we discuss the Euclidean functional integral representation of the equilibrium state and in Sec.\,\ref{sec:clstr}, its dual closed-string representation resulting from the interchange of time and space in the functional integral. The closed-string picture is particularly convenient in the thermodynamic limit $\,L\to\infty\,$ of the equilibrium state that is analyzed in Sec.\,\ref{sec:thermlim}. \,Sec.\,\ref{sec:NESS} discusses the NESS of the junction of semi-infinite wires kept in different temperatures and different electric potentials. By considering the nonequilibrium state for close temperatures and potentials, we obtain as a byproduct the formulae for the electric and thermal conductance of the junction. The central Sec.\,\ref{sec:FCS} is devoted to the analysis of FCS for charge and heat transfers through the junction. Subsecs.\,\ref{subsec:ch.transp} and \ref{subsec:exact.el} treat the charge transport, Subsec.\,\ref{subsec:th.trans} that of heat, and Subsec.\,\ref{subsec:ch.th.trans} the joint FCS for both. Sec.\,\ref{sec:compLL} compares the generating function of FCS for charge and heat transfers obtained in this paper with those given by the Levitov-Lesovik formulae for free fermions \cite{LL,LLL} and free bosons \cite{Klich}. In Sec.\,\ref{sec:exampl}, we specify our general formulae to few simplest cases of junctions of two and three wires. Finally, Sec.\,\ref{sec:concl} collects our conclusions and discusses the possible generalizations and open problems. Appendix {A} contains the calculations of the generating functional of FCS for charge transfers at general $\,t\,$ and $\,L$. \,Appendix {B} performs the computation of certain bosonic Fock space expectations that are needed to obtain the generating function of FCS for heat transfers through the junction. Appendix {C} calculates the quadratic contribution to the Levitov-Lesovik large-deviations rate function of charge transfers for free fermions. \vskip 0.1cm Acknowledgements: The authors thank D. Bernard for discussions on nonequilibrium CFT and J. Germoni for Ref.\,\cite{Sims}. A part of the work of K.G. was done within the STOSYMAP project ANR-11-BS01-015-02. \nsection{Field theory description of quantum wires} \label{sec:QFT} \setcounter{equation}{0} \subsection{Classical fermions} \label{subsec:clferm} Consider a fermionic 1+1-dimensional field theory describing noninteracting conduction electrons in a quantum wire of length $\,L$. To a good approximation such electrons have a linear dispersion relation around the Fermi surface. For simplicity, we shall ignore here the electron spin. The classical action functional of the anticommuting Fermi fields of such a theory has the form \begin{equation} S[\bar\psi,\psi]\,=\,\sfrac{2\ii}{\pi}\int\dd t \int\limits_0^L\big[\bar\psi^\ell \partial_-\psi^\ell\,+\, \bar\psi^r\partial_+\psi^r\big]\dd x\,, \label{Sf} \end{equation} where $\,\partial_\pm=\frac{1}{2}(\partial_t\pm\partial_x)$, \,with the boundary conditions \begin{equation} \psi^\ell(t,0)=\psi^r(t,0)\,,\qquad \psi^\ell(t,L)= -\psi^r(t,L)\,. \label{bdc} \end{equation} We use the Fermi velocity $\,v_F\,$ to express time in the same units as length. The classical equations obtained by extremizing action (\ref{Sf}) are \begin{equation} \partial_-\psi^\ell=0=\partial_-\bar\psi^\ell\,,\qquad \partial_+\psi^r=0=\partial_+\bar\psi^r \end{equation} and their solutions take the form: \begin{align} &\psi^\ell(t,x)\,=\,\sqrt{\sfrac{\pi}{2L}}\, \sum\limits_{p\in{\mathbb Z}+\sfrac{1}{2}}\hspace{-0.1cm} c_{p}\,\ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii p(t+x)}{L}}\,=\,\psi^r(t,-x)\,,\label{psis}\\ &\bar\psi^\ell(t,x)\,=\,\sqrt{\sfrac{\pi}{2L}}\, \sum\limits_{p\in{\mathbb Z}+\sfrac{1}{2}}\hspace{-0.1cm} \bar c_{-p}\,\ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii p(t+x)}{L}}\,=\,\bar\psi^r(t,-x)\,. \end{align} The space of classical solutions comes equipped with the odd symplectic form \begin{equation} \Omega\,=\,\sfrac{\ii}{\pi} \int\limits_0^L\big[ \delta\bar\psi^\ell\wedge\delta\psi^\ell+ \delta\bar\psi^r\wedge\delta\psi^r\big]\,\dd x\,=\,\ii \sum\limits_{p\in{\mathbb Z}+\sfrac{1}{2}}\delta\bar c_{p}\wedge\delta c_{p} \end{equation} leading to the odd Poisson brackets \begin{equation} \{c_{p},c_{p'}\}\,=\,0\,=\,\{\bar c_{p},\bar c_{p'}\}\,, \qquad\{c_{p},\bar c_{p'}\}\, =\,-\ii\,\delta_{p,p'}\,. \end{equation} The $U(1)$ symmetry \begin{equation} \psi^{\ell,r}\ \mapsto\ \ee^{-\ii\alpha}\psi^{\ell,r}\,,\qquad \bar\psi^{\ell,r}\ \mapsto\ \ee^{\ii\alpha}\bar\psi^{\ell,r} \end{equation} corresponds to the Noether current \begin{equation} J^0=\sfrac{1}{\pi}(\bar\psi^\ell\psi^\ell+\bar\psi^r\psi^r)\,,\qquad J^1=\sfrac{1}{\pi}(\bar\psi^r\psi^r-\bar\psi^\ell\psi^\ell) \end{equation} with the chiral components \begin{equation} J^\ell=\sfrac{1}{2}(J^0-J^1)=\sfrac{1}{\pi}\bar\psi^\ell\psi^\ell\,, \qquad J^r=\sfrac{1}{2}(J^0+J^1)=\sfrac{1}{\pi}\bar\psi^r\psi^r \end{equation} and the conserved charge \qq Q=\int\limits_0^LJ^0(t,x)\,\dd x =\sum\limits_{p\in\frac{1}{2}+\mathbb Z}c_p^\dagger c_p\,. \qqq The classical Hamiltonian is \begin{equation} H\,=\,\sfrac{i}{\pi}\int\limits_0^L \big[\bar\psi^\ell\partial_x\psi^\ell-\bar\psi^r\partial_x\psi^r\big]\, \dd x\,=\,\sfrac{\pi}{L}\sum \limits_{p\in{\mathbb Z}+\sfrac{1}{2}}k\,\bar c_{p}c_{p}\,. \end{equation} \subsection{Quantum fermions} \label{subsec:qferm} Quantized Fermi fields $\psi^\ell$ and $\psi^r$ are given by expressions (\ref{psis}) with operators $\,c_{p}\,$ and their adjoints $c_{p}^\dagger$ satisfying the canonical anticommutation relations \begin{equation} [c_{p},c_{p'}]_{_+}\,=\,0\,=\,[c_{p}^\dagger,c_{p'}^\dagger]_{_+}\,,\qquad [c_{p},c_{p'}^\dagger]_{_+}\,=\,\delta_{p,p'}\,. \end{equation} They act in the fermionic Fock space $\CF_{\hspace{-0.05cm}f}$ built upon the normalized vacuum state $\,|0\rangle_{\hspace{-0.05cm}_f}\,$ annihilated by $\,c_{p}\,$ and $\,c_{-p}^\dagger\,$ for $\,p>0\,$ (the annihilation operators of electrons and holes, respectively). \,Upon quantization, fields $\,\bar\psi^\ell\,$ and $\,\bar\psi^r\,$ become the hermitian adjoints of $\,\psi^\ell\,$ and $\,\psi^r$. \,The quantum $U(1)$ currents have the chiral components \begin{equation} J^\ell=\sfrac{1}{\pi}:\bar\psi^\ell\psi^\ell:\,,\qquad J^r=\sfrac{1}{\pi}:\bar\psi^r\psi^r: \end{equation} and the conserved $U(1)$ (electric) charge is\footnote{Here and below, we measure the electric charge in the negative units $\,-e\,$ so that electron's charge is $+1$.} \begin{equation} Q=\int\limits_0^LJ^0\,\dd x=\int\limits_0^L(J^\ell+J^r)\,\dd x\,=\, \sum\limits_{p\in{\mathbb Z}+\sfrac{1}{2}}:c_p^\dagger c_p:. \end{equation} The fermionic Wick ordering putting (electron and hole) creation operators $\,c_{p}\,$ and $\,c_{-p}^\dagger\,$ for $p<0$ to the left of annihilators $\,c_{p}\,$ and $\,c_{-p}^\dagger\,$ for $p>0$, \,with a minus sign whenever a pair is interchanged, assures that the vacuum $|0\rangle_{\hspace{-0.05cm}_f}$ has zero charge. \,The quantum Hamiltonian is \begin{equation} H\,=\,\sfrac{\pi}{L}\Big( \sum\limits_{p\in{\mathbb Z}+\sfrac{1}{2}}\hspace{-0.15cm} p:c_p^\dagger c_p:-\,\sfrac{1}{24}\Big), \label{Hf} \end{equation} where the constant contribution is that of the zeta-function regularized zero-point energy \begin{equation} \sum\limits_{p<0}p=-\sfrac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{n=1}^\infty n+\sum\limits_{n=1}^n n =\sfrac{1}{2}\zeta(-1)=-\sfrac{1}{24}\,. \end{equation} \subsection{Classical bosons} \label{subsec:clbos} Consider now a bosonic 1+1-dimensional massless free field $\varphi(t,x)$ defined modulo $2\pi$ on the spacetime $\mathbb R\times[0,L]$, with the action functional \begin{equation} \label{action_initial0} S[\varphi]=\frac{_{r^2}}{^{4\pi}}\int \dd t\int\limits_0^L\big[(\partial_t \varphi)^2-(\partial_x\varphi)^2\big]\,\dd x\,. \end{equation} We shall impose on $\,\varphi(t,x)\,$ the Neumann boundary conditions \begin{equation} \partial_x\varphi(t,0)\,=\,0\,=\,\partial_x\varphi(t,L)\,. \end{equation} Such a scalar field will be viewed as having the range of its values compactified to the circle of radius $r$ with metric $r^2(d\varphi)^2$. The classical solutions extremizing action (\ref{action_initial0}) have the form \begin{equation} \varphi(t,x)=\varphi^\ell(t,x)+\varphi^r(t,x) \end{equation} with \begin{equation} \varphi^\ell(t,x)\,=\,\sfrac{1}{2}\varphi_0+\sfrac{\pi}{2L}\alpha_0(t+x) +\ii\hspace{-0.1cm}\sum_{0\not=n\in{\mathbb Z}}\hspace{-0.1cm} \sfrac{1}{2n}\,\alpha_{2n}\, \ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii n(t+x)}{L}}=\varphi^r(t,-x) \label{phiell} \end{equation} and $\,\bar\alpha_{2n}=\alpha_{-2n}$. \,The labeling of modes $\alpha_{2n}$ by even integers is for the later convenience. The symplectic form on the space of classical solutions is equal to \begin{equation}\label{Symp_final0} \Omega = \sfrac{r^2}{2} \delta \alpha_0 \wedge \delta \varphi_0 -\sfrac{\ii\,r^2}{2} \sum_{n \neq 0} \sfrac{1}{2n} \delta \alpha_{2n} \wedge \delta\alpha_{-2n}\,, \end{equation} leading to the Poisson brackets \begin{equation} \{\alpha_0,\varphi_0\}\,=\,-2r^{-2}\,,\qquad \{\alpha_{2n},\alpha_{2n'}\}\,=\, -2n\ii r^{-2}\,\delta_{n+n',0}\,. \end{equation} The $U(1)$ symmetry \begin{equation} \varphi\ \mapsto\ \varphi+\alpha \end{equation} corresponds to the Noether current \begin{equation} J^0\,=\,\sfrac{r^2}{2\pi}\partial_t\varphi\,,\qquad J^1\,=\, -\sfrac{r^2}{2\pi}\partial_x\varphi \end{equation} with the chiral components \begin{equation} J^{\ell,r}(t,x)\,=\,\sfrac{r^2}{2\pi}\partial_\pm\varphi(t,x)\,=\, \sfrac{r^2}{4L}\sum\limits_{n\in{\mathbb Z}}\alpha_{2n}\, \ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii n(t\pm x)}{L}}, \label{leftrightc} \end{equation} where the upper sign pertains to the left-moving component depending on $x^+=t+x$ and the lower one to the right-moving one depending on $x^-=t-x$. \,The classical Hamiltonian takes the form \begin{equation} H\,=\,\sfrac{r^2}{4\pi}\int\limits_0^L\big[(\partial_t\varphi)^2 +(\partial_x\varphi)^2\big]\dd x\,=\,\sfrac{\pi r^2}{4L} \sum\limits_{n\in{\mathbb Z}}\alpha_{2n}\alpha_{-2n}\,. \label{Hb} \end{equation} \subsection{Quantum bosons} \label{subsec:qbos} The space $\,\CH_0\,$ of quantum states corresponding to the zero modes $\,\varphi_0,\alpha_0\,$ may be represented as $\,L^2(U(1))$, \,with $\,\varphi_0\,$ viewed as the angle in $\,U(1)$. $\,\alpha_0\,$ acts then as $\,-2\ii r^{-2}\frac{\partial}{\partial\varphi_0}\,$ assuring the commutation relation $\,[\alpha_0,\varphi_0]=-2\ii r^{-2}$. \,An orthonormal basis of $\,\CH_0\,$ is composed of the states \begin{equation} |k\rangle\,=\,\ee^{\ii k\varphi_0} \end{equation} with \begin{equation} \alpha_0|k\rangle\,=\,2r^{-2}k\,|k\rangle\,. \end{equation} The excited modes $\,\alpha_{2n}=\alpha_{-2n}^\dagger$ with the commutation relations \begin{equation} [\alpha_{2n},\alpha_{2n'}]\,=\,2n\,r^{-2}\,\delta_{n+n',0} \end{equation} are represented in the bosonic Fock space $\,\CF_b\,$ built upon the vacuum state $\,|0\rangle_b\,$ annihilated by $\,\alpha_{2n}\,$ with $n>0$. The total bosonic space of states is $\,\CH_b=\CH_0\otimes\CF_b$. \,We shall identify $\,\CH_0\,$ with its subspace $\,\CH_0\otimes|0\rangle_b\,$ and the state $\,|0\rangle\in\CH_0\,$ with the vacuum $\,|0\rangle\otimes|0\rangle_b$. \,The chiral components $\,J^{\ell,r}\,$ of the quantum $U(1)$ current are given by the right hand side of Eq.\,(\ref{leftrightc}). The conserved $U(1)$ charge takes the form \qq Q\,=\,\int\limits_0^LJ^0\,\dd x\,=\,\sfrac{1}{2}r^2\alpha_0 \qqq so that $\,Q|k\rangle=k|k\rangle\,$ and it acts trivially in $\,\CF_b$. \,The quantum Hamiltonian requires a bosonic Wick reordering putting the creators $\alpha_{-2n}$ for $n>0$ to the left of annihilators $\alpha_{2n}$ in the classical expression. Explicitly, \begin{equation} H\,=\,\sfrac{\pi r^2}{4L}\alpha_0^2\,+\,\sfrac{\pi r^2}{2L} \sum\limits_{n=1}^\infty\alpha_{-2n}\alpha_{2n}\,-\,\sfrac{\pi}{24L}\,, \end{equation} where the constant term is the contribution of the zeta-function regularized zero-point energy \qq \sfrac{\pi r^2}{4L}\sum\limits_{n=1}^\infty 2nr^{-2}\,=\,\sfrac{\pi}{2L}\zeta(-1) \,=\,-\sfrac{\pi}{24L}\,. \qqq \subsection{Boson-fermion correspondence} \label{subsec:bfcorr} In one space dimension there is an equivalence between quantum relativistic free fermions and free bosons that provides a powerful tool for the analysis of such systems \cite{Senechal,Kane}, see also \cite{Stone} for the historical account. In the context of the fermionic system described in Sec.\,\ref{subsec:qferm}, such an equivalence involves the free bosonic field of Sec.\,\ref{subsec:qbos} with the compactification radius $\,r=\sqrt{2}\,$ and is realized by a unitary isomorphism $\,\CI:\CH_b\rightarrow\CH_{\hspace{-0.04cm}f}\,$ that maps vacuum to vacuum, $\,\CI\,|0\rangle_b=|0\rangle_{\hspace{-0.04cm}f}$, \,and intertwines the action of $U(1)$ currents and the Hamiltonians\footnote{We choose to represent free fermions by bosons compactified on the radius $r=\sqrt{2}$ rather than on the more frequently used dual radius $r=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$ as better suited to the fermionic boundary conditions (\ref{bdc}).}. \,In particular, \begin{equation} \CI\,\,\alpha_{2n}\,=\,\sum\limits_{p\in\frac{1}{2}+{\mathbb Z}}\hspace{-0.15cm} :c_p^\dagger c_{p+n}:\,\CI\,. \end{equation} The Fermi fields are intertwined by $\,\CI\,$ with the bosonic vertex operators: \begin{align} \psi^\ell(t,x)\,\CI \,=\,\CI\ \sqrt{\sfrac{\pi}{2L}}:\ee^{-2\ii\varphi^\ell(t,x)}:\,\ \equiv&\ \,\, \CI\ \sqrt{\sfrac{\pi}{2L}}\,\ee^{\frac{\pi\ii}{2L}(t+x)} \,\ee^{-\ii\varphi_0}\,\ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii}{L} \alpha_0(t+x)}\cr &\times\ \ee^{\,\sum\limits_{n<0}\frac{1}{n}\alpha_{2n}\ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii n(t+x)}{L}}} \,\ee^{\,\sum\limits_{n>0}\frac{1}{n}\alpha_{2n}\ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii n(t+x)}{L}}},\cr\cr \bar\psi^\ell(t,x)\,\CI \,=\,\CI\ \sqrt{\sfrac{\pi}{2L}}:\ee^{2\ii\varphi^\ell(t,x)}:\,\ \equiv&\ \,\, \CI\ \sqrt{\sfrac{\pi}{2L}}\,\ee^{\frac{\pi\ii}{2L}(t+x)} \,\ee^{i\varphi_0}\,\ee^{\frac{\pi\ii}{L} \alpha_0(t+x)}\cr &\times\ \ee^{-\sum\limits_{n<0}\frac{1}{n}\alpha_{2n}\ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii n(t+x)}{L}}} \,\ee^{-\sum\limits_{n>0}\frac{1}{n}\alpha_{2n}\ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii n(t+x)}{L}}}. \end{align} \subsection{Luttinger model} \label{subsec:Lutt} The interaction of electrons near the Fermi surface gives rise to the addition of a perturbation to the free field Hamiltonian (\ref{Hf}) that in the leading order takes the form of a combination of quartic terms in the free fermionic fields: \qq H^{\rm int}\,=\,\sfrac{1}{2\pi^2} \int\limits_0^L\big[2g_2(:\bar\psi^\ell\psi^\ell:) (:\bar\psi^r\psi^r:) +g_4\big((:\bar\psi^\ell\psi^\ell:)^2+(:\bar\psi^r\psi^r:)^2\big)\big]\, \dd x\,+\,{\rm const.}\,, \qqq where an infinite constant is needed to make the operator well defined in the fermionic Fock space. Such a perturbation defines the Luttinger model of spinless electrons in one-dimensional crystal \cite{Voit}. The crucial fact that enables an exact solution of such a model is that, under the bosonization map, the above perturbation becomes quadratic in the free bosonic field: \begin{align} H^{\rm int}\ \CI&=\,\CI\ \sfrac{1}{2\pi^2}\int\limits_0^L:\big[2g_2(\partial_+\varphi) (\partial_-\varphi)\,+\,g_4\,((\partial_+\varphi)^2+(\partial_-\varphi)^2) \big]:\,\dd x\,+\,{\rm const.}\cr &=\,\CI\ \sfrac{1}{4\pi^2}\int\limits_0^L:\big[(g_4+g_2)(\partial_t\varphi)^2 +(g_4-g_2)(\partial_x\varphi)^2\big]:\,\dd x\,+\,{\rm const.}\,, \end{align} where on the bosonic side the Wick ordering takes care of the diverging part of the constant on the fermionic side. The perturbed bosonic Hamiltonian has then the form \qq H^{\rm tot}=H+H^{\rm int}\,=\,\sfrac{1}{4\pi^2}\int\limits_0^L:\big[(2\pi+g_4+g_2) (\partial_t\varphi)^2+(2\pi+g_4-g_2)(\partial_x\varphi)^2\big]:\,\dd x\, +\,{\rm const.} \qqq in terms of the free field $\,\varphi(t,x)\,$ with the compactification radius $\,r=\sqrt{2}$. \,$H^{\rm tot}\,$ corresponds to the classical Hamiltonian \qq H^{\rm tot}\,=\,\sfrac{1}{4}\int\limits_0^L\big[(2\pi+g_4+g_2) \Pi^2+\sfrac{2\pi+g_4-g_2}{\pi^2}(\partial_x\varphi)^2\big]\,\dd x\,, \qqq where $\,\Pi(t,x)=\frac{1}{\pi}(\partial_t\varphi)(t,x)\,$ is the field canonically conjugate to $\,\varphi(t,x)$. \,The classical Lagrangian related to the above classical Hamiltonian is obtained by the Legendre transform: \begin{align} L^{\rm tot}&=\,\sfrac{1}{2\pi}\int\limits_0^L\big[\sfrac{2\pi}{2\pi+g_4+g_2} (\partial_t\varphi)^2-\sfrac{2\pi+g_4-g_2}{2\pi}(\partial_x\varphi)^2\big]\, \dd x &=\,\sfrac{r^2}{4\pi}\hspace{-0.15cm}\int\limits_0^{\alpha^{-1}L} \hspace{-0.1cm}\big[ (\partial_t\varphi)^2-(\partial_{x'}\varphi)^2\big]\, \dd x' \end{align} for $\,x=\alpha x'$, \,where \qq \sfrac{r^2}{2}\,\equiv\,K\,=\,\sqrt{\sfrac{2\pi+g_4-g_2}{2\pi+g_4+g_2}}\,, \qquad\alpha\,\equiv\,\sfrac{v_{\rm ren}}{v_F}\, =\,\sfrac{\sqrt{(2\pi+g_4)^2-g_2^2 }}{2\pi}\,. \label{ralpha} \qqq Hence after the change of the spatial variable, \,Lagrangian $\,L^{\rm tot}\,$ becomes that of the free bosonic field compactified on the radius $\,r\,$ that is different from $\,r=\sqrt{2}\,$ if $\,g_2\not=0$. \,The factor $\,\alpha\,$ gives the multiplicative renormalization of the wave velocity $\,v_F\,$ due to the interactions (we assume that $\,|2\pi+g_4|>|g_2|$). The quantization of the free bosonic theory compactified at radius $\,r\,$ discussed in Sec.\,\ref{subsec:qbos} provides the exact solution of the Luttinger model on the quantum level. \nsection{Bosonic model of a junction of quantum wires} \label{sec:bosjunc} \setcounter{equation}{0} In the spirit of the ``folding trick'' of \cite{WA,OA}, \,see Fig.\,1, \,we shall model a junction of $N$ quantum wires by a compactified free field $\,\bm g(t,x)\,$ with $N$-components $\,g_i(t,x)=\ee^{\ii\varphi_i(t,x)}\in U(1)\,$ defined on the spacetime $\mathbb R\times[0,L]$, \,with the action functional \begin{equation} \label{action_initial} S[\bm g]=\sum\limits_{i=1}^N\frac{_{r_i^2}}{^{4\pi}}\int \dd t\int\limits_0^{L}\big((\partial_t \varphi_i)^2-(\partial_x\varphi_i)^2\big)\,\dd x \end{equation} and appropriate boundary conditions. The compactification radii $\,r_i\,$ may be different for different wires, corresponding to different quartic coupling constants $g_{2i}$ and $g_{4i}$ in the Luttinger models describing the electrons in the individual wires, see Eq.\,(\ref{ralpha}) of Sec.\,\ref{subsec:Lutt}. We shall impose the Neumann reflecting boundary conditions at the free ends of the wires: \begin{equation} \partial_x\bm\varphi(t,L) = 0\,, \label{bcatR/2} \end{equation} where $\,\bm\varphi\equiv(\varphi_i)$. \,Note that we use the rescaled spatial variables in the wires so that the lengths of the wires in physical variables are fixed to $\alpha_iL$. This will not matter much because the length $L$ will be ultimately sent to infinity. \begin{figure}[th] \leavevmode \begin{center} \vskip -0.2cm \includegraphics[width=7.3cm,height=3.5cm]{folding.eps}\\ \caption{Folding trick} \end{center} \end{figure} \noindent The ``boundary defect'' representing in the folding trick the junction of wires at $\,x=0\,$ will be described by the boundary condition requiring that the $\,U(1)^N$-valued field $\,\bm g\,$ belongs to a ``brane'': \begin{equation} \bm g(t,0) \in\CB\equiv\kappa(U(1)^M)\subset U(1)^N\,, \label{bcat0} \end{equation} where $\,\kappa:U(1)^M\rightarrow U(1)^N\,$ is a group homomorphism \begin{equation} \big( e^{\ii \psi_m}\big)_{_{m=1}}^{^{M}}\,\mathop{\longmapsto}\limits^\kappa\ \big( e^{\ii\sum_m\kappa_i^m \psi_m }\big)_{_{i=1}}^{^N} \label{homnu} \end{equation} specified by integers $\kappa^m_i$. We shall assume that $\kappa$ is injective so that $\kappa(U(1)^M)\cong U(1)^M$. \,As may be seen from the Smith normal form of matrix $\,\big(\kappa^m_n\big)$, such a property is assured if and only if the $M\times N$ matrix $\big(\kappa^m_n\big)$ has rank $M$ and the g.c.d. of its $M\times M$ minors is equal to 1, \,see Proposition 4.3 of \cite{Sims}. In particular, $M\leq N$ necessarily. \,Consider matrices $\,T=(T^{mm'})\,$ and $\,P=(P_{ii'})\,$ defined by the relations \begin{equation} T^{mm'}=\sum_{i=1}^N r_i^2\kappa^m_i\kappa^{m'}_i\,,\qquad P_{ii'}=\sum\limits_{m,m'=1}^M\kappa^m_i(T^{-1})_{mm'}\kappa^{m'}_{i'}r_{i'}^2\,. \label{explicit_Pij} \end{equation} Matrix $\,P\,$ defines the projector on the subspace of $\,\mathbb R^N$ spanned by the vectors $\,\bm\kappa^m=(\kappa^m_1,\dots\kappa^m_N)\,$ that is orthogonal with respect to the scalar product \begin{equation}\label{scalarR} \bm a \cdot\bm b = \sum_i r_i^2 a_i b_i \end{equation} in $\mathbb R^N$. The boundary condition (\ref{bcat0}) implies that \begin{equation} \label{Dir} P^\perp\partial_t\bm\varphi(t,0)=0\,, \end{equation} where $\,P^\perp\equiv I-P$. \,The stationary points of the action functional (\ref{action_initial}) satisfy, besides the imposed boundary conditions, the equations \begin{align} &(\partial_t^2-\partial_x^2)\bm\varphi(t,x)=0\,,\label{clsW}\\ &P \,\partial_x\bm\varphi(t,0)=0\,.\label{clsN} \end{align} Note that relations (\ref{Dir}) and (\ref{clsN}) imply mixed Dirichlet-Neumann boundary conditions at $\,x=0\,$ for massless free fields $\,\bm\varphi(t,x)$. \,The solutions of the classical equations decompose in terms of the left- and right-movers: \begin{equation} \label{solution+-} \bm\varphi(t,x)=\bm\varphi^\ell(t+x)+\bm\varphi^r(t-x) \end{equation} with \begin{equation} \bm\varphi^{\ell,r}(t\pm x)\,=\,\bm\varphi^{\ell,r}_0+\sfrac{\pi}{2L} \bm\alpha_0^{\ell,r}(t\pm x) +\ii\sum\limits_{n\not=0}\frac{_1}{^n}\bm\alpha^{\ell,r}_n \ee^{-\frac{\pi \ii n(t\pm x)}{2L}}\,, \label{chiralf} \end{equation} where the upper sign relates to the $\bm\varphi^\ell$ and the lower one to $\bm\varphi^r$, \,and \begin{equation} \overline{\bm\alpha_{-n}^{\ell,r}}=\bm\alpha_n^{\ell,r}=(P-P^\perp) \bm\alpha_n^{r,\ell}\,, \qquad P\bm\alpha_{2n+1}^{\ell,r}=0\,,\qquad P^\perp\bm\alpha_{2n}^{\ell,r}=0 \label{arestr} \end{equation} with real $\,\bm\varphi_0=\bm\varphi_0^\ell+\bm\varphi_0^r\,$ such that $\,\ee^{\ii\bm\varphi_0}\in\CB$. \,In particular, $\,\bm\alpha_{2n+1}^r= -\bm\alpha_{2n+1}^\ell\,$ and $\,\bm\alpha_{2n}^r=\bm\alpha_{2n}^\ell$. \,The space of classical solutions comes equipped with the symplectic form \begin{equation}\label{Symp_final} \Omega = \sfrac{1}{2}\delta\bm\alpha^\ell_0 \cdot \wedge\delta\bm\varphi_0 -\sfrac{\ii}{2} \sum_{n \neq 0} \sfrac{1}{n} \delta\bm\alpha_{n}^\ell\cdot \wedge\delta\bm\alpha_{-n}^\ell \end{equation} which determines the Poisson brackets of functionals on that space that may be directly quantized. \vskip 0.1cm The particular case when $\,\kappa\,$ in (\ref{homnu}) is the identity mapping of $U(1)^N$, \,corresponding to the ``space-filling'' brane $\CB_0=U(1)^M$, \,describes the disconnected wires. In this case, $\,P=I\,$ (i.e. $P$ is the identity matrix) and field $\,\bm\varphi\,$ satisfies the Neumann boundary conditions both at $\,x=0\,$ and $\,x=L\,$ and only the even modes $\,\bm\alpha_{2n}^{\ell}=\bm\alpha_{2n}^r\,$ appear. One obtains in this case the product of $N$ theories considered in Sec.\,\ref{subsec:clbos}. \nsection{Quantization} \label{sec:Quant} \setcounter{equation}{0} \subsection{Space of states} \label{subsec:Hspace} The quantization of the bosonic theory of Sec.\,\ref{sec:bosjunc} is again straightforward but a little more involved than for the disconnected wires. Let us first quantize the zero modes. According to the boundary conditions, \begin{equation} \bm\alpha^\ell_0 =\bm\alpha^r_0= \sum_m\beta_m\bm\kappa^m, \qquad \bm\varphi_0 = \sum_m \psi_m\bm\kappa^m\,, \end{equation} where $\,(\psi_m),\ m=1,\dots,M$, \,are angles parameterizing $\,U(1)^M$, \,so that \begin{equation} \sfrac{1}{2}\delta\bm\alpha^\ell_0 \cdot \wedge \delta\bm\varphi_0 = \sfrac{1}{2} \sum_{m,m'} T^{mm'}\delta\beta_m \wedge \delta \psi_{m'}\,. \end{equation} The corresponding Poisson brackets are \begin{equation} \big\{ \beta_m ,\, \psi_{m'} \big\} \,=\, - 2 (T^{-1})_{mm'} \end{equation} leading to the commutators \begin{equation} \big[ \beta_m ,\, \psi_{m'} \big] \,=\, - 2\ii (T^{-1})_{mm'}\,. \end{equation} Keeping in mind that the angular variables $\,\psi_m\,$ are multivalued, the above commutators will be represented in the Hilbert space $\,\CH_0=L^2((U(1)^M)\,$ of functions of $\,M\,$ angles $\,\psi_m$, \,square integrable in the Haar measure, by setting \begin{equation} \beta_m = -2\ii \sum_{m'} (T^{-1})_{mm'} \dfrac{_{\partial}}{^{\partial\psi_{m'}}}\,. \end{equation} An orthonormal basis of $\,\CH_0\,$ is given by the states \begin{equation} \ket{k^1 \ldots k^{M}}\,=\,\exp \Big( \ii \sum_{m=1}^{M} k^m \psi_m \Big) \qquad \text{for }\quad k^m \in \mathbb Z \end{equation} such that \begin{align} &\beta_m \ket{k^1 \ldots k^{M}} = 2 \sum_{m'}(T^{-1})_{mm'} k^{m'} \ket{k^1 \ldots k^{M}} \end{align} and \begin{equation} \label{actionalpha0} \bm\alpha^\ell_0 \ket{k^1 \ldots k^{M}} = 2 \sum_{m,m'}\bm\kappa^m (T^{-1})_{mm'} k^{m'} \ket{k^1 \ldots k^{M}}. \end{equation} For the excited modes, it is convenient to introduce a basis $\,(\bm\Lambda_j)_{j=1}^N$ of vectors $\,\bm\Lambda_j\hspace{-0.06cm} =(\Lambda_{j1},\dots,\Lambda_{jN})$ in $\,\mathbb R^N$ such that \begin{equation} \bm\Lambda_j\cdot\bm\Lambda_{j'}=\delta_{jj'},\qquad P\bm\Lambda_j=\bm\Lambda_j\quad\text{for}\quad j\leq M\,,\qquad P^\perp\bm\Lambda_j=\bm\Lambda_j\quad\text{for}\quad j>M \label{Lambdai} \end{equation} and the projected modes \begin{equation} \tilde\alpha^{\ell,r}_{nj}=\bm\Lambda_j\cdot\alpha_n^{\ell,r}\,. \end{equation} with the inverse formulae \begin{equation} \alpha^{\ell,r}_{ni}=\sum\limits_{j=1}^N\Lambda_{ji}\, \tilde\alpha^{\ell,r}_{nj}\,. \end{equation} Note that relations (\ref{arestr}) imply that $\,\tilde\alpha^\ell_{(2n+1)\,j} =0\,$ for $\,j\leq M\,$ and $\,\tilde\alpha^\ell_{(2n)\,j}=0\,$ for $\,j>M$. \,The Poisson brackets of the non-zero operators $\,\tilde\alpha_{nj}\,$ take the form \begin{equation} \{\tilde\alpha^\ell_{nj},\tilde\alpha^\ell_{n'j'}\} =-\ii n\,\delta_{jj'}\delta_{n+n',0} \end{equation} leading to the commutators \begin{equation} [\tilde\alpha^\ell_{nj},\tilde\alpha^\ell_{n'j'}] =n\,\delta_{jj'}\delta_{n+n',0}\,. \end{equation} In the standard Fock space quantization, we take \begin{equation} \mathcal F_e = \mathop{\otimes}_{j=1}^M \mathcal F_{ej}, \qquad \qquad \mathcal F_o = \mathop{\otimes}_{j=M+1}^N \mathcal F_{oj} \end{equation} where $\mathcal F_{ej}$ and $\mathcal F_{oj}$ are generated by vectors \begin{align} & \tilde \alpha_{-(2n_1) j}^\ell \ldots \tilde\alpha_{-(2n_l)j}^\ell \ket{0}_{e} \qquad\qquad l \geq 0, \qquad n_1 \geq \ldots \geq n_l \geq 1, \qquad j \in \lbrace 1, \ldots, M \rbrace\,, \\ & \tilde\alpha_{-(2n_1+1) j}^\ell \ldots \tilde\alpha_{-(2n_{l}+1)j}^\ell \ket{0}_{o} \qquad l \geq 0, \qquad n_1 \geq \ldots \geq n_{l} \geq 0, \qquad j\in \lbrace M+1, \ldots, N \rbrace\ \end{align} with the scalar product determined by the relations \begin{align} &\tilde \alpha_{(2n)\,j}^\ell \ket{0}_{e} = 0 \ \quad \text{for }\quad n > 0\,,\qquad \tilde \alpha_{(2n+1)\,j}^\ell \ket{0}_{o} = 0 \ \quad \text{for }\quad n \geq 0\,,\\ &{}_e\langle 0 | 0 \rangle_e = {_o}{\langle} 0 | 0 \rangle_o = 1\,, \qquad{(\tilde \alpha_{nj}^\ell)}^\dagger = \tilde \alpha_{(-n)j}^\ell\,. \end{align} The total Hilbert space of states of the theory is \begin{equation} \mathcal H = \mathcal H_0 \otimes \mathcal F_e \otimes \mathcal F_o \end{equation} and in the following we identify \begin{equation} \ket { k^1 \ldots k^{M} } \equiv \ket { k^1 \ldots k^{M} } \otimes \ket{0}_{e} \otimes \ket{0}_{o} \end{equation} \subsection{Currents, charge and energy} \label{subsec:curchen} \noindent We shall be interested in the system that possesses global $U(1)$ symmetry acting on fields by $\,(g_i(t,x))\mapsto(ug_i(t,x))\,$ for $\,u\in U(1)$. \,Invariance of the theory requires that this action preserves the brane $\,\CB=\kappa(U(M))\subset U(N)$. \,This holds if and only if the vector $\,\bm 1=(1,\dots,1)\,$ is in the image of projector $\,P$, \,i.e. if $\,P\bm1=\bm1\,$ or \begin{equation} \sum\limits_{i'}P_{ii'}=1\quad\ \text{for all}\quad i\,. \label{symcond} \end{equation} The Noether (electric) current corresponding to the $U(1)$ symmetry has then the form \begin{align} J^0(t,x)=\sum\limits_{i=1}^NJ^0_i(t,x)\,, \qquad J^1(t,x)=\sum\limits_{i=1}^N J^1_i(t,x) \end{align} in terms of the currents in individual wires with the left-right moving components \begin{equation} J_i^{\ell,r}(t,x)=\sfrac{1}{2}(J^0\mp J^1)(t,x)=\frac{_{r_i^2}}{^{2\pi}} \sfrac{1}{2}(\partial_t\pm\partial_x) \varphi_i(t,x) =\frac{_{r_i^2}}{^{4 L}} \sum\limits_{n\in{\mathbb Z}} \alpha^{\ell,r}_{ni}\ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii n(t\pm x)}{2L}}\label{JLR} \end{equation} defining $J_i^\ell(t,x)$ and $J^r(t,x)$ as functions, respectively, of $t+x$ and $t-x$ for any real $t$ and $x$. \,We shall use formulae (\ref{JLR}) also for quantum currents. At $\,x=0$, \,the left and right currents are linearly related: \begin{equation}\label{linkJLR} J_i^r(t,0)\,=\,\sum_{i'} S_{ii'}J_{i'}^\ell(t,0)\,, \end{equation} where \begin{equation} S_{ii'}\,=\,P_{i'i}-P^\perp_{i'i} \label{Smatrix} \end{equation} according to \eqref{arestr} and the explicit expression \eqref{explicit_Pij} for the matrix $P$. The $N\times N$ \,''$S$-matrix'' $S=(S_{ii'})$ describes the flow of the currents through the junction of wires. It satisfies the relations \begin{align} &S_{i'i}=r_i^{-2}S_{ii'}r_{i'}^2\,,\qquad\sum_{i'} S_{ii'}S_{i'i"} =\delta_{ii"}\,,\qquad\sum\limits_{i}S_{ii'}=1\,,\label{symcond1 \end{align} In other words, \begin{equation} S_{ii'}=r_iO_{ii'}r_{i'}^{-1} \label{O} \end{equation} where $O=(O_{ii'})$ is a symmetric orthogonal matrix such that \begin{equation} \sum\limits_ir_iO_{ii'}=r_{i'}\,. \end{equation} We shall use matrices $\,S\,$ and $\,O\,$ interchangeably. For $\,N=2$, \,there are two possibilities: \begin{equation} O\,=\,\Big(\begin{matrix}1&0\cr 0&1\end{matrix}\Big)\qquad{\rm or} \qquad O\,=\,\frac{1}{r_1^2+r_2^2}\Big(\begin{matrix}{r_1^2-r_2^2} &{2r_1r_2}\cr {2r_1r_2}& {r_2^2-r_1^2}\end{matrix}\Big). \label{ON2} \end{equation} The first case corresponds to the identity embedding $\,\kappa\,$ describing the disconnected wires whereas the second one corresponds to the diagonal embedding of $\,U(1)\,$ into $\,U(1)^2\,$ that leads to a nontrivial junction. In the last case, the $r_1=r_2$ case corresponds to off-diagonal matrix $O=S$ with unit non-zero entries, i.e. to the pure transmission of currents through the junction, but for $\,r_1\not=r_2\,$ the currents are partly transmitted and partly reflected at the junction. \vskip 0.1cm Eq. (\ref{linkJLR}) implies that the right currents are linear combinations of left currents if considered as functions of real $t$ and $x$: \begin{align}\label{linkJLR1} J_i^r(t,x) = \sum_{i'} S_{ii'}J_{i'}^\ell(t,-x)\,. \end{align} At $\,x = L$, \,i.e. at the ends of the wires, the left and right currents are equal: \begin{equation} J_i^r(t,L) = J_i^\ell(t,L) \end{equation} which implies that \begin{equation} \label{linkJLR2} J_i^r(t,x) = J_i^\ell(t,-x+2L) \end{equation} if we treat the currents as functions of real $t$ and $x$. \,The quantum currents satisfy the equal-time commutation relations \begin{align} [J^\ell_i(t,x),J^\ell_{i'}(t,y)]&=\sfrac{\ii r_i^2}{4\pi} \sum_{n\in\mathbb Z}\big(P_{ii'}+(-1)^n(\delta_{ii'}-P_{ii'})\big) \,\delta'(x-y+2nL)\cr &=-[J^r_i(t,x),J^r_{i'}(t,y)]\,,\label{comrelcur}\\ \cr [J^\ell_i(t,x),J^r_{i'}(t,y)]&=\sfrac{\ii r_i^2}{4\pi} \sum_{n\in\mathbb Z}\big(P_{ii'}-(-1)^n(\delta_{ii'}-P_{ii'})\big) \,\delta'(x+y+2nL)\,, \label{comrelcur1} \end{align} In particular, the left-moving currents commute among themselves at equal times if their positions do not coincide modulo $2L$. Similarly for the right-moving currents. The left-moving currents commute with the right-moving ones at equal times if their positions are not opposite modulo $2L$. Note that for $\,0<x,y\leq L$ the only terms that contribute to (\ref{comrelcur}) and (\ref{comrelcur1}) have $n=0$ or $n=1$, respectively, so that for such values of $x$ and $y$ the commutation relations of currents do not depend on the choice of brane $\CB$. This permits to identify for different junctions the algebras of observables generated by currents $J^{\ell,r}_i(0,x)$ with $0<x\leq L$, i.e. localized away from the contact point. In particular, we may identify such observables for disconnected wires with those for connected wires, with the physical meaning that their measurement just before and just after establishing or breaking the connection between the wires should give the same result. \,Whatever the junction, the total charge \begin{equation} Q(t) = \sum\limits_{i=1}^NQ_i(t)\,, \end{equation} where $Q_i(t)$ are the charges in the individual wires, \begin{equation} Q_i(t)=\int\limits_{0}^{L}J^0_i(t,x)\,\dd x\,, \end{equation} is conserved: \begin{align} &\dfrac{\dd Q(t)}{\dd t} = \sum_{i=1}^N \int\limits_{0}^{L} (\partial_t J_i^\ell(t,x) + \partial_t J_i^r(t,x))\dd x\cr &= \sum_{i=1}^N \int\limits_{0}^{L} (\partial_x J_i^\ell(t,x) - \partial_x J_i^r(t,x))\dd x = \sum_{i=1}^N \left[ J_i^\ell(t,x) - J_i^r(t,x)\right]_{x=0}^{x=L}\cr &=2\sum_{i,i'=1}^N(\delta_{ii'}-P_{i'i})J^\ell_{i'}(t,0)=0 \end{align} due to (\ref{symcond}). In terms of the modes, \begin{equation} Q = \sum_{i} \frac{_{r_i^2}}{^{ 2}}\alpha_{0i}^\ell\,. \end{equation} Operator $\,Q\,$ acts only on $\,\mathcal H_0\,$: \begin{equation} Q \ket{ k^1 \ldots k^M} = \sum_i \sum_{m,m'} r_i^2 \kappa_i^m (T^{-1})_{mm'} k^{m'} \ket{ k^1 \ldots k^M} = (\bm p , T^{-1} \bm k) \ket{ k^1 \ldots k^M}, \label{Qeigen} \end{equation} where $\,\bm p=(p^m) \in \mathbb R^M\,$ with \begin{equation}\label{def_p_os} p^m = \sum_i r_i^2 \kappa_i^m=\bm1\cdot\bm\kappa^m\,, \end{equation} and \begin{equation} (\bm a,\bm b) = \sum_m a^m b^m\,, \end{equation} denotes the standard scalar product on $\mathbb R^M$, to be distinguished from the one of (\ref{scalarR}) used in $\mathbb R^N$. \,Note that the spectrum of $\,Q\,$ is composed of integers, as must be the case for the generator of a unitary action of $\,U(1)\,$ group. \,Indeed, since for each $1\leq i\leq N$, \begin{equation} \sum\limits_{m,m'=1}^Mp^m(T^{-1})_{mm'}\kappa^{m'}_i=(P\bm1)_i=1 \end{equation} by (\ref{symcond}), the injectivity of the homomorphism (\ref{homnu}) implies that the sums $\sum\limits_{m}p^m(T^{-1})_{mm'}$ are integers. This is not the case for (non-conserved) charges in the individual wires \begin{equation} Q_i(t)=\int\limits_0^{L}J^0_i(t,x)\,\dd x=\sfrac{r_i^2}{2}\, \alpha_{0i}^\ell-\sfrac{\ii r_i^2}{\pi}\sum\limits_{n}\sfrac{1}{2n+1}\, \alpha^\ell_{(2n+1)i}\,\ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii(2n+1)t}{2L}}. \end{equation} \vskip 0.2cm The energy of the bosonic system of Sec.\,\ref{sec:bosjunc} is given by its classical Hamiltonian that may be expressed in terms of the left and right moving currents by the formula \begin{equation} H(t) = \sum_{i=1}^N\sfrac{2\pi}{r_i^{2}}\int\limits_0^{L}\big((J_i^\ell(t,x))^2 + (J_i^r(t,x))^2\big)\,\dd x\,. \end{equation} Its conservation, that holds independently of the condition (\ref{symcond}), results from the identity \begin{align} \dfrac{\dd H(t)}{\dd t} = \sum_{i=1}^N 2\pi r_i^{-2}\left[ (J_i^\ell)^2(t,x) - (J_i^r)^2(t,x)\right]_{x=0}^{x=L} \end{align} whose right hand side vanishes because \begin{equation} (J_i^r)^2(t,L) = (J_i^\ell)^2(t,L) \end{equation} for all $1\leq i\leq N$, \,and because \begin{align} \sum_{i=1}^N r_i^{-2}(J_i^r)^2(t,0) = \sum_{i,i',i"=1}^N r_i^{-2} S_{ii'}S_{ii"}J_{i'}^\ell(t,0)J_{i"}^\ell(t,0) = \sum_{i=1}^N r_i^{-2}(J_i^\ell)^2(t,0) \end{align} in virtue of (\ref{symcond1}). \,The quantum Hamiltonian $\,H\,$ is given by the Wick reordered version of the classical expression: \begin{align} &H = \sum_{i=1}^N \sfrac{2\pi}{r_i^{2}} \int\limits_{0}^{L} (:J_i^\ell(t,x)^2:+:J_i^r(t,x)^2:)\,\dd x\,+\sfrac{\pi}{L}\sfrac{N-3M}{48}\cr &= \sfrac{\pi}{4L}\,\bm\alpha^\ell_0\cdot\bm\alpha^\ell_0 + \sfrac{\pi}{2L} \sum_{i=1}^M \sum_{n>0} \tilde \alpha_{(-2n)i}^\ell \tilde \alpha_{(2n)i}^\ell + \sfrac{\pi}{2L} \sum_{i=M+1}^N \sum_{n\geq0} \tilde \alpha_{(-(2n+1))i}^\ell \tilde \alpha_{(2n+1)i}^\ell\, \,+\sfrac{\pi}{L}\sfrac{N-3M}{48}\,,\qquad \,, \label{Hamilt} \end{align} where the last c-number term accounts for the $\zeta$-function regularized zero-point energy of the excited modes: \begin{equation} \sfrac{\pi}{2L}\sfrac{M}{2}\sum_{n=1}^\infty 2n+ \sfrac{\pi}{2L}\sfrac{N-M}{2}\sum\limits_{n=0}^\infty (2n+1)=\sfrac{\pi}{2L}\sfrac{3M-N}{2}\,\zeta(-1)=\sfrac{\pi}{L} \sfrac{N-3M}{48}. \end{equation} The Hilbert space vectors \begin{equation} \ket u = \tilde \alpha_{-(2n^{j_1}_1) j_1}^\ell \ldots \tilde\alpha_{-(2n^{j_l}_l)j_l}^\ell \tilde\alpha_{-(2n^{j'_1}_1+1)j'_1}^\ell \ldots \tilde\alpha_{-(2n^{j'_{l'}}_{l'}+1)j'_{l'}}^\ell\ket{ k_1 \ldots k_{M} } \end{equation} with $j_1,\dots,j_l\leq M$ and $j'_1,\dots,j'_{l'}>M\,$ form a basis of eigen-states of $H$ with \begin{equation} H \ket u = \sfrac{\pi}{2L} \left(2\, (\bm k , T^{-1} \bm k) + n +\sfrac{N-3M}{24}\right)\ket{u}\,, \label{Heigen} \end{equation} where \begin{equation} n = \sum_{k=1}^l 2 n^{j_k}_k + \sum_{k'=1}^{l'} (2 n^{j'_{k'}}_{k'} +1)\,. \end{equation} The energy density and the energy current in the wires correspond, respectively, to operators $\,K^0_i(t,x)=T^r_i(t,x)+T^\ell_i(t,x)\,$ and $\,K^1_i(t,x)=T^r_i(t,x) -T^\ell_i(t,x)$, \,where \begin{align} &T^\ell_i(t,x)=\sfrac{2\pi}{r_i^2}:J_i^\ell(t,x)^2:-\,\sfrac{\pi}{48L^2}P_{ii}\,+\, \sfrac{\pi}{96L^2}P^\perp_{ii}\,,\label{KL}\\ &T^r_i(t,x)=\sfrac{2\pi}{r_i^2}:J_i^r(t,x)^2:-\,\sfrac{\pi}{48L^2}P_{ii}\,+\, \sfrac{\pi}{96L^2}P^\perp_{ii}\,, \label{KR} \end{align} are the left-moving and right-moving energy-momentum-tensor components. The constant terms are the zero-point energy contributions. Note that the above choice assures by virtue of relation $\,\sum\limits_{i=1}^NP_{ii}=M\,$ that \begin{equation} H=\sum\limits_{i=1}^NH_i(t)\,, \end{equation} where \begin{equation} H_i(t)=\int\limits_0^{L}K_i^0(t,x)\,\dd x \label{Hi} \end{equation} are the observables representing energy in individual wires. \nsection{Equilibrium state.} \label{sec:equilib} \setcounter{equation}{0} \noindent The equilibrium state at inverse temperature $\beta$ and (electric) potential $\,V\,$ is described by the density matrix \begin{equation} \rho_{\beta,V}=\frac{1}{Z_{\beta,V}}\,\ee^{-\beta(H-VQ)}\,, \end{equation} where $\,Z_{\beta,V}\,$ is the the partition function. Note that with our conventions, positive $\,V\,$ plays the role of a positive chemical potential for electrons and of a negative one for holes. $\,Z_{\beta,V}\,$ is easily calculable with the use of relations (\ref{Heigen}) and (\ref{Qeigen}): \begin{align} &Z_{\beta,V}= \Tr_{\mathcal H} \Big( \ee^{-\beta (H-VQ)} \Big) \cr &=\ee^{-\frac{(N-3M) \pi \beta}{48 L}} \bigg(\hspace{-0.05cm}\sum_{\bm k \in \mathbb Z^M} \ee^{-\frac{\pi \beta }{L} (\bm k ,T^{-1} \bm k) + \beta V(\bm p, T^{-1} \bm k)}\bigg) \hspace{-0.05cm}\bigg(\sum_{n \geq 0} p_e(n)\, \ee^{-\frac{ \pi \beta }{2L} n} \bigg)^{\hspace{-0.1cm}M}\hspace{-0.1cm}\bigg(\sum_{n \geq 0} p_o(n)\, \ee^{- \frac{ \pi \beta }{2L} n}\bigg)^{\hspace{-0.1cm}N-M}\ \quad \label{Zpart0} \end{align} with $p_{e}(n)$ ($p_o(n)$) standing for the number of partitions of $n$ into a sum of even (odd) numbers. The Poisson resummation formula applied to the $\bm k$-sum and the standard relation of the generating function for partitions to the Dedekind function $\,\eta(\tau)=\ee^{\frac{\pi i\tau}{12}}\prod\limits_{n=1}^\infty \big(1-\ee^{2\pi\ii\tau n}\big)\,$ allow to rewrite (\ref{Zpart0}) as \begin{equation} Z_{\beta,V} =\Big(\sfrac{L}{\beta}\Big)^{\hspace{-0.1cm}\frac{M}{2}} \hspace{-0.1cm}\sqrt{\det(T)}\ \ee^{\frac{ L \beta V^2}{4\pi}\sum_i r_i^2}\bigg( \sum_{\bm k \in \mathbb Z^{M}} \ee^{-\ii L V(\bm p,\bm k) - \frac{\pi L}{\beta} (\bm k, T\bm k) }\bigg) \big[\eta( \frac{_{\ii \beta}}{^{2L}})\big]^{\hspace{-0.05cm}N-2M}\big[\eta( \frac{_{\ii \beta}}{^{4L}})\big]^{\hspace{-0.05cm}M-N}, \label{Zpart} \end{equation} or, with the use of the modular property of $\,\eta(\tau)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{-i\tau}}\eta(-\frac{1}{\tau})$, \,as \begin{equation} Z_{\beta,V} =2^{-N}\hspace{-0.05cm} \sqrt{\det(T)}\ \ee^{\frac{ L \beta V^2}{4\pi}\sum_i r_i^2}\bigg(\sum_{\bm k \in \mathbb Z^{M}} \ee^{-\ii L V(\bm p,\bm k) - \frac{\pi L}{\beta} (\bm k, T\bm k) }\bigg)\big[\eta(\frac{_{2\ii L}}{^{ \beta}})\big]^{\hspace{-0.05cm}N-2M}\big[\eta( \frac{_{4\ii L}}{^{ \beta}})\big]^{\hspace{-0.05cm}M-N}. \label{Zbm} \end{equation} The equilibrium state $\,\omega^L_{\beta,V}$ expectations of the observable algebra generated by currents $J^{\ell,r}_i$ are defined by the formula \begin{equation} \omega^L_{\beta,V}(A)=\Tr\big(\rho_{\beta,V}A\big)\,. \end{equation} The superscript $L$ in $\,\omega^L_{\beta,V}$ stresses that the state pertains to the junction of wires of length $L$. In forming observables, it is enough to consider only the currents $J^\ell(t,x)$ at fixed $t$ and real $x$. We shall decompose such currents into the contributions from the zero modes and the excited modes: \begin{equation} J^\ell_i(t,x) = \sfrac{r_i^2}{4L}\alpha^\ell_{0i}+\hat J^\ell_i(t,x)\,, \end{equation} see (\ref{JLR}). In the equilibrium state expectation of products of currents, the contributions from the zero modes and from the excited modes factorize. In particular, \begin{align} \omega^L_{\beta,V}\Big(\prod\limits_{k=1}^K\sfrac{r_{i_k}^2}{2L}\, \alpha_{0i_k}^\ell \Big)&=\frac{1}{(2\beta V L)^{K}}\,\dfrac{ \prod\limits_{k=1}^K \big(r_{i_k}^2\sum\limits_{m}\kappa^{m}_{i_k}\frac{\partial}{\partial p^m}\big) \sum\limits_{\bm k\in\mathbb Z^M}\, \ee^{-\frac{\pi \beta }{L} (\bm k ,T^{-1} \bm k) + \beta V(\bm p,T^{-1} \bm k)}}{\sum\limits_{\bm k\in\mathbb Z^M}\ee^{-\frac{ \pi \beta }{L} (\bm k , T^{-1} \bm k) + \beta V(\bm p,T^{-1} \bm k)}}\cr &\hspace{-1.5cm}=\frac{1}{(2\beta V L)^{K}}\,\dfrac{ \prod\limits_{k=1}^K \big(r_{i_k}^2\sum\limits_{m}\kappa^{m}_{i_k}\frac{\partial}{\partial p^m}\big)\, \,\big(\ee^{\frac{ L \beta V^2}{4\pi}(\bm p,T^{-1} \bm p)}\hspace{-0.1cm} \sum\limits_{\bm k \in \mathbb Z^M} \ee^{-\ii L V(\bm p,\bm k) - \frac{\pi L}{\beta} (\bm k,T\bm k)}\big)} {\ee^{\frac{ L \beta V^2}{4\pi}(\bm p,T^{-1} \bm p)} \sum\limits_{\bm k \in \mathbb Z^M} \ee^{-\frac{\ii L V}{2}(\bm p, \bm k) - \frac{\pi L}{\beta} (\bm k,T\bm k)}}\,,\quad \label{omega0modes} \end{align} where the second equality results from the Poisson resummation. On the other hand, the expectations of products of $\hat J^+_i$ are calculated by the Wick rule with \begin{align} &\omega^L_{\beta,V}\big(\hat J^\ell_i(t,x)\big)=0\,,\label{1ptfn}\\ &\omega^L_{\beta,V}\big(\hat J^\ell_{i_1}(t,x_1)\,\hat J^\ell_{i_2}(t,x_2)\big)= - \sfrac{1}{2} \left(\sfrac{r_{i_1}}{2\pi}\right)^2\Big( P_{i_1i_2}\,f_e(x_1-x_2)+(\delta_{i_1i_2}-P_{i_1i_2})f_o(x_1-x_2)\Big),\quad \label{2ptfn} \end{align} where \begin{align} f_{e}(x_1-x_2) &=\wp(x_1-x_2;2L,-\ii\beta) + C_e\cr f_{o}(x_1-x_2) &=2 {\wp}(x_1-x_2;4L,-\ii\beta) - {\wp}(x_1-x_2;2L,-\ii\beta)+C_{o} \end{align} with the constants \begin{align} C_e=&\big(\sfrac{\pi}{2L}\big)^2 \Big(\sfrac{1}{3} - \sum\limits_{n \neq 0} \sinh^{-2}(\sfrac{\pi n\beta}{2L})\Big),\\ C_{o}=&\big(\sfrac{\pi}{2L}\big)^2\Big(-\sfrac{1}{6} -\sfrac{1}{2} \sum\limits_{n \neq0} \sinh^{-2}(\sfrac{\pi n\beta}{4L}) + \sum\limits_{n \neq 0} \sinh^{-2}(\sfrac{\pi n\beta}{2L})\Big). \end{align} Above, $\wp(z;\omega_1,\omega_2)=\wp(z;\omega_2,\omega_1)$ is the Weierstrass function of period $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$ \cite{WW}: \begin{align} \wp(z;\omega_1,\omega_2)&=\sfrac{1}{z^2}\,+\sum_{n^2+m^2 \ne 0} \Big( \sfrac{1}{(z+m\omega_1+n\omega_2)^2}- \sfrac{1}{\left(m\omega_1+n\omega_2\right)^2}\Big)\cr &= (\sfrac{\pi}{\omega_2})^2\Big[-\sfrac{1}{3}+\sum\limits_{n} \sin^{-2}\big(\sfrac{\pi(z-n\omega_1)}{\omega_2}\big) -\sum\limits_{n\not=0}\sin^{-2}\big(\sfrac{\pi n\omega_1} {\omega_2}\big)\Big]. \label{Weierstrass} \end{align} Note the singularity of the 2-point functions (\ref{2ptfn}) at the insertion points coinciding modulo $2L$. For such points, the equal-time commutators of currents have contact terms, see (\ref{comrelcur}). \,For the 1-point function of the left current, one obtains \begin{equation} \label{1pt_init_develop} \omega^L_{\beta,V}\left( J_{i}^\ell(t,x) \right) = \sfrac{r_i^2 V}{4 \pi} - \sfrac{\ii r_i^2}{2\beta} \sum_m \kappa_{i}^m\, \dfrac{\displaystyle \sum_{\bm k \in \mathbb Z^M} k^{m} \ee^{-\ii L V(\bm p,\bm k) - \frac{\pi L}{\beta} (\bm k, T\bm k) }}{\displaystyle \sum_{\bm k \in \mathbb Z^M} \ee^{-\ii L V(\bm p, \bm k) - \frac{\pi L}{\beta} (\bm k,T\bm k) }}\,, \end{equation} where we have used the relation \begin{equation} \sfrac{r_i^2}{2L\beta V} \sum_{m} \kappa_{i}^m \sfrac{\partial\,}{\partial p^m}\big(\sfrac{ L \beta V^2}{4\pi}(\bm p,T^{-1} \bm p)\big) = \sfrac{r_i^2 V}{4 \pi} \sum_{m,m'} \kappa_{i}^m (T^{-1})_{mm'} p^{m'} = \sfrac{r_i^2 V}{4 \pi} \sum_{j} P_{ij} = \sfrac{r_i^2 V}{4 \pi}\,. \end{equation} From (\ref{linkJLR2}) or (\ref{linkJLR1}), it follows that $\, \omega^L_{\beta,V}\left( J_{i}^r(t,x)\right)= \omega^L_{\beta,V}\left( J_{i}^\ell(t,x) \right)\,$ so that \begin{equation} \omega^L_{\beta,V}\left( J_{i}^0(t,x)\right)= 2\,\omega^L_{\beta,V}\left( J_{i}^\ell(t,x) \right)\,,\qquad \omega^L_{\beta,V}\left( J_{i}^1(t,x)\right)=0\,. \end{equation} Hence, in the equilibrium state, the mean charge density is constant in each wire, whereas the mean current vanishes. \vskip 0.1cm The equilibrium state $\,\omega^L_{\beta,V}$ is invariant under the replacement $J^\ell\leftrightarrow J^r$, \,the property expressing its time-reversal invariance. For the energy-momentum tensor components $T_i^{\ell,r}(t,x)$ defined by (\ref{KL}) and (\ref{KR}), \,we obtain: \begin{align} \omega^L_{\beta,V}\big(T_i^\ell(t,x)\big)&=\sfrac{\pi}{8L^2}r_i^2\, \omega^L_{\beta,V} \big((\alpha_{0i}^+)^2\big)\, -\,\sfrac{1}{4\pi}\big(P_{ii}C_e+(1-P_{ii})C_o\big)\cr &=\lim\limits_{\epsilon\to 0}\,\omega^L_{\beta,V} \Big(\sfrac{2\pi}{r_i^2}\,J^\ell_i(t,x+\epsilon)\, J^\ell_i(t,x)\,+\,\sfrac{1}{4\pi\epsilon^2}\Big)\cr &=\lim\limits_{\epsilon\to 0}\,\omega^L_{\beta,V} \Big(\sfrac{2\pi}{r_i^2}\,J^r_i(t,x+\epsilon)\, J^r_i(t,x)\,+\,\sfrac{1}{4\pi\epsilon^2}\Big)\, =\,\omega^L_{\beta,V}\big(T_i^r(t,x)\big), \label{oOPE} \end{align} which is a consequence of the operator product expansion \begin{align} &\sfrac{2\pi}{r_i^2}\,J^\ell_i(t,x+\epsilon)\,J^\ell_i(t,x)= -\sfrac{1}{4\pi\epsilon^2}+T_i^\ell(t,x)\,+\,\dots\label{OPEl}\\ &\sfrac{2\pi}{r_i^2}\,J^r_i(t,x+\epsilon)\,J^r_i(t,x)= -\sfrac{1}{4\pi\epsilon^2}+T_i^r(t,x)\,+\,\dots\label{OPEr} \end{align} holding under the equilibrium expectations away from other insertions points. \nsection{Functional integral representation} \label{sec:funcint} \subsection{Case with $\,V=0$} \label{subsec:V=0} \setcounter{equation}{0} \noindent For $\,V=0$, \,the partition function $\,Z_{\beta,0}\equiv Z_\beta\,$ and the expectations in the thermal equilibrium states $\,\omega^L_{\beta,0}\equiv\omega^L_\beta\,$ may be represented by Euclidean functional integrals over a cylindrical open-string worldsheet, \,see Fig.\,2. \begin{figure}[th] \leavevmode \begin{center} \vskip -0.2cm \includegraphics[width=6cm,height=2.8cm]{worldsheet1.eps}\\ \caption{Open string worldsheet} \end{center} \end{figure} \noindent For the partition function, \begin{equation} Z_\beta=\int\ee^{-S_E[g]}\,\CD g \label{fcin0} \end{equation} where the functional integral is over the maps $\,\bm g(t,x)=(\ee^{i\varphi_i(t,x)})\,$ from $\mathbb R\times[0,L]$ to $U(1)^N$ periodic in $t$ \begin{equation} \bm g(t+\beta,x)=\bm g(t,x) \end{equation} with the boundary conditions \begin{equation} \bm g(t,0)\in\CB\,,\qquad P (\bm g^{-1}\partial_x\bm g)(t,0)=0\,,\qquad (\bm g^{-1}\partial_x\bm g)(t,L)=0 \end{equation} and the Euclidean action functional \begin{equation} S_E[\bm g]\,=\,\sfrac{1}{4\pi}\sum\limits_{i=1}^N\int\limits_0^\beta \dd t \int\limits_0^L r_i^2\big((\partial_t\varphi_i)^2+(\partial_x\varphi_i)^2 \big)(t,x)\,\dd x\,\equiv\,S_E[\bm\varphi]\,. \end{equation} To give sense to the functional integrals, \,one decomposes the multivalued fields $\,\varphi_i(t,x)\,$ into the linear part which winds in the time direction and the periodic part: \begin{equation} \varphi_i(t,x)=\sfrac{2\pi}{\beta}n_it+\tilde\varphi_i(t,x)\,, \label{wdecom} \end{equation} where \begin{equation} n_i=\sum\limits_{m=1}^M\kappa^m_iq_m\,,\qquad\tilde\varphi_i(t,0)=\sum\limits_{m=1}^M \kappa^m_i\tilde\psi_m(t)\,,\qquad P\,\partial_x\tilde{\bm\varphi}(t,0)=0 =\partial_x\tilde{\bm\varphi}(t,L) \label{bdrc} \end{equation} with $\,q_m\in\mathbb Z$, $\,\tilde\psi_m\in\mathbb R$, \,and with the multivaluedness reduced to that of $\,\tilde\psi_m$ defined modulo $2\pi$. The Euclidean action functional decomposes accordingly: \begin{equation} S_E[\bm\varphi]=\sfrac{\pi L}{\beta}\,(\bm k,T\bm k)+S_E(P\tilde{\bm\varphi})+ S_E((I-P)\tilde{\bm\varphi}) \label{fcin} \end{equation} leading to the factorization of the functional integral \begin{equation} \int\ee^{-S_E[\bm g]}\,\CD\bm g=\sum\limits_{\bm k\in\mathbb Z^M} \ee^{-\frac{\pi L}{\beta}\, (\bm k,T\bm k)}\,\int\ee^{-S_E[P\tilde{\bm\varphi}]}\,\CD(P\tilde{\bm\varphi}) \,\int\ee^{-S_E[(I-P)\tilde{\bm\varphi}]}\,\CD((I-P)\tilde{\bm\varphi})\,. \label{factoriz} \end{equation} The last factor is a standard Gaussian functional integral with the quadratic form corresponding to the Laplacian with the periodic boundary conditions in the $t$ direction and the mixed Dirichlet one at $x=0$ and the Neumann one at $x=L$ in the $x$ direction. Such Laplacian is strictly positive. Using the zeta-function regularization of such an infinite-dimensional Gaussian integral, one obtains: \begin{equation} \int\ee^{-S_E(\ee^{\ii(I-P)\tilde{\bm\varphi}})}\,\CD((I-P)\tilde{\bm\varphi}) =\left|\eta\big(\frac{_{\ii \beta}}{^{2L}}\big)\right|^{N-M} \left|\eta\big(\frac{_{\ii \beta}}{^{4L}}\big)\right|^{-(N-M)}. \label{Z2} \end{equation} In the first functional integral on the right hand side of (\ref{factoriz}), we parameterize \begin{equation} P\tilde{\bm\varphi}=\sum\limits_{m=1}^M\tilde\psi_m\bm\kappa^m\,. \end{equation} $S_E[P\tilde{\bm\varphi}]$ becomes then a quadratic form in $(\tilde\psi_m)$ corresponding to the Laplacian with the periodic boundary conditions in the $t$ direction and the Neumann ones in the $x$ direction, with constant zero modes. The zero-mode integration may be turned to a one over $U(1)^M$ using collective coordinates and recalling that fields $\tilde\psi_m$ are determined modulo $2\pi$. Employing the zeta-function regularization for the remaining Gaussian functional integral over the other modes, one obtains \begin{equation} \int\ee^{-S_E[P\tilde{\bm\varphi}]}\,\CD(P\tilde{\bm\varphi}) = \sqrt{\det T} \, \Big(\sfrac{L}{\beta}\Big)^{\hspace{-0.05cm}\frac{M}{2}} \left|\eta\big(\frac{_{\ii\beta}}{^{2L}}\big) \right|^{-M}. \label{Z1} \end{equation} Upon the substitution of (\ref{Z2}) and (\ref{Z1}) to (\ref{fcin}), \,the functional integral expression (\ref{fcin0}) for $\,Z_\beta\,$ reduces to (\ref{Zpart}) with $\,V=0$. \vskip 0.1cm The expectations of products of equal-time currents in the thermal state $\,\omega^L_\beta\,$ are represented by the normalized functional integrals: \begin{equation} \omega^L_\beta\Big(\prod\limits_{k=1}^K J_{i_k}^\ell(t,x_k) \prod\limits_{k'=1}^{K'}J_{i_{k'}}^r(t,y_{k'})\Big) =\frac{1}{Z_\beta}\int\prod\limits_k j_{i_k}^\ell(0,x_k)\prod\limits_{k'} j_{i_{k'}}^r(0,y_{k'})\,\,\ee^{-S_E(\bm g)}\,\CD\bm g\,, \label{funcint} \end{equation} where on the right hand side \begin{equation} \hspace*{-0.6cm}j^\ell_i(t,x) =\sfrac{r_i^2}{2\pi}\sfrac{1}{2}(\partial_x-i\partial_t) \varphi_i(t,x)\,,\qquad j^r_i(t,x)=-\sfrac{r_i^2}{2\pi}\sfrac{1}{2}(\partial_x+i\partial_t) \varphi_i(t,x)\,, \label{currf} \end{equation} are functionals of field $\,\bm\varphi(t,x)\,$ that in terms of decomposition (\ref{wdecom}) take the form \begin{equation} j^\ell_i(t,x)=-i\sfrac{r_i^2n_i}{2\beta}+\sfrac{r_i^2}{2\pi}\sfrac{1}{2} (\partial_x-i\partial_t)\tilde\varphi_i(t,x)\,,\quad\ j^r_i(t,x)=-i\sfrac{r_i^2n_i}{2\beta}-\sfrac{r_i^2}{2\pi} \sfrac{1}{2}(\partial_x+i\partial_t)\tilde\varphi_i(t,x)\,.\ \end{equation} The functional integral (\ref{funcint}) factorizes similarly as in (\ref{factoriz}), with terms $-i\frac{r_i^2n_i}{2\beta}=-i\frac{r_i^2}{2\beta}\sum\limits_{m}\kappa^m_ik_m$ contributing to the factor with the sum over $\,\bm k\,$ and terms with derivatives of $\,\tilde{\bm\varphi}\,$ entering the factors involving the Gaussian integrals calculated by the Wick rule. The latter leads to combinations of products of derivatives of the Green functions of the Laplacians that reduce to expressions involving the Weierstrass functions. At the end, one obtains the same formulae as the $\,V\to0\,$ limit of the ones worked out before for the expectations of products of the left-moving currents resulting from applying the rule (\ref{linkJLR1}) to the right-moving currents. \subsection{General case} \label{subsec:gencas} An imaginary potential $\,V\,$ may be included in the functional integral approach by imposing the twisted-periodic boundary conditions in the time direction on the $U(1)^N$-valued fields $\,\bm g=(g_i) =(\ee^{i\varphi_i})$: \begin{equation} g_i(t+\beta,x)=g_i(t,x)\,\ee^{-\beta V}\,. \label{twistfi} \end{equation} The latter may be implemented in the functional integral by decomposing \begin{equation} \varphi_i(t,x)=(iV+\sfrac{2\pi}{\beta}n_i)t+\tilde\varphi_i(t,x) \label{decommu} \end{equation} with $\tilde\varphi_i$ periodic in the time direction, keeping the same boundary conditions in the $x$ direction that take again the form (\ref{bdrc}). For real $\,V$, \,the above decomposition implies a complex shift of the functional integration contour over fields $\,\bm g$. \,Performing the functional integration the same way as before, one obtains the representation \begin{align} &Z_{\beta,V}=\int\ee^{-S_E[\bm g]}\,\CD\bm g\,,\label{Zbm1}\\ &\omega^L_{\beta,V}\Big(\prod\limits_{k=1}^K J_{i_k}^\ell(t,x_k) \prod\limits_{k'=1}^{K'}J_{i_{k'}}^r(t,y_{k'})\Big) =\frac{1}{Z_{\beta,V}}\int\prod\limits_k j_{i_k}^\ell(0,x_k)\prod\limits_{k'} j_{i_{k'}}^r(0,y_{k'})\,\,\ee^{-S_E(\bm g)}\,\CD\bm g\,, \label{corrbm} \end{align} where the currents are still given by Eq.\,(\ref{currf}) and the contour of functional integration depends on $\,V\,$ in the way described by decomposition (\ref{decommu}). \nsection{Closed-string picture} \label{sec:clstr} \setcounter{equation}{0} \subsection{Classical description} \label{subsec:cldescr} \noindent A symmetric role of time and space in the functional integration leads, upon reversing those roles, to a description of the equilibrium expectations in the closed-string picture, see Fig.\,3. \begin{figure}[th] \leavevmode \begin{center} \vskip -0.2cm \includegraphics[width=6cm,height=2.8cm]{worldsheet2.eps}\\ \caption{Closed string worldsheet} \end{center} \end{figure} \noindent In the latter, a collection of $N$ closed strings of length $\beta$, is described by fields $\,g_i(t,x)=\ee^{\ii\varphi_i(x,t)}\,$ defined for real $\,t\,$ and $\,x\,$ and twisted-periodic in the $\,x\,$ direction: \begin{equation} g_i(t,x + \beta) = g_i(t,x)\,\ee^{-\beta V}\,, \end{equation} where $\,V\,$ is taken imaginary, compare to (\ref{twistfi}). On the classical level and for Minkowski time, such fields are governed by the action functional \begin{equation} S[\bm g]=\frac{_{1}}{^{4\pi}}\sum\limits_{i=1}^N\int \dd t\int\limits_0^{\beta}\,r_i^2\big((\partial_t \varphi_i)^2-(\partial_x\varphi_i)^2\big)\,\dd x\,. \end{equation} The twist in the periodicity condition may be absorbed by setting \begin{equation} \varphi_i(t,x) \equiv \hat\varphi_i(t,x) + \ii V x\,, \end{equation} where \begin{equation}\label{cs_period} \hat \varphi_i (t,x+\beta) = \hat \varphi_i (t,x) + 2 \pi m_i, \qquad m_i \in \mathbb Z\,. \end{equation} The classical solutions have the form \begin{equation} \hat \varphi_i(t,x)=\hat \varphi_i^\ell(t+x)+\hat \varphi_i^r(t-x)\,, \end{equation} where \begin{equation} \hat{\bm\varphi}^{\ell,r}(t\pm x)\,=\,\hat{\bm\varphi}^{\ell,r}_0 +\frac{_{\sqrt{2}\,\pi}}{^{\beta}}\bm\alpha_0^{\ell,r}(t\pm x) +\frac{_{\ii}}{^{\sqrt{2}\, }}\sum\limits_{n\not=0}\frac{_1}{^n} \bm\alpha^{\ell,r}_n\ee^{-\frac{2\pi \ii n(t\pm x)}{\beta}} \end{equation} for $\,\overline{\bm\alpha^{\ell,r}_n}=\bm\alpha^{\ell,r}_{-n}$, $\,\,\hat \varphi_0^\ell + \hat \varphi_0^r\equiv\hat \varphi_0 \in (\mathbb R / 2\pi \mathbb Z)^N$, $\,\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\bm\alpha_0^\ell + \bm\alpha_0^r)\equiv\bm p_0 \in {\mathbb R}^N$, \,and \begin{equation} \sfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\bm\alpha_0^\ell - \bm\alpha_0^r) = \bm m \end{equation} where $\bm m$ is the vector of $N$ winding numbers $m_i\in\mathbb Z$. The symplectic form on the space of classical solutions is \begin{align} \Omega\,=\,& \bm\delta p_{0}\cdot\wedge \delta \hat{\bm\varphi}_{0} - \frac{_\ii}{^2} \sum_{n \neq 0} \frac{_1}{^n} \delta\bm\alpha_{n}^\ell \cdot \wedge\bm\alpha_{(-n)}^\ell - \frac{_\ii}{^2} \sum_{n \neq 0} \frac{_1}{^n}\delta\bm\alpha_{n}^r\cdot \wedge\bm\alpha_{(-n)}^r\,. \end{align} \subsection{Quantization} \label{subsec:qclstr} The Poisson brackets obtained from $\Omega$ lead to the following canonical commutators: \begin{equation} \big[\varphi_{0i},p_{0j}\big]= \ii r_i^{-2} \delta_{ij}\,,\quad \big[\alpha_{ni}^\ell,\alpha_{n'j}^\ell\big]= r_i^{-2}\delta_{ij}\,n\,\delta_{n+n',0}\,,\quad \big[\alpha_{ni}^r,\alpha_{n'j}^r\big]= r_i^{-2}\delta_{ij}\,n\,\delta_{n+n',0}\,. \end{equation} For fixed winding numbers, the zero modes will be represented in the Hilbert space $\,L^2\big(U(1)^N\big)\,$ with an orthonormal-basis vectors \begin{equation} \ket{\bm k} \equiv \ket{k^1 \ldots k^{N}}=\, \exp \Big( \ii \sum_{i=1}^{N} k^i \varphi_{0i} \Big) \qquad \text{for }\ k^i \in \mathbb Z \end{equation} such that \begin{equation} r_i^2 p_{0i} \ket{\bm k} \equiv - \ii \,\sfrac{\partial\,\,}{\partial \varphi_{0i}}\,\exp \Big( \ii \sum_{i'=1}^{N} k^{i'} \varphi_{0i'} \Big) = \,k^i \ket{\bm k}. \end{equation} The Hilbert space of states for the zero modes is a direct sum of an infinite number of copies of $\,L^2\big(U(1)^N\big)$, \,one for each winding vector, \begin{equation} \mathcal H_0\,=\mathop{\oplus}\limits_{\bm m\in\mathbb Z^N}L^2 \big(U(1)^N\big)\,, \end{equation} with an orthonormal-basis vectors $\ket {\bm k, \bm m}$. The non-zero modes are represented in the tensor product of two standard Fock spaces $\CF^{\ell,r}$ generated by applying products of the $\alpha_{ni}^{\ell,r}$ with negative $n$ to the normalized vectors $\tket{0}^{\ell,r}$, annihilated by $\alpha_{ni}^{\ell,r}$ with positive $n$. The scalar products are defined by demanding that $(\alpha_{ni}^{\ell,r})^\dagger = \alpha_{(-n)i}^{\ell,r}$. The Hilbert space of the full theory is \begin{equation} \mathcal H = \mathcal H_0 \otimes \CF^\ell \otimes \CF^r \end{equation} and we identify $\ket {\bm k, \bm m} \equiv \ket {\bm k, \bm m} \otimes \ket{0}^\ell \otimes \ket{0}^r$. \subsection{Current, energy and (magnetic) charge} \label{subsec:curenmch} As before, we define the left and right current for the closed string \begin{equation}\label{current_cs} \CJ_i^{\ell,r}(t,x) = \frac{_{r_i^2}}{^{2\pi}} \sfrac{1}{2}(\partial_t\pm \partial_x)\varphi_i(t,x) = \sfrac{r_i^2}{\sqrt{2}\,\beta} \sum_n \alpha_{ni}^{\ell,r}\, \ee^{-\frac{2\pi \ii n(t\pm x)}{\beta}} \pm \sfrac{\ii r_i^2 V}{4 \pi}\,. \end{equation} The classical Hamiltonian of the system is \begin{equation} H = \sfrac{1}{4\pi} \sum_i \int\limits_0^\beta r_i^2 \Big( (\partial_t \hat \varphi_i)^2 + (\partial_x \hat \varphi_i)^2 + 2 \ii V \partial_x \hat \varphi_i - V^2 \Big)\,\dd x\,. \end{equation} Once quantized, its $\,V$-independent part becomes the standard Hamiltonian of $N$ closed strings \begin{equation} \sfrac{2\pi}{\beta} \sum_i \big( L^\ell_{0i} + L_{0i}^r - \sfrac{1}{12} \big)\,\equiv\, H_{\rm cs}\,, \end{equation} where \begin{equation} L^{\ell,r}_{0i}=\sfrac{r_i^2}{2}\sum\limits_n:\alpha^{\ell,r}_{ni} \alpha^{\ell,r}_{-ni}: \end{equation} and the $-\frac{1}{12}$ term comes from the zero-point energy. In the action on $\,\CH_0\,$ vectors, \begin{equation} H_{\rm cs}\ket{\bm k,\bm m}=\sfrac{\pi}{\beta}\Big(\sum_i (r_i^{-2}(k^i)^2 + r_i^2 m_i^2)\,-\sfrac{N}{6}\Big) \ket { \bm k, \bm m}\,. \label{spec} \end{equation} The action of excited mode operators $\alpha_{(-n)i}^{\ell,r}$ for positive $n$ raises the eigenvalue of $H_{\rm cs}$ by $\frac{2\pi n}{\beta}$. \,The part of the Hamiltonian linear in $\,V\,$ is equal to $\,\ii V\, Q^m_{cs}$, \,where \begin{equation} Q^{\rm m}_{\rm cs} = \sum_i \int_{0}^\beta\big(\hat{ \mathcal J}_i^\ell(x,t) - \hat{ \mathcal J}_i^r(x,t)\big)\,\dd x = \sfrac{1}{\sqrt 2} \sum_i r_i^2 (\alpha_{0i}^\ell -\alpha_{0i}^r)\,. \end{equation} is the total magnetic charge of the closed (untwisted) strings. It acts only on $\mathcal H_0$: \begin{equation} Q_{\rm cs}^{\rm m}\,\ket{\bm k, \bm m} = \sum_i r_i^2 m_i \ket{\bm k, \bm m}. \label{spec1} \end{equation} Finally, the part of the Hamiltonian quadratic in $\,V\,$ is an additive constant, so that the full quantum Hamiltonian of the closed-string system becomes \begin{equation}\label{H_cs_mu} H\,\equiv\, H_{\rm cs} + \ii V\,Q^{\rm m}_{\rm cs} -\sfrac{ V^2\beta}{4 \pi} \sum_i r_i^2. \end{equation} \subsection{Boundary states} \label{subsec:bdstates} In the closed-string pictures, the boundary conditions in the space direction, which in that picture becomes the time direction, are represented by the boundary states in the (completion of) the closed-string space of states \cite{Polchinski,Gaberdiel}. The boundary state that corresponds to Neumann boundary condition for all field component is \begin{equation} \ket{\ket{\CN}\hspace{-0.04cm}} = A_\CN\sum_{\bm m \in \mathbb Z^N}\ee^{-\sum\limits_{n=1}^\infty\frac{1}{n}\bm\alpha^\ell_{-n}\cdot \hspace{0.03cm}\bm\alpha_{-n}^r}\,\ket{\bm 0, \bm m}\,, \label{bdNeum} \end{equation} where $A_N$ is a suitable normalization constant. This boundary state satisfies the relation \begin{equation} \partial_t \varphi_i(0,x) \ket{\ket{\CN}\hspace{-0.035cm}} = 0\, \end{equation} whose excited-mode part implies that \begin{equation} (\alpha_{ni}^\ell+\alpha_{(-n)i}^r)\ket{\ket{\CN}\hspace{-0.035cm}}=0 \end{equation} determining the form of the Ishibashi-type dependence of $\ket{\ket{\CN}\hspace{-0.035cm}}$ on those modes. For the mixed Dirichlet-Neumann boundary condition describing the junction of wires, the boundary state has a more complicated form \begin{align} \label{BS_cs_mu} &\hspace*{-0.2cm}\ket{\ket{\CB}\hspace{-0.035cm}} = A_{DN}\,(2\pi)^{M-N} \sqrt{\det T}\cr &\hspace*{-0.2cm} \times\hspace{-0.1cm}\sum_{\substack{\bm k \in \mathbb Z^N \\ \sum_i k^i \kappa_i^m =0}} \ \sum_{\substack{\bm m \in \mathbb Z^N \\ m_i = \sum_i \kappa_i^m s_m}} \ee^{-\sum\limits_{j=1}^M\sum\limits_{n=1}^\infty\frac{1}{n} \tilde\alpha_{(-n)j}^\ell \tilde\alpha_{(-n)j}^r\,+\sum\limits_{j=M+1}^N\sum\limits_{n=1}^\infty\frac{1}{n} \tilde\alpha_{(-n)j}^\ell\tilde\alpha_{(-n)j}^r}\, \ket{\bm k, \bm m},\qquad \end{align} where $s_m$ run through integers and $\,\tilde\alpha_{nj}^{\ell,r}=\bm\Lambda_j\cdot\bm\alpha^{\ell,r}_n$, \,see (\ref{Lambdai}). \,One has \begin{equation}\label{mix_bd_st} P\hspace{0.03cm}\partial_t\bm\varphi(0,x) \ket{\ket{\CB}\hspace{-0.035cm}} = 0, \qquad (1-P)\hspace{0.02cm}\bm\varphi(0,x) \ket{\ket{\CB}\hspace{-0.035cm}} = 0\,, \end{equation} where field $\,\bm\varphi\,$ may be equivalently replaced by $\,\hat{\bm\varphi}$. \,The excited-mode part of these conditions implies that \begin{equation} (\tilde\alpha_{nj}^\ell+\tilde\alpha_{(-n)j}^r)\ket{\ket{\CB}\hspace{-0.035cm}}=0 \quad\text{for}\quad j\leq M\,,\qquad (\tilde\alpha_{nj}^\ell-\tilde\alpha_{(-n)j}^r)\ket{\ket{\CB}\hspace{-0.035cm}}=0 \quad\text{for}\quad j>M\,, \label{BS_modes} \end{equation} fixing the form of the Ishibashi building-blocks of $\,\ket{\ket{\CB} \hspace{-0.03cm}}$. The zero-mode part of the first of relations (\ref{mix_bd_st}) assures that $\sum\limits_i k^i\kappa^m_i=0$, whereas the zero-mode part of the second relations implies that $(1-P)\bm m=0$ which is solved by $m_i=\sum\limits_m\kappa^m_is_m$ for integer $s_m$. The sum \begin{equation} (2\pi)^{M-N}\,\sqrt{\det T}\sum_{\substack{\bm k \in \mathbb Z^N \\ \sum_i k^i \kappa_i^m =0}}\ket{\bm k} \label{sum} \end{equation} represents the delta-function supported by the brane $\CB=\kappa(U(1)^M)\subset U(1)^N$ defined by the integral \begin{equation} \delta_{B}(\varphi_0) \equiv \int \prod_i \delta \big( \varphi_{0i} - \sum_m \kappa_i^m \psi_m)\,\sqrt{\det T} \, \prod_m \dd \psi_m \end{equation} over $\,U(1)^M$ of \,the $\,2\pi-$periodic $\,N$-dimensional $\,\delta$-function. Indeed, \begin{align} \delta_{B}(\varphi_0) & = \sqrt{\det T} \, \int \frac{_1}{^{(2 \pi)^N}} \sum_{\bm k \in \mathbb Z^N} \ee^{i\sum_i k^i (\varphi_{0i} - \sum_m \kappa_i^m \psi_m)} \prod_m \dd \psi_m \cr & = (2\pi)^{M-N} \sqrt{\det T}\, \sum_{\bm k \in \mathbb Z^N} \ee^{i\sum_i k^i \varphi_{0i}} \delta_{\sum_i k^i \kappa_i^m,0} \end{align} which reproduces (\ref{sum}). \subsection{Partition function} \label{subsec:partfct} In the closed-string picture, the partition function $Z_{\beta,V}$ is represented by the matrix element of the Euclidean evolution operator $\ee^{-LH}$ between the boundary states. A direct calculation gives: \begin{align} Z_{\beta,V} & = \bra{\hspace{-0.035cm}\bra{\CN}} \ee^{-LH} \ket{\ket{\CB}\hspace{-0.035cm}} \cr &=A_NA_B(2\pi)^{M-N} \sqrt{\det T} \,\left[\eta \big( \frac{_{2\ii L}}{^{\beta}} \big)\right]^{N-2M} \left[\eta \big( \frac{_{4\ii L}}{^{\beta}} \big)\right]^{M-N}\,\ee^{\sfrac{N V^2 \beta L}{4 \pi}\sum_i r_i^2}\cr &\times \sum_{\substack{\bm m \in \mathbb Z^N \\ m_i = \sum \kappa_i^m s_m}} \ee^{- \frac{\pi L }{\beta} \sum (r_i m_i)^2 - \ii L V \sum r_i^2 m_i}\,. \end{align} This coincides with expression \eqref{Zbm} upon relabeling $\bm s=\bm k$ and recalling the definition \eqref{def_p_os} of vector $\,\bm p$, \,provided that \begin{equation} A_NA_B(2\pi)^{M-N}=\,2^{-N}\,. \end{equation} The latter identity is assured if we take $A_N=A^N$ and $A_B=A^MB^{N-M}$ for $A=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$ and $B=\sqrt{2}\pi$. \subsection{Expectations} \label{subsec:expect} \noindent The expectation values of products of currents in equilibrium state $\,\omega^L_{\beta,V}$ take in the open string picture the form of the matrix elements between the boundary states of the time ordered products of Euclidean versions of currents $\CJ^{\ell,r}$: \begin{align} \label{csexpec} \omega^L_{\beta,V}\Big(\prod\limits_{k=1}^K J_{i_k}^\ell(0,x_k) \prod\limits_{k'=1}^{K'}J_{i_{k'}}^r(0,y_{k'})\Big)=&\,\frac{(-\ii)^K\ii^{K'}} {\bra{\hspace{-0.035cm}\bra{\CN}} \ee^{-LH} \ket{\ket{\CB}\hspace{-0.035cm}}}\cr &\hspace{-2.5cm}\times\ \bra{\hspace{-0.035cm}\bra{\CN}} \ee^{-LH}\,\CT \prod\limits_{k=1}^K \CJ_{i_k}^\ell(-\ii x_k,0) \prod\limits_{k'=1}^{K'}\CJ_{i_{k'}}^r(-\ii y_{k'},0) \ket{\ket{\CB} \hspace{-0.035cm}}, \end{align} where the Euclidean time ordering puts the operators at bigger $\,x_k\,$ or $\,y_{k'}\,$ to the left. The powers of $\,-\ii\,$ and $\,\ii\,$ represent the derivatives of the Euclidean conformal change of variables, $\,x+\ii t\mapsto t-\ii x\,$ and $\,y-\ii t\mapsto t+\ii y$, \,respectively, \,that reverses the roles of time and space. \vskip 0.1 cm The proof of \eqref{csexpec} in done in few steps. First, consider only the left currents. As in the initial picture, \,we distinguish the constant part from the excited terms, \begin{equation} \CJ_i^\ell(t,x) = \sfrac{\ii r_i^2 V}{4 \pi} + \sfrac{r_i^2}{\sqrt{2}\,\beta} \alpha_{0i}^\ell + \hat \CJ_i^\ell(t,x) \,, \end{equation} see \eqref{current_cs}. This decomposition factorizes in the expectation values. For the constant terms, we get by direct calculation: \begin{align}\label{cs_zeromodes} & (-\ii)^K Z_{\beta,V}^{-1} \bra{\hspace{-0.03cm}\bra{\CN}} \ee^{-LH} \prod_{k=1}^K \Big( \sfrac{\ii r_{i_k}^2 V}{4 \pi} + \sfrac{r_{i_k}^2}{\sqrt{2}\,\beta} \alpha_{0i_k}^\ell\Big)\ket{\ket{\CB}\hspace{-0.03cm}} \cr & = \sfrac{1}{(2\beta V L)^K} \prod_{k=1}^K r_{i_k}^2\sum\limits_{m}\kappa^{m}_{i_k}\Big(\dfrac{\frac{\partial}{\partial p^m}\ee^{\frac{ L \beta V^2}{4\pi}\bm p\cdot T^{-1} \bm p} }{\ee^{\frac{ L \beta V^2}{4\pi}\bm p\cdot T^{-1} \bm p}} + \,\dfrac{ \frac{\partial}{\partial p^m} \Big( \sum\limits_{\bm k \in \mathbb Z^M} \ee^{-\ii L V\bm p \cdot \bm k - \frac{\pi L}{\beta} \bm k \cdot T\bm k }\Big)} { \sum\limits_{\bm k \in \mathbb Z^M} \ee^{-\ii L V\bm p \cdot \bm k - \frac{\pi L}{\beta} \bm k \cdot T\bm k }}\Big) \cr & = \omega^L_{\beta,V}\Big( \prod_{k=1}^K \big(J^\ell_{i_k}(t,x) - \hat J^\ell_{i_k}(t,x)\big)\Big) - \sum_{\lbrace\ldots( k_p,l_p)\ldots \rbrace} \prod_p \sfrac{r^2_{i_{k_p}}}{8\pi L \beta} P_{i_{k_p} i_{l_p}} \,, \end{align} which almost reproduces the zero mode part expectation value \eqref{omega0modes} of the initial calculation but with one extra term, where $\lbrace\ldots( k_p,l_p)\ldots \rbrace$ runs through all possible pairing of $\{1,\ldots,K\}$, as in the Wick theorem. The presence of this term can be seen by induction on $K$. On the other hand, the expectations of products of $\hat \CJ^\ell_i$ are calculated by the Wick rule with \begin{align} &-\ii Z_{\beta,V}^{-1} \bra{\hspace{-0.03cm}\bra{\CN}} \ee^{-LH}\hat \CJ^\ell_i(-\ii x,0)\ket{\ket{\CB}\hspace{-0.03cm}}=0\,,\\ &(-\ii)^2 Z_{\beta,V}^{-1} \bra{\hspace{-0.03cm}\bra{\CN}} \ee^{-LH}\hat \CJ^\ell_{i_1}(-\ii x_1,0) \hat \CJ^\ell_{i_2}(-\ii x_2,0)\ket{\ket{\CB} \hspace{-0.03cm}}\\ & \hspace{2cm} = - \sfrac{1}{2} \left(\sfrac{r_{i_1}}{2\pi}\right)^2\Big( P_{i_1i_2}\,(\wp(x_1-x_2;2L,-\ii\beta) + C_e^\prime) \cr & \hspace{2.4cm} +(\delta_{i_1i_2}-P_{i_1i_2})(2 {\wp}(x_1-x_2;4L,-\ii\beta) - {\wp}(x_1-x_2;2L,-\ii\beta)+C_{o}^\prime)\Big),\quad \label{cs_2pts}\quad \end{align} where we get expressions with the Weierstrass function similar to \eqref{2ptfn} but with different constants \begin{align} C_e^\prime =&\left(\sfrac{\pi}{-\ii\beta}\right)^2 \Big(\sfrac{1}{3} - \sum_{p \neq 0} \big( \sinh(\pi \sfrac{2Lp}{\beta}) \big)^{-2} \Big),\cr C_{o}^\prime =&\left( \sfrac{\pi}{-\ii \beta} \right)^2 \Big( \sfrac{1}{3} - 2\sum_{p \neq 0}\big[\sinh\big(\pi \sfrac{4L p}{\beta}\big)\big]^{-2} + \sum_{p \neq 0}\big[\sinh\big(\pi \sfrac{2L p}{\beta}\big)\big]^{-2} \Big). \end{align} The theory of Weierstrass function of periods $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$ \cite{WW} provides the identity \begin{equation}\label{beautiful} \sfrac{ \omega_1}{ \omega_2}\Big( \sfrac{1}{3} + \sum_{n \neq 0} \sin^{-2}\big(\sfrac{\pi n\omega_1}{\omega_2}\big) \Big)- \sfrac{ \omega_2}{ \omega_1} \Big( \sfrac{1}{3} + \sum_{n \neq 0} \sin^{-2} \big(\sfrac{\pi n\omega_2}{\omega_1}\big) \Big) = \pm\sfrac{\ii}{\pi}\,, \end{equation} where the sign on the right hand side is that of the imaginary part of $\omega_1/\omega_2$. This leads to the relations \begin{align} C_o^\prime = C_o\,,\qquad C_e^\prime = C_e - \sfrac{\pi}{L \beta} \,. \end{align} The contribution from the last term will cancel exactly the last contribution appearing in \eqref{cs_zeromodes} establishing identity \eqref{csexpec} for any product of left currents. Finally, the closed-string expectation value of a general product of left and right current will be a combination of factors corresponding to the decomposition \eqref{current_cs}. By direct calculation, the constant part of the right currents can be expressed via the $S$ matrix in terms of the one of the left currents with the use of \eqref{symcond1} and the fact that $S$ also preserves vectors $\,\bm\kappa^m$. \,In the computation of the excited part, the $S$ matrix appears naturally upon noticing that in the proper basis defined in \eqref{Lambdai}, it becomes \begin{equation} \tilde S = \text{diag}(\underbrace{1,\ldots,1}_{M},-1,\ldots,-1) \end{equation} which is precisely how the excited modes $\tilde \alpha_{ni}^\ell$ and $\tilde \alpha_{ni}^r$ are related when they act on $\ket{\ket{\CB}\hspace{-0.03cm}}$, see \eqref{BS_modes}. Finally, under the closed-string expectation every right current is related to the left one by the $S$ matrix, exactly as in the initial picture \eqref{linkJLR1}. This proves identity \eqref{csexpec} in the general case. \nsection{Thermodynamic limit} \label{sec:thermlim} \setcounter{equation}{0} In the thermodynamic limit $L\to\infty$ the wires become infinitely long. The partition function $Z_{\beta,V}$ diverges in that situation but the free energy per unit length has a limit: \begin{equation} f^L_{\beta,V}\,=\,-\sfrac{1}{L\beta}\ln{Z_{\beta,V}}\ \, \mathop{\longrightarrow}\limits_{L\to\infty}\ \, -\sfrac{V^2}{4\pi}\sum\limits_{i=1}^Nr_i^2\, -\sfrac{\pi N}{6\beta^2}\ \equiv\ f_{\beta,V}\,, \label{freeen} \end{equation} as easily follows from its form (\ref{Zbm}). The equilibrium state expectation values of the products of currents also possess the $L\to\infty$ limit. In particular, it follows from (\ref{omega0modes}) that \begin{equation} \lim\limits_{L\to\infty}\, \omega^L_{\beta,V}\Big(\prod\limits_{k=1}^K\sfrac{r_{i_k}^2}{4L}\, \alpha_{0i_k}^\ell\Big)\ =\ \prod\limits_{k=1}^K \sfrac{r_{i_k}^2V}{4\pi} \label{1stlimit} \end{equation} for real $\,V\,$ and relations (\ref{1ptfn}) and (\ref{2ptfn}) imply that \begin{align} &\lim\limits_{L\to\infty}\,\omega^L_{\beta,V}\big(\hat J^\ell_{i}(t,x)\big)\ =\ 0\,,\\ &\lim\limits_{L\to\infty}\,\omega^L_{\beta,V}\big(\hat J^\ell_{i_1}(t,x_1)\, \hat J^\ell_{i_2}(t,x_2)\big) \ =\ -\,\delta_{i_1i_2}\,\sfrac{r_{i_1}^2}{8\beta^2} \,\sinh^{-2}\left(\sfrac{\pi(x_1-x_2)}{\beta}\right), \label{2ndlimit} \end{align} as both $\,f_e(x)\,$ and $\,f_o(x)\,$ tend to $\,\big(\frac{\pi}{\beta}\big)^2\,\sinh^{-2}\big(\frac{\pi x}{\beta}\big)\,$ when $\,L\to\infty$. The latter property follows from (\ref{Weierstrass}) and the identity (\ref{beautiful}). Eqs.\,(\ref{1stlimit}), (\ref{1ptfn}), (\ref{2ndlimit}) and the Wick rule, as well as the relation (\ref{linkJLR1}), determine the $L\to\infty$ limit $\,\omega_{\beta,V}$ of the states $\,\omega^L_{\beta,V}$. Unlike for finite $L$, that limit is not represented by a trace with a density matrix (for $L=\infty$, the Hamiltonian has a continuous spectrum and the operator $\ee^{-\beta(H-V Q)}$ is not traceclass). In particular, one obtains: \begin{align} &\omega_{\beta,V}\big(J^\ell_i(t,x)\big)\,=\, \sfrac{r_{i}^2V}{4\pi}\,,\label{lim1pt}\\ &\omega_{\beta,V}\big(J^\ell_{i_1}(t,x_1)\, J^\ell_{i_2}(t,x_2)\big)\,=\,\sfrac{r_{i_1}^2r_{i_2}^2V^2}{16\pi^2}\, -\,\delta_{i_1i_2}\,\sfrac{r_{i_1}^2}{8\beta^2} \,\sinh^{-2}\left(\sfrac{\pi(x_1-x_2)}{\beta}\right).\label{lim2pt} \end{align} The operator product expressions (\ref{oOPE}) and the limit (\ref{2ndlimit}) (that is uniform in small $|x_1-x_2|$) imply that \begin{align} \omega_{\beta,V}\big(T^\ell_i(t,x)\big)&=\sfrac{r_i^2V^2}{8\pi}\,+\, \lim\limits_{\epsilon\to0}\,\Big(-\sfrac{\pi}{4\beta^2}\sinh^{-2} \big(\sfrac{\pi\epsilon}{\beta}\big)+\sfrac{1}{4\pi\epsilon^2}\Big)= \sfrac{r_i^2V^2}{8\pi}+\sfrac{\pi}{12\beta^2}\cr &=\,\omega_{\beta,V}\big(T^r_i(t,x)\big). \end{align} In particular, the mean energy density in the equilibrium state is constant in each semi-infinite wire (but differs from one wire to another) and the mean energy current vanishes. \vskip 0.1 cm The $L=\infty$ state is easy to represent in the closed-string picture: by examining the right hand side of (\ref{csexpec}), one infers that the boundary state $\ket{\ket{\CN}}$ of (\ref{bdNeum}) is projected when $L\to\infty$ to the closed-string vacuum $\ket{\bm 0,\bm 0}\, so that \begin{align} \omega_{\beta,V}\Big(\prod\limits_{k=1}^K J_{i_k}^\ell(0,x_k) \prod\limits_{k'=1}^{K'}J_{i_{k'}}^r(0,y_{k'})\Big)\ =\ &\frac{(-\ii)^K\ii^{K'}} {\langle\bm 0,\bm 0\ket{\ket{\CB}\hspace{-0.03cm}}}\cr &\hspace{-2cm}\times\ \bra{\bm 0,\bm 0}\,\CT \prod\limits_k \CJ_{i_k}^\ell(-i x_k,0) \prod\limits_{k'}\CJ_{i_{k'}}^r(-iy_{k'},0) \ket{\ket{\CB}\hspace{-0.03cm}} \label{csexpecinfty} \end{align} for $x_k,y_{k'}>0$, \vskip 0.1 cm One of the crucial observations that follows from (\ref{1stlimit}) and (\ref{2ndlimit}) is that, when restricted to the products of left-moving currents $\,J^\ell_i(0,x)\,$ with $\,x>0$, \,the limiting $\,L=\infty\,$ equilibrium expectations do not depend on the choice of the brane $\,\CB\,$ describing the contact of wires. In particular, such expectations are the same as for the space-filling brane $\,\CB_0$ with $\,S_{ii'}=\delta_{ii'}\,$ corresponding to the disconnected wires for which $\,J^r_i(t,x)=J_i^\ell(t,-x)\,$ and $\,\ket{\ket{\CB_0}\hspace{-0.03cm}}= \ket{\ket{\CN}\hspace{-0.03cm}}$. \,The physical reason for this behavior of the expectations of left-moving currents is that the latter did not have contact with the junction up to time zero. The above observation is essential for the construction of nonequilibrium stationary state where the individual wires are kept at different temperatures and at different potentials. For the disconnected wires, one has the obvious factorization: \begin{equation} \omega^L_{\beta,V}\Big(\prod\limits_{k=1}^KJ^\ell_{i_k}(t,x_k)\Big)\,=\, \prod\limits_{i=1}^N\,\omega^L_{\beta,V}\Big(\prod\limits_{\substack{k\\i_k=i}} J^\ell_{i}(t,x_k)\Big)\,. \end{equation} Hence the same formula holds in the $L\to\infty$ limit of the equilibrium state for any brane $\CB=\kappa(U(1)^M)$. \vskip 0.1 cm For the disconnected wires, \,one also has the relation: \begin{equation} \omega^L_{\beta,V}\Big(\prod\limits_{{k'}=1}^{K'} J^r_{i_{k'}}(t,y_{k'})\Big)\,=\, \prod\limits_{i={k'}}^N\,\omega^L_{\beta,V}\Big( \prod\limits_{\substack{k'\\i_{k'}=i}} J^r_{i}(t,y_{k'})\Big)\,=\,\,\prod\limits_{i=1}^N\,\omega^L_{\beta,V} \Big(\prod\limits_{\substack{k'\\i_{k'}=i}}J^\ell_{i}(t,-y_{k'})\Big). \end{equation} It is easy to check using (\ref{linkJLR1}) and (\ref{symcond1}) that the latter factorization holds in the limit $L\to\infty$ also for other branes $\,\CB=\kappa(U(1)^M)$. \nsection{Nonequilibrium stationary state} \label{sec:NESS} \setcounter{equation}{0} Following \cite{MSLL,BD2}, see also \cite{Ruelle}, we shall consider a nonequilibrium stationary state (NESS) $\,\omega_{\rm neq}$ describing the situation when different semi-infinite wires are kept at different temperatures and different potentials. State $\,\omega_{\rm neq}$ may be obtained by the following limiting procedure. For each disconnected semi-infinite wire, one considers the algebra $\,\CA_i$ generated by products of currents $\,J^{\ell,r}_i(0,x)\,$ for $x>0$, together with a state $\,\omega^i_{\beta_i,V_i}$ given by the restriction to $\,\CA_i$ of the $L=\infty$ equilibrium state $\,\omega_{\beta_i,V_i}$ for the space-filling brane $\,\CB_0$. The product state $\,\omega_{\rm in}\equiv\mathop{\otimes}\limits_{i=1}^N \omega^i_{\beta_,,V_i}$ on algebra $\,\CA=\mathop{\otimes_i}\CA_i$ describes the disconnected wires with each prepared in its own equilibrium state $\,\omega^i_{\beta_i,V_i}$. \,As in Sec.\,\ref{sec:Quant}, algebra $\,\CA\,$ may be identified with the one generated by currents $J^{\ell,r}_i(0,x)$ with $x>0$ and $\,1\leq i\leq N\,$ for the connected wires. Let $\,\CU_t\,$ for $t>0$ describe the forward in time Heisenberg-picture evolution of the currents $J^{\ell,r}_i(0,x)$ with $x>0$ in the presence of brane $\,\CB\,$: \begin{align} &\CU_tJ_i^\ell(0,x)=J^\ell_i(t,x)=J^\ell_i(0,x+t)=J_i^\ell(0,t+x)\,,\label{Utl}\\ &\CU_tJ_i^r(0,x)=J^r_i(t,x)=J^r_i(0,x-t))=\begin{cases}\,J_i^r(0,x-t) \hspace{1.34cm}{\rm for} \quad t\leq x\cr \,\sum\limits_{i'}S_{ii'}J^\ell_{i'}(0,t-x)\hspace{0.38cm}{\rm for} \quad x\leq t\label{Utr} \end{cases} \end{align} Then for $A\in\CA$, \begin{equation} \omega_{\rm neq}(A)\,=\,\lim\limits_{t\to\infty}\,\omega_{\rm in} (\CU_tA)\,. \end{equation} In order to prove the above relation consider the backward in time Heisenberg evolution for decoupled wires, i.e. in the presence of brane $\CB_0$: \begin{align} &\hspace*{1cm}\CU^0_{-t}J^\ell_i(0,x)=J^\ell_i(-t,x)=J^\ell_i(0,x-t) =\begin{cases}\,J_i^\ell(0,-t+x)\hspace{0.93cm}{\rm for} \quad t\leq x\,,\cr \,J^r_{i}(0,t-x)\hspace{1.18cm}{\rm for}\quad x\leq t\,,\end{cases} \label{U0tl}\\ &\hspace*{1cm}\CU^0_{-t}J_i^r(0,x)=J^r_i(-t,x)=J^r_i(0,x+t)=J_i^r(0,t+x)\label{U0tr} \end{align} for $\,x,t>0$. \,Such a decoupled evolution preserves the product state $\,\omega_{\rm in}\,$ so that \begin{equation} \lim\limits_{t\to\infty}\,\omega_{\rm in}(\CU_tA)\,=\,\omega_{\rm in} (\CS A)\,, \end{equation} where \begin{equation} \CS=\lim\limits_{t\to\infty}\,\CU^0_{-t}\CU_t \end{equation} is the scattering operator in the action on algebra $\,\CA$. \,The explicit form of the latter in the action on the chiral currents follows from equations (\ref{Utl}), (\ref{Utr}), (\ref{U0tl}) and (\ref{U0tr}): \begin{align} &\CS J^\ell_i(0,x)\,=\,J^\ell_i(0,x)\,,\\ &\CS J^r_i(0,x)\,=\,\sum\limits_{i'}S_{ii'}J^r_{i'}(0,x) \end{align} for $\,x>0$. \,Note that the nonequilibrium state $\omega_{\rm neq}$ is preserved by the Heisenberg evolution $\,\CU_t\,$ \,so that its stationarity follows. Hence the explicit formula: \begin{align} &\omega_{\rm neq}\bigg(\Big(\prod\limits_{k=1}^KJ^\ell_{i_k}(t,x_k)\Big) \Big(\prod\limits_{k'=1}^{K'}J^r_{i_{k'}}(t,y_{k'})\Big)\bigg)\cr &=\,\prod\limits_{k'=1}^{K'}\sum\limits_{i'_{k'}} S_{i_{k'}i'_{k'}}\,\prod\limits_{i=1}^N\,\omega^i_{\beta_i,V_i} \bigg(\Big(\prod\limits_{\substack{k\\i_k=i}} J^\ell_{i}(t,x_k)\Big)\Big(\prod\limits_{\substack{k'\\i'_{k'}=i}} J^r_{i}(t,y_{k'})\Big)\bigg), \label{omeganeq} \end{align} where on the left hand side the currents correspond to connected wires and on the right hand side to disconnected ones and the values of $t$, $x_k$ and $x_{k'}$ may be taken arbitrary (with noncoincident $x_1,\dots,x_K,-y_1,\dots,-y_{K'}$ to avoid singularities). In particular, \begin{equation} \omega_{\rm neq}\bigg(\prod\limits_{k=1}^KJ^\ell_{i_k}(t,x_k)\bigg) =\,\omega_{\rm in}\bigg(\prod\limits_{k=1}^KJ^\ell_{i_k}(t,x_k)\bigg) \label{omomin} \end{equation} so that the difference between $\omega_{\rm neq}$ and $\omega_{\rm in}$, due to the junction between wires, arises only in the presence of right-moving currents. The left-moving currents do not feel the influence of the junction. It should be stressed that the dynamics considered above both in the presence of the junction and for decoupled wires is generated by the Hamiltonians that do not include the electric potentials in the bulk of the wires. Those play the role only in the preparation of the initial product state and may be applied far away from the junction. That the ballistic evolution of chiral currents persists for long times in the bulk of the wires in such a nonequilibrium situation should be assured by the integrable nature of the Luttinger liquids, see the discussion at the end of \cite{BDV}. \vskip 0.1cm Specifying Eq.\,(\ref{omeganeq}) to the 1-point expectations, one obtains: \begin{equation} \omega_{\rm neq}\big(J^\ell_i(t,x)\big)\,=\,\sfrac{r_i^2V_i}{4\pi}\,,\qquad \omega_{\rm neq}\big(J^r_i(t,x)\big)\,=\,\sum\limits_{i'=1}^N S_{ii'}\sfrac{r_{i'}^2V_{i'}}{4\pi} \end{equation} so that the mean charge density and mean current in the wires are \begin{equation} \omega_{\rm neq}\big(J^0_i(t,x)\big)\,=\,\sum\limits_{i'=1}^N (S_{ii'}+\delta_{ii'})\sfrac{r_{i'}^2V_{i'}}{4\pi}\,,\qquad \omega_{\rm neq}\big(J^1_i(t,x)\big)\,=\,\sum\limits_{i'=1}^N (S_{ii'}-\delta_{ii'})\sfrac{r_{i'}^2V_{i'}}{4\pi}\,, \label{noneq.J1} \end{equation} respectively. They are constant in each wire and the mean current does not vanish, in general, at difference with the equilibrium state. The electric conductance tensor of the junction (in the units $\,e^2/\hbar$) \,is \begin{equation} {}^{\rm el}G_{ii'} \equiv \left.\sfrac{\partial\,}{\partial V_{i'}}\, \omega_{\rm neq}(J^1_i(0,x))\right|_{\substack{\beta_j = \beta \\ V_j = V}} = \sfrac{1}{4\pi} (S_{ii'} - \delta_{ii'})r_{i'}^2\,. \end{equation} This agrees with the calculation of \cite{RHFCA,RHFOCA} based on the combination of the Green-Kubo formula with the conformal field theory representation of the equilibrium state. Note that the conductance vanishes for the decoupled wires. The nonequilibrium current 2-point functions are given by \begin{align} &\omega_{\rm neq}\big(J^\ell_{i_1}(t,x_1)\,J^\ell_{i_2}(t,x_2)\big)\,=\, \sfrac{r_{i_1}^2r_{i_2}^2V_{i_1}V_{i_2}}{16\pi^2}\, -\,\delta_{i_1i_2}\,\sfrac{r_{i_1}^2}{8\beta_{i_1}^2} \,\sinh^{-2}\left(\sfrac{\pi(x_1-x_2)}{\beta_{i_1}}\right),\\ &\omega_{\rm neq}\big(J^\ell_{i_1}(t,x_1)\,J^r_{i_2}(t,x_2)\big)\,=\, \sum\limits_{i=1}^NS_{i_2i}\sfrac{r_{i_1}^2r_{i}^2V_{i_1}V_{i}}{16\pi^2}\, -\,S_{i_2i_1}\,\sfrac{r_{i_1}^2}{8\beta_{i_1}^2} \,\sinh^{-2}\left(\sfrac{\pi(x_1+x_2)}{\beta_{i_1}}\right),\\ &\omega_{\rm neq}\big(J^r_{i_1}(t,x_1)\,J^r_{i_2}(t,x_2)\big)\,= \hspace{-0.05cm}\sum\limits_{i,i'=1}^N\hspace{-0.15cm}S_{i_1i} S_{i_2i'}\sfrac{r_{i}^2r_{i'}^2V_{i}V_{i'}}{16\pi^2} -\hspace{-0.1cm}\sum\limits_{i=1}^NS_{i_1i}S_{i_2i}\, \sfrac{r_{i}^2}{8\beta_{i}^2}\, \sinh^{-2}\left(\sfrac{\pi(x_1-x_2)}{\beta_{i}}\right). \end{align} Note that the nonequilibrium states $\,\omega_{\rm neq}$ with coupled wires break the time reversal symmetry $J^\ell\leftrightarrow J^r$. \vskip 0.1 cm For the expectation value of the energy-momentum components, we obtain from the operator product expansions (\ref{OPEl}) and (\ref{OPEr}) \begin{align} \omega_{\rm neq}\big(T^\ell_i(t,x)\big)\,&=\,\sfrac{r_i^2V_i^2}{8\pi}\,+\, \lim\limits_{\epsilon\to0}\Big(-\sfrac{\pi}{4\beta_i^2}\sinh^{-2}\Big(\sfrac{\pi\epsilon}{\beta_i}\Big)+\sfrac{1}{4\pi\epsilon^2}\Big)\, =\,\sfrac{r_i^2V_i^2}{8\pi}\,+\,\sfrac{\pi}{12\beta_i^2}\,,\\ \omega_{\rm neq}\big(T^r_i(t,x)\big)\,&=\,\sfrac{1}{8\pi r_i^2} \Big(\sum\limits_{i'=1}^NS_{ii'} r_{i'}^2V_{i'}\Big)^{\hspace{-0.08cm}2}\,+\, \lim\limits_{\epsilon\to0}\Big(-\sum\limits_{i'=1}^N(S_{ii'})^2 \sfrac{\pi r_{i'}^2}{4r_i^2\beta_{i'}^2}\sinh^{-2}\Big( \sfrac{\pi\epsilon}{\beta_{i'}}\Big)+\sfrac{1}{4\pi\epsilon^2}\Big)\cr &\,=\,\sfrac{1}{8\pi r_i^2} \Big(\sum\limits_{i'=1}^NS_{ii'} r_{i'}^2V_{i'}\Big)^{\hspace{-0.08cm}2}\,+\,\sfrac{\pi}{12r_i^2} \sum\limits_{i'=1}^N\Big(S_{ii'}\sfrac{r_{i'}}{\beta_{i'}}\Big)^{\hspace{-0.08cm}2} \end{align} so that the mean energy density and current are, respectively, \begin{equation} \omega_{\rm neq}\big(K^{0,1}_i(t,x)\big)\,=\,\sfrac{1}{8\pi r_i^2} \Big(\sum\limits_{i'}^NS_{ii'} r_{i'}^2V_{i'}\Big)^{\hspace{-0.08cm}2}\, \pm\,\sfrac{r_i^2V_i^2}{8\pi}\,+\,\sfrac{\pi}{12r_i^2} \sum\limits_{i'=1}^N\Big(S_{ii'}\sfrac{r_{i'}}{\beta_{i'}}\Big)^{\hspace{-0.08cm}2} \,\pm\,\sfrac{\pi}{12\beta_i^2}\,, \label{noneq.K1} \end{equation} This results in the thermal conductance \begin{equation} {}^{\rm th\hspace{-0.02cm}}G_{ii'}\, =\,-\beta_{i'}^2\sfrac{\partial}{\partial\beta_{i'}}\, \omega_{\rm neq}\big(K_i^1(t,x)\big)\Big|_{\substack{\beta_j=\beta\\ V_j=V}}\,=\,\sfrac{\pi}{6\beta}\big((S_{ii'})^2\sfrac{r_{i'}^2}{r_i^2} -\delta_{ii'}\big)\,. \end{equation} \nsection{Full counting statistics} \label{sec:FCS} \setcounter{equation}{0} \subsection{Charge transport} \label{subsec:ch.transp} Measuring transport of charges through the junction of quantum wires requires specifying measurement protocol that may be not easy to implement. Refs.\,\cite{LL,LLL} proposed an indirect measurement of charge transferred through a quantum resistor and obtained a closed formula for statistics of the results. The same charge transfer statistics could be obtained by considering a direct two-times measurement of the total charge accumulated in the system, provided the latter is finite. Following \cite{BD2}, we shall employ the second measurement protocol that is conceptually simpler although unpractical for large systems, keeping in mind that the charge transfer statistics obtained this way may be also accessed by a more practical indirect measurement protocol. \vskip 0.1cm Consider first the system of disconnected wires of length $L$, each with Hamiltonian $H_i^0$ and charge operator $\,Q_i^0$. Prepare the system in the product state $\,\omega^L_{0}=\mathop{\otimes}\limits_{i=1}^N\omega^{i,L}_{\beta_i,V_i}\,$ given by the density matrix $\,\rho_0\equiv\mathop{\otimes}\limits_{i=1}^N \rho^i_{\beta_i,V_i}$, \,where $\,\rho^i_{\beta_i,V_i}=\frac{1}{Z^i_{\beta_i,V_i}} \hspace{0.02cm}\ee^{-\beta_i(H^0_i-V_iQ_i^0)}$. \,At time zero, measure the total charge $Q_i^0$ in each wire. Then connect the wires instantaneously and let the system evolve. At time $t$, disconnect the wires and measure the total charge $Q_i(t)$ in each wire. By spectral decomposition, \begin{equation} Q_i^0 = \sum_{q^0} q^0 P^0_{i,q^0}\,, \qquad Q_i(t) = \sum_q q P_{i,q}(t)\,. \end{equation} The probability that the first measurement gives the values of charges $(q_i^0)\equiv\bm{q}^0$ is equal to $\,\tr\big(\mathop{\otimes}_{i=1}^N\rho^i_{\beta_i,V_i}P^0_{i,q_i^0}\big)$. \,After the first measurement, the density matrix is reduced to \qq \rho_{0^+}\,\equiv\,\frac{\mathop{\otimes}\limits_{i=1}^NP^0_{i.q_i^0}\, \rho^i_{\beta_i,V_i}P^0_{i.q_i^0}} {\tr\big(\mathop{\otimes}_{i=1}^N\rho^i_{\beta_i,V_i}P^0_{i,q_i^0}\big)}\,, \qqq The probability that the second measurement gives the values of charges $(q_i)\equiv\bm{q}$, \,is then equal to $\,\tr\big(\rho_{0^+}\prod\limits_{i=1}^NP_{i,q_i}(t)\big)$. \,Altogether, the joint probability of the results $(\bm{q}^0,\bm{q})$ is \begin{align} \mathbb P_t(\bm{q}^0,\bm{q}) &= \tr\big(\mathop{\otimes}_{i=1}^N \rho^i_{\beta_i,V_i}P^0_{i,q_i^0}\big)\,\,\tr\,\rho_{0^+}\prod\limits_{i=1}^N P_{i,q_i}(t)=\tr\,\Big(\mathop{\otimes}\limits_{i=1}^N\rho^i_{\beta_i,V_i} P^0_{i.q_i^0}\Big)\prod\limits_{i=1}^N P_{i,q_i}(t)\cr &=\omega_{0}^L\Big(\prod\limits_i P_{i,q_i^0}\prod\limits_i P_{i,q_i}(t)\Big), \end{align} where to obtain the second equality, we used the fact that $\,P_{i,q}^0\,$ commute with $\rho^i_{\beta_i,V_i}$. The probability that the charges change by $\,\Delta q_i=q_i -q_i^0\,$ is \begin{equation} \mathbb P_t({\Delta\bm{q}})=\sum\limits_{(\bm{q}^0, \bm{q})}\prod\limits_i\delta_ {\Delta q_i,q_i-q_i^0}\,\mathbb P_t(\bm{q}^0,\bm{q})\,. \end{equation} The latter probabilities may be encoded in their characteristic function called the generating function of full counting statistics (FCS) for the electric charge transfers: \begin{align} {}^{{\rm el}\hspace{-0.04cm}}F^L_t(\bm\nu)&= \sum\limits_{\Delta\bm{q}}\ee^{\ii\sum\limits_i\nu_i \Delta q_i}\mathbb P_t(\Delta\bm{q}) \,=\sum\limits_{(\bm{q}^0,\bm{q})}\ee^{\ii\sum\limits_i (q_i-q_i^0)}\,\mathbb P_t(\bm{q}^0,\bm{q})\cr &=\,\omega^L_{0} \bigg(\prod\limits_i\Big(\sum\limits_{q^0} \ee^{-\ii\nu_iq^0}P^0_{i,q^0}\Big)\prod\limits_i\Big(\sum\limits_{q} \ee^{\ii\nu_i q}P_{i,q}(t))\Big)\bigg)\cr &=\omega^L_{0} \Big(\ee^{-\ii\sum\limits_i\nu_iQ_i^0}\, \ee^{\ii\sum\limits_i\nu_iQ_i(t)}\Big). \label{FCS} \end{align} For connected wires, the change of the wire charges in time is \begin{align} \Delta Q_i(t)&\equiv Q_i(t)-Q_i(0)= \int\limits_0^t\frac{_d}{^{ds}}Q_i(s)\,ds\,=\, \int\limits_0^t \dd s\int\limits_{0}^{L}\partial_s \big(J^\ell_i(s,x)+J^r_i(s,x)\big)\,\dd x\cr &=\int\limits_0^t \dd s\int\limits_{0}^{L} \big(\partial_xJ^\ell_i(s,x)-\partial_xJ^r_i(s,x)\big)\,\dd x =-\int\limits_0^t \big(J^\ell_i(s,0)-J^r_i(s,0)\big)\,\dd s\cr &=-\int\limits_0^t \big(J^\ell_i(0,s)-\sum_{i'} S_{ii'} J^\ell_{i'}(0,s)\big)\,\dd s\,. \label{DQ} \end{align} After disconnecting the wires at time $\,t\leq L$, \,the latter observables become the ones for unconnected wires given by the right hand side of (\ref{DQ}). The crucial fact is that they are extensive in time but not in the wire length, unlike the total charges. Note the commutation: \begin{align} \big[\Delta Q_i(t),Q^0_{i'}\big] & = -\int\limits_0^t\dd s\int\limits_{-L}^{L}\big[\big(J^\ell_i (0,s)-\sum_{i''} S_{ii''} J^\ell_{i''}(0,s)\big),J^\ell_{i'}(0,x)\big]\,\dd x\cr &=-(\delta_{ii'}-S_{ii'})\int\limits_0^t\dd s\int\limits_{-L}^{L} \sum\limits_n\delta'(s-x+2nL)\,\dd x\,=\,0\,. \label{commu} \end{align} Since the observable $\,Q_i(t)\,$ become equal to $\,Q_i^0+\Delta Q_i(t)\,$ after the disconnection of wires, the FCS generating function (\ref{FCS}) may be rewritten due to (\ref{commu}) in the simpler form \begin{align} {}^{{\rm el}\hspace{-0.04cm}}F^L_t(\bm\nu)= \omega^L_{0}\Big(\ee^{\ii\sum\limits_i\nu_i\Delta Q_i(t)}\Big)= \prod\limits_{i=1}^N\omega^{i,L}_{\beta_i,V_i} \Big(\ee^{-\ii\tilde\nu_i\int\limits_0^tJ^\ell_i(0,s)}\Big), \label{FCSsf} \end{align} where we have set \qq \tilde\nu_i\,\equiv\,\nu_i-\sum\limits_{i'}S_{i'i}\hspace{0.02cm}\nu_{i'}\,. \label{nutilde} \qqq Due to the translation invariance of the state $\,\omega^{i,L}_{\beta_i,V_i}$, \begin{equation} \omega^{i,L}_{\beta_i,V_i}\Big(\ee^{-\ii\tilde\nu_i \int\limits_0^tJ^\ell_i(0,s)\,\dd s}\Big)\hspace{-0.06cm}= \omega^{i,L}_{\beta_i,V_i}\Big(\ee^{-\ii\tilde\nu_i\int\limits_{-t/2}^{t/2} J^\ell_i(0,s)\,\dd s}\Big)\hspace{-0.06cm}= \omega^{i,L}_{\beta_i,V_i}\Big(\ee^{-\ii\tilde\nu_i\int\limits_0^{t/2} (J^\ell_i(0,s)+J^r(0,s))\,\dd s}\Big). \label{8.8} \end{equation} In the limit $L\to\infty$, \,the initial states $\,\omega^L_0$ tend to the product state $\,\omega_{\rm in}$ for semi-infinite wires considered in Sec.\,\ref{sec:NESS} so that \begin{equation} {}^{{\rm el}\hspace{-0.04cm}}F_t(\bm\nu)\equiv\lim\limits_{L\to\infty}\, {}^{{\rm el}\hspace{-0.04cm}}F^L_t(\bm\nu)= \omega_{\rm in}\Big(\ee^{\ii\sum\limits_i\nu_i\Delta Q_i(t)}\Big) =\omega_{\rm neq}\Big(\ee^{\ii\sum\limits_i\nu_i\Delta Q_i(t)}\Big) \end{equation} with the last equality following from relations (\ref{omomin}) and (\ref{DQ}). \vskip 0.1cm We would like to study the large deviation form of the FCS generating function by calculating the rate function \begin{equation} {}^{{\rm el}\hspace{-0.05cm}}f(\bm\nu)=\lim\limits_{t\to\infty}\,t^{-1}\, \ln{{}^{{\rm el}\hspace{-0.04cm}}F_t(\bm\nu)}\,. \label{FCSL=infty} \end{equation} Refs. \cite{BD2,DHB} exposed a strategy for the calculation of such rate functions for semi-infinite wires with a purely transmitting junction from its derivatives. Applying it to our case, we note that such derivatives have the form \begin{align} &\sfrac{\partial\,}{\partial \nu_j}\, {}^{{\rm el}\hspace{-0.05cm}} f(\bm\nu)=\lim\limits_{t\to\infty}\,\frac{\ii}{t}\, \frac{\omega_{\rm in}\Big(\ee^{\ii\sum\limits_i\nu_i\Delta Q_i(t)} \Delta Q_j(t)\Big)}{\omega_{\rm in}\Big(\ee^{\ii\sum\limits_{i} \nu_{i}\Delta Q_{i}(t)}\Big)}\cr &=\,\lim\limits_{t\to\infty}\,\frac{1}{\ii t}\, \frac{\omega_{\rm in}\Big(\ee^{-\ii\sum\limits_i \tilde\nu_i\int\limits_0^tJ^\ell_i(0,s)} \int\limits_0^t\big(J^\ell_j(0,s)-S_{jj'}J^\ell_{j'}(0,s)\big)\,ds\Big)} {\omega_{\rm in} \Big(\ee^{-\ii\sum\limits_i\tilde\nu_i\int\limits_0^tJ^\ell_i(0,s)} \Big)}\cr &=\,\lim\limits_{t\to\infty}\,\frac{1}{\ii t}\, \frac{\omega_{\rm in}\Big(\ee^{-\ii\sum\limits_i\tilde\nu_i\int\limits_0^{t/2} (J^\ell_i(0,s)+J^r(0,s))\,\dd s} \int\limits_{-t/2}^{t/2}\big(J^\ell_j(0,s')-S_{jj'}J^\ell_{j'}(0,s')\big)\, \dd s'\Big)} {\omega_{\rm in} \Big(\ee^{-\ii\sum\limits_i\tilde\nu_i\int\limits_0^{t/2}(J^\ell_i(0,s)+J^r(0,s))\,\dd s}\Big)} \end{align} with $\tilde\nu_i$ as above. \,It was argued in \cite{BD2,DHB}, \,following the approach set up in \cite{BD1}, \,that \begin{align} \lim\limits_{t\to\infty}\,\frac{\omega_{\rm in} \Big(\ee^{-\ii\sum\limits_i\tilde\nu_i\int\limits_{0}^{t/2}(J^\ell_i(0,s)+J^r(0,s))\,\dd s} J^\ell_{j'}(0,s')\Big)}{\omega_{\rm in}\Big(\ee^{-\ii\sum\limits_i\tilde\nu_i \int\limits_{0}^{t/2}(J^\ell_i(0,s)+J^r(0,s))\,\dd s}\Big)}\, =\,\omega^{j'}_{\beta_{j'},V_{j'}-\ii\beta_{j'}^{-1}\tilde\nu_{j'}}\big(J^\ell_{j'}(0,s')\big) \label{l1pt} \end{align} because for large $t$ the exponential factor becomes close to $\,\ee^{-i\sum\limits_i\tilde\nu_iQ^0_i}\,$ providing effectively the imaginary additions to potentials $\,V_i$. \,Since the one point function on the right hand side of (\ref{l1pt}) is independent of $s'$, \,this line of thought gives by the analytic continuation of \eqref{lim1pt} the identity \begin{equation} \sfrac{\partial\,}{\partial \nu_j}\, {}^{{\rm el}\hspace{-0.05cm}} f(\bm\nu)\,=\, - \sfrac{\ii}{4\pi}\sum_{j'} (\delta_{jj'} - S_{jj'}) r_{j'}^2\big(V_{j'} -\ii\beta_{j'}^{-1}\tilde\nu_{j'}\big) \end{equation} which, \,together with (\ref{nutilde}) and the relation $\,f(\bm0)=0$, \,implies that \begin{align} {}^{{\rm el}\hspace{-0.05cm}}f(\bm\nu) \,=&\sum\limits_{i=1}^N\bigg(\sfrac{\big(V_i-\ii\beta_i^{-1} (\nu_i-\sum\limits_{i'=1}^NS_{i'i}\nu_{i'})\big)^2\beta_ir_i^2}{8\pi}\,-\, \sfrac{V_i^2\beta_ir_i^2}{8\pi}\bigg)\cr \,=&-\sum\limits_{i=1}^N\bigg( \sfrac{\big(\nu_i-\sum\limits_{i'=1}^NS_{i'i}\nu_{i'} \big)^2r_i^2}{8\pi\beta_{i}} +\ii\,\sfrac{V_i\big(\nu_i-\sum\limits_{i'=1}^NS_{i'i}\nu_{i'} \big)r_i^2}{4\pi}\bigg). \label{LD} \end{align} \vskip 0.1cm The existence of the limit (\ref{FCSL=infty}) means that at long times the PDF of charge transfers takes the large-deviations form \begin{equation} \mathbb P_t(\Delta\bm{q})\ \sim\ \ee^{-t\,{}^{{\rm el}\hspace{-0.05cm}}I(\frac{1}{t}\Delta \bm{q})}, \label{LDF} \end{equation} where the rate function \begin{equation} {}^{{\rm el}\hspace{-0.05cm}}I(\bm{\rho})\,=\,\mathop{\rm max} \limits_{\bm\nu}\Big(\sum\limits_{i=1}^N\rho_i\nu_i\,-\, {}^{{\rm el}\hspace{-0.05cm}}f(-\ii\bm\nu)\Big) \end{equation} is the Legendre transform of $\,{}^{{\rm el}\hspace{-0.05cm}}f(-i\bm\nu)$. \,For $\,{}^{{\rm el}\hspace{-0.05cm}}f(\bm\nu)\,$ given by (\ref{LD}), $\,{}^{{\rm el}\hspace{-0.05cm}}I(\bm{\rho})\,$ is a quadratic polynomial on the subspace where it is finite. \,In other words, the large deviations of charge transfers per unit time have the Gaussian distribution with mean \begin{equation} \big\langle\sfrac{\Delta q_{i}}{t}\big\rangle\,=\, \sum\limits_{i'=1}^N(S_{ii'}-\delta_{ii'})\sfrac{V_{i'}r_{i'}^2}{4\pi}\,, \end{equation} equal to the mean current in the nonequilibrium state, see (\ref{noneq.J1}), \,and covariance \begin{equation} \big\langle\sfrac{\Delta q_{i}}{t}\,\sfrac{\Delta q_{i'}}{t}\big\rangle -\big\langle\sfrac{\Delta q_{i}}{t}\big\rangle \big\langle\sfrac{\Delta q_{i'}}{t}\big\rangle\,=\, \sfrac{1}{t}\sum\limits_{i"=1}^N\sfrac{r_{i"}^2}{4\pi\beta_{i"}} (\delta_{i"i}-S_{ii"})(\delta_{i"i'}-S_{i'i"})\,. \end{equation} Note that the first of equalities (\ref{LD}) implies that the large-deviations rate function for FCS of charge transfers is proportional to the difference of equilibrium free energies for different potentials: \begin{equation} {}^{{\rm el}\hspace{-0.05cm}}f(\bm\nu)\, =\,\sfrac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i=1}^N\beta_i\Big(f_i(\beta_i,V_i) -f_i(\beta_i,V_i-\beta_i^{-1}\tilde\nu_i)\Big), \label{turn} \end{equation} where $\,f_i(\beta,V)=-\frac{V^2r_i^2}{4\pi}-\frac{\pi}{6\beta^2}\,$ is the equilibrium free energy per unit length in a single decoupled semi-infinite wire with Neumann boundary conditions, \,see (\ref{freeen}). \,Relation (\ref{turn}) implies in turn that \begin{equation} {}^{{\rm el}\hspace{-0.05cm}}f(\bm\nu)\,=\,\lim\limits_{t=2L\to\infty}\, \frac{1}{t}\,\ln{}^{{\rm el}\hspace{-0.04cm}}F^L_t(\bm\nu) \label{t=L} \end{equation} if we define ${}^{{\rm el}\hspace{-0.04cm}}F^L_t(\bm\nu)\,$ for $t>L$ by the right hand side of (\ref{FCSsf}). Indeed, in that case the $2^{\rm nd}$ equality in (\ref{8.8}) implies that \begin{equation} {}^{{\rm el}\hspace{-0.04cm}}F_{2L}^L(\bm\nu)\, =\,\prod\limits_{i=1}^N\,\sfrac{Z^i_{\beta_i,V_i-\ii\beta_i^{-1}\tilde\nu_i}} {Z^i_{\beta_i,V_i}}\,, \end{equation} where the partition functions on the right hand side pertain to the disconnected wires of length $L$. \,{\it A priori}, \,it is not clear that the same result for ${}^{{\rm el}\hspace{-0.05cm}}f(\bm\nu)$ arises in the physically different limit that takes the thermodynamic limit $L\to\infty$ before sending $\,t\to\infty$. \,The calculation of \cite{BD2,DHB} amounts to the claim that both limits are equal. \subsection{Exact result for $\,{}^{\rm el}\hspace{-0.04cm}F^L_t(\bm\nu)$} \label{subsec:exact.el} The exactly soluble nature of the model considered here allows to examine closer the distribution of charge transfers for finite $L$ and $t$ and to see in more details how its large-deviations form arises. A direct calculation performed in Appendix {A} gives the result \begin{align} {}^{{\rm el}\hspace{-0.04cm}}F^L_t(\bm\nu)_{\rm reg}\,=&\, \exp\Big[-\sum\limits_{i=1}^N \sfrac{\tilde\nu_i^2r_i^2}{8\pi^2}\Big(C_{\Lambda L}+\ln\sfrac{2\pi\,\theta_1( \sfrac{i\beta_i}{2L};\sfrac{t}{2L})} {\partial_z\theta_1(\sfrac{\ii\beta_i}{2L};0)}\Big)\Big]\cr &\,\times\,\,\sfrac{\sum\limits_{\bm{k}\in{\mathbb Z}^N}\exp\Big[ \sum\limits_{i=1}^N\big(-\frac{\pi\beta_i}{Lr_i^2}k_i^2+\beta_iV_ik_i-\ii \frac{\tilde\nu_it}{2L}k_i\big)\Big]} {\sum\limits_{\bm{k}\in{\mathbb Z}^N}\exp\Big[ \sum\limits_{i=1}^N\big(-\frac{\pi\beta_i}{Lr_i^2}k_i^2+\beta_iV_ik_i \big)\Big]}, \label{FCSex} \end{align} where the subscript ``reg'' refers to a necessary ultraviolet regularization, that replaces the divergent constant $\,C_\infty=\sum\limits_{n>0}\frac{1}{n}\,$ by \begin{equation} C_{\Lambda L}=\sum\limits_{n=1}^{\Lambda L}\sfrac{1}{n}= \ln(\Lambda L)+C+\,O(\sfrac{1}{\Lambda L}) \label{CLambda} \end{equation} with the ultraviolet cutoff $\Lambda$, \,see Appendix {A}. \,Variables $\,\tilde\nu_i\,$ are as before, \,see (\ref{nutilde}), \,and \begin{equation} \theta_1(\tau;z)=\sum\limits_{n\in\mathbb Z} \ee^{\pi\ii\tau(n+\frac{1}{2})^2+2\pi i(n+\frac{1}{2})(z+\frac{1}{2})} \end{equation} is one of the Jacobi theta-functions. The first exponential factor on the right hand side of (\ref{FCSex}) is the characteristic function of a centered Gaussian distribution of charge transfers $\Delta\bm{q}$ with the covariance \begin{equation} \CC_{i'i''}\,=\,\sum\limits_{i=1}^N\sfrac{r_i^2}{4\pi^2}\big(\delta_{ii'}-S_{i'i}\big) \big(\delta_{ii''}-S_{i''i}\big)\Big(C_{\Lambda L}+\ln\sfrac{2\pi\,\theta_1( \sfrac{i\beta_i}{2L};\sfrac{t}{2L})} {\partial_z\theta_1(\sfrac{\ii\beta_i}{2L};0)}\Big). \end{equation} The $\,t$-dependent expression under the logarithm is positive for $\,0<t<2L$. \,Note that the ultraviolet divergent contribution to the covariance is independent of $\,t$. \,It describes the charge transfers that arise at the moments of the connection of wires at time $\,0\,$ or their disconnection at time $\,t\,$ but do not contribute to the average charge transfers realized during the long period of time when the wires are connected. The second factor on the right hand side of (\ref{FCS}) is a characteristic function of the discrete distribution \begin{equation} \sfrac{\sum\limits_{\bm{k}\in{\mathbb Z}^N}\exp\big[ \sum\limits_{i=1}^N\big(-\frac{\pi\beta_i}{Lr_i^2}k_i^2+\beta_iV_ik_i \big)\big]\prod\limits_{i'=1}^N\delta\big(\Delta q_{i'}-\sum\limits_{i=1}^N( \delta_{ii'}-S_{i'i})k_i\big)} {\sum\limits_{\bm{k}\in{\mathbb Z}^N}\exp\big[ \sum\limits_{i=1}^N\big(-\frac{\pi\beta_i}{Lr_i^2}k_i^2+\beta_iV_ik_i \big)\big]} \end{equation} of charge transfers $\Delta\bm q$. The two types of charge transfers are realized independently and both correspond to the vanishing total charge transfer $\sum_{i}\Delta q_i$. As we shall see below, they both contribute to the large deviations result (\ref{LD}). \vskip 0.1cm In order to study the behavior of the charge-transfer distribution for large $L$ and large $t$, we shall rewrite (\ref{FCSex}) applying the Poisson resummation formula to the $\bm{k}$-sums and the modular transformation $\,\theta_1(\tau;z)=\ii(-\ii\tau)^{-1/2}\,\ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii z^2}{\tau}}\, \theta_1(-\sfrac{1}{\tau};\sfrac{z}{\tau})\,$ to the Jacobi theta function. The resulting expression is \begin{align} {}^{{\rm el}\hspace{-0.04cm}}F^L_t(\bm\nu)_{\rm reg}\, =&\,\exp\Big[-\sum\limits_{i=1}^N \sfrac{\tilde\nu_i^2r_i^2}{8\pi^2}\Big(C_{\Lambda L}+\ln\sfrac{\pi\ii\beta_i\, \ee^{-\frac{\pi t^2}{2L\beta_i}}\, \theta_1(\sfrac{2iL}{\beta_i};-\sfrac{\ii t}{\beta_i})} {L\,\partial_z\theta_1(\sfrac{2\ii L}{\beta_i};0)} \Big)\Big]\cr &\times\,\,\sfrac{\sum\limits_{\bm{k}\in{\mathbb Z}^N}\exp\Big[ \sum\limits_{i=1}^N\big(-\frac{2\pi r_i^2L}{\beta_i}k_i^2+ \ii V_ir_i^2Lk_i+\frac{\tilde\nu_ir_i^2t}{2\beta_i}k_i -\frac{\ii\tilde\nu_iV_ir_i^2t}{4\pi}-\frac{\tilde\nu_i^2r_i^2t^2} {16\pi\beta_iL}\big)\Big]} {\sum\limits_{\bm{k}\in{\mathbb Z}^N}\exp\Big[ \sum\limits_{i=1}^N\big(-\frac{2\pi r_i^2L}{\beta_i}k_i^2+ \ii V_ir_i^2Lk_i\big)\Big]}\,. \label{FCSex1} \end{align} Together with relation (\ref{CLambda}), it allows to extract the large $L$ behavior \begin{align} {}^{{\rm el}\hspace{-0.04cm}}F^L_t(\bm\nu)_{\rm reg} =&\,\exp\Big[-\sum\limits_{i=1}^N\Big(\sfrac{\tilde\nu_i^2r_i^2} {8\pi^2}\big(\ln(2\beta_i\tilde\nu_i)+\ln\sinh\sfrac{\pi t}{\beta_i} \big)\Big]\,\exp\Big[-\sum\limits_{i=1}^N \sfrac{\ii\tilde\nu_iV_ir_i^2t}{4\pi}\Big)\Big]\cr &\,\times\,\,\Big(1\,+\,O(\sfrac{t^2}{L})\,+\,O(\ee^{-cL})\Big), \label{FCSasymp} \end{align} where $c>0$ is some $\beta_i$- and $r_i$-dependent constant. The first exponential factor describes the leading behavior of the contribution in the $1^{\rm st}$ line of (\ref{FCSex1}) and the second one that in the $2^{\rm nd}$ line. We infer that \begin{equation} {}^{{\rm el}\hspace{-0.04cm}}F_t(\bm\nu)_{\rm reg}\,\equiv\, \lim\limits_{L\to\infty}\ {}^{{\rm el}\hspace{-0.04cm}}F^L_t(\bm\nu)_{\rm reg}\, =\,\prod\limits_{i=1}^N\Big(\big(2\beta_i \tilde\nu_i\sinh{\sfrac{\pi t}{\beta_i}}\big)^{\hspace{-0.03cm} -\frac{\tilde\nu_i^2r_i^2}{8\pi^2}}\,\ee^{-\frac{\ii\tilde\nu_iV_ir_i^2t}{4\pi}} \Big) \end{equation} and \begin{equation} {}^{{\rm el}\hspace{-0.05cm}}f(\bm\nu)_{\rm reg}\,\equiv\, \lim\limits_{t\to\infty}\ \frac{1}{t}\ln{}^{{\rm el}\hspace{-0.04cm}} F_t(\bm\nu)_{\rm reg}\,=\, -\sum\limits_{i=1}^N\Big(\sfrac{\tilde\nu_i^2r_i^2}{8\pi\beta_i}+ \ii\sfrac{\tilde\nu_iV_ir_i^2}{4\pi}\Big), \end{equation} reproducing the large deviations result (\ref{LD}) up to the ultraviolet regularization. Note that if follows from relation (\ref{FCSasymp}) that the same result is obtained for the limit of $\,\frac{1}{t}\ln{}^{{\rm el}\hspace{-0.04cm}} F^L_t(\bm\nu)_{\rm reg}\,$ obtained by sending simultaneously $\Lambda,\ L$ and $t$ to infinity in such a way that the ratios $\frac{\ln\Lambda}{t}$ and $\frac{t}{L}$ tend to zero. This specifies more precisely the region where the distribution of charge transfers takes the Gaussian large deviation form (\ref{LDF}) described previously. The above analysis does not cover, however, the case (\ref{t=L}) with $\,t=2L\to\infty\,$ which, although giving the same limit, is somewhat special. In particular, no ultraviolet regularization of is required for $\,{}^{{\rm el}\hspace{-0.04cm}} F_{2L}^L(\bm\nu)$. \subsection{Heat transport} \label{subsec:th.trans} The protocol for the measurement of the thermal transfers is the same. It consists of preparing the system of wires of length $\,L\,$ in the initial product state $\,\omega^L_0=\mathop{\otimes}_{i=1}^N\omega^{i,L}_{\beta_i,V_i}$ and performing the measurements of the energies $\,H_i(0)=H_i^0\,$ and $\,H_i(t)\,$ in the disconnected wires at two times in between which the wires were connected. Denoting the results, respectively, $\,(e_i^0)\equiv\bm{e^0}\,$ and $\,(e_i)\equiv\bm e$, \,we encode the probability of the change of energies $\,\Delta e_i=e_i-e_i^0\,$ in the characteristic function \begin{equation} {}^{{\rm th}\hspace{-0.04cm}}F^L_t(\bm\lambda) = \sum_{\Delta\bm e} \ee^{\ii \sum_i \lambda_i \Delta e_i}\,\mathbb P_t (\Delta\bm e)\,=\, \omega_0^L\Big(\ee^{-i\sum\limits_i\lambda_iH_i(0)}\, \ee^{\,i\sum\limits_i\lambda_iH_i(t)}\Big), \label{FCSenergy} \end{equation} the generating function of FCS for heat transfers. The change of energy of the wires connected between times $0$ and $t$ is \begin{align} &\Delta H_i(t)\,\equiv\,H_i(t) - H_i(0) = \int\limits_0^t \sfrac{\dd}{\dd s}H_i(s) \dd s = \int\limits_0^t \dd s \int\limits_0^{L} \partial_s ( T_i^\ell(s,x) + T_i^r(s,x))\,\dd x \cr &\hspace*{0.5cm} = \int\limits_0^t \dd s \int\limits_0^{L} (\partial_x T_i^\ell(s,x) - \partial_x T_i^r(s,x))\,\dd x = - \int\limits_0^t (T_i^\ell(0,s) - T_i^r(s,0))\,\dd s\,, \end{align} compare to (\ref{DQ}). Moreover \begin{align} T_i^r(s,0)& = T_i^r(0,-s)=\lim\limits_{\epsilon\to0}\Big(\sfrac{2\pi}{r_i^2} J_i^r(0,-s+\epsilon)\,J_i^r(0,-s)+\sfrac{1}{4\pi\epsilon^2}\Big) \cr & = \lim\limits_{\epsilon\to0}\Big(\sfrac{2\pi}{r_i^2} \sum_{i'i''} S_{ii'}S_{ii''} J_{i'}^\ell(0,s-\epsilon)\, J_{i''}^\ell(0,s)+\sfrac{1} {4\pi\epsilon^2}\Big) \cr & = \sfrac{1}{r_i^{2}}\sum_{i'} (S_{ii'})^2r_{i'}^2 T_{i'}^\ell(0,s) + \sfrac{2\pi}{r_i^2} \sum_{i'\neq i''} S_{ii'} J_{i'}^\ell(0,s)\,S_{ii''} J_{i''}^\ell(0,s) \end{align} so that \begin{align} \hspace*{-0.1cm}\Delta H_i(t)= -\sfrac{1}{r_i^2}\int_0^t\hspace{-0.1cm}\Big( \sum_{i'}\big(\delta_{ii'}- (S_{ii'})^2\big)\,r_{i'}^2 T_{i'}^\ell(0,s) - 2\pi\hspace{-0.08cm} \sum_{i'\neq i''} S_{ii'} J_{i'}^\ell(0,s) \,S_{ii''} J_{i''}^\ell(0,s)\Big)\,\dd s\,. \end{align} Interpreting the latter operators as observables for disconnected wires, we have the commutation relation \begin{align} \hspace{-0.07cm}\big[H^0_j,\Delta H_i(t)\big]&=\,\sfrac{2\pi\ii}{r_i^2} \hspace{-0.08cm}\int\limits_0^t\hspace{-0.08cm} \Big(\big(\delta_{ij}-(S_{ij})^2\big)\partial_s:(J^\ell_j(0,s))^2: -2\sum\limits_{i'\not=j}S_{ii'}S_{ij}J^\ell_{i'}(0,s)\,\partial_s J^\ell_j(0,s)\Big)\dd s\cr &=\,\sfrac{2\pi\ii}{r_i^2}\big(\delta_{ij}-(S_{ij})^2\big)\big( :(J^\ell_j(0,t))^2:-:(J^\ell_j(0,0))^2:\big)\cr &\quad\ -\,\sfrac{4\pi\ii}{r_i^2} \sum\limits_{i'\not=j}S_{ii'}S_{ij}\int\limits_0^t J^\ell_{i'}(0,s)\,\partial_s J^\ell_j(0,s)\,\dd s \label{eal} \end{align} as a consequence of the identity \begin{equation} \big[H_j^0,J^\ell_i(t,x)\big]=-i\,\delta_{ij}\partial_t J^\ell_i(t,x)= -i\,\delta_{ij}\partial_x J^\ell_i(t,x)\,. \end{equation} Note that $\,[H^0_j,\Delta H_i(t)]\not=0\,$ and the generating function (\ref{FCSenergy}) of FCS for heat transfers \begin{equation} {}^{{\rm th}\hspace{-0.04cm}}F_t^L(\bm\lambda)\,=\,\omega_0^L \Big(\ee^{-i\sum\limits_i\lambda_i H_i^0}\,\ee^{i\sum\limits_i\lambda_i\big(H_i^0+\Delta H_i(t)\big)}\Big)\,\not=\, \omega_0^L\Big(\ee^{i\sum\limits_i\lambda_i\Delta H_i(t)}\Big). \label{eFCS1} \end{equation} This difference occurs even for $t=2L$ when the first term on the right hand side of (\ref{eal}) vanishes, but not the second one. \vskip 0.1cm We shall calculate explicitly $\,{}^{{\rm th}\hspace{-0.04cm}}F^L_t(\bm\lambda)\,$ for $\,t=2L\,$ which is easier than for general $\,t$. \,In this case, \begin{equation} H_i^0+\Delta H_i(2L)\,=\,\sfrac{\pi}{2L} \sum\limits_{i',i''}O_{ii'}O_{ii''} \Big(\tilde\alpha_{0i}\tilde\alpha_{0i'}\,+\, 2\sum\limits_{n>0}\tilde\alpha_{-2n,i}\tilde\alpha_{2n,i'}\Big) \end{equation} in terms of the modes, where $\,O\,$ is the orthogonal matrix related to matrix $\,S\,$ by (\ref{O}). One easily checks that the above observables commute so that they may indeed be measured simultaneously in the disconnected wires. Let \begin{equation} \CA\,=\,\sum\limits_{i}\lambda_i\big(H_i^0+\Delta H_i(2L)\big)\,=\, \sfrac{\pi}{2L} \sum\limits_{i,i'}(O\lambda O)_{ii'}\Big(\tilde\alpha_{0i}\tilde\alpha_{0i'}\,+\, 2\sum\limits_{n>0}\tilde\alpha_{-2n,i}\tilde\alpha_{2n,i'}\Big), \label{itom} \end{equation} where $\lambda$ stands for the diagonal $N\times N$ matrix with entries $\lambda_i$. The contributions of the zero modes and of the excited modes to the expectation \begin{equation} \omega_0^L\Big(\ee^{-i\sum\limits_i\lambda_iH_i^0}\, \ee^{\ii\sum\limits_i\lambda_i\big(H_i^0+\Delta H_i(2L)\big)}\Big)\,=\, \frac{\tr_\CH\Big(\ee^{-\sum\limits_{i}\beta_i(H^0_i-V Q^0_i)}\, \ee^{-\ii\sum\limits_i\lambda_iH_i^0}\,\ee^{\,\ii\CA}\Big)} {\tr_\CH\Big(\ee^{-\sum\limits_{i}\beta_i(H^0_i-V Q^0_i)}\Big)} \label{et=L} \end{equation} factorize. The first one has the form \begin{align} &\frac{\sum\limits_{{\bm k}\in{\mathbb Z}^N}\ee^{-\frac{\pi}{L} (r^{-1}\bm k\,,\,\beta r^{-1}\bm k)\,+\,(\beta\bm V\,,\,\bm k)\,-\,\frac{\pi\ii}{L} (r^{-1}\bm k\,,\,Cr^{-1}\bm k)}} {\sum\limits_{{\bm k}\in{\mathbb Z}^N}\ee^{-\frac{\pi}{L}(r^{-1}\bm k\,,\,\beta r^{-1}\bm k) \,+\,(\beta\bm V\,,\,\bm k)}}\,=\, \det\big(I+i\beta^{-1}C\big)^{-1/2}\cr &\times\ \frac{\sum\limits_{\bm k\in{\mathbb Z}^N}\ee^{-\pi L\, (r\bm k\,,\,(\beta+\ii C)^{-1}r\bm k) \,-\,\ii L\,(r\beta\bm V\,,\,(\beta+\ii C)^{-1}r\bm k)\,+\,\frac{L}{4\pi} (r\beta\bm V\,,\,(\beta+\ii C)^{-1}r\beta\bm V)}} {\sum\limits_{\bm k\in{\mathbb Z}^N}\ee^{-\pi L\, (r\bm k\,,\,\beta^{-1}r\bm k)\,-\,\ii L\,(r\beta\bm V \,,\,\beta^{-1}r\bm k)\,+\,\frac{L}{4\pi} (r\beta\bm V\,,\,\beta^{-1}r\beta\bm V)}}, \label{12exp} \end{align} where $r$ and $\beta$ stand for the diagonal matrices with entries $(r_i)$ and $(\beta_i)$, respectively, \begin{equation} C=\lambda-O\lambda O \label{C} \end{equation} is a symmetric $N\times N$ matrix, and $\,\bm V\,$ denotes the vector with components $\,V_i$. \,The right hand side of (\ref{12exp}) was obtained by the Poisson resummation. As for the contribution of the excited modes, its calculation is given in Appendix {B} and results in \begin{equation} \prod\limits_{n>0}\det\Big(I+ \big(I-\ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii}{L}n\lambda}\, O\,\ee^{\frac{\pi\ii}{L}n\lambda}O\big) \big(\ee^{\frac{\pi n}{L}\beta}-I\big)^{-1}\Big)^{-1} \label{exccont} \end{equation} with a convergent infinite product. Gathering expressions (\ref{12exp}) and (\ref{exccont}), we obtain: \begin{align} {}^{{\rm th}\hspace{-0.04cm}}F^L_{2L}(\bm\lambda)\,=& \,\det\big(I+i\beta^{-1}C\big)^{-1/2}\cr &\times\ \frac{\sum\limits_{\bm k\in{\mathbb Z}^N}\ee^{-\pi L\, (r\bm k\,,\,(\beta+\ii C)^{-1}r\bm k) \,-\,\ii L\,(r\beta\bm V\,,\,(\beta+\ii C)^{-1}r\bm k)\,+\,\frac{L}{4\pi} (r\beta\bm V\,,\,(\beta+\ii C)^{-1}r\beta\bm V)}} {\sum\limits_{\bm k\in{\mathbb Z}^N}\ee^{-\pi L\, (r\bm k\,,\,\beta^{-1}r\bm k)\,-\,\ii L\,(r\beta\bm V \,,\,\beta^{-1}r\bm k)\,+\,\frac{L}{4\pi} (r\beta\bm V\,,\,\beta^{-1}r\beta\bm V)}}\cr &\times\ \prod\limits_{n>0}\det\Big(I+ \big(I-\ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii}{L}n\lambda}\, O\,\ee^{\frac{\pi\ii}{L}n\lambda}O\big) \big(\ee^{\frac{\pi n}{L}\beta}-I\big)^{-1}\Big)^{-1}. \label{eFt=L} \end{align} In the limit $t=2L\to\infty$, \begin{align} \frac{1}{2L}\,\ln\,{}^{{\rm th}\hspace{-0.04cm}}F^L_{2L}(\bm\lambda)\,\ &\mathop{\longrightarrow}\limits_{L\to\infty}\ \, \sfrac{1}{8\pi}\Big(\big(r\beta\bm V\,,\,(\beta+iC)^{-1}r\beta\bm V\big) -\big(r\bm V\,,\,\beta r\bm V\big)\Big)\cr &\hspace{1cm}-\,\int\limits_0^\infty \ln\det\Big(I+\big(I-\ee^{-2\pi\ii\, x\lambda}\,O\,\ee^{2\pi\ii\,x\lambda}O\big) \big(\ee^{2\pi x\beta}-I\big)^{-1}\Big)\,\dd x\cr &\hspace{1cm}\equiv\,{}^{{\rm th}\hspace{-0.05cm}}f(\bm\lambda) \label{eFt=L=inf} \end{align} for sufficiently small $|\lambda_i|$ so the zero-mode contribution with $\bm k=0$ dominates. \vskip 0.1cm If we calculated the right hand side of (\ref{eFCS1}) for $\,t=2L\,$ instead of $\,{}^{{\rm th}\hspace{-0.04cm}}F^L_{2L}(\bm\lambda)$, \,the only change would be the replacement of matrix $\,\ee^{-\frac{2\pi\ii}{L}n\lambda}\, O\,\ee^{-\frac{2\pi\ii}{L}n\lambda}O\,$ by $\,\ee^{-\frac{2\pi\ii}{L}n(\lambda-O\lambda O)}\,$ in the last line of (\ref{eFt=L}). In general, however, matrices $\,\lambda\,$ and $\,O\lambda O\,$ do not commute if $\,O\,$ has nondiagonal elements. Such a modification would also kill the symmetry (\ref{FRexc}) of the contribution (\ref{exccont}) showed in Appendix {B}. The difference of resulting expressions would persist also in the $\,L\to\infty\,$ limit of (\ref{eFt=L=inf}). \vskip 0.1cm An explicit calculation of $\,{}^{{\rm th}\hspace{-0.04cm}}F^L_{t}(\bm\lambda)\,$ for $\,t\not=2L\,$ is also possible along the lines of Appendix {B}, using the expansion of $\,H_i^0+\Delta H_i(t)\,$ in terms of the modes. We expect that the same large-deviations rate function (\ref{eFt=L=inf}) for energy transfers would result if we sent $L$ to infinity before $t$, as suggested by the analysis of \cite{BD2}, but proving that basing on the exact formula for $\,{}^{{\rm th}\hspace{-0.04cm}}F^L_{t}(\bm\lambda)\,$ requires technical work that we postponed to the future. \vskip 0.1cm \subsection{FCS for charge and heat and fluctuation relations} \label{subsec:ch.th.trans} The characteristic function of joint measurements of charge and heat transfers is defined as \begin{align} F^L_t(\bm\nu,\bm\lambda)\,=&\, \sum\limits_{\Delta\bm q,\Delta\bm e} \ee^{\,\ii\sum_i\big(\nu_i\Delta q_i+\lambda_i\Delta e_i}\, \mathbb P_t\big(\Delta\bm q,\Delta\bm e\big)\cr &=\,\omega^L_0\Big(\ee^{-\ii\sum\limits_i(\nu_i Q_i(0)+\lambda_iH_i(0))} \,\ee^{\,\ii\sum\limits_i(\nu_i Q_i(t)+\lambda_iH_i(t))}\Big) \end{align} For $t=2L$, it can be easily computed since there is only a change in the contribution of the zero modes with respect to the calculation of Subsec.\,(\ref{subsec:ch.th.trans}). Indeed, \begin{equation} F^L_{2L}(\bm\nu,\bm\lambda)\,= \,\omega_0^L\Big(\ee^{-\ii\sum\limits_i\big(\tilde\nu_i Q_i^0+\lambda_iH_i^0\big)} \,\ee^{\,\ii\sum\limits_i\lambda_i\big(H_i^0+\Delta H_i(2L)\big)}\Big) \end{equation} so that the only effect is the change of $\,\bm V\,$ to $\,\bm V-i\beta^{-1}\tilde{\bm\nu}\,$ in the numerators of (\ref{12exp}). We infer that \begin{align} &F^L_{2L}(\bm\nu,\bm\lambda)\,=\, \,\det\big(I+i\beta^{-1}C\big)^{-1/2}\cr &\times\ \frac{\sum\limits_{\bm k\in{\mathbb Z}^N}\ee^{-\pi L\, (r\bm k\,,\,(\beta+\ii C)^{-1}r\bm k) \,-\,\ii L\,(r(\beta\bm V-\ii\tilde{\bm\nu})\,,\, (\beta+\ii C)^{-1}r\bm k)\,+\,\frac{L}{4\pi} (r(\beta\bm V-\ii\tilde{\bm\nu})\,,\,(\beta+\ii C)^{-1}r (\beta\bm V-\ii\tilde{\bm\nu}))}} {\sum\limits_{\bm k\in{\mathbb Z}^N}\ee^{-\pi L\, (r\bm k\,,\,\beta^{-1}r\bm k)\,-\,\ii L\,(r\beta\bm V \,,\,\beta^{-1}r\bm k)\,+\,\frac{L}{4\pi} (r\beta\bm V\,,\,\beta^{-1}r\beta\bm V)}}\cr &\times\ \prod\limits_{n>0}\det\Big(I+ \big(I-\ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii}{L}n\lambda}\, \ee^{\frac{\pi\ii}{L}n\,O\lambda O}\big) \big(\ee^{\frac{\pi n}{L}\beta}-I\big)^{-1}\Big)^{-1} \label{ceFt=L} \end{align} with \begin{align} \frac{1}{2L}\,\ln{F_{2L}^L(\bm\nu,\bm\lambda)} \ \,&\mathop{\longrightarrow}\limits_{L\to\infty}\ \, \sfrac{1}{8\pi}\Big(\big(r(\beta\bm V-\ii\tilde{\bm\nu})\,,\,(\beta+iC)^{-1}r (\beta\bm V-\ii\tilde{\bm\nu})\big)-\big( r \bm V\,,\,\beta r\bm V\big)\Big)\cr &\hspace{1cm}-\,\int\limits_0^\infty \ln\det\Big(I+\big(I-\ee^{-2\pi\ii\, x\lambda}\,\ee^{2\pi\ii\,x\,O\lambda O}\big) \big(\ee^{2\pi x\beta}-I\big)^{-1}\Big)\,\dd x\cr &\hspace{1cm}\equiv\ f(\bm\nu,\bm\lambda)\,. \label{ceFt=L=inf} \end{align} The large-deviations rate function function (\ref{ceFt=L=inf}) of FCS for charge and heat transfers satisfies the fluctuation relation \cite{AGMT,BD3} \begin{equation} f(\bm\nu,\bm\lambda)\,=\, f(-\bm\nu-\ii\beta\bm V,-\bm\lambda+\ii\bm\beta) \label{FR} \end{equation} that reflects the time-reversal invariance of the dynamics. The generating function (\ref{ceFt=L}) does not possess, however, the corresponding symmetry which arises only in the $t=2L\to\infty$ limit. Relation (\ref{FR}) is a consequence of the following matrix transformation properties under the change $\,(\bm\nu,\bm\lambda) \longmapsto(-\bm\nu-\ii\beta\bm V,-\bm\lambda+\ii\bm\beta)$: \begin{align} &\hspace{-0.1cm}\ii\beta+\ii C=\beta+\ii\lambda-\ii O\lambda O\ \longmapsto\ \beta+\ii(-\lambda+\ii\beta)-\ii O(\-\lambda+\ii\beta)O=O\big(\beta+\ii C\big)O\,,\\ &\hspace{-0.1cm}r(\beta\bm V-\ii\tilde{\bm\nu})=r\beta\bm V-\ii(I-O)r\bm\nu \ \longmapsto\ r\beta\bm V-\ii(I-O)r(-\bm\nu-\ii\beta\bm V) =O\big(r(\beta\bm V-\ii\tilde{\bm\nu})\big) \end{align} and of the symmetry (\ref{FRexc}) showed in Appendix {B}. That the same symmetry fails to hold for the generating function (\ref{ceFt=L}) follows from the fact that under the change $\,(\bm\nu,\bm\lambda) \longmapsto(-\bm\nu-\ii\beta\bm V,-\bm\lambda+\ii\bm\beta)\,$ the sum over vectors $\bm k\in\mathbb Z^N$ in the numerator of the middle line of (\ref{ceFt=L}) is transformed into the one over vectors $r^{-1}Or\bm k$ that, in general, do not belong to $\mathbb Z^N$. \nsection{Comparison to Levitov-Lesovik formulae} \label{sec:compLL} \setcounter{equation}{0} In \cite{LL}, L. S. Levitov and G. B. Lesovik obtained a closed formula for the FCS of charge transfers between $N$ free fermionic systems, as those of Sec.\,\ref{subsec:qferm}. Such systems are assumed to be initially in different equilibrium states and to interact subsequently during a period of time $\,t$. \,Their interaction is described by an $N\times N$ unitary mode-dependent matrix $\,\mathbb S_t(p)$ accounting for the scattering between the fermions of different systems, see also \cite{LLL}. The Levitov-Lesovik formula for the generating function of charge FCS has the form of a product over the free fermionic modes of determinants: \qq \Phi_t(\bm\nu)\ =\,\prod\limits_{p}\det\big(I-f(p)+f(p)\,\ee^{-\ii s(p)\nu}\, \mathbb S_t(p)^\dagger\ee^{\ii s(p)\nu}\,\mathbb S_t(p)\big)\,, \qqq where $\,s(p)\,$ is the sign function representing the charge of modes, $\,\nu\,$ is the diagonal $N\times N$ matrix of coefficients $\,\nu_i$ and $\,f(p)\,$ that of Fermi functions $\,f_i(p)=(\ee^{\beta_i(\epsilon(p)-s(p)V_i)}+1)^{-1}$, with $\,\epsilon(p)\,$ representing the energy of modes. Upon taking the scattering matrix time and mode independent, $\,\mathbb S_t(p)=\mathbb S$, \,and the linear dispersion relation $\,\epsilon(p)=\frac{\pi}{L}|p|\,$ as in Sec.\,\ref{subsec:qferm}, \,and upon aligning the time and the size of the system by setting $\,t=2L$, \,the above generating function leads in the rate function \begin{align} \phi(\bm\nu)\equiv \lim\limits_{t=2L\to\infty}\,\frac{1}{t}\,\ln{\Phi_t(\bm\nu)}\,=&\ \sfrac{1}{2\pi} \int\limits_0^\infty \ln\Big(\det\big(I-f^+(\epsilon)+f^+(\epsilon)\, \ee^{-\ii\nu}\,\mathbb S^\dagger\ee^{\,\ii\nu}\,\mathbb S\big)\Big)\,\dd\epsilon\cr +&\ \sfrac{1}{2\pi} \int\limits_0^\infty \ln\Big(\det\big(I-f^-(\epsilon)+f^-(\epsilon)\, \ee^{\,\ii\nu}\,\mathbb S^\dagger\ee^{-\ii\nu}\,\mathbb S\big)\Big)\,\dd\epsilon\,, \label{LDLL} \end{align} where $\,f^\pm(\epsilon)\,$ are the diagonal matrices with entries $\,f^\pm_{i}(\epsilon)=(\ee^{\beta_i(\epsilon\mp V_i)}+1)^{-1}$. \,Note that this is a different expression than the rate function $\,{}^{{\rm el}\hspace{-0.05cm}}f(\bm\nu)\,$ of (\ref{LD}) obtained in Sec.\,\ref{subsec:ch.transp} which is quadratic in $\,\bm\nu\,$ and $\,\bm V$. \,For closer comparison, let us extract from (\ref{LDLL}) its leading quadratic contribution describing the central-limit Gaussian distribution of charge transfers. In Appendix {C}, we show that \begin{align} \lim\limits_{\theta\to\infty}\,\theta^{2}\,\phi(\theta^{-1}\bm\nu)\big|_{\bm\beta, \,\theta^{-1}\bm V}\,= &-\sfrac{\ii}{2\pi}\sum\limits_iV_i\big(\nu_i- \sum\limits_{i'}|\mathbb S_{i'i}|^2\nu_{i'}\big)+ \sum\limits_i\sfrac{\nu_i}{2\pi\beta_i} \sum\limits_{i'}|\mathbb S_{i'i}|^2\nu_{i'}\cr &-\sum\limits_i \sfrac{\nu_i^2}{4\pi\beta_i} -\sum\limits_i\sfrac{1}{4\pi\beta_i} \sum\limits_{i',i''}|\mathbb S_{i'i}|^2\nu_{i'}|\mathbb S_{i''i}|^2\nu_{i''} \cr &+\sum\limits_i\sfrac{\ln{2}}{2\pi\beta_i}\sum\limits_{i',i''} |\mathbb S_{i'i}|^2\nu_{i'}|\mathbb S_{i''i}|^2\nu_{i''} -\sum\limits_i\sfrac{\ln{2}}{2\pi\beta_i}\sum\limits_{i'}|\mathbb S_{i'i}|^2 \nu_{i'}^2\cr &+\,\sfrac{1}{2\pi}\sum\limits_{i\not=i'}g(\beta_i,\beta_{i'})\sum\limits_{j,j'} \mathbb S^\dagger_{ij}\nu_j\hspace{0.03cm} \mathbb S_{ji'}\mathbb S^\dagger_{i'j'}\nu_{j'}\mathbb S_{j'i}\,, \label{LLRF} \end{align} where $\,g(\beta_i,\beta_{i'})\,$ is given by the integral formula (\ref{fbb}). The first two lines on the right hand side reproduce the rate function (\ref{LD}) for the compactification radii squared $\,r_i^2=2\,$ that correspond to free fermions if we set $\,S_{ii'}=|\mathbb S_{ii'}|^2$. The last two lines represent terms not present in the rate function (\ref{LD}). Of course, in spite of similarities, the coupling between the free fermions realized by the junction of wires with matrix $\,S\,$ describing the scattering of the currents at the junction is different than that assumed in the Levitov-Lesovik approach, so there is no {\it a priori} reason for the two systems to lead to the same charge transport statistics. Note also that for arbitrary unitary matrix $\,(\mathbb S_{ii'})\,$ the matrix $\,(|\mathbb S_{ii'}|^2)\,$ is not necessarily orthogonal. \vskip 0.1cm In the particular case when all temperatures are equal $\beta_i=\beta\,$ for $\,i=1,\dots,N$, \,the last line of (\ref{LLRF}) reduces to \begin{align} &\sfrac{2\ln{2}-1}{4\pi\beta}\Big(\sum\limits_{i\not,i'}\sum\limits_{j.j'} \mathbb S^\dagger_{ij}\nu_j\hspace{0.03cm} \mathbb S_{ji'}\mathbb S^\dagger_{i'j'}\nu_{j'}\mathbb S_{j'i}\,-\sum\limits_i \sum\limits_{j,j'} \mathbb S^\dagger_{ij}\nu_j\hspace{0.03cm} \mathbb S_{ji}\mathbb S^\dagger_{ij'}\nu_{j'}\mathbb S_{j'i}\Big)\cr &=\, \sfrac{2\ln{2}-1}{4\pi\beta}\sum\limits_i\Big(\nu_i^2-\sum\limits_{j,j'} |\mathbb S_{ji}|^2\nu_j\,|\mathbb S_{j'i}|^2\nu_{j'}\Big), \end{align} if we use relation (\ref{fbbe}) and the unitarity of matrix $\,\mathbb S$, \,and expression (\ref{LLRF}) reduces to \qq -\sfrac{1}{2\pi}\sum\limits_i(\ii V_i+\beta^{-1}\nu_i)\big(\nu_i- \sum\limits_{i'}|\mathbb S_{i'i}|^2\nu_{i'}\big) \label{LLRFb} \qqq On the other hand, the rate function (\ref{LD}) becomes in this case equal to \qq {}^{{\rm el}\hspace{-0.05cm}}f(\bm\nu)\, =\,-\sfrac{1}{2\pi}\sum\limits_i(\ii V_i+\beta^{-1}\nu_i)\big(\nu_i- \sum\limits_{i'}S_{i'i}\nu_{i'}\big) \qqq upon using the orthogonality of matrix $\,S=O$. \,It follows that for equal temperatures, \qq {}^{{\rm el}\hspace{-0.05cm}}f(\bm\nu)\,=\,\lim\limits_{\theta\to\infty}\,\theta^2\, \phi(\theta^{-1}\bm\nu)\big|_{\bm\beta,\,\theta^{-1}\bm V} \qqq if we identify $\,|\mathbb S_{ij}|^2=S_{ij}$, \,assuming that the latter identification leads to a matrix $\,S\,$ with the desired properties. In that case, the fluctuations of charge transfers induced by different electric potentials at the same ambient temperature agree in the two setups on the level of the Gaussian central limit contributions. One should remark, however, that the scaling limit (\ref{LLRF}) removes from the Levitov-Lesovik rate function (\ref{LDLL}) the term linear in $\,\bm V\,$ and quadratic in $\,\bm\nu\,$ that is responsible for the zero-temperature shot noise given by the Khlus-Lesovik-B\"{u}ttiker formula \cite{BB}. \vskip 0.1cm There is another relation of the FCS statistics that we have obtained for the junction of wires and the Levitov-Lesovik type formulae, this time for the energy transfers. Indeed, the contribution (\ref{exccont}) of the excited modes to the generating function $\,{}^{{\rm th}\hspace{-0.04cm}}F^L_{2L}(\bm\lambda)\,$ of energy FCS coincides with the version of the Levitov-Lesovik formula for $N$ free bosons with the dispersion relation $\,\epsilon_n=\frac{\pi n}{L}\,$ and the interaction described by the scattering matrix $\mathbb S=O$. \,The bosonic version of the Levitov-Lesovik formula was obtained in \cite{Klich}. Its proof in that reference provides a more direct way to calculate the excited modes contribution to $\,{}^{{\rm th}\hspace{-0.04cm}}F^L_{2L}(\bm\lambda)\,$ than the one followed in Appendix {B}. Unlike the proof of \cite{Klich}, however, our calculation may be extended to the case of $\,{}^{{\rm th}\hspace{-0.04cm}}F^L_{t}(\bm\lambda)\,$ for general $\,t\,$ in which case matrices $\,(A_{ni,n'i'})\,$ in formula (\ref{CAA}) do not vanish. \nsection{Examples} \label{sec:exampl} \setcounter{equation}{0} \subsection{Case $\,N=2$} \label{subsec:N=2} In the case of two wires, the dimension $M$ of the brane should be $1$ for an interesting junction, since $M=2$ leads to a disconnected junction with $S=I$ and $M=0$ gives $S=-I$, which does not conserve the total charge. For $M=1$, let $\kappa = (a,b)$ and the compactification radii $r_1^2$ and $r_2^2$. The injectivity of $\kappa$ requires $a \wedge b =1$, and the conservation of charge in ensured for $a=b=1$. Forgetting this last requirement for a while, the $S$-matrix takes the form \begin{equation} S = \frac{1}{r_1^2 a^2+ r_2^2 b^2}\begin{pmatrix} {r_1^2 a^2- r_2^2 b^2} & {2 r_1^2 ab} \\ {2 r_2^2 ab} & {r_2^2 b^2- r_1^2 a^2} \end{pmatrix}. \end{equation} Two simple but interesting cases arise here. The first one will require the charge conservation ($a=b=1$) but will keep general radii of compactification for each wire, and the second one will relax the charge conservation for the equal radii $r_1 = r_2 = r$. \,In the second case, we shall consider only the heat transport. \paragraph{General radii, \,charge conserved.} \ Here \begin{equation}\label{S_1} S = \frac{1}{r_1^2 + r_2^2}\begin{pmatrix} r_1^2 - r_2^2 & 2 r_1^2 \\ 2 r_2^2 & r_2^2 - r_1^2 \end{pmatrix},\qquad O = \frac{1}{r_1^2 + r_2^2}\begin{pmatrix} r_1^2 - r_2^2 & 2 r_1r_2 \\ 2 r_1 r_2 & r_2^2 - r_1^2 \end{pmatrix}, \end{equation} see (\ref{ON2}). Note that in the particular case $\,r_1 = r_2$, \begin{equation} S = O = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1\\ 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix} \end{equation} corresponding to the fully transmitting junction. For general radii, one obtains from Eqs.\,(\ref{noneq.J1}) and (\ref{noneq.K1}) for the mean electric and thermal currents in the non equilibrium stationary state the expressions \begin{align} &\hspace{-0.05cm}\omega_{\rm neq}(J_1^1(t,x)) = -\omega_{\rm neq}(J_2^1(t,x)) = \frac{r_1^2r_2^2}{r_1^2+r_2^2} \frac{V_2-V_1}{2 \pi}\\ &\hspace{-0.05cm}\omega_{\rm neq}(K_1^1(t,x)) = -\omega_{\rm neq}(K_2^1(t,x))= \frac{r_1^2 r_2^2}{(r_1^2 +r_2^2)^2}\Big(\frac{V_2-V_1}{2\pi}(r_1^2 V_1 + r_2^2 V_2) + \frac{\pi}{3} \Big( \frac{1}{\beta_2^2}- \frac{1}{\beta_1^2} \Big)\hspace{-0.05cm}\Big) \end{align} implying for the electric and thermal conductance the formulae \begin{equation} {}^{\rm el}G = \frac{1}{2\pi}\frac{r_1^2r_2^2}{r_1^2+r_2^2} \begin{pmatrix}-1 & 1 \\ 1 & -1 \end{pmatrix}, \qquad G^{\rm th} = \frac{2\pi}{3 \beta}\frac{r_1^2r_2^2}{(r_1^2+r_2^2)^2} \begin{pmatrix}-1 & 1 \\ 1 & -1 \end{pmatrix}. \end{equation} Hence, in mean, (with our convention) the electric current flows through the junction from the wire at higher potential to the one at the lower one and, when the potentials are equal, the energy current flows from the wire at higher temperature to the one at lower temperature, although the latter direction may be reversed by putting the lower-temperature wire in sufficiently high electric potential. The large deviation rate function associated to charge only is \begin{equation} {}^{\rm el}\hspace{-0.05cm}f(\nu) = - \frac{1}{2\pi} \frac{r_1^2 r_2^2}{(r_1^2 + r_2^2)^2} \Big( \frac{r_2^2}{\beta_1} + \frac{r_1^2}{\beta_2} \Big) \nu^2 + \frac{\ii}{2 \pi} \frac{r_1^2 r_2^2}{r_1^2 + r_2^2} (V_2-V_1) \nu\,, \end{equation} where $\,\nu= \nu_1 - \nu_2$, \,see Eq.\,(\ref{LD}). In the special case $\,r_1 = r_2 =r\,$ of a fully transmitting junction \begin{equation} {}^{\rm el}\hspace{-0.05cm}f(\nu) = - \frac{r^2}{8\pi} \Big( \frac{1}{\beta_1} + \frac{1}{\beta_2} \Big) \nu^2 + \frac{\ii r^2}{4 \pi} (V_2-V_1) \nu \end{equation} which is compatible\footnote{Ref.\,\cite{BD2} uses a different normalization of the $U(1)$-charges so $\,\nu_i\,$ and $\,V_i\,$ there are rescaled by $\,\frac{r}{2\pi}\,$ relative to the ones used here.} with Eq.\,(86) of \cite{BD2}. The quadratic dependence of $\,{}^{\rm el}\hspace{-0.05cm}f(\nu)\,$ on $\,\nu\,$ implies that for large time the charge transfers per unit time become Gaussian random variables with mean and covariance equal to \begin{equation} \left\langle \sfrac{\Delta q_1}{t} \right\rangle = - \left\langle \sfrac{\Delta q_2}{t} \right\rangle = \frac{r_1^2 r_2^2}{r_1^2 + r_2^2} \frac{V_2-V_1}{2\pi}\,, \qquad \CC = \frac{1}{\pi t} \frac{r_1^2 r_2^2}{(r_1^2 + r_2^2)^2} \Big( \frac{r_2^2}{\beta_1} + \frac{r_1^2}{\beta_2} \Big)\begin{pmatrix}1 & -1 \\ -1 & 1 \end{pmatrix}. \end{equation} To illustrate the latter formulae, we trace in Fig.\,\ref{fig:electric} the dependence of $\,\frac{2\pi}{r_1^2t}\langle\Delta q_1\rangle\,$ and of $\,\frac{\pi t}{r_1^2}C_{11}\,$ on $\,\rho=\frac{r_2}{r_1}\,$ for few values of potential difference and temperatures. \begin{figure}[hbt] \psfrag{title}{\hspace{-1cm} $\scriptstyle (2 \pi)/(r_1^2t)\, \langle\Delta q_1\rangle $} \psfrag{datadata}{\hspace{-0.05cm}\tiny$\scriptstyle \Delta\hspace{-0.05cm} V =1$} \psfrag{data2}{\hspace{-0.05cm}\tiny$\scriptstyle \Delta\hspace{-0.05cm}V =-\sfrac{1}{2}$} \psfrag{data3}{\hspace{-0.05cm}\tiny$\scriptstyle \Delta\hspace{-0.05cm}V =2$} \psfrag{rho}{$\scriptstyle \rho$} \hspace{0.5cm}\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{mean_charge_V} \psfrag{title}{\hspace{-1.5cm} $\scriptstyle (\pi t) / (r_1^2)\, C_{11} \text{ at } \beta_1=1$} \psfrag{datadata}{$\scriptstyle \beta_2 =1$} \psfrag{data2}{$\scriptstyle \beta_2 =3$} \psfrag{data3}{$\scriptstyle \beta_2 =10$} \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{cov_charge_beta2} \psfrag{title}{\hspace{-1.5cm} $\scriptstyle (\pi t) / (r_1^2)\, C_{11} \text{ at } \beta_2=1$} \psfrag{datadata}{$\scriptstyle \beta_1 =1$} \psfrag{data2}{$\scriptstyle \beta_1 =3$} \psfrag{data3}{$\scriptstyle \beta_1 =10$} \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{cov_charge_beta1} \vskip -0.25cm \caption{Mean and covariance for different values of $\Delta V= V_2-V_1$, $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$. \label{fig:electric}} \vskip 0.25cm \end{figure} \vskip 0.1cm The large deviation rate function associated to energy only is \begin{align} &{}^{\rm th}\hspace{-0.05cm}f(\lambda) \,=\, -\frac{r_1^2r_2^2}{2\pi} \frac{(r_1^2 \beta_1 V_1^2 + r_2^2 \beta_2 V_2^2) \lambda^2 + \ii \beta_1 \beta_2 (V_1-V_2) (r_1^2 V_1 + r_2^2 V_2 )\lambda }{4r_1^2 r_2^2 \lambda^2 + 4 \ii r_1^2 r_2^2 (\beta_2-\beta_1) \lambda + \beta_1 \beta_2 (r_1^2 + r_2^2)^2} \cr & - \int_0^\infty \ln \sfrac{\big( 1+ \ee^{-2\pi x (\beta_1+\beta_2)}\big) - (O_{11})^2 \big( \ee^{-2\pi x \beta_1} + \ee^{-2\pi x \beta_2}\big) - (O_{12})^2 \big( \ee^{-2\pi x (\beta_1+\ii \lambda)}+\ee^{-2\pi x (\beta_2-\ii \lambda)} \big)}{\big(1-\ee^{-2\pi x \beta_1}\big)\big(1-\ee^{-2\pi x \beta_2}\big)}\,\dd x\qquad \label{thrf} \end{align} for $\,\lambda \equiv \lambda_1-\lambda_2$, \,see Eq.\,(\ref{eFt=L=inf}). For a fully transmitting junction with $\,r_1 = r_2 =r$, \,the integral becomes computable, resulting in the expression \begin{align}\label{ex_f_heat_R} {}^{\rm th}\hspace{-0.05cm}f(\lambda) = & - \frac{r^2}{8\pi} \frac{(\beta_1V_1^2\hspace{-0.05cm}+\hspace{-0.05cm}\beta_2V_2^2) \lambda^2 + \ii \beta_1 \beta_2 (V_1^2\hspace{-0.05cm} -\hspace{-0.05cm}V_2^2) \lambda}{(\beta_1+ \ii \lambda)(\beta_2 - \ii \lambda)} + \frac{\pi}{12}\Big(\hspace{-0.04cm}\frac{1}{\beta_1+ \ii \lambda} \hspace{-0.05cm}-\hspace{-0.05cm}\frac{1}{\beta_1} \hspace{-0.05cm}+\hspace{-0.05cm} \frac{1}{\beta_2- \ii \lambda}\hspace{-0.05cm} -\hspace{-0.05cm} \frac{1}{\beta_2}\hspace{-0.05cm}\Big) \end{align} which agrees with Eq.\,(90) of \cite{BD2} taken at $\nu = 0$. \,Let us look more closely at the analytic continuation $\,{}^{\rm th}\hspace{-0.05cm}f(-i\lambda)\equiv f(\lambda)\,$ of the rate function (\ref{thrf}) for $\,V_1=V_2=0$. $\,f(\lambda)\,$ is finite for $\,-\beta_1<\lambda<\beta_2\,$ and symmetric around $\,\frac{1}{2}(\beta_2-\beta_1)$. \,Outside that interval, $\,f(\lambda)\,$ diverges to $\,+\infty$. \,Fig.\,\ref{fig:example_rho} presents the graph of $\,f(\lambda)\,$ and of its Legendre transform \begin{equation} I(x) = \max_{\lambda \in ]-\beta_1,\beta_2[} \{ \lambda x - f(\lambda) \} \end{equation} for $\,\beta_1=1,\ \beta_2=5\,$ and $\,\rho=\frac{r_2}{r_1}=1,2,3$. \,The change with increasing $\,\rho\,$ is clearly visible. \begin{figure}[h] \centering \psfrag{title}{$\scriptstyle\hspace{-0.9cm}f(\lambda) \equiv\, ^{\text{th}}\hspace{-0.05cm} f(-\ii \lambda)$} \psfrag{-1}{$\scriptstyle-\beta_1$} \psfrag{5}{$\scriptstyle\beta_2$} \psfrag{data1}{$\scriptstyle \rho =1$} \psfrag{data2}{$\scriptstyle \rho =2$} \psfrag{data3}{$\scriptstyle \rho =3$} \includegraphics[scale=0.57]{f_dev_rho} \hspace{1cm} \psfrag{5}{$\scriptstyle 5$} \psfrag{title}{\hspace{-0.15cm}$\scriptstyle I(x)$} \psfrag{data1}{$\scriptstyle \rho =1$} \psfrag{data2}{$\scriptstyle \rho =2$} \psfrag{data3}{$\scriptstyle \rho =3$} \psfrag{-1}{$-1$} \includegraphics[scale=0.57]{rate_rho_grand_as} \caption{Large deviation rate function $f(\lambda)$ and its Legendre transform $\,I(x)\,$ for different $\rho = r_2/r_1$ at $\beta_1 = 1$, $\beta_2=5$, $V_1=V_2=0$). } \label{fig:example_rho} \end{figure} \noindent In the limit $\,\rho\to\infty$, function $\,f(\lambda)\,$ vanishes in the interval $\,]-\beta_1,\beta_2[\,$ and stays infinite outside of it. The large deviations rate function $\,I(x)\,$ is that of the probability distribution of the energy change in the first wire per unit time $\,\Delta H_1(t)/t$. $I(x)\,$ has linear asymptotes with the slopes $\,-\beta_1\,$ and $\,\beta_2\,$ on the left and on the right, respectively, indicating the exponential decay of the distribution function of $\,\Delta H_1(t)/t\,$ arising at long times, with the rate linearly growing with time. \begin{figure}[h] \centering \psfrag{data1}{$\scriptstyle \rho =1$} \psfrag{data2}{$\scriptstyle \rho =2$} \psfrag{data3}{$\scriptstyle \rho =3$} \includegraphics[scale=0.58]{rate_rho_zoom} \hspace{1cm} \psfrag{title}{\hspace{-6.5cm}$\scriptstyle I(x)$\hspace{4.7cm}$\scriptstyle \exp[-I(x)]\ {\rm normalised}$} \psfrag{data1}{$\scriptstyle \rho =1$} \psfrag{data2}{$\scriptstyle \rho =2$} \psfrag{data3}{$\scriptstyle \rho =3$} \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{proba_rho} \caption{Influence of $\,\rho\,$ on the rate function (zoom), and on the corresponding normalized density probability} \label{fig:example_rho_zoom} \end{figure} \noindent Fig.\,\ref{fig:example_rho_zoom} zooms on the central region of $\,I(x)\,$ around $\,x=0\,$ and, for illustrative purpose, presents the graphs of normalized distribution functions $\,\propto\exp[-I(x)]$. \begin{figure}[t] \centering \psfrag{title}{\hspace{-0.4cm}\small Mean/$t$} \psfrag{rho}{$\rho$} \includegraphics[scale=0.57]{mean_rho} \hspace{1cm} \psfrag{title}{\hspace{-0.7cm}\small Variance/$t$} \psfrag{rho}{$\rho$} \includegraphics[scale=0.58]{cov_rho} \vskip -0.3cm \caption{Influence of $\,\rho\,$ on the mean and the variance of $\Delta H_1(t)$ \label{fig:mean_cov1}} \vskip -0.3cm \end{figure} \noindent The influence of $\,\rho\,$ on $\,f'(0)\,$ and $\,f''(0)\,$ representing the long-time mean of $\,\Delta H_1(t)\,$ and of its variance, both divided by $\,t$, \,is depicted in Fig.\,\ref{fig:mean_cov1}. The mean and the variance per unit time represent, respectively, the mean heat current and the thermal noise in the first wire. The increase of $\,\rho\geq 1\,$ increases the absolute value of the current and decreases the noise. Both exhibit the $\,\rho\mapsto1/\rho\,$ symmetry implying that they are least sensitive to the change of $\,\rho\,$ around $\,\rho=1$. \,The influence of the temperature on the rate function $\,f(\lambda)$, \,its Legendre transform $\,I(x)$, \,and on the probability distribution $\,\propto\exp[-I(x)]\,$ is illustrated on Fig.\,\ref{fig:example_beta}. The asymmetry of the curves increases when the temperature of the second wire is lowered below that of the first wire. \begin{figure}[h] \hspace{0.5cm} \includegraphics[scale=0.48]{f_dev_beta} \hspace{-0.1cm} \psfrag{data1}{\hspace{-0.06cm}\tiny$\scriptstyle \beta_2 =1$} \psfrag{data2}{\hspace{-0.06cm}\tiny$\scriptstyle \beta_2 =3$} \psfrag{data3}{\hspace{-0.06cm}\tiny$\scriptstyle \beta_2 =5$} \includegraphics[scale=0.586]{rate_beta} \hspace{-0.1cm} \includegraphics[scale=0.47]{ddp_beta} \vspace{-0.1cm} \caption{Large deviations rate function $f(\lambda)$, \,its Legendre transform $I(x)$, \,and probability density $\propto \exp[-I(x)]$ for different $\beta_2\,$ ($N=2$, $\beta_1 = 1$, $r_2=2r_1$, and $V_1=V_2=0$)} \label{fig:example_beta} \vskip -0.4cm \end{figure} \paragraph{Same radii, \,charge not conserved.} \ The interest in this case is due to the fact that it corresponds to a reflecting and transmitting junction for wires of the same type. Indeed, for $\,r_1 = r_2 =r\,$ but $\,a \neq b$, \vskip -0.2cm \begin{equation} S = O = \sfrac{1}{1+ \alpha^2}\begin{pmatrix} 1-\alpha^2 & 2\alpha \\ 2\alpha & \alpha^2-1 \end{pmatrix} \qquad \text{ for } \alpha = \sfrac{b}{a}\,. \end{equation} Since charge is not conserved when $\,\alpha \neq 1$, \.we focus on the energy transport only, and set $\,V_1 = V_2 =0$. \,Then \vskip -0.5cm \begin{align} \omega_{\rm neq}(K_1^1(t,x)) =&\,-\omega_{\rm neq}(K_2^1(t,x)) = \sfrac{\pi}{12} (S_{12})^2 \Big( \frac{1}{\beta_2^2}- \frac{1}{\beta_1^2} \Big),\\ {}^{{\rm th}\hspace{-0.02cm}}G=&\,\frac{2\pi}{3}\Big(\frac{\alpha}{1+\alpha^2}\Big)^2 \begin{pmatrix}-1&1\cr 1&-1\end{pmatrix} \end{align} \begin{figure}[b!] \vskip -0.2cm \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{f_dev_alpha} \hspace{-0.2cm} \psfrag{data1}{\hspace{-0.06cm}$\scriptstyle \alpha =1$} \psfrag{data2}{\hspace{-0.06cm}$\scriptstyle \alpha =2$} \psfrag{data3}{\hspace{-0.06cm}$\scriptstyle \alpha =3$} \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{rate_alpha} \hspace{-0.1cm} \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{ddp_alpha} \vskip -0.2cm \caption{Large deviations rate function $f(\lambda)$, \,its Legendre transform $I(x)$, \,and probability density $\propto \exp[-I(x)]$ for different $\alpha\,$ ($N=2$, $\beta_1 = 1$, $\beta_2=5$, $r_2=r_1$, and $V_1=V_2=0$)} \label{fig:example_alpha} \vskip -0.1cm \end{figure} \noindent and the large deviation function for energy transfer is, \,with $\,\lambda = \lambda_1 - \lambda_2$, \begin{align} {}^{\rm th}\hspace{-0.05cm}f(\lambda) = - \int_0^\infty \hspace{-0.1cm}\ln \sfrac{1-\ee^{-2 \pi x \beta_1 }(1-S_{12}^2(1-\ee^{-2 \pi \ii x \lambda }))-\ee^{-2 \pi x \beta_2 }(1-S_{12}^2(1-\ee^{2 \pi \ii x \lambda }))+\ee^{-2 \pi x (\beta_1+\beta_2)}}{(1-\ee^{-2 \pi x \beta_1 })(1-\ee^{-2 \pi x \beta_2 })}\, \dd x\,, \end{align} which is illustrated in Fig.\,\ref{fig:example_alpha}. The above expression simplifies for $\,\alpha =1\,$ when $\,S_{12}=1$, \,reducing again to the relation \eqref{ex_f_heat_R} for fully transmitting junction. \subsection{Case $\,M=1$} \label{subsec:M=1} The case $\,M=1\,$ with the total charge conservation corresponds to the brane $\,\CB\cong U(1)\,$ diagonally embedded into $\,U(1)^N$ so that \begin{equation} \kappa = (1, \ldots , 1) \end{equation} leading to the $S$-matrix \begin{equation} S_{ij} = - \rho_i \delta_{ij} + \tau_{i} (1-\delta_{ij}) \end{equation} where \begin{equation} \rho_i = \sfrac{- r_i^2+\sum_{k\neq i} r_k^2 }{\sum_k r_k^2}, \qquad \tau_i = \sfrac{2 r_j^2}{\sum_k r_k^2} \end{equation} are the reflection and transmission coefficients. For the equal radii $\,r_i=r$, \begin{equation} \rho_i= \rho = \sfrac{N-2}{N}, \qquad \tau_i=\tau = \sfrac{2}{N} \end{equation} leading to a simple nontrivial $S$-matrix \begin{equation}\label{S_M=1} S_{ij} = - \rho \delta_{ij} + \tau(1-\delta_{ij}) \end{equation} that was already considered in \cite{NFLL}, see also \cite{BMS}. \paragraph{Application to 3 wires} \ We consider the simplest case with the same radii of compactification. Here we have $\,\rho= 1/3\,$ and $\,\tau = 2/3\,$ and the $S$-matrix is \begin{equation} S = \frac{1}{3}\begin{pmatrix} -1 & 2 & 2 \\ 2 & -1 & 2 \\ 2 & 2 & -1 \end{pmatrix} \end{equation} The charge and energy currents are \begin{align} & \omega_{neq}(J_1^L) = \sfrac{r^2\tau}{4\pi} (V_2 + V_3 - V_1) \cr & \omega_{neq}(K_1^L) = \sfrac{r^2\tau^2}{8\pi}(V_2 + V_3 - 2 V_1)(V_1+V_2+V_3) + \sfrac{\pi\tau^2}{12}\big(\sfrac{1}{\beta_2^2} + \sfrac{1}{\beta_3^2} -\sfrac{2}{\beta_1^2} \big) \end{align} and similarly on the other wires, cyclicly permuting the indices. For the electric and thermal conductance, this gives: \begin{equation} {}^{{\rm el}\hspace{-0.02cm}}G\,=\,\sfrac{r^2\tau}{4\pi}\begin{pmatrix} -1&1&1\\1&-1&1\\1&1&-1\end{pmatrix},\qquad {}^{{\rm th}\hspace{-0.02cm}}G\,=\,\sfrac{\pi\tau^2}{6}\begin{pmatrix} -2&1&1\\1&-2&1\\1&1&-2\end{pmatrix}. \end{equation} The large deviation function for the FCS of charge transfers is \begin{equation} {}^{\rm el}\hspace{-0.05cm}f(\bm\nu) = \sfrac{r^2\tau^2}{8\pi} \Big( \sfrac{(2 \nu_1 - \nu_2 - \nu_3)^2}{\beta_1} \ +\ {\rm cycl.}\Big)+ \ii \sfrac{r^2\tau}{4\pi}\Big( V_1 (2 \nu_1 - \nu_2 - \nu_3) \ +\ {\rm cycl.}\,\Big), \end{equation} where ``${\rm cycl.}$'' stands for terms obtained by cyclic permutation of the indices. The large deviation function for the FCS of energy transfers for $\,V_i = 0\,$ is: \begin{equation} {}^{\rm th}\hspace{-0.05cm}f(\bm\lambda) = - \int_0^\infty \ln \sfrac{N(x,\bm\lambda)}{D(x)}\, \dd x\qquad \end{equation} where \begin{align} N(x,\bm\lambda) = &\, 1 - \ee^{-2\pi x (\beta_1+\beta_2+\beta_3)} + \rho^2 \big( \ee^{-2\pi x(\beta_1+\beta_2)} \ + \ {\rm cycl.}\,\big) - \rho^2 \big( \ee^{-2\pi x \beta_1} \ + \ {\rm cycl.}\,\big)\cr & + \tau^2 \Big( \ee^{-2\pi x(\beta_1+\beta_2)}\big(\ee^{-2\pi \ii x(\lambda_2-\lambda_3)} + \ee^{-2\pi \ii x(\lambda_1-\lambda_3)}\big) \ + \ {\rm cycl.}\,\Big) \cr & - \tau^2 \Big(\ee^{-2\pi x\beta_1}\big(\ee^{-2\pi \ii x(\lambda_1-\lambda_2)} + \ee^{-2\pi \ii x(\lambda_1-\lambda_3)}\big)\ + \ {\rm cycl.}\,\Big),\cr D(x) = &\,(1- \ee^{-2\pi x\beta_1}) (1- \ee^{-2\pi x\beta_2}) (1- \ee^{-2\pi x\beta_3})\,. \end{align} Upon the analytic continuation, $\,{}^{\rm th}\hspace{-0.05cm}f(-\ii\bm\lambda) \equiv f(\lambda_{12},\lambda_{13})\,$ for $\,\lambda_{12}=\lambda_1-\lambda_2\,$ and $\,\lambda_{13}=\lambda_1-\lambda_3\,$ which is finite only in the region \begin{equation} - \beta_1 < \lambda_{12} < \beta_2\,, \qquad - \beta_1 < \lambda_{13} < \beta_3\,,\qquad- \beta_2 < \lambda_{13} - \lambda_{12} < \beta_3\,. \label{3w_limlambda} \end{equation} Function $\,f\,$ is plotted in Fig.\,\ref{fig:f3wires} \,for $\,(\beta_1,\beta_2,\beta_3)$$=(1,1,1)$ (the equilibrium case) and $\,(\beta_1,\beta_2,\beta_3)=(1,2,3)$ in the coordinate system with axes at $120^\circ$ so that the counter-clockwise rotation of the graph by $120^\circ$ corresponds to the cyclic permutation $(\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3) \mapsto(\lambda_3,\lambda_1,\lambda_2)$. \,In equilibrium, $\,f\,$ is symmetric under such a transformation but out of equilibrium, the above $\,\bm Z_3\,$ symmetry is broken to a degree that may be used as a measure of distance from equilibrium. \begin{figure}[htb] \centering \psfrag{title}{$\scriptstyle\hspace{-1.55cm}f(\lambda_{12},\lambda_{12}) \ \text{for}\ (\beta_1,\beta_2,\beta_3)=(1,1,1)$ } \psfrag{lambda12}{$\scriptstyle\hspace{0.3cm}\lambda_{12}$} \psfrag{lambda13}{$\scriptstyle\hspace{1.2cm}\lambda_{13}$} \hspace{-0.3cm}\includegraphics[scale=0.655]{fdev_111} \hspace{1cm} \psfrag{title}{$\scriptstyle\hspace{-1.58cm}\text{and \,for\ }\ (\beta_1,\beta_2,\beta_3)=(1,2,3)$} \psfrag{lambda13}{$\scriptstyle\hspace{0.9cm}\lambda_{13}$} \psfrag{lambda12}{$\scriptstyle\hspace{0.3cm}\lambda_{12}$} \includegraphics[scale=0.65]{fdev_123} \vskip -0.2cm \caption{Rate function $\,f(\lambda_{12},\lambda_{13})\,$ for \,3 \,wires\label{fig:f3wires}} \end{figure} The Legendre transform of $\,{}^{\rm th}\hspace{-0.04cm}f(-\ii\bm\lambda)\,$ is infinite out of the plane $\,x_1+x_2+x_3=0\,$ and on that plane, it may be regarded as a function \qq I(x_{12},x_{13})=\mathop{\rm max}\limits_{\lambda_{12},\lambda_{13}}\,\big\{ \frac{_1}{^3}(2x_{12}\lambda_{12}-x_{12}\lambda_{13}-x_{13}\lambda_{12} +2x_{13}\lambda_{13})-f(\lambda_{12},\lambda_{13})\big\}\,. \qqq Fig.\,\ref{fig:I3wires} presents the plot of $\,I(x_{12},x_{13})\,$ for the equilibrium and nonequilibrium choice of temperatures. \begin{figure}[h] \centering \psfrag{title}{$\scriptstyle\hspace{-1.55cm}I(x_{12},x_{12}) \ \text{for}\ (\beta_1,\beta_2,\beta_3)=(1,1,1)$ } \psfrag{x12}{$\scriptstyle\hspace{0.1cm}x_{12}$} \psfrag{x13}{$\scriptstyle\hspace{1cm}x_{13}$} \hspace{-0.3cm}\includegraphics[scale=0.655]{rate_111_red} \hspace{1cm} \psfrag{title}{$\scriptstyle\hspace{-1.1cm}\text{and \,for}\ (\beta_1,\beta_2,\beta_3)=(1,2,3)$} \psfrag{x13}{$\scriptstyle\hspace{1.1cm}x_{13}$} \psfrag{x12}{$\scriptstyle\hspace{0.1cm}x_{12}$} \includegraphics[scale=0.65]{rate_123_red} \vskip -0.12cm \caption{Legendre transform $\,I(x_{12},x_{13})\,$ for \,3 \,wires\label{fig:I3wires}} \end{figure} The level lines of $\,I\,$ are equally spaced in various direction far from the origin, indicating the asymptotic linear increase of the function. \,The similar breaking of $\,\bm Z_3\,$ symmetry as for $\,f\,$ may be observed. \begin{figure}[ht] \centering \psfrag{title}{$\scriptstyle\hspace{-2.4cm}\text{normalized}\ \exp[-I(x_{12},x_{12})] \ \text{for}\ (\beta_1,\beta_2,\beta_3)=(1,1,1)$ } \psfrag{x12}{$\scriptstyle\hspace{0.1cm}x_{12}$} \psfrag{x13}{$\scriptstyle\hspace{1cm}x_{13}$} \includegraphics[scale=0.655]{ddp_111} \hspace{0.6cm} \psfrag{title}{$\scriptstyle\hspace{-1.1cm}\text{and \,for} \ (\beta_1,\beta_2,\beta_3)=(1,2,3)$} \psfrag{x13}{$\scriptstyle\hspace{1cm}x_{13}$} \psfrag{x12}{$\scriptstyle\hspace{0.1cm}x_{12}$} \includegraphics[scale=0.65]{ddp_123} \vskip -0.15cm \caption{Probability density $\,\propto\exp[-I(x_{12},x_{13})]\,$ for \,3 \,wires\label{fig:expI3wires}} \end{figure} Finally, Fig.\,\ref{fig:expI3wires} plots for illustration the probability densities $\,\propto\exp[-I(x_{12},x_{13})]$. \,Note that most mass of the distribution is in the negative quadrant indicating the heat transfer from the hotter $1^{\rm st}$ and the $2^{\rm nd}$ wires to the colder $3^{\rm rd}$ one. \nsection{Conclusions} \label{sec:concl} \vskip 0.15cm We have studied a model of a junction of $\,N\,$ quantum wires. The Luttinger liquids in the bulk of the wires were represented by a toroidal compactification of the $N$-component massless free bosonic field, with the junction modeled by a simple boundary condition restricting the values of the compactified field to a brane $\,\CB\,$ forming a subgroup isomorphic to $\,U(1)^M\,$ of the target torus $\,U(1)^N$. \,The brane $\,\CB\,$ was assumed to be invariant under the diagonal multiplication by phases in order to assure the global $\,U(1)\,$ invariance and the conservation of the total electric charge. We constructed the theory on the classical and the quantum level and showed that the boundary condition at the junction leads to a linear relation between the right-moving and the left-moving components of the electric currents in different wires. Such a relation describes the scattering by the junction of charges carrying the current. The equilibrium state of the system of connected wires of length $\,L\,$ kept at inverse temperature $\,\beta\,$ and in electric potential $\,V\,$ was discussed in the functional-integral language and in the open-string and closed-string operator formalism, the latter being well suited to describe the thermodynamic limit $\,L\to\infty$. \,We obtained the exact solution for the equilibrium current correlation functions both for wires of finite length $\,L\,$ and for $\,L=\infty$. \,In the latter case, the resulting theory provides a special case of the system studied in \cite{MSLL} and we adapted from that paper the construction of a stationary nonequilibrium state (NESS) in which the wires are kept at different temperatures and electric potentials. Following the lines of \cite{BD1,BD2}, it was shown that such a state is attained at long times if we prepare disjoint semi-infinite wires in equilibrium states at different temperatures and potentials and then connect them by the junction and let the dynamics operate. This is a particular realization of the scenario for construction of quantum nonequilibrium states proposed in \cite{Ruelle}. By considering the constructed NESS close to equilibrium, we extracted formulae for the electric and thermal conductance of the junction. \vskip 0.1cm The main result of this paper has been the calculation of the full counting statistics (FCS) for charge and heat transfers through the junction and the analysis of its large deviations asymptotics at long transfer times in the presence of both transmission and reflection of the conserved charges. This was done first for charge, then for heat, and finally, jointly for both. We confirmed by an exact calculation that the large deviations regime of the charge FCS for a junction of semi-infinite wires may be obtained from a large class of limiting procedures sending to infinity the length of the wires as well as the transfer time. The computation of FCS for heat transfers was explicitly done only aligning the length of the wires and the time of the transfer, although we developed tools for performing the general calculation. We expect that the result for the large deviations regime of the FCS for heat transfers obtained in the explicitly treated case applies as well to the situation when the length of the wires is sent to infinity faster than the evolution time. The expressions obtained for the large deviations rate functions of FCS were compared with the ones given by the Levitov-Lesovik formulae. For the charge transfers, we showed that our results for the junctions under consideration differ from the Levitov-Lesovik formula for free fermions, although, for the vanishing Luttinger couplings, some similarity could be observed in the quadratic part of the rate functions that describes the central-limit asymptotics. For the energy transfers through the junction, the part of the FCS that was contributed by the excited bosonic Fock-space modes appeared to coincide with the bosonic Levitov-Lesovik-type formula for FCS obtained in \cite{Klich}. \vskip 0.1cm The simple class of conformal boundary defects considered in the present paper have been chosen for illustrative purpose rather than from phenomenological considerations. The latter might require introducing a larger family of boundary defects. The simplest extension of the class considered here would include conformal boundary defects with displaced branes $\,\bm g_0\CB\,$ for $\,\bm g_0\in U(1)^N\,$ or/and the ones with added Wilson lines (w.r.t.\,\,\,a constant gauge field on $\,\CB$). Such boundary defects could be dealt with by the same technique, leading to a richer class of $S$-matrices describing current scattering. More complicated conformal boundary defects would require more powerful boundary CFT techniques for calculation. For the case of vanishing Luttinger couplings, one could use the nonabelian bosonization \cite{WittenNA,AleksSchom} that comes with a class of conformal boundary defects with nonabelian symmetries. Some partial results in this direction have been already obtained \cite{GT}. The other physically relevant question, not disjoint from the previous one, is the stability of the boundary defects in the renormalization group sense. This problem was addressed for some simple cases of junctions in \cite{NFLL,OCA0,OCA}. It can be also studied with the boundary CFT techniques. We postpone a discussion of the above questions to the future research. \nappendix{A} \label{app:A} \vskip 0.5cm \noindent Here we shall calculate directly the quantity \begin{equation} \omega^{L}_{\beta,V}\Big(\ee^{-\ii\nu\int\limits_0^tJ^\ell (0,s)\,\dd s}\Big) \end{equation} for one wire of length $L> t$ with the Neumann boundary conditions. In this case, \begin{equation} J^\ell(0,s)\,=\,\sfrac{r}{4L}\sum\limits_{n\in\mathbb Z}\tilde\alpha_{2n} \,\ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii ns}{L}} \end{equation} for $\,\tilde\alpha_{2n}=r\alpha_{2n}\,$ and \begin{equation} \int\limits_0^tJ^\ell(0,s)\,\dd s\,=\,\sfrac{ir}{4\pi}\sum\limits_{n\not=0} \sfrac{1}{n}\tilde\alpha_{2n}\big(\ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii nt}{L}}-1\big) +\sfrac{rt}{4L} \tilde\alpha_0\,=\,\sfrac{r^2}{4\pi}\big(\varphi^\ell(0,t) -\varphi^\ell(0,0)\big), \end{equation} where the chiral field $\,\varphi^\ell\,$ is given by (\ref{phiell}). We shall reorder the exponential of that operator writing \begin{align} \ee^{-\ii\nu\int\limits_0^tJ^\ell(0,s)\,\dd s}\,=&\,\, \ee^{-\ii\frac{\nu r t}{4L}\tilde\alpha_0}\,\, \ee^{\sfrac{\nu r}{4\pi} \sum\limits_{n<0}\frac{1}{n}\tilde\alpha_{2n} \big(\ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii nt}{L}}-1\big)}\, \ee^{\sfrac{\nu r}{4\pi} \sum\limits_{n>0}\frac{1}{n}\tilde\alpha_{2n} \big(\ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii nt}{L}}-1\big)}\cr &\times\,\, \ee^{-\frac{\nu^2r^2}{16\pi^2}\sum\limits_{n>0}\frac{1}{n}\big(2- \ee^{\,\frac{\pi\ii nt}{L}}-\ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii nt}{L}}\big)}\cr =&\,\, \ee^{-\ii\frac{\nu rt}{4L}\tilde\alpha_0}\,\, \ee^{\sfrac{\nu r}{4\pi} \sum\limits_{n<0}\frac{1}{n}\tilde\alpha_{2n} \big(\ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii nt}{L}}-1\big)}\, \ee^{\sfrac{\nu r}{4\pi} \sum\limits_{n>0}\frac{1}{n}\tilde\alpha_{2n} \big(\ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii nt}{L}}-1\big)}\cr &\times\,\, \big(4\sin^2(\sfrac{\pi t}{2L})\big)^{-\frac{\nu^2r^2}{16\pi^2}} \,\ee^{-\frac{\nu^2 r^2}{8\pi^2}\sum\limits_{n>0}\frac{1}{n}}. \label{A4} \end{align} Note that the last factor, that may be interpreted as providing the Wick ordering of the left-moving vertex operators $\,\ee^{-\ii\frac{\nu r^2}{4\pi}\varphi^\ell(0,t)}\,$ and $\,\ee^{\,\ii\frac{\nu r^2}{4\pi}\varphi^\ell(0,0)}$, \,is ultraviolet singular. We shall replace it by its regularized version \begin{equation} \ee^{-\sfrac{\nu^2r^2}{8\pi^2}\sum\limits_{n<\Lambda L}\frac{1}{n}}\equiv\, \ee^{-\sfrac{\nu^2r^2}{8\pi^2}C_{\Lambda L}} \label{UVcutoff} \end{equation} where $\Lambda$ is the ultraviolet cutoff. This leads to the definition: \begin{align} \Big(\ee^{-\ii\nu\int\limits_0^tJ^\ell(0,s)\,\dd s}\Big)_{\hspace{-0.05cm}{\rm reg}} =&\,\,\, \ee^{-\ii\frac{\nu r t}{4L}\tilde\alpha_0}\,\, \ee^{\sfrac{\nu r}{4\pi} \sum\limits_{n<0}\frac{1}{n}\tilde\alpha_{2n} \big(\ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii nt}{L}}-1\big)}\, \ee^{\sfrac{\nu r}{4\pi} \sum\limits_{n>0}\frac{1}{n}\tilde\alpha_{2n} \big(\ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii nt}{L}}-1\big)}\cr &\times\,\, \big(4\sin^2(\sfrac{\pi t}{2L})\big)^{\hspace{-0.05cm}-\frac{\nu^2r^2}{16\pi^2}}\, \,\ee^{-\sfrac{\nu^2r^2}{8\pi^2}\sum\limits_{n<\Lambda L}\frac{1}{n}}\,. \label{A5} \end{align} The commutation relation \begin{equation} \Big[\ee^{\pm\sfrac{\nu r}{4\pi} \sum\limits_{n>0}\frac{1}{n}\tilde\alpha_{2n} \big(\ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii nt}{L}}-1\big)}, \tilde\alpha_{-2m}\Big]\,=\,\pm\sfrac{\nu r}{2\pi} \big(\ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii mt}{L}}-1\big)\,\ee^{\pm\sfrac{\nu r}{4\pi} \sum\limits_{n>0}\frac{1}{n} \tilde\alpha_{2n}\big(\ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii nt}{L}}-1\big)}, \end{equation} implies that \begin{equation} \ee^{\pm\sfrac{\nu r}{4\pi} \sum\limits_{n>0}\frac{1}{n}\tilde\alpha_{2n}\big( \ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii nt}{L}}-1\big)} (\tilde\alpha_{-2m})^{p}|0\rangle\,=\, \sum\limits_{k=0}^{p}(\pm1)^k\big(\substack{{{p}}\\{k}}\big) \big(\sfrac{\nu r}{2\pi} \big(\ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii mt}{L}}-1\big)\big)^k\, (\tilde\alpha_{-2m})^{p-k}|0\rangle\,. \end{equation} Hence \begin{align} &\frac{\big\langle0\big|\,(\tilde\alpha_{2m})^{p}\,\ee^{\sfrac{\nu r}{4\pi} \sum\limits_{n<0}\frac{1}{n}\tilde\alpha_{2n}\big( \ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii nt}{L}}-1\big)} \,\ee^{\sfrac{\nu r}{4\pi} \sum\limits_{n>0}\frac{1}{n}\tilde\alpha_{2n}\big( \ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii nt}{L}}-1\big)} (\tilde\alpha_{-2m})^{p}\big|0\big\rangle}{p!(2m)^{p}}\cr &=\,\sfrac{1}{p!(2m)^{p}} \,\sum\limits_{k=0}^{p}(-1)^k\big(\substack{{p}\\{k}}\big)^{\hspace{-0.05cm}2} \big(\sfrac{\nu^2r^2}{4\pi^2}\big|\ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii mt}{L}}-1\big|^2\big)^{k} (p-k)!(2m)^{p-k}\cr &=\,\sum\limits_{k=0}^{p}(-1)^k\big(\substack{{p}\\{k}}\big)\sfrac{1}{k!(2m)^{k}} \big(\sfrac{\nu^2r^2}{\pi^2} \sin^2({\sfrac{\pi mt}{2L}})\big)^{k}. \end{align} The orthonormal basis of the Fock space $\CF_e$ is given by the vectors \begin{equation} \prod\limits_{m=1}^\infty\sfrac{(\tilde\alpha_{-2m})^{p_m}} {\sqrt{p_m!(2m)^{p_m}}}\,\big|0\big\rangle \end{equation} with all but a finite number of $\,p_m=0,1,\dots\,$ equal to zero. Such vectors are eigenvectors of the Hamiltonian $\,H^0\,$ with eigenvalues $\,\frac{\pi}{2L}\big(\sum\limits_{m=1}^\infty 2mp_m\, -\frac{1}{8}\big)\,$ and are annihilated by $\,Q^0$. \,Hence \begin{align} &\tr_{\CF_e}\,\ee^{-\beta(H^0-V Q^0)}\,\ee^{\sfrac{\nu r}{4\pi} \sum\limits_{n<0}\frac{1}{n}\tilde\alpha_{2n}\big( \ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii nt}{L}}-1\big)} \,\ee^{\sfrac{\nu r}{4\pi} \sum\limits_{n>0}\frac{1}{n}\tilde\alpha_{2n}\big( \ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii nt}{L}}-1\big)} \cr &=\,\ee^{\frac{\pi\beta}{16L}}\prod\limits_{m=1}^\infty \Big(\sum\limits_{p=1}^\infty \ee^{-\frac{\pi\beta}{L}pm}\sum\limits_{k=0}^p(-1)^k \big(\substack{{p}\\{k}}\big)\sfrac{1}{k!(2m)^{k}} \big(\sfrac{\nu^2r^2}{\pi^2}\sin^2({\sfrac{\pi mt}{2L}})\big)^{k}\Big)\cr &=\,\ee^{\frac{\pi\beta}{16L}}\prod\limits_{m=1}^\infty \Big(\sum\limits_{k=0}^{\infty} \sfrac{(-1)^k}{(k!)^2(2m)^k}\big(\sfrac{\nu^2r^2}{\pi^2} \sin^2(\sfrac{\pi mt}{2L})\big)^{k} \sum\limits_{p=k}^{\infty} p(p-1)\cdots (p-k+1)\,\ee^{-\frac{\pi\beta}{L}pm}\Big).\qquad \end{align} Since by a straightforward calculation \begin{align} &\sum\limits_{p=k}^\infty p(p-1)\cdots(p-k+1)z^p\, =\,\sfrac{k!z^k}{(1-z)^{k+1}} \end{align} for $\,|z|<1$, \,we infer that \begin{align} &\tr_{\CF_e}\,\ee^{-\beta(H^0-V Q^0)}\,\ee^{\sfrac{\nu r}{4\pi} \sum\limits_{n<0}\frac{1}{n}\tilde\alpha_{2n}\big( \ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii nt}{L}}-1\big)} \,\ee^{\sfrac{\nu r}{4\pi} \sum\limits_{n>0}\frac{1}{n}\tilde\alpha_{2n}\big( \ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii nt}{L}}-1\big)} \cr &=\,\ee^{\frac{\pi\beta}{16L}}\prod\limits_{m=1}^\infty\Big( \sum\limits_{k=0}^\infty\sfrac{(-1)^k}{k!(2m)^k}\big(\sfrac{\nu^2r^2}{\pi^2} \sin^2(\sfrac{\pi mt}{2L})\big)^{k} \sfrac{\ee^{-\frac{\pi\beta}{L}mk}}{(1- \ee^{-\frac{\pi\beta}{L}m})^{k+1}}\Big)\cr &=\,\ee^{\frac{\pi\beta}{16L}}\prod\limits_{m=1}^\infty\Big( \exp\Big[-\sfrac{\nu^2r^2}{2\pi^2m} \sin^2(\sfrac{\pi mt}{2L})\, \sfrac{\ee^{-\frac{\pi\beta}{L}m}}{1- \ee^{-\frac{\pi\beta}{L}m}}\Big]\Big)\prod\limits_{m=1}^\infty \sfrac{1}{1-\ee^{-\frac{\pi\beta}{L}m}}\,. \end{align} The trace over the zero mode space $\,\CH_0\,$ spanned by the orthonormal vectors $\,|k\rangle\,$ with $\,k\in\mathbb Z\,$ such that $\,\tilde\alpha_0|k\rangle=2r^{-1}|k\rangle\,$ is \begin{align} \tr_{\CH_0}\,\ee^{-\beta(H^0-V Q^0)}\,\ee^{-\ii\nu\frac{rt} {4L}\tilde\alpha_0}=\sum\limits_{q\in\mathbb Z}\ee^{-\frac{\pi\beta} {Lr^2}k^2+\beta V k-\ii\nu\frac{t}{2L}k}\,. \end{align} Multiplying those two traces and the factor of the last line of (\ref{A5}) and dividing them by the partition function, we obtain the expression \begin{align} \omega^{L}_{\beta,V}\Big(\Big(\ee^{-\ii\nu\int\limits_0^tJ^\ell (0,s)\,\dd s}\Big)_{\hspace{-0.05cm}\rm reg}\Big)\,=&\,\, \big(4\sin^2(\sfrac{\pi t}{2L})\big)^{\hspace{-0.05cm} -\frac{\nu^2 r^2}{16\pi^2}}\ \ee^{-\sfrac{\nu^2r^2}{8\pi^2}\sum\limits_{n<\Lambda L}\frac{1}{n}} \ \sfrac{\sum\limits_{k\in\mathbb Z}\ee^{-\frac{\pi\beta} {Lr^2}k^2+\beta V k-\ii\nu\frac{t}{2L}k}} {\sum\limits_{k\in\mathbb Z}\ee^{-\frac{\pi\beta} {Lr^2}k^2+\beta V k}} \cr &\times\,\,\prod\limits_{m=1}^\infty\Big( \exp\Big[-\sfrac{\nu^2r^2}{2\pi^2m} \sin^2(\sfrac{\pi mt}{2L})\, \sfrac{\ee^{-\frac{\pi\beta}{L}m}}{1- \ee^{-\frac{\pi\beta}{L}m}}\Big]\Big). \label{ssum} \end{align} By Eq.\,16.30.1 of \cite{AS}, \begin{equation} 4\sum\limits_{m=1}^\infty\sfrac{1}{m}\sin^2(\sfrac{\pi mt}{2L})\, \sfrac{\ee^{-\frac{\pi\beta}{L}m}}{1-\ee^{-\frac{\pi\beta}{L}m}} =\ln\sfrac{\pi\,\theta_1(\frac{\ii\beta}{2L};\frac{t}{2L})} {\sin(\frac{\pi t}{2L})\,\partial_z\theta_1(\frac{\ii\beta}{2L};0)}\,, \end{equation} where we use the definition \begin{equation} \theta_1(\tau;z)=\sum\limits_{n\in\mathbb Z} \ee^{\pi\ii\tau(n+\frac{1}{2})^2+2\pi i(n+\frac{1}{2})(z+\frac{1}{2})} \end{equation} for the first of the Jacobi theta-functions. Hence (\ref{ssum}) may be rewritten in the form \begin{align} \omega^{L}_{\beta,V}\Big(\Big(\ee^{-\ii\nu\int\limits_0^tJ^\ell (0,s)\,\dd s}\Big)_{\rm reg}\Big)\,=&\,\,\exp\Big[-\sfrac{\nu^2r^2}{8\pi^2} \big(\sum\limits_{n<\Lambda L}\sfrac{1}{n}\,+\,\ln\sfrac{2\pi\, \theta_1(\frac{\ii\beta}{2L};\frac{t}{2L})} {\partial_z\theta_1(\frac{i\beta}{2L};0)}\Big)\Big]\cr &\times\,\, \sfrac{\sum\limits_{k\in\mathbb Z}\ee^{-\frac{\pi\beta} {Lr^2}k^2+\beta V k-\ii\nu\frac{t}{2L}k}} {\sum\limits_{k\in\mathbb Z}\ee^{-\frac{\pi\beta} {Lr^2}k^2+\beta V k}} \label{ssum1} \end{align} The substitution of the above relation to the (ultraviolet regularized version of) (\ref{FCSsf}) results in the identity (\ref{FCSex}). \nappendix{B} \label{app:B} \vskip 0.5cm \noindent Let us consider a quadratic selfadjoint operator \begin{equation} \CA\,=\,\sum\limits_{i,i'=1}^N\sum\limits_{n,n'=1}^\infty \big(\sfrac{1}{2}A_{ni,n'i'}\,a^\dagger_{ni}a^\dagger_{n'i'}+B_{ni,n'i'}\,a^\dagger_{ni} a_{n'i'}+\sfrac{1}{2}\overline{A_{ni,n'i'}}\,a_{ni}a_{n'i'}\big) \label{CAA} \end{equation} acting in the Fock space $\CF$ of the vacuum representation of the canonical commutation relations (CCR) \begin{equation} [a_{ni},a_{n'i'}]=0=[a^\dagger_{ni},a^\dagger_{n'i'}]\,,\qquad[a_{ni},a^\dagger_{n'i'}]= \delta_{ii'}\delta_{n,-n'} \end{equation} built on the normalized vacuum state $|0\rangle$ annihilated by operators $a_{ni}$. We assume that $A_{ni,n'i'}=A_{n'i',ni}$ and $B_{ni,n'i'}= \overline{B_{n'i',ni}}$. \,Note the commutation relations \begin{equation} \bigg[\CA\,,\bigg(\begin{matrix}a^\dagger_{ni}\cr a_{ni}\end{matrix}\bigg)\bigg] =\sum_{i'}\sum_{n'>0}\bigg(\begin{matrix}\overline{B_{in,i'n'}}& \overline{A_{in,i'n'}}\cr -A_{in,i'n'}&-B_{in,i'n'}\end{matrix}\bigg)\bigg(\begin{matrix}a^\dagger_{n'i'}\cr a_{n'i'}\end{matrix}\bigg). \end{equation} The exponentiation of the above relation gives \begin{equation} \ee^{\hspace{0.03cm}\ii\CA}\bigg(\begin{matrix}a^\dagger_{ni}\cr a_{ni}\end{matrix} \bigg)\ee^{-\ii\CA} =\sum_{i'}\sum_{n'>0}\bigg(\begin{matrix}\overline{P_{in,i'n'}} &\overline{Q_{in,i'n'}}\cr Q_{in,i'n'}&P_{in,i'n'}\end{matrix}\bigg)\bigg(\begin{matrix}a^\dagger_{n'i'}\cr a_{n'i'}\end{matrix}\bigg), \end{equation} where, in the language of infinite matrices, \begin{equation} \bigg(\begin{matrix}\overline{P} &\overline{Q}\cr Q&P\end{matrix}\bigg)\,=\,\exp\bigg(\begin{matrix}\overline{B}&\overline{A}\cr -A&-B\end{matrix}\bigg). \end{equation} One of the results of the theory of the Bogoliubov transformations associated to the quadratic Hamiltonians $\,\CA\,$ is the formula \begin{equation} \big\langle0\big|\ee^{i\CA}\big|0\rangle\,=\,\det\big(\ee^{iB}P\big)^{-1/2} \label{derger} \end{equation} holding under conditions that guarantee the finiteness of the left and right hand sides which will be satisfied in the cases of interest for us, \,see e.g. \cite{DerGer}. \vskip 0.1cm We shall need a generalization of that formula to the expectations of operator $\,\ee^{i\CA}\,$ in certain mixed states. Consider such a state $\,\omega_\rho$ corresponding to the density matrix \begin{equation} \rho\,=\,\sfrac{1}{Z} \,\ee^{-\sum\limits_{i=1}^N\sum\limits_{n=1}^\infty \epsilon_{ni}\,a^\dagger_{ni}a_{ni}}\,, \end{equation} with $\,\epsilon_{in}>0\,$ diverging sufficiently fast when $\,n\to\infty\,$ and the normalization factor \begin{equation} Z\,=\,\prod\limits_{i=1}^N\prod\limits_{n=1}^\infty (1-\ee^{-\epsilon_{ni}})^{-1}. \end{equation} We would like to calculate the expectation value $\,\omega_\rho\big(\ee^{i\CA}\big)$. \,To this end, we may use the Araki-Woods representation \cite{AW} of the CCR acting in the double Fock space $\,\CF\otimes\CF\,$ and given by the formula \begin{equation} \bigg(\begin{matrix}a_{ni}^\dagger\cr a_{ni}\end{matrix}\bigg)\,\longmapsto\, \bigg(\begin{matrix}\hat a_{ni}^\dagger\cr\hat a_{ni}\end{matrix}\bigg) =\bigg(\begin{matrix}\sqrt{1+b_{ni}}\, (a^1_{ni})^\dagger+\sqrt{b_{ni}}\,a^2_{ni}\cr \sqrt{1+b_{ni}}\, a^1_{ni}+\sqrt{b_{ni}}\,(a^2_{ni})^\dagger \end{matrix}\bigg), \end{equation} where \begin{equation} b_{ni}=\frac{1}{\ee^{\epsilon_{ni}}-1}\,,\qquad a^1_{ni}=a_{ni}\otimes I\,, \qquad a^2_{ni}=I\otimes a_{ni}\,. \end{equation} The Araki-Woods representation has the property that the matrix element on the vacuum $|0,0\rangle=|0\rangle\otimes|0\rangle$ of a CCR observables taken in that representation reproduces their $\omega_\rho$ expectations. In particular \begin{equation} \omega_\rho\big(\ee^{\hspace{0.03cm}\ii\CA}\big)\,=\, \tr_{_\CF}\Big(\rho\,\ee^{\hspace{0.03cm}\ii\CA}\Big) \,=\,\big\langle0,0\big|\ee^{i\hat\CA}\big|0,0\big\rangle\,, \end{equation} where \begin{align} &\hat\CA\,=\,\sum\limits_{i=1}^N\sum\limits_{n=1}^\infty \big(\sfrac{1}{2}A_{ni,n'i'}\,\hat a^\dagger_{ni}\hat a^\dagger_{n'i'} +B_{ni,n'i'}\hat a^\dagger_{ni}\, \hat a_{ni}+\sfrac{1}{2}\overline{A_{ni,n'i'}}\,\hat a_{ni}\hat a_{n'i'}\big)\cr &=\,\sum\limits_{\sigma,\sigma'=1}^2\sum\limits_{i=1}^N\sum\limits_{n=1}^\infty \big(\sfrac{1}{2}\hat A^{\sigma,\sigma'}_{ni,n'i'}(\hat a^\sigma_{ni})^\dagger ({\hat a}^{\sigma'}_{n'i'})^\dagger +\hat B^{\sigma,\sigma'}_{ni,n'i'}({\hat a}^\sigma_{ni})^\dagger {\hat a}^{\sigma'}_{n'i'}+\sfrac{1}{2}\overline{\hat A^{\sigma,\sigma'}_{ni,n'i'}} {\hat a}^\sigma_{ni}{\hat a}^{\sigma'}_{n'i'}\big)\cr &\hspace{0.3cm}+\sum\limits_{i=1}^N\sum\limits_{n=1}^NB_{ni,ni}b_{ni}\,, \end{align} with \begin{align} &\bigg(\begin{matrix}\hat A^{1,1}_{ni,n'i'}&\hat A^{1,2}_{ni,n'i'}\cr \hat A^{2,1}_{ni,n'i'}&\hat A^{2,2}_{ni,n'i'}\end{matrix}\bigg)\,=\, \bigg(\begin{matrix}A_{ni,n'i'}\sqrt{(1+b_{ni}) (1+b_{n'i'})}&B_{ni,n'i'}\sqrt{(1+b_{ni}) b_{n'i'}}\cr\overline{B_{ni,n'i'}} \sqrt{b_{ni}(1+b_{n'i'})}& \overline{A_{ni,n'i'}}\sqrt{b_{ni}b_{n'i'}} \end{matrix}\bigg),\cr &\bigg(\begin{matrix}\hat B^{1,1}_{ni,n'i'}&\hat B^{1,2}_{ni,n'i'}\cr \hat B^{2,1}_{ni,n'i'}&\hat B^{2,2}_{ni,n'i'}\end{matrix}\bigg)\,=\, \bigg(\begin{matrix}B_{ni,n'i'}\sqrt{(1+b_{ni})(1+b_{n'i'})}& A_{ni,n'1'}\sqrt{(1+b_{ni})b_{n'i'}} \cr\overline{A_{ni,n'1'}}\sqrt{b_{ni}(1+b_{n'i'})} &\overline{B_{ni,n'i'}}\sqrt{b_{ni}b_{n'i'}}\end{matrix}\bigg). \end{align} Denoting \begin{equation} \exp\bigg[\ii\bigg(\begin{matrix}\overline{\hat B}&\overline{\hat A}\cr -\hat A&-\hat B\end{matrix}\bigg)\bigg]\,\equiv\, \bigg(\begin{matrix}\overline{\hat P}&\overline{\hat Q}\cr \hat Q&\hat P\end{matrix}\bigg), \end{equation} we infer from the previous result (\ref{derger}) that \begin{equation} \omega_\rho\big(\ee^{\hspace{0.03cm}\ii\CA}\big)\,=\,\ee^{i\sum\limits_{i,n}B_{in,in} b_{ni}}\det\big(\ee^{\ii\hat B}\hat P\big)^{-1/2}\,. \label{fpr} \end{equation} \vskip 0.1cm The above calculation can be applied to the operator $\CA$ corresponding to the excited modes part of $\,\sum\limits_i\lambda_i\big(H_i^0+\Delta H_i(t)\big)\,$ for any time $\,t$, \,but we shall limit ourselves to the simpler instance when $\,t=2L$. \,In that case \begin{equation} \CA\,=\,\sfrac{\pi}{L}\sum\limits_{i,i'}(O\lambda O)_{ii'} \sum\limits_{n=1}^\infty\tilde \alpha_{(-2n)i}\tilde\alpha_{(2n)i'}\,, \end{equation} see (\ref{itom}), \,with the identification \begin{equation} \sfrac{\tilde\alpha_{(2n)i}}{(2n)^{1/2}}\equiv a_{ni}\,,\qquad \sfrac{\tilde\alpha_{(-2n)i}}{(2n)^{1/2}}\equiv a^\dagger_{ni}\,, \end{equation} so that \begin{equation} A_{ni,n'i'}=0\,,\qquad B_{ni,n'i'}=\sfrac{2\pi}{L}(O\lambda O)_{ii'}n \,\delta_{nn'}\,. \end{equation} For the density matrix, we shall take \begin{equation} \rho\,=\,\sfrac{1}{Z_{\beta}}\, \ee^{-\frac{\pi}{2L}\sum\limits_i\beta_i\sum\limits_{n>0}\tilde\alpha_{(-2n)i}\tilde \alpha_{(2n)i}} \end{equation} so that the state $\,\omega_\rho\,$ coincides with $\,\omega_0^L\,$ on the algebra generated by the excited modes. The normalization \begin{equation} Z_\beta\,=\,\prod\limits_{i,n>0}(1-\ee^{-\frac{\pi n\beta_i}{L}})^{-1}\,. \label{Zbet} \end{equation} In this case $b_{ni}= (\ee^{\frac{\pi}{L}n\beta_i}-1)^{-1}$. \,It follows that \begin{align} &\bigg(\begin{matrix}\hat A^{1,1}_{ni,n'i'}&\hat A^{1,2}_{ni,n'i'}\cr \hat A^{2,1}_{ni,n'i'}&\hat A^{2,2}_{ni,n'i'}\end{matrix}\bigg)= \sfrac{\pi}{L}n\,\delta_{nn'}\bigg(\begin{matrix}0&(O\lambda O)_{ii'} \sqrt{(1+b_{ni})b_{ni'}}\cr (O\lambda O)_{ii'}\sqrt{b_{ni}(1+b_{ni'})}& 0\end{matrix}\bigg),\cr &\bigg(\begin{matrix}\hat B^{1,1}_{ni,n'i'}&\hat B^{1,2}_{ni,n'i'}\cr \hat B^{2,1}_{ni,n'i'}&\hat B^{2,2}_{ni,n'i'}\end{matrix}\bigg)= \sfrac{\pi}{L}n\,\delta_{nn'}\bigg(\begin{matrix}(O\lambda O)_{ii'} \sqrt{(1+b_{ni})(1+b_{ni'})}&0\cr 0&(O\lambda O)_{ii'}\sqrt{b_{ni}b_{ni'}} \end{matrix}\bigg). \end{align} A little of straightforward algebra shows that \begin{align} &\bigg(\begin{matrix}\hat P^{1,1}_{ni,n'i'}&\hat P^{1,2}_{ni,n'i'}\cr \hat P^{2,1}_{ni,n'i'}&\hat P^{2,2}_{ni,n'i'}\end{matrix}\bigg)=\delta_{nn'} \delta_{ii'}\bigg(\begin{matrix}1&0\cr0&1\end{matrix}\bigg)\cr &+\delta_{nn'}\bigg(\begin{matrix} \big(O\,\ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii}{L}n\lambda}O-I\big)_{ii'} \sqrt{(1+b_{ni})(1+b_{ni'})}&0\cr 0&-\big(O\,\ee^{\frac{\pi\ii}{L}n\lambda}O-I\big)_{ii'}\sqrt{b_{ni}b_{ni'}} \end{matrix}\bigg),\quad\cr &\bigg(\begin{matrix}\hat Q^{1,1}_{ni,n'i'}&\hat Q^{1,2}_{ni,n'i'}\cr \hat Q^{2,1}_{ni,n'i'}&\hat Q^{2,2}_{ni,n'i'}\end{matrix}\bigg)\cr &=\delta_{nn'}\bigg(\begin{matrix}0& \big(O\,\ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii}{L}n\lambda}O-I\big)_{ii'} \sqrt{(1+b_{ni})b_{ni'}}\cr -\big(O\,\ee^{\frac{\pi\ii}{L}n\lambda}O-I\big)_{ii'}\sqrt{b_{ni}(1+b_{ni'})}&0 \end{matrix}\bigg),\quad \end{align} Hence, denoting by $b_n$ the diagonal $N\times N$ matrix with entries $b_{ni}$, we obtain \begin{align} \det\big(\hat P_{n,n}\big)^{-{1/2}}\,&=\,\bigg(\det\Big(I+ \big(O\,\ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii}{L}n\lambda}O-I\big)(I+b_n)\Big) \det\Big(I-\big(O\,\ee^{\frac{\pi\ii}{L}n\lambda}O-I\big)b_n\Big)\bigg)^{-1/2}\cr &=\,\bigg(\det\Big(O\,\ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii}{L}n\lambda}O\Big) \det\Big(I+\big(I-O\,\ee^{\frac{\pi\ii}{L}n\lambda}O\big)b_n\Big)^2\bigg)^{-1/2}\cr &=\,\ee^{\frac{\pi\ii}{2L}n\sum\limits_i\lambda_i}\, \det\Big(I+\big(I-O\,\ee^{\frac{\pi\ii}{L}n\lambda}O\big)b_n\Big)^{-1}. \end{align} On the other hand, \begin{equation} \ee^{\ii\sum\limits_iB_{ni,ni} b_{ni}}\,\det\big(\ee^{i\hat B_{n,n}}\big)^{-1/2}= \ee^{\frac{\pi\ii}{L}n\sum\limits_i(O\lambda O)_{ii} b_{ni}-\frac{\pi\ii}{2L}n\sum\limits_i(O\lambda O)_{ii}(1+2b_{ni})}= \ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii}{2L}n\sum\limits_i\lambda_i}. \end{equation} We infer then from (\ref{fpr}) that \begin{equation} \tr_{_\CF}\Big(\rho\,\ee^{i\CA}\Big)\,=\,\prod\limits_{n=1}^\infty \det\Big(I+\big(I-O\,\ee^{\frac{\pi\ii}{L}n\lambda}O\big) \big(\ee^{\frac{\pi}{L}n\beta}-I\big)^{-1}\Big)^{-1}. \label{todivide} \end{equation} What we have to compute, however, is the contribution of the excited modes to (\ref{et=L}) which is equal to \begin{equation} \sfrac{1}{Z_\beta}\, \tr\Big(\ee^{-\frac{\pi}{2L}\sum\limits_i(\beta_i+\ii\lambda_i) \sum\limits_{n>0}\alpha_{(-2n)i}\tilde\alpha_{(2n)i}}\,\ee^{i\CA}\Big). \end{equation} This is clearly obtained by multiplying (\ref{todivide}) by $\,Z_\beta$, \,shifting $\,\beta\,$ to $\,\beta+i\lambda\,$ in the result, and re-dividing it by $\,Z_\beta$, \,which gives \begin{align} &\prod\limits_{n=1}^\infty\bigg( \sfrac{\det\big(I-\ee^{-\frac{\pi}{L}n\beta}\big)} {\det\big(I-\ee^{-\frac{\pi}{L}n(\beta+i\lambda)}\big)} \det\Big(I+\big(I-O\,\ee^{\frac{\pi\ii}{L}n\lambda}O\big)\big( \ee^{\frac{\pi}{L}n (\beta+i\lambda)}-I\big)^{-1}\Big)^{-1}\bigg)\cr &=\,\prod\limits_{n=1}^\infty\det\Big(I+\big(I- \ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii}{L}n\lambda} O\,\ee^{\frac{\pi\ii}{L}n\lambda}O\big) (\ee^{\frac{\pi}{L}n\beta}-I)^{-1}\Big)^{-1}, \end{align} i.e. the result (\ref{exccont}). Note that the last expression is invariant under the change of $\,\lambda\,$ to $\,-\lambda+i\beta$. \,Indeed, \begin{align} &\det\Big(I+ \big(I-\ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii}{L}n(-\lambda+\ii\beta)}\, O\,\ee^{\frac{\pi\ii}{L}n(-\lambda+\ii\beta)}O\big) \big(\ee^{\frac{\pi n}{L}\beta}-I\big)^{-1}\Big)^{-1}\cr &=\sfrac{\det\Big(\ee^{\frac{\pi}{L}n\beta}\Big)^{-1}\det\Big(I\,-\, \ee^{\frac{\pi\ii}{L}n\lambda}\,O\,\ee^{\frac{\pi i}{L}n(-\lambda+\ii\beta)}O\Big)^{-1}} {\det\Big(\ee^{\frac{\pi}{L}n\beta}-1\Big)^{-1}}= \sfrac{\det\Big(\ee^{\frac{\pi}{L}n\beta}\Big)^{-1} \det\Big(I\,-\, O\,\ee^{\frac{\pi\ii}{L}n\lambda}O\,\ee^{\frac{\pi i}{L}n\, (-\lambda+\ii\beta)}\Big)^{-1}} {\det\Big(\ee^{\frac{\pi}{L}n\beta}-1\Big)^{-1}}\cr &=\sfrac{ \det\Big(\ee^{\frac{\pi}{L}n\beta}\,-\, O\,\ee^{\frac{\pi\ii}{L}n\lambda}O\,\ee^{-\frac{\pi i}{L}n\lambda}\Big)^{-1}} {\det\Big(\ee^{\frac{\pi}{L}n\beta}-1\Big)^{-1}} =\sfrac{ \det\Big(\ee^{\frac{\pi}{L}n\beta}\,-\, \ee^{-\frac{\pi i}{L}n\lambda}\,O\,\ee^{\frac{\pi\ii}{L}n\lambda}O\Big)^{-1}} {\det\Big(\ee^{\frac{\pi}{L}n\beta}-1\Big)^{-1}} \cr &=\det\Big(I+\big(I-\ee^{-\frac{\pi\ii}{L}n\lambda} O\,\ee^{\frac{\pi\ii}{L}n\lambda}O\big)(\ee^{\frac{\pi}{L}n \beta}-I)^{-1}\Big)^{-1}. \label{FRexc} \end{align} \nappendix{C} \label{app:C} \vskip 0.5cm \noindent We compute here the scaling limit \begin{equation}\label{scaling} \lim_{\theta \rightarrow \infty} \theta^2\,\phi(\theta^{-1}\bm\nu)\big|_{\bm\beta, \,\theta^{-1}\bm V}\,, \end{equation} where the rate function $\,\phi(\theta^{-1}\bm\nu)\,$ is given by relation (\ref{LDLL}). The logarithms of determinants on the right hand side of (\ref{LDLL}) will be computed by expanding: \begin{equation} \ln\big(\det(1+A_\pm)\big) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}(-1)^{n-1}\sfrac{1}{n} \tr(A_\pm^n)\,, \end{equation} for $N\times N$ matrices \qq A_\pm\,=\,f^\pm(\epsilon)\big|_{\bm\beta,\,\theta^{-1}\bm V}\big(\ee^{\mp\ii\theta^{-1}\nu} \mathbb S^\dagger\ee^{\pm\ii\theta^{-1}\nu}\mathbb S-I\big)\,=\, f^\pm(\epsilon)\big|_{\bm\beta,\,\theta^{-1}\bm V}\big(\pm\ii\theta^{-1}B+\theta^{-2}D +O(\theta^{-3})\big) \qqq with \qq B=\mathbb S^\dagger\nu\,\mathbb S-\nu\,,\qquad D=\nu\,\mathbb S^\dagger \nu\,\mathbb S-\sfrac{1}{2}\mathbb S^\dagger\nu^2\mathbb S-\sfrac{1}{2}\nu^2\,. \label{BD} \qqq Only the first two terms of that expansion will contribute to the scaling limit (\ref{scaling}). The integration over $\,\epsilon\,$ is reduced to the terms \begin{equation} \int_0^\infty (1+\ee^{\beta_i(\epsilon\mp\theta^{-1}V_i)})^{-1}\,\dd\epsilon = \sfrac{1}{\beta_i}\ln \big(1+\ee^{\pm\beta_i\theta^{-1}V_i} \big) = \sfrac{1}{\beta_i}\big(\ln 2 \pm \sfrac{1}{2}\beta_i\theta^{-1} V_i + O(\theta^{-2})\big) \end{equation} so that \begin{equation} \int_0^\infty\tr(A_\pm)\,\dd\epsilon = \sum_i\Big(\pm\sfrac{\ii \ln 2} {\theta \beta_i} B_{ii} + \sfrac{\ln 2}{\theta^2 \beta_i} D_{ii} + \sfrac{1}{2} \sfrac{\ii V_i}{\theta^2} B_{ii}\Big) + O(\theta^{-3})\,. \end{equation} Thus \qq \int_0^\infty\big(\tr(A_+)+\tr(A_-)\big)\,\dd\epsilon =\sum\limits_i\Big( \sfrac{2\ln 2}{\theta^2 \beta_i} D_{ii} + \sfrac{\ii V_i}{\theta^2} B_{ii}\Big) + O(\theta^{-3})\,. \qqq Using formulae (\ref{BD}), we finally get: \begin{align} &\lim\limits_{\theta\to\infty}\,\theta^2 \int_0^\infty\big(\tr(A_+)+\tr(A_-)\big)\,\dd\epsilon\cr &\hspace{3cm}=\, 2\ln{2}\sum\limits_i\beta_i^{-1}\Big(\nu_i\sum\limits_{i'} |\mathbb S_{i'i}|^2\nu_{i'} -\sfrac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i'}|S_{i'i}|^2\nu_{i'}^2-\sfrac{1}{2}\nu_i^2\Big)\cr &\hspace{3.5cm}+\ii\sum\limits_iV_i\Big(\nu_i-\sum\limits_{i'} |\mathbb S_{i'i}|^2\nu_{i'}\Big). \label{cnt1} \end{align} The other non-vanishing terms in the scaling limit (\ref{scaling}) come from \qq \int\limits_0^\infty\tr(A_\pm^2)\,\dd\epsilon\,=\,-\,\theta^{-2}\sum\limits_{i.i'} B_{ii'}B_{i'i}g(\beta_i,\beta_{i'})\,, \qqq where \qq g(\beta_{i},\beta_{i'})\,=\,\int\limits_0^\infty\sfrac{1}{(1+\ee^{ \beta_i\epsilon}) (1+\ee^{\beta_{i'}\epsilon})}\,\dd\epsilon\,. \label{fbb} \qqq The distinction between the contributions for different signs disappears at this order so that \qq \lim\limits_{\theta\to\infty}\,\theta^2 \int_0^\infty\big(-\sfrac{1}{2}\tr(A_+^2)-\sfrac{1}{2}\tr(A_-^2)\big)\, \dd\epsilon\,=\,\sum\limits_{i.i'} B_{ii'}B_{i'i}g(\beta_i,\beta_{i'})\,. \qqq For $\,i=i'$, \qq g(\beta_i,\beta_i)\,=\,\sfrac{2\ln{2}-1}{2\beta_i} \label{fbbe} \qqq and \qq B_{ii}^2\,=\,\sum\limits_{j,j'}|\mathbb S_{ji}|^2\nu_j|\mathbb S_{j'i}|^2\nu_{j'} -2\nu_i\sum\limits_j|\mathbb S_{ji}|^2\nu_j+\nu_i^2\,. \qqq On the other hand, for $\,i\not=i'$, \qq B_{ii'}B_{i'i}\,=\,\sum\limits_{j,j'}\mathbb S^\dagger_{ij}\nu_j\mathbb S_{ji'} \mathbb S^\dagger_{i'j'}\nu_{j'}\mathbb S_{j'i}\,. \qqq Hence \begin{align} &\lim\limits_{\theta\to\infty}\,\theta^2 \int_0^\infty\big(-\sfrac{1}{2}\tr(A_+^2)-\sfrac{1}{2}\tr(A_-^2)\big)\, \dd\epsilon\cr &\hspace{3cm}=\,\sum\limits_i\sfrac{2\ln{2}-1}{2\beta_i}\Big( \sum\limits_{j,j'}|\mathbb S_{ji}|^2\nu_j|\mathbb S_{j'i}|^2\nu_{j'} -2\nu_i\sum\limits_j|\mathbb S_{ji}|^2\nu_j+\nu_i^2\Big)\cr \quad &\hspace{3.4cm}+\sum\limits_{i\not=i'}\sum\limits_{j,j'} \mathbb S^\dagger_{ij}\nu_j\mathbb S_{ji'} \mathbb S^\dagger_{i'j'}\nu_{j'}\mathbb S_{j'i}\,g(\beta_i,\beta_{i'})\,. \label{cnt2} \end{align} The addition of contributions (\ref{cnt1}) and (\ref{cnt2}) results in the identity (\ref{LLRF}).
\section{ Introduction} Establishing leptonic CP violation (LCPV) is one of the most challenging tasks in future neutrino experiments \cite{cpv-lepton}. The relatively large value of the reactor mixing angle measured with a high precision in neutrino epxeriments \cite{theta13} has opened up a wide range of possibilities to explore CP violation in the lepton sector. The LCPV can be induced by the PMNS neutrino mixing matrix \cite{pmns} which contains, in addition to the three angles, a Dirac type CP violating phase in general as it exists in the quark sector, and two extra phases if neutrinos are Majorana particles. Although we do not yet have compelling evidence for LCPV, the current global fit to available neutrino data indicates nontrivial values of the Dirac-type CP phase \cite{cp-fit1,cp-fit2}. In this situation, it must deserve to predict possible size of LCPV detectable through neutrino oscillations. From the point of view of {\it calculability}, much attention has been paid to the prediction of the Dirac type LCPV phase with regards to some observables \cite{cp-angle}. Recently, it has been shown \cite{kang-kim} that Dirac-type leptonic CP phase can be particularly predictable in terms of neutrino mixing angles in the standard parameterization of PMNS mixing matrix \cite{pdg}. Before the measurements of the reactor mixing angle, the fit to neutrino data was consistent with the so-called tribimaximal (TBM) neutrino mixing matrix, $U_0^{\rm TBM}$, which is theoretically well motivated flavor mixing pattern \cite{tribi}. However, it should be modified to accommodate non-zero reactor mixing angle as well as CP violation. Although the current neutrino data rule out the exact TBM mixing pattern, it can be regarded as leading order approximation. Among various possible modification to $U_{\rm TBM}$, as discussed in \cite{kang-kim}, the minimal modificaton is useful to predict Dirac type CP phase. The minimal modification is to multiply $U_0^{\rm TBM}$ by a rotation matrix in the ($i,j$) plane with an angle $\theta$ and a CP phase $\xi$, $U_{ij}(\theta, \xi)$, whose form is given either $U^{\dagger}_{ij}(\theta, \xi) U_0^{\rm TBM}$ or $U_0^{\rm TBM}U_{ij}(\theta,\xi)$ \cite{one-unitary}. Among them, $U_{23}^{\dagger}(\theta, \xi)U_0^{\rm TBM}$ and $U_0^{\rm TBM}U_{12}(\theta, \xi)$ are ruled out because they lead to zero reactor mixing angle. So, all possible forms of minimal modification to TBM mixing matrix are as follows: \begin{eqnarray} V=\left\{ \begin{array}{l} U_{0}^{\rm TBM} U_{23}(\theta, \xi) ~~~\mbox{(Case--A)},\\ U_{0}^{\rm TBM} U_{13}(\theta, \xi) ~~~\mbox{(Case--B)},\\ U^{\dagger}_{12}(\theta, \xi) U_{0}^{\rm TBM} ~~~\mbox{(Case--C)},\\ U^{\dagger}_{13}(\theta, \xi) U_{0}^{\rm TBM} ~~~\mbox{(Case--D)}. \end{array}\right. \label{MTB} \end{eqnarray} While the study in \cite{kang-kim} has not accounted for the origin of such modification to $U_0^{\rm TBM}$, in this paper, we first study how such a minimally modified TBM mixing pattern can be achieved in a neutrino model with $A_4$ flavor symmetry by incorporating $A_4$ symmetry breaking terms appropriately. Then, following \cite{kang-kim}, we investigate how the Dirac type CP phase can be predicted based on the updated fit results for neutrino mixing angles \cite{cp-fit2}. As shown later, comparing with the results obtained in \cite{kang-kim}, the Dirac type CP phase predicted based on the updated fit results has different implication particularly at $1 \sigma$ C.L. \section{Minimal modifications to Tri-bimaximal mixing in $A_4$ symmetric model} In \cite{ma1}, an $A_4$ symmetric model for neutrino masses and mixing has been proposed to accommodate non-zero mixing angle $\theta_{13}$ on top of TBM mixing. Based on the $A_4$ symmetric model, we study how the forms given in Eq.(\ref{MTB}) can be derived by incorporating appropriate $A_4$ symmetry breaking terms. \subsection{Case-A} As proposed in \cite{ma1}, $A_4$ flavor symmetry allows the charged-lepton mass matrix to be diagonalized by the Cabibbo-Wolfenstein matrix \cite{CW}, \begin{eqnarray} U_{CW}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \left ( \begin{array}{ccc} 1 & 1 & 1 \\ 1 & \omega & \omega^2 \\ 1 & \omega^2 & \omega \end{array} \right), \label{CW} \end{eqnarray} where $\omega=e^{2\pi i/3}$, with three independent eigenvalues, $m_e, m_{\mu}, m_{\tau}$. This can be realized by the lepton assignments, $L_i=(\nu_i, l_i)\sim \underline{3},~ l^{c}_{1}\sim \underline{1}, ~ l^{c}_{2}\sim \underline{1}^{\prime}, ~l^{c}_{3}\sim \underline{1}^{\prime \prime} $ with 3 Higgs doublets $\Phi_i=(\phi^{0}_i,\phi^{-}_i)\sim \underline{3}$. Introducing 6 heavy $A_4$ Higgs singlets and triplet: \begin{eqnarray} \eta_1 \sim \underline{1}, ~\eta_2 \sim \underline{1}^{\prime},~\eta_3 \sim \underline{1}^{\prime \prime},~ \eta_{i(=4,5,6)}\sim \underline{3}, \end{eqnarray} where $\eta_i=(\eta_i^{++},\eta_i^{+},\eta_i^0)$, one can obtain the neutrino mass matrix in the $A_4$ basis \cite{ma1} \begin{eqnarray} M_{\nu}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc} a+b+c & f & e \\ f & a+\omega b + \omega^2 c & d \\ e & d & a+\omega^2 b + \omega c \end{array} \right ), \label{mass} \end{eqnarray} where $a$ comes from $<\eta_1^0>$, $b$ from $<\eta_2^0>$, $c$ from $<\eta_3^0>$, $d$ from $<\eta_4^0>$, $e$ from $<\eta_5^0>$, $f$ from $<\eta_6^0>$. To achieve TBM mixing pattern of the neutrino mixing matrix, $A_4$ flavor symmetry should be broken to $Z_2$ in such a way that $b=c$ and $e=f=0$. Then, the neutrino mass matrix in the flavor basis where the charged lepton mass matrix is diagonal is given by \begin{eqnarray} M_{\nu}^{(e,\mu,\tau)}=U^{\dagger}_{CW} M_{\nu} U^{\ast}_{CW} =\left(\begin{array}{ccc} a+(2d/3) & b-(d/3) & b-(d/3) \\ b-(d/3) & b+(2d/3) & a-(d/3) \\ b-(d/3) & a-(d/3)& b+(2d/3) \end{array} \right ), \end{eqnarray} which is diagonalized by the TBM mixing matrix $U_0^{\rm TBM}$. To achieve non-zero mixing angle $\theta_{13}$ so as to accommodate neutrino data from reactor experiments, we take $b=c$ and $e=-f \equiv \epsilon\ne 0$ in Eq.(\ref{mass}), and then the neutrino mass matrix in the $A_4$ basis is given by \begin{eqnarray} M_{\nu}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc} a+2b & \epsilon & -\epsilon \\ \epsilon &a-b & d \\ -\epsilon & d & a-b \end{array} \right ). \label{mass2} \end{eqnarray} In the flavor basis, the neutrino mass matrix can be rewritten as \begin{eqnarray} M_{\nu}^{(e,\mu,\tau)}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc} a+(2d/3) & b-(d/3) & b-(d/3) \\ b-(d/3) & b+(2d/3) & a-(d/3) \\ b-(d/3) & a-(d/3)& b+(2d/3) \end{array} \right ) +\frac{i}{\sqrt{3}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc} 0& -\epsilon & \epsilon \\ -\epsilon & -2\epsilon & 0 \\ \epsilon & 0 & 2\epsilon \end{array} \right ). \label{mass2} \end{eqnarray} Rotating the mass matrix given in Eq.(\ref{mass2}) by TBM mixing matrix, we get \begin{eqnarray} \left(\begin{array}{ccc} a-b+d & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & a+ 2 b & X \\ 0 & X & b-a+d \end{array} \right), \label{massA} \end{eqnarray} where $X=\sqrt{2}i \epsilon$ and non-zero entries are complex in general. It can be easily shown that the mass matrix given by Eq.(\ref{mass2}) can be diagonalized by \begin{eqnarray} V^{\prime}=U_0^{\rm TBM} \left(\begin{array}{ccc} 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \cos\theta & -\sin\theta e^{-i\xi} \\ 0 & \sin\theta e^{i\xi} & \cos\theta \end{array} \right )\cdot P_{\beta}, \label{mixing1} \end{eqnarray} where $P_{\beta}={\rm Diag}[e^{i\beta_1}, e^{i\beta_2}, e^{i\beta_3}]$. Now, let us check testability of the cases in this neutrino model by taking into account the sum-rules among the light neutrino masses \cite{sum-rule}. In the leading order, the mass eigenvalues are given by $m^{0}_1=a-b+d,~ m^{0}_2=a+2b, ~m^{0}_3=b-a+d$, and thus we get the mass sum rules \begin{eqnarray} m^{0}_{3}&=& m^{0}_{2} + m^{0}_{1}, ~~~\mbox{for} ~~a=0, \nonumber \\ m^{0}_{1}&=& 2 m^{0}_{2} + m^{0}_{3},~~~\mbox{for}~~ b=0. \label{sumruleA} \end{eqnarray} Inclusing the perturbation given by the second matrix in Eq.(\ref{mass2}), we get the following sum rule, \begin{eqnarray} \hat{m}_{2}+\hat{m}_{3}= \hat{m}_2^0+\hat{m}^{0}_3, \label{sum-ruleA2} \end{eqnarray} where $\hat{m}_{2}\equiv m_2 e^{-i\xi}, ~\hat{m}_{3}\equiv m_3 e^{i\xi}, ~\hat{m}_{2}^0\equiv m_2^0 e^{-i\xi}, ~\hat{m}_{3}^0\equiv m_3^0 e^{i\xi}$ with $m_{i(=1,2,3)}$ representing the mass eigenvalues obtained by diagonalizing the mass matrix Eq.(\ref{massA}). Plugging Eq.(\ref{sumruleA}) into Eq.(\ref{sum-ruleA2}), we can get the following sum rules for $\xi=0, ~\pi, ~2\pi$, \begin{eqnarray} m_1+ m_2 - m_3 &=& 2~ \delta m_2, ~~~\mbox{for} ~~a=0, \nonumber \\ 2 m_2 + m_3 - m_1 &=& \delta m_2, ~~~~~\mbox{for} ~~b=0, \label{sumA} \end{eqnarray} where $\delta m_2\equiv m_2 - m^0_2$ and we have used $m_1=m_1^0$. The sum rules for $\xi= \pi/2, (3\pi/2)$ are \begin{eqnarray} m_1+ m_2 &=& m_3, ~~~~~~\mbox{for} ~~a=0, \nonumber \\ 2 m_2 + m_3 - m_1 &=& 3~\delta m_2, ~~~\mbox{for} ~~b=0. \label{sumA2} \end{eqnarray} \subsection{Case-B} To realize the case B, we add the breaking terms $\delta M_{\nu}$ to $M_{\nu}$ in the $A_4$ basis, which is given by \begin{eqnarray} \delta M_{\nu} =\left(\begin{array}{ccc} g+h & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \omega g + \omega^2 h& 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \omega^2 g + \omega h \end{array} \right) =\left(\begin{array}{ccc} 0& 0& 0 \\ 0& A & 0 \\ 0& 0 & -A \end{array} \right), \label{mass3} \end{eqnarray} where $g=-h$ and $A=\sqrt{3}i g$. Then, the matrix given in Eq.(\ref{mass3}) becomes in the flavor basis as follows: \begin{eqnarray} \left(\begin{array}{ccc} 0 & g& -g \\ g & \ -g& 0 \\ -g & 0 & g \end{array} \right ). \label{mass4} \end{eqnarray} Then, the mass matrix $M_{\nu}+\delta M_{\nu}$ can be diagonalized by \begin{eqnarray} V=U_0^{\rm TBM} \left(\begin{array}{ccc} \cos\theta & 0 & -\sin\theta e^{-i\xi} \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ \sin\theta e^{i\xi} & 0 & \cos\theta \end{array} \right )\cdot P_{\beta}.\label{mixing2} \end{eqnarray} For the case B, the sum rules at the leading order are the same as Eq.(\ref{sumruleA}). Including the perturbation given by the second matrix in Eq.(\ref{mass4}), we get the following sum rule \begin{eqnarray} \hat{m}_{1}+\hat{m}_{3} = \hat{m}_1^0+\hat{m}^{0}_3, \label{sum-ruleB2} \end{eqnarray} where $\hat{m}_{1}\equiv m_1 e^{-i\xi}, ~\hat{m}_{3}\equiv m_3 e^{i\xi}, ~\hat{m}_{1}^0\equiv m_1^0 e^{-i\xi}, ~\hat{m}_{3}^0\equiv m_3^0 e^{i\xi},$ with $m_{i(=1,2,3)}$ representing the mass eigenvalues obtained by diagonalizing the mass matrix $M_{\nu}+\delta M_{\nu}$. Plugging Eq.(\ref{sumruleA}) into Eq.(\ref{sum-ruleB2}), we can get the following sum rules for $\xi=0,~\pi, ~2\pi$, \begin{eqnarray} m_3 - m_2 - m_1=2~\delta m_3, ~~~\mbox{for}~~ a=0, \nonumber \\ m_3+2 m_2 - m_1 = 2~\delta m_3, ~~~\mbox{for}~~ b=0, \label{sumB} \end{eqnarray} where $\delta m_3\equiv m_3 - m^0_3$ and we have used $m_2=m_2^0$. The sum rules for $\xi=\pi/2, (3\pi/2)$ are \begin{eqnarray} m_1 - m_3 + m_2=0, ~~~\mbox{for}~~ a=0, \nonumber \\ m_1 - 2 m_2 - m_3 = 0, ~~~\mbox{for}~~ b=0. \label{sumB2} \end{eqnarray} \subsection{Case-C} The case C can be realized by adding the $A_4$ breaking term $\delta M_l$ to the charged lepton mass matrix $M_{l}$ : \begin{eqnarray} \delta M_{l}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc} g_1 v_1 & g_2 v_1 & 0 \\ g_1 \omega v_2 & g_2 v_2 & 0 \\ g_1 \omega^2 v_3 & g_3 v_3 & 0 \end{array} \right) . \label{charged1} \end{eqnarray} Taking $v_1=v_2=v_3$ and $g_1=g_2=g$, the matrix given by (\ref{charged1}) becomes \begin{eqnarray} \delta M_{l}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc} g v & g v & 0 \\ g \omega v & g v & 0 \\ g \omega^2 v & g v & 0 \end{array} \right) =U_{CW}\left( \begin{array}{ccc} 0 & g & 0 \\ g & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array}\right)\sqrt{3} v . \end{eqnarray} Due to the addition of $\delta M_{l}$, the PMNS mixing matrix should be changed to $U^{\dagger}_{12}(\theta,\xi) U_0^{\rm TBM}P_{\beta}$. For Case C, the sum rules are given by Eq.(\ref{sumruleA}). \subsection{Case-D} Similarily, the case D can be achieved by adding the following matrix $\delta M_{l}$ to the charged lepton mass matrix $M_l$: \begin{eqnarray} \delta M_{l}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc} g_1 v_1 & 0 &g_2 v_1 \\ g_1 \omega^2 v_2 & 0 & g_2 v_2 \\ g_1 \omega v_3 & 0 & g_3 v_3 \end{array} \right) . \label{charged2} \end{eqnarray} Taking $v_1=v_2=v_3$ and $g_1=g_2=g$, the matrix given in (\ref{charged2}) becomes \begin{eqnarray} \delta M_{l}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc} g v & 0& g v \\ g \omega^2 v & 0 & g v \\ g \omega v & 0 & g v \end{array} \right) =U_{CW}\left( \begin{array}{ccc} 0 & 0 & g \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \\ g & 0 & 0 \end{array}\right)\sqrt{3} v . \end{eqnarray} The addition of $\delta M_{l}$ causes the PMNS mixing matrix changed to $U^{\dagger}_{13}(\theta,\xi) U_0^{\rm TBM}P_{\beta}$. For Case D, the sum rules are given by Eq.(\ref{sumruleA}). \section{Predictions of Dirac-type CP Phase} Now, let us review how to predict Dirac-type CP phase in PMNS mixing matrix with regards to neutrino mixing angles presented in \cite{kang-kim}. Multiplying $V$ given in Eq.(\ref{MTB}) by phase matrices $P_{\alpha}$ and $P_{\beta}$ that can be arisen from the charged lepton sector and neutrino sector, respectively, we can equate it with the standard parameterization of the PMN mixing matrix as follows: \begin{eqnarray} &&P_{\alpha}\cdot V \cdot P_{\beta} = U^{\rm ST} = U_0^{\rm PMNS}\cdot P_{\phi}\nonumber \\ &&= \left(\begin{array}{ccc} c_{12}c_{13} & s_{12}c_{13} & s_{13}e^{-i\delta_D}\\ -s_{12}c_{23}-c_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta_D} & c_{12}c_{23}-s_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta_D}& s_{23}c_{13} \\ s_{12}s_{23}-c_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta_D} & -c_{12}s_{23}-s_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta_D}& c_{23}c_{13} \\ \end{array}\right)P_{\phi} . \label{standard} \end{eqnarray} The equivalence between both parameterizations dictates the following relations, \begin{eqnarray} V_{ij}e^{i(\alpha_i + \beta_j)} = U^{\rm ST}_{ij} = (U_0^{\rm PMNS})_{ij} e^{i\phi_j} ~. \label{rel1} \end{eqnarray} \subsection{Case A and B} Applying $|V_{13}|=|U_{13}^{\rm ST}|$ and $ |V_{11}/V_{ 12}|=|U_{11}^{\rm ST}/U_{12}^{\rm ST}|$, we obtain the relations \begin{eqnarray} \sin^2\theta &&= 3 s^2_{13}, \nonumber \\ \cos^2\theta &&= \left\{\begin{array}{c} 2 \tan^2 \theta_{12} ~~({\rm Case A}), \label{rels1} \\ \frac{1}{2} \cot^2\theta_{12}~~({\rm Case B}), \label{rels2} \end{array} \right. \end{eqnarray} which lead to the relation between the solar and reactor mixing angles, \begin{eqnarray} s^2_{12}= \left\{\begin{array}{r} 1-\frac{2}{3(1-s^2_{13})}~~({\rm Case A}), \\ \frac{1}{3(1-s^2_{13})}~~({\rm Case B}). \end{array} \right. \label{angle1} \end{eqnarray} Those relations indicate that non-zero values of $s^2_{13}$ lead to $s^2_{12}<1/3$ for Case A and $s^2_{12} > 1/3$ for Case B . From $ |V_{23}/V_{ 33}|=|U_{23}^{\rm ST}/U_{33}^{\rm ST}|$, we also get the relations \begin{eqnarray} |\cos\eta| = \left\{\begin{array}{r} \frac{c^2_{13}(s_{23}^2-c^2_{23})}{2 s_{13} \sqrt{2-6 s^2_{13}}} ~~({\rm Case A}), \label{phaA} \\ \frac{c_{13}^2 (c^2_{23}-s^2_{23})}{s_{13} \sqrt{2-3s_{13}^2}}~~({\rm Case B}). \label{phaB} \end{array}\right. \end{eqnarray} Now, we demonstrate how to derive $\delta_D$ in terms of neutrino mixing angles in the standard parametrization. From the components of the neutrino mixing matrix for Case--A, we see that \begin{eqnarray} \frac{V_{23}+V_{33}}{V_{22}+V_{32}}=\frac{V_{13}}{V_{12}}. \label{relA-3} \end{eqnarray} From the relation (\ref{rel1}), we get the relations \begin{eqnarray} \frac{U^{\rm ST}_{13}}{U^{\rm ST}_{12}} &=& \frac{U^{\rm ST}_{23}+U^{\rm ST}_{33} e^{-i(\alpha_3-\alpha_2)}} {U^{\rm ST}_{22}+U^{\rm ST}_{32} e^{-i(\alpha_3-\alpha_2)}}, \label{relA1}\\ \frac{U^{\rm ST}_{3i}}{U^{\rm ST}_{2i}} &=&\frac{V_{3i}}{V_{2i}}e^{i(\alpha_3-\alpha_2)} . \label{relA2} \end{eqnarray} Since $V_{21}=V_{31}$, \begin{eqnarray} e^{i(\alpha_3 - \alpha_2)}=\frac{U^{\rm ST}_{31}}{U^{\rm ST}_{21}}. \label{phase1} \end{eqnarray} Plugging Eq.(\ref{phase1}) into Eq.(\ref{relA1}), we finally obtain the relation \begin{eqnarray} \frac{U^{\rm ST}_{13}}{U^{\rm ST}_{12}}= \frac{U^{\rm ST}_{23}U^{\rm ST}_{31}+U^{\rm ST}_{33}U^{\rm ST}_{21}} {U^{\rm ST}_{22}U^{\rm ST}_{31}+U^{\rm ST}_{32}U^{\rm ST}_{21}}. \label{AA-final} \end{eqnarray} Notice that the Majorana phases in Eq.(\ref{AA-final}) are cancelled. Presenting $U^{\rm ST}_{ij}$ explicitly in terms of the neutrino mixing angles as well as $\delta_D$, we get the equation for $\delta_D$ as \begin{eqnarray} \cos\delta_D=\frac{-1}{2\tan 2 \theta_{23}}\cdot \frac{1-5 s^2_{13}}{s_{13} \sqrt{2-6 s^2_{13}}}. \label{phaseA} \end{eqnarray} Notice that the imaginary part in Eq. (\ref{AA-final}) is automatically cancelled. Similarily, we get the relation for Case B, \begin{eqnarray} \cos\delta_D &=& \frac{1}{2\tan 2 \theta_{23}}\cdot \frac{2-4 s^2_{13}}{s_{13} \sqrt{2-3 s^2_{13}}}. \label{phaseB} \end{eqnarray} \subsection{Case C and D} Applying $|V_{13}|=|U_{13}^{\rm ST}|$ and $ |V_{23}/V_{33}|=|U_{23}^{\rm ST}/U_{33}^{\rm ST}|$, we obtain the relations \begin{eqnarray} \sin^2\theta &&= 2 s^2_{13}, \nonumber \\ \cos^2\theta &&= \left\{\begin{array}{c} \tan^2\theta_{23} ~~({\rm Case C}), \label{rels3} \\ \cot^2\theta_{23}~~({\rm Case D}), \label{rels4} \end{array} \right. \end{eqnarray} which lead to the relation between the atmospheric and reactor mixing angles, \begin{eqnarray} s^2_{23}= \left\{\begin{array}{r} 1-\frac{1}{2(1-s^2_{13})}~~({\rm Case C}), \\ \frac{1}{2(1-s^2_{13})}~~({\rm Case D}). \end{array} \right. \label{angle2} \end{eqnarray} Those relations indicate that non-zero values of $s^2_{13}$ lead to $s^2_{23}<1/2$ for Case C and $s^2_{23} > 1/2$ for Case D . From $ |V_{11}/V_{12}|=|U_{11}^{\rm ST}/U_{12}^{\rm ST}|$, we also get the relation \begin{eqnarray} |\cos\eta| = \frac{3c^2_{13}s^2_{12}-1}{2 s_{13} \sqrt{2-4s^2_{13}}}.\label{phaC} \end{eqnarray} We note that both cases lead to the same relation for $|\cos\eta|$. Following the same procedures for obtaining Eqs.(\ref{phaseA}, \ref{phaseB}), we get the relations \begin{eqnarray} \cos\delta_D = \left\{\begin{array}{r} \frac{s^2_{13}-(1-3s^2_{12})(1-3 s^2_{13})}{6s_{12}c_{12}s_{13} \sqrt{1-2 s^2_{13}}}~~({\rm Case C}), \label{phaseC}\\ \frac{(1-3s^2_{12})(1-3 s^2_{13})-s^2_{13}}{6s_{12}c_{12}s_{13} \sqrt{1-2 s^2_{13}}}~~({\rm Case D}). \label{phaseD} \end{array} \right. \end{eqnarray} Sustituting experimental values for neutrino mixing angles into Eqs.(\ref{phaseA},\ref{phaseB},\ref{phaseC}), we can estimate the values of $\delta_D$ for each cases. \section{Numerical Results} For our numerical analysis, we take the current experimental data for three neutrino mixing angles as inputs, which are given at $1\sigma-3\sigma$ C.L., as presented in Ref. \cite{cp-fit2}. This analysis is, in fact, to update the numerical results for the prediction of $\delta_D$ given in \cite{kang-kim} by taking the new fit to the data \cite{cp-fit2}. However, as shown later, the results based on $1 \sigma$ data is completely different from those in \cite{kang-kim}. Here, we perform numerical analysis and present results only for normal hierarchical neutrino mass spectrum. It is straight-forward to get numerical results for the inverted hierarchical case, and we anticipate that the conclusion is not severly changed in the inverted hierarchical case. Using experimental results for three neutrino mixing angles, we first check if the relations Eqs.(\ref{angle1},\ref{angle2}) hold and then estimate the values of $\delta_D$ in terms of neutrino mixing angles for those four cases. \begin{figure}[h] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig1} \end{center} \caption{Prediction of $\delta_D$ in terms of $s^2_{12}$ for Case C based on $1\sigma$ experimental data.} \label{fig1} \end{figure} \subsection{Results for 1 $\sigma$ C.L.} Plugging the experimental data for $s^2_{13}$ at 1$\sigma$ C.L. into Eqs.(\ref{angle1},\ref{angle2}), we predict the values of the mixing parameters $s^2_{12}$ (Case A and B) and $s^2_{23}$ (Case C and D) as follows: \begin{eqnarray} s^2_{12}=\left\{\begin{array}{c} 0.318-0.319 (\rm Case A),\\ 0.340-0.341 (\rm Case B), \end{array} \right. \\ s^2_{23}=\left\{\begin{array}{c} 0.488-0.489 (\rm Case C), \\ 0.510-0.511 (\rm Case D). \end{array} \right. \end{eqnarray} We see that $s^2_{12}$ and $s^2_{23}$ are very narrowly determined for the $1 \sigma$ region of $s^2_{13}$. Comparing the experimental values of $s^2_{12}$ and $s^2_{23}$ with the above predictions, we see that only Case C is consistent with experimental results at $1 \sigma$ C.L. In Fig. \ref{fig1}, we show the prediction of $\delta_D$ in terms of $s^2_{12}$ based on the experimental data at $1\sigma$ C.L. The upper curve in Fig. \ref{fig1} indicates $1.32 \pi \leq \delta_D \leq 1.52 \pi$ which is consistent with the result of fit for CP phase $(1.3 \pi \leq \delta_D \leq 1.92\pi)$ shown in \cite{cp-fit2}. \subsection{Results for 3 $\sigma$ C.L.} Plugging the experimental data for $\sin^2\theta_{13}$ at 3$\sigma$ C.L. into Eqs.(\ref{angle1},\ref{angle2}), we predict the values of the mixing parameters $\sin^2\theta_{12}$ (Case A and B) and $\sin^2\theta_{23}$ (Case C and D) as follows: \begin{eqnarray} s^2_{12}=\left\{\begin{array}{c} 0.316-0.321 (\rm Case A),\\ 0.340-0.342 (\rm Case B), \end{array} \right. \\ s^2_{23}=\left\{\begin{array}{c} 0.487-0.491 (\rm Case C), \\ 0.509-0.513 (\rm Case D). \end{array} \right. \end{eqnarray} Comparing the experimental values of $s^2_{12}$ and $s^2_{23}$ with the above predictions, we see that they are all consistent with experimental results at $3 \sigma$ C.L. In particular, the prediction of $s^2_{12}$ for Case B prefers to nearly upper limit of $3 \sigma$ allowed region. Fig. \ref{fig2} shows the predictions of $\delta_D$ in terms of $s^2_{23}$ ((a): Cases A and B) and $s_{12}^2$ ((b): Cases C and D) based on the corresponding experimental data given at $3\sigma$ C.L. Regions surrounded by blue and red lines correspond to Cases (A, C) and (B, D), respectively. The width of each bands implies the variation of the other mixing angles, $s_{12}^2$ (Cases A and B) and $s_{23}^2$ (Cases C and D). We see that almost maximal $\delta_D\sim \pi/2, 3\pi/2$ can be achieved by $s^2_{23}\sim 0.5$ for Cases--A, B and by $s^2_{12}\sim0.325$ for Cases--C,D . The values around $3\pi/2$ is consistent with the current fit of the Dirac type CP phase \cite{cp-fit2}. Comparing those results with the corresponding ones presented in \cite{kang-kim}, we see that the shapes of the curves in each cases are nearly unchanged, but the widths of each bands get much narrower. The allowed regions of $s^2_{12}$ above 0.344 for Cases C and D are excluded in the updated analysis. \begin{figure}[h] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig2-a} \includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig2-b} \end{center} \caption{Prediction of $\delta_D$ in terms of (a) $s^2_{23}$ for Cases A and B, and (b) $s^2_{12}$ for Cases C and D based on $3 \sigma$ experimental data. Regions surrounded by blue (red) lines correspond to Cases A, C and (B, D).} \label{fig2} \end{figure} \section{Conclusion} As a summary, we have considered how non-zero mixing angle $\theta_{13}$ and CP violation can be acommodated in a model with $A_4$ flavor symmetry by incorporating symmetry breaking terms appropriately. The four possible forms of neutrino mixing matrix we considered are minimal modifications to TBM mixing matrix and factorized by TBM mixing form and an unitary mixing matrix with an angle and a CP phase corresponding to a rotation in a plane. We have shown that possible size of the Dirac-type CP phase $\delta_D$ can be predicted with regards to two neutrino mixing angles in the standard parametrization of the neutrino mixing matrix. This has been achieved by equating one of minimally modified TBM mixing matrix with the standard parametrization of the PMNS one. Based on the current fit results for the neutrino mixing angles and CP phase, we have seen that the neutrino mixing matrix corresponding to Case C is consistent with the current fit data at $1\sigma $ C.L. whereas others are not so. This result is different from that in \cite{kang-kim}. Extending the anlyais to $3 \sigma$ C.L., all cases are consistent with the current fit data. We have presented the numerical results for the predictions of $\delta_D$ in terms of either $s^2_{12}$ or $s^2_{23}$ for those cases. \noindent{\bf Acknowledgments} The work of S.K.K. was supported by the NRF grant funded by Korea government of the MEST (No. 2011-0029758).
\section{Introduction\label{sec:intro}} In a distributed storage network, each file is regarded as a message, encoded into a codeword by adding redundancy, and stored in the network. Each code symbol is typically placed on a different node to provide resiliency against node failure. Both replication and Reed-Solomon codes are commonly employed to protect data but have their drawbacks. While replication incurs large overhead, RS codes are inefficient when it comes to node repair. The notion of codes with locality introduced in \cite{GopHuaSimYek}, was motivated in part, by this shortcoming of an RS code. \subsection{Codes with Locality} \begin{defn} \cite{GopHuaSimYek} An $[n,k]$ code ${\cal C}$ of block length $n$ and dimension $k$ is said to have all-symbol locality $r$ if for every code symbol $c_i$ in ${\cal C}$, the dual code ${\cal C}^{\perp}$ contains a codeword with support $L_i$ satisfying $i \in L_i$ and $|L_i| \leq (r+1)$. We will call $L_i$ the recovery set for code symbol $i$. We assume w.l.o.g. that $L_i \not \subset \cup_{j \in [n], \ j \neq i} L_j$. We will write $[n,k]_r$ to indicate an $[n,k]$ code with such all-symbol locality $r$ and $[n,k,d]_r$ if the code has minimum distance $d$. \end{defn} Codes with all-symbol locality have the property that the number of code symbols that need to be accessed to repair a failed node is at most $r$. The following bound on the minimum distance under a weaker notion called information-symbol locality was derived in \cite{GopHuaSimYek}: \begin{eqnarray} d_{\min} & \leq & (n-k+1) -\left( \lceil \frac{k}{r} \rceil -1 \right). \label{eq:dmin} \end{eqnarray} The same bound also applies to codes with all-symbol locality and is often (but not always) tight, see \cite{PraLalKum_isit} for instance. The Pyramid codes introduced in~\cite{HuaCheLi} are shown in \cite{GopHuaSimYek} to be an example of codes with information-symbol locality that are optimal with respect to this bound. The existence of code with all-symbol locality was established in \cite{GopHuaSimYek} for the case when $(r+1) \mid n$. Codes with locality also go by the names locally repairable codes~\cite{PapDim} or local reconstruction codes~\cite{HuaSimXu_etal_azure}. A class of codes with all-symbol locality known as {\em homomorphic self-repairing codes} were constructed in \cite{OggDat} with the aid of linearized polynomials. An example provided in \cite{OggDat} is optimal with respect to the bound in \eqref{eq:dmin}. A general construction of optimal codes with all-symbol locality is provided in \cite{SilRawVis}, that is based on the construction of Gabidulin maximum rank-distance codes. An upper bound on minimum distance, similar to that in \eqref{eq:dmin}, was derived in \cite{PapDim}, that applies also to non-linear codes. Also provided, in \cite{PapDim}, is an explicit construction of a class of linear, optimal all-symbol locality codes possessing a vector alphabet. This construction is related to an earlier construction in \cite{PapLuoDimHuaLi}, of codes termed as simple regenerating codes. Most recently, Tamo and Barg ~\cite{TamBar} have provided general constructions for optimal codes with all-symbol locality. \subsection{Maximally Recoverable Codes} The notion of a maximally recoverable code is most easily defined in terms of the generator matrix $G$ of the code. Let ${\cal C}$ be an $[n,k]_r$ code that satisfies the all-symbol, locality-$r$ constraints imposed by a parity-check matrix $H_0$. Let ${\cal C}_0$ denote the null space of $H_0$ and $G_0$ be the corresponding generator matrix. Then ${\cal C}$ is said to be an MR code with respect to $H_0$ if for any collection of $k$ linearly independent columns in $G_0$, the corresponding columns of $G$ are also linearly independent. The construction of optimum codes with locality given in \cite{TamBar}, has field size on the order of block length. A principal code constructed in their paper corresponds to a subcode of an RS code. The coordinates of this code are grouped together in accordance with cosets of a cyclic subgroup of the group of $n$th roots of unity. The subcode of the RS code is selected so that the restriction of the RS code to a coset of size $(r+1)$ corresponds to evaluation of a polynomial of degree $(r-1)$, thus providing locality. The degree of the encoding polynomials is shown to be such that the resulting codes are optimal with respect to the minimum distance bound in \eqref{eq:dmin}. The authors in \cite{Chen} define a general notion of maximal recoverable codes and provide a construction for maximally recoverable codes of field size ${n-1 \choose k-1}$ . In \cite{BlaHafHet}, a general form of parity-check matrix was considered with the aim of constructing MR codes. These codes are referred to in \cite{BlaHafHet} as partial MDS codes. The authors provide conditions under which the proposed form of parity-check matrix defines an MR code and identify explicit parameter sets for which their construction results in an MR code. A particular instance of their construction has field size $O(2^n)$, where $n$ in the block length of the code. For the case of a single global parity check, the authors provide a construction where the field size is $O(n)$. The authors of \cite{Plank}, construct codes termed as sector-disk (SD) codes. These are codes which for certain puncturing patterns associated to a combination of disk and sector failures result in MDS codes. The authors provide a construction for the case of $2$ global parities for handling the correction of a single or double erasure in each local code and present a parameter range for which their construction satisfies the requirement of an SD code through computer search. In \cite{Blaum_1}, the authors present a construction for maximally recoverable codes with $2$ global parities with field size of $O(n)$ that can handle single erasures through local error correction. In \cite{Blaum_2}, a construction of SD codes with 2 global parities is provided having field size of $O(n)$ to handle one or two erasures in each local code. This was subsequently strengthened in \cite{Blaum_3}, where a construction of SD code and partial MDS code was provided for 2 global parities having field size of $O(n)$ that can handle any number of erasures through local error correction. In \cite{GopHuaJenYek}, a family of explicit, MR codes for single local erasure correction is provided in which the number of global parities can be arbitrary. It is assumed here that $(r+1)\mid n$ where $r$ is the locality parameter of the code. The parity check matrix in \cite{GopHuaJenYek} has the same form as in \cite{BlaHafHet} except that the authors use variables to fill up the entries of the parity check matrix and then proceed to derive conditions needed to be satisfied by these variables in order to yield an MR code. In \cite{Li_1}, a relaxation in the definition of an MR code is proposed. Here the authors seek to correct a select set of erasure patterns. Each codeword is put into matrix form in such a way that each row corresponds to a local code. A vector is used to specify the number of columns of this code matrix in which erasure can occur, the maximum number of erasures allowed within each column as well as the maximum number of complete column erasures permitted. A construction satisfying these requirements is provided. In the present paper, a relaxation of the MR criterion termed as a partial maximally recoverable (PMR) criterion is presented and a simple, high-rate construction provided. Also contained in the paper are three constructions of MR codes with improved parameters, primarily field size. \section{Partial Maximum Recoverability} \label{sec:PMR} Given that the construction of MR codes having small field size is challenging, we seek here to construct codes that satisfy a weaker condition which we will refer to in this paper as the partial maximally recoverable (PMR) condition. Let ${\cal C}$ be an $[n,k]_r$ code having all-symbol locality and whose minimum distance satisfies the bound in \eqref{eq:dmin} with equality. Let $L_i$ denote the recovery sets. In the context of PMR codes, an admissible puncturing pattern $\{e_1,e_2,\cdots, e_m\}$ is one in which the $\{e_i\}$ satisfy the condition: \begin{eqnarray*} e_i & \in & L_i \setminus \left( \bigcup_{j \in [m], \ j \neq i} L_j \right). \end{eqnarray*} A PMR code is then defined simply as an optimal all-symbol locality code which becomes an MDS code upon puncturing under some admissible puncturing pattern. The parity-check matrix of a PMR code is characterized below. We assume w.l.o.g. in the section below, that $\{e_1,e_2,\cdots,e_m)=(1,2,\cdots,m)$ through symbol reordering. \subsection{Characterizing $H$ for a PMR Code} \label{sec:characerizing_PMR} \begin{thm} \label{thm:canonical_form} Let ${\cal C}$ be a PMR code as defined above for admissible puncturing pattern $e=\{e_1,...,e_m\}$. Then \ensuremath{{\cal C} \ } can be assumed to have parity-check matrix of the form: \begin{eqnarray*} H & = & \left[ \begin{array}{c|c} I_m & \underbrace{F}_{(m \times k_0)} \\ \hline [0]& \underbrace{\ensuremath{H_{\text{MDS}} \ }}_{(\Delta \times k_0)} \end{array} \right], \end{eqnarray*} where \ensuremath{H_{\text{MDS}} \ } is the parity-check matrix of an $[k_0,k_0-\Delta]$ MDS code and $F$ is of the form: \begin{eqnarray*} F & = & \left[ \begin{array}{c} \ux{1}^t \\ \ux{2}^t \\ \ddots \\ \ux{m}^t \end{array} \right] \end{eqnarray*} in which each \ux{i} is a vector of Hamming weight at most $r$. \end{thm} \begin{proof} Clearly, $H$ can be assumed to be of the form \begin{eqnarray*} H & = & \left[ \begin{array}{c|c} I_m & \underbrace{F}_{(m \times k_0)} \\ \hline H_1 & \underbrace{H_2}_{(\Delta \times k_0)} \end{array} \right], \end{eqnarray*} which can be transformed, upon row reduction to the form: \begin{eqnarray*} H & = & \left[ \begin{array}{c|c} I_m & \underbrace{F}_{(m \times k_0)} \\ \hline [0] & \underbrace{H_3}_{(\Delta \times k_0)} \end{array} \right]. \end{eqnarray*} It is desired that upon puncturing the first $m$ coordinates (corresponding to coordinates of the identity matrix $I_m$ in the upper left), the code be MDS. But since the dual of a punctured code is the shortened code in the same coordinates, it follows that $H_3$ must be the parity-check matrix of an MDS code. \end{proof} \subsection{A Simple Parity-Splitting Construction for a PMR Code when $\Delta \leq (r-1)$} \label{sec:simple_PMR_construction} We will assume throughout the rest of the paper that $C$ is an $ [n,k]_r$ code where $(r+1)|n$ and having parameters $m,\Delta$ given by: \begin{eqnarray*} n & = & m(r+1) , \hspace*{0.3in} k_0 \ = \ mr , \\ k & = & k_0-\Delta \ = \ n-(m+\Delta). \end{eqnarray*} Thus $\Delta$ represents the number of ``global'' parity checks imposed on top of the $m$ ``local'' parity checks. Assume that $\Delta \leq (r-1)$. Let $H_0$ be the the $(\Delta+1 \times k_0)$ parity-check matrix of an MDS code. Let $\ensuremath{\underline{x} }^t$ be the last row of $H_0$ and $H_1$ be $H_0$ with the last row deleted, i.e., \begin{eqnarray*} H_0 & = & \left[ \begin{array}{c} H_1 \\ \ensuremath{\underline{x} }^t \end{array} \right]. \end{eqnarray*} In the construction, we will require that $H_1$ also be the parity-check matrix of an MDS code and set $\ensuremath{H_{\text{MDS}} \ }=H_1$. For example, this is the case when $H_0$ is either a Cauchy or a Vandermonde matrix. Let $\{\ux{i}^t\}_{i=1}^m$ be the $m$ contiguous component $(1 \times r)$ vectors of $\ensuremath{\underline{x} }^t$ defined through \begin{eqnarray*} \ensuremath{\underline{x} }^t \ & = & \left( \ux{1}^t \ \ux{2}^t \cdots, \ux{m}^t \right) . \end{eqnarray*} Let $F$ be given by \begin{eqnarray*} F & = & \left[ \begin{array}{cccc} \underline{x}_1^t & & & \\ & \underline{x}_2^t & & \\ & & \ddots & \\ & & & \underline{x}_{m}^t \end{array} \right]. \end{eqnarray*} \vspace*{0.2in} \begin{lem} \begin{eqnarray*} \lceil \frac{mr-\Delta}{r} \rceil & = & m - \lfloor \frac{\Delta}{r} \rfloor . \end{eqnarray*} \end{lem} \vspace*{0.2in} \begin{thm} [Parity-Splitting Construction] \label{thm:simple_PMR} The $[n,k]$ code \ensuremath{{\cal C} \ } having parity-check matrix $H$ given by \begin{eqnarray*} H & = & \left[ \begin{array}{c|c} I_m & \underbrace{F}_{(m \times k_0)} \\ \hline [0] & \underbrace{\ensuremath{H_{\text{MDS}} \ }}_{(\Delta \times k_0)} \end{array} \right], \end{eqnarray*} with $\ensuremath{H_{\text{MDS}} \ },F,\ux{i}$ as given above and $\Delta \leq (r-1)$, has locality $r$, the PMR property and minimum distance achieving the bound \begin{eqnarray*} d_{\min} & = & (n-k+1) \ - \ \left( \lceil\frac{k}{r} \rceil -1 \right) \\ & = & \Delta + 2 . \end{eqnarray*} \end{thm} \begin{proof} We need to show that any $(\Delta+1)$ columns of $H$ are linearly independent. From the properties of the matrix \ensuremath{H_{\text{MDS}} \ }, it is not hard to see that it suffices to show that any $(\Delta+1)$ columns of \begin{eqnarray*} H_a & = & \left[ \begin{array}{c} F \\ \hline \ensuremath{H_{\text{MDS}} \ } \end{array} \right], \end{eqnarray*} are linearly independent. But the rowspace of $F$ contains the vector $\ensuremath{\underline{x} }^t$, hence it suffices to show that any $(\Delta+1)$ columns of \begin{eqnarray*} H_b & = & \left[ \begin{array}{c} \ensuremath{H_{\text{MDS}} \ } \\ \hline \ensuremath{\underline{x} }^t \end{array} \right] \ = \ H_0 \end{eqnarray*} are linearly independent, but this is clearly the case, since $H_0$ is the parity-check matrix of an MDS code having redundancy $(\Delta+1)$. \end{proof} \begin{note} The construction gives rise to codes having parameters $[m(r+1),mr-\Delta,\Delta+2]_r$ and hence, high rate: \begin{eqnarray*} R & = & 1 -\frac{\Delta+1}{m(r+1)} \ \geq \ 1 - \frac{r}{m(r+1)}. \end{eqnarray*} \end{note} \section{A General Approach to PMR Construction} \label{sec:lower_rate_PMR} We attempt to handle the general case \begin{eqnarray*} \Delta & = & ar+b , \end{eqnarray*} in this section and outline one approach. At this time, we are only able to provide constructions for selected parameters with $\Delta=2r-2$ and field size that is cubic in the block length of the code and hold out hope that this construction can be generalized. The desired minimum distance of the PMR code (with H as given in Theorem~\ref{thm:simple_PMR} and $H_{MDS}$ chosen to be a Vandermonde matrix) can be shown to equal in this case, \begin{eqnarray*} d \ := \ \ensuremath{d_{\min} \ } & = & (n-k+1) - \left( \lceil \frac{k}{r} \rceil -1 \right) \\ & = & (m+\Delta+1) - \left( \lceil \frac{mr-\Delta}{r} \rceil -1 \right) \\ & = & \Delta + 2 + a . \end{eqnarray*} It follows that even the code on the right having parity-check matrix \begin{eqnarray*} H_{\text{pun}} & = & \left[ \begin{array}{c} F \\ \hline \ensuremath{H_{\text{MDS}} \ } \end{array} \right], \end{eqnarray*} must have the same value of \ensuremath{d_{\min} \ } and therefore, the sub matrix formed by any $(d-1)$ columns of $H_{pun}$ must have full rank. Let $A$ be the support of this subset of $(d-1)$ columns of $H_{pun}$. Let this support have non-empty intersection with the support of $s$ local codes and the support of the intersection with the $i$th code being $A_i$ of size $\mid A_i \mid \ = \ \ell_i$. The corresponding sub matrix will then take on the form: \vspace*{0.1in} \resizebox{0.35\vsize}{!}{ $ \left[ \begin{array}{c} \begin{array}{cccccccccc} & a_1(\theta_{1i}) & & & & & & & & \\ & & & & a_2(\theta_{2i}) & & & & & \\ & & & & & & \ddots & & & \\ & & & & & & & & a_s(\theta_{si})& \\ \hline \cdots & 1 & \cdots & \cdots & 1 & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & 1 & \cdots \\ \cdots & \theta_{1i} & \cdots & \cdots & \theta_{2i} & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \theta_{si} & \cdots \\ \cdots & \theta_{1i}^2 & \cdots & \cdots & \theta_{2i}^2 & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \theta_{si}^2 & \cdots \\ \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\ \cdots & \theta_{1i}^{\Delta-1} & \cdots & \cdots & \theta_{2i}^{\Delta-1} & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \theta_{si}^{\Delta-1} & \cdots \\ \end{array} \end{array} \right] , $ } \vspace*{0.1in} where $a_i(x)$ are the polynomials whose evaluations provide the local parities. Since we want this matrix to have full rank $(d-1)$ it must be that the left null space of the matrix must be of dimension $(\Delta+s)-(\Delta+a+1)\ = \ s-(a+1)$. Computing the dimension of this null space is equivalent to computing the number of solutions to \begin{eqnarray*} \sum_{i=1}^s c_i \sum_{j=1}^{\ell_i}a_i (\theta_{ij}) \prod_{(k,l) \neq (i,j) } \frac{(x-\theta_{kl})}{(\theta_{ij}-\theta_{kl})} & = & f(x) , \end{eqnarray*} where $f(x)$ is generic notation for a polynomial of degree $\leq (\Delta-1)$. Let us define \begin{eqnarray*} E_i(x) & = & \sum_{j=1}^{\ell_i}a_i (\theta_{ij}) \prod_{(k,l) \neq (i,j) } \frac{(x-\theta_{kl})}{(\theta_{ij}-\theta_{kl})} , \end{eqnarray*} and note that each $E_i(x)$ will in general, have degree $(\Delta+a)$. Consider the matrix $E$ whose rows correspond to the coefficients of $E_i(x)$. It follows that the first $(a+1)$ columns of $E$ must have full rank. \subsection{Restriction to the Case $a=1$, i.e., $r \leq \Delta\leq 2r-1$} We now assume that $a=1$ so that $(a+1)=2$ and we need the first $2$ columns of $E$ to have rank $=2$. We consider the $(2 \times 2)$ sub matrix made up of the first two rows and first two columns of $E$. The determinant of this $(2 \times 2)$ upper-left matrix formed of $E$ is given by \begin{eqnarray*} \det \left[ \begin{array}{cc} \sum_{j=1}^{\ell_1} \frac{a_1(\theta_{1j})}{P_{1j}} & \sum_{j=1}^{\ell_1} \frac{a_1(\theta_{1j})\left( \sum_{(k,l) \neq (1,j)} \theta_{kl} \right)}{P_{1j}} \\ \sum_{j=1}^{\ell_2} \frac{a_2(\theta_{2j})}{P_{2j}} & \sum_{j=1}^{\ell_2} \frac{a_2(\theta_{2j})\left( \sum_{(k,l) \neq (2,j)} \theta_{kl} \right)}{P_{2j}} \\ \end{array} \right] \\ = - \det \left[ \begin{array}{cc} \sum_{j=1}^{\ell_1} \frac{a_1(\theta_{1j})}{P_{1j}} & \sum_{j=1}^{\ell_1} \frac{a_1(\theta_{1j}) \theta_{1j} }{P_{1j}} \\ \sum_{j=1}^{\ell_2} \frac{a_2(\theta_{2j})}{P_{2j}} & \sum_{j=1}^{\ell_2} \frac{a_2(\theta_{2j}) \theta_{2j}}{P_{2j}} \\ \end{array} \right] \end{eqnarray*} where \begin{eqnarray*} P_{ij} & = & \prod_{(k,l) \neq (i,j)} (\theta_{ij}-\theta_{kl}) \end{eqnarray*} This is equal to \begin{eqnarray*} \sum_{j=1}^{\ell_1} \sum_{t=1}^{\ell_2} \frac{a_1(\theta_{1j})a_2(\theta_{2t})}{P_{1j}P_{2t}}(\theta_{1j}-\theta_{2t}). \end{eqnarray*} Let $\Delta=2r-1$ and $a_1(\theta_{1j}) = \theta_{1j}$, $a_2(\theta_{2t}) = \theta_{2t}$, $\theta_{ij} = \xi + h_{ij}, \ h_{ij} \in \mathbb{F}_q$ and $\xi \ \in \ \mathbb{F}_{q^3} \setminus \mathbb{F}_q$. Then this becomes: \begin{eqnarray*} \sum_{j=1}^{\ell_1} \sum_{t=1}^{\ell_2} \frac{ \left(\xi^2 + \xi (h_{1j}+h_{2t}) +h_{1j}h_{2t} \right)} {P_{1j}(\theta_{1j})P_{2t}(\theta_{2t})}(\theta_{1j}-\theta_{2t}) \\ = A\xi^2 + B\xi + C \end{eqnarray*} with $A,B,C \in \mathbb{F}_q$ which will be nonzero if the minimum polynomial of $\xi$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$ has degree $=3$, unless all the coefficients are equal to zero. \\ \paragraph{Numerical Evidence} Computer verification was carried out for the $\Delta=5,r=3$ case for $n=12$ over $F_{(2^4)^3}$ and $n=36$ over $F_{(2^6)^3}$ with $h_{ij}=\alpha^{(i-1)} \beta{(ij)}$ where $\alpha$ is the primitive element of $F_{2^4}$ and $F_{2^6}$ respectively for the two cases and $\beta(ij)$ is fifth and seventh root of unity respectively (the choice of fifth and seventh roots of unity varies for each $i,j$). For both cases, it was found that the elements $A,B,C$ never simultaneously vanished for all instances. \section{Maximal Recoverable Codes} \label{sec:MR} \subsection{A Coset-Based Construction with Locality $r=2$} \label{sec:coset_construction} Since this construction is based on Construction 1 in \cite{TamBar} of all-symbol locality codes, we briefly review the latter here. Let $n=m(r+1)$, and $q$ be a power of a prime such that $n \leq (q-1)$, for example, $q$ could equal $(n+1)$. Let $\alpha$ be a primitive element of $\mathbb{F}_q$ and $\beta$ an element of order $(r+1)$. Let \begin{eqnarray*} A_i & = & \alpha^{i-1} \{1,\beta,\beta^2,\cdots, \beta^r\} , \ \ 1 \leq i \leq m . \end{eqnarray*} Note that $\{A_i\}_{i=1}^m$ are pairwise disjoint and partition $[n]$. Let $k=ar+b$. Let the supports of the local codes be $A_i, 1 \leq i \leq m$. Note that the monomial $x^{r+1}$ is constant on each of the sets $A_i$. Let us set \begin{eqnarray*} f(x) & = & \sum_{j=0}^{a-1} \sum_{i=0}^{r-1} a_{ij}x^{j(r+1)+i} \ + \ \sum_{j=a} \sum_{i=0}^{b-1} a_{ij}x^{j(r+1)+i} , \end{eqnarray*} where the second term is vacuous for $b=0$, i.e., is not present when $r \mid k$. Consider the code ${\cal C}$ of block length $n$ and dimension $k$ where each polynomial is associated to a distinct codeword obtained by evaluating the polynomial at the elements of $\bigcup_{i=1}^m A_i$. This code possesses all-symbol locality and has minimum distance $d_{\min}$ satisfying \eqref{eq:dmin}. Note that the exponents $e$ in the monomial terms forming each polynomial $f(x)$ satisfy $e \neq r \pmod{r+1}$. It is this property this property that gives the code its locality properties. Our construction of an MR code here is based on the above construction with parameters given by $n=q-1, r=2,k=2D+1$ so that $a=D$ and $b=1$. Thus the local codes all have length $3$. Let us denote the algebraic closure of $\mathbb{F}_q$ by $\mathbb{F}$. \begin{thm} \label{thm:neat5} Given positive integers $N, D$ with $\frac{2D}{N} < \frac{2}{3}$ and \begin{eqnarray*} q & > & \Sigma_{j=2}^{2D} \lfloor{j g(j)} \rfloor {(\frac{N}{3}-1) \choose j} 3^{j} + N-2 , \end{eqnarray*} where \begin{eqnarray*} g(j) & = & \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} 1 & \text{for $j$ even and $2(D-1) \geq j \geq 4$} \\ \frac{1}{2} & \text{otherwise,} \end{array} \right. \end{eqnarray*} there exists an $[N,k=2D+1]$ MR code with $r=2$ that is obtained from ${\cal C}$ by puncturing the code at a carefully selected set of $s \ = \ \frac{q-1}{3} - \frac{N}{3}$ cosets $\{A_{i_1}, A_{i_2}, \cdots, A_{i_s}\}$. \end{thm} \begin{proof} Please see the Appendix \ref{sec:MR_Proofs} . \end{proof} \begin{eg} Let $k=5,n=15$. The condition in the theorem becomes $q > 499$ whereas, the optimized construction given in \cite{GopHuaJenYek} requires a field size of $2^{14}$. The construction in \cite{Chen} requires $q > {n-1 \choose k-1} = 1001$. \end{eg} \subsection{Modification of Construction by Blaum et al. for $\Delta=2$} \label{sec:Blaum} in \cite{Blaum_3}, the authors provide a construction for an MR code (the code is referred to as a partial MDS code in their paper). We present a modification of this construction here. The modification essentially amounts to a different choice of finite-field elements in the construction of the parity check matrix given in \cite{Blaum_3} for the partial MDS code. The modified parity-check matrix is provided below. \begin{eqnarray*} H & =& \begin{pmatrix} H_0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\ 0 & H_0 & \cdots & 0 \\ \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\ 0 & 0 & \cdots & H_0 \\ H_1 & H_2 & \cdots & H_m \end{pmatrix}, \end{eqnarray*} where \begin{eqnarray*} H_j & = & \begin{pmatrix} 1 & \beta^{\delta} & \beta^{2\delta} & \cdots & \beta^{(r)\delta} \\ \alpha^{j-1} & \alpha^{j-1} \beta^{-1} & \alpha^{j-1} \beta^{-2} & \cdots & \alpha^{j-1}\beta^{-(r)} \\ \end{pmatrix}, \end{eqnarray*} and \begin{eqnarray*} H_0 & = & \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 1 & 1 & \cdots & 1 \\ 1 & \beta^{1} & \beta^{2} & \cdots & \beta^{r} \\ 1 & \beta^{2} & \beta^{4} & \cdots & \beta^{2r} \\ \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\ 1 & \beta^{\delta-1} & \beta^{2(\delta-1)} & \cdots & \beta^{r(\delta-1)} \end{pmatrix}. \end{eqnarray*} In the above, $\alpha$ is a primitive element of $F_q$ and $\beta$ is a $\psi$th root of unity for any $\psi \geq r+1$ and hence $\psi$ divides $q-1$. Using the closed-form expression for the determinant given in \cite{Blaum_3}, it can be seen that this construction yields an MR code with field size $q-1 \geq \psi m$. Note that the field size is independent of $\delta$. \section{Non-Explicit Construction of MR Codes with $O(n^{\Delta-1})$ Field Size } \label{sec:non_explicit} In this section we provide a construction for MR codes derived by ensuring that certain polynomial constraints which reflect the rank conditions the parity-check matrix of an MR code has to satisfy, hold. Our starting point is the canonical form of the parity-check matrix for an MR code given in Theorem~\ref{thm:canonical_form}. In our construction, the sub-matrix $H_{MDS}$ is fixed and we show the existence of assignment of values to the local parities corresponding to the elements of $F$ that result in an MR code. Our approach yields improved field size in comparison with the approach in Lemma 32 of \cite{GopHuaJenYek}. \begin{thm} \label{thm:neat1} There exists a choice of $x_{ij}$ such that \begin{eqnarray*} H & = & \left[ \begin{array}{c|c} I_m & \underbrace{F}_{(m \times k_0)} \\ \hline [0]& \underbrace{\ensuremath{H_{\text{MDS}} \ }}_{(\Delta \times k_0)} \end{array} \right], \end{eqnarray*} \begin{eqnarray*} F & = & \left[ \begin{array}{cccc} \underline{x}_1^t & & & \\ & \underline{x}_2^t & & \\ & & \ddots & \\ & & & \underline{x}_{m}^t \end{array} \right] \end{eqnarray*} \begin{eqnarray*} \underline{x}_i^t & = & (x_{i1},\ x_{i1}, \cdots ,\ x_{ir}) \end{eqnarray*} is a maximally recoverable code for any $H_{MDS}$ with a field size of $O(n^{\Delta-1})$ (for fixed $r,\Delta$). \end{thm} \begin{proof} The proof is skipped for lack of space. \end{proof} The above construction can be extended in a straight forward manner to give maximal recoverable codes with field size of $O(n^{\Delta-1})$ when the matrix $F$ is made up of blocks of $\delta \times (r+1)$ local codes where we correct $\delta$ erasures in each local code. \section*{Acknowledgment} The authors would like to thank P. Gopalan for introducing us to this problem and for subsequent, useful discussions. \bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
\section{Introduction \& Motivation} Incident gravitational wave (GW) observations have the potential to address some of the most important unsolved problems in astronomy and theoretical astrophysics. These include testing GR in the strong field regime, determining the engine behind short-hard gamma-ray-bursts, constraining the equation of state above nuclear densities, revealing how compact binaries form and evolve, as well as uncovering the distributions of black hole spins and masses, just to name a few. However, it is well known that unless some coincident electromagnetic (EM) counterpart from the GW source is observed, GW interferometers alone may be unable to pinpoint the source position on the sky, hindering parameter estimation \cite{Nissanke2011,LIGO_EM_FOLLOWUP_PAPER,ShahSluysNelemans2012,FanMessengerHeng2014}. Moreover, EM signals carry additional and complementary information about the source, lending potentially critical insights about the GW source and its environment. Thus detections of EM counterparts to GWs could be critically important in this age of ``multimessenger'' astronomy, and not solely when GWs are detected first. For example, it may be possible that an EM signal {\it itself} would imply a GW source, leading to targeted searches across the GW spectrum, from the nHz band in the case of dual AGNs, to the kHz band in the case of stellar-mass binaries and supernovae. Beyond coincident GW detections, EM transients linked to strong-field, dynamical spacetime phenomena may {\it themselves} greatly advance our understanding of black hole (BH) accretion phenomena and matter at extreme densities. However, without detailed theoretical models of EM counterparts to GW observations, our interpretation of observed EM counterparts may be severely limited. Constructing such models remains a central problem in theoretical astrophysics, for two key reasons. First, observable signals are often sensitive to fluid flows and gravitational fields spanning many orders of magnitude in lengthscale and timescale. Second, the equations governing the dynamics are highly complex and nonlinear, requiring the evolution of the full set of Einstein's equations of general relativity, coupled to the equations of general relativistic magnetohydrodynamics (GRMHD). Thus numerical relativity codes capable of modeling multi-scale GRMHD flows promise to not only provide key insights into these important phenomena, but represent the starting point for more sophisticated modeling that includes advanced EM and neutrino radiation transport. More than a decade ago, the Illinois Numerical Relativity Group led by S.~L.~Shapiro was among the first to develop a dynamical spacetime GRMHD code~\cite{Duezetal2005} for uniform-resolution grids. Since then, this GRMHD code (henceforth, OrigGRMHD) has been significantly extended and improved. Its current version models multi-scale GRMHD flows via an adaptive-mesh-refinement (AMR) vector-potential formulation. By evolving the vector potential forward in time instead of the magnetic fields directly, this formulation guarantees the no-monopole constraint $\nabla \cdot \ve{B}=0$ is satisfied over the entire numerical grid, {\it even when multi-scale magnetized fluid flows cross AMR grid boundaries}. Notably, this formulation reduces to the standard, staggered Flux-constrained-transport (FluxCT)~\cite{balsara1999staggered} scheme on uniform-resolution numerical grids~\cite{Etienneetal2010,NewEMGauge,Farrisetal2012}. OrigGRMHD's reputation for generating models that address key unsolved problems in theoretical astrophysics has been built upon years of hard-fought development, as there exists no standard, proven algorithms for dynamical spacetime, multi-scale GRMHD modeling. Over the past decade, the code has been used to model a number of astrophysical scenarios, gleaning key new insights into these systems. For example, OrigGRMHD has produced state-of-the-art magnetized binary neutron stars (NSs) \cite{LiuMagnetizedBNS,Paschalidis2012} and binary BH--NS \cite{EtienneFirstBHNS,EtienneSecondBHNS,EtienneThirdBHNS,EtienneFourthBHNS,Paschalidis2014} models. It was also used to simulate magnetized disk accretion onto binary BHs~\cite{Farrisetal2011,Farrisetal2012,Goldetal2014,Gold2014}, binary white dwarf--NS mergers~\cite{PaschalidisWDNS,Paschalidis2011}, magnetized, rotating NSs~\cite{Etienneetal2006}, magnetized Bondi accretion~\cite{Etienneetal2010}, and magnetized hypermassive NSs~\cite{HMNS6,HMNS1,HMNS2,HMNS3,HMNS4,HMNS5}, just to name a few. The code was also recently extended, as a separate module, to solve the equations of GR force-free electrodynamics \cite{Paschalidis2013b} and applied to model both binary black hole--neutron star \cite{Paschalidis2013a} and pulsar magnetospheres in GR \cite{Ruiz2014}. At each stage of its development, OrigGRMHD was subjected to a large battery of stringent test-bed problems~\cite{Etienneetal2010}, which it had to pass before being used for applications. The field has matured considerably in the years since the first dynamical spacetime GRMHD codes were announced, and multiple groups now possess their own independent codes~\cite{Duezetal2005,Anderson:2006ay,WhiskyMHD,CerdaDuran2008,Etienneetal2010,NewEMGauge,SACRA2012a,SACRA2012b,GRHYDRO,Dionysopoulou:2012zv,Palenzuela2013}, most of which solve these equations on adaptive mesh refinement (AMR) grids. Given the time and effort required to extend such codes to model more physics, while still maintaining and improving the GRMHD modules, it seems clear that the community might benefit if more of us consolidated our efforts and adopted the same dynamic-spacetime GRMHD code. With its proven robustness and reliability in modeling some of the most extreme phenomena in the Universe, OrigGRMHD appears to be a good candidate for such community adoption if it were open-sourced. But despite its strong track record, OrigGRMHD was not written with community adoption in mind, instead being a code written ``by experts and for experts'' of the code. As such, the code lacked a number of features common to top-notch, widely-adopted open-source projects in computational astrophysics, including sufficient documentation and code comments, fine-grained modularity, a consistent coding style, and regular, enforced code maintenance (e.g., removal of unused and unmaintained features). Thus the OrigGRMHD core development team came to the understanding that unless these idiosyncrasies were fixed, open-sourcing the code would be unlikely to engender widespread community adoption. Thus in early 2013, it was decided to rewrite OrigGRMHD from the ground up, with a focus on the four core design principles of user-friendliness, robustness, modularity/extensibility, and performance/scalability. Slightly more than a year later, all of OrigGRMHD's core algorithms had been rewritten and the new code, IllinoisGRMHD, was released. Just after the decision was made to rewrite OrigGRMHD in 2013, the first open-source, dynamical spacetime GRMHD code, called GRHydro, was released~\cite{GRHYDRO}. Originally forked from the dynamical spacetime, general relativistic {\it hydrodynamics} (GRHD) Whisky code~\cite{Whisky} (not to be confused with its closed-source successor, WhiskyMHD~\cite{WhiskyMHD}), GRHydro shares many of the same features of OrigGRMHD, including a number of reconstruction techniques. However, unlike OrigGRMHD/IllinoisGRMHD, GRHydro's GRMHD scheme has not been developed to forbid the generation of monopoles (i.e., violations of the $\nabla \cdot \ve{B}=0$ constraint) when magnetized fluids flow across AMR grid boundaries. As accurate modeling of such multi-scale fluid flows is critically important in many astrophysical scenarios of interest to the community, GRHydro's adoption by members of the community has been limited, primarily to those who simulate core collapse. Further, one of OrigGRMHD/IllinoisGRMHD's key advantages is that these codes are capable of stably modeling GRMHD flows into black hole (BH) horizons over very long timescales, without the need for special algorithms that excise GRMHD data within the BH. By contrast, it seems that BH excision is an essential ingredient for stable GRMHD evolutions with GRHydro in the presence of black holes. To date GRHydro has been mostly used for core collapse (to a neutron star) simulations, in which no black hole is present. OrigGRMHD/IllinoisGRMHD have been demonstrated robust across a much wider range of long-term BH simulations, and manage to do so without excision. We conclude that making GRHydro's GRMHD schemes as robust may require careful specification of boundary conditions on the excision surface coupled to an interpolation scheme across AMR level boundaries that respects the no-monopoles constraint, e.g. \cite{balsara01,balsara09}. IllinoisGRMHD was originally designed in a standalone sandbox to maximize portability to other parallel infrastructures, but currently adopts the latest Einstein Toolkit (ET)/Carpet AMR infrastructure. IllinoisGRMHD has been proposed for inclusion within the next ET release, and code review is underway. In the meantime, the ET community have graciously agreed to host the IllinoisGRMHD code, in anticipation of official incorporation upon completion of the code review process.\footnote{Instructions for downloading, compiling, and using IllinoisGRMHD may be found here: \url{http://math.wvu.edu/~zetienne/ILGRMHD/}} In this paper, we present results from a number of code validation tests demonstrating that IllinoisGRMHD (1) produces results identical to OrigGRMHD, (2) possesses identical or significantly better scalability and performance than OrigGRMHD and GRHydro, (3) generates results in quantitative agreement with those of the GRHydro code, in the context of dynamical spacetime evolutions of Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff (TOV) stars. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section~\ref{Basic_Equations} outlines the formulation of the GRMHD equations solved by IllinoisGRMHD, Sec.~\ref{BasicAlgs} presents a basic overview of algorithms used within IllinoisGRMHD, Sec.~\ref{Validation} shows results from code validation tests, Sec.~\ref{Bench} demonstrates the outstanding performance and scalability of IllinoisGRMHD via benchmarks, and Sec.~\ref{Conclusions} summarizes results and describes future work. \section{Basic Equations} \label{Basic_Equations} All equations presented below are in geometrized units where $G=c=1$. In these units, Einstein's equations become \begin{equation} \label{EinsteinsEquations} G^{\mu\nu}=8\pi T^{\mu\nu}, \end{equation} where $G^{\mu\nu}$ is the Einstein tensor and $T^{\mu\nu}$ the total stress-energy tensor. IllinoisGRMHD solves the coupled Einstein-Maxwell equations assuming a perfect fluid stress-energy tensor for the matter and infinite conductivity (ideal MHD), by evolving via high-resolution-schock-capturing techniques the GRMHD quantities that comprise the stress-energy tensor $T^{\mu\nu}$, acting as the source for Einstein's equations. With these assumptions, the GRMHD evolution and constraint equations are derived from the following basic equations: \begin{enumerate} \item Conservation of baryon number \begin{equation} \nabla_\mu (\rho_0 u^\mu) = 0, \label{restmass_conserv} \end{equation} where $\nabla_\mu$ is the covariant derivative associated with the spacetime metric tensor $g_{\mu\nu}$, $\rho_0$ is the fluid rest-mass density and $u^\mu$ is the fluid four-velocity. \item Conservation of energy-momentum \begin{equation} \nabla_\mu T^{\mu\nu} = 0, T_{\mu\nu} = T^{\rm matter}_{\mu\nu} + T^{\rm EM}_{\mu\nu} \label{Emom_conserv} \end{equation} where $T_{\mu\nu}$ is the sum of the perfect fluid $T^{\rm matter}_{\mu\nu}$ and electromagnetic stress-energy tensors $T^{\rm EM}_{\mu\nu}$ in the ideal MHD limit ($u_\mu F^{\mu\nu}=0$). \item Homogeneous Maxwell's equations \begin{equation} \nabla_\nu F^{*\mu\nu} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}} \partial_\nu (\sqrt{-g} F^{*\mu\nu}) = 0, \label{Maxwells_Equations} \end{equation} where $F^{\mu\nu}$ the Faraday tensor, $F^{*\mu\nu}=(1/2)\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}F_{\rho\sigma}$ its dual ($\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}$ is the Levi-Civita tensor), and $g$ the determinant of $g_{\mu\nu}$. \end{enumerate} As written, Eqs.~\eqref{restmass_conserv}, \eqref{Emom_conserv}, and \eqref{Maxwells_Equations} for the plasma, as well as Eq.~\eqref{EinsteinsEquations} for the spacetime metric, are not particularly well-suited for numerical evolutions, so we choose special formulations of them. For the spacetime metric evolution, we choose an initial value formulation built upon first splitting the 4-metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ into the standard 3+1 Arnowitt-Deser-Misner (ADM) form \cite{ADM}: \begin{equation} ds^2 = g_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu= -\alpha^2 dt^2 + \gamma_{ij} (dx^i + \beta^i dt) (dx^j + \beta^j dt). \end{equation} Here, $\alpha$ is the lapse function, $\beta^i$ the shift vector, and $\gamma_{ij}$ the three-metric on spacelike hypersurfaces of constant time $t$. This basic decomposition of the 4-metric can be used to split the Einstein equations~\eqref{EinsteinsEquations} into a set of evolution equations and a set of constraint equations that the dynamical variables must satisfy for all times---similar to Maxwell's equations---with projections of $T^{\mu\nu}$ along and normal to the 3D spatial hypersurface existing as source terms (see, e.g., \cite{Baumgarte:2010nu} for a detailed discussion and references). This original formulation of the Einstein equations is known as the ADM 3+1 formulation of GR. A number of 3+1 formulations can be derived from the ADM formulation and are useful for solving the Cauchy problem for the Einstein equations. For the purposes of this paper, we choose the Baumgarte-Shapiro-Shibata-Nakamura (BSSN) formulation~\cite{SN,BS}, which introduces an auxiliary dynamical variable and conformal scalings for the dynamical variables, casting the evolution equations in a form that allows for stable, long-term and accurate numerical integration. To update $T^{\mu\nu}$ from one time slice to the next in a simulation, IllinoisGRMHD solves Eqs.~\eqref{restmass_conserv}, \eqref{Emom_conserv}, and the spatial component of Eq.~\eqref{Maxwells_Equations} in the ideal MHD limit ($u_\mu F^{\mu\nu}=0$), as written in {\it conservative form} (see e.g. \cite{Duezetal2005}): \begin{equation} \partial_t \ve{C} + \ve{\nabla}\cdot \ve{F} = \ve{S} \ , \label{eq:coneq} \end{equation} where $\ve{F}$ is the flux vector, $\ve{C}=\{\rho_{\star}, \tilde{\tau},\tilde{S_i},\tilde{B^i}\}$ the vector of conservative variables, and $\ve{S}$ the vector of source terms. These vectors depend directly on the ``primitive'' variables $\ve{P}=\{\rho_0,P,v^i,B^i\}$, where $P$ is the pressure, $v^i=u^i/u^0$ the fluid three-velocity, and $B^i$ are the spatial components of the magnetic field ($B^\mu$) measured by normal (or Eulerian) observers with four velocity $n^\mu=(1,-\beta^i)/\alpha$ (and is normal to the spatial hypersurface, $B^{\mu} n_{\mu}=0$, as well as the metric and its derivatives. In particular, $\ve{C}$ may be written in terms of $\ve{P}$, $\alpha$ and the metric as follows: \begin{equation} \ve{C} = \left[ \begin{array}{c} \rho_{\star} \\ \tilde{\tau} \\ \tilde{S_i} \\ \tilde{B^i} \end{array} \right] = \left[ \begin{array}{c} \alpha \sgam \rho_0 u^0 \\ \alpha^2 \sgam T^{00} - \rho_{\star}\\ (\rho_\star h + \alpha u^0 \sgam b^2) u_i - \alpha \sgam b^0 b_i \\ \sgam B^i, \end{array} \right] \label{conservs} \end{equation} where $\gamma$ is the determinant of the 3-metric $\gamma_{ij}$, $h=1+\epsilon+P/\rho_0$ is the specific enthalpy, with $\epsilon$ the specific internal energy, and $b^\mu=B^\mu_{(u)}/\sqrt{4\pi}$ with $B^\mu_{(u)}$ the magnetic field field measured by an observer comoving with the fluid. Here the total stress-energy tensor $T^{\mu\nu}$ can be written as follows (see \cite{Baumgarte:2010nu,Duezetal2005,dlss05} for further details and derivations) \begin{equation} \label{stressenergyperffluid} T^{\mu \nu} = (\rho_0 h +b^2) u^{\mu} u^{\nu} + \left( P + \frac{b^2}{2} \right) g^{\mu \nu} - b^{\mu} b^{\nu}. \end{equation} Our choice of fluid 3-velocity $v^i=u^i/u^0$ as a primitive variable is consistent with a number of GRMHD codes, such as \cite{HARM3D,East:2011aa,SACRA2012b}. However, our $v^i$ differs from that of other GRMHD codes (e.g., \cite{GRHYDRO,Baiotti03a,Baiotti04,WhiskyMHD}, just to name a few) that have adopted the Valencia formalism~\cite{Font1997,Anton2006}, which adopts the fluid 3-velocity $v_{(n)}^i$ as measured by normal observers (also referred to as the Eulerian 3-velocity), defined as: \begin{eqnarray} u^a &=& \alpha u^0 (n^a + v_{(n)}^a) \Rightarrow \\ v_{(n)}^i &=& \frac{u^i}{\alpha u^0} + \frac{\beta^i}{\alpha}. \end{eqnarray} Note that $v_{(n)}^\mu$ is orthogonal to the normal vector to the 3D spatial hypersurface $v_{(n)}^\mu n_\mu=0$. In terms of the fluid 3-velocity used by IllinoisGRMHD $v^i$, $v_{(n)}^i$ can be written as \begin{equation} v_{(n)}^i = \frac{1}{\alpha} ( v^i + \beta^i ). \end{equation} Note that this difference in the 3-velocity variable may account for some of the differences in numerical results observed between IllinoisGRMHD and (the Valencia-based) GRHydro in Sec.~\ref{Validation}, as Valencia-based codes reconstruct $v_{(n)}^i$ instead of $v^i$. Writing the GRMHD evolution equations in conservative form offers a number of numerical advantages. First, without the source terms ${\bf S}$, it guarantees conservation of total rest mass ($\int_V \rho_* d^3x$), energy ($\int_V \tilde\tau d^3x$), and momentum ($\int_V \tilde S_i d^3x$) to roundoff error. When the source terms are accounted for, total ADM mass and momentum are conserved to within truncation error. Second, it enables us to attach easily an approximate Riemann solver, yielding a state-of-the-art high-resolution shock-capturing (HRSC) numerical scheme, designed in part to minimize oscillations near shocks. Such oscillations are generated by approximating the flux derivative across shocks by smooth functions. Third, the conservative form, coupled to the HRSC scheme guarantees the shock jump conditions (Rankine-Hugoniot) are satisfied. From an empirical perspective, finite-volume conservative formulations, as implemented in IllinoisGRMHD, have been shown superior at handling ultrarelativistic flows when compared to advanced artificial viscosity (AV) schemes \cite{Mart1991,AnninosFragile2003}, despite the fact that AV schemes are typically superior in terms of ease of implementation and computational efficiency. A key ingredient in a robust GRMHD code is the proper treatment of the magnetic induction equation, which is derived from the spatial components of Eq.~\eqref{Maxwells_Equations}. In conservative form, these may be written: \begin{equation} \partial_t \tilde{B^i} + \partial_j \left(v^j \tilde{B}^i - v^i \tilde{B}^j\right) = 0. \label{B_induction} \end{equation} If the induction equation is directly evaluated in a numerical code without special techniques, numerical truncation errors that violate the divergence-free or ``no-monopoles'' constraint \begin{equation} \partial_i \tilde{B}^i = 0 \label{no_monopole} \end{equation} will be generated. Note that this equation is simply the time component of Eq.~\eqref{Maxwells_Equations}. Maintaining satisfaction of this constraint as the magnetic fields are evolved forward in time [through direct evaluation of Eq.~\eqref{B_induction}] happens to be a nontrivial endeavor, {\it particularly} on AMR grids. Our solution \cite{Etienneetal2010,NewEMGauge} is to evolve the magnetic 4-vector potential $\mathcal{A}_\mu$ instead of the magnetic fields directly, so that \begin{eqnarray} \mathcal{A}_\mu &=& \Phi n_\mu + A_\mu, {\rm and} \\ \tilde{B}^i &=& \tilde\epsilon^{ijk} \partial_j A_k, \label{BfromA} \end{eqnarray} where $A_\mu$ is purely spatial ($A_\mu n^\mu=0$) and $\Phi$ is the EM scalar potential. Here, $\tilde\epsilon^{ijk}$ is the standard permutation symbol, equal to 1 (-1) if $ijk$ are an even (odd) permutation of 123, and 0 if one or more indices are identical. Special finite difference operators for the vector potential are defined in IllinoisGRMHD so that the divergence of a curl is zero to roundoff error, which implies that the divergence of Eq.~\eqref{BfromA} is zero and Eq.~\eqref{no_monopole} is satisfied automatically, {\it even on AMR grids}. In terms of $A_i$, the induction equation~\eqref{B_induction} becomes \begin{equation} \partial_t A_i = \tilde\epsilon_{ijk} v^j \tilde{B}^k - \partial_i (\alpha \Phi - \beta^j A_j). \label{A_induction} \end{equation} What remains is to choose an EM gauge, and IllinoisGRMHD chooses the ``generalized Lorenz gauge condition'' by default that was introduced by the Illinois Relativity group in~\cite{Farrisetal2012}. The covariant version of the condition is $\nabla_\mu \mathcal{A}^\mu = \xi n_\mu \mathcal{A}^\mu$, where $\xi$ is a parameter with dimensions $1/\rm Length$, chosen carefully so that the Courant-Friedrichs-Lewy (CFL) factor remains satisfied. Typically $\xi$ is set to $1.5/\Delta t_{\rm max}$, where $\Delta t_{\rm max}$ is the timestep of the coarsest refinement level. This gauge choice therefore yields the additional evolution equation \begin{equation} \partial_t [\sgam \Phi] + \partial_j (\alpha \sgam A^j - \beta^j [\sgam\Phi]) = -\xi\alpha \sqrt{\gamma}\Phi. \label{EMGaugeEvolEq} \end{equation} Note that IllinoisGRMHD evolves not $\Phi$ but $\sqrt{\gamma}\Phi$ as the EM gauge variable. With the exception of this purely gauge evolution equation and the vector-potential induction equation, all other GRMHD evolution equations are written in conservative form and are solved via a HRSC scheme, as described in Sec.~\ref{BasicAlgs}. For completeness, the remaining set of evolution equations evolved by IllinoisGRMHD are written in conservative form [Eq.~\eqref{eq:coneq}] as follows \begin{equation} \partial_t \left[ \begin{array}{c} \rho_{\star} \\ \tilde{\tau} \\ \tilde{S_i} \end{array} \right] + \partial_j \left[ \begin{array}{c} \rho_{\star} v^j \\ \alpha^2 \sqrt{\gamma}\, T^{0j} - \rho_{\star} v^j \\ \alpha \sqrt{\gamma}\, T^j{}_i \end{array} \right] = \left[ \begin{array}{c} 0 \\ s \\ \frac{1}{2}\alpha\sqrt{\gamma}\, T^{\alpha\beta} g_{\alpha\beta , i} \end{array} \right], \label{Full_Evol_Eqs} \end{equation} where \begin{equation} s=\alpha \sqrt{\gamma}\,\left[(T^{00} \beta^i \beta^j + 2 T^{0i}\beta^j + T^{ij})K_{ij} - (T^{00}\beta^i+T^{0i})\partial_i \alpha\right], \end{equation} and $K_{ij}=-\pounds_n \gamma_{ij}/2$ is the extrinsic curvature, where $\pounds_n$ designates the Lie derivative along the hypersurface normal vector $n$ (see e.g. \cite{Baumgarte:2010nu} for more details). Finally, to close the system of equations, the EOS of the matter must be specified. IllinoisGRMHD currently implements a hybrid EOS of the form~\cite{jzm93} \begin{equation} \label{GammalawEOS} P(\rho_0,\epsilon) = P_{\rm cold}(\rho_0) + (\Gamma_{\rm th}-1) \rho_0 [\epsilon-\epsilon_{\rm cold}(\rho_0)] \ , \end{equation} where $P_{\rm cold}$ and $\epsilon_{\rm cold}$ denote the cold component of $P$ and $\epsilon$ respectively, and $\Gamma_{\rm th}$ is a constant parameter which determines the conversion efficiency of kinetic to thermal energy at shocks. The function $\epsilon_{\rm cold}(\rho_0)$ is related to $P_{\rm cold}(\rho_0)$ by the first law of thermodynamics, \begin{equation} \epsilon_{\rm cold}(\rho_0) = \int \frac{P_{\rm cold}(\rho_0)}{\rho_0^2} d\rho_0 \ . \end{equation} All functions within IllinoisGRMHD support piecewise-defined $P_{\rm cold}(\rho_0)$ (the so-called ``piecewise polytrope'' EOS) with up to nine different polytropic indices, except for the conservatives-to-primitives solver, which currently supports only one. In all code tests presented in this paper, the $\Gamma$-law EOS $P=(\Gamma-1)\rho_0 \epsilon$ is adopted. This corresponds to setting $P_{\rm cold} = (\Gamma-1)\rho_0 \epsilon_{\rm cold}$ in Eq.~\eqref{GammalawEOS}, which is equivalent to $P_{\rm cold}=\kappa\rho_0^\Gamma$ (with constant $\kappa$), and $\Gamma_{\rm th}=\Gamma$. In the absence of shocks and in the initial data used for our tests, $\epsilon=\epsilon_{\rm cold}$ and $P=P_{\rm cold}$. \subsection{Outer Boundary Conditions} We apply outer boundary conditions to primitive variables $\rho_0$, $P$, and $v^i$, which enforce a zero-derivative, ``copy'' boundary condition of these quantities at the outer boundary, {\it except} when this results in a positive incoming velocity from the outer boundary. Hence we refer to these as ``outflow'' boundary conditions. As our outer boundary exists as a rectangular box, if for example $v^x < 0$ at a given point on the $x=x_{\rm max}$ boundary plane after applying the zero-derivative boundary condition, we set $v^x = 0$ at that point. Similarly, at a given point on the $x=x_{\rm min}$ boundary plane, if $v^x > 0$ after applying the flat outer boundary condition, $v^x$ is set to zero. The same strategy is applied to the velocities for all other outer boundary faces. We also apply outer boundary conditions to $A_\mu$, linearly extrapolating values to the outer boundary. To avoid problems caused by reflections of $A_\mu$ waves from these imperfect outer boundary conditions, the unit-bearing (i.e., not dimensionless) $\xi$ parameter in the $A_i$ evolution equation is set to some nonzero, positive value, typically $1.5/\Delta t_{\rm max}$, where $\Delta t_{\rm max}$ is the timestep of the coarsest refinement level. \section{Basic Algorithms} \label{BasicAlgs} Since its initial stages, one of the primary objectives driving the development of IllinoisGRMHD has been to remove nonrobust algorithms and obsolete code from the original GRMHD code of the Illinois group, resulting in a reliable state-of-the-art piece of software that is more compact and easier for beginners to learn and extend. To this end, all of the obsolete code and functionality proven to be nonrobust in typical dynamical spacetime evolutions has been stripped from the code, keeping within IllinoisGRMHD only the set of algorithms used in all of the Illinois group's latest GRMHD publications. Further, the core algorithms themselves have been rewritten into a uniform coding standard, with large amounts of duplicated functionality replaced with a small, optimized library of functions. This section reviews the basic algorithms that comprise IllinoisGRMHD. Here the algorithms that comprise the basic components of IllinoisGRMHD are introduced, in the order in which they are called. At the beginning of the first timestep, the variables $\{P,\rho_0,v^i,B^i,A_\mu,\Phi\}$ must be defined at every gridpoint. The following outlines the basic steps in which these variables are updated at all gridpoints, in preparation for the next timestep. All updates are performed by IllinoisGRMHD unless otherwise specified. \begin{enumerate} \item First, the flux and RHS terms in Eq.~\eqref{EMGaugeEvolEq} and Eqs.~\eqref{Full_Evol_Eqs}, for the set of evolution variables $\ve{E}=\{\rho_*,\tilde{S}_i,\tilde{\tau},A_i,[\sgam\Phi]\}$, are evaluated. Three separate algorithms are employed in this step: \begin{enumerate} \item A HRSC evolution scheme is used to compute the flux terms of the $\rho_*$, $\tilde{S}_i$, and $\tilde{\tau}$ evolution equations, as defined in Eqs.~\eqref{Full_Evol_Eqs}). This scheme, as well as the technique used to compute the source terms related to spacetime curvature in these equations, is described in Sec.~\ref{rhoStau_evol}. \item Unlike the other primitive variables, $A_i$ and $B^i$ are defined on {\it staggered} gridpoints. Further, our $A_i$ evolution scheme is constructed to produce {\it identical} output to the standard, staggered constrained transport scheme of \cite{EvansHawleyCT1988}. As detailed in Sec.~\ref{A_evol}, this makes the HRSC scheme for updating $A_i$ a bit more involved than the HRSC scheme for evolving the unstaggered densitized density, momentum, and energy variables. \item The evolution of the (staggered) EM gauge quantity $[\sgam \Phi]$ is not based on a HRSC scheme, as this quantity generally does not exhibit sharp features in our simulations. Its evolution algorithm is summarized in Sec.~\ref{Psi6Phi_evol}. \end{enumerate} \item Time derivative data from all evolved GRMHD variables are then passed to the MoL (Method of Lines) thorn, which iteratively integrates the evolved variables forward in time. MoL is capable of managing a number of iterative, explicit time integration techniques, of which we typically choose the four-iteration Runge-Kutta fourth-order (RK4) scheme, both in IllinoisGRMHD and the chosen spacetime evolution thorn. \item Evaluating the time derivatives of all evolved GRMHD variables requires three ghostzones at the outer boundary of each AMR grid. The ghostzones at the outermost boundary are filled at each RK4 iteration, using the outer boundary update procedure outlined in the next steps. However, ghostzones at each internal AMR grid boundary are allowed to accumulate until the end of the fourth RK4 iteration. Since RK4 consists of four iterations, this yields a total of $3\times4=12$ AMR grid boundary ghostzones that must be filled at the end of each full RK4 timestep. To fill these 12 ghostzones for all evolved variables at the end of the fourth RK4 iteration, prolongation and restriction operators are applied, which interpolate between different levels of refinement in both space and time. Third-order, line-averaged Lagrange prolongation/restriction is performed on $A_i$ and $\sgam \Phi$, and fifth-order Lagrange prolongation/restriction is performed on all other GRMHD evolved variables. \item Next, linear-extrapolation outer boundary conditions are applied to $A_i$ and $[\sgam \Phi]$, as described in Sec.~\ref{OBCs}. Then $B^i$ is computed from $A_i$ at {\it all} gridpoints, as described in Sec.~\ref{A_evol}. \item The conservative variables $\rho_*$, $\tilde{S}_i$, $\tilde{\tau}$, and $\tilde{B}^i$ have at this point been updated at all needed gridpoints, except at the outer boundary. However, the primitive variables $\{P,\rho_0,v^i,B^i\}$ do not yet exist at any gridpoints. As these variables are required at the outset of the next iteration, a conservative-to-primitives solver is called next, which at its heart employs a Newton-Raphson-based root-finder to invert Eqs.~\eqref{conservs}, computing primitive variables at each gridpoint based on the conservative variables at that point. Additionally, there are a number of consistency checks applied both before and after this solver is called. The procedure is outlined in Sec.~\ref{C2P}. \item Next, zero-slope, outflow outer boundary conditions are applied to the set of primitive variables $\{P,\rho_0,v^i\}$, as described in Sec.~\ref{OBCs}. After this step, all variables $\{P,\rho_0,v^i,B^i,A_\mu\}$ needed to repeat this process have been defined at all gridpoints, so to proceed to the next timestep or RK4 iteration, we simply loop to (i)(a). Values for the conservatives at the outer boundary are not strictly required for the evolution, but are set anyway, based on the primitive variables, in case a diagnostics utility might require that conservatives be set at the outer boundary. \end{enumerate} To conclude this introduction to IllinoisGRMHD's basic algorithms, Sec.~\ref{ETLinkage} describes how IllinoisGRMHD connects to the rest of the ET and its spacetime metric evolution modules. \subsection{Evolution of $\rho_*$, $\tilde{S}_i$, and $\tilde{\tau}$} \label{rhoStau_evol} To evolve the GRMHD variables, IllinoisGRMHD first evaluates the source terms of the time evolution equations for $\{\rho_*,\tilde{S}_i,\tilde{\tau}\}$ in Eqs.~(\ref{Full_Evol_Eqs}). Derivatives of the spacetime fields appear in the source terms, which are evaluated via standard, second-order (default) or fourth-order finite differences. Next, the fluxes are computed via a second-order finite-volume HRSC scheme. Since point values of gridfunctions and their volume averages are the same to second order, our finite-volume scheme will converge at the same order as a finite-difference scheme. We choose a finite-volume scheme, as it will enable us to more rapidly move to a higher-order method in future releases of IllinoisGRMHD, following the strategy outlined in~\cite{Etienneetal2010}. Computation of the flux term $\ve{\nabla}\cdot \ve{F} = \partial_m F^m$ in a given direction $i \in \{x,y,z\}$ is performed with our second-order finite-volume scheme in two steps, as detailed below. First, the {\bf Reconstruction Step} computes values for the primitive variables at cell interfaces (between gridpoints) along direction $i$. Then the {\bf Riemann Solver} solves the Riemann problem via an inexpensive, approximate algorithm, ensuring the conservative variable fluxes between gridpoints are appropriately constructed along direction $i$, even in the presence of discontinuities or shocks. Upon completing the Riemann solver step for a given flux direction $i$, the process is repeated in the other two directions until $\partial_m F^m$ has been evaluated and summed in all three spatial dimensions $\{x,y,z\}$. {\bf The Reconstruction Step for $\rho_*$, $\tilde{S}_i$, and $\tilde{\tau}$:} IllinoisGRMHD employs the Piecewise Parabolic Method (PPM) \cite{PPM}, incorporating the original flattening and steepening procedures to reconstruct $\ve{P}$ at the right ($\ve{P_R}$) and left ($\ve{P_L}$) sides of each grid zone interface, along direction $i\in \{x,y,z\}$. The version of PPM used within IllinoisGRMHD is designed to maintain third-order accuracy, except at discontinuities or shocks and at local minima and maxima. As in the GRHydro code \cite{GRHYDRO} the flattening procedure within PPM was simplified to decrease the number of required ghostzones within PPM from four to three. After PPM reconstruction evaluates $\ve{P_{R,L}}$ along a given direction $i$ and the metric values have been interpolated to each grid zone interface at fourth-order (default) or second-order accuracy, the fluxes $\ve{F_{R,L}}$ are then immediately evaluated via \eqref{conservs} and Eqs.~\eqref{Full_Evol_Eqs}. Next, for appropriate handling of fluxes across a given cell interface, the Riemann problem must be solved. {\bf The Riemann Solver for $\rho_*$, $\tilde{S}_i$, and $\tilde{\tau}$:} The first step in solving the Riemann problem along direction $i\in\{x,y,z\}$ is to compute the maximum ($+$) and minimum ($-$) characteristic speeds $c^{R,L}_{\pm}$ at each cell interface, approximating the general GRMHD dispersion relation (Eq.~27 of~\cite{HARM}) with the following, simpler expression: \begin{equation} \omega_{\rm cm}^2 = \left[v_{\rm A}^2 + c_{\rm s}^2 (1 - v_{\rm A}^2 ) \right] k_{\rm cm}^2, \label{approx_disp_relation} \end{equation} Here, $\omega_{\rm cm}=-k_{\mu} u^{\mu}$ is the frequency and $k_{\rm cm}^2=K_{\mu}K^{\mu}$ the wavenumber of an MHD wave mode in the frame comoving with the fluid, where $K_{\mu}$ is defined as the projection of the wave vector $k^{\nu}$ onto the direction normal to $u^{\nu}$: $K_{\mu}=(g_{\mu\nu} + u_{\mu}u_{\nu})k^{\nu}$. $c_{\rm s}$ is the sound speed, and $v_{\rm A}$ is the Alfv\'en speed, given by \begin{equation} v_{\rm A} = \sqrt{\frac{b^2}{\rho_0 h + b^2}}. \end{equation} With these definitions, the approximate dispersion relation [Eq.~\eqref{approx_disp_relation}] may then be solved along direction $i$, noting that the wave vector along this direction in the comoving frame is given by $k_\mu=(-\omega,k_j \delta^j_i)$ and the wave (phase) velocity by $c_{\pm} = \omega/(k_j \delta^j_i)$. The dispersion relation can then be written as a quadratic equation for $c_{\pm}$: $a_1 c_{\pm}^2 + a_2 c_{\pm} + a_3 = 0$, with $a_i$ given by \begin{equation} \begin{array}{ccc} a_1 &=& (1-v_0^2) (u^0)^2 - v_0^2 g^{00}, \\ a_2 &=& 2 v_0^2 g^{i0} - 2 u^i u^0 (1-v_0^2), \\ a_3 &=&(1-v_0^2) (u^i)^2 - v_0^2 g^{ii}, \end{array} \end{equation} and $v_0^2 = v_{\rm A}^2 + c_{\rm s}^2 (1 - v_{\rm A}^2)$. Though it makes $c_{\pm}$ simple to compute, this dispersion relation overestimates the maximum characteristic speeds by a factor $\leq 2$, which has the net effect of making the code more dissipative. Though additional dissipation may smear important physical features in our GRMHD flows, it also acts to help stabilize evolutions. Note that this approximate dispersion relation is widely used in multiple codes within the GRMHD community (e.g., WhiskyMHD \cite{WhiskyMHD}, GRHydro \cite{GRHYDRO}, HARM3D \cite{HARM3D}). Once the maximum and minimum speeds $c_{\pm}$ have been computed at left and right faces, the standard Harten-Lax-van Leer (HLL), approximate Riemann solver \cite{Harten83} is then applied to compute fluxes for the three conservative variables $\ve{U} = \{\rho_*,\tilde{\tau},\tilde{S_i}\}$: \begin{equation} F^{\rm HLL} = \frac{c^- F_{\rm R} + c^+ F_{\rm L} - c^+ c^- (U_{\rm R} - U_{\rm L})}{c^+ + c^-}, \label{std_HLL_flux_formula} \end{equation} where $c^{\pm} = \pm \max(0,c^{\rm R}_{\pm},c^{\rm L}_{\pm})$, and $U_{\rm R,L}$ are the conservative variables $\ve{U}$ computed from the right and left reconstructed primitive values $\ve{P}_{R,L}$, respectively. Upon computing the HLL flux at cell interfaces, the final step in evaluating the flux terms in the evolution equations of $\rho_*$, $\tilde{S}_i$, and $\tilde{\tau}$ [Eqs.~\eqref{Full_Evol_Eqs}] is to differentiate the computed HLL flux terms along the same direction in which they were evaluated. After computing the HLL flux in the x-direction we calculate the $x$-derivative of the flux as: \begin{equation} (\partial_x F^x)_{i,j,k} = \frac{F^x_{{\rm HLL}\; i+\half,j,k} - F^x_{{\rm HLL}\; i-\half,j,k}}{\Delta x}. \end{equation} The remaining $y$ and $z$-terms in the $\partial_m F^m$ sum are added to the sum as reconstruction proceeds along the $y$ and $z$-directions, respectively. As the source terms of Eqs.~\eqref{Full_Evol_Eqs} have already been computed, to complete the evaluation of $\partial_t \rho_*$, $\partial_t \tilde{S}_i$, and $\partial_t \tilde{\tau}$, all components of the $\partial_m F^m$ sum are then subtracted from the source terms. These data are then passed to the MoL (Method of Lines) thorn, which is capable of managing a number of explicit time-stepping techniques. Although MoL supports a total-variation diminishing third-order Runge-Kutta time integrator, we typically choose the Runge-Kutta fourth-order (RK4) scheme for all evolution variables, both in IllinoisGRMHD and the chosen spacetime evolution thorn, as we find that RK4 minimizes the total error when evolving both the spacetime and the fluid. In parallel with evaluating the flux and source terms for $\rho_*$, $\tilde{S}_i$, and $\tilde{\tau}$, IllinoisGRMHD employs a vector-potential-based constrained transport scheme to evolve the magnetic fields, which is detailed in the next section. \subsection{Vector-Potential-Based Constrained Transport Scheme} \label{A_evol} Constrained-transport schemes maintain $\ve{\nabla}\cdot \ve{B}=0$ through careful finite differencing of the magnetic induction equation flux terms [Eq.~\eqref{B_induction}]. Such schemes have proven highly robust in the context of strongly-curved spacetimes; in particular those inhabited by at least one black hole. These schemes are most commonly and most directly applied in the context of uniform-resolution grids. However, their use with AMR grids can be complicated, as maintaining the divergenceless constraint at refinement {\it boundaries} requires that special interpolations be performed during prolongation/restriction. Such prolongation/restriction operators have been devised~\cite{balsara01,balsara09}, but must be fine-tuned to the particular AMR implementation. IllinoisGRMHD applies an alternative constrained-transport scheme, introduced by~\cite{HLL2D}. In this scheme, the magnetic induction equation~\eqref{B_induction} is recast as an evolution equation for the magnetic vector potential [Eq.~\eqref{A_induction}]. This scheme has two important advantages. First, it produces identical output to the standard, staggered constrained-transport scheme on uniform resolution grids and thus shares its robustness. Second, evolving the vector potential enables us to use {\it any} interpolation scheme at AMR refinement boundaries without introducing nonzero divergence to the magnetic fields, so long as we compute $B^i$ from the interpolated $A_i$. The remainder of this section details the staggered constrained-transport scheme adopted within IllinoisGRMHD. First, we define the staggerings of individual gridfunctions and the {\bf computation of $B^m$ from $A_m$}. Then the technique of {\bf reconstruction} [Eq.~\eqref{B_induction}] on staggered cell faces is outlined, and finally the {\bf Riemann solver} is described. {\bf Computation of $B^m$ from $A_m$:} In employing the standard, staggered constrained transport scheme, magnetic fields are defined at gridpoints that are staggered with respect to other conservative variables, as specified in Table~\ref{tab:staggeredBA}. Notice that $A_m$ is staggered so that $B^m$ may be computed immediately from Eq.~\eqref{BfromA} using the following finite difference representation, accurate to second order: \begin{equation} B^x_{i+\half,j,k} = \sgam_{i+\half,j,k} (\partial_y A_z)^{i+\half,j,k} - \sgam_{i+\half,j,k} (\partial_z A_y)^{i+\half,j,k}, \label{BxfromA} \end{equation} where \begin{eqnarray} \sgam_{i+\half,j,k} &=& \exp\left( 6 \times \frac{1}{2} [\phi_{i,j,k} + \phi_{i+1,j,k}] \right), \\ (\partial_y A_z)^{i+\half,j,k} &=& \frac{A_z^{i+\half,j+\half,k} - A_z^{i+\half,j-\half,k}}{\Delta y}, \; {\rm and} \\ (\partial_z A_y)^{i+\half,j,k} &=& \frac{A_y^{i+\half,j,k+\half} - A_y^{i+\half,j,k-\half}}{\Delta z}. \end{eqnarray} Here, $\phi=(1/12)\log\gamma$ is the BSSN conformal exponent. Using Eq.~\eqref{BxfromA} as a template, $B^y$ and $B^z$ can be written via straightforward permutation of vector indices $\{x,y,z\}$, accounting for the appropriate staggerings. Our finite differencing scheme is specified so that the divergence of a curl is identically zero to roundoff error. In this way, $B^m$ is guaranteed to be divergenceless at all but the outermost ghost-zones on any given refinement level, so long as $A_m$ is computed at all points. As with the other conservative variables, reconstruction of the flux terms for $A_m$ requires three ghostzones (as discussed in the next section), so the prerequisite step of computing $B^m$ from $A_m$ adds an additional ghostzone, bringing the total number to four. However, we have found that application of a copy boundary condition on $B^m$ to the outermost gridpoint on each refinement level, coupled to the use of only three ghostzones, results in qualitatively identical results to runs that use four ghostzones. We find this to be the case even in the most stringent tests, such as a magnetized BH accretion disk crossing multiple refinement boundaries, as in \cite{Farrisetal2012,Goldetal2014,Gold2014}. Thus by default, we have used 3 ghostzones in all GRMHD simulations. \begin{table} \begin{center} \caption{Storage location on grid of the magnetic field $B^i$ and vector potential $\mathcal{A}_{\mu}$. Note that $\ve{P}$ is the vector of primitive variables $\{\rho_0,P,v^i\}$} \begin{tabular}{cc} \hline Variable(s) & storage location \\ \hline Metric terms, $\ve{P}$, $\rho_*$, $\tilde{S}_i$, $\tilde{\tau}$ & $(i,j,k)$ \\ $B^x$, $\tilde{B}^x$ & $(i+\half,j,k)$ \\ $B^y$, $\tilde{B}^y$ & $(i,j+\half,k)$ \\ $B^z$, $\tilde{B}^z$ & $(i,j,k+\half)$ \\ $A_x$ & $(i,j+\half,k+\half)$ \\ $A_y$ & $(i+\half,j,k+\half)$ \\ $A_z$ & $(i+\half,j+\half,k)$ \\ $\sgam \Phi$ & $(i+\half,j+\half,k+\half)$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{tab:staggeredBA} \end{center} \end{table} {\bf Flux Reconstruction of the Induction Equation:} Accounting for staggerings, the evolution equation for $A_z$ (dropping the EM gauge terms to focus on the flux term of the induction equation) is given by \begin{equation} \partial_t A_z^{i+\half,j+\half,k} = -{\cal E}^z_{i+\half,j+\half,k}, \end{equation} where \begin{equation} {\cal E}^z = -v^x \tilde{B}^y + v^y \tilde{B}^x \end{equation} is the flux term in the standard magnetic induction equation~\eqref{B_induction}. Following \cite{HLL2D}, we compute this flux term to staggered cell faces for $A_z$ and then evaluate the HLL flux generalized for staggered grids. As ${\cal E}^z$ does not appear within a derivative of the $A_z$ induction equation (as it does in the $\tilde{B^z}$ induction equation), the flux is not directly finite-differenced prior to passing the right-hand side of $\partial_t A_z$ to the time-stepping routines. Instead, the spatial finite difference is computed {\it after} each RK4 iteration when $B^m$ is computed from $A_m$. Critically, the order in which spatial and temporal derivatives are evaluated is the {\it only} difference between the standard, staggered constrained-transport scheme and our vector-potential based staggered constrained-transport scheme. And since spatial and temporal derivative operators commute within IllinoisGRMHD's current framework, both schemes are identical on uniform meshes. Returning to the evaluation of ${\cal E}^z$, recall that primitives such as $v^i$ are defined at grid points $(i,j,k)$, so computing the value ${\cal E}^z$ at $(i+\half,j+\half,k)$ requires two successive one-dimensional reconstructions of $v^x$ and $v^y$: first in the $x$ or $y$-direction and then in the $y$ or $x$-direction, respectively. $\tilde{B}^x$ and $\tilde{B}^y$ already exist on staggered gridpoints (see Table~\ref{tab:staggeredBA}), requiring only a single reconstruction in the $y$ and $x$ direction, respectively. Reconstruction is handled via the same PPM scheme as described in Sec.~\ref{rhoStau_evol}. {\bf Approximate Riemann Solver for $A_i$:} The standard HLL formula~\eqref{std_HLL_flux_formula} for ${\cal E}^z$, generalized to the appropriate staggered gridfunctions, is given by: \begin{eqnarray} ({\cal E}^z)^{\rm HLL} &=& \frac{c^+_x c^+_y {\cal E}^z_{\rm LL} + c_x^+ c_y^- {\cal E}^z_{\rm LR} + c_x^- c_y^- {\cal E}^z_{\rm RL} + c_x^- c_y^- {\cal E}^z_{\rm RR}}{(c_x^+ + c_x^-)(c_y^+ + c_y^-)} \nonumber \\ && + \frac{c_x^+ c_x^-}{c_x^+ + c_x^-} ( \tilde{B}^y_{\rm R}-\tilde{B}^y_{\rm L}) - \frac{c_y^+ c_y^-}{c_y^+ + c_y^-} ( \tilde{B}^x_{\rm R}-\tilde{B}^x_{\rm L}) \label{eq:Ezhll}\ \ \ \end{eqnarray} In the above formula, ${\cal E}^z_{\rm LR}$ denotes the reconstructed left state in the $x$-direction and right state in the $y$-direction. Other symbols involving ${\cal E}^z$ are interpreted in the similar fashion. $\tilde{B}^y_{\rm R}$ ($\tilde{B}^y_{\rm L}$) denotes the reconstructed right (left) state of $\tilde{B}^y$ in the $x$-direction, and $\tilde{B}^x_{\rm R}$ ($\tilde{B}^x_{\rm L}$) denotes the reconstructed right (left) state in the $y$-direction. The $c^{\pm}_x$ and $c^{\pm}_y$ should be computed by taking the maximum characteristic speed among the four reconstructed states. However, we set them equal to the maximum over the two neighboring interface values for simplicity, as suggested in~\cite{HLL2D}, using the technique described in Sec.~\ref{rhoStau_evol} to estimate the speeds. The formula for $({\cal E}^x)^{\rm HLL}$ is obtained from Eq.~(\ref{eq:Ezhll}) by permuting the indices $z \rightarrow x$, $x \rightarrow y$ and $y\rightarrow z$, whereas the formula for $({\cal E}^y)^{\rm HLL}$ is obtained from Eq.~(\ref{eq:Ezhll}) by permuting the indices $z\rightarrow y$, $x \rightarrow z$ and $y \rightarrow x$. \subsection{Evolution of the densitized EM scalar potential $[\sgam \Phi]$} \label{Psi6Phi_evol} Incorporating the staggering of the EM gauge variable $[\sgam\Phi]$ (as specified in Table~\ref{tab:staggeredBA}), the evolution equation for $[\sgam \Phi]$ (Eq.~\ref{EMGaugeEvolEq}) may be written: \begin{equation} \partial_t [\sgam \Phi]_{i+\half,j+\half,k+\half} = - {\underbrace {\textstyle \partial_m (\alpha \psi^2 \tilde{\gamma}^{mn} A_n) }_{{\rm Term\; (1)}}} + {\underbrace {\textstyle \partial_m \left( \beta^m [\sgam \Phi]\right)}_{{\rm Term\; (2)}}} - {\underbrace {\textstyle \xi \alpha [\sgam \Phi]}_{{\rm Term\; (3)}}} , \end{equation} where $\psi$ is the standard BSSN conformal factor and the relations $\gamma^{mn} = \psi^{-4} \tilde\gamma^{mn}$ and $\sgam=\psi^6$ have been applied. The left-hand side of the equation is evaluated at $(i+\half,j+\half,k+\half)$, yet $A_m$, $[\sgam \Phi]$, and metric quantities on the right-hand side of this equation all possess different staggerings. Thus special care must be taken so that the derivatives on the right-hand side (RHS) of this equation are evaluated at gridpoints $(i+\half,j+\half,k+\half)$. To accomplish this, quantities within the RHS derivatives are first interpolated to consistent points prior to evaluation of the derivatives. Note that this is strategy differs from the evolution of other GRMHD variables, in that no reconstruction is applied. Methods for computing these terms on the RHS are as follows: {\bf Term (1):} For the $x$-derivative, all quantities within the derivative operator ($[\alpha \psi^2] \tilde{\gamma}^{mx} A_m$) are first interpolated to $(i,j+\half,k+\half)$. At second-order accuracy, interpolations to staggered gridpoints are trivial, requiring only averages of neighboring unstaggered points. For example, interpolation of $\alpha \psi^2$ from $(i,j,k)$ to $(i,j+\half,k+\half)$ is performed in two steps: \begin{enumerate} \item $[\alpha \psi^2]_{i,j+\half,k} = \half ( [\alpha \psi^2]_{i,j,k} +[\alpha \psi^2]_{i,j+1,k})$ \item $[\alpha \psi^2]_{i,j+\half,k+\half} = \half ( [\alpha \psi^2]_{i,j+\half,k} +[\alpha \psi^2]_{i,j+\half,k+1})$ \end{enumerate} Once $[\alpha \psi^2]$, $\tilde{\gamma}^{mx}$, $A_y$, and $A_z$ have been interpolated in this way to $(i,j+\half,k+\half)$, the derivative $\partial_x ([\alpha \psi^2]\tilde{\gamma}^{xm} A_m)$ is computed to second order as follows \begin{equation} \partial_x ([\alpha \psi^2] \tilde{\gamma}^{xm} A_m)_{i+\half,j+\half,k+\half} = \frac{ ([\alpha \psi^2]\tilde{\gamma}^{xm}A_m)_{i+1,j+\half,k+\half} - ([\alpha \psi^2]\tilde{\gamma}^{xm}A_m)_{i,j+\half,k+\half} }{\Delta x}. \end{equation} Other derivatives in the sum $\partial_m(\alpha \psi^2 \tilde{\gamma}^{mn} A_n)$ are computed in the same fashion. {\bf Term (2):} The computation of this term is made easier by the fact that $[\sgam \Phi]$ is staggered at $(i+\half,j+\half,k+\half)$ already. So to evaluate the derivative, $\beta^m$ is first interpolated from $(i,j,k)$ to $(i+\half,j+\half,k+\half)$ using the same interpolation strategy as with {\bf Term (1)}. Next, notice that this term is basically a shift advection term on the EM gauge quantity $[\sgam \Phi]$. Such advection terms are typically upwinded within the metric evolution thorn, so for consistency we apply the same upwinding strategy when evaluating this derivative: \begin{equation} \partial_m \left(\beta^m [\sgam \Phi]\right) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} D^-_m \left(\beta^m [\sgam \Phi]\right) & \mbox{if $\beta^m < 0$\ ,} \\ D^+_m \left(\beta^m [\sgam \Phi]\right) & \mbox{otherwise} \end{array} \right. \end{equation} where the second-order operators are \begin{equation} (D^-_x f)_{i+\half,j+\half,k+\half} = \frac{ f_{i-\threehalves,j+\half,k+\half} -4f_{i-\half,j+\half,k+\half} +3f_{i+\half,j+\half,k+\half}}{2 \Delta x} \end{equation} and \begin{equation} (D^+_x f)_{i+\half,j+\half,k+\half} = \frac{ -f_{i+\fivehalves,j+\half,k+\half} +4f_{i+\threehalves,j+\half,k+\half} -3f_{i+\half,j+\half,k+\half}}{2 \Delta x} \end{equation} for the derivative in the $x$-direction. Derivatives in the $y$ and $z$-directions follow in a straightforward fashion. {\bf Term (3):} The computation of this term is also made easier by the fact that $[\sgam \Phi]$ is staggered at $(i+\half,j+\half,k+\half)$ already. So to evaluate it, only $\alpha$ must be interpolated from $(i,j,k)$ to $(i+\half,j+\half,k+\half)$ using the same interpolation strategy as with {\bf Term (1)}. \subsection{Conservatives-to-Primitives Solver} \label{C2P} After the conservative GRMHD variables have been updated at all gridpoints, with boundary conditions and prolongation/restriction operators applied, the primitive variables must then be computed from the conservative variables. This is not a trivial endeavor, as the conservative variables generally depend on the primitive variables in a nonlinear way, requiring the implementation of a root-finding method. To this end, IllinoisGRMHD employs the two-dimensional Newton-Raphson solver of \cite{Noble2006,HARM3D}. Truncation errors originating from spatial and temporal finite differencing, as well as interpolation, prolongation, and restriction operations can push the evolved GRMHD quantities to unphysical values, resulting in either unphysical values for the primitive variables or no values at all. For definitions of unphysical values of the GRMHD quantities please see the Appendix A of~\cite{EtienneThirdBHNS}. So prior to calling the two-dimensional Newton-Raphson solver, we perform a number of checks that determine whether the conservative variables are in a physically valid range. If they are not, they are modified prior to calling the root-finder. Even with these checks, the Newton-Raphson solver will occasionally fail to find a root. This is very rare, and almost always occurs in a low-density atmosphere or inside a black hole. In such an instance, we set the pressure to $P_{\rm cold}$, which guarantees a successful inversion. The implementation of these checks and modifications have been described in detail in Appendix A of~\cite{EtienneThirdBHNS}. After the Newton-Raphson solver has successfully found a set of primitives, the primitives are checked for physicality, and if they are not in the physical range, they are minimally modified until they return to the physical range. First, if the velocity is found to be superluminal, the speed is reduced to IllinoisGRMHD's default Lorentz factor limit, which is set to $W=10$, where $W$ is the Lorentz factor of the fluid as measured by a normal observer. Next, IllinoisGRMHD does not include any cooling mechanism, which means that for evolutions adopting a $\Gamma$-law equations of state, the pressure should not physically drop below $P_{\rm cold}$. So a pressure floor of $0.9 P_{\rm cold}$ is imposed. Increasing this floor to $P_{\rm cold}$ exactly results in large central density drifts in TOV star evolutions. Simulations can crash in the other extreme, if $P/P_{\rm cold}$ becomes too large. This typically only happens in very low density regions or inside black holes. So at densities $\rho_0<100 \rho_{\rm atm}$ or deep inside black hole horizons, a ceiling on $P$ of $100 P_{\rm cold}$ is enforced (see Appendix A of \cite{EtienneThirdBHNS} for more details). \subsection{Outer Boundary Conditions for $A_i$, $[\sgam \Phi]$, $P$, $\rho_0$, and $v^i$} \label{OBCs} Updating evolved variables within IllinoisGRMHD requires three ghostzones per RK4 iteration, and at the end of each iteration, outer boundary conditions are applied to $A_i$, $[\sgam \Phi]$, $P$, $\rho_0$, and $v^i$ fill these ghostzones. The algorithm applies the outer boundary conditions in all directions, from the innermost gridpoint outward, as follows. For example, in the positive $x-$direction, the first outer gridpoint $i+1$ is defined as \begin{equation} \ve{E}_{i+1} = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \ve{E}_{i}, & \mbox{if $\ve{E} \in \{P,\rho_0,v^y,v^z\}$, or $\ve{E}\equiv v^x$ and $v^x\geq 0$} \\ 0, & \mbox{if $\ve{E}\equiv v^x$\ , and $v^x<0$} \\ 2 \ve{E}_{i} - \ve{E}_{i-1}, & \mbox{if $\ve{E}\in\{[\sgam \Phi],A_x,A_y,A_z\}$} \end{array} \right. \end{equation} And for the negative $x-$direction, the first outer gridpoint $i-1$ is defined as \begin{equation} \ve{E}_{i-1} = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \ve{E}_{i}, & \mbox{if $\ve{E} \in \{P,\rho_0,v^y,v^z\}$, or $\ve{E}\equiv v^x$ and $v^x\leq 0$} \\ 0, & \mbox{if $\ve{E}\equiv v^x$\ , and $v^x>0$} \\ 2 \ve{E}_{i} - \ve{E}_{i+1}, & \mbox{if $\ve{E}\in\{[\sgam \Phi],A_x,A_y,A_z\}$} \end{array} \right. \end{equation} As for the positive/negative $y$ and $z$ directions, the procedure is the same, replacing $v^x \leftrightarrow v^y$ and $v^x\leftrightarrow v^z$, respectively. In this way, linear extrapolation outer boundary conditions are applied to the vector potential variables $\{[\sgam \Phi],A_i\}$ and zero-derivative, outflow outer boundary conditions are applied to the hydrodynamic variables $\{P,\rho_0,v^i\}$. These conditions are applied to the innermost gridpoints on the three-gridpoint-thick outer boundary surface, first in the positive $x$, then $y$, then $z$ directions, followed by the negative $x$, then $y$, then $z$ directions. Next, they are applied to the second innermost gridpoints on the outer boundary surface in all directions, and finally to the outermost point. Currently, IllinoisGRMHD supports the use of the $xy-$plane as a symmetry plane, in which case the negative $z-$direction outer boundary condition is not applied, letting the Cactus/Carpet parallel AMR infrastructure impose the reflection symmetry. \subsection{Linkage of IllinoisGRMHD to the Rest of the Einstein Toolkit} \label{ETLinkage} In order to evolve the GRMHD equations in a dynamical spacetime context, IllinoisGRMHD must be coupled to a separate module that evolves the spacetime metric, typically using components of the stress-energy tensor produced by IllinoisGRMHD as source terms. The ET is based within the Cactus infrastructure, thus modules are called ``thorns'', of which IllinoisGRMHD is one. ET is structured so that thorns evaluating the spacetime metric evolution equations (i.e., the left-hand side of Einstein's equations) must couple to a common interface thorn, called ADMBase. Similarly, thorns that evaluate evolution equations governing the right-hand side of Einstein's equations couple to an interface thorn called TmunuBase. TmunuBase and ADMBase are designed to interface seamlessly, so that GRMHD evolution thorns coupled to TmunuBase will automatically work with {\it any} spacetime evolution thorn properly coupled to ADMBase. Thus, since IllinoisGRMHD is fully coupled to TmunuBase, it is immediately compatible with all spacetime evolution formulations within ET, including BSSN, and conformal and covariant Z4 \cite{Alic:2011gg} (both provided by the McLachlan \cite{McLachlan,Kranc:web} Thorn). For dynamical spacetime evolutions within this paper, IllinoisGRMHD is coupled to the McLachlan BSSN thorn. \section{Code Validation Tests} \label{Validation} This section compares the results of IllinoisGRMHD to those of two other codes written using the ET infrastructure: GRHydro, which is the only other open-source GRMHD code within ET, and the original, closed-source GRMHD code of the Illinois group (OrigGRMHD), on which IllinoisGRMHD is based. OrigGRMHD has been subjected to a large battery of stringent test-bed problems, including but not limited to standard 1D relativistic MHD shock tests, 2D cylindrical blast explosion tests, magnetized Bondi accretion and stellar collapse tests as well as (self-)convergence tests~\cite{Etienneetal2010}. Though it may be argued that IllinoisGRMHD has not been as robustly tested as GRHydro or OrigGRMHD, we demonstrate here that IllinoisGRMHD and OrigGRMHD results agree to roundoff error, indicating that both are algorithmically identical, and GRHydro and IllinoisGRMHD results agree within truncation error, indicating that both can be expected to converge to the same result. The first two parts of this section (Secs.~\ref{TOVroundoff} and \ref{randomIDroundoff}) demonstrate that IllinoisGRMHD and OrigGRMHD generate output identical to roundoff error, in two complementary, highly-challenging tests. In the first test (Sec.~\ref{TOVroundoff}), a weakly-magnetized TOV star is evolved over many dynamical timescales and grid light-crossing times. The second test (Sec.~\ref{randomIDroundoff}) exposes both codes to a type of ``fuzzing'', in which random initial data are evolved. Unlike the first test, initial data in the second test contain strong shocks, highly-magnetized and highly-relativistic, stochastic flows, as well as nontrivial, discontinuous spacetime-metric and extrinsic curvature components. Despite the harshness of the second test, both codes are shown in Sec.~\ref{randomIDroundoff} to produce roundoff-error identical results over many grid light-crossing times. Results from these tests are highly significant, as they demonstrate that IllinoisGRMHD yields identical results to the ``battle-hardened'', trusted code on which it is based. In our final validation test, both IllinoisGRMHD and GRHydro evolve unmagnetized, stable TOV stars in a dynamical spacetime backdrop, and are shown to converge to the same result at the expected order, though IllinoisGRMHD exhibits slightly slower central density drift and lower Hamiltonian constraint violations at a given resolution. \subsection{IllinoisGRMHD and OrigGRMHD: Roundoff-Error Agreement in Evolving Magnetized TOV Star} \label{TOVroundoff} IllinoisGRMHD, OrigGRMHD, and GRHydro all implement double-precision, 64-bit floating point arithmetic, which represents numbers to between 15--17 significant digits. Given the sophisticated and iterative nature of these GRMHD codes, initial machine-precision differences can grow enormously over time. As an example, we multiply the initial rest-mass density of a weakly-magnetized TOV star by $1+10^{-15}$, yielding a 15th significant digit perturbation. We then perform the evolution, measuring the number of significant digits of agreement between this perturbed run and an unperturbed evolution, through 15 dynamical timescales and on AMR grids with multiple levels of refinement. The dashed blue line of Fig.~\ref{roundoff_TOV_output} plots the result from this test. Notice that the number of significant digits of agreement quickly drops from 14 digits, plateauing to between 6 and 8 digits of agreement. We were careful to develop IllinoisGRMHD so that its results agree with OrigGRMHD to roundoff error, and Fig.~\ref{roundoff_TOV_output} confirms that for this weakly-magnetized TOV star test, the number of significant digits of agreement between IllinoisGRMHD and OrigGRMHD (solid red line) follow the same curve as the expected roundoff error intrinsic to OrigGRMHD (dashed blue line). For full details of the physical scenario modeled here, as well as the grid parameters, see \ref{App:Mag_roundoff_test_setup}. \begin{figure} \raggedleft \includegraphics[angle=270,width=0.8\textwidth]{plots/roundoff_IllinoisGRMHD_vs_OrigGRMHD__GRMHD_TOV_star_dyn_spacetime.eps} \caption{Significant digits of agreement between pairs of codes, monitoring the central density of a magnetized neutron star in a dynamic-spacetime GRMHD simulation versus time, as measured in dynamical timescales $t_{\rm dyn}=1/\sqrt{\rho_{0,\rm max}}$. The solid red line shows the number of significant digits of agreement between IllinoisGRMHD and OrigGRMHD. The dashed blue line shows the expected roundoff error, measured as the number of significant digits of agreement between OrigGRMHD and itself with a 15th-significant-digit perturbation to the initial density of the magnetized neutron star. This run was performed on 8 parallel processes on a desktop computer. All details from this simulation are provided in \ref{App:Mag_roundoff_test_setup}. }\label{roundoff_TOV_output} \end{figure} \subsection{IllinoisGRMHD and OrigGRMHD: Roundoff-Error Agreement in Evolving Random Initial Data} \label{randomIDroundoff} Although we have demonstrated that when evolving weakly-magnetized TOV stars on AMR grids, IllinoisGRMHD and OrigGRMHD produce results that agree to roundoff error, one might argue that even though there is a sharp discontinuity at the stellar surface, this code test is insufficient for truly demonstrating roundoff-level agreement, as it lacks strong shocks and highly-relativistic, highly-magnetized fluid flows. To address this potential criticism, we developed a random initial data module that sets up both weak and strong stochastic GRMHD flows atop an artificially-static, weak and strong-field stochastic spacetime background that is nearly conformally flat. The stochastic nature of these data means that both metric and GRMHD quantities suffer from both weak and strong discontinuities from one spatial point to the next, providing a robust test of the high-resolution shock-capturing algorithms within these GRMHD codes, as well as a confirmation of the stability of both GRMHD codes to fuzz testing. We stress that although the chosen metric has Lorentzian signature and the spatial three-metric is positive-definite, these initial data are for numerical convenience only and are not designed to satisfy Einstein's equations. In fact, when these GRMHD data are evolved forward in time, spacetime field variables are strictly held fixed in time. All components of spacetime and GRMHD tensors and vectors are nonzero, randomly fluctuating from one spatial point to the next, with each component having a unique magnitude. As a result, this module has been useful in checking for typos in the GRMHD evolution equations, which were completely rewritten in IllinoisGRMHD. For example, if by mistake $\gamma_{xy}$ were written $\gamma_{xz}$ in any of the GRMHD equations, then because these components have differing magnitudes, IllinoisGRMHD and the original GRMHD code of the Illinois group would not agree to roundoff precision and the test would fail. This module was used extensively in the first stages of IllinoisGRMHD development to find such typos, as well as truncation-error-level algorithmic differences between the old and new codes. All such typos and algorithmic differences were fixed and modified, respectively, so that roundoff-level agreement could be demonstrated. A full description of the random initial data module and grid setup is provided in \ref{App:random_id}. As with the magnetized TOV roundoff-error test of Sec.~\ref{TOVroundoff}, we measure the expected level of roundoff error by first adding a random, 15th-digit perturbation to all GRMHD primitive variables after they are set. Then we evolve both perturbed and unperturbed initial data with the trusted OrigGRMHD code. The difference grows with time, but plateaus to about 13 digits over time, as shown in Fig.~\ref{roundoff_random_id}. Next, the same unperturbed initial data are evolved on the same grids with IllinoisGRMHD, and the results confirm that IllinoisGRMHD and OrigGRMHD indeed agree to within expected roundoff error, through at least 25 light-crossing times. All of these runs were performed on 8 parallel processes. Full details regarding how these initial data are generated, as well as the computational setup for these simulations, are provided in \ref{App:Mag_roundoff_test_setup}. \begin{figure} \raggedleft \includegraphics[angle=270,width=0.8\textwidth]{plots/roundoff_IllinoisGRMHD_vs_OrigGRMHD__GRMHD_random_id.eps} \caption{Significant digits of agreement between pairs of codes, monitoring the rest-mass density $\rho_0$ summed along the $x$-axis on the finest AMR level. The solid red line shows the number of significant digits of agreement between IllinoisGRMHD and OrigGRMHD. The dashed blue line shows the expected roundoff error, measured as the number of significant digits of agreement between OrigGRMHD and itself with a random 15th-significant-digit perturbation to all primitive GRMHD variables. This run was performed on 8 parallel processes on a desktop computer, and was shown to agree with the single-process OrigGRMHD run to roundoff-error as well. All details from this simulation are provided in \ref{App:Mag_roundoff_test_setup}.} \label{roundoff_random_id} \end{figure} \subsection{IllinoisGRMHD and GRHydro: Unmagnetized TOV Star Convergence Tests} \label{TOVConvergence} The open-source IllinoisGRMHD and closed-source OrigGRMHD have been shown to produce roundoff-error identical results even when evolving very harsh, relativistic, strongly-magnetized, discontinuous initial data. IllinoisGRMHD represents the second open-source, dynamical spacetime GRMHD module, the first being GRHydro \cite{GRHYDRO}. Both are based in the Einstein Toolkit, which provides a particularly convenient infrastructure for performing GRMHD simulations in a dynamical spacetime context. GRHydro contains a large number of features, including a variety of reconstruction options, approximate Riemann solvers, and outer boundary options. OrigGRMHD contains many such features as well, but nearly all of these features are not robust in the context of black-hole-inhabited spacetimes and have thus remained unused for years. IllinoisGRMHD contains only the features from OrigGRMHD that have been used in all recent papers by the Illinois NR group (e.g., \cite{EtienneThirdBHNS,EtienneFourthBHNS,Farrisetal2012,Goldetal2014,Gold2014,Paschalidis2014}). This section compares results between IllinoisGRMHD and the standard, FORTRAN version of GRHydro, using identical initial data, computational grids, dynamical spacetime evolution (BSSN) modules, reconstruction scheme, and Riemann solver. Since IllinoisGRMHD has been shown to agree with OrigGRMHD to roundoff precision, these tests can also be seen as a proxy comparison between GRHydro and OrigGRMHD. As detailed in~\ref{App:Unmag_conv_test_setup}, both IllinoisGRMHD and GRHydro evolve the same physical scenario in this test as in Sec.~\ref{TOVroundoff}, but with the magnetic fields inside the TOV star set to zero. GRHydro options were chosen so that its algorithms would be identical to IllinoisGRMHD. Despite the basic algorithms being the same, both codes differ significantly in how they are implemented. This difference in implementation {\it should} result in truncation-level differences between the two codes, but instead we find slightly different convergence properties between the codes. A quantity $Q(\Delta x)$ that converges to zero at $n$th order with increasing resolution (i.e., decreasing grid spacing $\Delta x$) satisfies \begin{equation} \frac{Q(\Delta x_1)}{Q(\Delta x_2)} = \left(\frac{\Delta x_1}{\Delta x_2}\right)^n. \end{equation} Thus the convergence order to zero, $n$, is written as follows: \begin{equation} n = \log\left( \frac{Q(\Delta x_1)}{Q(\Delta x_2)} \right) \left / \log \left( \frac{\Delta x_1}{\Delta x_2} \right) \right.. \label{ndef} \end{equation} Figure~\ref{IllinoisGRMHD_vs_GRHydro_Convergence} demonstrates that for this stable, equilibrium TOV star, truncation errors lead to nonzero drifts in star's central density and the L2-Norm of the Hamiltonian constraint, which each converge to zero at roughly second-order [$n(t)\approx 2$, where $n$ is as defined in Eq.~\eqref{ndef}]. Notice that L2-Norm Hamiltonian constraint convergence order fluctuates significantly in GRHydro evolutions, as compared to IllinoisGRMHD. Additionally, at the highest resolution chosen (resolving the NS diameter to approximately 80 gridpoints), GRHydro possesses roughly $8\%$ higher Hamiltonian constraint violation than IllinoisGRMHD, as shown in Fig.~\ref{IllinoisGRMHD_vs_GRHydro_HR}. We conclude that IllinoisGRMHD appears to suffer from less Hamiltonian constraint violation than GRHydro at a given resolution, and exhibits more consistent L2-Norm constraint violation convergence to zero as resolution is increased. However, at all resolutions, the absolute value of central density drift through 55 dynamical timescales is far higher with IllinoisGRMHD than GRHydro. We analyze the drift at high resolution in the lower panel of Fig.~\ref{IllinoisGRMHD_vs_GRHydro_HR}, finding that the differences appear directly after initial settling of the TOV star. These differences are not surprising, given the unique algorithmic choices in each code (e.g., GRHydro adopts the internal energy $\epsilon$ as a primitive variable, where IllinoisGRMHD adopts pressure $P$ instead, just to name one). In this plot, we fit data in the range $5\leq t/t_{\rm dyn} \leq 55$ to a least-squares linear trendline, finding that the rate of central density drift (i.e., the slope of the linear trendline) after 5 dynamical timescales to be within about one standard deviation for the two codes. In addition, we verified that although the simulation is run for about 2.3 light-crossing times, doubling the outer boundary has no qualitative effect on the results. In a forthcoming paper, we will demonstrate that differences between these two open-source GRMHD codes spawn from how the GRMHD evolution algorithms are {\it implemented}, independent of the chosen reconstruction scheme. \begin{figure} \includegraphics[angle=270,width=0.5\textwidth]{plots/GRHydro-convergence_rho_c_to_zero.eps} \includegraphics[angle=270,width=0.5\textwidth]{plots/IllinoisGRMHD-convergence_rho_c_to_zero.eps} \\ \includegraphics[angle=270,width=0.5\textwidth]{plots/GRHydro-convergence_L2_Ham_to_zero.eps} \includegraphics[angle=270,width=0.5\textwidth]{plots/IllinoisGRMHD-convergence_L2_Ham_to_zero.eps} \caption{IllinoisGRMHD and GRHydro convergence tests, for dynamic-spacetime, unmagnetized equilibrium TOV star evolutions (with physical and numerical setup as described in~\ref{App:Unmag_conv_test_setup}). {\bf Upper panels:} Convergence to zero of TOV star central density drift $\Delta \rho_c(t) = \rho_c(t)/\rho_c(0) - 1$, comparing GRHydro (left plot) with IllinoisGRMHD (right plot). Top plots show $\Delta \rho_c(t)$ at three separate resolutions, with the low (dotted magenta) and medium (dashed blue) resolution (LR and MR, respectively) simulation results rescaled to high resolution (HR, solid red), assuming that $\Delta \rho_c(t)$ converges to zero at second order. Lower plots show implied convergence order to zero [see Eq. \eqref{ndef}] of $\Delta \rho_c(t)$ for pairs of runs, for HR and MR (thin dashed black), and MR and LR (thick solid red), where convergence order to zero is defined as in Eq.~\eqref{ndef}. {\bf Lower panels:} Convergence to zero Eq.~\eqref{ndef} of L2 Norm of Hamiltonian constraint violation, $||H(t)||$. Top plots show $||H(t)||$ at three resolutions, rescaled so that LR (dotted magenta) and MR (dashed blue) results should overlap HR (solid red) results if second-order convergence to zero is achieved. The bottom plots show implied observed convergence order to zero of pairs of runs: HR and MR (dashed black), and MR and LR (dashed blue). } \label{IllinoisGRMHD_vs_GRHydro_Convergence} \end{figure} \begin{figure} \raggedleft \includegraphics[angle=270,width=0.8\textwidth]{plots/GRHydro_vs_IllinoisGRMHD_HR_comparisons.eps} \caption{Truncation-error analysis, comparing results from IllinoisGRMHD and GRHydro at high resolution (HR). The top plot shows L2-Norm Hamiltonian constraint violation, for IllinoisGRMHD (red solid) and GRHydro (blue dashed). GRHydro exhibits about 8\% higher constraint violation, so its data were multiplied by 0.92 to achieve a good overlap with IllinoisGRMHD data. The bottom plot shows central density drift $\Delta \rho_c(t) = \rho_c(t)/\rho_c(0) - 1$, at high resolution (HR) as well, for IllinoisGRMHD (thin dashed blue) and GRHydro (thin solid red). The thick blue and red lines are linear least-squares fits to IllinoisGRMHD and GRHydro data, from $5 t_{\rm dyn}$ to $55 t_{\rm dyn}$. The slope on the GRHydro line is $(-1.19 \pm 0.02) \times 10^{-5}$, and $(-1.13 \pm 0.04) \times 10^{-5}$ for IllinoisGRMHD, where the errors given are standard deviations. } \label{IllinoisGRMHD_vs_GRHydro_HR} \end{figure} \section{Performance Benchmarks} \label{Bench} We have demonstrated that although IllinoisGRMHD represents a complete rewrite of OrigGRMHD, the two codes agree to roundoff precision. IllinoisGRMHD is also designed to be more user-friendly, more extensible, and better documented than OrigGRMHD as well. Furthermore, as we demonstrate in this section, IllinoisGRMHD performs and scales better than OrigGRMHD. This stems from the fact that coding decisions within IllinoisGRMHD were made specifically from the outset to optimize not only user-friendliness and code readability, but also performance. Making IllinoisGRMHD perform as well as GRHydro, on the other hand, appears to be an unlikely goal, as the AMR-capable GRMHD algorithm adopted by IllinoisGRMHD/OrigGRMHD is far more computationally intensive. All variables in GRHydro's GRMHD scheme for AMR grids (hyperbolic divergence cleaning~\cite{HDC2002,GRHYDRO}) are unstaggered, overlapping gridpoints. Meanwhile, IllinoisGRMHD/OrigGRMHD implement a staggered vector-potential formulation, requiring, e.g., about 60\% more expensive reconstructions to compute GRMHD fluxes, as they must be computed on {\it staggered} gridpoints. In addition, the evolution of the staggered EM vector potential gauge quantity $[\sgam \Phi]$ is quite expensive, as it requires a large number of interpolations. Of course, in exchange for this more expensive algorithm is the guarantee that monopoles (i.e., violations of $\nabla \cdot \ve{B}=0$) cannot be generated on grid refinement boundaries when magnetized fluid flows cross them. GRHydro cannot guarantee this, but IllinoisGRMHD/OrigGRMHD does. Thus {\it a priori}, we would expect IllinoisGRMHD and OrigGRMHD to significantly under-perform GRHydro. Remarkably, Fig.~\ref{Stampede_weak_scaling} demonstrates that for a physical system and AMR grid hierarchy typically used in production runs, IllinoisGRMHD actually {\it outperforms} both GRHydro {\it and} OrigGRMHD by a comfortable margin. There also exists a new, experimental C++ version of GRHydro (henceforth, GRHydro-experimental), which was written in part to improve performance. Indeed, performance is greatly enhanced by GRHydro-experimental, but it at best matches IllinoisGRMHD performance at small core counts, and scales worse than IllinoisGRMHD with increasing core count. The physical system and basic AMR grid hierarchy is as described in \ref{App:Unmag_conv_test_setup}; i.e., it consists of an unmagnetized, equilibrium TOV star for which the magnetic-field is also evolved but initialized to zero. As measured by the number of gridpoints computed per second per core on the TACC Stampede supercomputer, at all problem scales typically used for parallel AMR runs (ranging from 32 to 2,048 cores), Fig.~\ref{Stampede_weak_scaling} shows that IllinoisGRMHD consistently outperforms the standard GRHydro by a factor of between 1.7--1.8. However, IllinoisGRMHD matches GRHydro-experimental's performance, to within measurement error at 32 cores, but manages to outperform GRHydro-experimental by about 16\% at 2,048 cores. Again, it is remarkable that IllinoisGRMHD can produce performance numbers in the same ballpark as GRHydro, as IllinoisGRMHD implements a much more expensive GRMHD algorithm. The performance improvement over OrigGRMHD is also significant, with IllinoisGRMHD outperforming OrigGRMHD by a factor of 1.3 at 32 cores, increasing to 1.6 at 256 and 2,048 cores. In independent testing, we find that about $10-20\%$ of the performance difference between IllinoisGRMHD and OrigGRMHD is due to the fact that OrigGRMHD is based on an old, unmaintained version of the Cactus/Carpet infrastructure (ca. October, 2010). For more details on the physical system and basic grid structure of this benchmark, see~\ref{App:Unmag_conv_test_setup}. Benchmarks presented here measure {\it total} simulation performance, and since these are dynamical spacetime simulations, the performance gap between IllinoisGRMHD and the other codes will certainly increase for fixed-background-spacetime simulations. Thus by adopting IllinoisGRMHD, research groups currently using the standard version of GRHydro or OrigGRMHD stand to boost their computational resources by a factor of between 1.6--1.8. Independent tests indicate that the performance gap increases to a factor of $\approx 2$ in {\it fixed}-spacetime-background GRMHD simulations. \begin{figure} \raggedleft \includegraphics[angle=270,width=0.8\textwidth]{plots/weak_scaling_test.eps} \caption{Relative performance of IllinoisGRMHD (blue solid), OrigGRMHD (red dashed), standard GRHydro (green dotted), and the experimental C++ version of GRHydro (magenta dot-dashed) at multiple problem scales on the Stampede supercluster, performing an unmagnetized neutron star simulation, but with magnetic field evolution enabled. Performance data are normalized to IllinoisGRMHD two-node (32-core) performance (as measured by the number of gridzones computed per second per processor core). As the number of cores was increased, the number of gridpoints per core was kept fixed at approximately $72^3$ for all four refined levels and $68^3$ for the lowest-resolution level on these AMR grids, effectively making this a weak-scaling test.} \label{Stampede_weak_scaling} \end{figure} Making AMR-based codes like IllinoisGRMHD, OrigGRMHD, and GRHydro scale well is an intrinsically difficult task. AMR greatly reduces the memory and processor overhead in our simulations, focusing resolution only where it is needed, and generating many small, refined numerical grids in the process. When these small refined grids are parallelized, however, they are generally split into even smaller grids, resulting in a large grid surface area to volume ratio. As the information on the surfaces must be communicated across nodes, this makes the performance of AMR-based codes strongly network-limited. OpenMP~\cite{OpenMP} can be used to combat this by splitting computational loops over multiple processor cores, enabling us to use fewer parallel (MPI) processes per CPU and thus larger grids on a given (MPI) process. This reduces the network load significantly and thus increases overall performance. As shown in Fig.~\ref{OpenMP_MPI_Hybrid}, in production-scale benchmarks, we find that IllinoisGRMHD performs slightly more than 40\% faster as an OpenMP/MPI hybrid code than as a pure MPI code (i.e., when running 16 MPI processes per node, OpenMP disabled), for a typical GRMHD production run on the Stampede supercluster. Although all three codes possess some degree of OpenMP support, all of IllinoisGRMHD's loops have has been written with full OpenMP~\cite{OpenMP} support, making IllinoisGRMHD a pure OpenMP/MPI hybrid code, just like OrigGRMHD. We finish this section by noting that all benchmark results in Fig.~\ref{Stampede_weak_scaling} were performed using 4 MPI processes per node and 4 OpenMP threads per MPI process, which we found maximized performance in all codes. \begin{figure} \raggedleft \includegraphics[angle=270,width=0.8\textwidth]{plots/OpenMP_MPI_Hybrid.eps} \caption{IllinoisGRMHD code performance as the number of MPI processes per node on Stampede is varied, with the total core-count fixed at 1,024 (i.e., 64 Stampede nodes). When running with 1,2,4,8, and 16 MPI processes per node, the number of threads per MPI process ({\tt OMP\_NUM\_THREADS}) was set to 16,8,4,2, and 1, respectively. Efficiency is normalized to the 4 MPI processes per node case. Simulation is of a neutron star with full GRMHD and spacetime evolution enabled.} \label{OpenMP_MPI_Hybrid} \end{figure} \section{Conclusions and Future Work} \label{Conclusions} The field of numerical relativity has matured considerably in the years since the first dynamical spacetime GRMHD codes were developed, and multiple groups now possess such codes. Given that the future of our field depends on the ability to advance and extend these codes to model new physics, while still maintaining and improving the GRMHD modules, it stands to reason that the community could benefit if we consolidated our efforts and adopted the same dynamic-spacetime GRMHD code. With its proven robustness and reliability in modeling some of the most extreme phenomena in the Universe, it seems the OrigGRMHD code could be a good candidate for such community adoption if it were open-sourced. But despite its strong scientific track record, OrigGRMHD was not written with community adoption in mind, instead being a code written ``by experts and for experts'' of OrigGRMHD, with a premium put on immediate applications. As such, the code lacked a number of features common to large, open-source, community-based codes in computational astrophysics, including sufficient documentation and code comments, fine-grained modularity, a consistent coding style, and regular, enforced code maintenance (e.g., removal of unused and unmaintained features). As an open-source, from-the-ground-up rewrite of OrigGRMHD, IllinoisGRMHD aims to fix all the former code's idiosyncracies, thus facilitating widespread community adoption. With such adoption in mind, IllinoisGRMHD's development has been guided by the four core design principles of user-friendliness, modularity/extensibility, robustness, and performance/scalability. Regarding user-friendliness, the code is well-documented, properly commented, and requires only basic programming skills to understand and run. IllinoisGRMHD is also far more modular and extensible than OrigGRMHD, with low-level CFD routines split off from the main code into a library of extensible functions. As for robustness, IllinoisGRMHD was designed to act as a drop-in replacement for OrigGRMHD, and we have demonstrated that IllinoisGRMHD indeed reproduces results from the original code to roundoff-level precision, not only when evolving magnetized neutron stars, but also discontinuous, random initial data. In addition, IllinoisGRMHD largely produces consistent results with the only other open-source, dynamical spacetime GRMHD code, GRHydro, in that both codes exhibit approximate second-order convergence. Although both codes were run with the same basic evolution algorithms, results differ due to the specific details of how these algorithms were implemented. We will explore this further in a forthcoming work, but just to name a couple of differences, GRHydro reconstructs the specific internal energy $\epsilon$ and the Valencia-formulation 3-velocity, while IllinoisGRMHD reconstructs pressure and 3-velocity defined as $v^i = u^i/u^0$. When evolving equilibrium unmagnetized TOV stars, GRHydro produces about 8\% higher Hamiltonian constraint violations (as measured by the L2 Norm over the entire grid), but significantly less absolute central density drift than IllinoisGRMHD. We find that the rate of central density drift is identical between the two codes after the star undergoes an initial settling over a few dynamical timescales. We conclude it is this initial settling that causes the large discrepancy in absolute central density drift. Though user-friendliness, modularity/extensibility, and robustness were the primary considerations in IllinoisGRMHD's development, it would be hard to convince key developers of other codes to adopt IllinoisGRMHD unless we could demonstrate at least comparable performance and scalability to alternative dynamical spacetime GRMHD codes. To this end, we have shown that IllinoisGRMHD is in fact about 1.7--1.8 times faster than the standard version of GRHydro for production-size, AMR-enabled, GRMHD runs on the Stampede supercluster, scaling to typical high-resolution core-counts at better than 95\% efficiency. This is a rather remarkable result, as IllinoisGRMHD implements a far more computationally expensive GRMHD algorithm than GRHydro to ensure the no-monopole constraint $\nabla \cdot \ve{B}=0$ is satisfied. This added expense forbids the generation of monopoles at AMR grid boundaries in the case of multi-scale GRMHD flows, which GRHydro, and even its new, experimental C++ version, which we refer to as GRHydro-experimental, cannot guarantee. GRHydro-experimental, which was actively being written during the preparation of this paper, is a complete rewrite of the standard, FORTRAN-based GRHydro, with a goal in part of improving performance. Indeed, GRHydro-experimental does improve performance, but only at best matches IllinoisGRMHD's performance at small core counts, with IllinoisGRMHD performing about 16\% better at 1,024 to 2,048 cores. Though these results may change when simulating other systems of interest, we consider them representative. IllinoisGRMHD also outperforms OrigGRMHD by a factor of 1.3--1.6. Thus by adopting IllinoisGRMHD, research groups using GRHydro or OrigGRMHD stand to increase their computational resources available for dynamical spacetime, GRMHD runs. While in terms of performance, IllinoisGRMHD seems to be only slightly better than the experimental, C++ version of GRHydro, perhaps the two greatest advantages of IllinoisGRMHD over GRHydro is that (1) IllinoisGRMHD does not allow the generation of magnetic monopoles when modeling multi-scale GRMHD flows on AMR grids and (2) IllinoisGRMHD is capable of stably modeling GRMHD flows into BH horizons over very long timescales, without the need for special algorithms that excise GRMHD data with the BH. GRHydro requires excision to model such flows and its GRMHD features have been mostly used for core collapse (to a neutron star) simulations, in which no BH is present. We conclude that making GRHydro's GRMHD schemes as robust may require careful specification of boundary conditions on the excision surface coupled to an interpolation scheme across AMR level boundaries that respects the no-monopoles constraint. As mentioned previously, a forthcoming paper will analyze how differences in algorithmic implementations between GRHydro and IllinoisGRMHD can lead to significantly different results when evolving neutron stars. One possibility is that we may find an implementation that results in a superior code to either original code. If such a code is found, it may prove quite useful to reliably evolving binary neutron stars and black hole--neutron stars over many orbits with a minimum of computational expense. Although IllinoisGRMHD is ready for production runs now, we encourage other developers to join our effort in improving IllinoisGRMHD beyond its current state, as a great deal of important work remains to be done. We would like to port features from GRHydro into IllinoisGRMHD's library of functions, using IllinoisGRMHD's coding style, including reconstruction schemes, conservative-to-primitives solvers, and more advanced approximate Riemann solvers, just to name a few. IllinoisGRMHD was originally written in a standalone sandbox for maximum portability, and was only recently ported into the Einstein Toolkit. It therefore makes minimal use of certain aspects of the ET infrastructure that could greatly extend its usefulness. For example, the current version supports only single gamma-law EOSs, and full 3D simulations with either no symmetries enabled, or simply bitant symmetry across the $xy$-plane. The ET infrastructure provides support for arbitrary EOSs, symmetry conditions, etc., and we intend to work with the large ET community toward making this code the standard choice in the ET, and one the community can be proud of. \ack We gratefully acknowledge the ET community for hosting the IllinoisGRMHD software, and Sean T.~McWilliams for useful discussions and for generously lending time on the Spruce Knob HPC resource at WVU. This paper was supported in part by NSF Grant PHY-1300903 and NASA Grants NNX13AH44G and 13-ATP13-0077. VP is supported in part by the Simons Foundation and by NSF grant PHY-1305682. This work used the Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment (XSEDE), which is supported by NSF grant number OCI-1053575.
\section{Introduction} Dielectric Mie resonators made of moderate refractive index materials, such as semi-conductor materials in the optical or near infra-red regime, can feature electric and magnetic modes of low order. These modes can be easily and efficiently excited either from near or far field illumination \cite{Evlyukhin2010,Evlyukhin11,GarciaEtxarri11}. This novel class of photonic resonators is very promising to design directive antennas \cite{Rolly12c,Rolly2013,Krasnok14}, to enhance the electric or magnetic near field intensities \cite{Sigalas2007,Albella2013,Boudarham2014,Zhang2014}, to design subwavelength sized light cavities \cite{Rolly2012,Schmidt12,Albella2013}, to host frequency mixing processes such as third harmonic generation \cite{Shcherbakov2014}, and even to create isotropically polarized speckle patterns \cite{preSchmidt2014}. Contrarily to spherical nano-metallic particles, dielectric Mie resonators exhibit both electric and magnetic resonant modes \cite{Zhao09,Evlyukhin11,GarciaEtxarri11}. However, it is still unclear whether magnetic modes are a good platform to enhance light-matter interaction in silicon subwavelength-sized cavities. An interesting way to address this question is to study the Purcell factor of these cavities. The Purcell factor is a figure of merit widely used to characterize light-matter interaction in photonic cavities \cite{Purcell1946}. In quantum electrodynamics, for example, it has been widely used to study Rabi oscillations in the weak-coupling regime \cite{Gerard2003}. The Purcell factor quantifies the enhancement of the spontaneous decay rate of a dipolar emitter coupled with a cavity, and it is defined as \cite{Purcell1946,Gerard2003}: \begin{equation} \label{PF} F_P(\omega)=\dfrac{6\pi c^3 Q_{\mu}}{\omega^3 V_{\mu}} \sim \dfrac{\Gamma}{\Gamma_0} \end{equation} with $\omega$ being the frequency of the dipole; $c$ the speed of light; $Q_{\mu}$ the quality factor of the electromagnetic mode of the cavity ($\Emu$) that the emitter is mainly coupled to; $V_{\mu}$ the effective volume of the mode $\Emu$; and $\Gamma$ ($\Gamma_0$) the spontaneous decay rate of a dipolar emitter in the presence of an optical cavity (vacuum). The design of photonic cavities at the nanoscale brought the attention of the nano-optics community to the Purcell factor \cite{Agio2013}. Nevertheless, the first attempts of using the Purcell factor given by eq.(\ref{PF}) to compute the enhancement of spontaneous decay rates ($\Gamma/\Gamma_0$) were not as accurate as expected. It was seen that the Dyadic Green tensor formulation \cite{Novotny2006} used to compute $\Gamma/\Gamma_0$ did not yield the same results as the Purcell factor given by eq.(\ref{PF}). As noted by Koenderink \cite{Koenderink2010}, the use of eq.(\ref{PF}) to compute spontaneous decay rates is based on a few restrictive assumptions, which are not usually fulfilled by photonic nano-cavities. Hence, some changes needed to be done in the Purcell factor formula so that $F_P(\omega)=\Gamma / \Gamma_0$. These changes can be summarized in two: extension of the Purcell factor to a scenario where the dipolar emitter couples to a superposition of modes $\Emu$ of the cavity; and redefinition of the effective volume $V_{\mu}$ of each of the $\Emu$ normal modes of the resonator. One of the first attempts to redefine the effective volume for spherical cavities was proposed by Colas des Francs \textit{et al.} in 2012 \cite{Derom2012,Colas2012}. The proposed method used the equality between the classical normalized decay rates \cite{Chew1976,Ruppin1982,Chew1987} and the Purcell factor given by eq.(\ref{PF}). That is, the effective volume $V_{\mu}$ was computed by substitution: \begin{equation} F_P(\omega)=\dfrac{6\pi c^3 Q_{\mu}}{\omega^3 V_{\mu}} \equiv \dfrac{\Gamma}{\Gamma_0} \Longrightarrow V_{\mu} = \dfrac{6\pi c^3 Q_{\mu} }{\omega^3} \dfrac{\Gamma_0}{\Gamma} \end{equation} With this empirical formulation, an effective volume is obtained for each multipolar order of the spherical resonator. Recently, attention was focused on the definition of the effective volume with respect to the normal modes of arbitrary resonators \cite{Sauvan2013,Kristensen2013,Muljarov2014}. The normal modes of the system are solutions of Maxwell equations in the absence of sources, with outgoing radiation conditions, and with a certain normalization \cite{Kristensen2012,Sauvan2013,Ge2014,Muljarov2014}. Due to the outgoing radiation conditions, the Hamiltonian of the system is non-hermitian and the normal modes of the system have complex eigenfrequencies $\omega_{\mu}$ \cite{Sauvan2013,Grigoriev2013,Vial2014}. Let us notice that a normalization condition of the kind $\int_V \vert \Emu(\mathbf{r},\omega_{\mu}) \vert^2 \mathrm{d} V$ cannot be applied to normal modes with resonant complex frequencies $\omega_{\mu}$ because $\Emu(\vert \mathbf{r} \vert \rightarrow \infty, \omega_{\mu})\rightarrow \infty$ \cite{Koenderink2010,Kristensen2012,Kristensen2013,Sauvan2013,Bai2013,Muljarov2014}. In this work, we define the normal modes associated to the eigenfrequencies $\omega_{\mu}$ following the normalization condition given in \cite{Muljarov2014,Doost2014}: \begin{equation} 1=\int_V \mathbf{E_{\mu}} \cdot \epsilon(\mathbf{r}) \Emu \mathrm{d} \mathbf{r} + \dfrac{c^2}{2\omega_{\mu}^2} \oint_{\partial V} \left( \Emu \cdot \dfrac{\partial}{\partial s}r \dfrac{\partial \mathbf{E_{\mu}}}{\partial r} - r \dfrac{\partial \mathbf{E_{\mu}}}{\partial r} \cdot \dfrac{\partial \Emu}{\partial s} \right) \mathrm{d} \mathcal{S} \label{NM} \end{equation} where all the magnitudes that depend on the frequency are particularized at $\omega = \omega_{\mu}$. At this point, two comments are in order. Firstly, the normalization condition given by eq.(\ref{NM}) can also be expressed as \cite{Muljarov2014,Sauvan2013}: \begin{equation} 1 = \int_V \left[ \Emu \cdot \epsilon(\mathbf{r}) \Emu - \Hmu \cdot \mu_0 \Hmu \right] \mathrm{d} \mathbf{r} \end{equation} As Sauvan \textit{et al.} showed in \cite{Sauvan2013}, this type of normalization is especially well-suited for numerical calculations. The underlying reason is that the volume integrals can be numerically evaluated using a perfectly-matched-layer technique. Furthermore, their normalization condition is easily extended for dispersive and magnetic materials \cite{Sauvan2013}: \begin{equation} 1 = \int_V \left[ \Emu \cdot \dfrac{\partial (\omega \epsilon)}{\partial \omega} \Emu - \Hmu \cdot \dfrac{\partial (\omega \mu)}{\partial \omega} \Hmu \right] \mathrm{d} \mathbf{r} \end{equation} Secondly, the basis of normal modes $(\Emu,\Hmu)$ for leaky cavities with arbitrary geometries is not complete, in general \cite{Kristensen2013}. However, for spherical leaky cavities, it has been demonstrated that the multipolar fields are a complete basis to describe the problem \cite{Leung1996,Lee1999}. \section{General expressions for electric and magnetic emitters} The recent advances on the modal analysis of Purcell factors were performed with electric dipolar sources. The formulation has been presented in \cite{Kristensen2013,Sauvan2013,Muljarov2014}, where the enhancement of the decay rate was computed as: \begin{eqnarray} F(\omega)& = &\dfrac{6\pi c}{n \omega} \mathrm{Im} \left\lbrace \mathbf{p}^* \cdot \Ge(\mathbf{r_0},\mathbf{r_0}) \cdot \mathbf{p} \right\rbrace = \dfrac{3\pi c^3}{\omega} \sum_{\mu} \mathrm{Im} \left\lbrace \dfrac{1}{V_{\mu} \omega_{\mu} (\omega_{\mu} - \omega)} \right\rbrace \label{Fe} \end{eqnarray} with \begin{equation} V_{\mu} = \dfrac{1}{\left( \mathbf{u_p} \cdot \mathbf{E_{\mu}(\mathbf{r_p},\omega_{\mu})} \right)^2 } \label{Ve} \end{equation} where $\mathbf{p}=p \mathbf{u_p}$ is the electric dipole moment of the emitter, and $\mathbf{u_p}$ is a unitary vector. However, interest in magnetic spontaneous emission has been growing over the last years, in particular using trivalent lanthanide ions \cite{Noginova2009,Karaveli11,Aigouy14}. This strong interest in coupling lanthanide ions to nano-cavities makes us emphasize the fact that both electric and magnetic emitters can give rise to an enhanced spontaneous decay rate. Following the formalism shown in \cite{Muljarov2014}, next we give the Purcell factor formula for an emitting magnetic dipole. The interaction Hamiltonian for a dipolar magnetic interaction is \cite{Grynberg2010}: \begin{equation} H_I=-\mathbf{m} \cdot \mathbf{B} \end{equation} where $\mathbf{m}=m \mathbf{u_m}$ is the magnetic dipole moment of the emitter, and $\mathbf{u_m}$ is a unitary vector. If $\G$ is the magnetic dyadic Green function \cite{Narayanaswamy2010}, then the Purcell factor can be computed as: \begin{eqnarray} \label{PFg} F(\omega)& = &\dfrac{6\pi c}{n \omega} \mathrm{Im} \left\lbrace \mathbf{m}^* \cdot \G(\mathbf{r_0},\mathbf{r_0}) \cdot \mathbf{m} \right\rbrace = \dfrac{3\pi c^3}{\omega} \sum_{\mu} \mathrm{Im} \left\lbrace \dfrac{1}{V_{\mu} \omega_{\mu} (\omega_{\mu} - \omega)} \right\rbrace \end{eqnarray} where \begin{equation} \label{Vmag} V_{\mu} = \dfrac{1}{\left( \mathbf{u_m} \cdot \mathbf{B_{\mu}(\mathbf{r_p},\omega_{\mu})} \right)^2 } \end{equation} It is important to note that eqs.(\ref{Fe}) and (\ref{PFg}) cannot be directly added. That is, the enhancement of decay rates of a dipolar emitter which is a linear combination of an electric and a magnetic dipole ($\mathbf{e}=\alpha \mathbf{p}+ \beta \mathbf{m}$) is computed with the following formula \cite{Novotny2006}: \begin{equation} \dfrac{P}{P_0} = -\dfrac{1}{2P_0} \int_V \mathrm{Re} \left\lbrace \mathbf{j}^* \cdot \mathbf{E} \right\rbrace \mathrm{d} V \label{Power} \end{equation} where $\mathbf{j}= - i \omega \alpha \mathbf{p} \delta(\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{r_p}) + \nabla \times \beta \mathbf{m} \ \delta(\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{r_p})$ \cite{Hnizdo2012,Poddubny2013}, and $P_0$ is given in \cite{Novotny2006}. Using the currents produced by both dipoles, $P$ can be written as: \begin{equation} P=\dfrac{\omega}{2} \mathrm{Im} \left\lbrace \alpha^* \mathbf{p}^* \cdot \mathbf{E}(\mathbf{r_0}) + \beta^* \mathbf{m}^* \cdot \mathbf{B}(\mathbf{r_0}) \right\rbrace \label{Pem} \end{equation} where $\mathbf{E}(\mathbf{r_0})$ and $\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{r_0})$ can be computed using the Green tensor formalism \cite{Novotny2006}. Notice that when the emitter is a superposition of an electric and a magnetic dipole, $\mathbf{E}(\mathbf{r_0}) \neq \Ge(\mathbf{r_0},\mathbf{r_0}) \cdot \mathbf{p} $ since: \begin{equation} \mathbf{E}(\mathbf{r_0})= i \omega \mu \mu_0 \int_V \Ge(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r_0}) \cdot \mathbf{j}(\mathbf{r}) \mathrm{d} V \end{equation} with $\mathbf{j}(\mathbf{r})$ given by the equation above. \section{Multipolar expression of the normal modes} Here, thanks to the analytic formulation of Mie theory, we analytically compute the normal modes of the system and their associated normal frequencies. In particular, for a Mie resonator, due to the symmetries of the system \cite{ZambranaThesis}, the normal modes of the system are the multipolar fields, $\Emu=\mathbf{E}_{j,m_z,q}^{(x)}$, where $j=1,..,\infty$, $m_z=-j,...,j$, $q=1,..,\infty$ and $(x)=(e),(m)$. The meaning of $j,m_z,$ and $(x)$ is directly related to the following differential operators \cite{Rose1955,Tung1985,ZambranaThesis}: \begin{eqnarray} J^2 \left[ \mathbf{E}_{j,m_z,q}^{(x)} \right] &=& j(j+1) \mathbf{E}_{j,m_z,q}^{(x)} \\ J_z \left[ \mathbf{E}_{j,m_z,q}^{(x)} \right] &=& m_z \mathbf{E}_{j,m_z,q}^{(x)} \\ \Pi \left[ \mathbf{E}_{j,m_z,q}^{(x)} \right] &=& \left\lbrace \begin{array}{l} (-)^j\mathbf{E}_{j,m_z,q}^{(m)} \\ (-)^{j+1}\mathbf{E}_{j,m_z,q}^{(e)} \end{array} \right. \end{eqnarray} Nonetheless, $q$ is different in this sense. Given a fixed combination of $\left\lbrace j',m'_z,(x') \right\rbrace$, there exists a numerable infinite of $q$ values such that $\mathbf{E}_{j',m'_z,q}^{(x')}$ is a normal mode of Maxwell equations with an associated eigenfrequency $\omega_{\mu}=\omega_{j',m'_z,q}^{(x')}$ \cite{Oraevsky2002,Derom2012}. These eigenfrequencies $\omega_{j',m'_z,q}^{(x')}$ can be found by solving the following two transcendental equations: \begin{align} \label{oe} n_r^2 j_j(n_r x_{j,m_z,q}^{(e)} )[x_{j,m_z,q}^{(e)} h_j^{(1)}(x_{j,m_z,q}^{(e)} )]' & \ \ = & h_j^{(1)}(x_{j,m_z,q}^{(e)} ) [n_r x_{j,m_z,q}^{(e)} j_j(n_r x_{j,m_z,q}^{(e)} )]' & \quad \text{for} & (x)=(e) \\ j_j(n_r x_{j,m_z,q}^{(m)})[x_{j,m_z,q}^{(m)} h_j^{(1)}(x_{j,m_z,q}^{(m)})]' & \ \ = & h_j^{(1)}(x_{j,m_z,q}^{(m)}) [n_r x_{j,m_z,q}^{(m)} j_j(n_r x_{j,m_z,q}^{(m)})]'& \quad \text{for} & (x)=(m) \label{om} \end{align} where $x_{j,m_z,q}^{(x)} = \frac{ R}{c} \omega_{j,m_z,q}^{(x)} $. Here, it is important to note a few facts. Firstly, eqs.(\ref{oe}-\ref{om}) do not depend on $m_z$, therefore $\omega_{j,m_z,q}^{(x)}=\omega_{j,q}^{(x)}$. Secondly, in eqs.(\ref{oe}-\ref{om}), the dependence on $j$ is explicit on the spherical Bessel functions of the different kinds, and the dependence on $(x)$ is apparent as the equations for electric and magnetic frequencies are different. However, the dependence on $q$ is not explicit. That is because, given a fixed $j'$, $q$ is an integer that numerates all the solutions to eqs.(\ref{oe}-\ref{om}) in ascending order, \textit{i.e.} $\mathrm{Re}\left\lbrace \omega_{j',1}^{(x)} \right\rbrace < \mathrm{Re}\left\lbrace \omega_{j',2}^{(x)} \right\rbrace < \mathrm{Re}\left\lbrace \omega_{j',3}^{(x)} \right\rbrace< ...$. Due to the normalization condition imposed by eq.(\ref{NM}), the normal modes of the system are \cite{Doost2014,Muljarov2014}: \begin{eqnarray} \label{Ejme} \mathbf{E}_{j,m_z,q}^{(m)} (r,\theta,\phi)& = & A_j^{(m)} R_j(k_{j,q}^{(m)})\left[ \dfrac{1}{\sin \theta} \dfrac{\partial Y_{j,m_z}}{\partial \phi} \hat{\mathbf{\theta}} -\dfrac{\partial Y_{j,m_z}}{\partial \theta} \hat{\mathbf{\phi}} \right] \\ \mathbf{E}_{j,m_z,q}^{(e)} (r,\theta,\phi) & =& \dfrac{A_j^{(e)}}{\epsilon(r)k_{j,q}^{(e)}r} \left[ j(j+1) R_j(k_{j,q}^{(e)}) Y_{j,m_z} \hat{\mathbf{r}} + \right. \\ & & \left. \dfrac{\partial \left( r R_j(k_{j,q}^{(e)}) \right)}{\partial r} \dfrac{\partial Y_{j,m_z}}{\partial \theta}\hat{\mathbf{\theta}} + \dfrac{\partial \left( r R_j(k_{j,q}^{(e)}) \right)}{\partial r} \dfrac{1}{\sin\theta} \dfrac{\partialY_{j,m_z}}{\partial \phi} \hat{\mathbf{\phi}} \right] \nonumber \label{Ejmm} \end{eqnarray} where $(r,\theta,\phi)$ are the spherical coordinates in the real space; $k_{j,q}^{(m)}$ and $k_{j,q}^{(e)}$ are related to the eigenfrequencies of the mode, $k_{j,q}^{(x)} = \omega_{j,q}^{(x)}/ c$ with $c$ being the speed of light in vacuum; \begin{eqnarray} A_j^{(m)}& = &\sqrt{\dfrac{2}{j(j+1)R^3(n_r^2-1)}} \\ A_j^{(e)}& =&n_r^2 A^{(m)} \left( \sqrt{ \left[ \dfrac{j_{j-1}(n_rk_{j,q}^{(e)} R)}{j_j(n_rk_{j,q}^{(e)} R)} - \dfrac{j}{n_r k_{j,q}^{(e)} R } \right] + \dfrac{j(j+1)}{(k_{j,q}^{(e)}R)^2}} \right)^{-1} \end{eqnarray} are normalization constants, with $j_j(x)$ being the spherical Bessel function; \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5} \begin{equation} R_j(k_{j,q}^{(x)}) = \left\lbrace \begin{array}{lcc} \dfrac{j_j(n_r k_{j,q}^{(x)} r)}{j_j(n_r k_{j,q}^{(x)} R)} & \text{for} & r \leq R \\ \dfrac{h_j(k_{j,q}^{(x)} r)}{h_j(k_{j,q}^{(x)} R)} & \text{for} & r > R \end{array} \right. \end{equation} \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1} where $h_j(x)$ is a spherical Hankel function of the first kind; \begin{equation} Y_{j,m_z} = \sqrt{ \dfrac{2j+1}{2} \dfrac{(j-\vert m_z \vert)!}{(j+\vert m_z \vert)!} } P_{j}^{\vert m_z\vert}(\cos\theta) \chi_{m_z}(\phi) \end{equation} are the real spherical harmonics, with $P_{j}^{\vert m_z\vert}(\cos\theta)$ being the associated Legendre functions, and \begin{equation} \chi_{m_z} = \left\lbrace \begin{array}{lcc} \dfrac{\sin(m_z\phi)}{\sqrt{\pi}} & \text{for} & m<0 \\ \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}} & \text{for} & m=0 \\ \dfrac{\cos(m_z\phi)}{\sqrt{\pi}} & \text{for} & m>0 \end{array} \right. \end{equation} being an azimuthal function; finally, the electric permittivity function is \begin{equation} \label{epsilon} \epsilon(r)= \left\lbrace \begin{array}{lcc} n_r^2 & \text{for} & r \leq R \\ 1 & \text{for} & r > R \\ \end{array} \right. \end{equation} Notice that a constant magnetic permeability $\mu=1$ is assumed both for the embedding medium and the sphere. \subsection{Analysis of the effective volume} Here, we show that the effective volumes of Mie resonators can be related to the translation-addition coefficients $\left\lbrace t_{j',m'_z}^{(e)},t_{j',m'_z}^{(m)} \right\rbrace$ and the coefficients $\left\lbrace a_{j'},b_{j'} \right\rbrace$ (see Appendix). First of all, we re-write the Purcell factor formula given by eq.(\ref{Fe}) using the normal modes defined in eqs.(\ref{Ejme}-\ref{epsilon}) and the eigenfrequencies given by eqs.(\ref{oe}-\ref{om}): \begin{equation} F(\omega) = \dfrac{3\pi c^3}{\omega} \sum_{j,m_z,q} \left[ \mathrm{Im} \left\lbrace \dfrac{1}{V_{j,m_z,q}^{(e)} \omega_{j,q}^{(e)} \left( \omega_{j,q}^{(e)} - \omega \right)} \right\rbrace + \mathrm{Im} \left\lbrace \dfrac{1}{V_{j,m_z,q}^{(m)} \omega_{j,q}^{(m)} \left( \omega_{j,q}^{(m)} - \omega \right)} \right\rbrace \right] \label{PFsph} \end{equation} where \begin{equation} V_{j,m_z,q}^{(x)} = \dfrac{1}{\left( \mathbf{u_p} \cdot \mathbf{E}_{j,m_z,q}^{(x)} ( \mathbf{r_p}, \omega_{j,q}^{(x)} )\right)^2 } \label{Veffgen} \end{equation} That is, ten parameters need to be specified to compute the effective volume for a dipolar emitter using eq.(\ref{Veffgen}): $V_{\mu}=V_{j,m_z,q}^{(x)}(\mathbf{r_p},\mathbf{u_p})$. Now, it is enlightening to compare eq.(\ref{PFsph}) with the classical decay rates of the same system, which can be found in \cite{Chew1987}: \begin{equation} \dfrac{P}{P_0} = \dfrac{3c^6}{8\pi \vert p\vert^2 \omega^6}\sum_{j,m_z} \left[ \vert a^d_E(j,m_z) + a_j a^d_E(j,m_z) \vert^2 + \vert a^d_M(j,m_z) + b_j a^d_M(j,m_z) \vert^2 \right] \end{equation} The multipolar coefficients $a^d_E(j,m_z)$ and $a^d_M(j,m_z)$ defined in \cite{Chew1987} modulate the dipolar field exactly in the same manner as the translation-addition coefficients $\left\lbrace t_{j,m_z}^{(e)},t_{j,m_z}^{(m)} \right\rbrace$ do in eq.(\ref{dip_multi}) \cite{Chew1987}. They are defined as: \begin{eqnarray} t_{j,m_z}^{(e)} = a^d_E(j,m_z) \propto \mathbf{u_p} \cdot \mathbf{A}_{j,m_z}^{(e)}(\mathbf{r_p,\omega}) \\ t_{j,m_z}^{(m)} = a^d_M(j,m_z) \propto \mathbf{u_p} \cdot \Am(\mathbf{r_p,\omega}) \end{eqnarray} Hence, by comparison, we observe that the effective volumes can be analyzed thanks to the translation-addition coefficients: \begin{equation} \vert t_{j,m_z}^{(e)}(\omega) + a_j(\omega) t_{j,m_z}^{(e)}(\omega) \vert^2 \longleftrightarrow \sum_q \text{Im} \left\lbrace \dfrac{1}{V_{j,m_z,q}^{(e)}\omega_{j,q}^{(e)} \left( \omega_{j,q}^{(e)} - \omega \right)} \right\rbrace \label{compa} \end{equation} It is observed that the Purcell factor dependence on the azimuthal number $m_z$ is fully captured by the effective volume. For instance, if $t_{j,m'_z}^{(e)}(\omega)=0 \Longrightarrow V_{j,m'_z,q}^{(e)} \rightarrow \infty$. But the dependence on $j$ is more complex, and so is the dependence on $\omega$, which is given by a summation of the kind $\sum_q 1/(A_q-B_q\omega)$. Thus, the effective volume quantifies the coupling between the electromagnetic field created by the emitter and the normal mode in consideration, as well as their spectral overlap. \section{Purcell factor of silicon nano-cavities} For the rest of the study, we consider a silicon-made Mie resonator with a refractive index $n_r=3.5$, magnetic permability $\mu=1$, of radius $R=0.2\mu m$, embedded in air. The normal modes of the system and their eigenfrequencies are computed using the formulas given by eqs.(\ref{oe}-\ref{epsilon}). It will be shown that even in the more symmetric situations, the Purcell factor has contributions from more than one normal mode. Also, we will show that, thanks to symmetry considerations, it is possible to predict the value of $V_{j,m_z,q}^{(x)}$ for some cases. Finally, we will show that given a multipolar order $j'$, the average electric effective volume (it is defined next) is always smaller than the average magnetic effective volume. \subsection{Dipole in the center of the Mie resonator} An electric dipole is first supposed to be placed at the origin of the resonator, oriented along the $z$ axis, \textit{i.e.} $\mathbf{p}=p\hat{\mathbf{z}}$. Let us remind that the emitting frequency does not need to be given to compute the effective volumes. Thus, the electromagnetic field emitted by this dipole can be expressed simply as $\mathbf{E}^{\mathrm{d}}=\mathbf{A}_{1,0}^{(e)}$, \textit{i.e.} a single multipole (see appendix). That implies: \begin{equation} \begin{array}{ccccl} t_{j,m_z}^{(m)} &=&0 \ , & \ & \forall \left( j,m_z \right)\\ t_{j,m_z}^{(e)} &=&0 \ ,& \ & \forall \left( j,m_z \right) \neq (1,0) \end{array} \end{equation} Then, using eq.(\ref{compa}), it is observed that \begin{equation} \begin{array}{ccccl} V_{j,m_z,q}^{(m)} & \rightarrow & \infty \ ,& \ & \forall(j,m_z,q) \\ V_{j,m_z,q}^{(e)} & \rightarrow & \infty \ ,& \ & \forall(j,m_z,q) \neq (1,0,q) \end{array} \end{equation} Thus, the Purcell factor is given by: \begin{equation} \label{Fq} F(\omega)=\dfrac{3\pi c^3}{\omega}\sum_{q=1}^{\infty} \mathrm{Im} \left\lbrace \dfrac{1}{V_{1,0,q}^{(e)} \omega_{1,q}^{(e)} \left(\omega_{1,q}^{(e)} - \omega \right)} \right\rbrace \end{equation} In Table \ref{tab1}, we give the first four effective volumes and frequencies corresponding to $q=1,..,4$ units of $c=1$. \begin{table} \caption{\label{tab1}Effective volumes and eigenfrequencies associated to modes of the kind $\mathbf{E}_{1,0,q}^{(e)}$, for $q=1,..,4$. The effective volumes ($V_{1,0,q}^{(e)}$) are computed with respect to an electric dipole oriented along the $z$ axis and located in the center of the Mie resonator, using eq.(\ref{Veffgen}). The resonator is embedded in air, has an index of refraction $n_r=3.5$, and a radius $R=0.2 \mu m$. The eigenfrequencies ($\omega_{1,q}^{(e)}$) associated to $\mathbf{E}_{1,0,q}^{(e)}$ are computed with eq.(\ref{oe}).} \begin{ruledtabular} \begin{tabular}{ccccc} & $q=1$& $q=2$ & $q=3$ & $q=4$\\ \hline $V_{1,0,q}^{(e)}$ & $0.2514 + 0.2494i$ & $0.0383 + 0.0111i $ & $0.0151 + 0.0011i$ & $ 0.0077 + 0.0004i$ \\ \hline $\omega_{1,q}^{(e)}$ & $5.2940 - 2.4525i$ & $6.0470 - 0.6070i$ & $10.9925 - 0.5150i$ & $15.5635 - 0.4665i$\\ \end{tabular} \end{ruledtabular} \end{table} Using these values, the Purcell factor $F(\omega)$ as a function of the frequency of the emitter ($\omega$) is displayed in Fig.(\ref{dipole_0}). As it can be observed, $F(\omega)$ has contributions from different modes. When one of them is resonant, the behavior can almost be described with only one mode, but when they are not, this is no longer true. In addition, as it was shown in \cite{Koenderink2010}, when the Q-factor of a mode is not very high (as it is the case for $\mathbf{E}_{1,0,1}^{(e)} $), the Purcell factor can be underestimated if only one mode is considered. \begin{figure}[htbp] \centering\includegraphics[width=13cm]{FP_q} \caption{Purcell factor ($F(\omega)$) of an electric dipole oriented along the $z$ axis located in the center of the resonator. Both the total Purcell factor and its partial $q$-contributions shown by eq.(\ref{Fq}) are depicted.} \label{dipole_0} \end{figure} \subsection{Dipole displaced along the z axis}\label{subseczaxis} Here, we consider the case where an electric dipole with $\mathbf{p}=p\hat{\mathbf{z}}$ is translated from the center of the resonator to its surface along the $z$ axis. As discussed before, the electric field emitted by the dipole from a frame of reference centered on itself is given by $\mathbf{E}^{\mathrm{d}}=\mathbf{A}_{1,0}^{(e)}$. However, the description of the normal modes of the cavity with respect to a frame of reference centered at the displaced dipole becomes cumbersome. It is easier to describe $\mathbf{E}^{\mathrm{d}}$ from the frame of reference centered at the center of the cavity. Therefore, the translation-addition coefficients $t_{j,m_z}^{(x)}$ are used to express $\mathbf{E}^{\mathrm{d}}$ with respect to a different point $z_0$ on the $z$ axis. As we showed in eq.(\ref{dip_multi}), the expression is a general superposition of multipolar fields. Now, we demonstrate that a translation along the $z$ axis restricts this general superposition to a case where $t_{j,m_z}^{(e)}=f(j)\delta_{0,m_z}$ and therefore: \begin{equation} \Ed=\mathbf{A}_{1,0}^{(e)}(\mathbf{r}-z_0 \hat{\mathbf{z}})=\sum_{j'} t_{j',0}^{(e)} \mathbf{A}_{j',0}^{(e)} \end{equation} On one hand, the multipolar fields are eigenstates of the $z$ component of the angular momentum, $J_z$, \textit{i.e.} $J_z \mathbf{A}_{j,m_z}^{(x)} = m_z\mathbf{A}_{j,m_z}^{(x)} $ \cite{Zambrana2013JQSRT,ZambranaThesis,Tung1985}. On the other hand, a translation along the $z$ axis can be expressed as a function of the $z$ component of the linear momentum, $P_z$: $T_z(\Delta z)=\exp\left( -i P_z \Delta z \right)$. Then, because $J_z$ and $P_z$ commute, $\left[ J_z, P_z \right]=0$, a translation along the $z$ axis must maintain the $z$ component of the angular momentum \cite{Sakurai1995,Tung1985}. A justification why $t_{j,m_z}^{(m)}=0$ can be found in \cite{Tung1985}. With the relations brought forward by eq.(\ref{compa}), we obtain that: \begin{equation} \begin{array}{ccccl} V_{j,m_z,q}^{(m)} & \rightarrow & \infty \ ,& \ & \forall(j,m_z,q) \\ V_{j,m_z,q}^{(e)} & \rightarrow & \infty \ ,& \ & \forall(j,m_z,q) \neq (j,0,q) \end{array} \end{equation} Hence, the Purcell factor can be analytically written in this occasion as: \begin{equation} F(\omega)=\dfrac{3\pi c^3}{\omega}\sum_{j,q} \mathrm{Im} \left\lbrace \dfrac{1}{V_{j,0,q}^{(e)} \omega_{j,q}^{(e)} \left(\omega_{j,q}^{(e)} - \omega \right)} \right\rbrace \end{equation} Notice that even though the formula is still very simplified (with respect to eq.(\ref{PFsph})), the number of mode volumes and eigenfrequencies that need to be computed in order to calculate $F(\omega)$ increases a lot. In Table \ref{tab2}, we give the eigenfrequencies of all the normal modes whose frequencies lay in the interval given by the frequencies given in Table \ref{tab1}, \textit{i.e.} $\mathrm{Re} \left\lbrace \omega_{j,q}^{(e)} \right\rbrace \in [4, 16]$. \begin{table} \caption{\label{tab2}Eigenfrequencies of a Mie resonator embedded in air, with $n_r=3.5$, and $R=0.2 \mu m$. Only the frequencies in interval $\mathrm{Re} \left\lbrace \omega_{j,q}^{(e)} \right\rbrace \in [4, 16]$ are listed.} \begin{ruledtabular} \begin{tabular}{ccccc} & $q=1$& $q=2$ & $q=3$ & $q=4$\\ \hline $\omega_{1,q}^{(e)}$ & $5.2940 - 2.4525i$ & $6.0470 - 0.6070i$ & $10.9925 - 0.5150i$ & $15.5635 - 0.4665i$\\ \hline $\omega_{2,q}^{(e)}$ & $7.7377 - 0.1466i$ & $10.5360 - 3.3610i$ & $12.7485 - 0.6925i$ & \\ \hline $\omega_{3,q}^{(e)}$ & $9.6137 - 0.02975i$ & $14.2235 - 0.4400i$ & $15.8325 - 3.8870i$ & \\ \hline $\omega_{4,q}^{(e)}$ & $11.392145 - 0.0059795i$ & $16.1388499 - 0.138451i$ & & \\ \hline $\omega_{5,q}^{(e)}$ & $13.1071675 - 0.0011945i$ & & & \\ \hline $\omega_{6,q}^{(e)}$ & $14.78344639 - 0.0002351i$ & & & \end{tabular} \end{ruledtabular} \end{table} \begin{figure}[htbp] \centering\includegraphics[width=13cm]{Fig2log} \caption{Logarithm of the Purcell factor ($\log \left[ F(\omega,z_0) \right]$) as a function of the frequency $\omega$ of the emitter and its position $z_0$ in the $z$ axis. The orientation of the dipole is along the $z$ axis. The Mie resonator is embedded in air and is defined by $n_r=3.5$, and $R=0.2 \mu m$.} \label{PFz0} \end{figure} In Fig.\ref{PFz0}, we plot $\log\left( F(\omega,z_0) \right) $, \textit{i.e.} the Purcell factor as a function of the emitting frequency of the dipole ($\omega$) and its position in the $z$ axis ($z_0$). \begin{figure}[htbp] \centering\includegraphics[width=13cm]{Fig3} \caption{Logarithm of the effective volumes ($\log\left( V_{j,0,q}^{(e)} \right)$) of normal modes of the kind $\mathbf{E}_{j,0,q}^{(e)}$ as a function of the position of the emitter $z_0$. Only the normal modes associated to the eigenfrequencies given by Table \ref{tab2} are considered. The emitter is an electric dipole oriented along the $z$ axis, and its position is moved along the $z$ axis. The Mie resonator is embedded in air and is defined by $n_r=3.5$, and $R=0.2 \mu m$. } \label{EffVolz0} \end{figure} The logarithmic function is used to visualize the behavior of $\log\left( F(\omega,z_0) \right) $. It is observed that when the dipole is very close to the origin, $\log\left( F(\omega,z_0) \right) $ has broad resonances, as obtained in Fig.\ref{dipole_0}. However, when the dipole is displaced from the origin, its coupling to the resonator gets stronger as well as more resonant. Note that even though some of the resonances have an extremely narrow linewidth, their contribution to the Purcell factor is not present for all the positions of the dipole. For example, $\omega_{5,1}^{(e)}$ almost does not contribute to the Purcell factor for $\frac{z_0}{R} < 0.3 $. The reason why this happens is that the effective volume $V_{5,0,1}^{(e)}$ is very large for $\frac{z_0}{R} > 0.3 $. This can be observed in Fig.\ref{EffVolz0}, where the effective volumes of all the modes used to compute $F(\omega,z_0)$ in Fig.\ref{PFz0} are given. Finally, note that even though the most resonant behavior is given by the modes with $q=1$, the whole Purcell factor picture would be different if only modes with $q=1$ were included. A comparison between the two has been depicted in Fig.\ref{fig5}. \begin{figure}[htbp] \centering\includegraphics[width=16cm]{Figq1} \caption{Comparison between a) the Purcell factor computed using all the normal $q$-modes of the resonator and b) the Purcell factor computed only considering modes with $q=1$. In both cases, the Purcell factor is computed as a function of the frequency $\omega$ of the emitter and its position $z_0$ in the $z$ axis. The emitter is oriented along the $z$ axis in both cases. The Mie resonator is consideration is embedded in air and is defined by $n_r=3.5$, and $R=0.2 \mu m$. } \label{fig5} \end{figure} \subsection{Effective volumes. Average values} In this section, we describe the computation of average effective volumes and show that given a multipolar order $j$, the average effective volumes are always smaller for electric modes. Suppose that a Mie resonator is doped with a large number of dipolar emitters. In general, both their locations and orientations in the resonator are unknown. Thus, we can define the average effective volume as: \begin{equation} \left\langle V_{j,m_z,q}^{(x)} \right\rangle = \int_0^R \int_{\Omega} \dfrac{3r^2 \mathrm{d} r \mathrm{d} \Omega}{[\hat{\mathbf{r}} \cdot \mathbf{E}_{j,m_z,q}^{(x)}]^2+[\hat{\mathbf{\theta}} \cdot \mathbf{E}_{j,m_z,q}^{(x)}]^2+[\hat{\mathbf{\phi}} \cdot \mathbf{E}_{j,m_z,q}^{(x)}]^2} \label{Aveffvol} \end{equation} Because the order of the integrals can be interchanged, we can also define an average angular effective volume: \begin{equation} \left\langle V_{j,m_z,q}^{(x)} (r) \right\rangle = \int_{\Omega} \dfrac{3 \mathrm{d} \Omega}{[\hat{\mathbf{r}} \cdot \mathbf{E}_{j,m_z,q}^{(x)}(r)]^2+[\hat{\mathbf{\theta}} \cdot \mathbf{E}_{j,m_z,q}^{(x)}(r)]^2+[\hat{\mathbf{\phi}} \cdot \mathbf{E}_{j,m_z,q}^{(x)}(r)]^2} \end{equation} so that the average effective volume is computed as: \begin{equation} \left\langle V_{j,m_z,q}^{(x)} \right\rangle = \int_0^R r^2 \left\langle V_{j,m_z,q}^{(x)} (r) \right\rangle \mathrm{d} r \end{equation} Note that in this case, there is only one symmetry argument, which is that $V_{j,m_z,q}^{(x)}=V_{j,-m_z,q}^{(x)}$. The reason stems from the definition of the normal modes of the systems given by eqs.(\ref{Ejme}-\ref{epsilon}). In particular, the only dependence of $\mathbf{E}_{j,m_z,q}^{(x)}$ in $m_z$ comes via $Y_{jm_z}$ and $\chi_{m_z}$, and it can be seen that an integral over $2\pi$ equalizes the behavior of the modes with $m_z$ and $-m_z$. Thus, in general, the average effective volume $\left\langle \Vx \right\rangle$ does not tend to infinity for all $j,m_z,q,(x)$. In Table \ref{AvVol} we present the values of the inverse of $\left\langle \Vx \right\rangle$ for different electric and magnetic modes with $q=1$. If $1/\left\langle \Vx \right\rangle$ is large, the mode in consideration contributes significantly to the Purcell factor at $\omega = \mathrm{Re} \left\lbrace \omega_{j,q}^{(x)} \right\rbrace$. That is, a large value of $1/\left\langle \Vx \right\rangle$ means good coupling between that mode and the resonator. \begin{table} \caption{\label{AvVol}Computation of $1/\left\langle \Vx \right\rangle$ for different normal modes of the resonator. All the volumes have been computed with $q=1$. The variation in $\left\lbrace j,m_z,(x) \right\rbrace$ is made explicit in the table. Large values of $ \vert 1/\left\langle \Vx \right\rangle \vert$ indicate good coupling between the uniform distribution of dipoles in the resonator and the mode in consideration. The resonator is embedded in air and is defined by $n_r=3.5$, and $R=0.2 \mu m$. } \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline $j$& $m_z$ & $(e)$ & $(m)$ \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{$j=1$} & $m_z=0$ & $22.6754 -12.5357i $ & $0.778488 -0.0930585i$ \\ & $m_z=1$ & $22.6754 -12.5359i$ & $4.69505 + -0.561234i$ \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{$j=2$} & $m_z=0$ & $8.86982 -0.944547i$ & $0.0222563 + -0.0020265i$ \\ & $m_z=1$ & $2.89243 -0.745228i $ & $0.310968 -0.0283146i$ \\ & $m_z=2$ & $0.674872 + -1.2691i $ & $0.0814357 -0.00741497i$ \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{$j=3$} & $m_z=0$ & $4.39869 -0.0542868i $ & $2.14545\e{-5} -6.63047\e{-7}i$ \\ & $m_z=1$ & $0.0743161 + 0.120752i $ & $0.000216611 -6.69432\e{-6}i$ \\ & $m_z=2$ & $-0.157549 + 0.0998519i$ & $0.000122304 -3.7798\e{-6}i$ \\ & $m_z=3$ & $-8.03716\e{-10} + 2.58389\e{-10}i $ & $1.60496\e{-12} -4.96009\e{-14}i$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \end{table} Two observations can be made. Firstly, it is seen that the coupling $1/\left\langle \Vx \right\rangle$ decreases with the multipolar order $j$. This result can be interpreted using the radial dependence of multipolar fields. Indeed, the intensity of a multipolar field has a radial dependence that is given by a spherical Bessel function $j_j(kr)$. Now, when given a fixed $kr^*$ position close to the origin, $j_{j-1}(kr^*) >j_{j}(kr^*)$ \citep{Abramowitz1970}. That is, lower multipolar orders have a non-null intensity in the center of the sphere, whereas the intensity of higher orders is pushed to the surface. Consequently, smaller values of $\vert \mathbf{E}_{j,m_z,q}^{(x)} \vert$ contribute to the integral given by eq.(\ref{Aveffvol}) for most of the points in the domain. Secondly, given a multipolar order $j$, the coupling of the magnetic modes is always smaller than the coupling to the electric ones. This fact can be understood using eq.(\ref{compa}). As we saw for the case of a displaced dipole along the $z$ axis, the coupling of a dipolar emitter to magnetic modes is completely suppressed. This fact changes when the dipoles are not located or oriented along the $z$ axis, but the coupling with electric modes (given by the translation-addition coefficients $t_{j,m_z}^{(e)}$) still remains stronger. Finally, we plot $1/ \left\langle V_{j,m_z,q}^{(x)} (r) \right\rangle $ for a few normal modes. This is depicted in Fig.\ref{j1} and Fig.\ref{j2}. Note that the results of Table \ref{AvVol} are computed as radial integrals of these plots. \begin{figure}[htbp] \centering\includegraphics[width=13cm]{Figj1} \caption{Absolute values of the inverse of the angular average effective volume ($ \vert 1/ \left\langle V_{j,m_z,q}^{(x)} (r) \right\rangle \vert $ ) for $j=1$ and $q=1$. Large values of $\vert 1/ \left\langle V_{j,m_z,q}^{(x)} (r) \right\rangle \vert $ indicate good coupling between the uniform distribution of dipoles in the resonator and the mode in consideration. The resonator is embedded in air and is defined by $n_r=3.5$, and $R=0.2 \mu m$. } \label{j1} \end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \centering\includegraphics[width=16cm]{Figj2} \caption{Absolute value of the inverse of the angular average effective volume ($ \vert 1/ \left\langle V_{j,m_z,q}^{(x)} (r) \right\rangle \vert $ ) for $j=2$ and $q=1$. Large values of $\vert 1/ \left\langle V_{j,m_z,q}^{(x)} (r) \right\rangle \vert $ indicate good coupling between the uniform distribution of dipoles in the resonator and the mode in consideration. The resonator is embedded in air and is defined by $n_r=3.5$, and $R=0.2 \mu m$.} \label{j2} \end{figure} \section{Conclusions} In conclusion, we derive the Purcell factor for magnetic and electric dipolar emitters. We particularize it for the case of spherical Mie resonators and emitting electric dipoles. Using the eigenfrequencies and the analytic expressions of the normal modes of the system, we analyze the meaning of the effective volume for spherical cavities. It is seen that its value is related to the multipolar coefficients in the translation-addition formulas. That is, the effective volume of a normal mode locally quantifies the strength of the coupling of a dipolar emitter to that normal mode. Finally, the Purcell factor is computed for different symmetric scenarios. We observe that the magnetic effective volumes are $V_{j,m_z,q}^{(m)} \rightarrow \infty$ for some symmetric configurations, showing no coupling between the electric emitter and the magnetic modes of the structure. However, in less symmetric configurations, this is not necessarily the case. Finally, an average effective volume is computed both for electric and magnetic modes, revealing that $\left\langle \Ve \right\rangle < \left\langle \Vm \right\rangle$, \textit{i.e.} the coupling to electric modes is generally better than the coupling to magnetic modes. The situation could be reverted if the effective volumes were computed with dipolar magnetic emitters. \section{acknowledgments} The authors want to thank Alexis Devilez, Brian Stout, Jean-Paul Hugonin, Christophe Sauvan, Philippe Lalanne and G\'{e}rard Colas des Francs for fruitful discussions. This work has been carried out thanks to the support of the A*MIDEX project (n$^{\circ}$ ANR-11-IDEX-0001-02) funded by the Investissements d'Avenir French Government program managed by the French National Research Agency (ANR). \renewcommand{\theequation}{A.\arabic{equation}} \setcounter{equation}{0} \section*{Appendix} Here, we give describe the interaction of a dipolar emitter and a Mie resonator. As it is described in \cite{Wittmann1988}, an emitting dipole is a multipolar field with $j=1$. If the dipole is electric, then its associated electric field can be described as $\mathbf{A}_{1,m_z}^{(e)}$ with respect to a frame of reference centred on the dipole itself, where $m_z$ depends on the orientation of the dipole. In fact, $m_z=\pm 1$ if the electric dipole is given by $\mathbf{p}=p \frac{\hat{\mathbf{x}} \mp i \hat{\mathbf{y}}}{\sqrt{2}}$, or $m_z=0$ if $\mathbf{p}=p \hat{\mathbf{z}}$. Then, when $\mathbf{A}_{1,m_z}^{(e)}$ is expressed with respect to a reference of frame which at a distance $\mathbf{r}_0$ of it, the dipolar field is re-expressed as \begin{equation} \label{dip_multi} \Ed=\mathbf{A}_{1,m_z}^{(e)}(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}_0)=\sum_{j',m'_z} t_{j',m'_z}^{(e)} \mathbf{A}_{j',m'_z}^{(e)} + t_{j',m'_z}^{(m)} \mathbf{A}_{j',m'_z}^{(m)} \end{equation} with $\left\lbrace t_{j',m'_z}^{(e)},t_{j',m'_z}^{(m)} \right\rbrace$ being the translation-addition coefficients, that can be found in \cite{Wittmann1988,Mishchenko2002}. The magnetic field can be computed using the relation \cite{Bohren1983}: \begin{equation} \label{H} \mathbf{H}= i\dfrac{\nabla \times \mathbf{E}}{\omega \mu k} \end{equation} Due to the symmetries of the problem, the interior and scattered field are given by \cite{ZambranaThesis}: \begin{eqnarray} \label{Eint} \Eint = \sum_{j',m'_z} d_{j'} t_{j',m'_z}^{(e)} \mathbf{A}_{j',m'_z}^{(e)} + c_{j'} t_{j',m'_z}^{(m)} \mathbf{A}_{j',m'_z}^{(m)} \\ \Es = \sum_{j',m'_z} a_{j'} t_{j',m'_z}^{(e)} \mathbf{A}_{j',m'_z}^{(e)} + b_{j'} t_{j',m'_z}^{(m)} \mathbf{A}_{j',m'_z}^{(m)} \label{Es} \end{eqnarray} where $\{ a_{j'},b_{j'},c_{j'},d_{j'} \}$ are functions of the multipolar order $j$; the ratio between the index of refraction of the resonator and the embedding medium $n_r$; and the size parameter of the problem, given by $x= \frac{2\pi R}{\lambda}$, with $R$ the radius of the spherical resonator and $\lambda$ the wavelength of the emission of the radiating dipole. The coefficients ${a_j,b_j,c_j,d_j}$ are known as Mie coefficients when the dipole is outside of the resonator, but take a different form when the dipole is inside of it \cite{Chew1976,Chew1987}. The magnetic fields $\Hint$ and $\Hs$ are computed with eq.(\ref{H}).
\section{Introduction} Improved astronomical observational facilities have enabled the discovery and study of many galaxies at an early phase of the Universe's history. It is now possible to witness the majority of the stellar and black hole mass growth over cosmic time and identify how physical conditions at early times differ from now. One of the major relations to be determined as a function of time is the tight correlation between black hole mass and galaxy properties observed for nearby galaxies (see \citeauthor{Kormendy:2013} 2013 for a review). Observations of this relation at high-redshift are critical to understanding the cause because most of the growth occurred at early times. Attempts to measure black hole and galaxy masses at high-redshift face a number of problems. Black hole mass measurements cannot be made directly by resolved kinematics of gas or stars within the black hole's sphere of influence, nor by reverberation mapping. Instead black hole masses, $M_{\rm BH}$, of quasars can be measured at any redshift using the single-epoch virial mass estimator that involves measuring a low-ionization broad emission line, such as Mg\,{\sc ii}\ or H$\beta$, and calibrating the location of the emitting gas with low-$z$ reverberation-mapped quasars \citep{Wandel:1999a}. For AGN with obscured broad lines $M_{\rm BH}$ can only be estimated from the luminosity making an assumption about the accretion rate relative to the Eddington limit. Measuring galaxy properties, such as luminosity or velocity dispersion, $\sigma$, of distant quasars is hampered by surface brightness dimming, the bright glare of the quasar and AGN (active galactic nuclei) emission line-contamination of spectral features. Up to $z\approx 1$ there has been considerable success in measuring AGN host galaxy luminosities, morphologies and in some cases velocity dispersions \citep{Cisternas:2011,Park:2014}. At higher redshifts ($1<z<4$) the galaxy light is more difficult to separate from the quasar, which, combined with greater mass-to-light corrections, lead to larger uncertainties \citep{Merloni:2010,Targett:2012}. The results of these studies are mixed with some evidence in favour of higher $M_{\rm BH}$ at a given galaxy mass. At yet higher redshifts it has proved impossible to measure the galaxy light of quasars \citep{Mechtley:2012} before launch of the {\it James Webb Space Telescope~}\ and instead the main method of determining galaxy mass is kinematics of cool gas in star-forming regions \citep{Carilli:2013}. Facilities such as the IRAM Plateau de Bure Interferometer, the Jansky Very Large Array and the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) have sufficient sensitivity and resolution to resolve the gas in distant quasar hosts and provide dynamical masses \citep{Walter:2004,Walter:2009,Wang:2010,Wang:2013}. In particular, ALMA has the sensitivity to probe $z=6$ quasar hosts with star formation rates, SFR, in the tens of solar masses per year, rather than only in the extreme starbursts previously observable \citep{Willott:2013}. The studies above focussed on $z\approx 6$ Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) and UKIRT Infrared Deep Sky Survey (UKIDSS) quasars with high UV and far-IR luminosities and found that their black holes are on average 10 times greater than the corresponding $\sigma$ for local galaxies, roughly consistent with a continuation of the evolution seen in lower redshift studies. Although observationally there appears to be an increase in $M_{\rm BH}$ with redshift at a given galaxy mass or $\sigma$, it has long been understood that there are selection biases that affect how closely the observations trace the underlying distribution. In particular, the steepness of the galaxy and dark matter mass functions combined with large scatter in their correlations with black hole mass mean that a high black-hole-mass-selected sample of quasars will have a systematic offset in $\sigma$ towards lower values. This effect, first identified by \citet{Willott:2005b} and \citet{Fine:2006} was studied in detail in \citet{Lauer:2007} and numerous studies thereafter. The magnitude of the effect depends upon the scatter in the correlation, which has not been conclusively measured at high-redshift, but appears to increase with redshift \citep{Schulze:2014}. \citet{Willott:2005b} and \citet{Lauer:2007} showed that the bias is particularly strong for $M_{\rm BH}>10^9 M_\odot$ quasars such as those in the SDSS at $z \approx 6$ and therefore that the factor of 10 increase in $M_{\rm BH}$ at a given $\sigma$ first seen in the quasar SDSS\,J1148+5251 \citep{Walter:2004} could be accounted for by the bias (see also \citeauthor{Schulze:2014} 2014). In comparison, there would be little bias for a sample of high-$z$ quasars with black hole masses of $M_{\rm BH}\sim10^8 M_\odot$ \citep{Lauer:2007}. An alternative to measuring the evolution of the assembled galaxy and black hole masses is to determine the rate at which mass growth is occurring. For quasars the bolometric luminosity is a measure of the black hole mass growth rate. For galaxies, the star formation rate is proportional to the stellar mass growth. The star formation rate can be determined by the rest-frame far-infrared dust continuum luminosity. Additionally, the interstellar [C\,{\sc ii}]\ far-infrared emission line is well-correlated with star-formation \citep{De-Looze:2014,Sargsyan:2014} so can also be used as a star formation proxy. In \citeauthor{Willott:2013} (2013, hereafter Wi13) we presented Cycle 0 ALMA observations in the [C\,{\sc ii}]\ line and 1.2\,mm continuum for two $z=6.4$ quasars from the Canada-France-High-z Quasar Survey (CFHQS, \citeauthor{Willott:2010a} 2010b). These quasars have $M_{\rm BH}\sim10^8 M_\odot$, a factor of 10--30 lower than most SDSS quasars known at these redshifts. One quasar was detected in line and continuum and the other remained undetected in these sensitive observations placing an upper limit on its star formation rate of SFR$<40\,M_\odot\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$. In this paper we present ALMA observations of two further CFHQS quasars with similar redshift and black hole mass with the aim of providing a sample large enough to address the issue of how host galaxy properties such as SFR, $\sigma$ and dynamical mass depend upon black hole accretion rate and mass at a time just 1 billion years after the Big Bang. In particular, these quasars are not subject to the bias in the $M_{\rm BH} - \sigma$ relation discussed previously because of their moderate black hole masses. Cosmological parameters of $H_0=67.8~ {\rm km~s^{-1}~Mpc^{-1}}$, $\Omega_{\mathrm M}=0.307$ and $\Omega_\Lambda=0.693$ \citep{Planck-Collaboration:2014} are assumed throughout. \section{Observations} CFHQS\,J005502+014618 (hereafter J0055+0146) and CFHQS\,J222901+145709 (hereafter J2229+1457) were observed with ALMA on the 28, 29 and 30 November 2013 for Cycle 1 project 2012.1.00676.S. Between 22 and 26 12\,m diameter antennae were used. The typical long baselines were $\sim 400$\,m providing similar spatial resolution to our Cycle 0 observations. Observations of the science targets were interleaved with nearby phase calibrators, J0108+0135 and J2232+1143. The amplitude calibrator was Neptune and the bandpass calibrators J2258-2758 and J2148+0657. Total on-source integration times were 4610\,s for J0055+0146 and 5490\,s for J2229+1457. The band 6 (1.3\,mm) receivers were set to cover the frequency range of the redshifted [C\,{\sc ii}]\ transition ($\nu_{\rm rest}$=1900.5369 GHz) and sample the dust continuum. There are four $\approx 2$\,GHz basebands, two pairs of adjacent bands with a $11$\,GHz gap in between. The channel width is 15.625\,MHz (17\,km\,s$^{-1}$). The data were initially processed by North American ALMA Regional Center staff with the {\small CASA} software package\footnotemark. On inspection of these data it became clear that the [C\,{\sc ii}]\ line of J0055+0146 was located right at the edge of the baseband, 1000\,km\,s$^{-1}$ from the targeted frequency defined by the broad, low-ionization Mg\,{\sc ii}\ emission line ($z_{\rm MgII} = 5.983$; \citeauthor{Willott:2010} 2010a). The Mg\,{\sc ii}\ line redshift is usually close to the systemic redshift as measured by narrow optical lines with a dispersion of 270\,km\,s$^{-1}$ \citep{Richards:2002}. A large offset for this quasar was not particularly surprising for two reasons: firstly the signal-to-noise (SNR) of the Mg\,{\sc ii}\ detection is not very high and the line appears double-peaked due to noise and/or associated absorption; secondly the Ly$\alpha$\ redshift ($z_{\rm Ly \alpha} = 6.02$) is offset from Mg\,{\sc ii}\ by 1600\,km\,s$^{-1}$ (in the same direction as the [C\,{\sc ii}]\ offset) and this would make the size of the Ly$\alpha$\ ionized near-zone negative, which is not physically sensible for a quasar with such a high ionizing flux and has not been observed in a sample of 27 $z\approx 6$ quasars \citep{Carilli:2010}. Due to this redshift uncertainty the receiver basebands were set up so that the adjacent band covered the Ly$\alpha$\ redshift with zero gap between the two bands. \footnotetext{http://casa.nrao.edu} The default ALMA Regional Center reduction excluded 11 channels at each end of the 128 channel band. However, only the first 4 channels need to be excluded, so we re-reduced the data with {\small CASA} to include more spectral channels at the baseband edges. We checked that the noise does not increase in these extra channels, except for the very first and last channels to contain data so we excluded those. In summary our reduced product contains 118 of the original 128 channels per baseband, compared with 106 channels in the default reduction. \begin{figure}[t] \hspace{-0.5cm} \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.39]{fig1.pdf} \caption{ALMA spectrum of J0055+0146 covering two adjacent basebands. The gap between the bands with no data is shaded in gray. The higher frequency band is centred on the redshift determined from the Mg\,{\sc ii}\ emission line whereas the lower frequency band covers the Ly$\alpha$\ redshift. The [C\,{\sc ii}]\ line is found at the edge of the higher frequency band. The blue curve is a Gaussian plus continuum fit as described in the text. The red circle marks the continuum level independently measured in the three line-free basebands. The upper axis is the velocity offset from the best-fit [C\,{\sc ii}]\ Gaussian peak.} \label{fig:linespecj0055} \end{figure} \section{Results} Figure \ref{fig:linespecj0055} shows the reduced spectrum of J0055+0146 from the two adjacent basebands. The final gap between the bands is only $\approx$ 150 \,km\,s$^{-1}$ and crucially the peak of the [C\,{\sc ii}]\ line is contained within the higher frequency band. The lower frequency band contains only a small amount of the line flux but provides an important constraint on the wings and hence the peak and width for a symmetric line. A single Gaussian plus flat continuum model was fit to the available data using a Markov-Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC). This process shows a good fit for a single Gaussian with FWHM\,=\,$359 \pm 27$ km\,s$^{-1}$. The formal uncertainty in the FWHM is very small considering that there is some missing data. This is because a symmetric line model is used and with the peak and wings covered by data there is little margin for deviation in the missing channels. We add in quadrature an extra 10\% uncertainty in both the line flux and FWHM due to the missing channels. \begin{figure}[t] \hspace{-0.5cm} \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.39]{fig2.pdf} \caption{ALMA spectrum of J2229+1457 covering the single baseband containing the [C\,{\sc ii}]\ line. The blue curve is a Gaussian plus continuum fit and the red circle the independent continuum level. The upper axis is the velocity offset from the best-fit [C\,{\sc ii}]\ Gaussian peak.} \label{fig:linespecj2229} \end{figure} The spectrum of J2229+1457 is plotted in Figure \ref{fig:linespecj2229}. For this quasar the [C\,{\sc ii}]\ line is centred in the band with no significant offset from the Mg\,{\sc ii}\ redshift. The line is consistent with a single Gaussian with a best fit FWHM\,=\,$351 \pm 39$ km\,s$^{-1}$, similar to the value for J0055+0146. The continuum level of the fit is again consistent with the independent continuum level determined from the three line-free basebands. Measurements from the spectra are given in Table \ref{tab:data}. \begin{figure}[t] \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.31]{fig3.pdf} \caption{The color scale shows the integrated [C\,{\sc ii}]\ line maps for the two quasars. White contours of 1.2\,mm continuum emission from the three line-free basebands are over-plotted at levels of 2,\,4,\,6\,$\sigma$\,beam$^{-1}$. The quasar optical positions are shown with a black plus symbol. The positional offsets between the optical and millimeter are most likely due to astrometric mismatch, rather than a physical offset. J0055+0146 is well-detected in both continuum and line emission. J2229+1457 has only a $2\sigma$ continuum detection that is spatially co-incident with the line emission. The restoring beam is shown in yellow in the lower-left corner.} \label{fig:contlinemaps} \end{figure} Figure \ref{fig:contlinemaps} shows maps of the 1.2\,mm continuum (white contours) plus the [C\,{\sc ii}]\ line (color scale) for the quasars. For both quasars there is no significant offset between any of the continuum or line centroids or the optical quasar position. The $< 1^{\prime\prime}$ mm-optical offset is within the relative uncertainty of the optical astrometry. The more accurate [C\,{\sc ii}]\ positions for the two quasars are 00:55:02.92 +01.46.17.80 and 22:29:01.66 +14.57.08.30. For J2229+1457 there is only a marginal $2\sigma$ detection of the continuum located coincident with the peak of the line emission. As seen in Figure \ref{fig:contlinemaps} there are several other continuum peaks of this magnitude or greater in the vicinity, so it is not considered a secure detection, however the measured flux and uncertainty are included in Table \ref{tab:data}. The quasar 1.2\,mm continuum flux-densities were converted to far-infrared luminosity, $L_{\rm FIR}$, assuming a typical SED for high-redshift star-forming galaxies. As in \citetalias{Willott:2013} we adopt a greybody spectrum with dust temperature, $T_{\rm d} =47$\,K and emissivity index, $\beta=1.6$. To convert from far-IR luminosity to star formation rate we use the relation SFR $(M_\odot\,{\rm yr}^{-1})=1.5\times10^{-10}L_{\rm FIR}\, (L_\odot)$ appropriate for a Chabrier IMF \citep{Carilli:2013}. We note that this assumes that all the dust contributing to the 1.2\,mm continuum is heated by hot stars and not by the quasar. An alternative estimate of the star formation rate comes from the [C\,{\sc ii}]\ luminosity. We adopt the relation in \citet{Sargsyan:2014} of SFR $(M_\odot\,{\rm yr}^{-1}) = 1.0\times10^{-7}L_{\rm [CII]} \, (L_\odot)$. For the remainder of this paper, uncertainties on $L_{\rm FIR}$ (and inferred SFR) only include the flux measurement uncertainties, not that of the dust temperature and luminosity to SFR conversion. \begin{table} \begin{center} \caption{Millimeter data for the two CFHQS quasars\label{tab:data}} \vspace{-0.5cm} \begin{tabular}{lll} \tableline & CFHQS\,J0055+0146 & CFHQS\,J2229+1457\\ \tableline $z_{\rm MgII}\,^{\rm a}$ & $5.983 \pm 0.004 $ & $6.152 \pm 0.003 $ \\ $z_{\rm [CII]}$ & $6.0060 \pm 0.0008$ & $6.1517 \pm 0.0005$\\ FWHM$_{\rm [CII]}$ & $359 \pm 45$ km\,s$^{-1} $& $351 \pm 39$ km\,s$^{-1} $\\ $I _{\rm [CII]} ~($Jy\,km\,s$^{-1}) $ & $0.839 \pm 0.132$ & $0.582 \pm 0.075$\\ $L_{\rm [CII]} ~(L_\odot)$ & $(8.27 \pm 1.30) \times 10^8$ & $(5.96 \pm 0.77) \times 10^8$\\ $f_{\rm 1.2mm}\ (\mu$Jy) & $211 \pm 34$ & $54 \pm 29$\\ $L_{\rm FIR} ~ (L_\odot)$ & $(4.85 \pm 0.78) \times 10^{11}$ & $(1.24 \pm 0.67) \times 10^{11} $\\ SFR$_{\rm [CII]}\,(M_\odot\,{\rm yr}^{-1})$ & $83 \pm 13$ & $60 \pm 8$\\ SFR$_{\rm FIR}\,(M_\odot\,{\rm yr}^{-1})$ & $73 \pm 12$ & $19 \pm 10$\\ $L_{\rm [CII]} / L_{\rm FIR}$ & $(1.70 \pm 0.38) \times 10^{-3}$ & $(4.80 \pm 2.67) \times 10^{-3}$ \\ \tableline \end{tabular} \end{center} {\sc Notes.}---\\ $^{\rm a}$ Derived from Mg\,{\sc ii}\ $\lambda2799$ observations \citep{Willott:2010}.\\ Uncertainties in $L_{\rm FIR}$, SFR$_{\rm [CII]}$ and SFR$_{\rm FIR}$ only include measurement uncertainties, not the uncertainties in extrapolating from a monochromatic to integrated luminosity or that of the luminosity-SFR calibrations. \end{table} The synthesized beam sizes are $0\farcs63$ by $0\farcs45$ for J0055+0146 and $0\farcs76$ by $0\farcs64$ for J2229+1457. The better resolution for J0055+0146 is mostly due to higher elevation of observation. We used the {\small CASA IMFIT} task to fit 2D gaussian models to these maps. For J0055 both the continuum and line are resolved with deconvolved source sizes of $0\farcs51 \pm 0\farcs13$ by $0\farcs35 \pm 0\farcs26$ at position angle 87 degrees and $0\farcs50 \pm 0\farcs14$ by $0\farcs18 \pm 0\farcs27$ at position angle 62 degrees, respectively. At the distance to this quasar the spatial extent of $0.5^{\prime\prime}$ is equal to a linear size of 2.9\,kpc. We note that the missing data in the red wing of the [C\,{\sc ii}]\ line may cause a bias in the size and inclination if the emission comes from a rotating disk, but there is no evidence for this based on the similarity of the line and continuum sizes. For J2229+1457 the continuum is too poorly detected to attempt a size measurement and the line emission is only marginally more extended than the beam size. In several other $z\approx 6$ quasars velocity gradients across the sources are observed (\citetalias{Willott:2013}; \citeauthor{Wang:2013} 2013). Velocity gradients are not seen for either of these two quasars, although for J0055+0146 the missing data for 150\,km\,s$^{-1}$ of the red wing hampers our ability to detect such a gradient. \section{Discussion} \subsection{Evolution of far-IR luminosity} In \citetalias{Willott:2013} we reported on the low far-IR luminosities of the two previously observed CFHQS quasars and implications for the relatively low SFR of these quasar host galaxies relative to the black hole accretion rate. We now revisit this issue with the sample of four $z\approx 6$ CFHQS quasars with ALMA observations. We note that this sample includes four of the six CFHQS quasars with measured black hole masses within the absolute magnitude range $-25.5<M_{1450}<-24$ at a declination low enough for ALMA observation. The two unobserved quasars have $7\times10^8<M_{\rm BH}<10^9 M_\odot$, and were not observed due to limited time available and the desire to study the lowest mass black holes from CFHQS. Therefore there is a slight bias to low black hole mass in this sample compared to pure UV-luminosity-selection. Two of the four quasars are well detected in the continuum with fluxes of $211 \pm 34$ (J0055+0146) and $120 \pm 35$ (J0210-0456) $\mu$Jy. J2229 has a marginal $2\sigma$ detection of $54 \pm 29\,\mu$Jy (Figure \ref{fig:contlinemaps} and Table \ref{tab:data}) and J2329-0301 is undetected with a $1\sigma$ rms of 30\,$\mu$Jy. We combine the four values of far-infrared luminosity derived from these measurements assuming that J2329-0301 has a flux equal to its $2\sigma$ upper limit of $60\,\mu$Jy. The mean and standard deviation of the sample is $L_{\rm FIR} = (2.6 \pm 1.4) \times 10^{11}\,L_\odot$. We note this is much lower than the values of $10^{12} - 10^{13} \,L_\odot$ typically discussed for $z\approx 6$ quasars due to two factors, firstly that the CFHQS sample here have lower AGN luminosity than most known $z\approx 6$ quasars and a correlation between AGN and far-IR luminosities is present \citep{Wang:2011,Omont:2013}, but also that our small sample is selected on quasar rest-frame UV luminosity and black hole mass, whereas previous studies have focussed on quasars with pre-ALMA millimeter continuum detections. The implication is that these quasars have very high black hole accretion rates as inferred from the AGN bolometric luminosity, $L_{\rm Bol}$, yet relatively low SFR. Such a scenario is consistent with the well-known evolutionary model whereby the optical quasar phase comes after the main star forming phase \citep{Khandai:2012,Lapi:2014}, possibly due to quasar feedback inhibiting gas cooling and star formation. The measured ratio of $L_{\rm FIR} / L_{\rm Bol}=0.035$ for the four CFHQS quasars is only found in the optical quasar phase of co-evolution at a time $\sim 1$\,Gyr after the onset of activity for the $z=2$ model of \citet{Lapi:2014}. Given that this is the age of the universe at $z=6$ the evolution must occur more rapidly at higher redshift. However, the effect of AGN variability may also be important leading to a selection effect whereby AGN luminosity-selected objects are observed to have lower ratios of $L_{\rm FIR} / L_{\rm Bol}$ than the time-averaged values \citep{Hickox:2014,Veale:2014}. We have previously shown \citepalias{Willott:2013} that the two $z=6.4$ CFHQS quasars observed with ALMA in Cycle 0 have $L_{\rm FIR}$ lower than quasars of similar AGN luminosity at lower redshift. On the other hand, at fixed AGN luminosity $L_{\rm FIR}$ is observed to rise from $z=0$ to $z=3$ \citep{Serjeant:2010,Bonfield:2011,Rosario:2012,Rosario:2013}. We next analyze the evolution of $L_{\rm FIR}$ using our expanded ALMA sample at $z=6$ and comparable low-redshift data. At all redshifts we determine the mean $L_{\rm FIR}$ for optically-selected quasars and X-ray AGN in a narrow range of $L_{\rm Bol}$ corresponding to the mean $L_{\rm Bol}$ of the four CFHQS $z \approx 6$ quasars in this paper ($L_{\rm Bol} \sim 7 \times 10^{12}\,L_\odot$). \begin{figure}[t] \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.4]{fig4.pdf} \caption{Stacked mean far-infrared luminosity for samples of quasars at different redshifts. Details of the samples are described in the text, but all samples are selected to include roughly the same range in bolometric luminosity centred on $L_{\rm Bol} \sim 7 \times 10^{12}\,L_\odot$, the mean $L_{\rm Bol}$ of the four $z\approx 6$ CFHQS quasars plotted with the blue square. There is a clear rise in $L_{\rm FIR}$ up to a peak at $2<z<3$ followed by a decline to $z=6$. The magenta curve shows the mean $L_{\rm FIR}$ due to star formation for the model of \citet{Veale:2014} including scaling by a factor of 2 to account for stellar mass loss.} \label{fig:lfirevol} \end{figure} At $z<3$ we use three datasets based on {\it Herschel~} imaging of AGN. \citet{Serjeant:2010} stacked {\it Herschel~} SPIRE data of optically-selected quasars and quoted their results as rest-frame 100\,$\mu$m luminosity. We adopt $L_{\rm FIR}= 1.43\,\nu L_{\nu} (100\,\mu{\rm m})$ \citep{Chary:2001} to convert to far-infrared luminosity. The absolute magnitude bin $-26<I_{\rm AB}<-24$ corresponds well to $L_{\rm Bol} \sim 7 \times 10^{12}\,L_\odot$ and we have trimmed the size of the highest redshift bin from $2<z<4$ to $2<z<2.7$ because inspection of the luminosity-redshift plane figure in \citet{Serjeant:2010} shows all but one of the 52 quasars in this bin are at $z<2.7$. \citet{Rosario:2013} analyzed the {\it Herschel~} PACS data for optically-selected quasars in COSMOS. Due to the shorter wavelength of PACS than SPIRE they presented results in rest-frame 60\,$\mu$m luminosity. We adopt $L_{\rm FIR}= 1.5\,\nu L_{\nu} (60\,\mu{\rm m})$ \citep{Chary:2001} to convert to far-infrared luminosity. From this study we use only the highest redshift, highest luminosity bin as this compares well with $L_{\rm Bol} \sim 7 \times 10^{12}\,L_\odot$. \citet{Rosario:2012} determined the mean infrared luminosity with PACS for X-ray-selected AGN from the COSMOS survey. We note that the X-ray selected AGN sample contains a mixture of broad-line, narrow-line and lineless AGN and these may have different evolutionary properties, but \citet{Rosario:2013} showed that the mean $L_{\rm FIR}$ of quasars and X-ray-selected are similar at a given AGN luminosity and redshift. We use the \citet{Rosario:2012} data from the AGN luminosity bin $8 \times 10^{11}< L_{\rm Bol}< 2 \times 10^{13}\,L_\odot$. Whilst most sources in this bin have $L_{\rm Bol}< 3 \times 10^{12}\,L_\odot$, we consider the results appropriate to compare to the $z\approx 6$ quasars as the correlation between $L_{\rm FIR}$ and $L_{\rm Bol}$ is very shallow at this luminosity in \citet{Rosario:2012}. Figure \ref{fig:lfirevol} plots data from these three low-redshift studies with the CFHQS ALMA bin at $6<z<6.5$. The three low-redshift studies show a rise in $L_{\rm FIR}$ of a factor of 4 from $z=0.3$ to $z=2.4$. This rise is attributed to the general increase in massive galaxy specific star formation rate over this redshift range \citep{Hickox:2014}. The $6<z<6.5$ bin has a large dispersion due to the range in 1.2\,mm continuum flux measured for the 4 quasars. The mean $L_{\rm FIR}$ at $z \approx 6$ is a factor of about 2 lower than the $z=0.3$ bin and 6 lower than the $z=2.4$ peak at the so-called {\it quasar epoch}. There is clear evidence here for a turnaround that mimics the evolution of the quasar luminosity function \citep{McGreer:2013} and star formation rate density \citep{Bouwens:2014}, albeit with a much less steep high-redshift decline due to the fact we are measuring star formation in special locations within the universe where dark matter halos must have collapsed much earlier than typical in order to build up the observed black hole masses of $\sim 10^8\,M_\odot$. What is the physical reason for this turnaround at $z>3$? In the evolutionary picture where the optical quasar phase follows the starburst phase one would expect the star formation and black hole accretion to be more tightly coupled at high-redshift where there is barely enough time for star formation to have decreased substantially. A clue may come from one of the few differences between quasars at these two epochs. \citet{Willott:2010} showed that the Eddington ratios of matched quasar luminosity samples at $z=2$ and $z=6$ are significantly different with the $z=6$ quasars having a factor of 3$\times$ higher Eddington ratios and therefore 3$\times$ lower black hole masses than at $z=2$. Such a difference exists between the typical black hole mass of our CFHQS ALMA sample and that of the highest luminosity bin of \citet{Rosario:2013}. This Eddington ratio evolution is observed in other studies \citep{De-Rosa:2011,Trakhtenbrot:2011,Shen:2012} and predicted by many theoretical works due to the increase in gas supply to black holes at high-redshift \citep{Sijacki:2014}. In Figure \ref{fig:lfirevol} we also plot a theoretical curve of mean $L_{\rm FIR}$ versus redshift for a simulated sample of rest-frame UV-selected quasars in the same $L_{\rm Bol}$ range as the observed quasar samples for the model of \citet{Veale:2014}. This model assumes an evolving linear relationship between star formation and black hole growth. The variant of the model plotted here is the ``accretion'' model where the quasar luminosity is proportional to the black hole growth rate and the Eddington ratio distribution is a truncated power-law with slope $\beta=0.6$ (dashed curve in Figure 8 of \citeauthor{Veale:2014} 2014). The model is constrained by the observed evolving quasar luminosity function and the local ratio of black hole to galaxy mass. We have scaled this model with a factor of $2\times$ increase in $L_{\rm FIR}$ to account for stellar mass loss. As seen in Figure \ref{fig:lfirevol} this curve increases from low redshift to the peak quasar epoch at $2<z<3$ by about the same factor as the data, although the total normalization of the curve is lower by a factor of 3 to 4. \citet{Veale:2014} discuss some of the reasons why the normalization may be lower than the observations. The decrease in $L_{\rm FIR}$ with increasing cosmic time from $z=2$ to $z=0$ for fixed luminosity quasars is due to the fact that such quasars are rarer at lower redshift and on the steep end of the luminosity function where scatter is more important. This behaviour also follows from the general decrease in specific star formation rate with cosmic time. The high-redshift behaviour of a decline from $z=3$ to $z=6$ matches our observations, so it is instructive to understand why this occurs in the model. It is due to the assumed $(1+z)^2$ evolution of the ratio of accretion growth to stellar mass growth, but this assumed evolution is also degenerate with evolution in the Eddington ratio. As discussed previously there is observational evidence for positive evolution in the Eddington ratio from $z=2$ to $z=6$, meaning that the ratio of accretion growth to stellar mass growth may change more gradually than $(1+z)^2$ . A possible alternative explanation for the low $L_{\rm FIR}$ at $z=6$ is that at these early epochs insufficient dust has been generated so that star formation occurs more often within lower dust environments \citep{Ouchi:2013,Tan:2013,Fisher:2014,Ota:2014}. In this case there could be a much smaller decline in the typical SFR of a luminous quasar hosting galaxy. However, two lines of evidence point towards this not being the main factor for our quasar sample. First, quasars at $z=6$ are known to have emission line ratios similar to lower redshift quasars inferring high metallicity at least close to the accreting black hole \citep{Freudling:2003}. Second, the [C\,{\sc ii}]\ luminosities in three of the four quasars are high (see below), suggesting high carbon abundances throughout the host galaxies. \subsection{The [C\,{\sc ii}]\ -- far-IR luminosity relation} Three of the four CFHQS ALMA quasars are detected in both [C\,{\sc ii}]\ line and 1.2\,mm continuum emission (two new detections in this paper and J0210$-$0456 in \citetalias{Willott:2013}). With the low $L_{\rm FIR}$ discussed in the previous section, these quasar host galaxies probe a new regime in $L_{\rm FIR}$ at high-redshift. In Figure \ref{fig:lciilfir} we plot the ratio of [C\,{\sc ii}]\ to far-IR luminosity as a function of $L_{\rm FIR}$. Also plotted are several samples from the literature which, due to ALMA at high-redshift and {\it Herschel~} at low-redshift, are rapidly increasing in size and data quality. The low-redshift $z<0.4$ sample of galaxies is from \citeauthor{Gracia-Carpio:2011} (2011 and in prep.) and contains a mix of normal galaxies, starbursts and ultra-luminous infrared galaxies (ULIRGs), some of which contain AGN. The ULIRGs show a {\it [C\,{\sc ii}]\ deficit} that has been widely discussed in the literature as due to possible factors including AGN contamination of $L_{\rm FIR}$ \citep{Sargsyan:2012}, high gas fractions \citep{Gracia-Carpio:2011} or the dustiness, temperature and/or density of star forming regions \citep{Farrah:2013,Magdis:2014}. Previous observations of high $L_{\rm FIR}$ $z>5$ SDSS quasars \citep{Maiolino:2005,Wang:2013} showed a similar deficit. However many $0.5<z<5$ ULIRGs do not show this deficit and have $L_{\rm [CII]} / L_{\rm FIR}$ ratios comparable to low-redshift star-forming galaxies \citep{Stacey:2010}. This is visible in Figure \ref{fig:lciilfir} for the $0.5<z<5$ compilation of \citet{De-Looze:2014}. \begin{figure}[t] \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.4]{fig5.pdf} \caption{The ratio of [C\,{\sc ii}]\ to far-IR luminosity as a function of far-IR luminosity. High-redshift ($z>5$) sources, mostly quasar host galaxies, are identified with large symbols. Error bars are only plotted for the CFHQS ALMA sources to enhance the clarity of the figure. The solid and dotted blue lines show the best fit power-law and $1\sigma$ uncertainty for the $z>5$ sources. The $z>5$ relation is largely consistent with the distribution of data at lower redshift. } \label{fig:lciilfir} \end{figure} By adding three $z>6$ quasars with $10^{11}<L_{\rm FIR}<10^{12}\,{\rm L}_\odot$ to Figure \ref{fig:lciilfir} we have greatly expanded the range of luminosities at the highest redshift. Large symbols on Figure \ref{fig:lciilfir} identify $z>5$ sources. The three $z>5$ \citet{De-Looze:2014} sources are HLSJ091828.6+514223 at $z=5.24$ \citep{Rawle:2014} , HFLS3 at $z=6.34$ \citep{Riechers:2013} and SDSS\,J1148+5251 at $z=6.42$ \citep{Maiolino:2005}. We note that these sources were mostly selected for followup based on high $L_{\rm FIR} $. The quasar ULAS\,J1120+0641 at $z=7.1$ has a more moderate $L_{\rm FIR}$ and $L_{\rm [CII]} / L_{\rm FIR}$ ratio and lies in between the CFHQS and high $L_{\rm FIR}$ objects on the plot. Although we are wary of the selection effects in Figure \ref{fig:lciilfir} and the as yet unknown cause for the change in $L_{\rm [CII]} / L_{\rm FIR}$ with $L_{\rm FIR}$ at high-redshift, the new data provide the opportunity to make the first measurement of the slope of this relation at $z>5$. We fit the 12 $z>5$ sources with a single power-law model of the dependence of $L_{\rm FIR}$ on $L_{\rm [CII]}$ incorporating the observational (but not systematic) uncertainties using a MCMC procedure. The best-fit relation is \begin{equation} \log_{10} L_{\rm FIR}=0.59+1.27 \log_{10} L_{\rm [CII]}. \end{equation} Therefore the $L_{\rm [CII]} / L_{\rm FIR}$ ratio line plotted in Figure \ref{fig:lciilfir} has a logarithmic slope of $(1/1.27)-1=-0.21$. The MCMC $1\sigma$ uncertainties, based solely on the observational data, are plotted as dotted lines. These also favor a shallow negative slope, not nearly as steep as the slope that would be fit to the previous $z>0.5$ data that covers only a narrow range of $L_{\rm FIR}$. The $L_{\rm [CII]} / L_{\rm FIR}$ ratios of the CFHQS and ULAS $z>6$ quasars are not greatly different to those of similar $L_{\rm FIR}$ galaxies at low-redshift. \citet{Wang:2013} note that the low $L_{\rm [CII]} / L_{\rm FIR}$ ratios for SDSS $z>5$ quasars may be at least in part due to AGN contamination of the far-IR emission. Future observations at higher spatial resolution will be critical to examine differences in the spatial distribution of the line and continuum emission (e.g. \citeauthor{Cicone:2014} 2014). We expect to observe that the dust continuum is more compact than the [C\,{\sc ii}]\ line in the high $L_{\rm FIR}$ $z>5$ quasars, due to either more centrally-concentrated starbursts with higher dust temperatures, like local ULIRGs, or AGN dust-heating. In contrast we expect the low $L_{\rm FIR}$ $z>5$ quasars have star formation spread more evenly throughout their host galaxies, with similar spatial distribution of line and continuum emission. \subsection{The $z\approx 6$ $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$ and $M_{\rm BH}-M_{\rm dyn}$ relationships} The combination of black hole mass estimates and [C\,{\sc ii}]\ line host galaxy dynamics for these $z\approx 6$ quasars allows us to investigate the black hole - galaxy mass correlation at an early epoch in the universe. The evolution of this relationship is a critical constraint on the co-evolution (or not) of galaxies and their nuclear black holes. As discussed in the Introduction there are reasons to believe that past studies using only the most massive black holes from SDSS quasars (e.g. \citeauthor{Wang:2010} 2010) were prone to a bias where one would expect the black holes to be relatively more massive than the galaxies \citep{Willott:2005b,Lauer:2007}, as observed. With new data on $M_{\rm BH} \sim 10^8\,M_\odot$ quasars we are able to test this hypothesis and determine any real offset from the local relationship. Additionally, most previous work in this area has used the molecular CO line to trace the gas dynamics. CO is usually more centrally concentrated than [C\,{\sc ii}], so [C\,{\sc ii}]\ potentially probes a larger fraction of the total mass (although we note that \citeauthor{Wang:2013} 2013 found similar dynamical masses using CO and [C\,{\sc ii}]\ for their $z\approx 6$ quasars). In addition to the CFHQS and \cite{Wang:2013} quasars we add to our study two other $z>6$ quasars observed in the [C\,{\sc ii}]\ line: SDSS\,J1148+5251 at $z=6.42$ and the most distant known quasar, ULAS\,J1120+0641 at $z=7.08$. Both these quasars have Mg\,{\sc ii}-derived black hole masses \citep{De-Rosa:2011,De-Rosa:2014} with very low measurement uncertainties. The black hole masses for all three CFHQS quasars also come from Mg\,{\sc ii}\ measurements \citep{Willott:2010}. Some of these spectra are of moderate SNR and have substantial measurement uncertainties on the black hole masses. To all the quasars with Mg\,{\sc ii}-derived black hole masses we add a 0.3 dex uncertainty to the measurement uncertainties to account for the dispersion in the reverberation-mapped quasar calibration \citep{Shen:2008}. None of the \cite{Wang:2013} quasars have Mg\,{\sc ii}\ measurements so black hole masses are estimated assuming that the quasars radiate at the Eddington limit, as observed for most $z\approx 6$ quasars \citep{Jiang:2007,Kurk:2007,Willott:2010,De-Rosa:2011}. The dispersion in the lognormal Eddington ratio distribution at $z \approx 6$ is 0.3 dex \citep{Willott:2010}. We add 0.3 dex uncertainty from the observed dispersion in the Eddington ratio distribution in quadrature to the 0.3 dex due to the dispersion in the reverberation-mapped quasar calibration for a total uncertainty on the \cite{Wang:2013} quasar black hole masses of 0.45 dex. First we consider the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$ relationship. For nearby galaxies $\sigma$ is the velocity dispersion of the galaxy bulge. At high-redshift bulges are less common \citep{Cassata:2011} and we do not expect the $z\approx 6$ kinematics to match that of a pressure supported bulge. With the limited spatial resolution of current data we cannot be sure the [C\,{\sc ii}]\ gas is distributed in a rotating disk, although there is evidence of this for some sources \citep{Wang:2013}. \cite{Ho:2007a} discusses the relationship and calibration of bulge velocity dispersion and disk circular velocity and concludes that although there is additional scatter one can relate molecular or atomic gas in a disk to stellar bulges. The major complication is the inclination of the disk. For a random sample of inclinations this can be modelled, however there is a possibility that quasars have disks oriented more often face-on, reducing the line-of-sight velocity dispersion \citep{Ho:2007}. \begin{table*} \begin{center} \caption{Mass determinations for $z>5.7$ quasars\label{tab:masses}} \vspace{-0.2cm} \begin{tabular}{lccccl} \tableline Name & $z_{\rm [CII]}$ & $M_{\rm BH} ~(M_\odot)\,^{\rm a}$ & $\sigma ^{\rm b}$ & $M_{\rm dyn}~(M_\odot)$ & Refs.$^{\rm c}$\\ \tableline CFHQS\,J0055+0146 & $6.0060 \pm 0.0008$ & $(2.4^{+2.6}_{-1.4})\times 10^{8} $ & $207 \pm 45$ & $4.2\times 10^{10} $ & 1,2 \\ CFHQS\,J0210$-$0456 & $6.4323 \pm 0.0005$ & $(0.8^{+1.0}_{-0.6})\times 10^{8} $ & $98 \pm 20$ & $1.3\times 10^{10} $ & 1,2,3 \\ CFHQS\,J2229+1457 & $6.1517 \pm 0.0005$ & $(1.2^{+1.4}_{-0.8})\times 10^{8}$ & $241 \pm 51$ & $4.4\times 10^{10} $ & 1,2 \\ SDSS\,J0129$-$0035 & $5.7787 \pm 0.0001$ & $(1.7^{+3.1}_{-1.1})\times 10^{8} $ & $112 \pm 21$ & $1.3\times 10^{10} $ & 4 \\ SDSS\,J1044$-$0125 & $5.7847 \pm 0.0007$ & $(1.1^{+1.9}_{-0.7})\times 10^{10} $ & $291 \pm 76$ & --- $^{\rm d}$ & 4 \\ SDSS\,J1148+5251 & $6.4189 \pm 0.0006$ & $(4.9^{+4.9}_{-2.5})\times 10^{9} $ & $186 \pm 38$ & $1.8\times 10^{10} $ & 5,6,7\\ SDSS\,J2054$-$0005 & $6.0391 \pm 0.0001$ & $(0.9^{+1.6}_{-0.6})\times 10^{9} $ & $364 \pm 67$ & $7.2\times 10^{10} $ & 4 \\ SDSS\,J2310+1855 & $6.0031 \pm 0.0002$ &$(2.8^{+5.1}_{-1.8})\times 10^{9} $ & $325 \pm 61$ & $9.6 \times 10^{10} $ & 4 \\ ULAS\,J1120+0641 & $7.0842 \pm 0.0004$ & $(2.4^{+2.4}_{-1.2})\times 10^{9} $ & $ 144 \pm 34$ & $2.4\times 10^{10} $ & 8,9\\ ULAS\,J1319+0950 & $6.1330 \pm 0.0007$ &$(2.1^{+3.8}_{-1.4})\times 10^{9} $ & $381 \pm 91$ & $12.5\times 10^{10} $ & 4 \\ \tableline \tableline \end{tabular} \end{center} {\sc Notes.}---\\ $^{\rm a}$ Derived from Mg\,{\sc ii}\ $\lambda2799$ observations if possible, else from Eddington luminosity assumption. Uncertainties include observational errors plus systematics based on calibrations.\\ $^{\rm b}$ Derived from Gaussian FWHM fit to [C\,{\sc ii}]\ spectrum using method of \cite{Ho:2007} including an inclination correction (see text for individual inclinations assumed). Uncertainties include observational errors plus systematics based on calibrations.\\ $^{\rm c}$ References: (1) This paper, (2) \citet{Willott:2010}, (3) \citet{Willott:2013}, (4) \citet{Wang:2013}, (5) \citet{Maiolino:2005}, (6) \citet{Walter:2009}, (7) \citet{De-Rosa:2011}, (8) \citet{Venemans:2012}, (9) \citet{De-Rosa:2014}.\\ $^{\rm d}$ This quasar does not have a dynamical mass calculation in \citet{Wang:2013} due to the difference in the [C\,{\sc ii}]\ and CO line profiles. \end{table*} We determine $\sigma$ using the method of \cite{Ho:2007}, specifically setting the [C\,{\sc ii}]\ line full-width at 20\% equal to 1.5$\times$ the FWHM as expected for a Gaussian since most of the lines are approximately Gaussian. The [C\,{\sc ii}]\ emitting gas is assumed to be in an inclined disk where the inclination angle, $i$, is determined by the ratio of minor ($a_{\rm min}$) and major ($a_{\rm maj}$) axes, $i=\cos^{-1}( a_{\rm min}/a_{\rm maj})$. The circular velocity is therefore $v_{\rm cir}=0.75 \,$FWHM$_{\rm [CII]} / \sin i$. For all of the quasars in this study we determine an inclination from the [C\,{\sc ii}]\ data or assume an inclination if one or both the major and minor axes are unresolved. All the quasars in \cite{Wang:2013} were spatially resolved, although some had quite large uncertainties on $a_{\rm min}$ and $a_{\rm maj}$. We adopt the inclination angles from their paper. For the [C\,{\sc ii}]\ emission of J0210$-$0456, $a_{\rm maj} =0\farcs52 \pm 0\farcs25$ (2.9\,kpc) with $i=64^{\circ}$ \citepalias{Willott:2013}. For J0055+0146, $a_{\rm maj} =0\farcs50 \pm 0\farcs14$ (2.9\,kpc) with $i=69^{\circ}$ (Section 3, assuming no bias from missing red wing data). The [C\,{\sc ii}]\ emission of J2229+1457 is only marginally spatially resolved ($0\farcs85$ versus beam size of $0\farcs76$) and we estimate an intrinsic FWHM of $\approx 0\farcs4$ (2.4\,kpc). An inclination of $i=55^{\circ}$ is assumed as this is the median inclination angle for the resolved sources in this paper and \cite{Wang:2013}. Neither SDSS\,J1148+5251 nor ULAS\,J1120+0641 have published inclination angles, so we also assume $i=55^{\circ}$ for both of them. We adopt FWHM$_{\rm [CII]} =287 \pm 28$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ for SDSS\,J1148+5251 \citep{Walter:2009} and FWHM$_{\rm [CII]} =235 \pm 35$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ for ULAS\,J1120+0641 \citep{Venemans:2012} . Values of black hole masses and $\sigma$ for this sample are provided in Table \ref{tab:masses}. Figure \ref{fig:mbhsig} shows the $M_{\rm BH} - \sigma$ relationship for the $z\approx 6$ quasar sample. Uncertainties on black hole masses include the scatter in the calibration as described previously. Uncertainties in $\sigma$ include FWHM measurement uncertainty plus a 10\% uncertainty for the conversion from FWHM to $v_{\rm cir}$ and 15\% for the conversion from $v_{\rm cir}$ to $\sigma$ as seen in the sample of \cite{Ho:2007a}. The black line is the local correlation of \cite{Kormendy:2013} with the gray band the $\pm 1\sigma$ scatter. The first thing to note is that the quasars are distributed around the local relationship rather than all being offset to low $\sigma$ as is commonly believed to be the case. As noted by \cite{Wang:2010}, using the method of \cite{Ho:2007}, rather than calculating $\sigma$ as FWHM$/2.35$, leads to much higher $\sigma$. Note that this is without adopting extreme face-on inclinations for most quasars. There are still several quasars, such as SDSS\,J1148+5251 and ULAS\,J1120+0641, that have values of $\sigma$ considerably lower than the local relation. The main result of Figure \ref{fig:mbhsig} is that whilst there is little mean shift between the $z=0$ and $z\approx 6$ data, there is a much larger scatter in the data at $z\approx 6$, well beyond the size of the error bars. This larger scatter at an early epoch is expected based on dynamical evolution, incoherence in AGN/starburst activity and the tightening of the relation over time from merging \citep{Peng:2007}. We note that our hypothesis that the bias described in the Introduction would lead to the lower $M_{\rm BH}$ quasars being located on the local relation with a lower scatter than the high $M_{\rm BH}$ quasars is not supported by these observations. The scatter in $\log_{10} \sigma$ at $M_{\rm BH}\approx 10^8\,M_\odot$ is about the same as that at $M_{\rm BH}> 10^9\,M_\odot$ We go one step further from $\sigma$ to determine dynamical masses using the deconvolved [C\,{\sc ii}]\ sizes. For consistency, we follow the method of \cite{Wang:2013}. The dynamical mass within the disk radius is given by $M_{\rm dyn} \approx 1.16\times 10^5\, v_{\rm cir}^2 \,D \,M_\odot$ where $D$ is the disk diameter in kpc and calculated as $1.5 \times$ the deconvolved Gaussian spatial FWHM. The resulting dynamical masses are given in Table \ref{tab:masses}. We note that there is considerable uncertainty on these values due to the unknown spatial and velocity structure of the gas, the marginal spatial resolution and limited sensitivity that means we may be missing more extended gas. Due to the these uncertainties we do not place formal error bars on the dynamical masses, following \cite{Wang:2013}. Higher resolution data in the future are required to confirm the derived masses. \begin{figure}[t] \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.4]{fig6.pdf} \caption{Black hole mass versus velocity dispersion calculated from the [C\,{\sc ii}]\ line using the method of \cite{Ho:2007} for $z\approx 6$ quasars. Quasars from the CFHQS are shown as blue squares and the other symbols show quasars from the SDSS and ULAS surveys. The black line with gray shading is the local correlation $\pm 1\sigma$ scatter of black hole mass and bulge velocity dispersion \citep{Kormendy:2013}. The $z\approx 6$ quasars are distributed around the the local relationship, but with a much larger scatter and some quasars with significantly lower $\sigma$ for their $M_{\rm BH}$.} \label{fig:mbhsig} \end{figure} \begin{figure}[t] \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.4]{fig7.pdf} \caption{Black hole mass versus host galaxy dynamical mass for $z\approx 6$ quasars. Symbols as for Figure \ref{fig:mbhsig}. The black line with gray shading is the local correlation $\pm 1\sigma$ scatter from the work of \cite{Kormendy:2013} equating $M_{\rm dyn}$ to $M_{\rm bulge}$. The CFHQS quasars lie on the local relationship and do not show the large offset displayed by the most massive black holes. Uncertainties in $M_{\rm dyn}$ have not been calculated due to the reasons given in the text.} \label{fig:mbhmdyn} \end{figure} SDSS\,J1148+5251 has been extensively studied in [C\,{\sc ii}]\ \citep{Maiolino:2005,Walter:2009,Maiolino:2012,Cicone:2014}. The highest resolution observations by \cite{Walter:2009} revealed a very compact circumnuclear starburst with radius 0.75\,kpc and FWHM$_{\rm [CII]} =287 \pm 28$\,km\,s$^{-1}$. For an assumed inclination of $i=55^{\circ}$ this gives $M_{\rm dyn}=1.8 \times 10^{10}\,M_\odot$. For comparison \cite{Walter:2004} determined a dynamical mass from CO emission in this quasar of $5.5\times 10^{10}\,M_\odot$ within a larger radius of 2.5\,kpc, the larger radius being the main difference between the results. Recent observations have shown more complex [C\,{\sc ii}]\ emission including evidence for gas extended over tens of kpc and at high velocities indicative of outflow \citep{Maiolino:2012,Cicone:2014}. We adopt $M_{\rm dyn}=1.8 \times 10^{10}\,M_\odot$ for SDSS\,J1148+5251 noting that the true value could be several times larger. The most distant known quasar, ULAS\,J1120+0641 at $z=7.08$, has been well detected in [C\,{\sc ii}], although not yet spatially resolved \citep{Venemans:2012}. Based on the published FWHM$_{\rm [CII]} =235 \pm 35$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and assuming a spatial FWHM of 3\,kpc (similar to the other quasars resolved by ALMA) and $i=55^{\circ}$ we determine $M_{\rm dyn}=2.4 \times 10^{10}\,M_\odot$. In Figure \ref{fig:mbhmdyn} we plot black hole mass versus galaxy dynamical mass for the most distant known quasars. The black line and gray shading represent the local correlation of $M_{\rm BH}$ with bulge mass $M_{\rm bulge}$ \citep{Kormendy:2013}. In the absence of gas accretion and mergers the present stellar bulge mass represents the sum of the gas and stellar mass at high-redshift, so it is a good comparison for the dynamical mass within the central few kpc. \cite{Kormendy:2013} note that their correlation (their equation 10) gives a black hole to bulge mass ratio of 0.5\% at $M_{\rm bulge}=10^{11}\,M_\odot$ that is 2 to 4 times higher than previous estimates due to the omission of pseudobulges, galaxies with uncertain $M_{\rm BH}$ and ongoing mergers. The position of the high-$z$ data with respect to low redshift is fairly similar to Figure \ref{fig:mbhsig}, not surprising because $v_{\rm cir}$ derived from the [C\,{\sc ii}]\ velocity FWHM is a major factor in both $\sigma$ and $M_{\rm dyn}$. The points are shifted somewhat further from the local bulge mass than for the local velocity dispersion. This shift is due to the smaller size of galaxies at high-redshift, as the size is the only term in the derivation of dynamical mass not in $\sigma$. We note the much greater dynamic range in black hole mass (2 dex) than in dynamical mass (1 dex) in our sample. This is likely due more to our selection over a wide range of quasar luminosity than to a non-linear relationship between these quantities at $z=6$. All three of the CFHQS quasars lie within the local $1\sigma$ scatter and the one $M_{\rm BH}\sim 10^8\,M_\odot$ quasar in \cite{Wang:2013} is only a factor of 4 greater than the local relationship. In contrast the $M_{\rm BH}> 10^9\,M_\odot$ quasars tend to show a larger scatter and larger offset above the local relationship as previously found \citep{Walter:2004,Wang:2010,Venemans:2012,Wang:2013}. We caution that there are considerable uncertainties in some of these measurements as already discussed, but in dynamical mass the results look more like we would expect based on the quasar selection bias effect. \section{Conclusions} During ALMA Early Science cycles 0 and 1 we have observed a complete sample of four $z>6$ moderate luminosity CFHQS quasars with black hole masses $\sim 10^8\,M_\odot$. Three of the four are detected in both far-IR continuum and the [C\,{\sc ii}]\ emission line. The far-IR luminosity is found to be substantially lower than that of similar luminosity quasars at $1<z<3$. Assuming that far-IR luminosity traces star formation equally effectively at these redshifts this implies that at $z\approx 6$ quasars are growing their black holes more rapidly than their stellar mass compared to at the peak of the {\it quasar epoch} ($1<z<3$). The ratios of [CII] to far-IR luminosities for the CFHQS quasars lie in the range 0.001 to 0.01, similar to that of low-redshift galaxies at the same far-IR luminosity. This suggests a similar mode of star-formation spread throughout the host galaxy (rather than in dense circumnuclear starburst regions that have lower values for this ratio in local ULIRGs). Combining with previous $z>5.7$ quasar data at higher $L_{\rm FIR}$ we find that the far-IR luminosity dependence of the [C\,{\sc ii}]/FIR ratio has a shallow negative slope, possibly due in part to an increase in $L_{\rm FIR}$ due to quasar-heated dust in some optically-luminous high-$z$ quasars. The three CFHQS quasars well-detected in the [C\,{\sc ii}]\ emission line allow this atomic gas to be used as a tracer of the host galaxy dynamics. Combining with published data on higher black hole mass quasars we have investigated the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$ and $M_{\rm BH}-M_{\rm dyn}$ relations at $z\approx 6$. We show that the $z=6$ quasars display a $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$ relation with similar slope and normalization to locally, but with much greater scatter. Similar results are obtained for the $M_{\rm BH}-M_{\rm dyn}$ relation with a somewhat higher normalization at $z=6$ and a higher scatter at high $M_{\rm BH}$. As discussed in Combining our results on the relatively low $L_{\rm FIR}$ for $ M_{\rm BH} \sim 10^8\,M_\odot$ $z\approx 6$ quasars with their location on the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$ relation leads to something of a paradox. The fact these quasars lie on the local $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$ relation suggests that their host galaxies have undergone considerable evolution to acquire such a high dynamical mass. So why is it that this mass accumulation is not leading to a high star formation rate? As discussed in \citetalias{Willott:2013}, simulations such as those of \citet{Khandai:2012} and \citet{Lapi:2014} predict that such low ratios of SFR to black hole accretion occur after episodes of strong feedback that inhibits star formation throughout quasar host galaxies. Another possibility mentioned in Section 4.1 is that $L_{\rm FIR}$ fails to trace star formation so effectively in these high-redshift galaxies, due to lower dust content (e.g. \citeauthor{Ouchi:2013} 2013). Note that using $L_{\rm [CII]}$ as a star formation rate tracer instead of $L_{\rm FIR}$, would give higher SFR by a factor of three for one of the CFHQS quasars. Higher resolution follow-up [C\,{\sc ii}]\ observations of these quasars are critical to measure more accurately the distribution and kinematics of the gas used as a dynamical tracer in order to reliably determine the location and scatter of the correlations between black holes and their host galaxies at high-redshift. \acknowledgments Thanks to staff at the North America ALMA Regional Center for processing the ALMA data. Thanks to Melanie Veale for useful discussion and providing her models in electronic form. This paper makes use of the following ALMA data: ADS/JAO.ALMA\#2012.1.00676.S. ALMA is a partnership of ESO (representing its member states), NSF (USA) and NINS (Japan), together with NRC (Canada) and NSC and ASIAA (Taiwan), in cooperation with the Republic of Chile. The Joint ALMA Observatory is operated by ESO, AUI/NRAO and NAOJ. The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc. {\it Facility:} \facility{ALMA}.
\section{Introduction} Aperture synthesis interferometers are now a common instrument in astronomy that map sources on small angular scales. Interferometers exploit the time/phase delay of a radio signal arriving at different receivers to measure these details \cite{Michelson20}. The typical understanding of how interferometers work is based on the Fourier transforms of the electric field -- first in time, then in space \cite{Tegmark09}. Interferometers have been used for decades now, particularly in radio astronomy, where the long wavelengths lead to low angular resolution \cite{Kellermann01}. Normally, diffraction limits the resolution of a single-dish telescope with diameter $L$ observing radiation with wavelength $\lambda$ to $\Delta \theta \approx \lambda / L$. But a pair of receivers in an interferometer measure the Fourier mode of the angular distribution of radiation on the sky with characteristic angles \begin{equation} \Delta \theta \approx \lambda / \ell, \end{equation} if $\ell$ is the separation of the receivers. Each measured mode -- from each pair of receivers -- corresponds to a point on the $uv$ plane, which is basically the Fourier transform of the beam shape. A single dish telescope can be viewed as a filled-in array of receivers that measures all of the Fourier modes within a disk of the $uv$ plane. While a pair of interferometers provides only sparse information, more detailed geometrical information can be reconstructed by using an array of $\hat{N}$ interferometers (with ${\cal O}(\hat{N}^2)$ pairs), using Earth's rotation to rotate the $uv$ plane, or using a spread of different frequencies. Although early interferometers actually channeled radiation from receivers to a central location (for example, through waveguides) to be correlated, with modern technology, the field amplitude at each receiver can simply be recorded digitally. Then, the signals can be processed numerically later to reconstruct the image. Digital processing of this kind is necessary for Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI), where the receivers can be separated by thousands of kilometers \cite{Matveynko65Deller07}. It is the method of choice for new or upgraded radio telescopes, including the Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (JVLA) \cite{Perley09}, the Giant Metre-wave Radio Telescope (GMRT) \cite{Paciga11}, the Allen Telescope Array (ATA) \cite{Welch09}, and the Low Frequency Array (LOFAR) \cite{vanHaarlem13}. Digital aperture synthesis is now enabling several arrays that are designed to detect 21 cm emission from the high-redshift intergalactic medium \cite{Furlanetto06}, among which are the Donald C. Backer Precision Array for Probing the Epoch of Reionization (PAPER) \cite{PAPER}, the Murchison Widefield Array (MWA) \cite{MWA}, the Australian SKA Pathfinder (ASKAP) \cite{Johnston08}, and MEERKat \cite{MEERKat}. These are currently intended to be pathfinders for the proposed Square Kilometer Array (SKA), a global observatory intended to be built in the 2020s \cite{SKA}. The Fast Fourier Transform Telescope (FFTT; \cite{Tegmark09}) is a refinement of digital interferometers. The original proposal calls for a large $N \times N$ rectangular grid of simple dipole receivers ($\hat{N} = N^2$ total) with spacing $\ell \lesssim \lambda$. The gridding of the antennas allows the electric field to be transformed with the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) in only ${\cal O} (\hat{N} \log \hat{N})$ operations \cite{Tegmark09,Tegmark10}. The FFTT can map radio emission on angular scales ranging from the whole sky to $\lambda / (\ell N)$ radians. It is thus ideal for measuring moderate to large brightness features over vast fields, the principle requirement for 21 cm reionization studies. The array of dipole antennas at the Maip\'u Radio Astronomy Observatory was an analog version of the FFTT, although there were only 6 independent rows of antennas \cite{May84}. The Waseda FFT Telescope is another early implementation of the FFTT, with $N = 16$ \cite{WasedaFFTT}. The FFTT can be simplified into the fractal ``omniscope'' which is a nested series of grids while still providing resolutions over a wide range of scales \cite{Tegmark10}. One of the low frequency pathfinders, the MIT Epoch of Reionization (MITEoR) telescope, is the first modern omniscope to be built \cite{Zheng14}. But fundamentally, why do we use the Fourier transform in both time and space? Cosines and sines are not the only possible basis for representing functions. In fact, the Fourier transform is only one of a whole family of transformations, the Linear Canonical Transforms (LCTs). These transforms do have physical meanings, which will be explored in this paper. They can perform any area- and orientation-preserving linear mapping on space-frequency phase space: rotations, squeezing, and shearing. Nor are we limited to LCTs: we could express the electric field as the linear sum of any set of basis functions, such as wavelets or pulses. In principle, even more general non-linear transforms could be performed digitally. Understanding the meaning of these other transforms provides insight into how interferometry and beamforming works. Although I have chosen to center my discussion on astronomical interferometers, the basic ideas apply whenever beamforming is used to receive or broadcast a signal. Beamforming, of course, is the main principle behind phased array antennas, which are used in radar detection. Nor is beamforming limited to electromagnetic radiation, but it also is used frequently with sound waves, such as sonar. A note on notation: throughout this paper, I use $\delta(x)$ to refer to the Dirac delta function, $i$ refers to $\sqrt{-1}$, and an overline over a variable represents its complex conjugate. \section{How standard interferometry works: an intuitive explanation \label{sec:InterferometryIntro}} Interferometers exploit the phases of arriving electromagnetic waves to reconstruct the direction the radiation is coming from. Consider polarized monochromatic electromagnetic waves emanating from a single direction ${\bf \hat{s}}$ on the sky.\footnote{The actual sum of the sky radiation can be described as a linear sum of such waves with different frequencies and coming from different directions.} The electric field at a point ${\bf r}$ and time $t$ is \begin{equation} {\bf E} = {\bf E_0} \exp\left[\frac{2 \pi i}{\lambda} ({\bf \hat{s}} \cdot {\bf r} + c t)\right] \end{equation} if the wavelength is $\lambda$. I will consider the case of a 1D array, but the basic ideas can easily be generalized to a 2D array. In addition, I will suppose that all of the receivers are located on the ground ($z = 0$). The receivers in a 1D array are located at different positions in the $x$-direction. The electric field on the ground is \begin{equation} {\bf E}(x) = {\bf E_0} \exp\left[\frac{2 \pi i}{\lambda} (x \sin \theta + c t)\right] \end{equation} where $\theta$ is the zenith angle of the source. If the source is at the zenith, the phase of the electric field is the same everywhere on the ground (Figure~\ref{fig:Interferometry}). However, as the zenith angle increases, it takes radiation longer to reach one side of the array than the other because the path lengths are slightly different. The electric field on the ground at any instant therefore oscillates on the $x$-axis, with spatial wavelength $\lambda_x = \lambda / \sin \theta$ (Figure~\ref{fig:Interferometry}). The spatial Fourier transform of this electric field is particularly simple: \begin{equation} \label{eqn:FourierE} {\cal F}[{\bf E}](\kappa) = {\bf E_0} \times \delta\left(\kappa - \frac{\sin \theta}{\lambda} \right) = {\bf E_0} \times \delta\left(\kappa - \frac{1}{\lambda_x} \right). \end{equation} In Fourier space, all of the power is concentrated at an inverse wavelength $\kappa$ with a simple dependence on $\theta$.\footnote{I use $\kappa = 1/\lambda$ instead of the wavenumber $k = \kappa / (2\pi)$ throughout the paper. This avoids the need to divide by $2 \pi$ when considering the units, although the equations themselves then do use a factor of $2 \pi$.} Thus, the Fourier transform of the field describes the direction the radiation is coming from (bottom panels of Figure~\ref{fig:Interferometry}). Since the Fourier transform is a linear operator, additional sources sum linearly in the Fourier transform of the electric field. The interferometer can be ``aimed'' at a given direction ${\bf \hat{s}_0}$ by adding a time delay \begin{equation} \Delta t = {\bf \hat{s}_0} \cdot {\bf r} / c \end{equation} to each receiver, adjusting the relative phases of the electric field at each position. \begin{figure*} \includegraphics[width=6cm]{f1a.eps}\,\includegraphics[width=6cm]{f1b.eps}\,\includegraphics[width=6cm]{f1c.eps} \caption{As the angular altitude of a source of plane waves increases, the projected spatial wavelength of the plane waves decreases due to projection effects. The components of the electric field are imaginary (red) and real (blue), with a magnitude shown in black. The solid lines include only the signal that lands on the array, while the dotted lines show how the signal continues beyond its bounds.\label{fig:Interferometry}} \end{figure*} When considering radiation of many different wavelengths, there appears to be an ambiguity in equation~\ref{eqn:FourierE}. How can we tell whether a short wavelength mode is a high frequency wave coming from near the horizon or a low frequency wave coming from near the zenith? This is easily resolved by examining the signal in time domain. The time frequency of the signal is the same everywhere on the ground plane; it is merely delayed at some points more than others. Interferometry works because the projection of the wave onto a plane stretches it out in spatial wavelength without changing its time frequency. Each pair of receivers $a$ and $b$ is separated by a distance $(\Delta x_{ab}, \Delta y_{ab})$; the separation can also be written in terms of the $uv$ coordinates: \begin{equation} (u_{ab},v_{ab}) = \left(\frac{\Delta x_{ab} \sin \theta_{\rm source}}{\lambda}, \frac{\Delta y_{ab} \sin \theta_{\rm source}}{\lambda}\right). \end{equation} The pair measures a single Fourier mode of the electric field with wavelength $(u_{ab} \lambda, v_{ab} \lambda)$, which only provides information about the distribution of radiation on the sky on an angular scale of \begin{equation} (\theta_u,\theta_v)_{ab} = (1/u_{ab}, 1/v_{ab}). \end{equation} Thus, traditional interferometers are insensitive to structures with angular scales greater than $(\min(1/u_{ab}),\min(1/v_{ab}))$ or less than $(\max(1/u_{ab}),\max(1/v_{ab}))$. An important goal of interferometers is to ``fill in'' as much of the $uv$ plane as possible, and this can be aided by allowing the Earth's spin to rotate the sky and by using different frequencies. The FFTT is the simplest interferometer to understand without obscuring the basic principle. In a standard FFTT, the receivers are arranged on a $N \times N$ rectangular grid with separation $\Delta l < \lambda_{\rm min}$. By Nyquist's theorem, the electric field everywhere on the grid can be reconstructed with a spatial resolution $\lambda_{\rm min} / 2$. A Fast Fourier Transform can be directly be performed on the electric fields measured at each receiver to produce an electric field image, which is then squared to give the intensity image \cite{Tegmark09}. Structures on angular scales ranging from $\lambda_{\rm min} / (N \lambda)$ to the whole sky can be mapped this way with the FFTT. The spatial Fourier Transform works because \emph{it measures the projection effect} on the time-domain Fourier modes. \subsection{Complications in real interferometers} \label{sec:InterferometerComplications} Of course, it is often impractical to measure the electric field everywhere as a continuous function. The subtleties in understanding interferometry (particularly the use of ``visibilities'') arise because of the limited sampling of the electric field. Actual interferometers are composed of a series of discrete elements, which could be anything from simple dipole antennas to single dish telescopes. These receivers each have a primary beam $A({\bf \kappa})$ that describes their sensitivity to radiation that comes from different directions ${\bf \kappa}$ on the sky. A large single dish's primary beam is typically confined to a narrow region in the sky with radius $\lambda / D_{\rm dish}$ for a dish diameter $D_{\rm dish}$. Dipole antennas have sensitivity over much of the sky, which is why they are proposed for FFTTs. The measured electric field (or intensity) is the sky intensity convolved with $\sqrt{A({\bf \kappa})}$ (or $A({\bf \kappa})$). I assume that the antennas all have the same response, are all pointed in the same direction, and there is only one point source in the sky, so that the antenna response can be approximated as a constant $\sqrt{A}$ (or $A$ in intensity). The other limitation, mainly faced by traditional interferometers, is that the $uv$ plane may be sparsely sampled. Interferometers, whether FFTTs or traditional, are insensitive to the electric fields outside of their collective area. In addition, sparse interferometers only have a few measurements of the electric field from which to extrapolate the entire $uv$ plane. Thus, the measured electric fields are filtered by the interferometer's sampling on the ground, $S({\bf x})$: \begin{equation} \label{eqn:SFilteredE} E_{\Pi}^{\prime} ({\bf x}) = \sqrt{A} E_{\Pi} ({\bf x}) \times S({\bf x}), \end{equation} for a polarization $\Pi$. Then the Fourier transform of the electric field is the convolution of its Fourier modes with the dirty beam $P_{\rm dirty} = {\cal F} [S]$: \begin{equation} E^{\rm dirty}_{\Pi} ({\bf \kappa}) = {\cal F}[E^{\prime}_{\Pi}] ({\bf \kappa}) = \sqrt{A} {\cal F} [E_{\Pi}({\bf x})] \ast P^{\rm dirty}. \end{equation} The result is the dirty map. Some method is then necessary to deconvolve the dirty map with the dirty beam to get the sky distribution of radiation. In traditional interferometry, these difficulties are dealt with by calculating visibilities for each pair of receivers, \begin{equation} V (u_{12}, v_{12}) = \mean{E_1 E_2}, \end{equation} averaged over time.\footnote{Note that intensity (surface brightness) has units of the electric field \emph{squared}.} The van Cittert-Zernike theorem relates the visibilities to the Fourier transform of the sky intensity (e.g., \cite{Wilson09}). Specifically, the dirty map is calculated as \begin{equation} I_{\rm dirty} ({\bf \kappa}) = A {\cal F} [V] \ast P_{\rm dirty}. \end{equation} Because of the sparsity of traditional interferometers, their dirty beams may be very complicated. Algorithms like CLEAN \cite{Hogbom74} deconvolve the dirty map with the dirty beam. \section{Digital optics through Linear Canonical Transforms \label{sec:DigitalLCTs}} \subsection{A whole family of integral transforms \label{sec:LCTs}} The Fourier transform is actually just one of the family of linear canonical transforms (LCTs). The LCTs are the set of all linear integral transforms that conserve volume and orientation in position-frequency space. They can be represented by the ABCD matrix \begin{equation} {\bf M} = \left( {A \atop C}\ {B \atop D} \right) \end{equation} with a determinant of 1 \cite{Bernardo96,Stern06}. The LCT synthesizes a signal at a new position coordinate $x^{\prime}$ and a new frequency (inverse wavelength) coordinate $\kappa^{\prime}$ out of the old position $x$ and frequency $\kappa$, as given by \begin{equation} \left({x^{\prime} \atop \kappa^{\prime}}\right) = {\bf M} \left({x \atop \kappa}\right). \end{equation} There is no unique definition for an LCT, but the following is usually used \cite{Ozaktas01}: \begin{equation} [{\bf M}f(x)](x^{\prime}) = \left\{ \begin{array}{r} \displaystyle \sqrt{\frac{-i}{B}} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{\pi i (A x^2 - 2 x x^{\prime} + D x^{\prime 2})/B} f(x) dx \\ (B \ne 0) \\ \\ \sqrt{D} e^{\pi i C D x^{\prime 2}} f(D x) \mspace{100mu} (B = 0) \end{array} \right. \end{equation} The Wigner distribution provides a geometric analogy for the effects of LCTs. It measures how much of the signal is at each position and frequency \cite{Almeida94,Bultheel06}: \begin{equation} [{\cal W}f](x,\kappa) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} f\left(x + \frac{u}{2}\right) \overline{f\left(x - \frac{u}{2}\right)} e^{-2\pi i \kappa u} du. \end{equation} If $f(x)$ is a delta function, then its Wigner distribution is a vertical line (taking $x$ to be horizontal and $\kappa$ as vertical). The function $\exp(2 \pi i \kappa x)$ is a horizontal line in Wigner space. Diagonal lines in Wigner space are linear chirps. A form of Parseval's theorem applies to LCTs, \begin{equation} \int_{\infty}^{\infty} |{\bf M}f(x)|^2 = \int_{\infty}^{\infty} |f(x)|^2. \end{equation} As such, an LCT cannot increase the total ``energy'' in a signal. What they \emph{can} do is carve up Wigner space into slices that are aligned with a signal's energy. This concentrates the energy into a small bin along one direction, making the signal easier to detect. The LCTs are simply the composition of a few basic operations in Wigner (position-frequency) space \cite{Bultheel06}. The first basic operation is rotation through some angle $\alpha$: \begin{equation} {\cal F}_{\alpha} = \left({\cos \alpha \atop -\sin \alpha}\ {\sin \alpha \atop \cos \alpha}\right). \end{equation} Rotation mixes the position domain with frequency domain. When $\alpha = \pi / 2$, the LCT is simply the Fourier transform: \begin{equation} {\cal F} = \left({0 \atop -1}\ {1 \atop 0}\right). \end{equation} Then the new position coordinate is $\kappa$. For other angles, the rotation is a \emph{Fractional Fourier Transform} (FrFTs). FrFTs use chirps as their orthogonal basis functions. The second basic operation is shear by some quantity $q$: \begin{equation} {\rm Fr}_q = \left({1 \atop 0}\ {q \atop 1}\right) \end{equation} The shear of position/frequency space is also known as a \emph{Fresnel transform}. The final basic operation is magnification by a factor $\mu$, or \begin{equation} {\cal M}_{\mu} = \left({\mu \atop 0}\ {0 \atop 1/\mu}\right). \end{equation} Nor are LCTs limited to real numbers. The Laplace transform is well known to be the Fourier transform of the imaginary frequencies, and is given by: \begin{equation} {\cal L} = \left({0 \atop i}\ {i \atop 0}\right). \end{equation} Of course, other transforms can be constructed out of these basic operations. \subsection{\label{sec:MatrixOptics} LCTs and matrix optics: The basic optical elements} The LCTs are deeply connected with optics. Quadratic phase systems can be represented by an $ABCD$ matrix that corresponds directly to the $ABCD$ matrix of an LCT \cite{Ozaktas01}. Suppose the electric field of a light wave at location 1 is described in terms of a position $x_1$ and spatial frequency $\kappa_1$. The light wave is processed by some optical system ${\bf M}$ and reaches location 2, where the electric field is described in terms of position $x_2$ and spatial frequency $\kappa_2$. Then the optical system's effects can be represented as \begin{equation} \left({x_2 \atop \kappa_2}\right) = {\bf M}\left({x_1 \atop \kappa_1}\right). \end{equation} For monochromatic light, the spatial frequency directly corresponds to a ray's angle with the optical axis. ${\bf M}$ is a composition of the $ABCD$ matrices of several basic elements. If a light wave moves a distance $d$ through free space, the matrix is a shear matrix \begin{equation} {\bf M} = \left({1 \atop 0}\ {d \lambda \atop 1}\right) \end{equation} This is of course the Fresnel transform, named for Fresnel diffraction. A thin lens with focal length $f$ shears in the frequency axis instead: \begin{equation} {\bf M} = \left({1 \atop -1/(\lambda f)}\ {0 \atop 1}\right) \end{equation} Any LCT can be constructed out of these elements \cite{Ozaktas01,Moreno05}. With digital optics, there are none of the usual physical limits on what material properties are realistic or not. One can easily emulate a material with index of refraction that is less than 1, negative, or even complex. Digital optics that mimic negative index of refraction materials can effectively act as superlenses, useful for near-field imaging of sources closer than one wavelength (see section~\ref{sec:Evanescence}). \subsection{Lenses as Fourier transformers \label{sec:FourierLenses}} As is well known, a lens performs the Fourier transform of the electric field. We can confirm this with the $ABCD$ formalism. Consider a lens with focal length $f$. It focuses light from infinity into an image on a plane a distance $f$ after the lens. Take the input field to be located a distance $f$ in front of the lens and the output field to be $f$ behind the lens. The $ABCD$ matrix is \begin{align} {\bf M}_{\rm focus} & = \left({1 \atop 0}\ {\lambda f \atop 1}\right) \left({1 \atop -1/(\lambda f)}\ {0 \atop 1}\right) \left({1 \atop 0}\ {\lambda f \atop 1}\right).\\ & = \left({0 \atop -1/(\lambda f)}\ {\lambda f \atop 0}\right) \end{align} This is just the Fourier transform LCT matrix done in units of $\sqrt{\lambda f}$. That is, we perform a ``magnification'' by a factor $1/\sqrt{\lambda f}$ on the input plane to get a unitless coordinate system, perform a Fourier transform, and then perform a ``magnification'' by a factor $\sqrt{\lambda f}$ on the output to get it back into physical units. \section{Fractional Fourier Transforms: How to focus an interferometer \label{sec:FracInterferometer}} Fractional Fourier Transforms lie in between the standard first-order Fourier transform and a zeroth-order Fourier transform -- the identity transform. One can think of the identity and Fourier transforms as two limiting extremes. If the source is so close that it lies within the array, it has a position but no single direction in the sky. The identity transform on the electric field is then most useful. If the source is at infinity, it lies in a definite direction, but it has no ``position'' within the array. Then the first-order Fourier transform of the electric field is necessary to recover its direction. This thought experiment suggests that if a source is at intermediate distance, its position and direction are both moderately defined, and one would use some intermediate fractional-order Fourier transform to find it. This turns out to be the case. \subsection{Parallax and FrFTs} If the source is merely very distant but not at infinity, the source displays parallax between different parts of the interferometer (Figure~\ref{fig:FrFTGeometry}). Because of parallax, the radiation \emph{cannot} be effectively described as coming from a single direction, even if the source is localized (Figure~\ref{fig:FractionalInterferometry}). The spatial wavelength of the radiation is smeared out, and the Fourier transform normally implemented by interferometers performs poorly. \begin{figure} \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f2.eps} \caption{The geometry of the fractional interferometer.\label{fig:FrFTGeometry}} \end{figure} This can be seen in detail by reconsidering the case of a 1D array, but now with a point source located at a position $x = -x_{\star}$ and $z = z_{\star}$ (Figure~\ref{fig:FrFTGeometry}). Its distance from the center of the array is ${\cal D}$. The electric field at any given time is: \begin{multline} {\bf E}(x,z,t) = \frac{{\bf E_0}}{\sqrt{(x + x_{\star})^2 + (z - z_{\star})^2}} \\ \times \exp\left[\frac{2 \pi i}{\lambda} (\sqrt{(x + x_{\star})^2 + (z - z_{\star})^2} + c t)\right]. \end{multline} The electric field on the ground has a complicated dependence on position: \begin{multline} {\bf E}(x) = \frac{{\bf E_0}}{\sqrt{(x + x_{\star})^2 + z_{\star}^2}} \exp\left(\frac{2 \pi i c t}{\lambda}\right)\\ \times \exp\left[\frac{2 \pi i}{\lambda} \sqrt{(x + x_{\star})^2 + z_{\star}^2}\right], \end{multline} and thus cannot be inverted easily. The spatially oscillating part of ${\bf E}(x)$ is an exponential of the form $\exp(i \phi)$. The phase $\phi$ is \begin{align} \label{eqn:PhiTaylor} \phi(x) & = \frac{2 \pi}{\lambda} {\cal D}^{\prime} \approx \frac{2 \pi {\cal D}}{\lambda} \left[1 + \left(\frac{x}{{\cal D}}\right) \sin \theta + \frac{x^2}{2{\cal D}^2} \cos^2 \theta\right] \end{align} when considering regions where $x \ll {\cal D}$. Taking a spatial derivative of $\phi$ amounts to measuring the instantaneous spatial frequency, \begin{equation} 2\pi \kappa = \frac{d\phi}{dx} \approx \frac{2 \pi}{\lambda} \left(\sin \theta + \frac{x}{{\cal D}} \cos^2 \theta\right). \end{equation} This frequency is what interferometers usually measure, and the first term is just the projection effect described in Section~\ref{sec:InterferometryIntro}. But if ${\cal D}$ is not infinite, then the spatial frequency does depend on position and the electric field can be approximated as a linear chirp \cite{Almeida94}. The frequency slide is \begin{equation} 2\pi \frac{d\kappa}{dx} = \frac{d^2 \phi}{dx^2} \approx \frac{2 \pi}{\lambda} \frac{1}{D} \cos^2 \theta. \end{equation} \begin{figure} \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f3.eps} \caption{The spatial frequency of waves from a nearby source changes with distance. The signal on the ground is then a chirp. This smears out the image in standard interferometers. The lines styles are the same as in Figure~\ref{fig:Interferometry}. \label{fig:FractionalInterferometry}} \end{figure} What we need is a transform that breaks the signal into chirps, measuring the power in a domain intermediate between position and frequency. The Fractional Fourier Transform \cite{Namias80,McBride87}, \begin{multline} \label{eqn:FrFT} {\cal F}_{\alpha}[f(\chi)](\chi^{\prime}) = \sqrt{1 - i \cot \alpha}\ \times \\ \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \exp[\pi i (\cot \alpha\ \chi^{\prime 2} - 2 \csc \alpha\ \chi^{\prime} x + \cot \alpha\ \chi^2)] f(\chi) d\chi. \end{multline} is suited for this purpose. (I use $\chi$ and $\chi^{\prime}$ here to emphasize that the position and direction variables are \emph{unitless}.) The angle $\alpha$ can be interpreted as the order $Q \equiv \alpha (2/\pi)$ of the FrFT. The identity operation has $Q = 0$ ($\alpha = 0$), while the standard Fourier transform has $Q = 1$ ($\alpha = \pi / 2$). With my conventions, $x^{\prime}$ reduces to $\kappa$ for $Q = 1$. Although FrFTs are not (directly) used in astronomical interferometry to my knowledge, they were defined in 1980 with awareness spreading in fields such as optics (e.g., \cite{FrFTApplications}), signal processing \cite{Almeida94}, and quantum mechanics (e.g., \cite{Namias80}) through the 1990s and 2000s. In Wigner space, the distribution of the energy in ${\bf E}(x)$ is a diagonal line as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:WignerFrFT}. The FrFT rotates position-frequency space so that the line of energy becomes vertical -- a $\delta$-function (Section~\ref{sec:LCTs}). Then one can just read off the chirp's frequency derivative and use it to infer the distance of the source. But we must choose the ``angle'' $\alpha$ correctly in order to optimally concentrate the chirp's power. \begin{figure} \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f4.eps} \caption{A plot of the distribution of a chirp's signal in Wigner space (thick black/blue line). An interferometer can focus on a source by rotating by an angle $\alpha$ so that the energy is all at one position $x^{\prime}$. The coordinates are in natural units of $\lambda$ for $x$ and $1/\lambda$ for $\kappa$. \label{fig:WignerFrFT}} \end{figure} The frequency $\kappa$ plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:WignerFrFT} is $1/(2\pi) \times (d\phi/dx)$. Say the units for position are $s$ and the units of $\kappa$ are then $1/s$, in order to put everything into a unitless form (with $\chi = x/s$). The slope of the chirp in Wigner space is \begin{equation} \tan \beta = \frac{d(\kappa s)}{d(x/s)} = \frac{s^2}{2 \pi} \frac{d^2 \phi}{dx^2} \approx \frac{s^2}{\lambda {\cal D}} \cos^2 \theta \end{equation} From this I infer that $\beta = \tan^{-1} [-s^2/(\lambda D) \cos^2 \theta]$, and the necessary rotation angle is \begin{equation} \label{eqn:alphaFocus} \alpha = \frac{\pi}{2} + \beta \approx \frac{\pi}{2} + \frac{s^2}{\lambda {\cal D}} \cos^2 \theta. \end{equation} In other words, we must perform a Fractional Fourier Transform of order $Q \approx 1 + (2/\pi) (s \cos \theta)^2 / (\lambda {\cal D})$. I call an interferometer that performs a FrFT a \emph{fractional interferometer}. In astronomy, the sources are typically \emph{very} distant and the units are fairly small, so that $Q \to 1$. The most ``natural'' units are the wavelength of the radiation $\lambda$, in which case the deviation of $Q$ from unity is a mere $\sim \lambda / {\cal D} \ll 1$. Then $x^{\prime}$ is very nearly $\kappa$ and has practically the same units of inverse wavelength. In this limit, $\cot \alpha \to -\beta + {\cal O}(\beta^3)$ and $\csc \alpha \to 1 + {\cal O}(\beta^2)$. The calculation of the FrFT is easy in this limit: \begin{equation} \label{eqn:FrFTQ1} {\cal F}_{\alpha}[E](\chi^{\prime}) \approx \exp[-\pi i \beta \chi^{\prime 2}]\ {\cal F}[E(\chi)\ \exp(-\pi i \beta \chi^2)], \end{equation} or after restoring units, \begin{multline} {\cal F}_{\alpha}[E](x^{\prime}) \approx \exp\left[-\pi i \frac{s^4 x^{\prime\,2}}{\lambda^2 D^2} \cos^2 \theta\right]\ \times\\ {\cal F}\left[E(x)\ \exp\left(-\pi i \frac{x^2}{\lambda D} \cos^2 \theta\right)\right]. \end{multline} These approximations apply under the loose condition that $\beta^2 \chi \chi^{\prime} \ll 1$. Since the largest $x$ in the problem is generally the array size $L$, and the largest $x^{\prime}$ is related to the minimum separation of the antennas ($x^{\prime} \lesssim 1/\ell$), this is true if $L \ll \ell (\lambda D)^2/s^4$. If one works in a ``natural'' unit system suggested above, with $s = \lambda$, then the condition is almost trivially true, $L \ll \ell (D/\lambda)^2$. Applying a FrFT instead of a FFT therefore basically amounts to a chirp multiplication before and after the Fourier transform. \subsection{The Fractional Fourier Transform as focus} Just as a lens performs an ordinary Fourier transform when it focuses light from infinity (section~\ref{sec:FourierLenses}), it performs a FrFT when it focuses light from distance ${\cal D}$. Specifically, if we again consider a lens with focal length $f$, then the electric field in an output plane a distance $d$ behind the lens is a Fractional Fourier transform of the field in an input plane a distance $d$ in front of the lens \cite{Bernardo94}. This can be seen with a matrix optics analysis. The transfer matrix for light propagating distance $d$, passing through a lens with focal length $f$, and propagating $d$ again is \cite{Bernardo96,Moreno05} \begin{equation} {\bf M}_{\rm focus} = \left({1 - d/f \atop -1/(\lambda f)}\ {d\lambda (2 - d/f) \atop 1 - d/f}\right). \end{equation} A transfer matrix of this type can be converted into a FrFT matrix by a scaling with the correct units: \begin{align} \nonumber {\cal F}_{\alpha} & = \left({1/\sqrt{\mu} \atop 0}\ {0 \atop \sqrt{\mu}}\right) \left({\cos \alpha \atop -(1/\mu) \sin \alpha}\ {\mu \sin \alpha \atop \cos \alpha}\right) \left({\sqrt{\mu} \atop 0}\ {0 \atop 1/\sqrt{\mu}}\right)\\ & = {\cal M}_{1/\sqrt{\mu}} {\bf M}_{\rm focus} {\cal M}_{\sqrt{\mu}}. \end{align} In this case, the effective angle of the FrFT performed by the optical system is $\cos \alpha = 1 - d/f$ \cite{Moreno05}, if we put position in units of $\sqrt{\lambda f}$ (compare section~\ref{sec:FourierLenses}). When a source is paraxial with the lens ($\cos \theta = 1$) and is located a distance ${\cal D}$ in front of it, its image is found a distance \begin{equation} d = f/(1 - f/{\cal D}) \approx f (1 + f/{\cal D}) \end{equation} behind the lens. The imaging process is then equivalent to a FrFT with order given by $\cos \alpha \approx -f/{\cal D}$. We can compare this with the FrFT order given by equation~\ref{eqn:alphaFocus}. In that case, if the unit $s$ is chosen to be $\sqrt{\lambda f}$, then $\cos \alpha = -\sin \beta \approx -f/{\cal D}$, an identical result. An interferometer that performs the FrFT on an electric field \emph{focuses} an image. Conventional interferometers are focused at infinity, as suited for most astronomical sources. But there is no reason why they cannot focus on things that are closer. \subsection{Fractional dirty beams, fractional convolutions, and related horrors} As with regular interferometers (Section~\ref{sec:InterferometryIntro}), measurements become much more complicated with actual interferometers. First, the measured signal at a given antenna depends on its primary beam's sensitivity in the direction of the source. Frequently, the primary beams can be approximated as the same for each antenna. But for a nearby source, the parallax effect implies that the sensitivity of some antennas may be greater than others, if only because the antennas are not all pointed directly at the source. This could complicate the analysis if the parallax angle is comparable to or larger than the primary beams. For distant objects with small parallax angles detected by dipole antennas, this may not be as much of an issue. As in section~\ref{sec:InterferometerComplications}, I will treat the antenna response as a constant $\sqrt{A}$, although this needs to be treated for more realistic situations. But a fundamental difficulty is the ``filtering'' $S({\bf x})$ performed by the interferometer as it samples the electric signal. The measured electric field is multiplied by $S({\bf x})$, as in equation~\ref{eqn:SFilteredE}, and the Fractional Fourier Transformed field is \begin{equation} E_{\rm dirty} = {\cal F}_{\alpha} [E^{\prime} (x)] = {\cal F}_{\alpha} [\sqrt{A} E(x) \times S(x)] \end{equation} The usual convolution theorem of the Fourier transform does \emph{not} apply (after all, the identity operation is ${\cal F}_0$). Instead, one must replace the convolution operation with a fractional convolution operation that merely reduces to normal convolution when $\alpha = \pi / 2$. Then we can say that \begin{equation} \label{eqn:EDirtyFrac} E_{\rm dirty} = {\cal F}_{\alpha} [E(x)] \ast_{-\alpha} P_{\alpha}^{\rm dirty} = {\cal F}_{\alpha} [E(x)] \ast_{\pi - \alpha} P_{\alpha}^{\rm dirty}, \end{equation} where $P_{\alpha}^{\rm dirty} = {\cal F}_{\alpha} [S]$ is the fractional dirty beam of the interferometer \cite{Ozaktas01}. Even if $S$ is a simple rectangular pulse, the fractional dirty beam does not have a simple analytic expression and it has imaginary components \cite{Almeida94}. One example of a definition for fractional convolution is given by \cite{Zayed98}: \begin{equation} (f \ast_{\alpha} g)(\chi) = e^{\pi i \chi^2 \cot \alpha} [(f e^{-\pi i \chi^2 \cot \alpha}) \ast (g e^{-\pi i \chi^2 \cot \alpha})], \end{equation} which I have altered to fit this paper's conventions regarding factors of $2 \pi$ (see also \cite{Almeida97}). Then, one can write \begin{multline} E_{\rm dirty} e^{\pi i \chi^2 \cot \alpha} = (\sqrt{A} e^{\pi i \chi^2 \cot \alpha} {\cal F}_{\alpha} [E(\chi)]) \\ \ast (e^{\pi i \chi^2 \cot \alpha} P_{\alpha}^{\rm dirty}), \end{multline} which is a standard deconvolution problem. \subsection{The limits of fractional interferometers \label{sec:FracInterferometerLimits}} Unless one works at very low frequencies (e.g., studying atmospheric phenomena at kHz frequencies), we are typically in the regime where ${\cal D} \gg \lambda$. This condition motivates my use of the Taylor series for ${\cal D}^{\prime}/{\cal D}$ in equation~\ref{eqn:PhiTaylor}. The reader may notice that the order $Q$ of the FrFT is very close to 1 in this case (equation~\ref{eqn:alphaFocus}). Although one might worry whether the interferometer can measure the phase of the electric field well enough for the FrFT to be needed, it turns out they can for sources within the atmosphere and into cislunar space. An interferometer can measure the parallax effect of a nearby source if the parallax angle between one end of the array and the other is bigger than the limiting resolution from Rayleigh's criterion. Another way to think about it is that the frequency derivative of the chirp can be measured if the phase slides more than 1 radian across the array from a constant tone. This gives us: \begin{equation} p \approx \tan p = \frac{L \cos \theta}{{\cal D}} \gtrsim \frac{\lambda}{L} \end{equation} for an array of width $L$. The relevant condition is \begin{equation} {\cal D} \lesssim \frac{L^2 \cos \theta}{\lambda} = 330\ \textrm{km}\ \cos \theta\ \left(\frac{L}{\textrm{km}}\right)^2 \left(\frac{\nu}{100\ \textrm{MHz}}\right) \end{equation} using values that could be typical of a 21 cm survey. When using the longest baselines of LOFAR or SKA ($\sim 1000\ \textrm{km}$), or the highest frequencies of VLA ($\sim 50\ \textrm{GHz}$), the Moon itself is just out of focus with a blur of $\sim 0.6$ arcsec (about 1 km). These limits for various arrays are listed in Table~\ref{table:FracInterferometryLimits}, under ${\cal D}_{\rm linear}$. \begin{table*} \begin{tabular}{llllccc} Array & $L$ & $\lambda$ & $\nu$ & ${\cal D}_{\rm linear}$ & ${\cal D}_{\rm quadratic}$ & References\\ \hline \multicolumn{7}{c}{Kilometric radio}\\ \hline Astronomical Low Frequency Array (ALFA) & 100\ \textrm{km} & 10\ \textrm{km} & 30\ \textrm{kHz} & 1000\ \textrm{km} & 560\ \textrm{km} & \cite{Jones00}\\ & & 10\ \textrm{m} & 30\ \textrm{MHz} & $10^6$\ \textrm{km} & $1.8 \times 10^4$\ \textrm{km} & \\ Hobart array & 1\ \textrm{km} & 60\ \textrm{m} & 5\ \textrm{MHz} & 17\ \textrm{km} & 7.2\ \textrm{km} & \cite{Ellis66}\\ \hline \multicolumn{7}{c}{Meter radio}\\ \hline LOFAR Superterp & 240\ \textrm{m} & 10\ \textrm{m} & 30\ \textrm{MHz} & 5.8\ \textrm{km} & 2.1\ \textrm{km} & \cite{vanHaarlem13}\\ & & 1.5\ \textrm{m} & 200\ \textrm{MHz} & 9.6\ \textrm{km} & 1.9\ \textrm{km} & \\ LOFAR Core & 3.5\ \textrm{km} & 10\ \textrm{m} & 30\ \textrm{MHz} & 1200\ \textrm{km} & 120\ \textrm{km} & \cite{vanHaarlem13}\\ & & 1.5\ \textrm{m} & 200\ \textrm{MHz} & 8200\ \textrm{km} & 300\ \textrm{km} & \\ LOFAR Remote & 121\ \textrm{km} & 10\ \textrm{m} & 30\ \textrm{MHz} & $1.5 \times 10^6\ \textrm{km}$ & $2.4 \times 10^4\ \textrm{km}$ & \cite{vanHaarlem13}\\ & & 1.5\ \textrm{m} & 200\ \textrm{MHz} & 0.065\ \textrm{AU} & $6.1 \times 10^4\ \textrm{km}$ & \\ LOFAR All & 1158\ \textrm{km} & 10\ \textrm{m} & 30\ \textrm{MHz} & 0.90\ \textrm{AU} & $7.0\ \times 10^5\ \textrm{km}$ & \cite{vanHaarlem13}\\ & & 1.5\ \textrm{m} & 200\ \textrm{MHz} & 6.0\ \textrm{AU} & 0.012\ \textrm{AU} & \\ \hline \multicolumn{7}{c}{Centimeter radio}\\ \hline GBT & 110\ \textrm{m} & 300\ \textrm{cm} & 100\ \textrm{MHz} & 4.1\ \textrm{km} & 1.2\ \textrm{km} & \cite{Prestage09}\\ & & 0.26\ \textrm{cm} & 115\ \textrm{GHz} & 4700\ \textrm{km} & 40\ \textrm{km} & \\ VLA (D configuration) & 1\ \textrm{km} & 30\ \textrm{cm} & 1\ \textrm{GHz} & 3300\ \textrm{km} & 100\ \textrm{km} & \cite{Perley11}\\ & & 0.6\ \textrm{cm} & 50\ \textrm{GHz} & $1.7 \times 10^5\ \textrm{km}$ & 720\ \textrm{km} & \\ VLA (A configuration) & 36\ \textrm{km} & 30\ \textrm{cm} & 1\ \textrm{GHz} & 0.029\ \textrm{AU} & $2.2 \times 10^4\ \textrm{km}$ & \cite{Perley11}\\ & & 0.6\ \textrm{cm} & 50\ \textrm{GHz} & 1.4\ \textrm{AU} & $1.6 \times 10^5\ \textrm{km}$ & \\ VLBI & $10^4$\ \textrm{km} & 20\ \textrm{cm} & 1.5\ \textrm{GHz} & 0.016\ \textrm{pc} & 0.84\ \textrm{AU} & \\ & & 1\ \textrm{cm} & 30\ \textrm{GHz} & 0.32\ \textrm{pc} & 3.7\ \textrm{AU} & \\ RadioAstron + VLBI & $3.5 \times 10^5$\ \textrm{km} & 92.5\ \textrm{cm} & 324\ \textrm{MHz} & 4.3\ \textrm{pc} & 81\ \textrm{AU} & \cite{Andreyanov14}\\ & & 1.35\ \textrm{cm} & 22.2\ \textrm{GHz} & 290\ \textrm{pc} & 670\ \textrm{AU} & \\ Interplanetary radio interferometer & 1\ \textrm{AU} & 20\ \textrm{cm} & 1.5\ \textrm{GHz} & 3.6\ \textrm{Mpc} & 7.4\ \textrm{pc} & \\ \hline \multicolumn{7}{c}{Submillimeter}\\ \hline Event Horizon Telescope & $10^4$\ \textrm{km} & 1\ \textrm{mm} & 300\ \textrm{GHz} & 3.2\ \textrm{pc} & 12\ \textrm{AU} & \cite{Lu14}\\ \hline \multicolumn{7}{c}{Near infrared and optical}\\ \hline Thirty meter telescope & 30\ \textrm{m} & 0.6\ $\mu\textrm{m}$ & 500\ \textrm{THz} & 0.010\ \textrm{AU} & 380\ \textrm{km} & \\ CHARA & 331\ \textrm{m} & 0.6\ $\mu\textrm{m}$ & 500\ \textrm{THz} & 1.2\ \textrm{AU} & $1.4 \times 10^4\ \textrm{km}$ & \cite{tenBrummelaar05}\\ NIR VLBI & $10^4$\ \textrm{km} & 1\ $\mu\textrm{m}$ & 300\ \textrm{THz} & 3.2\ \textrm{kpc} & 370\ \textrm{AU} & \\ \hline \multicolumn{7}{c}{X-rays}\\ \hline Maxim Pathfinder & 1.4\ \textrm{m} & 200\ \textrm{pm} & 150\ \textrm{PHz} & 6.6\ \textrm{AU} & 2100\ \textrm{km} & \cite{Cash05}\\ Maxim & 300\ \textrm{m} & 200\ \textrm{pm} & 150\ \textrm{PHz} & 1.5\ \textrm{pc} & 0.044\ \textrm{AU} & \cite{Cash05}\\ \end{tabular} \caption{Closest distances for which normal and fractional interferometry apply for various arrays. These correspond to the domains where linear ($\lesssim {\cal D}_{\rm linear}$) and quadratic ($\lesssim {\cal D}_{\rm quadratic}$) approximations to the phase with distance (equation~\ref{eqn:PhiTaylor}) are valid.} \label{table:FracInterferometryLimits} \end{table*} But if the source is too close to the array, then the approximation in equation~\ref{eqn:PhiTaylor} is insufficient. The next term in $\phi$ is $(2 \pi {\cal D}/\lambda) \times [-(1/2) (x/{\cal D})^3 \sin \theta \cos^2 \theta]$. The quadratic approximation is sufficient only if this next term adds or subtracts less than 1 radian to the phase: \begin{equation} \left|\frac{\pi}{{\cal D}} \left(\frac{x}{{\cal D}}\right)^3 \sin \theta \cos^2 \theta\right| \gtrsim 1. \end{equation} We have \begin{align} \nonumber {\cal D} & \lesssim L |\cos \theta| \sqrt{\frac{\pi L |\sin \theta|}{\lambda}} \\ \label{eqn:FracInterferometryLimit} & = 32\ \textrm{km}\ |\cos \theta|\ \sqrt{|\sin \theta|}\ \left(\frac{L}{\textrm{km}}\right)^{3/2} \left(\frac{\nu}{100\ \textrm{MHz}}\right)^{-1/2}. \end{align} The above condition is listed for various arrays in Table~\ref{table:FracInterferometryLimits} too, under ${\cal D}_{\rm quadratic}$. Even higher $m$th order terms of the approximation are proportional to $x^m / (\lambda {\cal D}^{m-1})$, and are valid for ${\cal D} \lesssim L^{m/(m-1)} \lambda^{-1/(m-1)}$. The Taylor series breaks down entirely when ${\cal D} \lesssim L$. \subsection{Subarrays or fractional interferometry?} Fractional interferometry corresponds to a second-order approximation of the phase with position, or a first-order approximation in spatial frequency. This seems obviously advantageous over normal interferometry, which is a first-order approximation of the phase (zeroth-order in frequency) -- we fit the signal with a line of arbitrary slope instead of a zero-slope line in Wigner space (Figure~\ref{fig:WignerFrFT}). But another way to describe a signal is to break the array into many smaller arrays and fit the signal in Wigner space with a series of constant values, one for each sub-array. Likewise, one could try to fit a signal with a nonzero second derivative of $\kappa$ by breaking the signal into a series of lines, to get around the limits imposed by equation~\ref{eqn:FracInterferometryLimit}. Essentially, the problem is to minimize the angular beam width $W$ if the source may be out of focus. Consider a 1D subarray centered at $x = x_0$ with a total width of $l$. There are two terms in $W$. The first is the resolution limit imposed by diffraction, $W_{\rm diff} = \lambda / l$, which favors large $\ell$. The second is the apparent angular size of the source's image, $W_{\rm image}$, which gets larger as the source goes out of focus. $W_{\rm image}$ is basically the projected ``width'' (or overhang) of the signal in Wigner space after the interferometer performs a FFT or FrFT; it is calculated as the overhang in $x^{\prime}$ (which is almost, but not technically, $\kappa$) in units of $1/\lambda$. With a standard interferometer, the best-fit linear approximation to the phase leaves a residual signal width of \begin{equation} W_{\rm image}^{\rm linear} \approx \frac{l \cos^2 \theta}{2 {\cal D}} \left(3 \frac{x_0}{{\cal D}} \sin \theta + 1\right) \approx \frac{l \cos^2 \theta}{2 {\cal D}} \end{equation} for a distant source. (Note that $x_0$ ranges from $-l/2$ to $l/2$.) Minimizing this term favors small $l$. Then, supposing the total beam width is about $W \approx \min[W_{\rm diff}, W_{\rm image}^2]$, the optimal beam width is, \begin{equation} W_{\rm best}^{\rm linear} \approx \cos \theta \sqrt{\frac{\lambda}{2 {\cal D}}} \end{equation} for an array size of \begin{equation} l_{\rm best}^{\rm linear} \approx \sec \theta \sqrt{2 \lambda {\cal D}}. \end{equation} Using a larger subarray (or telescope) than $l_{\rm best}^{\rm linear}$ actually makes the image \emph{blurrier} because the parallax of the source across the array is detectable. The best-fit quadratic approximation to the phase leaves a residual image width of \begin{equation} W_{\rm image} = \frac{3}{8} \left(\frac{l}{\cal D}\right)^2 \sin \theta \cos^2 \theta. \end{equation} This allows an optimal width of \begin{equation} W_{\rm best}^{\rm quadratic} \approx \left(\frac{3}{8} \frac{\lambda^2}{{\cal D}^2} \sin \theta \cos^2 \theta\right)^{1/3} \end{equation} for an array size of \begin{equation} l_{\rm best}^{\rm quadratic} \approx \left(\frac{8}{3} \lambda {\cal D}^2 \csc \theta \sec^2 \theta \right)^{1/3}. \end{equation} Again, a larger subarray than $l_{\rm best}^{\rm quadratic}$ just makes things worse. Using a FrFT instead of a Fourier transform improves the image angular width as \begin{equation} \frac{W_{\rm best}^{\rm quadratic}}{W_{\rm best}^{\rm linear}} \approx \left(\frac{9}{8} \frac{\lambda}{\cal D} \tan^2 \theta \right)^{1/6}, \end{equation} for subarrays with the optimal size, where \begin{equation} \frac{l_{\rm best}^{\rm quadratic}}{l_{\rm best}^{\rm linear}} \approx \left(\frac{8}{9} \frac{\cal D}{\lambda} \cot^2 \theta \right)^{1/6}. \end{equation} Although these ratios evolve slowly with distance, note that the relevant factor of ${\cal D}/\lambda$ is very big. As a result, the fractional interferometer can improve the best possible beam width by orders of magnitude. \begin{table*} \begin{tabular}{lllcccccc} Source & ${\cal D}$ & $\lambda$ & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Standard interferometer} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Fractional interferometer}\\ & & & $l_{\rm best}^{\rm linear}$ & $W_{\rm best}^{\rm linear}$ & $\Delta S_{\rm best}^{\rm linear}$ & $l_{\rm best}^{\rm quadratic}$ & $W_{\rm best}^{\rm quadratic}$ & $\Delta S_{\rm best}^{\rm quadratic}$\\ \hline Thunderstorm & 10\ \textrm{km} & 10\ \textrm{m} & 0.4\ \textrm{km} & 1$^{\circ}$ & 0.2\ \textrm{km} & 1\ \textrm{km} & 0.4$^{\circ}$ & 70\ \textrm{m} \\ ISS & 500\ \textrm{km} & 30\ \textrm{cm} & 0.5\ \textrm{km} & 2\ \textrm{arcmin} & 0.3\ \textrm{km} & 6\ \textrm{km} & 10\ \textrm{arcsec} & 30\ \textrm{m}\\ Geosynchronous satellite & $3.6 \times 10^4\ \textrm{km}$ & 1\ $\mu\textrm{m}$ & 8\ \textrm{m} & 20\ \textrm{mas} & 4\ \textrm{m} & 2\ \textrm{km} & 0.1\ \textrm{mas} & 2\ \textrm{cm}\\ Moon & $3.84 \times 10^5\ \textrm{km}$ & 1\ \textrm{m} & 30\ \textrm{km} & 7\ \textrm{arcsec} & 10\ \textrm{km} & 700\ \textrm{km} & 0.3\ \textrm{arcsec} & 0.5\ \textrm{km}\\ & & 1\ $\mu\textrm{m}$ & 30\ \textrm{m} & 7\ \textrm{mas} & 10\ \textrm{m} & 7\ \textrm{km} & 30\ $\mu$\textrm{as} & 5\ \textrm{cm}\\ Neptune & 30\ \textrm{AU} & 1\ \textrm{m} & 3000\ \textrm{km} & 70\ \textrm{mas} & 2000\ \textrm{km} & $4 \times 10^5\ \textrm{km}$ & 0.5\ \textrm{mas} & 10\ \textrm{km}\\ & & 1\ $\mu\textrm{m}$ & 3\ \textrm{km} & 70\ $\mu$\textrm{as} & 2\ \textrm{km} & 4000\ \textrm{km} & 60\ \textrm{nas} & 1\ \textrm{m}\\ Solar neighborhood & 10\ \textrm{pc} & 1\ \textrm{m} & $8 \times 10^5\ \textrm{km}$ & 0.3\ \textrm{mas} & $4 \times 10^5\ \textrm{km}$ & 4\ \textrm{AU} & 0.3\ $\mu$\textrm{as} & 500\ \textrm{km}\\ & & 1\ $\mu\textrm{m}$ & 800\ \textrm{km} & 0.3\ $\mu$\textrm{as} & 400\ \textrm{km} & 0.04\ \textrm{AU} & 30\ \textrm{pas} & 50\ \textrm{m}\\ Galactic Center & 8\ \textrm{kpc} & 1\ \textrm{m} & 0.1\ \textrm{AU} & 9\ $\mu$\textrm{as} & 0.07\ \textrm{AU} & 400\ \textrm{AU} & 4\ \textrm{nas} & 5000\ \textrm{km}\\ & & 1\ \textrm{mm} & $7 \times 10^5\ \textrm{km}$ & 0.3\ $\mu$\textrm{as} & $4 \times 10^5\ \textrm{km}$ & 40\ \textrm{AU} & 40\ \textrm{pas} & 50\ \textrm{km}\\ & & 1\ $\mu\textrm{m}$ & $2 \times 10^4\ \textrm{km}$ & 9\ \textrm{nas} & $1 \times 10^4\ \textrm{km}$ & 4\ \textrm{AU} & 0.4\ \textrm{pas} & 0.5\ \textrm{km}\\ & & 20\ \textrm{nm} & 3000\ \textrm{km} & 1\ \textrm{nas} & 2000\ \textrm{km} & 1\ \textrm{AU} & 30\ \textrm{fas} & 30\ \textrm{m}\\ M87 & 20\ \textrm{Mpc} & 1\ \textrm{m} & 7\ \textrm{AU} & 0.2\ $\mu$\textrm{as} & 4\ \textrm{AU} & 0.3\ \textrm{pc} & 20\ \textrm{pas} & $6 \times 10^4\ \textrm{km}$\\ & & 1\ \textrm{mm} & 0.2\ \textrm{AU} & 6\ \textrm{nas} & 0.1\ \textrm{AU} & 0.03\ \textrm{pc} & 0.2\ \textrm{pas} & 600\ \textrm{km}\\ & & 1\ $\mu\textrm{m}$ & $1 \times 10^6\ \textrm{km}$ & 0.2\ \textrm{nas} & $5 \times 10^5\ \textrm{km}$ & 700\ \textrm{AU} & 2\ \textrm{fas} & 6\ \textrm{km}\\ & & 20\ \textrm{nm} & $2 \times 10^5\ \textrm{km}$ & 30\ \textrm{pas} & $8 \times 10^4\ \textrm{km}$ & 200\ \textrm{AU} & 0.2\ \textrm{fas} & 0.5\ \textrm{km}\\ Distant galaxies & 2\ \textrm{Gpc} & 1\ \textrm{m} & 70\ \textrm{AU} & 20\ \textrm{nas} & 40\ \textrm{AU} & 7\ \textrm{pc} & 1\ \textrm{pas} & $3 \times 10^5\ \textrm{km}$\\ & & 1\ \textrm{mm} & 2\ \textrm{AU} & 0.6\ \textrm{nas} & 1\ \textrm{AU} & 0.7\ \textrm{pc} & 10\ \textrm{fas} & 3000\ \textrm{km}\\ & & 1\ $\mu\textrm{m}$ & 0.07\ \textrm{AU} & 20\ \textrm{pas} & 0.04\ \textrm{AU} & 0.07\ \textrm{pc} & 0.1\ \textrm{fas} & 30\ \textrm{km}\\ \end{tabular} \caption{Best possible angular resolutions with a standard interferometer (first order in phase) and a fractional interferometer (second order in phase). The largest resolvable features on the source is denoted by $\Delta S$. All trigonometric terms on $\theta$ are assumed to be $\sim 1$.} \label{table:OptimalResolutions} \end{table*} I demonstrate this by calculating the best possible image resolutions with standard and fractional interferometry for various sources in Table~\ref{table:OptimalResolutions}. For sources within the Solar System, standard interferometers have blurred, sub-optimal images for VLBI baselines. In addition, if a RadioAstron-like baseline is ever added to the EHT, standard interferometry cannot resolve scales below $\sim 1\%$ of the Galactic Center's supermassive black hole Schwarzschild radius. The fractional Fourier interferometer performs much better. One would need baselines that are spread across the Solar System before one would need to go to third order, if the sources are interstellar. Fractional interferometers are sufficient for our present astronomical needs. \subsection{An example calculation of a fractional interferometer} I shall now demonstrate how much using a FrFT instead of a simple Fourier transform matters for the beam size. Consider a 1D FFTT that is $L = 1\ \textrm{km}$ wide designed to observe GHz radio waves. It has $2^{15} = 32768$ elements, spaced $3.05\ \textrm{cm}$ apart. It therefore has enough information to sample $1\ \textrm{GHz}$ radiation ($\lambda = 29.98\ \textrm{cm}$). I consider a case without any noise for simplicity. Now let's say that one wishes to focus on a $1\ \textrm{GHz}$ emitter that is ${\cal D} = 500\ \textrm{km}$ away at a zenith angle of $45^{\circ}$. The transmitter may be a low earth orbit satellite, like the International Space Station (ISS), but it is a point source. According to equation~\ref{eqn:alphaFocus}, the optimal FrFT has order very near 1, with $\Delta Q = Q - 1 = 1.91 \times 10^{-7}$. How much of a difference does this make? \begin{figure*} \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f5a.eps}\,\includegraphics[width=8cm]{f5b.eps} \caption{How the characteristics of the image of the transmitter vary with FrFT order $\Delta Q$ (left), including the half-power beam width and the maximum intensity. On right, the intensity distributions of the image; plotted images are for $\Delta Q = 1.9 \times 10^{-7}$ (solid), $\Delta Q = 0$ (dashed), and $\Delta Q = -1.9 \times 10^{-7}$ (dotted). The signal is normalized so that the total detected power is 1.\label{fig:ISSTransientImages}} \end{figure*} We can measure the effective image size by considering the smallest range of $x^{\prime}$ around the point of maximum intensity that contains 50\% of the power. This quantity, dubbed $W_{1/2}$, is plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:ISSTransientImages}. There is a flat bottom around the optimal $\Delta Q$, but the image width begins increasing quickly as the deviation from this best $\Delta Q$ passes $(0.5$--$1) \times 10^{-7}$. A simple Fourier transform double the image size, and cuts the peak intensity in half. Note how the intensity peak is smeared out by the normal Fourier transform compared with the FrFT in the right panel. The fractional interferometer clearly performs better than the normal FFTT analysis, doubling the signal even for this tiny of a $\Delta Q$. \subsection{Targets for a fractional interferometer} A fractional interferometer can increase an interferometer's sensitivity and ability to maps sources that are relatively nearby. The inability of conventional interferometers to ``focus'' on nearby sources has been understood for a long time. Various fixes for focusing on these objects have been proposed, including adding a quadratic time delay for different elements (\cite{Fukushima94Sovers98}; see also \cite{Carter89}), and using a nonlinear mapping on the $uv$ plane \cite{Duev12}. The FrFT provides a natural framework for solving the problem. As seen in Table~\ref{table:FracInterferometryLimits}, the entire Solar System is out of focus in radio VLBI arrays. Yet VLBI is an important tool for tracking space probes within the Solar System. Aside from simply keeping tabs on where the probes are, precise measurements of space probes are useful for pinning down the locations of the planets \cite{Jones11}, performing tests of general relativity and modified gravity \cite{Hees14}, and monitoring the winds of planets and moons with atmospheric probes \cite{Sagdeyev92,Witasse06}. Among the objects studied with VLBI tracking are Venus \cite{Sagdeyev92}, Mars \cite{Hildebrand94}, Saturn \cite{Jones11}, and Titan \cite{Witasse06}. The Moon is also a frequent target of VLBI observations. The later Apollo missions planted radio beacons on the Moon's surface as part of the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Packages (ALSEPs). Early selenometry benefited from VLBI observations of these beacons, which pinned down their relative positions and constrained the Moon's motion \cite{Counselman73King76}.\footnote{The ALSEPs were turned off in the 1970s, but there's no reason why future crewed or uncrewed missions to the Moon could not place additional radio transmitters.} VLBI tracking of lunar satellites like SELENE allowed for the determination of the Moon's gravitational field to high order \cite{Goossens11}. Artificial satellites in geosynchronous and low earth orbit are out of focus in normal VLBI observations, as well as in high-frequency observations by the Very Large Array (Table~\ref{table:FracInterferometryLimits}). These artificial satellites are monitored on occasion with long baseline radio interferometry \cite{Preston72}. There has also been recent interest in using optical interferometry to directly observe communications satellites in geosynchronous orbit, to diagnose their status \cite{Armstrong09Hindsley11}. Yet, according to Table~\ref{table:FracInterferometryLimits}, optical observations of these satellites are out of focus, and FrFT techniques must be applied to get a sharper image. Even closer to home, there are many radio phenomena in the atmosphere that could benefit from fractional interferometry. Meteors vaporize into plasma in the atmosphere, which reflects artificial radio signals \cite{Lazio10}. Meteors can emit radio emission on their own, too \cite{Obenberger14}. Lightning frequently is a source of radio emission from Extremely Low Frequencies ($\lesssim\ \textrm{kHz}$) up through hundreds of MHz \cite{LeVine80Holden95,Rodger06}. Sprites, which accompany some thunderstorms, also are sources of Very Low Frequency emission \cite{Rodger06}. These kinds of electrical phenomena excite sferics and whistlers in the ionosphere at frequencies below a MHz \cite{Helliwell65}. Finally, Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays (UHECRs) produce particle showers when they interact with the atmosphere. The detection of radio pulses accompanying these showers is an important technique for measuring the UHECR flux at the highest energies \cite{Lehtinen04,Gorham09}. The high frequency radio transients in the atmosphere are of interest to the numerous radio astronomy arrays, and interferometry is occasionally used to study the low frequency transients associated with lightning \cite{Rhodes94Mezentsev13}. Fractional interferometers of the right frequency range may be more sensitive to all of these phenomena and could potentially map the shapes of the radio-emitting regions, perhaps providing new diagnostics. Observations of the new class(es) of Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) are a good example of what a fractional interferometer might accomplish. These millisecond-long pulses observed at GHz frequencies are dispersed in a way consistent with being located outside of the Milky Way \cite{FRBs}. But the situation is confused by the recent discovery of perytons, atmospheric radio transients of similar dispersion, frequency, and duration \cite{BurkeSpolaor11}. If a FFTT could catch some of these pulses, it could discern whether the FRBs are really astronomical or if they are atmospheric easily. An atmospheric FRB is out of focus \cite{Kulkarni14}, and its image would be sharpened by a FrFT. Extraterrestrial FRBs, on the other hand, are essentially at infinity. Perhaps the most prosaic, but useful, application of the fractional interferometry technique would be to remove radio frequency interference (RFI) from human activities \cite{Fridman01,Offringa13}. RFI is generated by electronic devices, both on the ground and in orbit. RFI is an ever-increasing threat to radio astronomy, and must be removed from radio data \cite{Fridman01}. In many cases listed in Table~\ref{table:FracInterferometryLimits}, namely those with long baselines or at high frequency, the RFI sources are close enough to be out of focus. Focusing an interferometer could produce a sharper image of the RFI source, allowing it be removed more cleanly from the data without losing the wanted signal. \section{The uses of evanescent waves \label{sec:Evanescence}} In the last section, I assumed that the radiation is high frequency, with both the array and the distance to the source much bigger than the wavelength. But at very low frequencies, it is quite possible that the array and the source distance are smaller than one wavelength. This could happen when observing at kHz frequencies, where the wavelength is $30\ \textrm{km}\ (\nu / 10\ \textrm{kHz})^{-1}$, a common regime for sferic studies. Then we need to consider a near-field limit of microscopy. The recent advances in superlenses are applicable to this regime. \subsection{Digital superlenses: perfect radio microscopes} As I noted in Section~\ref{sec:MatrixOptics}, digital optics are not bound by normal physical constraints. Digital telescopes can simulate elements with negative index of refraction as easily as elements with positive index of refraction. Negative index of refraction materials (NIMs) are especially interesting from an optical point of view, as they can be used to construct superlenses. Superlenses are lenses that can image objects that are smaller than the wavelength of the light they scatter as long as they are in the near-field limit (less than one wavelength away) \cite{Pendry00}. Even a simple slab of NIM can act as a superlens \cite{Veselago68}. When light enters a NIM, it bends \emph{away} from the surface normal, according to Snell's Law. This allows them to focus light both inside the material and again after it leaves the NIM slab \cite{Pendry00}. The overall effect of a NIM is to effectively undo the propagation of light \cite{Smith00}. The reverse propagation applies not only to the typical oscillating waves of light, but also exponentially decaying evanescent waves. The evanescent waves contain information about their source on scales below the wavelength. They vanish in the far-field ($d \gtrsim \lambda$), but if they enter a NIM before that, they are amplified back up to their original strength or beyond. Thus, it is possible to reconstruct the electric field at the source in precise detail with a NIM. This superlens effect allows an optical system to capture information below the diffraction limit in the near-field limit \cite{Pendry00,Zhang08}. Physical microwave superlenses have been built out of metamaterials, but there are fundamental limits to their performance that do not apply to digital optics. The most important is causality. A wavefront cannot bend away from the surface normal instantaneously; the far side of the wavefront needs time to catch up to the near side. Light in a NIM has a superluminal phase velocity, but the group velocity is necessarily less than $c$, and there is a delay time before the wavefronts are launched \cite{Foteinopoulou03}. The constraint of causality necessarily introduces dispersion, however, so a physical superlens is limited to a narrow wavelength range \cite{Smith00}. But a digital system is not limited by causality. When a digital optical system is synthesized and applied to stored data, the entire history of the electric field is already known, so an acausal system is possible. Causality is respected in a fundamental sense, because it already takes a light-crossing time for the information to be received by a central processor. As such, a digital superlens may be designed to have no dispersion and can work at any frequency. However, the resolution of a digital superlens is still limited by the sampling of the electric field \cite{Smith03}. Digital superlenses are practical in the near-field regime, when the source is less than one wavelength away. While this does not apply for astronomical sources, it does apply to atmospheric radio phenomena at very low frequencies. Astronomical sources are, of course, so far away that evanescent waves have long since decayed away. Trying to amplify these vanished waves instead merely amplifies random noise. The one proposal to use NIMs in astronomical telescopes involves artificially creating evanescent waves in a NIM that simulate the evanescent waves that exist in the near-field of a source, which usually requires some knowledge of what the source looks like \cite{May04}. An interferometer with a digital superlens is really a \emph{microscope} rather than a telescope. \subsection{Laplacian interferometers: the (practically) impossible dream} If digital superlenses use evanescent waves to reconstruct sub-diffraction images of near-field objects, it is natural to wonder if the evanescent waves can be detected directly. The evanescent waves are exponentially damped with distance from the source. The array measures a slice of these fields, which generically has an exponential dependence on position due to projection (Figure~\ref{fig:LaplacianInterferometry}). This is conceptually similar to normal interferometers, except that the exponentials of imaginary frequency are replaced by exponentials of real frequency. The necessary transform is the Fourier transform at imaginary frequency -- the inverse Laplace transform. Can we build a \emph{Laplacian} interferometer around this principle, instead of the usual Fourier interferometer? \begin{figure*} \includegraphics[width=6cm]{f6a.eps}\,\includegraphics[width=6cm]{f6b.eps}\,\includegraphics[width=6cm]{f6c.eps} \caption{Projection effects apply to a static electric field that has exponential scaling towards some direction in the sky. Separating these kinds of exponentials is impossible in practice. The lines styles are the same as in Figure~\ref{fig:Interferometry}.\label{fig:LaplacianInterferometry}} \end{figure*} There are two types of Laplace transform that we can consider. The LCT formulation of the Laplace transform, given by \begin{equation} {\cal L}_2 = \left({0 \atop i}\ {i \atop 0}\right), \end{equation} actually is the bilateral Laplace transform (aside from a phase factor): \begin{equation} F(s) = {\cal L}_2 [f(\kappa)] = \sqrt{-i} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-2\pi s \kappa} f(\kappa) d\kappa. \end{equation} We also have the LCT version of the inverse bilateral Laplace transform: \begin{equation} f(\kappa) = {\cal L}_2^{-1} [F(s)] = \sqrt{-i} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{2\pi s \kappa} F(\kappa) d\kappa. \end{equation} A single evanescent wave has a single projected scale $\kappa_0$, and has an electric field represented as a spike $\delta(\kappa - \kappa_0)$. The spike is Laplace transformed into an exponential in $s$-space, $\exp(-2\pi s \kappa_0)$. Ideally, we would just invert the measured electric field back into a delta function in $\kappa$-space. Yet the inversion fails because the inverse bilateral Laplace integral diverges. Bilateral Laplace transforms generally have limited domains of convergence in $\mathbb{C}$. The one-sided Laplace transform, \begin{equation} F(s) = {\cal L} [f(\kappa)] = \int_0^{\infty} e^{-s \kappa} f(\kappa) dk \end{equation} has better convergence properties. Once again, the Laplace transform of $\delta(\kappa - \kappa_0)$ is an exponential in $s$-space, $\exp(-s \kappa_0)$, as long as $\kappa_0 > 0$. An exponential can be inverse Laplace transformed back into a $\delta$-function. Conceivably, all we need to do to build an evanescent wave interferometer is perform a one-sided inverse Laplace transform on the measured electric field. This is the infamous problem of separating exponentials that crops up from time to time in various fields \cite{Istratov99}. The underlying obstacle is that that the inversion requires integration in the complex $s$ domain: \begin{equation} f(\kappa) = {\cal L}^{-1} [f(\kappa)] = \lim_{C \to \infty} \int_{\gamma - iC}^{\gamma + iC} e^{s \kappa} F(s) ds. \end{equation} The contour of integration is the Bromwich contour, for which $\gamma$ has a greater real value than all singularities of $F(s)$. While this is fine if we know the behavior of $F(s)$ at complex $s$ (as we do for the analytic exponential function), an array can measure the electric field only at real-valued positions. Because of the importance of the problem, several numerical algorithms have been developed that attempt to fit exponential(s) to data at real-valued positions \cite{Istratov99}. For example, one might fit the data with an analytic function (such as Laguerre or Chebyshev polynomials) and then extrapolate it into the complex domain \cite{Lanczos56}. The exponentials can also be fit by transforming the variables and performing a certain deconvolution \cite{Gardner59}. All techniques suffer from extreme instabilities in the presence of noise, because the separation of exponentials is ``ill-posed'' with several solutions \cite{Lanczos56,McWhirter78,Istratov99}. In functional analysis terms, the exponential functions are far from orthogonal \cite{Lanczos56,Provencher76}. Since exponentials vary rapidly, even a slight fluctuation requires huge changes in the spectrum in order for the exponentials to cancel out in most places. Even the number of exponentials that produce the signal can be impossible to extract \cite{Lanczos56}. The inability to infer which exponentials contribute to the electric field is fundamentally related to the diffraction limit in optics \cite{McWhirter78}, and why we cannot detect evanescent waves from astronomical sources. An image of an object is formed by an optical system with some entrance pupil. The image is a Fourier transform of the electric field near the pupil; therefore, the finite size of the pupil filters out high spatial frequency information. But the Fourier transform necessarily produces an analytic function, so all of the information can hypothetically be reconstructed from the small sliver that passes the pupil \cite{Slepian61}. The apparently infinite resolution compared to the limited resolution of actual optics presents an apparent paradox \cite{ToraldoDiFrancia69,McWhirter78}. The paradox is solved by noting that although the high frequency information is still mathematically present, it is suppressed to nearly zero amplitude. In more formal terms, the eigenvalues of the optical system's eigenfunctions drop from almost exactly one to almost exactly zero as one passes the diffraction bound \cite{ToraldoDiFrancia69,McWhirter78} (see \cite{Piestun00} for a review). Attempting to find the strengths of the high frequency information results in a division by (nearly) zero, and even the slightest noise results in wild deviations. The problem is a generic one for integral equations, including the Laplace transform, which smooths the exponential spectrum on small scales \cite{McWhirter78,Provencher82}. Physically, the suppression of the high eigenfunctions comes from the decay of evanescent waves decay after propagating any significant length. In order to measure those waves, they have to be multiplied back up by an exponential factor to their original strength -- or, equivalently, their amplitudes must be divided by nearly zero. The inevitable noise within the system is also amplified with the evanescent waves, scrambling any information they contain. Even if we had a perfect detector, quantum fluctuations inject unavoidable noise, limiting the resolution in the far-field \cite{Kolobov00}. Likewise, the throughput of the optical system is very small for evanescent waves, and any detectable signal requires a vast number of photons with a vast amount of energy \cite{Yu70Zheludev08}. Or, reversing time, an antenna can broadcast radiation in an arbitrarily narrow angle only at the cost of vast input power \cite{ToraldoDiFrancia52}. For astronomical objects, with distances\footnote{The Moon at 1 MHz.} of $\gg 10^{5} \lambda$, the evanescent waves are suppressed by a factor $\gg e^{10^5}$. Hence, we cannot use superlenses to image astronomical objects with arbitrary resolution. Only in the near-field, where the exponential functions are well-behaved and the evanescent waves have not yet decayed, can the Laplace transform be inverted. The virtual impossibility of a Laplacian interferometer makes the connection between the two problems explicit. \section{Beyond the Fourier Basis in Time Domain} \subsection{Generic waveforms in the time domain \label{sec:TimeDomain}} Just as non-Fourier transforms can be used for the spatial structure of the electric field, the temporal structure of the field can be decomposed using other transforms. Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong with using the Fourier transform, as any function can be stably represented as a sum of Fourier modes. The Fourier transform is not as natural, though, for representing signals whose frequency changes rapidly in time (as noted in \cite{Gorham09,RomeroWolf13}). Suppose the radiation from a source is isotropic. We denote the electric field at a distance ${\cal D}^{\prime}$ (see Figure~\ref{fig:FrFTGeometry}) and a time $t$ as $E({\cal D}^{\prime}, t)$. Because the radiation is isotropic, \begin{equation} E({\cal D}^{\prime}, t) = \frac{f(t^{\prime})}{{\cal D}^{\prime}} = \frac{f(t - {\cal D}^{\prime}/c)}{{\cal D}^{\prime}}, \end{equation} where $f(t^{\prime})$ can be any function with finite energy. Now we wish to understand how the $f$ waveform varies across the array. Let $t_0 = t - {\cal D} / c$. Then, \begin{equation} \label{eqn:tGenericInterferometer} t - \frac{{\cal D}^{\prime}}{c} = t_0 + \frac{({\cal D} - {\cal D}^{\prime})}{c} \approx t_0 - \frac{x}{c}\left[\sin \theta + \left(\frac{x}{{\cal D}}\right) \frac{\cos^2 \theta}{2}\right] \end{equation} using the same logic as we used to derive the fractional interferometer in section~\ref{sec:FracInterferometer}. \begin{figure*} \includegraphics[width=6cm]{f7a.eps}\,\includegraphics[width=6cm]{f7b.eps}\,\includegraphics[width=6cm]{f7c.eps} \caption{Interferometry can be performed using any set of basis functions, not just Fourier modes. A smaller zenith angle (left) stretches out the waveform in space compared to larger zenith angles (middle). Sources that are close effect a ``chirp'' in the waveform, stretching it out more on one side of the array than others (right). The lines styles are the same as in Figure~\ref{fig:Interferometry}. \label{fig:GenericInterferometry}} \end{figure*} The principles of a generic waveform interferometer are essentially the same as those for a regular Fourier interferometer (Section~\ref{sec:InterferometryIntro}). The array on the ground measures a horizontal slice out of the electric field. The measured waveform at a given time is some kind of projection of the waveform in time. If the source is infinitely far away, the projection simply stretches out the waveform depending on its altitude. The waveform is stretched out more for a source at high altitude (equation~\ref{eqn:tGenericInterferometer}) than for a source on the horizon (see Section~\ref{sec:InterferometryIntro} and Figure~\ref{fig:GenericInterferometry}). By measuring the amount the waveform is stretched out on the ground, one can reconstruct where on the sky the source is. When the source is not at infinity, the generic waveform interferometer is analogous to the fractional Fourier interferometer (Section~\ref{sec:FracInterferometer}). The source's position on the sky has a measurable parallax from one end of the array to the other. Thus, the stretch of the waveform on the ground varies from one position to another because of the quadratic dependence of the delay time on position (equation~\ref{eqn:tGenericInterferometer}). On the side of the interferometer closer to the source, the waveform is stretched more than on the far side. This is illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:GenericInterferometry} (right panel). By measuring the chirping of the waveform, one gets information on its distance. As with the usual Fourier interferometer, the time dependence of the electric field signal allows one to distinguish whether its shape at a given moment is due to the radiation's temporal variation or is some kind of geometrical effect. We can see from equation~\ref{eqn:tGenericInterferometer} that the geometry of the array merely shifts the delay time with position. Otherwise, the time structure of the signal is not changed. \subsection{Why the Fourier transform?} We have greater freedom in interpreting the time structure of a radio signal than generally appreciated. What is so special about the Fourier transform? I believe the ubiquity of the Fourier transform arises from four reasons. The first is that the Fourier transform is well studied, with plenty of ``fast'' algorithms existing. There are widely available free packages that are tuned to compute the FFT quickly. Yet fast algorithms exist for other transforms. Fast algorithms now exist for all LCTs, if not quite as sophisticated as for Fourier transforms. Additionally, the discrete wavelet transform has been known for more than 20 years. Second, complex Fourier modes are defined as exponentials, which are eigenfunctions of standard derivatives and integrals. This simplifies the analysis with standard calculus, as opposed to wavelets for example. Yet there is no reason, in principle, why we could not use a calculus based on different operations. Third, the Fourier modes are solutions to the wave equations as encountered in physics, like Maxwell's equations. Dispersion, and the effective velocity of the signal, depends on pure frequency only. Dispersive effects are particularly important for radio waves passing through interstellar plasma. A mode with several Fourier frequencies disperses. By using the Fourier transform, one can account for the effects of dispersion simply. This is less of an issue at high frequencies. Finally, and I believe most important, the astronomical sources currently being studied are \emph{slowly varying} -- at least compared to one cycle of a radio wave. Radio sources have well-defined spectra that can be integrated over time. Specifically, the power spectral density of radio signals from typical astronomical sources does not rapidly change in the Fourier domain. As the Fourier transform is natural for long-lived sources, there has generally not been a need for another basis. But as the study of transient sources becomes more prevalent, there will be greater need for waveforms that are well-localized in time (as in Figure~\ref{fig:GenericInterferometry}). Although the Fourier basis can be used for short pulses, the time structure of the pulse is ``hidden'' in the phase information. The Fourier basis power spectral density of a pulse is constant at all frequencies, the same as for generic white noise. In fact, the ANITA instrument for measuring radio pulses from ultra-high energy neutrinos already employs a kind of ``pulse interferometry'' for this reason \cite{Gorham09,RomeroWolf13}. \subsection{FRB\lowercase{s} and the Fractional Fourier Transform} A possible testing ground for generalized interferometers are FRBs. FRBs are essentially chirps that last for a few milliseconds at each frequency; they appear as thin curves in ``waterfall'' plots of the usual time-frequency domain \cite{FRBs}. Assuming an astronomical origin, the different arrival times of the FRBs at different frequencies is caused by dispersion in plasma, parameterized by the dispersion measure (DM): \begin{equation} \Delta t = 4.1\ \textrm{msec} \left(\frac{\rm DM}{\textrm{pc}\ \textrm{cm}^{-3}}\right) \left[\left(\frac{\nu}{\textrm{GHz}}\right)^2 - \left(\frac{\nu - \Delta\nu}{\textrm{GHz}}\right)^2\right]^{-1} \end{equation} Bannister et al. (2011) \cite{Bannister11} noted that the delay time has a linear approximation because of Taylor's theorem: \begin{equation} \label{eqn:LinearDispersion} \Delta t \approx -8.3\ \sec \left(\frac{\rm DM}{1000\ \textrm{pc}\ \textrm{cm}^{-3}}\right) \left(\frac{\nu}{\textrm{GHz}}\right)^{-2} \left(\frac{\Delta \nu}{\nu}\right). \end{equation} As I discussed in Section~\ref{sec:FracInterferometer}, linear chirps are separable with a FrFT of the correct order. We must put the chirp variable in dimensionless terms to use the FrFT in equation~\ref{eqn:FrFT}. This can be done by using any reference frequency $\nu_0$ as the unit for the frequency and $1/\nu_0$ as the unit for time; then the chirping is $(1/\nu_0^2) (d\nu/dt)$. For a burst that is smeared out by plasma dispersion, and using the linear approximation (equation~\ref{eqn:LinearDispersion}), the ``angle'' of the FrFT we want is \begin{equation} \label{eqn:AlphaFRB} \alpha \approx \frac{\pi}{2} - 1.2 \times 10^{-10} \left(\frac{\nu}{\textrm{GHz}}\right)^3 \left(\frac{\nu_0}{\textrm{GHz}}\right)^{-2} \left(\frac{\rm DM}{1000\ \textrm{pc}\ \textrm{cm}^{-3}}\right)^{-1}. \end{equation} For a very small DM, $\alpha \to 0$ because the pulse is basically the same at all frequencies. Then we want to examine the signal essentially in time domain, where it appears as an undispersed pulse. For a very large DM, $\alpha \to \pi/2$ because the pulse appears to be a nearly pure tone, which very slowly slides in frequencies over time. Then we want to examine the signal essentially in frequency domain, because the pulse is smeared out to a narrowband tone. The difference between $\alpha$ and $\pi/2$ in equation~\ref{eqn:AlphaFRB} seems extremely small, but it is in fact measurable. As with the fractional interferometer (Section~\ref{sec:FracInterferometerLimits}), the difference ${\cal F}_{\alpha}$ and ${\cal F}$ becomes measurable when the phase difference between a pure tone and the chirp is $\sim 1$ radian. The signal must be sampled for a time $t \gtrsim 1/\sqrt{d\nu/dt} \approx \nu^{-1} / \sqrt{|\alpha - \pi/2|}$: \begin{equation} t \gtrsim 91\ \mu\textrm{sec}\ \left(\frac{\rm DM}{1000\ \textrm{pc}\ \textrm{cm}^{-3}}\right)^{1/2} \left(\frac{\nu}{\textrm{GHz}}\right)^{-1/2} \end{equation} Since radio surveys last much longer than a few microseconds, a FrFT is actually quite useful. \subsection{The chirpolator as an FrFT} The problem of searching for chirps in signals for a sparse array has been considered before by Bannister et al. (2011) \cite{Bannister11}. Their algorithm for finding chirps involves multiplying the complex voltages at one element with the complex conjugate voltage at a second element. Since the chirp at one element is just a time-delayed copy of the chirp at another element, the product can be shown to be a pure tone. A Fourier transform of the product finds the frequency of the tone, giving information on the chirp. They call this method the ``chirpolator'', and note that it is the maximum likelihood estimator for chirps as found in \cite{Gershman01}. Not surprisingly, this operation turns out to be the FrFT in disguise. The kernel of a FrFT with $\alpha$ given by equation~\ref{eqn:AlphaFRB} is (c.f., equation~\ref{eqn:FrFT}) \begin{equation} K_{\alpha} (t, t^{\prime}) = \sqrt{1 - \cot \alpha} \exp[i \pi \nu_0^2 ((t^{\prime 2} + t^2) \cot \alpha + 2 t^{\prime} t \csc \alpha)], \end{equation} using the $\nu_0$ to take care of units. In this case $t^{\prime}$ has the units of time, and we can in fact interpret it as a time delay. Thus, the kernel of the FrFT becomes \begin{multline} \label{eqn:KernelChirpolator} K_{\alpha} (t, -\Delta t) = \sqrt{1 - \cot \alpha}\ \exp[-i \pi \dot{\nu} (t + \Delta t)^2] \\ \times \exp[2 \pi i \nu_0^2(\cot \alpha - \csc \alpha) t \Delta t]. \end{multline} Given a chirp with frequency derivative $\dot{\nu}$, the FrFT multiplies it by a conjugated, time-delayed copy of itself, and then takes a Fourier transform of the result. This is precisely what the chirpolator does, up to a multiplicative constant \cite{Bannister11}. A similar algorithm by Bannister et al. (2011) is the chimageator, which involves taking the spatial Fourier transform of the voltage product. The chirpolator and the FrFT formulations have different strengths. With the chirpolator, it is not necessary to know the frequency slide $\dot{\nu}$ beforehand to get a reasonable estimate of the chirp properties. One can apply the kernel in equation~\ref{eqn:KernelChirpolator} without knowing what $\alpha$ is, up to a frequency shift. In addition, the antennas do not have to be in a rectangular grid to apply the chirpolator. The FrFT's first advantage is that it is conceptually simpler -- just a rotation in Wigner space (Figure~\ref{fig:FrFTGeometry}). Perhaps more importantly, the complexity of a Fast FrFT only goes as $\hat{N} \ln \hat{N}$ for $\hat{N}$ elements, whereas the chirpolator's complexity goes as $\hat{N}^2$. One might consider combining these methods' advantages by using the chirpolator with a few elements to get a decent estimate of $\alpha$, and then using the FrFT on all of the complex voltages in the array to extract a precise characterization of a chirp with all of the data. \section{Fully generalized interferometry} \subsection{Interferometry in $L_2$ space} All of the tools of functional analysis can generalize interferometry fully, as they have done for signal processing. The electromagnetic field is a complex function of position. Formally, we need four real numbers to describe it, one for each Stokes' parameter. But for simplicity, just consider a single scalar, the electric field intensity at a given point as a function of time, $E(t)$. ($E(t)$ can also stand for any other wave, including sound.) Any realistic signal lasts only a finite time and contains a finite amount of energy: \begin{equation} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} |E (t)|^2 dt < \infty \end{equation} But otherwise, $E^{\prime}$ may in principle be any square-integrable function. $E$ is therefore an element of the Hilbert space $L_2$, which represents all square-integrable functions.\footnote{The space $L_2$ is perhaps most familiar as the space of all quantum wavefunctions.} It has an inner product defined by \begin{equation} \label{eqn:InnerProduct} \InnerProduct{f}{g} = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \overline{f(t)} g(t) dx. \end{equation} We can define various orthonormal bases for $L_2$ from orthogonal functions with $\InnerProduct{f}{g} = 0$. The vector of $E$ in $L_2$ in any basis is given by its projection onto each basis vector using the inner product. The important part is that we can change between bases. The standard basis for $E$ is the Dirac position basis, with orthonormal vectors representing each $\delta(t - a)$. In this basis, the components of $E$ are just given by its value at each position, as can be seen by plugging $\delta(t - a)$ into equation~\ref{eqn:InnerProduct}. We can say a trivial interferometer merely gives $E$. The Fourier basis is also common, with basis vectors of $\exp(2\pi i \nu t)$. The Fourier basis components of $E$ in $L_2$ is just the Fourier transform of the function. A normal Fourier interferometer resolves $E$ into this basis, inferring where radiation is coming from. These do not exhaust the possibilities. All LCTs on $E$ -- including the FrFT, Laplace transform, and Fresnel transform -- perform a basis change on $L_2$, where the basis vectors are the integral kernel. A major theme of this paper has been to explore when these other bases are appropriate. The LCTs are just the beginning. Other sets of orthogonal functions include polynomials, Bessel functions, wavelets \cite{Hubbard98}, and chirplets. In the most general sense, an interferometer projects $E$ into any $L_2$ basis. The only question is whether the bases have any useful meaning, and whether the transform is stable both forwards and in reverse (it is not in general; \cite{McWhirter78,Provencher82}). An interferometer array measures a cross section of the electric field along a line or plane. If the source radiates isotropically, then the different antenna locations detect the same signal but sample it with different time delays. The radiation from a source at infinity arrives as planar wavefronts with no curvature, in which case the time delay is exactly proportional to position. If the source is closer, the time delay is roughly a second-order function of position. Thus, the signal measured by the array at a given instant should be a stretched or chirped version of the signal in time. An interferometer decomposes $E(t)$ into a set of basis functions, and then finds the inner product of these basis functions and the signal measured in space to determine the direction and distance of the source. We use Fourier interferometers because the Fourier basis is the natural one for the time structure of the electric field, which in turn is due to the steadiness of typically-studied astronomical sources (section~\ref{sec:TimeDomain}). The electric signals from a distant source have a simple representation in this basis, making it convenient for calculation. It is analogous to reference frames in cosmology: there is only one reference frame in which the cosmic expansion is isotropic at any point, so we usually do calculations in this frame. But the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames, and nothing stops us from working in any frame we wish. Likewise, although Fourier interferometers are computationally useful, nothing stops us from doing interferometry in any other basis of $L_2$. \subsection{Nonlinear and quantum interferometers} I have focused on linear transformations of the $E$ signal, but nonlinear transformations are also possible. For a monochromatic input wave, a nonlinear interferometer produces a warped output image. This allows us to distort the Wigner space distribution of a signal in arbitrary ways. This might be used to fit signals with quadratic dependence of frequency on position (cubic dependence of phase on position), including those from sources that are very nearby. Likewise, one could also warp the time-frequency basis of a signal to fit quadratic chirps. The main obstacle nonlinear interferometer, though, is the computational cost of calculating a relevant nonlinear transformation. Quantum optics is an increasingly important field. Photon arrival times is already an integral part of intensity interferometry of thermal sources \cite{Foellmi09}. Quantum non-demolition measurements may also prove useful in detecting structures below the diffraction limit \cite{Kellerer14}. Just as classical optics can be emulated with a standard digital computer, it may be possible to emulate arbitrary quantum optical systems with a quantum computer. The catch is that when the quantum computer produces an answer, the wavefunction collapses or decoheres. Since a quantum state cannot be exactly copied, it is lost forever to us and cannot be recovered. Thus, while we can run a classically recorded signal through any number of simulated classical optical systems simultaneously, we can simulate at most one quantum optical system. The fundamental limitation is that we cannot determine which detector a photon passes through. Equivalently, the phase of a single photon cannot be measured \cite{Burke69}. \subsection{SETI and generalized interferometers} To end on an extremely speculative note, an expanded consideration of the possible basis functions of a signal may have implications for the Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence (SETI) \cite{Tarter01}. So far, the most common assumption has been that a deliberate message would appear as an extremely narrowband signal \cite{Horowitz93}. Frequency combs are another possibility \cite{Cohen95}, as are very short pulses \cite{Siemion10}. Messerschmitt \cite{Messerschmitt14} argued that discrete points within blocks of time-frequency space could encode messages with optimal energy efficiency. The Fourier basis seems natural to us, so we naturally think of tones and pulses. But with SETI we have to extrapolate to entities with potentially very different psychologies and mathematics far beyond our comprehension. For example, the exponential functions that make up the Fourier basis functions are the eigenfunctions of the standard differentiation and integration operations. But are these the only possible operators that an ETI may base their calculus around? If an ETI has studied quantum mechanics for a long time, one could imagine that the wavefunctions of the quantum harmonic oscillator may seem a more natural basis set. Or consider that wavelets were essentially unknown to the physics community \cite{Hubbard98} when modern radio SETI was first proposed \cite{Cocconi59}. \begin{figure} \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f8.eps} \caption{The most commonly sought signal in radio SETI is a narrowband signal, approximating a tone (a). Rapid pulses (b) are another sought ETI signal. But if an ETI does not use the Fourier basis, the signal may look very complicated to us in time-frequency space (c). \label{fig:SETIWigner}} \end{figure} In time-frequency space, basis functions that seem ``obvious'' to a long-lived ETI may appear very complicated to us if they are not using the Fourier transform (Figure~\ref{fig:SETIWigner}). A more general way to look for ETI signals is to search for strong signals that contain both fine-grained (or ``thin'') features and big, smooth regions in time-frequency space. Narrowband signals, combs, pulses, and sets of discrete points, are just a few examples of such signals. Leaving behind smooth 1D curves, we could imagine a signal that looks like a 2D pattern in time-frequency space, such as a Sierpinski triangle. Known natural phenomena generally produce signals that are smeared out, with no fine-grained features, while white noise appears uncorrelated in all bases, with no big, smooth regions. Even then, if an ETI uses some nonlinear (disconnected, even) mixture of time and frequency, the signals may just appear as blobs in time-frequency space. Wavelets, after all, use a three-dimensional signal representation \cite{Hubbard98}. In addition, looking for mixed fine-grained and smooth features in time-frequency space may be a strategy biased towards finding patterns that human perception emphasizes (such as edges in the visual field), which are contingent on human evolution. Of course, it becomes impractical to search for \emph{all} possible signals, unless they are distinguished by some other way, like being extraordinarily bright signals from a Solar-type star. Most of the possible signals look simply like white noise. We may be guided by the assumption that the ETIs' resources are limited. The LCTs and other transforms like the wavelet transform are advantageous in that they can be performed in only linear computational time. In contrast, a typical linear transformation is a matrix multiplication that requires at least quadratic computational time. But ultimately, we may just have to follow the example of Bell Burnell in discovering pulsars \cite{BellBurnell77}, and examine time-frequency space (or any other obvious representation that occurs to us) closely for anything out of the ordinary \cite[c.f.,][]{Tarter01}. \section{Conclusions} There is nothing inherently special about the Fourier basis that requires its use for interferometry. In time domain, the signal can be decomposed into any set of basis functions. Basis functions that are more wideband but localized in time may be more useful when characterizing very short transients. The position dependence of the electric field measured by a planar array is related to the signal in time domain for an isotropic source, which is stretched out due to projection effects if the source is away from the zenith, and is chirped if the source is nearby. The Fourier modes are natural mainly because astrophysical sources vary slowly in time. Digital interferometers simulate optical systems. The standard Fourier transform performed by interferometers focuses light coming from infinity. I have described in this paper fractional interferometers, which use the Fractional Fourier transform. These focus light from sources that are closer than infinity. I have demonstrated that there are many sources that are in the regime where a fractional interferometer is useful, including atmospheric radio transients, artificial satellites, and VLBI observations of objects within the Solar System. The FrFT with orders very close to 1 can be implemented by combining the standard Fourier transform and chirp multiplications. I have shown that the fractional interferometer is analogous to the chirpolator \cite{Bannister11}. Other Linear Canonical Transforms simulate different optical elements. Since interferometers these days record signals digitally, it is possible to simulate optics that are not physically possible. I considered the possibility of digitally emulating negative refractive index superlenses. These would be useful for constructing images of sources that are within one wavelength of the array, which may be useful at very low frequencies. These techniques cannot be applied to sources that are astronomically distant, because noise overwhelms any remaining signal from evanescent waves. This is related to the impracticality of using the Laplace transform as a basis for interferometers -- the separation of exponentials is generally an ill-posed problem \cite{Istratov99}. My discussion in this paper has been general and qualitative. There are many practicalities that need to be considered in practice. Most importantly, it is important to extend the results to the sparse arrays typical of interferometers, instead of the dense arrays used in FFTTs. What is required is a generalized version of visibilities and the van Cittert-Zernike theorem. Secondly, I have ignored the sky's curvature. To accurately implement wide-field general interferometers, fractional and other extensions of spherical harmonics \cite{Shaw14} would be more appropriate, or the sky could be divided into small facets \cite{Tegmark10}. In addition, I have ignored the polarization of the electric field. Calculations of the signal-to-noise ratio of observations by general interferometers in the presence of noise must be carried out. \begin{acknowledgments} I acknowledge support from the Institute for Advanced Study. \end{acknowledgments}
\section{Introduction} Classical models in financial mathematics usually assume that markets are perfectly liquid. In particular, each trader can buy or sell the amount of assets he/she needs at the same price (the ``market price''), and the trader's decisions do not affect the price of the asset. In practice, the assumption of perfect liquidity is never satisfied but the error due to illiquidity is generally negligible with respect to other sources of error such as model error or calibration error, etc. However, the perfect liquidity assumption does not hold true in practice for interest rate derivatives market: the liquidity costs to hedge interest rate derivatives are highly time varying. Even though there exist maturities for which zero-coupon bonds are liquid, bonds at intermediate maturities may be extremely illiquid (notice that the underlying interest rate is not directly exchangeable). Therefore, hedging such derivatives absolutely needs to take liquidity risk into account. In this context, defining and computing efficient approximate perfect hedging strategies is a complex problem. The main purpose of this paper is to show that stochastic optimization methods are powerful tools to treat it without solving a necessarily high dimensional stochastic control problem, under the constraints that practitioners need to trade at prescribed dates and that relevant strategies depend on a finite number of parameters. More precisely, we construct and analyze an efficient original numerical method which provides practical strategies facing liquidity costs and minimizing hedging errors. The outline of the paper is as follows. Section~\ref{sec oursettings} introduces the model. In Section~\ref{sec gaussianframework}, we present our numerical method and analyze it from a theoretical point of view within the framework of a Gaussian yield curve model. Section~\ref{sec numericalwithoutliquidity} is devoted to a numerical validation in the idealistic perfect liquidity context. In Section~\ref{sec numericalwithliquidity}, we develop an empirical study of the efficiency of our algorithm in the presence of liquidity costs. \section{Our settings: swaps with liquidity cost}\label{sec oursettings} \subsection{A short reminder on swaps and swaptions hedging without liquidity cost}\label{sub:rappelsswap} One of the most common swaps on the interests rate market is as follows. The counterparts exchange two coupons: the first one is generated by a bond (with a constant fixed interest rate) and the second one is generated by a floating rate (e.g. a LIBOR). \begin{defn}\label{def1} In a perfectly liquid market, the price at time \(t\) of a zero-coupon bond paying \(1\) at time \(T\) is denoted by \(B(t,T)\). The linear forward rate \(L(T_F,T_B,T_E)\) is the fair rate decided at time \(T_F\) determining the amount at time \(T_E\) obtained by investing 1 at time \(T_B\). The following relation is satisfied: \begin{equation}\label{eq:lienzerocouponforward} L \left( T_F, T_B, T_E \right) = \dfrac{1}{T_E - T_B} \left( \dfrac{B \left(T_F, T_B \right) }{B \left(T_F, T_E \right)} - 1 \right). \end{equation} \end{defn} A swap contract specifies: \begin{itemize} \item an agreement date \(t\) \item a time line \((t\leq )~T_0 < \cdots < T_N\) \item a fixed interest rate \(r\) \item a floating interest rate \item the payoff at each time \(T_i\) (\(1\leq i\leq N \)), that is, \begin{equation}\label{eq payoff of the swap} P(i) := \left(T_i - T_{i-1} \right) \left( r - L \left( T_{i-1}, T_{i-1}, T_i \right)\right). \end{equation} From \eqref{eq:lienzerocouponforward}, we deduce the equivalent expression \begin{equation}\label{eq:deuxiemeformepayoffswap} P(i) = r\left(T_i - T_{i-1} \right)-\dfrac{1}{B(T_{i-1},T_i)}+1. \end{equation} \end{itemize} In the sequel, we consider that the fixed rate \(r\) is chosen at the money (thus the swap at time \(t\) has zero value), and that the swap fixed coupons are received by the trader. In the idealistic framework of a market without liquidity cost, the trader buys or sells quantities of zero-coupon bonds at the same price (i.e. the \textit{market price}), and there exists a discrete time perfect hedging strategy which is independent of any model of interest rates. In view of \eqref{eq:deuxiemeformepayoffswap}, the replication of the payoff \(P(i)\) at time \(T_i\) can be split into three parts: \begin{itemize} \item the fixed part \(r(T_i-T_{i-1})\) is replicated statically at time \(t\) by selling \(r(T_i-T_{i-1})\) zero-coupon bonds with maturity \(T_i\). \item the floating part \(1/B(T_{i-1}, T_i)\) is replicated dynamically at time \(T_{i-1}\) by buying \(1/B(T_{i-1}, T_i)\) zero-coupon bonds with maturity \(T_i\). The price of this transaction is equal to \(1\). \item the last (fixed) part \(1\) is used at time \(T_i\) to buy \(1/B(T_{i}, T_{i+1})\) zero-coupon bonds with maturity \(T_{i+1}\). \end{itemize} It is easy to see that this strategy is self-financing at times \(T_1, \cdots, T_{N-1}\). To make it self-financing at time \(t\) also, at this date one buys \(1\) zero-coupon bond with maturity \(T_0\) and sells \(1\) zero-coupon bond with maturity \(T_N\). To summarize, in the idealistic framework, we do not need to consider \((\mathcal{F}_\theta,\theta \geq 0)\) adapted hedging strategies, where \((\mathcal{F}_\theta,\theta \geq 0)\) is the filtration generated by the observations (short rates, derivative prices, etc.) in continuous time, and we may restrict the admissible strategies to be adapted to the filtration generated by the observations at times \(\{t, T_0, T_1, \cdots, T_N\}\). \subsection{Hypotheses on markets with liquidity costs}\label{subsec:hedgingswap} We now consider markets with liquidity costs and need to precise our liquidity cost model. In all the sequel \(T_{-1}\) denotes \(t\). \begin{hypo}~\\ \label{hypo:controlemesurable} We assume that, for all $-1\leq j<i\leq N$, the number \( \pi(j,i) \) of zero-coupon bonds with maturity \(T_i\) bought or sold at time \(T_j\) is measurable with respect to the filtration generated by \((R_t, R_{T_0},\cdots,R_{T_j})\). That means that the admissible strategies do not depend on the evolution of the rate \(R_\theta\) between two tenor dates \(T_m\) and \(T_{m+1}\). \end{hypo} Denote by \(\Psi(T,U,\pi)\) the buy or sell price for \(\pi\) zero coupon bonds. In perfectly liquid markets, \(\Psi(T,U,\pi)\) is the linear function \(B(T,U)\pi\), where \(B(T,U)\) is defined in Definition~\ref{def1}. In the presence of liquidity costs, \(\Psi(T,U,\pi)\) becomes a non-linear function of \(\pi\). \begin{hypo}~\\ \label{hypo:regularitepsi} For all \(T\) and \(U\), the price \(\Psi(T,U,\pi)\) is a \(C^1(\mathbb{R})\), increasing, convex one-to-one map of \(\pi\) from \(\mathbb{R}\) to \(\mathbb{R}\), and \(\Psi(T,U,0)=0\). \end{hypo} Under the preceding hypothesis, the function \(\Psi\) is positive when \(\pi > 0\) and negative when \(\pi < 0\). In the context of the swap we set \begin{equation}\label{eq psiij} \Psi_{i,j}(\pi) := \Psi(T_i,T_j,\pi) \end{equation} and we only consider self-financing strategies, that is, satisfying \begin{equation}\label{eq selffinancing} \forall\, 0\leq j\leq N-1, \quad \sum_{-1\leq k<j} \pi(k,j) + P(j) = \sum_{j<i\leq N}\Psi_{j,i}( \pi(j,i) ). \end{equation} \subsection{Optimization objective} In the presence of liquidity risk, the market is not complete any more and the practitioners need to build a strategy which minimizes a given function $S$ (e.g. a risk measure) of the hedging error. Such strategies are usually obtained by solving stochastic control problems. These problems require high complexity numerical algorithms which are too slow to be used in practice. We here propose an efficient and original numerical method to compute approximate optimal strategies. As the perfect hedging leads to a null portfolio at time \(T_N\), we have to solve the optimization problem \begin{equation}\label{eq:optimizationgenerale} \inf_{\boldsymbol{\pi}\in\Pi} \mathbb{E}\left[S(W^{\boldsymbol{\pi}})\right], \end{equation} where \(W^{\boldsymbol{\pi}}\) is the terminal wealth (at time \(T_N\)) given the strategy \(\boldsymbol{\pi}\) in the set \(\Pi\) of admissible strategies. \section{Hedging error minimization method in a Gaussian framework}\label{sec gaussianframework} The methodology we introduce in this section is based on the two following key observations: \begin{enumerate} \item[(1)] We consider strategies and portfolios with finite second moment, and thus optimize within \(L^2(\mu)\) for some probability measure \(\mu\). The Gram-Schmidt procedure provides countable orthogonal bases \(\mathcal{B}\) of the separable Hilbert space \(L^2(\mu)\). Our set \(\Pi\) of admissible strategies is obtained by truncating of a given basis, which reduces the a priori infinite dimensional optimization problem \eqref{eq:optimizationgenerale} to a finite dimensional parametric optimization problem of the type \(\inf_{\theta\in\Theta} \mathbb{E}\Psi(\theta,X)\), where \(\Theta\) is a subset of \(\mathbb{R}^p\), \(X\) is a given random variable, \(\Psi\) is a convex function of \(\theta\). \item[(2)] The Robbins-Monro algorithm and its Chen extension are stochastic alternatives to Newton's method to numerically solve such optimization problems. These algorithms do not require to compute \(\tfrac{d}{d\theta}\mathbb{E}\Psi(\theta,X)\). They are based on sequences of the type \begin{equation}\label{eq:evoltionrobinsmonro} \theta_{\gamma+1} = \theta_\gamma - \rho_{\gamma+1}\dfrac{\partial}{\partial \theta}\Psi(\theta_\gamma,X_{\gamma+1}), \end{equation} where \((\rho_\gamma,\gamma\geq 1)\) is a decreasing sequence and \((X_\gamma,\gamma\geq 1)\) is an i.i.d. sequence of random variables distributed as \(X\). \end{enumerate} We here consider the case of swap in the context of a Gaussian yield curve. This assumption is restrictive from a mathematical point of view but is satisfied by widely used interest rate models such as Vasicek model, Gaussian affine models or HJM (Heath, Jarrow and Morton) models with deterministic volatilities (see e.g. \cite{GLT2010} and \cite{musiela_rutkowski_2005}). In \citet{gen_vasicek_1999} it is shown that using a three dimensional Gaussian model is sufficient to fit the term structure of interest rate products. \subsection{Step 1: finite dimensional projections of the admissible controls space}\label{subsection:finitiedimensionalprojection} Consider a Gaussian short rate model \((R_\theta, \theta\geq 0)\) : we either suppose that the dynamics of the short rate model is given, or that it is deduced from a forward rate model such as in the HJM approach for term structures: see e.g. Eq (6.9) in \cite{GLT2010} under the additionnal assumption that the forward rate volatilities are deterministic. In all cases, the resulting bond price model is log-normal. In view of Hypothesis~\ref{hypo:controlemesurable}, each control \( \pi(j,i) \) belongs to the Gaussian space generated by \((R_t,R_{T_0},\cdots,R_{T_j})\) or, equivalently, to a space generated by \(\ell(j)+1\) standard independent Gaussian random variables \(G^{(0)},G^{(1)},\cdots,G^{(\ell(j))}\) (with \(\ell(j) = j\) for one-factor models, \(\ell(j) = 2j+1\) for two-factor models, etc.) and \(R_t\). An explicit \(L^2\) orthonormal basis of the space generated by \(G^{(0)},G^{(1)},\cdots,G^{(\ell(j))}\) is \begin{equation}\label{eq baseorthonormalehermite} \left(\prod_{m=0}^{\ell(j)}\dfrac{H_{n_m}(G^{(m)})}{\sqrt{n_m!}}\right)_{(n_0,\cdots,n_{\ell(j)}) \in\mathbb{N}^{\ell(j)+1}}, \end{equation} where \((H_n, n\geq 0)\) are the Hermite polynomials \[ H_n(x) = (-1)^ne^{x^2/2}\frac{d^n}{dx^n}e^{-{x^2}/{2}} \] \citep[see e.g. ][p.236]{Malliavin_IP}. Thus, the quantities of zero-coupon bonds bought by the trader can be written as \begin{equation}\label{decompositionL2} \sum_{\boldsymbol{n}_{(j)}\in\mathbb{N}^{\ell(j)+1}} \alpha^{\bfn_{(j)}}(j,i) \prod_{m=0}^{\ell(j)}\dfrac{H_{n_m}(G^{(m)})}{\sqrt{n_m!}}, \quad \boldsymbol{n}_{(j)} = (n_0,\cdots,n_{\ell(j)}), \end{equation} where the infinite sum has an \(L^2\) limit sense. A strategy can now be defined as a sequence of real numbers \(\alpha^{\bfn_{(j)}}(j,i)\) for all \(-1\leq j<i\leq N-1\) and \(\boldsymbol{n}_{(j)} \in\mathbb{N}^{\ell(j)+1}\). In order to be in a position to solve a finite dimensional optimization problem, we truncate the sequence \((\alpha^{\bfn_{(j)}}(j,i))\). Then a strategy is defined by a finite number of real parameters \(\{ \alpha^{\bfn_{(j)}}(j,i), -1\leq j<i\leq N-1\}\) where, for all \(j\), \(\boldsymbol{n}_{(j)}\) belongs to a finite subset \(\Lambda^{(j)}\) of \(\mathbb{N}^{\ell(j)+1}\). The truncated quantities of zero-coupon bonds bought by the trader write \begin{equation}\label{eq:truncation} \pi(j,i) = \sum_{\boldsymbol{n}_{(j)}\in\Lambda^{(j)}} \alpha^{\bfn_{(j)}}(j,i) \prod_{m=0}^{\ell(j)}\dfrac{H_{n_m}(G^{(m)})}{\sqrt{n_m!}}. \end{equation} We discuss the efficiency of this truncation and its convergence in Sections~\ref{subsec35} and \ref{SectionTruncationSpace}. To simplify, we denote by \(\boldsymbol{\alpha} = \left( \alpha^{\bfn_{(j)}}(j,i) \right)_{i, j, \boldsymbol{n}_{(j)}}\) the parameters to optimize in \(\mathbb{R}^p\) (where the dimension \(p\) is known for each truncation \((\Lambda^{(j)},j=-1,0,\cdots,N-1))\), by \(\boldsymbol{\pi}\left(\boldsymbol{\alpha} \right)\) (or, when no confusion is possible, simply \(\boldsymbol{\pi}\)) the hedging strategy corresponding to a vector \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}\in\mathbb{R}^p\), see \eqref{eq:truncation}. Given the strategy \(\boldsymbol{\pi} = \boldsymbol{\pi}\left(\boldsymbol{\alpha} \right)\), the terminal wealth \(W^{(\boldsymbol{\alpha})}\) (at time \(T_N\)) satisfies \begin{equation} W^{(\boldsymbol{\alpha})} = \sum_{-1\leq j<N} \pi(\boldsymbol{\alpha})(j,N) + P(N) = \sum_{-1 \leq j<N} \pi(j,N) + P(N). \label{eqn_final_wealth} \end{equation} The problem \eqref{eq:optimizationgenerale} is now formulated as: find \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}^*\) in \(\mathbb{R}^p\) such that \begin{equation} \label{eq:optimizationparametric} \mathbb{E}\left[ S\left(W^{(\boldsymbol{\alpha}^*)}\right)\right] = \inf_{\boldsymbol{\alpha}\in\mathbb{R}^p}\mathbb{E}\left[ S\left(W^{(\boldsymbol{\alpha})}\right)\right]. \end{equation} \subsection{Step 2: stochastic optimization} Using the self-financing equation \eqref{eq selffinancing} one can express \(W^{(\boldsymbol{\alpha})}\) as a function of \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}\) and \((G^{(0)},\cdots,G^{(\ell(N))})\). Therefore one needs to minimize the expectation of a deterministic function of the parameter \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}\) in \(\mathbb{R}^p\) and the random vector \((G^{(0)},\cdots,G^{(\ell(N))})\). Such problems can be solved numerically by classical stochastic optimization algorithms, such as those introduced in the pioneering work of \citet{robbins_monro_51} and its extensions \citep[e.g.][]{chen_zhu_86}. We refer the interested reader to the classical references \citet{duflo_97,chen_2002,kushner_yin}. In our context \eqref{eq:optimizationparametric}, the Robbins-Monro algorithm \eqref{eq:evoltionrobinsmonro} works as follows. Start with an arbitrary initial condition \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_0\) in \(\mathbb{R}^p\). At step \(\gamma+1\), given the current approximation \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_\gamma\) of the optimal value \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}^*\), simulate independent Gaussian random variables \((G^{(0)}_{\gamma+1},\cdots,G^{(\ell(N))}_{\gamma+1})\) and compute the terminal wealth \(W^{(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_\gamma)} \). Then, update the parameter \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}\) by the induction formula \begin{equation}\label{eq evolution de alpha} \boldsymbol{\alpha}_{\gamma + 1} = \boldsymbol{\alpha}_{\gamma} - \rho_{\gamma+1} \nabla_{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\left[ S ( W^{(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_\gamma)}) \right], \end{equation} where \((\rho_\gamma)\) is a deterministic decreasing sequence. In addition, one can use an improvement of this algorithm due to \citet{chen_zhu_86}. Let \((K_l,l\geq 0)\) be an increasing sequence of compact sets such that \begin{equation}\label{eq:compactcroissant} K_l \subset \text{Int}(K_{l+1}) \quad \mbox{ and } \quad \lim_l K_l = \mathbb{R}^p, \end{equation} where \(\text{Int}(K_{l+1})\) denotes the interior of the set \(K_{l+1}\). The initial condition \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_0\) is assumed to be in \(K_0\) and we set \(l(0)=0\). At each step \(\gamma\) in \eqref{eq evolution de alpha}, if \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{\gamma+1}\in K_{l(\gamma)}\), we set \(l(\gamma+1) = l(\gamma)\) and go to step \(\gamma+1\). Otherwise, that is if \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{\gamma+1}\notin K_{l(\gamma)}\), we set \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{\gamma+1}=\boldsymbol{\alpha}_0\) and \(l(\gamma+1) = l(\gamma) + 1\). This modification avoids that the stochastic algorithm may blow up during the first steps and, from a theoretical point of view, allows to prove its convergence under weaker assumptions than required for the standard Robbins-Monro method. \subsection{Summary of the method} \subsubsection*{Our setting} \begin{itemize} \item The interest rate model satisfies: for all \(0\leq j < N\), there exist an integer \(\ell(j)\) and a function \(\Phi_j\) such that \[ (R_t,R_{T_0},\cdots,R_{T_j}) \overrel{\mathcal{L}}{=} \Phi_j(R_t,G^{(0)},\cdots,G^{(\ell(j))}). \] \item For all \(0\leq j < N\), a finite truncation set \(\Lambda^{(j)}\subset\mathbb{N}^{\ell(j)+1}\) is given and \(\Lambda^{(-1)}=\{0\}\). \item A strategy \(\boldsymbol{\pi}=\boldsymbol{\pi}(\boldsymbol{\alpha})\) is defined by \(\boldsymbol{\alpha} = ( \alpha^{\bfn_{(j)}}(j,i) , -1 \leq j<i\leq N-1, \boldsymbol{n}_{(j)} \in\Lambda^{(j)})\). More precisely, the number of zero-coupon bonds with maturity \(T_i\) bought or sold at time \(T_j\) is \begin{equation} \label{eq:tronc} \pi(j,i) = \sum_{\boldsymbol{n}_{(j)}\in\Lambda^{(j)}} \alpha^{\bfn_{(j)}}(j,i) \prod_{m=0}^{\ell(j)}\dfrac{H_{n_m}(G^{(m)})}{\sqrt{n_m!}}, \quad \mbox{ for } i \leq N-1, \end{equation} and \(\pi(j,N)\) is deduced from the self-financing equation \begin{equation} \label{eq:autofin} \sum_{i<j} \pi(i,j) + P(j) = \sum_{i>j}\Psi_{j,i}( \pi(j,i) ) \end{equation} (one possibly needs to use a classical iterative procedure to solve this equation numerically). \item One is given an increasing sequence of compact sets \((K_l, l\geq 0)\) satisfying \eqref{eq:compactcroissant} and a sequence of parameters \((\rho_\gamma, \gamma\geq 1)\) decreasing to \(0\). \end{itemize} \subsubsection*{Our stochastic optimization algorithm} Assume that the parameter \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{\gamma}= ( \alpha^{\bfn_{(j)}}_\gamma(j,i) , -1\leq j<i\leq N-1,\boldsymbol{n}_{(j)} \in\Lambda^{(j)})\) and \(l_\gamma\) are given at step \(\gamma\). At step \(\gamma+1\): \begin{enumerate} \item Simulate a Gaussian vector \((G^{(0)}_{\gamma+1},\cdots,G^{(\ell(N))}_{\gamma+1})\). \item Deduce the quantities of zero-coupon bonds from \eqref{eq:tronc} and \eqref{eq:autofin}: \[ \pi_{\gamma+1}(j,i) = \sum_{\boldsymbol{n}_{(j)}\in\Lambda^{(j)}} \alpha^{\bfn_{(j)}}_\gamma(j,i) \prod_{m=0}^{\ell(j)}\dfrac{H_{n_m}(G^{(m)}_{\gamma+1})}{\sqrt{n_m!}}, \quad \mbox{ for } i \leq N-1, \] and get \( \pi_{\gamma+1}(j,N) \) from the self-financing equation \[ \sum_{i<j} \pi_{\gamma+1}(j,i) + P(j) = \sum_{i>j}\Psi_{j,i}( \pi_{\gamma+1}(j,i) ). \] \item Compute the terminal wealth \[ W^{(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_\gamma)}_{\gamma+1} = \sum_{j<N} \pi_{\gamma+1}(j,N) + P(N). \] \item Update the parameters \[ \boldsymbol{\alpha}_{\gamma + 1} = \boldsymbol{\alpha}_{\gamma} - \rho_{\gamma+1} \nabla_{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\left[ S ( W^{(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_\gamma)}_{\gamma+1} ) \right]. \] \item If \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{\gamma+1}\notin K_{l_\gamma}\), set \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{\gamma+1}=\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{0}\) and \(l(\gamma+1) = l(\gamma) + 1\). \item Go to 1 (or, in practice, stop after \(\Gamma\) steps). \end{enumerate} \subsection{Error analysis}\label{subsection error analysis} In this subsection we study the convergence (Theorem~\ref{th convergence}) and convergence rate (Theorem~\ref{th rateofconvergence}) of the stochastic algorithm used in Step 2, when the total number of steps \(\Gamma\) tends to infinity. We introduce some notation. Recall \eqref{eq evolution de alpha} and write \begin{equation}\label{eq evolalphadecomp} \boldsymbol{\alpha}_{\gamma + 1} = \boldsymbol{\alpha}_{\gamma} - \rho_{\gamma+1}\mathbb{E}\left[\nabla_{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}S(W^{(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_\gamma)}_{\gamma+1} )\right] -\rho_{\gamma+1}\delta M_{\gamma+1} + \rho_{\gamma+1}p_{\gamma+1}. \end{equation} Here, \(\delta M_{\gamma+1}\) is given by \begin{equation}\label{eq incrementmart} \delta M_{\gamma+1} = \nabla_{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}S(W^{(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_\gamma )}_{\gamma+1} ) - \mathbb{E}\left[\nabla_{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}S(W^{(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_\gamma)}_{\gamma+1} )\right]. \end{equation} The last term \(\rho_{\gamma+1}p_{\gamma+1}\) in \eqref{eq evolalphadecomp} represents the \textit{reinitialization} of the algorithm if \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{\gamma+1}\notin\ K_{l(\gamma)}\) i.e. \(p_{\gamma+1}\) is fixed such that \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{\gamma+1}=\boldsymbol{\alpha}_0\). Let us now recall the convergence theorem obtained by \citet[Theorem~1]{lelong-2008} in our setting. \begin{theorem}\label{th convergence} Assume \begin{enumerate} \item[(A1)] The function \(\boldsymbol{\alpha} \mapsto \mathbb{E}[S(W^{(\boldsymbol{\alpha})})]\) is strictly concave or convex, \item[(A2)] \(\sum_\gamma \rho_\gamma =\infty\), \(\sum_\gamma \rho_\gamma^2 < \infty\), \item[(A3)] The function \(\boldsymbol{\alpha} \mapsto \mathbb{E}[ \|\nabla_{\boldsymbol{\alpha}} S(W^{(\boldsymbol{\alpha})})\|^2 ]\) is bounded on compact sets. \end{enumerate} Then the sequence \((\boldsymbol{\alpha}_\gamma,\gamma\geq 1)\) converges a.s. to the unique optimal parameter \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}^*\) such that \[ \inf_{\boldsymbol{\alpha}\in\mathbb{R}^p}\mathbb{E}\left[ S\left(W^{(\boldsymbol{\alpha})}\right)\right] = \mathbb{E}\left[ S\left(W^{(\boldsymbol{\alpha}^*)}\right)\right]. \] \end{theorem} Hypothesis~\ref{hypo:regularitepsi} and \eqref{eq:tronc} imply that (A3) is satisfied. Before giving examples of situations where (A1) is fulfilled, let us check that \(W^{(\boldsymbol{\alpha})}\) is a concave function of \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}\). \begin{prop}\label{prop convexite} The terminal wealth \(W^{(\boldsymbol{\alpha})}\) is a concave function of the parameter \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}\). \end{prop} \begin{proof} Recall that the terminal wealth is given by \eqref{eqn_final_wealth}. The payoff of the swap \(P(N)\) does not depend on \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}\). We only have to deal with the quantities \( \pi(i,N) \) of the zero-coupon bonds with maturity \(T_N\) bought at time \(T_i\). They satisfy the self-financing equation \eqref{eq selffinancing} and thus \begin{equation}\label{eq piin} \pi(i,N) = \Psi_{i, N}^{(-1)}\left( \sum_{j < i} \pi(j,i) - \sum_{i < j < N} \Psi_{i, j}\left( \pi(i,j)\right)+ P(i) \right), \end{equation} where \(\Psi_{i,N}^{(-1)}\) is the inverse of the price function \(\Psi_{i,N}\) (see \eqref{eq psiij}). Moreover, quantities \(\pi(i,j)\), \(i<j\leq N-1\) are linear in \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}\) (see \eqref{decompositionL2}). Recall that \(\Psi_{i,j}\) is convex, thus \(-\Psi_{i,j}\) is concave and the argument in \eqref{eq piin} is a concave function of \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}\). Finally \(\Psi_{i,N}^{(-1)}\) is an increasing concave function, from which \(\pi(i,N)\) is a concave function of \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}\). \end{proof} The preceding observation shows that (A1) is satisfied when \(S\) is a utility function (and thus increasing and concave) and satisfies \(S(0) = 0\). Notice that the optimization problem~(\ref{eq:optimizationparametric}) then penalizes the losses and promotes the gains. In Sections~\ref{sec numericalwithoutliquidity} and \ref{sec numericalwithliquidity} we will see another situation where Theorem~\ref{th convergence} applies. Given suitable functions $S$, Theorem~\ref{th convergence} guarantees the convergence of our algorithm towards the optimal parameters. The following theorem provides the rate of convergence \citep{lelong2013}. \begin{theorem}\label{th rateofconvergence} Let \begin{equation}\label{eq formedegamman} \rho_\gamma := \dfrac{v_1}{\left(v_2 + \gamma \right)^\beta}, \end{equation} for some positive \(v_1\), \(v_2\) and \(\beta\in(1/2,1)\). Denote by \(\Delta_\gamma\) the normalized centered error \[ \Delta_\gamma = \dfrac{\boldsymbol{\alpha}_\gamma-\boldsymbol{\alpha}^*}{\sqrt{\rho_\gamma}}. \] Assume \begin{enumerate} \item[(A1)]The function \(\boldsymbol{\alpha} \mapsto \mathbb{E}[S(W^{(\boldsymbol{\alpha})})]\) is concave or convex. \item[(A4)] For any \(q >0\), the series \[ \sum_\gamma\rho_{\gamma+1}\delta M_{\gamma+1}\mathbbm{1}_{\{|\boldsymbol{\alpha}_\gamma-\boldsymbol{\alpha}^*|\leq q\}} \] converges almost surely. \item[(A5)]There exist two real numbers \(A_1>0\) and \(A_2>0\) such that \[ \sup_\gamma\mathbb{E}\left[|\delta M_{\gamma}|^{2+A_1}\mathbbm{1}_{\{|\boldsymbol{\alpha}_\gamma-\boldsymbol{\alpha}^*|\leq A_2\}}\right]<\infty. \] \item[(A6)] There exists a symmetric positive definite matrix \(\Sigma\) such that \[ \mathbb{E}\left[\delta M_\gamma\delta M_\gamma^\mathsf{t}\middle|\mathcal{F}_{\gamma-1}\right]\mathbbm{1}_{\{|\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{\gamma-1}-\boldsymbol{\alpha}^*|\leq A_2\}} \mathrel{\mathop{\kern 0pt \longrightarrow}\limits_{\gamma\rightarrow \infty}^{\mathbb{P}}}\Sigma. \] \item[(A7)] There exists \(\mu>0\) such that \(\forall n\geq 0\), \(d(\boldsymbol{\alpha}^*,\partial K_n)\geq \mu\), \end{enumerate} where \(\partial K_n\) denotes the boundary of \(K_n\). Then, the sequence \((\Delta_\gamma,\gamma\geq 1)\) converges in distribution to a normal random variable with mean \(0\) and covariance matrix linearly depending on \(\Sigma\). \end{theorem} \begin{rem}\label{rem:rem1} As explained in detail in \citet[Sec. 2.4]{lelong2013}, the assumptions of Theorem~\ref{th rateofconvergence} are satisfied as soon as \begin{itemize} \item There exists \(A_3>0\) such that \[ \forall C>0, \quad \mathbb{E}\left[\sup_{|\boldsymbol{\alpha}|\leq C}\left|S\left(W^{(\boldsymbol{\alpha})}\right)\right|^{2+A_3}\right] < \infty. \] \item The function \(\boldsymbol{\alpha} \mapsto \mathbb{E}[S(W^{(\boldsymbol{\alpha}})]\) is strictly concave or convex. \end{itemize} The first condition is usually easily satisfied, e.g. when \(S\) has a polynomial growth at infinity because the moments of the wealth process are typically finite. The both properties are e.g. fulfilled by the example studied in Sections~\ref{sec numericalwithoutliquidity} and \ref{sec numericalwithliquidity} (see the discussions at the beginning of these sections). \end{rem} \subsection{Performance of the optimal truncated strategy without liquidity cost}\label{subsec35} The numerical error on the optimal wealth decreases when the \(\Lambda^{(j)}\)'s tend to \(\mathbb{N}^{\ell(j)+1}\). In this subsection, we provide a theoretical estimate on the error resulting from the truncation in \eqref{decompositionL2} in the idealistic context of no liquidity cost and general Gaussian affine models \citep{dai_singleton_2000}. In \citet{dai_singleton_2000}, general Gaussian affine models are introduced for which, for any two times \(s < t\), there exist standard independent Gaussian random variables \(G^{(0)},\cdots,G^{(M)}\) and real numbers \(\mu, \lambda_0, \cdots,\lambda_M\) such that the prices of zero-coupon bonds have the form \[ B(s,t) = \exp\left(-\mu - \lambda_0 G^{(0)} - \cdots - \lambda_M G^{(M)}\right). \] A control of the error of truncation is given in the following proposition. \begin{prop} In the above context, if the truncation set defined in \eqref{eq:truncation} is \(\Lambda^{(j)}:=\{n_0+\cdots+n_{\ell(j)} \leq d\}\), then \begin{equation} \mathbb{E} \left(W^{(\boldsymbol{\alpha}^{*})} \right)^2 \leqslant C_0 \dfrac{C_1^{d + 1}}{(d + 1)!}, \end{equation} where \(C_0\) and \(C_1\) are some positive constants. \end{prop} The proposition is a straightforward consequence of \eqref{eqn_final_wealth} and the next lemma applied to \(X=\boldsymbol{\pi}(\boldsymbol{\alpha}^*)\). This lemma also allows one to precise the values of \(C_0\) and \(C_1\). \begin{lemma}\label{lemma erreur troncature} Consider the random variable \[ X := \exp\left(\mu + \sum_{m=0}^{M}\lambda_mG^{(m)}\right), \] where \(\mu, \lambda_0, \cdots,\lambda_M\) are real numbers, and \(G^{(0)}, \cdots,G^{(M)}\) are independent standard Gaussian random variables. Consider the projection \(X^{d}\) of \(X\) on the subspace of \(L^2(G^{(0)}, \cdots,G^{(M)})\) generated by \[ \left(\prod_{m=0}^M \dfrac{H_{n_m}(G^{(m)})}{\sqrt{n_m !}}, \quad n_0 + \cdots + n_M \leq d\right). \] We have \begin{equation} \label{eq distance entre pistar et proj} \|X - X^{d} \|_2 \leqslant \exp\left(\mu +\lambda_0^2+\cdots\lambda_M^2\right) \dfrac{\left(\lambda_0^2 + \cdots + \lambda_{M}^2\right)^{\tfrac{d+1}{2}}}{\sqrt{(d+1)!}}. \end{equation} \end{lemma} We postpone the proof of this lemma to the Appendix. \section{Numerical validation of the optimization procedure: an example without liquidity cost}\label{sec numericalwithoutliquidity} In this section we study the accuracy of our algorithm in the no liquidity cost case where a perfect replication strategy is known (see Section~\ref{sub:rappelsswap}). We minimize the quadratic risk measure of the hedging error. The bond market model is the Vasicek model which is the simplest Gaussian model: \begin{equation}\label{eq shortrate} dR_\theta = A(r_\infty-R_\theta) d\theta + \sigma dB_\theta, \end{equation} where \(A\) is the mean reverting rate, \(r_\infty\) is the mean of the equilibrium measure, \(\sigma\) is the volatility and \((B_\theta,\theta\geq 0)\) is a one-dimensional Brownian motion. Notice that \begin{equation}\label{eq:incrementgauss} \forall u < v,\quad R_v = r_\infty + (R_u - r_\infty)e^{-A(v-u)} + \sigma e^{-A(v-u)} \int_u^v e^{A(\theta-u)} dB_\theta. \end{equation} Therefore, there exists an \textit{i.i.d.} sequence \((G^{(0)}, G^{(1)}, \cdots, G^{(N)})\) of \(\mathcal{N}(0,1)\) Gaussian random variables such that \begin{equation}\label{eq:tauxinteretsfngaussienne} \forall k=0,\cdots, N, \quad R_{T_k} = \Phi(T_k-T_{k-1},R_{T_{k-1}},G^{(k)}), \end{equation} where \[ \Phi(\eta,r,G) = r_\infty + e^{-A\eta} (r - r_\infty) + G \sigma \sqrt{\dfrac{1 - e^{-2A\eta} }{2A}}. \] In our numerical experiments, we have chosen the following typical values of the parameters \(A=10\%\), \(r_\infty = 5\%\), \(\sigma = 5\%\). With this choice of parameters, the mean yearly interest zero-coupon rates with maturity less than 10 years take values between \(3\%\) and \(5\%\). Our numerical study concerns the minimization of the quadratic mean hedging error which corresponds to the choice \(S(x) = x^2\) in \eqref{eq:optimizationparametric}. This choice penalizes gains and losses in a symmetric way and aims to construct a strategy as close as possible to the exact replication strategy. In the no liquidity cost case, the terminal wealth \(W^{(\boldsymbol{\alpha})}\) is a linear function of the parameter \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}\) and therefore assumption (A1) of Theorem~\ref{th convergence} is obviously satisfied. Given a degree of truncation \(d\), the set \(\Lambda^{(j)}_d\) is chosen as \begin{equation} \label{eq ensemble de troncation} \Lambda^{(j)}_d := \{\boldsymbol{n}_{(j)}=(n_0,\cdots,n_j)\in\mathbb{N}^{j+1},n_0+\cdots+n_j\leq d\}. \end{equation} We have to optimize the real-valued parameters \(\alpha^{\bfn_{(j)}}(j,i)\) for \(j<i\) and \(\boldsymbol{n}_{(j)}\in\Lambda^{(j)}_d\). The quantities of zero-coupon bonds to exchange are given by \eqref{eq:truncation}. The choice of the sequence \((\rho_\gamma, \gamma\geq 1)\) in \eqref{eq evolution de alpha} is crucial. Choose $\rho_\gamma$ as in~(\ref{eq formedegamman}). We discuss the sensitivity of the method to the parameters $v_1$, $v_2$, $\beta$ in Section~\ref{SectionSequence}. We also discuss the sensitivity of the results to the number \(\Gamma\) of steps. In all the sequel, we use the following notation. \noindent\textbf{Notation} For all vector \(\boldsymbol{\alpha} = (\alpha^{\bfn_{(j)}}(j,i), -1\leq j<i\leq N-1)\), we set \begin{equation} \label{eq:deffonctionvaleur} v(\boldsymbol{\alpha}):=\mathbb{E}\left[W^{(\boldsymbol{\alpha})}\right]^2, \end{equation} where the expectation is computed only with respect to the Gaussian distribution \((G^{(0)},\cdots,G^{(\ell(N))})\). \subsection{Empirical study of the truncation errors (Step~1)} \label{SectionTruncationSpace} In this subsection we develop an empirical validation of the projection step presented in Section \ref{subsection:finitiedimensionalprojection} We observe that the quadratic mean hedging error decreases very fast to \(0\) when the degree of truncation increases. For a notional equal to \(1\), the error is of the order of one basis point (a hundredth of percent) for a degree \(d=3\) and a small number of dates \(N\), and for \(d=4\) and for larger values of \(N\). Figure~\ref{truncationPoly} below shows \(v(\boldsymbol{\alpha}^{*,d})\), with the optimal parameter \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}^{*,d}\) corresponding to the truncation set \eqref{eq ensemble de troncation}. We have used the explicitly known finite dimensional projections of the optimal strategies without liquidity cost to obtain \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}^{*,d}\), and a Monte Carlo procedure to compute \(v\). Table~\ref{tabletroncature} shows some values used to plot Figure~\ref{truncationPoly}. \begin{figure}[ht] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth,angle=-90]{truncation_explicit.pdf} \end{center} \caption{ \label{truncationPoly}} \end{figure} \begin{table}[ht]\footnotesize \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \hline degree d & N=2 & N=3 \\ \hline 0 & 5.2 E-6 & 3.0 E-5 \\ \hline 1 & 5.4 E-9 & 3.1 E-8\\ \hline 2 & 3.7 E-12 & 2.0 E-11 \\ \hline 3 & 1.9 E-15 & 1.9 E-14\\ \hline 4 &2.2 E-18 & 3.9 E-15 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{\(v(\boldsymbol{\alpha}^{*,d})\)\label{tabletroncature} } \end{table} \subsection{Empirical study of the optimization step (Step 2)} The stochastic algorithm converges almost surely to the optimal coefficient \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}^*\). In this part, we empirically study the convergence rate in terms of the number of steps \(\Gamma\) and the choice of the sequence \((\rho_\gamma)\). \subsubsection{A typical evolution of \protect{$(\alpha_\gamma)$}} In this subsection, we consider a swap with two payment dates (\(N=2\)). We consider the truncation set \(\Lambda^{(0)} = \{0,1\}\). The objective is to approximate \( \boldsymbol{\alpha}^*= (\alpha^{0,*}(-1,0),\alpha^{0,*}(-1,1), \alpha^{0,*}(0,1),\alpha^{1,*}(0,1)). \) In Figure~\ref{fig evolution des parametres}, the four parameters \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}=( \alpha^{0}(-1,0),\alpha^{0}(-1,1),\alpha^{0}(0,1),\alpha^{1}(0,1) )\) evolve according to \eqref{eq evolution de alpha} where the sequence \((\rho_\gamma,\gamma\geq 1)\) is defined by \eqref{eq formedegamman} with \(v_1 = 10^7\), \(v_2=1\) and \(\beta = 1\). As expected, the sequence \((\boldsymbol{\alpha}_\gamma)\) converges to \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}^*\). However, the evolution is quite \textit{slow} although we have empirically chosen the parameters \(v_1\), \(v_2\) and \(\beta\) in a favorable way. In Figure~\ref{figOptPath}, we plot (in violet) \(v( \alpha^{0}(-1,0),\alpha^{0}(-1,1),\alpha^{0,*}(0,1),\alpha^{1,*}(0,1))\) as a function of \(\alpha^{0}(-1,0)\) and \(\alpha^{0}(-1,1)\). We also plot in green the path \((v(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_\gamma),0\leq \gamma \leq \Gamma)\). The figure shows that after \(\Gamma=10000\) steps the hedging error is small though the optimal parameters have not been approximated accurately (notice that the violet surface is flat). \begin{figure}[ht] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{graphConvergenceWoLiq_rev.pdf} \end{center} \caption{Evolution of the parameters \(\alpha^0_\gamma(-1,0)\), \(\alpha^0_\gamma(-1,1)\), \(\alpha^0_\gamma(0,1)\), \(\alpha^1_\gamma(0,1)\) in terms of \(\gamma\). }\label{fig evolution des parametres} \end{figure} \begin{figure}[ht] \begin{center} \includegraphics[angle=-90, width=0.9\textwidth]{graphUtility3D_0_1_Convergence.pdf} \end{center} \caption{ Violet surface: \( - v(\centerdot,\centerdot,\alpha^{0,*}(0,1),\alpha^{1,*}(0,1))\). Green curve: evolution of \((\alpha^0\gamma(-1,0), \alpha^0_\gamma(-1,1),- v(\alpha^{0}_\gamma(-1,0),\alpha^{0}_\gamma(-1,1),\alpha^{0,*}(0,1),\alpha^{1,*}(0,1))\) in terms of \(\gamma=1,\cdots,10000\) (\(v_1=10\), \(v_2=1\) and \(\beta=0.6\)).}\label{figOptPath} \end{figure} \clearpage \subsubsection{Sensitivity to the choice of the sequence \protect{$(\rho_\gamma)$}} \label{SectionSequence} Theorem~\ref{th convergence} states the convergence of the optimization method for all sequence \((\rho_\gamma)\) satisfying (A2). We here study the sensitivity of the results to the parameters \(v_1\), \(v_2\), \(\beta\) of sequences of type \eqref{eq formedegamman} and to the total number of steps \(\Gamma\). Tables~\ref{table fonctionv1} and \ref{table fonctionv1b} show the expected value function obtained after \(\Gamma=10E4\), \(10E5\) and \(10E6\) steps. The expected value function is estimated by means of a classical Monte Carlo procedure. Table~\ref{table pas constant} shows the same results with a sequence \(\rho_\gamma = v_1\) which does not satisfy condition (A2). \begin{table}[ht]\footnotesize \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline \backslashbox{\(\Gamma\)}{\(v_1\)} & 1 & 10 & 100 & 1000 & 10 000 & 20 000 & 10E5 & 10E6\\ \hline 10E4 & 7.2 E-4 & \color{red}{2.6 E-6} & \color{red}{1.1 E-6} & \color{red}{8.9 E-7} & 5.1 E-4 & 8.3 E-4 & 1.0 E-1 & 1.3 E-1 \\ \hline 10E5 &1.4 E-5 & 9.3 E-7 & 8.9 E-7 & 4.7 E-7 & \color{red}{2.3 E-8} & 1.7 E-2 & 9.1 E+3 & 9.5 E+5\\ \hline 10E6 & 3.8 E-6 & 9.2 E-7 & 7.7 E-7 & 1.5 E-7 & \color{red}{6.6 E-12} & \color{red}{5.4 E-12} & 1.0 E-5 & 15.8\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \caption{\(v(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_\Gamma)\) (\(v_2 = 1000\), \(\mathbf{\beta = 0.6}\)) } \label{table fonctionv1}\normalsize \end{table} \begin{table}[ht]\footnotesize \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline \backslashbox{\(\Gamma\)}{\(v_1\)} & 1 & 10 & 100 & 1000 & 10 000 & 13 000 & 2E4 \\ \hline 10E4 & 8.8 E-3 & 1.0 E-3 & 7.8 E-6 & \color{red}{9.8 E-7} & \color{red}{8.8 E-7} & \color{red}{1.7 E-6} & \color{red}{9.7 E-7} \\ \hline 10E5 & 6.6 E-3 & 1.1 E-4 & \color{red}{9.3 E-7} & \color{red}{9.0 E-7} & \color{red}{6.8 E-7} & \color{red}{5.5 E-7} & \color{red}{4.8 E-7}\\ \hline 10E6 & 4.5 E-3 & 1.8 E-5 & 9.3 E-7 & 8.7 E-7 & 5.1 E-7 & 3.6 E-7 & 2.9 E-7 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline \backslashbox{\(\Gamma\)}{\(v_1\)} & 1E5 & 5E5 & 1E6 & 2E6 & 3E6 & 4E6 & 5E6\\ \hline 10E4 & 1.3 E-3 & 3.3 E-2 & 7.3 E-1 & 4.5 E+1 & 1.1 E-2 & 6.5 E+2 & 6.9 E+1 \\ \hline 10E5 & \color{red}{6.6 E-7} & 1.2 E-5 & 4.1 E-4 & 2.7 E-1 & 8.1 E-3 & 1.7 E-2 & 1.4 E+1\\ \hline 10E6 & 6.8 E-8 & 1.1 E-10 & \color{red}{5.3 E-12} & \color{red}{7.4 E-12} & \color{red}{7.0 E-12} & 2.6 E-5 & 1.5 E-6\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \caption{\(v(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_\Gamma)\) (\(v_2 = 1000\), \(\mathbf{\beta = 0.9}\)) } \label{table fonctionv1b}\normalsize \end{table} \begin{table}[ht]\footnotesize \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline \backslashbox{\(\Gamma\)}{\(v_1\)} & 1 & 2 & 4 & 6 & 8 & 10 & 12 & 20\\ \hline 10E4 & 7.6 E-7 & 6.9 E-7 & 2.5 E-7 & 2.9 E-7 & 1.4 E-6 & 1.9 E-7 & 7.6 E-7 & 6.1 E-6\\ \hline 10E5 & 6.9 E-7 & 6.8 E-7 & 4.1 E-7 & \color{red}{1.3 E-7} & \color{red}{2.9 E-7} & 3.2 E-7 & 3.9 E-6 & 3.2 E-4 \\ \hline 10E6 & 3.0 E-8 & 1.0 E-9 & \color{red}{5.1 E-12} & \color{red}{4.3 E-12} & \color{red}{5.1 E-12} & \color{red}{4.2 E-12} & \color{red}{5.9 E-12} & 7.8 E-6\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \caption{\(v(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_\Gamma)\) for a constant sequence \(\rho_\gamma = v_1\)} \label{table pas constant}\normalsize \end{table} We observe that the efficiency of the algorithm depends on the choice of the parameters \(v_1\), \(v_2\), \(\beta\) and is really sensitive to it when the total number of steps \(\Gamma\) is small. When \(\Gamma\) becomes large (e.g \(\Gamma=10E6\)), then the algorithm may seem to diverge if \(\beta\) is chosen carelessly. In fact, as the sequence \((\rho_\gamma,\gamma\geq 1)\) satisfies hypothesis (A2) of Theorem~\ref{th convergence}, the algorithm converges to the optimal parameters but it is far from \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}^*\) after \(10E6\) steps. However, for each value \(\beta\), some \(v_1\) reduces the mean square hedging error to 5 E-12. \section{An empirical study of the bid-ask spread costs impact} \label{sec numericalwithliquidity} We here present numerical results corresponding to two piecewise linear liquidity cost functions \(\Psi\): \begin{align} \Psi^1_\lambda(T,U,\pi) &= (1 + \lambda \,\text{sign}(\pi))B(T,U)\pi \label{eq liquidity 1}\\ \Psi^2_{\lambda,C}(T,U,\pi) &= \begin{cases} B(T,U)\pi \mbox{ for } |\pi|\leq C\\ B(T,U)(C + (1+\lambda)(\pi - C) \mbox{ for } \pi > C\\ B(T,U)(- C + (1-\lambda)(\pi + C) \mbox{ for } \pi < - C. \end{cases} \label{eq liquidity 2} \end{align} Despite the fact that we know there is no perfect hedging strategy in this context, we suppose the holder receives a null cash at time \(t\) (which is the price of the swap in a no liquidity cost market). We now shortly check the convergence of the algorithm. Given piecewise linear cost functions \(\Psi\), it is easy to prove that the terminal wealth \(W^{(\boldsymbol{\alpha})}\) is piecewise linear in \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}\) (see the proof of proposition~\ref{prop convexite}). Therefore, assumption (A1) of Theorem~\ref{th convergence}. However, Theorem~\ref{th convergence} does not apply to our context since \(\Psi^1_\lambda\) and \(\Psi^2_\lambda\) are piecewise linear and therefore are not continuously differentiable everywhere. Replace \(\Psi^1_\lambda\) and \(\Psi^2_\lambda\) by smooth approximations obtained by convolutions with kernels of the type \(1/\sqrt{2\pi\varepsilon}\exp(-x^2/(2\varepsilon))\), \(\varepsilon\) small. Let \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}^*_\varepsilon\) be the unique optimal parameter corresponding to the new cost functions (existence and uniqueness of \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}^*_\varepsilon\) are provided by Theorem~\ref{th convergence}). In view of \citet[Th~7.33]{Rockafellar_Tyrrell98} \((\boldsymbol{\alpha}^*_\varepsilon)\) tends to \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}^*\) when \(\varepsilon\) tends to \(0\). The preceding consideration to prove convergence is more theoretical than practical: in practice, the numerical results do not differ when \(\varepsilon\) is small or \(\varepsilon\) is null. Finaly, notice that the piecewise linearity in \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}\) of \(W^{(\boldsymbol{\alpha})}\) implies that conditions in Remark~\ref{rem:rem1} are satisfied, so that Theorem~\ref{th rateofconvergence} precises the convergence rate. \subsection{Taking liquidity costs into account is really necessary}\label{sub:50} Consider two different strategies: (i) the strategy corresponding to the optimal parameters \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_0\) in the idealistic model without liquidity costs and (ii) the null strategy \(\boldsymbol{\delta}_0\) defined as \[ \boldsymbol{\delta}_0^{\boldsymbol{n}_{(j)}}(j,i)=0, \quad \mbox{ for all }-1 \leq j < i \leq N-1 \mbox{ and } \boldsymbol{n}_{(j)}\in\Lambda^{(j)}. \] To satisfy the self-financing assumption \eqref{eq selffinancing}, at time \(T_j\) the payoff \(P(j)\) of the swap \eqref{eq payoff of the swap} is used to buy zero-coupon bonds with maturity \(T_N\). Figure~\ref{fig performance avant optimisation} shows \(-v(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_0)\) and \(-v(\boldsymbol{\delta}_0)\) in terms of the parameter \(\lambda\) where the cost function \(\Psi\) is as in \eqref{eq liquidity 1}. The mean square hedging error dramatically increases when, in the presence of liquidity costs, the trader uses the strategy which is optimal in the no liquidity cost context. When the liquidity cost \(\lambda\) is larger than \(4\%\), it is even worse to use this strategy than to use the \(\boldsymbol{\delta}_0\) strategy! \begin{figure}[ht] \begin{center} \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.9\textwidth]{figure4.pdf} \caption{(short dashes) \(-v(\boldsymbol{\delta}_0)\) (long dashes) \(-v(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_0)\) in terms of the liquidity cost \(\lambda\) } \label{fig performance avant optimisation} \end{center} \end{figure} \subsection{Probability distribution of the hedging error in the case~\eqref{eq liquidity 1}} In this section, the liquidity cost function \(\Psi\) is chosen as in \eqref{eq liquidity 1}. After \(\Gamma\) steps of the stochastic optimization procedure with a sample \(\omega\) of the Gaussian vector \(((G^{(0)}_\gamma,\cdots,G^{(N)}_\gamma),\gamma=1,\cdots,\Gamma)\), one obtains a random approximation \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_\Gamma(\omega)\) of the optimal parameter \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}^*\). Figure~\ref{figlesdensites} shows the probability distribution of the random variable \(v(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_\Gamma(\omega))\) for \(\Gamma= 10000\) and Table~\ref{tabletroncature2} shows its mean and standard deviation for different values of \(\lambda\). \begin{table}[h]\footnotesize \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline $\lambda$ & 0 & 0.01 & 0.02 & 0.03 & 0.04 & 0.05 & 0.06 & 0.07 & 0.08 & 0.09 \\ \hline \mbox{Mean}& 2.5E-32 & 0.0031 & 0.012 & 0.024 & 0.038 & 0.049 & 0.058 & 0.065 & 0.11 & 0.12 \\ \hline \mbox{Std dev.} & 6.7E-33 & 4.2E-5 & 2.8E-4 & 1.7E-3 & 0.016 & 0.017 & 0.046 & 0.081 & 1.1 & 1.3 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \caption{ Empirical mean and standard deviation of \(v(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{10000})\).} \label{tabletroncature2} \end{table} \normalsize \begin{figure}[ht] \begin{center} \includegraphics[height=8cm, angle=-90]{graphDensity_4.pdf} \end{center} \caption{ Empirical density of \(-v(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_\Gamma(\omega))\) (\(v_1 = v_2 = \beta = 1\), \(\Gamma = 10000\), \(\lambda=0.04\)). The vertical line corresponds to the \(v(\boldsymbol{\alpha}^*)\).} \label{figlesdensites} \end{figure} \subsection{Hedging error in the case \eqref{eq liquidity 2}} In this section, the liquidity cost function \(\Psi\) is chosen as in \eqref{eq liquidity 2}. Figure~\ref{fig:compare_indicator_no_zoom} shows \(-v(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_\Gamma)\) for \(\Gamma=0\) (green) and \(\Gamma=10E6\) (violet). The initial parameter \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_0\) is the optimal one for a market without liquidity cost. We observe that the main part of the loss is saved thanks to the optimization procedure. In Figure~\ref{fig:compare_indicator_zoom}, we zoom on the surface resulting from the optimization procedure. Notice that the cost function \eqref{eq liquidity 1} is equal to the cost function \eqref{eq liquidity 2} in the particular case \(C=0\). So, Figure~\ref{fig:compare_indicator_zoom} allows to compare the value functions corresponding to these two cost functions. \begin{figure}[ht] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=10cm,angle=-90]{compareOptimizedAgainstNotOptmimized_rev} \caption{Violet surface: \(-v(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_\Gamma)\) (\(\Gamma = 10E6\), \(v_1 = v_2 = 100\), \(\beta = 0.6\)) for a liquidity cost function \eqref{eq liquidity 2} in terms of the value \(\lambda\) of the liquidity cost and the size \(C\) of the compact. Green surface:\(-v(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_0)\).} \label{fig:compare_indicator_no_zoom} \end{center} \end{figure} \begin{figure}[ht] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=10cm,angle=-90]{graphTestMultipleOptimized3DCase6NMCCustom1000000NbDate4} \caption{A zoom on the violet surface of Figure~\ref{fig:compare_indicator_no_zoom}} \label{fig:compare_indicator_zoom} \end{center} \end{figure} \subsection{Influence of the initial value \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_0\) of the optimization procedure} In Figure~\ref{fig:compare_different_strat}, we draw two functions of the liquidity cost \(\lambda\): \(-v(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_\Gamma)\) and \(-v(\boldsymbol{\delta}_\Gamma)\), where \((\boldsymbol{\alpha}_\Gamma)\) and \((\boldsymbol{\delta}_\Gamma)\) are the parameters obtained after \(\Gamma\) steps of the optimization procedure but with different initial values \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_0\) and \(\boldsymbol{\delta}_0\) as described in Subsec.~\ref{sub:50}. The performance of the strategies obtained after \(\Gamma=10E6\) steps are quite similar. It means that the sensitivity to the arbitrary initial parameter \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_0\) is not observable any more after \(\Gamma=10E6\) steps. \begin{figure}[ht] \begin{center} \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.9\textwidth]{figure8.pdf} \caption{ (short dashes) \(-v(\boldsymbol{\delta}_\Gamma)\) (long dashes) \(-v(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_\Gamma)\), in terms of the liquidity cost \(\lambda\) (\(\Gamma= 10E6\), \(v_1 = 0.1\), \(v_2 = 100\), \(\beta = 0.6\), \(d=3\)). } \label{fig:compare_different_strat} \end{center} \end{figure} \subsection{Reducing the set of admissible strategies} Recall Hypothesis~\ref{hypo:controlemesurable}. So far, our admissible strategies at time \(T_j\) depend on all the past and present rates \(R_t,\cdots,R_{T_j}\). Thus the number of parameters \(\alpha^{\bfn_{(j)}}(j,i)\) to optimize is at least of the order of magnitude of the binomial coefficient \(\binom{N}{d}\), where \(N\) is the number of dates and the degree of truncation \(d\) is defined as in \eqref{eq ensemble de troncation}. This order of magnitude is a drastically increasing function of \(N\). This crucial drawback leads us to try to simplify the complexity of the control problem \eqref{eq:optimizationgenerale} by reducing the size of the set of the admissible strategies \(\Pi\). Observe that the optimal strategy under the perfect liquidity assumption has the property that \(\pi^*(j,i)\) only depends on \(R_{T_j}\). This observation suggests to face large numbers of dates by reducing the set of controls to controls depending only on a small number of recent interest rates \(R_{T_j}, R_{T_{j-1}},\cdots,R_{T_{j-q}}\). Figures~\ref{fig:FiveDatesFromZero} and \ref{fig:TenDatesFromZero} illustrate that the optimal control problem \eqref{eq:optimizationgenerale} with admissible strategies defined as in hypothesis~\ref{hypo:controlemesurable} may be used as benchmarks to solve control problems. Consider swaps with \(N=5\) and \(N=10\) dates of payment. In each one of these two cases, we study the effect of choosing \(q=0\) (that is at time \(T_j\), admissible strategies only depend on \(R_{T_j}\)), \(q=1\) (admissible strategies depend on \(R_{T_j}\) and \(R_{T_{j-1}}\)), \(q=2\). Figure~\ref{fig:FiveDatesFromZero} shows the performance of the corresponding strategies obtained after \(\Gamma=10E6\) steps of the optimization algorithm for a swap with \(N=5\) dates of payments. Figure~\ref{fig:TenDatesFromZero} shows similar quantities for a swap with \(N=10\) dates of payment. We observe that the numerical computation of the optimal strategy is quite unstable when \(q\) is too big, which reflects the difficulty to solve a high dimensional optimization problem. Therefore, one necessarily must choose \(q\) small in order to get accurate approximations of optimal strategies belonging to reduced sets of admissible strategies. \begin{figure}[ht] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=10cm,angle=-90] {graphCompareOneDimControlDiffOnlyOptFromZero1000000strTruncatProjectRateWithLiq_NMC_1000000_nD_5_nV_3_rD_4.pdf} \caption{\(-v(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_\Gamma)\) in terms of \(\lambda\) for strategies depending only on recent rates \(R_{T_j},\cdots,R_{T_{j-q}}\) (\(q=0,1,2\), \(\Gamma=10E6\), \(v_1 = 0.1\), \(v_2 = 100\), \(\beta = 0.6\), \(d=3\)) for a swap with \(N=5\) dates of payment. } \label{fig:FiveDatesFromZero} \end{center} \end{figure} \begin{figure}[ht] \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=10cm,angle=-90] {graphCompareOneDimControlDiffOnlyOptFromZero1000000strTruncatProjectRateWithLiq_NMC_1000000_nD_10_nV_3_rD_4.pdf} \caption{ \(-v(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_\Gamma)\) in terms of \(\lambda\) for strategies depending only on recent rates \(R_{T_j},\cdots,R_{T_{j-q}}\) (\(q=0,1,2\), \(\Gamma=10E6\), \(v_1 = 0.1\), \(v_2 = 100\), \(\beta = 0.6\), \(d=3\)) for a swap with \(N=10\) dates of payment. } \label{fig:TenDatesFromZero} \end{center} \end{figure} \clearpage \section{Conclusion}\label{sec conclusion} Stochastic control problems generally have no explicit solutions and are difficult to solve numerically. In this paper, we have proposed an efficient algorithm to approximate optimal allocation strategies to hedge interest rate derivatives subject to liquidity costs. As discussed above, our methodology is constructive and efficient in a Gaussian paradigm. We project the admissible allocation strategies to the space generated by the first Hermite polynomials and use a classical stochastic algorithm to optimally choose the coefficients of the projection in order to optimize an expected function of the terminal hedging error. We have illustrated this general approach by studying swaps in the presence of liquidity costs. We have discussed the performances of the numerical method in terms of all its algorithmic components. We emphasize that our methodology can be applied to many control problems, e.g., the computation of indifference prices, when the model under consideration belongs to a Gaussian space. \section*{Acknowledgment} The authors would like to thank the anonymous referee for her/his careful reading and useful remarks. \defReferences{References} \bibliographystyle{rAMF}
\section{Introduction} The Bose-Einstein condensation is getting a lot of attention recently as a quantum fluid for the test of the analogy between sound waves in quantum fluids and scalar field fluctuation in curved space-times~\cite{Unruh:1980cg}. Thanks to this analogy, we can expect new progress and insight which are difficult only in the gravitational analysis in the quantum gravity and cosmology. Further, the experiments of the quantum gravity and cosmology are difficult due to the required energy level and the scale of phenomena. However, the experiments of the condensed matters will be free from such problems to some extent. It is thought for these reasons that pseudo experiments of the gravity are possible in {the quantum fluids} through the analogy. In order to understand the quantum phenomena in the gravity and cosmology such as the Hawking radiation~\cite{Hawking:1974sw} and particle creation~\cite{Novello:2002fc,Barcelo:2005fc}, the Unruh effect~\cite{Davies:1974th,Unruh:1976db,Unruh:1983ac}\cite{Crispino:2007eb} is important in terms of the role that the event-horizons play. The Unruh effect is a prediction that one moving in the Minkowski space-time with a linear constant acceleration experiences the space-time as a thermal-bath with the Unruh temperature, $T_U = \hbar\, a/(2\pi c \,k_B) \approx 4 \times 10^{-23}\,a/({\rm cm}/{\rm s}^2)\,[{\rm K}]$, where $a$ is the acceleration. Now, various experimental attempts in the condensed matters to observe the gravitational phenomena are being invented~(see Ref.\cite{Kurita:2008fb} for example). Particularly as for the experiments to detect the Unruh effect, there are attempts in Bose-Einstein condensates~\cite{Retzker}, graphenes~\cite{Iorio:2011yz} and Berry phases~\cite{MartinMartinez:2010sg}. For other attempts see Ref.\cite{Retzker2}, for example, and related references. \newline We also address the issue of the Unruh effect in the Bose-Einstein condensation. Whether the Bose-Einstein condensation occurs or not is determined by temperature. We assume in this paper that the Unruh temperature exists in the constantly accelerating system according to the Unruh effect mentioned above. At this time we can think that the Unruh effect affects the Bose-Einstein condensation. Although an enormous number of studies have been done on the Unruh effect and the Bose-Einstein condensation so far, these are performed separately and little is known about the Unruh effect in the Bose-Einstein condensation at this moment. Since both the Unruh effect and the Bose-Einstein condensation are very important in the fundamental physics, new understandings could be expected by combining the Unruh effect and the Bose-Einstein condensation. In this paper, from such a background, we calculate the critical acceleration for the Bose-Einstein condensation based on the thermal excitation brought into by the Unruh effect. Let us here explain the Bose-Einstein condensation briefly~(for more details, see Ref.\cite{Ueda} for example). The Bose-Einstein condensation state is the situation that all the particle stay in the least energy state uniformly owing to the Bose-Einstein statistics, and it appears as a phase transition that all the particles uniformly drop to the least energy state as the entropically-favored state due to the Bose-Einstein statistics at some time. (In the Bose-Einstein condensation state, since all the particles are in a state such as the least energy state, de Broglie wave of each particle becomes longer and even, and eventually the system itself becomes a de Broglie wave.) The situation that the effect of the Bose-Einstein statistics is dominant can be considered as the low temperature region. Actually it is considered at the low temperature region that the particle's thermal motion energy is extremely small so that it does not excite the state of the particles from the least energy state. Hence, the Bose-Einstein condensation state emerges in the system composed of bosonic particle at extremely low temperature. \newline We calculate in this paper the critical acceleration at which the Bose-Einstein condensation begins to appear in the accelerating system by the Unruh effect when lowering the acceleration. We mention our critical acceleration more precisely. We first consider an ideal gas in the Minkowski space-time at zero-temperature, where the gas is composed of particles described by a free complex scalar field at finite density. As the gas is now in zero-temperature, it can be considered to be in the Bose-Einstein condensation state. We then start to accelerate such an ideal gas uniformly. At this time, according to the Unruh effect, since each constantly accelerating particle composing the gas will experience the temperature $T_U = \hbar\, a/(2\pi c \,k_B)$~($a$ is the acceleration) in the accelerating frame, the ideal gas performing uniformly accelerating motion will experience the temperature $T_U$ as a whole in the accelerating frame. Here, what the gas experiences thermal means that the space which the gas observes is filled with some medium that are performing thermal fluctuation. In this paper, we consider that there is no interaction between the medium and the particles composing the gas without the thermal excitation. Hence it is considered that, as growing the acceleration gradually from lower acceleration, in the accelerating frame, the dissolution of the Bose-Einstein condensation is observed eventually, and finally the Bose-Einstein condensation disappears entirely at some acceleration. The critical acceleration we calculate is the acceleration at that time. We here mention the emergence mechanism of the Bose-Einstein condensation in our model and its critical moment. It is composed of three steps. We first calculate the effective potential of the field meaning the particles composing the gas, and then obtain the particle density by performing a derivative to it with regard to the particle's chemical potential. Then we find that, if we decrease the acceleration with fixing the particle density to constant, either the particle's chemical potential or the absolute value of the zero-mode of the field has to grow. Here, the acceleration plays the role of the temperature in the accelerating frame as mentioned in the above paragraph, and the zero-mode of the field can be considered to correspond to the least energy state. Hence the absolute value of the zero-mode is considered as the expectation value of the Bose-Einstein condensation state, and whether it is zero or not corresponds to its disappearance or appearance, respectively. We consider to start with the high acceleration situation where there is no Bose-Einstein condensation in the accelerating frame, and decrease the acceleration gradually. At this time, we keep the particle density to constant. Namely, the number of particle is always constant in our model. Then, corresponding to no Bose-Einstein condensation, the absolute value of the zero-mode should be zero while the we decrease acceleration. Thus the chemical potential must grow to keep the particle density to constant~(step 1). However we find that there is an upper bound for the value of the chemical potential, which is need to avoid a divergence of the probability amplitude. Hence, when the chemical potential reaches the upper bound~(step 2), there is no way but the absolute value of the zero-mode starts to grow~(step 3), if we further decrease acceleration with keeping the particle density to constant. Thus, the moment that the chemical potential reaches the upper bound is the critical moment that the Bose-Einstein condensation appears, and this is the Bose-Einstein condensation in our model. The situation where our analysis is actually performed is just before the Bose-Einstein condensation state starts to occur. To be more specific, our calculation to obtain the critical acceleration is performed in the situation that the absolute value of the zero-mode and the chemical potential are put to zero and the upper bound value respectively in the equation of the particle density as the critical moment mentioned above. Then the acceleration obtained from that equation is the critical acceleration. In our analysis, due to some technical difficulty mentioned later, we consider the situation $m/a_c \ll 1$~($m$ and $a_c$ are the mass of the particle and the critical acceleration, respectively), and take the leading contribution of this in our calculation, where $m$ is the mass of the complex scalar particle considered in this paper and $a_c$ is the critical acceleration. As the acceleration is proportional to the temperature in the relation given by the Unruh effect, this can be read as $k_B T_c/2 \gg mc^2$~($T_c$ is the critical temperature fixed with $a_c$), which is the relativistic situation that the particle's thermal motion energy is much higher than its static energy at the critical moment. The result in this paper is hence applicable to the system of the complex scalar field with the critical temperature for the Bose-Einstein condensation that is much higher than the mass. Since the kind of the field considered in this paper is a complex scalar field composing an ideal gas, the actual particle that can correspond to this paper is some ideal complex scalar particle system whose critical temperature of the Bose-Einstein condensation locates in the region $k_B T/2 \gg mc^2$. \newline As stated above, in this study we perform the calculation for the critical acceleration in the Bose-Einstein condensation. So far several kinds of the critical accelerations for the spontaneous symmetry breaking induced by the Unruh effect have been carried out. The critical acceleration for the chiral symmetry restoration was studied in Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model at zero and finite chemical potentials for quarks in refs.\cite{Ohsaku:2004rv} and \cite{Ebert:2006bh} respectively. In Ref.\cite{Castorina:2012yg} the critical acceleration for the restoration of the spontaneous symmetry breaking of the $Z_2$ symmetry in the real scalar field theory was studied. There are also papers concluding that the Unruh effect does not contribute to the restoration of the spontaneous symmetry breaking~\cite{Hill:1985wi}. The system in these papers is not the finite density, and their discussion is based on the effective potential. On the other hand, our Bose-Einstein condensation occurs from the relation between the chemical potential and the acceleration playing the role of the temperature. This is a different point between us and him. Because of this, their conclusion would not be applied to our study readily. We should take this issue to a future work. \newline Lastly, we introduce interesting papers that will have some connection to this study. Ref.\cite{Benic:2015qha} concludes that a larger acceleration should enhance a condensate as compared to those in a non-accelerated vacuum. In Ref.\cite{Cavalcanti:2001jh}, although the background space-time is not the Rindler space, whether the Bose-Einstein condensation can occur or not is shown in an ideal boson gas model with a point-like impurity at finite temperature in some uniform gravitational force in each of $D=1,2$ and $3$. Next, it is shown in Ref.\cite{Takagi:1985vp} that free massless scalar particles are detected by a constantly accelerating detector with not the Bose-Einstein distribution but the Fermi-Dirac distribution in odd dimensions, and this problem is solved in Ref.\cite{Ooguri:1985nv}. \section{The model} The model in this paper is a free complex scalar model at the finite density corresponding to an ideal gas in the constantly accelerating system with the acceleration $a$. The Lagrangian density is given as \begin{align}\label{action} {\cal L}= \, \hbar^2 g^{\mu\nu} \p_\mu \phi^* \p_\nu \phi - c^2 m^2 \phi^* \phi \end{align} with $\phi\equiv \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\phi_1+i \phi_2)$ that means the field of the particle composing a gas, and $\mu,\nu$ are the coordinate in the Rindler space explained below. In the Minkowski space-time as an inertial system, the background space-time of a constantly accelerating system is given by the Rindler space. The Rindler coordinate \black{in our notation is given as follows}: \begin{align} (\eta,\rho,y,z) \equiv (\eta,\rho,x_\perp) \quad {\rm with} \quad x_\perp \equiv (y,z). \end{align} This relates with the Minkowski coordinate $(t,x,x_\perp)$ as \begin{align}\label{Trans_to_Rindler} (t,x) = \frac{c}{a} \big( \sinh \frac{at}{c},\, c \cosh \frac{at}{c} \big) \equiv \rho \left(\sinh \eta,\, c \cosh \eta \right), \end{align} where the accelerating direction has been thought to be in the $x$-direction. The Rindler metric \black{in our notation} is \begin{align}\label{Rindler_metric} ds^2 = (c\rho)^2 d\eta^2 - d(c\rho)^2 - dx_\perp^2. \end{align} In what follows, we use the unit system:~$c=\hbar=k_B=1$. \newline The constantly accelerating one in the Minkowski space-time corresponds to the one moving along a line on a constant $\rho$ in the Rindler space. The relation between $\rho$ and $a$ are $\rho=1/a$ as can be seen from eq.(\ref{Trans_to_Rindler}). Since constantly accelerating one experiences the system as a thermal-bath with the Unruh temperature $T_U$~(the acceleration are in the relation:~$T_U=a/2\pi$) by the Unruh effect, one moving along a line on a constant $\rho$ in the Rindler space gets the temperature \begin{align}\label{UnruhTemprerature} T_U=1/2\pi \rho. \end{align} Hence, the gas in our study is considered to be in such a thermal-bath with Unruh temperature $T_U$ in the accelerating frame. Here, although our gas is considered to be in a thermal-bath with some medium performing thermal fluctuation giving the Unruh temperature $T_U$ in the accelerating frame, we assume that there is no interaction between our gas and the medium other than the thermal excitation. We can see from eq.(\ref{UnruhTemprerature}) that varying $\rho$ means varying the temperature. For this reason, how to interpret the results would be unclear if the four-dimensional space-time integration including the $\rho$-integration was performed. Let us here turn to how this problem is handled in other papers on the critical acceleration given by the Unruh effect. In Refs.\cite{Ohsaku:2004rv,Ebert:2006bh,Castorina:2012yg}, the action is given with the four-dimensional space-time integration including the $\rho$-integration. This point is the problem. However, their calculation is once performed using the Green's function that has dependence on the $\rho$-direction, the coordinate $\rho$ is treated as a constant in the calculation of the effective potential. As a result, the $\rho$-integration becomes just a volume factor in the calculation of the effective potential. The difficulty in the treatment of the coordinate $\rho$ is also mentioned at the chapter of conclusions and discussions in Ref.\cite{Iso:2010yq} in the context of the study of the Larmor radiation with the correction rooted in the Unruh effect. In our analysis, as well as Refs.\cite{Ohsaku:2004rv,Ebert:2006bh,Castorina:2012yg}, we obtain the Green's function that has dependence on the $\rho$-direction. However, the space-time integration in our action is given without the $\rho$-integration. As a result, $\rho$ is a parameter in our model. We can see at this time that the action is needed to be multiplied by a quantity with the dimension of length so that the action becomes dimensionless. To this purpose, we put $d\rho$ in our action. This means that the process to obtain the path-integral representation given in eq.(\ref{Z_DpDp}) for the probability amplitude from the operator formalism representation has been performed with fixing $\rho$. If the analysis in Refs.\cite{Ohsaku:2004rv,Ebert:2006bh,Castorina:2012yg} is performed again by our way, there is no difference in the final result. \newline There are four regions separated by the event-horizons in the Rindler space. The region treated in this paper is the right wedge only. \section{The effective potential} \subsection{Performance of the path-integral} We start with the probability amplitude:~ \begin{align}\label{Z_DpDp} Z =& \int \! {{\cal D} \pi_\eta} {{\cal D} \phi} \exp \Big[ i \, \int \! d^{3}x \, \blue{d\rho} \, \gamma \, \Big( \,\pi^{\eta}\p_\eta \phi + \,\pi^{\eta}{}^* \p_\eta \phi^* - \big({\cal H}-\mu \, q \big) \Big) \Big], \end{align} where $\gamma \equiv \sqrt{-{\rm det}\,g_{\mu\nu}}$ and $d^3x \equiv d\eta \, d^2x\!_\perp$, and $\mu$ and $q$ are the chemical potential and the density of particles, respectively. For the reason mentioned in Section.2, to fix the acceleration and Unruh temperature, the integration in the $\rho$-direction is not included in the space-time integration in the action. As a result, $\rho$ is a parameter in our analysis, and the Unruh temperature that the gas experiences is given according to the relation in eq.(\ref{UnruhTemprerature}). At this time, we can see that the action is needed to be multiplied by a quantity with the dimension of length so that it becomes dimensionless. We put $d\rho$ to this purpose. However the space-time integration is the one without the $\rho$-direction. Explanation for $\pi^{\eta}$ and ${\cal H}$ is in what follows. $ \big(\pi^{\mu},\pi^{\mu}{}^*\big) \equiv \big( \frac{\p {\cal L}}{\p(\p_\mu \phi^*)},\,\frac{\p {\cal L}}{\p(\p_\mu \phi)} \big) $ are the momenta given as \begin{align} \label{CanonicalMU} \big(\pi^{\eta},\pi^{\eta}{}^*\big) &= \big( g^{\eta\eta} \p_\eta \phi^*, \, g^{\eta\eta} \p_\eta \phi \big). \end{align} ${\cal H}$ is the Hamiltonian density given as \begin{align}\label{Hamiltonian} {\cal H} &= \pi^{\eta} \,\p_\eta \phi + \pi^{\eta}{}^* \,\p_\eta \phi - {\cal L}\nn &= \pi^{\eta}{}^* \pi_{\eta} - g^{ij} \p_i \phi^* \p_j \phi +m^2 \phi^* \phi, \end{align} where $\pi^{\mu}$ is defined as $\pi^{\mu} \equiv \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\pi^{\mu}_1+i \, \pi^{\mu}_2)$. Correspondingly, the functional integration measure of $\pi_\eta$ changes as ${\cal D \pi_\eta} = {\cal D} \pi_{1\eta} {\cal D} \pi_{2\eta}$. From eq.(\ref{CanonicalMU}), we can see \begin{align} \pi^{\eta}_{1,2} = g^{\eta\eta}\p_\eta \phi_{1,2}. \end{align} It turns out that the conserved current associated with the U$(1)$ global symmetry in our model is obtained as \begin{align} J^\mu &= -i \, g^{\mu\nu}(\phi\,\p_\nu\phi^*-\phi^*\,\p_\nu\phi). \end{align} Using this $J^\mu$, the integral of conserved charge density can be written as \begin{align}\label{Density} \int \! d^{3}x \, \blue{d\rho} \, \gamma \, q = \int \! d^{3}x \, \blue{d\rho} \, \gamma \, J^\eta = \int \! d^{3}x \, \blue{d\rho} \, \gamma \, \big(-\pi^{\eta}_2 \, \phi_1 + \pi^{\eta}_1 \, \phi_1 \big). \end{align} Substituting eqs.(\ref{Hamiltonian}) and (\ref{Density}) into eq.(\ref{Z_DpDp}), we can obtain the following $Z$: \begin{align} Z &= \int \! {\cal D} \pi_{1\eta} {\cal D} \pi_{2\eta}{\cal D \phi} \exp \Big[ \frac{i}{2} \int \! d^{3}x \, \blue{d\rho} \, \gamma \, \Big\{ \nn & \quad -\frac{1}{2}\big(\pi^{\eta}_1\pi_{1\eta}-2\,(\p_\eta \phi_1 + \mu \,\phi_2)\,\pi^{\eta}_1 \big) -\frac{1}{2}\big(\pi^{\eta}_2\pi_{2\eta}-2\,(\p_\eta \phi_2 + \mu \,\phi_1)\,\pi^{\eta}_2 \big) \nn & \quad +\frac{1}{2}\big( (\p_i \phi_1)^2+(\p_i \phi_2)^2-m^2(\phi_1^2+\phi_2^2) \big) \Big\} \Big], \end{align} where $i,j=x_\perp$. Here, in the above, we perform the following rewritings: \begin{subequations} \begin{align} & \pi^{\eta}_1\pi_{1\eta}-2\,(\p_\eta \phi_1 + \mu \,\phi_2)\,\pi^{\eta}_1 =\,\, g^{\eta\eta} \Big\{\big( \pi_{1\eta} - (\p_\eta \phi_1 + \mu \,\phi_2) \big)^2 - (\p_\eta \phi_1 + \mu \,\phi_2)^2 \Big\}, \\ & \pi^{\eta}_2\pi_{2\eta}-2\,(\p_\eta \phi_2 + \mu \,\phi_1)\,\pi^{\eta}_2 =\,\, g^{\eta\eta} \Big\{\big( \pi_{2\eta} - (\p_\eta \phi_2 + \mu \,\phi_1) \big)^2 - (\p_\eta \phi_2 + \mu \,\phi_1)^2 \Big\}. \end{align} \end{subequations} Furthermore, we redefine the fields as \begin{subequations} \begin{align} & \pi_{1\eta} - (\p_\eta \phi_1 + \mu \,\phi_2) \rightarrow \pi_{1\eta},\\ & \pi_{2\eta} - (\p_\eta \phi_2 + \mu \,\phi_1) \rightarrow \pi_{2\eta}. \end{align} \end{subequations} As a result, we can write $Z$ as \begin{align} \label{Z_Dp} Z = & \,\, {\cal C} \int \! {{\cal D} \phi} \exp \Big[ \frac{i}{2} \int \! d^{3}x \, \blue{d\rho} \, \gamma \, \Big( g^{\eta\eta}(\p_\eta\phi_1+\mu \,\phi_2)^2 + (\p_i \phi_1)^2 \nn & \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \quad \,\, + \, g^{\eta\eta}(\p_\eta\phi_2+\mu \,\phi_1)^2 + (\p_i \phi_2)^2 - m^2 ({\phi_1}^2+{\phi_2}^2)\Big) \Big]. \end{align} with $\displaystyle {\cal C} \equiv \int \! {\cal D} \pi_{1\eta} {\cal D} \pi_{2\eta} \exp \Big[ i \int \! d^{3}x \, \blue{d\rho} \, \gamma \, g^{\eta\eta} \big( (\pi_{1\eta})^2+(\pi_{2\eta})^2 \big) \Big]. $ Performing the path-integral of $\pi_{1\eta}$ and $\pi_{2\eta}$ formally, we think that ${\cal C}$ become some factor. We ignore ${\cal C}$ in what follows. As a result, with some straight forward calculation, we can write $Z$ in the following form, \begin{align} \label{Z_Dp} Z = & \, \int \! {\cal D \phi} \exp \Big[ \! -\frac{i}{2} \int \! d^{3}x \, \blue{d\rho} \,\gamma \, \Big( \phi_1 G \phi_1 + \phi_2 G \phi_2 + 2g^{\eta\eta}\mu \, (\phi_2 \p_\eta \phi_1 - \phi_1 \p_\eta \phi_2 ) \Big) \Big], \end{align} where $G \equiv \p_\eta^2+ \gamma^{-1}g^{ij}\p_i(\gamma\p_j)+m^2-g^{\eta\eta}\mu^2$. Let us now rewrite the real and imaginary parts of the field into a convenient expression for the analysis of the Bose-Einstein condensation. As we have written in the introduction, the Bose-Einstein condensation can be considered as the situation that all particles get to be the least energy state. The least energy state can be considered as the zero-mode of the field in our model, and the situation that all the particles are in the least energy state can be considered as the condensation of the zero-mode. Hence, a convenient expression for the analysis of the Bose-Einstein condensation in our analysis is the one in which the zero-mode is separated as \begin{subequations}\label{phi_def} \begin{align} \phi_1 \, \equiv& \, \sqrt{2} \, \alpha \, \cos \theta + \hat{\phi}_1, \label{BEC_representation1}\\ \phi_2 \, \equiv& \, \sqrt{2} \, \alpha \, \sin \theta + \hat{\phi}_2, \label{BEC_representation2} \end{align} \end{subequations} where $\alpha$ plays the role of the expectation value of the condensation of the zero-mode, $\theta$ is a phase in the zero-mode and $\hat{\phi}_1$, and $\hat{\phi}_2$ are the non-zero modes. Depending on just before or after the condensation starts, $\alpha$ behaves as follows: \begin{align} &\quad \alpha = 0 ~:~ \textrm{before the condensation} \nn &\quad \alpha \not= 0 ~:~ \textrm{after the condensation} \nonumber \end{align} At this time, $\phi_1 G \,\phi_1$ and $\phi_2 G \,\phi_2$ can be written as \begin{align} \phi_1 G \,\phi_1 =& \,\, 2\alpha^2(m^2-g^{\eta\eta}\mu^2)\,\cos^2 \theta+\hat{\phi}_1 G \,\hat{\phi}_1, \\ \phi_2 G \,\phi_2 =& \,\, 2\alpha^2(m^2-g^{\eta\eta}\mu^2)\,\sin^2 \theta+\hat{\phi}_2 G \,\hat{\phi}_2. \end{align} As a result, we can rewrite $Z$ into \begin{align} & Z = \, \exp\Big[ \! -i \, \alpha^2 \! \int \! d^{3}x \, \blue{d\rho} \,\gamma \, (m^2-g^{\eta\eta}\mu^2)\Big] \int\! {\cal D \hat{\phi}} \exp \bigg[ \nn & \qquad - \frac{i}{2} \int \! d^{3}x \, \blue{d\rho} \, \gamma \left( \! \begin{array}{cc} \hat{\phi}_1 & \hat{\phi}_2 \end{array} \! \right) \! \left( \! \begin{array}{cc} G & -2g^{\eta\eta}\mu \,\p_\eta \\ 2g^{\eta\eta}\mu \,\p_\eta & G \end{array} \! \right) \! \left( \! \begin{array}{c} \hat{\phi}_1 \\ \hat{\phi}_2 \end{array} \! \right) \nn & \qquad + \sqrt{2} \, \alpha \cos \theta \, \Big( \, G \, (\phi_1+\phi_2) + (\phi_1+\phi_2) \, G \, \Big) \bigg]. \end{align} Our analysis will be performed just before the condensation as mentioned later. For this reason, we put $\alpha=0$ in what follows. As a result, we can write $Z$ as \begin{align} Z = \int\! {\cal D \hat{\phi}} \exp \bigg[ - \frac{i}{2} \int \! d^{3}x \, \blue{d\rho} \, \gamma \left( \! \begin{array}{cc} \hat{\phi}_1 & \hat{\phi}_2 \end{array} \! \right) \! \left( \! \begin{array}{cc} G & -2g^{\eta\eta}\mu \,\p_\eta \\ 2g^{\eta\eta}\mu \,\p_\eta & G \end{array} \! \right) \! \left( \! \begin{array}{c} \hat{\phi}_1 \\ \hat{\phi}_2 \end{array} \! \right) \bigg]. \end{align} Then, we can see from the form of $G$ given below eq.(\ref{Z_Dp}) that there should be the condition: \begin{align}\label{bound_of_mu} m^2-g^{\eta\eta}\mu^2 \ge 0. \end{align} Otherwise the path-integrals of $Z$ diverges at the configuration that all the momenta are zero. Further, the above relation gives the upper limit of the chemical potential for given a mass and an Unruh temperature. Performing the diagonalization as \begin{align} Z & \, = \int\! {\cal D} \hat{\phi} \exp \bigg[ - \frac{i}{2} \int \! d^{3}x \, \blue{d\rho} \, \gamma \left( \! \begin{array}{cc} \hat{\phi}_1 & \hat{\phi}_2 \end{array} \! \right) UU^{-1} \left( \! \begin{array}{cc} G & -2g^{\eta\eta}\mu \,\p_\eta \\ 2g^{\eta\eta}\mu \,\p_\eta & G \end{array} \! \right) UU^{-1} \left( \! \begin{array}{c} \hat{\phi}_1 \\ \hat{\phi}_2 \end{array} \! \right) \bigg]. \nn & = \int\! {\cal D' \hat{\phi'}} \exp \bigg[ - \frac{i}{2} \int \! d^{3}x \, \blue{d\rho} \, \gamma \left( \! \begin{array}{cc} \hat{\phi}'_1 & \hat{\phi}'_2 \end{array} \! \right) \! \left( \! \begin{array}{cc} G + 2g^{\eta\eta}\mu \,\p_\eta & 0 \\ 0 & G - 2g^{\eta\eta}\mu \,\p_\eta \end{array} \! \right) \! \left( \! \begin{array}{c} \hat{\phi}'_1 \\ \hat{\phi}'_2 \end{array} \! \right) \bigg], \end{align} where $U \equiv \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( \begin{array}{cc} i & -i \\ 1 & 1 \end{array} \right)$ is a unitary matrix defined to perform the above diagonalization, and correspondingly $\left( \! \begin{array}{c} \hat{\phi}'_1 \\ \hat{\phi}'_2 \end{array} \! \right) \equiv U^{-1} \left( \! \begin{array}{c} \hat{\phi}_1 \\ \hat{\phi}_2 \end{array} \! \right)$. At this transformation, the functional measure is also transformed, which we have described as ${\cal D \hat{\phi}} \rightarrow {\cal D' \hat{\phi'}}$. However, since $U$ is a constant unitary matrix, the difference between ${\cal D \hat{\phi}}$ and ${\cal D' \hat{\phi'}}$ contribute only to some constant factor in the path-integral, and we ignore it in what follows. Performing the path-integral, we can obtain \begin{align}\label{one-loop} Z \,=& \, \Det \Big(\big( G + 2g^{\eta\eta}\mu \,\p_\eta \big)\big( G - 2g^{\eta\eta}\mu \,\p_\eta \big)\Big)^{-1/2}. \end{align} In the above, with regard to the treatment of $d\rho$, we consider that the integration of this has been performed by assigning a value at one point. Hence, the effective action $W$ defined as $Z=\exp i W$ can be written as \begin{align} W \,=& \, \frac{i}{2} \, \black{\Log\,\Det} \Big(\big( G + 2g^{\eta\eta}\mu \,\p_\eta \big)\big( G - 2g^{\eta\eta}\mu \,\p_\eta \big)\black{\Big)} \nn =& \, \frac{i}{2} \, \black{\Tr\,\Log} \Big(\big( G + 2g^{\eta\eta}\mu \,\p_\eta \big)\big( G - 2g^{\eta\eta}\mu \,\p_\eta \big)\black{\Big)} \nn =& \, \frac{i}{2} \, V \! \int \! \frac{dk^3}{(2\pi)^3} \Big(\,\,\, \Log \big( \p_\eta^2+ \gamma^{-1}g^{ij}\p_i(\gamma\,\p_j)+M^2+2ig^{\eta\eta}\mu\,\p_\eta \big) \nn \label{W01} & \qquad \qquad \quad \, + \Log \big( \p_\eta^2+ \gamma^{-1}g^{ij}\p_i(\gamma\,\p_j)+M^2-2ig^{\eta\eta}\mu\,\p_\eta \big) \Big), \end{align} where $M^2 \equiv m^2-g^{\eta\eta}\mu^2$ and $V \equiv \int d^3x \, \gamma$ is the volume for the $(\eta, x_\perp)$ space-time, which appears from \black{the rewriting of} a functional trace into an integration: \begin{align}\label{TrToInt} \black{\Tr \rightarrow \left(\frac{L}{2\pi}\right)^3 \left(\frac{2\pi}{L} \right)^3 \sum_k \equiv V \int \frac{dk^3}{(2\pi)^3}} \end{align} with $\left( \frac{2\pi}{L} \right)^3 \sum_k = \int dk^3$ and $V \equiv L^3 = \int d^3x \, \gamma$, where $L$ means just length in each space for the $\eta$, $x_\perp$-directions, and $\sqrt{-{\rm det}\,g_{ab}} = \sqrt{-g_{\rho\rho}\,{\rm det}\,g_{ab}} = \gamma$~($a,b=\eta,x_\perp$ except for $\rho$, and $g_{\rho\rho}=1$). $d^3k \equiv d\omega \, d^2k\!_\perp$ with $k\!_\perp \equiv (k_y, k_z)$, which are momenta corresponding to the coordinate $(\eta,x_\perp )$ as in eq.(\ref{Fourier_trans}). Defining $\delta_\pm \equiv g^{\eta\eta} \p_\eta^2+ \gamma^{-1}g^{ij}\p_i(\gamma\,\p_j) \pm 2ig^{\eta\eta}\mu\,\p_\eta$, we further rewrite $W$ as \begin{align} W =& \, \frac{i}{2} \, V \! \int \! \frac{dk^3}{(2\pi)^3} \Big(\, \Log \big( \delta_+ + M^2 \big) + \Log \big( \delta_- + M^2 \big) \Big) \nn =& \, \frac{i}{2} \, V \! \int \! \frac{dk^3}{(2\pi)^3} \,\bigg(\,\, \int_0^{M^2}\!\!d\Delta^2(\delta_+ + \Delta^2)^{-1} + \Log \, \delta_+ \label{W02} + \int_0^{M^2}\!\!d\Delta^2(\delta_- + \Delta^2)^{-1} + \Log \, \delta_-\bigg). \end{align} Here, we can ignore $\int \frac{dk^3}{(2\pi)^3} \, \Log\,\delta_\pm$ for the reason in what follows:~First, since we will perform the derivative with regard to the chemical potential to obtain the particle density at the end, we look at only the part concerning the chemical potential as \begin{align} & \int\! \frac{dk^3}{(2\pi)^3}\,\,\Log \, \delta_\pm \nn \black{=} & \black{\int\! \frac{dk^3}{(2\pi)^3} \,\Log \,\, \big( \p_\eta^2+ \gamma^{-1}g^{ij}\p_i(\gamma\,\p_j) \big)} \black{+ \int\! dk_\eta \frac{dk_\perp^2}{(2\pi)^3} \,\Log \left( 1 \pm \frac{2ig^{\eta\eta}\mu\,\p_\eta}{\p_\eta^2 + \gamma^{-1}g^{ij}\,\p_i(\gamma\,\p_j)} \right)} \nn \black{\sim} & \black{\int\! dk_\eta \frac{dk_\perp^2}{(2\pi)^3} \,\Log \left( 1 \pm \frac{2ig^{\eta\eta}\mu\,\p_\eta}{\p_\eta^2 + \gamma^{-1}g^{ij}\,\p_i(\gamma\,\p_j)} \right).} \end{align} In the above, we have described the integral $\int dk^3$ separately as $\int dk_\eta \int dk^2_\perp$. Then, replacing $\p_{i}$ with $i\,k_{i}$, from the fact that $\int dk \, k \log\,(1+\frac{c_1k }{c_2+k^2})=0$~($c_{1,2}$ are some constants), we can see that the $\mu$-dependent part vanishes in the $k_\perp$-integrals. Finally, we can write the effective action $W$ in eq.(\ref{W02}) as \begin{align}\label{W_Dpm} W = \frac{i}{2}V \, \gamma \! \int \! \frac{dk^3}{(2\pi)^3} \int^{M^2}_0 \!\!\! d\Delta^2 \, (\widetilde{D}_+ + \widetilde{D}_-), \end{align} where $\widetilde{D}_\pm$ is \begin{align}\label{def_D} \blue{\gamma^{-1}} \left(\delta_\pm + \Delta^2 \right)^{-1} \equiv \widetilde{D}_\pm = \widetilde{D}_\pm(k_\eta,\rho,k_\perp). \end{align} In the above, we wrote the arguments concerning the momenta as $k_\eta$ and $k_\perp$ despite that these are given by the differential operators in the actual expression, which may be allowed. \subsection{Calculation of $\widetilde{D}_\pm$} From the definition in eq.(\ref{def_D}), we can have the following equation: \begin{align}\label{Identity_of_Dpm} \delta^4(x-x') =& \blue{\gamma}\left(\delta_\pm + \Delta^2 \right) D_\pm(x-x') \nn =& \blue{\gamma}\left(g^{\eta\eta}\partial_\eta^2+ \gamma^{-1}g^{ij}\partial_i(\gamma\p_j)\pm 2i\,g^{\eta\eta}\mu\,\partial_\eta+\Delta^2 \right) D_\pm(x-x') \end{align} with $D_\pm(x-x')$ defined as \begin{align}\label{Fourier_trans} D_\pm(x-x') = \int \! \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} \, \widetilde{D}_\pm \, e^{i\,\big(\omega \, (\eta-\eta') - k\!_\perp (x\!_\perp-x\!_\perp')\big)}. \end{align} We can rewrite eq.(\ref{Identity_of_Dpm}) as \begin{align} &\delta(\rho-\rho') \int \! \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} \, e^{i\,\big(\omega \, (\eta-\eta') - k\!_\perp (x\!_\perp-x\!_\perp')\big)} \nn =& \,\, \int \! \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} \,\blue{\gamma} \left( g^{\eta\eta}\p_\eta^2+ \gamma^{-1}g^{ij}\p_i(\gamma\p_j)\right. \left. \pm 2i\,g^{\eta\eta}\mu\,\p_\eta+\Delta^2 \right) \widetilde{D}_\pm \, e^{i\,\big(\omega \, (\eta-\eta') - k\!_\perp (x\!_\perp-x\!_\perp')\big)} \nn =& \,\, \int \! \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} \,\blue{\gamma} \left( \rho^{-2}\p_\eta^2 - \rho^{-1}\p_\rho(\rho\p_\rho) - (\p_x^2+\p_y^2)\right. \label{GreenFuncEOM2} \left. \pm 2i\,g^{\eta\eta}\mu\,\p_\eta+\Delta^2 \right) \widetilde{D}_\pm \, e^{i\,\big(\omega \, (\eta-\eta') - k\!_\perp (x\!_\perp-x\!_\perp')\big)}, \end{align} where $d^3k \equiv d \omega \, dk_\perp^2$. As a result, we can obtain the equation which $\widetilde{D}_\pm$ should satisfy as \begin{align} \blue{\gamma^{-1}} \delta(\rho-\rho') &=\big( -\rho^{-2}\omega^2 -\rho^{-1}\p_\rho - \p_\rho^2 + k_y^2+k_z^2 \pm 2\rho^{-2} \mu \, \omega + \Delta^2 \, \big) \widetilde{D}_\pm. \end{align} Finally, we can obtain the equation that determines $\widetilde{D}_\pm$ as \begin{align}\label{GreenFuncEOM2} \big(\,{\cal F} + \Omega_\pm^2\,\big) \, \widetilde{D}_\pm &= -\blue{\rho} \, \delta(\rho-\rho'), \end{align} where ${\cal F} \equiv \rho^2 \p_\rho^2+ \rho \, \p_\rho - \rho^2 \kappa^2$ with $\kappa^2\equiv k^2+\Delta^2$, ($k^2 \equiv k_y^2+k_z^2$), and $\Omega_\pm ^2 \equiv \omega (\omega \mp 2\mu)$. Let us now determine $\widetilde{D}_\pm$ from eq.(\ref{GreenFuncEOM2}). First, we can see that ${\cal F}$ can satisfy the following differential equation: \begin{align}\label{Eigen_equation_of_F} {\cal F} \,\Theta_\lambda(\rho,k) = (i \lambda)^2 \, \Theta_\lambda(\rho,k). \end{align} with \begin{align} \Theta_\lambda(\rho,k)= C_\lambda K_{i \lambda}(\kappa \rho),\quad C_\lambda = \frac{1}{\pi}\sqrt{2\lambda \sinh(\pi \lambda)}, \end{align} where the values of $\lambda$ are positive real numbers, $K_{i \lambda}(\kappa \rho)$ is the second kind modified Bessel function, and $C_\lambda$ was obtained from the equation that the second kind modified Bessel functions satisfy, \begin{align}\label{Normalization_condition_of_Theta} \int_0^\infty \frac{d\rho}{\rho} \, \Theta_{\lambda'}(\rho,k) \, \Theta_\lambda(\rho,k)=\delta(\lambda'-\lambda). \end{align} We then assume that $\widetilde{D}_\pm$ can be written by taking $\Theta_\lambda(\rho,k)$ as the bases for the orthogonal directions labeled by $\lambda$ as \begin{align}\label{Theta_expansion_of_D} \widetilde{D}_\pm=\int_0^\infty \! d\lambda \, f_{\lambda,\pm}(\omega,\rho') \, \Theta_\lambda(\rho,k), \end{align} where the above means an orthogonal base expansion of $\Theta_\lambda(\rho,k)$ labeled by $\lambda$, and $f_{\lambda,\pm}(\omega,\rho')$ are the coefficients of each direction. If we can find $f_{\lambda,\pm}(\omega,\rho')$ that satisfies eq.(\ref{GreenFuncEOM2}), this assumption is right. We now obtain such $f_{\lambda,\pm}(\omega,\rho')$. We can see that now we can have the following two independent equations as \begin{subequations} \begin{align} \label{DFTheta} &\int \frac{d\rho}{\blue{\rho}} \, \widetilde{D}_\pm \, {\cal F} \, \Theta_\lambda(\rho,k) = -\lambda^2 \int \frac{d\rho}{\blue{\rho}} \, \widetilde{D}_\pm \, \Theta_\lambda(\rho,k), \\ \label{ThetaFD} &\int \frac{d\rho}{\blue{\rho}} \, \Theta_\lambda(\rho,k) \, {\cal F} \widetilde{D}_\pm = -\Omega_\pm^2 \int \frac{d\rho}{\blue{\rho}} \, \Theta_\lambda(\rho,k) \, \widetilde{D}_\pm - \Theta_\lambda(\rho',k). \end{align} \end{subequations} Here, in obtaining eqs.(\ref{DFTheta}) and (\ref{ThetaFD}), we have used eqs.(\ref{Eigen_equation_of_F}) and (\ref{GreenFuncEOM2}), respectively. Eq.(\ref{DFTheta}) and eq.(\ref{ThetaFD}) are equivalent to each other. Actually, this equivalence can be seen easily by what eq.(\ref{DFTheta}) and eq.(\ref{ThetaFD}) can be represented as $\big\langle \widetilde{D}_\pm \big| {\cal F} \big| \Theta_\lambda(\rho,k) \big\rangle$ and $\big\langle \Theta_\lambda(\rho,k) \big| {\cal F} \big| \widetilde{D}_\pm \big\rangle$, respectively. Then, by subtracting these two equations each other, \begin{align} 0 &= \big(\! -\lambda^2+\Omega_\pm^2 \big) \int \frac{d\rho}{\blue{\rho}} \widetilde{D}_\pm \, \Theta_\lambda(\rho,k) + \Theta_\lambda(\rho',k)\nn &= \big(\! -\lambda^2+\Omega_\pm^2 \big) \int \frac{d\rho}{\blue{\rho}} \cdot \int \!d\lambda' \, f_{\lambda',\pm}(\omega,\rho') \Theta_{\lambda'}(\rho,k) \cdot \Theta_\lambda(\rho,k) + \Theta_\lambda(\rho',k)\nn &= \big(\! -\lambda^2+\Omega_\pm^2 \big) \int \!d\lambda' \cdot \int \frac{d\rho}{\blue{\rho}}\, \Theta_{\lambda'}(\rho,k)\Theta_\lambda(\rho,k) \cdot f_{\lambda',\pm}(\omega,\rho') + \Theta_\lambda(\rho',k)\nn &= \big(\! -\lambda^2+\Omega_\pm^2 \big) \int \!d\lambda' \cdot \delta(\lambda'-\lambda) \cdot f_{\lambda',\pm}(\omega,\rho') + \Theta_\lambda(\rho',k)\nn &= \big(\! -\lambda^2+\Omega_\pm^2 \big) \, f_{\lambda,\pm}(\omega,\rho') + \Theta_\lambda(\rho',k). \end{align} In the above, we have used eqs.(\ref{Normalization_condition_of_Theta}) and (\ref{Theta_expansion_of_D}). From the above, $f_{\lambda,\pm}(\omega,\rho')$ can be determined as \begin{align}\label{f_result} f_{\lambda,\pm}(\omega,\rho') = \frac{\Theta_\lambda(\rho',k)}{\lambda^2-\Omega_\pm^2} \equiv \frac{\Theta_\lambda(\rho',k)}{\lambda^2-\Omega^2}. \end{align} In the above, we have regarded $\Omega_+^2$ and $\Omega_-^2$ as the same each other, and written as $\Omega^2 \equiv \Omega_+^2=\Omega_-^2$. Because the integrations of $f_{\lambda,+}(\omega,\rho')$ and $f_{\lambda,-}(\omega,\rho')$ with regard to $\omega$ in eq.(\ref{Fourier_trans}) do not produce any difference under the transformation $\omega \rightarrow -\omega$. Namely, \begin{align} D_+(x-x') &= \int \! \frac{d\omega \, d^2k_\perp}{(2\pi)^3} \, \cdot \int \! d\lambda \, \frac{\Theta_\lambda(\rho',k)\, \Theta_\lambda(\rho,k)}{\lambda^2-\omega (\omega - 2\mu)} \, e^{i\,\big(\omega \, (\eta-\eta') - k\!_\perp (x\!_\perp-x\!_\perp')\big)}\nn &= \int \! \frac{d\omega \, d^2k_\perp}{(2\pi)^3} \, \cdot \int \! d\lambda \, \frac{\Theta_\lambda(\rho',k)\, \Theta_\lambda(\rho,k)}{\lambda^2-\omega (\omega + 2\mu)} \, e^{i\,\big(\omega \, (\eta-\eta') - k\!_\perp (x\!_\perp-x\!_\perp')\big)}\nn &= D_-(x-x'). \end{align} As a result, we can put $\Omega_\pm^2 \equiv \Omega^2$. Correspondingly, there is no difference between $\widetilde{D}_+$ and $\widetilde{D}_-$. Hence, we put $\widetilde{D}_\pm \equiv \widetilde{D}$ and $D_\pm \equiv D$. Now, substituting eq.(\ref{f_result}) into eq.(\ref{Theta_expansion_of_D}), we can write $\widetilde{D}$ as \begin{align} \widetilde{D} &= \int \! d\lambda \,\frac{\Theta_\lambda(\rho',k)\Theta_\lambda(\rho,k)}{\lambda^2-\Omega^2}. \end{align} \newline Finally, the effective action $W$ can be written as \begin{align}\label{W_Dpm2} W = i\, V \blue{\gamma} \! \int \! \frac{dk^3}{(2\pi)^3} \int^{M^2}_0 \!\!\! d\Delta^2 \, \widetilde{D}. \end{align} \subsection{Calculation with the Euclidianization} Now that $\widetilde{D}_\pm=\widetilde{D}$ have been obtained, backing to eq.(\ref{W_Dpm}), we perform the integrations. We start with performing the Wick rotation toward the $\eta$-direction. At this time, the metric given in eq.(\ref{Rindler_metric}) changes to \begin{align} ds_E^2=\rho^2d\eta^2+d\rho^2+dx\!_\perp^2. \end{align} We can see from this form that the $\eta$-direction is $S^1$-compactified with the period $\beta=2\pi$. Then, the following replacement arises: \begin{align} V \equiv \int d^3x \, \gamma \rightarrow -i \beta \int d^2x\!_\perp \, \gamma_E \equiv -i \beta \, V_E \end{align} with \begin{align} \gamma &\equiv \sqrt{-g} \rightarrow \gamma_E \equiv \sqrt{g} = \rho, \\ \int d \omega &\rightarrow \frac{2\pi i}{\beta} \sum_n \quad \textrm{and} \quad \omega \rightarrow \omega_n = n, \end{align} where $V$ is defined first under eq.(\ref{TrToInt}), and the reason for $\omega_n = n$ is that, generally, $\omega_n$ in the $S^1$-compactification with a period $R$ is given as $\omega_n = 2 \pi n/R$, and in our situation $R=2\pi$. Correspondingly, the values $\Omega$ takes are discretized, and we change the notation of $\Omega$ as $\Omega \rightarrow \Omega_{n}$. As a result, the effective potential $\Gamma$ defined as $W_E \equiv \beta \, V_E \, \Gamma$ with $\exp(iW) \equiv \exp(-W_E)$ can be obtained as \begin{align}\label{Gamma01} \Gamma=& \,\, \frac{\blue{\rho}}{\pi^3} \sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty \int \! \frac{d^2k\!_\perp}{(2\pi)^2} \int^{M^2}_0 \!\!\! d\Delta^2 \int \! d\lambda \, \black{\lambda} \, \sinh(\pi \lambda) \, \frac{K_{i\lambda}^2(\kappa\blue{\rho})}{\lambda^2-\Omega_{n}^2} \nn =& \,\, \frac{\blue{\rho}}{2\pi^3} \int \! d \lambda \, \black{\lambda} \, \sinh(\pi \lambda) \, \Phi \! \int \! dk \, k \Psi. \end{align} In the above, $d^2k\!_\perp=2\pi k dk$~($0 \le k \le \infty$), \begin{align}\label{Psi_def} \Psi \equiv \int^{M^2}_0 \!\! d\Delta^2 \, K_{i\lambda}^2(\kappa\blue{\rho}), \end{align} and we have evaluated the summation of $n$ as \begin{align}\label{summation-n} \sum^{\infty}_{n=-\infty} \frac{1}{\lambda^2-\Omega_{n}^2} =& \,\, \frac{\pi}{\sqrt{\lambda^2+\mu^2}} \Big( \coth \big(\pi (\mu-\sqrt{\lambda^2+\mu^2}) \big) - \coth \big(\pi (\mu+\sqrt{\lambda^2+\mu^2}) \big) \Big) \nn \equiv& \,\, \pi \, \Phi. \end{align} Next, since we finally calculate the critical acceleration of the Bose-Einstein condensation, we focus on the critical moment. The value of the chemical potential at the critical moment is given by $m/a_c$, where $a_c$ is the critical acceleration. We explain this in what follows. \subsection{The chemical potential at the critical moment} Using the effective potential $\Gamma$ given in eq.(\ref{Gamma01}), the particle density $d=-\p \Gamma/\p \mu$ can be written as \begin{align}\label{density1} d = & \, - \frac{\blue{\rho}}{2\pi^3} \int \! d\lambda \, \black{\lambda} \, \sinh(\pi \lambda) \bigg(\frac{\p \Phi}{\p \mu} \int \! dk k \, \Psi + \Phi \int \! dk k \, \frac{\p \Psi}{\p \mu} \bigg). \end{align} Here, to perform $\frac{\p \Psi}{\p \mu}$, we show the $\mu$-dependence of $\Psi$ by expanded it around $\mu=0$ as \begin{align} \Psi =& \, \Psi\Big|_{\mu=0} + \frac{\p \Psi}{\p \mu} \bigg|_{\mu=0} \mu + \frac{1}{2}\frac{\p^2 \Psi}{\p \mu^2} \bigg|_{\mu=0} \mu^2 + \cdots \nn =& \int_0^{m^2} \!\! d \Delta \, K_{i\lambda}^2(\kappa\blue{\rho}) - a^2 K_{i\lambda}^2(\kappa\blue{\rho}) \Big|_{\Delta^2=m^2} \, \mu^2 + \cdots \end{align} with \begin{subequations} \begin{align} \frac{\p \Psi}{\p \mu} \bigg|_{\mu=0} &= \frac{\p M^2}{\p \mu} \frac{\p \Psi}{\p M^2} \bigg|_{\mu=0} = 0,\\ \frac{1}{2}\frac{\p^2 \Psi}{\p \mu^2} \bigg|_{\mu=0} &= \frac{1}{2}\frac{\p }{\p \mu} \bigg(\frac{\p M^2}{\p \mu} \frac{\p \Psi}{\p M^2} \,\bigg)\bigg|_{\mu=0} = -a^2 \frac{\p \Psi}{\p M^2} \bigg|_{\Delta^2=m^2}. \end{align} \end{subequations} Using the above expansion, we can write the particle density as \begin{align}\label{density2} d =& - \frac{\blue{\rho}}{2\pi^3} \int \! d\lambda \, \black{\lambda} \, \sinh(\pi \lambda) \bigg(\frac{\p \Phi}{\p \mu} \int \! dk k \, \Psi - 2 a^2\mu \, \Phi K_{i\lambda}^2(\kappa\rho)\Big|_{\black{\Delta^2=m^2}} \bigg), \end{align} We can always confirm numerically that $\frac{\p \Phi}{\p \mu}<0$ and $\Phi>0$. Further, we can see $\Psi>0$, since the integrand in $\Psi$ is given by the square and the integral direction is positive, as can be seen in eq.(\ref{Psi_def}). Hence, looking at eq.(\ref{density2}), we can say the following two things: When the chemical potential is increased with fixing all the other parameters, the particle density always grows up. On the other hand, when the acceleration is decreased with fixing all the other parameters, the particle density always decreased. Hence, when decreasing the acceleration from higher accelerations, where there is no condensation, say $\alpha=0$, with keeping the particle density to constant, the chemical potential should grow up to keep the particle density to constant. However, as can be seen from eq.(\ref{bound_of_mu}), there is the upper bound for the value the chemical potential can take, which is $m/a$. Hence, when the chemical potential reaches the upper bound in such a situation, $\alpha$ should start to grow up, where $\alpha$ plays the role of the condensation as written under eq.(\ref{phi_def}). Hence, we can see that the value of the chemical potential at the critical moment is $m/a_c$. \subsection{Calculation in the relativistic situation} As mentioned under eq.(\ref{summation-n}), our analysis is the one at the critical moment. Hence, for the reason mentioned above, $m/a_c$ is assigned to the value of the chemical potential with $\alpha=0$ and $\blue{\rho = a_c^{-1}}$. We put an assumption that $m/a_c$ is small. This means that the chemical potential in this study is also small. The situation that $m/a_c$ is small corresponds to the relativistic situation as mentioned in the introduction. In what follows, we use two symbols:~$\mu$,~$\mu'$. $\mu$ means the true chemical potential, where ``true'' means that it has been given at eq.(\ref{Z_DpDp}) and the derivative with regard to $\mu$ can act on. On the other hand, $\mu'$ means just a value $m/a_c$. $\mu'$ is not the chemical potential and the derivative cannot act on. Then, it turns out that we can expand $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ with regard to $\mu$ and $\mu'$ as \begin{subequations}\label{Rel_Expansion1} \begin{align} \label{Expanded_Phi} \Phi =& \,\, \Phi_0+\Phi_2\,\mu^2+\cdots,\\ \label{Expanded_Psi} \Psi =& \,\, \Psi_0\,{\mu'}^2+\Psi_2\,\mu^2+\cdots, \end{align} \end{subequations} where \begin{subequations} \begin{align} \Phi_0 \equiv& \,\, \frac{2}{\lambda} \, \coth (\pi \lambda), \\ \Phi_2 \equiv& \, -\frac{1}{\lambda^3} \Big( {\coth}(\pi \lambda) + \frac{\pi \lambda}{\sinh^2(\pi \lambda)} \big( 1 - 2 \pi \lambda \, \coth(\pi \lambda) \big) \Big),\\ \Psi_0 \equiv& \, - \! \Psi_2 \equiv a_c^2 \, K_{i \lambda}(k/a_c). \end{align} \end{subequations} At this time, substituting (\ref{Expanded_Phi}) and (\ref{Expanded_Psi}) into eq.(\ref{Gamma01}), $\Gamma$ at the critical moment in the relativistic situation is given as \begin{align}\label{Gamma02} \Gamma = \, \frac{1}{2\blue{a_c}\pi^3} \int \! d \lambda \, \black{\lambda} \, \black{\sinh(\pi \lambda)} \int \! dk \, \black{k} \left( \Phi_0\Psi_0\,\mu'{}^2+\Phi_0\Psi_2\,\mu^2 \right). \end{align} \section{The particle density and critical acceleration} We now obtain the particle density $d = - \p \Gamma/\p \mu$ using eq.(\ref{Gamma02}) as \begin{align}\label{density01} d =& \, - \frac{\mu}{\blue{a_c}\,\pi^3}\int_0^\infty d\lambda \lambda \sinh(\pi \lambda) \int \! dk k \, \Phi_0\Psi_2\nn =& \, \frac{2\, \blue{a_c}\,\mu}{\pi^3}\int_0^\infty d\lambda \, \cosh(\pi \lambda) \int \! dk k \, K_{i\lambda}^2(k/a_c)\nn =& \, \frac{\blue{a_c^3}\, \mu}{\pi^2}\int d\lambda \, \lambda \, \coth \, (\pi \lambda), \end{align} where, in the above calculation, we have used $\sinh(\pi \lambda) \, \Phi_0 = \frac{2}{\lambda} \cosh(\pi \lambda)$, and performed the integration with regard to $k$ as $\displaystyle \int dk k \, K_{i\lambda}^2(k/a) = \frac{ \pi \lambda}{2}\,a_c^2\,{\rm csch}(\pi \lambda)$. Writing $\coth(\pi \lambda)=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{e^{2\pi \lambda}-1}$ in eq.(\ref{density01}), we can see that the contribution from the $1/2$ diverges. A similar divergence appeared in a similar scalar field model with ours~\cite{Castorina:2012yg}, which was canceled by a mass renormalization. There also appeared the divergence in the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model in the accelerating frame~\cite{Ohsaku:2004rv,Ebert:2006bh}, which was contained by a cutoff. We may be also able to show that the $1/2$ can be canceled by some regularization. However there are some unclear points in its physical meaning. The source of the divergence can be thought clearly as the ultra divergence in the one-loop order. Because our analysis can be regraded as an one-loop calculation from eq.(\ref{one-loop}), and $\lambda$ can be regarded as some momentum from eq.(\ref{Eigen_equation_of_F}). However, if we perform a mass renormalization by replacing $m^2$ with $m_0^2+\delta m^2$ toward the $m$ in the replacement of $\mu = m/a_c$ to be performed right after this as the critical moment, it seems that the counter term $\delta m^2$ becomes independent of the acceleration. In this case, the counter term determined in the accelerating frame can survive even in the inertial frame, As a result, the consistency in the link between the accelerating and inertial frames in a model is unclear. On the other hand, if we perform the regularization by using a cutoff, how to determine the cutoff concretely is unclear for us at this moment. We do not examine this divergence problem in this paper, and handle it by simply ignoring the $1/2$, considering that it is canceled by some regularization. As a result, by putting $\mu = m/a_c$ as the critical moment, we can obtain the particle density as $d = {\blue{a_c^2} \, m}/{24\pi^2}$. Hence we can obtain the critical acceleration as \begin{align}\label{result} \blue{a_c = 2 \, \pi \,\sqrt{\frac{6d}{m}}.} \end{align} For the actual observation, we show the result in the MKS units as \begin{align} \blue{a_c = \, 2 \, \pi \, \sqrt{c^3\hbar\,\frac{6d}{m}} \,\approx 32.763\,\sqrt{2\pi}\,\sqrt{\frac{d}{m}} \,\, \big[ {\rm cm}/{\rm s}^2 \big],} \end{align} where $d$ and $m$ in the last equation are the number of particle in a centimeter unit cube and the weight of particle measured by kilogram, respectively. \section{Remark} In this paper, based on the thermal excitation brought into by the Unruh effect, we have calculated the critical acceleration at which the Bose-Einstein condensation starts to occur, as in eq.(\ref{result}). The system we have considered is an ideal gas composed of a complex scalar particle in the uniformly accelerating Minkowski space-time at zero-temperature. To this purpose, we have considered a free complex scalar field at finite density given in eq.(\ref{action}) in the Rindler space given in eq.(\ref{Rindler_metric}), and adopted an expression as in eqs.(\ref{BEC_representation1}) and (\ref{BEC_representation2}) to describe the Bose-Einstein condensation. In our analysis, we have given the space-time integration in the action as the one without the $\rho$-integration to fix the acceleration and the Unruh temperature. This is different point from refs.\cite{Ohsaku:2004rv,Ebert:2006bh,Castorina:2012yg}. If performing the analysis like them, there will be no difference in the final result. However, it is thought that we should describe explicitly that the space-time integration in the action is the one without the $\rho$-integration to make clear the physical meaning. To carry out the calculation, we have picked up the leading terms in the integrals (\ref{Rel_Expansion1}). As a result, we could obtain a result as in eq.(\ref{result}). This manipulation means to assume that the complex scalar field considered in this paper has the critical temperature for the Bose-Einstein condensation in the temperature region $k_B T/2 \gg mc^2$, which is the relativistic situation that the particle's thermal motion energy is much higher than its static energy at the critical moment. We can consider the analysis in another extremal region such as the non-relativistic situation in which the particle's thermal motion energy at the critical moment is much less than the particle's static energy as $k_B T/2 \ll mc^2$, where this $T$ is around $T_c$. However, the middle calculations appearing in the expansion in this limit are very complicated, and the analysis in this limit is technically difficult. We take this to a future work. Furthermore, the problem on the divergence in eq.(\ref{density01}) has not been examined in this paper. We also take this to a future work. However, as mentioned in the introduction, there are papers concluding that the Unruh effect does not contribute to the restoration of the spontaneous symmetry breaking~\cite{Hill:1985wi}. The system in these papers is not the finite density unlike us, and their conclusion would not be applied to our study readily. However, we can see intuitively that the situation which our study and the refs.\cite{Ohsaku:2004rv, Ebert:2006bh, Castorina:2012yg} can lead is strange. Because, for a situation, it can be observed in different ways depending on the frame in which the observer stays. For example, for an observer in an inertial frame, it can be observed as a Bose-Einstein condensation state. But for an accelerating observer, it can be observed as an normal gas. Therefore they might be right after all. If we perform this study more, before that, it is thought that we should make clear whether their conclusion can hold or not in the finite density models like ours. \newline In Ref.\cite{Kapusta:2006pm}, a critical temperature has been obtained in the same model with ours but the background space-time is taken to the Euclid space at finite temperature. Their result is $\sqrt{3d/m}$ as written there, and we can see that there is difference from our result in the factor. We think that this discrepancy originates in the difference between the Rindler space that has the event-horizons and the Euclid space and what our calculation has been performed only in the right wedge of the Rindler space. We can see from our result that the critical acceleration rooted in the thermal excitation brought into by the Unruh effect has different behavior from the critical temperature obtained by the true thermal excitation in the flat space. We may expect from this that the observational data's behaviors of the critical temperatures measured in the accelerating and the flat static frames are different each other. It would be interesting, if we can find this discrepancy in the experiments. However, on the other hand, we think at last that the significance of this study would be what we could recognize a puzzle mentioned above. \paragraph*{Acknowledgment.---} The author thanks Seckson Sukhasena for various things, Sujiphat Janaun who had discussions on the manuscript and checked it and Robert Soldati who informed me about very interesting papers. Lastly, the author would like to thank to the Institute for Fundamental Study and Naresuan University. \newpage
\section{Introduction} \label{Intro} \setcounter{equation}{0} {\betti In this paper we study} the {\juerg system} of partial differential equations \Begin{eqnarray} && \a \partial_t\mu + \partial_t\phi - \Delta\mu = p(\phi) (\sigma - \gamma\mu) \label{Iprima} \\ && \mu = \b\partial_t\phi - \Delta\phi + F'(\phi) \label{Iseconda} \\ && \partial_t\sigma - \Delta\sigma = - p(\phi) (\sigma - \gamma\mu), \label{Iterza} \End{eqnarray} together with the boundary and initial conditions \Begin{eqnarray} && \partial_\nu\mu = \partial_\nu\phi = \partial_\nu\sigma = 0 \label{Ibc} \\ && \mu(0) = \mu_0, \quad \phi(0) = \phi_0 \quad\hbox{and}\quad \sigma(0) = \sigma_0 \,. \label{Icauchy} \End{eqnarray} \Accorpa\Ipbl Iprima Icauchy Each of the partial differential equations \accorpa{Iprima}{Iterza} is meant to hold in a three-dimensional bounded domain $\Omega${\color{black} ,} endowed with a smooth boundary~$\Gamma${\color{black} ,} and for every positive time, and $\partial_\nu$ in \eqref{Ibc} stands for the {\juerg outward} normal derivative on~$\Gamma$. Moreover, $\a$~and $\b$ are nonnegative parameters, strictly positive in principle, while $\gamma$ is a strictly positive constant. Furthermore, $p$~is a nonnegative function, and {\betti $F$ is a nonnegative potential}. Finally, $\mu_0$, ${\color{black} \phi_0}$ and $\sigma_0$ are given initial data defined in~$\Omega$. {\betti The physical context of this paper is that of {\juerg tumor growth} dynamics. This topic {\juerg has in recent years become of big interest} in applied mathematics, especially {\juerg after continuum models were} developed (cf., e.g., \cite{CL,Letal}). {\juerg The fact that multiple constituents interact with each other made it necessary} to consider diffuse interface models based on continuum mixture theory (cf., e.g., \cite{CBCB,CLLW,Fetal,HPZO,OHP,WLFC}). These models consist of a Cahn--Hilliard type equation (in general with transport) containing reaction terms {\juerg that depend on the nutrient concentration (e.g.~oxygen) and in turn obey} an advection-reaction-diffusion equation. Even {\juerg though} numerical simulations of these models have already been carried out in several papers (cf., e.g., \cite[Chapter~8]{CL} and references therein), the rigorous mathematical analysis of the resulting PDEs systems is still very poor. To our knowledge, the first results are related to the so-called Cahn--Hilliard--Hele--Shaw system (cf., e.g., \cite{LTZ,WZ}) {\juerg in which} the nutrient is neglected, while two very recent contributions \cite{CGH} and \cite{FGR} (cf. also \cite{HKNV}, where formal studies on the corresponding sharp interface limits are performed) deal with a model recently proposed in \cite{HZO} (or approximations {\juerg thereof}, see also \cite{WZZ}), where the velocities are set to zero and the state variables are the tumor fraction $\varphi$ and the nutrient-rich concentration $\sigma$. We can set $\phi\simeq 1$ in the tumorous phase and $\phi\simeq -1$ in the healthy cell phase, while $\sigma$ {\juerg typically satisfies} $\sigma\simeq 1$ in a nutrient-rich extracellular water phase and $\sigma\simeq 0$ in a nutrient-poor extracellular water phase. Moreover, the third unknown $\mu$ is the related chemical potential, specified by \eqref{Iseconda} as in the case of the viscous Cahn--Hilliard or Cahn--Hilliard equation, depending on whether $\b>0 $ or $\b=0$ (see \cite{CH, EllSt, EllZh}). {\juerg In addition, in \cite{CGH} the PDE system \Ipbl\ was studied for the very particular case that $\a=\b$, and the asymptotic analysis as the coefficient $\a=\b$ tends to zero was performed, yielding the convergence of subsequences to weak solutions of the limit problem; moreover, in \cite{FGR} the existence of weak solutions, as well as uniqueness and existence of attractors, was proved directly} for the limit system where $\a=\b=0$ (cf.~also the following comments in this Introduction).} In the case $\a=0$, the sub-system \accorpa{Iprima}{Iseconda} becomes of viscous or pure Cahn--Hilliard type, depending on whether $\b>0$ or $\b=0$. On the other hand, {\juerg in the case} $\a>0$ the presence of the term $\alpha\partial_t\mu$ in \eqref{Iprima} gives a parabolic structure to equation~\eqref{Iprima} with respect to $\mu$. We remark that the original model deals with functions $F$~and $p$ that are precisely related to each other. Namely, we~have \Begin{equation} p(u) = 2p_0 \sqrt{F(u)} \quad \hbox{if $|u|\leq 1$} \quad\hbox{and}\quad p(u) = 0 \quad \hbox{otherwise,} \label{relazWp} \End{equation} where $p_0$ is a positive constant and $F(u)$ is the classical Cahn--Hilliard double-well free energy density. However, this relation is useless in many aspects of the mathematical study. Moreover, one can allow $F$ to be even a singular potential. {\juerg As mentioned above, \cite{CGH}~just deals with the case $\a=\b$ for the mathematical study, although the constants $\a$ and $\b$ have a different meaning. In that paper, the existence of a unique solution to the system~\Ipbl\ was proved under very general conditions on $p$ and~$F$, and, in the same framework, the long-time behavi\our\ of the solution was discussed. In addition, in a more restricted setting for the double-well potential~$F$, \cite{CGH}~investigated the asymptotic behavi\our\ of the problem as the coefficient $\a=\b$ tends to zero, finding} the convergence of subsequences to weak solutions of the limit problem. Moreover, under a smoothness condition on the initial values{\color{black} ,} uniqueness for the limit problem {\juerg was} proved and, consequently, also the convergence of the entire family. It must be pointed out that a uniqueness result {\juerg was} proved in \cite{FGR} under weaker assumptions. In the present paper, we first extend some of the results of \cite{CGH}. Namely, we let the positive parameters $\a$ and $\b$ be independent from each other, and we weaken the assumptions on the initial data {\juerg while} keeping the potential as general as possible. At the same time, we establish a general a priori estimate that is uniform with respect to the parameters $\a$ and~$\b$. This is the starting point of possible asympotic analyses with respect to {\juerg these} parameters. Then, we confine ourselves to a class of regular potentials. In this framework, we state a convergence result as both $\a$ and $\b$ tend to zero independently, and we prove an error estimate in terms of $\a$ and $\b$ for the difference of the solution to \Ipbl\ and the one of the limit problem. The case of just one of the parameters tending to zero is the subject of a work in progress. {\color{black} Let us express our belief {\color{black} that the results of} the present paper are general and interesting enough so that methods and estimates could be extended to other situations. In particular, in case of the trivial choice $p\equiv 0$ (admitted by our assumption \eqref{hpconst}) our system \eqref{Iprima}--\eqref{Iterza} decouples and \eqref{Iprima}--\eqref{Iseconda} reduces to a well-known phase field system of Caginalp tye which can be seen as a (doubly) viscous approximation of the Cahn--Hilliard system obtained at the limit as $\alpha $ and $\beta$ go to zero. To this concern, let us quote the papers \cite{DHK, DHL, Ros1, Ros2}, where different investigations on this kind of viscous approximations of Cahn--Hilliard system are performed, and point out that the results contained in \cite{Ros1} are here generalized and somehow improved.} Our paper is organi\sz ed as follows. In the next section, we will state the assumptions and our results on the mathematical problem. In Section~\ref{EXTENSIONS}, we will prove the extensions mentioned above. The last section is devoted to the asymptotic analysis and the error estimate. In the {\juerg remainder} of the paper, we take $\gamma=1$, without loss of generality. \section{Statement of the problem and results} \label{STATEMENT} \setcounter{equation}{0} In this section, we make precise assumptions and state our results. As in the Introduction, $\Omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^3$ {\juerg denotes} the domain where the evolution takes place and $\Gamma$ {\color{black} is} {\juerg its} boundary. We assume $\Omega$ to be open, bounded, and connected, and $\Gamma$ to be smooth. Moreover, the symbol $\partial_\nu$ denotes the {\juerg outward} normal derivative on~$\Gamma$. Given a final time~$T$, we~set \Begin{equation} Q := \Omega\times(0,T) \quad\hbox{and}\quad \Sigma := \Gamma \times (0,T) . \label{defQ} \End{equation} Moreover, we set for brevity \Begin{equation} V := \Hx 1, \quad H := \Lx 2 , \quad\hbox{and}\quad W := \graffe{v\in\Hx 2:\ \partial_\nu v = 0 \ \hbox{on $\Gamma$}}, \label{defspazi} \End{equation} and endow {\color{black} these spaces with their} standard norms. For the norm in a generic Banach space~$X$ (or~a power of~it), we use the symbol~$\norma\,\cdot\,_X$ with the following exceptions: we simply write $\norma\,\cdot\,_p$ and $\normaVp\,\cdot\,$ if $X=\Lx p$ or $X=\LQ p$ for $p\in[1,+\infty]$ and $X=V^*$, the dual space of~$V$, respectively. Finally, it is understood that {\juerg $H$ is embedded in $V^*$ in the usual way, i.e., such} that $\<u,v>=\int_\Omega u\,v\,$ for every $u\in H$ and $v\in V$, where $\<\,\cdot\,,\,\cdot\,>$ stands for the duality pairing between $V^*$ and~$V$. \bigskip As far as the structure of the system is concerned, we are given two constants $\a$ and $\b$ and three functions $p$, $\widehat{\vphantom t\smash B\mskip2mu}\mskip-1mu$ and $\widehat\pi$ satisfying the conditions listed below \Begin{eqnarray} && \a ,\, \b \in (0,1) \label{hpconst} \\ && \hbox{$p:{\mathbb{R}}\to{\betti [0,+\infty)}$ is bounded and Lip\-schitz\ continuous} \label{hpp} \\ && \hbox{$\widehat{\vphantom t\smash B\mskip2mu}\mskip-1mu:{\mathbb{R}}\to[0,+\infty]$ is convex, proper, lower semicontinuous} \qquad \label{hpBeta} \\ && \hbox{$\widehat\pi\in C^1({\mathbb{R}})$ is nonnegative, and $\pi:=\widehat\pi\,'$ is Lip\-schitz\ continuous}. \label{hpPi} \End{eqnarray} We also define the potential $F:{\mathbb{R}}\to[0,+\infty]$ and the graph $B$ in ${\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{R}}$ by \Begin{equation} F := \widehat{\vphantom t\smash B\mskip2mu}\mskip-1mu + \widehat\pi \quad\hbox{and}\quad B := \partial\widehat{\vphantom t\smash B\mskip2mu}\mskip-1mu . \label{defWbeta} \End{equation} \Accorpa\HPstruttura hpconst defWbeta We notice that {\juerg if $F$ is a $C^2$ function then} our assumptions imply that $F''$ is bounded from below. We also remark that $B$ is maximal monotone. In the {\juerg following}, we write $D(\widehat{\vphantom t\smash B\mskip2mu}\mskip-1mu)$ and $D(B)$ for the effective domains of~$\widehat{\vphantom t\smash B\mskip2mu}\mskip-1mu$ and~$B$, respectively, and we use the same symbol $B$ for the maximal monotone operators induced on $L^2$ spaces. \Begin{remark}\rm \label{CompatWp} We notice that, among many others, the most important and typical examples of potentials fit our assumptions. Namely, we can take as $F$ the classical double-well potential and as the logarithmic {\juerg potential, which are} defined~by \Begin{eqnarray} \hskip-.8cm && F_{cl}(r) := {\textstyle \frac 14} (r^2-1)^2 = {\textstyle \frac 14} ((r^2-1)^+)^2 + {\textstyle \frac 14} ((1-r^2)^+)^2 \quad \hbox{for $r\in{\mathbb{R}}$} \label{clW} \\ \hskip-.8cm && F_{log}(r) := (1-r)\ln(1-r) + (1+r)\ln(1+r) + \kappa (1 - r^2 )^+ \quad \hbox{for $|r|<1$}, \qquad \label{logW} \End{eqnarray} where the decomposition $F=\widehat{\vphantom t\smash B\mskip2mu}\mskip-1mu+\widehat\pi$ as in \eqref{defWbeta} is written {\juerg explicitly}. In \eqref{logW}, $\kappa$~is a positive constant which{\juerg, depending on its value, does or does not provide a double well}, and the definition of the logarithmic part of $F_{log}$ is extended by continuity {\juerg to} $\pm1$ and by $+\infty$ outside~$[-1,1]$. Moreover, another possible choice is \Begin{equation} F(r) := I(r) + ((1 - r^2)^+)^2 \quad \hbox{for $r\in{\mathbb{R}}$}, \label{irrW} \End{equation} where $I$ is the indicator function of $[-1,1]$, {\juerg which takes} the value $0$ in $[-1,1] $ and $+\infty$ elsewhere. {\juerg For such an irregular potential, the associated} subdifferential is multi-valued, and the precise statement of problem \Ipbl\ has to introduce a selection $\xi$ of~$B(u)$. \End{remark} As far as the initial data of our problem are concerned, we assume that \Begin{equation} {\betti \sqrt{\alpha}} \, \mu_0 \, , \, \sigma_0 \in H , \quad \phi_0 \in V, \quad\hbox{and}\quad F(\phi_0) \in \Lx 1 , \label{hpdati} \End{equation} while the regularity properties {\juerg postulated} for the solution are the following: \Begin{eqnarray} && \mu , \sigma \in \H1V^* \cap \L2V \label{regmusigma} \\ && \phi \in \H1H \cap \L2W \label{regphi} \\ && \xi \in \L2H , \quad\hbox{and}\quad \xi \in B(u) \quad \checkmmode{a.e.\ in~$Q$} . \label{regxi} \End{eqnarray} \Accorpa\Regsoluz regmusigma regxi We notice that \accorpa{regmusigma}{regphi} imply {\juerg that} $\mu,\sigma\in\C0H$ and $\phi\in\C0V$. At this point, we consider the problem of finding a quadruplet $(\mu,\phi,\sigma,\xi)$ with the above regularity in order that $(\mu,\phi,\sigma,\xi)$ and the related function \Begin{equation} R = p(\phi) (\sigma - \mu) \label{defR} \End{equation} satisfy the system \Begin{eqnarray} \hskip-1cm && \a \< \partial_t\mu , v > + \int_\Omega \partial_t\phi \, v + \int_\Omega \nabla\mu \cdot \nabla v = \int_\Omega R v \non \\ && \quad \hbox{for every $v\in V$, \ \checkmmode{a.e.\ in~$(0,T)$}} \label{prima} \\ [3pt] && \mu = \b\partial_t\phi - \Delta\phi + \xi + \pi(\phi) \quad\hbox{and}\quad \xi \in B(\phi) \quad \checkmmode{a.e.\ in~$Q$} \label{seconda} \\ && \< \partial_t\sigma , v > + \int_\Omega \nabla\sigma \cdot \nabla v = - \int_\Omega R v \non \\ && \quad \hbox{for every $v\in V$, \ \checkmmode{a.e.\ in~$(0,T)$}} \label{terza} \\ [3pt] && \mu(0) = \mu_0, \quad \phi(0) = \phi_0 \quad\hbox{and}\quad \sigma(0) = \sigma_0 \,. \label{cauchy} \End{eqnarray} \Accorpa\Pbl defR cauchy \Accorpa\Tuttopbl regmusigma cauchy This is a weak formulation of the boundary value problem \Ipbl\ described in the Introduction. The homogeneous Neumann boundary condition for $\phi$ is contained in~\eqref{regphi} (see \eqref{defspazi} for the definition of~$W$), while the analogous ones for $\mu$ and $\sigma$ are meant in a generali\sz ed sense through the variational equations \eqref{prima} and~\eqref{terza}. We notice once and for all that {\color{black} the addition} of \eqref{prima} and~\eqref{terza} yields \Begin{equation} \< \partial_t \bigl( \a \mu + \phi + \sigma \bigr) , v > + \int_\Omega \nabla (\mu + \sigma) \cdot \nabla v = 0 \label{unomenotre} \End{equation} for every $v\in V$, \checkmmode{a.e.\ in~$(0,T)$}. We also set for convenience \Begin{equation} {\bet S} = \sqrt{p(\phi)} \, (\sigma - \mu) \,. \label{defRp} \End{equation} Our first results deal with {\juerg the well-posedness of} the above problem and general a priori estimates. Namely, we have: \Begin{theorem} \label{Wellposedness} Assume \HPstruttura\ and \eqref{hpdati}. Then, for every $\a,\b\in(0,1)$, there exists a unique quadruplet $(\mu,\phi,\sigma,\xi)$ satisfying \Regsoluz\ and solving problem \Pbl. \End{theorem} \Begin{theorem} \label{GenEst} Assume \HPstruttura\ and \eqref{hpdati}. Then, for some constant $\widehat C$ that depends only on $\Omega$, $T$ and the {\betti shapes of~$\pi$ and $p$}, the following is {\juerg true: for} every $\a,\b\in(0,1)$, the solution $(\mu,\phi,\sigma,\xi)$ to problem \Pbl\ with the regularity specified by~\Regsoluz\ satisfies \Begin{eqnarray} && \a^{1/2} \norma\mu_{\spazio L\infty H} + \norma{\nabla\mu}_{\L2H} \non \\ && \quad {} + \b^{1/2} \norma{\partial_t\phi}_{\L2H} + \norma\phi_{\spazio L\infty V} + \norma{F(\phi)}_{\spazio L\infty\Lx 1}^{1/2} \non \\ && \quad {} + \norma\sigma_{\H1V^*\cap\spazio L\infty H\cap\L2V} + \norma{\bet S}_{\L2H} + \norma R_{\L2H} \non \\ && \quad {} + \norma{\partial_t(\a\mu+\phi)}_{\L2V^*} \non \\ && \leq \widehat C \, \bigl( \a^{1/2} \normaH\mu_0 + \normaV\phi_0 + \norma{F(\phi_0)}_{\Lx 1}^{1/2} + \normaH\sigma_0 \bigr) \label{genest} \End{eqnarray} as well~as \Begin{eqnarray} && \norma\mu_{\L2V} + \norma\phi_{\L2W} + \norma\xi_{\L2H} \non \\ && \leq \widehat C \, \bigl( \a^{1/2} \normaH\mu_0 + \normaV\phi_0 + \norma{F(\phi_0)}_{\Lx 1}^{1/2} + \normaH\sigma_0 + \norma\mu_{\L2H} + 1 \bigr) . \qquad \label{genestbis} \End{eqnarray} \End{theorem} Thus, a uniform estimate for the left-hand side\ of \eqref{genest} holds in terms of the norms of the initial data related to~\eqref{hpdati}, while an estimate for the left-hand side\ of \eqref{genestbis} follows whenever a bound for $\norma\mu_{\L2H}$ {\juerg has been} proved. \Begin{remark}\rm \label{WellposCGH} We note that Theorems~\ref{Wellposedness} and~\ref{GenEst} improve the results of~\cite{CGH}, since the stronger assumption made there, \Begin{equation} \mu_0, \phi_0, \sigma_0 \in V \quad\hbox{and}\quad F(\phi_0) \in \Lx 1, \label{hpdatiCGH} \End{equation} is now replaced by~\eqref{hpdati} (and also since just the case $\a=\b$ is dealt with in~\cite{CGH}). \End{remark} Our next results regard the asymptotic analysis as the coefficients $\a$ and $\b$ tend to zero, independently. To this end, we restrict ourselves to a particular class of potentials. Namely, we also assume~that {\betti \Begin{equation} \gianni{% D(\widehat{\vphantom t\smash B\mskip2mu}\mskip-1mu) = {\mathbb{R}} \quad\hbox{and}\quad |B^\circ(r)|\leq C\left(\widehat B(r)+1\right) \quad \hbox{for every $r\in{\mathbb{R}}$,} } \label{hpBbase} \End{equation} where $B^\circ$ is the element of $B$ with minimal norm and $C$ is a given positive constant. Let us note {\juerg that, for example, all polynomially growing potentials, as well as exponential functions,} comply with our assumption \eqref{hpBbase}}. {\color{black} Let us point out that \eqref{hpBbase} implies (actually, it is equivalent to) the condition \Begin{equation} D(\widehat{\vphantom t\smash B\mskip2mu}\mskip-1mu) = {\mathbb{R}}, \quad |s|\leq C\left(\widehat B(r)+1\right) \quad \hbox{for all $r\in{\mathbb{R}}$, $s\in B (r)$} \label{hp-pier} \End{equation} for the same constant $C$, as checked precisely in the next remark.} {\color{black} \Begin{remark}\rm \label{GenCondCrescita} In fact, a~similar equivalence holds for a more general growth condition and in the general setting of Hilbert spaces, as we show at once. If ${\color{black} X}$~is a Hilbert space, $\widehat{\vphantom t\smash B\mskip2mu}\mskip-1mu : {\color{black} X}\to[0,+\infty)$ is convex and~l.s.c.\ (thus continuous since it is everywhere defined), $B :=\partial\widehat{\vphantom t\smash B\mskip2mu}\mskip-1mu$ and, for every $u\in {\color{black} X}$, $B^\circ(u)$~is the element of $B (u)$ having {\color{black} minimal} norm, the assumption \Begin{equation} \normaX{B^\circ(u)} \leq {\color{black} \Psi} (\widehat{\vphantom t\smash B\mskip2mu}\mskip-1mu(u)) \quad \hbox{for every $u\in {\color{black} X}$,} \non \End{equation} where ${\color{black} \Psi} :[0,+\infty)\to[0,+\infty)$ is continuous, implies \Begin{equation} \normaX{{\color{black}\zeta}} \leq {\color{black} \Psi} (\widehat{\vphantom t\smash B\mskip2mu}\mskip-1mu(u)) \quad \hbox{for every $u\in {\color{black} X}$ and every ${\color{black}\zeta}\in B(u) $}. \non \End{equation} Indeed, for arbitrary $u\in {\color{black} X}$, ${\color{black}\zeta}\in B(u)$ and $\eps>0$, we have \Begin{equation} \bigl( B^\circ(u+\eps{\color{black}\zeta}) - {\color{black}\zeta} , (u+\eps{\color{black}\zeta}) - u \bigr) \geq 0 , \quad \hbox{whence} \quad \normaX{{\color{black}\zeta}} \leq \normaX{B^\circ(u+\eps{\color{black}\zeta})}. \End{equation} By applying our assumption to $u+\eps{\color{black}\zeta}$, we deduce that \Begin{equation} \normaX{{\color{black}\zeta}} \leq {\color{black} \Psi} (\widehat{\vphantom t\smash B\mskip2mu}\mskip-1mu(u+\eps{\color{black}\zeta})). \non \End{equation} By taking $\eps\to0$ and owing to the continuity of ${\color{black} \Psi} \circ\widehat{\vphantom t\smash B\mskip2mu}\mskip-1mu$, we conclude. \End{remark} Now we are ready to state our result on asymptotics. \Begin{theorem} \label{Asymptotics} Assume \HPstruttura\ and {\gianni \eqref{hpBbase} on the structure} and \eqref{hpdati} on the initial data. Moreover, let {\betti $(\mu_{\a,\b},\phi_{\a,\b},\sigma_{\a,\b},\xi_{\alpha,\beta})$} be the unique solution to problem \Pbl\ given by Theorem~\ref{Wellposedness}. Then, we have {\betti that there exists a quadruplet $(\mu,\phi,\sigma,\xi)$ such that} \Begin{eqnarray} & \mu_{\a,\b} \to \mu & \hbox{weakly in $\L2V$} \label{convmu} \\ & \phi_{\a,\b} \to \phi & \hbox{weakly star in $\spazio L\infty V\cap\L2W$} \qquad \label{convphi} \\ & \sigma_{\a,\b} \to \sigma & \hbox{weakly in $\H1V^*\cap\L2V$} \label{convsigma} \\ & \partial_t (\a\mu_{\a,\b}+\phi_{\a,\b}) \to \partial_t\phi & \hbox{weakly in $\L2V^*$} \label{convdt} \\ & {\color{black} \xi_{\a,\b} \to \xi} &{\color{black} \hbox{weakly in $\L2H$}} \label{pier1} \End{eqnarray} at least for a subsequence. Moreover, every limiting {\betti quadruplet $(\mu,\phi,\sigma,\xi)$} satisfies \Begin{eqnarray} & \< \partial_t\phi , v > + \int_\Omega \nabla\mu \cdot \nabla v = \int_\Omega R \, v & \quad \hbox{$\forall\,v\in V$, \ \checkmmode{a.e.\ in~$(0,T)$}} \label{primalim} \\ & \mu = - \Delta\phi {\betti {} + \xi+{\color{black} \pi } (\phi), \quad \xi\in B(\varphi)} & \quad \checkmmode{a.e.\ in~$Q$} \label{secondalim} \\ & \< \partial_t\sigma , v > + \int_\Omega \nabla\sigma \cdot \nabla v = - \int_\Omega R \, v & \quad \hbox{$\forall\,v\in V$, \ \checkmmode{a.e.\ in~$(0,T)$}} \label{terzalim} \\ & \phi(0) = \phi_0 \quad\hbox{and}\quad \sigma(0) = \sigma_0 & \quad \hbox{in $\Omega$} \label{cauchylim} \End{eqnarray} where $R$ is defined by~\eqref{defR}, accordingly. \End{theorem} The above result generali\sz es the analogous \cite[Thm.~2.6]{CGH} as far as the assumptions on the initial data are concerned (and also since just the case $\a=\b$ was considered there). Moreover, {\betti in \cite[Thm.~2.6]{CGH}}, even uniqueness for {\juerg the solution to the limit problem was} proved. However, also for this point, stronger conditions on the initial data are assumed in order that the solution to the limit problem is rather smooth. Here, we can consider the natural regularity requirements,~i.e., \Begin{eqnarray} && \mu \in \L2V \label{regmulim} \\ && \phi \in \H1V^* {\color{black} {} \cap \spazio L\infty V } \cap \L2W \label{regphilim} \\ && \sigma \in \H1V^* \cap \L2V \subset \C0H \,. \label{regsigmalim} \End{eqnarray} \Accorpa\Regsoluzlim regmulim regsigmalim For uniqueness in this framework, we can {\color{black} quote} the even more general result~\cite[Thm.~2]{FGR}. However, uniqueness also follows from the error estimate we present at once (see the forthcoming Remark~\ref{Uniqueness} for details). {\betti In order to state our last result we need to {\color{black} reinforce} the assumptions we made on the potential $F${\color{black} ;} namely, we assume \Begin{eqnarray} D(\widehat{\vphantom t\smash B\mskip2mu}\mskip-1mu) = {\mathbb{R}} \quad\hbox{and}\quad \hbox{$F=\widehat{\vphantom t\smash B\mskip2mu}\mskip-1mu+\widehat\pi$ \enskip is a $C^2$ function on ${\mathbb{R}}$} \qquad\quad \label{ovunque} \\ |F(r)| \leq C_0 (|r|^6 + 1), \quad |F'(r)| \leq C_1 (|r|^5 + 1), \quad\hbox{and}\quad |F''(r)| \leq C_2 (|r|^4 + 1). \quad \hbox{} \label{classico} \End{eqnarray} }% {\juerg Although the third condition in \eqref{classico} implies the other two}, we have written all of them for convenience. We also remark that the classical potential~\eqref{clW} fulfils such assumptions. Furthermore, we notice that \eqref{classico} is slightly more general than the analogous assumption made in \cite[Thm.~2.6]{CGH}. {\betti Finally, we can observe that the exponents in \eqref{classico} are related to the dimension of $\Omega$ and the {\juerg related} Sobolev embeddings}. Here is our last result. \Begin{theorem} \label{Error} Assume \HPstruttura\ and {\betti \accorpa{ovunque}{classico} {\gianni on the structure} and \eqref{hpdati}} {\gianni on the initial data}. Then, with the notation of Theorem~\ref{Asymptotics}, the estimate \begin{align} \norma{\phi_{\a,\b}-\phi}_{\spazio L\inftyV^*\cap\L2V} {\color{black}{} + \norma{\mu_{\a,\b}-\mu}_{\L2V^*}} \non \\ + \norma{\sigma_{\a,\b}-\sigma}_{\spazio L\inftyV^*\cap\L2H} \leq C \, \bigl( \a^{1/2} + \b^{1/2} \bigr) \label{error} \end{align} holds true with a constant $C$ that depends only on~$\Omega$, $T$, the structure of the system, and the norms of the initial data related to assumptions~\eqref{hpdati}, {\betti but not on $\alpha$ nor on $\beta$}. \End{theorem} The rest of the section is devoted to list some facts. We {\juerg make repeated} use of the notation \Begin{equation} Q_t := \Omega \times (0,t) \quad \hbox{for $t\in[0,T]$} \label{defQt} \End{equation} and of well-known\ inequalities, namely, of the elementary Young inequality \Begin{equation} ab \leq \delta a^2 + \frac 1{4\delta} \, b^2 \quad \hbox{for every $a,b\geq 0$ and $\delta>0$} \label{young} \End{equation} {\juerg as well as of H\"older's} inequality and its consequences. Moreover, as $\,\Omega\,$ is bounded and smooth, we can owe to the Poincar\'e and Sobolev type inequalities, namely, \Begin{eqnarray} && \normaV v \leq C \Bigl( \normaH{\nabla v} + \bigl| \textstyle\int_\Omega v \bigr| \Bigr) \quad \hbox{for every $v\in V$} \label{poincare} \\ && V \subset \Lx q \quad\hbox{and}\quad \norma v_q \leq C \normaV v \quad \hbox{for every $v\in V$ and $1\leq q\leq 6$} \label{sobolev} \\ && \Lx q \subset V^* \quad\hbox{and}\quad \normaVp v \leq C \norma v_q \quad \hbox{for every $v\in\Lx q$ and $q\geq 6/5$} \,. \qquad \label{dualsobolev} \End{eqnarray} In \accorpa{poincare}{dualsobolev}, $C$ only depends on~$\Omega$. Finally, we recall the interpolation inequality \Begin{equation} \normaH v^2 \leq \normaV v \, \normaVp v \quad \hbox{for every $v\in V$,} \label{interpol} \End{equation} which trivially follows from the identity $\normaH v^2=\<v,v>$ for every $v\in V$. \section{Proofs of Theorems \ref{Wellposedness} and \ref{GenEst}} \label{EXTENSIONS} \setcounter{equation}{0} We start proving Theorem~\ref{GenEst} in the following form: \accorpa{genest}{genestbis} hold for every $\a$ and $\b$ and every solution to problem \Pbl\ satisfying the regularity specified by~\Regsoluz. We do not know anything about well-posedness yet, indeed. \step First a priori estimate We test \eqref{prima} and \eqref{terza} by $\mu$ and~$\sigma$, respectively, and integrate over~$(0,t)$, where $t\in(0,T)$ is arbitrary. At the same time, we multiply \eqref{seconda} by $-\partial_t\phi$ and integrate over~$Q_t$. Then, we add the resulting equalities to each other, {\betti obtaining} \Begin{eqnarray} && \frac \a 2 \int_\Omega |\mu(t)|^2 + \int_{Q_t} \partial_t\phi \, \mu + \int_{Q_t} |\nabla\mu|^2 \non \\ && \quad {} - \int_{Q_t} \mu \, \partial_t\phi + \b \int_{Q_t} |\partial_t\phi|^2 + \frac 12 \int_\Omega |\nabla\phi(t)|^2 + \int_\Omega F(\phi(t)) \non \\ && \quad {} + \frac 12 \int_\Omega |\sigma(t)|^2 + \int_{Q_t} |\nabla\sigma|^2 + \int_{Q_t} R(\sigma-\mu) \non \\ && = \frac \a 2 \int_\Omega |\mu_0|^2 + \frac 12 \int_\Omega |\nabla\phi_0|^2 + \int_\Omega F(\phi_0) + \frac 12 \int_\Omega |\sigma_0|^2 \,. \non \End{eqnarray} Clearly, two terms cancel out. Moreover, $F$~is nonnegative by assumptions \accorpa{hpBeta}{hpPi}. Finally, we have $R(\sigma-\mu)=|{\bet S}|^2$ and $|R|\leq|{\bet S}|\sup\sqrt p$ \ \checkmmode{a.e.\ in~$Q$}\ with the notation~\eqref{defRp}. Therefore, {\color{black} with the help of \eqref{hpp}} we immediately deduce \Begin{eqnarray} && \a^{1/2} \norma\mu_{\spazio L\infty H} + \norma{\nabla\mu}_{\L2H} \non \\ && \quad {} + \b^{1/2} \norma{\partial_t\phi}_{\L2H} + \norma{\nabla\phi}_{\spazio L\infty H} + \norma{F(\phi)}_{\spazio L\infty\Lx 1}^{1/2} \non \\ && \quad {} + \norma\sigma_{\spazio L\infty H\cap\L2V} + \norma{\bet S}_{\L2H} + \norma R_{\L2H} \non \\ && \leq C \, \bigl( \a^{1/2} \normaH\mu_0 + \normaH{\nabla\phi_0} + \norma{F(\phi_0)}_{\Lx 1}^{1/2} + \normaH\sigma_0 \bigr) \label{quasigenest} \End{eqnarray} {\color{black} for some} {\gianni constant~$C$ that depends only on $p$}. Thus, in order to prove~\eqref{genest}, we have to complete the full norm of $\phi$ and estimate the {\juerg terms} that are missing in~\eqref{quasigenest}. \step Second a priori estimate We estimate the mean value of~$\phi$ by testing \eqref{unomenotre} by $v=1$. We obtain, for every $t\in[0,T]$, \Begin{equation} \int_\Omega \bigl( \a\mu(t) + \phi(t) + \sigma(t) \bigr) = \int_\Omega \bigl( \a\mu_0 + \phi_0 + \sigma_0 \bigr) \leq |\Omega|^{1/2} \normaH{\a\mu_0 + \phi_0 + \sigma_0} \non \End{equation} and deduce that (since $\alpha<1$) \Begin{equation} \Bigl| \int_\Omega \phi(t) \Bigr| \leq C_\Omega \bigl( \a^{1/2} \normaH\mu_0 + \normaH\phi_0 + \normaH\sigma_0 + \a^{1/2} \normaH{\mu(t)} + \normaH{\sigma(t)} \bigr), \label{estmeanphi} \End{equation} where $C_\Omega$ depends only on~$\Omega$. \step Third a priori estimate We test \eqref{terza}, written at the time $t$, with $v(t)$, where $v$ is arbitrary in $\L2V$. Then we integrate over~$(0,T)$ with respect to~$t$ and obtain \Begin{equation} \Bigl| \int_0^T \<\partial_t\sigma(t) , v(t) > \, dt \Bigr| \leq \bigl( \norma{\nabla\sigma}_{\L2H} + \norma R_{\L2H} \bigr) \norma v_{\L2V} \,. \non \End{equation} This means that \Begin{equation} \norma{\partial_t\sigma}_{\L2V^*} \leq \norma{\nabla\sigma}_{\L2H} + \norma R_{\L2H} \,. \label{estdtsigma} \End{equation} \step Fourth a priori estimate Similarly, we test \eqref{unomenotre}, written at the time $t$, by~$v(t)$, where $v$ is arbitrary in $\L2V$. We obtain \Begin{equation} \Bigl| \int_0^T \<\partial_t(\a\mu+\phi)(t) , v(t) > \, dt \Bigr| \leq \Bigl| \int_0^T \<\partial_t\sigma(t) , v(t) > \, dt \Bigr| + \norma{\nabla(\mu+\sigma)}_{\L2H} \norma v_{\L2V}\,, \non \End{equation} whence immediately \Begin{equation} \norma{\partial_t(\a\mu+\phi)}_{\L2V^*} \leq \norma{\partial_t\sigma}_{\L2V^*} + \norma{\nabla\mu}_{\L2H} + \norma{\nabla\sigma}_{\L2H} . \label{estdtaltro} \End{equation} \step First conclusion We combine \accorpa{quasigenest}{estdtaltro} with the Poincar\'e inequality~\eqref{poincare} applied to $\phi$ and immediately deduce~\eqref{genest} with a constant $\widehat C$ that depends only on {\betti $p$,} $\Omega$ and~$T$. \step Fifth a priori estimate and conclusion By estimate~\eqref{genest} and the Lip\-schitz\ continuity of~$\pi$, we deduce {\juerg that} \Begin{equation} \norma{\pi(\phi)}_{\L2H} \leq \widehat C \, \bigl( \a^{1/2} \normaH\mu_0 + \normaV\phi_0 + \norma{F(\phi_0)}_{\Lx 1}^{1/2} + \normaH\sigma_0 + 1 \bigr), \label{estpi} \End{equation} with the same $\widehat C$, without loss of generality, provided that we allow $\widehat C$ to depend on~$\pi$ as well. Now, we write \eqref{seconda} in the~form \Begin{equation} - \Delta\phi + \xi = f := - \b\partial_t\phi - \pi(\phi) + \mu \non \End{equation} and observe that \eqref{genest}{\color{black} , \eqref{estpi} and $\beta<1$} imply \Begin{equation} \norma f_{\L2H} \leq \widehat C \, \bigl( \a^{1/2} \normaH\mu_0 + \normaV\phi_0 + \norma{F(\phi_0)}_{\Lx 1}^{1/2} + \normaH\sigma_0 + 1 + \norma\mu_{\L2H} \bigr), \non \End{equation} with the same $\widehat C$ once more, without loss of generality. If $M$ denotes the right-hand side\ of this inequality, a~standard argument (formally multiply by $-\Delta\phi$) shows that both $\Delta\phi$ and $\xi$ are bounded in $\LQ2$ by a multiple of~$M$. Therefore, the same holds for $\norma\phi_{\L2W}$ by elliptic regularity. Finally, the full norm $\norma\mu_{\L2V}$ is is equivalent to the sum of $\norma{\nabla\mu}_{\L2H}$ and~$\norma\mu_{\L2H}$. Thus, \eqref{genestbis} follows and the proof of Theorem~\ref{GenEst} {\betti is complete}. {\juerg \hfill{\qed}} \step Proof of Theorem~\ref{Wellposedness} As far as uniqueness is concerned, we can refer to the proof of the uniqueness part of~\cite[Thm.~2.2]{CGH} since it holds under the present assumptions. In order to prove the existence of a solution, we approximate the data $\mu_0$ and $\sigma_0$ by functions $\mu_{0,\eps}$ and~$\sigma_{0,\eps}$ satisfying \Begin{equation} \mu_{0,\eps} , \sigma_{0,\eps} \in V \quad \hbox{for $\eps>0$}, \qquad \mu_{0,\eps} \to \mu_0 \quad\hbox{and}\quad \sigma_{0,\eps} \to \sigma_0 \quad \hbox{in $H$\quad as $\eps\todx0$}. \non \End{equation} Then, for every $\eps>0$, the condition \eqref{hpdatiCGH} holds for the approximating data so that the assumptions of \cite[Thm.~2.2]{CGH} are fulfilled. Thus, {\color{black} the} problem \Pbl\ has a unique solution $(\mu_\eps,\phi_\eps,\sigma_\eps,\xi_\eps)$ with $R_\eps$ defined by \eqref{defR} accordingly. Moreover, such a solution must satisfy \accorpa{genest}{genestbis} due to the above proof. As $\a$ and $\b$ are fixed, such estimates provide uniform boundedness with respect to $\eps$ even for $\mu_\eps$ {\color{black} in $\spazio L\infty H$ and $\partial_t\phi_\eps$ in $\L2H$}. Therefore, \eqref{genestbis} implies that $\mu_\eps$, $\phi_\eps$ and $\xi_\eps$ are bounded in $\L2V$, $\H1H\cap\L2W$ and~$\L2H$, respectively. Finally, the estimate for the time derivative of $\a\mu_\eps+\phi_\eps$ derived from \eqref{genest} and the estimate for $\partial_t\phi_\eps$ mentioned before imply that $\partial_t\mu_\eps$ is bounded in~$\L2V^*$. Hence, we~have \begin{align} & \mu_\eps \to \mu \quad \hbox{weakly star in $\H1V^*\cap\L2V$} \non \\ & \phi_\eps \to \phi \quad \hbox{weakly in $\H1H\cap\L2W$} \non \\ & \sigma_\eps \to \sigma \quad \hbox{weakly star in $\H1V^*\cap\L2V$} \non \\ & \xi_\eps \to \xi {\color{black} \ \hbox{ and } R_\eps \to R} \quad \hbox{weakly in $\L2H$} \non \end{align} {\color{black} as $\eps \searrow 0,$} at least for a subsequence. This implies, in particular, that the initial conditions for $(\mu,\phi,\sigma)$ are satisfied. Moreover, the above convergence for $\phi_\eps$ and the Aubin-Lions lemma (see, e.g., \cite[Thm.~5.1, p.~58]{Lions}) imply that {\color{black} \Begin{equation} \mu_\eps \to \mu , \quad \phi_\eps \to \phi , \quad \sigma_\eps \to \sigma \quad \hbox{strongly in $\L2H$}. \non \End{equation} Then, $\pi(\phi_\eps)$ and $p(\phi_\eps)$ converge to $\pi(\phi)$ and $p(\phi)$, respectively, strongly in $\L2H$. Therefore, we can identify the limits of the nonlinear terms $\xi_\eps$ and~$R_\eps$. For the former, we can apply, e.g., \cite[Cor.~2.4, p.~41]{Barbu} {\color{black} and conclude that $\xi \in B(\varphi)$ a.e. in $Q.$} For the latter we note that $R_\eps$ converges to $p(\phi)(\sigma-\mu)$ {\color{black} strongly} in~$\LQ1${\color{black} , whence \eqref{defR} follows.} At this point, we can write the integrated--in--time version of problem \accorpa{prima}{terza} for the approximating solution with time dependent test functions and take the limit as $\eps$ tends to zero. We obtain the analogous systems for $(\mu,\phi,\sigma,\xi)$, and this implies \accorpa{prima}{terza} for such a quadruplet. This completes the proof of Theorem~\ref{Wellposedness}. {\juerg \hfill{\qed}} \section{Asymptotics} \label{ASYMPTOTICS} \setcounter{equation}{0} This section is devoted to the proof of Theorems~\ref{Asymptotics} and~\ref{Error}. In order to simplify the notation, we follow a general rule in performing our a~priori estimates. The small-case italic $c$ without any subscript stands for different constants, that may only depend on~$\Omega$, $T$, the shape of the nonlinearities and the norms of the initial data related to assumption~\eqref{hpdati}. A~notation like~$c_\delta$ signals a constant that depends also on the parameter~$\delta$. We point out that $c$ and $c_\delta$ do not depend on $\a$ and~$\b$ and that their meaning might change from line to line and even in the same chain of inequalities. On the contrary, those constants we need to refer to are always denoted by different symbols, e.g., by a capital letter. \step Proof of Theorem~\ref{Asymptotics} We follow the argument done for \cite[{\color{black} Thm.}~2.6]{CGH} rather closely, but we have to {\betti modify} the types of convergence since our assumptions are different and more general. We start {\gianni from \accorpa{genest}{genestbis}}, written for the solution $(\mu_{\a,\b},\phi_{\a,\b},\sigma_{\a,\b}, {\betti \xi_{\a,\b}})$, and improve the latter by estimating the norm of $\mu_{\a,\b}$ on its right-hand side. However, we omit the subscript{\betti s} $\a$ and $\b$ for a while. {\color{black} Thanks to \eqref{seconda} and \eqref{hp-pier}, we have that $|\xi | \leq C \bigl( \widehat{\vphantom t\smash B\mskip2mu}\mskip-1mu(\phi) + 1 \bigr)$ a.e. in $Q$. Then, by integrating over $\Omega$ we obtain} {\gianni \Begin{equation} \int_\Omega |\xi(t)| \leq {}{\color{black} C}\! \int_\Omega \bigl( \widehat{\vphantom t\smash B\mskip2mu}\mskip-1mu(\phi(t)) + 1 \bigr) \quad \checkmmode{for a.a.~$t\in(0,T)$}. \label{stimaxi} \End{equation} At this point, we can estimate the mean value of~$\mu$ {\color{black} on account of \eqref{hpPi} and \eqref{defWbeta}. Indeed, by just integrating \eqref{seconda} over~$\Omega$, we deduce that} \Begin{eqnarray} && \Bigl| \int_\Omega \mu(t) \Bigr| = \Bigl| \int_\Omega \bigl( \b\partial_t\phi +{\betti \xi+{\color{black} \pi}(\phi)} \bigr)(t) \Bigr| \non \\ && \leq \b \norma{\partial_t\phi(t)}_1 + c \bigl( \norma{\widehat{\vphantom t\smash B\mskip2mu}\mskip-1mu(\phi(t))}_1 + \norma{\phi(t)}_1 + 1 \bigr) \vphantom\int \non \\ && \leq {\color{black} c\,} \b^{1/2} \normaH{\partial_t\phi(t)} + c \bigl( \norma{F(\phi(t))}_1 + {\color{black} \normaH{\phi(t)}} + 1 \bigr) \label{mediamu} \End{eqnarray} {\color{black} \checkmmode{for a.a.~$t\in(0,T)$}, beacause of the Lipschitz continuity of $\pi$ and the nonnegativity of $\widehat\pi$.}} Then, \eqref{genest} implies that the function $t\mapsto\bigl|\textstyle\int_\Omega\mu(t)\,dt\bigr|$ is bounded in $L^2(0,T)$. By combining this with~\eqref{genest} and the Poincar\'e inequality \eqref{poincare}, we derive that $\mu$ is bounded in~$\L2V$. {\betti Hence, {\color{black} recalling estimates \eqref{genest}--\eqref{genestbis} it turns out that the convergences \accorpa{convmu}{pier1} and a convergence for $R_{\a,\b} $}} hold, at least for a subsequence. For the reader's convenience, we write {\juerg this conclusion explicitly}, as well as the {\betti consequences we are interested {\gianni in}{\color{black}. These are} obtained by means of} strong compactness results (see, e.g., \cite[Sect.~8, Cor.~4]{Simon}), the Sobolev inequality \eqref{sobolev} and the Lip\-schitz\ continuity of $\pi$ and~$p$. We~have {\color{black} \begin{align} & \mu_{\a,\b} \to \mu \quad \hbox{weakly in $\L2V\cap\L2{{\color{black} \Lx6}}$} \non \\ & \phi_{\a,\b} \to \phi \quad \hbox{weakly star in $\spazio L\infty V\cap\L2W$} \qquad \non \\ & \sigma_{\a,\b} \to \sigma \quad \hbox{weakly in $\H1V^*\cap\L2V\cap\L2{{\color{black} \Lx6}}$} \non \\ & \xi_{\a,\b} \to \xi \ \hbox{ and } R_\eps \to R \quad \hbox{weakly in $\L2H$} \non \\ & \a\mu_{\a,\b} \to 0 \quad \hbox{strongly in $\spazio L\infty H {\color{black} {}\cap\L2V\cap\L2{{\color{black} \Lx6}}}$} \non \\ & \b\partial_t\phi_{\a,\b} \to 0 \quad \hbox{strongly in $\L2H$} \non \\ & \partial_t (\a\mu_{\a,\b}+\phi_{\a,\b}) \to \partial_t\phi \quad \hbox{weakly in $\L2V^*$} \non \\ & \a\mu_{\a,\b}+\phi_{\a,\b} \to \phi \quad \hbox{strongly in $\C0V^* \cap \L2H$} \non \\ & \pi(\phi_{\a,\b}) \to \pi(\phi) \ \hbox{ and } \ p(\phi_{\a,\b}) \to p(\phi) \quad \hbox{strongly in $\L2H$}. \non \end{align} {\color{black} Hence, we} infer {\juerg that} $\phi$~and $\sigma$ satisfy the initial conditions~\eqref{cauchylim}. Moreover, we deduce that {\betti $\xi\in B(\phi)$ (apply, e.g., \cite[Prop.~2.5, p.~27]{Brezis})} and that $R_{\a,\b}$ {\color{black} also converges to $p(\phi)(\sigma-\mu)$ weakly in~$\L1{\Lx p} $ for some $p\in (1,2)$: consequently, we have $R = p(\phi)(\sigma-\mu)$.} Finally, we take the limit in the integrated--in--time version of problem \accorpa{prima}{terza} for $(\mu_{\a,\b},\phi_{\a,\b},\sigma_{\a,\b},\xi_{\a,\b})$ with time-dependent test functions. We obtain the analogue for the system \accorpa{primalim}{terzalim}. Finally, as the solution of the limit problem is unique by Theorem~\ref{Uniqueness}, the convergence{\betti s} we have obtained for a subsequence {\juerg hold} for the whole family. This completes the proof of Theorem~\ref{Asymptotics}.\hfill $\square$ \step Proof of Theorem~\ref{Error} As we use some ideas of~\cite{FGR}, it is convenient to rewrite the equations \eqref{prima} and \eqref{terza} as abstract equations in the framework of the Hilbert triplet $(V,H,V^*)$ related to an invertible operator. To this end, we introduce the Riesz isomorphism $\A:V\toV^*$ associated to the standard scalar product of~$V$, that~is \Begin{equation} \< \A u, v > := (u,v)_V = \int_\Omega \bigl( \nabla u \cdot \nabla v + uv \bigr) \quad \hbox{for $u,v\in V$}. \label{defA} \End{equation} We notice that $\A u=-\Delta u+u$ if $u\in W$ and that the restriction of $\A$ to $W$ is an isomorphism from $W$ onto~$H$. We also remark that \Begin{eqnarray} && \< \A u , \A^{-1} v^* > = \< v^* , u > \quad \hbox{for every $u\in V$ and $v^*\inV^*$} \label{propAuno} \\ && \< u^* , \A^{-1} v^* > = (u^*,v^*)_* \quad \hbox{for every $u^*,v^*\inV^*$,} \label{propAdue} \End{eqnarray} where $(\,\cdot\,,\,\cdot\,)_*$ is the dual scalar product in $V^*$ associated with the standard one in~$V$, and recall that $\<v^*,u>=\int_\Omegav^* u$ if $v^*\in H$. As a consequence of~\eqref{propAdue}, we~have \Begin{equation} \frac d{dt} \, {\betti \normaVpv^*^2} = 2 \< \partial_tv^* , \A^{-1} v^* > \quad \hbox{for every $v^*\in\H1V^*$} . \label{propAtre} \End{equation} {\color{black} In view of} the regularity conditions \Regsoluz\ and \Regsoluzlim, we rewrite \accorpa{prima}{terza} and \accorpa{primalim}{terzalim} for the solution $(\mu_{\a,\b},\phi_{\a,\b},\sigma_{\a,\b})$ to \Pbl\ and the one of the limit problem, respectively. If we term the latter $(\overline\mu,\overline\phi,\overline\sigma)$, we~have \begin{align} & \a\partial_t\mu_{\a,\b} + \partial_t\phi_{\a,\b} + \A\mu_{\a,\b} = R_{\a,\b} + \mu_{\a,\b} \label{primaA} \\ & \mu_{\a,\b} = \b\partial_t\phi_{\a,\b} + \A\phi_{\a,\b} + F'(\phi_{\a,\b}) - \phi_{\a,\b} \label{secondaA} \\ & \partial_t\sigma_{\a,\b} + \A\sigma_{\a,\b} = -R_{\a,\b} + \sigma_{\a,\b} \label{terzaA} \\ & \partial_t\overline\phi + \A\overline\mu = \overline R + \overline\mu \label{primalA} \\ & \overline\mu = \A\overline\phi + F'(\overline\phi) - \overline\phi \label{secondalA} \\ & \partial_t\overline\sigma + \A\overline\sigma = - \overline R + \overline\sigma , \label{terzalA} \end{align} where $R_{\a,\b}$ and $\overline R$ are defined by~\eqref{defR} according to the equations we are considering. All these equations are meant in $V^*$ \checkmmode{a.e.\ in~$(0,T)$}. However, \eqref{secondaA} and \eqref{secondalA} also hold \checkmmode{a.e.\ in~$Q$}. Moreover, the solutions have to satisfy the initial conditions \eqref{cauchy} and~\eqref{cauchylim}, respectively. Now, we take the differences between \accorpa{primaA}{terzaA} and \accorpa{primalA}{terzalA} at time $s\in(0,T)$ and test them~by \Begin{equation} \A^{-1} (\a\mu_{\a,\b} + \phi)(s) , \quad -(\a\mu_{\a,\b} + \phi)(s), \quad\hbox{and}\quad \A^{-1} \sigma(s), \non \End{equation} respectively, where we have set for convenience \Begin{equation} \mu := \mu_{\a,\b} - \overline\mu , \quad \phi := \phi_{\a,\b} - \overline\phi , \quad \sigma := \sigma_{\a,\b} - \overline\sigma, \quad\hbox{and}\quad R := R_{\a,\b} - \overline R . \non \End{equation} Next, we sum up and integrate over $(0,t)$ with respect to~$s$, for an arbitrary $t\in(0,T)$. We obtain (by~omitting the evaluation at $s$ inside integrals, for brevity) \Begin{eqnarray} && \int_0^t \< \partial_t ( \a\mu_{\a,\b} + \phi ) , \A^{-1} (\a\mu_{\a,\b} + \phi) > \, ds + \int_0^t \< \A\mu , \A^{-1} (\a\mu_{\a,\b} + \phi) > \, ds \non \\ && \quad {} - \int_0^t \< \mu , \a\mu_{\a,\b} + \phi > \, ds + \int_0^t \< \b\partial_t\phi_{\a,\b} , \a\mu_{\a,\b} + \phi > \, ds + \int_0^t \< \A\phi , \a\mu_{\a,\b} + \phi > \, ds \non \\ && \quad {} + \int_0^t \< F'(\phi_{\a,\b}) - F'(\overline\phi) , \a\mu_{\a,\b} + \phi > \, ds \non \\ && \quad {} + \int_0^t \< \partial_t\sigma , \A^{-1} \sigma > \, ds + \int_0^t \< \A\sigma , \A^{-1} \sigma > \, ds \non \\ \noalign{\allowbreak} && = \int_0^t \< R , \A^{-1} (\a\mu_{\a,\b} + \phi) > \, ds + \int_0^t \< \mu , \A^{-1} (\a\mu_{\a,\b} + \phi) > \, ds + \int_0^t \< \phi , \a\mu_{\a,\b} + \phi > \, ds \non \\ && \quad {} - \int_0^t \< R , \A^{-1} \sigma > \, ds + \int_0^t \< \sigma , \A^{-1} \sigma > \, ds \,. \non \End{eqnarray} For the reader's convenience, we just rearrange and use the decomposition $F'=B+\pi$. We have \Begin{eqnarray} && \int_0^t \< \partial_t \bigl( \a\mu_{\a,\b} + \phi \bigr) , \A^{-1} (\a\mu_{\a,\b} + \phi) > \, ds \non \\ && \quad {} + \int_0^t \< \A\mu , \A^{-1} (\a\mu_{\a,\b} + \phi) > \, ds - \int_0^t \< \mu , \a\mu_{\a,\b} + \phi > \, ds \non \\ && \quad {} + \int_0^t \< \A\phi , \phi > \, ds + \int_0^t \< B(\phi_{\a,\b}) - B(\overline\phi) , \phi > \, ds \non \\ && \quad {} + \int_0^t \< \partial_t\sigma , \A^{-1} \sigma > \, ds + \int_0^t \< \A\sigma , \A^{-1} \sigma > \, ds \non \\ \noalign{\allowbreak} && = \int_0^t \< R , \A^{-1} (\a\mu_{\a,\b} + \phi - \sigma) > \, ds - \int_0^t \< \b\partial_t\phi_{\a,\b} , \a\mu_{\a,\b} + \phi > \, ds - \int_0^t \< \A\phi , \a\mu_{\a,\b} > \, ds \non \\ && \quad {} + \int_0^t \< \mu , \A^{-1} (\a\mu_{\a,\b} + \phi) > \, ds - \int_0^t \< \pi(\phi_{\a,\b}) - \pi(\overline\phi) , \phi > \, ds \non \\ && \quad {} - \int_0^t \< F'(\phi_{\a,\b}) - F'(\overline\phi) , \a\mu_{\a,\b} > \, ds + \int_0^t \< \phi , \a\mu_{\a,\b} + \phi > \, ds + \int_0^t \< \sigma , \A^{-1}\sigma > \, ds. \non \End{eqnarray} At this point, we account for \accorpa{defA}{propAtre} and observe that the second and third terms on the left-hand side\ cancel out. Finally, {\betti owing {\juerg to} the initial conditions $(\a\mu_{\a,\b}+\phi)(0)=\a\mu_0$ and $\sigma(0)=0$, we deduce} \Begin{eqnarray} && \frac 12 \, \normaVp{(\a\mu_{\a,\b} + \phi)(t)}^2 + \int_0^t \normaV\phi^2 \, ds + \int_{Q_t} \bigl( B(\phi_{\a,\b}) - B(\overline\phi) \bigr) \phi \quad \non \\ && \quad {} + \frac 12 \, \normaVp{\sigma(t)}^2 + \int_{Q_t} |\sigma|^2 \non \\ && = \frac 12 \, \normaVp{\a\mu_0}^2 + \int_0^t \bigl( R , \a\mu_{\a,\b} + \phi - \sigma \bigr)_* \, ds - \int_0^t \< \b\partial_t\phi_{\a,\b} , \a\mu_{\a,\b} + \phi > \, ds \non \\ && \quad {} - \int_0^t \bigl( \phi , \a\mu_{\a,\b} \bigr)_V \, ds + \int_0^t \bigl( \mu , \a\mu_{\a,\b} + \phi \bigr)_* \, ds - \int_{Q_t} \bigl( \pi(\phi_{\a,\b}) - \pi(\overline\phi) \bigr) \, \phi \non \\ && \quad {} - \int_{Q_t} \bigl( F'(\phi_{\a,\b}) - F'(\overline\phi) \bigr) \, \a\mu_{\a,\b} + \int_{Q_t} \phi (\a\mu_{\a,\b} + \phi) + \int_0^t \normaVp\sigma^2 \, ds \,. \label{pererrore} \End{eqnarray} All {\juerg of} the terms on the left-hand side\ are nonnegative, the third one by monotonicity. Now, we treat each integral on the right-hand side, separately. In the sequel, $\delta$~is a positive parameter whose value will be chosen at the end of the procedure. We first observe that \eqref{genest} holds for the solution $(\mu_{\a,\b},\phi_{\a,\b},\sigma_{\a,\b})$ and that Theorem~\ref{Asymptotics} improves~\eqref{genestbis} for such a solution. Indeed, the restricted setting of regular potentials satisfying \eqref{classico} led to~\eqref{mediamu}. So, as we have seen in the previous proof, {\color{black} \eqref{genest} and \eqref{genestbis}~imply} \Begin{equation} \norma\mu_{\a,\b}_{\L2V} + \norma\phi_{\a,\b}_{\L2W} \leq c. \label{genestter} \End{equation} Now, we prepare estimates for $\normaVp\mu$ and $\normaVp R$ \checkmmode{a.e.\ in~$(0,T)$}. Again for simplicity, in performing them, we omit writing the evaluation point. From the mean value theorem and the third assumption {\color{black} in}~\eqref{classico} we easily derive that \Begin{equation} |F'(\phi_{\a,\b})-F'(\overline\phi)| \leq c|\phi|(|\phi_{\a,\b}|^4+|\overline\phi|^4+1) \quad \checkmmode{a.e.\ in~$Q$}. \non \End{equation} Therefore, by the H\"older\ and Sobolev inequalities, we infer~that \begin{align} & \norma{F'(\phi_{\a,\b})-F'(\overline\phi)}_{6/5} \leq c \, \norma\phi_6 \bigl( \norma{\phi_{\a,\b}^4}_{3/2} + \norma{\overline\phi\,^4}_{3/2} + 1 \bigr) \non \\ & = c \, \norma\phi_6 \bigl( \norma\phi_{\a,\b}_6^4 + \norma\overline\phi_6^4 + 1 \bigr) \leq c \normaV\phi \bigl( \normaV\phi_{\a,\b}^4 + \normaV\overline\phi^4 + 1 \bigr) \leq c \normaV\phi \, , \label{stimadiffF} \end{align} the last inequality {\betti following from} estimate \eqref{genest} for $\phi_{\a,\b}$ and the regularity \eqref{regphilim} of~$\overline\phi$. {\betti Taking the} difference between \eqref{secondaA} and \eqref{secondalA} and {\betti using} the dual Sobolev inequality~\eqref{dualsobolev}, we deduce~that \Begin{eqnarray} && \normaVp\mu = \normaVp{\b\partial_t\phi_{\a,\b} + \A\phi + F'(\phi_{\a,\b}) - F'(\overline\phi) - \phi} \non \\ && \leq \b \normaVp{\partial_t\phi_{\a,\b}} + \normaV\phi + c \norma{F'(\phi_{\a,\b}) - F'(\overline\phi)}_{6/5} + \normaVp\phi \non \\ && \leq c \bigl( \b \normaVp{\partial_t\phi_{\a,\b}} + \normaV\phi \bigr) \leq c \, \b^{1/2} + c \, \normaV\phi \, , \label{stimamu} \End{eqnarray} {\juerg where the last inequality follows from} \eqref{genest}. In order to estimate~$\normaVp R$, we first observe that the boundedness and the Lip\-schitz\ continuity of~$p$ and the Sobolev inequality (applied to $\nabla\overline\phi$ and~{\betti the test function $v\in V$}) imply {\juerg that, for every $v\in V$,} \Begin{eqnarray} && \normaV{p(\overline\phi)v} \leq \normaH{p(\overline\phi)v} + \normaH{\nabla p(\overline\phi) \, v} + \normaH{p(\overline\phi)\nabla v} \non \\ && \leq c \normaH v + c \norma{\nabla\overline\phi}_4 \, \norma v_4 + c \normaH{\nabla v} \leq c (\normaW\overline\phi \, + 1) \normaV v \,. \non \End{eqnarray} Hence, we have for every $v\in V$ {\juerg the estimate} \Begin{eqnarray} && \int_\Omega R v = \int_\Omega \bigl( p(\phi_{\a,\b})(\sigma_{\a,\b}-\mu_{\a,\b}) - p(\overline\phi)(\overline\sigma-\overline\mu) \bigr) v \non \\ && \leq \int_\Omega |p(\phi_{\a,\b}) - p(\overline\phi)| \, |\sigma_{\a,\b}-\mu_{\a,\b}| \, |v| + \Bigl| \int_\Omega p(\overline\phi) (\sigma-\mu) \, v \Bigr| \non \\ && \leq c \norma\phi_3 \, \norma{\sigma_{\a,\b}-\mu_{\a,\b}}_3 \norma v_3 + \normaVp{\sigma-\mu} \, \normaV{p(\overline\phi)\,v} \non \\ && \leq c \normaV\phi \, \normaV{\sigma_{\a,\b}-\mu_{\a,\b}} {\betti \normaV v} + c \normaVp{\sigma-\mu} \, (\normaW\overline\phi + 1) \normaV v \,. \non \End{eqnarray} Therefore, we can estimate $\normaVp R$ \checkmmode{a.e.\ in~$(0,T)$} {\betti , also} owing to \eqref{stimamu}, in this~way: \Begin{eqnarray} && \normaVp R \leq c \normaV\phi \, \normaV{\sigma_{\a,\b}-\mu_{\a,\b}} + c \normaVp{\sigma-\mu} \, (\normaW\overline\phi + 1) \non \\ && \leq c \normaV\phi \, \normaV{\sigma_{\a,\b}-\mu_{\a,\b}} + c \bigl( \normaVp\sigma + \b^{1/2} + \normaV\phi \bigr) (\normaW\overline\phi + 1) \non \\ && \leq c \, \psi_{\a,\b} (\normaV\phi + \normaVp\sigma) + c \, \b^{1/2} \, \overline\psi \,, \non \End{eqnarray} where $\psi_{\a,\b},\overline\psi:(0,T)\to{\mathbb{R}}$ are defined~by \Begin{equation} \psi_{\a,\b} := \normaV{\sigma_{\a,\b}-\mu_{\a,\b}} + \normaW\overline\phi + 1 \quad\hbox{and}\quad \overline\psi := \normaW\overline\phi + 1, \quad \checkmmode{a.e.\ in~$(0,T)$} \,. \non \End{equation} Coming back to the right-hand side\ of~\eqref{pererrore}, we can treat the first term as follows: \Begin{eqnarray} && \int_0^t \bigl( R , \a\mu_{\a,\b} + \phi - \sigma \bigr)_* \, ds \leq \int_0^t \normaVp R \, \normaVp{\a\mu_{\a,\b} + \phi - \sigma} \, ds \non \\ && \leq \int_0^t \bigl( c \psi_{\a,\b} (\normaV\phi + \normaVp\sigma) + c \b^{1/2} \, \overline\psi \bigr) \bigl( \normaVp{\a\mu_{\a,\b}+\phi} + \normaVp\sigma \bigr) \, ds \non \\ && \leq \delta \int_0^t \normaV\phi^2 \, ds + \b \int_0^T |\overline\psi|^2 \, ds + c_\delta \int_0^t \psi_{\a,\b}^2 \bigl( \normaVp{\a\mu_{\a,\b}+\phi}^2 + \normaVp\sigma^2 \bigr) \, ds \,. \qquad \label{stimaf} \End{eqnarray} We observe at once that the regularity {\color{black} \eqref{regphilim} for $\overline\phi$} and estimates \eqref{genest} for $\sigma_{\a,\b}$ and \eqref{genestter} for $\mu_{\a,\b}$ imply that $\overline\psi\in L^2(0,T)$ and that $\psi_{\a,\b}$ is bounded in $L^2(0,T)$, {\juerg so that} $\psi_{\a,\b}^2$ is bounded in $L^1(0,T)$. This will allow us to apply the Gronwall lemma. Now, we estimate the next term on the right-hand side\ of \eqref{pererrore}. {\color{black} Using \eqref{genest}, we see that} \Begin{eqnarray} && - \int_0^t \< \b\partial_t\phi_{\a,\b} , \a\mu_{\a,\b} + \phi > \, ds \non \\ && \leq \a^2 \, \norma\mu_{\a,\b}_{\L2H}^2 + \delta \int_0^t \normaH\phi^2 \, ds + c_\delta \, \b^2 \, \norma{\partial_t\phi_{\a,\b}}_{\L2H}^2 \non \\ && \leq c \a + \delta \int_0^t \normaV\phi^2 \, ds + c_\delta \, \b \,. \label{stimag} \End{eqnarray} Next, we have \Begin{equation} - \int_0^t \bigl( \phi , \a\mu_{\a,\b} \bigr)_V \, ds \leq \delta \int_0^t \normaV\phi^2 \, ds + c_\delta \, \a^{{\betti 2}} \label{stimad} \End{equation} thanks to \eqref{genestter} for $\mu_{\a,\b}$, as well as, by \eqref{stimamu}, \Begin{eqnarray} && \int_0^t \bigl( \mu , \a\mu_{\a,\b} + \phi \bigr)_* \, ds \leq c \int_0^t \bigl( \b^{1/2} + \normaV\phi \bigr) \normaVp{\a\mu_{\a,\b} + \phi} \, ds \non \\ && \leq \delta \int_0^t \normaV\phi^2 + \b + c_\delta \int_0^t \normaVp{\a\mu_{\a,\b} + \phi}^2 \, ds \,. \label{stimae} \End{eqnarray} Moreover, by using the Lip\-schitz\ continuity of~$\pi$, the interpolation inequality~\eqref{interpol} and \eqref{genestter} for~$\mu_{\a,\b}$ once more, we can write \Begin{eqnarray} && - \int_{Q_t} \bigl( \pi(\phi_{\a,\b}) - \pi(\overline\phi) \bigr) \, \phi \leq c \int_{Q_t} |\phi|^2 \leq c \int_0^t \normaV\phi \, \normaVp\phi \, ds \non \\ && \leq \delta \int_0^t \normaV\phi^2 \, ds + c_\delta \int_0^t \normaVp\phi^2 \, ds \non \\ && \leq \delta \int_0^t \normaV\phi^2 \, ds + {\betti c_\delta \int_0^t \normaVp{\a\mu_{\a,\b}+\phi}^2 \, ds} {\color{black}{} + c_\delta \a^2} \, . \label{stimac} \End{eqnarray} The next term to {\juerg deal} with is the one involving~$F'$. We use \eqref{stimadiffF}, the H\"older, Sobolev and Young inequalities, and {\color{black} the} estimate \eqref{genestter} for~$\mu_{\a,\b}${\color{black} . Thus, we} have \Begin{eqnarray} && - \int_{Q_t} \bigl( F'(\phi_{\a,\b}) - F'(\overline\phi) \bigr) \, \a\mu_{\a,\b} \leq \int_0^t \norma{F'(\phi_{\a,\b})-F'(\overline\phi)}_{6/5} \, \norma{\a\mu_{\a,\b}}_6 \, ds \non \\ && \leq c \int_0^t \normaV\phi \, \a \normaV\mu_{\a,\b} \, ds \leq \delta \int_0^t \normaV\phi^2 \, ds + c_\delta \, \a^{{\betti 2}} \,. \label{stimam} \End{eqnarray} Finally, the last integral on the right-hand side\ of \eqref{pererrore} does not need any treatment and the {\juerg preceding} term can be estimated in this way: \Begin{equation} \int_0^t \< \phi , \a\mu_{\a,\b} + \phi > \, ds \leq \delta \int_0^t \normaV\phi^2 \, ds + c_\delta \int_0^t \normaVp{\a\mu_{\a,\b} + \phi}^2 \, ds . \label{stimab} \End{equation} At this point, we combine \eqref{pererrore} and the list \accorpa{stimaf}{stimab} of estimates we have obtained. Then, we choose $\delta$ small enough, recall that $\overline\psi\in L^2(0,T)$ and that $\psi_{\a,\b}^2$ is bounded in~$L^1(0,T)$, and apply the Gronwall lemma in the form \cite[Lemma~A.4, p.~156]{Brezis}. We obtain \Begin{equation} \frac 12 \, \normaVp{(\a\mu_{\a,\b} + \phi)(t)}^2 + \int_0^t \normaV\phi^2 \, ds + \frac 12 \, \normaVp{\sigma(t)}^2 + \int_{Q_t} |\sigma|^2 \leq c (\a+\b) \non \End{equation} for every $t\in[0,T]$. As $\normaVp{\a\mu_{\a,\b}(t)}^2\leq c\a$ for every $t\in[0,T]$ by \eqref{genest}, the above inequality implies \begin{align} \norma{\phi}_{\spazio L\inftyV^*\cap\L2V} + \norma{\sigma}_{\spazio L\inftyV^*\cap\L2H} \leq C \, \bigl( \a^{1/2} + \b^{1/2} \bigr). \label{pier2} \end{align} {\color{black} Now, we take the differences of equations \eqref{secondaA} and \eqref{secondalA} and estimate the $\L2V^* $ norm of it. With the help of \eqref{genest} and \eqref{stimadiffF} it is straightforward to infer that \begin{align} &\norma{\mu}_{\L2V^*} \leq c\, \b \, \norma{\partial_t\phi_{\a,\b}}_{\L2H} + c \, \norma{\phi}_{\L2V} \non \\ &\quad {}+ c \, \norma{F'(\phi_{\a,\b})-F'(\overline\phi)}_{\L2{L^{6/5} (\Omega)}} + \norma{\phi}_{\L2V^*} \non \\ &{}\leq c \, \b^{1/2} + c \, \norma{\phi}_{\L2V} . \label{pier3} \end{align} Hence, in view of \eqref{pier2} and \eqref{pier3} we finally obtain the estimate \eqref{error}, where one has to {\juerg read} $\overline\phi, \, \overline\mu$ and $\overline\sigma$ in place of $\phi, \, \mu $} and~$\sigma$, respectively, due to the change of notations within this proof.\hfill $\square$ \Begin{remark}\rm \label{Uniqueness} By going through the above proof, one sees that uniqueness for the limit problem \accorpa{primalim}{cauchylim} has been never used, that is, the following formulation of Theorem~\ref{Error} has been proved: the error estimate \eqref{error} holds for every solution $(\mu,\phi,\sigma)$ of the limit problem satisfying the regularity requirements \Regsoluzlim. This implies the uniqueness for such a solution. Indeed, if $(\mu_i,\phi_i,\sigma_i)$, $i=1,2$, are two solutions {\betti of the limit problem}, by writing \eqref{error} for both of them and using uniqueness for the solution $(\phi_{\a,\b},\mu_{\a,\b},\sigma_{\a,\b})$, one immediately derives \begin{align} &\norma{\phi_1-\phi_2}_{\spazio L\inftyV^*\cap\L2V} {\color{black}{} + \norma{\mu_1-\mu_2}_{\L2V^*}} \non \\ &\quad + \norma{\sigma_1 - \sigma_2}_{\spazio L\inftyV^*\cap\L2H} \leq C \, \bigl( \a^{1/2} + \b^{1/2} \bigr) \non \end{align} for every $\a,\b\in(0,1)$, whence $\phi_1=\phi_2$, {\color{black} $\mu_1=\mu_2$} and $\sigma_1=\sigma_2$. Then, by comparison in \eqref{secondalim}, it follows that {\color{black} $\xi_1=\xi_2$}, as well. \End{remark} \vspace{3truemm} \Begin{thebibliography}{10} \bibitem{Barbu} {so-called V. Barbu}, ``Nonlinear Differential Equations of Monotone Types in Banach spaces'', Springer Monographs in Mathematics, 2010. \bibitem{Brezis} {so-called H. Brezis,} ``Op\'erateurs maximaux monotones et semi-groupes de contractions dans les espaces de Hilbert'', North-Holland Math. Stud.~{\bf 5}, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1973. \bibitem{CH} {so-called J.W.~Cahn and J.E.~Hilliard}, {\em Free energy of a nonuniform system I. Interfacial free energy}, J. Chem. Phys., {\bf 2} (1958), pp.~258--267. {\betti \bibitem{CBCB} {so-called C. Chatelain, T. Balois, P. Ciarletta, and M. Ben Amar}, {\em Emergence of microstructural patterns in skin cancer: a phase separation analysis in a binary mixture}, New J. Phys., \textbf{13} (2011), 115013 (21 pp.). } \bibitem{CGH} {so-called P. Colli, G. Gilardi, {\betti and } D. Hilhorst}, {\em On a Cahn--Hilliard type phase field system related to tumor growth}, {\gianni{\color{black} Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst.,} \textbf{35} (2015), pp.~2423--2442.} {\betti \bibitem{CLLW} {so-called V. Cristini, X. Li, J.S. Lowengrub, and S.M. Wise}, {\em Nonlinear simulations of solid tumor growth using a mixture model: invasion and branching}, J. Math. Biol., \textbf{58} (2009), pp.~723--763. \bibitem{CL} {so-called V. Cristini and J. Lowengrub}, ``Multiscale modeling of cancer. An Integrated Experimental and Mathematical Modeling Approach'', Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2010. } {\color{black} \bibitem{DHK} {so-called C. Dupaix, D. Hilhorst and I.N. Kostin,} {\em The viscous Cahn-Hilliard equation as a limit of the phase field model: lower semicontinuity of the attractor}, J. Dynam. Differential Equations, \textbf{11} (1999), pp.~333-353. \bibitem{DHL} {so-called C. Dupaix, D. Hilhorst and P. Lauren\c cot,} {\em Upper-semicontinuity of the attractor for a singularly perturbed phase field model}, Adv. Math. Sci. Appl., \textbf{8} (1998), pp.~115-143. } \bibitem{EllSt} {so-called C.M. Elliott and A.M. Stuart}, {\em Viscous Cahn--Hilliard equation. II. Analysis}, J. Differential Equations, {\bf 128} (1996), pp.~387--414. \bibitem{EllZh} {so-called C.M. Elliott and S. Zheng}, {\em On the Cahn--Hilliard equation}, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., {\bf 96} (1986), pp.~339--357. {\betti \bibitem{Fetal} {so-called H.B. Frieboes, F. Jin, Y.-L. Chuang, S.M. Wise, J.S. Lowengrub, and V. Cristini}, {\em Three-dimensional multispecies nonlinear tumor growth-II: Tumor invasion and angiogenesis}, J. Theoret. Biol., \textbf{264} (2010), pp.~1254--1278. } \bibitem{FGR} {so-called S. Frigeri, M. Grasselli, and E. Rocca}, {\em On a diffuse interface model of tumor growth}, {\color{black} European J. Appl. Math., DOI: 10.1017/S0956792514000436} {\betti \bibitem{HZO} {so-called A. Hawkins-Daarud, K.G. van der Zee, and J.T. Oden}, {\em Numerical simulation of a thermodynamically consistent four-species tumor growth model}, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Biomed. Engng., \textbf{28} (2011), pp.~3--24. \bibitem{HPZO} {so-called A. Hawkins-Daarud, S. Prudhomme, K.G. van der Zee, and J.T. Oden}, {\em Bayesian calibration, validation, and uncertainty quantification of diffuse interface models of tumor growth}, J. Math. Biol., \textbf{67} (2013), pp.~1457--1485. \bibitem{HKNV} {so-called D. Hilhorst, J. Kampmann, T.N. Nguyen, and K.G. Van der Zee}, {\color{black} {\em Formal asymptotic limit of a diffuse-interface tumor-growth model}}, Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci., {\color{black} DOI: 10.1142/S0218202515500268} } \bibitem{Lions} {so-called J.-L.~Lions}, ``Quelques m\'ethodes de r\'esolution des probl\`emes aux limites non lin\'eaires'', Dunod; Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1969. {\betti \bibitem{Letal} {so-called J.S. Lowengrub, H.B. Frieboes, F. Jin, Y.-L. Chuang, X. Li, P. Macklin, S.M. Wise, and V. Cristini}, {\em Nonlinear modelling of cancer: bridging the gap between cells and tumours}, Nonlinearity, \textbf{23} (2010), pp.~R1--R91. \bibitem{LTZ} {so-called J. Lowengrub, E. Titi, and K. Zhao}, {\em Analysis of a mixture model of tumor growth}, European J. Appl. Math., \textbf{24} (2013), pp.~1--44. \bibitem{OHP} {so-called J.T. Oden, A. Hawkins, and S. Prudhomme}, {\em General diffuse-interface theories and an approach to predictive tumor growth modeling}, Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci., \textbf{20} (2010), pp.~477--517. \bibitem{OPH} {so-called J.T. Oden, E.E. Prudencio, and A. Hawkins-Daarud}, {\em Selection and assessment of phenomenological models of tumor growth}, Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci., \textbf{23} (2013), pp.~1309--1338. } {\color{black} \bibitem{Ros1} {so-called R. Rossi}, {\em Asymptotic analysis of the Caginalp phase-field model for two vanishing time relaxation parameters}, Adv. Math. Sci. Appl., \textbf{13} (2003), pp.~249--271. \bibitem{Ros2} {so-called R. Rossi}, {\em On two classes of generalized viscous Cahn-Hilliard equations}, Commun. Pure Appl. Anal., \textbf{4} (2005), pp.~405--430. } \bibitem{Simon} {so-called J. Simon}, {\em Compact sets in the space $L^p(0,T; B)$}, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl.~(4), {\bf 146} (1987), pp.~65-96. {\betti \bibitem{WZ} {so-called X. Wang and Z. Zhang}, {\em Well-posedness of the Hele--Shaw--Cahn--Hilliard system}, Ann. Inst. H. Poincar\'{e} Anal. Non Lin\'{e}aire, \textbf{30} (2013), pp.~367--384. \bibitem{WLFC} {so-called S.M. Wise, J.S. Lowengrub, H.B. Frieboes, and V. Cristini}, {\em Three-dimensional multispecies nonlinear tumor growth-I: Model and numerical method}, J. Theoret. Biol., \textbf{253} (2008), pp.~524--543. \bibitem{WZZ} {so-called X. Wu, G.J. van Zwieten, and K.G. van der Zee}, {\em Stabilized second-order convex splitting schemes for Cahn--Hilliard models with applications to diffuse-interface tumor-growth models}, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Biomed. Engng., \textbf{30} (2014), pp.~180--203. } \End{thebibliography} \End{document} \bye
\section{Introduction} The conventional way to consider ordered many body systems is the Landau-Ginzburg formalism of phase transition that is centered on order parameter as the attribute of order. That appearing order is classified as the anomalous correlations that describe the emergent state. For example, in charge density wave the order parameter is \begin{equation}\label{kOP} \Delta_\mathbf{q}(\mathbf{k}) = \langle a^\dagger_{\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{q},\alpha} a_\mathbf{k,\alpha} \rangle. \end{equation} where $ a^{(\dagger)}_{ \mathbf{k},\alpha}$ is creating (annihilating) an electron with momentum $\mathbf{k}$ and spin $\alpha$. Similarly, the order parameter for spin density waves is given by \begin{equation}\label{sOP} \vec {\Delta}_\mathbf{q}(\mathbf{k}) = \langle a^\dagger_{\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{q},\alpha} a_{\mathbf{k}, \beta} \rangle \vec {\sigma}_{\alpha \beta}. \end{equation} where $\vec{\sigma}$ is a vector of Pauli matrices. Summation over spin indices is implied, both in (\ref{kOP}) and (\ref{kOP}) and these anomalous correlations are taken at equal time for the involved operators. Static values as written are often taken as the order parameters of the charge (spin) density waves.\cite{Gruner1,Gruner2} As our view of correlations evolves, it becomes apparent that materials can exhibit composite meta order that significantly expands the old Ginzburg-Landau paradigm. Examples of new orders include topological order with no local order parameter \cite{top1,top2,top3,top4}. Another extension of the concept of order is the notion of odd frequency or odd-time correlations, first proposed by Berezinskii. \cite{Ber,BA} Odd-frequency order in superconductors and superfluids has been proposed for numerous realizations and most likely to occur in superconducting heterostructures, in nanoscale devices\cite{EfetovRMP,Tanakareview} and in mulitband superconductors\cite{ABSB}. In addition to superconductivity odd time orders were expanded to spin nematics \cite{Nematicodd} and BEC\cite{bec}. Here we wish to further advance the notion of odd time orders by considering the odd in time density wave correlations. This odd time density waves would describe dynamic order that does not manifest itself in any static density wave. The situation can be viewed as a dynamic order that is hidden from the conventional spectroscopies of charge and spin density waves. \section{Introducing odd time CDW} The odd time, or odd frequency, orders are characterized by correlations that vanish when $ \langle a^\dagger a \rangle$ expectaion is taken at equal time. We now focus on charge and spin density waves (CDW,SDW). Since the discussion, in our context, for these two types of states, is highly similar, for the sake of simplicity, we will first treat only CDW, described by eq. (\ref{kOP}). Since spin indices are summed over, they are suppressed in all expressions. In order to treat SDW, described by eq. (\ref{sOP}) one simply has to reintroduce the spin indices and multiply by $\vec{\sigma}$ throughout the derivation. We can generalize the correlation (\ref{kOP}) to include operators $a_\mathbf{k}(\tau)$ which act in Matsubara time $\tau$. The result is the anomalous green function \begin{eqnarray} \label{kOPt} \Delta_\mathbf{q} (\mathbf{k},\tau) &=& \left\langle T_\tau \left[ a^\dagger_{\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{q}}(\tau) a_\mathbf{k} (0) \right] \right\rangle \nonumber\\ &=& \theta(\tau) \left\langle a^\dagger_{\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{q}}(\tau) a_\mathbf{k} (0) \right\rangle \nonumber\\ &-& \theta(-\tau) \left\langle a_\mathbf{k} (0) a^\dagger_{\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{q}}(\tau) \right\rangle \end{eqnarray} where $ T_\tau$ is the time ordering operator and $\theta(x)$ is the Heaviside step function. Since the system is assumed to be invariant to time translation, $ \Delta_\mathbf{q} (\mathbf{k},\tau) $ is a function of the relative time only. There can be a few possibilities for the time dependency of $ \Delta_\mathbf{q} (\mathbf{k},\tau)$ at short times, $ \tau \rightarrow 0 $. If there is a zero time order, i.e. a time independent part, then we recover the usual form of CDW with non vanishing order parameter given by (\ref{kOP}). Then the time dependence of the correlator at nonzero times would reflect the retardation effects that occur at a later time. If, on the other hand, the equal time part vanishes, but the first order $ \Delta_\mathbf{q} (\mathbf{k},\tau) \sim \tau$ remains finite, the situation is different. In such a case, all the well-known results regarding CDW might not be valid, but nonetheless there will be non-trivial density-density correlations. We are thus facing the possibility to have a nontrivial correlations that have no equal time signature, i.e. a hidden order. To capture the dynamic nature of the correlation we consider a scenario is when $ \Delta_\mathbf{q} (\mathbf{k},\tau)$ is odd in time: \begin{equation} \label{oddtime} \Delta_\mathbf{q} (\mathbf{k},\tau) = - \Delta_\mathbf{q} (\mathbf{k},-\tau). \end{equation} In this case it is clear that $\Delta_\mathbf{q} (\mathbf{k})=\Delta_\mathbf{q} (\mathbf{k},0)= 0$. This implies that if the system is described by quantity obeying a condition of the form (\ref{oddtime}), it is in a state that possess a dynamic kind of order. This state might share many of the characteristics, of the usual CDW, by it is fundamentally different in that there is no static density correlations. \section{Detection of odd time CDW} Here we outline experimental observation that would test the odd frequency density order. The usual type of CDW, which is described by (\ref{kOP}) is manifested with a modulation of the density \begin{equation} \label{ncdw} n(\mathbf{r}) =\langle \Psi^\dagger(\mathbf{r}) \Psi(\mathbf{r}) \rangle = n_0 + n_\mathbf{q} \cos(\mathbf{q} \mathbf{r} + \phi), \end{equation} where $\Psi(\mathbf{r}) = \int d\mathbf{k} e^{i \mathbf{k} \mathbf{r}} a_\mathbf{k}$, $n_0$ is the average density, $n_\mathbf{q}$ is the amplitude of the modulation with wave number $\mathbf{q}$ and $\phi$ is an arbitrary phase. When writing Eq. (\ref{ncdw}) we ignore any density modulations which are not directly related to CDW, so we explicitly assume a uniform density for $n_\mathbf{q} = 0$. Indeed, the uniform density $n(\mathbf{r}) = n_0$ would be the case when the equal time order parameter vanish, $\Delta_\mathbf{q} (\mathbf{k})=0$, as would occur, for example, in the odd frequency case. So one has to study higher order correlations to reveal this kind of order. This can be done by looking at the density correlation, both in space and time \begin{align} \label{DC} \langle T_\tau \hat{n}(\mathbf{r},\tau)& \hat{n}(\mathbf{r}',0) \rangle = n^2 \\ &+ \langle T_\tau \Psi^\dagger(\mathbf{r},\tau) \Psi(\mathbf{r}',0) \rangle \langle T_\tau \Psi^\dagger(\mathbf{r}',0) \Psi(\mathbf{r},\tau) \rangle, \nonumber \end{align} where we used Wick's theorem and assumed that $n= \langle \hat{n}(\mathbf{r},\tau) \rangle$ is spatially and temporally independent. This assumption involves two important aspects. First the spatial homogeneity means we do not have the usual CDW state, which is manifested by the modulations (\ref{ncdw}). Second the time $\tau$ in $\langle \hat{n}(\mathbf{r},\tau) \rangle$ is the absolute time, or ``center of mass" time, as opposed to $\tau$ in $ \langle T_\tau \hat{n}(\mathbf{r},\tau) \hat{n}(\mathbf{r}',0) \rangle $ which represent a relative time, or some correlation time. Dependency on the relative time can comes from microscopical dynamics. Here we note that there are discussions on states that depend on the overall time. Such a scenario can imply the system is not in a steady state, or even the formation of a time crystal \cite{time,time2}. We do not address those issues in this work. \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[trim=9cm 5cm 5cm 3.8cm, clip=true, width=0.48\textwidth]{band.pdf} \caption{ (Color online) An illustration of the typical situation of CDW. Correlations between electrons on opposite sides of the Fermi surface appear and a gap is opened, around the Fermi energy, proportional to the correlation magnitude. Since the involved electrons should be in the vicinity of the Fermi wave vector $\pm k_F$, the momentum difference, which also determine the wave vector of the density modulations, have to be $|\mathbf{q}|=2k_F$. The correlation operator can be written either as annihilation of electron at $k_F$ and creation at $-k_F$ so $\Delta_\mathbf{q}(\mathbf{k}) = \langle a^\dagger_{-k_F } a_{k_F} \rangle$, which make $\mathbf{q}=-2k_F$, or vice versa $\Delta_\mathbf{q}(\mathbf{k}) = \langle a^\dagger_{k_F } a_{-k_F} \rangle$, which makes $\mathbf{q}=2k_F$. Note that for odd time CDW $\Delta_\mathbf{q}(\mathbf{k}) = \Delta_\mathbf{q}(\mathbf{k},\tau =0) =0$ and a gap might not open at $k_F$, but it is still reasonable to assume that correlations with the same momentum properties appear. This assumption is represented in eq (\ref{delta}). } \label{band} \end{figure} The quantity of interest for us is the second term on the right hand side of (\ref{DC}), $\chi(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}',\tau) = \langle T_\tau \hat{n}(\mathbf{r},\tau) \hat{n}(\mathbf{r}',0) \rangle - n^2$. By going over to momentum space we can write it using (\ref{kOPt}): \begin{equation} \label{fur} \chi (\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}',\tau) = \int d \mathcal{K} e^{-i(\mathbf{\tilde{r}}\mathbf{\tilde{k}} + \mathbf{r} \mathbf{q} + \mathbf{r}'\mathbf{q}')} \Delta_\mathbf{q}(\mathbf{k},\tau) \Delta_{\mathbf{q}'}(\mathbf{k}',-\tau), \end{equation} where $\mathbf{\tilde{r}} = \mathbf{r} - \mathbf{r}'$, $\mathbf{\tilde{k}} = \mathbf{k} - \mathbf{k}'$ and $\int d \mathcal{K} = d\mathbf{k} d\mathbf{k}' d\mathbf{q} d\mathbf{q}'$ means integration on all momentum variables. Let us now consider a case similar to the typical scenario for CDW, shown in Fig \ref{band}, where the abnormal correlations occur on the two opposite sides of a Fermi surface. This implies $\mathbf{q} = - 2 \mathbf{k} = \pm 2 \mathbf{k}_f$, where $\mathbf{k}_f$ is the Fermi wave vector. So the order parameter is given by \begin{align} \label{delta} \Delta_\mathbf{q}(\mathbf{k},\tau) &= \Delta_+(\tau)\delta(\mathbf{k} - \mathbf{k}_f) \delta(\mathbf{q} + 2 \mathbf{k}_f) \nonumber \\ & + \Delta_-(\tau) \delta(\mathbf{k} + \mathbf{k}_f) \delta(\mathbf{q} - 2 \mathbf{k}_f). \end{align} where $\Delta_+(\tau)$ and $\Delta_-(\tau)$ are in principle independent quantities. Here, for simplicity we choose $\delta$-function as the form of $\Delta_\mathbf{q}(\mathbf{k},\tau)$. A more realistic assumption would be that it is sharply peaked function at those values, so that $\Delta_{+ (-)}(\tau) = \int d\mathbf{k} d\mathbf{q} \Delta_\mathbf{q}(\mathbf{k},\tau) $ with integration intervals are around the points $ \mathbf{k}=(-) \mathbf{k}_f, -q = (-) 2 \mathbf{k}_f$. Inserting (\ref{delta}) in (\ref{fur}) we have, \begin{align} \label{xi} \chi (\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}',\tau) &= \Delta_+(\tau) \left[ \Delta_+(-\tau)e^{ i 4 \mathbf{R} \mathbf{k}_f }+ \Delta_-(-\tau) \right] \nonumber\\ &+ \Delta_-(\tau) \left[ \Delta_-(-\tau)e^{ -i 4\mathbf{R} \mathbf{k}_f } + \Delta_+(-\tau) \right]. \end{align} The fact that $ \chi (\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}',\tau) $ depends on the ``center of mass" coordinate $\mathbf{R}=(\mathbf{r}+\mathbf{r}')/2$ is a clear manifestation of the broken translation symmetry associated with CDW. Since we are considering a situation where the average density is uniform, the broken symmetry that can be observed in the density-density correlation is a strong indication to a hidden order residing in the system. The first two terms in (\ref{fur}) are oscillating with effective wave vector of $4k_f$. Such terms would appear for the usual case of CDW, if one looks at density-density correlations, in addition to terms with a wave vector of $2k_f$, which is also how the density is modulated. The more rapid oscillations of might be difficult to observe in certain systems. Neglecting the oscillating term we are left with a constant, i.e. $\mathbf{r}$ independent term. In the simple case where $\Delta_+(\tau)= \Delta_-(\tau)= \Delta(\tau)$, the sign of this term is given by the time parity of $\Delta(\tau)$, regardless of the sign of $\Delta(\tau)$ itself. Thus, if $\Delta(\tau)= - \Delta(-\tau)$, there will be a negative contribution from $ \chi (\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}',\tau) $ to the density-density correlation. We can consider a scenario, where this fact can be the basis for experimental evidence for odd time correlation, when the density-density correlation is a measured function of some experimental parameter, like temperature. If the correlation is constant in some region and then starts changing, the direction of the change can tell us whether $ \Delta_\mathbf{q} (\mathbf{k},\tau)$ is odd or even in time, i.e. a decrease in correlation would suggest an odd time CDW. Another quantity that can be of interest is the current-current correlations, which according to the Kubo formula\cite{Kubo} can yield the conductivity. Assuming the average current vanishes $ \langle j \rangle = 0$, the current-current correlations are given by (see appendix \ref{japp} for details): \begin{align} \label{jj1} \langle T_\tau j_i&(\mathbf{r},\tau) j_j(\mathbf{r}',0) \rangle = \int d \mathcal{K} e^{-i(\mathbf{\tilde{r}}\mathbf{\tilde{k}} + \mathbf{r} \mathbf{q} + \mathbf{r}'\mathbf{q}')} \times \nonumber\\ &{ (\mathbf{k} + \mathbf{k}' + \mathbf{q})_i (\mathbf{k} + \mathbf{k}' + \mathbf{q}')_j \over 4 m^2} \Delta_\mathbf{q}(\mathbf{k},\tau) \Delta_{\mathbf{q}'}(\mathbf{k}',-\tau). \end{align} Following the same procedure we used above for $ \chi (\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}',\tau) $, we consider the typical case, shown in Fig \ref{band}, where $\Delta_\mathbf{q}(\mathbf{k},\tau)$ is given by (\ref{delta}). Inserting (\ref{delta}) into (\ref{jj1}), we get \begin{align} \label{jj2} \langle j_i(\mathbf{r},\tau) &j_j(\mathbf{r}',0) \rangle = \nonumber\\ &- { \left(\mathbf{k}_f\right)_i \left(\mathbf{k}_f\right)_j \over m^2} \left[ \Delta_+(\tau) \Delta_-(-\tau) + \Delta_-(\tau) \Delta_+(-\tau)\right]. \end{align} It is interesting that the rapidly oscillating terms, which appear in eq (\ref{fur}), vanish here because they correspond to zero momentum. The disappearance of a conductivity term, accompanied by the appearance of oscillating density terms seems similar, and might be closely related, to the usual scenario of CDW where the conductivity vanish together with the appearance of density modulation. \begin{table} \begin{tabular}{|c c| r r r r || c r|} \hline $P$& $T$ & $\Delta_+^+$ & $\Delta_+^-$ & $\Delta_-^+$ & $\Delta_-^-$ & $ \chi (\mathbf{R},\tau) $ & $\langle j j \rangle { m^2 \over k_f^2} $ \\ \hline \hline + & + & 1 & 1 &1 &1 & $2+2\cos(4 \mathbf{R} k_f)$ & -2 ~~ \\ + & - &1 & 1 & -1 &-1 & $-2+2\cos(4 \mathbf{R} k_f)$ & 2 ~~ \\ - & + &1 & -1 & 1 &-1 & $-2-2\cos(4 \mathbf{R} k_f)$ & 2 ~~\\ - & - &1 & -1 & -1 & 1 & $2-2\cos(4 \mathbf{R} k_f)$ & -2 ~~\\ \multicolumn{2}{| r|}{Entang} & 1 & 1 & 1 & -1 & $-2 i \sin(2 \mathbf{R} k_f)$ & 0 ~~\\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{The values of the density-density and the current-current correlation for different parity behaviors of $\Delta_\mathbf{q}(\mathbf{k},\tau)$ according te eq. (\ref{xi}) and (\ref{jj2}). $\Delta_\alpha^\beta$ denotes $\Delta_\alpha( \beta \tau)$, $P$ and $T$ are the reversal operator for time and momentum respectively. The last line refer to a situation where $P$ and $T$ do not have a defined value each, but are interdependent, which is noted as Entang(led). From the observation of these values can one can learn the type, and especially the parity, of electron-hole correlations present in a system.} \label{par} \end{table} In the same way we consider $\Delta_\mathbf{q}(\mathbf{k},\tau)$ to be an odd or even function of time, we can also consider whether it is odd or even in momentum. For the case described by (\ref{delta}), even (odd) parity in momentum implies $\Delta_+(\tau)= (-) \Delta_-(\tau)$. These properties of $\Delta_\mathbf{q}(\mathbf{k},\tau)$ can be formulated by considering $\Delta_\mathbf{q}(\mathbf{k},\tau)$ to be a eigenfunction of two operators: the time reversal $T$, defined as $T \Delta_\mathbf{q}(\mathbf{k},\tau) = \Delta_\mathbf{q}(\mathbf{k},-\tau) $ and the momentum reversal, defined as as $P \Delta_\mathbf{q}(\mathbf{k},\tau) = \Delta_{-\mathbf{q}}(-\mathbf{k},\tau) $. For each operator, an eigenvalues of -1 or 1 implies the function is odd or even respectively. The values of $ \chi (\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}',\tau) $ and $\langle j(\mathbf{r},\tau) j(\mathbf{r}',0) \rangle $, for the different parity options are shown in Table \ref{par}. Apart from the four parity options for the operators $P$ and $T$, there can be another kind of behavior. For example, if $\Delta_+(\tau)$ is even in time and $\Delta_-(\tau)$ is odd. Such a situation, where the parity in one variable depends on the sign of the other variable suggest that the time and momentum parities are entangled (not necessarily in the quantum mechanics sense). Thus the parity of each individual operator is not defined and we refer to this state as entangled. There could be several possibilities for such a state and the values of $ \chi (\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}',\tau) $ and $\langle j(\mathbf{r},\tau) j(\mathbf{r}',0) \rangle $, for one of those possibilities are shown in the last line of Table \ref{par}. The typical case of CDW require that $\Delta_+(\tau)= \Delta_-(\tau)$, i.e. $P$ even, and independent of the sign of the momentum. One can allow to have explicit non-trivial dependence on the sign of the momentum i.e. $\Delta_+(\tau)= - \Delta_-(\tau)$, which means we are considering p-wave CDW. Hence, we have both possibilities and Table \ref{par} represent a general symmetry classification. \section{Definition of an order parameter for odd time CDW} If indeed this state represent a new phase, which possess some order, it is described by an order parameter. Since the order parameter, as it is most commonly defined, vanish in the case of odd time correlations, we define a new order parameter. This can be done, for example, by considering the time derivative of the correlation at equal time, i.e. $\tau =0$. Let us define our order parameter as \cite{Abrahams,Dahal} \begin{equation} \label{opNew} D_\mathbf{q}(\mathbf{k}) = {d \over d\tau} \Delta_\mathbf{q}(\mathbf{k},\tau)|_{ \tau =0}. \end{equation} While $ D_\mathbf{q} (\mathbf{k}) $ does not depend on time it capture some of the dynamics of the state. For any model Hamiltonian $H$, we can use the Heisenberg equation ${d \over d\tau} O(t) = [H,O]$ to write this order parameter as \begin{equation} \label{opNew2} D_\mathbf{q} (\mathbf{k}) = \left\langle [H,a^\dagger_{\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{q}}] a_\mathbf{k} \right\rangle. \end{equation} In case the part that is most significant is the correlations at close to equal time $ \tau \ll 1 $, it is plausible to approximate this correlations to first order as \begin{equation} \label{firstordr} \Delta_\mathbf{q}(\mathbf{k},\tau) \simeq D_\mathbf{q} (\mathbf{k}) \tau \end{equation} and then we can learn from the order parameter (\ref{opNew2}) relevant correlations that are responsible for odd time order (\ref{kOPt}). It can be very instructive to calculate (\ref{opNew2}) for a specific model and a good candidate would be the textbook model for CDW. However, our discussion of CDW, which involved a phenomenological approach and was focused on electron correlation, is somewhat different from the traditional treatment of CDW, which typically includes a microscopic model and is focused on average of phonon operators. Thus we briefly review the traditional formalism and show how it connects to the one we used. The traditional derivation of CDW \cite{Gruner1,Gruner2} involves the electron-phonon interaction \begin{equation} \label{hi} H_I = \sum_{\mathbf{k},\mathbf{q}} g_{\mathbf{q},\mathbf{k}} \left(b^\dagger_{-\mathbf{q}} + b_\mathbf{q} \right) a^\dagger_{\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{q}}a_\mathbf{k} \end{equation} where $ b^{(\dagger)}_{\mathbf{q}}$ is creating (annihilating) a boson with momentum $\mathbf{q}$ and $g_{\mathbf{q},\mathbf{k}}$ is a coupling function. Using mean field methods, a self consistent equation can be obtained for $\langle b_\mathbf{q} \rangle$ with a solution having $\langle b_\mathbf{q} \rangle \ne 0$, which represent a periodic distortion in the underlying lattice. The average $\langle b_\mathbf{q} \rangle$ is related to the gap that is opened in the electron spectrum and it is interpreted as an order parameter. From a phenomenological point of view, if one is interested in the electronic structure, it is not necessary to consider the interaction (\ref{hi}), or even to involve phonons, in order to derive an order parameter. One can simply consider periodic spatial modulation $n_\mathbf{q}$ in the density of electrons, as given by (\ref{ncdw}), and write an expression for $n_\mathbf{q}$ in term of averages on creation operators \begin{equation}\label{nq} n_\mathbf{q} = e^{i \phi } \int d\mathbf{k} \langle a^\dagger_{\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{q}} a_\mathbf{k} \rangle = \int d\mathbf{k} \Delta_\mathbf{q}(\mathbf{k}). \end{equation} The presence of modulations $n_\mathbf{q} \ne 0$, implies a non vanishing order parameter regardless of the microscopic model but from (\ref{hi}) it is clear that an $\langle b_\mathbf{q} \rangle \sim \Delta_\mathbf{q}(\mathbf{k})$. So the traditional formalism can be regarded as a possible recipe to construct a microscopic model which can explain our phenomenological quantities. We can use (\ref{hi}) for getting an explicit expression for $D_\mathbf{q}(\mathbf{k})$. We have \begin{equation} \label{opNew3} D_\mathbf{q} (\mathbf{k}) = \left\langle \sum_{\mathbf{q}'} g_{\mathbf{q}',\mathbf{k}+ \mathbf{q}} \left(b^\dagger_{-\mathbf{q}'} + b_{\mathbf{q}'} \right) a^\dagger_{\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{q}+\mathbf{q}'} a_\mathbf{k} \right\rangle. \end{equation} In the typical case, which we discussed above, $\mathbf{q}=\mathbf{q}'=2k_f$. Thus the order parameter is given by electron-hole correlation with a momentum difference of $4k_f$. This observation is consistent with the behavior of $ \chi (\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}',\tau) $ and $\langle j(\mathbf{r},\tau) j(\mathbf{r}',0) \rangle $ calculated above. Indeed this suggests that the hidden order we are interested in is manifested in higher order correlation between electron and lattice degrees of freedom. \section{Conclusion} In conclusion, we present the odd time (frequency) CDW and SDW as an extension to the notion of density waves considered to date. Main feature of these odd time density waves is that there are no equal time modulation in the expectation values of spin and charge densities. Yet as is clear from the overall structure, there are nontrivial dynamic correlations. These nontrivial correlations, Eq. (\ref{xi}) and (\ref{jj2}) could serve as a test for the odd time density wave. As such this work represents the extension of odd-frequency state classification to density waves, beyond superconductors and BEC. It remains to be seen what are the realistic fermion interactions that would enable the odd time density correlations. We also point out that these dynamic correlations with no equal time expectation value do correspond in a way to a ``hidden order" that cannot be observed as the traditional charge/spin modulation. As such it can be a candidate for materials with hidden orders where one observes thermodynamic features of a transition while no order parameter consistent with the transition can be inferred from the current measurements. {\em Acknowledgements} We acknowledge useful discussions with Sergey Pershoguba and Jonathan Edge. This work was supported by ERC DM-321031 and US DOE BES E304.
\section{Introduction} It is well known that the plastic deformation of crystalline materials is carried by a large number of atomistic line defects, i.e. dislocations. Hence macroscopic models of crystal plasticity can be established by formulating the dynamics of many dislocations. As an idealised (but also practically useful) case, the dynamics of straight and mutually-parallel dislocations have been intensively studied. These translationally invariant dislocations can be treated as ``poles'' on one of the planes perpendicular to all dislocation lines. These straight dislocations, like electrical charges, have signs depending on their line directions with respect to the slip direction, known as the Burgers vector. Abundant experimental evidence suggests that a good understanding of the collective behaviour of many straight dislocations is important for controlling the mechanical properties of crystals. One example is found inside a single-crystalline fatigued copper specimen induced by cyclic loads \cite{Mughrabi_1979}. Before the saturation point is reached, the inner configuration of the copper specimen takes a ``channel-vein'' structure as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_vein_PSBs}(a). \begin{figure}[!ht] \centering \subfigure[Channel-vein structure]{ \includegraphics[width=.35\textwidth]{fig_channel_veins_illu.eps}} \subfigure[PSB structure]{ \includegraphics[width=.35\textwidth]{fig_PSBs_illu.eps}} \caption{Dislocation patterns in the early stage of metal fatigue induced by cyclic loads. \label{fig_vein_PSBs}} \end{figure} A vein consists of many almost straight and closely spaced edge dislocations and the veins are separated by channels where the dislocation density is relatively low. Beyond the saturation point, a characteristic ladder-shape structure (known as persistent slip bands (PSBs)) forms as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_vein_PSBs}(b). The walls of the ladders also consist of straight edge dislocations. The mechanism governing the transition from the channel-vein to PSB structures is still unclear, and a study of the collective behaviour of edge dipoles can be of great help to its understanding. One way to reveal the role played by these straight dislocations during the formation of PSBs, is by using two-dimensional (2D) discrete dislocation dynamical (DDD) models, where all dislocations are tracked individually (e.g. \cite{Brinckmann2004}). Nevertheless, it is still difficult to get a clear idea of the mechanism that governs dislocation pattern formation in crystals from DDD simulations. Hence there is still a need to investigate the dynamics of dislocations at the continuum level, where materials substructures are described by a dislocation density distribution. In principle, a dislocation-density-based continuum model should be obtained through a rigorous averaging of its underlying 2D DDD model. However, existing discrete-to-continuum approaches struggle to upscale multi-polar configurations of straight dislocations. The reason is as follows. At room temperature, dislocations (of edge type) are in general constrained in their own slip planes. As a result, a positively defined edge dislocation and a nearby negatively defined edge dislocation which is not on the same slip plane tend to lock each other by forming a pair of dipole rather than to annihilate each other. Since the locking stress between the two components of a dislocation dipole scales with the intra-dipolar spacing $r$ by $1/r$, a relatively large externally applied stress is needed in order to mobilise the constituent dislocations of a dipole. Hence the presence of dislocation dipoles may effectively increase the strength of a crystal. When traditional homogenisation methods are applied, however, dipoles, despite being crucial in determining the material mechanical properties, average to zero and they play no role in the continuum approximation. Owing to this, traditional homogenisation techniques are only applicable when investigating the collective behaviour of many dislocations of the same sign, i.e. the geometrically necessary dislocations (GNDs) (e.g. \cite{Geers2013, Ock1983, Voskoboinikov2007JMPS}). The collective behaviour of an arbitrary multipolar configuration of dislocations is only considered in a phenomenological or statistical manner \cite{Schulz2014, Groma1997, Groma2003}. There have also been works where each dipole pair is treated as one object so that the traditional homogenisation method can be applied \cite{Hall2010}. As shown by our analysis, this only works for the case where the slip plane spacing is much smaller than the inter-dipolar spacing. Capturing dipole-like structures at the continuum level is also a bottom neck problem for establishing a three-dimensional (3D) dislocation-density-based continuum theory of plasticity. The density distribution of GNDs in 3D space, where dislocations can be curved, is represented by the Nye's dislocation density tensor \cite{Nye1953}, which only accommodates the gradient of (macroscopic) plastic strains. One missing part is the role played by statistically stored dislocations (SSDs), whose physical dimensions are too small to be distinguished from a dislocation-free state in the Nye's dislocation density tensor. Similar as dislocation dipoles discussed above, some SSD structures also play a role in determining the (macroscopic) plastic properties of crystals. During the past two decades, many valuable works have been done in order to improve the framework based on the Nye's dislocation density tensor (e.g. \cite{Acharya2001, Arsenlis2002, ElAzab2000, Evers_JMPS2004, Tighe1993, Hochrainer2007, Sandfeld2011}), but the formulation of SSDs at the continuum level is either phenomenological or statistical up to date. There are other dislocation configurations that are not properly included in the framework based on the Nye's dislocation density tensor, such as dislocation interactions with other types of crystalline defects (e.g. Frank-Read sources, grain boundaries). Therefore, a pivotal question to be answered for establishing a solid dislocation-density-based theory of plasticity is, ``how should SSDs as well as other structures missing in the framework for GNDs be properly formulated on a coarse-grained scale?'' Part of this question has been answered through the establishment of a continuum model of plasticity, where a set of dislocation density potential functions (DDPFs) are employed to represent the dislocation substructures on a single slip plane \cite{Xiang2009_JMPS, ZhuXH2010, Zhu2014_IJP} and in three-dimensional space \cite{Zhu_continuum3D}. The micro-scale mechanisms that are well incorporated into the continuum model characterised by DDPFs are the dislocation line tension effect \cite{Xiang2009_JMPS}, the grain boundary structures \cite{Xiang_GB2014} and the operation of dislocation sources of the Frank-Read type \cite{Zhu2014_IJP}. The hints of how to rigorously incorporate SSDs at the continuum level can be found from the analysis presented in the current paper. Motivated by these issues, the collective behaviour of a row of dislocation dipoles is studied here. The discrete-to-continuum transition is facilitated by the introduction of two field variables respectively describing the dislocation pair density potential and the dislocation pair width. By using asymptotic analysis, we derive coupled evolution equations for these two field variables. Actually we show that the time scales associated with the evolution of the two field variables are different. The dislocation pair width, which moves in response to the resolved shear stress at leading order, varies on a time scale much shorter than that associated with the dislocation pair density, which moves in response to the ``stress gradient'' (coming from the resolved shear stress at the next order). Hence if viewed on the slower scale, fast-varying mechanisms take place so quickly that only their steady (or equilibrium) states need to be taken into account. As a result, the collective behaviour of a row of dislocation dipoles at the continuum level can be described by an evolution equation for the slowly varying dislocation pair density coupled with an equilibrium equation for the dislocation pair width. Such discrete-to-continuum approaches asymptotically separating active processes according to their associated time scales may pave a way for the incorporation of SSDs at the continuum level. Moreover, a transition between two distinct dipolar patterns due to instability, which was originally discovered in periodically distributed dipoles \cite{Zhu_2Ddipoles2014}, is also seen here, and the transition may have some role to play in understanding the formation of PSBs. The paper is arranged as follows. The governing equations for the DDD model, which we take as our reference model, are written down in \S\ref{Sec_DDD}. After the introduction of the variables needed for the discrete-to-continuum transition in \S\ref{Sec_prepare}, we derive for the asymptotic expressions of the resolved stress field in \S\ref{Sec_stress}. Then the governing equations for equilibrium states and the dynamics at the continuum level are presented in \S\ref{Sec_continuum_model}. In \S\ref{Sec_equilibria}, the equilibrium states at the continuum level are further analysed and a natural transition between different equilibrium patterns is found. In \S\ref{Sec_continuum_DDD_comp}, the accuracy and efficiency of the derived continuum model are studied. The article concludes with further discussion in \S\ref{Sec_conclusion}. \section{Dynamics at the level of discrete dislocations\label{Sec_DDD}} \begin{figure}[!ht] \centering \includegraphics[width=.65\textwidth]{fig_problem_set_up.eps} \caption{The $x$-$y$ plane is one of the planes perpendicular to all dislocation lines ,and $\vb$ is the Burgers vector. The numbers of positive and negative dislocations are identically $N+1$. All positively oriented dislocations are located on one slip plane, which degenerates to the $x$-axis here, and all negatively oriented dislocations are put on another slip plane at a distance of $s$ from the $x$-axis (given by $y=s$). The $n$-th dislocation pair consists of the $n$-th positive and negative dislocations, whose locations are set to be at $(p_n,0)$ and $(q_n,s)$, respectively. The $x$-coordinate for the center of the $n$-th pair is denoted by $x_n$ given by Eq.~\eqref{xn_def}. Here the length of the domain of interest $L$ equals $1$ after non-dimensionalisation. \label{fig_problem_set_up}} \end{figure} Here we consider the case of a single slip system associated with the Burgers vector denoted by $\vb$, and all dislocations here are straight, mutually parallel and of edge type. The problem is thus reduced to one of the planes that are orthogonal to all dislocation tangents. Here the plane of interest is set to be the $x$-$y$ plane as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_problem_set_up}. If we choose $\vb=(b,0)$ with $b>0$, each dislocation can thus be treated as a signed point in $x$-$y$ plane. Here we set a dislocation with its line direction pointing outward the paper plane (see \cite{Hirth1982} for details) to be a ``positive dislocation'' and denoted by ``$\bot$''. A dislocation with its line direction pointing inward the paper plane is set to be a ``negative dislocation'' and denoted by ``$\top$''. The configuration we consider is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_problem_set_up}. There are $N+1$ positive dislocations lying on the slip plane characterised by the $x$-axis, while $N+1$ negative dislocations are put on another slip plane at a distance of $s$ from the $x$-axis. The $n$-th dislocation pair is set to consist of the $n$-th positive and negative dislocations, which are located at $(p_n,0)$ and $(q_n,s)$, respectively. Concerning dislocation motion, we employ a dislocation mobility law, which only allows dislocations (of edge types) to glide within their slip plane at a speed proportional to their on-site resolved shear stress. Under this rule, the motion of the $n$-th positive dislocation is governed by \beq \label{mobility_law_pos} v_n^+ = \frac{\d p_n}{\d t} = m_{\text{g}} b (\tau_{\text{int}}(p_n,0) + \tau_{\text{ext}}(p_n,0)), \eeq where $v_n^+$ denotes the speed of the $n$-th positive dislocation along $x$-direction; $\tau_{\text{int}}(x,y)$ is the internal resolved shear stress field at $(x,y)$ resulting from the dislocation-dislocation interactions; $\tau_{\text{ext}}(x,y)$ denotes the externally applied resolved shear stress at $(x,y)$; $m_{\text{g}}$ is the dislocation glide coefficient; $b=|\vb|$. To facilitate further analysis, we consider the problem in a non-dimensional sense, that is, all spatial variables are scaled with $L$; all stress components are scaled with $\mu Nb/(2\pi(1-\nu)L)$ and time $t$ is scaled with $2\pi (1-\nu)L^2/(\mu m_{\text{g}}Nb^2)$, where $\mu$ and $\nu$ are the shear modulus and Poisson's ratio, respectively. Hence the non-dimensional version of Eq.~\eqref{mobility_law_pos} becomes \beq \label{mobility_law_pos_dimensionless} \frac{\d p_n}{\d t} = \tau_{\text{int}}(p_n,0) + \tau_{\text{ext}}(p_n,0) = \tau_{\text{tot}}(p_n,0), \eeq where $\tau_{\text{tot}}$ denotes the (non-dimensional) total resolved shear stress field. Similarly, the (non-dimensional) gliding speed of the $n$-th negative dislocation is governed by \beq \label{mobility_law_neg_dimensionless} \frac{\d q_n}{\d t} = -\tau_{\text{int}}(q_n,s) - \tau_{\text{ext}}(q_n,s) = -\tau_{\text{tot}}(q_n,s). \eeq A comparison between Eqs.~\eqref{mobility_law_pos_dimensionless} and \eqref{mobility_law_neg_dimensionless} suggests that a positive and a negative dislocation move in opposite directions under the same resolved shear stress field. The (non-dimensional) internal resolved shear stress field $\tau_{\text{int}}$ is calculated by the superposition of the resolved shear stresses due to all individual dislocations \cite{Hirth1982}: \beq \label{tau_internal_pos_n_dimensionless} \tau_{\text{int}}(p_n,0) = \frac1{N}\sum_{\substack{j=0 \\ j\neq n}}^N \frac1{p_n-p_j} - \frac1{N}\sum_{j=0}^N \frac{(p_n-q_j)((p_n-q_j)^2 - s^2)}{((p_n-q_j)^2 + s^2)^2} \eeq and \beq \label{tau_internal_neg_n_dimensionless} \tau_{\text{int}}(q_n,s) = \frac1{N}\sum_{j=0}^N \frac{(q_n-p_j)((q_n-p_j)^2 - s^2)}{((q_n-p_j)^2 + s^2)^2} - \frac1{N}\sum_{\substack{j=0 \\ j\neq n}}^N \frac1{q_n-q_j}. \eeq The dynamics at the level of discrete dislocations is thus given by Eqs.~\eqref{mobility_law_pos_dimensionless} - \eqref{tau_internal_neg_n_dimensionless}, which form a closed system of ordinary differential equations for the $2(N+1)$ unknowns $\{p_n\}_{n=0}^N$ and $\{q_n\}_{n=0}^N$. \section{Preparation for discrete-to-continuum transition\label{Sec_prepare}} Usually the number of dislocations in crystals is very large. Hence it is sensible to consider the collective behaviour of the system governed by Eqs.~\eqref{mobility_law_pos_dimensionless} - \eqref{tau_internal_neg_n_dimensionless}. Mathematically, this can be achieved by examining the asymptotic behaviour of the system as $N\rightarrow\infty$. The expected outcomes are the evolution equations of some continuously defined variables that characterise the dislocation substructures. In this section, we will introduce the field variables needed for the discrete-to-continuum transition. Given a large $N$, the length scale associated with the discrete dislocation dynamical model given by Eqs.~\eqref{mobility_law_pos_dimensionless} to \eqref{tau_internal_neg_n_dimensionless} is the spacing of neighbouring discrete dislocations, i.e. $\CO(1/N)$, so that individual dislocations can be observed. We now want to describe the same dynamical relation by a model associated with an $\CO(1)$ length scale, where a continuous dislocation density distribution is considered rather than isolated dislocations. To facilitate such a transition, we first define $x_n$ to be the $x$ coordinate for the center of the $n$-th dislocation pair as shown in Fig~\ref{fig_problem_set_up} \beq \label{xn_def} x_n = \frac{p_n+q_n}{2}. \eeq Then we introduce a continuous function of (non-dimensional) time and space denoted by $\zeta(t,x)$, such that \beq \label{zeta_def} \frac{\zeta(t,x_n)}{N} = q_n-p_n. \eeq Here $\zeta(t,x)$ is a field variable defined for $x\in[0,1]$, and its value at $x_n$ measures the width of $n$-th dislocation pair scaled by $N$. Since the spacings of neighbouring dislocations are $\CO(1/N)$, $\zeta(t,x)\sim\CO(1)$ as $N\rightarrow\infty$. At the continuum level, $\zeta$ is employed to characterise the local pattern of dislocation dipoles. Throughout the paper, a subscript $n$ or $j$ affiliated with a field variable such as $\zeta$ indicates that the field is evaluated at $x=x_n$ or at $x=x_j$, respectively; for example, $\zeta_n = \zeta(t,x_n)$. Here we consider the case where $\zeta\in[0,1/2]$, and the properties for $\zeta\in(-1/2,0)$ can be studied likewise. From Eqs.~\eqref{xn_def} and \eqref{zeta_def}, $p_n$ and $q_n$ can be expressed in terms of $x_n$ and $\zeta_n$ respectively by \beq \label{pqn_from_xnzetan} p_n = x_n - \frac{\zeta_n}{2N},\qquad q_n = x_n + \frac{\zeta_n}{2N}. \eeq We now introduce another field variable, the dislocation pair density potential $\phi(t,x)$, such that \beq \label{DDPF_def} \phi_n = \phi(t,x_n) = \frac{n}{N}; \eeq this definition is by direct analogy with the dislocation density potential functions defined in \cite{Xiang2009_JMPS} or \cite{Zhu_continuum3D}. It can be shown by following the same argument presented in \cite{Xiang2009_JMPS} that the density distribution of the dislocation pairs denoted by $\rho$ can be calculated by $\rho = \partial \phi/\partial x$. Throughout this paper, the inputs $(t,x)$ for $\phi$ and $\zeta$ are omitted if no ambiguities are caused. Moveover, a dash is added to a variable to denote its derivative with respect to $x$, for example $\rho=\phi'$. Here we only consider the case when $s$, the (non-dimensional) spacing between the two slip planes, is $\CO(1/N)$, as $N\rightarrow\infty$. This implies that $s$ can be rescaled by \beq \label{s_scale} s = \frac{S}{N}, \eeq where $S\sim\CO(1)$. When $s\sim \CO(1)$, the interaction between dislocations from different slip planes become long-range, and the configurations can be studied by applying conventional homogenisation approaches. At the continuum level, the dislocation substructures are expected to be described by the two field variables $\phi$ and $\zeta$ and the goal now is to look for their governing equations by taking the asymptotic limit $N\rightarrow\infty$ of Eqs.~\eqref{mobility_law_pos_dimensionless} - \eqref{tau_internal_neg_n_dimensionless}. \section{Asymptotic behaviour of the resolved shear stress field\label{Sec_stress}} To accomplish the discrete-to-continuum transition we use the following procedure. Given a quantity defined in a discrete sense, we first asymptotically express the values at $(p_n,0)$ and $(q_n,s)$ by functions of $x_n$, for any integer $n\in[0,N]$. In this way the equations at the discrete level can be transformed into asymptotic equations for $\phi$ and $\zeta$, which only hold at every $x_n$. Then by using the fact that $x_n$ is densely distributed throughout the whole domain, we replace $x_n$ by $x$ to turn the obtained equations to corresponding integro-differential equations of $\phi$ and $\zeta$, which hold for all $x$. Following this strategy, we start by considering the asymptotic behaviour of the internal resolved shear stress $\tau_{\text{int}}(p_n,0)$ and $\tau_{\text{int}}(q_n,s)$, given by Eq.~\eqref{tau_internal_pos_n_dimensionless} and \eqref{tau_internal_neg_n_dimensionless}, respectively as $N\rightarrow\infty$. First, an interval $\Omega_{\text{in}}^n$ is introduced to the $n$-th dislocation pair, such that the $x$-coordinates of the centers of its $2K$ neighbouring pairs fall inside $\Omega_{\text{in}}^n$ as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_region_split}. The number $K$ here satisfies $1\ll K \ll N$. \begin{figure}[!ht] \centering \includegraphics[width=.7\textwidth]{fig_region_split.eps} \caption{Given the $n$-th dislocation pair, the $x$-coordinates of the centers of its $2K$ neighbouring pairs fall inside an interval, defined to be the inner region $\Omega_{\text{in}}^n$, whose size is $\CO(K/N)$. Mathematically, this interval is given by Eq.~\eqref{inner_region_def}. The outer region is defined to be the interval into which the $x$-coordinates of the centers of all other dislocation pairs fall. Mathematically, it is given by Eq.~\eqref{outer_region_def}. \label{fig_region_split}} \end{figure} Throughout this paper, $\Omega_{\text{in}}^n$ defined in this way is termed as the ``inner region''. Mathematically, $\Omega_{\text{in}}^n$ is represented by \beq \label{inner_region_def} \Omega_{\text{in}}^n = \left\{x\left| \left|\phi(t, x)-\frac{n}{N}\right|\le \frac{K}{N} \right.\right\}. \eeq It can be seen that the length of $\Omega_{\text{in}}^n$ is $\CO(K/N)$. Similarly we define the ``outer region'' by \beq \label{outer_region_def} \Omega_{\text{out}}^n = \left\{x\left| \left|\phi(t, x)-\frac{n}{N}\right| > \frac{K}{N} \right.\right\}, \eeq which contains the $x$-coordinate of the centers of all other dislocation pairs. Then we estimate $\tau_{\text{int}}(p_n,0)$ in Eq.~\eqref{tau_internal_pos_n_dimensionless} by decomposing it into two parts \beq \label{tau_p_split} \tau_{\text{int}}(p_n,0) = \tau_{\text{int}}^{\text{in}}(p_n,0) + \tau_{\text{int}}^{\text{out}}(p_n,0), \eeq where $\tau_{\text{int}}^{\text{in}}(p_n,0)$ denotes the resolved shear stress due to all dislocations associated with the inner region $\Omega_{\text{in}}^n$: \beq \label{tau_p_inner} \tau_{\text{int}}^{\text{in}}(p_n,0) = \frac1{N}\sum_{\substack{j=n-K \\ j\neq n}}^{n+K} \frac1{p_n-p_j} - \frac1{N}\sum_{j=n-K}^{n+K} \frac{(p_n-q_j)((p_n-q_j)^2 - s^2)}{((p_n-q_j)^2 + s^2)^2} \eeq and $\tau_{\text{int}}^{\text{out}}(p_n,0)$ denotes the resolved shear stress due to all dislocations associated with $\Omega_{\text{out}}^n$: \beq \label{tau_p_outer} \tau_{\text{int}}^{\text{out}}(p_n,0) = \frac1{N}\sum_{\substack{0\le j<n-K\\n+K < j\le N}} \left(\frac1{p_n-p_j} - \frac{(p_n-q_j)((p_n-q_j)^2 - s^2)}{((p_n-q_j)^2 + s^2)^2}\right). \eeq It is worth noting that the decomposition suggested by Eq.~\eqref{tau_p_split} only holds for dislocation pairs that are not too close to the boundaries, i.e. $K< n < N-K$. We will perform an inner and an outer region approximation to calculate the asymptotic limit of $\tau_{\text{int}}^{\text{in}}(p_n,0)$ and $\tau_{\text{int}}^{\text{out}}(p_n,0)$ respectively, as $N\rightarrow\infty$. Then we put the results together to get an approximation to $\tau_{\text{int}}(p_n,0)$. The asymptotic behaviour of $\tau_{\text{int}}(q_n,0)$ as $N\rightarrow\infty$ will be studied likewise. \subsection{Inner region approximation} In order to get an asymptotic expression for $\tau_{\text{int}}^{\text{in}}(p_n,0)$ as $N\rightarrow\infty$, we first look for the expansion of each term in the summation appearing in Eq.~\eqref{tau_p_inner}. Given a dislocation associated with the inner region, the distance from its $x$-coordinate (for example, $p_j$ or $q_j$), to $x_n$, the $x$-coordinate of the center of $n\text{-th}$ dislocation pair is small compared to the length of the computational domain (which equals to $1$ after non-dimensionalisation). Hence we use Taylor expansion to asymptotically express $p_j$ and $q_j$ in terms of $x_n$. This is accomplished in two steps: first we relate $p_j$ and $q_j$ to $x_j$ and then we relate $x_j$ to $x_n$. The first step has been achieved by Eq.~\eqref{pqn_from_xnzetan}. For the second step, we re-write Eq.~\eqref{DDPF_def} by \beq \label{relate_xj_to_xn_inner} \phi(t,x_j) = \frac{j}{N} = \frac{n}{N} + \frac{j-n}{N} = \phi(t,x_n) + \frac{j-n}{N}. \eeq Applying $\phi^{-1}$ to both sides of Eq.~\eqref{relate_xj_to_xn_inner}, noting that $\phi^{-1}(j/N)=x_j$, gives \beq \label{relate_xj_to_xn_inner0} x_j = \phi^{-1}\left(\phi(t,x_n) + \frac{j-n}{N}\right). \eeq Since $|\frac{j-n}{N}| \le \frac{K}{N} \ll 1$ for all $x_j\in\Omega_{\text{in}}^n$, we expand Eq.~\eqref{relate_xj_to_xn_inner0} in terms of $\frac{j-n}{N}$ to obtain \beq \label{expan_xj_inner} x_j \sim x_n + \frac{j-n}{N}\cdot\frac1{\phi'_n} - \frac{(j-n)^2}{N^2}\cdot\frac{\phi_n''}{2(\phi'_n)^3} + \frac{(j-n)^3}{N^3}\cdot\frac{(3(\phi_n'')^2-\phi_n'\phi_n''')}{6(\phi'_n)^5} + \CO\left(\frac{K^4}{N^4}\right). \eeq Recall that an index $n$ on $\phi$ or $\zeta$ denotes that the evaluation is made at $x_n$. Using Eq.~\eqref{expan_xj_inner}, we Taylor expand $\zeta_j$ about $x_n$ to give \beq \label{expan_zetaj_inner} \zeta_j = \zeta(t,x_j) \sim \zeta_n + \frac1{N}\cdot\frac{(j-n)\zeta_n'}{\phi'_n} + \frac1{N^2}\cdot\frac{(j-n)^2(\zeta_n''\phi_n'-\phi_n''\zeta_n')}{2(\phi'_n)^3} + \CO\left(\frac{K^3}{N^3}\right). \eeq Combining Eqs.~\eqref{pqn_from_xnzetan}, \eqref{expan_xj_inner} and \eqref{expan_zetaj_inner}, we asymptotically express $p_j$ near $x_n$ by \beq \label{expan_pj_inner} \begin{aligned} p_j &\sim x_n + \frac1{N}\cdot\left(\frac{j-n}{\phi'_n}-\frac{\zeta_n}{2}\right) - \frac1{2N^2}\cdot\left(\frac{(j-n)\zeta_n'}{\phi'_n} + \frac{(j-n)^2\phi_n''}{(\phi'_n)^3} \right) \\ &\quad + \frac{(j-n)^2}{N^3}\cdot\left(\frac{\zeta_n'\phi_n''}{4(\phi_n')^3} + \frac{(j-n)(\phi_n'')^2}{2(\phi_n')^5} - \frac{\zeta_n''}{4(\phi_n')^2} - \frac{(j-n)\phi_n'''}{6(\phi_n')^4}\right) + \CO\left(\frac{K^4}{N^4}\right). \end{aligned} \eeq Similarly we find \beq \label{expan_qj_inner} \begin{aligned} q_j &\sim x_n + \frac1{N}\cdot\left(\frac{j-n}{\phi'_n}+\frac{\zeta_n}{2}\right) + \frac1{2N^2}\cdot\left(\frac{(j-n)\zeta_n'}{\phi'_n} - \frac{(j-n)^2\phi_n''}{(\phi'_n)^3} \right) \\ &\quad - \frac{(j-n)^2}{N^3}\cdot\left(\frac{\zeta_n'\phi_n''}{4(\phi_n')^3} - \frac{(j-n)(\phi_n'')^2}{2(\phi_n')^5} - \frac{\zeta_n''}{4(\phi_n')^2} + \frac{(j-n)\phi_n'''}{6(\phi_n')^4}\right) + \CO\left(\frac{K^4}{N^4}\right). \end{aligned} \eeq Then incorporating Eqs.~\eqref{expan_pj_inner} and \eqref{expan_qj_inner} into \eqref{tau_p_inner}, we obtain the expansion of $\tau_{\text{int}}^{\text{in}}(p_n,0)$ as \beq \label{tau_p_est_inner} \begin{aligned} \tau_{\text{int}}^{\text{in}}(p_n,0) &\sim (\pi \phi_n') \cdot G_0(2\pi\zeta_n\phi_n', 2\pi S\phi_n') +\frac{2\zeta_n\phi_n'}{K} - \frac{\zeta_n\phi_n'}{K^2} \\ & \quad - \frac{\phi_n''}{N\phi_n'}\cdot G_{11}(2\pi\zeta_n\phi_n', 2\pi S\phi_n') -\frac{(\zeta_n\phi_n')'}{N}\cdot G_{12}(2\pi\zeta_n\phi_n', 2\pi S\phi_n') \\ & \quad - \frac{\phi_n'\zeta_n'}{N}\cdot G_{13}(2\pi\zeta_n\phi_n', 2\pi S\phi_n') + o\left(\frac1{N}\right), \end{aligned} \eeq where \beq \label{term_G0} G_0(\alpha,\beta) = \frac{\sin\alpha}{\cosh\beta-\cos\alpha } - \frac{\beta \sin\alpha\sinh\beta}{(\cos\alpha - \cosh\beta)^2}, \eeq \beq \label{term_G11} \begin{aligned} &G_{11}(\alpha,\beta) = -\frac1{2} - \frac{\alpha\sin\alpha + 2\beta\sinh\beta}{2(\cos\alpha-\cosh\beta)} + \frac{5\beta^2(1-\cos\alpha\cosh\beta)}{4(\cos\alpha-\cosh\beta)^2} - \frac{3\alpha\beta\sin\alpha\sinh\beta}{2(\cos\alpha-\cosh\beta)^2} \\ &\quad + \frac{\beta^3\sinh\beta(1-\cos\alpha\cosh\beta+\sin^2\alpha) }{4(\cos\alpha-\cosh\beta)^3} + \frac{\alpha\beta^2\sin\alpha(1-\cos\alpha\cosh\beta-\sinh^2\beta) }{2(\cos\alpha-\cosh\beta)^3}, \end{aligned} \eeq \beq \label{term_G12} G_{12}(\alpha,\beta) = - \frac{\pi\alpha(1-\cos\alpha\cosh\beta)}{2(\cos\alpha-\cosh\beta)^2} - \frac{\pi\alpha\beta\sinh\beta(1-\cos\alpha\cosh\beta+\sin^2\alpha) }{2(\cos\alpha-\cosh\beta)^3}. \eeq and \beq \label{term_G13} \begin{aligned} &G_{13}(\alpha,\beta) =\\ &\quad -\frac{\pi\sin\alpha}{2}\left(\frac1{\cos\alpha-\cosh\beta} + \frac{3\beta\sinh\beta }{(\cos\alpha-\cosh\beta)^2} - \frac{\beta^2(1-\cos\alpha\cosh\beta-\sinh^2\beta)}{(\cos\alpha-\cosh\beta)^3}\right). \end{aligned} \eeq The detailed derivation of Eq.~\eqref{tau_p_est_inner} is given in the supplementary materials. We will find that the internal resolved shear stress components accounting for the pair density evolution arise at $\CO(1/N)$. Thus, unless specified, the expansions to all resolved shear stresses will be truncated at $o(1/N)$. To ensure this accuracy, we further choose $K \sim \sqrt{N}$. \subsection{Outer region approximation} For $x_j$ belonging to the outer region, the expansion given by Eq.~\eqref{expan_xj_inner} no longer holds since $(j-n)/N$ can grow as large as $\CO(1)$. However, according to Eq.~\eqref{outer_region_def}, we have \beq \label{estimate_xjxn_outer} \frac{K}{N} < |\phi(x_n)-\phi(x_j)| = \phi'(c_0)|x_n-x_j|, \eeq where $c_0$ takes some value between $x_j$ and $x_n$. Eq.~\eqref{estimate_xjxn_outer} suggests that \beq\label{distance_outer} |x_j-x_n| \gg 1/N, \eeq for all $x_j\in\Omega_{\text{out}}^n$. Eq.~\eqref{distance_outer} implies that the distance between $x_n$ and the centre of a dislocation pair associated with $\Omega^n_{\text{out}}$ is much larger than the spacing between neighbouring dislocation pairs. We obtain the expansion of the resolved shear stress at $(p_n,0)$ due to the $j$-th pair in two steps: first, we relate $p_j$ and $q_j$ to $x_j$, and relate $p_n$ and $q_n$ to $x_n$ by using Eq.~\eqref{pqn_from_xnzetan}; then we expand as $N\rightarrow\infty$ using Eq.~\eqref{distance_outer}. Following these two steps, we asymptotically expand the resolved shear stress at $(p_n,0)$ due to the $j$-th pair, i.e. the $j$-th term in the summation of Eq.~\eqref{tau_p_outer}, by \beq \label{tau_jpair_expan_out} \begin{aligned} &\frac1{N}\cdot\left(\frac1{p_n-p_j} - \frac{(p_n-q_j)((p_n-q_j)^2-(S/N)^2)}{((p_n -q_j)^2+(S/N)^2)^2}\right) \sim -\frac1{N^2}\cdot \frac{\zeta_j}{(x_n-x_j)^2} \\ & \quad + \frac1{N^3}\cdot \frac{\zeta_n\zeta_j - 3S^2}{(x_n-x_j)^3} + \frac1{N^4}\cdot \frac{3\zeta_j(6S^2-\zeta_n^2)+18S^2\zeta_n- \zeta_j}{4(x_j-x_n)^4} + \CO\left(\frac1{K^5}\right). \end{aligned} \eeq We see from Eq.~\eqref{tau_jpair_expan_out} that the leading-order effect of the stress at $(p_n,0)$ due to the positive dislocation at $(p_j,0)$ cancels with that due to its pair partner located at $(q_n,s)$. It is worth noting that, when the truncation is made, $1/|x_j-x_n|$ can be as large as $\CO(N/K)$. Besides, the summation made for outer region approximation involves almost $N$ terms. Therefore, to ensure an accuracy of $o(1/N)$ for a resolved stress component, the truncation made at each term in the summation should be at $o(1/N^2)$. This is the reason that a truncation at $\CO(1/K^5)$ is made in Eq.~\eqref{tau_jpair_expan_out}, given $K\sim\sqrt{N}$. Incorporating Eq.~\eqref{tau_jpair_expan_out} into \eqref{tau_p_outer} gives the expansion of $\tau_{\text{int}}^{\text{out}}(p_n,0)$: \beq \label{tau_p_expan_out} \begin{aligned} \tau_{\text{int}}^{\text{out}}(p_n,0) & \sim -\frac1{N^2}\cdot\sum_{\substack{0\le j<n-K\\n+K < j\le N}}\frac{\zeta_j}{(x_n-x_j)^2} + \frac1{N^3}\cdot \sum_{\substack{0\le j<n-K\\n+K < j\le N}}\frac{\zeta_n\zeta_j - 3S^2}{(x_n-x_j)^3} \\ & \quad + \frac1{N^4}\cdot \sum_{\substack{0\le j<n-K\\n+K < j\le N}} \frac{3\zeta_j(6S^2-\zeta_n^2)+18S^2\zeta_n-\zeta_j}{4(x_j-x_n)^4} + \CO\left(\frac{N}{K^5}\right) \end{aligned} \eeq To evaluate the summations appearing in Eq.~\eqref{tau_p_expan_out}, we make use of the Euler-Maclaurin formula. The details are in the supplementary materials, and the result is \beq \label{tau_p_est_out} \begin{aligned} \tau_{\text{int}}^{\text{out}}(p_n,0) &\sim -\frac{2}{K}\cdot(\zeta_n\phi_n') + \frac1{K^2}\cdot\zeta_n\phi_n'+ \frac1{N}\cdot\left(\frac{\phi_0'\zeta_0}{x_n-x_0} - \frac{\phi_N'\zeta_N}{x_n-x_N}\right) \\ & \quad + \frac1{N}\dashint_{x_0}^{x_N} \frac{(\phi'(a)\zeta(a))'\d a}{x_n-a} + o\left(\frac1{N}\right), \end{aligned} \eeq where the integral is evaluated in the sense of principal value. \subsection{Total resolved shear stress\label{Sec_total_resolved_shear_stress}} Now we put the results from the inner expansion by Eq.~\eqref{tau_p_est_inner} and from the outer expansion by \eqref{tau_p_est_out} together to obtain the expansion of $\tau_{\text{int}}(p_n,0)$ as \beq \label{tau_p_est_n} \begin{aligned} &\tau_{\text{int}}(p_n,0) \sim \left(\pi\phi_n'\right)\cdot G_0(2\pi \phi_n'\zeta_n, 2\pi S\phi_n') + \frac1{N}\cdot\left(\frac{\phi_0'\zeta_0}{x_n-x_0} - \frac{\phi_N'\zeta_N}{x_n-x_N}\right) \\ &\quad + \frac1{N}\dashint_{x_0}^{x_N} \frac{(\phi'(a)\zeta(a))'\d a}{x_n-a} - \frac{\phi_n''}{N\phi_n'}\cdot G_{11}(2\pi\phi_n'\zeta_n,2\pi S\phi_n') \\ &\quad - \frac{(\phi_n'\zeta_n)'}{N}\cdot G_{12}(2\pi\phi_n'\zeta_n,2\pi S\phi_n') - \frac{\phi_n'\zeta_n'}{N}\cdot G_{13}(2\pi\phi_n'\zeta_n,2\pi S\phi_n') + o\left(\frac1{N}\right). \end{aligned} \eeq It is worth noting that the $\CO(1/K)$ and $\CO(1/K^2)$ terms from the inner expansion cancel with their counterparts from the outer expansion. As a result, no trace of the intermediate parameter $K$ is seen in Eq.~\eqref{tau_p_est_n}. The external stress $\tau_{\text{ext}}$ at $(p_n,0)$ can also be expanded near $(x_n,0)$ \beq \label{tau_ext_p_expan} \tau_{\text{ext}}(p_n,0) \sim \tau^0_{\text{ext}}(x_n) - \frac{\zeta_n}{2N}\cdot\pd{\tau^0_{\text{ext}}(x_n)}{x} + \CO\left(\frac1{N^2}\right), \eeq where for ease of notation we have written $ \tau^0_{\text{ext}}(x) = \tau_{\text{ext}}(x,0)$ and $\pd{\tau^0_{\text{ext}}(x)}{x} = \pd{\tau_{\text{ext}}(x,0)}{x}$. Similarly, \beq \label{tau_ext_q_expan} \tau_{\text{ext}}(q_n,s) \sim \tau^0_{\text{ext}}(x_n) + \frac1{N}\left(\frac{\zeta_n}{2}\cdot \pd{\tau^0_{\text{ext}}(x_n)}{x} + S\cdot\pd{\tau^0_{\text{ext}}(x_n)}{y}\right)+ \CO\left(\frac1{N^2}\right), \eeq where $ \pd{\tau^0_{\text{ext}}(x)}{y} = \pd{\tau_{\text{ext}}(x,0)}{y}$. Here $\pd{\tau^0_{\text{ext}}}{x}$ and $\pd{\tau^0_{\text{ext}}}{y}$ are the stress gradients, which capture the difference in the externally applied stress field evaluated at each component of a dipole pair. Thus the (non-dimensional) total resolved shear stress at $(p_n,0)$ is given by \beq \label{tau_total_p} \begin{aligned} &\tau_{\text{tot}}(p_n,0) \sim \left(\pi\phi_n'\right)\cdot G_0(2\pi \phi_n'\zeta_n, 2\pi S\phi_n')+ \tau^0_{\text{ext}}(x_n) \\ &\quad + \frac1{N}\cdot\left(\frac{\phi_0'\zeta_0}{x_n-x_0} - \frac{\phi_N'\zeta_N}{x_n-x_N}\right) + \frac1{N}\dashint_{x_0}^{x_N} \frac{(\phi'(a)\zeta(a))'\d a}{x_n-a}\\ &\quad - \frac{\phi_n''}{N\phi_n'}\cdot G_{11}(2\pi\phi_n'\zeta_n,2\pi S\phi_n') - \frac{(\phi_n'\zeta_n)'}{N}\cdot G_{12}(2\pi\phi_n'\zeta_n,2\pi S\phi_n') \\ &\quad - \frac{\phi_n'\zeta_n'}{N}\cdot G_{13}(2\pi\phi_n'\zeta_n,2\pi S\phi_n')- \frac{\zeta_n}{2N} \pd{\tau^0_{\text{ext}}(x_n)}{x} + o\left(\frac1{N}\right), \end{aligned} \eeq where we recall that $G_0$, $G_{11}$, $G_{12}$ and $G_{13}$ are defined by Eqs.~\eqref{term_G0} - \eqref{term_G13}. Similarly, \beq \label{tau_total_q} \begin{aligned} &\tau_{\text{tot}}(q_n,s) \sim \left(\pi\phi_n'\right)\cdot G_0(2\pi \phi_n'\zeta_n, 2\pi S\phi_n')+ \tau^0_{\text{ext}}(x_n) \\ &\quad + \frac1{N}\cdot\left(\frac{\phi_0'\zeta_0}{x_n-x_0} - \frac{\phi_N'\zeta_N}{x_n-x_N}\right) + \frac1{N}\dashint_{x_0}^{x_N} \frac{(\phi'(a)\zeta(a))'\d a}{x_n-a}\\ &\quad + \frac{\phi_n''}{N\phi_n'}\cdot G_{11}(2\pi\phi_n'\zeta_n,2\pi S\phi_n') + \frac{(\phi_n'\zeta_n)'}{N}\cdot G_{12}(2\pi\phi_n'\zeta_n,2\pi S\phi_n') \\ &\quad + \frac{\phi_n'\zeta_n'}{N}\cdot G_{13}(2\pi\phi_n'\zeta_n,2\pi S\phi_n') + \frac{\zeta_n}{2N}\cdot \pd{\tau^0_{\text{ext}}(x_n)}{x} + \frac{S}{N}\cdot\pd{\tau^0_{\text{ext}}(x_n)}{y} + o\left(\frac1{N}\right). \end{aligned} \eeq \section{Dislocation dynamical model at the continuum level\label{Sec_continuum_model}} In this section, we derive the governing equations for the two field variables $\phi$ and $\zeta$ at the continuum level. We first consider the continuous description for the equilibrium states, where the total resolved shear stress at each dislocation vanishes. \subsection{Governing equations for the equilibrium states} When all dipoles are in equilibrium, the total resolved shear stress $\tau_{\text{tot}}(p_n,0)$ and $\tau_{\text{tot}}(q_n,s)$ should be zero for all $n$ according to the laws of motion \eqref{mobility_law_pos_dimensionless} and \eqref{mobility_law_neg_dimensionless}. It is worth noting that since the resulting equations are established in an asymptotic sense, we also need to expand $\phi$ and $\zeta$ as \beq \label{phi_expan} \phi(t,x) \sim \phi^{(0)}(t,x) + \frac{\phi^{(1)}(t,x)}{N} + \cdots. \eeq and \beq \label{zeta_expan} \zeta(t,x) \sim \zeta^{(0)}(t,x) + \frac{\zeta^{(1)}(t,x)}{N} + \cdots, \eeq respectively. Substituting the above expansions into Eqs.~\eqref{tau_total_p} and \eqref{tau_total_q} gives \beq \label{tau_total_pn} \begin{aligned} \tau_{\text{tot}}(p_n,0) &\sim \left(\pi(\phi_n^{(0)})'\right)\cdot G_0(2\pi (\phi_n^{(0)})'\zeta_n^{(0)}, 2\pi S(\phi_n^{(0)})')+ \tau^0_{\text{ext}}(x_n) \\ &\quad + \frac1{N}\cdot \left(\tau_a^n - \tau_b^n - \frac{\zeta_n^{(0)}}{2}\cdot \pd{\tau^0_{\text{ext}}(x_n)}{x}\right) + o\left(\frac1{N}\right) \end{aligned} \eeq and \beq \label{tau_total_qn} \begin{aligned} \tau_{\text{tot}}(q_n,s) &\sim \left(\pi(\phi_n^{(0)})'\right)\cdot G_0(2\pi (\phi_n^{(0)})'\zeta_n^{(0)}, 2\pi S(\phi_n^{(0)})')+ \tau^0_{\text{ext}}(x_n) \\ &\quad + \frac1{N}\cdot \left(\tau_a^n + \tau_b^n + \frac{\zeta_n^{(0)}}{2}\cdot \pd{\tau^0_{\text{ext}}(x_n)}{x} + S\cdot \pd{\tau^0_{\text{ext}}(x_n)}{x}\right) + o\left(\frac1{N}\right), \end{aligned} \eeq respectively, where \beq \label{tau_int_O1a} \begin{aligned} \tau_a^n &= \frac{(\phi_0^{(0)})'\zeta_0^{(0)}}{x_n-x_0} - \frac{(\phi_N^{(0)})'\zeta_N^{(0)}}{x_n-x_N} + \dashint_{x_0}^{x_N} \frac{(\phi'(a)\zeta(a)^{(0)})'\d t}{x_n-t}\\ &\quad + \zeta_n^{(1)} \pd{G_0(2\pi (\phi_n^{(0)})'\zeta_n^{(0)}, 2\pi S(\phi_n^{(0)})')}{\zeta_n^{(0)}} + (\phi_n^{(1)})' \pd{G_0(2\pi (\phi_n^{(0)})'\zeta_n^{(0)}, 2\pi S(\phi_n^{(0)})')}{ (\phi_n^{(0)})'}, \end{aligned} \eeq \beq \label{tau_int_O1b} \begin{aligned} \tau_b^n &= \frac{(\phi_n^{(0)})''}{(\phi_n^{(0)})'}\cdot G_{11}(2\pi(\phi_n^{(0)})'\zeta_n^{(0)},2\pi S(\phi_n^{(0)})') \\ &\quad + ((\phi_n^{(0)})'\zeta_n^{(0)})'\cdot G_{12}(2\pi(\phi_n^{(0)})'\zeta_n^{(0)},2\pi S(\phi_n^{(0)})') \\ &\quad + (\phi_n^{(0)})'(\zeta_n^{(0)})'\cdot G_{13}(2\pi(\phi_n^{(0)})'\zeta_n^{(0)},2\pi S(\phi_n^{(0)})'). \end{aligned} \eeq Now letting the right hand side of Eqs.~\eqref{tau_total_pn} and \eqref{tau_total_qn} vanish and equating coefficients of the same powers of $N$, we obtain at leading order, \beq \label{eqn_fb_general_n1} \pi(\phi_n^{(0)})'\cdot G_0(2\pi (\phi_n^{(0)})'\zeta_n^{(0)}, 2\pi S(\phi_n^{(0)})') + \tau^0_{\text{ext}}(x_n) = 0. \eeq There are $N+1$ equations for the $2(N+1)$ unknowns $\{\phi_n^{(0)}\}_{n=0}^N$ and $\{\zeta_n^{(0)}\}_{n=0}^N$. To close the system, we need to proceed to higher order in the expansion. At $\CO(1/N)$, we find \beq \label{eqn_fb_general_n2a} \tau_a^n - \tau_b^n - \frac{\zeta_n^{(0)}}{2}\cdot \pd{\tau^0_{\text{ext}}(x_n)}{x} = 0 \eeq and \beq \label{eqn_fb_general_n2b} \tau_a^n + \tau_b^n + \frac{\zeta_n^{(0)}}{2}\cdot \pd{\tau^0_{\text{ext}}(x_n)}{x} + S\cdot \pd{\tau^0_{\text{ext}}(x_n)}{x} = 0. \eeq Now there are $4(N+1)$ unknowns $\{\phi_n^{(0)}\}_{n=0}^N$, $\{\phi_n^{(1)}\}_{n=0}^N$, $\{\zeta_n^{(0)}\}_{n=0}^N$ and $\{\zeta_n^{(1)}\}_{n=0}^N$ and $3(N+1)$ equations. However, we subtract Eq.~\eqref{eqn_fb_general_n2a} from \eqref{eqn_fb_general_n2b} to eliminate $\zeta_n^{(1)}$ and $\phi_n^{(1)}$, both of which only appear in $\tau_a^n$, to give \beq \label{eqn_fb_general_n2} 2\tau_b^n + \zeta_n^{(0)}\cdot \pd{\tau^0_{\text{ext}}(x_n)}{x} + S \cdot \pd{\tau^0_{\text{ext}}(x_n)}{y} = 0. \eeq Eqs.~\eqref{eqn_fb_general_n1} and \eqref{eqn_fb_general_n2} form a system consisting of $2(N+1)$ equations for $2(N+1)$ unknowns ($\{\phi_n^{(0)}\}_{n=0}^N$ and $\{\zeta_n^{(0)}\}_{n=0}^N$). Henceforth we drop the superscript ``$^{(0)}$'', because only the leading-order effects are taken into account. Since $x_n$ is densely distributed in the domain, we rewrite our equations valid at every $x_n$ as equations valid for all $x$. Therefore, we drop the index $n$ and re-write Eqs.~\eqref{eqn_fb_general_n1} and \eqref{eqn_fb_general_n2} as \begin{subequations} \beq\label{eqn_fb_general1} \frac{\pi\phi'\sin(2\pi\phi'\zeta)}{\cosh(2\pi S\phi')-\cos(2\pi\phi'\zeta)}\cdot\left(1-\frac{2\pi S\phi' \sinh(2\pi S\phi')}{\cosh(2\pi S\phi')-\cos(2\pi\phi'\zeta)}\right) + \tau_{\text{ext}}^0 = 0 \eeq \beq \label{eqn_fb_general2} \begin{aligned} 0 & = \frac{2\phi''}{\phi'}\cdot G_{11}(2\pi\phi'\zeta,2\pi S\phi') + 2(\phi'\zeta)'\cdot G_{12}(2\pi\phi'\zeta,2\pi S\phi') \\ &\quad + 2(\phi'\zeta')\cdot G_{13}(2\pi\phi'\zeta,2\pi S\phi') + \zeta\frac{\partial \tau_{\text{ext}}^0}{\partial x} + S\frac{\partial \tau_{\text{ext}}^0}{\partial y}, \end{aligned} \eeq \end{subequations} respectively, where we recall that $G_{11}$, $G_{12}$ and $G_{13}$ are defined by Eqs.~\eqref{term_G11} - \eqref{term_G13}. Eqs.~\eqref{eqn_fb_general1} and \eqref{eqn_fb_general2} are the two equations for the two field variables $\phi$ and $\zeta$ derived at the continuum level when the row of dipoles rest in their equilibrium states. It is worth noting that Eq.~\eqref{eqn_fb_general1} comes from the leading-order force balance and Eq.~\eqref{eqn_fb_general2} comes from the difference in the force balance equations obtained at the next order. \subsection{Governing equations for the dynamics\label{Sec_dynamics}} Now we consider reformulating the discrete dislocation dynamics governed by Eqs.~\eqref{mobility_law_pos_dimensionless} to \eqref{tau_internal_neg_n_dimensionless} at the continuum level by looking for evolution equations for $\phi$ and $\zeta$. We know by definition that $\phi(t,x_n(t))=n/N$ at any time $t$. Taking the derivative with respect to $t$ on both sides gives \beq \label{eqn_phi_evo0} \frac{\partial \phi_n}{\partial t} + \frac{\d x_n}{\d t}\cdot\frac{\partial \phi_n}{\partial x} = 0. \eeq According to the definition of $x_n$ given by Eq.~\eqref{xn_def}, we have \beq \label{dxdt_exp} \frac{\d x_n}{\d t} = \frac{\tau_{\text{tot}}(p_n,0) -\tau_{\text{tot}}(q_n,s)}{2} \eeq where the laws of motion~\eqref{mobility_law_pos_dimensionless} and \eqref{mobility_law_neg_dimensionless} are employed. With the asymptotic expansions for $\tau_{\text{tot}}(p_n,0)$ and $\tau_{\text{tot}}(q_n,s)$ given by Eqs~\eqref{tau_total_p} and \eqref{tau_total_q}, respectively, we incorporate Eq.~\eqref{dxdt_exp} into \eqref{eqn_phi_evo0} to get \beq \label{eqn_phi_evo_n} \begin{aligned} &\frac{\partial \phi_n}{\partial t} - \frac1{N}\left(\frac{\phi_n''}{\phi_n'}G_{11}(2\pi\phi_n'\zeta_n,2\pi S\phi_n') + (\phi_n'\zeta_n)'G_{12}(2\pi\phi_n'\zeta_n,2\pi S\phi_n')\right) \frac{\partial \phi_n}{\partial x} \\ &\quad - \frac1{N}\left((\phi_n'\zeta_n')G_{13}(2\pi\phi_n'\zeta_n,2\pi S\phi_n') + \frac{\zeta}{2}\frac{\partial \tau_{\text{ext}}^0(x_n)}{\partial x} + \frac{S}{2}\frac{\partial \tau_{\text{ext}}^0(x_n)}{\partial y}\right) \frac{\partial \phi_n}{\partial x} \sim o\left(\frac1{N}\right). \end{aligned} \eeq Again we drop the subscript $n$ to rewrite Eq.~\eqref{eqn_phi_evo_n} as a differential equation valid for all $x$ by \beq \label{eqn_phi_evo} \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t} - \frac1{N}\left(\tau_b + \frac{\zeta}{2}\cdot \pd{\tau^0_{\text{ext}}}{x} + \frac{S}{2} \cdot \pd{\tau^0_{\text{ext}}}{y}\right)\cdot\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x} \sim o\left(\frac1{N}\right), \eeq where \beq \label{tau_b} \tau_b = \frac{\phi''}{\phi'}G_{11}(2\pi\phi'\zeta,2\pi S\phi') + (\phi'\zeta)'G_{12}(2\pi\phi'\zeta,2\pi S\phi') + \phi'\zeta' G_{13}(2\pi\phi'\zeta,2\pi S\phi'). \eeq Eq.~\eqref{eqn_phi_evo} can be considered as the evolution equation for $\phi$. It can be seen from Eq.~\eqref{eqn_phi_evo} that the evolution speed of $\phi$ is as small as $\CO(1/N)$. This suggests that the natural time scale associated with the evolution of $\phi$, the dislocation pair density potential, is characterised by a slow-varying temporal variable given by $t_{\text{s}} = Nt$. Eq.~\eqref{eqn_phi_evo} then gives at leading order \beq \label{eqn_phi_evo_ts0} \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t_{\text{s}}} - \left(\tau_b + \frac{\zeta}{2} \cdot \pd{\tau^0_{\text{ext}}}{x} + \frac{S}{2}\cdot \pd{\tau^0_{\text{ext}}}{y}\right)\cdot\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x} = 0. \eeq On the other hand, according to the definition of $\zeta$ by Eq.~\eqref{zeta_def}, we have \beq\label{eqn_zetan_evo0} \frac{\partial \zeta_n}{\partial t} + \frac{\d x_n}{\d t}\cdot\frac{\partial \zeta_n}{\partial x} = \frac{\d \zeta_n(t,x(t))}{\d t} = N\cdot\left(\frac{\d q_n}{\d t} - \frac{\d p_n}{\d t}\right). \eeq Combining Eqs.~\eqref{mobility_law_pos_dimensionless}, \eqref{mobility_law_neg_dimensionless}, \eqref{tau_total_p}, \eqref{tau_total_q}, \eqref{dxdt_exp} and \eqref{eqn_zetan_evo0} then dropping the subscript $n$, we find \beq\label{eqn_zeta_evo} \frac{\partial \zeta}{\partial t} \sim \frac{2N\pi\phi'\sin(2\pi\phi'\zeta)}{\cosh(2\pi S\phi')-\cos(2\pi\phi'\zeta)}\left(\frac{2\pi S\phi' \sinh(2\pi S\phi')}{\cosh(2\pi S\phi')-\cos(2\pi\phi'\zeta)}-1\right) - 2N\tau_{\text{ext}}^0 + \CO(1). \eeq It is seen from Eq.~\eqref{eqn_zeta_evo} that $\zeta$ evolves as fast as $\CO(N)$. This means $\zeta$ should be studied at a fast temporal scale characterised by $ t_{\text{f}} = t/N$. Then the leading-order equation for $\zeta$ is \beq \label{eqn_zeta_evo_tf} \frac{\partial \zeta}{\partial t_{\text{f}}} = - \frac{2\pi\phi'\sin(2\pi\phi'\zeta)}{\cosh(2\pi S\phi')-\cos(2\pi\phi'\zeta)}\cdot\left(1 -\frac{2\pi S\phi' \sinh(2\pi S\phi')}{\cosh(2\pi S\phi')-\cos(2\pi\phi'\zeta)}\right) - 2\tau_{\text{ext}}^0. \eeq A comparison between Eqs. \eqref{eqn_phi_evo_ts0} and \eqref{eqn_zeta_evo_tf} shows that the evolution of $\zeta$ is much faster than that of $\phi$. Hence $\zeta$ can be considered varying quasi-statically on the time scale characterised by $t_{\text{s}}$, on which $\phi$ naturally evolves, provided stable equilibria exist for Eq.~\eqref{eqn_zeta_evo_tf}. In fact, Eq.~\eqref{eqn_zeta_evo_tf} can be written by $\frac{\partial \zeta}{\partial t_{\text{f}}}=-\frac{\partial \CF}{\partial \zeta}$, where $\CF$ is the generalised free energy density with respect to $\zeta$, given by \beq \label{free_energy} \CF = \log\left(\cosh(2\pi S\phi')-\cos(2\pi \zeta\phi')\right) + \frac{2\pi\phi'S\sinh(2\pi S\phi')}{\cosh(2\pi S\phi')-\cos(2\pi \zeta\phi')} + 2\zeta\tau_{\text{ext}}^0. \eeq Since $\phi'$ is assumed static on the fast scale, the stable equilibria of Eq.~\eqref{eqn_zeta_evo_tf} are identified wherever $\CF$ attains its local minimum with respect to $\zeta$. It will be shown numerically later that given $\phi'$ and $S$, stable equilibria exist for Eq.~\eqref{eqn_zeta_evo_tf} when $|\tau_{\text{ext}}^0|$ falls below some critical value. Therefore, the dynamics of a row of dislocation dipoles at the continuum level can be described by the following coupled equations: \begin{subequations} \beq \label{eqn_zeta_static} \frac{\pi\phi'\sin(2\pi\phi'\zeta)}{\cosh(2\pi S\phi')-\cos(2\pi\phi'\zeta)}\cdot\left(1 -\frac{2\pi S\phi' \sinh(2\pi S\phi')}{\cosh(2\pi S\phi')-\cos(2\pi\phi'\zeta)}\right) + \tau_{\text{ext}}^0 = 0, \eeq \beq \label{eqn_phi_evo_ts} \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t_{\text{s}}} - \left(\tau_b + \frac{\zeta}{2} \cdot \pd{\tau^0_{\text{ext}}}{x} + \frac{S}{2}\cdot \pd{\tau^0_{\text{ext}}}{y}\right)\cdot\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x} = 0, \eeq \end{subequations} where $\tau_b$ was defined by Eq.~\eqref{tau_b}, provided the stable equilibria of Eq.~\eqref{eqn_zeta_static} exist. Noted that Eq.~\eqref{eqn_zeta_static} is effectively the leading order force balance equation \eqref{eqn_fb_general1}. \section{Equilibria at the continuum level\label{Sec_equilibria}} In this section, we will analyse the equilibrium states at the continuum level determined by Eqs.~\eqref{eqn_fb_general1} and \eqref{eqn_fb_general2}. We will begin with the case where the externally applied stress vanishes on $y=0$. In this case, two types of possibly stable configurations are found as a result of the leading-order force balance equation and a natural transition between different equilibrium patterns due to instability is seen. At the next order, the detailed equations for $\phi$ and $\zeta$ corresponding to various equilibrium states will be derived. The analytical results will then be validated through comparison with the numerical solutions to the same problem by using the DDD model. In the end of this section, we will analyse the equilibrium under arbitrary externally-applied stresses. \subsection{Equilibria under an external stress field which vanishes on $y=0$} We now analyse Eq.~\eqref{eqn_fb_general1} and \eqref{eqn_fb_general2} by starting with a simple case where the externally applied resolved shear stress vanishes on $y=0$, i.e. $\tau^0_{\text{ext}}=0$. Note that the stress gradient $\partial \tau_{\text{ext}}^0/\partial y$ need not vanish. \subsubsection{Implication from the leading-order force balance equation\label{Sec_fb_leading_order_zero}} When $\tau^0_{\text{ext}}=0$, the leading-order force balance equation \eqref{eqn_fb_general1} becomes \beq \label{eqn_zeta_detail_ext0} \frac{\sin(2\pi\phi'\zeta)}{\cosh(2\pi S\phi')-\cos(2\pi\phi'\zeta)}\cdot\left(1-\frac{2\pi S\phi' \sinh(2\pi S\phi')}{\cosh(2\pi S\phi')-\cos(2\pi\phi'\zeta)}\right) = 0. \eeq Eq.~\eqref{eqn_zeta_detail_ext0} can be regarded as an implicit relation between the two quantities $\phi'\zeta$ and $\phi'S$. In fact, these two quantities are physically meaningful. Since the pair density $\phi'$ can be approximated by the reciprocal of the spacing between two neighbouring pair centers scaled by $N$, and $S$ is the slip plane gap rescaled by $N$, $\phi'S$ captures the ratio of slip plane gap to the inter-spacing of neighbouring pairs. Also since $\zeta/N$ measures the pair width at $x$ according to Eq.~\eqref{zeta_def}, $\phi'\zeta$ measures the ratio of the pair width to the spacing of neighbouring pairs. From Eq.~\eqref{eqn_zeta_detail_ext0}, there are three possible choices for $\zeta$ as a function of $\phi'$ and other parameters. \begin{itemize} \item Equilibrium Type I when $\zeta=0$. The dislocation substructure is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_illu_types}(a). Within each dislocation pair, the positive and the negative dislocations are vertically aligned. \item Equilibrium Type II when $\phi'\zeta = 1/2$. The dislocation substructure is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_illu_types}(b). Since $\phi'\zeta$ represents the ratio of pair width to pair center spacing, $\phi'\zeta = 1/2$ suggests that every negative dislocation lies roughly in the middle of its two neighbouring positive dislocations. We term the equilibrium of this type as a ``non-localised'' structure, because each dislocation is ``shared'' by its two neighbours. \item Equilibrium Type III when \beq \label{equilibrium_type3} \zeta = \frac1{2\pi\phi'}\cos^{-1}\left(\cosh(2\pi S\phi') - 2\pi S\phi' \sinh(2\pi S\phi')\right). \eeq The dislocation substructure is shown in Fig~\ref{fig_illu_types}(c). A positive dislocation here is bonded with a negative one to form a real dipole, and the equilibrium of this type is named as a ``localised structure''. It is worth noting that Eq.~\eqref{equilibrium_type3} only holds when \beq \label{existence_condition_case3a} -1 \le \cosh(2\pi S\phi')-2\pi S\phi'\sinh(2\pi S\phi') \le 1, \eeq which numerically gives rise to a range for $S\phi'$: \beq \label{existence_condition_case3} 0 \le S\phi' \le 0.2465. \eeq Hence the emergence of Equilibrium Type III is conditional. \end{itemize} \begin{figure}[!ht] \centering \subfigure[Type I]{\includegraphics[width=.25\textwidth]{fig_illu_type1.eps}} \subfigure[Type II]{\includegraphics[width=.25\textwidth]{fig_illu_type2.eps}} \subfigure[Type III]{\includegraphics[width=.25\textwidth]{fig_illu_type3.eps}} \caption{Three types of equilibria: (a) $\zeta=0$; (b) $\zeta\phi'=1/2$ with non-localised structures formed; (c) $\zeta$ satisfies Eq.~\eqref{equilibrium_type3} and localised structures are formed. \label{fig_illu_types}} \end{figure} If we set $X=\phi'\zeta$ and $Y=\phi'S$, the configuration is equivalent to a row of dipoles periodic in $X$, which have been studied in \cite{Zhu_2Ddipoles2014}. Thus the conclusion regarding the stability of the obtained three types of equilibria can be drawn by employing the same arguments proposed by \cite{Zhu_2Ddipoles2014}: \begin{itemize} \item Equilibrium Type I ($\zeta=0$) is always unstable. \item Equilibrium Type II ($\phi'\zeta=1/2$) is only stable when Equilibrium Type III does not exist. \item Equilibrium Type III ($\zeta$ satisfies Eq.~\eqref{equilibrium_type3}) is always stable as long as it exists. \end{itemize} Another way to investigate the stability of the obtained equilibrium states is to look for the local minimum of the free energy density $\CF$ with respect to $\zeta$. When $\tau_{\text{ext}}=0$, $\CF$ given by Eq.~\eqref{free_energy} are drawn against $\zeta$ for different $\phi'S$ as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_energy_stability}. \begin{figure}[!ht] \centering \subfigure[$\phi'S=0.4 $]{\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{fig_energy_stability1.eps}} \subfigure[$\phi'S=0.2 $]{\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{fig_energy_stability2.eps}} \caption{A stable equilibrium state should correspond to a local minimum of the generalised free energy density $\CF$ given by Eq.~\eqref{free_energy} and $\tau_{\text{ext}}=0$ with respect to $\zeta$. (a) If $\phi'S$ is larger than 0.2465, only two types of equilibria exist and Type II is the stable configuration. (b) If $0<\phi'S<0.2465$, a transition in stability from Type II to Type III takes place. \label{fig_energy_stability}} \end{figure} It is seen from Fig.~\ref{fig_energy_stability}(a) that when condition \eqref{existence_condition_case3} is not satisfied, there are two equilibrium states, and Equilibrium Type II is the stable one. When condition \eqref{existence_condition_case3} is met, we have three equilibrium states as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_energy_stability}, and Equilibrium Type III is the stable one. Here a natural transition from a non-localised structure (Type II) to a localised structure (Type III) takes place as the slip plane spacing gets narrower or equivalently, as the pair density decreases. Such a transition may be indicative of the formation of the persistent slip bands; further discussion on this issue will be made in \S\ref{Sec_discussion_PSBs}. \subsubsection{First-order force balance equation for Equilibrium Type II\label{Sec_type2}} Based on the solutions to the leading-order equation \eqref{eqn_fb_general1}, we now investigate the first-order force balance equation \eqref{eqn_fb_general2}. Here only stable configurations, i.e. Equilibrium Type II and III, are considered. When $\phi'\zeta = 1/2$ (Type II), one can make use of the fact that $(\phi'\zeta)'=0$ and $\sin(2\pi \phi'\zeta)=0$. This suggests that the terms associated with $G_{12}$ and $G_{13}$ in Eq.~\eqref{eqn_fb_general2} both vanish. Therefore, the equation for $\phi'$ can be obtained as \beq \label{eqn_phi_case2} \begin{aligned} 0 &= \frac{2\phi''}{\phi'}\cdot G_{11}(\pi,2\pi S\phi') + S\frac{\partial \tau_{\text{ext}}^0}{\partial y}\\ & = -\frac{\phi''}{\phi'} - 4\pi S\phi'' \tanh(\pi S\phi') + 5\pi^2 S^2\phi'\phi'' \sech^2(\pi S\phi') \\ & \quad - 2\pi^3 S^3(\phi')^2\phi''\sech^2(\pi S\phi')\tanh(\pi S\phi') + S\frac{\partial \tau_{\text{ext}}^0}{\partial y}. \end{aligned} \eeq Eq.~\eqref{eqn_phi_case2} is a differential equation for $\phi'$, the (non-dimensional) pair density. Its solution describes the pair density distribution in equilibrium when all dipoles form non-local structures as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_illu_types}(b). To justify our results for $\phi'$ and $\zeta$ calculated from the continuum model, we also consider the equilibrium states obtained by the discrete dislocation dynamical model. To do that, we simply put $N+1$ pairs of dipoles in the domain $[0,1]$ and let the system evolve to the steady state following Eqs.~\eqref{mobility_law_pos_dimensionless} - \eqref{tau_internal_neg_n_dimensionless}. For all the simulation results presented in this paper, we lock one dislocation at each end. For example, at the left boundary, we set $p_0 = 0$. There is no strict requirement for $q_0$, except that $q_0\ge0$. Similarly at the right end, we let $q_N = 1$ and $p_N\le1$. By doing this, the total number of dislocation pairs are conserved during the simulation. Correspondingly at the continuum level, this condition is translated by \beq \label{boundary_lock_con} \int_0^1 \phi'(t,x) \d x = \phi(t,1) - \phi(t,0) = 1. \eeq The temporal derivatives needed for DDD simulations are approximated by using the Euler scheme with time step $\Delta t_{\text{dis}}$ chosen by $\Delta t_{\text{dis}} = 0.025/N$. Now we compare the results for Equilibrium Type II obtained from the continuum and DDD models. For simplicity, we consider the case when $\partial \tau^0_{\text{ext}} / \partial y$ is a constant. Thus we integrate Eq.~\eqref{eqn_phi_case2} on both sides to obtain \beq \label{density_T2_num} \log\left(\frac{\cosh(\pi \phi'S)}{\phi'}\right) + \left(\frac{\pi\phi'S}{\cosh(\pi\phi'S)}\right)^2 + 3\pi\phi'S\tanh(\pi\phi'S) = C - \pd{\tau^0}{y}\cdot Sx, \eeq where $C$ is a constant to be determined by condition \eqref{boundary_lock_con}. We begin with the case when no stress gradient is applied to the system, i.e. $\partial \tau^0_{\text{ext}} / \partial y = 0$. In this case, Eq.~\eqref{density_T2_num} suggests $\phi' = 1$ and we then obtain $\zeta=1/2$. This means that in the absence of applied stress gradients, all dipoles are uniformly distributed and the dipoles form non-localised structures suggested by the continuum model. To see Equilibrium Type II from the DDD model, one needs $S>0.2465/\phi'$ and $S$ is chosen to be $0.3$ here. Note that in the DDD model, the pair density is approximated by $\rho_{\text{dis}}((p_n+q_n)/2) = 1/(N(p_{n+1}-p_n))$, and $\zeta$ is approximated by $\zeta_{\text{dis}}((p_n+q_n)/2) = N(q_n-p_n)$. A comparison of the values of $\phi'$ and $\zeta$ from the discrete and the continuum models is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_t2_N50_S03_dtaudy0} and good agreement between the two models is seen except near the boundaries. \begin{figure} [!ht] \centering \psfrag{x}{{\small $x$}} \subfigure[Pair density ]{\includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{fig_phi_t2_N50_S03_dtaudy0.eps}} \subfigure[Local pattern ]{\includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{fig_zeta0_N50_S03_dtaudy0.eps}} \caption{Comparison of the pair density and the pair width Equilibrium Type II with the results from the discrete dislocation dynamical models in the absence of applied stresses or stress gradients. When $S = 0.3$, dipoles form Equilibrium Type II. Here $N = 50$. The dipoles take a uniform distribution within $[0, 1]$. \label{fig_t2_N50_S03_dtaudy0}} \end{figure} There is a boundary layer near each end, where the results from the continuum model deviate from its DDD counterpart. This is because the symmetry required for the setting up of the inner region $\Omega_{\text{in}}^n$ given by Eq.~\eqref{inner_region_def} breaks down. However, the goal of this paper is to formulate the collective behaviour of dislocation dipoles in the (relatively vast) interior region. It is suggested by the numerical results shown below that the influence cast by the boundary layers over the accuracy of the continuum approximation in the interior region is limited. Hence the incorporation of boundary layers into the continuum framework will be discussed in future work. With a non-vanishing stress-gradient, for example, $\partial \tau_{\text{ext}}^0/\partial y = 1$, one can again calculate $\phi'$ and $\zeta$ with reference to Eq.~\eqref{density_T2_num}. The results from the two models are compared in Fig.~\ref{fig_t2_N50_S03_dtaudy1} and excellent agreement in the interior region is again seen away from the two ends. \begin{figure}[!ht] \centering \psfrag{x}{{\small $x$}} \subfigure[Pair density]{\includegraphics[ width=.4\textwidth]{fig_phi_t2_N50_S03_dtaudy1.eps}} \subfigure[Local pattern]{\includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{fig_zeta0_N50_S03_dtaudy1.eps}} \caption{When the system is applied an stress gradient $\partial \tau_{\text{ext}}^0/\partial y=1$, the dipoles of Equilibrium Type II are seen piling-up against the left boundary. Here $S = 0.3$ and $N = 50$. \label{fig_t2_N50_S03_dtaudy1}} \end{figure} \subsubsection{First-order force balance equation for Equilibrium Type III\label{Sec_equilibria_t3}} Similarly, we study the first-order equation \eqref{eqn_fb_general2}, when all dipoles are in Equilibrium Type III, i.e. condition \eqref{existence_condition_case3} is met. It is recalled that Equilibrium Type III only appears for small $\phi'S$, we consider the asymptotic behaviour of the above equation as $S\rightarrow0$ for simplicity. Thus one can asymptotically solve Eq.~\eqref{equilibrium_type3} to get \beq \label{zeta_smalls} \zeta \approx S + \frac{2(\pi\phi')^2S^3}{3}. \eeq Eq.~\eqref{zeta_smalls} implies that in this case the pair width is almost the same as the slip plane gap. When these two quantities are identical, we call the resulting dislocation structure a $45^{\circ}$ dipole. In fact, a $45^{\circ}$ dipole is the stable configuration of an isolated pair of dipole. We see from Eq.~\eqref{zeta_smalls} that when the two slip planes get close to each other (as $S\rightarrow0$), the mutual interaction between the pair partners becomes dominant over the stresses due to all other dislocations, and the dipoles behave as isolated dipolar pairs. Incorporating Eq.~\eqref{zeta_smalls} into the first-order equation \eqref{eqn_fb_general2}, we asymptotically derive an equation for the pair density $\phi'$ in the limit that $S\rightarrow0$ as \beq \label{eqn_density_smalls} 2\pi^2S^2\phi'\phi'' + S\cdot \frac{\partial \tau_{\text{ext}}^0}{\partial y} = 0. \eeq Eqs.~\eqref{zeta_smalls} and \eqref{eqn_density_smalls} are valid only when $S\rightarrow0$. Now we compare their solutions to DDD simulation results to show that they can be used as the governing equations for many dipoles in equilibrium of Type III at the continuum level. Here we still consider the case when $\partial \tau^0_{\text{ext}}/\partial y$ is constant for simplicity. Hence the pair density distribution $\phi'$ can be solved from Eq.~\eqref{eqn_density_smalls} \beq \label{density_T3_num} \phi' = \frac1{\pi S}\sqrt{C-\pd{\tau_{\text{ext}}^0}{y}\cdot Sx}, \eeq where $C$ is determined by boundary condition \eqref{boundary_lock_con}. We first investigate the case with no applied stress gradient. From Eq.~\eqref{density_T3_num}, we obtain $\phi'=1$ and $\zeta$ is calculated to be $0.1066$ from Eq.~\eqref{zeta_smalls}. We then compare these results with that from the DDD simulations in Fig.~\ref{fig_t3_N50_S01_dtaudy0}. \begin{figure} [!ht] \centering \psfrag{x}{{\small $x$}} \subfigure[Pair density ]{\includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{fig_phi_t3_N50_S01_dtaudy0.eps}} \subfigure[Local pattern]{\includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{fig_zeta0_N50_S01_dtaudy0.eps}} \caption{Comparison of results from the continuum and the DDD models for the case where there is no applied stress gradient. When $S = 0.1$, the continuum model suggests that the system takes the equilibrium state of Type III with $\phi'\approx1$ and $\zeta\approx0.1066$. Here $N=50$. \label{fig_t3_N50_S01_dtaudy0}} \end{figure} Excellent agreement between the two models is seen. Here we find again that in the absence of applied stress gradient, the dipoles are uniformly distributed. Now we consider a non-vanishing applied stress gradient set to be $\partial \tau_{\text{ext}}^0/\partial y = 1$. By using Eqs.~\eqref{zeta_smalls} and \eqref{eqn_density_smalls}, we plot $\phi'$ and $\zeta$ against $x$ in Fig.~\ref{fig_t3_N50_S01_dtaudy1} and they are shown agreeing well with the outcomes from the underlying DDD model. \begin{figure}[!ht] \centering \psfrag{x}{{\small $x$}} \subfigure[Pair density]{\includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{fig_phi_t3_N50_S01_dtaudy1.eps}} \subfigure[Local pattern]{\includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{fig_zeta0_N50_S01_dtaudy1.eps}} \caption{Dipoles of Equilibrium Type III are found piling-up against an applied stress gradient to the left boundary. Here $S = 0.1$, $\partial \tau^0 / \partial y=1$ and $N = 50$. \label{fig_t3_N50_S01_dtaudy1}} \end{figure} The comparison results shown above suggest that we can use Eqs.~\eqref{zeta_smalls} and \eqref{eqn_density_smalls} to describe the collective behaviour of a row of dislocation dipoles in equilibrium of Type III. \subsubsection{Equilibria of mixed types} According to Eq.~\eqref{existence_condition_case3}, $\phi'S=0.2465$ characterises the transition between Equilibrium Type II and III. Therefore, when the value of $\phi'-0.2465/S$ changes its sign, there should be a change in equilibrium patterns as suggested by the continuum model. This is actually observed in Fig.~\ref{fig_mix_N50_S024_dtaudy1}, where $S$ is set to be $0.24$ and $N$ is chosen to be $100$. It is seen from Fig.~\ref{fig_mix_N50_S024_dtaudy1} that the dipoles take Equilibrium Type II near the left boundary, and a transition from Type II to III is found taking place away from the left end. The continuum model suggests that the transition should happen when $\phi' = 0.2465/S \approx 1.03$, which gives rise to the dashed line in Fig.~\ref{fig_mix_N50_S024_dtaudy1}. It can be checked that Equilibrium Type III roughly emerges where $\phi'$ drops below the dashed line. In Fig.~\ref{fig_mix_N50_S024_dtaudy1}, it can also be seen that the values of the pair density agree well for both equilibrium types, while there is roughly a $10\%$ variance in $\zeta$ for Equilibrium Type II with the change of equilibrium type not so easily determined. We will see later that increasing $N$ will bring down the deviation in $\phi'$ and $\zeta$ between the continuum and the DDD models. \begin{figure}[!ht] \centering \psfrag{x}{{\small $x$}} \subfigure[Pair density]{\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{fig_phi_mix_N50_S024_dtaudy1.eps}} \subfigure[Local pattern]{\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{fig_zeta0_N50_S024_dtaudy1.eps}} \caption{When $S=0.24$, Equilibrium Type II and III are found co-exist. Near the left boundary, the dipoles take the equilibrium of Type II. A natural transition from Type II to III is seen roughly where the pair density drops below the dashed line characterised by $\phi'\approx1.03$. Here $N = 100$. \label{fig_mix_N50_S024_dtaudy1}} \end{figure} \subsubsection{Summary} To summarise, a row of dipoles may form two types of stable equilibria if the applied stress vanishes on $y=0$. When $\phi'S\ge0.2465$, the resulting equations at the continuum level of the pair density $\phi'$ and (rescaled) pair width $\zeta$ are derived to be Eq.~\eqref{eqn_phi_case2} and $\zeta=1/(2\phi')$. When $0 < \phi'S < 0.2465$, the collective behaviour of a row of dipoles can be approximately described by Eqs.~\eqref{zeta_smalls} and \eqref{eqn_density_smalls}. \subsection{Equilibria under arbitrary externally-applied stresses\label{Sec_eqn_tauext}} Now we generalise our discussion to the case where the leading order of the external resolved shear stress is non-vanishing, i.e. $\tau^0_{\text{ext}} \sim \CO(1)$. In this case, Eq.~\eqref{eqn_fb_general1} may not be solved explicitly. However, some analysis can still be done to understand the resulting equilibrium configurations. If we use the expression for $G_0$ defined by Eq.~\eqref{term_G0}, we rewrite Eq.~\eqref{eqn_fb_general1} as \beq \label{eqn_zeta_ext_nonzero} G_0(2\pi\phi'\zeta,2\pi\phi'S) + \frac{\tau^0_{\text{ext}} }{\pi\phi'} = 0. \eeq Eq.~\eqref{eqn_zeta_ext_nonzero} describes the inter-relation of three quantities, $\zeta\phi'$, $S\phi'$ and $\tau^0_{\text{ext}}/\phi'$ and we define $ X = \zeta\phi'$, $Y = S\phi'$, and $\Upsilon = \tau^0_{\text{ext}}/(\pi\phi')$ to facilitate further analysis. As discussed in \S\ref{Sec_fb_leading_order_zero}, $X$ and $Y$ measure respectively the pair width and the slip plane gap, both scaled by the spacing between the neighbouring dipolar centers. Thus Eq.~\eqref{eqn_zeta_ext_nonzero} can be written as $- G_0(2\pi X,2\pi Y) = \Upsilon$, which suggests that the inter-relation between $X$ and $Y$ for a given $\Upsilon$ can be visualised by the contours of $-G_0(2\pi X,2\pi Y)$ as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_contour_tau_ext}. \begin{figure}[!ht] \centering \includegraphics[width=.55\textwidth]{fig_contour_tau_ext.eps} \caption{Given any $\Upsilon = \tau^0_{\text{ext}}/(\pi\phi')$, a pair of $(X,Y)$, which satisfies Eq.~\eqref{eqn_zeta_ext_nonzero} should sit on the contour $-G_0(2\pi\phi'\zeta,2\pi\phi'S)$ with height $\Upsilon$. For each $\Upsilon$, there exists a $Y^*$ (attained at $X^*$ say) such that $Y \le Y^*$. The locus of such $(X^*,Y^*)$ lies on the dashed curve. For any $Y<Y^*$ (under a given $\Upsilon$), there are two possible values for $X$. Only those $(X,Y)$ falling in the shaded region correspond to stable configurations. \label{fig_contour_tau_ext}} \end{figure} It can be observed that on each contour, there exists a $Y^*$ (attained at $X^*$ say) such that $Y \le Y^*$, and the locus of such $(X^*,Y^*)$ sits on the dashed curve in Fig.~\ref{fig_contour_tau_ext}. This means the solution $\zeta$ to Eq.~\eqref{eqn_zeta_ext_nonzero} conditionally exists. Given $Y=S\phi'$, the solution for $X=\zeta\phi'$ satisfying Eq.~\eqref{eqn_zeta_ext_nonzero} exists for \beq \label{critical_stress_external} \tau_{\text{ext}}^0 = \pi\phi'\Upsilon \le \pi\phi'\cdot|G_0(2\pi X^*,2\pi Y^*)|. \eeq The physical interpretation of Eq.~\eqref{critical_stress_external} is that a dipole breaks down to two monopoles when the external stress is large. It is also observed from Fig.~\ref{fig_contour_tau_ext} that there exist two choices for $X$ when $Y<Y^*$. One way to identify the stability of the candidate solutions is by investigating the local minima of the generalised free energy density $\CF$ by Eq.~\eqref{free_energy} with respect to $\zeta$. Here we find that the larger one gives rise to a stable equilibrium state after checking with the numerical results to be shown later. Hence we conclude that only those $(X,Y)$ falling into the shaded region in Fig.~\ref{fig_contour_tau_ext} correspond to stable configurations. It is worth noting that $\Upsilon>0$ is considered in the analysis presented above. When $\Upsilon<0$, we simply let $X<0$ and same conclusion will be drawn. The above analysis provides us some insight to the equilibrium configurations under an arbitrary externally-applied stress. Nevertheless, to find $\zeta$ and $\phi'$ satisfying Eq.~\eqref{eqn_fb_general1} and \eqref{eqn_fb_general2}, one has to turn to numerical methods. \section{Comparison of the continuum model with its underlying DDD model\label{Sec_continuum_DDD_comp}} Now we compare the simulation results obtained by applying the continuum model and the DDD model to same dynamical processes. For simulations at the discrete level, the set-up and procedure is as in \S\ref{Sec_type2}. To numerically implement the continuum model, we discretise Eqs.~\eqref{eqn_zeta_static} and \eqref{eqn_phi_evo_ts} with step $\Delta x$ in space and $\Delta t_{\text{con}}$ in time. At each time step, we use the following procedure to update the two variables $\phi$ and $\zeta$. With $\phi$ computed from the previous step, we (numerically) solve Eq.~\eqref{eqn_zeta_static} to update the value for $\zeta$ at each spatial grid point. It is worth noting that following the analysis in \S\ref{Sec_eqn_tauext}, we need to ensure the computed $\zeta$ is associated with a stable equilibrium state. Then we use Eq.~\eqref{eqn_phi_evo_ts} to update $\phi$. For the simulation results presented here, $\Delta t_{\text{con}}$ was chosen to be $1.25\Delta x^2$. Our goal here is to check the accuracy and the efficiency of the continuum model with reference to its underlying DDD model. To measure accuracy, we define \beq\label{diff_rel_phi} \text{Err}_{\phi'} = \max_{x\in I}\frac{\phi'-\rho_{\text{dis}}}{\rho_{\text{dis}}}, \eeq where $\rho_{\text{dis}}$ denotes the density computed by the DDD simulations; we choose $I=[0.1,0.9]$ to avoid the inherent difference between the two methods near the two boundaries. Thus $\text{Err}_{\phi'}$ is used as a measurement of the relative error of the pair density caused by the discrete-to-continuum transition. In a similar sense, we define a measurement of the relative error of the pair width by \beq\label{diff_rel_zeta} \text{Err}_{\zeta} = \max_{x\in I}\frac{\zeta-\zeta_{\text{dis}}}{\zeta_{\text{dis}}}. \eeq The parameters chosen for the first set of numerical examples are $S=0.3$, $N=50$, $\tau^0_{\text{ext}}=0.5$ and $\partial \tau^0_{\text{ext}}/\partial y=1$. In Table.~\ref{table_compare_dis_con_S03}, $\text{Err}_{\phi'}$ and $\text{Err}_{\zeta}$ at various times are listed. \begin{table}[!ht] \centering \begin{tabular}{c|cccccc} $t$ & 1 & 2 & 5 & 10 & 20 & 26.4\\ \hline $\text{Err}_{\phi'}$ & 0.0150 & 0.0117 & 0.0088 & 0.0077 & 0.0079 & 0.0079\\ $\text{Err}_{\zeta}$ & 0.0797 & 0.0801 & 0.0810 & 0.0815 & 0.0818 & 0.0818 \end{tabular} \caption{Defined by Eq.~\eqref{diff_rel_phi}, $\text{Err}_{\phi'}$ provides a measurement of the relative error of the pair density caused by the discrete-to-continuum transition. Similarly $\text{Err}_{\zeta}$ given by Eq.~\eqref{diff_rel_zeta} provides a measurement of the relative error of the pair width $\zeta/N$. Here $S=0.3$, $\tau^0_{\text{ext}}= 0.5$, $\partial \tau^0_{\text{ext}}/\partial y = 1$ and $N=50$. Here $t$ is measured in unit $2\pi(1-\nu)L^2/(m_{\text{g}}\mu b^2)$. Simulations by the two models both stop at $t=26.4$, when the difference in the dislocation positions in DDD simulations between this and the previous time step is no more than $10^{-5}\Delta t_{\text{dis}}$. $\text{Err}_{\phi'}$ and $\text{Err}_{\zeta}$ are listed at various times. \label{table_compare_dis_con_S03}} \end{table} Note that the time $t$ in Table~\ref{table_compare_dis_con_S03} is measured in unit $2\pi(1-\nu)L^2/(m_{\text{g}}\mu b^2)$ with $L$ recalled to be the computational domain size. The simulations based on both the continuum and DDD models are stopped at $t=26.4$, when the difference in the dislocation positions in DDD simulations between this and the previous time step is no more than $10^{-5}\Delta t_{\text{dis}}$. We see that the relative error in the pair density at different stages is no more than $1.5\%$, while the relative error in pair width is roughly $8\%$. In Fig.~\ref{fig_com_S03}, snap shots of pair density by using the two methods at $t=0$, $1$, $2$, $5$, $10$ and $26.4$ are shown. \begin{figure}[!ht] \centering \psfrag{x}{{\small $x$}} \subfigure[$t=0$]{\includegraphics[width=.32\textwidth]{fig_com_S03_T0.eps}} \subfigure[$t=1$]{\includegraphics[width=.32\textwidth]{fig_com_S03_T1.eps}} \subfigure[$t=2$]{\includegraphics[width=.32\textwidth]{fig_com_S03_T2.eps}} \subfigure[$t=5$]{\includegraphics[width=.32\textwidth]{fig_com_S03_T5.eps}} \subfigure[$t=10$]{\includegraphics[width=.32\textwidth]{fig_com_S03_T10.eps}} \subfigure[$t=26.4$]{\includegraphics[width=.32\textwidth]{fig_com_S03_Tfinal.eps}} \caption{Snap shots of the pair density obtained from the DDD and the continuum methods at $t=0$, $1$, $2$, $5$, $10$ and $26.4$, where $t$ is measured in unit $2\pi(1-\nu)L^2/(m_{\text{g}}\mu b^2)$.\label{fig_com_S03}} \end{figure} We also check the efficiency of the continuum model by keeping all other parameters unchanged while increasing the total number of dislocations $N$. For this purpose, we introduce two quantities $T_{\text{con}}$ and $T_{\text{dis}}$, which denote the wall-clock time it takes a simulation to reach the steady state by using the continuum and DDD models, respectively. Thus $T_{\text{con}}/T_{\text{dis}}$ becomes a measurement of the computational efficiency of using the continuum model against its underlying DDD model. The smaller this value is, the higher efficiency the continuum model displays. The comparison between the two models for different $N$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_compare_N}. \begin{figure}[!ht] \centering \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{fig_time_ratio.eps}} \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{fig_com_dis_con_Nvaries.eps}} \caption{(a) $T_{\text{con}}/T_{\text{dis}}$ provides a measurement to the computational efficiency exhibited by the continuum model compared to its underlying DDD model. The smaller this value is, the more efficient the continuum model is. (b) The upscaling errors of the pair density $\phi'$ and the pair width defined by Eqs.~\eqref{diff_rel_phi} and \eqref{diff_rel_zeta}, respectively, as the systems attain their steady states with various $N$. \label{fig_compare_N}} \end{figure} In Fig.~\ref{fig_compare_N}(a), $T_{\text{con}}/T_{\text{dis}}$ is found scaling with $N$ at an exponent of roughly $-3.25$. When the total number of dislocation pairs is increased to $500$, the time it takes for the continuum model to reach the steady state is roughly $1\%$ of that needed for the DDD model. This suggests that the continuum model becomes extremely efficient for a large $N$ compared to its DDD counterpart. The greater efficiency displayed by the continuum model can be attributed to the fact that an increase in $N$ only brings up the computational intensity of performing the DDD simulations, as the governing equations \eqref{eqn_zeta_static} and \eqref{eqn_phi_evo_ts} for the continuum model are both independent of $N$. To check the accuracy of the continuum model, we also plot $\text{Err}_{\phi'}$ and $\text{Err}_{\zeta}$ given by Eqs.~\eqref{diff_rel_phi} and \eqref{diff_rel_zeta}, respectively against $N$ in Fig.~\ref{fig_compare_N}(b). The coarse-graining errors (in the interior region) for both quantities drop with an increasing $N$. When $N$ is $500$, the coarse graining error of $\zeta$ in the interior region measured by Eq.~\eqref{diff_rel_zeta} becomes as good as no more than $1\%$. This is sensible since the continuum model is obtained by taking the asymptotic limit as $N\rightarrow\infty$. An increased $N$ effectively brings down the truncation errors. When the rescaled slip plane gap $S$ is small, the simulation can be speeded up using the asymptotic solutions to Eq.~\eqref{eqn_zeta_static}, rather than numerically solving Eq.~\eqref{eqn_zeta_static} at each time step. In this scenario, the governing equations at the continuum level can be asymptotically simplified to \begin{subequations} \beq \label{zeta_smalls_tauext} \zeta = S - 2S^2\tau_{\text{ext}}^0 + \left(2(\tau_{\text{ext}}^0)^2 + \frac{2(\pi\phi')^2}{3}\right)S^3 \eeq and \beq \label{phi_smalls_tauext} \pd{\phi}{t_{\text{s}}} - \left(\pi^2S^2\phi''\phi'+ \frac{\zeta}{2}\cdot \pd{\tau^0_{\text{ext}}}{x} + \frac{S}{2} \cdot \pd{\tau^0_{\text{ext}}}{y}\cdot\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x}\right) \pd{\phi}{x} = 0. \eeq \end{subequations} In Table~\ref{table_compare_dis_con_S01}, the coarse-graining errors for the pair density and the pair width are shown with $N=50$ and $S=0.1$. \begin{table}[!ht] \centering \begin{tabular}{c|cccccccc} $t$ & 5 & 10 & 20 & 50 & 100 & 200 & 250 & 300\\ \hline $\text{Err}_{\phi'}$ & 0.0060 & 0.0064 & 0.0068 & 0.0074 & 0.0130 & 0.0208 & 0.0221 & 0.0227\\ $\text{Err}_{\zeta}$ & 0.0179 & 0.0181 & 0.0184 & 0.0189 & 0.0188 & 0.0185 & 0.0184 & 0.0184 \end{tabular} \caption{The coarse-graining errors of the pair density distribution and the pair width at various time slots. Here $S=0.1$, $\tau^0 = 0.5$, $\partial \tau^0/\partial y=1$, $N=50$. Here $t$ is measured in unit $2\pi(1-\nu)L^2/(m_{\text{g}}\mu b^2)$. \label{table_compare_dis_con_S01}} \end{table} The upscaling errors are found well controlled during the simulations. \section{Conclusion and further discussion\label{Sec_conclusion}} \subsection{Conclusion} In this paper, we have studied the collective behaviour of a row of dislocation dipoles using matched asymptotic analysis. The discrete-to-continuum transition is facilitated by the introduction of two field variables, the dislocation pair density potential $\phi$ and the dislocation pair width $\zeta$. The equilibrium state at the continuum level is governed by Eqs.~\eqref{eqn_fb_general1} and \eqref{eqn_fb_general2}, while the dynamics at the continuum level is given by Eqs~\eqref{eqn_zeta_static} and \eqref{eqn_phi_evo_ts}. The following conclusions are drawn based on the analysis and the numerical implementation to the continuum model. Dislocation dipoles are found roughly uniformly distributed in the absence of applied stress gradients, and to pile up against a lock when a stress gradient is applied. When the externally applied stress is zero on the primary slip plane $y=0$, we found three possible equilibrium patterns (as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_illu_types}), whose stability depends on the value of $\phi'S$, the ratio of the slip plane gap to the pair center spacing. If $\phi'S$ is big (condition \eqref{existence_condition_case3} breaks down), non-localised structures (Equilibrium Type II) are the stable configurations. When $\phi'S$ falls below the critical value 0.2465, a localised equilibrium structure (Equilibrium Type III) emerges. In this scenario, Equilibrium Type II becomes unstable and a natural transition to Equilibrium Type III is observed. If the externally applied shear stress $\tau^0_{\text{ext}}$ is non-negligible, two possible equilibrium patterns are found and the one with larger pair width value corresponds to the stable configuration as suggested by the shaded region in Fig.~\ref{fig_contour_tau_ext}. In the continuum limit, the two field variables introduced evolve on different time scales. On the faster scale, the dislocation pairs arrange themselves in local structures to satisfy the leading-order force balance. On the slower scale, the pair density evolves driven by the stress gradient, which is a higher-order effect. Consequently, the dipole dynamics, if viewed at the continuum level, can be modelled by an equilibrium equation for $\zeta$ given by Eq.~\eqref{eqn_zeta_static} and an evolution equation for $\phi$ given by Eq.~\eqref{eqn_phi_evo_ts}. All analytical results have been justified through comparison with the underlying DDD simulation results. \subsection{Implication to the formation of PSBs\label{Sec_discussion_PSBs}} The finding of a natural transition between equilibrium configurations of dislocations in this paper may shed light on understanding how localised persistent slip band structures emerge within a non-localised channel-vein structure in cyclicly loaded crystals. The analytical results in \S~\ref{Sec_fb_leading_order_zero} suggest that such a transition takes place, when the slip plane spacings drop to a certain value such that the quantity equivalent to $\phi'S$ falls below $0.2465$. In a cyclicly loaded crystal, it is widely recognised that the gaps between slip planes do get narrower as a result of the cross-slip motion of the screw segments in the channels shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_vein_PSBs}(a) (see \cite{Mughrabi_1979, Zhu_MSEA2014}). Nevertheless, the transition in equilibrium patterns due to instability found here may not provide a full explanation to the formation of PSBs, because the PSB walls consist more likely of several dislocation pairs rather than a single pair as indicated by the Equilibrium Type III. \subsection{Implication to incorporating SSDs into continuum models of plasticity} The approaches used here to separate physical processes according to their associated time scales also provide us some hints towards incorporating statistically stored dislocations into continuum models of plasticity consistent with the underlying discrete dislocation dynamics. Given $t$ the time scale associated with the continuum model (termed as the continuum time scale), it has been shown that the mutual adjustment within dislocation pairs characterised by the evolution of $\zeta$ takes place so fast that only its steady (equilibrium) state is observable at the continuum time scale. On the other hand, the evolution of the pair density potential $\phi$ takes place so slowly that it appears almost unchanged observed at the continuum time scale. Analogously, a well-established continuum model of plasticity is expected to be hierarchic in time. It should consist of a set of evolution equations for the geometrically necessary dislocations (GNDs) changing at a normal speed accompanied by another set of quasi-static equations describing the SSD structures in equilibrium.
\section{Introduction} The recent decade in modern materials science has featured the advent of optical metamaterials, where the role of known, ordinary constituents of matter (atoms, ions, or molecules) is bestowed upon artificial ``meta-atoms''---nanosized objects purposely designed to have the desired optical properties \cite{bookShalaev}. If the meta-atoms are much smaller than the wavelength of light interacting with them, then the meta-atom assembly, or an artificial composite metamaterial, would exhibit the desired properties macroscopically. The elegance of the metamaterials concept lies in the nearly limitless potential variety of meta-atom shapes and compositions, which surpasses the variety of naturally occurring atoms, molecules and crystals (and, in turn, of natural materials). The hallmark success of optical metamaterials is the design of artificial materials with optical properties that do not exist in naturally occurring media, such as negative refractive index \cite{shalaev2007optical}. Such negative-index media came out as seminal to the metamaterials field because of the vision of the ``perfect lens'' \cite{pendry2000negative}, where a slab of an artificial material with $n = -1$ (a ``super-lens'') would focus light tighter than diffraction would allow in a conventional optical system. Even though this ``perfect lens'' dream, which hinges on the existence of lossless and isotropic negative-index metamaterials, may never come true, it did give birth to the entire field of study with several successful experimental demonstrations of subwavelength imaging \cite{SWexp05,liu2007experimental,aydin2007subwavelength,xiong2007two}. It was understood that the operating principle of the superlens is its ability to transmit, rather than to lose, the near-field information about a subwavelength object \cite{zhang2008superlenses}, as seen in \ref{FIG:Lenses}(a--c). \begin{figure} \includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{fig1-lens.eps} \caption{(a) Overview of an optical imaging system with subwavelength resolution, schematically showing propagating low-$k$ ($k<n_a \omega/c$) and evanescent high-$k$ ($k>n_a \omega/c$) components of radiation scattered off subwavelength objects. (b--e) Schematics of how information contained in these components passes through different types of imaging systems. (b) {\em Conventional optical lens}: only the propagating low-$k$ components are transmitted while the high-$k$ evanescent waves carrying near-field information are lost, resulting in a blurred, diffraction-limited image. (c) {\em Superlens}\cite{pendry2000negative}: high-$k$ evanescent waves are amplified and the near-field information is recovered, enabling a subwavelength image, which nevertheless remains in the near-field and cannot be reproduced by conventional optics. (d) {\em Hyperlens}\cite{jacob2006optical}: high-$k$ evanescent waves are converted to propagating waves using an HMM\cite{poddubny2013hyperbolic}; the resulting subwavelength image can therefore be seen in the far field, however its contrast against the background illumination will be poor if the object is weakly scattering. (e) {\em Proposed dark-field hyperlens}: using a modified kind of HMM \cite{ourReviewPNFA} similarly couples the high-$k$ evanescent waves to the far field but blocks the low-$k$ propagating waves, filtering out the background illumination and allowing the subwavelength image contract to be drastically enhanced. For the two kinds of hyperlenses, the example dispersion relations are shown as insets in (d) and (e). } \label{FIG:Lenses} \end{figure} Later studies have shown that so-called {\em hyperbolic metamaterials} (HMMs)\cite{poddubny2013hyperbolic}, which are extremely anisotropic media that are metal-like along some coordinate axes and dielectric-like along others, make it possible to do more---to convert the near field of an object into a set of propagating waves to be later imaged by conventional means. This concept of the hyperlens \cite{jacob2006optical} \ref{FIG:Lenses}(d), followed by experimental demonstrations\cite{liu2007far}, showed that subwavelength imaging could be far closer to reality than one would assume after the initial disappointment in the superlens. Subsequent theoretical studies have further shown that a broad variety of structures, including metal-dielectric multilayers\cite{ourReviewPNFA}, possess the necessary requirements to function in a hyperlens. Such multilayers are of much simpler geometry than metamaterials commonly required to achieve negative refractive index. The existing designs of the hyperlens recover information from both propagating (low-$k$) waves with $k<n_ak_0$ and evanescent (high-$k$) waves with $k>n_ak_0$ (where $n_a$ is the ambient refractive index and $k_0=\omega/c$). Such an approach is undoubtedly the best way of maximizing the output from the object to create the brightest possible subwavelength image. However, this approach has a serious downside: any propagating waves that exist in the object area but do not originate form the object (such as incident or stray light) would be transmitted, creating strong background in the image area. It is for this reason that existing demonstrations of the hyperlens focus on examples where background radiation can be eliminated. This is done either by imaging a subwavelength pattern in a metal screen \cite{liu2007far,rho2010spherical,cheng2013breaking} that covers the entire lens and blocks all incident light, or else by using self-illuminating objects such as fluorescent centers \cite{li2009experimental,andryieuski2012graphene}. In a scenario when objects to be imaged are weakly scattering and have to be illuminated by external light, as is very relevant in label-free biological imaging, a conventional hyperlens would be nearly useless because the resulting image would have extremely low contrast. In this paper, we propose an alternative hyperlensing concept which is free from this downside and can provide high-contrast subwavelength images of weakly scattering objects. The proposed device only transmits high-$k$ waves while blocking all propagating radiation in the sample area (\ref{FIG:Lenses}d), be it from the object itself or from elsewhere. The resulting image would therefore only contain information coming from subwavelength features of the sample, providing a much greater contrast than the conventional hyperlens. The proposed device relates to the conventional hyperlens in the same way as dark-field microscopy relates to conventional optical microscopy. Therefore we have termed the proposed device the {\em dark-field hyperlens} (DFHL), and the proposed concept, {\em dark-field superresolving optical microscopy}. Unlike an earlier work of 2012 by H. Benisty, where the term dark-field hyperlens was first coined\cite{benisty2012dark}, the filtering of the background radiation is done by the imaging hyperlens itself rather than by using a second hyperlens to excite the sample in the confocal geometry. As a result, the proposed device geometry is much simpler and within easier reach of modern fabrication facilities. It should be stressed that beating the diffraction limit in the optical microscopy would constitute a major breakthrough in biological imaging because it neither requires special sample fixation and preparation techniques (such as electron-microscopy and scanning-microscopy methods) nor relies on special labeling methods (such as STED-like approaches\cite{STEDreview}). As a result, the proposed dark-field superresolving optical microscopy can be used to obtain dynamic real-time images of weak-contrast subwavelength objects. Being able to see and investigate dynamic processes involving very small biological agents and macromolecules would be truly enabling to modern life sciences, as confirmed by the ongoing scientific efforts in search for such a technique\cite{Ayas:2013rt,wong2013optical,yang2014super}. Hence, the impact of such subwavelength optical microscopy, or nanoscopy, that would be high-resolution, high-contrast, fast, and non-destructive to the specimen---such as the dark-field hyperlens can potentially provide---can potentially be on par with the impact of the original invention of an optical microscope on biology several centuries ago. The accompanying possibility to reverse the operation of a hyperlens in order to selectively excite an object on a subwavelength scale may bring about an even greater advance in experimental biology, making it possible not only to observe the functioning of nanoscale biological agents, but also to actively interfere with them. The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces the principle of the DFHL, providing analytical guidelines to its operation. Section 3 deals with the numerical demonstration using planar-geometry HMM as a toy-model or ``poor man's'' hyperlens, which provides subwavelength imaging without magnification. Section 4 moves on to provide a numerical demonstration of a cylindrical-geometry DFHL, confirming subwavelength imaging functionality with magnification rate of 2.5 for objects down to 300 nm apart. Finally, Section 5 summarizes the paper. \section{Operating principle of the dark-field hyperlens} The primary physical concept behind subwavelength imaging in plasmonic metamaterials---the operating principle of the hyperlens---is the idea that a medium with extreme anisotropy, such that the components of the permittivity tensor have different signs, supports propagating waves with very large wave vectors. Indeed, recalling the dispersion relation for the extraordinary (TM-polarized) wave in a uniaxial birefringent medium, we get \begin{equation} k_0^2=\frac{\omega^2}{c^2}=\frac{k_\parallel^2}{\epsilon_\perp}+\frac{k_\perp^2}{\epsilon_\parallel}, \label{eq:disp} \end{equation} where $\epsilon_\perp$ and $\epsilon_\parallel$ are components of the dielectric permittivity tensor $\hat\varepsilon = \mathrm{diag}(\epsilon_\parallel,\epsilon_\parallel,\epsilon_\perp)$; $k_\perp$ and $k_\parallel$ are respective components of the wave vector. We see that for normal isotropic or weakly birefringent media the solutions of \eqref{eq:disp} in the $k$-space represent bounded shapes (ellipsoids), providing an upper limit on the possible values of $k$ for propagating waves. In contrast, if the optical anisotropy is so strong that $\epsilon_\perp$ and $\epsilon_\parallel$ are of different signs, then the solutions of \eqref{eq:disp} change topology from bounded ellipsoids to unbounded hyperboloids, thus supporting propagating solutions with theoretically infinite wave vectors\cite{smith2004partial}. This fact had remained largely a theoretical curiosity until such hyperbolic dispersion could actually be realized for optical waves in HMMs---subwavelength metal-dielectric structures with rather simple geometries such as nanorod arrays and multilayers \cite{poddubny2013hyperbolic,ourReviewPNFA}. It was shown that even though ``infinitely large wave vectors'' proved to be an idealization\cite{ourHMMPRA}, HMMs can indeed support propagating plasmonic waves with very large $k$-vectors\cite{ourPoleExpOE}. As a result, an HMM can transform high-$k$ waves with $k_\parallel > n_a k_0$, which are evanescent in the ambient medium with refractive index $n_a$, to high-$k$ waves that can propagate through the metamaterial. To see how this gives rise to subwavelength imaging properties, we recall that any object's scattered field can be decomposed into a series of plane waves spanning the entire range of $k$. The relation between the spatial representation of the object $f(x,y)$ and its image $g(x,y)$ in the Fourier optics approach is \begin{equation} g(x,y)=\frac{1}{(2 \pi)^2} \iint_{-\infty}^{\infty} dk_x dk_y H(k_x,k_y)e^{-i(k_x x+k_y y)} \iint_{-\infty}^{\infty} dx' dy' f(x,y) e^{i(k_x x'+k_y y')} . \label{eq:fourier2D} \end{equation} Here $H(k_x,k_y)$ is the transfer function of the imaging system, and it can be seen from the properties of Fourier transformation that $g(x,y)=f(x,y)$ (the image is perfect) if $H(k_x,k_y)=1$. In conventional optics, propagation of light over some distance $d$ in the ambient medium introduces a low-pass filter in the $k$-space, resulting in the transfer function $H_0(k_x,k_y)\propto \exp(-idk_\perp) = \exp\left({-id\sqrt{n_a^2 k_0^2-k_\parallel^2}}\right)$ with $k_\parallel^2=k_x^2+k_y^2$. Therefore, if the object's Fourier image is significantly extended into the area with $k_\parallel > n_a k_0$, or in other words, if the size of the object is smaller than the wavelength of light $\lambda=2\pi n_a/k_0$, then all the components with $k_\parallel > n_a k_0$ (the near-field information) are lost (see \ref{FIG:Lenses}(b)), and the image becomes blurred. This low-pass filtering is overcome in HMMs, where \eqref{eq:disp} results in the expression \begin{equation} k_\perp = \sqrt{\epsilon_\parallel k_0^2-(\epsilon_\parallel/\epsilon_\perp)k_\parallel^2}, \label{eq:kperp}\end{equation} which can remain real for very large $k_\parallel$ because $\epsilon_\parallel/\epsilon_\perp<0$. This makes the transfer function such that the loss of near-field information is prevented (see \ref{FIG:Lenses}(d)). Thus, placing an HMM close to the object facilitates superresolution imaging. This idea, combined with the use of curvilinear geometry so that high-$k$ waves inside the metamaterial can be further coupled to outside propagating waves and imaged by a conventional lens, was put to use in the practical realization of the hyperlens\cite{liu2007far}. Later studies followed with experimental demonstration of a spherical hyperlens at visible frequencies \cite{rho2010spherical} and the design of an all-dielectric hyperlens\cite{jiang2013broadband}, as well as with applications to other platforms such as terahertz \cite{andryieuski2012graphene} and acoustic \cite{li2009experimental} waves. Depending on the signs of the eigenvalues in the dielectric permittivity tensor, hyperbolic media can be classified as either type I ($\epsilon_\perp < 0 < \epsilon_\parallel$) or type II ($\epsilon_\parallel < 0 < \epsilon_\perp$)\cite{Guo2012}. In the periodic metal-dielectric multilayer geometry, the effective permittivity components can be obtained from the Maxwell-Garnett homogenization approach with \cite{ourHMMPRA} \begin{equation} \epsilon_\parallel = \rho \epsilon_m + (1-\rho) \epsilon_d, \quad \epsilon_\perp = \left[\rho \epsilon_m^{-1} + (1-\rho) \epsilon_d^{-1} \right]^{-1}, \label{eq:epscomponents} \end{equation} where $\rho=d_m/(d_m+d_d)$ is the filling fraction of the metal. Therefore, by choosing the thicknesses of metal and dielectric layers in the stack ($d_m$ and $d_d$), as well as the permittivities of metal and dielectric ($\epsilon_m$ and $\epsilon_d$), one can design a structure that is effectively a type-I or type-II HMM. The key difference between the two types of HMMs can be seen from \eqref{eq:disp}: the dispersion contour in the wave vector space has a different topology, forming either one connected or two unconnected hyperboloidal surfaces (see \ref{FIG:Dispersion} for example structures). As a result [see \eqref{eq:kperp}], type-I HMMs support bulk propagating waves with {\em any} value of the tangential wave vector $k_\parallel$, and act like dielectrics for TE-polarized (ordinary) waves. In contrast, type-II HMMs only support TM-polarized bulk propagating waves for $k_\parallel>k_\text{cutoff}=\sqrt{\epsilon_\perp}k_0$, exhibiting effective metallic properties for lower $k_\parallel$ as well as for the TE-polarized waves. \begin{figure} \includegraphics[width=1.00\columnwidth]{fig2-dispersion.eps} \caption{Two-dimensional dispersion relation for (a) type I hyperbolic metamaterial (dielectric permittivity tensor compoments being $\epsilon_\parallel = 0.36$, $\epsilon_\perp = -13.31$) and (b) type II hyperbolic metamaterial ($\epsilon_\parallel = -1.06$, $\epsilon_\perp = 8.09$) The insets schematically show the direction of the group velocity for waves in certain parts of the $k$-space; for the type I hyperbolic metamaterial, it is possible that the majority of lower-$k$ waves propagate in the $y$-direction (the canalization regime). } \label{FIG:Dispersion} \end{figure} Consider now a scenario where there is a subwavelength object placed in front of an HMM-based hyperlens and illuminated by external light. At first sight, a type-I HMM is much better suited for the design of the hyperlens because it transmits both propagating components of the scattered radiation (with $k_\parallel < n_a k_0$) and all the evanescent components (with $k_\parallel > n_a k_0$, where $n_a$ is the refractive index of the ambient medium). As a result, subwavelength image with maximum resolution and good brightness can be formed. However, a type-I HMM would transmit the propagating low-$k$ components originating not only from the object, but also from other sources, such as incident or stray light. Therefore, if the object to be imaged is weakly scattering (as is the case with most subwavelength objects made of dielectrics, such as all biological objects), the resulting image would have very low contrast, rendering such a hyperlens extremely difficult in use. What we propose as the main idea of this paper is to modify the hyperlens in such a way that a type-I HMM is replaced with a type-II one designed so that $k_\text{cutoff}$ exceeds $n_a k_0$. This would filter all low-$k$ propagating components, so that only the high-$k$ waves stemming from the objects to be imaged would make it to the image area. Such a device would in some sense represent the ``inverse'' of the conventional optics [compare \ref{FIG:Lenses}(b) and (e)], introducing high-pass rather than low-pass filtering in the transfer function of the hyperlens. To see that such high-pass filtering still allows a subwavelength image to be formed, we rewrite \eqref{eq:fourier2D}, reducing it to one dimension (assuming $k_\parallel=k_x$) for simplicity: \begin{equation} g(x)=\frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dk_x H(k_x) e^{-i k_x x} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dx' \Pi(x/D) e^{ik_x x'} , \label{eq:fourier1D} \end{equation} where the object of size $D$ is represented by the rectangular (unit box) function $\Pi(x)$ that assumes unity value for $-1/2<x<1/2$ and zero value elsewhere. In this formalism, the high-pass filtering action of the type-II HMM blocking all the waves below $k_\text{cutoff}$ can be modelled by assuming the transfer function $H(k_\parallel) = 1-\Pi(k_\parallel/k_\text{cutoff})$ (see \ref{FIG:analytical}(a)), which results in the image of the form \begin{equation} g(x)=\Pi\left(\frac{x}{D}\right) - \frac{1}{\pi}\left[ \textrm{Si}\left( \frac{D-2x}{4}k_\text{cutoff}\right) + \textrm{Si}\left( \frac{D+2x}{4}k_\text{cutoff}\right) \right], \label{eq:imagedark} \end{equation} where $\textrm{Si}(x)=\int_0^x\textrm{sinc}(t)dt$ is the sine integral function. We see that the high-pass filtering retains the presence of the image in the form of the first term in \eqref{eq:imagedark}, the second term adding some minor background to the image as seen in \ref{FIG:analytical}(b). This is unlike the action of the low-pass filtering induced by propagation in some isotropic ambient medium, which can be modelled by similarly assuming the box-type transfer function $H_a(k_\parallel) =\Pi(k_\parallel/n_a k_0)$ and results in \begin{equation} g_a(x)=- \frac{1}{\pi}\left[ \textrm{Si}\left( \frac{D-2x}{4}n_a k_0\right) + \textrm{Si}\left( \frac{D+2x}{4}n_a k_0\right) \right], \label{eq:imageblurred} \end{equation} which becomes increasingly blurred as the $D n_a k_0$ decreases to values significantly below unity. Therefore, we conclude that the image formed by a hyperlens based on the type-II rather than type-I HMM would still be subwavelength as per \eqref{eq:imagedark}, but would have a greatly enhanced contrast compared to the conventional hyperlens because the object-unrelated background, such as signal stemming from the incident light, is blocked. Specifically, the subwavelength image contract, which can be defined as the visibility \begin{equation} V_\text{sub}=\lim_{\delta\to0}\frac{|g(D/2-\delta)|-|g(D/2+\delta)|}{|g(D/2-\delta)|+|g(D/2+\delta)|} = 1-2{\left[1+\left| \frac{\pi}{\textrm{Si}(k_\text{cutoff}D/2)} -1 \right| \right]}^{-1}, \label{eq:contrast}\end{equation} can be seen in \ref{FIG:analytical}(c) to be significant for $k_\text{cutoff}D$ below 2, and to approach unity as the object size decreases. \begin{figure}[tbh] \includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{fig3-analytical.eps} \caption{(a) The Fourier transform $F(k)$ of a subwavelength object given by $f(x)=\Pi(x/D)$ with $D=\lambda/2$, overlaid with example transfer functions of the ambient medium $H_a(k)$ (low-pass filtering) and of the DFHL $H(k)$ (high-pass filtering). (b) Comparison between the images of an object with the size $D=\lambda/6$ obtained by \ref{eq:imagedark} (solid line) and \ref{eq:imageblurred} (dashed line) with $n_a =1$ and $k_\text{cutoff}=2k_0$, respectively. The shaded area shows the object $f(x)$ itself. The inset shows the same plot zoomed out in the $x$ axis to show the sinc dependence in $g_a(x)$. (c) Dependence of the subwavelength image visibility $V_\text{sub}$ as defined in \ref{eq:contrast} on the object size given as $k_\text{cutoff}D = 2\pi(k_\text{cutoff}/k_0)(D/\lambda)$. } \label{FIG:analytical} \end{figure} We can see that the proposed hyperlens modification is similar in spirit to dark-field microscopy, where background illumination is blocked and only the information coming from the specimen is isolated. Therefore, we call the proposed hyperlens the {\em dark-field hyperlens} (DFHL), and will by contrast refer to the conventional hyperlens as the bright-field hyperlens (BFHL). \begin{figure}[tbh!] \includegraphics[width=0.97\columnwidth]{fig4-poormans.eps} \caption{ (a--b) Full-wave frequency-domain simulation of a plane wave ($\lambda=715$ nm) impinging on two metallic scatterers (diameter 70 nm, $n = 0.01 + 1.5i$), placed 300 nm apart, in front of (a) conventional hyperlens (BFHL) and (b) proposed hyperlens (DFHL). Both structures are alternating metal-dielectric multilayers containing a total of 100 layers with 10 nm thickness and material parameters $n_m = 0.154 + 1.589i$, $n_d = 1.794$ (type-I HMM) and $n_m = 0.14 + 2.06i$, $n_d = 1.45$ (type-II HMM) for the bright- and dark-field hyperlens, respectively; the corresponding effective-medium dispersion relations are shown in \ref{FIG:Dispersion}. The area behind the lenses contains a high-index medium ($n_s = 10$). (c--d) Same as (a--b) but for dielectric scatterers ($n = 1.5$). The lower plots (green lines) show the $x$-dependence of the field intensity 700 nm behind the lens ($y=1700 \, \text{nm}$). } \label{FIG:poormans} \end{figure} \section{Planar-geometry ``poor man's'' dark-field hyperlens} To demonstrate the proposed concept and to compare the functionality of DFHL and BFHL and, we have numerically simulated light propagation in a scenario where two subwavelength metallic scatterers are placed in front of planar hyperlens structures; the scatterers are separated by a distance shorter than the wavelength of the plane wave incident on them. The planar hyperlens geometry is chosen for simplicity, and we call such a structure ``the poor man's DFHL'' because such a design is only able to transmit a subwavelength image of an object some distance without true magnification, by the same token as a slab of metal is dubbed ``the poor man's superlens''\cite{zheludev2008diffraction}. However, despite the obvious drawbacks of this ``toy model'', it is useful as a proof-of-principle that can demonstrate the operating principle of the proposed DFHL without having to regard features brought about by more complicated designs. The results of the simulation are shown in \ref{FIG:poormans}. The structures are multilayers made of alternating metal and dielectric layers, with $2 \times 50$ layers in total. All layers have 10 nm thickness, and the BFHL and DFHL structures differ by the material parameters of the metal and dielectric used, with \ref{FIG:Dispersion} showing the corresponding dispersion properties in the effective medium limit (i.e., assuming infinitely thin layers) with and without losses. COMSOL finite element software was used for the simulations. We adopt the supercell approach when the simulation domain is periodic in the $x$ direction (tangential to the layers, see \ref{FIG:poormans}) in order to avoid numerical errors arising from metal layers terminating inside perfectly-matched layers (PML) region. (These errors can be significant because the performance of absorbing boundary conditions such as PMLs for the high-$k$ waves existing in HMMs is unstudied and can be very poor.) To prevent artifacts arising from interaction between the scatterers from different supercells, we make the width of the simulation domain 5 {\textmu}m, so any periodicity effects are expected to be negligible. In the $y$ direction (normal to the layers), absorbing boundary conditions are used, with 200 nm thick PMLs placed 1 {\textmu}m away from the multilayer. A normally incident plane wave with wavelength 715 nm is impinging on the hyperlens from the ambient medium with refractive index $n_a = 1$, excited in the simulaiton by surface current boundary condition. On the other side of the multilayer, a substrate with artificially high refractive index ($n_s=10$) is placed so that high-$k$ waves remain propagating, and the subwavelength image pattern can be visualized. As expected, \ref{FIG:poormans}(a) shows that the BFHL transmits a significant portion of the incident plane wave with $k_\parallel = 0$, which creates a strong background in the image area. The images of the objects are manifest as faint ``shadows'' where the intensity of the background is reduced due to scattering by the objects. We see that even though the two subwavelength images are well-resolved (in agreement with the operating principle of the hyperlens), the image contrast is sufficiently low even for relatively strongly scattering objects such as metallic spheres. To quantify the contrast, we define the bright-field image visibility in the same spirit as in \eqref{eq:contrast} as the contrast between the on-image and between-images field intensities: $V_\text{BF} = |I_\text{min} - I_0|/(I_\text{min} + I_0)$, where $I_\text{min}$ is the field intensity at the dip corresponding to each image, and $I_0$ is the intensity at the peak between the dips (at $x=0$), which is almost equal to the background intensity. From \ref{FIG:poormans}(a) it can be recovered that $V_\text{BF}=0.14$. In contrast, \ref{FIG:poormans}(b) shows that the DFHL reflects the incoming plane wave almost completely, resulting in no background in the image area. Only the subwavelength high-$k$ components of the scattered field are transmitted via coupling to bulk plasmonic waves inside the HMM, predominantly in the form of characteristic cone-like patterns \cite{ishii2013sub} arising because the normals to the isofrequency surface in the dispersion relation \eqref{eq:disp} have a preferred direction [see inset in \ref{FIG:Dispersion}(b)]. Each scatterer produces its own distinct cone pattern, which propagates independently in the hyperlens. As a result, a clearly visible and recognizable subwavelength image pattern is formed at the far end of the poor man's hyperlens, consisting of of two pairs of image points. Comparing the plots of light intensity in the image area ($y = 1700$ nm), we can see that the DFHL produces an image with much lower brightness but with much higher contrast than the BFHL. Similarly introducing the visibility as the contrast between the on-image and between-images field intensities, $V_\text{DF} = (I_\text{peak} - I_\text{dip})/(I_\text{peak} + I_\text{dip})$ where $I_\text{peak}$ is the field intensity at the weaker of the two image peaks and $I_\text{dip}$ is the intensity at the dip between the peaks. From \ref{FIG:poormans}(b) we can see that $V_\text{DF}=0.74$, much higher than the corresponding $V_\text{BF}$ obtained with a BFHL. Let us briefly discuss the key challenges and limitations of the proposed DFHL design. The first challenge consists in the proper choice of the hyperlens thickness in presence of material losses. On the one hand, choosing a thick multilayer would attenuate the useful signal, making the image too weak to be detected. On the other hand, choosing a thin structure would frustrate the filtering properties with respect to the low-$k$ components, so part of the background radiation would still get through and reduce the imaging contrast. This tradeoff is worsened by the fact that the adverse effects of material losses are greater on the high-$k$ waves than on the low-$k$ waves \cite{ourPRB14hmm}. Another related tradeoff is the choice of the value of $k_\text{cutoff}$. Choosing a value too close to $n_a k_0$ decreases the attenuation of the low-$k$ components, whereas choosing a higher value prevents part of the high-$k$ information from forming an image and thus decreases the image contrast [see \eqref{eq:contrast} and \ref{FIG:analytical}(b--c)]. So, it follows that lowering losses should be the priority optimization directions for the DFHL, and one may eventually have to resort to active loss compensation using gain media \cite{ni2011loss}. The third limitation is related to each scatterer producing a cone-shaped pattern within the hyperlens, which poses no difficulty in the analyzed 2D case but requires post-processing to reconstruct the image in the 3D case. For this reason, a hyperlens is usually made to operate in the ``canalization regime'' where the cone is very narrow---ideally, degenerate to be almost line-like, see \ref{FIG:poormans}(a). However, the type-I HMM underlying the BFHL naturally tends to near-canalization regime for sufficiently flat dispersion relation because its topology enforces the group velocity of the lower-$k$ components to point in the direction of $k_\perp$ [see the inset in \ref{FIG:Dispersion} (a)]. In contrast, the type-II HMM in the DFHL does not readily support the canalization regime [see the inset in \ref{FIG:Dispersion}(b)] since the increased curvature of the isofrequency contours near $k_\parallel = k_\text{cutoff}$ causes the group velocity of partial waves in that region to be spread rather than collimated. Furthermore, flattening the dispersion relation (by scaling $\epsilon_\parallel$) also reduces the attenuation of low-$k$ waves, which is determined by $\epsilon_\parallel$, as can be seen by solving \eqref{eq:disp} for $k_\parallel=0$ and yielding $\Im(k_\perp) \approx k_0\sqrt{-\mathrm{Re}\,\epsilon_\parallel}$ in the limit of small material losses. So, designing the DFHL in the canalization regime remains a challenge, and the proposed example is chosen to operate well outside this regime (see \ref{FIG:poormans}(b)). However, in spite of these design challenges and tradeoffs, the main advantage of the DFHL, namely its suitability for subwavelength imaging of weak scatterers, is clearly demonstrated in \ref{FIG:poormans}. We note that the metallic particles used in the presented example form rather strong scatterers. Using dielectric particles as objects, as is relevant in label-free biological imaging, would further bring out the advantage of high-contrast imaging facilitated by the DFHL. Indeed, \ref{FIG:poormans}(c--d) shows that the image in the BFHL almost vanishes, becoming indistinguishable against the background of the incident wave, while the DFHL retains the imaging capability. Specifically, the visibilities can be obtained as $V_\text{BF}=0.006$ and $V_\text{DF}=0.87$, i.e., a DFHL produces an image which has more than 140 times better contrast that a BFHL. \section{Cylindrical-geometry dark-field hyperlens} As discussed in the previous section, the planar-geometry structure only serves as a ``poor man's hyperlens'' in the sense that, while it is capable of transmitting the information encoded in the high-$k$ components of radiation scattered off a subwavelength object through the multilayer thickness, it is not able to perform any actual magnification. The reason is twofold. First, as seen in \ref{FIG:poormans}(b), the image points end up being the same distance apart as the original objects, so such a subwavelength image cannot be further processes by conventional optics. Second, the high-$k$ components traveling in the HMM would still be highly evanescent in any naturally occurring media, which made it necessary to use a fictitious medium with unrealistically high refractive index ($n_s=10$) in order to outcouple these components out of the lens in \ref{FIG:poormans}. Both these problems are conventionally solved by employing a cylindrical \cite{jacob2006optical} or spherical \cite{rho2010spherical} geometry. The objects to be imaged are placed at the inner radius of the circular surface, and the high-$k$ waves travel outward towards the outer radius. This gradual geometric transformation, sometimes combined with a gradient imposed on the layers thickness as one moves outward, serve to increase the distance between the image points compared to the distance between the objects, and at the same time, scale the $k$-vector of the waves towards lower values, thus allowing them to be outcoupled and subsequently imaged by conventional optics. \begin{figure} \includegraphics[width=1.00\columnwidth]{fig5-demo-rasterized.eps} \caption{The operation of a cylindrical-geometry DFHL: (a) computational schematic and (b--c) numerical results showing (b) field map and (c) field intensity map for a beam incident on two subwavelength scatterers, 70 nm in diameter and 290 nm apart, in front of a DFHL with cylindrical geometry. The structure consists of $2 \times 50$ layers with thickness 15 nm and $n_m = 0.14 + 2.26i$, $n_d = 1.45$; the inner and outer radius of the structure is 1000 and 2500 nm, respectively. To simultaneously show the field before, inside, and after the hyperlens, the color scale of the fields after the hyperlens is magnified by 50.} \label{FIG:Hyperlens} \end{figure} We have adapted the design principles elaborated in the previous section to the curvilinear geometry, starting with a multilayer structure similar to one used in \ref{FIG:poormans}(b) ($2 \times 50$ layers in total) and making the individual layer thickness 15 nm. The larger layer thicknesses were chosen in order to increase the total thickness of the lens, thereby increasing the magnification factor of the structure. Material parameters were also slightly modified in such a way that losses in metal were made slightly larger ($n_m = 0.14 + 2.26i$, $n_d = 1.45$), which was found to increase the quality of the images. The layers form concentric cylindrical shells with inner radius 1000 nm and outer radius 2500 nm. The simulation set-up is also quite similar to the previous demonstration of the poor man's hyperlens (see Section 2) except that the ambient space around the lens is now filled with a realistic medium with $n_s=3$ rather than with a fictitious one. Since the structure is now spatially finite rather than infinite, the supercell approach is no longer needed, and hence absorbing boundary conditions are used on all sides. In order to avoid numerical artifacts arising from the interaction of high-$k$ waves with PMLs, complete circular structure is enclosed in the simulation domain [see \ref{FIG:Hyperlens}(a)]; the presence of losses in the HMM structure is expected to prevent the effects of round-trip wave propagation in the structure. As before, the objects to be imaged are subwavelength-sized cylinders placed close to the inner surface of the hyperlens. They are illuminated by a beam (FWHM 666 nm) in the $+y$ direction; in the simulation set-up used, this excitation is created by placing a surface current source in middle of the hyperlens, as shown in \ref{FIG:Hyperlens}(a). \begin{figure}[tbh] \includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{fig6-separation.eps} \caption{(a) Fragments of intensity maps similar to \ref{FIG:Hyperlens}(b) for three different values (500, 400, and 300 nm) of the distance between the subwavelength scatterers. (b) Dependence of the field intensity at the outer surface of the hyperlens for the distance between objects varying between 75 and 600 nm in 25-nm steps; dots show the theoretical location of the image points in the absence of interference effects between high-$k$ cones. } \label{FIG:Separation} \end{figure} The simulation results are shown in \ref{FIG:Hyperlens}(b--c). The field distribution map (\ref{FIG:Hyperlens}(b)) shows that the operation is quite similar to the planar poor man's hyperlens considered above, with each object giving rise to a cone-like pattern in the hyperlens. However, the high-$k$ waves in these patterns are now transformed as they propagate outward, and can therefore be coupled out of the lens if the output medium has realistic index of refraction. This can be confirmed in the intensity map (\ref{FIG:Hyperlens}(c)), where it is seen that each object produces a pair of output beams present in the output medium. It can also be seen that the geometric transformation makes the distance between the image beams greater than between objects (e.g. almost 1 micron for 290 nm separation between objects), making the resulting subwavelength image suitable for further processing by conventional optics. To further characterize the hyperlensing functionality of the proposed structure, we vary the distance between scatterers and analyze how this variation affects the fields in the image area. The results are shown in \ref{FIG:Separation}. It is seen that bringing the scatterers further apart causes a corresponding increase in the distance between the image points (\ref{FIG:Separation}(a)), with the distance between the centroids of image points nearly proportional to the distance between objects. It can also be seen that well-resolved images can be formed for objects as close to each other as 175 nm apart (\ref{FIG:Separation}(b)). However, it is seen that the quality of image deteriorates for distances lower than 300 nm, with fluctuating visibility of the image that prevents the two image points from being resolved at some values of inter-object separation. These fluctuations result from the interference of high-$k$ patterns inside the hyperlens. Above 300 nm separation, the subwavelength imaging functionality of the proposed hyperlens is fairly reliable. The field and intensity profiles seen in \ref{FIG:Hyperlens} and \ref{FIG:Separation} further bring out the drawback of operation outside of canalization regime. The existence of multiple image points per object (or, in the 3D geometry, an image cone) decreases the amount of useful signal and may necessitate the use of image restoration techniques. In addition, the inability to separate the signal from multiple objects inside the hyperlens gives rise to interference effects, which manifest in the image area as distortions. So one of the primary future tasks would be to minimize those interference effects. Another challenge in the design of the DFHL is that, on the one hand, it should allow propagation of a broad range of high-$k$ waves at its inner surface while having strong attenuation for low-$k$ waves, so that subwavelength image is extracted and separated from background radiation. On the other hand, the waves at the outer surface should have sufficiently low $k$-vectors in order to pass through to the surrounding medium. This tradeoff narrows down the range of high-$k$ waves taking part in the image formation, which limits the imaging resolution according to \ref{FIG:analytical}(b), and gives rise to the requirement that $n_s$ be greater (ideally, much greater) than $n_a$. The account for losses, which affect higher-$k$ waves more strongly, is also detrimental, contributing to narrowing down of the allowed range of high-$k$ waves and lowering the image brightness. Together, these factors place a limit of $2.5\ldots 3$ on the magnification factor of the DFHL achievable by geometrical transformation alone. We stress that the presented simulation results only constitute the proof-of-principle for the proposed concept of the DFHL. It is therefore expected that further optimization can improve the DFHL imaging performance. For example, higher magnification and better image quality may be possible with gradient structures where layer thicknesses would vary across the thickness of the lens, although such a structure would be more difficult to manufacture. Another promising optimization direction is to combine two hyperlens structures (BFHL and DFHL) in one device, along the same lines as the combination of a superlens and a hyperlens was used in \cite{cheng2013breaking}. In such a hybrid device, the DFHL part could perform preliminary magnification along with background radiation filtering, after which the BFHL can perform the main magnification in the canalization regime. \section{Conclusions and outlook} In summary, we have proposed a concept for high-contrast subwavelength imaging (hyperlensing) of weakly scattering objects through the use of type-II rather than type-I HMM in the hyperlens, which prevents all propagating waves existing in the object area. The proposed {\em dark-field hyperlens}, so termed because its operating principle is similar to blocking incident light in dark-field optical microscopy\cite{benisty2012dark}, only transmits high-$k$ waves stemming from subwavelength features of the sample (see \ref{FIG:Lenses}). The resulting subwavelength image therefore has a much greater contrast than the one produced by a conventional hyperlens; in the presented numerical example the contrast enhancement by more that two orders of magnitude was demonstrated for subwavelength dielectric scatterers (see \ref{FIG:poormans}). Simulations further confirm the feasibility of the DFHL operation and present proof-of-principle DFHL design with demonstrated subwavelength imaging capability with weakly scattering objects illuminated by external light. This is in contrast with previous studies on the hyperlens \cite{liu2007far,rho2010spherical,cheng2013breaking} where the choice of the sample was intentionally made in such a way as to exclude background radiation. The proposed concept, {\em dark-field superresolving optical microscopy}, can find many applications in biological imaging because it can be performed without the use of fluorescent markers and/or special sample preparation techniques. As a result, the proposed method can be used to obtain dynamic real-time images of weak-contrast subwavelength objects. The resulting possibility to see and investigate dynamic processes involving subwavelength-sized biological agents and macromolecules (including {\em in vivo} studies) can be enabling to modern life sciences. Finally, the possibility to reverse the operation of a hyperlens, which can be realized by virtue of the time-reversal symmetry of the Maxwell equations, can be used to focus light in a subwavelength scale and selectively excite a subwavelength object. This may bring about an even greater advance in experimental biology, making it possible to actively interfere with nanoscale biological agents while observing them. \begin{acknowledgement} This work has received financial support from the People Programme (Marie Curie Actions) of the European Union's 7th Framework (EU FP7) Programme FP7-PEOPLE-2011-IIF under REA grant agreement No.~302009 (Project HyPHONE). One of us (T.R.) thanks the Archimedes Foundation for financial support (Kristjan Jaak scholarship). \end{acknowledgement} \begin{suppinfo} Some movie files can be put here, such as an animation of what happens when the distance between scatterers varies. Our "continuous separation graphs" can be there, too. \end{suppinfo} \providecommand*\mcitethebibliography{\thebibliography} \csname @ifundefined\endcsname{endmcitethebibliography} {\let\endmcitethebibliography\endthebibliography}{} \begin{mcitethebibliography}{31} \providecommand*\natexlab[1]{#1} \providecommand*\mciteSetBstSublistMode[1]{} \providecommand*\mciteSetBstMaxWidthForm[2]{} \providecommand*\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue {\def\unskip.}{\unskip.}} \providecommand*\mciteBstWouldAddEndPunctfalse {\let\unskip.}\relax} \providecommand*\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct[3]{} \providecommand*\mciteSetBstSublistLabelBeginEnd[3]{} \providecommand*\unskip.}{} \mciteSetBstSublistMode{f} \mciteSetBstMaxWidthForm{subitem}{(\alph{mcitesubitemcount})} \mciteSetBstSublistLabelBeginEnd {\mcitemaxwidthsubitemform\space} {\relax} {\relax} \bibitem[Cai and Shalaev(2009)Cai, and Shalaev]{bookShalaev} Cai,~W.; Shalaev,~V. \emph{Optical Metamaterials: Fundamentals and Applications}; Springer, 2009\relax \mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue \mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct} {\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax \unskip.} \bibitem[Shalaev(2007)]{shalaev2007optical} Shalaev,~V.~M. \emph{Nature Photonics} \textbf{2007}, \emph{1}, 41--48\relax \mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue \mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct} {\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax \unskip.} \bibitem[Pendry(2000)]{pendry2000negative} Pendry,~J.~B. \emph{Physical review letters} \textbf{2000}, \emph{85}, 3966\relax \mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue \mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct} {\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax \unskip.} \bibitem[Fang et~al.(2005)Fang, Lee, Sun, and Zhang]{SWexp05} Fang,~N.; Lee,~H.; Sun,~C.; Zhang,~X. \emph{Science} \textbf{2005}, \emph{308}, 534--537\relax \mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue \mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct} {\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax \unskip.} \bibitem[Liu et~al.(2007)Liu, Durant, Lee, Pikus, Xiong, Sun, and Zhang]{liu2007experimental} Liu,~Z.; Durant,~S.; Lee,~H.; Pikus,~Y.; Xiong,~Y.; Sun,~C.; Zhang,~X. \emph{Optics express} \textbf{2007}, \emph{15}, 6947--6954\relax \mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue \mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct} {\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax \unskip.} \bibitem[Aydin et~al.(2007)Aydin, Bulu, and Ozbay]{aydin2007subwavelength} Aydin,~K.; Bulu,~I.; Ozbay,~E. \emph{Applied physics letters} \textbf{2007}, \emph{90}, 254102\relax \mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue \mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct} {\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax \unskip.} \bibitem[Xiong et~al.(2007)Xiong, Liu, Sun, and Zhang]{xiong2007two} Xiong,~Y.; Liu,~Z.; Sun,~C.; Zhang,~X. \emph{Nano letters} \textbf{2007}, \emph{7}, 3360--3365\relax \mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue \mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct} {\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax \unskip.} \bibitem[Zhang and Liu(2008)Zhang, and Liu]{zhang2008superlenses} Zhang,~X.; Liu,~Z. \emph{Nature materials} \textbf{2008}, \emph{7}, 435--441\relax \mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue \mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct} {\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax \unskip.} \bibitem[Jacob et~al.(2006)Jacob, Alekseyev, and Narimanov]{jacob2006optical} Jacob,~Z.; Alekseyev,~L.~V.; Narimanov,~E. \emph{Optics express} \textbf{2006}, \emph{14}, 8247--8256\relax \mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue \mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct} {\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax \unskip.} \bibitem[Poddubny et~al.(2013)Poddubny, Iorsh, Belov, and Kivshar]{poddubny2013hyperbolic} Poddubny,~A.; Iorsh,~I.; Belov,~P.; Kivshar,~Y. \emph{Nature Photonics} \textbf{2013}, \emph{7}, 948--957\relax \mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue \mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct} {\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax \unskip.} \bibitem[Orlov et~al.(2014)Orlov, Iorsh, Zhukovsky, and Belov]{ourReviewPNFA} Orlov,~A.~A.; Iorsh,~I.~V.; Zhukovsky,~S.~V.; Belov,~P.~A. \emph{Photonics and Nanostructures -- Fundamentals and Applications} \textbf{2014}, \emph{12}, 213--230\relax \mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue \mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct} {\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax \unskip.} \bibitem[Liu et~al.(2007)Liu, Lee, Xiong, Sun, and Zhang]{liu2007far} Liu,~Z.; Lee,~H.; Xiong,~Y.; Sun,~C.; Zhang,~X. \emph{science} \textbf{2007}, \emph{315}, 1686--1686\relax \mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue \mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct} {\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax \unskip.} \bibitem[Rho et~al.(2010)Rho, Ye, Xiong, Yin, Liu, Choi, Bartal, and Zhang]{rho2010spherical} Rho,~J.; Ye,~Z.; Xiong,~Y.; Yin,~X.; Liu,~Z.; Choi,~H.; Bartal,~G.; Zhang,~X. \emph{Nature communications} \textbf{2010}, \emph{1}, 143\relax \mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue \mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct} {\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax \unskip.} \bibitem[Cheng et~al.(2013)Cheng, Lan, and Tsai]{cheng2013breaking} Cheng,~B.~H.; Lan,~Y.-C.; Tsai,~D.~P. \emph{Optics express} \textbf{2013}, \emph{21}, 14898--14906\relax \mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue \mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct} {\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax \unskip.} \bibitem[Li et~al.(2009)Li, Fok, Yin, Bartal, and Zhang]{li2009experimental} Li,~J.; Fok,~L.; Yin,~X.; Bartal,~G.; Zhang,~X. \emph{Nature materials} \textbf{2009}, \emph{8}, 931--934\relax \mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue \mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct} {\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax \unskip.} \bibitem[Andryieuski et~al.(2012)Andryieuski, Lavrinenko, and Chigrin]{andryieuski2012graphene} Andryieuski,~A.; Lavrinenko,~A.~V.; Chigrin,~D.~N. \emph{Physical Review B} \textbf{2012}, \emph{86}, 121108\relax \mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue \mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct} {\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax \unskip.} \bibitem[Benisty and Goudail(2012)Benisty, and Goudail]{benisty2012dark} Benisty,~H.; Goudail,~F. \emph{JOSA B} \textbf{2012}, \emph{29}, 2595--2602\relax \mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue \mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct} {\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax \unskip.} \bibitem[Leung and Chou(2011)Leung, and Chou]{STEDreview} Leung,~B.~O.; Chou,~K.~C. \emph{Appl. Spectrosc.} \textbf{2011}, \emph{65}, 967--980\relax \mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue \mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct} {\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax \unskip.} \bibitem[Ayas et~al.(2013)Ayas, Cinar, Ozkan, Soran, Ekiz, Kocaay, Tomak, Toren, Kaya, Tunc, Zareie, Tekinay, Tekinay, Guler, and Dana]{Ayas:2013rt} Ayas,~S.; Cinar,~G.; Ozkan,~A.~D.; Soran,~Z.; Ekiz,~O.; Kocaay,~D.; Tomak,~A.; Toren,~P.; Kaya,~Y.; Tunc,~I.; Zareie,~H.; Tekinay,~T.; Tekinay,~A.~B.; Guler,~M.~O.; Dana,~A. \emph{Sci. Rep.} \textbf{2013}, \emph{3}\relax \mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue \mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct} {\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax \unskip.} \bibitem[Wong and Eleftheriades(2013)Wong, and Eleftheriades]{wong2013optical} Wong,~A.~M.; Eleftheriades,~G.~V. \emph{Scientific reports} \textbf{2013}, \emph{3}\relax \mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue \mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct} {\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax \unskip.} \bibitem[Yang et~al.(2014)Yang, Moullan, Auwerx, and Gijs]{yang2014super} Yang,~H.; Moullan,~N.; Auwerx,~J.; Gijs,~M.~A. \emph{Small} \textbf{2014}, \emph{10}, 1712--1718\relax \mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue \mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct} {\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax \unskip.} \bibitem[Smith et~al.(2004)Smith, Schurig, Mock, Kolinko, and Rye]{smith2004partial} Smith,~D.~R.; Schurig,~D.; Mock,~J.~J.; Kolinko,~P.; Rye,~P. \emph{Applied Physics Letters} \textbf{2004}, \emph{84}, 2244--2246\relax \mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue \mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct} {\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax \unskip.} \bibitem[Kidwai et~al.(2012)Kidwai, Zhukovsky, and Sipe]{ourHMMPRA} Kidwai,~O.; Zhukovsky,~S.~V.; Sipe,~J.~E. \emph{Phys.~Rev.~A} \textbf{2012}, \emph{85}, 053842\relax \mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue \mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct} {\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax \unskip.} \bibitem[Zhukovsky et~al.(2013)Zhukovsky, Kidwai, and Sipe]{ourPoleExpOE} Zhukovsky,~S.~V.; Kidwai,~O.; Sipe,~J.~E. \emph{Opt.~Express} \textbf{2013}, \emph{21}, 14982--14987\relax \mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue \mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct} {\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax \unskip.} \bibitem[Jiang et~al.(2013)Jiang, Qiu, Han, Cheng, Ma, Zhang, and Cui]{jiang2013broadband} Jiang,~W.~X.; Qiu,~C.-W.; Han,~T.~C.; Cheng,~Q.; Ma,~H.~F.; Zhang,~S.; Cui,~T.~J. \emph{Advanced Materials} \textbf{2013}, \emph{25}, 6963--6968\relax \mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue \mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct} {\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax \unskip.} \bibitem[Guo et~al.(2012)Guo, Newman, Cortes, and Jacob]{Guo2012} Guo,~Y.; Newman,~W.; Cortes,~C.~L.; Jacob,~Z. \emph{Advances in OptoElectronics} \textbf{2012}, \emph{2012}, 1--9\relax \mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue \mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct} {\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax \unskip.} \bibitem[Zheludev(2008)]{zheludev2008diffraction} Zheludev,~N.~I. \emph{Nature materials} \textbf{2008}, \emph{7}, 420--422\relax \mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue \mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct} {\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax \unskip.} \bibitem[Ishii et~al.(2013)Ishii, Kildishev, Narimanov, Shalaev, and Drachev]{ishii2013sub} Ishii,~S.; Kildishev,~A.~V.; Narimanov,~E.; Shalaev,~V.~M.; Drachev,~V.~P. \emph{Laser \& Photonics Reviews} \textbf{2013}, \emph{7}, 265--271\relax \mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue \mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct} {\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax \unskip.} \bibitem[Zhukovsky et~al.(2014)Zhukovsky, Andryieuski, Sipe, and Lavrinenko]{ourPRB14hmm} Zhukovsky,~S.~V.; Andryieuski,~A.; Sipe,~J.~E.; Lavrinenko,~A.~V. \emph{Physical Review B} \textbf{2014}, \emph{90}, 155429\relax \mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue \mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct} {\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax \unskip.} \bibitem[Ni et~al.(2011)Ni, Ishii, Thoreson, Shalaev, Han, Lee, and Kildishev]{ni2011loss} Ni,~X.; Ishii,~S.; Thoreson,~M.~D.; Shalaev,~V.~M.; Han,~S.; Lee,~S.; Kildishev,~A.~V. \emph{Optics express} \textbf{2011}, \emph{19}, 25242--25254\relax \mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue \mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct} {\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax \unskip.} \end{mcitethebibliography} \end{document}
\section{Generalized Parton Distributions and deeply virtual Compton scattering}\label{sec_intro} It is well known that the fundamental particles that form hadronic matter are the quarks and the gluons, whose interactions are described by the Lagrangian of Quantum Chromo-Dynamics (QCD). However, exact QCD-based calculations cannot yet be performed to explain the properties of hadrons in terms of their constituents. One has to resort to phenomenological functions to interpret experimental measurements in order to understand how QCD works at the ``long distances'' at play when partons are confined in nucleons. Typical examples of such functions include form factors and parton distributions. Generalized Parton Distributions (GPDs), which unify and extend the information carried by both form factors and parton distributions, are nowadays the object of an intense effort of research, for a more complete understanding of the structure of the nucleon. The GPDs describe the correlations between the longitudinal momentum and the transverse position of the partons inside the nucleon, they give access to the contribution of the orbital momentum of the quarks to the nucleon spin, and they are sensitive to the correlated $q\bar{q}$ components. The original articles, general reviews on GPDs and details on the formalism can be found in Refs.~\cite{muller,ji,rady,collins,goeke,revdiehl,revrady}. The GPDs are universal nucleon-structure functions, which can be accessed experimentally via the exclusive leptoproduction of a photon (DVCS, deeply virtual Compton scattering) or of a meson from the nucleon at high momentum transfer. More precisely, the virtuality $Q^2$ of the photon exchanged with the nucleon by the initial lepton, defined as \begin{equation} Q^2=-(k-k')^2, \end{equation} where $k$ and $k'$ are the four momenta of, respectively, the incoming ($e$) and scattered electron ($e'$), must be sufficiently large for the reaction to happen at the quark level. Figure~\ref{fig:dvcs} illustrates the leading-twist \cite{jaffe} process for DVCS, also called the ``handbag mechanism'', on a proton target. The virtual photon interacts with one of the quarks of the proton, which propagates radiating a real photon. \begin{equation} t=(p-p')^2 \end{equation} is the squared four-momentum transfer between the initial ($p$) and final proton ($p'$). $x+\xi$ and $x-\xi$ are the longitudinal momentum fractions of the quark before and after radiating the real photon, respectively. $\xi$ is defined as \cite{belitski}: \begin{equation}\label{xi_def} \xi = x_B\frac{1+\frac{t}{Q^2}}{2-x_B+x_B\frac{t}{Q^2}}, \end{equation} which at leading twist ($-t<<Q^2$) becomes \begin{equation}\label{xi_def2} \xi\simeq\frac{x_B}{2-x_B}, \end{equation} where $x_B$ is the Bjorken scaling variable \begin{equation} x_B = \frac{Q^2}{2M\nu}, \end{equation} $M$ is the proton mass, and \begin{equation} \nu = E_e-E_{e'}. \end{equation} In the Bjorken limit, defined by high $Q^2$, high $\nu$ and fixed $x_B$, the DVCS process can be factorized into a hard-scattering part ($\gamma^* q \to \gamma q'$) that can be treated perturbatively, and a soft nucleon-structure part, described by the GPDs. At leading-order QCD and at leading twist, considering only quark-helicity conserving quantities and the quark sector, the DVCS process is described by four GPDs, $H, \tilde H, E, \tilde E$, which account for the possible combinations of relative orientations of nucleon spin and quark helicity between the initial and final state. The GPDs depend upon the variables $x$, $\xi$ and $t$. \begin{figure} \begin{center} \hbox{\hspace{-4.5ex}\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{handbag.pdf}} \caption{(Color online) The handbag diagram for the DVCS process on the proton $ep\to e'p'\gamma'$.} \label{fig:dvcs} \end{center} \end{figure} The Fourier transform, at $\xi=0$, of the $t$ dependence of a GPD provides the spatial distribution in the transverse plane for partons having a longitudinal momentum fraction $x$ \cite{burkhardt}. Model-independent sum rules link the first moment in $x$ of the GPDs to the elastic form factors (FFs) \cite{ji}: \begin{eqnarray} \int_{-1}^{1}dx H(x,\xi,t)=F_{1}(t) & ; & \int_{-1}^{1}dx E(x,\xi,t)=F_{2}(t) \nonumber \\ \int_{-1}^{1}dx \widetilde{H}(x,\xi,t)=G_{A}(t) & ; & \int_{-1}^{1}dx \widetilde{E}(x,\xi,t)=G_{P}(t), \label{EqGPDsFFlink} \end{eqnarray} where $F_{1}(t)$ and $F_{2}(t)$ are the Dirac and Pauli FFs, and $G_{A}(t)$ and $G_{P}(t)$ are the axial and pseudoscalar FFs. Among the three variables $x$, $\xi$ and $t$, which appear in the DVCS formalism, only two, $\xi$ and $t$, are experimentally accessible, since $x$ appears only in the quark loop and is integrated over. Indeed, the DVCS amplitude is proportional to sums of integrals over $x$ of the form: \begin{equation}\label{dvcs-ampl} \int_{-1}^{1} d x F(\mp x,\xi,t)\left[\frac{1}{x - \xi + i \epsilon}\pm\frac{1}{x + \xi - i \epsilon}\right] \end{equation} where $F$ represents a generic GPD and the top and bottom signs apply, respectively, to the quark-helicity independent, or unpolarized, GPDs ($H, E$) and to the quark-helicity dependent, or polarized, GPDs ($\widetilde {H}, \widetilde {E}$). Each of these 4 integrals, which are called Compton Form Factors (CFFs), can be decomposed into their real and imaginary parts, as \begin{eqnarray}\label{def_cffs} \Re{\rm e}{\cal F} &=& {\cal P}\int_{-1}^{1}dx\left[\frac{1}{x-\xi}\mp\frac{1}{x+\xi}\right]F(x,\xi,t) \\ \Im{\rm m}{\cal F}(\xi,t)&=& -\pi [F(\xi,\xi,t)\mp F(-\xi,\xi,t)], \end{eqnarray} where ${\cal P}$ is Cauchy's principal value integral. The information that can be extracted from the experimental data at a given ($\xi,t$) point depends on the observable involved. When measuring observables sensitive to the real part of the DVCS amplitude, such as double-spin asymmetries, beam-charge asymmetries or unpolarized cross sections, the real part of the CFF, $\Re{\rm e}{\cal F}$, is accessed. When measuring observables sensitive to the imaginary part of the DVCS amplitude, such as single-spin asymmetries or cross-section differences, the imaginary part of the CFF, $\Im{\rm m}{\cal F}$, can be obtained. However, knowing the CFFs does not define the GPDs uniquely. A model input is necessary to deconvolute their $x$ dependence. The DVCS process is accompanied by the Bethe-Heitler (BH) process, in which the final-state photon is radiated by the incoming or scattered electron and not by the nucleon itself. The BH process, which is not sensitive to the GPDs, is experimentally indistinguishable from DVCS and interferes with it. However, considering that the nucleon form factors are well known at small $t$, the BH process is precisely calculable. It is clearly a non-trivial task to measure the GPDs. It calls for a long-term experimental program comprising the measurement of different observables. Such a dedicated experimental program, concentrating on a proton target, has started worldwide in the past few years. Jefferson Lab (JLab) has provided the first measurement, in the valence region, of beam-polarized and unpolarized DVCS cross sections at Hall A~\cite{carlos}, providing a $Q^2$-scaling test that supports the validity of the leading-order, leading-twist handbag mechanism starting at values of $Q^2$ of 1-2 (GeV/$c$)$^2$. Hall B provided pioneering measurements of beam~\cite{stepan} and target~\cite{shifeng} spin asymmetries with the CLAS detector~\cite{clas}, and afterwards obtained beam-spin asymmetries (BSA) over a large kinematic range and with high statistics~\cite{fx}. Beam-charge asymmetries, longitudinally and transversely polarized target-spin asymmetries (TSAs), as well as double-spin asymmetries (DSAs), have also been measured by the HERMES Collaboration~\cite{hermes}. This paper is focused on the extraction of longitudinal TSAs, BSAs and DSAs for proton DVCS over a wide phase space using dedicated data taken at Jefferson Lab with the CLAS detector. \section{DVCS on a longitudinally polarized proton target} An analysis of DVCS observables, including the asymmetries of interest in this work, in terms of Fourier moments with respect to the azimuthal angle, was carried out by Belitsky {\it et al.} \cite{belitski}, up to a twist-3 approximation. These asymmetries allow one to extract separate components of the angular dependence of the $ep\to e'p'\gamma$ cross section, that are related to the Compton Form Factors, defined in Eq.~\eqref{def_cffs}. The five-fold cross section for exclusive real photon electroproduction \cite{belitski} \begin{equation} \label{WQ} \frac{d\sigma}{d x_B dy dt d\phi d\varphi_e}=\frac{\alpha^3 x_B y } {16 \, \pi^2 \, Q^2 \sqrt{1 + \epsilon^2}} \left| \frac{\cal T}{e^3} \right|^2 \, \end{equation} depends on $x_B$, $t$, the lepton energy fraction $y= p\cdot q_1/p\cdot k$, with $q_1 = k - k'$, $\epsilon=2 x_B \frac{M}{Q}$, and, in general, two azimuthal angles $\phi$ and $\varphi_e$. The observables of interest here do not depend on $\varphi_e$, the azimuthal angle of the scattered electron in the laboratory frame. The angle $\phi$ is formed by the leptonic and hadronic planes, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dvcs_phi}. The charge of the electron is denoted with $e$ and $\alpha$ represents the fine-structure constant. \begin{figure} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=86mm]{dvcs_diagram.pdf} \vspace{-2.5cm} \caption{Scheme to illustrate the definition of the angle $\phi$, formed by the leptonic and hadronic planes.} \label{fig:dvcs_phi} \end{center} \end{figure} The amplitude ${\cal T}$ is the coherent sum of the DVCS and Bethe-Heitler amplitudes (${\cal T}_{\rm DVCS}$, ${\cal T}_{\rm BH}$): \begin{equation}\label{eq_amplitude} {\cal T}^2= |{\cal T}_{\rm BH}|^2 + |{\cal T}_{\rm DVCS}|^2 + {\cal I} \, , \end{equation} with the interference term defined as \begin{equation} {\cal I} = {\cal T}_{\rm DVCS} {\cal T}_{\rm BH}^\ast + {\cal T}_{\rm DVCS}^\ast {\cal T}_{\rm BH} \, . \end{equation} The azimuthal angular dependence of each of the three terms in Eq.~\eqref{eq_amplitude} is given by \cite{belitski}: \begin{eqnarray} \label{Par-BH} |{\cal T}_{\rm BH}|^2&=& \frac{e^6} {x_B^2 y^2 (1 + \epsilon^2)^2 t\, {\cal P}_1 (\phi) {\cal P}_2 (\phi)} [ c^{\rm BH}_0 + \nonumber\\ &+&\sum_{n=1}^2 c^{\rm BH}_n \, \cos{n\phi} + s^{\rm BH}_1 \, \sin{\phi} ], \end{eqnarray} \begin{eqnarray} \label{AmplitudesSquared} |{\cal T}_{\rm DVCS}|^2 &=& \frac{e^6}{y^2 {\cal Q}^2}\{c^{\rm DVCS}_0 + \sum_{n=1}^2 [c^{\rm DVCS}_n \cos {n\phi} + \nonumber\\ &+& s^{\rm DVCS}_n \sin {n\phi} ]\} \, , \end{eqnarray} \begin{eqnarray} \label{InterferenceTerm} {\cal I}&=& \frac{e^6}{x_B y^3 t {\cal P}_1 (\phi) {\cal P}_2 (\phi)}\{c_0^{\cal I}+ \sum_{n = 1}^3[c_n^{\cal I} \cos{n\phi} +\nonumber\\ &+& s_n^{\cal I} \sin{n\phi} ] \} \, , \end{eqnarray} where ${\cal P}_1$ and ${\cal P}_2$ are intermediate lepton propagators (for more details and definitions, see \cite{belitski}). Among the Fourier coefficients $c^{\rm P}_i$, $s^{\rm P}_i$ appearing in the previous expansions, the ones appearing in $|{\cal T}_{\rm BH}|^2$ (P = BH) depend on the well-known electromagnetic FFs, while the ones appearing in $|{\cal T}_{\rm DVCS}|^2$ (P = DVCS) and ${\cal I}$ (P = ${\cal I}$) depend on the Compton Form Factors, the latter linearly. In the next sections, the sensitivity to the various CFFs of the DVCS spin observables presented in this paper will be outlined. \subsection{Target-spin asymmetry} The use of a longitudinally polarized (LP) target allows the extraction of the target-spin asymmetry $A_{\rm UL}$, where the first letter in the subscript refers to the beam polarization (``Unpolarized'', in this case) and the second to the target polarization (``Longitudinally polarized'', in this case), and which is given at twist-2 by: \begin{equation}\label{eq_tsa} A_{\rm UL}(\phi) \sim \frac{s_{1,{\rm LP}}^{\cal I}\sin\phi}{c_{0,{\rm unp}}^{\rm BH}+(c_{1,{\rm unp}}^{\rm BH}+c_{1,{\rm unp}}^{\cal I}+...)\cos\phi+...}\ ~, \end{equation} where the ellipses in the denominator represent smaller, higher-twist terms, and the $\rm unp$ subscript stands for ``unpolarized''. The $\sin\phi$ coefficient $s_{1,{\rm LP}}$, originating from the DVCS/BH interference term, at leading twist is proportional to a linear combination of the imaginary parts of the four CFFs (Eq.~\eqref{def_cffs}), \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq_tsa_cffs} s_{1,{\rm LP}} &\propto& \Im{\rm m}[ F_1\widetilde{\cal H}+\xi(F_1+F_2)({\cal H}+\frac{x_B}{2}{\cal E})+\nonumber \\ &-& \xi(\frac{x_B}{2} F_1+ \frac{t}{4M^2}F_2)\widetilde{\cal E}] ~. \end{eqnarray} \noindent Due to the relative values of the proton form factors $F_1$ and $F_2$, and given the typical JLab kinematics, the coefficients in Eq.~\eqref{eq_tsa_cffs} enhance the contribution to $A_{\rm UL}$ coming from $\Im{\rm m} \widetilde{\cal H}$ over the ones from other CFFs. However, given that $\Im{\rm m}{\cal H}$ is expected to be about twice as big as $\Im{\rm m}\widetilde{\cal H}$, $A_{\rm UL}$ will also be sensitive to $\Im{\rm m}{\cal H}$. In the kinematical range of the data presented here, higher-twist effects would appear in Eq.~\eqref{eq_tsa} as additional $\phi$-dependent terms, the dominant of which is a $\sin2\phi$ term in the numerator \cite{belitski}. \subsection{Beam-spin asymmetry} The expression at twist-two of the beam-spin asymmetry is \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq_bsa} A_{\rm LU}(\phi) \sim \frac{s_{1,{\rm unp}}^{\cal I}\sin\phi}{c_{0,{\rm unp}}^{\rm BH}+(c_{1,{\rm unp}}^{\rm BH}+c_{1,{\rm unp}}^{\cal I}+...)\cos\phi...}\ ~ \end{eqnarray} where \begin{equation} s_{1,{\rm unp}}^{\cal I}\propto \Im{\rm m}[F_1 { \cal H}+\xi (F_1 + F_2)\widetilde{\cal H}-\frac{t}{4M^2}F_2{\cal E}]. \end{equation} Thus, the beam-spin asymmetry for DVCS on a proton target is particularly sensitive to the imaginary part of the CFF of the unpolarized GPD $H$. As for the TSA, more terms must be added if one goes beyond the leading-twist approximation, the larger of which is a $\sin 2\phi$ term in the numerator. As mentioned in Section~\ref{sec_intro}, the slope in $t$ of the GPDs is related via a Fourier transform to the transverse position of the struck parton. Therefore, a measurement of $\Im{\rm m} \widetilde{\cal H}$ and $\Im{\rm m}{\cal H}$ provides, respectively, information on the axial and electric charge distributions in the nucleon as a function of $x_B$ (see Eq. \eqref{EqGPDsFFlink}). A measurement of both the TSA and BSA at the same kinematics is needed to truly distinguish between the two contributions. \subsection{Double-spin asymmetry} The use of a polarized electron beam along with a longitudinally polarized target allows also the determination of the double-spin asymmetry $A_{\rm LL}$. Unlike $A_{\rm UL}$, the Bethe-Heitler process alone can generate a double-spin asymmetry. At twist-2 level, this observable takes the form: \begin{equation} A_{\rm LL}(\phi) \sim \frac{c_{0,{\rm LP}}^{\rm BH}+c_{0,{\rm LP}}^{\cal I} +(c_{1,{\rm LP}}^{\rm BH}+c_{1,{\rm LP}}^{\cal I})\cos\phi} {c_{0,{\rm unp}}^{\rm BH}+(c_{1,{\rm unp}}^{\rm BH}+c_{1,{\rm unp}}^{\cal I}+...)\cos\phi...} ~, \end{equation} with \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq_dsa} c_{0,{\rm LP}}^{\cal I}, c_{1,{\rm LP}}^{\cal I} &\propto& \Re{\rm e} [F_1 \widetilde { \cal H} + \xi (F_1 + F_2)({\cal H}+\frac{x_B}{2}{\cal E})+\nonumber\\ &-& \xi(\frac{x_B}{2} F_1+\frac{t}{4M^2}F_2)\widetilde{\cal E} ], \end{eqnarray} where terms depending on powers of $\frac{t}{Q^2}$ were neglected. In this expression, the interference terms, related to the GPDs, are expected to be smaller than the known BH terms \cite{belitski}. Moreover, both the constant and the $\cos\phi$-dependent terms contain contributions from both BH and the DVCS/BH interference. Nonetheless, given the fast variation of BH depending on the kinematics, it is important to sample $A_{\rm LL}$ over a wide phase space to find possible regions of sensitivity to $\Re{\rm e}{\cal H}$ and $\Re{\rm e} \widetilde{\cal H}$, which dominate in Eq.~\eqref{eq_dsa}. \section{The experiment}\label{sec_experiment} The data were taken in Hall B at Jefferson Lab from February to September 2009, for a total of 129 days. A continuous polarized electron beam was delivered by the CEBAF accelerator onto a solid ammonia target, polarized along the beam direction. Frozen beads of paramagnetically doped $^{14}$NH$_{3}$, kept at temperatures of about 1K and in a 5T magnetic field, were dynamically polarized by microwave irradiation \cite{chris_nim}. The target was 1.45 cm long and 1.5 cm in diameter. The target system included a $^4$He evaporation refrigerator and a superconducting split-coil magnet. The magnet, which provided a uniform polarizing field ($\Delta B/B = 10^{-4}$) and at the same time focused the low-energy M{\o}ller electrons toward the beam line, was inserted in the center of the CLAS detector \cite{clas}. CLAS was a spectrometer, based on a toroidal magnetic field, providing a wide acceptance. The CLAS magnetic field was generated by six superconducting coils arranged around the beamline to produce a field pointing primarily in the azimuthal direction. The particle detection system consisted of drift chambers (DC) to determine the trajectories and the momenta of charged particles curved by the magnetic field, gas {\v C}erenkov counters (CC) for electron identification, scintillation counters for measuring time-of-flight (TOF) and electromagnetic calorimeters (EC) to detect showering particles (electrons and photons) and neutrons. The segments were individually instrumented to form six independent magnetic spectrometers with a common target, trigger, and data-acquisition system. An additional detector, the Inner Calorimeter, constructed for a previous DVCS-dedicated experiment \cite{fx} to complete the photon acceptance at low polar angles (from 4${}^{o}$ to 15${}^{o}$), was placed at the center of CLAS. Figure~\ref{setup} shows the whole setup, including the polarized target, CLAS and the IC. A totally absorbing Faraday cup (FC), downstream of CLAS, was used to determine the integrated beam charge passing through the target. \begin{figure*} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=172mm]{EG1inCLAS_DVCS.pdf} \caption{Drawing of the experimental setup, including the CLAS detector with its components (DC, EC, CC, TOF), the Inner Calorimeter and the polarized target.} \label{setup} \end{center} \end{figure*} The data presented here come from the first two of the three parts in which the experiment was divided, and for which a ${}^{14}$NH$_3$ target was used. The main differences between these two parts (referred to as A and B) were the target position with respect to the center of CLAS ($z=-57.95$ cm for part A and $z=-67.97$ cm for part B) and the electron-beam energy ($E=5.886 \pm 0.005$ GeV for part A and $E=5.952 \pm 0.005$ GeV for part B). The beam energy values were obtained from elastic-scattering analysis on these data, using the ${}^{14}$NH$_3$ target. The beam was rastered over the target in a spiral motion in order to assure a homogeneous depolarization over the whole volume of the target. The beam polarization was frequently monitored in M{\o}ller runs, via the measurement of the asymmetry of elastic electron-electron scattering. The target polarization was continuously monitored by a Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) system. Runs on a carbon target were taken periodically throughout the duration of the experiment for unpolarized-background studies. The selection of the data to be analyzed was done by monitoring the stability over time of Faraday-cup normalized yields per sector. For the results presented here, runs taken with the ${}^{14}$NH$_3$ and carbon targets from parts A and B were used. The two parts were analyzed separately and the final results were found by combining the results from the two parts, as will be described in Section~\ref{sec_merge}. \section{Definitions of the asymmetries} This paper reports on the extraction of three kinds of asymmetries, the experimental definitions of which are given here. In all of the formulae below, the first sign in the superscript on the number of normalized DVCS/BH events $N$ is the beam helicity ($b$) and the second sign is the target polarization ($t$). $N$ is obtained from $ep\gamma$ events ($N_{ep\gamma}$), normalized by the corresponding Faraday-cup charge ($FC^{bt}$) after subtraction of the $\pi^0$ background as follows: \begin{equation} N^{bt}= (1-B_{\pi^0}^{bt})\cdot \frac{N^{bt}_{ep\gamma}}{FC^{bt}}, \end{equation} where $B_{\pi^0}$ is the relative $\pi^0$ contamination, outlined in Section \ref{sec_pi0_back}. The beam-spin asymmetry is calculated as: \begin{equation}\label{def_bsa} A_{\rm LU} = \frac{P_t^-(N^{++}-N^{-+})+P_t^+(N^{+-}-N^{--})}{P_b(P_t^-(N^{++}+N^{-+})+P_t^+(N^{+-}+N^{--}))}, \end{equation} where $P_b$ is the polarization of the beam and $P_t^{+(-)}$ are the values of the polarization of the target for its two polarities. The target-spin asymmetry is computed as: \begin{equation} \label{def_tsa_1} A_{\rm UL} = A_{\rm UL}^{\rm lab} + c_{A_{\rm UT}}, \end{equation} where \begin{equation}\label{def_tsa} A_{\rm UL}^{\rm lab} = \frac{N^{++}+N^{-+}-N^{+-}-N^{--}}{D_f (P_t^-(N^{++}+N^{-+})+P_t^+(N^{+-}+N^{--}))}~. \end{equation} $D_f$ is the dilution factor to account for the contribution of the unpolarized background (Section \ref{sec_dilution}) and $c_{A_{UT}}$ represents a correction applied to define the target-spin asymmetry with respect to the virtual-photon direction (Section \ref{transverse_sec}). The double (beam-target) spin asymmetry is obtained as: \begin{equation} \label{def_dsa_1} A_{\rm LL} = A_{\rm LL}^{\rm lab} + c_{A_{\rm LT}}, \end{equation} where \begin{equation}\label{def_dsa} A_{\rm LL}^{\rm lab} = \frac{N^{++}+N^{--}-N^{+-}-N^{-+}}{P_b\cdot D_f (P_t^-(N^{++}+N^{-+})+P_t^+(N^{+-}+N^{--}))} \end{equation} and $c_{A_{\rm LT}}$ is the analog of $c_{A_{\rm UT}}$ for the double-spin asymmetry (Section \ref{transverse_sec}).\\ In the following, the steps leading to the extraction from the data of all the terms composing these asymmetries will be presented. \section{Data analysis} \subsection{Particle identification} The final state was selected requiring the detection of exactly one electron and one proton, and at least one photon. The electrons were selected among all the negative tracks with momenta above 0.8~GeV/$c$, but requiring that their energy deposited in the inner layers of the EC \cite{ec_nim} be greater than 0.06 GeV, in order to reject negative pions, and that their hits in the CC and in the SC be matched in time. Fiducial cuts were also applied to eliminate the events at the edges of the EC (where the energy of a particle cannot be correctly reconstructed because a large part of the induced electromagnetic shower is lost), and to remove the ``shadow'' of the IC, which limits the CLAS acceptance for charged particles. The effect of these cuts on the distribution of the total energy deposited in the EC divided by the momentum is shown as a function of the momentum in Fig.~\ref{etot_p_before_after}. The comparison of the top and middle plots of Fig.~\ref{cc_nphe} shows the effect of these same cuts on the number of CC photoelectrons. Most of the events in the single-photoelectron peak, which come from either pions or electronic noise in the PMTs, are removed by our particle identification (PID) cuts for electrons. The rest of the background is eliminated by the exclusivity cuts applied afterwards as explained in Section~\ref{sec_excl_cuts} (Fig.~\ref{cc_nphe}, bottom). \begin{figure} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=86mm]{eoverp.pdf} \caption{(Color online) Total energy deposited in the EC (inner+outer layers), $E$, divided by the particle momentum $p$ as a function of $p$ for all the negative tracks. Top: negative charged particles, before cuts. Bottom: after minimum-momentum, $EC_{in}$, fiducial and timing cuts.} \label{etot_p_before_after} \end{center} \end{figure} \begin{figure} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=86mm]{e_nphe.pdf} \caption {Number of CC photoelectrons (times 10) for all negative tracks (top), after applying all PID and fiducial cuts for electrons (middle), and after $ep\gamma$ exclusivity cuts.} \label{cc_nphe} \end{center} \end{figure} The protons were selected from the correlation between their velocity, deduced from the time-of-flight measurement using the SC, and the proton momentum as measured by the DCs (Fig.~\ref{p_beta}). Fiducial cuts on $\theta$ and $\phi$ were also applied in order to remove the shadow of the IC. \begin{figure} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=86mm]{p_beta_no.pdf} \caption{(Color online) $\beta$ as a function of $p$ for positively charged particles. The black lines represent the cut applied to select protons.} \label{p_beta} \end{center} \end{figure} For the photons, two different sets of cuts were adopted, depending on whether the photon was detected in the IC or in the EC. For the IC case, a low-energy threshold of 0.25 GeV and a cut on $\theta$ versus $E_{\gamma}$ to remove the background coming from M{\o}ller electrons (Fig.~\ref{ic_photon_en}) were applied, as well as fiducial cuts on $x$ and $y$, to remove the outer and inner edges of the detector, where clusters could not be fully reconstructed. \begin{figure} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=86mm]{etheta_ic_cut.pdf} \caption{(Color online) Polar angle $\theta$ as a function of the reconstructed energy for IC hits, showing the cut on the minimum energy at 0.25 GeV, as well as the ``triangular'' cut to remove the low-energy/low-$\theta$ accidental background, applied to select photons.} \label{ic_photon_en} \end{center} \end{figure} For the EC case, all neutrals passing a low-energy threshold of 0.25 GeV and having $\beta>0.92$ (Fig.~\ref{ph_ec_beta}) to select the in-time photons were retained. Fiducial cuts as for the electrons were also adopted to remove the edges of the detector and IC-frame cuts were applied to remove the shadow of the IC over the EC. \begin{figure} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=86mm]{ec_beta.pdf} \caption{(Color online) Distribution of $\beta$ vs energy for neutrals measured by time-of-flight with EC. The events for which $\beta>0.92$ (black line) were retained as photon candidates.} \label{ph_ec_beta} \end{center} \end{figure} \subsection{Monte-Carlo simulations} Monte-Carlo simulations were used in this analysis for the three following tasks: \begin{itemize} \item{determination of angular and momentum corrections for electrons and protons to compensate for multiple scattering and energy losses in the target and detector materials, as well as for imperfections in the trajectory reconstruction;} \item{optimization of the DVCS and $ep\pi^0$ exclusivity cuts (Sections~\ref{sec_excl_cuts} and \ref{sec_pi0_back}, respectively);} \item{evaluation of the $ep\pi^0$ contamination in the $ep\gamma$ event sample (Section~\ref{sec_pi0_back}).} \end{itemize} The two sets of generated events, DVCS/BH and $ep\pi^0$ (Section~\ref{sec_dvcs_gen} and \ref{sec_pi0_gen}), were fed to the CLAS GEANT3-based simulation package (GSIM) to simulate the response of the CLAS detector. The output of GSIM was then fed to a post-processing code (GPP) that simulates dead or inefficient DC wires and smears the DC and TOF resolutions to more closely agree with the experiment. The output of GPP was finally fed to the CLAS reconstruction package, and reduced ntuples and root files were obtained from the reconstructed files in the same way as was done in the data processing. \subsubsection{DVCS/BH simulation}\label{sec_dvcs_gen} A DVCS/BH event-generator code, which produced $ep\gamma$ events according to the formalism of Belitsky {\it et al.} \cite{belitski}, was used for the Monte-Carlo simulation. Figure \ref{data_mc_dvcs_kinvars} shows a comparison of the distributions of the relevant kinematic variables for the data (black lines) and the Monte-Carlo simulation (shaded areas). Here, PID and $ep\gamma$ exclusivity cuts, which will be described in Section \ref{sec_excl_cuts}, were included for both the data and the Monte Carlo. The agreement between data and simulation is quite good, especially given the purposes of the simulations in these analyses: they are not used for absolute acceptance corrections, but only to help in the determination of cut widths and for background subtraction. Slight differences between data and MC, especially visible in the high-$t$ and central-$\phi$ region, are coming from events in the EC topology. This is probably due to the fact that the data, unlike the MC, are not only pure $ep\gamma$ events, but are contaminated by exclusive $\pi^0$ events. The fact that the $ep\pi^0$ contamination is larger in the EC topology, as will be reiterated in Section~\ref{sec_excl_cuts}, can explain the data/MC discrepancies. \begin{figure} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=86mm]{dvcs_kinematics.pdf} \caption {DVCS channel. Comparison of data (black lines) and Monte-Carlo simulation (shaded areas). From the top left, $Q^2$, $-t$, $x_B$ and $\phi$ are plotted. The histograms are normalized to each other via the ratio of their integrals.} \label{data_mc_dvcs_kinvars} \end{center} \end{figure} \subsubsection{Exclusive $\pi^0$ simulation}\label{sec_pi0_gen} Exclusive $ep\pi^0$ events were generated using a code for meson electroproduction that included a parametrization of the $ep\pi^0$ differential cross sections that have recently been measured by CLAS \cite{ivan}. Figure \ref{data_mc_pi0_kinvars} shows a comparison of the distributions of the relevant kinematic variables for the data (black) and the Monte-Carlo simulation (shaded areas). Here, PID and $ep\pi^0$-exclusivity cuts, which will be described in Section \ref{sec_pi0_back}, were included for both the data and the Monte Carlo. The agreement between data and simulation is quite good. \begin{figure} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=86mm]{pi0_kinematics.pdf} \caption {Exclusive $\pi^0$ channel. Comparison of data (black lines) and Monte-Carlo simulation (shaded areas). Starting from the top left, $Q^2$, $-t$, $x_B$ and $\phi$ are plotted. The histograms are normalized to each other via the ratio of their integrals.} \label{data_mc_pi0_kinvars} \end{center} \end{figure} \subsection{DVCS channel selection}\label{sec_excl_cuts} After selecting events with exactly one electron and one proton, and at least one photon, and having applied the momentum corrections, further cuts need to be applied to ensure the exclusivity of the $ep\gamma$ final state. Two kinds of backgrounds need to be minimized: the nuclear background coming from scattering off the nitrogen of the ${}^{14}$NH$_3$ target, and the background coming from other channels containing an electron, a proton and at least one photon in the final state. Having measured the four-momenta of the three final-state particles, one can construct several observables, hereafter referred to as ``exclusivity variables'', on which cuts can be applied to select the $ep\gamma$ channel. Here, the following quantities were studied: \begin{itemize} \item{the squared missing mass of the $ep$ system, MM$^2(ep)$;} \item{the angle $\theta_{\gamma X}$ between the measured photon and the calculated photon, using the detected electron and proton together with $ep \to e'p'X$ kinematics;} \item{$\Delta\phi$, the difference between two ways to compute the angle $\phi$ between the leptonic and the hadronic plane. The two ways concern the definition of the normal vector to the hadronic plane: one is via the cross product of the momentum vectors of the proton and the real photon, and the other one is via the cross product of the momentum vectors of the proton and the virtual photon. For the $ep\gamma$ final state, $\Delta\phi$ should be distributed as a gaussian centered at zero, with width determined by the experimental resolution;} \item{$p_{perp}$, the transverse component of the missing momentum of the reaction $ep\to e'p'\gamma X$, given by $p_{perp}=\sqrt{p_x(X)^2+p_y(X)^2}$, in the laboratory frame.} \end{itemize} The definition of the exclusivity cuts is quite a delicate step in the DVCS analysis. It is important that the cuts are determined in a consistent way for the data and for the Monte-Carlo simulation, because the latter will be used to evaluate the $\pi^0$ background contamination. In this analysis it was chosen to define each exclusivity cut by fitting the corresponding variable with a gaussian and cutting at $\pm 3\sigma$ around the fitted mean. This procedure was done separately for the data and for the simulation. This way, the same fraction of events was kept, for both data and simulation. The exclusivity variables to be fitted were plotted after applying {\it preliminary} cuts that included: \begin{itemize} \item{Kinematic cuts to be above the region of the nucleon resonances and to approach the regime of applicability of the leading-twist GPD formalism: $Q^2>1$ (GeV/$c$)$^2$, $-t<Q^2$, and $W>2$ GeV/$c^2$;} (where $W=\sqrt{M^2 + 2M\nu - Q^2}$) \item{$E_{\gamma}>1$ GeV, since the real photons of interest are expected to have high energy;} \item{$3\sigma$ cut around the mean of MM$^2(ep)$ to eliminate from the experimental data the background from channels other than $ep\gamma$ or $ep\pi^0$ (visible in the top left plot of Figs.~\ref{ic_cuts} and \ref{ec_cuts}, where peaks from $\eta$ and $\omega$/$\rho$ are evident).} \end{itemize} In order to eliminate broadening on the widths of the peaks due to events from electron scattering on the nitrogen, the fits to the exclusivity variables were done on the spectra obtained after subtracting carbon data from the ${}^{14}$NH$_3$ data. The two datasets were normalized to each other via the ratio of their Faraday-cup counts multiplied by a constant that accounts for different densities of materials for the two target types (see Section \ref{sec_dilution}). The method to define the cuts described above was adopted for the topology where the photon was detected in the IC, since the comparison with Monte Carlo showed that these data are strongly dominated by the DVCS/BH channel. Figure~\ref{ic_cuts} shows, for the IC topology, the effects of the exclusivity cuts, which appear successful both in extracting quite a clean $ep\gamma$ final state (shaded areas) and in minimizing the background originating from the nitrogen part of the target (black areas). A different strategy was found to be necessary for the EC case, which displayed, before cuts, a larger contribution from $ep\pi^0$ events. The peaks in the exclusivity variables for the data in this topology are very broad, when visible, and not necessarily produced by DVCS/BH candidates. In the first plot of Fig.~\ref{ec_cuts}, for example, the distribution of the squared missing mass of the $ep$ system is shown for the EC case. As is clearly visible, the peak of the distribution is not centered at zero but around the squared $\pi^0$ mass, indicating a significant contamination from the exclusive $\pi^0$ events that will be subtracted later through the procedure described in Section~\ref{sec_pi0_back}. Thus it was decided, for the EC topology, not to fit the distributions of the exclusivity variables to extract cut means and widths. Instead it was chosen to fit only the peaks of the DVCS/BH Monte-Carlo simulations. To correct for the discrepancies in resolutions between data and simulation, the widths of the various exclusivity variables obtained from the fits were then multiplied by appropriate scaling factors. These factors were obtained from the comparisons of data/MC for the $ep\pi^0$ channel in the EC-EC topology. The cuts and their effects are shown in Fig.~\ref{ec_cuts}. \begin{figure*} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=172mm]{ic_cuts.pdf} \caption {IC topology. Effects of the exclusivity cuts. Top left: squared missing mass of the $ep$ system; top right: the angle $\theta_{\gamma X}$ between the measured photon and the calculated photon from $ep \to e'p' X$; bottom left: difference between two ways to compute the $\phi$ angle; bottom right: missing transverse momentum $p_{perp}$ calculated from $ep \to e'p' \gamma X$. The dot-dashed and solid lines show the events {\it before} exclusivity cuts for, respectively, $^{14}$NH$_{3}$ and $^{12}$C data, while the gray and black shaded areas represent the events {\it after} all exclusivity cuts except for the one on the plotted variable for, respectively, $^{14}$NH$_{3}$ and $^{12}$C data. The lines and arrows show the limits of the selection cuts. The plots for $^{14}$NH$_{3}$ and $^{12}$C data are normalized to each other via their relative luminosities.} \label{ic_cuts} \end{center} \end{figure*} \begin{figure*} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=172mm]{ec_cuts.pdf} \caption {EC topology. See caption of Fig.~\ref{ic_cuts}.} \label{ec_cuts} \end{center} \end{figure*} \subsection{Four-dimensional binning and central kinematics}\label{sec_binning} The DVCS reaction can be described by four independent kinematic variables. The typical variables used to interpret the results in terms of Generalized Parton Distributions are $Q^2$, $x_B$, $-t$ and $\phi$. In accordance with the choice made in previous DVCS analyses \cite{fx}, the binning of the data in the $Q^2$-$x_B$ plane was done making 5 slices in the polar angle $\theta_e$ of the electron and in $x_B$. The limits of the slices are given in Table \ref{tab_binning}, as well as the bin averages for $Q^2$ and $x_B$, defined as the weighted average over the distribution of events in each bin. The size of the bins was optimized to have comparable statistics. The top plot of Fig.~\ref{binning_q2_x_t} shows the chosen grid in the $Q^2$-$x_B$ plane. Ten equally spaced bins in $\phi$ and 4 bins in $-t$ were adopted. The bin limits and data-averaged bin centers are summarized in Table~\ref{tab_binning_t}. The bottom plot of Fig.~\ref{binning_q2_x_t} shows the binning in the $t$-$x_B$ plane. \begin{table} \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline Bin & $x_B$ bin & $\theta_e$ bin & $\langle x_B\rangle$ & $\langle Q^2\rangle$ ((GeV/$c$)$^2$) \\ \hline 1 & $0.1<x_B<0.2$ & $15^o<\theta_e<48^o$ & 0.179 & 1.52\\ 2 & $0.2<x_B<0.3$ & $15^o<\theta_e<34^o$ & 0.255 & 1.97 \\ 3 & $0.2<x_B<0.3$ & $34^o<\theta_e<48^o$ & 0.255 & 2.41\\ 4 & $0.3<x_B<0.4$ & $15^o<\theta_e<45^o$ & 0.345 & 2.60 \\ 5 & $x_B>0.4$ & $15^o<\theta_e<45^o$ & 0.453 & 3.31 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Definition of the bins in $x_B$ and $\theta_e$ ($Q^2$), and average kinematics for $x_B$ and $Q^2$ ((GeV/$c$)$^2$) for each bin.} \label{tab_binning} \end{table} \begin{table}[tbph] \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \hline Bin & $-t$ range (GeV/$c$)$^2$ & $\langle -t\rangle$ (GeV/$c$)$^2$\\ \hline 1 & $0.08<-t<0.18$ & 0.137\\ 2 & $0.18<-t<0.3$ & 0.234\\ 3 & $0.3<-t<0.7$ & 0.467\\ 4 & $0.7<-t<2.0$ & 1.175\\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Definition of the bins in $-t$ and average kinematics for each bin.} \label{tab_binning_t} \end{table} \begin{figure} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=86mm]{bins.pdf} \caption{(Color online) Grid showing the binning in the $Q^2$-$x_{B}$ space (top) and in the $-t$-$x_B$ space (bottom).} \label{binning_q2_x_t} \end{center} \end{figure} The central kinematics in this analysis were defined as the average value from the data of each of the 4 kinematic variables for each bin. In fact, at first order the uncertainties on an asymmetry induced by taking bins of finite size are minimized when the central kinematics are chosen to be the weighted average over the distribution of events in that bin. The procedure to compute second-order bin-centering corrections is reported in Section \ref{sec_bcc}. The grid of bins was applied to both parts A and B of the experiment. In order to establish whether the asymmetries obtained from the two sets of data could eventually be combined, the central values of the various bins into which the available phase space was divided were computed, and compared for the two parts. For each bin in $Q^2$ ($\theta_e$)-$x_B$ and $-t$, the central kinematics for parts A and B were found compatible well within their standard deviations. \subsection{Dilution factors}\label{sec_dilution} For both the DVCS and $ep\pi^0$ final states, dilution factors to correct the experimental yields for the contribution from the scattering on the unpolarized nitrogen of ${}^{14}$NH$_3$ were determined using data taken on ${}^{14}$NH$_3$ and on ${}^{12}$C targets. The dilution factor is defined as \begin{equation} D_f = 1-c\cdot\frac{N_{{}^{12}{\rm C}}}{N_{{}^{14}{\rm NH}_3}} \label{eq_dilution}. \end{equation} Here, $N_{{}^{12}{\rm C}}$ is the number of events, normalized by the corresponding Faraday-cup counts, taken on carbon and surviving all of the DVCS (or $ep\pi^0$) selection cuts, while $N_{{}^{14}{\rm NH}_3}$ is the number of events, normalized by the corresponding Faraday-cup counts, taken on ${}^{14}$NH$_3$ passing the DVCS (or $ep\pi^0$) selection cuts. The factor $c$ accounts for the different luminosities of the two sets of data, which are in turn related to the ratio of the areal densities of the materials present at the target level for the two kinds of runs (${}^{14}$NH$_3$ in the numerator, ${}^{12}$C in the denominator). As the statistics acquired on carbon during the experiment was much smaller than for the ${}^{14}$NH$_3$ data, it was not possible to perform the dilution factor analyses for each 4-dimensional bin. The dependence of the dilution factor on each of the 4 kinematic variables was checked by integrating over the other three. The results for part B, as an example, are shown as functions of $x_B$, $Q^2$, $-t$, and $\phi$ in Fig.~\ref{dil_q2}. Both dilution factors show an approximately flat dependence in each of the 4 kinematic variables. There may be a small $x_B$ dependence, although the dilution factor is not inconsistent with a constant behavior. The fit results for each variable are consistent with each other within error bars. Therefore, a constant value of $D_f$ for all the kinematic bins, for both the $ep\gamma$ and $ep\pi^0$ analysis, was assumed. The following values were adopted: \begin{itemize} \item{part A: $D_f(ep\gamma)= 0.912 \pm 0.009$; \\ part B: $D_f(ep\gamma)=0.928 \pm 0.006$;} \item{part A: $D_f(ep\pi^0)=0.921 \pm 0.016$; \\ part B $D_f(ep\pi^0)=0.896 \pm 0.010$.} \end{itemize} \begin{figure} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=86mm]{dil_partb.pdf} \caption {Dilution factor as a function of (from left to right) $x_B$, $Q^2$, $-t$, $\phi$, for the DVCS analysis (top) and for the $ep\pi^0$ analysis (bottom). Part B.} \label{dil_q2} \end{center} \end{figure} \subsection{Beam and target polarization}\label{sec_pbpt} The product of the polarizations of beam and target, $P_b P_t$, was extracted for part A and part B separately. Exclusive elastic events were used for this analysis, since the elastic asymmetry is well known \cite{donnelly} and $P_b P_t$ is the proportionality factor between the experimental asymmetry ($A_{exp}$) and the expected one ($A$): \begin{equation}\label{el_asym_eq_th} A=\frac{A_{exp}}{P_bP_t}, \end{equation} where \begin{equation}\label{el_asym_eq} A_{exp}=\frac{\bar{N}^+-\bar{N}^-}{D_f(\bar{N}^++\bar{N}^-)} ~. \end{equation} $\bar{N}^{+(-)}$ refers to the number of elastic events for positive (negative) beam helicity for a given target polarization, normalized to the corresponding Faraday-cup counts. $D_f$ is the dilution factor ($\sim 98\%$) determined in the same way as for the DVCS and $ep \to e'p'\pi^0$ events (Section~\ref{sec_dilution}). The expected asymmetry $A$ is computed according to \cite{donnelly}, and for the elastic form factors a parametrization, obtained by fitting the results from a JLab polarization-transfer experiment \cite{puckett}, was used. Inverting Eq.~\eqref{el_asym_eq_th} $P_b P_t$ was calculated for each run part as the average over 7 different $Q^2$ bins. \begin{table*} \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline Run part & $P_bP_t^+$ & $P_bP_t^-$ & $P_b$ & $P_t^+$ & $P_t^-$\\ \hline Part A & $0.648 \pm 0.018$ & $0.625 \pm 0.016$ & $0.87 \pm 0.04$ & $0.75 \pm 0.04$ & $0.72 \pm 0.04$ \\ Part B & $0.674 \pm 0.011$ & $0.625 \pm 0.010$ & $0.837 \pm 0.017$ & $0.81 \pm 0.03$ & $0.75 \pm 0.03$\\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Obtained values of $P_bP_t$, $P_b$, and $P_t$, for each part of the experiment, and for both positive and negative target polarizations.} \label{table_pbpt} \end{table*} The beam polarization alone ($P_b$) was obtained from the analysis of the various M{\o}ller runs that were taken during the experiment. Event-weighted averages of $P_b$ were computed for the two parts of the experiment. The target polarization values were thus deduced by dividing the measured $P_b P_t$ by $P_b$. The results for the product of the polarizations of beam and target for each polarization sign, and of the beam and target polarizations alone for the two parts of the experiment, are summarized with their uncertainties in Table~\ref{table_pbpt}. \subsection{$\pi^0$ background subtraction}\label{sec_pi0_back} The procedure adopted to compute the $\pi^0$ contamination to the $ep\gamma$ event sample is described here. All the following was done separately for each of the 4-dimensional ($Q^2$, $x_B$, $-t$, $\phi$) bins described in Section~\ref{sec_binning} and for each beam and target polarization state. To keep the notation simpler, in the following formulae we omit the dependence on ($Q^2$, $x_B$, $-t$, $\phi$) of each quantity. After applying the $ep\gamma$ event selection cuts and the DVCS exclusivity cuts, one is left with $N_{ep\gamma}$ events that are not only DVCS or Bethe-Heitler candidate events, but can also contain some $ep\pi^0$ events in which one of the two $\pi^0$-decay photons has escaped detection. The number of DVCS/BH events can be obtained as \begin{equation} N_{\rm DVCS/BH} = N_{ep\gamma}( 1 - B_{\pi^0}), \end{equation} where the contamination fraction is given by \begin{equation}\label{eq_background_fraction} B_{\pi^0}= \frac{D_f(ep\pi^0) N_{ep\pi^0 (1\gamma)}}{D_f(ep\gamma) N_{ep\gamma}}. \end{equation} To calculate $N_{ep\pi^0 (1\gamma)}$, we use both the MC simulation and exclusive $ep\pi^0$ events ($N_{ep\pi^0}^{\rm DATA}$) from the real data: \begin{equation} N_{ep\pi^0 (1\gamma)} = N_{ep\pi^0}^{\rm DATA} * R_{\rm Acc}(1\gamma/2\gamma). \end{equation} The ratio of acceptances $R_{\rm Acc}(1\gamma / 2\gamma)$ is obtained from simulated $ep\pi^0$ events, and is defined as: \begin{equation}\label{eq_acc_ratio} R_{\rm Acc}(1\gamma/2\gamma)=\frac{N_{ep\pi^0 (1\gamma)}^{\rm MC}}{N_{ep\pi^0 (2\gamma)}^{\rm MC}}, \end{equation} where $N_{ep\pi^0 (1\gamma)}^{\rm MC}$ is the number of reconstructed events obtained by applying the DVCS selection cuts to the $ep\pi^0$ simulation, and $N_{ep\pi^0 (2\gamma)}^{\rm MC}$ is the number of events obtained by applying the $ep\pi^0$ selection cuts to the same $ep\pi^0$ simulation and for the same number of generated events. $N_{ep\pi^0}^{\rm DATA}$ was extracted by selecting events with one electron, one proton and at least two photons using the same PID cuts as for the DVCS channel. The chosen photon pair would then be the one whose invariant mass was the closest to the nominal $\pi^0$ mass. Then, the same method as the one adopted to define the DVCS selection cuts (Section~\ref{sec_excl_cuts}) was adopted to obtain the exclusivity of the $ep\pi^0$ final state. Three ``exclusivity variables'' were used: \begin{itemize} \item{the missing mass squared of the $ep$ system, MM$^2(ep)$;} \item{the angle between the measured and calculated $\pi^0$ direction, $\theta_{\pi^0 X}$;} \item{the two-photon invariant mass, M$(\gamma\gamma)$.} \end{itemize} The carbon data were subtracted from the ${}^{14}$NH$_3$ data to remove possible smearing effects on the fitted peaks coming from background events due to electron scattering on ${}^{14}$N. When possible, data and Monte-Carlo distributions were fitted separately, at the ``preliminary cuts'' stage (the preliminary cuts being the same as for the DVCS selection, excluding the $E_{\gamma}>1$ GeV cut). The obtained widths were compared to the widths of the distributions after all cuts were applied to check for possible correlation effects. The three different photon-detection topologies were treated differently, as in the case of the DVCS selection. Figures~\ref{ic_pi0_cuts} and \ref{ec_pi0_cuts} show the results of the $ep\pi^0$ exclusivity cuts for the data when both photons were detected in the IC and in the EC, respectively. \begin{figure} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=86mm]{ic_pi0_cuts.pdf} \caption {Exclusive $\pi^0$ analysis, IC-IC topology. Effects of the $ep\pi^0$ exclusivity cuts on MM$^2(ep)$ (top), $\theta_{\pi^0 X}$ (middle), and two-photons invariant mass (bottom). The dot-dashed and solid lines show the events {\it before} exclusivity cuts for, respectively, $^{14}$NH$_{3}$ and $^{12}$C data, while the gray and black shaded plots represent the events {\it after} all exclusivity cuts but the one on the plotted variable for, respectively, $^{14}$NH$_{3}$ and $^{12}$C data. The lines and arrows show the limits of the selection cuts.} \label{ic_pi0_cuts} \end{center} \end{figure} \begin{figure} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=86mm]{ec_pi0_cuts.pdf} \caption {Exclusive $\pi^0$ analysis, EC-EC topology. See caption of Fig.~\ref{ic_pi0_cuts}.} \label{ec_pi0_cuts} \end{center} \end{figure} The acceptance ratio $R_{acc}$ varies for each kinematic bin, and is, on average, around 30\%. In absolute value, the background/signal ratios range from 1\% (at low $t$, low-mid $x_B$, high $Q^2$) to about 50\% (in the highest $t$, highest $x_B$, central $\phi$ range). However, what will impact the final asymmetries is not the size of the contamination itself, but the point-by-point difference of contamination for positive and negative target (or beam, or beam-target) polarization. The background subtraction was done for each individual 4-dimensional bin. The average impact of the background subtraction on each of the 3 asymmetries, relative to their average value at $90^{\circ}$, is $\sim 8\%$ for the BSA, $\sim 11\%$ for the TSA, and $\sim 6\%$ for the DSA. \subsection{Nuclear background effects on BSA} The beam-spin asymmetry extracted using the ${}^{14}$NH$_3$ data contains a contribution from the nitrogen nuclei. The dilution factor analysis (Section \ref{sec_dilution}) shows that, thanks to the tight exclusivity cuts adopted, less than 10\% of the final DVCS/BH event candidates come from the nitrogen. However, given the low statistics collected in the carbon runs, it is not possible to directly subtract for each kinematic bin and helicity state the nitrogen contribution, calculated on the basis of the $^{12}$C measurement, from the ${}^{14}$NH$_3$ events. The raw BSA, without $\pi^{0}$ subtraction, was extracted from the carbon-target data, applying all of the DVCS/BH selection cuts and integrating, for statistics reasons, over all kinematic variables but $\phi$. The resulting asymmetry was compared to the corresponding observable obtained on the ${}^{14}$NH$_3$ target. A Student's $t$-test was performed, and it was found that the two DVCS/BH BSAs for a free proton and quasi-free proton in carbon are compatible at the $3\sigma$ level. This result points to the fact that given the limits imposed by our statistics, our experiment is not sensitive to possible medium-modification effects for DVCS, going from proton to carbon target. Moreover, our results for the dilution factor show a contamination of events from nitrogen in the $ep\gamma$ sample of less than 10\%, and this contamination comes from bound protons at quasi free kinematics due to the tight exclusive cuts. All this supports the assumption that the contribution to the final beam-spin asymmetries of the incoherent DVCS on nitrogen does not impact sizeably our result, within the limits of our statistical accuracy. \subsection{Combination of asymmetries from part A and part B}\label{sec_merge} Having verified that the bin centers for parts A and B are equal within uncertainties (Section~\ref{sec_binning}), the final asymmetries, after $ep\pi^0$ background subtraction, have been combined via uncertainty-weighted averages for each four-dimensional bin in ($Q^2$, $x_B$, $-t$, $\phi$). In order to verify that the two sets of asymmetries are statistically compatible with each other, $t$-tests were perfomed for the three asymmetries. The tests proved that the fluctuations between part A and B are purely statistical, and the two datasets can therefore be combined. The combined asymmetries are shown in Section \ref{sec_results}. The combined beam energy, 5.932 GeV, was computed as the weighted average over all $ep\gamma$ events of the values of the energies for the two parts, which were separately deduced from elastic measurements (Section~\ref{sec_experiment}). \subsection{Transverse corrections}\label{transverse_sec} In this experiment, the target polarization was parallel to the electron beam direction. However, for the theoretical interpretations of the asymmetries, the longitudinal polarization with respect to the virtual photon direction is usually adopted. In order to be consistent in the comparisons with the theoretical models, a model-dependent correction was computed to finally obtain the TSA (and DSA) with respect to the virtual photon direction. The purely longitudinal asymmetry referred to the virtual photon, $A_{\rm UL}$, is linked to the $x$-component of the transverse one, $A_{\rm UT}(0)$, and to what is measured in the lab, $A_{\rm UL}^{\rm lab}$, by the relation \cite{diehl}: \begin{equation}\label{eq_transverse} A_{\rm UL} = \frac{A_{\rm UL}^{\rm lab}}{\cos\theta^*} + \tan\theta^* A_{\rm UT}(0), \end{equation} where $\theta^*$ is the angle formed by the virtual photon and the beam direction. An analogous relation holds for the double-spin asymmetry, \begin{equation}\label{eq_transverse_dsa} A_{\rm LL} = \frac{A_{\rm LL}^{\rm lab}}{\cos\theta^*} + \tan\theta^* A_{\rm LT}(0). \end{equation} The idea adopted here is to compute a set of model-dependent bin-by-bin corrections using the predictions of the GPD model VGG \cite{vgg} (described in Section~\ref{sec_gpd_models}) for $A_{UT}(0)$, and the average value of $\theta^*$ over the selected DVCS events for each bin. The VGG model was run for all kinematic bins to obtain $A_{UT}(0)$, with three different sets of options for systematic studies of the model dependence of the correction. The size of the transverse-target spin asymmetry varies with $-t$, from a few percent at low $-t$ to up to 30\% for the highest $-t$ bins. Also the difference between the results obtained for the three sets of VGG options is more sizeable at high $-t$, where changes of sign for the $\phi$ distribution are observed. As far as the double-transverse spin asymmetry is concerned, it is higher at low $-t$, mostly positive, and never greater than 30\%. The angle $\theta^*$ between the virtual photon and the beam direction is, on average, around $7^{\circ}$. Thanks to the combination of small values for $\theta^*$ and relatively small values for $A_{\rm UT}(0)$, the corrections, which are defined as \begin{eqnarray} c_{A_{\rm UT}} & = & A_{\rm UL} - A_{\rm UL}^{\rm lab}\\ c_{A_{\rm LT}} & = & A_{\rm LL} - A_{\rm LL}^{\rm lab} \end{eqnarray} and obtained using Eqs.~\eqref{eq_transverse} and~\eqref{eq_transverse_dsa}, are very small. The standard deviation of the differences between the three versions of ``corrected'' TSAs (or DSAs) and the measured one was adopted as a systematic uncertainty. In general, the correction brings a slight increase to both kinds of asymmetries, and it is always smaller than the statistical uncertainties. The same holds for the associated systematic uncertainty, the averages of which for both TSA and DSA are reported in Table~\ref{table_syst}. The transverse correction was applied to each 4-dimensional bin. The average impact of this correction on each of the 2 asymmetries, relative to their average value at $90^{\circ}$, is $\sim 4\%$ for the TSA and $\sim 2\%$ for the DSA. The values of the corrections for each 4-dimensional bin are reported in Table~\ref{table_all_data} along with the values of the corrected asymmetries. \subsection{Bin-centering corrections}\label{sec_bcc} Second-order bin-centering corrections were applied to the single-spin asymmetries. As stated in Section~\ref{sec_binning}, the asymmetries are correctly defined at first order if one takes the average value of each kinematic variable over all the events of each bin. To apply second-order bin-centering corrections, one needs to make assumptions on the kinematic dependences of the asymmetry. Based on the information from the present data, only the effect of the $-t$ dependence was studied, since the asymmetries do not exhibit strong variations in $Q^2$ and $x_B$ (see Section~\ref{sec_results}). The bin-centering corrections were evaluated for each 4-dimensional bin as \begin{equation} c_{\rm BCC}=\frac{\alpha(t)\sin\phi}{1+\beta(t)\cos\phi}-\frac{\alpha(\langle t\rangle )\sin \langle \phi\rangle }{1+\beta(\langle t\rangle )\cos \langle \phi\rangle }, \end{equation} where the first term is computed event-by-event while the second term is evaluated at the central values $\langle t \rangle$ and $\langle \phi \rangle$ of the bin. The $\alpha(t)$ and $\beta(t)$ functions were determined by fitting the data. For the BSA and the TSA, the corrections are on average at the level of 4\%, relative to the average value of the asymmetries at $90^{\circ}$. Since the extrema in the DSA are much less pronounced, the corrections are expected to be even smaller and they are therefore neglected here. \subsection{Systematic uncertainties}\label{sec_systematics} Systematic checks were performed to evaluate the stability of the measured observables against the variation of the terms that compose them. For each of the three asymmetries extracted, and for each kind of systematic effect studied, one of the quantities in the definition of the asymmetry was varied two or more times. Then, the asymmetries were produced for each variation, for parts A and B separately. The two parts were merged as described previously. Finally, the systematic uncertainty for each bin was computed as \begin{equation}\label{eq_syst} \sigma_{syst}= \sqrt{\frac{\sum_{i=1}^n(A_i - A_0)^2}{n}}, \end{equation} where $A_i$ are the asymmetries corresponding to each variation $i$ out of $n$ variations performed, while $A_0$ is the standard asymmetry. Each systematic check was performed as follows: \begin{itemize} \item{Systematics on the exclusivity cuts: the ``standard'' analysis was performed with $3\sigma$ cut widths (see Section~\ref{sec_excl_cuts}), and four others were done, using cut widths of 2.25, 2.5, 3.25 and 3.5 $\sigma$. The bin-by-bin systematics were computed using Eq.~\eqref{eq_syst}. This source is the biggest contributor to the overall systematic uncertainty (see Table~\ref{table_syst}), and it encompasses also effects due to variations of the dilution factor.} \item{Systematics on $P_b$, $P_t$, $P_bP_t$: the beam-spin asymmetry was computed two more times, taking two different values of $P_b$: $P_b+\Delta(P_b)$ and $P_b-\Delta(P_b)$, where $\Delta(P_b)$ is the statistical uncertainty that was estimated on this quantity (see Section~\ref{sec_pbpt}). An equivalent treatment was adopted for the TSA and the DSA. There is no major kinematic dependence for this source of uncertainty, and its contribution to the overall systematic uncertainty is very small (see Table~\ref{table_syst}). } \item{Systematics on $ep\pi^0$ background subtraction: the three asymmetries (BSA, TSA and DSA) were computed each three times, taking three different values of the $R_{Acc}$ factor (defined in Eq.~\eqref{eq_acc_ratio}) that was used to compute the $ep\pi^0$ background. Specifically, the background was computed using the ``real'' value $R_{Acc}$ increased and decreased by 30\%. There is some kinematic dependence for this source of uncertainty, and its contribution to the overall systematic uncertainty is smaller than that from the exclusivity cuts, but larger than those from the polarizations or the dilution factors.} \end{itemize} Table~\ref{table_syst} reports the averages of each kind of systematic uncertainty for three three asymmetries. The biggest contribution to the systematic uncertainties comes from the exclusivity cuts which contributes to $\sim80\%$ of the total systematic error. The total systematic uncertainty was computed as a quadratic sum of all contributions. For all bins and for the three kinds of asymmetries, the statistical uncertainty is bigger than the total systematic uncertainty. Both kinds of uncertainties are listed, along with the values of the asymmetries, in Table~\ref{table_all_data}. \begin{table} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline Source & BSA & TSA & DSA \\ \hline $\pi^0$ background & 0.005 & 0.005 & 0.009 \\ Polarization & 0.003 & 0.004 & 0.008 \\ Exclusivity cuts & 0.021 & 0.019 & 0.027 \\ Transverse correction & N.A. & 0.006 & 0.006 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Average systematic uncertainties for each source of uncertainty and for each asymmetry type. ``Polarization'' stands for $P_b$, $P_t$, $P_bP_t$ for BSA, TSA and DSA, respectively. } \label{table_syst} \end{table} \subsubsection{Radiative corrections} Afanasev {\it et al.} \cite{afanasev} have computed the radiative corrections for the DVCS and BH processes for CLAS kinematics. It was found that, given the strict kinematic cuts adopted to select the final state, the undetected radiated photon can only have small energies. In this case, therefore, the main contribution to the radiative correction comes from spin-independent soft-photon emission that does not affect the polarization observables - while instead it can affect unpolarized cross sections even up to the 20\% level. The approximation of negligible contribution from the radiative corrections to the BSA, TSA and DSA, compared to the size of the asymmetries, is valid at CLAS kinematics at the 0.1\% level \cite{afanasev}. Given the statistical uncertainties and the larger size of other systematic effects, it was chosen to neglect this contribution. \section{Models of GPDs}\label{sec_gpd_models} In the following sections the experimental asymmetries are compared to the predictions of four GPD models: Vanderhaeghen-Guichon-Guidal (VGG) \cite{vgg}, Goloskokov-Kroll (GK) \cite{kroll}, Kumericki-M\"uller (KMM12) \cite{kreso}, and Goldstein-Gonzalez-Liuti (GLL) \cite{liuti}. Both the VGG and GK models are based on double distributions \cite{radyuskin2,muller} to parametrize the $(x,\xi)$ dependence of the GPDs, and on Regge phenomenology for their $t$ dependence. The main differences between these two models are in the parametrization of the high-$t$ part of the electromagnetic form factors and in the fact that the parameters of the GK model are tuned using low-$x_B$ DVMP data from HERA, which are particularly sensitive to gluon and sea-quark GPDs. Therefore, the GK model is also suited for gluonic GPDs that are not accounted for in VGG. However, given the $x_B$ range of the results presented here, the description of the valence-quark GPDs is sufficient. KMM12 is a hybrid model designed for global fitting, in which sea-quark GPDs are modeled in a Mellin-Barnes integral representation; valence quarks are modeled in terms of these GPDs on the cross-over line $\xi = x \sim x_B/(2-x_B)$. The parameters of the model were fixed using unpolarized-proton DVCS data from CLAS and HERMES, as well as the polarized-proton HERMES data. The kinematic range of applicability of this model is defined by the relation $-t<\frac{Q^2}{4}$. Finally, the GGL model provides a diquark model based parametrization of GPDs that incorporates Regge behavior by introducing a spectral function for the spectator diquark's invariant mass distribution. The parameters of the model were obtained by fitting both deep inelastic scattering (DIS) structure functions and the recently available flavor-separated nucleon form factors data \cite{cates}. \section{Results}\label{sec_results} Hereafter, the results for the three asymmetries are presented, discussed and compared to the GPD models described in Section~\ref{sec_gpd_models}. The values of the asymmetries for each 4-dimensional bin, along with their uncertainties, are listed in Table~\ref{table_all_data} and in Ref.~\cite{clasdb}. The harmonic structure in $\phi$ of the asymmetries versus ($Q^2$-$x_B$) and $-t$ was studied by fitting their $\phi$ distributions. For this goal, the fact that the three asymmetries have the same denominator has been exploited. In fact, by performing a simultaneaous fit of the 3 asymmetries, the common denominator can be constrained to be the same for the three different observables. Thus BSA, TSA and DSA were fitted, respectively, with three functions that shared a common denominator $(1+\beta\cos\phi$). In the highest $-t$ bin of the third ($Q^2$-$x_B$) bin, $\beta$ was set to zero due to the limited $\phi$ coverage. \subsection{Beam-spin asymmetry}\label{sec_results_bsa} Figure \ref{bsa_phi} shows the beam-spin asymmetry as a function of $\phi$ for each slice in the $Q^2$-$x_B$ space (rows) and for each bin in $-t$ (columns). Each asymmetry is fitted with the function \begin{equation}\label{bsa_fit_func} \frac{\alpha_{\rm LU}\sin\phi}{(1+\beta\cos\phi)} \end{equation} and shows a clear $\sin\phi$-like modulation, with a decreasing amplitude as $-t$ increases, ranging from $\sim 0.25$ down to $\sim 0$. The dependence in the other kinematic variables appears less marked, although a slight decrease in the $-t$ slope seems to happen at the highest $Q^2$ and $x_B$ values. This is confirmed by Fig.~\ref{bsa_tdep}, which shows the beam-spin asymmetry at $90^{\circ}$ (i.e. the $\alpha_{\rm LU}$ coefficient in Eq.~\eqref{bsa_fit_func}) as a function of $-t$ for each $Q^2$-$x_B$ bin. The choice of the fitting function was motivated by the physics (see Eq.~\eqref{eq_bsa}) \begin{figure*} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=172mm]{bsa_phi.pdf} \caption {(Color online) Beam-spin asymmetry for the reaction $ep \to e'p'\gamma$ as a function of $\phi$ for the various $Q^2$-$x_B$ (rows) and $-t$ (columns) bins. The point-by-point systematic uncertainties are represented by the shaded bands. The solid black curve is the fit with the function in Eq.~\eqref{bsa_fit_func}. In the highest $-t$ bin of the third ($Q^2$-$x_B$) bin, $\beta$ was set to zero due to the limited $\phi$ coverage, while no fit is performed on the first $-t$ bin of the highest ($Q^2$-$x_B$) bin, where only one data point is present. The curves show the predictions of the VGG \cite{vgg} (red-dashed) and KMM12 \cite{kreso} (cyan-dotted) models.} \label{bsa_phi} \end{center} \end{figure*} The data are compared to the predictions of the VGG, GK, KMM12 and GGL models. As expected, the VGG and GK models don't show strong differences between each other. With respect to the data, they overestimate the amplitude of the experimental asymmetries especially at low $-t$ and at low $Q^2$-$x_B$. At the highest $-t$ values, the VGG model gets closer to the data, while the GK model is systematically higher. Both models expect a steeper $-t$ slope than the data display. This can be due to the fact that these models are based on Double-Distributions, where the $-t$ dependence is factorized with respect to the $(x, \xi)$ dependence. The data, instead, seem to point to more complex correlations between the three variables. The GGL model is in good agreement with the data at low $-t$ especially for the first and third $Q^2$-$x_B$ bin, while it diverges away from the data in the high-$x_B$ bins. The discrepancy observed for larger $x_B$ values is an indication that using only DIS and form factor data one can only provide a loose constraint on the $\xi$ dependence of the model. The best fit to the data is provided by the KMM12 model, which however does not cover our whole set of kinematics. \begin{figure} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=86mm]{bsa_par0_t.pdf} \caption {(Color online) $t$ dependence for each $Q^2$-$x_B$ bin of the $\alpha_{\rm LU}$ term of the beam-spin asymmetry. The curves show the predictions of four GPD models for the BSA at $\phi=90^o$: i) VGG \cite{vgg} (red dashed), ii) KMM12 \cite{kreso} (blue dotted), iii) GK \cite{kreso} (blue dash-dotted), and iv) GGL \cite{liuti} (orange dashed-three-dotted). The square black points are the results obtained from the present analysis, the triangular green data come from the previous CLAS experiment with unpolarized proton target \cite{fx}.} \label{bsa_tdep} \end{center} \end{figure} For consistency, our beam-spin asymmetries were also compared to those obtained from previous CLAS data \cite{fx} (e1-dvcs experiment). For this task, the results for the $\alpha_{\rm LU}$ coefficient were used, taking the kinematic bins from the e1-dvcs data that were closest to our own. The comparison is shown in Fig.~\ref{bsa_tdep}, where the e1-dvcs results are represented by the (green online) triangles. The agreement is good, especially considering the imperfect kinematical overlap \subsection{Target-spin asymmetry}\label{sec_results_tsa} The results for the target-spin asymmetry \cite{prl_erin} are presented in Fig.~\ref{tsa_phi} as a function of $\phi$ for each slice in the $Q^2$-$x_B$ space (rows) and for each bin in $-t$ (columns). As for the BSA, it is fitted with the function \begin{equation}\label{tsa_fit_func} \frac{\alpha_{\rm UL}\sin\phi}{1+\beta\cos\phi} \end{equation} and shows the typical $\sin\phi$-like dependence, with amplitudes ranging from 0.1 to 0.3, but its evolution with $-t$ is quite different from the BSA, in shape and magnitude. In fact, the amplitude of the target-spin asymmetry seems rather constant as a function of all kinematic variables, $-t$ included, apart from the expected systematic drop towards $t\sim t_{min}$. \begin{figure*} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=172mm]{tsa_phi.pdf} \caption {(Color online) Target-spin asymmetry for the reaction $ep \to e'p'\gamma$ as a function of $\phi$ for the various $Q^2$-$x_B$ (rows) and $-t$ (columns) bins. The point-by-point systematic uncertainties are represented by the shaded bands. The solid black curve is the fit with the function in Eq.~\eqref{tsa_fit_func}. In the highest $-t$ bin of the third ($Q^2$-$x_B$) bin, $\beta$ was set to zero due to the limited $\phi$ coverage, while no fit is performed on the first $-t$ bin of the highest ($Q^2$-$x_B$) bin, where only one data point is present. The curves show the predictions of the VGG \cite{vgg} (red-dashed) and KMM12 \cite{kreso} (blue-dotted) models.} \label{tsa_phi} \end{center} \end{figure*} Figure~\ref{tsa_tdep} shows the $t$-dependence for each bin in $Q^2$-$x_B$ of the $\sin\phi$ fitting coefficient $\alpha_{\rm UL}$ (Eq.~\eqref{tsa_fit_func}), which appears fairly constant, unlike what was observed for the beam-spin asymmetry. As mentioned above, the variable $t$ yields the Fourier conjugate of the impact parameter, describing the transverse position of the partons in the reference frame where the proton goes at the speed of light. Therefore, a steep $t$ slope is equivalent to a rather flat spatial distribution, and vice versa. Equations~\eqref{eq_tsa} and \eqref{eq_bsa} point to the proportionality between, respectively, TSA and $\Im{\rm m}\widetilde{\cal {H}}$ and BSA and $\Im{\rm m}\cal{H}$. Thus, the $t$ behavior of the TSA compared to that of the BSA suggests that the axial charge (linked to $\tilde{H}$) is more concentrated in the center of the proton than the electric charge (linked to $H$). This fact was already observed in a paper \cite{fitmick2} devoted to the extraction of the CFFs $\Im{\rm m}\cal{H}$ and $\Im{\rm m}\widetilde{\cal {H}}$ from the HERMES data. This finding is clearly not predicted by the VGG or GK models, which instead display a similar drop with $t$ for the TSA as what was computed for the BSA. These models approximately reproduce the low-$t$ magnitude of the asymmetry in some kinematics (namely, in $Q^2$-$x_B$ bins 1 and 3), with a slightly better fit of the data for VGG. GK predicts an increase of the TSA with $x_B$ that is not observed in the experiment. By comparing the behavior of these two models for the two single-spin asymmetries, it can be observed how both reach good agreement with the data at high $-t$ for the BSA and a low $-t$ for the TSA. These data can therefore provide strong guidance to correct the $t$ dependence of the parametrizations of both $H$ and $\widetilde{H}$. The GGL model also predicts a drop in $-t$ not confirmed by the data, and moreover it overestimates the magnitude of the asymmetry by at least a factor of 2. The best fit to the data is provided, in the bins where it applies, by the KMM12 model. \begin{figure} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=86mm]{tsa_par0_t.pdf} \caption {(Color online) $t$ dependence, for each $Q^2$-$x_B$ bin, of the $\alpha_{\rm UL}$ term of the target-spin asymmetry. The curves show the predictions of four GPD models for the TSA at $\phi=90^o$: i) VGG \cite{vgg} (red dashed), ii) KMM12 \cite{kreso} (cyan dotted), iii) GK \cite{kreso} (blue dash-dotted), and iv) GGL \cite{liuti} (orange dashed-three-dotted).} \label{tsa_tdep} \end{center} \end{figure} Our target-spin asymmetries were compared to those obtained from HERMES and to the results of a previous exploratory CLAS experiment \cite{shifeng}. Given the different kinematical coverages of the three experiments, it was decided to integrate the data over all values of $Q^2$-$x_B$ of the phase space, and obtain a set of TSAs only as a function of $\phi$ and $-t$, with a finer binning in $-t$ than for our four-fold asymmetries. For this comparison, each $\phi$ distribution for a given $-t$ bin was fitted with the function $\alpha'_{\rm UL}\sin\phi+\gamma_{\rm UL}\sin(2\phi)$, which was the one used for both the HERMES and the old CLAS data. The comparison of the $\alpha'_{\rm UL}$ coefficients is shown in Fig.~\ref{tsa_comparison}. Our data have at least a factor 5 smaller error bars than the previously published data, and extend the $-t$ range up to 1.7 (GeV/$c$)$^2$. \begin{figure} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=86mm]{t_world_tsa.pdf} \caption {(Color online) Comparisons of the $t$ dependences of the $\sin\phi$ term of the $ep\gamma$ target-spin asymmetries for the present data, integrated over $Q^2$ and $x_B$ (black circles), the previous CLAS experiment \cite{shifeng} (magenta triangles), and HERMES \cite{hermes} (green squares).} \label{tsa_comparison} \end{center} \end{figure} A further test was made including in the fit an additional $\sin(2\phi)$ term for the TSA. Thus the adopted fitting function was \begin{equation}\label{tsa_fit_func_sin2phi} \frac{\alpha_{\rm UL}\sin\phi+\gamma_{\rm UL}\sin(2\phi)}{1+\beta\cos\phi} ~. \end{equation} The data from HERMES \cite{hermes}, in fact, show a non-negligible contribution of the $\sin 2 \phi$ moment to the TSA. It must be pointed out, however, that in the expansion in $\sin\phi$ moments done by the HERMES Collaboration, the contribution of the denominator could mix with the $\sin n \phi$ terms, while in our analysis it is treated with its own parameter. In the Belitsky-M\"uller-Kirchner formalism, the parts of the DVCS/BH interference term depending on $\sin 2 \phi$ appear only at twist-three level \cite{belitski}. Therefore, observing a sizeable $\sin 2\phi$ component in the target-spin asymmetry would mean having some sensitivity to twist-three CFFs. A recent paper \cite{courtoy} pointed to a possible way to access the quarks' orbital angular momentum via the measurement of twist-three GPDs. First of all, the stability of $\alpha_{\rm UL}$ was verified by comparing the $\sin\phi$ parameter obtained with and without $\sin 2 \phi$ term in the fitting function. The $\sin 2\phi$ term appears to be much smaller, at least in the low-$t$ region, than the $\sin\phi$ term, often compatible with zero, with a slight tendency to increase at high $-t$ in some kinematic bins towards negative values. The $\sin\phi$ component is always dominant. However, given the limited statistics and the relatively small number of $\phi$ bins, the uncertaintes on the denominator parameter highly affect the extraction of such a potentially small higher-twist $\sin 2\phi$ modulation in the numerator, so no reliable $\sin 2\phi$-extraction can be achieved with the present fitting procedure. \subsection{Double-spin asymmetry}\label{sec_results_dsa} The double-spin asymmetry is plotted in Fig.~\ref{dsa_phi} as a function of $\phi$ for each bin in $-t$ (columns) and for each slice in the $Q^2$-$x_B$ space (rows). It is larger in magnitude than the single-spin asymmetries presented in the previous sections (around 0.6), seems rather flat as a function of $\phi$, and presents a slow decrease as a function of $-t$. The data were fitted with the function \begin{equation}\label{dsa_fit_func} \frac{\kappa_{\rm LL} + \lambda_{\rm LL}\cos\phi}{1+\beta\cos\phi} ~, \end{equation} where the denominator parameter $\beta$ is the same as for the fits to the two single-spin asymmetries. The two sets of fit parameters of the numerator, $\kappa_{\rm LL}$ and $\lambda_{\rm LL}$, are shown, as functions of $-t$ and for each $Q^2$-$x_B$ bin in Figs.~\ref{dsa_tdep_const} and \ref{dsa_tdep_cosphi}, respectively. The constant term dominates the asymmetry, while the $\cos\phi$ term of the numerator is compatible with zero for most kinematics. In Figs.~\ref{dsa_phi}, \ref{dsa_tdep_const}, and ~\ref{dsa_tdep_cosphi}, the three fit parameters of the double-spin asymmetries are compared to the four model predictions for DVCS+BH and to the calculations for BH only (green dot-dashed curve). It seems that Bethe-Heitler fully dominates the constant term, and all models - except for GGL, which misses both the magnitude and the $t$-dependence of this observable - predict this and correctly reproduce it. The best match for this term is provided by the VGG and GK models, which show sizeable differences only at the highest $-t$ values, where the DVCS contribution is expected to start to play a role. The models suggest a slight contribution from DVCS in the $\cos\phi$ term but the statistical precision of the data does not allow us to draw conclusions on which prediction provides the better fit. \begin{figure*} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=172mm]{dsa_phi.pdf} \caption {(Color online) Double-spin asymmetry for the reaction $ep \to e'p'\gamma$ as a function of $\phi$ for the various $Q^2$-$x_B$ (rows) and $-t$ (columns) bins. The point-by-point systematic uncertainties are represented by the shaded bands. The solid black curve is the fit with the function in Eq.~\eqref{dsa_fit_func}. In the highest $-t$ bin of the third ($Q^2$-$x_B$) bin $\beta$, was set to zero due to the limited $\phi$ coverage, while no fit is performed on the first $-t$ bin of the highest ($Q^2$-$x_B$) bin, where only one data point is present. The red-dashed and cyan-dotted curves are predictions of the VGG and KMM12 models, respectively. The pink two-dot-dashed curves are the calculations for the Bethe-Heitler process.} \label{dsa_phi} \end{center} \end{figure*} \begin{figure} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=86mm]{dsa_par0_t.pdf} \caption {(Color online) $t$ dependence for each $Q^2$-$x_B$ bin of the constant term $\kappa_{\rm LL}$ of the double-spin asymmetry. The pink two-dot-dashed curves are the calculations of the DSA for the Bethe-Heitler process alone. The curves show the predictions for the full $ep\gamma$ amplitude of four GPD models: i) VGG \cite{vgg} (red dashed), ii) KMM12 \cite{kreso} (cyan dotted), iii) GK \cite{kreso} (blue dash-dotted), and iv) GGL \cite{liuti} (orange dashed-three-dotted).} \label{dsa_tdep_const} \end{center} \end{figure} \begin{figure} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=86mm]{dsa_par1_t.pdf} \caption {(Color online) $t$ dependence for each $Q^2$-$x_B$ bin of the $\cos\phi$ term $\lambda_{\rm LL}$ of the double-spin asymmetry. The pink two-dot-dashed curves are the calculations of the DSA for the Bethe-Heitler process alone. The curves show the predictions for the full $ep\gamma$ amplitude of four GPD models: i) VGG \cite{vgg} (red dashed), ii) KMM12 \cite{kreso} (cyan dotted), iii) GK \cite{kreso} (blue dash-dotted), and iv) GGL \cite{liuti} (orange dashed-three-dotted).} \label{dsa_tdep_cosphi} \end{center} \end{figure} \section{Extraction of Compton Form Factors} In recent years, various groups have developed and applied different procedures to extract Compton Form Factors from DVCS observables. The approach adopted here \cite{fitmick,michel2,mick_herve} is based on a local-fitting method at each given experimental $(Q^2, x_B,-t)$ kinematic point. In this framework, instead of four complex CFFs defined as in Eq.~\ref{def_cffs}, there are eight real CFFs defined as \begin{equation} F_{Re}(\xi,t) = \Re{\rm e}{\cal F}(\xi,t) \end{equation} \begin{equation} F_{Im}(\xi,t) = -\frac{1}{\pi}\Im{\rm m}{\cal F}(\xi,t)=\left[ F(\xi,\xi,t)\mp F(-\xi,\xi,t) \right], \end{equation} where the sign convention is the same as for Eq.~\eqref{dvcs-ampl}. These CFFs are the almost-free parameters - their values are allowed to vary within $\pm 5$ times the values predicted by the VGG model - that are extracted from DVCS observables using the well-established DVCS+BH theoretical amplitude. The BH amplitude is calculated exactly while the DVCS amplitude is taken at the QCD leading twist. The expression of these amplitudes can be found, for instance, in \cite{vgg}. The three sets of asymmetries (BSA, TSA and DSA) for all kinematic bins were processed using this fitting procedure to extract the Compton Form Factors. In the adopted version of the fitter code, $\tilde{E}_{Im}$ is set to zero, as $\tilde{E}$ is assumed to be purely real - it is parametrized in the VGG model by the pion pole $(1/(t-m^2_{\pi}))$. Thus seven out of the eight real and imaginary parts of the CFFs are left as free parameters in the fit. Figure \ref{cff_comp} shows $H_{Im}$ (black full squares) and ${\tilde{H}}_{Im}$ (red full circles), which are obtained from the fit of the present data, as a function of $-t$ for each of our 5 $Q^2$-$x_B$ bins. These are the two CFFs that appear to be better constrained by the present results. Given that the size of the error bars reflects the sensitivity of the combination of observables to each CFF, it is evident that, as expected, our asymmetries are mostly sensitive to $\Im{\rm m}{\tilde{\cal H}}$. \begin{figure} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=86mm]{CFF_comp.pdf} \caption {(Color online) $t$ dependence for each $Q^2$-$x_B$ bin of $H_{Im}$ (black squares) and $\tilde{H}_{Im}$ (red circles). The full points are obtained by fitting the present data (TSA, BSA and DSA). The empty points were obtained by fitting the BSA results from \cite{fx} integrated over all values of $Q^2$ at $x_B \sim 0.25$, and the TSAs from \cite{shifeng}.} \label{cff_comp} \end{center} \end{figure} The results for $H_{Im}$ and ${\tilde{H}}_{Im}$ confirm what had been previously observed in a qualitative way by direct comparison of the $t$-dependence of our TSAs and BSAs in Section \ref{sec_results_tsa}: the $t$-slope of $\Im{\rm m}{\cal H}$ is much steeper than that of $\Im{\rm m}{\tilde{\cal H}}$, hinting at the fact that the axial charge (linked to $\Im{\rm m}{\tilde{\cal H}}$) might be more ``concentrated'' in the center of the nucleon than the electric charge (linked to $\Im{\rm m}{\cal H}$). This effect seems stronger at the lowest values of $x_B$, while both CFFs tend to flatten out as $x_B$ increases. It is also interesting to compare the results obtained for the two equal-$x_B$ bins ($Q^2=1.97$ (GeV/$c$)$^2$ and $Q^2=2.41$ (GeV/$c$)$^2$): within the limits imposed by the size of the error bars and by the $Q^2$ lever arm (only 0.44 (GeV/$c$)$^2$), both sets of CFFs are compatible, at the 1-$\sigma$ level, which supports the validity of the scaling hypothesis. In Fig.~\ref{cff_comp} the values of $H_{Im}$ and ${\tilde{H}}_{Im}$ that were obtained \cite{fitmick3} using the same fitting code with the results from \cite{fx} for the beam-spin asymmetry and from \cite{shifeng} for the target-spin asymmetry, are also shown. Aside from the much larger kinematic coverage for the polarized-target observables made accessible by our data, in the kinematics where the previous extraction had been attempted, our data improve the precision of $\Im{\rm m}{\tilde{\cal H}}$. \section{Conclusions} For the first time four-dimensional single-beam, single-target, and double (beam-target) spin asymmetries for deeply virtual Compton scattering were extracted over a large phase space at the same kinematics. This experiment used the CLAS detector in conjunction with the IC calorimeter and the Hall-B longitudinally polarized ${}^{14}$NH$_3$ target. 165 4-dimensional bins in $Q^2$, $x_B$, $-t$ and $\phi$, covering a wide kinematic range ($1<Q^2<5.2$ (GeV/$c$)$^2$, $0.12<x_B<0.6$, $0.08<-t<2$ (GeV/$c$)$^2$, $0<\phi<360^o$) were obtained for the three asymmetries, with systematic uncertainties largely below the statistical uncertainties. The $\phi$ dependence of the obtained asymmetries was studied. The dominance of the leading-order handbag mechanism is supported by the prevalence, especially at low $-t$, of the $\sin\phi$ term over higher $\sin n\phi$ components in both single-spin asymmetries. The DSA is found to be mostly dominated by the constant term, which contains both BH and DVCS/BH interference, although in our kinematics the BH contribution is the strongest. These data bring important constraints to GPD parametrizations, especially for $H$ and $\tilde{H}$. Using one method among the various ones that are currently in development, these data allow us to extract the imaginary parts of the ${\tilde{\cal H}}$ and ${\cal H}$ Compton Form Factors and to gain insight, via their relative $t$ slopes, about the spatial distribution of the electric and axial charges in the proton. The extraction of the Compton Form Factors will be further improved once the new CLAS results on DVCS cross sections will become available \cite{hyonsuk}. Furthermore, the extensive DVCS-devoted program planned at Jefferson Lab for the 12-GeV era will extend our knowledge of the Generalized Parton Distributions of the proton in terms of both kinematical coverage and statistical precision. \\ \\ We thank the staff of the Accelerator and the Physics Divisions and of the Target Group at Jefferson Lab for making the experiment possible. Special thanks to M. Guidal, F. Sabati\'e, S. Liuti, D. M\"{u}ller and K. Kumericki for the theoretical support. This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy and National Science Foundation, the French Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique and Commissariat \`a l'Energie Atomique, the French-American Cultural Exchange (FACE), the Italian Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, the Chilean Comisi\'on Nacional de Investigaci\'on Cient\'ifica y Tecnol\'ogica (CONICYT), the National Research Foundation of Korea, and the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC). The Jefferson Science Associates (JSA) operates the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility for the United States Department of Energy under contract DE-AC05-06OR23177. \clearpage \begin{longtable*}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \multicolumn{9}{c}% {} \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$Q^2$} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$x_B$} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$-t$} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$\phi$} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{BSA $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ syst.} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{TSA $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ syst.} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$c_{A_{\rm UT}}$} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{DSA $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ syst.} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$c_{A_{\rm LT}}$}\\ \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{(GeV/$c$)$^2$} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{(GeV/$c$)$^2$} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{(deg)} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{}\\ \hline \endhead \hline \endfoot \caption{Values of the three asymmetries with their statistical and systematic uncertainties for each 4-dimensional bin. The values of the bin-by-bin transverse corrections for the TSA and DSA are also shown.} \label{table_all_data} \endlastfoot \hline 1.68 & 0.194 & 0.11 & 25 & 0.37 $\pm$ 0.23$\pm$ 0.01 & 0.44 $\pm$ 0.26 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0018 & 0.58 $\pm$ 0.33 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.0116 \\ 1.68 & 0.190 & 0.12 & 60 & 0.34 $\pm$ 0.11$\pm$ 0.03 & 0.12 $\pm$ 0.14 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0024 & 0.34 $\pm$ 0.16 $\pm$ 0.13 & 0.0070 \\ 1.58 & 0.186 & 0.13 & 92 & 0.23 $\pm$ 0.06$\pm$ 0.01 & 0.18 $\pm$ 0.07 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.0144 & 0.58 $\pm$ 0.08 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0072 \\ 1.54 & 0.178 & 0.13 & 128 & 0.13 $\pm$ 0.05$\pm$ 0.01 & 0.13 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0184 & 0.56 $\pm$ 0.07 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0021 \\ 1.50 & 0.174 & 0.13 & 161 & 0.05 $\pm$ 0.05$\pm$ 0.01 & 0.07 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.0086 & 0.46 $\pm$ 0.07 $\pm$ 0.02 & -0.0024 \\ 1.51 & 0.173 & 0.13 & 198 & -0.05 $\pm$ 0.05$\pm$ 0.00 & -0.08 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.0086 & 0.51 $\pm$ 0.07 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.0021 \\ 1.52 & 0.177 & 0.13 & 235 & -0.21 $\pm$ 0.06$\pm$ 0.01 & -0.13 $\pm$ 0.07 $\pm$ 0.02 & -0.0184 & 0.51 $\pm$ 0.08 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0018 \\ 1.60 & 0.185 & 0.13 & 266 & -0.28 $\pm$ 0.06$\pm$ 0.01 & -0.18 $\pm$ 0.08 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.0138 & 0.44 $\pm$ 0.09 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0059 \\ 1.68 & 0.190 & 0.12 & 305 & -0.15 $\pm$ 0.10$\pm$ 0.02 & -0.01 $\pm$ 0.12 $\pm$ 0.03 & -0.0017 & 0.46 $\pm$ 0.14 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.0082 \\ 1.61 & 0.190 & 0.21 & 97 & 0.19 $\pm$ 0.19$\pm$ 0.06 & 0.15 $\pm$ 0.21 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.0193 & -0.05 $\pm$ 0.26 $\pm$ 0.10 & -0.0011 \\ 1.57 & 0.182 & 0.23 & 128 & 0.17 $\pm$ 0.10$\pm$ 0.03 & -0.01 $\pm$ 0.12 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0209 & 0.54 $\pm$ 0.14 $\pm$ 0.05 & 0.0034 \\ 1.51 & 0.179 & 0.23 & 161 & 0.09 $\pm$ 0.08$\pm$ 0.02 & 0.13 $\pm$ 0.09 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0111 & 0.64 $\pm$ 0.10 $\pm$ 0.06 & 0.0044 \\ 1.54 & 0.178 & 0.23 & 199 & -0.12 $\pm$ 0.07$\pm$ 0.02 & 0.11 $\pm$ 0.09 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.0085 & 0.60 $\pm$ 0.10 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0036 \\ 1.62 & 0.184 & 0.23 & 233 & -0.18 $\pm$ 0.09$\pm$ 0.03 & -0.24 $\pm$ 0.11 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.0221 & 0.38 $\pm$ 0.13 $\pm$ 0.11 & 0.0022 \\ 1.64 & 0.191 & 0.22 & 263 & -0.12 $\pm$ 0.17$\pm$ 0.05 & -0.41 $\pm$ 0.19 $\pm$ 0.08 & -0.0201 & 0.75 $\pm$ 0.21 $\pm$ 0.08 & 0.0055 \\ 1.63 & 0.188 & 0.49 & 96 & 0.39 $\pm$ 0.24$\pm$ 0.09 & 0.23 $\pm$ 0.27 $\pm$ 0.06 & 0.0193 & 0.81 $\pm$ 0.32 $\pm$ 0.14 & 0.0016 \\ 1.54 & 0.181 & 0.47 & 127 & 0.18 $\pm$ 0.11$\pm$ 0.05 & 0.14 $\pm$ 0.14 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.0213 & 0.34 $\pm$ 0.16 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.0023 \\ 1.36 & 0.173 & 0.49 & 162 & 0.21 $\pm$ 0.07$\pm$ 0.02 & 0.19 $\pm$ 0.08 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.0117 & 0.50 $\pm$ 0.09 $\pm$ 0.05 & 0.0073 \\ 1.42 & 0.174 & 0.46 & 196 & -0.07 $\pm$ 0.08$\pm$ 0.02 & -0.03 $\pm$ 0.10 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.0095 & 0.54 $\pm$ 0.11 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0071 \\ 1.60 & 0.181 & 0.43 & 234 & -0.22 $\pm$ 0.12$\pm$ 0.02 & -0.17 $\pm$ 0.14 $\pm$ 0.04 & -0.0194 & 0.36 $\pm$ 0.16 $\pm$ 0.09 & 0.0020 \\ 1.56 & 0.185 & 0.51 & 261 & -0.04 $\pm$ 0.21$\pm$ 0.12 & -0.29 $\pm$ 0.24 $\pm$ 0.10 & -0.0218 & -0.02 $\pm$ 0.29 $\pm$ 0.12 & -0.0048 \\ 1.62 & 0.184 & 1.35 & 20 & 0.13 $\pm$ 0.16$\pm$ 0.07 & 0.23 $\pm$ 0.19 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0016 & 0.36 $\pm$ 0.23 $\pm$ 0.07 & -0.0051 \\ 1.56 & 0.178 & 1.21 & 56 & 0.01 $\pm$ 0.14$\pm$ 0.05 & -0.05 $\pm$ 0.17 $\pm$ 0.07 & 0.0009 & 0.50 $\pm$ 0.20 $\pm$ 0.06 & -0.0017 \\ 1.46 & 0.178 & 1.02 & 92 & 0.12 $\pm$ 0.15$\pm$ 0.14 & 0.21 $\pm$ 0.20 $\pm$ 0.10 & 0.0029 & 0.08 $\pm$ 0.21 $\pm$ 0.18 & -0.0005 \\ 1.48 & 0.176 & 1.01 & 128 & 0.20 $\pm$ 0.19$\pm$ 0.05 & 0.36 $\pm$ 0.24 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.0021 & 0.44 $\pm$ 0.27 $\pm$ 0.06 & 0.0062 \\ 1.36 & 0.170 & 1.00 & 164 & -0.09 $\pm$ 0.08$\pm$ 0.01 & 0.41 $\pm$ 0.09 $\pm$ 0.06 & 0.0034 & 0.12 $\pm$ 0.11 $\pm$ 0.05 & 0.0067 \\ 1.35 & 0.171 & 0.97 & 192 & 0.06 $\pm$ 0.14$\pm$ 0.11 & 0.07 $\pm$ 0.18 $\pm$ 0.07 & 0.0011 & 0.41 $\pm$ 0.19 $\pm$ 0.06 & 0.0095 \\ 1.40 & 0.171 & 1.07 & 239 & -0.22 $\pm$ 0.17$\pm$ 0.07 & 0.09 $\pm$ 0.22 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0017 & 0.24 $\pm$ 0.23 $\pm$ 0.06 & 0.0048 \\ 1.41 & 0.178 & 1.03 & 266 & 0.04 $\pm$ 0.10$\pm$ 0.05 & -0.27 $\pm$ 0.12 $\pm$ 0.10 & -0.0034 & 0.30 $\pm$ 0.14 $\pm$ 0.08 & 0.0015 \\ 1.58 & 0.179 & 1.24 & 306 & 0.01 $\pm$ 0.14$\pm$ 0.09 & 0.04 $\pm$ 0.17 $\pm$ 0.10 & -0.0009 & 0.51 $\pm$ 0.20 $\pm$ 0.07 & -0.0016 \\ 1.62 & 0.183 & 1.35 & 340 & -0.11 $\pm$ 0.18$\pm$ 0.12 & -0.20 $\pm$ 0.20 $\pm$ 0.10 & -0.0013 & 0.36 $\pm$ 0.24 $\pm$ 0.17 & -0.0051 \\ 2.03 & 0.255 & 0.13 & 19 & 0.03 $\pm$ 0.03$\pm$ 0.01 & -0.03 $\pm$ 0.03 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.0023 & 0.60 $\pm$ 0.04 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0328 \\ 1.99 & 0.250 & 0.14 & 52 & 0.17 $\pm$ 0.03$\pm$ 0.01 & 0.05 $\pm$ 0.04 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.0027 & 0.60 $\pm$ 0.04 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0297 \\ 1.93 & 0.239 & 0.14 & 89 & 0.20 $\pm$ 0.03$\pm$ 0.01 & 0.05 $\pm$ 0.04 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.0165 & 0.57 $\pm$ 0.05 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0179 \\ 1.91 & 0.235 & 0.14 & 124 & 0.16 $\pm$ 0.05$\pm$ 0.01 & 0.12 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0247 & 0.63 $\pm$ 0.07 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0025 \\ 1.84 & 0.228 & 0.14 & 160 & 0.03 $\pm$ 0.06$\pm$ 0.01 & 0.20 $\pm$ 0.07 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.0139 & 0.65 $\pm$ 0.08 $\pm$ 0.03 & -0.0105 \\ 1.89 & 0.231 & 0.14 & 199 & 0.02 $\pm$ 0.06$\pm$ 0.01 & -0.01 $\pm$ 0.07 $\pm$ 0.02 & -0.0116 & 0.59 $\pm$ 0.08 $\pm$ 0.02 & -0.0111 \\ 1.93 & 0.235 & 0.14 & 238 & -0.21 $\pm$ 0.05$\pm$ 0.02 & -0.13 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.0246 & 0.50 $\pm$ 0.07 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0009 \\ 1.94 & 0.239 & 0.14 & 270 & -0.24 $\pm$ 0.04$\pm$ 0.01 & -0.16 $\pm$ 0.04 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.0176 & 0.63 $\pm$ 0.05 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0186 \\ 1.97 & 0.248 & 0.13 & 308 & -0.16 $\pm$ 0.03$\pm$ 0.01 & -0.16 $\pm$ 0.03 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.0041 & 0.56 $\pm$ 0.04 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0289 \\ 2.03 & 0.255 & 0.13 & 340 & -0.07 $\pm$ 0.03$\pm$ 0.00 & -0.09 $\pm$ 0.04 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.0007 & 0.55 $\pm$ 0.04 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0320 \\ 2.23 & 0.276 & 0.22 & 21 & 0.05 $\pm$ 0.05$\pm$ 0.01 & -0.00 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.0037 & 0.58 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0172 \\ 2.12 & 0.268 & 0.23 & 53 & 0.22 $\pm$ 0.04$\pm$ 0.01 & 0.14 $\pm$ 0.05 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0044 & 0.56 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0169 \\ 2.01 & 0.251 & 0.23 & 91 & 0.27 $\pm$ 0.04$\pm$ 0.01 & 0.16 $\pm$ 0.05 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.0246 & 0.49 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.0105 \\ 1.91 & 0.248 & 0.23 & 124 & 0.06 $\pm$ 0.06$\pm$ 0.01 & 0.06 $\pm$ 0.07 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.0347 & 0.66 $\pm$ 0.07 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0060 \\ 1.79 & 0.246 & 0.24 & 161 & 0.03 $\pm$ 0.06$\pm$ 0.01 & 0.07 $\pm$ 0.07 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.0185 & 0.55 $\pm$ 0.08 $\pm$ 0.02 & -0.0017 \\ 1.80 & 0.245 & 0.24 & 199 & 0.02 $\pm$ 0.06$\pm$ 0.01 & -0.03 $\pm$ 0.08 $\pm$ 0.02 & -0.0174 & 0.70 $\pm$ 0.08 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0004 \\ 1.97 & 0.242 & 0.23 & 235 & -0.11 $\pm$ 0.06$\pm$ 0.01 & -0.18 $\pm$ 0.07 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.0322 & 0.62 $\pm$ 0.08 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.0041 \\ 2.01 & 0.248 & 0.23 & 270 & -0.31 $\pm$ 0.04$\pm$ 0.01 & -0.21 $\pm$ 0.05 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.0247 & 0.53 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0109 \\ 2.14 & 0.268 & 0.23 & 307 & -0.28 $\pm$ 0.04$\pm$ 0.02 & -0.15 $\pm$ 0.05 $\pm$ 0.02 & -0.0044 & 0.57 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0167 \\ 2.21 & 0.277 & 0.22 & 340 & -0.05 $\pm$ 0.04$\pm$ 0.01 & 0.00 $\pm$ 0.05 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.0039 & 0.51 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0167 \\ 2.34 & 0.286 & 0.40 & 26 & 0.22 $\pm$ 0.16$\pm$ 0.01 & -0.17 $\pm$ 0.18 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.0069 & 0.66 $\pm$ 0.22 $\pm$ 0.05 & 0.0039 \\ 2.20 & 0.276 & 0.45 & 56 & 0.21 $\pm$ 0.06$\pm$ 0.02 & 0.15 $\pm$ 0.08 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0075 & 0.43 $\pm$ 0.09 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.0000 \\ 2.04 & 0.254 & 0.44 & 90 & 0.14 $\pm$ 0.06$\pm$ 0.01 & 0.29 $\pm$ 0.07 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.0310 & 0.55 $\pm$ 0.08 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0022 \\ 1.82 & 0.255 & 0.45 & 127 & 0.08 $\pm$ 0.06$\pm$ 0.04 & 0.14 $\pm$ 0.08 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0422 & 0.51 $\pm$ 0.09 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0047 \\ 1.73 & 0.252 & 0.48 & 163 & 0.06 $\pm$ 0.04$\pm$ 0.01 & 0.12 $\pm$ 0.05 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.0209 & 0.45 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0056 \\ 1.74 & 0.254 & 0.47 & 197 & 0.02 $\pm$ 0.05$\pm$ 0.01 & -0.13 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.03 & -0.0211 & 0.48 $\pm$ 0.07 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0060 \\ 1.88 & 0.251 & 0.44 & 233 & -0.13 $\pm$ 0.07$\pm$ 0.02 & -0.12 $\pm$ 0.09 $\pm$ 0.04 & -0.0380 & 0.44 $\pm$ 0.10 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0029 \\ 1.99 & 0.253 & 0.46 & 271 & -0.20 $\pm$ 0.05$\pm$ 0.03 & -0.17 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.02 & -0.0310 & 0.50 $\pm$ 0.07 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0018 \\ 2.20 & 0.274 & 0.45 & 303 & -0.30 $\pm$ 0.06$\pm$ 0.03 & -0.09 $\pm$ 0.07 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.0066 & 0.41 $\pm$ 0.09 $\pm$ 0.04 & -0.0003 \\ 2.36 & 0.287 & 0.40 & 334 & -0.21 $\pm$ 0.12$\pm$ 0.03 & -0.04 $\pm$ 0.14 $\pm$ 0.02 & -0.0042 & 0.34 $\pm$ 0.16 $\pm$ 0.02 & -0.0007 \\ 2.03 & 0.261 & 1.41 & 17 & -0.04 $\pm$ 0.05$\pm$ 0.02 & -0.08 $\pm$ 0.05 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.0026 & 0.48 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.02 & -0.0031 \\ 1.98 & 0.258 & 1.12 & 54 & 0.10 $\pm$ 0.06$\pm$ 0.02 & 0.14 $\pm$ 0.07 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0060 & 0.34 $\pm$ 0.08 $\pm$ 0.03 & -0.0038 \\ 1.78 & 0.256 & 1.18 & 87 & 0.05 $\pm$ 0.07$\pm$ 0.03 & 0.20 $\pm$ 0.08 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.0152 & 0.33 $\pm$ 0.09 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0005 \\ 1.82 & 0.261 & 1.13 & 128 & 0.14 $\pm$ 0.09$\pm$ 0.03 & 0.46 $\pm$ 0.12 $\pm$ 0.06 & 0.0188 & 0.26 $\pm$ 0.13 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0027 \\ 1.79 & 0.252 & 1.03 & 164 & 0.03 $\pm$ 0.05$\pm$ 0.01 & 0.16 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0066 & 0.40 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.0062 \\ 1.78 & 0.254 & 1.03 & 195 & -0.03 $\pm$ 0.07$\pm$ 0.02 & -0.09 $\pm$ 0.08 $\pm$ 0.03 & -0.0056 & 0.34 $\pm$ 0.09 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0055 \\ 1.84 & 0.257 & 1.23 & 238 & -0.05 $\pm$ 0.08$\pm$ 0.02 & -0.30 $\pm$ 0.11 $\pm$ 0.04 & -0.0145 & 0.34 $\pm$ 0.12 $\pm$ 0.05 & 0.0039 \\ 1.75 & 0.257 & 1.14 & 270 & -0.02 $\pm$ 0.05$\pm$ 0.02 & -0.26 $\pm$ 0.07 $\pm$ 0.04 & -0.0169 & 0.21 $\pm$ 0.07 $\pm$ 0.02 & -0.0018 \\ 2.01 & 0.260 & 1.12 & 307 & -0.07 $\pm$ 0.07$\pm$ 0.01 & -0.20 $\pm$ 0.08 $\pm$ 0.02 & -0.0068 & 0.56 $\pm$ 0.09 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.0005 \\ 2.03 & 0.261 & 1.40 & 343 & 0.00 $\pm$ 0.04$\pm$ 0.01 & 0.02 $\pm$ 0.05 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0018 & 0.36 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0051 \\ 2.45 & 0.265 & 0.13 & 20 & -0.02 $\pm$ 0.04$\pm$ 0.01 & 0.02 $\pm$ 0.05 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.0002 & 0.76 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0271 \\ 2.36 & 0.253 & 0.14 & 53 & 0.07 $\pm$ 0.05$\pm$ 0.02 & 0.01 $\pm$ 0.05 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0018 & 0.62 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.0211 \\ 2.32 & 0.249 & 0.14 & 88 & 0.17 $\pm$ 0.05$\pm$ 0.01 & -0.01 $\pm$ 0.07 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.0071 & 0.76 $\pm$ 0.07 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0125 \\ 2.30 & 0.246 & 0.14 & 125 & 0.20 $\pm$ 0.08$\pm$ 0.02 & 0.14 $\pm$ 0.10 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.0109 & 0.61 $\pm$ 0.11 $\pm$ 0.03 & -0.0021 \\ 2.26 & 0.242 & 0.14 & 162 & 0.20 $\pm$ 0.10$\pm$ 0.03 & 0.25 $\pm$ 0.12 $\pm$ 0.05 & 0.0064 & 0.81 $\pm$ 0.13 $\pm$ 0.04 & -0.0117 \\ 2.27 & 0.242 & 0.14 & 199 & -0.07 $\pm$ 0.09$\pm$ 0.04 & 0.07 $\pm$ 0.10 $\pm$ 0.04 & -0.0044 & 0.81 $\pm$ 0.11 $\pm$ 0.05 & -0.0116 \\ 2.28 & 0.243 & 0.14 & 237 & -0.29 $\pm$ 0.07$\pm$ 0.02 & -0.17 $\pm$ 0.09 $\pm$ 0.02 & -0.0110 & 0.84 $\pm$ 0.09 $\pm$ 0.02 & -0.0007 \\ 2.32 & 0.248 & 0.14 & 271 & -0.22 $\pm$ 0.06$\pm$ 0.02 & -0.15 $\pm$ 0.07 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.0082 & 0.75 $\pm$ 0.07 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0124 \\ 2.36 & 0.253 & 0.14 & 307 & -0.14 $\pm$ 0.04$\pm$ 0.01 & -0.10 $\pm$ 0.05 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.0023 & 0.56 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0206 \\ 2.45 & 0.265 & 0.14 & 340 & -0.01 $\pm$ 0.05$\pm$ 0.02 & -0.07 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.02 & -0.0002 & 0.67 $\pm$ 0.07 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0265 \\ 2.57 & 0.281 & 0.22 & 24 & 0.03 $\pm$ 0.08$\pm$ 0.02 & 0.03 $\pm$ 0.09 $\pm$ 0.03 & -0.0008 & 0.55 $\pm$ 0.10 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0130 \\ 2.50 & 0.269 & 0.23 & 53 & 0.11 $\pm$ 0.05$\pm$ 0.02 & 0.09 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0031 & 0.68 $\pm$ 0.07 $\pm$ 0.05 & 0.0122 \\ 2.40 & 0.258 & 0.23 & 90 & 0.19 $\pm$ 0.06$\pm$ 0.02 & 0.07 $\pm$ 0.08 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.0111 & 0.58 $\pm$ 0.09 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0076 \\ 2.35 & 0.252 & 0.23 & 126 & 0.16 $\pm$ 0.09$\pm$ 0.02 & 0.10 $\pm$ 0.11 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0150 & 0.55 $\pm$ 0.12 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0014 \\ 2.36 & 0.254 & 0.23 & 161 & 0.10 $\pm$ 0.10$\pm$ 0.03 & -0.18 $\pm$ 0.12 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0057 & 0.39 $\pm$ 0.14 $\pm$ 0.07 & -0.0045 \\ 2.37 & 0.254 & 0.23 & 199 & 0.02 $\pm$ 0.09$\pm$ 0.02 & 0.15 $\pm$ 0.11 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.0059 & 0.70 $\pm$ 0.11 $\pm$ 0.06 & -0.0026 \\ 2.36 & 0.254 & 0.23 & 236 & -0.17 $\pm$ 0.08$\pm$ 0.02 & -0.23 $\pm$ 0.10 $\pm$ 0.02 & -0.0160 & 0.63 $\pm$ 0.11 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0019 \\ 2.42 & 0.260 & 0.23 & 270 & -0.23 $\pm$ 0.06$\pm$ 0.03 & -0.14 $\pm$ 0.08 $\pm$ 0.02 & -0.0118 & 0.61 $\pm$ 0.09 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.0079 \\ 2.48 & 0.266 & 0.23 & 308 & -0.15 $\pm$ 0.05$\pm$ 0.02 & -0.21 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.0039 & 0.59 $\pm$ 0.07 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0115 \\ 2.56 & 0.279 & 0.22 & 336 & -0.01 $\pm$ 0.07$\pm$ 0.01 & -0.09 $\pm$ 0.08 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0001 & 0.49 $\pm$ 0.10 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0127 \\ 2.60 & 0.284 & 0.41 & 31 & -0.18 $\pm$ 0.22$\pm$ 0.09 & -0.01 $\pm$ 0.23 $\pm$ 0.06 & 0.0000 & 0.01 $\pm$ 0.31 $\pm$ 0.11 & -0.0045 \\ 2.55 & 0.275 & 0.44 & 52 & 0.17 $\pm$ 0.06$\pm$ 0.01 & 0.07 $\pm$ 0.07 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0055 & 0.54 $\pm$ 0.08 $\pm$ 0.05 & 0.0003 \\ 2.45 & 0.264 & 0.44 & 91 & 0.20 $\pm$ 0.07$\pm$ 0.02 & 0.04 $\pm$ 0.08 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.0157 & 0.59 $\pm$ 0.09 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0022 \\ 2.37 & 0.254 & 0.44 & 122 & 0.23 $\pm$ 0.10$\pm$ 0.03 & 0.15 $\pm$ 0.12 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.0188 & 0.69 $\pm$ 0.13 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0043 \\ 2.33 & 0.250 & 0.41 & 159 & -0.15 $\pm$ 0.13$\pm$ 0.04 & -0.24 $\pm$ 0.16 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.0063 & 0.59 $\pm$ 0.18 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.0043 \\ 2.36 & 0.253 & 0.41 & 199 & -0.02 $\pm$ 0.12$\pm$ 0.04 & 0.00 $\pm$ 0.14 $\pm$ 0.03 & -0.0079 & 0.59 $\pm$ 0.16 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.0044 \\ 2.36 & 0.254 & 0.43 & 235 & -0.28 $\pm$ 0.10$\pm$ 0.03 & -0.05 $\pm$ 0.12 $\pm$ 0.03 & -0.0184 & 0.71 $\pm$ 0.13 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.0045 \\ 2.43 & 0.261 & 0.45 & 270 & -0.26 $\pm$ 0.07$\pm$ 0.02 & -0.12 $\pm$ 0.09 $\pm$ 0.03 & -0.0161 & 0.60 $\pm$ 0.10 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0023 \\ 2.54 & 0.274 & 0.45 & 307 & -0.24 $\pm$ 0.07$\pm$ 0.03 & -0.22 $\pm$ 0.08 $\pm$ 0.03 & -0.0065 & 0.43 $\pm$ 0.09 $\pm$ 0.05 & -0.0004 \\ 2.61 & 0.284 & 0.42 & 330 & -0.15 $\pm$ 0.19$\pm$ 0.07 & -0.03 $\pm$ 0.18 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0004 & 0.59 $\pm$ 0.27 $\pm$ 0.14 & 0.0000 \\ 2.43 & 0.261 & 1.22 & 20 & -0.01 $\pm$ 0.08$\pm$ 0.02 & 0.08 $\pm$ 0.09 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.0007 & 0.30 $\pm$ 0.11 $\pm$ 0.02 & -0.0068 \\ 2.45 & 0.265 & 1.06 & 52 & 0.14 $\pm$ 0.09$\pm$ 0.03 & -0.00 $\pm$ 0.11 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0034 & 0.60 $\pm$ 0.12 $\pm$ 0.02 & -0.0035 \\ 2.37 & 0.255 & 0.96 & 88 & 0.18 $\pm$ 0.20$\pm$ 0.12 & 0.21 $\pm$ 0.22 $\pm$ 0.05 & 0.0085 & 0.65 $\pm$ 0.26 $\pm$ 0.07 & 0.0004 \\ 2.43 & 0.261 & 0.96 & 273 & -0.31 $\pm$ 0.17$\pm$ 0.05 & 0.09 $\pm$ 0.20 $\pm$ 0.08 & -0.0069 & 0.49 $\pm$ 0.23 $\pm$ 0.06 & 0.0006 \\ 2.44 & 0.262 & 1.08 & 308 & -0.16 $\pm$ 0.10$\pm$ 0.04 & -0.04 $\pm$ 0.11 $\pm$ 0.03 & -0.0037 & 0.45 $\pm$ 0.13 $\pm$ 0.05 & 0.0045 \\ 2.46 & 0.265 & 1.23 & 340 & -0.04 $\pm$ 0.07$\pm$ 0.02 & -0.09 $\pm$ 0.09 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.0007 & 0.44 $\pm$ 0.10 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0059 \\ 2.55 & 0.319 & 0.16 & 19 & 0.13 $\pm$ 0.05$\pm$ 0.02 & 0.07 $\pm$ 0.07 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.0020 & 0.73 $\pm$ 0.07 $\pm$ 0.06 & 0.0546 \\ 2.50 & 0.319 & 0.16 & 50 & 0.25 $\pm$ 0.07$\pm$ 0.03 & 0.10 $\pm$ 0.09 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.0045 & 0.60 $\pm$ 0.10 $\pm$ 0.06 & 0.0513 \\ 2.53 & 0.320 & 0.16 & 88 & 0.37 $\pm$ 0.14$\pm$ 0.08 & 0.16 $\pm$ 0.17 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0066 & 0.74 $\pm$ 0.19 $\pm$ 0.05 & 0.0464 \\ 2.55 & 0.317 & 0.16 & 240 & -0.13 $\pm$ 0.22$\pm$ 0.01 & -0.19 $\pm$ 0.26 $\pm$ 0.05 & -0.0064 & 0.55 $\pm$ 0.29 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0345 \\ 2.59 & 0.321 & 0.16 & 273 & -0.12 $\pm$ 0.15$\pm$ 0.05 & -0.24 $\pm$ 0.17 $\pm$ 0.07 & -0.0078 & 0.93 $\pm$ 0.19 $\pm$ 0.09 & 0.0479 \\ 2.53 & 0.319 & 0.16 & 309 & -0.21 $\pm$ 0.07$\pm$ 0.02 & -0.11 $\pm$ 0.08 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.0045 & 0.77 $\pm$ 0.09 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.0528 \\ 2.55 & 0.318 & 0.16 & 342 & -0.12 $\pm$ 0.06$\pm$ 0.02 & 0.02 $\pm$ 0.07 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.0005 & 0.70 $\pm$ 0.08 $\pm$ 0.05 & 0.0534 \\ 2.72 & 0.338 & 0.24 & 19 & 0.08 $\pm$ 0.03$\pm$ 0.00 & 0.10 $\pm$ 0.03 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.0000 & 0.72 $\pm$ 0.04 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0398 \\ 2.68 & 0.338 & 0.24 & 51 & 0.20 $\pm$ 0.03$\pm$ 0.01 & 0.11 $\pm$ 0.04 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.0050 & 0.69 $\pm$ 0.05 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0387 \\ 2.67 & 0.337 & 0.24 & 89 & 0.16 $\pm$ 0.05$\pm$ 0.02 & 0.15 $\pm$ 0.07 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0223 & 0.69 $\pm$ 0.07 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0293 \\ 2.43 & 0.337 & 0.25 & 122 & 0.13 $\pm$ 0.07$\pm$ 0.01 & 0.19 $\pm$ 0.08 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.0373 & 0.72 $\pm$ 0.09 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.0164 \\ 2.47 & 0.326 & 0.25 & 161 & 0.14 $\pm$ 0.12$\pm$ 0.01 & 0.25 $\pm$ 0.14 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0214 & 0.59 $\pm$ 0.15 $\pm$ 0.07 & -0.0042 \\ 2.55 & 0.322 & 0.25 & 201 & -0.07 $\pm$ 0.09$\pm$ 0.03 & -0.25 $\pm$ 0.11 $\pm$ 0.06 & -0.0179 & 0.75 $\pm$ 0.12 $\pm$ 0.02 & -0.0020 \\ 2.55 & 0.338 & 0.24 & 238 & -0.20 $\pm$ 0.07$\pm$ 0.02 & -0.18 $\pm$ 0.09 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.0346 & 0.71 $\pm$ 0.09 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0142 \\ 2.73 & 0.337 & 0.24 & 271 & -0.26 $\pm$ 0.06$\pm$ 0.03 & -0.28 $\pm$ 0.07 $\pm$ 0.02 & -0.0233 & 0.68 $\pm$ 0.07 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0278 \\ 2.69 & 0.336 & 0.24 & 309 & -0.26 $\pm$ 0.03$\pm$ 0.02 & -0.16 $\pm$ 0.04 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.0058 & 0.73 $\pm$ 0.05 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0385 \\ 2.68 & 0.338 & 0.24 & 341 & -0.04 $\pm$ 0.03$\pm$ 0.00 & -0.08 $\pm$ 0.03 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.0002 & 0.59 $\pm$ 0.04 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0395 \\ 2.81 & 0.356 & 0.44 & 20 & 0.09 $\pm$ 0.03$\pm$ 0.01 & 0.04 $\pm$ 0.03 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.0055 & 0.59 $\pm$ 0.04 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0123 \\ 2.74 & 0.346 & 0.46 & 51 & 0.20 $\pm$ 0.03$\pm$ 0.01 & 0.13 $\pm$ 0.03 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.0049 & 0.66 $\pm$ 0.04 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0143 \\ 2.68 & 0.346 & 0.45 & 90 & 0.15 $\pm$ 0.05$\pm$ 0.02 & 0.18 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0358 & 0.68 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0135 \\ 2.24 & 0.349 & 0.47 & 126 & 0.07 $\pm$ 0.05$\pm$ 0.01 & 0.19 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0636 & 0.53 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0097 \\ 2.25 & 0.339 & 0.49 & 162 & 0.06 $\pm$ 0.06$\pm$ 0.01 & 0.25 $\pm$ 0.07 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0325 & 0.68 $\pm$ 0.08 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0061 \\ 2.23 & 0.339 & 0.49 & 202 & -0.13 $\pm$ 0.06$\pm$ 0.02 & -0.15 $\pm$ 0.07 $\pm$ 0.02 & -0.0296 & 0.54 $\pm$ 0.08 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.0022 \\ 2.43 & 0.347 & 0.47 & 232 & -0.06 $\pm$ 0.06$\pm$ 0.01 & -0.21 $\pm$ 0.08 $\pm$ 0.03 & -0.0567 & 0.38 $\pm$ 0.09 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0034 \\ 2.72 & 0.344 & 0.47 & 271 & -0.22 $\pm$ 0.05$\pm$ 0.02 & -0.26 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.02 & -0.0362 & 0.62 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.0118 \\ 2.77 & 0.347 & 0.45 & 309 & -0.21 $\pm$ 0.03$\pm$ 0.01 & -0.18 $\pm$ 0.04 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.0058 & 0.64 $\pm$ 0.04 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0137 \\ 2.77 & 0.355 & 0.45 & 340 & -0.15 $\pm$ 0.02$\pm$ 0.01 & -0.07 $\pm$ 0.03 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.0049 & 0.59 $\pm$ 0.03 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0129 \\ 2.59 & 0.352 & 1.30 & 20 & 0.02 $\pm$ 0.03$\pm$ 0.00 & 0.04 $\pm$ 0.04 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.0041 & 0.36 $\pm$ 0.04 $\pm$ 0.03 & -0.0051 \\ 2.59 & 0.348 & 1.09 & 52 & 0.13 $\pm$ 0.04$\pm$ 0.01 & 0.15 $\pm$ 0.05 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0088 & 0.39 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.02 & -0.0035 \\ 2.28 & 0.350 & 1.28 & 87 & 0.12 $\pm$ 0.06$\pm$ 0.02 & 0.09 $\pm$ 0.08 $\pm$ 0.06 & 0.0326 & 0.36 $\pm$ 0.08 $\pm$ 0.03 & -0.0008 \\ 2.27 & 0.353 & 1.09 & 129 & 0.08 $\pm$ 0.06$\pm$ 0.03 & 0.19 $\pm$ 0.08 $\pm$ 0.05 & 0.0375 & 0.30 $\pm$ 0.08 $\pm$ 0.04 & -0.0025 \\ 2.33 & 0.345 & 1.06 & 161 & -0.00 $\pm$ 0.06$\pm$ 0.02 & 0.21 $\pm$ 0.08 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0188 & 0.52 $\pm$ 0.08 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0015 \\ 2.29 & 0.347 & 1.06 & 201 & -0.00 $\pm$ 0.06$\pm$ 0.02 & -0.19 $\pm$ 0.08 $\pm$ 0.03 & -0.0184 & 0.52 $\pm$ 0.08 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0020 \\ 2.33 & 0.352 & 1.23 & 236 & -0.01 $\pm$ 0.06$\pm$ 0.02 & -0.25 $\pm$ 0.09 $\pm$ 0.06 & -0.0384 & 0.40 $\pm$ 0.09 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0003 \\ 2.25 & 0.347 & 1.23 & 269 & -0.04 $\pm$ 0.05$\pm$ 0.01 & -0.19 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.04 & -0.0356 & 0.30 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.02 & -0.0027 \\ 2.61 & 0.349 & 1.09 & 308 & -0.11 $\pm$ 0.05$\pm$ 0.01 & -0.14 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.02 & -0.0086 & 0.48 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.03 & -0.0016 \\ 2.57 & 0.352 & 1.28 & 340 & -0.02 $\pm$ 0.03$\pm$ 0.00 & -0.07 $\pm$ 0.03 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.0036 & 0.43 $\pm$ 0.04 $\pm$ 0.02 & -0.0034 \\ 3.21 & 0.414 & 0.27 & 19 & -0.24 $\pm$ 0.18$\pm$ 0.02 & 0.00 $\pm$ 0.00 $\pm$ 0.00 & 0.0000 & 0.90 $\pm$ 0.21 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0046 \\ 3.16 & 0.414 & 0.27 & 51 & 0.22 $\pm$ 0.21$\pm$ 0.09 & -0.04 $\pm$ 0.26 $\pm$ 0.08 & -0.0007 & 0.30 $\pm$ 0.29 $\pm$ 0.09 & 0.0070 \\ 3.36 & 0.443 & 0.51 & 17 & 0.07 $\pm$ 0.04$\pm$ 0.01 & -0.02 $\pm$ 0.04 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.0034 & 0.82 $\pm$ 0.05 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0398 \\ 3.41 & 0.444 & 0.49 & 52 & 0.21 $\pm$ 0.05$\pm$ 0.02 & 0.13 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0066 & 0.77 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.0395 \\ 3.25 & 0.448 & 0.49 & 89 & 0.24 $\pm$ 0.07$\pm$ 0.03 & 0.27 $\pm$ 0.09 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.0035 & 0.77 $\pm$ 0.10 $\pm$ 0.05 & 0.0397 \\ 2.84 & 0.430 & 0.53 & 124 & 0.12 $\pm$ 0.09$\pm$ 0.05 & 0.27 $\pm$ 0.11 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0548 & 0.64 $\pm$ 0.12 $\pm$ 0.07 & 0.0284 \\ 2.93 & 0.420 & 0.57 & 155 & -0.08 $\pm$ 0.24$\pm$ 0.08 & 0.07 $\pm$ 0.31 $\pm$ 0.08 & 0.0227 & 0.44 $\pm$ 0.30 $\pm$ 0.08 & 0.0040 \\ 2.94 & 0.421 & 0.58 & 207 & -0.44 $\pm$ 0.23$\pm$ 0.06 & -0.25 $\pm$ 0.28 $\pm$ 0.07 & -0.0273 & 0.50 $\pm$ 0.31 $\pm$ 0.07 & 0.0082 \\ 2.95 & 0.435 & 0.50 & 238 & -0.04 $\pm$ 0.11$\pm$ 0.05 & -0.18 $\pm$ 0.13 $\pm$ 0.05 & -0.0497 & 0.75 $\pm$ 0.14 $\pm$ 0.07 & 0.0309 \\ 3.33 & 0.440 & 0.48 & 271 & -0.08 $\pm$ 0.08$\pm$ 0.02 & -0.24 $\pm$ 0.10 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.0322 & 0.82 $\pm$ 0.11 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.0381 \\ 3.46 & 0.445 & 0.50 & 310 & -0.28 $\pm$ 0.05$\pm$ 0.02 & -0.23 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.0879 & 0.68 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.0364 \\ 3.35 & 0.443 & 0.52 & 342 & -0.08 $\pm$ 0.03$\pm$ 0.01 & -0.16 $\pm$ 0.04 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.0010 & 0.77 $\pm$ 0.04 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0392 \\ 3.37 & 0.465 & 1.12 & 18 & 0.06 $\pm$ 0.03$\pm$ 0.01 & 0.08 $\pm$ 0.04 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.0064 & 0.51 $\pm$ 0.04 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0015 \\ 3.46 & 0.465 & 1.13 & 52 & 0.21 $\pm$ 0.05$\pm$ 0.02 & 0.16 $\pm$ 0.07 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0095 & 0.60 $\pm$ 0.07 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0071 \\ 3.18 & 0.459 & 1.27 & 89 & -0.00 $\pm$ 0.07$\pm$ 0.02 & 0.15 $\pm$ 0.10 $\pm$ 0.05 & 0.0507 & 0.55 $\pm$ 0.10 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.0078 \\ 3.13 & 0.456 & 1.15 & 126 & 0.11 $\pm$ 0.06$\pm$ 0.01 & 0.04 $\pm$ 0.08 $\pm$ 0.05 & 0.0558 & 0.55 $\pm$ 0.08 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0007 \\ 3.30 & 0.434 & 1.18 & 159 & 0.07 $\pm$ 0.11$\pm$ 0.09 & 0.12 $\pm$ 0.15 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.0241 & 0.43 $\pm$ 0.15 $\pm$ 0.07 & -0.0116 \\ 3.11 & 0.430 & 1.09 & 203 & -0.10 $\pm$ 0.13$\pm$ 0.03 & 0.00 $\pm$ 0.16 $\pm$ 0.06 & -0.0219 & 0.78 $\pm$ 0.16 $\pm$ 0.06 & -0.0021 \\ 3.16 & 0.455 & 1.25 & 236 & -0.06 $\pm$ 0.07$\pm$ 0.01 & -0.30 $\pm$ 0.10 $\pm$ 0.06 & -0.0644 & 0.46 $\pm$ 0.09 $\pm$ 0.03 & -0.0026 \\ 3.12 & 0.454 & 1.35 & 269 & -0.02 $\pm$ 0.06$\pm$ 0.02 & -0.21 $\pm$ 0.09 $\pm$ 0.05 & -0.0541 & 0.56 $\pm$ 0.08 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.0083 \\ 3.49 & 0.467 & 1.10 & 310 & -0.31 $\pm$ 0.06$\pm$ 0.04 & -0.25 $\pm$ 0.07 $\pm$ 0.03 & -0.0119 & 0.77 $\pm$ 0.08 $\pm$ 0.05 & 0.0115 \\ 3.36 & 0.464 & 1.15 & 342 & -0.07 $\pm$ 0.03$\pm$ 0.01 & -0.08 $\pm$ 0.04 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.0063 & 0.51 $\pm$ 0.04 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0014 \\ \hline \multicolumn{9}{c}{} \end{longtable*}
\section{Introduction} Any continuous physical model is empirically equivalent to a certain finite model. This thesis is widely used in practice: solution of differential equations by the finite difference method or by using truncated series is typical example. \par It is often believed that continuous models are ``more fundamental'' than discrete or finite ones. However, there are many indications that nature is fundamentally discrete at small (Planck) scales, and is possibly finite \footnote{The total number of binary degrees of freedom in the Universe is about \Math{~ 10^{122}} as estimated via the holographic principle and the Bekenstein--Hawking formula.} Moreover, description of physical systems by, e.g., differential equations can not be fundamental in principle, since it is based on approximations of the form \Math{f\vect{x}\approx{}f\vect{x_0}+\nabla{f\vect{x_0}}\Delta{}x}. \par This essay advocates the view that finite models provide a more relevant description of physical reality than continuous models which are only approximations in the limit of large numbers \footnote{Comparing the Planck length, \Math{\sim10^{-35}} m, with the minimum length observable in experiment, \Math{\sim10^{-15}} m, we may assume that the emergence of the empirically perceived continuous space is provided by averaging over about \Math{10^{20}} discrete elements.} Using simple combinatorial models, we show how such concepts as continuous symmetries, the principle of least action, Lagrangians, deterministic evolution equations, etc. arise from combinatorial structures as a result of the large number approximation. We also consider some approaches to the construction of discrete models of quantum behavior and related models describing evolution of gauge connections. \par Any statistical description assumes one or another concept of \emph{macrostate}. We define macrostates as equivalence classes of microstates. This definition is especially convenient for models incorporating symmetry groups. We distinguish two types of statistical models: \begin{enumerate} \item \emph{Isolated system} is purely combinatorial object in the sense that ``probability'' of a microstate has \textit{a priori} nature. Namely, all microstates are equiprobable, so their probabilities are equal to the inverse of their total number. The macrostates are specified by an equivalence relation on microstates. \item \emph{Open system} is obtained from an isolated system by the following modification: The macrostates are specified by the same equivalence relation, but the probabilities of microstates depend on some parameters, which are introduced for approximate description of interaction of the system with the environment. \end{enumerate} The archetypal examples of isolated and open systems are, respectively, \emph{microcanonical} (macrostates are defined as collections of microstates with equal energies) and \emph{canonical} (macrostates are defined similarly, and interaction with the environment is parameterized by the temperature) \emph{ensembles}. \par The classical description of a (reversible) dynamical system looks schematically as follows. There are a set \Math{X} of states and a group \Math{G_\mathrm{cl}\leq\Perm{X}} of transformations (bijections) of \Math{X}. Evolutions of \Math{X} are described by sequences of group elements \Math{g_t\in{}G_{\mathrm{cl}}} parameterized by the \emph{continuous} time \Math{t\in\Time=\ordset{t_a,t_b}\subseteq\R}. The observables are functions \Math{h: X\rightarrow\R}. \par We can ``quantize'' an arbitrary set \Math{X} by assigning numbers from a number system \Math{\NF} to the elements \Math{x\in{}X}, i.e., by interpreting \Math{X} as a basis of a module. The quantum description of a dynamical system assumes that the module associated with the set of classical states \Math{X} is a Hilbert space \Math{\Hspace_X} over the field of complex numbers, i.e., \Math{\NF=\C}; the transformations \Math{g_t} and observables \Math{h} are replaced by {unitary} \Math{U_t} and {Hermitian} \Math{H} operators on \Math{\Hspace_X}, respectively. \par To make the quantum description constructive, we propose the following modifications. We assume that the set \Math{X} is finite. Operators \Math{U_t} belong to the group of unitary transformations of the Hilbert space \Math{\Aut{\Hspace_X}}. Using the fact that this group contains a finitely generated --- and hence residually finite --- dense subgroup, we can replace \Math{\Aut{\Hspace_X}} by unitary representation of some finite group \Math{G} that is suitable to provide an empirically equivalent description of a particular problem. A plausible assumption about the nature of quantum amplitudes implies that the field \Math{\C} can be replaced by an abelian number fiel \footnote{An abelian number field is an algebraic extension of \Math{\Q} with abelian Galois group. According to the Kronecker--Weber theorem, any such extension is contained in some cyclotomic field.} \Math{\NF}. This field is a subfield of a certain \emph{cyclotomic} field \Math{\Q_m} which in turn is a subfield of the complex field: \Math{\NF\leq\Q_m<\C}. The natural number \Math{m}, called \emph{conductor}, is determined by the structure of the group \Math{G}. Note that the fields \Math{\Q_m} and \Math{\C} provide empirically equivalent descriptions in any applications, because \Math{\Q_m} is a dense subfield of \Math{\C} for any \Math{m\geq3}. \par In this paper we will assume that the time \Math{\Time} is \emph{discrete} and can be represented as a sequence of integers, typically \Math{\Time = \ordset{0,1,\ldots,T}}. \par Note also that the subscript \Math{a} in the notation \Math{\Hspace_a} for Hilbert spaces is overloaded and can mean, depending on context: dimension of the space, a set on which the space is spanned, a group whose representation space is \Math{\Hspace_a}, etc. \section{Scheme of statistical description}\label{statdescr For convenience of presentation, let us fix some notation: \begin{itemize} \item \Math{U} is the \alert{full set of states} of a system \Math{A}. The states from \Math{U} are usually called \alert{``microstates''} in statistical mechanics. \item \Math{N = \cabs{U}} is the total number of microstates. \item \Math{p_u} is the \emph{probability} (\emph{weight}) of a microstate \Math{u\in{U},~\sum\limits_{u\in{U}}p_u=1}. \item \Math{\sim} is an \alert{equivalence relation} on the set \Math{U}. \item Taking an element \Math{u\in{}U}, we define the \emph{macrostate} \Math{\lambda} as the equivalence class \Math{\lambda=\set{v\in{}U\mid{}v\sim{}u}}. \item \Math{\Lambda} denotes the set of macrostates. \item The equivalence relation \Math{\sim\,} determines the \alert{partition} \Math{U=\coprod\limits_{\lambda\in\Lambda}\lambda.} \item \Math{K=\cabs{\Lambda}} is the number of macrostates. \item \Math{N_\lambda=\cabs{\lambda}} is the size of a macrostate \Math{\lambda\in\Lambda}. \item \Math{P_\lambda} denotes the probability of an arbitrary microstate from \Math{U} to belong to the macrostate \Math{\lambda}. \end{itemize} \paragraph{Isolated systems.}\hspace*{-9.8pt} The probability of a microstate of an {isolated system} is defined naturall \footnote{This is ``the equal \textit{a priori} probability postulate'' of statistical mechanics \cite{Tolman}.} as \Math{p_u=1/N} for any \Math{u\in{U}}, and the probability of any microstate from \Math{U} to belong to the macrostate \Math{\lambda} is, respectively, \Math{P_\lambda=N_\lambda/N}. Since the ``probabilities'' in isolated systems have an \textit{a priori} nature, such systems are in fact purely combinatorial objects, and we can talk about the number of combinations instead of probability. \paragraph{Open systems}\hspace*{-5pt}interact with the environment. This interaction is parameterized by assigning, in accordance with some rule, probabilities to all microstates. That is, the probability of a microstate \Math{u\in{}\lambda} is a function \MathEqLab{p_u={}p_u\vect{\alpha_1, \alpha_2,\ldots}}{probparam} of some parameters \Math{\alpha_1, \alpha_2,\ldots}. These parameters and function \eqref{probparam} are determined by the specifics of a particular problem. For open systems \Math{P_\lambda=\sum_{u\in\lambda}p_u\vect{\alpha_1, \alpha_2,\ldots}}. \paragraph{Entropy.}\hspace*{-5pt}One of the central issues of the statistical description is the search for the most probable macrostates, i.e. the macrostates with the maximum value of \Math{P_\lambda}. Technically, entropy is defined as the logarithm of the number (or probability) of microstates that belong to a particular macrostate. The concept of entropy is convenient for two reasons: \begin{enumerate} \item Since the logarithm is a monotonic function, the logarithm of any function has the same extrema as the function itself. \item If a system can be represented as a combination of two independent systems, \Math{A=A^{\prime}\otimes{}A^{\prime\prime}}, then the macrostates of \Math{A} can be represented as \Math{\lambda^{\prime}\otimes{}\lambda^{\prime\prime}}. So, when computing entropy of such decompositions, we can replace multiplication by a simpler operation --- addition: \Math{\log\vect{P_{\lambda^{\prime}}P_{\lambda^{\prime\prime}}}=\log{}P_{\lambda^{\prime}}+\log{}P_{\lambda^{\prime\prime}}}. \end{enumerate} \paragraph{Stirling's formula\!\!} is one of the main tools for obtaining continuum approximations of combinatorial expressions: \MathEqLab{\ln{n!}\approx{}\underbrace{n\ln{}n-n}_{\text{superlinear}}+\underbrace{\frac{1}{2}\ln\vect{2\pi{}n}}_{\text{logarithmic}}+\underbrace{\frac{1}{12n}-\frac{1}{360n^3}+\cdots}_{\text{decreasing terms}}}{Stirlinglog} For our purposes it is sufficient to retain only the terms which grow with \Math{n}, i.e. the \alert{superlinear} and \alert{logarithmic} terms. \par \subsection{Examples of isolated and open systems}\label{examples To illustrate the above, let us give a few examples of isolated and open systems. \paragraph {Sequences of symbols. Isolated system.} Let \Math{\Sigma} be an alphabet of size \Math{M}: \MathEqLab{\Sigma=\vect{\sigma_1,\ldots,\sigma_m,\ldots,\sigma_M}.}{alphabet} The microstates are sequences of the length \Math{T} of symbols from \Math{\Sigma}: \MathEq{u=a_1\cdots{}a_t\cdots{}a_T\in{}U,~~a_t\in\Sigma.} The total number of microstates is \Math{N=M^T}. Let \Math{k^u=\vect{k_1^u,\ldots,k_m^u,\ldots,k_M^u}} be the vector of multiplicities of symbols \Math{\sigma_m} in a microstate \Math{u}. It is obvious that \Math{k_1^u+\cdots+k_M^u=T}. We define the equivalence relation \Math{\sim} as follows \MathEqLab{{u\sim{}v} \Longleftrightarrow {k^u=k^v\equiv{}k}.}{equivsymb} The macrostate \Math{\lambda_k}, defined by equivalence \eqref{equivsymb}, consists of all sequences with the multiplicity vector \Math{k}. The total number of macrostates is \MathEq{\displaystyle {}K=\binom{T+M-1}{M-1}\,.} The size of the macrostate \Math{\lambda_k} is \MathEq{\displaystyle{} N_{\lambda_k}=\frac{T!}{k_1!k_2!\cdots{}k_M!}\,.} \par Introducing the vector of ``frequencies'' \Math{\vect{f_1=k_1/T,\ldots,f_M=k_M/T}} and applying the leading part of Stirling approximation \Math{\log{}n!\approx{}n\log{}n-n} to the entropy \Math{S_{\lambda_k}=\log{}N_{\lambda_k}} of the macrostate \Math{\lambda_k} we obtain \Math{S_{\lambda_k}\approx{}TH\!\vect{X},} where \Mathh{H\!\vect{X}=-\sum\limits_{i=1}^Mf_i\log{f_i}} is the \alert{Shannon entropy} \cite{hdcm} of a random variable \Math{X} whose \Math{M} outcomes have probabilities \Math{f_1,\ldots,f_M}. \subparagraph{The model of symmetric random walk}\hspace*{-12pt}\cite{Feller} is a slight modification of the above isolated system. Alphabet \eqref{alphabet} contains now an even number of symbols \Math{M=2d}, and it is divided into two parts \Math{\Sigma=\Sigma_+\coprod\Sigma_-}, where \Mathh{\Sigma_+=\set{\sigma_i\in\Sigma\mid1\leq{}i\leq{}d} \text{\color{black}~~and~~} \Sigma_-=\set{\sigma_i\in\Sigma\mid{}d+1\leq{}i\leq{}M}.} The elements of \Math{\Sigma_+} and \Math{\Sigma_-} can be interpreted, respectively, as ``positive'' and ``negative'' unit steps in the \Math{d} directions of the integer lattice \Math{\Z^d}. \par The vector of multiplicities of symbols from \Math{\Sigma} can be written as \Math{k=\vect{k_+,k_-}}, where \Math{k_+=\vect{k_1,\ldots,k_d}} and \Math{k_-=\vect{k_{d+1},\ldots,k_{2d}}}. The equivalence of microstates \Math{u} and \Math{v} is defined now as follows \MathEqLab{{u\sim{}v} \Longleftrightarrow {k_+^u-k_-^u=k_+^v-k_-^v}.}{symmwalk} The partition defined by \eqref{symmwalk} is a \textit{coarsening \footnote{The partition \Math{\mathcal{P}_2=\set{B_i}} of a set \Math{S} is a \emph{coarsening} of the partition \Math{\mathcal{P}_1=\set{A_j}} of the same set if for every subset \Math{A_j\in\mathcal{P}_1} there is a subset \Math{B_i\in\mathcal{P}_2} such that \Math{A_j\subseteq{}B_i}. The opposite relation among partitions is called the \emph{refinement} \cite{hdcm}.} of the partition defined by \eqref{equivsymb}. The numbers of equivalence classes are \emph{figurate numbers} of some \Math{d}-dimensional regular convex polytopes --- \Math{d}-dimensional analogues of the octahedron. For example, in the case \Math{d=3} the number of macrostates is equal to the \Math{\vect{T+1}}th \emph{octahedral number}: \Mathh{\displaystyle{}K=\vect{T+1}\frac{2\vect{T+1}^2+1}{3}.} \paragraph {Multinomial distribution. Open system.} The microstates are also sequences of symbols from alphabet \eqref{alphabet}. But now the presence of an environment is assumed. The influence of the environment is parameterized by the assumption that any symbol \Math{\sigma_m\in\Sigma} comes with a fixed individual probability \Math{\alpha_m}, such that \Math{\sum\limits_{m=1}^M\alpha_m=1.} Thus, \Math{\alpha_1^{k_1}\alpha_2^{k_2}\cdots\alpha_M^{k_M}\equiv{p_{\lambda_k}}} is the probability of a microstate from a macrostate \Math{\lambda_k}, defined by equivalence relation \eqref{equivsymb}. The probability of a microstate from \Math{U} to belong to the macrostate \Math{\lambda_k} is described by the \emph{multinomial distribution}: \MathEqLab{P_{\lambda_k}=N_{\lambda_k}p_{\lambda_k}=\frac{T!}{k_1!k_2!\cdots{}k_M!}\alpha_1^{k_1}\alpha_2^{k_2}\cdots\alpha_M^{k_M}.}{multinom} \paragraph {Microcanonical ensemble. Isolated system.} The concept of a microcanonical ensemble is based on the classification of microstates by energy. More specifically, if there is a real-valued function on microstates \Math{E: {}U\rightarrow\R}, then we can impose the equivalence relation on \Math{U}: \MathEqLab{{u\sim{}v} \Longleftrightarrow {E\vect{u}=E\vect{v}}\equiv\mathrm{E},~~u,v\in{}U.}{microcanonequi} Assuming that the \emph{energy} \Math{\mathrm{E}} takes a finite number of values: \Math{\mathrm{E}\in\set{\mathrm{E}_1,\mathrm{E}_2,\ldots,\mathrm{E}_K},} we define the \emph{microcanonical ensemble} as the macrostate \Math{\lambda_k} which is an equivalence class of relation \eqref{microcanonequi}, i.e., the set of microstates with the energy \Math{\mathrm{E}_k}. More formally: \MathEqLab{\lambda_k=\set{u\mid{}u\in{U} \wedge{} E\vect{u}=\mathrm{E}_k}~.}{microcanon} In statistical mechanics \cite{Chandler} the microcanonical ensemble is defined in terms of the \emph{Boltzmann entropy} formula {\MathEq{S_{\lambda_k}=\mathrm{k}_B\ln{N_{\lambda_k}}}} or, equivalently, via the \emph{microcanonical partition function} {\MathEq{N_{\lambda_k}=\e^{S_{\lambda_k}/\mathrm{k}_B},}} where \Math{N_{\lambda_k}=\cabs{\lambda_k}} and \Math{\mathrm{k}_B} is the Boltzmann constant (we may assume that \Math{\mathrm{k}_B=1}). \paragraph {Canonical ensemble. Open system.} A \emph{canonical ensemble} is an open counterpart of the microcanonical ensemble. Macrostates of the canonical ensemble are defined by \eqref{microcanon}. Probability \eqref{probparam}, that parameterizes the interaction with the environment in our general scheme, is now a function of a single parameter \Math{\alpha=T}, the \emph{temperature} of the environment. Namely, the probability of a microstate \Math{u\in{}\lambda_k} is given by the \emph{Gibbs formula} {\MathEq{p_{\lambda_k}\vect{T}=\frac{1}{Z}{\e}^{-\mathrm{E}_k/\mathrm{k}_BT},}} where the normalization constant {\MathEq{Z=\sum\limits_{k=1}^{K}N_{\lambda_k}\e^{-\mathrm{E}_k/\mathrm{k}_BT}}} is called the \emph{canonical partition function}. \section{Continuum approximations}\label{contappr In this section we show that concepts such as continuous symmetry and the principle of least action may be obtained from combinatorial models as a result of the transition to the limit of large numbers. As an illustration, consider the \emph{open} system described by distribution \eqref{multinom}. In the case \Math{M=2} (\emph{binomial distribution}), all calculations can be done explicitly. In this case both equivalence relations \eqref{equivsymb} and \eqref{symmwalk} coincide in virtue of the equality \Math{k_1+k_2=T.} Entropy of \eqref{multinom} for \Math{M=2} takes the form \MathEqLab{S=\ln{}T!-\ln{}k_1!-\ln\vect{T-k_1}!+k_1\ln\alpha_1+\vect{T-k_1}\ln{\alpha_2}.}{entropyS} Applying the growing terms of Stirling's approximation \eqref{Stirlinglog} to this formula we have \Math{S\approx{}{S_{\text{Stirling}}}=S_{\text{superlin}}+S_{\text{log}}}, where \MathEqLab{S_{\text{superlin}}=T\ln{}T-k_1\ln\vect{\frac{k_1}{\alpha_1}}-\vect{T-k_1}\ln\vect{\frac{T-k_1}{\alpha_2}}}{slin} and \MathEq{S_{\text{log}}=\frac{1}{2}\ln\vect{\frac{T}{2\pi{k_1\vect{T-k_1}}}}} are superlinear and logarithmic parts of \Math{{S_{\text{Stirling}}}}, respectively. Since \Math{S_{\text{log}}} and its derivatives are small for large \Math{T} and \Math{k_1}, the maximum of entropy \eqref{entropyS} is close to that of its leading part \eqref{slin}. Thus, the approximate extremum point \Math{{k_1^*}=\alpha_1T} is obtained by solving the equation \Mathh{\frac{\partial{}S_{\text{superlin}}}{\partial{}k_1}=-\ln\vect{\frac{k_1}{\alpha_1}}+ln\vect{\frac{T-k_1}{\alpha_2}}=0\Longleftrightarrow\frac{k_1}{T-k_1}=\frac{\alpha_1}{1-\alpha_1}.} Further, we can expand \Math{{S_{\text{Stirling}}}} around the point \Math{{k_1^*}}. Retaining terms up to the second order, we obtain the chain of approximations \MathEq{S\approx{}{S_{Stirling}}\approx{}{S^*}=\left.{S_{log}}\right|_{k_1=\alpha_1T}+\left.\frac{1}{2}{\frac{\partial^2S_{superlin}}{\partial{k_1^2}}}\right|_{k_1=\alpha_1T}\times\vect{k_1-\alpha_1T}^2,} which leads to the final formula \MathEqLab{S\approx{}{S^*}=\ln\sqrt{{\frac{1}{2\pi{}T\alpha_1\alpha_2}}}-\frac{1}{2T\alpha_1\alpha_2}\vect{k_1-\alpha_1T}^2.}{sapprox} \subsection{On the origin of continuous symmetries}\label{contsymm} It is well known \cite{Feller} that the large numbers asymptotic of the probability distribution of symmetric random walk on the lattice \Math{\Z^d} is the fundamental solution of the heat equation, also called the \emph{heat kernel} \MathEqLab{K\vect{t,\vec{x}}=\frac{1}{\vect{4\pi{}t}^{d/2}}\exp\vect{-\frac{x_1^2+x_2^2+\cdots+x_d^2}{4t}}.}{heatkernel} Here \Math{t\in\R_+} and \Math{x_i\in\R} are the continual substitutes for \Math{T\in\N} and for the difference \Math{k_i-k_{d+i}\in\Z}, respectively. \par This gives an example of the emergence of continuous symmetries from the large numbers approximation. The symmetry group of the integer lattice \Math{\Z^d} has the structure of the semidirect product \Math{\Z^d\rtimes{}G_d}. For simplicity, we can drop the normal subgroup \Math{\Z^d}, the subgroup of translations, as inessential for our purposes. The group \Math{G_d} is isomorphic to the semidirect product \Math{\vect{\CyclG{2}}^d\rtimes\SymG{d}} or, equivalently, to the wreath product \Math{\CyclG{2}\wr\SymG{d}.} The size of \Math{G_d} is equal to \Math{2^dd!}. For example, for the square lattice the group \Math{G_{d=2}} is the symmetry group of a square --- dihedral group of order \Math{8}. On the other hand, approximate expression \eqref{heatkernel} is symmetric with respect to the \textbf{orthogonal group} \Math{\OrtG{d}} with cardinality of continuum. \par The \textbf{Lorentz symmetries} --- at least in \Math{1 + 1} dimensions --- can also be obtained in a similar way. Let us consider approximation \eqref{sapprox} for the entropy of binomial distribution. We introduce the following continuous substitutes \MathEqArrLab{ \cmath{}x&\cmath:=k_1-k_2,\nonumber\\ \cmath{}t&\cmath:=T,\nonumber\\ \cmath{}v&\cmath:=\alpha_1-\alpha_2.\label{vdef} } Obviously, \Math{-1\leq{}v\leq1}. With these substitutions, the approximation of binomial distribution takes the form \MathEqLab{P^*\vect{x,t}= \e^{S^*} =\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi{}\vect{1-v^2}t}} \exp\set{-\frac{1}{2t}\vect{\frac{x-v t}{\sqrt{1-v^2}}}^2}.}{Pappr} The continuous variables \Math{x}, \Math{t}, and \Math{v} may be called, respectively, the ``space'', ``time'', and ``velocity'' \footnote{In the paper \cite{Knuth}, which is devoted to the ``Zitterbewegung'' effect in the \Math{1+1} dimensional Dirac equation, a ``drift velocity'' is defined --- just like in \eqref{vdef} --- as the difference of probabilities of steps in opposite directions. It is shown that this definition leads to the relativistic velocity addition rule: \Math{w=\vect{u+v}/\vect{1+uv}}. } Expression \eqref{Pappr} is the fundamental solution of the equation \MathEqLab{ \frac{\partial{}P^*\vect{x,t}}{\partial{}t} +v\frac{\partial{}P^*\vect{x,t}}{\partial{}x} =\frac{\vect{1-v^2}}{2} \frac{\partial^2P^*\vect{x,t}}{\partial{}x^2}.}{heateq} This equation is called --- depending on interpretation of the function \Math{P^*\vect{x,t}} --- the \emph{heat}, or \emph{diffusion}, or \emph{Fokker-Plank} equation. In the ``limit of the speed of light'' \Math{\cabs{v}=1} equation \eqref{heateq} turns into the \emph{wave equation} \MathEq{\frac{\partial{}P^*\vect{x,t}}{\partial{}t}\pm\frac{\partial{}P^*\vect{x,t}}{\partial{}x}=0.} Let us introduce the change of variables: \Math{t=T_H+t'} and \Math{x=vT_H+x'}. If we assume that \Math{t'\ll{}T_H} (i.e., \Math{T_H} can be thought as a ``Hubble time'', and \Math{t'} as a ``typical time of observation''), then \eqref{Pappr} can be rewritten as \MathEq{P^*\vect{x,t}=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi{}\vect{1-v^2}T_H}}\exp\set{-\frac{1}{2T_H}\vect{{\frac{x'-vt'}{\sqrt{1-v^2}}}}^2}+O\vect{\frac{t'}{T_H}}.} The principal part of this expression is ``relativistically invariant''. \subsection{The least action principle as the principle of selection of the most likely configurations}\label{leastaction Let us compare the exact probability distributions with their continuum approximations \emph{within} individual equivalence classes of relation \eqref{symmwalk}. \paragraph{Exact distributions.} In the binomial case, an equivalence class of \eqref{symmwalk} is defined by fixing the difference \Math{k_1-k_2=:X}. We denote the equivalence class of sequences connecting the space-time points \Math{\vect{0,0}} and \Math{\vect{X,T}} by \Math{\lambda_{X,T}}. The size of \Math{\lambda_{X,T}} is equal to \MathEq{N_{X,T}=\frac{T!}{k_1!k_2!}\equiv\frac{T!}{\vect{\frac{T+X}{2}}!\vect{\frac{T-X}{2}}!}~.} The binomial distribution in terms of the variables \Math{X} and \Math{T} and parameter \Math{v} takes the form \MathEq{P\vect{X,T}=\frac{T!}{\vect{\frac{T+X}{2}}!\vect{\frac{T-X}{2}}!}\vect{\frac{1+v}{2}}^{\frac{T+X}{2}}\vect{\frac{1-v}{2}}^{\frac{T-X}{2}}.} Consider an increasing sequence of time instants (``times of observations'') \MathEqLab{\tau=\set{T_0=0,\ldots,T_{i-1},T_{i},\ldots,T_{n}=T},~~T_{i-1}<{}T_{i}.}{times} Let us select trajectories that pass through the sequence of spatial points \MathEqLab{\chi=\set{X_0=0,\ldots,X_{i-1},X_{i},\ldots,X_{n}=X}}{Xpoints} corresponding to sequence of times \eqref{times}. Admissible trajectories must satisfy the inequality \Math{\cabs{X_i-X_{i-1}}\leq{}T_i-T_{i-1}} --- ``the light cone restriction''. According to the \emph{conditional probability} rule, the probability of the trajectory \Math{\vect{\chi,\tau}} is equal to \MathEqArrLab{P_{\chi,\tau}&\cmath=\frac{1}{P\vect{X,T}}\prod_{i=1}^nP\vect{X_i-X_{i-1},T_i-T_{i-1}}\nonumber\\ &\cmath=\frac{\vect{\frac{T+X}{2}}!\vect{\frac{T-X}{2}}!}{T!}\prod_{i=1}^n\frac{\vect{T_i-T_{i-1}}!}{\vect{\frac{T_i+X_i}{2}-\frac{T_{i-1}+X_{i-1}}{2}}!\vect{\frac{T_i-X_i}{2}-\frac{T_{i-1}-X_{i-1}}{2}}!}\enspace.\nonumber} For a given sequence of time instants \eqref{times} one can formulate the problem of finding trajectories with maximum probability \Math{P_{\tau}=\max\limits_{\chi}P_{\chi,\tau}}. This can be done by searching among all admissible sequences \eqref{Xpoints}. In the general case, there are many distinct trajectories with the same maximum probability, i.e., we do not have here a ``deterministic'' trajectory. \paragraph{Continuum approximation.} To apply our reasoning to approximate distribution \eqref{Pappr}, we will consider the time sequence \MathEq{\tau=\set{t_0=t_a,\ldots,t_{i-1},t_i,\ldots,t_n=t_b}} together with respective sequences of spacial points \MathEqLab{\chi=\set{x_0=x_a,\ldots,x_{i-1},x_{i},\ldots,x_{n}=x_b}.}{xpoints} We assume that the time points are equidistant: \Math{t_i-t_{i-1}=\Delta{}t}, and we will use the notation \Math{\Delta{x_i}=x_i-x_{i-1}}. \par \noindent Now the approximate probability of a trajectory \Math{\vect{\chi,\tau}} that connects the space-time points \Math{\vect{x_a,t_a}} and \Math{\vect{x_b,t_b}} takes the form \MathEqArr{P^*_{\chi,\tau}=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi\vect{1-v^2}\vect{t_b-t_a}}} &\cmath\exp\set{-\frac{1}{2\vect{t_b-t_a}}\vect{\frac{x_b-x_a-v\vect{t_b-t_a}}{\sqrt{1-v^2}}}^2}\\[4pt] &\cmath\times\frac{Q_{\chi,\tau}}{A^n}\enspace,} where \MathEq{A=\sqrt{\frac{\pi\vect{1-v^2}\Delta{t}}{2}}} and \MathEqArrLab{Q_{\chi,\tau}&\cmath=\prod\limits_{i=1}^n\exp\set{-\frac{1}{2\Delta{t}}\vect{\frac{\Delta{x_i}-v\Delta{t}}{\sqrt{1-v^2}}}^2}\label{prodq}\\[2pt] &\cmath=\exp\set{-\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i=1}^n\vect{\frac{\Delta{x_i}/\Delta{t}-v}{\sqrt{1-v^2}}}^2\Delta{t}}.\label{sumprodq}} The summation of factors in \eqref{prodq} over all values \Math{\Delta{x_i}\in\vect{-\infty,\infty}} reproduces correct normalization of probabilities for any time slice: \MathEq{\int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty\exp\set{-\frac{1}{2\Delta{t}}\vect{\frac{\Delta{x_i}-v\Delta{t}}{\sqrt{1-v^2}}}^2}\frac{d\vect{\Delta{x_i}}}{2}=\sqrt{\frac{\pi\vect{1-v^2}\Delta{t}}{2}}\equiv{}A.} Note that this normalizatio \footnote{A similar normalization is one of the cornerstones of the path integral formalism \cite{Feynman}.} is an approximation which is incompatible with the ``speed of light limitation'': \Math{-\Delta{t}\leq\Delta{x_i}\leq\Delta{t}.} \par Replacing the sequence of spacial points \eqref{xpoints} by a differentiable function \Math{x\vect{t}} such that \Math{x\vect{t_a}=x_a,~x\vect{t_b}=x_b}, introducing approximation \Math{\Delta{x_i}\approx{}\dot{x}\vect{t}\Delta{t}} and taking the limit \Math{n\rightarrow\infty} we can write instead of \eqref{sumprodq} the formula \MathEq{\displaystyle{}Q_{\chi,\tau}\approx\exp\set{-\frac{1}{2}S\ordset{x\vect{t}}},} where \MathEq{S\ordset{x\vect{t}}=\int\limits_{t_a}^{t_b}Ldt=\int\limits_{t_a}^{t_b}\vect{\frac{\dot{x}\vect{t}-v}{\sqrt{1-v^2}}}^2dt\enspace.} Assuming for a while that \Math{v} depends on \Math{t} and \Math{x}, we obtain the following Euler-Lagrange equation \MathEq{\frac{d}{dt}\frac{\partial{L}}{\partial{\dot{x}}}-\frac{\partial{L}}{\partial{x}}=0~\Rightarrow~ \ddot{x}\vect{1-v^2}+\dot{x}^2v\frac{\partial{v}}{\partial{x}}+2\dot{x}v\frac{\partial{v}}{\partial{t}}-v\frac{\partial{v}}{\partial{x}}-\vect{1+v^2}\frac{\partial{v}}{\partial{t}}=0.} Clearly, this equation describes ``deterministic'' trajectories. If we return to the initial assumption that \Math{v} does not depend on the space-time variables, then the Euler-Lagrange equation reduces to the form \MathEq{\ddot{x}\vect{t}=0.} This equation together with the boundary conditions gives the following formula for the extremals \MathEq{x\vect{t}=\frac{x_b-x_a}{t_b-t_a}t+\frac{x_at_b-x_bt_a}{t_b-t_a},} i.e., the most probable trajectories are straight lines. \section{Combinatorial models of quantum systems}\label{quant To build models that can reproduce quantum behavior, it is necessary to formulate the basic ingredients of quantum theory in a constructive way (for a more detailed consideration see \cite{KornyakPEPAN}). \subsection{Constructive core of quantum mechanics}\label{quantcore In traditional matrix formulation quantum evolutions are described by unitary operators in a Hilbert space \Math{\Hspace}. Evolution operators \Math{U} belong to a \alert{unitary representation} of the \emph{continuous} group \Math{\Aut{\Hspace}} of automorphisms of \Math{\Hspace}. To make the problem constructive we should replace the group \Math{\Aut{\Hspace}} by some \emph{finite} group \Math{\wG} which should be empirically equivalent to (a subgroup of) \Math{\Aut{\Hspace}}. \par The theory of quantum computing \cite{Nielsen} proves the existence of \emph{finite} sets of universal \emph{quantum gates} that can be combined into unitary matrices which approximate to arbitrary precision any unitary operator. In other words, there exists a \emph{finitely generated} group \Math{\wG_{\infty}} which is a \emph{countable} dense subgroup of the continuous group \Math{\Aut{\Hspace}}. \par A group \Math{G} is called \emph{residually finite} \cite{Magnus}, if for every \Math{g\in{}G}, \Math{g\neq\id}, there exists a homomorphism \Math{\phi} from \Math{G} onto a finite group \Math{H}, such that \Math{\phi\vect{g}\neq\id}. This means that any relation between the elements of \Math{G} can be modeled by a relation between the elements of a finite group. This can be illustrated by analogy with the widely used in physics technique, when an infinite space is replaced by, for example, a torus whose size is sufficient to hold the data related to a particular problem. \par According to the theorem of A.I. Mal'cev \cite{Malcev}, every finitely generated group of matrices over any field is residually finite. Thus we have the sequence of transitions from the group with cardinality of \emph{continuum} through a \emph{countable} group to a \emph{finite} group: \Math{{\Aut{\Hspace}\xrightarrow{\text{approximation}}\wG_{\infty}\xrightarrow{\text{homomorphism}}\wG}\,.} \subsection{Permutations and natural quantum amplitudes}\label{quantperm As is well known, any linear representation of a finite group is unitary. Any representation of a finite group is a subrepresentation of some permutation representation (see, e.g., \cite{Hall,Serre,Wielandt,Cameron,Dixon}). Let \Math{\repq} be a representation of \Math{\wG} in a \Math{\adimH}-dimensional Hilbert space \Math{\Hspace_{\adimH}}. Then \Math{\repq} can be embedded into a permutation representation \Math{\regrep} of \Math{\wG} in an \Math{\wSN}-dimensional Hilbert space \Math{\Hspace_{\wSN}}, where \Math{\wSN\geq\adimH}. The representation \Math{\regrep} is equivalent to an action of \Math{\wG} on a set of things \Math{\wS=\set{\ws_1,\ldots,\ws_\wSN}} by permutations. In the proper case \Math{\wSN>\adimH}, the embedding has the structure \MathEqLab{ \transmatr^{-1}\regrep\transmatr =\Vtwo{ \left. \begin{aligned} \!\IrrRep{1}&\\[-2pt] &\hspace{8pt}\mathrm{V} \end{aligned} \right\}\Hspace_{\wSN-\adimH} }{ \left. \hspace{29pt} {\repq} \right\}\Hspace_{\adimH} },\hspace{10pt} \Hspace_{\wSN} = \Hspace_{\wSN-\adimH}\oplus\Hspace_{\adimH}, }{embed} where \Math{\IrrRep{1}} is the trivial one-dimensional representation, mandatory for any permutation representation; \Math{\mathrm{V}} is a subrepresentation, which may be missing. \Math{\transmatr} is a matrix of transition from the basis of the representation \Math{\regrep} to the basis in which the permutation space \Math{\Hspace_{\wSN}} is split into the invariant subspaces \Math{\Hspace_{\wSN-\adimH}} and \Math{\Hspace_{\adimH}}. Evolutions in the spaces \Math{\Hspace_{\adimH}} and \Math{\Hspace_{\wSN-\adimH}} are \emph{independent} since both spaces are invariant subspaces of \Math{\Hspace_{\wSN}}. So we can treat the data in \Math{\Hspace_{\wSN-\adimH}} as ``hidden parameters'' with respect to the data in \Math{\Hspace_{\adimH}}. \par A trivial approach would be to set arbitrary (e.g., zero) data in the complementary subspace \Math{\Hspace_{\wSN-\adimH}}. This approach is not interesting since it is not falsifiable by means of standard quantum mechanics. In fact, it leads to standard quantum mechanics \emph{modulo} the empirically unobservable distinction between the ``finite'' and the ``infinite''. The only difference is technical: we can replace the linear algebra in the \Math{\adimH}-dimensional space \Math{\Hspace_{\adimH}} by permutations of \Math{\wSN} things. \par A more promising approach requires some changes in the concept of quantum amplitudes. We assume \cite{KornyakPEPAN,Kornyak12,Kornyak13a} that quantum amplitudes are projections onto invariant subspaces of vectors of multiplicities of elements of the set \Math{\wS} on which the group \Math{\wG} acts by permutations. The vectors of multiplicities \MathEqLab{\barket{n} = \Vthree{n_1}{\vdots}{n_{\wSN}}}{multvect} are elements of the \emph{module} \Math{\natmod_\wSN = \N^\wSN}, where \Math{\N=\set{0,1,2,\ldots}} is the semiring of natural numbers. Initially we deal with the natural permutation representation of \Math{\wG} in the module \Math{\natmod_\wSN}. Using the fact that all eigenvalues of any linear representation of a finite group are roots of unity, we can turn the module \Math{\natmod_\wSN} into a Hilbert space \Math{\Hspace_{\wSN}}. It is sufficient to add \Math{\period}th roots of unity to the natural numbers to form a \emph{semiring}, which we denote by \Math{\N_\period}. The natural number \Math{\period}, called conductor, is (a divisor of) the \emph{exponent} of \Math{\wG}, which is defined as the least common multiple of the orders of elements of \Math{\wG}. In the case \Math{\period\geq2} the \emph{negative integers} can be introduced and the semiring \Math{\N_\period} becomes a \emph{ring of cyclotomic integers}. To complete the conversion of the module \Math{\natmod_\wSN} into the Hilbert space \Math{\Hspace_{\wSN}}, we introduce the \emph{cyclotomic field} \Math{\Q_\period} as a field of fractions of the ring \Math{\N_\period} \footnote{By taking into account symmetries of a specific problem, we can use instead of \Math{\Q_\period} some its subfield, an \emph{abelian number field} \Math{\NF\leq\Q_\period}.} If \Math{\period\geq3}, then \Math{\Q_\period} is a dense subfield of the field of complex numbers \Math{\C}. In fact, algebraic properties of elements of \Math{\Q_\period} are quite sufficient for all our purposes --- for example, complex conjugation corresponds to the transformation \Math{\runi{}^k\rightarrow\runi{}^{\period-k}} for roots of unity --- so we can forget the possibility to embed \Math{\Q_\period} into \Math{\C} (as well as the very existence of the field \Math{\C}). \par Thus, we will assume that \Math{\Hspace_{\adimH}} in decomposition \eqref{embed} is a Hilbert space over the field \Math{\Q_\period}, and quantum amplitudes are elements of \Math{\Hspace_{\adimH}} of the form \Math{\barket{\psi}=\projector{\repq}\barket{n}}, where \Math{\projector{\repq}} is the projection operator from the module \Math{\natmod_\wSN} onto the space \Math{\Hspace_{\adimH}} corresponding to the subrepresentation \Math{\repq} in \eqref{embed}. \subsection{Measurements and the Born rule}\label{Born The general scheme of measurement \footnote{To avoid inessential technical complications we consider here only the case of pure states.} in quantum mechanics is reduced to the following. \begin{itemize} \item A partition of the Hilbert space into mutually orthogonal subspaces is given: \MathEq{\Hspace=\Hspace_1\oplus\cdots\oplus\Hspace_i\oplus\cdots.} Typically \Math{\Hspace_i} are eigenspaces of some Hermitian operator \Math{A} (i.e. \Math{A=A^\dagger}) called an ``observable''. \item There is a measuring device configured to select a state \Math{\barket{\phi}\in\Hspace_i} of a quantum system. \item A result of a single measurement \Math{= \begin{cases} \mathrm{Yes},& \text{\color{black}measuring device responds;}\\ \mathrm{No},& \text{\color{black}no response.} \end{cases} } \par In accordance with the \emph{projection postulate}, the output \Math{\mathrm{Yes}} is interpreted as transition of the system into the state \Math{\barket{\phi}} \emph{after} the measurement. \par If \Math{\Hspace_i} is an eigenspace of an observable \Math{A} with eigenvalue \Math{a}, it is said that the ``outcome of the measurement is equal to'' \Math{a}. \item Relative number of \Math{\mathrm{Yes}} in a set of measurements is described by the Born formula. \end{itemize} The Born rul \footnote{There have been many attempts to derive the Born rule from the other physical assumptions --- the Schr\"{o}dinger equation, many-worlds interpretation, etc. However, Gleason's theorem \cite{Gleason} shows that the Born rule is a logical consequence of the very definition of a Hilbert space and has nothing to do with the laws of evolution of physical systems.} states that the probability to register a particle described by the amplitude \Math{\barket{\psi}} by an apparatus configured to select the amplitude \Math{\barket{\phi}} is \MathEq{\ProbBorn{\phi}{\psi} = \frac{\cabs{\inner{\phi}{\psi}}^2} {\inner{\phi}{\phi}\inner{\psi}{\psi}}~.} In the ``finite'' background the only reasonable interpretation of probability is the \emph{frequency interpretation}: probability is the ratio of the number of ``favorable'' combinations to the total number of combinations. So we expect that \Math{\ProbBorn{\phi}{\psi}} must be a \emph{rational number} if everything is arranged correctly. Thus, in our approach the usual \alert{non-constructive} contraposition --- \alert{complex numbers} as intermediate values against \alert{real numbers} as observable values --- is replaced by the \alert{constructive} one --- \alert{irrationalities} against \alert{rationals}. From the constructive point of view, there is no fundamental difference between irrationalities and constructive complex numbers: both are elements of algebraic extensions. \subsection{Illustration: natural amplitudes and invariant subspaces of permutation representation} Consider the action of the alternating group \Math{\AltG{5}} on the vertices of the icosahedron. The group \Math{\AltG{5}} has a \emph{presentation} of the form \MathEqLab{\AltG{5} = \left\langle{}a, {\ccom{}b}\left|\,a^5={\ccom{}b}^2=(a{\ccom{}b})^3=\id\right.\right\rangle.}{Enpresent} The Cayley graph of this presentation is shown in Figure \ref{Enbucky}. \begin{figure}[!hB] \centering \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{BuckyballMMCP.eps} \caption{Cayley graph of \Math{\AltG{5}} for presentation \eqref{Enpresent}. Pentagons, hexagons and links between adjacent pentagons correspond to the relators \Math{a^5}, \Math{\vect{a{\ccom{}b}}^3} and \Math{{\ccom{}b}^2}, respectively.} \label{Enbucky} \end{figure} \par\noindent \Math{\AltG{5}} has five irreducible representations: the trivial \Math{\IrrRep{1}} and four faithful representations \Math{\IrrRep{3}, \IrrRep{3'}, \IrrRep{4}, \IrrRep{5}}; and three \emph{primitive \footnote{A transitive action of a group on a set is called \emph{primitive} \cite{Wielandt}, if there is no \emph{non-trivial partition} of the set, invariant under the action of the group.} permutation representations having the following decompositions into the irreducible components: \Math{\PermRep{5}\cong\IrrRep{1}\oplus\IrrRep{4}},~~ \Math{\PermRep{6}\cong\IrrRep{1}\oplus\IrrRep{5}},~~and \Math{\PermRep{10}\cong\IrrRep{1}\oplus\IrrRep{4}\oplus\IrrRep{5}.} \par The action of \Math{\AltG{5}} on the icosahedron vertices \Math{\wS=\set{1,\ldots,12}} is transitive, but \emph{imprimitive} with the non-trivial partition into the following blocks \MathEq{\set{\mid{}B_1\mid\cdots\mid{}B_i\mid\cdots\mid{}B_6\mid}\equiv \set{\mid1,7\mid\cdots\mid{}i,i+6\mid\cdots\mid6,12\mid},} assuming the vertex numbering shown in Figure \ref{Enico}. \begin{figure}[!h] \centering \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{icosahedron.eps} \caption{Icosahedron. Invariant blocks are pairs of opposite vertices.} \label{Enico} \end{figure} Each block \Math{B_i} consists of a pair of opposite vertices of the icosahedron. Permutation representation of the action of \Math{\AltG{5}} on the icosahedron vertices has the following decomposition into irreducible components \MathEqLab{\transmatr^{-1}\vect{\PermRep{12}}\transmatr =\IrrRep{1}\oplus\IrrRep{3}\oplus\IrrRep{3'}\oplus\IrrRep{5},}{decoico} where \Math{\transmatr} is a matrix of transition from the ``permutation'' to the ``splitting'' basis. \par Actually there is no necessity to compute transformation matrices like \Math{\transmatr} in \eqref{decoico} explicitly. There is a way \cite{KornyakPEPAN} to express invariant scalar products in invariant subspaces in terms of easily computable matrices of \emph{orbitals} \cite{Cameron,Dixon}, i.e., orbits of the action of a group \Math{\wG} on the Cartesian product \Math{\wS\times\wS}. \par For the action of \Math{\AltG{5}} on the set of icosahedron vertices, the matrices of orbitals have the form \MathEqLab{\baseform{1}=\idmat_{12},~ \baseform{2}=\Mtwo{0}{\idmat_{6}}{\idmat_{6}}{0},~\baseform{3}=\Mtwo{X}{Y}{Y}{X},~\baseform{4}=\Mtwo{Y}{X}{X}{Y},}{orbitals} where \Math{\idmat_n} is \Math{n\times{}n} identity matrix, and \MathEq{ X= \bmat 0&1&1&1&1&1\\ 1&0&1&0&0&1\\ 1&1&0&1&0&0\\ 1&0&1&0&1&0\\ 1&0&0&1&0&1\\ 1&1&0&0&1&0 \emat,~ Y= \bmat 0&0&0&0&0&0\\ 0&0&0&1&1&0\\ 0&0&0&0&1&1\\ 0&1&0&0&0&1\\ 0&1&1&0&0&0\\ 0&0&1&1&0&0 \emat. } In terms of matrices \eqref{orbitals} the invariant bilinear forms (scalar products) corresponding to decomposition \eqref{decoico} take the form \begin{align*}\cmath{} \bornform{\IrrRep{1}} =&\cmath{} \frac{1}{12}\vect{\baseform{1}+\baseform{2}+\baseform{3}+\baseform{4}}, \\\cmath{} \bornform{\IrrRep{3}} =&\cmath{} \frac{1}{4}\vect{\baseform{1}-\baseform{2}-\frac{1+2\runi{}^2+2\runi{}^3}{5}\baseform{3}+\frac{1+2\runi{}^2+2\runi{}^3}{5}\baseform{4}}, \\\cmath{} \bornform{\IrrRep{3'}} =&\cmath{} \frac{1}{4}\vect{\baseform{1}-\baseform{2}+\frac{1+2\runi{}^2+2\runi{}^3}{5}\baseform{3}-\frac{1+2\runi{}^2+2\runi{}^3}{5}\baseform{4}}, \\\cmath{} \bornform{\IrrRep{5}} =&\cmath{} \frac{5}{12}\vect{\baseform{1}+\baseform{2}-\frac{1}{5}\baseform{3}-\frac{1}{5}\baseform{4}}, \end{align*} where \Math{\runi{}} is a 5th primitive root of unity. It is easy to verify that the cyclotomic integer \Math{1+2\runi{}^2+2\runi{}^3} is equal to \Math{-\sqrt{5}}. \par Let us consider the scalar products of projections of ``natural'' vectors. If projections of vectors with natural components \Math{{m}=\vect{m_1,\ldots,m_{12}}^T} and \Math{n=\vect{n_1,\ldots,n_{12}}^T} onto the invariant subspaces corresponding to \Math{\alpha=\IrrRep{1}, \IrrRep{3}, \IrrRep{3'}, \IrrRep{5}} are \Math{\Phi_\alpha} and \Math{\Psi_\alpha}, respectively, then \Math{\inner{\Phi_\alpha\!}{\!\Psi_{\alpha}}= \innerform{m}{\bornform{\alpha}}{n}}. That is, we have \begin{align}\cmath{} \inner{\Phi_{\IrrRep{1}}}{\Psi_{\IrrRep{1}}}&\cmath{}=\frac{1}{12}\Bigl(\innerform{m\!}{\baseform{1}}{\!n}\!+\!\innerform{m\!}{\baseform{2}}{\!n}\!+\!\innerform{m\!}{\baseform{3}}{\!n}\!+\!\innerform{m\!}{\baseform{4}}{\!n}\Bigr),\label{prod1} \\\cmath{} \inner{\Phi_{\IrrRep{3}}}{\Psi_{\IrrRep{3}}}&\cmath{}=\frac{1}{4}\vect{\innerform{m\!}{\baseform{1}}{\!n}\!-\!\innerform{m\!}{\baseform{2}}{\!n}\!+\!\frac{\sqrt{5}}{5}\Bigl(\innerform{m\!}{\baseform{3}}{\!n}\!-\!\innerform{m\!}{\baseform{4}}{\!n}\Bigr)},\nonumber \\\cmath{} \inner{\Phi_{\IrrRep{3'}}}{\Psi_{\IrrRep{3'}}\!}&\cmath{}=\frac{1}{4}\vect{\innerform{m\!}{\baseform{1}}{\!n}\!-\!\innerform{m\!}{\baseform{2}}{\!n}\!-\!\frac{\sqrt{5}}{5}\Bigl(\innerform{m\!}{\baseform{3}}{\!n}\!+\!\innerform{m\!}{\baseform{4}}{\!n}\Bigr)},\nonumber \\\cmath{} \inner{\Phi_{\IrrRep{5}}}{\Psi_{\IrrRep{5}}}&\cmath{}=\frac{5}{12}\vect{\innerform{m\!}{\baseform{1}}{\!n}\!+\!\innerform{m\!}{\baseform{2}}{\!n}\!-\!\frac{1}{5}\Bigl(\innerform{m\!}{\baseform{3}}{\!n}\!+\!\innerform{m\!}{\baseform{4}}{\!n}\Bigr)}.\nonumber \end{align} Let us give two remarks on these expressions: \begin{itemize} \item Scalar product \eqref{prod1} can be written as \MathEq{\inner{\Phi_{\IrrRep{1}}}{\Psi_{\IrrRep{1}}}=\frac{1}{12}\vect{m_1+m_2+\cdots+m_{12}}\vect{n_1+n_2+\cdots+n_{12}}.} This is the general case: any permutation representation of any group contains the trivial one-dimensional subrepresentation with the scalar product like \eqref{prod1}: \MathEq{\inner{\Phi_{\IrrRep{1}}}{\Psi_{\IrrRep{1}}}=\frac{1}{\wSN}\vect{\sum_{i=1}^{\wSN}{m_i}}\vect{\sum_{i=1}^{\wSN}{n_i}}.} The trivial subrepresentation can be interpreted as the ``counter of particles'', since the linear permutation invariant \Math{\sum_{i=1}^{\wSN}{n_i}} is the total number of elements from \Math{\wS} in the ensemble described by the vector \Math{n}. \item The Born probabilities for subrepresentations \Math{\IrrRep{3}} and \Math{\IrrRep{3'}} contain irrationalities that contradicts the frequency interpretation of probability for finite sets. Obviously, this is a consequence of the imprimitivity: one can not move an icosahedron vertex without simultaneous movement of its opposite. To resolve the contradiction, mutually conjugate subrepresentations \Math{\IrrRep{3}} and \Math{\IrrRep{3'}} must be considered together. The scalar product \MathEq{\inner{\Phi_{\IrrRep{3\oplus3'}}}{\Psi_{\IrrRep{3\oplus3'}}}=\frac{1}{2}\Bigl(\innerform{m}{\baseform{1}}{n}-\innerform{m}{\baseform{2}}{n}\Bigr)} in the six-dimensional subrepresentation \Math{\IrrRep{3}\oplus\IrrRep{3'}} always gives rational Born's probabilities for vectors of multiplicities defined as in \eqref{multvect}. \end{itemize} \subsection{Quantum evolution}\label{quantumevolution In standard quantum mechanics an elementary step of evolution is described by the Schr\"{o}dinger equation \MathEq{i\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\barket{\psi}=H\barket{\psi}.} In quantum mechanics based on a finite group \Math{\wG} a step of evolution has the form \MathEq{\barket{\psi_{t+1}}=U\barket{\psi_t},} where \Math{U=\repq\vect{g}}, \Math{g\in\wG} and \Math{\repq} is an unitary representation of \Math{\wG}. In this case, there is no need for a Hamiltonian, though, for comparison purposes, it can be introduced by the formula \MathEq{H=i\ln{}U =\pi\!\vect{\alpha_0\idmat+\alpha_1U+\cdots+\alpha_{n-1}U^{n-1}},} where \Math{\idmat} is the unit matrix; \Math{n} is the period of \Math{U}, i.e. \Math{U^n=\idmat}; \Math{\alpha_k\in\NF} are easily computable coefficients; \Math{0\leq{k}<n}. The energy levels (eigenvalues) of \Math{H} are \Math{\displaystyle{}E_k=\frac{2\pi{k}}{n}}. The non-algebraic (transcendental) number \Math{\pi} appears here as the result of summation of infinite series --- the natural logarithm is essentially an infinite construct. \par Note that a single unitary evolution is physically trivial, as it describes only a change of coordinates (``rotation'') in a Hilbert space. Namely, for the evolution of a pair of vectors \Math{\barket{\phi_T}=U\barket{\phi_0},~\barket{\psi_T}=U\barket{\psi_0}}, we have \MathEq{\inner{\phi_T\!}{\!\psi_T}=\innerform{\phi_0}{U^{\dagger}U}{\psi_0}\equiv\inner{\phi_0\!}{\!\psi_0}.} This means that a single deterministic evolution can not provide physically observable effects. Thus, a collection of different evolutions is needed. Suppose that the operators of evolution belong to a unitary representation \Math{\repq} of a group \Math{\wG}. Then two different evolutions \Math{U} and \Math{V} can be represented as \Math{U=\repq\vect{g_1g_2\cdots{}g_T}} and \Math{V=\repq\vect{f_1f_2\cdots{}f_T}}, where \Math{g_1,\cdots,g_T; f_1,\cdots,f_T\in\wG}. These evolutions provide a nontrivial physical effect if \MathEq{\inner{\phi_T\!}{\!\psi_T}=\innerform{\phi_0}{V^{\dagger}U}{\psi_0}\neq\inner{\phi_0\!}{\!\psi_0}\Longleftrightarrow{V^{\dagger}U}=\repq\vect{f_T^{-1}\cdots{}f_1^{-1}g_1\cdots{}g_T}\neq\idmat} or \MathEq{h=f_T^{-1}\cdots{}f_1^{-1}g_1\cdots{}g_T\neq\id,} where \Math{\id} is the identity of \Math{\wG}. The expression \Math{h=f_T^{-1}\cdots{}f_1^{-1}g_1\cdots{}g_T} is called the \emph{holonomy} at the point \Math{T} of principal \Math{\wG}-connection. In differential geometry, infinitesimal analogue of holonomy is called the \emph{curvature} of the corresponding connection. As is well known, all fundamental physical forces are represented in the gauge theories as curvatures of appropriate connections. \par Observations support the view that fundamental indeterminism is really the \textit{modus operandi} of nature \footnote{ There are persistent attempts to develop a deterministic version of quantum mechanics, as if determinism were a ``synthetic \textit{a priori} judgment'' --- an inevitable (though not deducible from logic alone) necessity. However, since the time of Kant up to now there are no convincing evidences of the very existence of judgments of this kind. More likely, the belief in determinism is a mental habit formed by long macroscopic experience. } In our view this indeterminism arises from a fundamental impossibility to trace the identity of indistinguishable objects during their evolution. Hermann Weyl discussed this issue in detail in \cite{Weyl}. More formally, identification of objects at different time points is provided by a {connection} ({parallel transport}). \par In our setting we consider dynamical system as a fiber bundle \Math{\vect{\FBT,\Time,\wS,\wG,\tau}} over discrete time \Math{\Time=\ordset{0,1,\ldots,T}}, where \emph{typical fiber} \Math{\wS=\set{\ws_1,\ldots,\ws_{\wSN}}} is \alert{canonical set} of states, \emph{structural group} \MathEqLab{\wG=\set{\wg_1,\ldots,\wg_m,\ldots,\wg_{\wGN}}\leq\Perm{\wS}\cong\SymG{\wSN}}{defG} is the \alert{group of symmetries} of states, \Math{\tau} is a projection \Math{\FBT\rightarrow{}\Time}. \par \alert{Connection} (\emph{parallel transport}) \Math{\mbox{\raisebox{3pt}{\Math{\Partransportt}}}_{t_1t_2}\in\wG} defines isomorphism between the fibers at different times of observations: \MathEq{\wS_{t_2}=\wS_{t_1}\mbox{\raisebox{3pt}{\Math{\Partransportt}}}_{t_1t_2}\,.} There is no objective way to choose the ``correct'' value for the connection. \textit{A priori}, any element of \Math{\wG} may serve as \Math{\mbox{\raisebox{3pt}{\Math{\Partransportt}}}_{t_1t_2}}. In continuous gauge theories, the gauge fields (fields of connections) are determined from the principle of least action using Lagrangians chosen for different reasons. For example, in the case of the Yang-Mills theory (covering also the case of Maxwell equations), the Lagrangian \Math{L_{\mathrm{YM}}=\mathrm{Tr}\left[F\wedge\star{}F\right]} is used, where \Math{F} is the curvature form of a gauge connection, \Math{\star} denotes the \emph{Hodge conjugation}. Analysis of the structure of \Math{L_{\mathrm{YM}}} in the discrete approximation \cite{Oeckl} shows that it can be expressed in terms of traces of the fundamental representation of holonomies of a gauge group. \subsection{Combinatorial models of gauge and quantum evolution}\label{combmod Consider a simple combinatorial model involving random choice of the rules for identification of states of dynamical systems at different points of time. The time of our model is the sequence \Math{\Time = \ordset{0,1,\ldots,t-1,t,\ldots,T}}. A parallel transport connecting the initial and the final time points can be decomposed into the product of elementary steps: \MathEqLab{\mbox{\raisebox{3pt}{\Math{\Partransportt}}}_{0,1}\cdots\mbox{\raisebox{3pt}{\Math{\Partransportt}}}_{t-1,t}\cdots\mbox{\raisebox{3pt}{\Math{\Partransportt}}}_{T-1,T}\,.}{connect} We assume that any elementary step is an element of group \eqref{defG} with probability independent of time: \MathEq{\Prob\vect{\mbox{\raisebox{3pt}{\Math{\Partransportt}}}_{t-1,t}=\wg_m\in\wG}=\alpha_m,~~~\sum_{m=1}^\wGN\alpha_m=1\,.} All possible paths \eqref{connect} form the set of microstates \Math{U}. The microstate corresponding to \eqref{connect} is the sequence \Math{u={\wg_{m_1},\ldots,\wg_{m_t},\ldots,\wg_{m_T}}}, where \Math{\wg_{m_t}=\mbox{\raisebox{3pt}{\Math{\Partransportt}}}_{t-1,t}.} Its probability is the product \Math{p_u=\alpha_{m_1}\cdots\alpha_{m_t}\cdots\alpha_{m_T}}. \par We can define a natural equivalence relation on \Math{U} as the triviality of the holonomy of a pair of paths: \MathEq{\mbox{\raisebox{3pt}{\Math{\Partransportt}}}_{0,1}\cdots\mbox{\raisebox{3pt}{\Math{\Partransportt}}}_{T-1,T}\sim\mbox{\raisebox{3pt}{\Math{\gamma}}}_{0,1}\cdots\mbox{\raisebox{3pt}{\Math{\gamma}}}_{T-1,T}\Longleftrightarrow \mbox{\raisebox{3pt}{\Math{\gamma}}}_{T-1,T}^{-1}\cdots\mbox{\raisebox{3pt}{\Math{\gamma}}}_{0,1}^{-1}\mbox{\raisebox{3pt}{\Math{\Partransportt}}}_{0,1}\cdots\mbox{\raisebox{3pt}{\Math{\Partransportt}}}_{T-1,T}=\id\,.} This equivalence allows us to define \Math{\wGN} macrostates \Math{\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_\wGN}. Statistical evolution of all the macrostates can be calculated simultaneously by a simple algorithm. The distribution of the macrostates at the moment \Math{T} is the following element of the group algebra \MathEq{A_T\equiv{}P_{\lambda_1}\wg_1+P_{\lambda_2}\wg_2+\cdots+P_{\lambda_\wGN}\wg_\wGN=\vect{\alpha_1\wg_1+\alpha_2\wg_2+\cdots+\alpha_\wGN\wg_\wGN}^T.} The algorithm of \emph{binary exponentiation} computes this expression by performing \Math{O\vect{\log{T}}} multiplications. In simple cases the probabilities \Math{P_{\lambda_m}} can be written explicitly, e.g., for the cyclic group \Math{\wG=\CyclG{\wGN}} we have (assuming \Math{\wg_1=\id}) \MathEq{P_{\lambda_m}=\sum_{\substack{k_1+k_2+\cdots+k_{\wGN}=T\\ k_2+2k_3+\cdots+\vect{\wGN-1}k_{\wGN}\,\equiv\,{m}\pmod{\wGN}}}\frac{T!}{k_1!k_2!\cdots{k_{\wGN}!}}\alpha_1^{k_1}\alpha_2^{k_2}\cdots\alpha_{\wGN}^{k_{\wGN}}\,.} \par Having a representation \Math{\repq} of the group \Math{\wG} in a Hilbert space \Math{\Hspace} we can associate with gauge evolution \eqref{connect} the quantum evolution: \MathEq{\barket{\psi_T}=\repq\vect{\mbox{\raisebox{3pt}{\Math{\Partransportt}}}_{T-1,T}^{-1}\cdots\mbox{\raisebox{3pt}{\Math{\Partransportt}}}_{t-1,t}^{-1}\cdots\mbox{\raisebox{3pt}{\Math{\Partransportt}}}_{0,1}^{-1}}\barket{\psi_0},~~~\psi_0,\psi_T\in\Hspace\,.} \par Simulation of many important features of quantum behavior requires models involving spatial structures explicitly. The set of states of a system with space is the set of functions \MathEqLab{\wS=\lSX,}{statefunc} where \MathEq{\X=\set{\x_1,\ldots, \x_\XN}} is a \emph{space}, and \MathEq{\lS=\set{\ls_1,\ldots,\ls_\lSN}} is a set of \emph{local states}. Having the groups of \emph{spatial} \MathEq{\sG=\set{\sg_1,\ldots,\sg_\sGN}\leq\Perm{\X}} and \emph{internal} \MathEq{\iG=\set{\ig_1,\ldots, \ig_\iGN}\leq\Perm{\lS}} symmetries we can construct a symmetry group of the whole system . This group, having a structure of the \emph{wreath product} \MathEq{\wG=\iG\wr_\X\sG\cong\iGX\rtimes\sG,} acts on the set \Math{\wS} given by formula \eqref{statefunc}. \par It is worth to say a few words about the most common quantum models with spatial structures: \emph{quantum cellular automata} \cite{McDonald} and \emph{quantum walks} \cite{QWalk}. It is proved that models of both types are able to perform any quantum computation, i.e., they can simulate quantum Turing machines. \par The Hilbert space of a \textbf{quantum cellular automaton} has the form \MathEq{\Hspace=\Hspace_{\lS}^{\otimes\X},} where \Math{\X} is usually a \Math{d}-dimensional lattice: \Math{\Z^d} or its finite counterpart \Math{\Z_N^d} (one can also take an arbitrary regular graph as a lattice \Math{\X}); \Math{\Hspace_{\lS}} is a Hilbert space associated with a set \Math{\lS} of local states of sites \Math{x\in\X}. It is assumed that there is a local update rule \Math{U_x}, which is a unitary operator acting on the Hilbert space \Math{\Hspace_{\lS}^{\otimes\mathcal{N}_x}}, where \Math{\mathcal{N}_x} is a neighborhood of the point \Math{x}. Since the neighborhoods of different points may intersect, some effort should be made to ensure global unitary. To provide the required compatibility several different definitions of quantum cellular automata were proposed. For properly defined automaton the local updates can be combined into a unitary operator \Math{U} on \Math{\Hspace} that describes an elementary step of evolution of the whole system. Then the evolution of the system is defined by the operator \Math{U^T}. \par The spatial structure in a model of \textbf{quantum walk} is a \Math{k}-regular graph \Math{\X}. In the most usual case \Math{k=2}, the space \Math{\X} is taken to be either \Math{\Z} or \Math{\Z_N}. Let \Math{\Hspace_\X} be the Hilbert space spanned by the vertices of \Math{\X}. The construction of a quantum walk uses also an auxiliary \Math{k}-dimensional Hilbert space \Math{\Hspace_C}, the ``coin space'', and a fixed unitary ``coin operator'' \Math{C} acting on \Math{\Hspace_C}. A typical coin operator in the case \Math{k>2} is the \emph{Grover coin} (\emph{Grover's diffusion operator}): \MathEq{G=2\barket{\psi}\brabar{\psi}-\idmat_k,~~~\text{\color{black}where}~~ \barket{\psi}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{k}}\Vthree{1}{\vdots}{1}.} In the case of one-dimensional quantum walk (\Math{k=2}) many different one-qubit gates, like the \emph{Hadamard gate} etc., are used. In particular, the Grover coin \Math{G} coincides with the \emph{Pauli-X gate} at \Math{k=2}. The Hilbert space of the whole system is the product \MathEq{\Hspace=\Hspace_\X\otimes\Hspace_C.} Roughly speaking, the coin operator \Math{C} ``selects directions of spatial shifts''. The spatial shifts are performed by an unitary \emph{shift operator} \Math{S} acting on \Math{\Hspace_\X} at conditions given by the coin \Math{C}. \Math{T} steps of evolution of the system are performed by the transformation \Math{U^T}, where \Math{U} is the following combination of the coin and shift operators \MathEq{U=S\vect{\idmat_k\otimes{}C}.} \section{Summary} Starting with the idea that any problem that has a meaningful empirical content can be formulated in constructive finite terms, we consider the possibility of derivation of many important elements of physical theories in the framework of discrete combinatorial models. We show that such concepts as continuous symmetries, the principle of least action, Lagrangians, deterministic evolution equations can be obtained by applying the large number approximation to expressions for sizes of certain equivalence classes of combinatorial structures. \par We adhere to the view that quantum behavior can be explained by the fundamental impossibility to trace identity of indistinguishable objects in the process of their evolution. Gauge connection is that structure which provides the identity: that is why the gauge fields are so important in quantum theory. \par Using general mathematical arguments we show that any quantum problem can be reduced to permutations. Quantum interferences are phenomena observed in invariant subspaces of permutation representations and expressed in terms of permutation invariants. In particular, this approach gives an immediate explanation for the appearance of complex numbers and unitarity in the formalism of quantum theory. \par We consider some approaches to the construction of discrete models of quantum behavior and related models describing evolution of gauge connections. \Acknowledgements{I am grateful to A.Yu.\,Blinkov, V.P.\,Gerdt, A.M.\,Ishkhanyan and S.I.\,Vinitsky for many insightful discussions and comments.}
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:introduction} Whether or not the laws of quantum mechanics are universally valid and hold on the level of macroscopic objects, is still an open question in the physics community. Some believe that the issue will be settled in favor of quantum theory by the experimental demonstration of Schr\"odinger cat-like states \cite{Schrodinger:1935kq}. Others hold that some physical mechanism, altering the laws of quantum mechanics \cite{Ghirardi:1986ep, Diosi:1989cv, Penrose:1998ek}, guarantees a fully classical world on the macroscopic level. In 1985, Leggett and Garg \cite{Leggett:1985bl} have put forward macroscopic realism (or macrorealism), a world view encompassing all physical theories which enforce that macroscopic properties of macroscopic objects exist independently of and are not influenced by measurement. While setups such as superconducting devices, heavy molecules, and quantum-optical systems are promising candidates in the race towards an experimental violation of macrorealism, non-classical effects have so far only been observed for microscopic objects or microscopic properties of larger objects \cite{Friedman:2000gs, Julsgaard:2001by, PalaciosLaloy:2010ih, Gerlich:2011go, Dressel:2011hh, Goggin:2011iw, Fedrizzi:2011ji, Waldherr:2011km, Knee:2012cg, Lvovsky:2013gh, Sekatski:2014kc, Ghobadi:2014eq, Asadian:2014fw, Robens:2015ba}. However, a genuine violation of macroscopic realism---with its reference to macroscopically distinct states---requires using solely measurements of macroscopically coarse-grained observables. Note that there are several approaches to quantifying the ``macroscopicity'' of quantum states and measurements \cite{Dur:2002fr, Korsbakken:2007bc, Lee:2011gi, Nimmrichter:2013gc, Mraz:2014jg, Jeong:2015gp, Laghaout:2015kt, Frowis:2015iq}. It is also known that usually the restriction to such coarse-grained (``classical'') measurements alone already leads to the emergence of classicality \cite{Kofler:2007bd}, unless a certain type of (``non-classical'') Hamiltonian is governing the object's time evolution \cite{Kofler:2008dz}. Recent investigations have confirmed the intuition that these Hamiltonians are hard to engineer and require a very high control precision in the experimental setup \cite{Wang:2013ir, Jeong:2014hw, Sekatski:2014ej}. A quantum violation of macrorealism (MR) is usually witnessed by the violation of a Leggett-Garg inequality (LGI), which is composed of temporal correlations between sequential measurements of an object undergoing time evolution. Recently, following earlier works \cite{Kofler:2008dz, Clifton:1991ta, Foster:1991jz, Benatti:1994fy}, another necessary condition for MR called no-signaling in time (NSIT) was proposed \cite{Kofler:2013hb}. It can be regarded as a statistical version of the non-invasive measurability postulate. In \cref{sec:nim}, we start with the discussion of various instances of NSIT and show that in the correct combination they form a sufficient condition for a macrorealistic description (at a given set of possible measurement times). We also demonstrate that it is impossible to establish such a sufficient condition for a macrorealistic description by combining LGIs involving two-time measurements. Subsequently, in \cref{sec:nsit}, we derive an operational condition for NSIT, based on (projective and non-projective) measurement operators and the system Hamiltonian. In \cref{sec:classicality}, we use these results to define the classicality of measurements based on a reference set of a-priori classical operators and to characterize the classicality of Hamiltonians. Finally, in \cref{sec:examples}, we apply our formalism to measurements of coherent states, quadratures, and Fock states, and quantify their invasiveness as a function of their coarse-graining. \section{Non-invasive measurements} \label{sec:nim} Let us start with the definition of macrorealism, consisting of the following postulates \cite{Leggett:2002dk}: ``(1) \emph{Macrorealism per se}. A macroscopic object which has available to it two or more macroscopically distinct states is at any given time in a definite one of those states. (2) \emph{Non-invasive measurability}. It is possible in principle to determine which of these states the system is in without any effect on the state itself or on the subsequent system dynamics. (3) \emph{Induction}. The properties of ensembles are determined exclusively by initial conditions (and in particular not by final conditions).'' In the following, we will first show that a strong reading of non-invasive measurability implies macrorealism per se (\cref{sub:mrps}). Then we will present various necessary conditions (\cref{sub:necessary-conditions}) and a set of sufficient conditions (\cref{sub:sufficient-conditions}) for a macrorealistic description. \subsection{Macrorealism per se following from strong non-invasive measurability} \label{sub:mrps} In this subsection, we assume that the state space of a macroscopic object is split into macroscopically distinct \emph{non-overlapping} states (macrostates). Consider a macro-observable $Q(t)$ with a one-to-one mapping between its values and the macrostates. Further consider measurements of the macro-observable that enforce a definite post-measurement macrostate and report the corresponding value as the outcome. Macrorealism per se (MRps) is fulfilled if $Q(t)$ has a definite value at all times $t$, prior to and independent of measurement: \begin{equation}\label{eq:mrps} \forall t\!: \exists ~\text{definite}~ Q(t). \end{equation} Probabilistic predictions for $Q(t)$ are merely due to ignorance of the observer. Even in cases where $Q(t)$ evolves unpredictably (e.g.\ in classical chaos) or even indeterministically, it is still assumed to have a definite value at all times. On top of MRps, the assumption of non-invasive measurability (NIM) in principle allows a measurement at every instant of time, revealing the macrostate without disturbance. NIM guarantees that \begin{equation}\label{eq:nim-hidden} \forall t\!: Q(t) = Q_H(t), \end{equation} where $H$ denotes the history of past non-invasive measurements on the system: In order for measurements to be non-invasive, the time evolution of $Q$ must not depend on the history of the experiment \footnote{Let us now assume the existence of hidden parameters $\lambda(t)$ that define all physical properties. MRps is fulfilled if the macro-observable is a deterministic function $Q = Q(\lambda(t))$. There are two conceivable scenarios: (i) \emph{Deterministic time evolution} of $\lambda$, causing deterministic time evolution of the macro-observable $Q(\lambda(t))$. (ii) \emph{Stochastic time evolution} of $\lambda$, where some intrinsic randomness generates random jumps in $\lambda$. We still have a deterministic dependency $Q(\lambda)$, but $Q(\lambda(t))$ \emph{appears} stochastic. In both cases MRps is fulfilled, since the system is in a single macrostate, as described by $Q = Q(\lambda(t))$, at all times. The condition for NIM then reads $Q(\lambda(t)) = Q(\lambda_H(t))$, where $\lambda_H(t)$ are the hidden parameters after a history $H$ of non-invasive measurements.}. Note that all non-invasive measurements are repeatable, i.e.\ when performing the same measurement immediately again, the same outcome is obtained with probability 1. In the literature, NIM is often treated as a necessary condition for macrorealism per se. It is argued that NIM is ``so natural a corollary of [MRps] that the latter is virtually meaningless in its absence'' \cite{Leggett:2002dk}. As some others before \cite{Kofler:2013hb, Bacciagaluppi:2014ue, Maroney:2014ws-arxiv}, we do not adhere to this position. A counter example to the statement $\text{MRps} \Rightarrow \text{NIM}$ is given by the de Broglie--Bohm theory, where measurements are invasive, as they affect the guiding field and thus the subsequent (position) state, but MRps is fulfilled, as the (position) state is well-defined at all times. In fact, we now argue that there exist two different ways of reading the postulate of NIM in \cite{Leggett:2002dk}: \begin{itemize} \item \emph{Weak NIM}. Given a macroscopic object is in a definite one of its macrostates, it is possible to determine this state without any effect on the state itself or on the subsequent system dynamics. \item \emph{Strong NIM (sNIM)}. It is always possible to measure the macrostate of an object without any effect on the state itself or on the subsequent system dynamics. \end{itemize} Let us now argue that sNIM actually implies MRps. Assuming sNIM, a hypothetical non-invasive measurement can be performed at every instant of time, determining the value of the macro-observable $Q$. Due to its non-invasive nature, $Q$ must have had a definite value already before the measurement. This ensures that $Q$ has a definite value at all times, giving rise to a ``trajectory'' $Q(t)$. Therefore, \begin{equation}\label{eq:nim-mrps} \text{sNIM} \Rightarrow \text{MRps}. \end{equation} Another way of establishing this implication is the following: Assume that MRps fails, i.e.\ the object is not in a definite macrostate. A measurement leaves the object in a definite macrostate, creating a definite state out of an indefinite one, and therefore does not satisfy sNIM. We thus have $\lnot \text{MRps} \Rightarrow \lnot \text{sNIM}$, which is equivalent to \eqref{eq:nim-mrps}. Note that \eqref{eq:nim-mrps} holds even if sNIM is made less stringent, allowing measurements to change the subsequent time evolution, while still determining the macrostate. In this paper, we implicitly assume induction (the arrow of time) \cite{Leggett:2002dk} and freedom of choice concerning the initial states and measurement times (including whether a measurement takes place at all). Then, sNIM alone is sufficient for macrorealism, and by extension, for testable conditions such as the Leggett-Garg inequalities or no-signaling in time \cite{Kofler:2013hb}: \begin{equation} \text{sNIM} \Leftrightarrow \text{MRps} \land \text{NIM} \Leftrightarrow \text{MR} \Rightarrow \text{LGI, NSIT}. \end{equation} Let us remark that NIM is in general not as strongly physically motivated as the assumption of locality in Bell's theorem. The so-called ``clumsiness loophole'' allows violations of NIM to be attributed to imperfections of the measurement apparatus instead of genuine quantum effects. This loophole can be addressed using ideal negative measurements \cite{Leggett:1985bl} or more involved protocols \cite{Wilde:2011ip}. \subsection{Necessary conditions for macrorealism} \label{sub:necessary-conditions} The relationship between LGI and NSIT has previously been discussed in the literature for a number of example systems \cite{Kofler:2008dz, Saha:2014un-arxiv, Kofler:2013hb, Maroney:2014ws-arxiv}. Here we consider the archetypal setup depicted in \cref{fig:lgi-nsit}: A system starting in the initial state $\hat \rho_0$ evolves under unitary $\hat U_{01}$ from $t_0$ to $t_1$, and under unitary $\hat U_{12}$ from $t_1$ to $t_2$. During the evolution, dichotomic measurements may be performed at times $t_i$ for $i \in \lbrace 0, 1, 2 \rbrace$. Let us call the outcomes of these measurements $Q_i \in \lbrace -1, +1 \rbrace$, and define the correlations $C_{ij} = \langle Q_i Q_j \rangle$. Then, the simplest LGI reads \begin{equation}\label{eq:lgi} \text{LGI}_{012}\!: C_{01} + C_{12} - C_{02} \leq 1. \end{equation} There exist many other Leggett-Garg inequalities involving more than three possible measurement times or more than two outcomes (for a recent review see \cite{Emary:2014ck}). Quantum mechanical experiments are able to violate ineq.\ \eqref{eq:lgi} up to $1.5$ for a qubit and, as shown in \cite{Budroni:2014fc}, up to the algebraic maximum $3$ for higher-dimensional systems still using dichotomic measurements $Q_i = \pm 1$. \begin{figure}[t] \begin{tikzpicture} \draw [thick, ->] (-3, 0) -- (3, 0); \node[right] at (3, 0) {$t$}; \node at (-2, -0.4) {$t_0$}; \node at (0, -0.4) {$t_1$}; \node at (2, -0.4) {$t_2$}; \draw (-2, 0.1) -- (-2, -0.1); \draw (0, 0.1) -- (0, -0.1); \draw (2, 0.1) -- (2, -0.1); \node[anchor=base] at (-1, 0.3) {$\hat U_{01}$}; \node[anchor=base] at (1, 0.3) {$\hat U_{12}$}; \node[anchor=base] at (-2.2, 0.3) {$\hat \rho_0$}; \newcommand{\tCondOverTime}[5]{ \node[left] at (-3, -1-0.5*#1) {#5}; \draw [->] (-3, -1-0.5*#1) -- (3, -1-0.5*#1); \ifx&#2&\else\draw [fill=#2] (-2, -1-0.5*#1) circle [radius=0.07];\fi \ifx&#3&\else\draw [fill=#3] (0, -1-0.5*#1) circle [radius=0.07];\fi \ifx&#4&\else\draw [fill=#4] (2, -1-0.5*#1) circle [radius=0.07];\fi } \tCondOverTime{0}{lightgray}{lightgray}{lightgray}{LGI$_{012}$} \tCondOverTime{1}{white}{black}{}{NSIT$_{(0)1}$} \tCondOverTime{2}{}{white}{black}{NSIT$_{(1)2}$} \tCondOverTime{3}{white}{}{black}{NSIT$_{(0)2}$} \tCondOverTime{4}{black}{white}{black}{NSIT$_{0(1)2}$} \tCondOverTime{5}{white}{black}{black}{NSIT$_{(0)12}$} \tCondOverTime{6}{black}{white}{black}{NIC$_{0(1)2}$} \end{tikzpicture} \caption{\label{fig:lgi-nsit}Different necessary conditions for MR in a system with possible measurements at three points in time. Black filled circles denote measurements that always take place, white filled circles measurements that may or may not be performed. A pair of measurements is always performed for the LGI, shown with gray filled circles.} \end{figure} On the other hand, NSIT$_{(i)j}$ is a statistical version of \cref{eq:nim-hidden}, requiring that the outcome probabilities $P_j(Q_j)$ of result $Q_j$ measured at time $t_j$ are the same, no matter whether or not a measurement was performed at some earlier time $t_i < t_j$: \begin{equation} \label{eq:NSIT}\text{NSIT}_{(i)j}\!: P_j(Q_j) = P_{ij}(Q_j) \equiv \sum_{Q_i'} P_{ij}(Q_i', Q_j). \end{equation} Note that the probability distributions on both sides of the equation, $P_{i}$ and $P_{ij}$, correspond to \emph{different} physical experiments: While $P_j$ is established by measuring only at $t_j$, $P_{ij}$ is obtained by measuring both at $t_i$ and $t_j$. Unlike in the LGI in \eqref{eq:lgi}, one is not limited to only two outcomes. If it is the later measurement at $t_j$ which may or may not be performed, NSIT$_{i(j)}$ is an instance of the arrow of time and is therefore fulfilled by both macrorealism and quantum mechanics. While NSIT$_{(1)2}$ is a promising condition that is usually able to detect violations of MR more reliably than LGI$_{012}$ \cite{Kofler:2013hb, Saha:2014un-arxiv}, it fails for particular initial states, where the invasiveness is able to ``hide'' in the statistics of the experiment (see the discussion below). We can however make NSIT$_{(1)2}$ robust against such cases, by always performing a measurement at $t_0$. We call the resulting condition \begin{equation} \begin{split} \text{NSIT}_{0(1)2}\!: P_{02}(Q_0, Q_2) &= P_{012}(Q_0, Q_2) \\ &\equiv \sum_{Q_1'} P_{012}(Q_0, Q_1', Q_2). \end{split} \end{equation} NSIT$_{0(1)2}$ alone is not sufficient for LGI$_{012}$. Hence, we also introduce the condition \begin{equation} \begin{split} \text{NSIT}_{(0)12}\!: P_{12}(Q_1, Q_2) &= P_{012}(Q_1, Q_2) \\ &\equiv \sum_{Q_0'} P_{012}(Q_0', Q_1, Q_2). \end{split} \end{equation} As was recently shown in \cite{Maroney:2014ws-arxiv}, a combination of NSIT$_{(0)12}$, NSIT$_{0(1)2}$ and the arrow of time (AoT) is sufficient for LGI$_{012}$: \begin{equation}\label{eq:nsit-lgi} \text{NSIT}_{0(1)2} \land \text{NSIT}_{(0)12} \land \text{AoT} \Rightarrow \text{LGI}_{012}. \end{equation} The inverse is not true, and moreover the left-hand side is not sufficient for macrorealism (see discussion below). We further remark that one can also write a condition similar to NSIT$_{0(1)2}$ in a more intuitive form that we call non-invaded correlations (NIC), \begin{equation} \text{NIC}_{0(1)2}\!: C_{02} = C_{02|1}, \end{equation} where $C_{02|1}$ denotes the correlation $\langle Q_0 Q_2 \rangle$ given that an additional measurement was performed at $t_1$. It is shown in \cref{appendix:nsit-nic} that NIC$_{0(1)2}$ follows from NSIT$_{0(1)2}$. Fig.\ \ref{fig:lgi-nsit} presents a graphical summary of the conditions that have been discussed in this section. \subsection{NSITs as sufficient conditions for macrorealism} \label{sub:sufficient-conditions} In the following, we will show that the combination of various NSIT conditions and the arrow of time (AoT) guarantees the existence of a unique global probability distribution $P_{012}(Q_0, Q_1, Q_2)$, which is equivalent to macrorealism evaluated at $t_0, t_1, t_2$. Let us start by writing all single-measurement probabilities in terms of $P_{012}$. Once again, note that joint probabilities $P$ with different subscripts correspond to different experimental setups (e.g.\ $P_2(Q_2)$ is obtained by measuring only at $t_2$, while $P_{12}(Q_1, Q_2)$ is obtained by measuring at times $t_1$ and $t_2$): \begin{equation}\label{eq:mr-p2} P_2(Q_2) = \sum_{Q_1'} P_{12}(Q_1', Q_2) = \sum_{Q_0'} \sum_{Q_1'} P_{012}(Q_0', Q_1', Q_2), \end{equation} where we have used NSIT$_{(1)2}$ for the first equality and NSIT$_{(0)12}$ for the second one. Furthermore, \begin{equation}\label{eq:mr-p1} P_1(Q_1) = \sum_{Q_2'} P_{12}(Q_1, Q_2') = \sum_{Q_0'} \sum_{Q_2'} P_{012}(Q_0', Q_1, Q_2'), \end{equation} where for the first equality we assumed AoT [i.e.\ $Q_i$ are (statistically) independent of $Q_j$ for $j>i$], and NSIT$_{(0)12}$ for the second one. Moreover, we see that \begin{equation} P_0(Q_0) = \sum_{Q_1'} \sum_{Q_2'} P_{012}(Q_0, Q_1', Q_2'), \end{equation} where AoT was used twice. Next, the pairwise joint probability functions can be constructed: \begin{equation} P_{01}(Q_0, Q_1) = \sum_{Q_2'} P_{012}(Q_0, Q_1, Q_2') \end{equation} follows from AoT\@. Using NSIT$_{0(1)2}$ one obtains \begin{equation} P_{02}(Q_0, Q_2) = \sum_{Q_1'} P_{012}(Q_0, Q_1', Q_2). \end{equation} Finally, using NSIT$_{(0)12}$, we obtain \begin{equation} P_{12}(Q_1, Q_2) = \sum_{Q_0'} P_{012}(Q_0', Q_1, Q_2). \end{equation} \begin{figure}[t] \begin{tikzpicture}[xscale=1.2] \def\dy{-0.45} \def\ady{-0.25} \def\tdy{-0.1} \def\adx{0.1} \draw [decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=05pt}] (1, 0.3) -- (3, 0.3); \node at (2, 0.7) {\scriptsize LGI$_{012}$}; \node at (0, 0) {$P_{012}$}; \node at (1, 0) {$P_{01}$}; \node at (2, 0) {$P_{02}$}; \node at (3, 0) {$P_{12}$}; \node at (4, 0) {$P_0$}; \node at (5, 0) {$P_1$}; \node at (6, 0) {$P_2$}; \newcommand{\condArrow}[5][black]{% \draw[thick,<->,color=#1] (#2+0.1, #4*\dy) -- (#2+0.1, #4*\dy+\ady) -- (#3-0.1, #4*\dy+\ady) -- (#3-0.1, #4*\dy); \node[color=#1] at (#2/2+#3/2, #4*\dy+\tdy) {\scriptsize #5}; } \condArrow{0}{1}{1}{AoT} \condArrow{1}{4}{1}{AoT} \condArrow{3}{5}{2}{AoT} \condArrow[niceblue,densely dotted]{2}{4}{3}{AoT} \condArrow{0}{2}{4}{NSIT$_{0(1)2}$} \condArrow{0}{3}{5}{NSIT$_{(0)12}$} \condArrow{3}{6}{6}{NSIT$_{(1)2}$} \condArrow[niceblue,densely dotted]{2}{6}{7}{NSIT$_{(0)2}$} \condArrow[niceblue,densely dotted]{1}{5}{8}{NSIT$_{(0)1}$} \end{tikzpicture} \caption{\label{fig:mr}(Color online) Different combinations of NSIT and AoT conditions are sufficient for guaranteeing that all probability distributions $P_i, P_{ij}$ are the marginals of a unique global probability distribution $P_{012}$. There are multiple ways of obtaining a sufficient set. The black arrows correspond to one particular choice, and additional conditions are printed for completeness in blue. Note that the existence of a classical explanation for the pairwise joint probabilities $P_{ij}$ is sufficient for fulfilling LGI$_{012}$, but not for MR$_{012}$.} \end{figure} We have thus shown that there exists a combination of NSIT conditions, whose fulfillment guarantees that all probability distributions in any experiment can be written as the marginals of a unique global probability distribution $P_{012}(Q_0, Q_1, Q_2)$. This is equivalent to the existence of a macrorealistic model for measurements at times $t_0, t_1, t_2$ (MR$_{012}$). Note that while MR$_{012}$ cannot prove the world view of MR in general, it implies that no experimental procedure (with measurements at $t_0, t_1, t_2$) can detect a violation of MR\@. Let us now write a \emph{necessary and sufficient} condition for MR$_{012}$, \begin{equation}\label{eq:mr012} \text{NSIT}_{(1)2} \land \text{NSIT}_{0(1)2} \land \text{NSIT}_{(0)12} \land \text{AoT} \Leftrightarrow \text{MR}_{012}. \end{equation} This set of conditions is not unique: We can e.g.\ substitute NSIT$_{(1)2}$ by NSIT$_{(0)2}$, as can easily be seen from a graphical representation of all conditions in \cref{fig:mr}. We remark that even the combination of all two-time NSIT conditions, $\text{NSIT}_{(0)1} \land \text{NSIT}_{(1)2} \land \text{NSIT}_{(0)2}$, is sufficient neither for MR$_{012}$ nor for LGI$_{012}$. Note that LGIs only test for non-classicalities of the pairwise joint probability distributions. A smaller set of conditions is therefore sufficient for fulfilling all LGIs using two-time correlation functions or probabilities [such as ineq.\ \eqref{eq:lgi} or the so-called Wigner LGIs \cite{Saha:2014un-arxiv}], see expression \eqref{eq:nsit-lgi}. To illustrate these conditions for a qubit, in \cref{table:qubit} we show the individual conditions evaluated for a Mach-Zehnder setup (reflectivities $R_1, R_2$, phase plate $\varphi$ in one arm) with arbitrary initial state and time evolution. The three possible measurements are which-path measurements before the first beam splitter ($t_0$), between the two beamsplitters ($t_1$), and after the second beamsplitter ($t_2$), respectively. We can easily find cases where LGI$_{012}$ is always fulfilled, but various NSIT conditions still witness a violation of MR, e.g.\ for $R_1 = R_2 = 1/2, \varphi \neq (n+1/2)\pi$. As discussed above, it is possible for LGI$_{012}$ to be violated with NSIT$_{(1)2}$ fulfilled, e.g.\ for $R_1=1/4, R_2=3/4, q=1/2, \varphi=\pi$. For mixed initial states, NSIT$_{0(1)2}$ reduces to the condition $\varphi = (n+1/2) \pi$ with $n \in \mathbb N_0$ and is sufficient for MR$_{012}$, as no interference is possible in this case. For general superposition states, NSIT$_{(0)12}$ can be violated with NSIT$_{0(1)2}$ fulfilled. Moreover, NSIT conditions still allow detecting violations of MR if $R_1 = 0,1$ or $R_2 = 0,1$. \begin{table*}[t] \newcommand{\checkmark}{\checkmark} \renewcommand*{\arraystretch}{1.4} \begin{ruledtabular} \begin{tabular}{ll|c|c|c|c} & & LGI$_{012}$ & NSIT$_{(1)2}$ & NSIT$_{0(1)2}$ & NSIT$_{(0)12}$ \\\hline $\hat \rho_\text{mix}\!:$ & $R_1 = R_2 = \frac{1}{2}$ & \checkmark & $q = \frac{1}{2}$ or $\varphi = (n+\frac{1}{2}) \pi$ & $\varphi = (n+\frac{1}{2}) \pi$ & \checkmark \\ & $R_1 = \frac{1}{4}, R_2 = \frac{3}{4}$ & $1 + 3 \cos \varphi \geq 0$ & $q = \frac{1}{2}$ or $\varphi = (n+\frac{1}{2}) \pi$ & $\varphi = (n+\frac{1}{2}) \pi$ & \checkmark \\ & $R_1, R_2$ & $R_1 + \alpha \cos \varphi - R_1 R_2 \geq 0$ & $q = \frac{1}{2}$ or $\varphi = (n+\frac{1}{2}) \pi$ or $\alpha = 0$ & $\varphi = (n+\frac{1}{2}) \pi$ or $\alpha = 0$ & \checkmark \\ \hline $\hat \rho_\text{sup}\!:$ & $R_1 = R_2 = \frac{1}{2}$ & \checkmark & $2 q \cos\varphi = \cos\varphi + 2 \operatorname{Re}(c) \sin \varphi$ & $\varphi = (n+\frac{1}{2}) \pi$ & $c \in \mathbb R$ \\ & $R_1 = \frac{1}{4}, R_2 = \frac{3}{4}$ & $1 + 3 \cos \varphi \geq 0$ & $[\ast]$ & $\varphi = (n+\frac{1}{2}) \pi$ & $c \in \mathbb R$ \\ & $R_1, R_2$ & $R_1 + \alpha \cos \varphi - R_1 R_2 \geq 0$ & $[\ast\ast]$ & $\varphi = (n+\frac{1}{2}) \pi$ or $\alpha = 0$ & $c \in \mathbb R$ or $R_1 = 0,1$ \end{tabular} \end{ruledtabular} \caption[]{\label{table:qubit}Different necessary conditions for macrorealism evaluated for a Mach-Zehnder (qubit) experiment \cite{Reck:1994dz}. The reflectivity of the first beamsplitter is $R_1$, and of the second one is $R_2$. In one path of the interferometer, a phase $\varphi$ is added. Which-path measurements may be performed before, between and after the beamsplitters. The initial states are $\hat \rho_\text{mix} = \left(\begin{smallmatrix}q&0\\0&1-q\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ and $\hat \rho_\text{sup} = \left(\begin{smallmatrix}q&c\\c^\ast&1-q\end{smallmatrix}\right)$. The symbol ``\checkmark'' means that the condition holds for all values of the free parameters. For brevity, $\alpha \equiv \sqrt{R_1 R_2 (1-R_1) (1-R_2)}$. Equation $[\ast]$ reads $(2 i \sqrt{3} c+6 q-3) \cos \varphi -2 i \sqrt{3} \operatorname{Re}(c) (\cos \varphi -2 i \sin \varphi )=0$, equation $[\ast\ast]$ reads $\cos \varphi [(2 q-1) \alpha +i c (1-2 R_1) \sqrt{-(R_2-1) R_2}]+i \sqrt{-(R_2-1) R_2} \operatorname{Re}(c) [(2 R_1-1) \cos \varphi +i \sin \varphi ]=0$. See main text for discussion.} \end{table*} \section{NSIT for quantum measurements} \label{sec:nsit} In the following, we will look at NSIT$_{(0)T}$ in an archetypal quantum experiment. A system has been prepared at $t = 0$ in an initial state $\hat \rho_0$. Then, at $t = 0$, a POVM $\lbrace \hat A_a^\dagger \hat A_a \rbrace_a$ with outcomes $a$ is carried out. After the measurement, the system evolves according to a unitary $\hat U = e^{-i \hat H t}$. At time $t = T$ a second, possibly different POVM $\lbrace\hat B_b^\dagger \hat B_b\rbrace_b$ with outcomes $b$ is performed. To determine the effect of the first measurement $\hat A_a^\dagger \hat A_a$ on the system's state and its subsequent dynamics, we will compare the results of the final measurement with a different experiment, where no measurement was performed at $t = 0$ (or, equivalently, a measurement $\hat A_a = \mathds 1$ was performed). The two setups are shown in \cref{fig:setup}. \begin{figure}[tb] \begin{tikzpicture} \draw [thick, ->] (-3, 0.5) -- (3, 0.5); \draw [thick, ->] (-3, -0.5) -- (3, -0.5); \draw [fill] (-2, 0.5) circle [radius=0.07]; \draw (-2, -0.6) -- (-2, -0.4); \node at (-2, 0) {$t = 0$}; \node at (-2, 1) {$\hat A_a$}; \draw [fill] (2, 0.5) circle [radius=0.07]; \draw [fill] (2, -0.5) circle [radius=0.07]; \node at (2, 0) {$t = T$}; \node at (2, 1) {$\hat B_b$}; \node at (2, -1) {$\hat B_b$}; \node [left] at (-3.1, -0.5) {$P_{\hat B}(b)$}; \node [left] at (-3.1, 0.5) {$P_{\hat B|\hat A}(b)$}; \node [right] at (3.1, -0.5) {$t$}; \node [right] at (3.1, 0.5) {$t$}; \node at (0, 0) {$\hat H$}; \end{tikzpicture} \caption{\label{fig:setup}A system evolves from $t = 0$ to $t = T$ under Hamiltonian $\hat H$. In the first setup measurements $\hat A_a^\dagger \hat A_a$ and $\hat B_b^\dagger \hat B_b$ are performed at $t = 0$ and $t = T$, respectively, and in the second setup only a final measurement $\hat B_b^\dagger \hat B_b$ is performed.} \end{figure} The probabilities for obtaining outcome $b$ in the second and first setup are called $P_{\hat B}(b)$ and $P_{\hat B | \hat A}(b)$, respectively. They can be calculated as \begin{align} \label{eq:P-unmeasured} P_{\hat B}(b) &= \tr ( \hat B_b \hat U_T \hat \rho_0 \hat U_T^\dagger \hat B_b^\dagger) \\ \label{eq:P-measured} P_{\hat B | \hat A}(b) &= \int \text{d} a\, \tr ( \hat B_b \hat U_T \hat A_a \hat \rho_0 \hat A_a^\dagger \hat U_T^\dagger \hat B_b^\dagger), \end{align} with the integral replaced by a sum if the number of outcomes is countable. NSIT$_{(0)T}$ is fulfilled if the test measurement has no detectable effect on the system, i.e.\ if $P_{\hat B} = P_{\hat B | \hat A}$: \begin{equation} \label{eq:NSIT-operators} \forall b\!: \tr ( \hat B_b \hat U_T \hat \rho_0 \hat U_T^\dagger \hat B_b^\dagger) = \int \text{d} a\, \tr ( \hat B_b \hat U_T \hat A_a \hat \rho_0 \hat A_a^\dagger \hat U_T^\dagger \hat B_b^\dagger). \end{equation} Note that the equality sign in \cref{eq:NSIT-operators} will often be fulfilled only approximately, even by non-invasive measurements. In practice, one can choose from a variety of error measures and corresponding reasonable error thresholds. However, to simplify notation, we will continue to use the equality sign in the following calculations. \subsection{NSIT without time evolution} \label{sub:nsit-no-time} Let us start by considering the case $T = 0$ (NSIT$_{(0)0}$), i.e.\ the final measurement is performed immediately after the test measurement. In this setup, NSIT can be regarded as a case of joint measurability, a condition previously discussed in the context of compatibility of quantum measurements \cite{Busch:1986kx, Lahti:2003iw, Son:2005bc, Ali:2009kk, Wolf:2009ik, Yu:2010ji, Heinosaari:2010jj, Banik:2013ei}. To rewrite \cref{eq:NSIT-operators} we use that $\int \text{d} a\, A_a^\dagger \hat A_a = 1$. This yields \begin{equation} P_{\hat B | \hat A}(b) - P_{\hat B}(b) = \int \text{d} a\, \tr[ (\hat A_a^\dagger \hat B_b^\dagger \hat B_b \hat A_a - \hat B_b^\dagger \hat A_a^\dagger \hat A_a \hat B_b) \hat \rho_0]. \end{equation} The trace in the above equation can be interpreted as the expectation value of the Hermitian operator $\int \text{d} a (\hat A_a^\dagger \hat B_b^\dagger \hat B_b \hat A_a - \hat B_b^\dagger \hat A_a^\dagger \hat A_a \hat B_b)$. For NSIT$_{(0)0}$ to be universally valid, we require that it is zero for \emph{all} initial states $\hat \rho_0$. Thus, the operator itself has to be zero, \begin{equation} \label{eq:nsit-operators-00} \begin{split} \forall &\hat \rho_0\!: \text{NSIT}_{(0)0} \\ &\Leftrightarrow~ \forall b\!: \int \text{d} a\, (\hat A_a^\dagger \hat B_b^\dagger \hat B_b \hat A_a - \hat B_b^\dagger \hat A_a^\dagger \hat A_a \hat B_b) = 0. \end{split} \end{equation} This equation can be further simplified to $\int \text{d} a\, \hat A_a^\dagger \hat B_b^\dagger \hat B_b \hat A_a = \hat B_b^\dagger \hat B_b$. Note that for Hermitian operators $\hat A_a = \hat A_a^\dagger$, $\hat B_b = \hat B_b^\dagger$ we can rewrite \eqref{eq:nsit-operators-00} using the commutator \begin{equation} \forall \hat \rho_0\!: \text{NSIT}_{(0)0} ~\Leftrightarrow~ \forall b\!: \int \text{d} a\, [\hat A_a \hat B_b, \hat B_b \hat A_a] = 0. \end{equation} Furthermore, we have as sufficient conditions the vanishing commutators \begin{equation}\label{eq:commutator-abba} \forall a, b\!: [\hat A_a \hat B_b, \hat B_b \hat A_a] = 0 \Rightarrow~ \forall \hat \rho_0\!: \text{NSIT}_{(0)0}, \end{equation} and, consequently, \begin{equation}\label{eq:commutator-ab} \forall a, b\!: [\hat A_a, \hat B_b] = 0 \Rightarrow~ \forall \hat \rho_0\!: \text{NSIT}_{(0)0}. \end{equation} It is interesting to note that both of these commutator conditions are, generally, only \emph{sufficient} but \emph{not necessary} for NSIT$_{(0)0}$. In fact, a formulation of NSIT$_{(0)0}$ must inherently have an asymmetry \cite{Heinosaari:2010jj} between the test and final measurements, but both \eqref{eq:commutator-abba} and \eqref{eq:commutator-ab} are symmetric under exchange of $\hat A$ and $\hat B$ \footnote{A simple example for this are the Pauli matrices with $\hat A = \hat \sigma_x, \hat B = \hat \sigma_y$. Then, $[\hat A, \hat B] = 2 i \hat \sigma_z$ and $[\hat A \hat B, \hat B \hat A] = 0$. Although the first commutator is non-zero, NSIT$_{(0)0}$ is trivially fulfilled. The physical interpretation of a $\hat \sigma_x$ measurement (or rather, its corresponding POVM element $\mathds 1$) is a single-qubit operation without a meaningful measurement outcome.}. We can, however, show that vanishing commutators in \eqref{eq:commutator-abba} and \eqref{eq:commutator-ab}, are sufficient and necessary when $\hat A_a, \hat B_b$ are von Neumann projective measurements ($\hat A_a^2 = \hat A_a, \hat B_b^2 = \hat B_b$). Let us start by rewriting the equality in \eqref{eq:nsit-operators-00} using $\hat A_a = \ketbra{a}{a}$ and $\hat B_b = \ketbra{b}{b}$: \begin{equation}\label{eq:proj-b} \int \text{d} a\, |\langle a|b \rangle|^2 \ketbra{a}{a} = \ketbra{b}{b}. \end{equation} Since $\ketbra{b}{b}$ is a projector, squaring the integral on the left-hand side must leave it unchanged. Using the fact that in order to sum up to identity, the $\hat A_a$ must be orthogonal projectors, and therefore $\braket{a|a'} = \delta(a - a')$, we obtain \begin{equation}\label{eq:proj-b-squared} \left[\int \text{d} a\, |\langle a|b \rangle|^2 \ketbra{a}{a}\right]^2 = \int \text{d} a\, |\langle a|b \rangle|^4 \ketbra{a}{a}. \end{equation} Comparing \cref{eq:proj-b} and \cref{eq:proj-b-squared}, we see that $|\langle a|b \rangle|^2 = |\langle a|b \rangle|^4$ can only be fulfilled if it is non-zero for exactly one $a$. Thus, $\ket{b}$ is an eigenstate of $\hat A_a$, and the commutator is $[\hat A_a, \hat B_b] = 0$. We have therefore demonstrated that for von Neumann measurements (but not for general POVMs), vanishing commutators in \eqref{eq:commutator-abba} and \eqref{eq:commutator-ab} are both sufficient and necessary for NSIT$_{(0)0}$. \subsection{NSIT with time evolution} Let us now consider NSIT$_{(0)T}$ with unitary time evolution $\hat U = e^{-i \hat H t}$. Analogous to the derivation of \eqref{eq:nsit-operators-00} and defining $\tilde B_b^T \equiv \hat U_T^\dagger \hat B_b \hat U_T$, we obtain \begin{equation} \label{eq:nsit-operators-0T} \begin{split} \forall &\hat \rho_0\!: \text{NSIT}_{(0)T} \\ &\Leftrightarrow~ \forall b\!: \int \text{d} a\, (\hat A_a^\dagger (\tilde B^T_b)^\dagger \tilde B^T_b \hat A_a - (\tilde B^T_b)^\dagger \hat A_a^\dagger \hat A_a \tilde B^T_b) = 0, \end{split} \end{equation} and, if $\hat A_a, \hat B_b$ are Hermitian operators, \begin{equation} \forall \hat \rho_0\!: \text{NSIT}_{(0)T} ~\Leftrightarrow~ \forall b\!: \int \text{d} a\, [\hat A_a \tilde B_b^T, \tilde B_b^T \hat A_a] = 0. \end{equation} Comparing \eqref{eq:nsit-operators-00} and \eqref{eq:nsit-operators-0T}, we can apply the results for NSIT$_{(0)0}$ derived above, namely \begin{equation}\label{eq:commutator-t-abba} \forall a, b\!: [\hat A_a \tilde B_b^T, \tilde B_b^T \hat A_a] = 0 ~\Rightarrow~ \forall \hat \rho_0\!: \text{NSIT}_{(0)T}, \end{equation} and \begin{equation}\label{eq:commutator-t-ab} \forall a, b\!: [\hat A_a, \tilde B_b^T] = 0 ~\Rightarrow~ \forall \hat \rho_0\!: \text{NSIT}_{(0)T}. \end{equation} Furthermore, one obtains \begin{equation} \forall a, b\!: [\hat A_a, \hat B_b] = [\hat A_a, \hat U_T] = 0 ~\Rightarrow~ \forall \hat \rho_0\!: \text{NSIT}_{(0)T}. \end{equation} If $\hat A_a, \hat B_b$ are von Neumann operators, we have $(\tilde B^T_b)^2 = \hat U_T^\dagger \hat B_b \hat U_T^{} \hat U_T^\dagger \hat B_b \hat U_T^{} = \hat U_T^\dagger \hat B_b \hat U_T^{} = \tilde B^T_b$. Thus, the results from \cref{sub:nsit-no-time} apply here too: For projectors (but not for general POVMs), vanishing commutators in \eqref{eq:commutator-t-abba} and \eqref{eq:commutator-t-ab} are sufficient and necessary for NSIT$_{(0)T}$. The above results show that a non-classical ``resource'' is required for an experimental violation of NSIT, namely either highly non-classical states (equivalent to non-classical measurements used in their preparation) or non-classical Hamiltonians (usually requiring an extremely large experimental ``control precision'' as discussed in \cite{Jeong:2014hw, Wang:2013ir, Sekatski:2014ej}). \section{Classicality} \label{sec:classicality} As we have indicated in the introduction, the coarse-graining of ``sharp'' quantum measurement operators into ``fuzzy'' classical measurements, plays a crucial role in the transition from quantum mechanics to classical physics \cite{Kofler:2007bd}. However, not every coarse-grained operator can be called classical. As an example, the parity operator (e.g.\ for large spins or photonic states) only differentiates two macrostates, but is in fact highly non-classical. Generally speaking, a suitable coarse-graining should ``lump'' together neighboring eigenvalues, independent of a (quantum) experiment's Hamiltonian. However, Hilbert spaces in quantum mechanics possess no inherent measure for the distance between orthogonal states. Such a measure must thus arise solely out of interaction Hamiltonians. Effectively, any definition of classicality must therefore depend on Hamiltonians spontaneously realized by nature, which define a natural order and closeness of states. In the following, this closeness is established with an \emph{a priori} choice of suitable reference operators. With this reference set, we can write a definition for \emph{classical operators} and \emph{classical Hamiltonians}: \begin{enumerate}[(I)] \item \label{def:operator} A measurement operator is called \emph{classical} with respect to a reference set iff it fulfills the equality in \eqref{eq:nsit-operators-00} pairwise with every member of the set. \item \label{def:hamiltonian} A Hamiltonian is called \emph{classical} with respect to a reference set iff the equality in \eqref{eq:nsit-operators-0T} is fulfilled for each combination of measurement operators from the set. \end{enumerate} A natural choice for the reference set are coarse-grained versions of quantum operators in phase space. Phase space inherently involves the necessary definition of closeness in a suitable and intuitive way. Several exemplary candidates for different experiments are discussed in the next section. \section{Classicality of quantum measurements} \label{sec:examples} In the following, we will apply our results to a number of physical systems. We will focus on the classicality of operators---condition \eqref{def:operator} from the previous section---and always assume either an immediate test measurement, or free time evolution in between. To measure the overlap of the undisturbed \eqref{eq:P-unmeasured} and the disturbed \eqref{eq:P-measured} probability distributions, we make use of the Bhattacharyya coefficient \cite{Bhattacharyya:1943ux}, as defined by \begin{equation}\label{eq:overlap} V = \int \text{d} b \, \sqrt{P_{\hat B}(b) P_{\hat B|\hat A}(b)} \in [0, 1]. \end{equation} The extreme cases of $V = 0$ and $V = 1$ correspond to orthogonal and identical probability distributions, respectively. \subsection{Quadrature measurements} Let us start with quadrature measurements on pure coherent initial states $\hat \rho = \ketbra{\gamma}{\gamma}$. We investigate coarse-grained measurements with unsharpness $\delta$ in the $X$-quadrature, and unsharpness $\kappa$ in the $P$-quadrature, as described by the (dimensionless) operators \begin{align} \label{eq:cg-x} \hat X^\delta_x &= \frac{1}{(\delta^2 \pi)^{1/4}} \exp\!\left( - \frac{1}{2 \delta^2} (x - \hat X)^2 \right)\!, \\ \label{eq:cg-p} \hat P^\kappa_p &= \frac{1}{(\kappa^2 \pi)^{1/4}} \exp\!\left( - \frac{1}{2 \kappa^2} (p - \hat P)^2 \right)\!. \end{align} Note that for $\hat B_\beta = \pi^{-1} \ketbra{\beta}{\beta}$, we recover the well-known Husimi $Q$-distribution \cite{Husimi:1940vq}, since $P_{\hat B}(\beta) = \pi^{-2} \tr(\ketbra{\beta}{\beta}\hat \rho_0 \ketbra{\beta}{\beta}) = \pi^{-1} \braket{\beta|\hat \rho_0|\beta} = Q(\beta)$. As an example, choosing $\hat A = \hat X^\delta$ and $\hat B_\beta = \pi^{-1}|\beta\rangle\langle\beta|$, the Husimi distribution $P_{\hat B|\hat A}$ is shown in \cref{fig:p-quadratures} for several values of $\delta$. \begin{figure}[t] \begin{tikzpicture} \node at (0.66\columnwidth, 0) {\includegraphics[width=0.35\columnwidth]{quadrature_D2_0_0001}}; \node at (0.66\columnwidth, -1.8) {$\begin{matrix}\delta^2 = 0.0001 \\ V \approx 0.168\end{matrix}$}; \node at (0.33\columnwidth, 0) {\includegraphics[width=0.35\columnwidth]{quadrature_D2_0_03}}; \node at (0.33\columnwidth, -1.8) {$\begin{matrix}\delta^2 = 0.03 \\ V \approx 0.671\end{matrix}$}; \node at (0.00\columnwidth, 0) {\includegraphics[width=0.35\columnwidth]{quadrature_D2_1}}; \node at (0.00\columnwidth, -1.8) {$\begin{matrix}\delta^2 = 1 \\ V \approx 0.990\end{matrix}$}; \end{tikzpicture} \caption{\label{fig:p-quadratures}(Color online) Husimi distribution in the complex plane (mesh with interval 1), immediately after a quadrature measurement with decreasing unsharpness $\delta$. Sharp measurements (small $\delta$) completely destroy the initial state, while unsharp measurements (large $\delta$) keep it intact.} \end{figure} The behaviors for different combinations of $\hat A, \hat B \in \lbrace \hat X^\delta, \hat P^\kappa \rbrace$ are printed in \cref{table:xp-cg}, and detailed analytic values for the overlaps are listed in \cref{appendix:quadrature-overlaps}. The importance of selecting a complete set of classical reference operators becomes clear when looking at different combinations of coarse-grained $\hat X^\delta, \hat P^\kappa$. In particular, even a sharp $X$ measurement is revealed by a second (coarse-grained) $X$ measurement only after time evolution. Therefore, $\hat P^\kappa$ has to be a member of the reference set. On the other hand, a sharp measurement in $P$ can never be detected by another measurement in $P$ under free time evolution $\hat H = \hat P^2/(2m)$. Therefore, $\hat X^\delta$ needs to be a member of the set. For $\hat X^\delta$ and $\hat P^\kappa$ to fulfill the consistency condition, we further require sufficiently large $\delta \gg 1$ and $\kappa \gg 1$, such that $[\hat X^\delta, \hat P^\kappa] \approx 0$. Using the notation $\hat X_\text{c.g.}$ ($\hat P_\text{c.g.}$) for a sufficiently coarse-grained $X$ ($P$) measurement, and $\hat X_\text{sh.}$ ($\hat P_\text{sh.}$) for a sharp, invasive measurement, we can write some candidate reference sets: \begin{itemize} \item $\lbrace \hat X_\text{c.g.} \rbrace$ and $\lbrace \hat X_\text{sh.} \rbrace$ do not constitute reference sets, since they cannot detect the invasiveness of a $\hat X_\text{sh.}$ measurement. \item $\lbrace \hat X_\text{sh.}, \hat P_\text{c.g.} \rbrace$ is not a reference set, since the operators do not fulfill \eqref{eq:nsit-operators-00}. \item $\lbrace \hat X_\text{c.g.}, \hat P_\text{c.g.} \rbrace$ is a possible reference set. \end{itemize} For further discussion about the joint measurability and coexistence of coarse-grained phase space operators we refer the reader to references \cite{Busch:1996fz, Busch:2009di, Busch:2010jl}. \begin{table}[t] \renewcommand*{\arraystretch}{2.0} \begin{tabular}{l|c|c} & $\hat A = \hat X^\delta$ & $\hat A = \hat P^\kappa$ \\\hline $\hat B = \hat X^\delta$ & \pbox{10cm}{$V(0) = 1$\\$V(T\rightarrow\infty) < 1$} & \pbox{10cm}{$V(0) < 1$\\$V(T\rightarrow\infty) = 1$} \\\hline $\hat B = \hat P^\kappa$ & $V(t) = \text{const} < 1$ & $V(t) = 1$ \end{tabular} \caption[]{\label{table:xp-cg}Overlaps \eqref{eq:overlap} between the invaded and the non-invaded probability distributions with different combinations of coarse-grained phase space quadrature measurements. For final measurements in the momentum quadrature, $\hat B = \hat P^\kappa$, the overlap of the system stays constant, since $\hat P^\kappa$ commutes with the free Hamiltonian. For analytical values and detailed discussion see \cref{appendix:quadrature-overlaps}.} \end{table} \subsection{Coherent state measurements} As another example, let us now consider coarse-grained operators in coherent state space, \begin{equation}\label{eq:coherent-state-measurement} \hat A_a = \frac{1}{\pi} \int \text{d} \alpha \, f_a(\alpha) \, \ketbra{\alpha}{\alpha}, \end{equation} where $f_a(\alpha)$ are some real and positive envelope functions that define the coarse-grained regions. Again, we consider coherent initial states $\hat \rho = \ketbra{\gamma}{\gamma}$ and final measurements $\hat B_\beta = \pi^{-1}|\beta\rangle\langle\beta|$. An analytical result can be obtained for a measurement $f_a(\alpha) = \delta(a - \alpha)$ for $a \in \mathbb C$, yielding $\hat A_\alpha = \pi^{-1} \ketbra{\alpha}{\alpha}$. We can now calculate the overlap for $T = 0$: \begin{equation} \begin{split} V &= \frac{1}{\pi} \int \text{d} \beta\, \left[|\langle\beta|\gamma\rangle|^2 \int \text{d} \alpha\, |\langle\beta|\alpha\rangle\langle\alpha|\gamma\rangle|^2\right]^\frac{1}{2} \\ &= \frac{2 \sqrt{2}}{3} \approx 0.943. \end{split} \end{equation} This overlap provides us with a lower bound, that applies to all coarse-grained measurements based on coherent states. As an example, numerically evaluated overlaps for a ring-like coarse-graining ($f_a(r)$ is non-zero for $a d \leq r < (a+1) d$, with $a \in \mathbb N_0$ and $d$ the ring width) are plotted in \cref{fig:overlaps-rings}. \begin{figure}[tb] \begin{tikzpicture} \node at (-3.8, 0) {$V$}; \node at (0, -2.4) {$d$}; \node at (0,0) {\includegraphics[width=0.80\columnwidth]{ring-overlaps}}; \end{tikzpicture} \caption{\label{fig:overlaps-rings}(Color online) Overlap $V$ vs coarse-graining ring width $d$. For coherent initial states in the center of the second region $\ket{\gamma = 3 d/2}$ the overlap approaches unity as more of the state's probability distribution lies in the region. For initial states located on a border $\ket{\gamma = d}$ the overlap approaches a value close to $0.997$. This is due to the artificial sharp boundary between the coarse-grained regions.} \end{figure} A choice of reference set, alternative to the previously discussed $\lbrace \hat X_\text{c.g.}, \hat P_\text{c.g.} \rbrace$, can be made using the coarse-grained coherent state measurements from \cref{eq:coherent-state-measurement}, i.e.\ $\lbrace \hat A_a \rbrace$ with suitable envelope functions $f_a$ such that $[\hat A_a, \hat A_{a'}] \approx 0$. \subsection{Fock state measurements} Instructive examples for observing the effect of coarse-graining are different combinations of Fock-measurements on coherent initial states. We look at coarse-grained von Neumann measurement operators defined by different border functions $g(m)$: \begin{equation} \hat A_m = \sum_k \begin{cases} \ketbra{k}{k} & \text{if}~ g(m) \leq k < g(m+1), \\ 0 & \text{else}. \end{cases} \end{equation} For $g(m) = c m^2$ with $c > 0$, the region corresponding to each operator is constant-sized in the coherent state space, since the average photon number is $\bar n = |\alpha|^2$. For sufficiently large $c$ the measurement is therefore sufficiently coarse-grained. Measurements with constant-sized regions in Fock space, $g(m) = c m$, correspond to increasingly sharp measurements in coherent state space. The resulting overlap for different choices of $g(m)$ can be calculated numerically and is discussed in \cref{fig:overlaps-fock}. \begin{figure}[tb] \begin{tikzpicture} \node at (-3.8, 0) {$V$}; \node at (0, -2.4) {$\gamma$}; \node at (0,0) {\includegraphics[width=0.80\columnwidth]{fock-overlaps}}; \end{tikzpicture} \caption{\label{fig:overlaps-fock}(Color online) Overlap $V$ (cf.\ \cref{eq:overlap}) vs initial state $\ket{\gamma}$ for coarse-grained Fock measurements with different border functions $g(m)$, from top: $100 m^2, 10 m^2, 2 m^2, m^2, 2m, m$. Quadratic border functions are coarse in the coherent state space and therefore not as invasive. Linear border functions lead to increasingly sharp measurements. The oscillations are caused by the fact that the presented type of coarse-graining works better when the initial state is located in the center of a bin. Dips in the overlap occur when the initial state sits at the border between two bins.} \end{figure} \section{Conclusion and outlook} \label{sec:conclusion} In contrast to a still widespread belief, we showed that the assumption of macrorealism per se is implied by a strong interpretation of non-invasive measurability. Moreover, no-signaling in time (NSIT), i.e.\ non-invasiveness on the statistical level, is in general a more reliable witness for the violation of macrorealism than the well-known Leggett-Garg inequalities, which are based on two-time correlation functions. In fact, we demonstrated that the right combination of various NSIT conditions serves not only as a necessary but also a sufficient condition for a macrorealistic model for measurements at the predefined time instants accessible in the experiment. We then derived operational criteria for the measurement operators and the system Hamiltonian, whose fulfillment guarantees that no violation of macrorealism can in principle be observed. We argued that these conditions can be used to define the ``classicality'' of measurements, and by extension, of the system's time evolution. Finally, we showed that the classicality of measurements is arbitrarily well fulfilled by suitably coarse-grained versions of quantum measurements. While our results suggest that an experimental demonstration of non-classicalities requires either very precise measurements or a complex time evolution, a general proof of this trade-off (in terms of experimental control parameters) is still missing. Moreover, coarse-graining, which leads to the classicality of measurements, already requires the notion of ``closeness'' or ``neighborhood'' of eigenvalues, and thereby an understanding of classical phase space. This notion itself stems from Hamiltonians that are spontaneously realized in nature and govern our physical world. The present definition of classicality mitigates this circularity with the choice of an a-priori set of classical measurements. However, it is an open question whether the presupposition of classical phase space can be avoided, or whether it is a fundamental requirement for understanding the quantum-to-classical transition. \begin{acknowledgments} We thank Guido Bacciagaluppi, Gemma de las Cuevas, Owen J.\ E.\ Maroney, and Chris G.\ Timpson for fruitful discussions and helpful comments on the manuscript. We acknowledge support from the European Union Integrated Project Simulators and Interfaces with Quantum Systems. \end{acknowledgments}
\section{Introduction} The cosmic censorship conjecture \cite{wcc} has over the years become a cornerstone of classical general relativity. In its weak version it states, in essence, that curvature singularities arising in solutions to the Einstein's field equations must be cloaked behind event horizons, so that they are prevented from being in causal contact with distant observers. Despite being strongly motivated on physical grounds, the conjecture's precise extent of validity remains unclear. A notable counterexample involves finely tuned initial conditions \cite{chop}. The formulation of the conjecture may be refined to exclude such examples \cite{waldrev}. In a 1974 paper \cite{wald} Wald proposed a simple but powerful framework for testing weak cosmic censorship, using the gedanken experiment of a particle thrown into a Kerr--Newman black hole. If parameters can be chosen such that the post-capture mass $M_{\rm f}$, charge $Q_{\rm f}$ and spin $J_{\rm f}$ satisfy $M_{\rm f}^2<(J_{\rm f}/M_{\rm f})^2+Q_{\rm f}^2$, then a naked singularity would presumably form, in direct violation of weak censorship. Whether the equations of classical general relativity permit such a process has since been subject of much investigation. It is usually assumed that the particle's energy and electric charge are much smaller than those of the black hole, which then places the problem within the realm of black-hole perturbation theory. In \cite{wald} Wald showed that the over-extremality scenario is ruled out when the configuration is that of a pointlike test particle captured by an extremal Kerr--Newman black hole. Electrostatic and centrifugal repulsion, he showed, would prevent a particle carrying sufficient charge and/or angular momentum from entering the black hole. The same conclusion was shown to hold true also for a spinning test particle dropped from rest at infinity along the symmetry axis of an extremal Kerr black hole, with its spin aligned along the axis. In this case, it is the repulsion force from spin-spin coupling that prevents suitable particles from ever entering the black hole. However, later work has demonstrated that over-extremality is achievable when the initial black hole is taken to be \textit{nearly} extremal---if back-reaction effects on the particle's trajectory are ignored. This was first shown by Hubeny \cite{hub} for a nearly extremal Reissner-Nordstr\"om black hole, and more recently by Jacobson and Sotiriou \cite{js} for a nearly extremal Kerr black hole (``overcharging'' and ``overspinning'' scenarios, respectively). The nearly extremal Kerr-Newman case was subsequently studied in Ref.\ \cite{Saa}. In all cases, all orbits identified as capable of driving the black hole beyond the extremal limit lie very close, in the relevant parameter space, to the separatrix between orbits that are captured by the black hole and ones that are scattered off it. In Hubeny's analysis of a radially falling electric charge, electrostatic repulsion only marginally fails to prevent the particle from falling into the hole: The particle's radial velocity upon crossing (what would have been) the event horizon is proportional to the ratio $\tilde\eta\ll 1$ between the particle's energy and the black hole's mass. The amount of post-capture excess charge, $Q_{\rm f}-M_{\rm f}$, is found to be {\it quadratic} in $\tilde\eta$. Similarly, in Ref.\ \cite{js}'s analysis of equatorial-plane captures, overspinning particles clear the peak of the effective potential barrier with radial velocities $\propto\tilde\eta$, and the post-capture excess spin, $J_{\rm f}-M_{\rm f}^2$, is quadratic in $\tilde\eta$. This suggests strongly that back-reaction effects cannot be ignored and may well change the outcome of the gedanken experiment. Heuristically, effects of the (electromagnetic and/or gravitational) self-force enter the analysis in two ways. First, the {\it dissipative} piece of the self-force continually removes some of the particle's energy and angular momentum, sending them to infinity and down the event horizon in gravitational waves. In the Kerr case, dissipative effects may accumulate as the particle ``hovers'' above the peak of the effective potential on a nearly circular orbit. Second, the {\it conservative} piece of the self-force might supply just the right amount of additional repulsive force to prevent would-be overcharging/overspinning particles from ever entering the black hole. For particles sent in from infinity in the Kerr case, this second effect may be formulated in terms of a shift in the critical impact parameter for capture: If the gravitational self-force (GSF) shifts the critical impact parameter inward by a sufficient amount (for a given energy-at-infinity), then would-be overspinning particles may end up being scattered away rather than captured. There have been several recent attempts to quantify the effect of back-reaction in the problem. Focusing on the Reissner-Nordstr\"om case, Isoyama, Sago and Tanaka \cite{soich} argued that the full effect can be properly taken into account by considering the quasi-equilibrium configuration of a charged particle placed precisely on the capture--scatter separatrix. An exact solution is known for this configuration---the static double Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m spacetime---and the authors calculated that its total energy is always greater than its total charge. They have also established that radiative losses during the final plunge are negligible, hence concluding that (under the assumption that the true capture system does indeed go through a quasi-equilibrium state) the final configuration cannot be a naked singularity. In a later work, Zimmerman, Vega and Poisson \cite{zimm} took up the challenge of directly calculating the charged particle's trajectory including the full effect of the electromagnetic self-force. Analyzing numerically a large sample of orbits within the domain identified by Hubeny, the authors found no example of successful overcharging: All particles with a combination of charge and energy suitable for overcharging the black hole were found to be repelled before reaching the horizon. This analysis, however, neglected the potentially important effect of back-reaction from the gravitational perturbation sourced by the particle's electromagnetic energy-momentum. A complete analysis would require calculation of the corresponding GSF, but techniques for calculating self-forces in the coupled problem are only now starting to be developed \cite{zimmerman,tlinz}. In that respect, the Kerr setup provides a cleaner environment, in which the perturbative problem is purely gravitational (at the obvious cost of abandoning spherical symmetry). Barausse, Cardoso and Khanna \cite{bck1,bck2} studied the dissipative GSF effect in the Kerr overspinning problem, focussing on ultra-relativistic particles on equatorial orbits. Using analytic arguments backed by a numerical calculation of the energy and angular-momentum carried away in gravitational waves, they showed that dissipation averts the overspinning for some but not all of Jacobson--Sotiriou's orbits. For sufficiently small $\tilde\eta$, the dissipative effect is always negligible and cannot prevent overspinning. This result highlights the importance of accounting for the {\em full} effect of GSF. To reach a definitive conclusion necessitates an actual calculation of the full local GSF acting on the captured particles. In the past few years, rigorous methods for GSF calculations in Kerr spacetime have advanced enough to allow a more systematic and complete treatment of the overspinning problem. The program initiated with this paper revisits the problem from this new vantage point. It seeks to obtain a more conclusive answer to the question of whether it is indeed the self-force that provides the mechanism by which black holes protect themselves from being overspun. Our current paper lays the necessary groundwork. Concentrating on equatorial orbits, we first identify the complete ``window'' in the parameter space in which overspinning occurs if the GSF is ignored. We then formulate a condition for this window to be eliminated by the effect of the full GSF. The condition takes the form of an inequality that is required to hold for each member of a certain 1-parameter family of geodesics, and it involves the GSF calculated along such orbits. Here we do not obtain the necessary GSF data, but we discuss methods for computing it (numerically) using existing codes. With collaborators we have began work to obtain the GSF data, and we intend to present the results in a follow-up paper. The rest of this introduction summarizes our analysis (also in relation to previous work) and describes its main results. \subsection{This work: overview and results} Jacobson and Sotiriou \cite{js} assumed that overspinning occurs if two conditions are met: (i) the geodesic trajectory of the test particle is timelike at the horizon, and (ii) $J_{\rm f}>M_{\rm f}^2$. The first condition is very lax. It allows for low-energy orbits that are deeply bound to the black hole and confined to the immediate neighborhood of the horizon. The physics of such orbits becomes very subtle, especially when self-gravity and finite-size effects are included [consider that deeply-bound orbits below the innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO) plunge into the black hole within an amount of proper time that shrinks to zero in the extremal limit \cite{Jacobson}], so one would preferably avoid such orbits as candidates (see, however, Hod \cite{hod} for a heuristic treatment). Jacobson and Sotiriou acknowledge this issue, and to address it they supplement their analysis with two specific numerical examples of overspinning orbits that are sent in from afar. They stop short of determining the full range of overspinning orbits when deeply bound orbits are disallowed. Our capture condition will be more stringent, and more in the spirit of Ref.\ \cite{zimm}: We will send our particle in from ``sufficiently far'' (this condition will be made precise in the next section), and deem it ``captured'' if it has no inner radial turning point outside the black hole. Thus, for a legitimate capture we demand that the particle ``clears'' the peak of the effective potential on its inward journey. In Sec.\ \ref{Sec:geodesics} we revisit the overspinning problem in the geodesic approximation. We identify the precise region in the parameter space of equatorial orbits around a nearly-extremal Kerr black hole (excluding deeply bound orbits) where overspinning occurs, and give analytic expressions for the boundaries of that region. The overspinning window is illustrated in Figs.\ \ref{bubble} and \ref{elos}. Perhaps unexpectedly, we find that only particles sent in from infinity are capable of overspinning the black hole. This fact has somehow gone unnoticed in previous work, to the best of our knowledge. We find that for any given value of the particle's energy at infinity, there exists an open range of orbital angular momenta and particle's rest masses for which overspinning occurs. That only orbits coming from infinity are potential overspinniners is somewhat fortuitous, because for such orbits it is straightforward to identify the system's total [Arnowitt--Deser--Misner (ADM)] energy and angular momentum even when GSF effects are included. We then turn to analyze the GSF effect. In Sec.\ \ref{Sec:GSF} we first review essential results from GSF theory, and then discuss the determination of the ``critical orbit'' that separates (in the relevant parameter space) between plunging and scattered orbits. We do this in two steps. First, we ignore the dissipative piece of the GSF, and calculate the correction due to the conservative GSF to the critical value of the angular momentum for a fixed value of the energy-at-infinity. Then we restore dissipation and consider its consequences. Under the full GSF, all critical orbits merge into a ``global attractor'' that takes the system adiabatically along a sequence of quasi-circular unstable orbits ending at the ISCO, before plunging into the black hole. By fine-tuning the initial value of the angular momentum (for a given initial energy), an orbit can be made to evolve arbitrary far along the global attractor. We make a formal distinction between ``generic'' and ``fine-tuned'' captured orbits, based on how the difference between the initial and final values of the particle's specific energy scales with the particle's mass $\mu$ (in a procedure whereby $\mu$ is taken to zero while holding fixed the initial specific energy and angular momentum). {\it Generic} orbits are ones for which that difference vanishes for $\mu\to 0$ (this includes, for example, all of the orbits considered in Refs.\ \cite{bck1,bck2}); {\it fine-tuned} orbits are ones for which the difference does not vanish even for $\mu\to 0$. With this preparatory work in place, we move on, in Sec.\ \ref{Sec:OSwSF}, to obtain the overspinning condition as modified by the full GSF. The end result are two inequalities, one for generic orbits [Eq.\ (\ref{OSfinal})] and another for fine-tuned ones [Eq.\ (\ref{OSfinalFT})], which describe conditions for overspinning to be averted under the effect of the full GSF. In the generic case, the condition involves only the conservative piece of the GSF, evaluated along critical geodesics in the extremal Kerr limit. Overspinning can be ruled out if and only if the condition is met for each member of this one-parameter family. The condition for fine-tuned orbits requires, in addition to the conservative GSF, also knowledge of the fluxes of energy and angular momentum radiated to infinity by particles on unstable circular orbits, in the extremal Kerr limit. Overspinning can be ruled out if and only if the condition is met for any values of the initial and final energies. In Sec.\ \ref{Sec:redshift} we propose an alternative form of the overspinning conditions, based on the framework of the ``first law of binary black-hole mechanics'', as recently applied to orbits in Kerr \cite{isoyama14}. The alternative form, given (for the generic case) in Eq.\ (\ref{OSfinalZ}), involves only perturbative quantities calculated along (unstable) circular orbits, which should be more easily computable with existing GSF codes. This simplified formulation relies on explicit expressions, given in \cite{isoyama14}, for the ADM-like energy and angular momentum of circular-orbit configurations in Kerr, including leading-order self-interaction terms. The underlying theoretical framework is yet to be firmly established and tested, however, so we regard the simplified condition (\ref{OSfinalZ}) as somewhat less rigorous than our direct condition (\ref{OSfinal}). Our stance is that it would be desirable to evaluate both forms of the condition, for the sake of establishing confidence in the result. In Sec.\ \ref{Sec:num} we discuss the numerical input required for evaluating our overspinning conditions, and the prospects for obtaining it through adaptation of existing codes. Evaluation of the direct conditions (\ref{OSfinal}) and (\ref{OSfinalFT}) involves GSF calculations along unbound orbits on a nearly-extremal Kerr background, which has not been attempted so far. However, we think the basic computational infrastructure for such calculations is well in place. Section \ref{Sec:conclusions} summarizes our results and speculates on what a numerical evaluation of our censorship conditions might yield. The Appendices contain some of the details of calculations done in Secs.\ \ref{Sec:GSF} and \ref{Sec:OSwSF}: a derivation of the ADM energy and angular momentum for the system under consideration; a calculation of the GSF-induced shift in the critical value of the angular momentum; and an evaluation of radiative loses during the final plunge into the black hole. Throughout this paper we set $G=c=1$ and use the metric signature $(-,+,+,+)$. \section{Overspinning orbits in the geodesic approximation}\label{Sec:geodesics} Our initial configuration features a Kerr black hole of mass $M$ and angular momentum $J=a\,M<M^2$. A pointlike test particle of rest mass $\mu\ll M$ is sent in on a geodesic of the background Kerr geometry. As in \cite{js}, we restrict attention to prograde orbits in the equatorial plane, so that the orbital angular momentum is aligned with the spin of the black hole. (Intuitively, this configuration seems most favourable for a successful overspinning.) We denote the particle's {\em specific} energy and angular momentum by $E$ and $L$, respectively; these are constants of the geodesic motion. For the geodesic approximation to make sense, we must assume $\mu E\ll M$ and $\mu L\ll J$. Then, clearly, overspinning could only be possible, in principle, if the black hole is nearly extremal. We write \begin{equation}\label{eps} a/M=1-\epsilon^2, \end{equation} where $\epsilon\ll 1$.\footnote{Note, to avoid confusion, that \cite{js} has instead $a/M=1-2\epsilon^2$.} Below we study the overspinning scenario in the above setup, but we begin with a survey of some essential properties of timelike equatorial geodesics of the Kerr metric. \subsection{Relevant results for Kerr geodesics} Let $u^{\alpha}$ denote the particle's four-velocity. In Boyer-Lindquist coordinates $\{t,r,\theta,\phi\}$ we have $u^\theta\equiv 0$, and \begin{equation} \dot{u}_{t}=0,\ \ \ \ \dot{u}_{\phi}=0, \end{equation} where an overdot denotes differentiation with respect to proper time. The two equalities express the conservation of energy $E=-\xi_{(t)}^{\alpha}u_{\alpha}=-u_{t}$ and angular momentum $L=\xi_{(\phi)}^{\alpha}u_{\alpha}=u_{\phi}$, where $\xi_{(t)}^{\alpha}:=\partial_{t}^{\alpha}$ and $\xi_{(\phi)}^{\alpha}:=\partial_{\phi}^{\alpha}$ are Killing vectors associated with the time-translation and rotational symmetries of the Kerr background. The pair $\{E,L\}$ parametrizes the family of equatorial geodesics (up to initial conditions). The normalization $u_{\alpha}u^{\alpha}=-1$ now gives the radial equation of motion, which we write in the form \begin{eqnarray} \label{rdot} \dot{r}^{2}&=&B(r)\left[{E}-V_{-}({L},{r})\right] \left[{E}-V_{+}({L},{r})\right]. \end{eqnarray} Here $r$ is the Boyer-Lindquist radius of the orbit, $B(r):=1+ a^2(r+2M)/r^3$, and (for $M a L\ne 0$) \begin{equation} \label{vplus} V_{\pm}({L},{r}):=\frac{2 M {a} {L}}{B {r}^3}\left( 1\pm\sqrt{1+\frac{ B {r}^3 [L^2(r-2M)+{r}\Delta]}{4M^2 a^2 L^2}}\right)\,, \end{equation} with $\Delta:=r^2-2Mr+{a}^2$. For prograde orbits, the potential $V_{-}$ is manifestly negative definite, so the factor $B(r)(E-V_{-})$ in Eq.\ (\ref{rdot}) is manifestly {\it positive} definite. Thus, $V_{+}$ plays the role of an effective potential for the radial motion, which is allowed for $E\geq V_{+}(L,{r})$, with an equality identifying radial turning points. Stationary points of $V_{+}(L,r)$ outside the black hole, when they exist, correspond to circular orbits. These satisfy the simultaneous conditions \begin{equation} \label{circ} E=V_+, \quad\quad \partial_r V_+=0 \quad\text{(circular orbits)}. \end{equation} Substituting from Eq.\ (\ref{vplus}) and solving for $E$ and $L$ in terms of the circular-orbit radius, $r=R$, gives $E=E_c(R)$ and $L=L_c(R)$, with \begin{align} \label{Ec} E_{c}(R)&=\frac{1-2 \tilde{R}^{-1}+\tilde a\tilde{R}^{-3/2}}{\sqrt{1-3\tilde{R}^{-1}+2\tilde{a}\tilde{R}^{-3/2}}}\,,\\ \label{Lc} \tilde L_{c}({R})&=\frac{\tilde{R}^{1/2}(1-2 \tilde{a} \tilde{R}^{-3/2}+\tilde{a}^2\tilde{R}^{-2})}{\sqrt{1-3\tilde{R}^{-1}+2\tilde{a}\tilde{R}^{-3/2}}}. \end{align} Here an overtilde denotes a-dimensionalization using $M$, i.e., $\tilde{R}:=R/M$, $\tilde{a}:=a/M$ and $\tilde{L}:=L/M$; we shall adopt this notation throughout the rest of the paper. Timelike circular orbits exist only for $R>R_{\rm ph}(a)$, the radius of a photon's unstable circular orbit (``light ring''). $R_{\rm ph}(a)$ is the (unique) root of ${1-3\tilde{R}^{-1}+2\tilde{a}\tilde{R}^{-3/2}}$ greater than the event horizon's radius, $\tilde{R}_{\rm eh}(a)=1+(1-\tilde a^2)^{1/2}$. The angular velocity $\Omega:=u^\phi/u^t$ of any circular geodesic orbit reads \begin{equation}\label{Omega} \tilde\Omega(R)=(\tilde a+\tilde R^{3/2})^{-1}. \end{equation} The number of stationary points of $V_+$ and their location depend on $L$. There are none outside the black hole when $L$ is below a certain critical value $L_{\rm isco}(a)$, and there are two for $L>L_{\rm isco}(a)$: a maximum representing an unstable circular orbit, and, further out, a minimum representing a stable one. The critical value $L_{\rm isco}(a)$ marks the innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO). It is given by $L_{\rm isco}=L_c(R_{\rm isco})$, where the ISCO radius $R_{\rm isco}$ is found by solving Eqs.~(\ref{circ}) simultaneously with $\partial^{2}_{{r}}V_+(L,r)=0$. The ISCO may also be said to represent the outer boundary of the region of unstable circular orbits. The radii of unstable circular geodesic orbits span the interval $R_{\rm ph}(a)<R<R_{\rm isco}(a)$. This 1-parameter family of orbits will feature dominantly in our analysis, because it defines the capture--scatter threshold where much of the relevant physics occurs. Members of the family may be parametrized by either $E$ or $L$, both being monotonically decreasing functions of $R$ between $R_{\rm ph}$ (where $E,L\to\infty$) and $R_{\rm isco}$ for any $\tilde{a}<1$. This monotonicity can be readily established from Eqs.\ (\ref{Ec}) and (\ref{Lc}). Hence, the radius $R$ itself is also a valid parameter. To each unstable circular orbit there correspond non-circular homoclinic-like geodesic orbits \cite{Levin} that join the circular orbit asymptotically in either their infinite past or their infinite future, or both. Nearly-homoclinic orbits exhibit a ``zoom-whirl'' behavior \cite{glamp}: an episode of prolonged rotation (``whirl'') about the location of the associated unstable circular orbit. We will see that all orbits relevant to the overspinning problem fall in that category. Based on the correspondence with homoclinic orbits, unstable circular orbits may be divided into ``bound'' ($E<1$) and ``unbound'' ($E\geq 1$). The radius of the innermost bound circular orbit (IBCO) is obtained by solving $E_c(R)=1$, giving $\tilde R_{\rm ibco}=[1+(1-\tilde{a})^{1/2}]^2$. Figure \ref{radii} illustrates the range of stable and unstable circular orbits, and the location of the various special orbits mentioned, in a particular example ($\tilde a=0.99$). We note the ordering \begin{equation}\label{ordering} R_{\rm eh}<R_{\rm ph}<R_{\rm ibco}<R_{\rm isco}, \end{equation} which applies for any $\tilde a<1$. \begin{figure} \begin{center} \includegraphics[scale=0.46]{radii.pdf} \caption{\label{radii} Timelike circular equatorial geodesics around a nearly extremal Kerr black hole, shown here for $a=0.99M$. The plot shows specific angular momentum versus Boyer-Lindquist radius. Orbits with $r>R_{\rm isco}$ (magenta) are stable, while these with $r<R_{\rm isco}$ (blue) are unstable. Also indicated are the innermost bound circular orbit (IBCO, $E=1$) and the photon orbit (``light ring'', $E,L\to\infty$). In the extremal limit, $a\to M$, the radii $R_{\rm isco}$, $R_{\rm ibco}$ and $R_{\rm ph}$ all coincide with the horizon radius $R_{\rm eh}$. } \end{center} \end{figure} Let us now specialize to a near-extremal Kerr background with spin as in Eq.\ (\ref{eps}). One finds \begin{align} \label{reh} \tilde{R}_{\rm eh}&=1+\sqrt{2}\, \epsilon+O(\epsilon^2)\,,\\ \label{rph} \tilde{R}_{\rm ph}&=1+\sqrt{8/3}\, \epsilon+O(\epsilon^2)\,,\\ \label{ribco} \tilde{R}_{\rm ibco}&=(1+\epsilon)^2 \quad \text{(exact)}\,,\\ \label{risco} \tilde{R}_{\rm isco}&=1+\left(2\epsilon\right)^{2/3}+O(\epsilon^{4/3})\,. \end{align} The function $E_c(R)$ in Eq.\ (\ref{Ec}) can be inverted perturbatively in $\epsilon$ to obtain the radius of an arbitrary unstable circular orbit in terms of its energy $E$. We find \begin{equation} \label{rhopar} \tilde{R}= 1+\epsilon \rho_1(E) +\epsilon^2 \rho_2(E) +O(\epsilon^3) , \end{equation} where the first two coefficients, needed below, read \begin{equation} \label{rho12} \rho_1= \frac{2\sqrt{2}E}{\sqrt{3E^2-1}}, \quad\quad \rho_2= \frac{2(2E^4-E^2+1)}{(3E^2-1)^2}. \end{equation} Equation (\ref{ribco}) is the special case of (\ref{rhopar}) with $E=1$, giving $\rho_1=2$ and $\rho_2=1$. It follows that, in the extremal limit $\epsilon\to 0$, the Boyer-Lindquist radii of the light-ring and the ISCO both coincide with the horizon radius, and so do the radii of all unstable circular orbits enclosed between them. Also peculiar is the fact that the ratio of coordinate differences $(\tilde{R}_{\rm isco}- \tilde{R}_{\rm eh})/(\tilde{R}_{\rm ibco}- \tilde{R}_{\rm eh})$ diverges as $\epsilon\to 0$. A closer look reveals \cite{bard} that the light ring, IBCO and ISCO remain separated from the horizon, and from each other, when examined on a Boyer-Lindquist $t$=const slice: On that slice, the proper radial distance between the light-ring and the horizon is finite, and so is the distance between any fixed-$E$ unstable circular orbit and the light ring. The proper radial distance between the ISCO and any fixed-$E$ unstable circular orbit {\em diverges} on the $t$=const slice; the geometry of the $t$=const hypersurface appears to ``stretch'' infinitely around the ISCO location \cite{bard}. The situation, however, is rather different when examined on a horizon-crossing time slice. As emphasized recently by Jacobson \cite{Jacobson}, on any such slice, the light ring, IBCO and ISCO all actually coincide with horizon generators. From that perspective, they---and all unstable orbits in between them---are ``at the same place'' in the extremal limit. These subtleties will not affect our analysis directly: $\epsilon$ will be kept small but nonzero, and the strict ordering (\ref{ordering}) will therefore apply on any time slice. However, we must take note of the degeneracy of $R$ as a parameter for unstable circular orbits when $\epsilon\to 0$. The energy $E$, on the other hand, remains a good parameter even in this limit, spanning the entire range $\infty>E>\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}$. We will thus generally adopt $E$ for labelling unstable circular orbits. Given $E$, the angular momentum $L_c(R(E))$, which we henceforth write as $L_c(E)$, is obtained by substituting Eqs.\ (\ref{eps}) and (\ref{rhopar}) in Eq.\ (\ref{Lc}) and then expanding in $\epsilon$. The result is \begin{equation}\label{LofE} \tilde L_c(E)=2E+(6E^2-2)^{1/2} \epsilon +O(\epsilon^2). \end{equation} We note that to determine the $O(\epsilon)$ term here required the explicit values of both $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$ of Eq.\ (\ref{rho12}). \subsection{Exclusion of deeply bound orbits} Heuristically, if we assume our point particle represents a compact object---say, a Schwarzschild black hole---then its effective proper ``diameter'' is $\sim\mu$. Below it will become clear that a successful overspinning requires $\mu\sim\epsilon$, and so relevant objects have proper diameters $\sim\epsilon$. Now consider placing such an object in a deeply bound orbit with an {\em outer} turning point at $r<R_{\rm isco}$ [and with $L>L_c(E)$]. Such an object (it can be checked) will plunge through the horizon within a proper time of $O(\epsilon)$ (at most), comparable to its own ``light-crossing time''. It is not clear whether the object can be made to initially ``fit'' in its entirety outside the hole. At the very least, it is not clear if the simple model of a point particle and a stationary horizon provides a faithful description of the physics in this case. To avoid such subtleties, we wish to exclude deeply bound orbits from our analysis. We achieve this by requiring that, if the orbit possesses an outer radial turning point at some $r=r_{\rm out}$, then \begin{equation}\label{nodeep} r_{\rm out}> R_{\rm isco}(\epsilon). \end{equation} It can be checked that, under this condition, the proper-time interval along any timelike equatorial geodesic connecting $r=r_{\rm out}$ to $r=R_{\rm eh}$ is finite (nonzero) even in the limit $\epsilon\to 0$ (taken with fixed $E,L$). The condition (\ref{nodeep}) demands that eligible particles must clear the peak of the effective potential (when such a peak exists) as they plunge into the black hole. \subsection{Overspinning domain} Given the restriction (\ref{nodeep}), a necessary and sufficient condition for a falling particle of specific energy $E$ to be captured by the black hole is \begin{equation}\label{capture} L<L_c(E). \end{equation} A captured particle would overspin the black hole if and only if \begin{equation}\label{OScondition} (M+\mu E)^2<a M+\mu L. \end{equation} Using $\tilde a=1-\epsilon^2$ and introducing the small mass ratio $\eta:=\mu/M$, this condition becomes \begin{equation} \label{OScond} \epsilon^2+\eta W+\eta^2 E^2<0\,, \end{equation} where we have introduced\footnote{Heuristically, $W/2$ may be interpreted as the specific energy in a co-rotating frame with $\tilde\Omega=1/2$, i.e., the common angular velocity of all unstable circular geodesics in the extremal limit.} \begin{equation}\label{calE} W:=2E-\tilde{L}. \end{equation} Note that Eq.\ (\ref{OScond}) sets a lower bound on $L$ (for given $E,\eta,\epsilon$), while Eq.\ (\ref{capture}) sets an upper bound. Also note that Eq.\ (\ref{OScond}) implies the necessary condition $W<0$ for overspinning to occur. Our goal now is to identify the complete domain in the space of $\{\eta,E,L\}$ for which the conditions (\ref{capture}) and (\ref{OScond}) are simultaneously satisfied, assuming $\epsilon\ll 1$ and the condition (\ref{nodeep}). For easy reference, let us call this domain ``OS'', for ``overspinning''. We first show that orbits with $L\leq L_{\rm isco}$ all fall {\it outside} OS. To this end, consider first the ISCO itself, where $W=2E_{\rm isco}-\tilde L_{\rm isco}=:W_{\rm isco}$. Using Eqs.\ (\ref{Ec}), (\ref{Lc}) and (\ref{risco}) we obtain $W_{\rm isco}= -\hat{c}\epsilon^{4/3}+O(\epsilon^2)$, where $\hat{c}=2^{1/3}\sqrt{3}>0$. Thus, $W_{\rm isco}$ is negative as required, but it can be easily checked that (\ref{OScond}) is always violated for sufficiently small $\epsilon$: Replacing $W\to -\hat{c}\epsilon^{4/3}$ in Eq.\ (\ref{OScond}) and considering the left-hand side as a quadratic function of $\eta$, we find this function is positive definite for any $\epsilon<(2E_{\rm isco}/\hat c)^3$. [Since $E_{\rm isco}$ is bounded from below by $E_{\rm isco}(\epsilon=0)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}$, we find that (\ref{OScond}) is always violated for $\epsilon<\frac{4}{27}$.] This rules out the ISCO itself, and it immediately rules out also all orbits with $\{E>E_{\rm isco},L=L_{\rm isco}\}$, for which $W>W_{\rm isco}$. Orbits with $\{E<E_{\rm isco},L_{\rm isco}\}$ {\it can} potentially satisfy Eq.\ (\ref{OScond}), but they are always deeply bound in the sense of failing to satisfy Eq.\ (\ref{nodeep}): For any $E<E_{\rm isco}$, the orbit has an outer radial turning point at a radius $r_{\rm out}<R_{\rm isco}$. The upshot is that orbits with $L=L_{\rm isco}$ are all outside OS. For orbits with $L<L_{\rm isco}$ we would need to require $E<E_{\rm isco}$ in order for $W$ to be sufficiently negative. But, once again, such orbits are excluded on account of their being deeply bound. We conclude that orbits with $L\leq L_{\rm isco}$ are all outside OS. Let us focus therefore on orbits with $L>L_{\rm isco}$. For such an orbit to be in OS, we require that (given $E,\eta,\epsilon$) $L$ is bounded from above by $L_c(E)$ and simultaneously from below via Eq.\ (\ref{OScond}): \begin{equation} \label{Lrange} \epsilon^2+2\eta E+\eta^2 E^2< \eta\tilde{L} < \eta\tilde L_c(E;\epsilon). \end{equation} We have made here the $\epsilon$ dependence of $L_c$ explicit, for clarity. The span of the permissible range is $\eta\Delta_L:=-\epsilon^2-\eta[2E-\tilde L_c(E;\epsilon)]-\eta^2 E^2$, or, using Eq.\ (\ref{LofE}), \begin{equation} \label{Delta_L} \eta\Delta_L=-\epsilon^2+\eta\epsilon \sqrt{6E^2-2}-\eta^2 E^2, \end{equation} where we have omitted terms of $O(\eta\epsilon^2)$. OS is populated if and only if we can find $E,\eta,\epsilon$ for which $\Delta_L>0$. A few conclusions can be drawn immediately. First, considering $\eta\Delta_L$ in Eq.\ (\ref{Delta_L}) as a quadratic function of $\eta$, we find it has a maximum value \begin{equation}\label{maxDeltaL} \max_\eta \eta\Delta_L = \frac{\epsilon^2(E^2-1)}{2 E^2}. \end{equation} This is positive only for $E>1$. Therefore, all orbits with $E\leq 1$ fall outside OS. {\it Bound orbits cannot overspin.} Second, for any $E>1$, we can obtain $\Delta_L>0$ by choosing the mass ratio $\eta$ from within the interval \begin{equation}\label{mrange} \epsilon \eta_-(E) <\eta < \epsilon \eta_+(E), \end{equation} where \begin{equation}\label{etaplusminus} \eta_{\pm}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\, E^2}\left[\sqrt{3E^2-1}\pm \sqrt{E^2-1}\right]. \end{equation} In other words, {\it overspinning can be achieved for any $E>1$, as long as $\eta$ satisfies (\ref{mrange})}. Since the condition $\Delta_L>0$ is both necessary and sufficient, the converse also holds: All orbits in OS satisfy $E>1$ with Eq.\ (\ref{mrange}). Third, from Eq.\ (\ref{mrange}) it follows that $\eta$ must be chosen to be of $O(\epsilon)$ (assuming $E\ll 1/\epsilon$). One can check that $\eta_+$ has a maximal value of \begin{equation} \max_E \eta_+ = \sqrt{3/2}, \end{equation} obtained for $E=2/\sqrt{3}$. Therefore, {\it the range $\eta\geq \sqrt{3/2}\, \epsilon$ lies outside OS}. The bandwidth of admissible mass ratios, for given $E$ and $\epsilon$, is \begin{equation}\label{Deltaeta} \Delta_\eta:=\epsilon\eta_{+}-\epsilon\eta_{-}=\epsilon\sqrt{2(E^2-1)}/E^2, \end{equation} which is maximal for $E=\sqrt{2}$. Figure \ref{bubble} depicts the permissible range of $\eta/\epsilon$ as a function of $E$. Fourth, from Eqs.\ (\ref{maxDeltaL}) and (\ref{Deltaeta}) we learn that an $E=\text{const}(>1)$ slice of OS has maximal dimensions $\Delta_L\sim \epsilon^2/\eta\sim\epsilon$ and $\Delta_\eta\sim\epsilon$. OS is thus a narrow ``tube'' in the $\{E,L,\eta\}$ parameter space, of a cross section $\sim\epsilon\times\epsilon$, whose boundary is tangent to the surface of unstable circular orbits, $L=L_c(E)$. To summarize, we have found that OS is a narrow tube-like region of the $\{E,L,\eta\}$ space, described by $E>1$, $L_c(E;\epsilon)-\Delta_L(E,\eta;\epsilon)<L<L_c(E;\epsilon)$ and $\epsilon\eta_-(E)<\eta<\epsilon\eta_+(E)$, where $\Delta_L$ and $\eta_{\pm}$ are given in Eqs.\ (\ref{Delta_L}) and (\ref{etaplusminus}), respectively. A neater description of the OS window is obtained in terms of the quantity $W$ defined in Eq.\ (\ref{calE}): Rearranging Eq.\ (\ref{Lrange}) and using (\ref{LofE}), we find \begin{equation}\label{calErange} \epsilon W_-(E) < W <\epsilon W_+(E,\eta/\epsilon), \end{equation} where \begin{equation}\label{calEmp} W_- = -\sqrt{6E^2-2}, \quad\ \ W_+ = -\left(\frac{\epsilon}{\eta} +\frac{\eta}{\epsilon}E^2\right). \end{equation} This domain is illustrated in Figure \ref{elos} for a sample of $\eta/\epsilon$ values. To overspin a black hole of given $M$ and $\epsilon\ll 1$, one should pick an $E$ greater than $1$, choose any $\eta$ from within the interval (\ref{mrange}), and then choose $W$ (hence $L$) from within the interval (\ref{calErange}). \begin{figure} \includegraphics[scale=0.45]{bubble.pdf} \caption{\label{bubble} Domain of mass ratios $\eta$ for which overspinning is possible in the geodesic approximation. $\eta$ is shown divided by the near-extremality parameter $\epsilon=(1-a/M)^{1/2}$, and $E$ is the particle's specific energy. The boundaries $\eta_{\pm}(E)$ are given in Eq.\ (\ref{etaplusminus}). Overspinning is not possible for $E<1$ or $\eta>\sqrt{3/2}\,\epsilon$. However, for any value $E>1$ there is a range of $\eta$ for which the black hole may be overspun. This happens if the particle's angular momentum is chosen from within the range indicated in Eq.\ (\ref{calErange}). } \end{figure} \begin{figure} \includegraphics[scale=0.45]{Ecal.pdf} \caption{\label{elos} The overspinning window, shown in the plane of $E,W$ (where $W = 2E-L/M$) for several values of $\eta/\epsilon$. Note $W$ is shown divided by $\epsilon$. The boundaries $W_{\pm}$ are given in Eq.\ (\ref{calEmp}). The lower boundary $W_{-}(E)$ (which does not depend on $\eta$) arises from the requirement that the particle is captured by the black hole. The upper boundary $W_{+}(E,\eta/\epsilon)$ comes from the requirement that the final object is an over-extremal black hole. Overspinning is possible with any $E>1$, provided $\eta$ is chosen from within the range shown in Eq.\ (\ref{mrange}). } \end{figure} \begin{comment} \subsection{Reformulation in terms of impact parameter} Our finding that only orbits sent in from infinity are relevant for the overspinning scenario (at least in the geodesic approximation) allows us to reparametrize the problem using the geometrical notion of an impact parameter, which is more intuitive. This would also prove useful for our later discussion of self-force effects. For a particle coming from infinity on an equatorial orbit, the impact parameter is defined as \begin{equation} b:=\lim_{r\to\infty} r \sin\left|\phi(r)-\phi(\infty)\right| . \end{equation} This can be readily evaluated to give \begin{equation} b=\frac{L}{\sqrt{E^2-1}} . \end{equation} For $L>L_{\rm isco}$ and $E>1$, we define the {\it critical} impact parameter \begin{equation} b_c(E):=\frac{L_c(E)}{\sqrt{E^2-1}} . \end{equation} For given $E$, orbits with $b<b_c(E)$ are captured by the black hole, while orbits with $b>b_c(E)$ are scattered. Orbits with $b=b_c(E)$ become trapped on an unstable circular orbit (self-force neglected) and are not captured. The capture condition (\ref{capture}) can now be formulated in terms of $b$ and $b_c(E)$, with the rest of the analysis remaining essentially intact. In particular, we find that the $b$-span of the overspinning window, maximized over $\eta$, is \begin{equation}\label{maxDeltab} \max_\eta \Delta_b = \frac{\epsilon^2(E^2-1)^{1/2}}{2\eta E^2} \end{equation} [cf.\ Eq.\ (\ref{maxDeltaL})]. The boundaries of OS are again described by Eq.\ (\ref{calErange}), with the simple replacement $W\to E- \tilde b\sqrt{E^2-1}/2$. \end{comment} \section{Self-force preliminaries}\label{Sec:GSF} Because the width of the overspinning window is of $O(\eta)$, self-gravity effects may potentially close this window, and they must therefore be included in the analysis. Specifically, the GSF modifies the capture condition (\ref{capture}) by changing the functional relation $L_c(E)$ at $O(\eta)$. It also modifies the overspinning condition (\ref{OScondition}) by dissipating away some of the system's initial energy and angular momentum. In this section we introduce relevant results from the theory of self-forced motion. In Sec.\ \ref{Sec:OSwSF} we will then use these results to derive conditions for capture and overspinning under the full GSF effect. \subsection{Equation of motion with self-force} There now exists a rigorous formulation of the equations of motion for compact objects in curved spacetime, valid through first post-geodesic order in perturbation theory---see \cite{Gralla,Pound:2009sm,Harte, Gralla} and references therein, and \cite{Poisson,Harte:2014wya} for recent reviews. The formulation applies in situations where all lengthscales associated with the compact object are much smaller than the typical curvature radius of the background geometry. The motion of the compact object is then determined via a systematic procedure of matched asymptotic expansions, and interpreted as an accelerated motion in the background spacetime, subject to an effective GSF ($\propto\eta^2$). One of the results is that the internal structure of the object does not affect the self-acceleration at $O(\eta)$ (except, if the particle is spinning, through the familiar Mathisson--Papapetrou spin term). The GSF formalism should be applicable in our setup, since we work under the assumption $\mu E\ll M$. The introduction of the small background-related parameter $\epsilon$ should not pose a problem, because the background's curvature radius remains much larger than $\mu E$ even in the limit $\epsilon\to 0$, and even as the particle approaches the horizon. We will indeed proceed under the assumption that the standard first-order GSF formalism is applicable anywhere along the particle's trajectory until it crosses the horizon. The equation of motion, including the leading-order GSF, may be written in the form \begin{equation}\label{EOM} \mu \hat u^{\beta}\nabla_{\beta}\hat u^{\alpha}=F^{\alpha}. \end{equation} Here $\hat u^{\alpha}$ is the particle's four-velocity, tangent to the (accelerated) trajectory in the background spacetime (Kerr, in our case) and normalized using \begin{equation}\label{normalization} g_{\alpha\beta}\hat u^{\alpha}\hat u^{\beta}=-1, \end{equation} where $g_{\alpha\beta}$ is the background (Kerr) metric. The covariant derivative in (\ref{EOM}) is taken with respect to $g_{\alpha\beta}$, and $F^{\alpha}$ is the first-order GSF, proportional to $\mu^2$. The GSF is normal to the four-velocity, $g_{\alpha\beta}\hat u^{\alpha}F^{\beta}=0$, so that the rest mass $\mu$ remains constant. Methods to compute $F^{\alpha}$ in Kerr spacetime are reviewed in \cite{barack}. In should be noted that $F^{\alpha}$ itself is a gauge-dependent notion: A full, gauge-invariant information about the motion is contained only in the combination of the GSF and the metric perturbation with which it is associated \cite{gsfandgt}. Now consider a particle sent in along the equator of the Kerr black hole, i.e.~with $\theta=\pi/2$ and $\hat {u}^{\theta}=0$ at the initial moment, where hereafter $\tau$ is proper time along the self-accelerated orbit in $g_{\alpha\beta}$. In any reasonable gauge, the component $F^{\theta}$ would vanish from symmetry and the motion will remain equatorial. Let us then define \begin{equation} \label{E&L} \hat E:=-\hat u_{t}, \quad\quad \hat L:=\hat u_{\phi}, \end{equation} in analogy with $E$ and $L$ of the geodesic case. Here, however, $\hat E$ and $\hat L$ are not constants of the motion. Rather, Eq.\ (\ref{EOM}) tells us they evolve (slowly) according to \begin{equation} \label{E&Ldot} \mu\frac{d\hat{E}}{d\tau}=-{F}_{t}, \quad\quad \mu\frac{d\hat L}{d\tau}={F}_{\phi}, \end{equation} where $F_{\alpha}=g_{\alpha\beta}F^{\beta}$. With these definitions, Eq.\ (\ref{normalization}) produces the radial equation of motion \begin{equation} \label{rdotGSF} \dot{r}^{2}=B(r)\left({\hat E}-V_{-}(\hat{L},{r})\right) \left(\hat{E}-V_{+}(\hat{L},{r})\right), \end{equation} whose form is identical to that of Eq.\ (\ref{rdot})---except that here $\hat E$ and $\hat L$ are slow functions of $\tau$ along the orbit. The results of the previous section lead us to focus attention on particles sent in from infinity, i.e., ones with $r(\tau\to-\infty)\to\infty$. For such particles, we define \begin{equation} E_{\infty}:=\hat E(\tau\to-\infty),\quad\quad L_{\infty}:=\hat L(\tau\to-\infty). \end{equation} From Eq.\ (\ref{E&Ldot}) we have \begin{equation} \label{hatEL} \hat{E}(\tau) = E_{\infty}+\Delta E(\tau), \quad \quad \hat{L}(\tau) = L_{\infty}+\Delta L(\tau), \end{equation} where \begin{equation} \label{DeltaEL} \mu\Delta E(\tau)=-\int_{-\infty}^{\tau}\!\!\!\! F_t\, d\tau, \quad\quad \mu\Delta L(\tau)=\int_{-\infty}^{\tau}\!\!\!\! F_\phi\, d\tau. \end{equation} In principle, the coupled set (\ref{rdotGSF}) with (\ref{hatEL}) determines the self-accelerated orbit, given the initial values $E_{\infty},L_{\infty}$ and a method for calculating the GSF along the orbit. \subsection{Dissipative and Conservative pieces of the self-force} The quantities $\Delta E(\tau)$ and $\Delta L(\tau)$ encapsulate both conservative and dissipative effects of the GSF. This terminology refers to a splitting of the GSF in the form \begin{equation} F^{\alpha}=F^{\alpha}_{\rm cons}+F^{\alpha}_{\rm diss}, \end{equation} where the first and second terms are the self-forces exerted, respectively, by the ``time-symmetric'' and ``time-antisymmetric'' pieces of the (regularized) metric perturbation (cf.\ \cite{barack} for a more precise definition). For geodesic motion in the equatorial plane of a Kerr black hole, $F^{\alpha}$ can be thought of as a function of only $r$ and $\dot{r}$ along the orbit. The particular time symmetry of such geodesics then implies \cite{barack} \begin{eqnarray} \label{Fcons} F^{\alpha}_{\rm cons}(r,\dot{r})&=&\frac{1}{2}\left[F^{\alpha}(r,\dot{r})+s_{(\alpha)}F^{\alpha}(r,-\dot{r})\right],\\ \label{Fdiss} F^{\alpha}_{\rm diss}(r,\dot{r})&=&\frac{1}{2}\left[F^{\alpha}(r,\dot{r})-s_{(\alpha)}F^{\alpha}(r,-\dot{r})\right] \end{eqnarray} (no summation over $\alpha$), where $s_{(t)}=-1=s_{(\phi)}$ and $s_{(r)}=+1$. This gives a simple prescription for constructing $F^{\alpha}_{\rm cons}$ and $F^{\alpha}_{\rm diss}$ along geodesics, given the full GSF. For circular orbits we have $F^{\alpha}(r,\dot{r})=F^{\alpha}(r,-\dot{r})$, meaning $F^t,F^{\phi}$ are purely dissipative while $F^r$ is purely conservative. In general, however, each component has both dissipative and conservative pieces. Of particular interest to us will be nearly-circular orbits with $|\dot{r}|\ll 1$. Along such orbits we may write, to leading order in $|\dot{r}|$, \begin{equation} \label{Ftnearcirc} F^{\alpha}_{\rm cons} \simeq \dot{r} F^{\alpha}_{1}(r),\quad\quad F^{\alpha}_{\rm diss} \simeq F^{\alpha}_{0}(r) \end{equation} for $\alpha=t,\phi$, and \begin{equation} \label{Frnearcirc} F^{r}_{\rm cons} \simeq F^{r}_{0}(r),\quad\quad F^{r}_{\rm diss} \simeq \dot{r} F^{r}_{1}(r), \end{equation} where $F^{\alpha}_0$ and $F^{\alpha}_1$ are some functions of $r$ only. Equations (\ref{Fcons})--(\ref{Frnearcirc}) are applicable, at leading order in $\eta$, even for an orbit that is slowly evolving under the GSF effect. In that case the GSF depends also on the instantaneous self-acceleration, but that dependence appears only at subleading order in $\eta$. At leading order, Eqs.\ (\ref{Fcons})--(\ref{Frnearcirc}) maintain their form at each point along the orbit. The GSF integrals $\Delta E$ and $\Delta L$ can be related, in certain situations, to asymptotic fluxes of energy and angular momentum in gravitational waves. This was established rigorously in Ref.\ \cite{quinn} for a trajectory starting and ending at infinity.\footnote{The configuration considered in Ref.\ \cite{quinn} had no black hole in it, but the authors argue convincingly that a similar conclusion would hold also in the black hole case, if fluxes down the event horizon were accounted for in the balance equation.} A similar balance relation has been argued to hold also for adiabatic inspiral orbits around a black hole, subject to a suitable averaging over many orbital periods \cite{Detweiler:2008ft,Flanagan}. In both scenarios, the contribution from $F^{\alpha}_{\rm cons}$ to the integrals $\Delta E$ and $\Delta L$ (taken from $\tau=-\infty$ to $\tau=+\infty$) vanishes at leading order, by virtue of the orbital symmetry expressed in Eq.\ (\ref{Fcons}). This guarantees that the radiated fluxes balance the work done by the {\em dissipative} piece of the self-force alone, as expected. \subsection{ADM energy and angular momentum} Our analysis in the next section will require knowledge of the total, conserved ADM energy and angular momentum contents of the spacetime in the above setup. Specifically, we will need expressions for $E_{\rm ADM}$ and $L_{\rm ADM}$ in terms of $E_{\infty}$ and $L_{\infty}$ (and the two masses, $M$ and $\mu$), correct through $O(\mu^2)$. A subtlety is that ADM quantities are most conveniently evaluated in a ``center-of mass'' system (and, at the required order, would include a contribution from the black hole's ``recoil'' motion), whereas $E_{\infty}$ and $L_{\infty}$ are components of the particle's four-velocity, defined in a coordinate system centered around the black-hole. In our setup, the ADM quantities are most easily evaluated on a hypersurface of constant $t\ll -M$, where the binary separation is $r\gg M$. In the limit $t\to -\infty$ ($r\to\infty$), the gravitational interaction energy vanishes and does not contribute to $E_{\rm ADM}$. Working at that limit, we assume that, for the purpose of calculating ADM quantities, the black hole--particle system may be replaced with that of two relativistic pointlike particles in flat spacetime. $E_{\rm ADM}$ is then simply the sum of the two relativistic energies in the center-of-mass frame, and $L_{\rm ADM}$ is similarly the sum of two angular momenta (with respect to the center of mass), plus the spin of the black hole. Appendix \ref{App:ADM} gives the details of this calculation, which is straightforward. The result is \begin{equation}\label{EADM} E_{\rm ADM} = M\left[1+\eta E_{\infty} -\frac{1}{2}\eta^2 (E_{\infty}^2-1)\right] +o(\eta^2), \end{equation} \begin{equation}\label{LADM} L_{\rm ADM} = M\left(a + \etaL_{\infty} -\eta^2 \LinfE_{\infty}\right) + o(\eta^2) . \end{equation} \subsection{Critical orbits} In the geodesic case we have introduced the function $L_c(E)$, which we now interpret as the {\em critical value} of the angular momentum for a given energy: Geodesic orbits with $L>L_c(E)$ scatter back to infinity, while ones with $L<L_c(E)$ fall into the black hole. This type of critical behavior carries over to the GSF case, though radiation losses then introduce a subtlety, since orbits that are initially scattered may fall into the black hole at a subsequent approach. However, we may still speak of a critical threshold for an {\it immediate} capture, which separates (in the space of initial conditions) between orbits that scatter at first approach and orbits that do not. A detailed analysis of this critical behavior was given in Ref.\ \cite{gund} for orbits in Schwarzschild spacetime (working in the first-order GSF approximation, as here), and in the following discussion we assume the same qualitative behavior applies in the Kerr case too. In particular, we assume there exists a critical value $L_{\infty}={L_{\infty}}_{,c}(E_{\infty})$ that separates between the two possible outcomes. The initial conditions $\{E_{\infty},{L_{\infty}}_{,c}(E_{\infty})\}$ thus define a one-parameter family of ``critical orbits''. Let us denote by $\hat E_c(\tau;E_{\infty})$ and $\hat L_c(\tau;E_{\infty})$ the functions $\hat E(\tau)$ and $\hat L(\tau)$ corresponding to a critical orbit with a given $E_{\infty}$ [so that $\hat E_c(\tau\to-\infty;E_{\infty})=E_{\infty}$ and $\hat L_c(\tau\to-\infty;E_{\infty})={L_{\infty}}_{,c}(E_{\infty})$]. Unlike in the geodesic case where critical geodesics of different $E$ are disjoint, in the GSF case all critical orbits join a {\em global attractor}, which is the perfectly fine-tuned orbit that evolves radiatively along the sequence of unstable circular orbits starting at the light ring and ending at the ISCO, where it plunges into the black hole. Figure 1 in Ref.\ \cite{gund} illustrates the evolution of the critical orbit along the attractor, and see also Fig.\ \ref{attractor} below. Let us define the ``GSF correction'' \begin{equation}\label{deltaL1} \delta L_c(\tau;E_{\infty}):=\hat L_c(\tau;E_{\infty})-L_c(E_{\infty}), \end{equation} and then \begin{equation}\label{deltaLdef} \delta L_{\infty}(E_{\infty}):= \delta L_c(\tau\to-\infty;E_{\infty}). \end{equation} $\delta L_{\infty}$ is the GSF-induced shift in the critical value of $L_{\infty}$ at a fixed $E_{\infty}$. It may also be interpreted in terms of a GSF correction to the critical impact parameter. We assume that the difference $\delta L_c(\tau;E_{\infty})$ remains small [$O(\eta)$] during the approach, which should be the case in any reasonable gauge. However, clearly, that difference ceases to remain small as the critical orbit joins the global attractor and evolves along it; then the meaning of $\delta L_c(\tau;E_{\infty})$ as a small GSF correction is lost. For our analysis of overspinning orbits in the next section, we will require an explicit expression for $\delta L_{\infty}(E_{\infty})$ in terms of GSF quantities. It is instructive to derive this relation first with the dissipative piece of the GSF turned off, i.e.\ replacing the full GSF with its conservative piece (in which case the global attractor disappears, and critical orbits of different $E_{\infty}$ remain disjoint). Let us call the resulting quantity $\delta L^{\rm cons}_{\infty}(E_{\infty})$. As a second step we will restore dissipation and consider its effect. \subsubsection{Conservative GSF effect}\label{subsubsec:cons} With dissipation turned off, the critical orbit becomes exactly stationary at $\tau\to \infty$, where it joins an unstable (nongeodesic) circular orbit of radius $\hat R(E_{\infty})=R(E_{\infty})+\delta R$. Here $R(E_{\infty})$ is the geodesic relation given in Eq.\ (\ref{rhopar}), and $\delta R$ is a conservative GSF correction. To obtain $\delta L^{\rm cons}_{\infty}$ we first substitute $\hat E$ and $\hat L$ from Eq.\ (\ref{hatEL}) into the radial equation of motion (\ref{rdotGSF}), replacing $L_{\infty}$ with $L_c(E_{\infty}) + \deltaL_{\infty}^{\rm cons}(E_{\infty})$, where $L_c(E_{\infty})$ is the geodesic relation given in Eq.\ (\ref{LofE}). We then demand $dr/d\tau=0$ as well as $d^2r/d\tau^2=0$ at $r=\hat R$ through $O(\eta)$. At leading order in $\epsilon$ this yields two algebraic equations for the two $O(\eta)$ unknowns $\deltaL_{\infty}^{\rm cons}$ and $\delta R$, given $E_{\infty}$ and the GSF. The solution is \begin{equation} \label{deltaLcons1} \delta {L}_{\infty}^{\rm cons}(E_{\infty})=2M\Delta E^{\rm cons}(\infty)-\Delta {L}^{\rm cons}(\infty) , \end{equation} and $\delta R(E_{\infty})=O(\epsilon)O(\eta)$. Here $\Delta E^{\rm cons}$ and $\Delta L^{\rm cons}$ are the same as $\Delta E$ and $\Delta L$ of Eq.\ (\ref{DeltaEL}), but with $F_\alpha\to F_\alpha^{\rm cons}$, and with the GSF integrals evaluated along the critical orbit with energy-at-infinity $E_{\infty}$. The precise dependence of $\delta R$ on the GSF will not be needed, but we note that the $O(\epsilon\eta)$ GSF correction to the radius of the critical circular orbit is reassuringly small compared to the $O(\epsilon)$ radial distance to the light ring. To simplify the appearance of subsequent equations, let us from now on use units in which $M=1$. This, in particular, makes our ``tilde'' notation redundant (with $\tilde{L}=L$, etc.) and $\mu$ becomes interchangeable with $\eta$. Recalling our $W$ notation from Eq.\ (\ref{calE}), we rewrite Eq.\ (\ref{deltaLcons1}) as \begin{equation} \label{deltaLcons2} \delta{L}_{\infty}^{\rm cons}(E_{\infty})=\Delta W^{\rm cons}(\infty) , \end{equation} where $\Delta W^{\rm cons}$ represents the conservative piece of \begin{eqnarray}\label{DeltacalE} \Delta W(\tau)&:=&2\Delta E(\tau) - \Delta L(\tau) \nonumber\\ &=& -\eta^{-1} \int_{-\infty}^{\tau}\left(2F_t+ F_{\phi}\right)d\tau . \end{eqnarray} The quantity $\Delta W^{\rm cons}(\infty)$ is the limit $\tau\to\infty$ of $\Delta W^{\rm cons}(\tau)$. Does this limit actually exist? The answer is positive, since both $F_t^{\rm cons}$ and $F_\phi^{\rm cons}$ vanish exponentially fast in $\tau$ as the orbit approaches the limiting circular orbit at $\tau\to\infty$. To make this last statement more precise, let us split the $\tau$ integral into an ``approach'' piece, $\int_{-\infty}^{\tau_c}$, and a ``quasi-circular'' piece, $\int_{\tau_c}^{\infty}$, with $\tau_c$ chosen so that $\delta r(\tau_c)$, where $\delta r(\tau):=r(\tau)-\hat R$, is already very small. For a small $\delta r$ we have the form $F_t^{\rm cons}\simeq \dot{r} F_{1t}(r)$ [Eq.\ (\ref{Ftnearcirc})] and similarly for $F_\phi^{\rm cons}$. Thus $\int_{\tau_c}^{\infty}F_t^{\rm cons}d\tau\simeq -F_{1t}(\hat R)\delta r(\tau_c)$, and similarly for the $\phi$ component. A local analysis of Eq.\ (\ref{rdotGSF}) near the limiting circular orbit gives $\delta r\sim e^{-\lambda\tau}$, with a Lyapunov exponent $\lambda=M^{-1}(3E_{\infty}^2-1)^{1/2}$ at leading order in $\epsilon$ (and ignoring the small effect of the GSF). The choice $\tau_c=-\lambda^{-1}\log\eta$, for example, gives $\delta r(\tau_c)\sim\eta$, and the quasi-circular piece of $\Delta W^{\rm cons}$ does not contribute to $\delta L_{\infty}^{\rm cons}$ at leading order in $\eta$. Our discussion assumes that $\Delta E(\tau_c)$ and $\Delta L(\tau_c)$ [hence also $\Delta W(\tau_c)$] are $O(\eta)$ quantities, i.e.\ that the accumulated GSF-induced positional shift in the orbit during the approach is a small, $O(\eta)$ quantity. This should be the case in any reasonable gauge. Under this assumption, we note that the value of the integral $\Delta W$ remains unchanged, at leading order in $\eta$, if in Eq.\ (\ref{DeltacalE}) we replace the integration along the actual, GSF-perturbed orbit, with an integration along the critical {\em geodesic} of energy $E_{\infty}$. This can be exploited to simplify actual calculations: To compute $\delta L_{\infty}^{\rm cons}$ at leading order in $\eta$ requires only an evaluation of the GSF along a fixed geodesic, and there is no need to consider the back-reaction from the GSF on the orbital trajectory. \subsubsection{Full GSF effect} Now restore dissipation. The fine-tuned critical orbit no longer settles into a strictly stationary motion, but rather it continues to evolve radiatively, in an adiabatic fashion, through a sequence of unstable circular orbits of decreasing energies (hence increasing radii). With a perfect fine-tuning, the orbit can reach the ISCO before plunging into the black hole---a scenario illustrated in Fig.\ \ref{attractor}. A relation between the degree of fine-tuning and the amount of energy loss was derived in Ref.\ \cite{gund} (for the Schwarzschild case): Rewriting their Eq.\ (124) in terms of angular momentum, we have the scaling $\delta L/L_{\infty,c}\sim \exp[(E_{\rm f}-E_{\rm i})/\eta]$, where $\delta L$ (not to be confused with the GSF shift $\deltaL_{\infty}$) is any small perturbation in the value of the initial angular momentum off the critical value $L_{\infty,c}$, and $E_{\rm f}-E_{\rm i}$ is the resulting change in specific energy as the orbit progresses along the global attractor. To achieve an $O(1)$ change in the specific energy requires an ``exponentially delicate'' fine-tuning, $\delta L/L_{\infty,c}\sim \exp(-1/\eta)$. For our analysis we do not require knowledge of the perfectly fine-tuned angular momentum at that level. We need $L_{\infty,c}$ through $O(\eta)$ only. Fine-tuning at $O(\eta)$ [corresponding to $\delta L=o(\eta)$] guarantees only $E_{\rm f}-E_{\rm i}=O(\eta\ln\eta)$. Therefore, for the purpose of determining $L_{\infty,c}$ through $O(\eta)$, it is sufficient to restrict attention to the early part of the critical orbit, where $\Delta E$ and $\Delta L$ (specific values) are still $O(\eta\ln\eta)$ at most, and have not yet accumulated $O(1)$ changes. This observation assists us in Appendix \ref{App:dL}, where we derive an expression for the leading-order full-GSF correction $\delta L_{\infty}(E_{\infty})$ \begin{figure} \begin{center} \includegraphics[scale=0.45]{attractor.pdf} \caption{\label{attractor} Schematic illustration of the evolution of orbital energy along a perfectly fine-tuned critical orbit (solid blue curve). The orbit approaches from infinity, becomes trapped on an unstable circular orbit, and then evolves adiabatically in a quasi-circular fashion before transiting to plunge around the ISCO location. Radiative losses are small during the approach and plunge, but, through fine-tuning, the orbit can be made to lose ``all'' its energy during the quasi-circular stage. Intermediate values of the final energy $E_f$ may also be obtained by fine-tuning (dashed magenta line). Note the orbital radius {\it increases} through radiation losses during the quasi-circular stage. In the near-extremal case, $\epsilon\ll 1$, the quasi-circular evolution and final plunge occur within a small range of coordinate radii, $\Delta r= O(\epsilon)$. } \end{center} \end{figure} Our main result in Appendix \ref{App:dL} is that \begin{equation} \label{deltaL2} \delta {L}_{\infty}(E_{\infty}) = \Delta W(\tau_c)+O(\epsilon)O(\eta\ln\eta), \end{equation} in analogy with the ``no dissipation'' case, Eq.\ (\ref{deltaLcons2}). Here, $\Delta W(\tau_c)$ is the full-GSF integral shown in Eq.\ (\ref{DeltacalE}), evaluated along the orbit from infinity and up to the ``end of approach'' time $\tau_c$, when the orbit settles into a quasi-circular motion. Crucially, the contribution to $\Delta W$ from the quasi-circular part of the orbit is suppressed by a factor of $\epsilon$, so that the precise choice of $\tau_c$ does not affect the value of $\Delta W(\tau_c)$ at leading order. This assumes only that $\epsilon\ll |\ln\eta|^{-1}$, so that the error terms in Eq.\ (\ref{deltaL2}) are negligible compared to $\Delta W(\tau_c)=O(\epsilon^0)O(\eta)$. All we require of $\tau_c$ is to be sufficiently late that $|\dot{r}|$ is already very small [specifically, $\dot{r}(\tau_c)=O(\eta)$], but sufficiently early that $\Delta E$ is $O(\eta\ln\eta)$ at most. In practice, $\Delta W$ may again be evaluated along the critical {\it geodesic} of energy-at-infinity $E_{\infty}$, with the integral in Eq.\ (\ref{deltaL2}) truncated after, say, 4--5 orbital revolutions. Truncating instead after (e.g.) 10 revolutions should change the result by a negligible amount of only $O(\epsilon)O(\eta)$. The dissipative piece of $\Delta W(\tau_c)$ [call it $\Delta W^{\rm diss}$, defined by replacing $F_{\alpha}\to F_{\alpha}^{\rm diss}$ in Eq.\ (\ref{deltaL2})] may be expressed in terms of radiated quantities. Let ${\cal E}_{\rm (apr)}$ and ${\cal L}_{\rm (apr)}$ be the total energy and angular momentum in gravitational waves radiated out to infinity and down the black hole during the approach. We shall assume that the balance relation\footnote{The balance (\ref{balancecalE}) does not follow directly from the theorem of Ref.\ \cite{quinn}, because the approach part of the critical orbit does not end at infinity. It may be possible to construct a proof by considering a small outward deformation of the orbit (such that the new orbit starts at infinity and scatters back to infinity), then invoking the approximate symmetry about the periapsis, together with the $\epsilon$-suppression of the quasi-circular contribution to $\Delta W^{\rm diss}$. We shall not endeavour to provide the details of such a proof here.}\textsuperscript{,}\footnote{One cannot expect to be able to similarly balance ${\cal E}_{\rm (apr)}$ and ${\cal L}_{\rm (apr)}$ individually, because the dissipative pieces of $\Delta E(\tau_c)$ and $\Delta L(\tau_c)$, unlike $\Delta W^{\rm diss}(\tau_c)$, {\em are} sensitive to the choice of $\tau_c$ already at leading order. However, such individual balance relations will not be needed in our analysis.} \begin{equation}\label{balancecalE} {\cal W}_{\rm (apr)}:=2{\cal E}_{\rm (apr)}-{\cal L}_{\rm (apr)} =-\eta \Delta W^{\rm diss}(\tau_c) \end{equation} holds at leading order in $\eta$ and in $\epsilon$. Equations (\ref{deltaLcons2}) and (\ref{deltaL2}) then lead to \begin{equation} \label{deltaLdiss2} \delta{L}_{\infty}=\delta {L}_{\infty}^{\rm cons} -{\cal W}_{\rm (apr)}/\eta , \end{equation} where subleading terms have been omitted. This reexpresses $\delta{L}_{\infty}$ as a sum of conservative and radiative contributions, the motivation for which will become clear in the next section. Finally, let us further write ${\cal E}_{\rm (apr)}={\cal E}_{\rm (apr)}^++{\cal E}_{\rm (apr)}^-$ and similarly for ${\cal L}_{\rm (apr)}$ and ${\cal W}_{\rm (apr)}$, where hereafter superscripts `$+$' and `$-$' denote contributions from fluxes to infinity and down the black hole, respectively. The following argument, based on the first law of black hole mechanics, suggests that ${\cal W}^-_{\rm (apr)}$ must vanish in the limit $\epsilon\to 0$. If we assume the black hole is not overspun during the approach, its horizon's area should increase by an amount $\delta A$ satisfying \begin{equation}\label{firstlaw} \frac{\kappa}{8\pi}\delta A = {\cal E}_{\rm (apr)}^- -\Omega_{H} {\cal L}_{\rm (apr)}^-, \end{equation} where $\kappa=\epsilon/\sqrt{2}+O(\epsilon^2)$ is the horizon's surface gravity, and $\Omega_{\rm H}$ its angular velocity. Since $\Omega_{\rm H}=\frac{1}{2}+O(\epsilon)$, we identify the right-hand side of (\ref{firstlaw}) as ${\cal W}^-_{\rm (apr)}$ at leading order in $\epsilon$. We thus have, in the extremal limit, ${\cal W}^-_{\rm (apr)}\simeq \epsilon(c_1\delta A+c_2{\cal L}^-_{\rm (apr)})$, with $c_1,c_2$ certain numerical coefficients. Since $\delta A$ and ${\cal L}^-_{\rm (apr)}$ must remain bounded even in the extremal limit, we conclude that ${\cal W}^-_{\rm (apr)}$ vanishes in that limit. Thus, at leading order in $\epsilon$, Eq.\ (\ref{deltaLdiss2}) becomes \begin{equation} \label{deltaLdiss3} \delta{L}_{\infty}=\delta {L}_{\infty}^{\rm cons} -{\cal W}^+_{\rm (apr)}/\eta , \end{equation} which now features only outgoing fluxes. With this we have completed the necessary groundwork for our overspinning analysis, to be presented next. \section{Overspinning with the full self-force}\label{Sec:OSwSF} \subsection{General form of the censorship condition and reduction to near-critical orbits} Starting with a near-extremal Kerr geometry with $a/M=1-\epsilon^2$, consider a particle sent in from infinity with specific energy $E_{\infty}$ and specific angular-momentum $L_{\infty}$ at $t\to -\infty$. The ADM mass and angular momentum of the spacetime are given in Eqs.\ (\ref{EADM}) and (\ref{LADM}) through $O(\eta^2)$. We assume the particle crosses the event horizon\footnote{More pedantically, we refer here to the crossing of a marginally trapped surface; spacetime need not contain a global horizon.} at some retarded time $u_h$, and we let ${\cal E}^{+}$ and ${\cal L}^{+}$ be the total energy and angular momentum radiated to null-infinity up until $u_h$ (with $u_h\to\infty$ if the post-capture geometry relaxes to a Kerr black hole). Then the Bondi mass and angular-momentum of spacetime at retarded time $u_h$ are $E_{\rm ADM}-{\cal E}^{+}$ and $L_{\rm ADM}-{\cal L}^{+}$, respectively. Overspinning is {\em avoided} if and only if\footnote{We do not know, and for our purpose do not need to know, the future evolution of spacetime beyond retarded time $u_h$ in the hypothetical case where (\ref{avoided}) is {\it not} satisfied. The likely scenario involves the formation of a naked singularity and a breakdown of predictability for $u>u_h$ \cite{wald}. If (\ref{avoided}) {\em is} satisfied, then, by ``no-hair'' theorems, geometry should relax to a Kerr black hole.} \begin{equation} \label{avoided} (E_{\rm ADM}-{\cal E}^{+})^2 \geq L_{\rm ADM}-{\cal L}^{+} . \end{equation} To rule out the overspinning scenario, we need to show that this inequality holds for all $E_{\infty},L_{\infty}$ and for all $\eta,\epsilon$. Since we work in first-order perturbation theory, we only demand that (\ref{avoided}) is satisfied at leading order in $\eta$. We also assume $\epsilon\ll 1$ and keep only leading terms in $\epsilon$, but we do not {\it a priori} restrict the magnitude of $\epsilon$ relative to that of $\eta$. We shall refer to the inequality (\ref{avoided}) as the {\it censorship condition}.\footnote{It may be argued that (\ref{avoided}) is guaranteed to hold (with a strong inequality) by virtue of the third law of black-hole mechanics \cite{Israel}, though it is clear that some of the third-law's assumptions are not satisfied within our model---see \cite{zimm} for a discussion. Even if that can be established, it is still of interest to explore the {\em physical mechanism} that enforces the third law in our setup, which is what our study aims to achieve.} Substituting from Eqs.\ (\ref{eps}), (\ref{EADM}) and (\ref{LADM}), the censorship condition becomes \begin{multline}\label{OSGSF0} \epsilon^2+\eta W_{\infty}+\eta^2(1+{L}_{\infty}E_{\infty}-E_{\infty}^2) \\ +(\etaE_{\infty}-{\cal E}^{+})^2 - {{\cal W}}^{+} \geq 0 , \end{multline} where $W_{\infty}:=2E_{\infty}-{L}_{\infty}$, ${{\cal W}}^{+}:=2{\cal E}^{+}-{\cal L}^{+}$, and we have omitted subleading terms of $o(\eta^2)$. Note how the various terms here scale with $\eta$. The quantities $E_{\infty}$ and $L_{\infty}$ (hence also $W_{\infty}$) are specific values, thus {\it a priori} they are $O(\eta^0)$. The radiated energy ${\cal E}^{+}$ is generically $O(\eta^2)$, but may accumulate at $O(\eta)$ for orbits that are fine-tuned to evolve along the global attractor; it is to allow for such orbits that we have kept the terms $2\etaE_{\infty}{\cal E}^{+}$ and $({\cal E}^{+})^2$ in Eq.\ (\ref{OSGSF0}). The quantity ${\cal W}^{+}$ is likewise $O(\eta^2)$ generically and up to $O(\eta)$ with fine-tuning, but, as will be shown below, in the latter case the $O(\eta)$ term is also proportional to $\epsilon$. Inspecting Eq.\ (\ref{OSGSF0}), we observe that, for all captured orbits that are not sufficiently close to criticality, the term $\eta W_\infty$ is $O(\eta)$ and positive, so the censorship condition (\ref{OSGSF0}) is trivially satisfied at leading order in $\eta$ and $\epsilon$. Violation of (\ref{OSGSF0}) (hence overspinning) may only be achieved, potentially, if $L_{\infty}$ is tuned so that $L_{\infty}=2E_{\infty}+O(\epsilon,\eta)$, giving $W_\infty=O(\epsilon,\eta)$. It is therefore sufficient to restrict attention to this class of orbits, to be referred to in what follows as ``near-critical''. Formulated on near-critical orbits, the censorship condition takes the sufficient form \begin{equation}\label{OSGSF01} \epsilon^2+\eta W_{\infty}+\eta^2(1+E_{\infty}^2) +(\etaE_{\infty}-{\cal E}^{+})^2 - {{\cal W}}^{+} \geq 0 , \end{equation} where we have dropped $O(\epsilon\eta^2,\eta^3)$ terms. This is required to hold for each member of the reduced two-parameter family $\{E_{\infty},L_{\infty}\}$ with $L_{\infty}-2E_{\infty}=O(\epsilon,\eta)$. To proceed, we need to make more precise the distinction between ``fine-tuned'' orbits and ``generic'' near-critical orbits that are not fine-tuned. Referring to Fig.\ \ref{attractor}, let $E_f$ be the final value of the specific energy with which the particle plunges into the hole; and let $L_{\infty,c}(E_{\infty})$ be the perfectly fine-tuned value of $L_{\infty}$, for which the orbit joins the global attractor and evolves along it to the ISCO. Assuming the universal scaling $L_{\infty}-L_{\infty,c}(E_{\infty})\sim \exp[(E_f-E_{\infty})/\eta]$ \cite{gund}, near-critical orbits as defined above generically have $E_f-E_{\infty}=O(\eta\ln\eta\epsilon)$ [here we neglect the $O(\eta)$ difference between $E_{\infty}$ and $E_i$]. Calibrating $L_{\infty}$ at higher order in $\eta,\epsilon$ [so that $L_{\infty}-L_{\infty,c}=O(\eta^n,\epsilon^k)$ with some $n,k>1$] does not qualitatively change this generic scaling of $E_f-E_{\infty}$. To achieve $E_f-E_{\infty}=O(1)$ requires an exponentially accurate tuning, i.e.\ $L_{\infty}-L_{\infty,c}\sim \exp(-1/\eta)$. In what follows we use the $\eta$ scaling of $E_f-E_{\infty}$ to distinguish between {\it generic} and {\it fine-tuned} members of the near-critical family: The former admit $E_f-E_{\infty}=O(\eta\ln\eta\epsilon)$, and the latter $E_f-E_{\infty}=O(1)$. This distinction can also be formulated in terms of the radiated quantities ${\cal E}^+$ or ${\cal L}^+$: \begin{eqnarray} {\cal E}^+,{\cal L}^+ &=& O(\eta^2\ln\eta\epsilon)\quad \text{(``generic'')}, \label{scaling_generic} \\ {\cal E}^+,{\cal L}^+ &=& O(\eta)\quad\quad\ \text{(``fine-tuned'')}. \label{scaling_FT} \end{eqnarray} \subsection{Further reduction to critical orbits} The inequality (\ref{OSGSF01}) is still a condition on a two-parameter family of orbits. Ignoring fine-tuned orbits for now, it is possible---and beneficial---to reduce it further to a sufficient condition formulated on a one-parameter family. We achieve this by minimizing the left-hand side of Eq.\ (\ref{OSGSF01}) over all near-critical orbits for a given $E_{\infty}$. We argue that the minimizing orbit is one with $L_{\infty}$ tuned to its critical value at least through $O(\eta,\epsilon)$, namely \begin{equation}\label{Lcrit} L_{\infty} =2E_{\infty}+\epsilon\sqrt{6E_{\infty}^2-2}+\delta{L}_{\infty}(E_{\infty})+o(\eta,\epsilon), \end{equation} where we have recalled Eq.\ (\ref{LofE}), and $\delta{L}_{\infty}(E_{\infty})$ is the $O(\eta)$ GSF term derived in the previous section. To see this, note first that $W_{\infty}=2E_{\infty}-L_{\infty}$ is trivially minimized by $L_{\infty}=L_{\infty,c}(E_{\infty})$, since $L_{\infty,c}(E_{\infty})$ maximizes $L_{\infty}$ (over all captured orbits of a fixed $E_{\infty}$) by definition of a critical orbit. This means that, to minimize $W_{\infty}$ through $O(\eta,\epsilon)$ (higher orders are irrelevant in our approximation) it suffices to demand $L_{\infty}-L_{\infty,c}(E_{\infty})=o(\eta,\epsilon)$. Then also note that the two radiative terms on the left-hand side of (\ref{OSGSF01}) are insensitive, at relevant order, to variations of $L_{\infty}$ within the family of nearly-critical orbits for a fixed $E_{\infty}$. For generic orbits, the term $(\etaE_{\infty}-{\cal E}^{+})^2$ is simply $\eta^2E_{\infty}^2$ at leading order, recalling Eq.\ (\ref{scaling_generic}). As for the term $-{{\cal W}}^{+}$, we note that the contribution to that term from the approach part of the orbit, which is already $O(\eta^2)$, is not sensitive, at that order, to $O(\eta,\epsilon)$ variations in $L_{\infty}$. Meanwhile, the contribution to ${{\cal W}}^{+}$ from the quasi-circular part of the orbit is of $O(\epsilon)O(\eta^2\ln\eta\epsilon)$ at most (the occurrence of the factor $\epsilon$ will be explained below) and hence negligible in Eq.\ (\ref{OSGSF01}), assuming only $\epsilon\ll |\ln\eta|^{-1}$. Thus, discounting fine-tuned orbits, we find that the entire left-hand side of Eq.\ (\ref{OSGSF01}) is minimized by $L_{\infty}$ as given in Eq.\ (\ref{Lcrit}). A new sufficient version of the censorship condition may therefore be written as \begin{multline}\label{OSGSF1} \epsilon^2-\eta\epsilon\sqrt{6E_{\infty}^2-2}-\eta\, \delta{L}_{\infty}+\eta^2(1+E_{\infty}^2) \\ +(\etaE_{\infty}-{\cal E}^{+})^2 - {\cal W}^{+} \geq 0 , \end{multline} which, at the relevant, leading order, is a condition on the {\it one}-parameter family of (generic) critical orbits parametrized by $E_{\infty}$ alone. It should now be noted that the condition (\ref{OSGSF1}) also applies to fine-tuned orbits [whether or not they minimize the left-hand size of (\ref{OSGSF01})], simply because such orbits always satisfy Eq.\ (\ref{Lcrit}). However, for fine-tuned orbits the condition still involves {\em two} parameters, conveniently chosen as $E_{\infty}$ and $E_f$. Different values of $E_f$ correspond to a fine-tuning of $L_{\infty}$ at an exponential level. In principle, any value of $E_f$ in the range $E_{\rm isco}\lesssim E_f\lesssim E_{\infty}$ may be obtained this way. To rule out overspinning by fine-tuned orbits, the censorship condition (\ref{OSGSF1}) must hold for all $\{E_{\infty},E_f\}$ with $E_f$ in the above range. Observe that in Eq.\ (\ref{OSGSF1}) we have \begin{eqnarray} \eta\delta{L}_{\infty}+{\cal W}^{+} &=& \eta\,\delta{L}_{\infty}^{\rm cons} +{\cal W}^{+}-{\cal W}^{+}_{\rm (apr)} \nonumber\\ &=&\eta{L}^{\rm cons}_{\infty}+{\cal W}_{\rm (qc)}^{+}+{\cal W}_{\rm (end)}^{+}, \end{eqnarray} where in the first line we have recalled Eq.\ (\ref{deltaLdiss3}), ${\cal W}_{\rm (qc)}^{+}$ is the piece of ${\cal W}^{+}$ coming from the evolution along the quasi-circular part of the orbit, and ${\cal W}_{\rm (end)}^{+}$ is the piece coming from the transition to a final plunge into the black hole and from the plunge itself. It follows that only the {\it conservative} piece of the shift $\delta{L}_{\infty}$ actually enters our condition: \begin{multline}\label{OSGSF2} \epsilon^2-\eta\epsilon\sqrt{6E_{\infty}^2-2}-\eta\,\delta{L}^{\rm cons}_{\infty}+\eta^2(1+E_{\infty}^2) \\ +(\etaE_{\infty}-{\cal E}^{+})^2 - {\cal W}_{\rm (qc)}^{+} -{\cal W}_{\rm (end)}^{+} \geq 0 . \end{multline} In this last form, conservative and dissipative terms of the GSF feature separately. The former are associated with the approach leg of the orbit, and the latter accumulate during the adiabatic evolution along the attractor. In Appendix \ref{App:plunge} we combine results by Ori and Thorne \cite{orithor}, Kesden \cite{Kesden} and Mino and Brink \cite{Mino}, to argue that the term ${\cal W}_{\rm (end)}^{+}$ is always subdominant and negligible in Eq.\ (\ref{OSGSF2}). We shall therefore omit that term in the rest of our discussion. In subsection \ref{subsec:fine-tuned} below we will show that the radiative term ${\cal W}_{\rm (qc)}^{+}$ scales as $O(\epsilon)O[\eta(E_{\infty}-E_f)]$. This term can thus feature at leading order in Eq.\ (\ref{OSGSF2}) only for fine-tuned orbits, for which $E_{\infty}-E_f=O(1)$. Likewise, terms involving ${\cal E}^{+}$ feature only for fine-tuned orbits and are negligible otherwise. On the other hand, the conservative term $\eta{L}^{\rm cons}_{\infty}$ is always $O(\eta^2)$, featuring in the censorship condition regardless of fine-tuning. An important consequence is that {\em dissipative effects of the GSF enter the censorship condition only for fine-tuned orbits}. This seems consistent with suggestions made in earlier analyses \cite{bck2,Kesden,Harada} (in which fine-tuning has not been considered). Below we further simplify the condition (\ref{OSGSF2}), and reformulate it explicitly in terms of $E_{\infty}$ alone (for generic orbits) or $E_{\infty}$ and $E_f$ alone (for fine-tuned ones), without reference to $\eta$ and $\epsilon$. We shall consider separately the cases of generic and fine-tuned orbits, starting with the former, simpler case. \subsection{Censorship condition for generic orbits} As mentioned above (and shown in the next subsection), without fine-tuning the radiative terms ${\cal E}^{+}$ and ${\cal W}^{+}_{\rm (qc)}$ become subdominant in Eq.\ (\ref{OSGSF2}) and drop out of it. The censorship condition then reduces to \begin{equation}\label{OSGSF3} \epsilon^2+\eta\epsilon F +\eta^2 H \geq 0 , \end{equation} with \begin{eqnarray} F&:=&-\sqrt{6E_{\infty}^2-2} \, , \label{F} \\ \label{H} H&:=& 1+2E_{\infty}^2 - \delta\breve{L}_{\infty}^{\rm cons} . \end{eqnarray} Here we have made the $\eta$-scaling of $\delta{L}_\infty^{\rm cons}$ explicit by introducing the shift-per-eta \begin{equation}\label{brevedL} \delta\breve{L}_{\infty}^{\rm cons}:=\eta^{-1}\,\delta{L}_\infty^{\rm cons} , \end{equation} which should have a finite (nonzero) limit $\eta\to 0$. For the overspinning scenario to be ruled out, the inequality (\ref{OSGSF3}) must be satisfied for all $\eta,\epsilon>0$ and all $E_{\infty}\geq 1$. The condition can be written in the equivalent form $\Phi:=\alpha^2+\alpha F+H\geq 0$, with $\alpha:=\epsilon/\eta>0$. At fixed $E_{\infty}$, $\Phi$ is quadratic in $\alpha$, with a minimum value $\Phi(\alpha=-F/2)=H-F^2/4$. To guarantee $\Phi\geq 0$ for all $E_{\infty}$ and all $\alpha>0$ (hence all $\eta,\epsilon>0$) we must demand $H\geq F^2/4$; if $H< F^2/4$ for some $E_{\infty}$, then for that $E_{\infty}$ there exist $\eta,\epsilon$ values for which overspinning is achieved. In that way, $H\geq F^2/4$ is both sufficient and necessary for overspinning to be avoided. Inserting the values of $F$ and $H$, the censorship condition takes the simple form \begin{equation} \label{OSfinal} \delta\breve{L}_{\infty}^{\rm cons} \leq \frac{1}{2}(E_{\infty}^2+3). \end{equation} Overspinning is averted (for orbits that are not fine-tuned) if and only if (\ref{OSfinal}) is satisfied for each member of the one-parameter family of critical orbits with $E_{\infty}\geq 1$, in the limit $\eta,\epsilon\to 0$. Equation (\ref{OSfinal}) states our final result for generic orbits. As already mentioned, it involves only {\it conservative} GSF effects, specifically the shift in the critical value of the angular-momentum-at-infinity (at fixed $E_{\infty}$) due to the conservative piece of the GSF. For easy reference, we give here the explicit formula for $\delta\breve{L}_{\infty}^{\rm cons}$ in terms of GSF components: \begin{equation} \label{dLfinal} \delta\breve{L}_{\infty}^{\rm cons}(E_{\infty}) = \lim_{\epsilon\to 0}\frac{1}{\mu^2} \int^{\infty}_{R_\epsilon}\left(2MF_t^{\rm cons}+F_{\phi}^{\rm cons}\right)dr/\dot{r}, \end{equation} where we have recalled Eqs.\ (\ref{deltaLcons2}) and (\ref{DeltacalE}). The integration is carried out along the critical geodesic of specific energy $E_{\infty}$ on a background with spin $a/M=1-\epsilon^2$, starting at the unstable circular orbit of radius $R_\epsilon=R_\epsilon(\epsilon,E_{\infty})$ and ending at infinity. Inspecting Eq.\ (\ref{OSfinal}), it may seem peculiar that overspinning may be averted even for some {\em positive} values of $\delta{L}_\infty^{\rm cons}$: A positive $\delta{L}_\infty^{\rm cons}$ would seem to mean that the GSF {\em increases} the critical impact parameter, allowing in particles that would otherwise be scattered away. However, we must recall that the shift $\delta{L}_\infty^{\rm cons}$ is defined not with respect to the physical, ADM angular momentum, but with respect to the quantity $\hat L=\hat u_{\phi}$, which (while convenient to work with in practice) does not have a clear invariant meaning beyond the geodesic approximation. To rewrite (\ref{OSfinal}) in a more physically insightful way, let us, then, recast it in terms of ADM quantities, as follows. First, let us introduce the specific quantities $E^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM}$ and $L^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM}$ defined through \begin{eqnarray}\label{ADMspec} \mu E^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM}&:=&E_{\rm ADM}-M, \nonumber\\ \mu L^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM}&:=&L_{\rm ADM}-Ma, \end{eqnarray} which may be thought of as the particle's contributions to the total ADM energy and angular momentum of the system. Then, denote by $\delta L^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM}(E^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM})$ the shift, due to the conservative GSF, in the critical value of $L^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM}$ for a fixed $E^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM}$. A short calculation, based on Eqs.\ (\ref{EADM}) and (\ref{LADM}), gives \begin{equation}\label{deltaLADM} \delta L^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM}(E^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM}) = \deltaL_{\infty}^{\rm cons}(E_{\infty})-\eta(E_{\infty}^2+1)+O(\eta^2). \end{equation} Thus, in terms of $\delta\breve{L}^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM}:=\eta^{-1}\,\delta L^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM}$, the censorship condition (\ref{OSfinal}) becomes \begin{equation} \label{OSfinalADM} \delta\breve{L}^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM}\leq \frac{1}{2}(1-E_{\infty}^2), \end{equation} where on the right-hand side $E_{\infty}$ may be replaced with $E^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM}$ at relevant order. The alternative form (\ref{OSfinalADM}) is now more intuitive: For unbound orbits ($E_{\infty}\geq 1$), the GSF averts overspinning if it shifts the critical value of the (ADM-related) angular momentum by a sufficiently negative amount, which depends only on $E_{\infty}$. In the marginal case of $E_{\infty}=1$ (where overspinning is marginally prevented already in the geodesic case), the shift $\delta\breve{L}_{\rm ADM}^{\rm p}$ need only be nonpositive. We are not aware of any {\it a priori} argument to suggest that $\delta\breve{L}_{\rm ADM}^{\rm p}$ must necessarily be nonpositive for all $E_{\infty}\geq 1$. Verifying this would need to await a numerical calculation. Any counterexample would imply a direct violation of cosmic censorship. Let us make a few more points about the condition (\ref{OSfinal}). First, in its form (\ref{OSfinalADM}) it is manifestly gauge invariant (within a class of suitable asymptotically flat gauges) despite the gauge dependence of the local GSF featuring in $\delta\breve{L}_{\infty}^{\rm cons}$ [Eq.\ (\ref{dLfinal})]. The condition involves only quantities that are defined and evaluated at infinite separation, namely the specific energy $E_{\infty}$ (or $E^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM}$) and angular-momentum shift $\delta\breve{L}_{\rm ADM}^{\rm p}$, each having a clear gauge-invariant physical meaning. The evident invariance of our final condition is reassuring. Second, as already mentioned, the condition that (\ref{OSfinal}) is satisfied for all $E_{\infty}\geq 1$ is both sufficient and necessary for overspinning to be avoided within the scenario considered here. It is a {\it sufficient} condition only in the sense that it guarantees no overspinning occurs {\em for sufficiently small mass-ratio $\eta$}; since we work in the first-order self-force approximation, we cannot make the statement any stronger. Equation (\ref{OSfinal}) describes a {\it necessary} condition in the sense that its violation for any $E_{\infty}$ would mean there exist (small) $\eta$ values for which overspinning occurs. Finally, the condition (\ref{OSfinal}) involves the single parameter $E_{\infty}$, and the task of testing whether it is satisfied amounts to evaluating a single function of $E_{\infty}$, namely $\delta\breve{L}_{\infty}^{\rm cons}(E_{\infty})$. The perturbative parameters themselves, $\eta$ and $\epsilon$, do not feature in the final condition. This is expected, given our first-order perturbative treatment and the fact that GSF effects (including ADM terms) appear in the overspinning condition already at leading order. It is precisely because of this ``order mixing'' that one cannot neglect the GSF in considering the overspinning problem, and why there is no sense in which the geodesic limit may be said to provide a useful approximation here. \subsection{Censorship condition for fine-tuned orbits}\label{subsec:fine-tuned} It is not {\it a priori} clear whether fine-tuning favours the overspinning scenario or disfavours it: The answer depends on the details of the radiative evolution along the attractor. Indeed, for fine-tuned orbits the radiative terms ${\cal E}^{+}$ and ${\cal W}_{\rm (qc)}^{+}$ feature already at leading order in Eq.\ (\ref{OSGSF2}), and cannot be neglected. We may again write Eq.\ (\ref{OSGSF2}) in the form (\ref{OSGSF3}), with $F$ and $H$ replaced with, respectively, \begin{eqnarray} \bar F&=&-\sqrt{6E_{\infty}^2-2}-\breve{{\cal W}}^+_{\rm (qc)} \, , \label{FH_ft} \nonumber \\ \bar H&=& 1+E_{\infty}^2 +(E_{\infty}-\breve{{\cal E}}^+)^2 - \delta\breve{L}_{\infty}^{\rm cons} . \end{eqnarray} Here we have introduced the rescaled quantities \begin{equation}\label{breve} \breve{{\cal E}}^{\pm}:=\eta^{-1}{\cal E}^{\pm}, \quad\quad \breve{{\cal W}}_{\rm (qc)}^{\pm}:= (\epsilon\eta)^{-1}{{\cal W}}_{\rm (qc)}^{\pm}, \end{equation} which should have finite (nonzero) limits $\epsilon,\eta\to 0$ for fine-tuned orbits [that ${{\cal W}}_{\rm (qc)}^{\pm}=O(\epsilon)O(\eta)$ will be discussed in the next two paragraphs]. It will prove beneficial to reexpress $\bar F$ and $\bar H$ in terms of the absorption-related quantities $\breve{{\cal E}}^-$ and $\breve{{\cal W}}^-_{\rm (qc)}$, in place of $\breve{{\cal E}}^+$ and $\breve{{\cal W}}^+_{\rm (qc)}$. This is easily done for $\bar H$, noting $E_{\infty}-\breve{{\cal E}}^+ = E_f + \breve{{\cal E}}^-$ at the relevant, leading order. As for $\bar F$, we start by writing ${{\cal W}}^+_{\rm (qc)}={{\cal W}}_{\rm (qc)}-{{\cal W}}^-_{\rm (qc)}$, where, under the assumption of adiabaticity, the total ${{\cal W}}_{\rm (qc)}$ may be expressed as an integral over the local GSF: \begin{equation}\label{calEradint} {\cal W}_{\rm (qc)}=\int_{E_{\infty}}^{E_f}\left(2F_t^{\rm diss}+F_{\phi}^{\rm diss}\right)dE/\dot{E}. \end{equation} Here we have used Eq.\ (\ref{DeltacalE}), changing the integration variable from $\tau$ to specific energy $E$, and assumed a balance relation as in Eq.\ (\ref{balancecalE}). We have also neglected the subdominant [$O(\eta^2)$] amount of radiated energy during the approach, replacing the initial energy of the quasi-circular motion with $E_{\infty}$. Then, following the method of Appendix \ref{App:dL} [cf.\ Eq.\ (\ref{ort2})], we use $u^{\alpha}F_{\alpha}^{\rm diss}=0$ to obtain \begin{equation}\label{ort} F_t^{\rm diss}+F_{\phi}^{\rm diss}/2=-(u^r/u^t)F^{\rm diss}_r -\frac{3E}{\sqrt{6E^2-2}}\,\epsilon F_{t}^{\rm diss} , \end{equation} where subdominant terms in $\epsilon$ have been omitted. The contribution from the term $\propto F^{\rm diss}_r$ to the integral in (\ref{calEradint}) can be evaluated following the same steps as in Appendix \ref{App:dL} [see the paragraph containing Eq.\ (\ref{DeltacalEr})], and shown to be of only $O(\epsilon)O(\eta^2)$ (or smaller) ---hence negligible. The contribution from the term $\propto F^{\rm diss}_t$ can be evaluated explicitly upon replacing $F_t=\mu\dot{E}$, giving \begin{equation}\label{calErad} {\cal W}_{\rm (qc)}= -\eta\epsilon\left(\sqrt{6E_{\infty}^2-2}-\sqrt{6E_f^2-2}\right). \end{equation} Thus, Eqs.\ (\ref{FH_ft}) are obtained in their alternative form \begin{eqnarray} \bar F&=&-\sqrt{6E_f^2-2}+\breve{{\cal W}}^-_{\rm (qc)} \, , \label{FH_ft2} \nonumber \\ \bar H&=& 1+E_{\infty}^2 +(E_f+\breve{{\cal E}}^-)^2 - \delta\breve{L}_{\infty}^{\rm cons} . \end{eqnarray} We note that Eq.\ (\ref{calErad}) establishes the scaling ${\cal W}_{\rm (qc)}=O(\epsilon)O(\eta)$ for fine-tuned orbits. The first-law argument used in the previous section [refer to the discussion around Eq.\ (\ref{firstlaw})] can also be used to show ${\cal W}^-_{\rm (qc)}=O(\epsilon)O(\eta)$. This then establishes the scaling ${\cal W}_{\rm (qc)}^+=O(\epsilon)O(\eta)$ assumed above. In both Eqs.\ (\ref{FH_ft}) and (\ref{FH_ft2}), the radiative quantities $\breve{{\cal E}}^\pm$ and $\breve{{\cal W}}^\pm_{\rm (qc)}$ should be thought of as functions of $E_{\infty}$ and $E_f$ only. While $\breve{{\cal E}}^+$ is necessarily positive, the absorbed energy $\breve{{\cal E}}^-$ may be either positive, or---due to superradiance---negative, depending on $E_{\infty}$ and $E_f$. Circular equatorial geodesics are superradiant for $\Omega<\Omega_H$, which, in the extremal limit, translates to $E<\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}$. Thus, $\breve{{\cal E}}^-$ is necessarily negative for any $E_f<E_{\infty}\leq\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}$. The sign (and magnitude) of $\breve{{\cal E}}^-$ for other values of $E_{\infty}$ and $E_f$, as well as the sign (and magnitude) of $\breve{{\cal W}}^-_{\rm (qc)}$, remain to be determined numerically. The quantity $\breve{{\cal W}}^+_{\rm (qc)}$, on the other hand, is easily shown to be negative definite. In fact, Eqs.\ (\ref{calEplus}) and (\ref{calWplus}), given below, imply \begin{equation} -\breve{{\cal W}}^+_{\rm (qc)}>\breve{{\cal E}}^+>0. \end{equation} Note this means that $\bar F$ in Eq.\ (\ref{FH_ft}) may change sign, depending on $E_{\infty},E_f$. To proceed, we once again write the condition (\ref{OSGSF3}) (for the barred quantities) in the form $\bar\Phi:=\alpha^2+\alpha \bar F+\bar H\geq 0$, with $\alpha=\epsilon/\eta$. Here, however, the sign of $\bar F$ is not known {\it a priori}, which somewhat complicates matters. For $\bar F<0$, $\bar\Phi$ has its minimum at $\bar\Phi(\alpha=-\bar F/2)=\bar H-\bar F^2/4$, so the condition becomes $\bar H\geq \bar F^2/4$ as before. However, for $\bar F\geq 0$ the condition $\bar\Phi\geq 0$ is satisfied trivially for all $\bar H\geq 0$, and violated trivially for all $\bar H<0$ (by choosing a sufficiently small $\alpha$). In that case, therefore, a necessary and sufficient condition for $\bar\Phi\geq 0$ to hold for any $\eta,\epsilon$ is $\bar H\geq 0$. In summary, we obtain \begin{equation} \label{OSfinalFT} \bar H\geq (\min\{\bar F/2,0\})^2 \end{equation} as a necessary and sufficient condition for overspinning to be averted for all $\eta,\epsilon$. In this condition, $\bar F$ and $\bar H$ are both functions of the two independent parameters $E_{\infty}$ and $E_f$. To rule out overspinning we must require that (\ref{OSfinalFT}) is satisfied for all $E_{\infty}>E_f(>E_{\rm isco})$. Evaluation of the condition (\ref{OSfinalFT}) requires knowledge of the radiative quantities $\breve{{\cal E}}^\pm$ and $\breve{{\cal W}}^\pm_{\rm (qc)}$ (in addition to $\delta\breve{L}_{\infty}^{\rm cons}$). To conclude our discussion, we now give convenient expressions for these two quantities in terms of a single function of one variable, namely the ratio \begin{equation} {\cal R}(E):=\frac{\dot{{\cal E}}^-(E)}{\dot{{\cal E}}^+(E)}, \end{equation} where $\dot{{\cal E}}^{+/-}(E)$ are the outgoing/incoming fluxes of energy in gravitational waves sourced by a particle on a circular geodesic, evaluated in the extremal limit at a fixed specific energy $E$. [In deviation from our notation elsewhere, here and in the next two paragraphs an overdot denotes differentiation with respect to (any suitable) coordinate time.] We note ${\cal R}<0$ for $E<\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}$, the superradiance regime in the extremal limit. First, we use the specific energy $E$ as a parameter along the global attractor, to write \begin{equation} \breve{\cal E}^+ = \int_{E_{\infty}}^{E_f}\frac{\dot{{\cal E}}^+}{\eta\dot{E}}\,dE = -\int_{E_{\infty}}^{E_f}\frac{\dot{{\cal E}}^+}{\dot{{\cal E}}^+ +\dot{{\cal E}}^-}\, dE, \end{equation} where we assumed the balance relation $\eta\dot{E}=-(\dot{{\cal E}}^+ +\dot{{\cal E}}^-)$ applies during the adiabatic evolution along the attractor. Thus, \begin{equation}\label{calEplus} \breve{{\cal E}}^+ (E_{\infty},E_f)= -\int_{E_{\infty}}^{E_f}\frac{dE}{1+{\cal R}(E)}, \end{equation} and, similarly, \begin{equation}\label{calEminus} \breve{\cal E}^- (E_{\infty},E_f) = -\int_{E_{\infty}}^{E_f}\frac{{\cal R}(E)}{1+{\cal R}(E)}\, dE , \end{equation} which should be evaluated in the extremal limit, $\epsilon\to 0$. Note $\dot{{\cal E}}^\pm\to 0$ in the extremal limit \cite{bck2}, while the ratio ${\cal R}$ admits a finite, nonzero limit \cite{Colleoni_etal, priv_comm}. Thus, by writing $\breve{{\cal E}}^\pm$ as in Eqs.\ (\ref{calEplus}) and (\ref{calEminus}) we have made it possible for the limit $\epsilon\to 0$ to be taken before the integration, which is advantageous in practice. As for ${\cal W}^\pm_{\rm (qc)}$, we start by writing \begin{equation}\label{Wdot} \dot{{\cal W}}^\pm_{\rm (qc)} :=2\dot{{\cal E}}^\pm -\dot{{\cal L}}^\pm =-\epsilon b(E)\dot{{\cal E}}^\pm , \end{equation} where $\dot{{\cal L}}^\pm$ are the angular-momentum fluxes corresponding to $\dot{{\cal E}}^\pm$, and \begin{equation}\label{bofE} b(E):=\frac{6E}{\sqrt{6E^2-2}}. \end{equation} To derive the second equality in (\ref{Wdot}), which is valid to leading order in $\epsilon$, we have used the small-$\epsilon$ expansion of the orbital angular velocity at fixed $E$, \begin{equation}\label{OmegaExpansion} \Omega = \frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{4}b(E)\epsilon +O(\epsilon^2), \end{equation} together with the general relation $\dot{{\cal E}}^\pm =\Omega\dot{{\cal L}}^\pm$ applicable to the radiation from any circular orbit \cite{eomegal}. Thus, proceeding as with $\breve{{\cal E}}^+$, we obtain \begin{equation}\label{calWplus} \breve{\cal W}^+_{\rm (qc)} = \lim_{\epsilon\to 0} \int_{E_{\infty}}^{E_f} \frac{\dot{{\cal W}}^+}{\epsilon\eta\dot{E}}\,dE =\int_{E_{\infty}}^{E_f}\frac{b(E)}{1+{\cal R}(E)}\,dE, \end{equation} and, similarly, \begin{equation}\label{calWminus} \breve{\cal W}^-_{\rm (qc)} =\int_{E_{\infty}}^{E_f}\frac{b(E){\cal R}(E)}{1+{\cal R}(E)}\,dE. \end{equation} Equations (\ref{calEplus}), (\ref{calEminus}), (\ref{calWplus}) and (\ref{calWminus}) express $\breve{\cal E}^\pm$ and $\breve{\cal W}^\pm_{\rm (qc)}$ in terms of the single function ${\cal R}(E)$, left to be determined numerically. In Sec.\ \ref{Sec:num} we will assess the numerical task of evaluating our censorship conditions, review the status of relevant existing GSF codes, and comment on how they would need to be modified in order to provide the necessary data. But first, in the next section, we take a short detour to explore an alternative approach to the determination of $\delta\breve{L}_{\infty}^{\rm cons}$, which offers a practical advantage. \section{Reformulation in terms of redshift variable} \label{Sec:redshift} Our final overspinning conditions (\ref{OSfinal}) and (\ref{OSfinalFT}) feature the critical angular-momentum shift $\delta{L}_{\infty}^{\rm cons}$, whose evaluation, through equation (\ref{dLfinal}), requires an integration of the GSF from infinity along critical geodesics. As we discuss in the next section, this step is the main stumbling block when it comes to evaluating the conditions using currently available GSF codes. The integration from infinity comes about, essentially, because of the need to relate the local properties $\hat E$ and $\hat L$ of the particle just before it falls into the black hole, to ADM properties of spacetime defined at infinity. This would have been unnecessary if we had available explicit formulas for $E_{\rm ADM}$ and $L_{\rm ADM}$ (or for the corresponding Bondi quantities $E_{\rm ADM}-{\cal E}^+$ and $L_{\rm ADM}-{\cal L}^+$), correct through $O(\eta^2)$, for the configuration of a particle in an unstable circular orbit around a Kerr black hole. Furthermore, given such formulas we would have been able to relax the requirement that the particle is sent in from infinity, and explore the possibility of overspinning with ``bound'' orbits. (We recall our result from Sec.\ \ref{Sec:geodesics} that bound {\em geodesics} cannot overspin; however, in principle, there remains the possibility that GSF effects change this situation.) By good fortune, suitable formulas have been proposed very recently, in Ref.\ \cite{isoyama14}. The expressions, to be presented below, were obtained using (and in agreement between) two independent frameworks. One is the Hamiltonian approach of Isoyama and collaborators \cite{hami}, in which the conservative portion of the orbital dynamics is described (through first order in $\eta$ beyond the geodesic approximation) in terms of geodesic motion in a certain effective smooth spacetime. The other is based on the recently proposed ``first law of binary black-hole mechanics'' \cite{alt1,alt3} (itself a limiting case of the generalized law established in \cite{Friedman:2001pf}), which relates ADM properties of a helically-symmetric binary system of post-Newtonian particles to the so-called ``redshift'' of the particles (see below). Neither frameworks is {\em a priori} guaranteed to correctly describe the strong-field dynamics in the black-hole--particle system relevant to us, but some evidence suggests that they might (we return to discuss this point at the end of the section). The said results, as they are stated in \cite{isoyama14}, apply to a particle in a circular equatorial orbit (stable or unstable) around a Kerr black hole, ignoring the dissipative piece of the gravitational interaction (or, more precisely, time-symmetrizing the gravitational perturbation, so that spacetime admits a global helical symmetry). They express the Bondi\footnote{First-law literature \cite{alt1,alt2,alt3} usually alludes to ADM properties, which are defined even in helical symmetry within the PN context in which these works operate. In the context of black hole perturbation theory, the first-law results should be interpreted as referring to {\it Bondi} properties. See also \cite{Gralla:2012dm}, where first-law results are formulated directly in terms of Bondi quantities for a black-hole--particle system.} energy and angular momentum of that configuration, through $O(\eta^2)$, in terms of Detweiler's redshift variable \cite{Detweiler:2008ft} \begin{equation} \hat z:= (\hat{u}^t)^{-1} , \end{equation} where ${u}^t$ is the $t$ component of the four-velocity on the circular orbit, and overhats, recall, denote properties of the GSF-corrected orbit. The usefulness of such relations is in the fact that a computation of $\hat z$ requires only GSF information for circular orbits, and there is no need to integrate from infinity. Such information is essentially accessible to existing GSF codes. Following \cite{isoyama14}, let us formally expand the redshift $\hat z$ in powers of $\eta$, in the form \begin{equation} \hat z = z_0(\Omega) + \eta z_1(\Omega) +O(\eta^2) , \end{equation} where $\Omega(=d\phi/dt)$ is the circular orbit's angular velocity, \begin{equation} z_0=(1-a\Omega)^{1/2}\left[1+a\Omega-3(M\Omega)^{2/3}(1-a\Omega)^{1/3}\right]^{1/2} \end{equation} is the geodesic limit of $\hat z$, and $\eta z_1(\Omega)$ is the $O(\eta)$ GSF correction, defined for a fixed value of $\Omega$. According to Ref.\ \cite{isoyama14}, the Bondi energy and angular momentum of the circular-orbit binary are given, through $O(\eta^2)$, by \begin{equation} \label{ELADMtotal} E_{\rm B}^{\rm sym}=M+\mu E^{\rm p}_{\rm B},\quad\quad L_{\rm B}^{\rm sym}=Ma+\mu L^{\rm p}_{\rm B}, \end{equation} where \begin{equation} \label{ELBondi} E^{\rm p}_{\rm B}=\tilde z-\Omega \frac{d\tilde z}{d\Omega}, \quad\quad L^{\rm p}_{\rm B}=-\frac{d\tilde z}{d\Omega} , \end{equation} with \begin{equation}\label{z} \tilde z(\Omega)=z_0(\Omega)+\frac{1}{2}\eta z_1(\Omega)+ O(\eta^2). \end{equation} The label `sym' is to remind us that these Bondi properties are defined in a time-symmetrized (``half-retarded-plus-half-advanced'') spacetime. The function $z_1(\Omega)$ explicitly determines $E_{\rm B}^{\rm sym}$ and $L_{\rm B}^{\rm sym}$ through $O(\eta^2)$. We are now reaching the crux of our discussion. Consider a critical orbit, subject to the conservative GSF alone (dissipation ignored), which asymptotes to a certain unstable circular orbit at $\tau\to\infty$. Let $E^{\rm sym}_{\rm B}(u)$ and $L^{\rm sym}_{\rm B}(u)$ be the Bondi energy and angular momentum of the corresponding time-symmetrized spacetime, with $u$ a suitable retarded-time coordinate. At $u\to\infty$, these quantities must approach the corresponding Bondi quantities of the asymptotic circular-orbit configuration, as given in Eq.\ (\ref{ELADMtotal}). Furthermore, \begin{equation} E^{\rm sym}_{\rm B}(u\to\infty)=E_{\rm ADM}, \quad\quad L^{\rm sym}_{\rm B}(u\to\infty)=L_{\rm ADM}, \end{equation} where on the right-hand side we have the ADM properties of the physical (``retarded'') critical-orbit spacetime. [That this must be the case follows from $E^{\rm sym}_{\rm B}(u\to\infty)=E^{\rm sym}_{\rm ADM}-{\cal F}^+=E^{\rm sym}_{\rm ADM}-{\cal F}^-=E_{\rm ADM}$, where ${\cal F}^+$ and ${\cal F}^-$ are the total energies flowing, respectively, outward at future null-infinity and inward at past null-infinity, in the time-symmetrized setup where ${\cal F}^+={\cal F}^-$. A similar argument applies to the angular momentum.] As a result, we can write $E_{\rm ADM}=M+\mu E^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM}$ and $L_{\rm ADM}=M+\mu L^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM}$ [as in Eqs.\ (\ref{ADMspec})], with \begin{equation} \label{ELADM} E^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM}=\tilde z-\Omega \frac{d\tilde z}{d\Omega}, \quad\quad L^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM}=-\frac{d\tilde z}{d\Omega} . \end{equation} These expressions relate the ADM properties of the physical critical-orbit configuration to the redshift of the asymptotic circular orbit when dissipation is ignored. The conservative GSF shift $\delta L^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM}(E^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM})$ [recall Eq.\ (\ref{deltaLADM})] may now be obtained simply by considering the $O(\eta)$ piece of $L^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM}$ in Eq.\ (\ref{ELADM}), for a fixed $E^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM}$. Equations (\ref{ELADM}) with (\ref{z}) immediately give us the $O(\eta)$ piece of $L^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM}$ for a fixed {\it angular velocity}: $\delta^{(\Omega)}L^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM}=-(\eta/2)dz_1/d\Omega$, where we introduced the operator $\delta^{(X)}$ to denote a linear variation with respect to $\eta$ at fixed $X$. To obtain the shift at fixed {\it energy}, $\delta L^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM}\equiv \delta^{(E)} L^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM}$, we write \begin{eqnarray} \delta L^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM} &=& \delta^{(\Omega)} L^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM} +\frac{d L^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM}}{d\Omega}\, \delta^{(E)} \Omega \nonumber\\ &=& \delta^{(\Omega)} L^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM} -\frac{d L^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM}}{dE^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM}}\, \delta^{(\Omega)}E^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM} \nonumber\\ &= & \delta^{(\Omega)} L^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM} -\Omega^{-1}\delta^{(\Omega)}E^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM} , \end{eqnarray} where in the second line we used $\delta^{(E)} \Omega=- (d\Omega/dE^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM})\delta^{(\Omega)}E^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM}$, and in the third line we applied $dL^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM}/dE^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM}=\Omega^{-1}$, which is valid for any circular geodesic (omitting subdominant terms in $\eta$). From Eqs.\ (\ref{ELADM}) and (\ref{z}) we find $\delta^{(\Omega)}E^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM}=(\eta/2)\left[z_1-\Omega (dz_1/d\Omega)\right]$, and substituting this with the above result for $\delta^{(\Omega)} L^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM}$, we arrive at the simple expression \begin{equation}\label{deltaLzgeneral} \delta L^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM}=-\frac{\eta}{2\Omega}\, z_1. \end{equation} Note that in the analysis leading to Eq.\ (\ref{deltaLzgeneral}) we have not assumed anything about the spin $a$ of the central black hole, so the result should apply in general (and suggests an interesting new interpretation of $z_1$ in terms of a shift in the critical value of the angular momentum). In the extremal case, $\Omega=1/2 +O(\epsilon)$, so at leading order in $\epsilon$ we obtain \begin{equation}\label{deltaLADMz} \delta L^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM}(E)=-\eta Z_1(E), \end{equation} where \begin{equation} \label{Z1} Z_1(E):=\lim_{\epsilon\to 0} z_1(\Omega(E;\epsilon),\epsilon), \end{equation} with the limit taken {\em at fixed energy} $E$. Here, for clarity, we have made explicit the functional dependence of $z_1$ and $\Omega$ on $\epsilon$, and have parametrized the circular orbits by their geodesic energy $E$, noting that the difference between $E$ and $E^{\rm p}_{\rm ADM}$ is subdominant in Eq.\ (\ref{deltaLADMz}). Indeed, in practice, $Z_1(E)$ may be evaluated by considering a sequence of circular {\em geodesics} of diminishing $\epsilon$ (and a fixed $E$). Equation (\ref{deltaLADMz}) may now be used with Eq.\ (\ref{deltaLADM}) to obtain the sought-for relation \begin{equation}\label{deltaLz} \delta\breve{L}_{\infty}^{\rm cons}(E)= E^2 + 1 - Z_1(E), \end{equation} which may then be used in place of (\ref{dLfinal}) in both conditions (\ref{OSfinal}) and (\ref{OSfinalFT}). The relation (\ref{deltaLz}) relieves us from the need to restrict attention to particles coming from infinity, which is why we have used in it the argument $E$ in place of $E_{\infty}$. The energy may now take any value $E>E_{\rm isco}(=1/\sqrt{3})$, and the conditions (\ref{OSfinal}) and (\ref{OSfinalFT}) may be evaluated for all corresponding orbits. We may also use Eq.\ (\ref{deltaLADMz}) directly in conjunction with Eq.\ (\ref{OSfinalADM}), to write the censorship condition (in the generic case) in the remarkably simple form \begin{equation}\label{OSfinalZ} Z_1(E)\geq \frac{1}{2}(E^2-1). \end{equation} Overspinning is averted if and only if this inequality holds for all $E>E_{\rm isco}$. The evaluation of the condition (\ref{OSfinalZ}) requires only redshift information on unstable circular orbits, evaluated at the extremal limit $\epsilon\to 0$ with $E$ held fixed. It should be emphasized that the applicability of the theoretical framework underpinning Eq.\ (\ref{ELBondi}) is yet to be rigorously established within our black-hole-perturbative context. There is, however, accumulating evidence to suggest it. The first-law framework has been tested exhaustively against results from post-Newtonian theory in both the Schwarzschild \cite{alt2} and Kerr \cite{isoyama14} cases, and, more importantly for us, it has been shown to precisely reproduce certain rigorous GSF results in the strong-field regime, at least in the Schwarzschild case \cite{alt2}. Further reassurance is provided, in the Kerr case, by the agreement between the first-law framework and the perturbative Hamiltonian one \cite{isoyama14}. Ideally, $\delta\breve{L}_{\infty}^{\rm cons}$ should be evaluated via both Eq.\ (\ref{deltaLz}) and the more rigorous GSF formula (\ref{dLfinal}). Indeed, if nothing else, a demonstrated agreement between these two expressions would lend a strong support to the validity of both first-law and Hamiltonian frameworks in the strong-field regime. \section{Assessment of numerical task} \label{Sec:num} A direct evaluation of the censorship condition (\ref{OSfinal}) requires the function $\deltaL_{\infty}^{\rm cons}(E_{\infty})$, which involves the conservative piece of the GSF along critical equatorial geodesics on a Kerr background, in the extremal limit. To explore the case of fine-tuned orbits, via the condition (\ref{OSfinalFT}), would require, in addition, a calculation of the radiative fluxes (either at infinity or down the event horizon) for unstable circular equatorial geodesics, again in the extremal limit. Finally, to evaluate the overspinning condition in its alternative form (\ref{OSfinalZ}) demands redshift data for these same unstable circular geodesics. To the best of our knowledge, these numerical tasks are beyond the capability of existing GSF codes---though, perhaps, not by much. We think that custom-built codes to produce the necessary data could be developed through relatively mild adaptations of existing codes. In this section we review relevant numerical methods that are currently available, and discuss how they should be customized. There now exist two computational frameworks for strong-field GSF calculations in Kerr geometry. One, by Dolan and collaborators \cite{Dolan}, tackles the metric perturbation equations in the time-domain (TD), via a direct numerical evolution of the hyperbolic set of linearized Einstein's equations in the Lorenz gauge. A judiciously designed ``puncture'' scheme is applied to extract the correct regular piece of the metric perturbation, from which the local GSF is calculated along the orbit. The second framework, due to Shah and collaborators \cite{GSFradgauge,Shah:2012gu}, is based on Teukolsky's perturbation formalism: The relevant perturbation equations are decomposed into Fourier-harmonic modes and tackled numerically mode-by-mode, in the frequency domain (FD). The GSF is then reconstructed using a recently formulated mode-sum regularization procedure \cite{PMB}. Both methods are underpinned by (the same) rigorous theory, and have been tested against each other and against results from post-Newtonian theory. All applications so far considered the GSF on fixed geodesic orbits, neglecting back-reaction on the orbit. The above two methods are somewhat complementary with respect to the range of problems they can tackle. The FD method does best with bound-orbit configurations, where the perturbation field admits a discrete spectrum. It is not immediately clear how to apply the method to orbits that come from infinity. The TD method, on the other hand, can handle all types of orbits equally well. The special case of {\it circular} orbits can be tackled by both methods, but much more efficiently in the FD, thanks to the simple spectrum of radiation from such orbits. Let us consider first the more straightforward of the aforementioned numerical tasks: calculation of energy and angular-momentum fluxes from circular orbits (for the fine-tuning case). This is a standard calculation, most efficiently performed by solving Teukolsky's equation in the FD, either numerically \cite{hughes} or via the semi-analytical method of Mano, Suzuki and Takasugi \cite{MST}. Usually calculations focus on {\it stable} circular orbits as the source of radiation, but exactly the same techniques should be applicable without change to unstable orbits below the ISCO; the stability properties of the orbit are immaterial here. The only potential complication comes from the need to evaluate the fluxes in the extremal limit. Care would need to be taken in correctly identifying an inner ``wave zone'' in which to impose the boundary conditions, for each finite value $\epsilon\ll 1$. It may prove convenient to work with a rescaled radial coordinate [such as $\bar r:=(r-R_{\rm eh})/\epsilon$] in order to better resolve the near-horizon wave dynamics. However, we do not see any issues of principle to hinder such a calculation, and it could be based on any of the existing platforms, such as the one by Shah {\it et al.} \cite{Shah:2012gu}. We next turn to the calculation of $\deltaL_{\infty}^{\rm cons}(E)$ using the form (\ref{deltaLz}). This requires an evaluation of the redshift function $z_1(\Omega;\epsilon)$ [recall Eq.\ (\ref{Z1})] on unstable circular orbits, at the limit $\epsilon\to 0$. Calculations of $z_1$ for {\it stable} (or otherwise near-ISCO) geodesic orbits have been performed using both FD \cite{Shah:2012gu,isoyama14} and TD \cite{isoyama14} methods, in a non-extremal Kerr geometry. In the Schwarzschild case, such a calculation was performed (in the FD) even for unstable orbits, reaching very near the light ring \cite{Akcay}. The challenge is to extend these calculations to the near-extremal Kerr case. The issues here are similar to the ones affecting fluxes. In the FD, one would need to carefully set inner boundary conditions, and also carefully monitor the convergence of the multipole mode-sum, particularly at large energy (lessons can be learned from the Schwarzschild analysis of \cite{Akcay}). Some development, tests, and a careful error analysis would be required, but the problem seems to us perfectly tractable. If one is satisfied with the level of rigour provided by the first-law and Hamiltonian formulations, then no further calculations would be needed: The question of overspinning, for both generic and fine-tuned orbits, can be answered based on numerical data pertaining to circular orbits only. However, to establish a full confidence in the results, a direct evaluation of $\deltaL_{\infty}^{\rm cons}(E)$ via Eq.\ (\ref{dLfinal}) would be required. Since this involves GSF data on unbound orbits, a TD treatment is preferable. So far, TD calculations of the GSF in Kerr have been limited to circular (and equatorial) orbits in a non-extremal geometry \cite{dandb}. However, it should not be hard to implement orbits that arrive from infinity, including critical orbits in the extremal case, at least in principle. To achieve this, certain technical details would need to be addressed. In the rest of this section we give an assessment of the challenges involved. First, to probe the extremal limit, we would need GSF data for a sequence of spacetimes approaching extremality. In the current code \cite{dandb}, accuracy has been observed to degrade with increasing $a$. In the circular-orbit case the code can handle spins up to $a=0.7$--$0.8M$, beyond which the loss of accuracy is rapid. The cause of the accuracy degradation is not quite clear yet, but work towards a full diagnosis of the problem, and towards its resolution, is now in progress. It appears likely that the code could be pushed to very high spins with only moderate effort. Second, one would need to implement plunging (geodesic, critical) orbits. In a TD framework this would entail only a minor coding effort; the basic code architecture should remain intact. Two of the technical details that would need addressing are (1) the handling of the auxiliary worldtube (see \cite{Dolan} for details), which would now be moving to track the radial motion of the particle; and (2) the treatment of ``junk radiation'' (again, see \cite{Dolan} for details), whose problematic effect is expected to be more pronounced than for circular orbits. A method for tackling the latter problem has been developed and successfully implemented in the electromagnetic case, by Zimmerman {\it et al.}\ \cite{zimm}. It remains to test its performance in the gravitational case. Perhaps the most significant remaining problem is that of the $m=1$ mode instability---an issue identified and thoroughly analyzed in \cite{Dolan}. In numerical experiments, this particular azimuthal mode of the Lorenz-gauge metric perturbation appeared to develop a linear instability at late time, which so far could not be cured. The seed of the instability appears to be a certain non-radiative, Lorenz-gauge mode, which is perfectly regular on each time slice. Various methods have been tried in attempt to filter that mode out of the numerical solutions, so far without much success. A simple filter can be applied in the circular-orbit case \cite{Dolan}, giving a satisfactory ad-hoc solution, but the method would not work for non-circular orbits. We are aware of at least two parallel efforts, by two groups, to obtain a more fundamental solution to the problem, and we remain optimistic that the issue will be resolved soon. The problem of $m=1$ mode instability is entirely avoided within a third computational framework, now being developed by a collaboration involving one of the authors (LB). The new method combines the simplicity of the Teukolsky formulation with the utility and flexibility of the TD approach. It essentially involves a TD implementation of the Teukolsky equation, together with a scheme for constructing the GSF in a certain (non-Lorenz) gauge. When completed, the code will offer a most natural tool for performing the calculation required here. \section{Summary and concluding remarks} \label{Sec:conclusions} We studied the scenario in which a massive (spinless) particle is dropped into a nearly-extremal Kerr black hole on an equatorial-plane trajectory. For this scenario, we presented a systematic analysis of the censorship condition at first order in the self-force approximation. One of our main goals was to determine what GSF information, precisely, would be needed in order to provide a definitive answer to the question of whether an over-extremal black hole was a possible outcome (within the classical theory). We achieved this by formulating concrete, necessary and sufficient conditions for overspinning to be averted; these are given explicitly in terms of GSF quantities, ready for numerical evaluation. Along the way, we have established several interesting results: \begin{itemize} \item When the GSF is ignored, overspinning can be achieved in a certain open domain of the parameter space, mapped here precisely for the first time. \item Overspinning is possible (when the GSF is ignored) only with particles thrown in from infinity. For any value of the initial energy-at-infinity, overspinning can be achieved by choosing the particle's rest mass and angular momentum from within certain open intervals, as prescribed in the last sentence of Sec.\ \ref{Sec:geodesics}, below Eq.\ (\ref{calEmp}). \item In the full-GSF case, a sufficient and necessary censorship condition for ``generic'' orbits may be formulated on the one-parameter family of critical geodesics. That condition is sensitive only to the {\em conservative} piece of the GSF. \item A more general condition may be formulated to encompass also fine-tuned orbits (ones whose parameters are exponentially fine-tuned to produce an adiabatic evolution along the global attractor). That condition involves also the radiative fluxes from unstable circular geodesics. \item The conservative GSF effect may be reformulated in terms of the ``redshift'' variable. This results in an alternative form of the censorship conditions, which involves only perturbative quantities (redshift and radiative fluxes) calculated on unstable circular geodesics. \end{itemize} Our main results are expressed in Eqs.\ (\ref{OSfinal}), (\ref{OSfinalFT}) and (\ref{OSfinalZ}). Equation (\ref{OSfinal}) [with (\ref{dLfinal})] is the censorship condition for generic orbits. It required as input $\delta\breve{L}_{\infty}^{\rm cons}(E_{\infty})$, the conservative GSF correction to the critical value of the angular momentum at a fixed $E_{\infty}$. The condition is a {\it sufficient} one in the sense that its validity for all $E_{\infty}\geq 1$ would imply that censorship is protected in our scenario, at least for sufficiently small values of the particle's rest mass (this last caveat is to remind us that our analysis and conditions are formulated within the first-order self-force approximation). Equation (\ref{OSfinal}) is also a {\it necessary} condition, in the sense that its violation for any value $E_{\infty}\geq 1$ would mean a direct infringement of cosmic censorship. Equation (\ref{OSfinalFT}) [with (\ref{FH_ft}) or (\ref{FH_ft2})] is the more general censorship condition that covers also fine-tuned orbits. Its evaluation requires, in addition to $\delta\breve{L}_{\infty}^{\rm cons}$, also the radiative quantities $\breve{\cal E}^+$ and $\breve{\cal W}^+_{\rm (qc)}$ (or $\breve{\cal E}^-$ and $\breve{\cal W}^-_{\rm (qc)}$) associated with the adiabatic evolution along the global attractor. Without fine-tuning, $\breve{\cal E}^\pm$ and $\breve{\cal W}^\pm_{\rm (qc)}$ vanish at relevant order, and (\ref{OSfinalFT}) reduces to the generic condition (\ref{OSfinal}). With fine-tuning, the condition (\ref{OSfinalFT}) should be evaluated on the two-parameter space of initial and final energies, $\{E_{\infty},E_f\}$. It is both sufficient and necessary, in the same sense as (\ref{OSfinal}). Finally, Eq.\ (\ref{OSfinalZ}) is a reformulation of (\ref{OSfinal}) in terms of the redshift variable $Z_1(E)$, calculated on unstable circular geodesics in the extremal limit (taken with fixed $E$). The more general condition (\ref{OSfinalFT}) may also be formulated in terms of the redshift, by substituting for $\delta\breve{L}_{\infty}^{\rm cons}$ using Eq.\ (\ref{deltaLz}). This alternative form is more readily amenable to numerical evaluation, because it requires only circular-orbit information. An additional advantage is that (\ref{OSfinalZ}) is applicable to any value $E_{\infty}>E_{\rm isco}$ of the initial energy, without the restriction that particles have to be sent from infinity. However, the redshift formulation relies on some layers of non-rigorous theory, so a direct evaluation of the conservative GSF effect, via Eq.\ (\ref{dLfinal}), would be desirable as a check. We are unable to predict, in advance of a numerical calculation, whether our censorship conditions (\ref{OSfinal}) or (\ref{OSfinalZ}) hold. We are not familiar with an argument to suggest even the {\em signs} of the terms $\delta\breve{L}_{\infty}^{\rm cons}$ and $Z_1$ appearing in these conditions. However, if we {\em assume} that the generic-orbit conditions (\ref{OSfinal}) [or (\ref{OSfinalZ})] are satisfied, then it is possible to conclude that censorship is protected also for fine-tuned orbits [i.e., the inequality (\ref{OSfinalFT}) holds], assuming only a certain plausible lower bound on the flux ratio ${\cal R}(E)$. Specifically, one can show, with the help of Eqs.\ (\ref{calEplus}) and (\ref{calWplus}), that (\ref{OSfinalFT}) is satisfied for all $E_{\infty}>E_f\geq E_{\rm isco}$ if ${\cal R}(E)\geq-\frac{1}{3}$. This lower bound lies comfortably below the ISCO value ${\cal R}(E_{\rm isco})\sim -0.1$ estimated in Ref.\ \cite{Kapadia}, and we expect unstable circular orbits to be {\em less} superradiant than the ISCO [i.e, have ${\cal R}(E)>{\cal R}(E_{\rm isco})$] on account of their frequency being larger than the ISCO frequency (recall also ${\cal R}>0$ for $E>\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}$). If a numerical calculation of ${\cal R}(E)$ confirms this expectation, it would mean that {\em fine-tuning disfavours overspinning}. In that case, establishing the simple inequality (\ref{OSfinal}) [or (\ref{OSfinalZ})] would suffice for ruling out the overspinning scenario. \section*{Acknowledgements} We have benefited from discussions with many colleagues, including Enrico Barausse, Vitor Cardoso, Carsten Gundlach, Soichiro Isoyama, Alexandre Le Tiec, Maarten van de Meent, Amos Ori, Eric Poisson, Adam Pound, Norichika Sago and Takahiro Tanaka. We are particularly grateful to Maarten van de Meent, Abhay Shah and Niels Warburton for providing unpublished numerical data to test certain aspects of our analysis; and to Maarten van de Meent and Adam Pound for their valuable comments on a draft of this manuscript. We gratefully acknowledge support from the European Research Council under the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme FP7/2007-2013/ERC, Grant No.\ 304978. LB acknowledges additional support from STFC through grant number PP/E001025/1.
\section{Introduction} APSK modulation with pre- and post- compensation schemes \cite{gaudenzi2006} is deployed in DVB over satellite standards \cite{DVB2} \cite{meloni2014} for its power and spectral efficiency over nonlinear satellite channels. Nevertheless, for multimedia broadcasting applications, further improvements by means of non-uniform constellations could be obtained. As a matter of fact, multimedia streams employed in digital broadcasting are hierarchical by nature, so that bits associated with transmitted symbols present different error sensitivities. In particular, Most Significant Bits (MSB) affect the transmission more than errors on the Least Significant Bits (LSB). Channel coding techniques with Unequal Error Protection (UEP) have been studied in \cite{zoellner2013} for QAM and in \cite{kayhan2012} for APSK, even though this introduces overhead and reduces bandwidth efficiency, which is a critical issue for satellite applications. In \cite{bruggen2005} Modulation with Unequal Power Allocation (MUPA) was proposed as a mean to improve the performance of conventional modulation schemes in case of digital wireless communication systems (e.g. DECT, Bluetooth) which do not include channel coding for some reason thus saving bandwidth. MUPA distributes the available budget power over the QAM symbols according to their sensitivity to channel errors, whereas the average transmission power per symbol remains unchanged. The resulting quality on received data is improved without any increase of transmission bandwidth. The same concept was extended in \cite{angioi2010} to the case of APSK modulations in order to achieve UEP through asymmetric layout of the constellation symbols. The approach used is similar to MUPA in the selection of the opportune radius of the constellation circles and the phase of each symbol. The best numerical solution was obtained solving the optimization problem (OP) of minimizing inter-symbol distortion by means of Genetic Algorithms (GA) \cite{whitley1994}, a numerical search technique used in many fields to solve complex problems which do not allow analytical derivation \cite{lixia2011} \cite{sanna2010}. This work focuses on the OP through careful selection of the parameters involved in GA in order to further improve the constellation performance with respect to \cite{angioi2010}. Moreover, the possibility to drop various symmetric bit allocation constraints is taken into consideration as a mean to further boost the constellation optimality. \section{System Model} First of all let us introduce the model used for the optimization by schematically describing the various building blocks of the communication system. \begin{figure}[htbp!] \centering \includegraphics [width=1 \columnwidth] {syst_mod3} \caption{System model} \label{syst_mod} \end{figure} Considering $M$ to be the alphabet size of the constellation, each symbol will represent a stream $u(\tau)$ of $log_2M$ bits generated by a memoryless source and put in parallel by the serial-to-parallel (S2P) block. These symbols are then modulated by the APSK modulation block giving place to a complex number $v_{n,m}(\tau)=\rho_n\cdot e^{j\theta_m}$ that represents constellation symbols and where $\rho_n$ is the radius of the $n-th$ circle of the constellation and $\theta_m$ is the phase of the $m-th$ symbol. As already claimed in \cite{angioi2010} the distribution of the symbols of the constellation on the various radii is basically free. However, considering the non-linear distorsion introduced by the HPA the best performance is obtained when $4$ symbols are put in the inner circle for 16-APSK (i.e. $4+12$) and $4$ in the inner and $12$ in the medium circle are put for 32-APSK (i.e. $4+12+16$) as shown in Figure \ref{1632const}. \begin{figure}[htbp!] \centering \includegraphics [width=1 \columnwidth] {1632const} \caption{16-APSK constellation (left) and 32-APSK constellation (right)} \label{1632const} \end{figure} Once constellation symbols are modulated, they are amplified by the HPA prior to transmission, thus being subject to the non-linear behaviour of the amplifier, whose effects can be modeled using the Saleh model \cite{saleh1981} resulting in the output $s_m(\tau)$. This model distinguishes two effects: \begin{itemize} \item the AM/AM non-linear effect that models amplitude distorsions on the input signal; \item the AM/PM non-linear effect that models phase distorsions on the input signal. \end{itemize} In this paper, optimization has been accomplished without taking into consideration the AM/PM non-linear effect due to the HPA (that is known to change the relative position of symbols) since it has been already shown in \cite{gaudenzi2006} that this effect can be easily compensated. Therefore only the AM/AM non-linear distorsion is taken into account through the formula \begin{equation} A(\rho)=\frac{a\rho_n}{1+b\rho_n^2} \end{equation} where $a=2.1587$ and $b=1.1517$ are standard values of the constants gathered from the literature and obtained by means of curve-fitting techniques. \begin{figure}[htbp!] \centering \includegraphics [width=0.8 \columnwidth] {salehAM} \caption{AM/AM characteristics \cite{gaudenzi2006}} \label{saleh} \end{figure} Considering the channel to be of the Additive White Gaussian Noise (AWGN) type, transmitted symbols are affected by the addition of a random nuisance signal with zero mean and variance $N_0/2$. Therefore, the received signal at the destination is $r(\tau)=s(\tau)+n(\tau)$. This signal is passed to the demodulator that applies the Maximum Likelihood (ML) criterion in order to estimate the received symbol and it is then converted back from parallel to the serial signal $\hat{u}(\tau)$. The difference between the stream generated by the memoryless source and the one estimated at the receiver can be computed as \begin{equation} d(\tau)=[u(\tau)-\hat{u}(\tau)] \end{equation} and it is called distorsion. The aim of the GA presented in the next section is to minimize this distorsion. Therefore the minimum square error \begin{equation} MSE=E\{[d(\tau)]^2\} \end{equation} represents our optimization criterion. \section{Genetic Algorithms optimization}\label{GA} At each iteration $n$, a GA gives birth to a generation $G_n$ of potential solution vectors (also called chromosomes $\gamma_i$) that constitute the population of size $p$ of the OP: \begin{equation} G_n=\{ \gamma_1^{(n)}, \gamma_2^{(n)},..., \gamma_i^{(n)},..., \gamma_{p}^{(n)} \} \end{equation} A vector of fitness scores $S_n$ is also calculated for each generation using the objective function $R$: \begin{equation} S_n=\{ R(\gamma_1^{(n)}), R(\gamma_2^{(n)}),..., R(\gamma_i^{(n)}),..., R(\gamma_{p}^{(n)}) \} \end{equation} The chromosomes with the highest fitness score are meant to be the closest to the desired solution and are thus selected for surviving and giving place to the next generation. The next generation is created in three steps: \begin{enumerate} \item \textit{Selection} of the part of population with the best fitness score that will be parents for the next generation; \item \textit{Crossover} of selected parents according to a mixing criterion in order to give birth to a number of children from each couple that will constitute the next generation; \item \textit{Mutation} of a percentage of the offspring in order to spread the optimum solution search and avoid local optimal solutions. \end{enumerate} The computation is stopped when the population has converged to the same fitness value which is supposed to be the optimal solution. In the case of APSK the chromosomes are the radii and the phase of each symbol. The optimization criterion chosen is the minimization of the MSE, i.e. the expected minimum squared error between the transmitted symbol and the received one. Therefore the function used to calculate the fitness scores is $R=1/(MSE)$. In \cite{angioi2010} the importance of a constellation design that takes into account UEP has been highlighted and GA has been demonstrated to be a viable solution for solving the OP. However the choice of the best selection, crossover and mutation functions together with an appropriate number of generation iterations and population size has not been exploited yet. For this reason, this paper extends the results obtained in \cite{angioi2010} demonstrating that a proper selection of the abovementioned parameters can further improve the optimality of the solution. In particular, this work concentrates on the best choice regarding the selection and the crossover function by comparing the results obtained through simulation in Matlab for 5 different selection functions (\textit{stochastic uniform, remainder, uniform, roulette, tournament}) and 6 different crossover functions (\textit{scattered, single point, two point, intermediate, heuristic, arithmetic}). For more information about the abovementioned functions, the reader can refer to the Matlab guide and a vast literature on the topic. \section{Results for 16-APSK} First of all, let us analyze the case of 16-APSK. The GA starts with an initial population of $80$ chromosomes characterized by genes with values uniformly distributed on the constellation circles. Using these values, transmission over satellite is simulated according to the model presented in Section II. Then, the fitness function is evaluated thanks to the function $R$ already discussed. At this point, the GA modifies the population in accordance with the fitness results using the policies defined by the specific selection and crossover functions taken into consideration. The transmission is then repeated using the new generation until convergence or the maximum number of generations (in this case set to $n=130$) is reached.\\ \begin{table}[h!] \centering \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|} \hline \backslashbox{CR}{SEL}&stochunif&remainder&uniform&roulette&tournam.\\ \hline \hline scattered&\textbf{1.1045}&1.2225&1.1724&1.2054&1.2287\\ \hline single point&1.1758&\textbf{1.1029}&1.2541&\textbf{1.1111}&1.1577\\ \hline two point&1.1336&1.1235&1.2720&1.2002&1.1470\\ \hline intermediate&1.2074&1.1983&1.6869&1.1981&1.2149\\ \hline heuristic&1.1695&1.1701&1.1706&1.1609&1.1514\\ \hline arithmetic&1.2749&1.2968&1.8615&1.3074&1.1830\\ \hline \end{tabular} \vspace{0.1cm} \caption{Target values for 16-APSK 4sim} \label{tab:16APSK4} \end{table} \begin{table}[h!] \centering \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|} \hline \backslashbox{CR}{SEL}& stochunif & remainder & uniform & roulette & tournam. \\ \hline \hline scattered & 1.2640 & 0.7629 & 1.0275 & 0.7439 & 0.7619\\ \hline single point & 1.4284 & \textbf{0.7259} & 0.9252 & \textbf{0.7238} & 0.9086\\ \hline two point & \textbf{0.7361} & 0.7527 & 0.7639 & 0.7942 & 0.7809\\ \hline intermediate & 0.7732 & 0.8237 & 2.1824 & 0.7921 & 0.7530\\ \hline heuristic & 0.7969 & 1.4852 & 0.8238 & 0.7967 & 0.7722\\ \hline arithmetic & 0.7437 & 0.8052 & 3.3424 & 0.8634 & 0.7616\\ \hline \end{tabular} \vspace{0.1cm} \caption{Target values for 16-APSK 2sim} \label{tab:16APSK2} \end{table} \begin{table}[h!] \centering \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|} \hline \backslashbox{CR}{SEL}& stochunif & remainder & uniform & roulette & tournam. \\ \hline \hline scattered & 0.9844 & 0.7686 & 2.3634 & 1.1534 & 1.1600\\ \hline single point &0.8674 & \textbf{0.6696}& 1.6173 & 0.8807 & 0.7660\\ \hline two point & \textbf{0.7127} & 1.0152 & 3.0634 & 0.7291 & 0.7899\\ \hline intermediate &0.8709 & 1.2898 & 15.5712 & 0.9861 & 1.5404\\ \hline heuristic & 1.9504 & 1.3986 & \textbf{0.6794} & 0.7527 & 2.7479\\ \hline arithmetic & 0.9338 & 1.0234& 13.9503 & 0.8291 & 1.1862\\ \hline \end{tabular} \vspace{0.1cm} \caption{Target values for 16-APSK 0sim} \label{tab:16APSK0} \end{table} In Tables \ref{tab:16APSK4}, \ref{tab:16APSK2} and \ref{tab:16APSK0} the results in terms of $MSE$ at the target $SNR=10dB$ are shown respectively for the case of double symmetry ($x$ and $y$ axis), for the case with symmetry on only one axis and for the case without any symmetry constraint. The mentioned symmetry refers to the placement of the symbols with regard to the inter-symbol distorsion, as shown in Figure \ref{Ex4sim} for the case of double symmetry. \begin{figure}[htbp!] \centering \includegraphics [width=1 \columnwidth] {provalaF} \caption{Example of 16-APSK constellation with double symmetry} \label{Ex4sim} \end{figure} The best three results are highlighted in bold. It can be seen that regardless of the considered symmetries, the combination of the \textit{remainder} selection function and the \textit{single point} crossover function always yields to the best result or to a result really close to the best one. Moreover, from a general perspective, it can be gathered from the tables that the optimization procedure benefits from the drop of the symmetry contraints. As a matter of fact, comparing the case of double symmetry and the one without symmetry, the $MSE$ value at the target SNR is reduced by approximately $40\%$. However, in order to validate the results, it is important to verify whether the improvement extends for a certain $SNR$ range or if it is only local and specific of that $SNR$. \begin{table}[tbh!] \centering \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|} \hline \textbf{Parameter} & \textbf{[8]} & \textbf{double sym.} & \textbf{single sym.} & \textbf{no sym.} \\ \hline \hline \textbf{$\rho_0$} & 0.6404 & 0.8996 & 0.9627 & 0.9593 \\ \hline \textbf{$\theta_0$} & 1.0482 & 1.0360 & 2.5650 & 5.0872 \\ \hline \textbf{$\theta_1$} & 0.9355 & 0.8867 & 2.3592 & 4.7453 \\ \hline \textbf{$\theta_2$} & 0.6374 & 0.5802 & 2.0128 & 4.3400 \\ \hline \textbf{$\theta_3$} & 0.4891 & 0.4013 & 1.7317 & 3.7447 \\ \hline \textbf{$\theta_4$} & - & - & 1.4188 & 3.4121 \\ \hline \textbf{$\theta_5$} & - & - & 1.2107 & 3.1109 \\ \hline \textbf{$\theta_6$} & - & - & 0.8849 & 2.7071 \\ \hline \textbf{$\theta_7$} & - & - & 0.5372 & 2.2326 \\ \hline \textbf{$\theta_8$} & - & - & - & 1.8925 \\ \hline \textbf{$\theta_9$} & - & - & - & 1.5490 \\ \hline \textbf{$\theta_{10}$} & - & - & - & 1.2567 \\ \hline \textbf{$\theta_{11}$} & - & - & - & 1.0438 \\ \hline \textbf{$\theta_{12}$} & - & - & - & 0.7340 \\ \hline \textbf{$\theta_{13}$} & - & - & - & 0.4687 \\ \hline \textbf{$\theta_{14}$} & - & - & - & 0.2205 \\ \hline \textbf{$\theta_{15}$} & - & - & - & 0.0699 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \vspace{0.1cm} \caption{Parameter values for 16-APSK} \label{tab:values16} \end{table} For this reason, in Table \ref{tab:values16} the values for the radius and the phase of the various symbols are presented. The first column refers to the results obtained in \cite{angioi2010}. The second, third and fourth column refer respectively to the cases of double, single and no symmetry for the case in which the \textit{remainder} selection function and the \textit{single point} crossover function are used. The considered chromosomes for these three cases are respectively:\\ \begin{itemize} \item $\gamma=[\rho_0,\theta_0,\theta_1,\theta_2,\theta_3]$\\ \item $\gamma=[\rho_0,\theta_0,\theta_1,\theta_2,\theta_3,\theta_4,\theta_5,\theta_6,\theta_7]$\\ \item $\gamma=[\rho_0,\theta_0,\theta_1,\theta_2,\theta_3,\theta_4,\theta_5,\theta_6,\theta_7,\theta_8,\theta_9,\theta_{10},\theta_{11},\theta_{12},\theta_{13},\\ \theta_{14},\theta_{15}]$\\ \end{itemize} where the different number of parameters is due to the fact that, when using symmetries, the rest of the symbols are defined by symmetry. Notice also that only one radius has been defined in the table, since we are assuming that the outer one is fixed to $1$. In addition, the phases have been defined so that the subscripts of each theta correspond to the alphabet value assigned to that symbol. \begin{figure}[htbp!] \centering \includegraphics [width=1 \columnwidth] {MSE_16comp} \caption{MSE results for the considered constellations} \label{16comp} \end{figure} Figure \ref{16comp} shows the results in terms of $MSE$ as a function of the $SNR$ for the 4 constellations presented in Table \ref{tab:values16}. Unfortunately, in \cite{angioi2010} it was not stated what kind of selection and crossover functions were used. However, it can be seen from the graph that a proper choice of the functions results in a better performance even when both symmetries are kept. Surprisingly, the results for a single symmetry are better than those with no symmetries, although this last case overtakes the first one from $SNR=10dB$. These results demonstrate that having a better $MSE$ at the $SNR$ target and/or dropping all the symmetry constraints does not necessarily corresponds to an improvement of the performance. In figure \ref{16cost_2sim}, the constellation with single symmetry is shown. \begin{figure}[htbp!] \centering \includegraphics [width=1 \columnwidth] {16APSK_2sim_cost} \caption{Optimized constellation for 16-APSK with single symmetry} \label{16cost_2sim} \end{figure} \section{Results for 32-APSK} The same procedure presented in the previous section has also been applied to the 32-APSK constellation, with the necessary modifications. The first difference that can be noticed is the greater number of variables to compute. Therefore, also the convergence of the optimization is expected to be slower than in the previous case. Nevertheless, we decided to keep the population size to the value $80$ and the number of generations to $130$ in order to evaluate how optimal the solutions are keeping the same values as in 16-APSK. Moreover, this has been dictated by time constraints, since in the case of 32-APSK with no symmetries each combination of selection and crossover function required approximately 8 hours to be run. \begin{table}[tbh!] \centering \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|} \hline \backslashbox{CR}{SEL}& stochunif & remainder & uniform & roulette & tournam. \\ \hline \hline scattered &4.5572 & 4.6612 & 5.2848 & \textbf{4.4263} & 4.6581\\ \hline single point &4.8225 & 4.9691 & 5.3944 & 4.5561 & 4.5573\\ \hline two point &4.7172 & 4.7339 & 5.3761 & 4.7521 & \textbf{4.4136}\\ \hline intermediate &5.2306 & 5.4009 & 13.1101 & 5.5408 & 4.7368\\ \hline heuristic &4.7713 & 4.5942 & 4.5201 & 5.2484 & 4.8416\\ \hline arithmetic &5.8264 & 5.4936 & 12.0061 & 5.4959 & \textbf{4.4832}\\ \hline \end{tabular} \vspace{0.1cm} \caption{Target values for 32-APSK 4sim} \label{tab:32APSK4} \end{table} \begin{table}[tbh!] \centering \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|} \hline \backslashbox{CR}{SEL}& stochunif & remainder & uniform & roulette & tournam. \\ \hline \hline scattered &8.1330 & 4.8600 & 12.7564 & 5.1381 & \textbf{4.3409}\\ \hline single point &9.2198 & 5.5814 & 10.9982 & 10.9608 & \textbf{4.1631}\\ \hline two point &4.5536 & 4.4141 & 10.2918 & 4.4285 & \textbf{4.0857}\\ \hline intermediate &4.6031 & 8.6994 & 11.7529 & 11.0164 & 4.9557\\ \hline heuristic &4.3239 & 4.5903 & 5.1924 & 6.6715 & 4.78346\\ \hline arithmetic &5.1618 & 5.2917 & 13.1309 & 10.7594 & 4.6443\\ \hline \end{tabular} \vspace{0.1cm} \caption{Target values for 32-APSK 2sim} \label{tab:32APSK2} \end{table} \begin{table}[tbh!] \centering \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|} \hline \backslashbox{CR}{SEL}& stochunif & remainder & uniform & roulette & tournam. \\ \hline \hline scattered &6.3820 & 7.4839 & 25.7629 & 7.8117 & \textbf{5.9957}\\ \hline single point &8.7097 & 14.4059 & 26.9502 & 6.3373 & 6.8377\\ \hline two point &15.6945 & 7.0951 & 19.4484 & \textbf{5.6768} & \textbf{5.6494}\\ \hline intermediate &12.9701 & 23.4311 & 72.1346 & 17.7114 & 14.7770\\ \hline heuristic &12.1008 & 9.6265 & 10.5484 & 26.8005 & 9.5540\\ \hline arithmetic &43.5802 & 36.4328 & 42.8421 & 11.6793 & 8.1312\\ \hline \end{tabular} \vspace{0.1cm} \caption{Target values for 32-APSK 0sim} \label{tab:32APSK0} \end{table} Tables \ref{tab:32APSK4}, \ref{tab:32APSK2} and \ref{tab:32APSK0} show that, not unexpectedly, when the number of variables to compute increases the algorithm is not anymore able to converge to a solution in the number of generations set. Moreover, each combination of the selection and crossover functions converges with different paces. Another interesting result is that, when the number of symbols is changed, the best result is not obtained for the same selection and crossover function. We expect the same thing to hold when some symbols are moved from one radius to another. The proof of this expectation and a deeper explanation of why this happens are left as future research on the topic. \begin{table}[htbp!] \centering \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|} \hline \textbf{Parameter} & \textbf{[8]} & \textbf{double sym.} & \textbf{single sym.}\\ \hline \hline \textbf{$\rho_0$} & 0.2453 & 0.2446 & 0.2487\\ \hline \textbf{$\rho_1$} & 0.8163 & 0.8285 & 0.8217\\ \hline \textbf{$\theta_0$} & 3.9215 & 0.1664 & 0.5301\\ \hline \textbf{$\theta_1$} & 3.8878 & 0.2998 & 0.7360\\ \hline \textbf{$\theta_2$} & 3.7697 & 0.3009 & 0.7342\\ \hline \textbf{$\theta_3$} & 3.6837 & 0.6293 & 0.8993\\ \hline \textbf{$\theta_4$} & 3.4184 & 0.5831 & 1.1148\\ \hline \textbf{$\theta_5$} & 3.6422 & 0.9550 & 1.2771\\ \hline \textbf{$\theta_6$} & 3.2628 & 0.9219 & 1.4283\\ \hline \textbf{$\theta_7$} & 3.1881 & 1.0028 & 1.5063\\ \hline \textbf{$\theta_8$} & 2.6639 & - & 1.8236\\ \hline \textbf{$\theta_9$} & 2.6409 & - & 1.9895\\ \hline \textbf{$\theta_{10}$} & 2.4866 & - & 2.0694\\ \hline \textbf{$\theta_{11}$} & 2.3709 & - & 2.1592\\ \hline \textbf{$\theta_{12}$} & 2.2034 & - & 2.2590\\ \hline \textbf{$\theta_{13}$} & 2.1479 & - & 2.5016\\ \hline \textbf{$\theta_{14}$} & 2.0492 & - & 2.5479\\ \hline \textbf{$\theta_{15}$} & 2.0199 & - & 2.5813\\ \hline \end{tabular} \vspace{0.1cm} \caption{Parameter values for 32-APSK} \label{tab:values32} \end{table} In Table \ref{tab:values32} the values for the parameters describing the position of the constellation symbols are given. In this case, the case without symmetry has not been included due to the lack of significance. Concerning the differences between the angle ranges of our case and the one in \cite{angioi2010}, this is simply due to the fact that we have considered $[0,\pi]$ as our optimization range while in \cite{angioi2010} the considered range was $[\pi/2,3\pi/2]$. \begin{figure}[htbp!] \centering \includegraphics [width=1 \columnwidth] {MSE_32comp} \caption{MSE results for the considered constellations} \label{32comp} \end{figure} Figure \ref{32comp} presents the results for the constellations described in Table \ref{tab:values32}. Although in a smoother way, also in this case the obtained results improve those obtained in \cite{angioi2010}. In particular, the $MSE$ is lowered from 5.34 to 4.34, that is approximately a decrement of the 19\%. Figure \ref{32cost_2sim} shows the proposed constellation for 32-APSK with single symmetry. \begin{figure}[htbp!] \centering \includegraphics [width=1 \columnwidth] {32APSK_2sim_cost} \caption{Optimized constellation for 16-APSK with single symmetry} \label{32cost_2sim} \end{figure} \section{Conclusions and Future Work} In this paper, the use of asymmetric constellations for uncoded transmission in the satellite broadcasting scenario has been presented. Moreover, their optimization using genetic algorithms and the careful selection of the functions involved in the optimization routine have been discussed. Found results demonstrate that it is possible to further optimize this kind of communications by adjusting the behavior of the genetic algorithm. Moreover it has been demonstrated that dropping symmetry constraints is not always beneficial to the optimization process, especially when several variables must be computed thus slowing down the convergence to an optimal solution of the genetic algorithm. As future work, we aim at extending the results presented in this paper as well as apply the same concepts to the case of 64-APSK.
\section{introduction} Let $(A,\mathfrak{m} )$ be a $d$-dimensional Noetherian local ring with residue field $k$ and let $M$ be a finitely generated $A$-module. Let $\mu(M)$ denote minimal number of generators of $M$ and let $\ell(M)$ denote its length. Let $\operatorname{codim}(A) = \mu(\mathfrak{m} ) - d$ denote the codimension of $A$. Let $G(A) = \bigoplus_{n\geq 0}\mathfrak{m} ^n/\mathfrak{m} ^{n+1}$ be the associated graded ring of $A$ (with respect to \ $\mathfrak{m} $) and let $G(M) = \bigoplus_{\mathfrak{n} \geq 0}\mathfrak{m} ^nM/\mathfrak{m} ^{n+1}M$ be the associated graded module of $M$ considered as a $G(A)$-module. The ring $G(A)$ has a unique graded maximal ideal $\mathfrak{M} _G = \bigoplus_{n\geq 1}\mathfrak{m} ^n/\mathfrak{m} ^{n+1} $. Set $ \operatorname{depth} G(M) = \operatorname{grade}(\mathfrak{M} _G,G(M))$. Let $e(M)$ denote the multiplicity of $M$ (with respect to \ $\mathfrak{m} $). The Hilbert function of $M$ (with respect to \ $\mathfrak{m} $) is the function \[ H(M,n) = \ell \left( \frac{\mathfrak{m} ^nM}{\mathfrak{m} ^{n+1}M} \right) \quad \text{for all} \ n\geq 0. \] A natural question is whether $H(M,n)$ is non-decreasing (when $\dim M > 0$). It is clear that if $\operatorname{depth} G(M) > 0$ then the Hilbert function of $M$ is \emph{non}-decreasing, see Proposition 3.2 of \cite{Pu2}. If $A$ is regular local then all maximal Cohen-Macaulay \ (= MCM ) modules are free. Thus every MCM module of positive dimension over a regular local ring has a non-decreasing Hilbert function. The next case is that of a hypersurface ring i.e., the completion $\widehat{A} = Q/(f)$ where $(Q,\mathfrak{n} )$ is regular local and $f \in \mathfrak{n} ^2$. In Theorem 1,\cite{Pu2} we prove that if $A$ is a hypersurface ring of positive dimension and if $M$ is a MCM $A$-module then the Hilbert function of $M$ is non-decreasing. See example 3.3, \cite{Pu2} for an example of a MCM module $M$ over the hypersurface ring $k[[x,y]]/(y^3)$ with $\operatorname{depth} G(M) = 0$. Let $(A,\mathfrak{m} )$ be a strict complete intersection of positive dimension and let $M$ be a maximal Cohen-Macaulay \ $A$-module with bounded betti-numbers. In Theorem 1, \cite{Pu3} we prove that the Hilbert function of $M$ is non-decreasing. We also prove an analogous statement for complete intersections of codimension two, see Theorem 2, \cite{Pu3}. In the ring case Elias \cite[2.3]{Elias}, proved that the Hilbert function of a one dimensional Cohen-Macaulay ring is non-decreasing if embedding dimension is three. The first example of a one dimensional Cohen-Macaulay \ ring $A$ with not monotone increasing Hilbert function was given by Herzog and Waldi; \cite[3d]{HW}. Later Orecchia, \cite[3.10]{Ore}, proved that for all $b \geq 5$ there exists a reduced one-dimensional Cohen-Macaulay \ local ring of embedding dimension $b$ whose Hilbert function is not monotone increasing. Finally in \cite{GR} we can find similar example with embedding dimension four. A long standing conjecture in theory of Hilbert functions is that the Hilbert function of a one dimensional complete intersection is non-decreasing. Rossi conjectures that a similar result holds for Gorenstein rings. In this paper we construct a large class of one dimensional Cohen-Macaulay \ local rings $(A,\mathfrak{m} )$ with the property that if $M$ is an MCM $A$-module then the Hilbert function of $M$ is non-decreasing. Recall a Cohen-Macaulay \ local ring $(B,\mathfrak{n} )$ is said to have \textit{minimal multiplicity }if \[ e(B) = 1 + \operatorname{codim}(B). \] Our result is \begin{theorem}\label{main} Let $B,\mathfrak{n} )$ be a two dimensional Cohen-Macaulay \ local ring with minimal multiplicity. Let $(A,\mathfrak{m} )$ be a one-dimensional Cohen-Macaulay \ local ring which is a quotient of $B$. If $M$ is a maximal Cohen-Macaulay \ $A$-module then the Hilbert function of $M$ (with respect to \ $\mathfrak{m} $) is non-decreasing. \end{theorem} We now give examples where our result holds. \begin{example} Let $(Q,\mathfrak{n} )$ be a regular local ring of dimension three. Let $f_1,f_2 \in \mathfrak{n} ^2 $ be an $Q$-regular sequence. Assume $f_1 \in \mathfrak{n} ^2 \setminus\mathfrak{n} ^3$. Let $A = Q/(f_1,f_2)$. Then if $M$ is a maximal Cohen-Macaulay \ $A$-module then the Hilbert function of $M$ (with respect to \ $\mathfrak{m} $) is non-decreasing. The reason for this is that $B = Q/(f_1)$ has minimal multiplicity. \end{example} \begin{example}\label{rat} Let $(B,\mathfrak{n} )$ be a two dimensional local ring with pseudo-rational singularity. Then $B$ has minimal multiplicity, see \cite[5.4]{LT}. In particular if $A = B/P$, $P$ a prime ideal of height one or if $A = B/(x)$ where $x$ is $B$-regular then if $M$ is a maximal Cohen-Macaulay \ $A$-module then the Hilbert function of $M$ (with respect to \ $\mathfrak{m} $) is non-decreasing. \end{example} \begin{example} There is a large class of one dimensional local rings $(R,\mathfrak{m} )$ with minimal multiplicity. For examples Arf rings have this property, \cite[2.2]{L}. Let $B = R[X]_{(\mathfrak{m} , X)}$. Then $B$ is a two dimensional Cohen-Macaulay \ local ring with minimal multiplicity. \end{example} Here is an overview of the contents of the paper. In Section two we introduce notation and discuss a few preliminary facts that we need. In section three we prove Theorem \ref{main}. \section{Preliminaries} In this paper all rings are Noetherian and all modules considered are assumed to be finitely generated (unless otherwise stated). Let $(A,\mathfrak{m} )$ be a local ring of dimension $d$ with residue field $k = A/\mathfrak{m} $. Let $M$ be an $A$-module. If $m$ is a non-zero element of $M$ and if $j$ is the largest integer such that $m \in \mathfrak{m} ^{j}M$, then we let $m^*$ denote the image of $m$ in $\mathfrak{m} ^{j}M/\mathfrak{m} ^{j+1}M$. The formal power series \[ H_M(z) = \sum_{n \geq 0} H(M,n)z^n \] is called the \emph{Hilbert series } of $M$. It is well known that it is of the form \begin{equation*} H_M(z) = \frac{h_M(z)}{(1-z)^r}, \ \text{where}\ \ r = \dim M \ \ \ \text{and} \ h_M(z) \in \mathbb{Z}[z]. \end{equation*} We call $h_M(z)$ the \emph{h-polynomial} of $M$. If $f$ is a polynomial we use $f^{(i)}$ to denote its $ i $-th derivative. The integers $ e_i(M) = h^{(i)}_{M} (1)/i!$ for $ i \geq 0 $ are called the \emph{Hilbert coefficients} of $M$. The number $ e(M) = e_0(M) $ is the \emph{multiplicity} of $ M $. \s \textbf{Base change:} \label{AtoA'} Let $\phi \colon (A,\mathfrak{m} ) \rightarrow (A',\mathfrak{m} ')$ be a local ring homomorphism. Assume $A'$ is a faithfully flat $A$ algebra with $\mathfrak{m} A' = \mathfrak{m} '$. Set $\mathfrak{m} ' = \mathfrak{m} A'$ and if $N$ is an $A$-module set $N' = N\otimes_A A'$. In these cases it can be seen that \begin{enumerate}[\rm (1)] \item $\ell_A(N) = \ell_{A'}(N')$. \item $H(M,n) = H(M',n)$ for all $n \geq 0$. \item $\dim M = \dim M'$ and $\operatorname{depth}_A M = \operatorname{depth}_{A'} M'$. \item $\operatorname{depth} G(M) = \operatorname{depth} G(M')$. \end{enumerate} \noindent The specific base changes we do are the following: (i) $A' = A[X]_S$ where $S = A[X]\setminus \mathfrak{m} A[X]$. The maximal ideal of $A'$ is $\mathfrak{n} = \mathfrak{m} A'$. The residue field of $A'$ is $K = k(X)$. (ii) $A' = \widehat{A}$ the completion of $A$ with respect to the maximal ideal. Thus we can assume that our ring $A$ is complete with infinite residue field. \textbf{I:} \textit{$L_i(M)$} \\ Let $(A,\mathfrak{m} )$ be a Noetherian local ring and $M$ a $A$-module. We simplify a construction from \cite{Pu2}. \s Set $L_0(M) = \bigoplus_{n \geq 0} M/\mathfrak{m} ^{n+1}M$. Let $\mathcal{R} = A[\mathfrak{m} u]$ be the \emph{Rees-algebra} of $\mathfrak{m} $. Let $\mathcal{S} = A[u]$. Then $\mathcal{R} $ is a subring of $\mathcal{S} $. Set $M[u] = M\otimes_A \mathcal{S} $ an $\mathcal{S} $-module and so an $\mathcal{R} $-module. Let $\mathcal{R} (M) = \bigoplus_{n \geq 0}\mathfrak{m} ^nM$ be the Rees-module of $M$ with respect to $\mathfrak{m} $. We have the following exact sequence of $\mathcal{R} $-modules \[ 0 \rightarrow \mathcal{R} (M) \rightarrow M[u] \rightarrow L_0(M)(-1) \rightarrow 0. \] Thus $L_0(M)(-1)$ (and so $L_0(M)$) is an $\mathcal{R} $-module. We note that $L_0(M)$ is \emph{not} a finitely generated $\mathcal{R} $-module. Also note that $L_0(M) = M \otimes_A L_0(A)$. \s For $i \geq 1$ set $$L_i(M) = \operatorname{Tor}^A_i(M, L_0(A)) = \bigoplus_{n \geq 0 } \operatorname{Tor}^A_i(M, A/\mathfrak{m} ^{n+1}). $$ We assert that $L_i(M)$ is a finitely generated $\mathcal{R} $-module for $i \geq 1$. It is sufficient to prove it for $i = 1$. We tensor the exact sequence $0 \rightarrow \mathcal{R} \rightarrow \mathcal{S} \rightarrow L_0(A)(-1) \rightarrow 0$ with $M$ to obtain a sequence of $\mathcal{R} $-modules \[ 0 \rightarrow L_1(M)(-1) \rightarrow \mathcal{R} \otimes_A M \rightarrow M[u] \rightarrow L_0(M)(-1) \rightarrow 0. \] Thus $ L_1(M)(-1)$ is a $\mathcal{R} $-submodule of $\mathcal{R} \otimes_A M$. The latter module is a finitely generated $\mathcal{R} $-module. It follows that $L_1(M)$ is a finitely generated $\mathcal{R} $-module. \s \label{dimL1} Now assume that $A$ is Cohen-Macaulay \ of dimension $d \geq 1$. Set $N = \operatorname{Syz}^A_1(M)$ and $F = A^{\mu(M)}$. We tensor the exact sequence \[ 0 \rightarrow N \rightarrow F \rightarrow M \rightarrow 0, \] with $L_0(A)$ to obtain an exact sequence of $\mathcal{R} $-modules \[ 0 \rightarrow L_1(M) \rightarrow L_0(N) \rightarrow L_0(F) \rightarrow L_0(M) \rightarrow 0. \] It is elementary to see that the function $n \rightarrow \ell(\operatorname{Tor}^A_1(M, A/\mathfrak{m} ^{n+1}))$ is polynomial of degree $\leq d - 1$. By \cite[Corollary II]{IP} if $M$ is non-free then it is polynomial of degree $d-1$. Thus $\dim L_1(M) = d$ if $M$ is non-free. \textbf{II:} \emph{Superficial sequences.} \s An element $x \in \mathfrak{m} $ is said to be \emph{superficial} for $M$ if there exists an integer $c > 0$ such that $$ (\mathfrak{m} ^{n}M \colon_M x)\cap\mathfrak{m} ^cM = \mathfrak{m} ^{n-1}M \ \text{ for all }\quad n > c. $$ Superficial elements always exist if $k$ is infinite \cite[p.\ 7]{Sa}. A sequence $x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_r$ in a local ring $(A,\mathfrak{m} )$ is said to be a \emph{superficial sequence} for $M$ if $x_1$ is superficial for $M$ and $x_i$ is superficial for $M/(x_1,\ldots,x_{i-1})M$ for $2\leq i \leq r$. We need the following: \begin{proposition}\label{GL} Let $(A,\mathfrak{m} )$ be a Cohen-Macaulay \ ring of dimension $d$ and let $M$ be a Cohen-Macaulay \ $A$-module of dimension $r$. Let $x_1,\ldots,x_c$ be an $M$-superficial sequence with $c \leq r$. Assume $x_1^*,\cdots,x_c^*$ is a $G(M)$-regular sequence. Let $\mathcal{R} = A[\mathfrak{m} u]$ be the Rees algebra of $\mathfrak{m} $. Set $X_i = x_iu \in \mathcal{R} _1$. Then $X_1,\ldots,X_c$ is a $L_0(M)$-regular sequence. \end{proposition} \begin{proof} We prove the result by induction. First consider the case when $c = 1$. Then the result follows from \cite[2.2(3)]{Pu2}. We now assume that $c \geq 2$ and the result holds for all Cohen-Macaulay \ $A$-modules and sequences of length $c-1$. By $c = 1$ result we get that $X_1$ is $L_0(M)$-regular. Let $N = M/(x_1)$. As $x_1^*$ is $G(M)$-regular we get $G(M)/x_1^* G(M) \cong G(N)$. So $x_2^*,\ldots,x_c^*$ is a $G(N)$-regular sequence. Now also note that $L_0(M)/X_1L_0(M) = L_0(N)$. Thus the result follows. \end{proof} \section{Proof of Theorem \ref{main}} In this section we give a proof of Theorem \ref{main}. We also give an example which shows that it is possible for $\operatorname{depth} G(M)$ to be zero. \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{main}] We may assume that the residue field of $A$ is infinite. Let $N = \operatorname{Syz}^B_1(M)$. Then $N$ is a maximal Cohen-Macaulay \ $B$-module. As $B$ has minimal multiplicity it follows that $N$ also has minimal multiplicity. So $G(N)$ is Cohen-Macaulay \ and $\deg h_N(z) \leq 1$, see \cite[Theorem 16]{Pu1}. Set $r = \mu(M)$, $h_B(z) = 1 + hz$ and as $e(N) = re(A)$ we write $h_N(z) = r + c + (rh - c)z $ (here $c$ can be negative). Set $F = A^r$. The exact sequence $0\rightarrow N \rightarrow F \rightarrow M \rightarrow 0$ induces an exact sequence \begin{equation}\label{1} 0 \rightarrow L_1(M) \rightarrow L_0(N) \rightarrow L_0(F) \rightarrow L_0(M) \rightarrow 0 \end{equation} of $\mathcal{R} $-modules. Let $x_1,x_2$ be an $N \oplus B$-superficial sequence. Then $x_1^*, x_2^*$ is a $G(N)\oplus G(B)$-regular sequence. Set $X_i = x_iu \in \mathcal{R} _1$. Then by \ref{GL} it follows that $X_1,X_2$ is a $L_0(N) \oplus L_0(F)$-regular sequence. By (\ref{1}) it follows that $X_1, X_2$ is also a $L_1(M)$-regular sequence. As $\dim L_1(M) = 2$ (see \ref{dimL1}) it follows that $L_1(M)$ is a Cohen-Macaulay \ $\mathcal{R} $-module. Let the Hilbert series of $L_1(M)$ be $l(z)/(1-z)^2$. Then the coefficients of $l(z)$ is non-negative. Let $l(z) = l_0 + l_1z + \cdots + l_m z^n$ and let $h_M(z) = h_0 + h_1z + \cdots + h_pz^p$. By (\ref{1}) we get \begin{align*} (1-z)l(z) &= h_N(z) - h_F(z) + (1-z)h_M(z), \\ &= r + c + (rh - c)z - r(1 + h z) + (1-z)h_M(z), \\ &= c(1-z) + (1-z)h_M(z). \end{align*} It follows that \[ l(z) = c + h_M(z). \] It follows that $m = p$ and $h_i = l_i$ for $i \geq 1$. In particular $h_i \geq 0$ for $i \geq 1$. Also $h_0 = \mu(M) > 0$. Thus $h_M(z)$ has non-negative coefficients. It follows that the Hilbert function of $M$ is non-decreasing. \end{proof} We now give an example which shows that it is possible for $\operatorname{depth} G(M)$ to be zero. \begin{example} \label{ex2} Let $K$ be a field and let $A = K[[t^6, t^7, t^{15}]]$. It can be verified that \[ A \cong \frac{K[[X,Y,Z]]}{(Y^3-XZ, X^5 - Z^2)} \] and that \[ G(A) \cong \frac{K[X,Y,Z]}{(XZ, Y^6, Y^3Z,Z^2)} \] Note that $ZY^2$ annihilates $(X,Y,Z)$. So $\operatorname{depth} G(A) = 0$. Set $B = K[[X,Y,Z]]/(Y^3-XZ)$. Then $B$ is a two-dimensional Cohen-Macaulay \ ring with minimal multiplicity and $A$ is a one-dimensional Cohen-Macaulay \ quotient of $B$. Set $M = A$. \end{example}
\section{Introduction} A breakthrough in exploring exotic states of matter induced by spin-orbit couplings has been one of the highlights of recent condensed matter physics. In particular, non-centrosymmetric metals lacking an inversion symmetry in the crystal structure exhibit various intriguing phenomena such as spintronics~\cite{Spin_Hall_1,Spin_Hall_2}, chiral and helical magnetism~\cite{Chiral_Magnetism_1,Chiral_Magnetism_2}, and non-centrosymmetric superconductivity~\cite{NCSC}. An antisymmetric spin-orbit coupling relating the momentum and spin of electrons appears owing to the lack of inversion symmetry, and it plays an essential role in these phenomena~\cite{NCSC}. Although various antisymmetric spin-orbit couplings exist depending on the symmetry of crystals~\cite{Frigeri_thesis}, Rashba spin-orbit coupling (RSOC)~\cite{Rashba} has been investigated most intensively, probably because it appears not only in the bulk~\cite{PhysRevLett.92.027003,doi:10.1143/JPSJ.75.043703,PhysRevLett.95.247004,Ishizaka} but also in artificial heterostructures~\cite{Ohtomo,Ueno_review,Shimozawa,Winkler_book}. The antisymmetric spin-orbit coupling gives rise to the spin-splitting of Fermi surfaces, and thus, a single-particle state acquires a spin texture in the momentum space~\cite{NCSC}. Such an electronic structure results in exotic quantum phases and quantum transport. Spin-split Fermi surfaces have been observed by angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES)~\cite{Ishizaka,Okuda_ARPES,Hirahara} and by de Haas-van Alphen (dHvA) measurement~\cite{Onuki}. The interplay between the antisymmetric spin-orbit coupling and electron correlation effects often plays an important role. For instance, unconventional superconductivity with a giant upper critical field occurs in strongly correlated non-centrosymmetric systems~\cite{doi:10.1143/JPSJ.77.073705,PhysRevLett.98.197001, PhysRevLett.101.267006}. Furthermore, it has been shown that novel electromagnetic responses, such as a magnetoelectric effect and anomalous Hall effect, are enhanced by the electron correlation~\cite{JPSJ.76.034712}. Thus, the interplay between the antisymmetric spin-orbit coupling and electron correlation appears to be an important issue. From the theoretical point of view, unconventional long-range order, such as magnetism~\cite{Yanase_CePt3Si,doi:10.1143/JPSJ.77.113706,JPSJ.77.124711} and superconductivity~\cite{Yanase_CePt3Si,JPSJ.77.124711,Tada_3,Takimoto_2,Yokoyama,PhysRevB.80.140509,PhysRevLett.101.267006, PhysRevB.81.104506}, has been intensively clarified. Furthermore, spontaneous inversion-symmetry breaking and the emergence of an antisymmetric spin-orbit coupling due to electron correlation effects have been studied~\cite{doi:10.7566/JPSJ.83.014703, PhysRevB.90.081115,Hayami_2,Hitomi,Hayami_3,Fu2015}. However, quasiparticles renormalized by electron correlation effects in the Fermi liquid state have only been investigated in a few works~\cite{JPSJ.76.034712,PhysRevB.81.104506, PhysRevLett.101.267006}. A Fermi liquid theory for non-centrosymmetric metals (chiral Fermi liquid theory) has been formulated on the basis of a two-dimensional Rashba-Hubbard model by Fujimoto~\cite{JPSJ.76.034712}, although only the diagonal self-energy was explicitly calculated on the basis of second-order perturbation theory. Although a phenomenological spin fluctuation model in three dimensions has been investigated by Tada {\it et al.}~\cite{PhysRevB.81.104506,PhysRevLett.101.267006}, again the off-diagonal self-energy was neglected. As shown in Ref.~\citen{JPSJ.76.034712}, the renormalization of spin-orbit coupling is neglected in these calculations. A one-dimensional Rashba-Hubbard model has been analyzed by Goth and Assaad~\cite{cond-mat.1406.7293}, but Landau quasiparticles break down in one-dimensional systems. In this paper, we clarify electron correlation effects in the chiral Fermi liquid state on the basis of the two-dimensional Rashba-Hubbard model by calculating both diagonal and off-diagonal self-energies on an equal footing. The calculation relies on the perturbation expansion with respect to the Coulomb interaction, and therefore, we obtain reliable results in the weak coupling regime. Two-dimensional electron gases in semiconductors have been theoretically studied for a similar purpose~\cite{Maslov2013}. Also, quasiparticle properties in the presence of antisymmetric spin-orbit coupling and a screened long-range Coulomb interaction have been investigated. It has been shown that the spin-orbit coupling is enhanced by the momentum dependence of the screened Coulomb interaction~\cite{Raikh1999}, but the quasiparticle properties are hardly affected by the interplay between them~\cite{Ross2005,Chesi2011,Chesi2012}. Interestingly we obtain similar results for correlated metals, although many-body effects arising from the short-range Coulomb interaction are the main subject of the paper. We also show the important role of anisotropy in the electron dispersion relation, which is not negligible in metals. The paper is organized as follows. In Sect.~\ref{FORM}, we introduce the Rashba-Hubbard model and formulate the renormalization of quasiparticles in the presence of electron correlation and spin-orbit coupling. Numerical and analytic results of second-order perturbation theory are shown in Sect.~\ref{2PT}. In Sect.~\ref{3PT}, we show the results of third-order perturbation theory in order to clarify higher-order corrections. A brief summary and discussion are given in Sect.~\ref{SUM}. \section{Formulation}\label{FORM} In this section, we introduce the Rashba-Hubbard model and formulate the Green function, self-energy, and effective mass of quasiparticles in the presence of RSOC. \subsection{Rashba-Hubbard model} The effects of electron correlation in metals lacking an inversion symmetry are studied on the basis of the two-dimensional Rashba-Hubbard model, {\setlength\arraycolsep{1pt} \begin{eqnarray} H&=&H_0+H_{\rm int}, \\ H_0&=&\sum_{\mib{k},s}\varepsilon(\mib{k})c^{\dag}_{\mib{k}s}c_{\mib{k}s}+\alpha\sum_{\mib{k},s,s'}\mib{g}(\mib{k})\cdot\mib{\sigma}c^{\dag}_{\mib{k}s}c_{\mib{k}s'}, \\ H_{\rm int}&=&U\sum_in_{i\uparrow}n_{i\downarrow}, \end{eqnarray} } where $c_{\mib{k}s}$ ($c^{\dag}_{\mib{k}s}$) is the annihilation (creation) operator for an electron with momentum $\mib{k}$ and spin $s = \uparrow,\downarrow$. The electron number operator for spin $s$ at site $i$ is denoted as $n_{is}$. We consider a simple square lattice and assume a tight-binding model, $\varepsilon(\mib{k})=-2t_1(\cos{k_x}+\cos{k_y})+4t_2\cos{k_x}\cos{k_y}-\mu$, by taking account of the nearest-neighbour and next-nearest-neighbour hoppings. The chemical potential $\mu$ is involved in the dispersion relation. The second term in the single-particle part $H_0$ represents the antisymmetric spin-orbit coupling arising from the lack of inversion symmetry. Following the conventional notation~\cite{NCSC}, it is characterized by the g-vector $\mib{g}(\mib{k})$. We focus on RSOC, which has been studied in various fields of condensed matter physics. Thus, in Sects.~3 and 4 we will assume a g-vector that represents RSOC. Although the momentum dependence of the g-vector is determined by the orbital wave function in the Bloch state~\cite{JPSJ.77.124711}, we will adopt a simple form of RSOC, $\mib{g}(\mib{k})=2t_1(-\sin{k_y},\sin{k_x},0)$, which is justified in the absence of orbital degeneracy in the electronic structure~\cite{doi:10.7566/JPSJ.82.044711,doi:10.7566/JPSJ.82.083705}. On the other hand, we will discuss other kinds of antisymmetric spin-orbit coupling in Sect.~5. Thus, we adopt a general form of the g-vector in this section. The interacting part $H_{\rm int}$ represents the on-site Coulomb repulsion. We investigate electron correlation effects in the weak coupling regime by using the perturbation expansion with respect to the Coulomb interaction $U$. \subsection{Green function} In this subsection, we formulate the renormalization of quasiparticles due to the electron correlation effect. In the presence of spin-orbit coupling, the noninteracting Green function is described in the matrix representation as {\setlength\arraycolsep{3pt} \begin{eqnarray} \hat{G}^{(0)}(\mib{k},{\rm i}\omega_{\rm n})&=&\left( \begin{array}{ccc} {\rm i}\omega_{\rm n}-\varepsilon-\alpha g_z & -\alpha(g_x-{\rm i}g_y) \\ -\alpha(g_x+{\rm i}g_y) & {\rm i}\omega_{\rm n}-\varepsilon+\alpha g_z \\ \end{array} \right)^{-1} \nonumber \\ &=&\sum_{\lambda=\pm}\left(\frac{\hat{I}+\lambda\frac{\mib{g}}{|\mib{g}|}\cdot\mib{\sigma}}{2}\right) G^{(0)}_{\lambda}(\mib{k},{\rm i}\omega_{\rm n}), \label{nonGreen} \end{eqnarray} } where $\hat{I}$ is the $2 \times 2$ unit matrix and $\omega_n=(2n-1)\pi T$ is the fermion Matsubara frequency. The noninteracting Green function in the chirality basis is obtained as \begin{eqnarray} G^{(0)}_{\lambda}(\mib{k},{\rm i}\omega_{\rm n})=\frac{1}{{\rm i}\omega_{\rm n}-\varepsilon(\mib{k})-\lambda\alpha|\mib{g}(\mib{k})|}, \label{nonband} \end{eqnarray} with $\lambda = \pm$ being the chirality index. The dressed Green function is obtained by taking account of the self-energy $\hat{\Sigma}(k) = \left[\Sigma_{ss'}(k) \right]$. As we will show later, not only the diagonal self-energy $\Sigma_{\sigma\sigma}(k)$ but also the off-diagonal self-energy $\Sigma_{\sigma\bar{\sigma}}(k)$ plays an important role, although the latter was neglected in previous works~\cite{JPSJ.76.034712,PhysRevB.81.104506,PhysRevLett.101.267006}. Carrying out analytic continuation, the retarded Green function is described as {\setlength\arraycolsep{3pt} \begin{eqnarray} \hspace*{-2mm} \hat{G}^{\rm R}(k)&=&\left( \begin{array}{ccc} \omega-\varepsilon-\alpha g_z-\Sigma^{\rm R}_{\uparrow\uparrow} & -\alpha(g_x-{\rm i}g_y)-\Sigma^{\rm R}_{\uparrow\downarrow} \\ -\alpha(g_x+{\rm i}g_y)-\Sigma^{\rm R}_{\downarrow\uparrow} & \omega-\varepsilon+\alpha g_z-\Sigma^{\rm R}_{\downarrow\downarrow} \\ \end{array} \right)^{-1}, \label{Green} \end{eqnarray} } where $k=(\mib{k},\omega)$. Adopting the vector representation of the self-energy, \begin{eqnarray} \hat{\Sigma}^{\rm R}(k) = \Sigma^{\rm R}_0(k) \, \hat{I} + \mib{\Sigma}^{\rm R}(k)\cdot\mib{\sigma}, \end{eqnarray} where $\mib{\Sigma}^{\rm R}=(\Sigma^{\rm R}_x,\Sigma^{\rm R}_y,\Sigma^{\rm R}_z)$, $\Sigma^{\rm R}_0=(\Sigma^{\rm R}_{\uparrow\uparrow}+\Sigma^{\rm R}_{\downarrow\downarrow})/2$, $\Sigma^{\rm R}_x=(\Sigma^{\rm R}_{\downarrow\uparrow}+\Sigma^{\rm R}_{\uparrow\downarrow})/2$, $\Sigma^{\rm R}_y=(\Sigma^{\rm R}_{\downarrow\uparrow}-\Sigma^{\rm R}_{\uparrow\downarrow})/2{\rm i}$, and $\Sigma^{\rm R}_z=(\Sigma^{\rm R}_{\uparrow\uparrow}-\Sigma^{\rm R}_{\downarrow\downarrow})/2$, the dressed Green function is represented in a familiar form, {\setlength\arraycolsep{3pt} \begin{eqnarray} \hat{G}^{\rm R}(k) &=&\left( \begin{array}{ccc} \omega-\varepsilon'-\alpha g_z' & -\alpha(g_x'-{\rm i}g_y') \\ -\alpha(g_x'+{\rm i}g_y') & \omega-\varepsilon'+\alpha g_z' \\ \end{array} \right)^{-1} \nonumber \\ &=&\sum_{\lambda=\pm}\left(\frac{\hat{I}+\lambda\frac{\mib{g}'}{|\mib{g}'|}\cdot\mib{\sigma}}{2}\right)G^{\rm R}_{\lambda}(k). \label{reGreen} \end{eqnarray}} The renormalized Green function in the chirality basis is obtained as \begin{eqnarray} G^{\rm R}_{\lambda}(k)=\frac{1}{\omega-\varepsilon'(k)-\lambda\alpha|\mib{g}'(k)|}, \label{band} \end{eqnarray} where $\varepsilon'(k)\equiv\varepsilon(\mib{k})+\Sigma^{\rm R}_0(k)$. The renormalization of spin-orbit coupling is taken into account by the self-energy correction of the g-vector, $\alpha \mib{g}'(k) \equiv \alpha \mib{g}(\mib{k}) + {\rm Re} \mib{\Sigma}^{\rm R}(k)$~\cite{comment1}. Here we dropped the imaginary part of the spin-dependent self-energy Im$\mib{\Sigma}^{\rm R}(k)$, because it is negligible at low temperatures in a Fermi liquid state, Im$\mib{\Sigma}^{\rm R}(k) \propto T^2$. Figure~\ref{Figse} shows the self-energy obtained by second-order perturbation theory, and we indeed see the negligible imaginary part around $\omega=0$. This property is not altered in third-order perturbation theory, indicating the Fermi liquid state. \begin{figure}[htbp] \begin{center} \includegraphics[scale=0.3]{67033Fig1a.eps} \includegraphics[scale=0.3]{67033Fig1b.eps} \includegraphics[scale=0.3]{67033Fig1c.eps} \end{center} \caption{(Color online) Frequency dependence of retarded self-energies at temperature $T=0.01$ obtained by second-order perturbation theory. We show the results at Fermi momenta $\mib{k} = \mib{k}_{\rm F+} \parallel$ [110] for $(t_1, t_2)=(1,0)$, $U=4$, and $\alpha=0.1$. Solid (dashed) lines show the real (imaginary) part of (a) $\Sigma_0^{\rm R}(k)$, (b) $\Sigma_x^{\rm R}(k)$, and (c) $\Sigma_y^{\rm R}(k)$. We adopted the P$\acute{\rm a}$de approximation for the analytic continuation. } \label{Figse} \end{figure} The Fermi surfaces of spin-split bands are defined by the singularity of the Green function and are thus obtained by solving the equation \begin{eqnarray} \varepsilon'(\mib{k}_{{\rm F}\lambda},0)+\lambda\alpha|\mib{g}'(\mib{k}_{{\rm F}\lambda},0)|=0. \end{eqnarray} The Fermi momentum of the $\lambda$-band is denoted as $\mib{k}_{{\rm F}\lambda}$ and the spin-splitting of the Fermi momentum (SFM) is defined as $\Delta k_{\rm F}=|\mib{k}_{{\rm F}+}-\mib{k}_{{\rm F}-}|$. We also take into account the correlation correction of the chemical potential. First, we calculate the chemical potential $\mu_0$ at $U=0$ for which the electron density per site is $n$. Next, we calculate the self-energy, and the chemical potential is corrected as $\mu = \mu_0 + \delta\mu$, for which the dressed Green function leads to the electron density, lim$_{\eta \rightarrow +0}{\rm Tr} \sum_{k} \hat{G}(k) e^{i \omega_n \eta} = {\rm Tr} \sum_{k} \hat{G}(k) + 1 = n$. \subsection{$k$-mass and $\omega$-mass} Next, we introduce the effective mass of quasiparticles. The effective mass of the $\lambda$-band $m_{\lambda}^{\ast}$ is obtained as the product of the $\omega$-mass and $k$-mass, {\setlength\arraycolsep{1pt} \begin{eqnarray} \frac{m_{\lambda}^{\ast}}{m_{\lambda}} =\frac{m_{\lambda}^{\omega}}{m_{\lambda}} \times\frac{m_{\lambda}^{{\rm k}}}{m_{\lambda}}, \label{effectivemass} \end{eqnarray}} where $m_{\lambda}$ is the bare mass of the $\lambda$-band. The $\omega$-mass is given by the frequency derivative of the self-energy, {\setlength\arraycolsep{1pt} \begin{eqnarray} \frac{m_{\lambda}^{\omega}}{m_{\lambda}} =1-\frac{\partial{\rm Re}\Sigma^{\rm R}_0(\mib{k}_{{\rm F}\lambda},\omega)}{\partial\omega}\biggl{|}_{\omega=0}-\lambda\alpha\frac{\partial|\mib{g}'(\mib{k}_{{\rm F}\lambda},\omega)|}{\partial\omega}\biggl{|}_{\omega=0}. \label{omegamass} \end{eqnarray}} Furthermore, quasiparticles acquire a $k$-mass renormalization through the momentum derivative of the self-energy, {\setlength\arraycolsep{1pt} \begin{eqnarray} \frac{m_{\lambda}^{\rm k}}{m_{\lambda}} &=&\frac{\frac{\partial\varepsilon(\mib{k})}{\partial\mib{k}}+\lambda\alpha\frac{\partial|\mib{g}(\mib{k})|}{\partial\mib{k}}}{\frac{\partial\varepsilon(\mib{k})}{\partial\mib{k}}+\frac{\partial{\rm Re}\Sigma^{\rm R}_0(\mib{k},0)}{\partial\mib{k}}+\lambda\alpha\frac{\partial|\mib{g}'(\mib{k},0)|}{\partial\mib{k}}}\Biggl{|}_{\mib{k}=\mib{k}_{{\rm F}\lambda}}. \label{kmass} \end{eqnarray}} The $k$-mass renormalization is often neglected in Fermi liquid theory for strongly correlated electron systems because it is quantitatively less important than the $\omega$-mass renormalization. However, the $k$-mass renormalization plays an essential role in correlated non-centrosymmetric metals as we will show below. We adopt an approximation formula for a numerical calculation. We obtain the self-energy at $\omega=0$ through the Matsubara self-energy {\setlength\arraycolsep{1pt} \begin{eqnarray} \Sigma^{\rm R}_{\alpha}(\mib{k},\omega=0)\simeq\frac{\Sigma_{\alpha}(\mib{k},\omega_{\rm n}=\pi T)+\Sigma_{\alpha}(\mib{k},\omega_{\rm n}=-\pi T)}{2}. \label{oemga-mass_numerical} \end{eqnarray}} The temperature is assumed to be $T=0.01$ in the following numerical results. Frequency derivatives are calculated by using the Kramers-Kronig relation as {\setlength\arraycolsep{1pt} \begin{eqnarray} \hspace*{0mm} \frac{\partial{\rm Re}\Sigma^{\rm R}_{\alpha}(\mib{k},\omega)}{\partial\omega}\biggl{|}_{\omega=0} &=&\frac{\partial{\rm Im}\Sigma_{\alpha}(\mib{k},\omega_{\rm n})}{\partial\omega_{\rm n}}\biggl{|}_{\omega_{\rm n}=0} \nonumber \\ &\simeq&\frac{{\rm Im}\Sigma_{\alpha}(\mib{k},\omega_{\rm n}=\pi T)-{\rm Im}\Sigma_{\alpha}(\mib{k},\omega_{\rm n}=-\pi T)}{2\pi T}. \nonumber \\ \label{k-mass_numerical} \end{eqnarray}} We also calculated the retarded self-energy $\Sigma^{\rm R}_\alpha(k)$ using the P$\acute{\rm a}$de approximation (see Fig.~\ref{Figse}) and estimated the $\omega$-mass and $k$-mass. It has been confirmed that the two numerical estimations coincide with each other. Thus, the approximation formulas Eqs.~(\ref{oemga-mass_numerical}) and (\ref{k-mass_numerical}) have been justified. \section{Second-Order Perturbation Theory}\label{2PT} We here show the results of second-order perturbation theory for the two-dimensional Rashba-Hubbard model. Since the first-order self-energy is involved in the correction of the chemical potential, second-order perturbation theory is the lowest-order theory justified in the weak coupling regime. We calculate the second-order self-energy represented by the skeleton diagrams in Fig.~\ref{Figse2o}. In the absence of RSOC, the self-energy corrections represented by Fig.~\ref{Figse2o}(2B) disappear. On the other hand, these terms give rise to the renormalization of RSOC. Thus, we take into account both Figs.~\ref{Figse2o}(2A) and \ref{Figse2o}(2B), although the latter was neglected in a previous study~\cite{JPSJ.76.034712}. \begin{figure}[htbp] \begin{center} \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{67033Fig2.eps} \end{center} \caption{Skeleton diagrams of self-energy in second-order perturbation theory. The solid and wavy lines show the bare Green function $G^{(0)}_{ss'}(k)$ and Coulomb interaction $U$, respectively. } \label{Figse2o} \end{figure} \subsection{Numerical results}\label{NUMERES} First, we show the numerical results of the effective mass, the renormalization of RSOC, and the SFM. We choose the coupling constant of RSOC as $\alpha=0.1$ throughout the paper. We assume $U=4$ unless otherwise specified. In this subsection, the next-nearest-neighbour hopping is neglected for simplicity, and thus we assume $(t_1,t_2)=(1,0)$. Then, the Rashba-type g-vector is represented by the velocity as $\mib{g}(\mib{k})=2t_1(-\sin{k_y},\sin{k_x},0)= [-v_y(\mib{k}),v_x(\mib{k}),0]$. In the next subsection (Sect.~3.2), we will show that this relation between the RSOC and the velocity plays an essential role. Figure~\ref{Figom} shows the $\omega$-mass as a function of the electron filling $n$. As is known from Fermi liquid theory, the effective mass is enhanced by the electron correlation through the $\omega$-mass. The mass enhancement is pronounced near the half-filling, $n=1$, because of the large density of states (DOS) due to the Van-Hove singularity at $\mib{k} = (\pi,0)$ and $(0,\pi)$. Because we assume a small RSOC compared with the Fermi energy, the effect of RSOC on the $\omega$-mass is negligible. Indeed, the three lines in Fig.~\ref{Figom} almost coincide with each other. Thus, the band dependence of the effective mass is small in the weak coupling regime. \begin{figure}[htbp] \begin{center} \includegraphics[scale=0.33]{67033Fig3.eps} \end{center} \caption{(Color online) Filling dependence of the $\omega$-mass at $\mib{k} = \mib{k}_{{\rm F} \lambda} \parallel$ [110] obtained by second-order perturbation theory. Squares and circles show the $\omega$-mass of the $\lambda = +$ and $-$ band, respectively. The $\omega$-mass in the absence of RSOC ($\alpha=0$) is shown by crosses. } \label{Figom} \end{figure} In contrast to the $\omega$-mass, the $k$-mass is suppressed by electron correlation effects. Indeed, Fig.~\ref{Figkm} shows that $m_{\lambda}^{{\rm k}}/m_{\lambda} <1$. However, the total effective mass [Eq.~(\ref{effectivemass})] is enhanced because the $\omega$-mass renormalization is much larger than the $k$-mass renormalization. For $|\alpha| \ll 1$, both $\omega$-mass and $k$-mass renormalization mainly originate from the diagonal component of self-energy $\Sigma_0^{(2A)}(k)$ represented by Fig.~\ref{Figse2o}(2A). \begin{figure}[htbp] \begin{center} \includegraphics[scale=0.33]{67033Fig4.eps} \end{center} \caption{(Color online) Filling dependence of the $k$-mass at $\mib{k} = \mib{k}_{{\rm F \lambda}} \parallel$ [110] obtained by second-order perturbation theory. Squares and circles show the $k$-mass of the $\lambda = +$ and $-$ band, respectively, while crosses show the $k$-mass in the absence of RSOC ($\alpha=0$). } \label{Figkm} \end{figure} Now we discuss the renormalization of RSOC due to the electron correlation effect, which is given by $|\mib{g}'(\mib{k},\omega=0)|/|\mib{g}(\mib{k})|$. Figure~\ref{Figrg} shows that $|\mib{g}'(\mib{k},\omega=0)|/|\mib{g}(\mib{k})| > 1$ around the Fermi surface irrespective of the electron density, and thus RSOC is enhanced by the electron correlation through the spin-dependent part of the self-energy $\mib{\Sigma}(k)$. Because the main contribution to $\mib{\Sigma}(k)$ comes from the diagram represented in Fig.~\ref{Figse2o}(2B), it is essential to take into account these terms when studying of correlation effects on the RSOC. \begin{figure}[htbp] \begin{center} \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{67033Fig5.eps} \end{center} \caption{(Color online) Filling dependence of the renormalization of RSOC obtained by second-order perturbation theory. Squares and circles show $|\mib{g}'(\mib{k},\omega=0)|/|\mib{g}(\mib{k})|$ at the Fermi momentum $\mib{k} = \mib{k}_{{\rm F} \lambda} \parallel$ [110] for $\lambda=+$ and $\lambda=-$, respectively. } \label{Figrg} \end{figure} For our choice of hopping integrals $(t_1,t_2)=(1,0)$, the Hamiltonian has a particle-hole symmetry because $\varepsilon(\mib{k}) + \mu= - \varepsilon(\mib{Q}-\mib{k}) -\mu$ and $\mib{g}(\mib{Q}-\mib{k}) = \mib{g}(\mib{k})$ with $\mib{Q}= (\pi,\pi)$. Then, the particle-hole transformation, $c_{\mib{k}s} \rightarrow c_{\mib{Q}-\mib{k}s}^{\dag}$, changes the signs of the chemical potential ($\mu \rightarrow -\mu$) and RSOC ($\alpha \rightarrow -\alpha$), and thus the electron density is changed as $n \rightarrow 2-n$. Therefore, the renormalizations of the $\omega$-mass, $k$-mass, and RSOC show symmetric behaviors $\frac{m_{\lambda}^{\omega,\,\,k}}{m_{\lambda}}\mid_{\,n=n_0} = \frac{m_{-\lambda}^{\omega,\,\,k}}{m_{-\lambda}}\mid_{\,n=2-n_0}$ and $|\mib{g}'(\mib{k}_{{\rm F} \lambda}, 0)|/|\mib{g}(\mib{k}_{{\rm F} \lambda})|_{\,n=n_0}= |\mib{g}'(\mib{k}_{{\rm F} -\lambda}, 0)|/|\mib{g}(\mib{k}_{{\rm F} -\lambda})|_{\,n=2-n_0}$ (see Figs.~3-5). The renormalization of RSOC is anisotropic in the momentum space as shown in Fig.~\ref{Figfs}. Generally speaking, a large enhancement of RSOC occurs in the vicinity of the Fermi surface, particularly at the momentum $\mib{k} = \mib{k}_{\rm F} \parallel$ [100] and [010]. The spin texture indicated by the direction of the g-vector is also changed by the electron correlation effect (not shown). Although the correlation effect on the spin texture is negligible in the weak coupling regime, the spin texture may be considerably changed in the strong coupling regime. \begin{figure}[htbp] \begin{center} \includegraphics[scale=0.42]{67033Fig6a.eps} \includegraphics[scale=0.42]{67033Fig6b.eps} \\ \includegraphics[scale=0.42]{67033Fig6c.eps} \includegraphics[scale=0.42]{67033Fig6d.eps} \end{center} \caption{(Color online) Momentum dependence of the renormalization in RSOC. We show $|\mib{g}'(\mib{k},\omega=0)|/|\mib{g}(\mib{k})|$ for fillings (a) $n=0.4$, (b) 0.6, (c) 0.8, and (d) 1.0. Solid lines show the spin-split Fermi surfaces. } \label{Figfs} \end{figure} Finally, we show the SFM $\Delta k_{\rm F}$. Although the enhancement of renormalized RSOC implies an increase in $\Delta k_{\rm F}$, the SFM remains unchanged by the electron correlation effect, as shown in Fig.~\ref{Figssfs}. Note that the scale of the horizontal axis is chosen to be the same as in Fig.~\ref{Figrg}. We can not observe the electron correlation effect on $\Delta k_{\rm F}$ at this scale. Thus, it is indicated that the enhancement of RSOC is compensated by other effects. The $k$-mass renormalization indeed cancels out the enhancement of RSOC, as we show in the next subsection. \begin{figure}[htbp] \begin{center} \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{67033Fig7.eps} \end{center} \caption{(Color online) $U$-dependence of SFM $\Delta k_{\rm F}$ for $\mib{k} \parallel$ [110]. We plot $\Delta k_{\rm F}$ for various electron densities $n=$0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, and 1.0, but $\Delta k_{\rm F}(U) \simeq \Delta k_{\rm F}(U=0)$ irrespective of the electron density. The scale of the horizontal axis is chosen to be the same as that in Fig.~\ref{Figrg} in order to show the almost complete cancellation between the $k$-mass renormalization and the enhancement of RSOC. } \label{Figssfs} \end{figure} \subsection{Analytic calculation}\label{ANARES} We here clarify the cancellation between the $k$-mass renormalization and the renormalization of RSOC. In this subsection, we adopt the lowest-order theory with respect to RSOC, which is justified for a weak RSOC, $\alpha |\mib{g}(\mib{k})| \ll \varepsilon_{\rm F}$, as realized in most non-centrosymmetric metals. The SFM is obtained as \begin{eqnarray} \Delta k_{\rm F}\simeq\frac{2\alpha|\mib{g}'(\mib{k}_{\rm F},0)|}{|\mib{v}^{{\rm k}}(\mib{k}_{\rm F},0)|}, \label{delk} \end{eqnarray} where $\mib{k}_{\rm F}$ is the Fermi momentum at $\alpha=0$ and $\mib{v}^{{\rm k}}(\mib{k}_{\rm F},\omega) = \frac{\partial\varepsilon(\mib{k})}{\partial\mib{k}} + \frac{\partial{\rm Re}\Sigma^{\rm R}_0(\mib{k},\omega)}{\partial\mib{k}}|_{\mib{k}=\mib{k}_{\rm F}}$ is the Fermi velocity renormalized by the $k$-mass. Thus, the SFM is affected by the renormalization of the $k$-mass and RSOC but not affected by the $\omega$-mass. The perturbation expansion in terms of RSOC is carried out by expanding the noninteracting Green function as \begin{eqnarray} && \hspace{-8mm} G^{(0)}_{\lambda}\simeq G^{(0)} + G^{(0)} \lambda \alpha |\mib{g}|G^{(0)} + G^{(0)} \lambda \alpha |\mib{g}| G^{(0)} \lambda \alpha |\mib{g}|G^{(0)} + \cdots, \nonumber \\ && \end{eqnarray} where $G^{(0)}(k)=[\omega-\varepsilon(\mib{k})]^{-1}$. Up to the first order in $\alpha$, the diagonal self-energy $\Sigma_0(k)$ is obtained from the diagram in Fig.~\ref{Figse2o}(2A). It is the zeroth-order term with respect to $\alpha$. On the other hand, Fig.~\ref{Figse2o}(2B) represents the first-order terms in the off-diagonal self-energy $\Sigma_x(k)$ and $\Sigma_y(k)$. Thus, the lowest-order terms of the self-energy are obtained within the first order of $\alpha$. Differentiating the diagonal self-energy, we obtain the renormalized Fermi velocity as {\setlength\arraycolsep{1pt} \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq18} v^{{\rm k}}_x(k)&=&v_x(\mib{k})+U^2{\rm Re}\sum_q\phi(q)G^{(0)}(q-k)^2v_x(\mib{q}-\mib{k}), \label{vkmx} \\ v^{{\rm k}}_y(k)&=&v_y(\mib{k})+U^2{\rm Re}\sum_q\phi(q)G^{(0)}(q-k)^2v_y(\mib{q}-\mib{k}), \label{vkmy} \end{eqnarray}} where {\setlength\arraycolsep{3pt} \begin{eqnarray} \phi(q)\equiv\sum_{k'}G^{(0)}(k')G^{(0)}(q-k'), \label{phi} \end{eqnarray}} and $v_\alpha(\mib{k}) = \partial \varepsilon(\mib{k})/\partial k_\alpha$. On the other hand, the renormalized g-vector is obtained as {\setlength\arraycolsep{1pt} \begin{eqnarray} g'_x(k)&=&g_x(\mib{k})+U^2{\rm Re}\sum_q\phi(q)G^{(0)}(q-k)^2g_x(\mib{q}-\mib{k}), \label{gpx}\\ g'_y(k)&=&g_y(\mib{k})+U^2{\rm Re}\sum_q\phi(q)G^{(0)}(q-k)^2g_y(\mib{q}-\mib{k}). \label{gpy} \label{eq22} \end{eqnarray}} The derivation of Eqs.~(\ref{eq18})-(\ref{eq22}) is given in the Appendix. Now the similarity between the Fermi velocity and RSOC is clear. The Fermi velocity and RSOC acquire the same renormalization when the relation $\mib{g}(\mib{k})=C [-v_y(\mib{k}),v_x(\mib{k}),0]$ is satisfied with $C$ being an arbitrary constant. This relation is indeed satisfied in the Rashba-Hubbard model adopted in Sect.~3.1. Then, the SFM is not renormalized by the electron correlation effect, \begin{eqnarray} \Delta k_{\rm F} \simeq \frac{2\alpha|\mib{g}'(\mib{k}_{\rm F},0)|}{|\mib{v}^{{\rm k}}(\mib{k}_{\rm F},0)|} = \frac{2\alpha|\mib{g}(\mib{k}_{\rm F})|}{|\mib{v}(\mib{k}_{\rm F})|}. \label{delk2} \end{eqnarray} The cancellation is not complete owing to higher-order terms with respect to the RSOC $\alpha$, but we see almost complete cancellation between the $k$-mass renormalization and the enhanced RSOC for a moderate RSOC of $\alpha =0.1$ (see Fig.~\ref{Figssfs}). \begin{figure}[htbp] \begin{center} \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{67033Fig8.eps} \end{center} \caption{(Color online) SFM $\Delta k_{\rm F}$ for $n=$0.6, 0.4, 0.2, 0.8, 1.0, 1.8, 1.6, 1.2, and 1.4 from top to bottom. We assume $(t_1,t_2)=(1,0.3)$, although we assumed $(t_1,t_2)=(1,0)$ in Fig.~\ref{Figssfs}. The other parameters are the same as those in Fig.~7. } \label{Fignvssfs} \end{figure} The above results imply that the SFM is renormalized by the electron correlation when the relation $\mib{g}(\mib{k})=C [-v_y(\mib{k}),v_x(\mib{k}),0]$ is not satisfied. For instance, we can choose the parameters $(t_1,t_2)=(1,0.3)$ so that $\mib{g}(\mib{k}) \not\propto [-v_y(\mib{k}),v_x(\mib{k}),0]$. Indeed, Fig.~\ref{Fignvssfs} shows that the SFM is affected by the Coulomb interaction. A finite correction to the SFM is obtained, although it is substantially reduced by the cancellation of the $k$-mass renormalization and the enhancement of RSOC. The sign of the correction depends on the band structure. We see that the SFM is enhanced (suppressed) by the electron correlation effect when the Fermi surface is electron-like (hole-like). This particle-hole asymmetry in the correction to the SFM is caused by the next-nearest-neighbour hopping $t_2$, which induces the particle-hole asymmetry in the band structure. However, we note that the robust SFM independent of $U$ (see Fig.~7 for example) does not require the particle-hole symmetry in the band structure. As we showed above, the SFM is not renormalized by the electron correlation when $\mib{g}(\mib{k})=C [-v_y(\mib{k}),v_x(\mib{k}),0]$. We can choose the $g$-vector so as to satisfy this relation even when $t_2 \ne 0$. \section{Third-Order Perturbation Theory}\label{3PT} So far we have investigated the weak coupling region of the Rashba-Hubbard model on the basis of second-order perturbation theory. In this section, we examine higher-order corrections by comparing third-order perturbation theory with second-order perturbation theory. The third-order terms of self-energy are diagrammatically represented in Fig.~\ref{Figse3o}. These terms are classified according to the leading order with respect to the RSOC $\alpha$. The zeroth-order terms of $\alpha$ are $\Sigma^{(\rm{3A})}$ and $\Sigma^{(\rm{3B})}$, while $\Sigma^{(\rm{3C})}$ and $\Sigma^{(\rm{3F)-(3J})}$ are first-order terms. Since $\Sigma^{(\rm{3D})}$ and $\Sigma^{(\rm{3E})}$ are higher-order terms, they are negligible for $\alpha =0.1$. \begin{figure}[htbp] \begin{center} \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{67033Fig9.eps} \end{center} \caption{Diagrammatic representation of third-order terms of self-energy. } \label{Figse3o} \end{figure} First, we assume the dispersion relation $(t_1,t_2)=(1,0)$, as in Sect.~3.1, and calculate the renormalization of the effective mass, RSOC, and SFM. Figures~\ref{Figp3om} and \ref{Figp3km} show the $\omega$-mass and $k$-mass on the $\lambda=+$ band, respectively. As shown for the Hubbard model without spin-orbit coupling,~\cite{Yanase_review} the third-order correction partly cancels the second-order terms. Indeed, both $\omega$-mass and $k$-mass renormalization are suppressed by the third-order terms. The third-order terms give rise to a particularly large correction to the $k$-mass. A special case appears at half-filling, $n=1$. In this case, the third-order terms are negligible because the two leading-order terms $\Sigma^{(\rm{3A})}$ and $\Sigma^{(\rm{3B})}$ cancel each other because of the particle-hole symmetry~\cite{Yanase_review}. \begin{figure}[htbp] \begin{center} \includegraphics[scale=0.33]{67033Fig10.eps} \end{center} \caption{(Color online) $U$-dependence of the $\omega$-mass in the $\lambda=+$ band at $\mib{k} = \mib{k}_{{\rm F} +} \parallel$ [110]. Crosses, stars, and circles show the results of third-order perturbation theory for $n=$1.0, 0.8, and 0.6, respectively. The results of second-order perturbation theory are shown for $n=1.0$ (squares), 0.8 (triangles), and 0.6 (diamonds) for comparison. } \label{Figp3om} \end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \begin{center} \includegraphics[scale=0.33]{67033Fig11.eps} \end{center} \caption{(Color online) $U$-dependence of the $k$-mass in the $\lambda=+$ band at $\mib{k} = \mib{k}_{{\rm F} +} \parallel$ [110]. Symbols indicate the same electron density and the same order of perturbation theory as those in Fig.~\ref{Figp3om}. } \label{Figp3km} \end{figure} The renormalization of RSOC on the Fermi surface of the $\lambda=+$ band is shown in Fig.~\ref{Figp3rg}. It is shown that the third-order correction reduces the enhancement of RSOC. Interestingly, the SFM is invariant against the electron correlation even when we take into account third-order terms (see Fig.~\ref{Figp3ssfs}). Thus, the cancellation between the renormalization of RSOC and the $k$-mass is not an artifact of second-order perturbation theory. Indeed, the cancellation occurs in each order of $U$ when $\mib{g}(\mib{k})=C [-v_y(\mib{k}),v_x(\mib{k}),0]$. Therefore, it is expected that the SFM is robust against electron correlations not only in the weak coupling regime but also in the strong coupling regime. \begin{figure}[htbp] \begin{center} \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{67033Fig12.eps} \end{center} \caption{(Color online) $U$-dependence of the renormalization of RSOC at $\mib{k} = \mib{k}_{{\rm F} +} \parallel$ [110]. Symbols indicate the same electron density and the same order of perturbation theory as those in Fig.~\ref{Figp3om}. } \label{Figp3rg} \end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \begin{center} \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{67033Fig13.eps} \end{center} \caption{(Color online) SFM obtained by third-order perturbation theory for $(t_1,t_2)=(1,0)$. We show the results for electron densities $n=0.2$, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, and 1.0. The momentum is chosen to be parallel to the [110] axis. The SFM is invariant against the electron correlation effect on the whole Fermi surface irrespective of the electron density. The scale of the horizontal axis is chosen to be the same as that in Fig.~\ref{Figp3rg}. } \label{Figp3ssfs} \end{figure} Next, we choose the parameters $(t_1,t_2)=(1,0.3)$, as in Fig.~\ref{Fignvssfs}, so that $\mib{g}(\mib{k}) \not\propto [-v_y(\mib{k}),v_x(\mib{k}),0]$. Then, the SFM is renormalized by the electron correlation effect as shown in Fig.~\ref{Figp3nvssfs}. Thus, we obtain qualitatively the same results as those in second-order perturbation theory, although the electron correlation effects are reduced by the third-order correction terms. \begin{figure}[htbp] \begin{center} \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{67033Fig14.eps} \end{center} \caption{(Color online) SFM obtained by third-order perturbation theory for $(t_1,t_2)=(1,0.3)$. $\Delta k_{\rm F}$ for $n=$0.6, 0.4, 0.8, 0.2, 1.8, 1.0, 1.6, 1.2, and 1.4 are shown from top to bottom at $U=2$. } \label{Figp3nvssfs} \end{figure} \section{Summary and Discussion}\label{SUM} Exotic quantum phases and intriguing electromagnetic responses are induced by the antisymmetric spin-orbit coupling in non-centrosymmetric metals~\cite{Spin_Hall_1,Spin_Hall_2,Chiral_Magnetism_1,Chiral_Magnetism_2,NCSC}. Naturally, the interplay between electron correlation effects and spin-orbit coupling in non-centrosymmetric metals has attracted interest. We have investigated electron correlation effects in the two-dimensional Rashba-Hubbard model, which is a minimal model for a non-centrosymmetric (chiral) Fermi liquid. The effective mass, the renormalization of spin-orbit coupling, and the spin-split Fermi surfaces were calculated on the basis of perturbation theory. We showed that the electron correlation enhances the spin-orbit coupling but the SFM $\Delta k_{\rm F}$ is almost invariant against Coulomb interaction. In second-order perturbation theory, both numerical and analytic calculations show that the enhancement of spin-orbit coupling is cancelled by the $k$-mass renormalization. Thus, $\Delta k_{\rm F}$ is not renormalized by the electron correlation. The cancellation is complete when the g-vector of RSOC is represented by the velocity as $\mib{g}(\mib{k})=C[-v_y(\mib{k}),v_x(\mib{k}),0]$. Otherwise, a finite correction to the SFM appears, but it is reduced by an incomplete cancellation. We numerically examined the validity of second-order perturbation theory by calculating third-order correction terms with respect to the Coulomb interaction. Generally speaking, third-order terms partly cancel the leading-order second-order terms~\cite{Yanase_review}. Indeed, the renormalization of the effective mass and spin-orbit coupling is decreased by the third-order terms. The SFM remains invariant against the electron correlation in third-order perturbation theory when the relation $\mib{g}(\mib{k})=C[-v_y(\mib{k}),v_x(\mib{k}),0]$ is satisfied. Thus, the robustness of the SFM against the electron correlation is not an artifact of second-order perturbation theory and is expected to be an exact property. Although we considered a Rashba-type spin-orbit coupling, our results are generally valid for other kinds of antisymmetric spin-orbit coupling. For example, we confirmed that the spin-orbit coupling is enhanced but the SFM is invariant against the electron correlation effect when the g-vector is described as $\mib{g}(\mib{k})=C[v_x(\mib{k}),v_y(\mib{k}),0]$. This antisymmetric spin-orbit coupling is allowed in crystals having $D_n$, $C_1$, or $C_2$ point group symmetry, such as the non-centrosymmetric superconductor UIr.~\cite{doi:10.1143/JPSJ.73.3129} Generally speaking, the SFM is not renormalized by the electron correlation when the g-vector of antisymmetric spin-orbit coupling is linearly related to the velocity of quasiparticles. This condition is satisfied in many theoretical models adopted for non-centrosymmetric systems. For instance, two-dimensional electron gases formed on semiconductor heterostructures~\cite{Winkler_book} and oxide interfaces~\cite{Ohtomo,Ueno_review} have been studied on the basis of the model with the isotropic dispersion relation $\varepsilon(\mib{k}) = \mib{k}^2/2m$ and RSOC with $\mib{g}(\mib{k})=(-k_y, k_x,0)$~\cite{Maslov2013,Raikh1999,Ross2005,Chesi2011,Chesi2012, Michaeli,Agterberg_skyrmion}. Then, we indeed see the relation $\mib{g}(\mib{k})=m[-v_y(\mib{k}),v_x(\mib{k}),0]$. Cold atom gases with a tunable synthetic spin-orbit coupling~\cite{Spielman} also satisfy the condition. One-, two-, and three-dimensional Rashba-Hubbard models satisfying the condition have been studied~\cite{Yanase_CePt3Si,JPSJ.77.124711,Yokoyama,PhysRevB.80.140509,cond-mat.1406.7293}. On the other hand, crystals having a $T_{\rm d}$ point group symmetry do not satisfy the condition because the g-vector of Dresselhaus-type spin-orbit coupling~\cite{Dresselhaus} is represented by cubic terms with respect to the momentum near the $\Gamma$ point of the Brillouin zone. The relation of importance, $\mib{g}(\mib{k}) = C[-v_y(\mib{k}),v_x(\mib{k}),0]$, is also broken in orbitally degenerate systems. According to the derivation of RSOC based on multiorbital models~\cite{JPSJ.77.124711,doi:10.7566/JPSJ.82.044711,doi:10.7566/JPSJ.82.083705,zhong2013theory}, the relation is approximately satisfied when the orbital degeneracy is substantially lifted by a large crystal electric field. Otherwise, both the quasiparticle velocity and the g-vector of RSOC acquire a complicated momentum dependence, and thus they do not show a linear relation~\cite{doi:10.7566/JPSJ.82.044711,doi:10.7566/JPSJ.82.083705}. For example, a cubic RSOC has been observed in the two-dimensional electron gas on a SrTiO$_3$ surface~\cite{Cubic_Rashba}, and it may be induced by the orbital degree of freedom in $t_{2g}$ electrons~\cite{zhong2013theory}. Then, the amplitude of the SFM as well as the spin texture in the momentum space should be affected by the electron correlation. Thus, analyses of the multiorbital Rashba-Hubbard model and periodic Rashba-Anderson model are of particular interest, and therefore, we will study them in the near future. It is expected that the spin-orbit coupling will be renormalized through the renormalization of the crystal electric field, as seen in a GW calculation based on density functional theory~\cite{Rusinov}. Finally, we comment on {\it locally} non-centrosymmetric metals, which have global inversion symmetry but lack a local inversion symmetry on atoms. Instead of the uniform antisymmetric spin-orbit coupling discussed in this paper, a staggered antisymmetric spin-orbit coupling gives rise to a magneto-electric effect~\cite{doi:10.7566/JPSJ.83.014703} and exotic superconductivity~\cite{Yoshida_1,doi:10.7566/JPSJ.83.061014}. It is expected that the staggered spin-orbit coupling will be enhanced by the electron correlation, as we found for non-centrosymmetric metals. Since the contribution of the staggered spin-orbit coupling is determined by comparison with the inter-sublattice hopping~\cite{Maruyama_1}, it is an important future issue to calculate their renormalization. After we submitted the first manuscript, we became aware of a theoretical work~\cite{Fujimoto2015} on a related subject. Reference~58 showed a substantial deformation of spin-split Fermi surfaces and the SFM near the magnetic quantum critical point, in sharp contrast to our results. We believe that the discrepancy is (at least partly) owing to the fact that the $k$-mass renormalization, which plays an essential role in our conclusion, is neglected in Ref.~58. \section*{Acknowledgements} The authors are grateful to T. Yoshida for valuable discussions and to D. L. Maslov for helpful comments. This work was supported by the ``Topological Quantum Phenomena" (No. 25103711) KAKENHI on Innovative Areas from MEXT of Japan and by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers 24740230 and 15K05164.